Questions_and_answers_0002.docx

Amendment 0001, Questions and Answers 140P5122Q0056

1. In the data made available, there are multiple files with permits or a permit holder that are from institutions not listed in the SOW. I would like to confirm that, since these permits are held by people or institutions not on the SOW that they will not be included in the project.

Answer: Yes. Only the locations identified in the SOW are are part of this contract.

2. Will GRSM be able to provide information on specimens with hazardous materials before I get to each site or will that be information I will need to get from each location prior to the site visits? Will the final contract have specifications regarding handling hazardous materials or will GRSM or the institutions restrict my access if the specimens are hazardous?

Answer: GRSM will make reasonable efforts to acquire that information before hand, but the initial requests for information about Mercuric chloride has gotten mixed results, with most answers being in the range of "no record of use" and only one location reporting having conducted any testing. It would be in the best interest of the contractor to follow up before the initial site visit.

The park does not want the contractor to handle any potentially hazardous materials, unless it can be done so with appropriate and reasonable PPE, ie no more than masks and nitrile gloves. In addition to that, the repository may have more restrictive guidelines concerning access. This should be included in the contract.

3. Will I get access to any information on how many catalog numbers have been assigned to each permit holder, if that information is available?

Answer: As little as that information is available has already been provided through the spreadsheets. Unfortunately the history of specimen documentation at GRSM is such that if we know the number of catalog numbers issued, we also already have cataloging data and a usable inventory.

4. One permit mentioned DNA sampling. Should I encounter DNA specimens, should they be treated the same as other types of specimens and added to the list for entry into ICMS or is there specific data that needs to be collected for those types of specimens? The same question goes for the permits that mention soil samples.

Answer: For the purposes of this contract soil and DNA samples will be treated the same as other specimens.

5. What information will be needed for specimens consumed in destructive analysis? While no specimen should be present, is there specific data that needs to be recorded?

Answer: If the data is available: Species, Number of specimens, Location Collected, Collection Date, Collector, Identification Date, Identifier, Location or Publication of Results.

1. The GRSM Museum Collections files outline permits from 1995 onward. For projects that collected specimens before 1995, can the park provide an estimate of the number of items collected and specify where those items are housed?

Answer: The only reliable data the park have for the repositories listed in proposal is what is on the spread and in the files the CO made available. That material includes studies going back to 1985. The best way to use the spreadsheet and files is to track studies by the study number, which is how the folders are labelled. The reality I only have sound data regarding number of specimens and facilities for material that has been cataloged in ICMS. That data has already been made available on the Mercury and Catalog spreadsheet.

2. During the virtual site visit, the Curator mentioned an all taxa biodiversity study that has taken place over 20 years and has a very large potential backlog. Where are these specimens currently housed? If this is unknown, what entity was affiliated with their collection?

Answer: At this time the bulk of the known ATBI backlog is located at GRSM. An inventory was completed last year and identified approximately 500,000 specimens. At least another 100,000 specimens were turned into the park by a researcher this spring. Nearly all of these specimens are only identified to the family or higher. The slow rate of identification has been the biggest bottleneck for this study. While initial plans called for only new and unique specimens to be retained and deposited at various institutions with other specimens to be destroyed, we have no reliable record of how this actually played out, including what was deposited where.

3. The Statement of Work outlines four phases for site visits. Is it possible for offerors to propose a fifth site visit, pending the answers to the above questions?

Answer: Yes. The site visits were divided into four separate phases as this seemed to be the functional, minimum amount necessary for the size of the institutions and the available information known. This would also control the amount of data for review to manageable level. But if the visits could be organized more efficiently into 5 phases that wouldn't a problem.

4. Do any of the repositories listed in the Statement of Work provide GRSM with any inventory information for the NPS's annual reporting?

Answer: The Clemson University Arthropod Collection, the Herbarium at Western Carolina University, and the Florida Museum of Natural History reported in the FY2022 annual inventory. But the total number of known specimens is rather low as can be seen on the Mercury and Catalog spreadsheet.

5. Please clarify the acronyms RPRS (listed in Phase 1) and ICMS (listed in Phases 2, 3 and 4), and SEAC (listed in section 5. Conditions).

Answer: RPRS: NPS Research Permit and Reporting System. The files were included because older permits may not be in the online database.

ICMS: Interior Collections Management System, the collections cataloging system used by all Department of Interior agencies.

SEAC: South East Archeological Center, the primary repository for archeological collections for parks in the southeastern United States

6. Is there an incumbent already undertaking the same or similar work for this project?

Answer: No, The park curator has attempted to document collections at other facilities. over the last several years

7. If yes, who is the incumbent? N/A

8. What is the meaning of the text in field 11(b) of the solicitation: "Suggested Vendor: REDTOWN - 8A"?

Answer: This is an error, we are not going 8A on this project.

9. Please provide an estimate of the number of artifacts at each repository included in this project.

Answer: The only known estimate is what is in the spread sheets and the permits. The contractor will have to work with the collections and repository staff to identify specimens and or collections. Specimens can be documented via repository catalog records as well as physical inspection. But some type of physical inspection will be required to confirm accuracy of record data and overall conditions of collection and facility.

10. Will the NPS provide a draft list of known (or suspected) natural history artifacts at each repository, to guide the contractor, or is the contractor expected to physically find, identify and view the natural history specimens at each location?

Answer: The only known estimate is what is in the spread sheets and the permits. The contractor will have to work with the collections and repository staff to identify specimens and or collections. Specimens can be documented via repository catalog records as well as physical inspection. But some type of physical inspection will be required to confirm accuracy of record data and overall conditions of collection and facility.

11. How will the contractor identify potential natural history collections at each repository if the respective repository does not have an updated inventory?

Answer: The best way to track specimens from park studies that are not cataloged by the NPS is by researcher, date, and location collected, as well as by park study number if included in repository catalog data. Some repositories may have collections from national park units isolated from other collections. Some collections may have Great Smoky Mountains or a variant thereof as a locality term. But this project's goal is to identify all known, documented, permanently deposited specimens. If the data isn't there for them at the repository, and the staff are not aware of incompletely cataloged or uncatalogued specimens this project will not be able to locate them.

12. Please provide a time estimate (number of hours and days) that the contractor should spend at each repository to complete this project so that potential bidders price the same numbers in the Estimated Hours column of the Quote Schedule, and so that bid estimates are comparable.

Answer: These are just estimates, the contractor can quote pricing for the amount of time they feel it will take to accomplish the tasks. Hours are rough estimates based on number of studies, length of studies, and past collection types.

Appalachian State 48 hours, Duke 48 hours, Clemson 48 hours, Mississippi State 72 hours, University of North Carolina 64 hours, North Carolina State 72 hours, University of Georgia 64 hours, Western Carolina 56 hours, Florida Department of Agriculture 48 hours, University of Florida 40 hours.

13. Please clarify what is required of the contractor in the text under 2. Purpose which states ..."It will also evaluate preservation issues and correct some passive preservation issues"?

Answer: Correcting passive preservation issues is what the park will do with the data from this project. It is not a task of the contractor. Delivering the data and conditions about the specimens will allow the government to meet its minimum requirements for museum collection preservation. That is knowing where the material is and documenting its condition and status in ICMS.

14. Will the repositories provide a facilities report to assist with understanding the site conditions?

Answer: They should if they are available. But this is not guaranteed based on past experience.

15. Please clarify how many institutions the contractor must visit. The text on page 1 says 'up to 10' and each Phase of the work appears to cover all 10 institutions, and the Quote Schedule appears to indicate 10 repositories?

Answer: It is 10 institutions identified with 5 where the institution has two separate collections facilities, Clemson, Mississippi State, North Carolina State, and the University of Georgia. These are all identified on the bid sheet.

16. Are there arsenic preserved specimens included in this project?

Answer: Possibly. Most of the collections from the last 35+ years tend to be insects, and vascular and non-vascular plants. But there has been some collection of study skins and study skins dating back early than 1985 might identified.

17. What other hazardous substances should the contractor be aware of?

Answer: There may be Mercuric chlorine on older herbarium specimens. Any older wet specimens may have been set in or previously stored in formalin.

18. For each Phase, can the suggested number of repository visits be grouped together for as few mobilizations as possible?

Answer: Yes

19. If yes to 14, the travel costs will not be broken out per repository, since two or more repositories will be covered in one mobilization. Please suggest how this should be reflected in the Quote Schedule.

Answer: Identify which institutions will be mobilized at the same time and provide the total travel cost for that mobilization with just one the included institutions.