2026_09_18_ADDENDUM 1_Q+A_Buffalo City Hall HSR RFP.pdf

MARIE CARONE

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Addendum 1: Q&A: RFP for Buffalo City Hall Historic Structures Report & National Historic Landmark Feasibility Analysis

Subject: Questions and Answers Issue Date September 18, 2026 Authors: CITY OF BUFFALO

Marie Carone, Sr. Deputy Commissioner DPW mcarone@buffalony.gov Vince Dugo, Sr. ACT VDugo@buffalony.gov

Issued To: REGISTERED CONSULTANTS

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Site Visit, Access, and Field Investigation

Q: Will the City schedule a pre-proposal site visit or building tour? If not, may prospective consultants arrange an individual walkthrough?

A: A pre-proposal site visit will not be available prior to the proposal submittal deadline. Prospective consultants may tour public areas of City Hall during regular business hours.

Q: What restrictions will apply to access to City Hall during fieldwork, including security requirements, occupied spaces, public hours, nights/weekends, restricted areas, and unsafe or inaccessible areas such as tunnels?

A: This item will be determined in coordination with the selected Consultant following contract award.

Proposers should base their proposals on the requirements stated in the RFP.

Q: Will the selected consultant have access to mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, roofs, penthouses, shafts, tunnels, concealed service spaces, and other equipment areas?

A: Yes.

Q: Will City personnel familiar with the operation and history of building systems be available during field investigation?

A: Yes.

Q: Will the City provide ladders, lifts, escorts, keys, or assistance opening secured or restricted spaces?

A: Specific access arrangements will be coordinated with the selected Consultant following contract award. The City cannot confirm prior to the proposal deadline what ladders, lifts, escorts, keys, or other access assistance will be available. Proposers should base their proposals on the scope of work described in the RFP.

Q: For high or double-height interior spaces, may consultants use a lift, and if so, will the City provide mailto:mcarone@buffalony.gov mailto:VDugo@buffalony.gov

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

one?

A: The use of a lift may be permitted where necessary and appropriate, subject to coordination with the City and applicable building access and safety requirements. The City cannot confirm prior to the proposal deadline whether a lift will be available for Consultant use. Proposers are not expected to include specialized access equipment in their base fee unless specifically required by the RFP.

Q: May the MEP consultant remove and reinstall suspended ceiling tiles or equipment access panels as part of the assessment?

A: The RFP does not require removal and reinstallation of suspended ceiling tiles or equipment access panels as part of the base assessment. Any need to access concealed areas will be coordinated with the City following contract award. Proposers should base their proposals on visual assessment of readily accessible areas and identify additional investigation where warranted.

Q: What access methods should be assumed for the exterior envelope assessment: visual review from the ground and accessible roofs, drone inspection, lifts, swing-stage drops, rope access, or another approach?

A: The RFP does not prescribe a particular exterior access method. It requires survey and documentation of exterior character-defining features and conditions, together with identification of suggested further investigation where necessary.

Q: How far in advance will the consultant receive City Hall event schedules or other information needed to coordinate fieldwork?

A: The City cannot confirm a specific advance-notice period prior to the proposal deadline. Following contract award, the City will coordinate with the selected Consultant regarding City Hall events, building operations, and other scheduling considerations that may affect fieldwork.

Public Engagement

Q: Will there be a need for us to conduct community engagement sessions? Will there be a need for focus group sessions with project stakeholders?

A: The base scope requires one public presentation. It also requires presentation of draft findings to DPW and, if requested, presentation of the final report to the Preservation Board and a Common Council committee. The RFP does not require additional community engagement or focus group sessions.

Q: Can the City please clarify if monthly meetings, presentations to staff, and final presentations will be in-person or remote?

A: The RFP requires monthly meetings with DPW and City staff, presentation of draft findings to DPW, one public presentation, and final presentations to the Preservation Board and a Common Council committee if requested. These meetings or presentations may be in-person or remote.

NHL Feasibility and Nomination

Q: Is there an anticipated time frame for when the NHL Nomination services might be performed?

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

A: Preparation of an NHL nomination is not included in the base scope. If the feasibility study concludes that City Hall appears to meet NHL criteria, the consultant must provide a recommended scope, schedule, and cost estimate for a nomination. The City may then, at its sole discretion, negotiate an amendment, subject to funding and procurement requirements. The RFP establishes no separate anticipated time frame for nomination services.

Q: Does the NHL feasibility task include preparing and submitting an NHL nomination?

A: No. The base scope is a National Historic Landmark Feasibility Study. Preparation and submission of an NHL nomination are expressly excluded from the base scope. If the consultant concludes that City Hall appears to meet the criteria, it must provide a recommended scope of work, schedule, and cost estimate for a future nomination.

Q: Does this task include preparing a letter of inquiry, in consultation with NYSHPO, and submitting it to the National Park Service?

A: The RFP does not expressly require a letter of inquiry or submission to the National Park Service. It requires evaluation under NHL criteria, comparative research, assessment of national significance and integrity, identification of strengths, weaknesses and research needs, and a recommendation on whether the City should pursue a nomination.

Cost Estimating and Project Budget

Q: Will a cost estimate be required for recommended stabilization, restoration, and rehabilitation projects? If so, will an order-of-magnitude/statement of probable cost suffice?

A: The RFP requires the HSR to recommend prioritized stabilization, restoration, and rehabilitation projects and to provide order-of-magnitude phasing. It does not require construction-level cost estimates or state that an independent professional cost estimator must be retained. For a possible future NHL nomination, the consultant must provide a cost estimate for preparing the nomination.

Q: Does the City expect a dedicated cost estimator as part of the consultant team?

A: No dedicated cost estimator is identified among the minimum consultant qualifications. The minimum team must include a Secretary of the Interior-qualified Architectural Historian and Historic Architect. The RFP calls for order-of-magnitude phasing rather than detailed construction cost estimating.

Q: What is the maximum anticipated budget?

A: The anticipated budget is no greater than $300,000.

Q: What is the anticipated project duration?

A: Approximately one year from notice to proceed.

Scope and Level of Assessment

Q: Please describe the intended service level. Is this planning/triage and preservation-guidance level only, rather than schematic design through construction documents?

A: Yes. The RFP expressly states that the existing-conditions assessment is intended to identify

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

preservation impacts rather than prepare engineering design documents. Material-conservation recommendations are planning-level, and specialized conservation studies are to be identified separately where recommended. The HSR is intended to establish a framework for future restoration, rehabilitation, maintenance, and capital investment.

Q: Please confirm the level of MEP/HVAC assessment requested. Is the intent a full assessment of systems or an assessment of historic components for future planning purposes?

A: The RFP calls for assessment of building systems, including historic heating and cooling systems, as part of the interior character-defining-feature assessment. It expressly states that the assessment is intended to identify preservation impacts rather than prepare engineering design documents.

Suggested further investigation is to be identified where necessary.

Q: Consistent with NPS guidance, should the HSR address structural and MEP conditions and recommendations?

A: The RFP requires consideration of building systems, including historic heating and cooling systems, but frames the assessment as preservation-impact and planning-level work rather than engineering design. It does not expressly require a comprehensive structural engineering assessment.

Q: Could the City confirm that the materials assessment will not require material testing, only recommendations for where it would be needed as part of restoration?

A: The RFP requires a planning-level Material Conservation Assessment and states that specialized conservation studies should be identified separately where recommended. It does not expressly require material testing in the base scope.

Q: Should invasive or minimally invasive probes and laboratory/material testing be included in the base scope?

A: The RFP does not expressly require invasive probes or laboratory/material testing. It requires identification of conditions, probable causes, recommended treatments, and suggested further investigation where necessary, together with planning-level conservation recommendations.

Q: For murals, sculptures, mosaics, and other artwork, is the City seeking a general assessment or detailed specialist inspection?

A: The RFP requires the consultant to survey and document these artworks as character-defining features and provide planning-level conservation/restoration recommendations. Where specialized conservation studies are recommended, they are to be identified separately.

Q: Regarding photo documentation, does the City require a professional photographer?

A: No. The RFP requires comprehensive high-resolution digital photographic documentation and a digital photograph archive, but does not require that photographs be taken by a professional photographer.

Exterior and Interior Documentation

Q: What does the RFP require for the exterior building-envelope assessment?

A: The consultant must survey and document the condition of all character-defining exterior features, SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER including cladding, mortar, ornament, cornices/parapets, roofs and drainage, windows and entrances, lighting and appurtenances; identify deterioration and probable causes; evaluate exterior accessibility improvements for compatibility; document conditions photographically; and incorporate findings into a deficiency matrix. The RFP does not prescribe a specific access method such as swing stage, rope access, drone, or lift.

Q: For Task 3, should specialized close-range access be treated as additional investigation where warranted?

A: The RFP does not prescribe specialized close-range access methods. It requires a comprehensive conditions assessment and a deficiency matrix that identifies suggested further investigation where necessary. It therefore clearly contemplates identifying additional investigation when the base assessment indicates it is needed, but does not define particular access methods as base-scope or additional services.

Q: What interior spaces are expressly identified for survey?

A: The RFP identifies the main lobby; Mayor’s Office and ceremonial reception rooms; Common Council Chamber; elevator lobbies; grand corridors; observation deck; monumental stairways; public waiting areas; historic conference rooms; and representative office suites retaining historic character. It does not identify the specific representative office suites by room number or quantity.

Architectural Documentation and Digital Models

Q: Is the consultant required to create a laser scan, BIM model, point cloud, or similar digital model?

A: No. Task 4 requires the consultant to recommend laser scanning/BIM documentation if beneficial.

Creation of a laser scan or BIM model is not expressly included as a required base-scope deliverable.

Q: Is the consultant expected to compile existing drawings and identify gaps?

A: Yes. Task 4 expressly requires compilation of existing drawings and identification of documentation gaps.

Consultant Team and Qualifications

Q: Can the Secretary of the Interior-qualified Historic Architect and Architectural Historian be subconsultants rather than the prime consultant?

A: The RFP states that the consultant team must include, at minimum, a Secretary of the Interior-qualified Architectural Historian and Historic Architect. It does not state that either must be the prime consultant or prohibit those required professionals from serving as subconsultants. The proposal must identify any subconsultants used on the project.

Q: Does the City expect structural and MEP engineers to be included as part of the base consultant team?

A: The RFP does not identify structural or MEP engineers among the minimum required team members. The minimum team must include a Secretary of the Interior-qualified Architectural Historian and Historic Architect. The scope does require assessment of building systems as they relate to

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

preservation impacts, with further investigation identified where necessary.

Deliverables and Proposal Requirements

Q: What are the required project deliverables?

A: The required deliverables are a draft HSR; final HSR in PDF and editable Word formats; standalone NHL Feasibility Report; digital photograph archive; presentation materials; and all research notes, maps, and supporting documentation developed under the contract.

Q: What fee information must be included in the proposal?

A: The proposal requirements call for a fee proposal by task. The submission instructions also require a Consultant Fee Schedule, cost breakdowns per project phase with anticipated hours for each phase, and a flat hourly fee for each identified title.

Q: What are the evaluation criteria and weights?

A: Technical approach: 30%; Qualifications: 30%; Cost: 25%; MWBE: 10%; Completeness: 5%. The RFP requires an MWBE participation plan but does not state numerical MBE, WBE, or SDVOB participation goals.

Q: What insurance limits are required?

A: The RFP requires Commercial General Liability of $2,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate;

Automobile Liability of $1,000,000 per accident; Professional Liability of $2,000,000; and Workers’ Compensation and New York State Disability coverage as required by law. The RFP also contains additional insured/certificate-holder requirements.

MWBE and SDVOB Participation

Q: What numerical MBE, WBE, and SDVOB participation goals apply to this project?

A: The RFP does not establish numerical MBE, WBE, or SDVOB participation goals. It assigns 10% of the proposal evaluation to MWBE participation and requires an MWBE participation plan. Proposers should respond to the MWBE requirements stated in the RFP.

Existing Reports, Drawings, and Archival Information

Q: What prior reports, condition assessments, feasibility studies, conservation assessments, renovation records, repair records, or other studies of City Hall are available?

A: The City is currently determining what prior reports and studies are available. Existing documentation in the City’s possession that is relevant and appropriate for use in the project will be made available to the selected Consultant. Proposers should not assume that a comprehensive prior HSR, conditions assessment, conservation assessment, or other study will be provided and should base their proposals on the research and assessment requirements stated in the RFP.

Q: What original or existing-condition drawings are available, and are they available to proposers before the proposal deadline?

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

A: The City is currently determining the extent and format of available original and existing-condition drawings. The City cannot guarantee that these materials will be available to proposers before the proposal deadline. Available relevant drawings in the City’s possession will be made available to the selected Consultant. Task 4 requires the Consultant to compile existing drawings and identify documentation gaps.

Q: In what formats are available drawings maintained (for example, PDF, AutoCAD, Revit, or other electronic formats), and which disciplines are represented, including architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection?

A: The City cannot confirm prior to the proposal deadline the complete formats or disciplines represented in its existing drawing collection. Available relevant documentation will be made available to the selected Consultant in the formats in which it is maintained by the City.

Q: Are original plans, specifications, contracts, and photographs stored in City Hall, and are digital copies available?

A: The City cannot confirm prior to the proposal deadline the location, completeness, or digital availability of all original plans, specifications, contracts, and photographs. The selected Consultant should anticipate conducting the historic research required by Task 2 of the RFP, including research of original plans, specifications, contracts, and photographs.

Q: What archival materials will the City provide to the selected consultant, including original plans, specifications, contracts, photographs, Common Council proceedings, permits, newspapers, and other archival collections? Which of these materials are available online?

A: The City will make relevant archival materials in its possession reasonably available to the selected Consultant. The Consultant should nevertheless anticipate conducting independent archival research as required by Task 2 of the RFP. The City cannot confirm prior to the proposal deadline that all materials identified in the question are in City custody, digitized, or available online.

Q: Will the City provide records of previous ADA improvements, and is there an existing ADA feasibility or accessibility assessment?

A: Available records of previous accessibility improvements in the City’s possession will be made available to the selected Consultant. The City cannot confirm prior to the proposal deadline whether a comprehensive ADA feasibility or accessibility assessment exists. The RFP requires evaluation of exterior accessibility improvements and their compatibility with the building’s historic character.

Q: What existing MEP documentation is available, including original and renovation drawings, specifications, equipment schedules, controls diagrams, testing reports, prior studies, maintenance records, work-order histories, utility information, energy audits, commissioning reports, or capital improvement plans?

A: The City is currently determining the extent of available MEP documentation. Relevant documentation in the City’s possession will be made available to the selected Consultant. Proposers should base their proposals on the scope stated in the RFP and should not assume that a complete set of the records listed above will be available.

Q: Are current floor plans, interior elevations, reflected ceiling plans, room schedules, or other base drawings available in CAD, Revit, or another electronic format? If adequate base drawings are not

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

available, is the consultant expected to produce them within the project budget?

A: The City cannot confirm prior to the proposal deadline the completeness or electronic format of available base drawings. The RFP requires the Consultant to compile existing drawings, identify documentation gaps, and identify and map character-defining features. It does not require preparation of a comprehensive new set of measured architectural drawings, CAD drawings, or a Revit model as part of the base scope.

Q: What existing inventory of decorative and character-defining interior features, artwork, finishes, and representative historic office suites will be available to the selected consultant?

A: The City cannot confirm that a comprehensive existing inventory is available. The Consultant should assume that identification, survey, documentation, and assessment of character-defining features are part of the work required by the RFP. The specific representative office suites to be assessed will be identified in coordination with the City following contract award.

Q: What hazardous-material reports or testing are available for lead paint, adhesives, asbestos-containing materials, or other potential hazards?

A: Relevant existing reports in the City’s possession will be made available to the selected Consultant as appropriate. Hazardous-material testing is not identified as a required component of the base scope, and proposers should not include new hazardous-material testing unless specifically required by the RFP or subsequently authorized by the City.

Planned and Previous Building Projects

Q: Are renovation projects currently contemplated for City Hall that should be incorporated into the HSR recommendations, and will information about those projects be available to proposers?

A: The City cannot provide a comprehensive list of contemplated future projects prior to the proposal deadline. Following contract award, the City will provide the selected Consultant with available information concerning relevant planned capital or renovation projects so that they may be considered in development of the HSR recommendations.

Q: Are there known ongoing or planned MEP projects that should be incorporated into the HSR recommendations?

A: The City cannot provide a comprehensive list of ongoing or planned MEP projects prior to the proposal deadline. Relevant projects identified during the course of the HSR will be coordinated with the selected Consultant and should be considered in development of the report’s recommendations.

Q: Will the City provide information on the dates and scope of major MEP alterations so the consultant can distinguish original systems and features from later modifications?

A: Yes, to the extent that such information is available in City records. The selected Consultant will also be responsible for research and field investigation necessary to document significant alterations and dates where known, as required by the RFP.

SHPO Coordination

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Q: Has NYSHPO previously been involved with City Hall regarding NHL eligibility or other preservation work? If so, what was the nature of that involvement and what work was undertaken?

A: The City cannot provide a comprehensive account of prior NYSHPO involvement prior to the proposal deadline. Relevant documentation of previous SHPO consultation in the City’s possession will be made available to the selected Consultant. The RFP requires coordination with SHPO as appropriate during this project.

Q: Does the City have a historic preservation liaison who will coordinate with NYSHPO during the project?

A: The City will coordinate with the selected Consultant regarding consultation with NYSHPO. The appropriate Office of Strategic Planning/Historic Preservation staff will be responsible for preservation coordination will be identified following contract award.

Scope Clarifications Requiring Additional City Direction

Q: What small-scale, non-destructive cleaning tests, if any, should be included in the base scope?

A: Small-scale cleaning tests are not specifically required by the RFP and should not be assumed to be part of the base scope. The Consultant should identify any cleaning tests or specialized conservation investigations recommended as a result of the conditions and material-conservation assessments.

Q: What level of code-compliance and accessibility analysis does the City expect as part of the HSR?

A: The HSR should identify code, life-safety, and accessibility issues where they affect preservation planning, treatment recommendations, or compatibility with character-defining features. The base scope is a planning-level preservation assessment and is not intended to constitute a comprehensive code-compliance analysis, ADA design study, or preparation of engineering or construction documents.

Project Management and Coordination

Q: Who will serve as the City’s project manager and primary point of contact for the selected consultant, who else will participate in review of progress and deliverables, and what role will the Buffalo Preservation Board have in the project?

A: The City’s project manager and review team will be identified following contract award. The selected Consultant will coordinate with DPW and other appropriate City staff throughout the project. The RFP requires monthly coordination meetings with DPW and City staff, presentation of draft findings to DPW, and presentation of the final report to the Buffalo Preservation Board and a Common Council committee if requested.

Procurement, Contract, Funding, and Proposal Administration

Q: What is the status and source of the anticipated $300,000 in consultant funding, and are there any funding-specific project requirements?

A: The RFP establishes an anticipated project budget of no greater than $300,000. The City is not providing additional information regarding the funding source or funding-specific requirements prior to

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

the proposal deadline. Proposers should base their proposals on the requirements stated in the RFP.

Q: Does award of this contract preclude the selected consultant or subconsultants from competing for potential future phases of work at Buffalo City Hall?

A: The RFP does not preclude the selected Consultant or its subconsultants from competing for future work at City Hall. Any future procurement will be subject to applicable City procurement requirements and any conflict-of-interest or other legal requirements applicable at that time.

Q: What is the anticipated process and timeline for contract award and notice to proceed following proposal submission?

A: Following evaluation of proposals and selection of the most advantageous proposal, contract award and notice to proceed will be subject to the City’s applicable contracting, approval, and insurance processes. The City cannot commit to a specific award or notice-to-proceed date at this time. The anticipated project duration is approximately one year from notice to proceed.

Q: Does the City have priorities for how proposers should allocate the anticipated $300,000 budget among the major project tasks?

A: The City has not established a prescribed allocation of the anticipated budget among individual tasks. Proposers should allocate their proposed fee based on their professional judgment and proposed approach to accomplishing the complete scope of work. The proposal must provide a fee by task and cost breakdowns by project phase.

Q: Is the $300,000 anticipated budget all-inclusive, or may reimbursable expenses such as travel be billed separately?

A: Proposers should assume that the anticipated budget of no greater than $300,000 represents the total amount available for the base scope of services and should account for anticipated expenses in their fee proposal unless otherwise specifically authorized by the City.

Q: May proposers review the City’s proposed contract and invoicing requirements before the proposal deadline?

A: The City’s standard contract and invoicing requirements are not included in the RFP. The selected Consultant will be required to comply with applicable City contracting and invoicing requirements.

Q: Is there a standard City Consultant Fee Schedule template that proposers should use?

A: No specific Consultant Fee Schedule template is included with the RFP. Proposers may use their own format, provided that the proposal includes all fee information required by the RFP, including a fee proposal by task, cost breakdowns by project phase, anticipated hours for each phase, and flat hourly fees for the identified personnel titles.

Q: For subconsultants carrying $1,000,000 per occurrence in General Liability coverage, may an umbrella or excess-liability policy be used to satisfy the RFP’s $2,000,000 requirement?

A: The RFP requires Commercial General Liability coverage of $2,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate and requires contractors and subcontractors to maintain the applicable insurance coverage.

Any proposed combination of primary and umbrella or excess coverage used to satisfy these requirements is subject to review and approval by the City.

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Q: Have any addenda to the RFP been issued?

A: Only this Questions and Answers document serves as an addendum to the RFP. No other addenda are anticipated prior to the proposal submittal deadline.

Q: Will questions submitted by other prospective teams and the City’s responses be distributed or posted for all proposers?

A: Yes. Questions received from prospective proposers and the City’s responses have been compiled into this document and will be distributed to all prospective proposers to provide a common basis for preparation of proposals.

Digital Documentation and Long-Term Hosting

Q: If a digital model, point cloud, or similar digital documentation is created during the project, will the City assume any ongoing hosting or maintenance fees after project completion?

A: Creation of a digital model, point cloud, or similar hosted digital resource is not required as part of the base scope. The RFP requires the Consultant to recommend laser scanning/BIM documentation if beneficial. Proposers should therefore not include ongoing hosting or maintenance fees for such a system in the base scope unless they independently propose such a system as part of their technical approach. Any ongoing hosting arrangement would require separate approval by the City.