256134 Supplement Letter 2.pdf

CITY OF SALEM

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

CONTRACTS & PROCUREMENT DIVISION

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION LETTER #2

June 17, 2026

RFP NO. 256134

FOR: Interpretive Planning, Historical Research, and Content

Development Services for Fairview Park Phase 1 – Interpretive

Space

CLOSING DATE: June 26, 2026 at 4:00 PM (LOCAL TIME)

The following are questions submitted by Proposers and answers from the City in green:

1. Coordinate with SWCA Environmental Consultants regarding archaeological requirements. What is the purpose of the anticipated coordination?

The purpose of the anticipated coordination is for the interpretive consultant to glean relevant historical information about the site and surrounding area from the research required to obtain a SHPO permit for the project.

2. What role is the Consultant expected to take regarding archaeological requirements?

None. SWCA is anticipated to serve as the project archaeologist.

3. Oral history summary. Need clarity on this deliverable. What is the summary to include?

The oral history summary should document and synthesize key themes, stories, and historical information gathered through oral history interviews. The specific format and level of detail are left to the consultant's professional judgment.

4. Recommend digital media (audio tours, QR codes, web content). Need clarity on this.

Links to existing web content or development of new content? Audio tours on what platform? Consultant to produce the tour or recommend one for future development?

The City has intentionally left this task broadly defined to allow consultants to recommend appropriate digital media opportunities and implementation strategies.

Proposers should describe their recommended approach, anticipated deliverables, and any assumptions regarding content development, hosting, and platform selection.

5. Is the City committed to the concept of physical audio stations or is the City open to other ideas, such as linking to digital media that might be more evergreen, easier for the City to maintain, and accessible to visitors?

The City sees significant value in physical audio station(s) as a potential interpretive element; however, it is not committed exclusively to that approach. The intent is to provide engaging and accessible interpretive content for a broad range of visitors.

Proposers are encouraged to recommend solutions that may include physical audio stations and/or other interpretive tools that are accessible, sustainable, and practical for long-term maintenance.

6. How involved will City of Salem's Tribal liaisons be in outreach and coordination of story gatherings/recording sessions?

The City's Archaeologist has established relationships with tribal representatives and may be able to help facilitate initial introductions or provide guidance regarding appropriate outreach protocols. However, proposers should not assume a significant level of City staff involvement in conducting outreach, coordinating story-gathering efforts, scheduling recording sessions, or managing ongoing tribal engagement activities.

7. What happens to complete audio files once transferred to the Willamette Heritage

Center? Will respondents have access? Will Tribes receive copies of the audio files, etc.

Do they maintain cultural and intellectual property rights? Use rights?

The City recognizes that oral histories may include culturally sensitive information and that Tribal Nations may have specific expectations regarding ownership, access, use, and stewardship of cultural knowledge. Proposers should demonstrate an understanding of these considerations and describe how they will work with participating Tribes, interviewees, and the Willamette Heritage Center to establish appropriate agreements and protocols.

8. Is it the case that all audio, tactile and digital elements would be outdoors?

The interpretive space is not anticipated to include a building or enclosed structure. As such, physical interpretive elements—including tactile features and any on-site audio components—should generally be assumed to be located outdoors.

That said, the City is open to the use of online resources, digital platforms, and other technology-based tools that complement the physical interpretive experience. Such tools may be particularly valuable in making content more accessible, providing additional depth of information, accommodating multiple languages, or sharing content that may not be practical to present within the physical space itself.

Proposers are encouraged to recommend an appropriate mix of physical and digital interpretive elements that supports the project's goals while respecting the site's character and long-term maintenance considerations.

9. The Project Schedule lists May, 2027 for substantial completion of interpretive content files. We assume those files are the same as section 2.3 item 4: fabrication-ready files of graphic design and interpretive media. (Please confirm.) Correct. If that is correct, the overall timeframe seems very aggressive. Recognizing that you and your consultants have done a lot of work already, the timeframe for development of an Interpretive Plan, especially with the oral histories and engagement, is at least six months. Developing a graphic style guide, design templates, and writing draft panels in the remaining three months would be pushing it. Please comment on the schedule.

The City recognizes that the proposed schedule is ambitious, particularly given the inclusion of interpretive planning, engagement activities, and oral history work.

As noted, portions of the work—especially oral history collection, engagement sequencing, and implementation details—will ultimately be shaped through the

Interpretive Plan development process. For this reason, proposers are not being asked to validate a fixed or fully defined production schedule, but rather to propose a feasible and well-reasoned approach for delivering the scope within the overall project timeframe.

Proposers should clearly identify any assumptions and constraints that inform their proposed schedule, including assumptions related to the number of engagement sessions, oral history interviews, review cycles, coordination with Tribal partners and stakeholders, and time required for content development and design integration.

The City is interested in understanding how proposers would structure the work to meet the intent of the project within the available timeframe, while also ensuring meaningful engagement and high-quality interpretive outcomes. Schedules that are clearly tied to stated assumptions and that identify critical path items, risks, and mitigation strategies will be considered responsive.

10. The RFP calls for a cost proposal. We can make a good proposal on cost for the interpretive plan, but other items—notably the oral histories and implementation—are hard to cost without more information about an approximate quantity. We know this isn’t yet known (that is the work of the Interpretive Plan), but it would be helpful to all proposers to have some preliminary quantities to work with. It would also make it easier for review of the proposals.

Please refer to Supplemental Information Letter No. 1, which provides additional information regarding anticipated quantities associated with oral history collection activities.

The City recognizes that some elements of the scope, particularly oral history collection and implementation-related tasks, will ultimately be informed by the interpretive planning process and therefore cannot be fully defined at this stage. Proposers should clearly identify any assumptions used in developing their fee proposal, including assumptions regarding the number of interviews, recording sessions, interpretive elements, or other scope-related factors that could materially affect project costs. The

City will consider these stated assumptions when evaluating proposals and negotiating the final scope of services with the selected consultant.

11. Can you provide more clarity on the points of overlap between the roles of the City, the

Design Consultant, and this Interpretive Consultant? For instance, the list of items to be implemented implies that the Interpretive Consultant would only provide graphic design and not design for of any structures (e.g. bases for the graphics). Is that correct? Would the graphic design style manual be provided by the Interpretive Consultant? (We would recommend yes to the latter.)

The Interpretive Consultant will be expected to work with the City's Design Consultant throughout the project to ensure that interpretive content, graphic elements, and physical site improvements are integrated into a cohesive visitor experience.

At this time, the City does not anticipate that the Design Consultant will develop a project-specific graphic design style manual. Rather, we anticipate that the Interpretive

Consultant would be responsible for establishing the graphic design style and visual framework for the interpretive program, including the development of any style guide necessary to ensure consistency across interpretive elements.

The City currently anticipates that the Design Consultant will lead the design of any physical display structures, foundations, site furnishings, and related site improvements.

The Interpretive Consultant would not be expected to serve as the lead designer for these elements. However, the Interpretive Consultant will play an important advisory role in informing their design, including recommendations regarding content presentation, accessibility, user experience, durability, and the integration of interpretive media into the physical environment.

Ultimately, the City expects a collaborative process in which the Interpretive Consultant, Design Consultant, and City staff work together to ensure that both the interpretive content and the physical setting support the project's goals.

Shawna Self, CPPB

Purchasing Manager cc: File