33330222RF0010028 Amendment 002.pdf

(x)

33330222RF0010028

x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

OCON

Washington DC 20013-7012

MRC 1200

P.O. BOX 37012

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

220610105/13/20220002

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

04/29/2022

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

This is Amendment 002 for Solicitation 33330222RF0010028.

See attached Responses for Questions No. 9 to 16.

Due Date remains Tuesday, June 28, 2022.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Thomas Dempsey

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

Smithsonian Institution Office of Planning Design & Construction

PROJECT:NASM-NMB: Multidisciplinary AE Bezos Learning Center (SF Project # 2206101)

LAST UPDATED: 05/13/2022

Request for Information SI Response

The links worked fine for me and I’m working my way through the documentation. I am not seeing a functional space program for the

BLC. Does one exist and if so where is it available?

There isn’t yet we are working it now but won’t be available for the concept will be available at award.

Can you please describe the relevance of the files saved under

“Observatory – Astronomy Park”. These appear to be related to an earlier vision/iteration of an astronomy park that pre-dates the BLC concept. For example, there is a file titled “Scope Boundary.pdf” that indicates a proposed observatory location, and various notes including

“FF&E uses” for the existing terrace, and drawings for a 21’ diameter observatory. There is also a file titled “Park Concept Elements.pdf” outlining specific features of an astronomy park which is more detailed than the program description in the RFQ. How should we best interpret the information in these documents – and what, if any, information or details should be carried forward into the proposed BLC concept?

Information is provided for reference only, as an indication of background thinking – nothing more is intended by providing this information than to provide some context through the reference. Conceptual imagination for how to accommodate the Astronomy Park and Observatory is encouraged!

Is there a scalable site plan that clearly indicates the available footprint under consideration for the proposed BLC addition? For example, there is file titled “2019-11-26 NASM Restaurant Replacement_Site.pdf” that notes “It is recommended the Restaurant Replacement stay within the highlighted area, i.e. the limit of disturbance (LOD).” (see snip below).

Should we follow this boundary, or should the limit of potential disturbance extend outboard of that boundary since this file also pre-dates the BLC concept?

The graphic in reference involved a prior attempt to establish a dining facility replacement for the Restaurant

Addition only. Nothing more is intended by providing the information than to provide some background context through the reference. The proposed boundaries for the defunct Restaurant replacement project fell within the

Terrace Revitalization concept that has been reviewed and approved by the external agencies (CFA/NCPC) as a part of the Revitalization project. The BLC project will require an eventual presentation of the overall eastern site anyway, and likewise, any proposed revisions to the currently approved Terrace concept will require evaluation and review. Major revisions to the Terrace and Planters concepts will introduce additional budget pressures on the project and will need to be balanced against other project priorities. The scalable CAD files for this end of the site are a part of the reference files provided with the Revitalization Final CDs.

The Phase 1 RFQ included some basic program information with the note “These notes are meant to provide general information for bidders preparing a response to Phase I of the Smithsonian’s RFP F22R010013 and is not meant to be conclusive.“ Will a program matrix or any further program detail/requirements be provided beyond what was included in the Phase 1 RFQ document?

The SI is conducting more in-depth programming efforts currently. Additional programming information, after it is available, will be given to the selected AE design firm.

Adding up the components in the Phase 1 RFQ, there is more than

62,000sf of building program listed without counting any basement space (which is noted to be for kitchen/support but not sized). However, the budget summary lists the BLC at 50,000sf. Can you clarify total program areas if not resolved by question 3 above, and whether these areas represent net or gross square feet?

The SI is conducting more in-depth programming efforts currently. Additional programming information, after it is available, will be given to the selected AE design firm. More detailed information is not available at this time.

BIM Deliverable

Will Smithsonian be providing consistent guidance to all shortlisted firms for the Revit model considering it will be 3D printed by SI? For example:

a. Anticipated print scale and printer resolution so model detail can be tailored to final print scale and printer capability?

b. Consistent context and boundary – Will SI be providing a consistent 3D base file for surrounding site context and NASM or other nearby buildings? Or is each firm expected to develop a site/context model based on the 2D CADD files provided in the 2018 NASM revitalization set? If so, is it up to the judgment of the respective firms as to how much surrounding context to include in the Revit Model (in both detail: trees, curbs, entourage etc; as well as physical extent: 1 block in each direction? 2 blocks? ). Concern is that each firm could have very different assumptions or preferences for level of detail or scale of the final model.

Does the Smithsonian have overall CAD files of the final configuration of the Air & Space Museum or, better yet, a Revit model that can be shared? The AutoCAD files that were received only have enlarged floorplans, not overall floorplans of the NASM that would be more helpful.

SI will provide link to overall CAD floorplan file and BIM.

We’re currently working on the exciting proposal for the Bezos Learning

Center (BLC) and wonder if I can get limited access to the East Wing and the Astronomy park of the National Air and Space Museum.

SI is not organizing any official site visit. Firms are invited to visit any publicly accessible area of the site and museum during normal business hours.

Is there any chance you could also send the full basement AutoCAD plan as well? We’d like to review the loading and operations that occur on that level.

The basement floor plan is included in the previously shared information. The basement floorplan is entitled:

SI-GIS_00_FP_FloorPlan_FloorPlanLines.dwg

Is it possible to take a tour of the NASM led by someone who works in the space. We would like to look at the full property including back of house areas?

See #8

Is it possible to have a Midterm Review with the Smithsonian team, ideally sometime around June 1 at the mid-point of the Phase II?

There will be no midterm review during Phase II.

Could you please share the scale of the 3d print model that you intend to print with the 3d files?

See #6

1a. Expected scale is 1:200.

1b. It is up to the judgment of the respective short-listed firms as to how much surrounding context to include in the

Revit Model (in both detail: trees, curbs, entourage, etc; as well as physical extent), given the Phase 2 instructions included as Attachment 1 for the RFP 333302-22RF-

0010028:

“It is not intended that the concept submission is a final solution or ‘the’ design to be implemented rather it is an indication of the team’s design concept and a demonstration of the firm’s understanding of the opportunities and constraints of the project in relation to the existing museum and the National Mall context. Extensive interior views are not required. . . . Of particular importance is the western edge of NMAI, the southern side of the Mall and Jefferson drive, and the northern side of DOE, Eisenhower Memorial and Independence avenue.

2) Provide conceptual elevations and perspectives that show the addition in context with existing NASM and adjacent

NMAI.”

Plus, in particular: “2) BIM model must include BLC, plaza, eastern wing of NASM and be suitable for SI to create a physical 3D printed model (IFC format would be appreciated).

3) Electronic submission of renderings and narrative suitable for posting on public website with all proprietary data removed.”

The info for the 3D printout must be able to be discernable within the context described in the instructions, so that a viewer would be able to understand the proposed BLC concept within its setting and surroundings.

Are Phase I and Phase II scores cumulative for the final result? If so, can you please share the Phase I scores?

AE selection process does not use scores.

Can you please share the composition of the jury that participates in the selection of the winning proposal?

The jury is composed of Smithsonian Institution staff.

Is the Attachment 1: BLC Program Notes provided with Solicitation

Number F22R010013 the only functional program being provided for the

Phase II competition?

See #1

Can you please clarify the anticipated timing (date range) and format

(duration, virtual/in-person, other requirements) of the Phase II interview so our team can appropriately prepare for the interview in parallel with the design submission work currently underway?

The timing and format of the interviews is not established at this time. Additional information on timing and format will be established and the firms informed after the public viewing time has concluded.