33330222RF0010028 Amendment 005.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

220610106/10/20220005

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.

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 .

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

This is Amendment 005 for Solicitation 33330222RF0010028.

See attached Response for Question No. 30.

Due Date remains Tuesday, June 28, 2022, at 3 PM EST.

Smithsonian Institution Office of Planning Design & Construction

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

LAST UPDATED: 06/10/2022

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:

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.

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

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

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.

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.

We would like to fly a drone near the project site in order to better portray our concept in its location No drone flights are allowed on the mall.

What is the historical (2019) and anticipated future annual attendance at NASM?

Pre-pandemic, historic attendance at the national mall building location of the National Air and Space Museum was between 6M-7M annually.

While we anticipate similar attendance in future, the unprecedented transformation of the national mall building location makes crafting reliable projections difficult. Attendance gathered beginning fall 2022, with opening of a portion of the West end, will provide a data foundation from which to build future projections.

19 What percentage of those visits are school groups?

While we anticipate moving towards a field trip registration model in future, NASM has not previously required school groups to pre-register for their field trips to the museum. Therefore the percentage requested is not available. That said, school groups have had to register for deeper, facilitated experiences for the last several years at the Udvar

Hazy Center in Virginia. Annual pre-pandemic numbers for those experiences at the Udvar Hazy Center was 10,000 (annual total attendance 1.4M). In future, we anticipate annual attendance for similar new student programs at the national mall location to be 70,000 and estimate school group attendance (conservatively) between

500,000 and 700,000 annually. Ideally, the main entrance for school groups to the national mall building will be at the Bezos Learning

Center. While a series of classrooms on the ground floor of the national mall building - the Launchpad – will be the primary location for school group classes, the Center will likely serve as a secondary location for these experiences.

20 Are visitor demographics available?

Yes, though one set of available data, from 2016, is relatively dated.

We have 2016 overall data, and 2021 data from the DC, Maryland, Virginia local-visitors audience.

Summary of visitor feedback from a 2016 survey:

•NASM visitors tend to be more male than benchmarks 54% vs. 47-48%

•NASM visitors age cohorts match NMNH, (10% under 18, 44%

Millennials, 29% Gen X, 15% Boomers, 3% Senior)

•Hispanic or Latino representation is below U.S. census but better than other SI 18% V. 15% for others

•NASM has highest international % of visitors of Mall SI units 25% vs.10-20% for others

•Of all SI units on Mall, NASM had more multi-museum visitors than any unit 51% Question: Does this mean more visitors came more than once, or more visitors to NASM visited other SI units, in comparison with others? This means of visitors to more than one mall museum, 51% included NASM as one of those museums. Far more than any other.

Please provide additional detail on the role of the Astronomy Park and its connections to the larger center, programming, and visitor experience.

The Phoebe Waterman Haas Observatory and Astronomy Park is a primary component of the National Mall Building’s transformation, it’s immediate adjacency to the Bezos Learning Center will provide unique programmatic linkages to efforts taking place within the Center. That said, the success of the Phoebe Waterman Haas Observatory and

Astronomy Park is not dependent upon the operations of the Center, rather overall audience impact can be amplified by the presence of both.

We understand from the Selection Criteria Phase II that the universe and solar system should inform a design approach. Do you envision that the primary focus of the BLC interpretation and educational programming will be centered around space? Or will there be equal emphasis on emerging technologies and aviation as well.

Programming within the Bezos Learning Center will span all of the content disciplines represented at the National Air and Space Museum as well as those addressed at additional SI units, through pan-institutional programming that will occur within the Center. The suggestion that celestial bodies and events inform the design was intended to communicate the desire for the building itself to communicate the unique nature of the programming taking place within, through the architecture.

Do you envision the restaurant will primarily serve visitors? Or is NASM interested in providing easier access to patrons who are not visiting the museum or BLC?

The concept and seating capacity as established is designed to serve museum visitorship. Historically, the restaurant patron were limited to

Museum goers. NASM is interested in novel proposals to serve others, whether through a walk-up window, on-line/pick-up service, and/or after hours use of the restaurant by local clientele. There are physical, security and vendor operational implications with each of these that would need to be addressed. Whether that implements a type of pass-through window (if feasible) or an adjoining, separately securable space. These approaches need to be explored and evaluated more completely through the eventual design process and need not be solved with this phase 2 of the design solicitation. However, creativity about this aspect is welcomed.

How do you envision the existing event spaces and programming to evolve?

The restaurant will be restricted to use by the operator. The museum may retain the operator to cater an event in the restaurant space or in other spaces within the building. The museum has previously hosted events in various galleries and expects to continue this practice in the future. The proposed BLC upper terrace/deck may offer additional capability for smaller exterior events. There are physical, security, and accessibility implications associated with the use of this space that would need to be addressed.

Summary from Spring 2021 Local Survey (compares NASM to market):

•NASM underperforms the market in 18-24 and 24-35 ages and overperforms in 65+, NASM vs. market being: 9% vs. 15%, 12% vs 17% and 21% vs. 15% respectively

•NASM underperforms the market in Black/African American and

Hispanic or Latino audiences, NASM vs. market being: 21% vs. 28%

Black/African American and 9% vs. 13% Hispanic or Latinx.

•NASM underperforms the market in families with children under 18 years old living at home, and overperforms in those with no children at home, NASM vs. market being 26% vs . 35% and 72% vs. 62% respectively.

One of the primary drivers behind the transformation of NASMs national mall location is to present content representing stories of diverse individuals and invite everyone into the conversation so that , ultimately, everyone sees themselves as part of the NASM conversation. The Bezos Learning Center, and the programs that take place within, is an essential contributor to beginning to realize this goal.

How did NASM arrive at the projected seating capacity for the restaurant?

Seating capacity was determined based on historical data of museum visitorship combined with throughput/turnover for quick service based on an established “design day”. It is acknowledged that seating may be insufficient at absolute peak periods.

26 Will Restaurant Associates hold the contract for this restaurant? The operator will be determined via an RFP to be issued in June 2022.

27 Are the 30X42 boards to be portrait or landscape? It is up to the firm on how to arrange the boards

28 To what scale will the models be printed? See #6

29 Where will the boards and models be displayed? At the Castle

We understand the submission requires boards, BIM, and a 2-page narrative. For the public viewing, is it Smithsonian’s intent that the boards will be paired with the text of the design narrative as a companion to board/model display (for example, will SI have a text panel accompanying each set of boards with the narrative text on it so the public can read it)? Or, is the narrative solely for review by the selection committee, and we will be responsible for including all narrative text necessary on the printed boards themselves to facilitate public understanding of the design concept?

The narrative will not be shared with the public. It is for selection panel use only.