Amendment 1 NMAL Response to Bidder Questions.pdf

Amendment #1 dated April 27, 2026 on RFP 33330226RF0010004 to develop the initial concept plan and design for the inaugural exhibitions at Smithsonian Institution (the “Smithsonian” or “SI”)

National Museum of the American Latino (“NMAL”) provides responses to bidder questions and make a change to the RFP language.

A.1 Add to page 66 of the RFP under section L.5.1 Technical Proposal, 4) Past Performance

e) Information utilized to assess past performance will be obtained from the Contractor, from calling references, and other past performance information from other than the sources identified by the Contractor.

A.2 Responses to bidder questions:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1) SECTION L – L.5.1. Technical Proposal, 2) Management Plan, g) Review RFP terms – Page 64“Identify in your proposal any contracting terms and conditions from which you wish to deviate to preserve your ability to negotiate such terms prior to contract award. Requests for exceptions will not, in and of themselves, automatically deem a proposal unacceptable, but the nature of a requested exception, if disadvantageous to the Smithsonian Institution, may deem a proposal technically unacceptable.”

Do we understand that only deviations to the contracting terms and conditions are negotiable if mentioned in our proposal before award, but in no case exceptions will be accepted? How do you differentiate a deviation from an exception?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Both deviations and exceptions refer to contract terms from which a bidder wants to change. Bidders should review the terms and conditions in advance of submitting a proposal and notify us of those terms from which you wish to deviate. At contract award, Smithsonian would then negotiate the identified terms.

BIDDING ON FUTURE PROJECTS | MULTIPLE TEAMS

2) Will all design team members be prohibited from participating in the follow-on exhibit fabrication contract?

Will subconsultants who are part of our team for this stage of the project be excluded from bidding on future production and fabrication stages?

Page 11, C.3.1: Will the architects and engineers named within the Design team be precluded from bidding on any future base build architectural RFP?

Can we include a fabricator on our team to consult on costing and buildability? If so, will they be excluded from bidding on future stages of this project?

Pg. 11, C.3.1 - Would any exhibit fabrication partners brought on to the team be precluded from bidding on later fabrication work?

Will any Member of a Team that is awarded this Contract be precluded from pursuing a future RFP that would include base building renovations and/or a new building design?

Please clarify whether firms that participate on the design team (including cost estimation) are eligible to subsequently compete for or perform fabrication/production work under future solicitations for this opportunity?

SECTION H – H.9. Organizational Conflicts of Interest – Page 43 Section C.3.2 requires the Contractor to retain an independent cost estimating consultant. If the Contractor partners with a firm for cost estimating services and that firm is also a fabricator, would that firm be precluded from participating in the fabrication solicitation as a bidder or fabricator under the conflict of interest provisions of

Section H.9? Or would such a firm be permitted to bid on the subsequent fabrication contract?

SECTION C – C 3.2.2 Design Services, Media Production – Page 15

Please confirm that subcontractors involved in the design phase are not precluded from bidding on future production work.

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE:

The only prohibition on subcontractors bidding on future work concerns the area of cost estimation. If subcontractors were involved in development of cost estimates, then they cannot bid on the production, fabrication, or implementation of any exhibit element because the Smithsonian strives to maintain an even playing field. Bidders should develop plans that isolate subcontractor cost estimates from other firms who may be interested in later bidding on production of the exhibits.

3) Do all subconsultants need to be registered with SAM?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Only the Prime Contractor needs to be registered in SAM.

4) SECTION L – L.5.1. Technical Proposal, 3) Firm Profile & Key Personnel d) – Page 65 We assume that subcontractors may participate in multiple teams, provided that confidentiality is ensured.

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Proposed subcontractors can be on multiple bidder proposals.

PROPOSAL FORMAT

5) As referenced on page 4, we note that proposal submissions must be emailed in files no larger than

18 MB. Could you please confirm whether there is a required or preferred page size and any other layout requirements for the submission?

Page 61, L.5: Are there any paper size/orientation requirements for the two response volumes (to be supplied digitally)?

In the Technical Proposal requirements, 1) Approach to NMAL Exhibit Design Scope, section b) (Page

63 of 69), it is written for section: “b) The narrative response should be no more than 10 pages in length, excluding visuals…” Can you please clarify if it’s 10 pages of 8.5x11 or 11x17?

In the Technical Proposal requirements, 1) Approach to NMAL Exhibit Design Scope, section b) (Page

63 of 69), we understand that the text is not to exceed 10 pages in length. However, is it permitted to intersperse the 10 pages of text with images? If so, can we exceed the 10 pages limit (for the text only response) if interspersed visuals are embedded within the text? We would confirm that the text-only limit will be equivalent to 10 pages. Please confirm.

Would you accept an entire proposal that is 11x17?

Pg. 63, L.5.1.1.b: Is there a requirement for proposal formatting, i.e. page size?

Is it acceptable for the technical proposal to be larger than 18 mb if it is sent via a file transfer link?

SECTION L – L.4 Submission of Proposals – Page 61 We understand that we may submit a link containing two separate files—one for the technical proposal and one for the commercial proposal.

In this way, our proposals may exceed the 18 MB limit (see Proposal Submission, p. 4). Is this correct?

We suggest to submit the technical proposal in landscape format. If landscape format is not acceptable for the proposal as a whole, may landscape orientation be used for Section 1 (Approach to NMAL Exhibit Design Scope), where visual materials are presented, while the remaining sections use portrait orientation? Please advise.

The RFP specifies email submission of two distinct files but does not prescribe formatting requirements. Could you please confirm the preferred or required specifications for the technical and business proposal files, including: file format, page size, page orientation, and margins?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: The technical and business proposals must be submitted as two separate files. There are no restrictions related to margins and page orientation. 11x17 page size is acceptable.

The narrative text for section 1) Approach to NMAL Exhibit Design Scope, (Page 63 of 69), should not exceed 2500 words. Proposals must be submitted as pdfs. Yes, larger size files may be sent via file transfer link. Please confirm with Debra Berke prior to the submittal deadline that the file can be downloaded and is readable.

6) SECTION L – L.5.1. Technical Proposal, 1) Approach to NMAL Exhibit Design Scope – Page 63,“Submit a narrative and visuals explaining how you might approach the museum exhibitions, expanding on

NMAL’s documents included as part of this solicitation. Show your understanding of the museum’s intent.” Do you want us to include an understanding of the museum’s intent and its vision with narrative and visuals under a) plus answering the four questions raised under b)? Both included in the 10 pages in length, excluding visuals. Or Should we only answer the four questions under b) including visuals, provide sketches; examples of previous work; or other visual representations?

Please clarify.

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: In 2500 words or fewer, describe your approach to the project, express your understanding of the museum’s intent, and address the four questions provided. Be succinct. The 2500-word narrative can be supplemented with as much imagery as you think appropriate. Minimal captioning of images will not be deducted from the 2500-word count.

7) SECTION L – L.5.1. Technical Proposal, 4) Past performance a) Page 65, We understand that we should present 2-5 significant museum projects from the past seven years that meet the required scale (sq./ ft). Is there a preferred format and page limit for presenting these projects? In addition, may we also present older, relevant work within the two additional projects?

In proposal requirements, section 4) Past Performance (Page 65 of 69), can we provide project examples that are less than 35,000 sq ft or do ALL project examples we include have to be over

35,000 sq ft?

Pages 65/66: Regarding Section 4 of the Technical Proposal (Past Performance) – Would a project that meets the sq ft criteria but that has opened in phases over a 10-year period (with some elements within the 7-year permitted timeframe) be acceptable?

SECTION L – References – Page 61 and Page 65, Minimum Requirement – Page 61 , “Provide examples of at least two (2) and no more than five (5) relevant and recent (not more than 7 years old) completed (at least two projects) and/or in-progress projects involving an exhibition footprint of at least 35,000 square feet. Do not submit projects that have not been, or will not be, built.“ Can the

2 additional projects which are not within the minimum required 3 projects, be in design stage ( 65%

Design Development Phase or 100% Final Design Phase) and NOT in fabrication stage? Please advise.

OR + AND Can the 2 additional projects which are not within the minimum required 3 projects, be provided by one of the sub-consultants? Please advise.

Would you consider previous project examples completed within 8 or 10 years.

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: To meet the minimum requirements, bidders must provide three (3) examples of projects complete or near complete. One (1) example must be 45,000 square feet or more, two (2) examples must be 35,000 square feet or more. A project that has opened in phases over a 10-year period, with some elements within the 7-year timeframe is acceptable. Projects submitted by sub-consultants will not be accepted as part of the minimum requirements.

SI will allow some flexibility for the 2-5 additional projects beyond the three (3) projects used to meet the minimum requirements. Additional projects can be less than 35,000 square feet and can be older than seven years. The bidder’s proposal should describe why the projects are relevant to NMAL. There is no preferred format or page limit for presenting these projects.

8) SECTION L – L.9 Competitive Range – Page 68 How many firms will be selected for the presentation?

When / how many days before the onsite presentation will the selected firms for the presentation be announced?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: All firms that are rated at and above the level established as the competitive range will be included in the presentation phase. We plan to have two weeks from bidder notification to presentations.

9) SECTION M - Evaluation Factors for Award – Page 69 Is there an evaluation matrix with scoring criteria in terms of percentage or points that you use for assessment of the technical proposal and for the business proposal?

Can NMAL provide more detail on the evaluation criteria weighting between creative approach, team qualifications, and past project experience?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Section M.2.1. Technical. The technical evaluation factors will be rated equally.

10) Pg. 63, 1.A.: Are teams expected to include original concept ideas or visuals specifically for this project in the proposal, or is it enough to show examples of design approach and relevant past work?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Original concept ideas or visuals are not required for the proposal and are discouraged. Firms rated in the competitive range may be asked to provide simple concepts for the in-person presentation.

11) Can NMAL confirm any requirements or preferences regarding team composition, including minority-owned, local, or community-based partners?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: There are no team preferences on this RFP.

12) As referenced on pages 61-62 under “Minimum Requirements” and 65–66 under “Past

Performance,” we understand that subcontractor performance cannot satisfy the minimum requirements of the prime contractor, but could you clarify whether subconsultants are also expected to submit past performance examples that meet the same criteria (two to five projects completed within the past seven years, including at least two completed projects, each with a minimum footprint of 35,000 square feet), or, is that criteria just applicable to the Offerer and consultants can list relevant experience outside of that criteria

SECTION L – L.5.1. Technical Proposal, 4) Past performance c) – Page 65 We understand that we present one completed project reference of each subcontractor and that there are no other requirements for that reference. Please confirm.

Pg. 66, Technical Proposal, Section 4c Past Performance: Should the past performance reference and project summary provided by any subcontractor align with the same requirements of Section 4a Past

Performance?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Subcontractors are not required to meet the same minimum requirements as the offeror/bidder. Project references may be of different sizes and scopes but should include a rationale for their inclusion in the proposal.

13) Would you consider a teaming arrangement in which the combined portfolio of two firms collectively meets the 35,000+ sq ft exhibit experience requirement, even though neither firm individually has completed a single project of that scale?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: No, SI will only consider single firms that meet the minimum requirements.

PRICING

14) SECTION B – B.4 Pricing – Page 5-7 Do the given percentages 10% Concept 35% Schematic Design

Phase 65% Design Development Phase 100% Final Design Phase reflect the expected fee split?

Please advise.

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: No, the Offeror should review their workhours and subconsultants efforts per phase on previous projects, assess the NMAL requirements per phase as listed, and divide the fee as they deem appropriate.

15) Pg. 66, Business Proposal, Sections 1-3: Given the extent of the potential variables, including future site selection (new build, renovation, historic building etc.) and building configuration (i.e. single floor plate versus multiple levels; circulation and entry/exit flows, etc.) and potential shifts to both the project’s scale and timeline as a result, we would like to ask if it would be acceptable to submit a set fee for 10% Concept only, with rough-order-of-magnitude estimates for the additional scopes?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: No, that is not acceptable. Please provide pricing as indicated in section B.4., a set fee for 10% Concept design and a percentage-based fee linked to the estimated fabrication costs for the exhibitions.

16) Is travel and per diem part of unpriced options?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: We will determine this during negotiations of the unpriced options.

17) Section L – Business Proposal – Page 66,Payment schedule, Can you please clarify if there is a standard guideline for payment schedules provided by the Smithsonian which needs to be followed.

OR if we can submit monthly invoices during all design stages as well as potentially during guardianship OR if we can suggest our own payment schedule. Please advise.

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Monthly invoicing for work completed is the standard procedure.

18) Could you clarify the anticipated project budget and whether it is intended to support building renovation work, or if it is exclusively allocated to exhibition design and planning efforts?

Pg. 19, C.3.2, Cost Estimates: Can you please clarify if base building, structural, MEP and fire/life/safety cost estimates are to be included? The RFP appears to require Exhibit Fabrication only.

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: See section B.3.1, for information on the project budget. A separate construction budget will cover building costs. Exhibit fabrication costs will include exhibition infrastructure—exhibition lighting and controls, construction of exhibit walls, and AV wiring and control systems.

19) Are there constraints or expectations regarding budget allocation across exhibition components

(media, fabrication, graphics, etc.)?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: No, there are not currently any budget constraints across exhibition components.

ATTACHMENTS

20) SECTION J – List of Attachments – Page 59 Please provide the guidelines mentioned as “J.10

Smithsonian Facilities Architect-Engineer Information Center Documents”. The referred page on http://www.sifacilities.si.edu/ae_center could not be found. Please advise.

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Apologies. Here is the correct link: Office of Planning, Design, and

Construction | Planning, Design, & Construction http://www.sifacilities.si.edu/ae_center https://www.sifacilities.si.edu/a-e https://www.sifacilities.si.edu/a-e

INSURANCE

21) SECTION I – I.3 Insurance requirements, Subcontractors – Page 50 “Contractor shall require its subcontractor(s) that perform work under this Contract to carry the same insurance limits Contractor must carry under this Contract . . .”

The subconsultant team we are planning includes a range of consultants, some of which are involved to a much lesser extent than others. Do subconsultants like Research, Evaluation, and Learning

Consultant, cost estimators, ADA consultants or translators, etc need to carry the same amount of insurance as exhibit designers? Would it be acceptable for the consultant with lesser extent scope to carry less insurance?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: If the subconsultant is only in an advisory capacity and does not handle objects or is involved in installation, then they are only required to have professional liability insurance.

BUILDING | SITE | ARCHITECTURE

22) Page 4: Recognizing the statement in section B.2.1 regarding the status of the architectural program, what likelihood does the client place on a site having been identified by the start of the Concept

Design phase?

Can you provide insight into the types of architectural interventions NMAL is currently considering or anticipating as part of this effort?

Pg. 20, C.4.1.: Do you expect teams to develop the concept design before the museum site and building are fully defined? If so, what building assumptions should teams use during the first phase?

SECTION B – B.2.1 Services – Page 4 If the Concept Design starts without having a building concept, do we include a re-design phase of the Concept as soon as the architectural concept is clear. Should this task be included in the early stages of Scheme Design? Please clarify.

How does the Smithsonian anticipate managing scope, schedule, and redesign effort resulting from changes once the NMAL site and building configuration are finalized?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Yes, we expect teams to develop the concept design without the constraints of a building. The content should guide and inspire the development of the site. SI anticipates integration of the concept design into the site plan will take place in the early phases of schematic design.

23) Can you provide the building architectural design and construction schedule?

Section B.2.2, Page 4 — Project Overview / Site Selection Is there an established timeline for site selection and architectural design, and how will those milestones inform the exhibit design process?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: SI anticipates the selection of a site prior to the start of schematic design. A coordinated construction and fabrication timeline will be provided at that time.

24) Page 4, B.2.1: Regarding the potential building. The difference in addressing a new build site as opposed to an existing site can offer very different challenges or creative approaches. If existing historic buildings are being considered for NMAL, should the team consider appointing a specialist architect in the team?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Offerors should create teams that they feel will best address the needs of the project and can respond to undetermined conditions.

25) How do you envision the division of responsibilities between the architecture team (and its consultants) and the NMAL team during this phase and in potential subsequent phases?

Please clarify the intended boundary of responsibility between the building design A/E team and the exhibition design contractor for spaces and systems that support exhibitions, including exhibit storage, preparation, staging, and collection movement logistics.

When exhibition design requirements affect base building systems or spaces, in the case of an existing building being selected as the NMAL venue, how does the Smithsonian anticipate coordination and resolution between the exhibition design contractor and the building A/E team?

What level of coordination is expected between the exhibition design team and architectural teams or base building constraints?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: SI expects a high degree of coordination between the exhibition design team and the architectural team as noted in Section C.4. SI will establish clear boundaries between the A/E teams work and the exhibition design contractor’s work. Support spaces, including exhibition storage, preparation, staging, will be included in the A/E’s area of responsibility. NMAL, after consulting with internal and external experts, will make the final determination on any conflicts. NMAL will handle collection moves under a separate contract.

26) Is a base building A/E Firm required to be part of the Exhibition Design Team in anticipation of the selection of the NMAL site in an existing building during the current proposal process? Is the expectation that the Exhibition Design Team A/E handle base building design/coordination?

Pg. 11, C.3.1: Do the architect and engineering consultants licensed in DC need to be part of the team at the time of proposal submission, or can they be added later once the site and building are further developed?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: SI would prefer the teams to be complete, but only subconsultants fulfilling the roles indicated in key personnel must be included at this time. SI reserves the right to approve any changes to/additions of subcontractors/subconsultants to the team at any point in the project. Exhibition Design will provide architectural/engineering services for exhibition elements, including but not limited to display cases, wall panels, interactive experiences, specialized floor, wall, and ceiling structures and treatments, and contextual/theatrical recreations and environments.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

27) RFP Section: C.4.3 Option #2 – 65% Schematic Design (page 25/69) Is “Schematic Design” a typo and did you mean Design Development?

RFP Section: C.4.2. Option # - 35% Schematic Design (and text immediately above it on this page of the RFP) (page 23/69) Can NMAL clarify the anticipated phasing and optional extensions from concept design through fabrication oversight?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Yes, this is a typo. It should read “65% Design Development.”

28) Section C.3.1, Page 12 — Use of Technology; Section B.4, Page 7 — Option 5, Media Production What level of interactive and digital experience is envisioned — and is there a separate AV or technology integrator already engaged whose scope we should be aware of?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Offerors should assume a high level of interactive and digital experience.

NMAL’s Molina Family Latino Gallery is a good representation of the preferred mixture of Audiovisual, object-based, and hands-on learning.

29) Section B.4, Pages 7–8 — Option 7, Image and Media Licensing; Section C.3.2, Page 15 — Summary

Are there guidelines or restrictions governing the use of photographic archives, or are we free to draw from any available sources?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Yes, there will be guidelines and restrictions governing the use of images and media that will be determined should SI choose to move forward with this option.

30) Section C.3.1, Page 13 — Sustainable Design; Section C.4.1.2(h), Page 22 — Preliminary Sustainability

Plan; Section C.4.2.2(j), Page 24 — Updated Sustainability Plan

What sustainability standards or certifications is the project targeting — LEED, WELL, or others?

SECTION C – LEED Section C.3.2 – Page 20 In the RFP it is noted that the project will pursue some form of LEED program. Given that, is there a desire that the exhibition design team include a sustainability advisor/consultant on the team? Or will the building AE team be taking the lead on the documentation/submission? Will you be pursuing Building Design and Construction (BD+C) or

Interior Design and Construction?

How is sustainable design managed across the client, architect, and exhibit design team, and where does each discipline's responsibility begin and end?

Who holds final authority in establishing and approving the sustainability criteria that will govern our work?

As referenced on page 13 about sustainable design, are there targeted goals to be aware of?

Are there specific sustainability, accessibility, or universal design requirements that should shape the concept approach?

Could additional details be provided as to the desired makeup of the Preliminary sustainability plan?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: The offeror’s sustainability efforts will focus on the reduction of waste, use of healthier materials, and the creation of efficient temporary exhibition systems within the exhibition footprint as well as coordination with A/E efforts for sustainability, yet to be determined. NMAL will work with internal SI experts to review and provide feedback on the sustainability efforts outlined in the plan.

31) Regarding Section C.4.7 on Page 33, what is the anticipated duration for Option 6 Interim Design

Coordination, and are there specific fundraising milestones that trigger the move to Schematic

Design?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Given the number of potential variables we cannot predict this duration.

32) Can you please confirm that media assets only are to be unpriced and not included at this time in this contract? Alternatively, are both graphics AND media assets not to be included at this time in this contract?

Understanding that image procurement services are to be provided under this contract (noting media assets are unpriced as per option #7), are the costs of the image purchase for graphics to be carried under this contract or will they be part of a separate budget? If part of this contract, can you determine an allowance that bidders should carry?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Licensing and procurement of media and images are both included in unpriced option #7. Graphic Design and the creation of final digital artwork is included in the scope of the priced options. A separate budget will be carried for media and image licensing and procurement costs.

33) Is there a formal leadership and SD410 review process to be undertaken at each stage and if so, what would that duration be, and would it be included in the timing indicated for each phase or in addition?

Pg. 63, 5.5.1.2.a. Could you please indicate the time needed by the Smithsonian team to review, provide feedback, and approve interim and final deliverables?

SECTION C – Review Periods C.4 – Page 20–32 and Section L.5.1 – Page 62–66,The phase schedules in

Section C.4 reference Smithsonian review periods but do not specify their duration. How long should

Offerors assume for NMAL's internal review following each phase submission?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Offerors should assume the formal SD-410 review for each phase will require three weeks to complete for 35% and 65% phases and six-weeks including back check for the 95% phase.

34) Page 11, C.3.1: The reference to take field measurements in the spaces suggests an accelerated complete base building prior to commencing the 65% and or 95% phases of the design. This may lead to extensive delays between phases for substantial teams. Therefore, is there an acceptance that team members outside of the key personnel may include a significant number of temporary staff?

Pages 66/67: Recognizing the scale of later design phases, will it be acceptable to bring in additional named personnel at appropriate phases (assuming all resources are accounted for within the

Business Proposal Price Options)? We acknowledge that Key Personnel would be continued resources through all stages.

SECTION G – Key Personnel Section G3 – Page 36 For the list of Contractor’s Key Personnel, may we add in an additional names/roles beyond the required line (Project Manager, Lead Exhibit Designer, Lead Graphic Designer, Media Design, Lighting Design, Visitor Evaluation, Cost Estimator, Acoustical

Engineer, Quality Control Manager)?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Continuity of personnel is preferred, but offeror is only required to meet the standards as outlined in G.3. Yes, Offeror can include additional key personnel.

35) Page 16 (BIM): Vectorworks is called out for all CAD drawings with various other options for specific drawing integration. In all instances could Revit be utilised across all drawings, including as the basis for modelling and fabrication assets besides building coordination, from the 35% schematic phase onwards?

Can Revit be considered in lieu of Vectorworks for exhibit design?

Can Sketch-up be used for the 10% Design stage?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Offeror’s should assume the use of Vectorworks in their proposals. Offerors are welcome to use other 3D modeling software for design that is purely conceptual with the understanding that Vectorworks will be required for site specific exhibition plans and elevations.

36) Page 22: Regarding the meetings outlined in C.4.1.3 (b. Working Sessions) – Please could you confirm the intended duration of these virtual sessions? Is the client anticipating working sessions of 1-3 hours, or day-long itineraries?

Are the design presentations noted as every 9-12 weeks virtual or in person for all stages?

Page 22 (b. working sessions): Should the design team plan for these sessions to run over several days to suit the Smithsonian team’s availability?

Page 22 (b. working sessions): Is the expectation that these sessions will be fully remote / virtual or is there an opportunity for members of the Design team and core members of the Smithsonian team to meet in person with others joining virtually?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Working sessions are intended to last 1-3 hours. Working sessions can be fully remote or hybrid should members of the design team prefer to meet in person. Design presentations will be in person for all stages.

37) Page 22, C.4.1.3. (e): For costing purposes should we assume that the research/benchmarking trips in Concept Design phase will be located across the Continental USA, or might they be overseas?

Page 22, C.4.1.3. (e): We assume that travel costs for SI team members attending the research trips will be covered directly by the client team?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: For costing purposes, assume that the research/benchmarking trips could involve travel outside of the USA. Travel costs for SI team members will be covered directly by SI.

38) What are the expected deliverables at the conclusion of this phase of work?

What is the expected level of detail for the concept deliverables (e.g., narrative, spatial layouts, media strategies, visualizations)?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Deliverables are listed by phase in section C.4.

39) SECTION C – C.3.1 Design Considerations and Services – Page 11,It is our understanding that the options for exhibition design services through final design and fabrication administration would NOT include fabrication and installation services - i.e. that the fabrication contractor will be a different entity hired directly by the Smithsonian, and that the actual fabrication and installation scope will NOT run through the exhibit designer. Is that correct?

All workmanship/fabrication/installation processes and techniques will be determined by the fabricator, correct?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Assuming implementation of all priced options, the Offeror will create a fully biddable fabrication package that SI will use for procurement of a fabricator/installer through a separate contract. Fabrication processes and techniques will be determined by fabricator with Offeror input on whether the result will effectively match design intent.

40) SECTION C – C.3.1. Security Provisions – Page 11-12, Section C.3.1 states that the Contractor shall consider security provisions as required by the Smithsonian Office of Protection Services. Will a security consultant be retained directly by NMAL or the building architect, or is the Contractor expected to include a security consultant as part of the exhibition design team?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: The contractor should include a security consultant as part of the exhibition design team.

41) From a Quality Control perspective, you mentioned compliance and meeting SI’s requirements. What do you mean when referring to QC - design requirements? infrastructure?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Page 18 of the RFP, Quality Control Plan outlines SI expectations.

42) SECTION C – C.3.1. Life Safety and Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) Filings – Page 11–12 and

Section C.3.1(i) – Page 14-15 In section C.3.1, it is noted that Contractor shall consider “essential life safety”. Will base-building architect be responsible for filing all life/safety and egress plans, etc. at any Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) (with exhibit designer providing exhibition plans as backgrounds and coordinating with architect) or is there a desire for the exhibition designer to be the applicant for any AHJ filing?

SECTION C – C.3.1 Codes, Standards, and Regulations – Page 14 Will the building architect team

(engineer under architect) be responsible for specifying and locating fire extinguishers, strobes, and exit signs (exhibit designer to coordinate with architecture team on these points)? Or is the exhibit designer expected to specify?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Exhibition designer will coordinate with A/E and reflect relevant life/safety systems provided by A/E in exhibition plans.

43) In reference to accessibility specifications noted in Section C 3.1, page 12, and Section C 4.6 on page

32, what is NMAL’s standard for accessibility features in a bilingual exhibition context? Is the expectation and aspiration that these features be delivered in both English and Spanish?

How does NMAL envision integrating bilingual (English/Spanish) or multilingual interpretation across physical and digital layers?

SECTION C – Bilingual Scope Section C.4.2.2(b) – Page 23 and Section C.4.4.2(b) – Page 28

Sections C.4.2.2(b) and C.4.4.2(b) reference a bilingual graphics package and bilingual graphic identity for each exhibition. Should Offerors assume that all text panels, labels, and graphic content throughout the museum will be bilingual in English and Spanish? We understand that NMAL is responsible for scripting, translation and bilingual copy editing. Please confirm.

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: NMAL’s intent is for all levels of interpretation, physical and digital, to be fully bilingual. This includes all accessibility features. NMAL is responsible for scripting, translation, and bilingual copy editing.

44) As referenced on page 12, there is mention of daylight modulation from skylights and windows, would you want us to include daylight studies in our scope?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Yes, include a limited allowance for daylight modulation studies.

45) Section C.3.1, Pages 12–13 — Accessibility/Universal Design; Attachments J.2 and J.3, Page 59 What accessibility standards govern the project beyond ADA compliance? Is there an expectation that exhibit concepts will be prototyped and tested for accessibility prior to final design?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Yes, NMAL works closely with SI’s Office of Visitor Accessibility during exhibition design. Prototyping with user experts will be expected.

46) SECTION C – Cost Estimating C.3.2 – Page 19–20 Please provide a copy of the Smithsonian and the

Federal cost estimation procedures as specified within the Cost Estimating description of the RFP p

19.

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Please review specification at the A/E design center, www.sifacilities.si.edu/cost-estimating

47) Pg. 21, C.4.1.2.g; Pg. 24, C.4.2.2.f.; pg. 29 C.4.4.2.f: Can you clarify what level of detail you expect for the fundraising package and donor recognition materials in each phase?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: The fundraising package will be used for cultivation and awareness and should provide a polished and concise narrative outline of the design, a brief exhibition walkthrough, and renderings of major exhibition elements (galleries, theaters, immersive experiences).

48) As referenced on page 4, about the assumption of the size of the scope, should it be assumed façade lighting of the building, and exterior building mounted lighting should be included?

As referenced on page 4 about the assumption of the size of the scope, should there be any site lighting included, and if so, what is the anticipated size?

As referenced on page 4 about services to be included, should we include exhibition display cases and/or integrated exhibition lighting or would we only be providing architectural lighting to public spaces?

As referenced on page 4 about services to be included, shall it be assumed that we would provide the lighting design intent, while the EE would do the controls? Or would we be responsible for controls?

As referenced on page 15, to confirm lighting design would not be engaged until the SD phase, or would there be any engagement in concept?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: There is no lighting deliverable during the 10% phase. Offerors should make their own determination as to whether it would be beneficial to engage the lighting designer during the

10% concept phase. For the priced options, the Offeror will be responsible for a complete exhibition lighting design package (object cases, gallery spaces, temporary exhibition spaces, and outdoor exhibition spaces) including lighting controls and integration with the architectural lighting control system. The A/E will be responsible for all building, public and non-public, lighting that is not classified as an exhibition space.

49) Section C 4.6 on Page 32 references a Drupal-based or equivalent platform for media delivery. Is there a Smithsonian-wide content platform standard, or does NMAL have a preference based on what other SI museums have implemented?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: NMAL works closely with SI Office of Digital and Information (ODI) to develop its current Latino Digital Hub platform which builds off several SI platforms. The Offeror will work closely with NMAL staff and ODI to extend current platform standard to the scale required for the new museum.

50) Are future exhibition graphic identities to be “bespoke” per concept (e.g. type, color, etc) -or- are exhibitions needed to adhere strictly to the core NMAL Guides (e.g. typography / color)?

Page 11 - Graphic Production - Please confirm that this is graphic design?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Offerors should assume that individual galleries/major elements will have unique graphic identities. Offerors, including all priced options, are responsible for a complete graphic design package and creation of production-ready graphic files. Graphic production will be under the fabricator’s scope.

51) Regarding Option 5 Media Production and Delivery in Section C.4.6 on Pages 32 and 33, if the

Smithsonian chooses to contract directly with external media producers, what is the expected hierarchy of authority between the Lead Design firm and those producers, since the Lead firm must oversee those elements for consistency?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: In this circumstance, NMAL will ensure coordination between the Offeror and non-subcontracted media producers.

52) Can you clarify what system scheduling is please?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: “System scheduling” refers to the exhibition lighting and AV control system and integration with overall building controls.

CONTENT

53) Are there any known risks, constraints, or sensitivities (political, cultural, or institutional) that the design team should be aware of at this stage?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Please remember to focus on images of peoples, places, and objects from the United States and its territories, not Latin America. Please avoid highlighting images of controversial or divisive historical figures.

54) Page 10 describes the core message and primary messages from which the exhibition design will evolve, developed by NMAL staff. Was any visitor testing done on these messages as they were being developed?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Core and primary messages emerge in part from a year-long audience research study conducted around NMAL’s Molina Family Latino Gallery, and from feedback gathered in a national community engagement initiative involving 100+ towns and cities across the United States.

55) Can NMAL provide guidance on the anticipated role of artists, cultural practitioners, and non-traditional collaborators within the design team?

Page 63 (1b): We welcome the opportunity to work creatively with artists and other non-typical consultants within our team. Can you outline whether NMAL currently has an artist/creatives advisory board already established, and if so, how creatives within the Exhibition Designer’s team would interface with this other group?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: NMAL does not have an artists/creatives advisory board. NMAL has involved artists, creatives, tradition bearers, and other non-typical consultants in a range of discrete projects (e.g.

creating a prop, commissioning an artwork, narrating a film, etc.), and in the general review of exhibition content.

56) Section C.2, Pages 10–11 — Exhibition Messages The RFP identifies six primary messages. Should these be interpreted as six distinct galleries, or do they represent thematic threads to be woven across multiple stories and spaces? At this stage, is there a defined number of galleries, or will spatial organization be developed during the concept phase?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: Spatial organization will be developed during the concept phase. The six primary messages do not indicate specific galleries but work as thematic threads connecting different museum spaces and operations. In some cases, a message may represent the central theme of an exhibit, but that is not typical.

57) Could you clarify how exhibition content will be developed and curated, including who will be responsible for content selection and decision-making? Specifically, what role do you anticipate for the consultant team in shaping content, and what aspects will be led or determined by NMAL?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: NMAL will lead in terms of curation, including content selection and script/label writing, and other aspects of decision making. The consultant team will play a key role in shaping content by supporting exhibition development (workshopping exhibit messages; image research support and acquisition; honing object and image lists), and proposing complex design solutions that communicate the museum’s stories and audience objectives through a combination of artifact display with accessible interactive experiences, including forms of digital engagement.

58) Section C.4.1.1, Page 20 — Concept Design Overview; Section C.3, Page 12 — Reviews and

Professional Responsibility Beyond spatial organization, has the curatorial framework been established, or will the design team have a role in shaping the narrative structure?

Are there priority stories, communities, or themes that NMAL considers essential to anchor the inaugural experience?

How defined is the curatorial narrative at this stage, and what level of interpretive development is expected from the design team during the concept phase?

Page 20: C.4.1.1: RFP text mentions client-generated content documents. What status/level of detail have these content outlines reached?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: NMAL is in the early stages of defining its curatorial narrative and establishing its collection. The museum will determine the narrative structure but will require the facilitation of the design team to hone its messages and best organize the narrative structure and align it with a physical space. The six primary messages convey the themes, timeline, and geographic range that are the starting point for the development of the inaugural experience. Client-generated content documents currently reflect early-stage thinking around the exhibition program and audience experiences in response to different potential sites.

59) What are the expectations for visitor experience innovation (e.g., immersive environments, participatory storytelling, digital interactives) versus traditional exhibition approaches?

Can NMAL clarify the anticipated balance between object-based interpretation and immersive/media-driven experiences within the inaugural exhibitions?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: NMAL seeks to amplify access, understanding and engagement in its exhibits through the judicious use of immersive/media-driven experiences, usually (but not always) in support of its object-based interpretation. This includes a range of possible media-driven experiences, like immersive experiences, AR and short films, to exhibit elements like digital object labels and mixed manual/digital interactives.

60) What level of integration is expected between physical exhibitions and public programming or live experiences?

What is the education department's role in shaping the gallery experience, and how is their authority defined relative to the exhibit design team?

Who leads the design of interactive elements — the education department, the curators, the design team, or a collaborative process between both?

Will the design team work directly with the education department to establish the spatial needs and requirements of their programming and events?

Does the team need to provide interpretation?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: This phase of planning considers the visitor experience in relation to both exhibition galleries, public program (education and performance) areas, and other public spaces of the museum (including exterior gardens). Representatives from the museum’s education department play an active role in shaping the gallery experience, and the head of education, who also oversees audience research, is key member of the exhibit design team. Interactive elements, particularly non-digital activities, are led by educators, with the input and collaboration of the curatorial and design team.

Interactive elements that are digital are led by the museum’s digital team, with the input and collaboration of the curatorial and design team. The design team will play a critical role in facilitating the development of this content.

61) Can NMAL clarify expectations for digital extensions of the exhibition experience (online, mobile, or off-site engagement)?

Are there existing Media / UI guidelines, or interpretive frameworks, that the design team must align with, or is this expected to be developed and expanded upon, based upon the core NMAL Brand

Guidelines that has been shared?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: NMAL’s expectations for digital extensions of the exhibition experience include responsive web design to accommodate different functions and screen sizes. NMAL’s digital team has developed a set of scenario-based UI guidelines that it will share with the design team. They have established a robust, interconnected Gallery system solution expanding on the museum's currently legacy digital ecosystem infrastructure for exhibitions and online exhibitions; includes expansion of content interpretation tools and engagement solutions, as well as universal design and ADA compliance.

62) Pg. 5, B.2.2.: Would more information be available about the anticipated makeup of the core working group of the Smithsonian Project Team for the Familiarization and 10% Concept Design Services phase? Would more information be available on this group’s reporting and approval process?

What are the anticipated levels of stakeholder engagement, including internal Smithsonian review processes and community input?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: The anticipated makeup of the core working team includes most of NMAL’s senior leadership, particularly those whose work intersects directly with the exhibition program, including NMAL’s lead project manager; heads of exhibition development, education, and virtual/web programs; the associate director of content and interpretation; the museum’s director. Reporting and final approval will come from NMAL’s lead project manager, who ensures the review and approval of

NMAL’s director. Stakeholder engagement is a critical part of this process, and will include many perspectives including the NMAL board; this level of engagement will be directly managed by NMAL. The formal SD-410 review process will capture SI internal feedback at the end of each phase. Stakeholder engagement involving members of the public or representatives from different national communities or affinity groups will take the form of town halls, focus groups, and other means of obtaining feedback;

this level of engagement will be managed by the exhibit design team and aligned with its audience research plan.

63) How will the museum collaborate with other Smithsonian Institution museums and collections?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: NMAL periodically collaborates with other Smithsonian museums on public programs, and it will likely continue doing so after opening. It has also relied on loans from other

Smithsonian museums for its exhibits, but as its collection grows, this will become less frequent. Still, it is likely the NMAL will continue to display a small number of objects from other Smithsonian museums’ collections.

64) Are there plans for visible storage, rotating content, or “living archive” strategies?

SMITHSONIAN RESPONSE: NMAL plans to rotate content to conserve light sensitive materials and to maximize the…