addendum-3-rfp-rpam-2026-01.pdf

ADDENDUM 3

RFP RPAM 2026-01

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

March 17, 2026

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY PROSPECTIVE RESPONDENTS

1. Are we or are we not required to present a valuation of the property as part of our potential qualified submission?

No. The RFP includes no requirement to submit a valuation of the SYSC campus property as part of the respondent’s submission. However, respondents are encouraged to propose the independent appraisal of the SYSC property by a New Hampshire-licensed certified general appraiser, together with any recommended underlying or extraordinary assumptions to be made by such appraiser, as part of their proposals to market the property and to solicit highest and best offers to purchase the property as a whole as a redevelopment project, if they believe that having the proposed appraisal report available is likely to help them to maximize solicited offers to purchase the property. Any such appraiser must be specifically identified in the respondent’s proposal and retained by the successful respondent at its sole expense as its subcontractor, unless the individual appraiser is a current employee or principal of said respondent. Regardless of whether the successful respondent proposes an independent appraisal of the property, the State may request that the successful respondent produce a so-called broker’s opinion of value at the outset of the engagement.

2. Are there any additional site and/or aerial photographs, assessments, and other documentation about the property that the State can provide?

As you know, the State agency that has issued this RFP (the Department of Administrative Services or DAS) and that has been tasked with disposing of the property on behalf of the State is not the same State agency that has been responsible for managing this property for much of the past 100 years. In fact, DAS will not actually assume custody of the property until the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) vacates the property, which is currently projected to occur around the end of calendar 2026. As such, DAS has had little success in compiling much new or comprehensive information obtained from DHHS regarding the property since the legislative directives to sell the property were issued last summer in June 2025, and no funds were appropriated by the legislature to pay for any surveys, engineering studies, maintenance plans, building condition evaluations, appraisals, or demolition cost estimates in preparation to market or sell the property. Building-specific information, such as building, maintenance, and capital project plans, appears to be available only in hardcopy form stored on site in certain buildings, and such plans may not be current or up to date. That being said, the State recently posted two addenda to the RFP including all City of Manchester assessor records currently available from the City web site and a 2002 Historical Resources Report (NH Division of Historical Resources Area Form) prepared by Elizabeth Durfee Hengen that includes an excellent historical summary of the property and its architecture and the State Youth Development Center operated thereon as well as photographs, maps, and diagrams. So, while there is likely more documentation available to be found, DAS has already provided the best property-wide summary documentation that it has been able to compile to date, except for the list of source deeds and additional SYSC land title information that the State has compiled to date (which is available upon request as stated in the “Additional Property Information” exhibit to the RFP). Additional maps and satellite imagery can be generated from the City of Manchester GIS parcel map application available on its website, Google maps, NH GRANIT, etc.

3. Respondent has preexisting and ongoing communications with the State of New

Hampshire regarding projects entirely separate from what is described in this RFP. Please clarify if there are exceptions for the non-communication requirement stated at the end of Section 1.2 of the RFP.

The all-caps language at the end of Section 1.2 of the RFP prohibiting “all contact” with State personnel is intended to prohibit any contact by respondents regarding or relating to the RFP or the subject matter thereof (i.e., the SYSC campus property) except for contact with the State contact person designated in the RFP. Such prohibition is concerned with preserving the fairness of the underlying RFP process and regulating the uniform flow of RFP information from the State to all interested respondents and should not prevent existing State contractors or vendors from fulfilling their obligations under existing contracts with the State that are unrelated to this RFP.

4. Please confirm if the “Debarment Affidavit” referenced in Section 3.10 of the

RFP is the same form that is included as Section 7.1 of RFP RPAM 2026-01.

The “State of New Hampshire Bid Affidavit Form” referenced in Section 3.10 of the RFP is, in fact, included as Section 7.1 of the RFP and not provided as an exhibit to the RFP as suggested by Section 3.10 of the RFP. The “Debarment Affidavit” language in the subheading of Section 3.10 actually refers only to subsection G of Section 7.1 of the RFP. The State apologizes for any confusion resulting from the inconsistent language used in Section 3.10 of the RFP.

5. The State of New Hampshire allows electronic and remote notarization per the

NH Secretary of State by the terms outlined on the NH Secretary of State’s web page at: https://www.sos.nh.gov/electronic-and-remote-notarization. Please confirm if electronic notarization is permitted per such Secretary of State guidelines for the portions of the RFP response requiring acknowledgment of a signature.

Yes, electronic and remote acknowledgements are acceptable, provided that the notary public or justice of the peace providing them complies with all of the acknowledgement, recordkeeping, and disclosure requirements referenced on the Secretary of State web page linked above.

6. For each of the Business/Corporate Reference sheets, please clarify if each of the References are to notarize the forms upon completion, or if the respondent is to notarize each of these forms upon completion.

https://www.sos.nh.gov/electronic-and-remote-notarization

The reference forms must be acknowledged under oath by a notary public or a justice of the peace who is either physically present with the signor when executing the affidavit or who can visually and auditorily witness the signor executing the affidavit in real time by two-way video transmission. A reference cannot acknowledge its own signature, and the respondent cannot acknowledge the signature of a reference unless the respondent is a notary public or justice of the peace who has witnessed the reference’s signature provided under oath. The reference forms are to be completed and signed by previous customers or clients of the respondent, preferably regarding the successful as-is sale of redevelopment properties similar in size, character, age, location, complexity, and configuration to the SYSC campus property.

7. Respondent would like to request that the requirement to acknowledge the affiant’s signature on each reference form be modified such that one (1) notary seal for all Reference sheets, notarized by the Responding firm, would be required altogether. Please confirm if this request for modification is accepted by the State.

The purpose of the acknowledgement block on the reference form is to make it a so-called self-proving affidavit (i.e., the acknowledgement confirms the authenticity of the signature provided under oath). While it is possible to use a single acknowledgement block to acknowledge multiple signatures witnessed simultaneously by a single notary public or justice of the peace (e.g., one signature given right after another while all signors are present), usually in such situations the signatures are all added to a single document bearing the multi-signature acknowledgement block. In the hypothetical posed by the respondent’s question, the State is unclear how a single notary public or justice of the peace would be able to coordinate and administer multiple oaths and acknowledge multiple signatures by multiple references on multiple reference forms (presumably in multiple locations) without signing an acknowledgment block on/for each individual reference form. The State is familiar with using a multi-signature acknowledgement when all acknowledged signors execute a single copy of an instrument simultaneously but not with using a single multi-signature acknowledgement for multiple instruments signed by multiple people. Therefore, the request for modification of the RFP is rejected.

Please note that the State will accept and consider unacknowledged but otherwise completed reference forms, but also understand that from the State’s perspective the oath and acknowledgment add an important layer of authenticity and credibility to the submitted reference forms.

8. Respondent is aware that the Property has some form of Historic designation per Addendum #2. Can the State clarify if this Historic designation prohibits or hinders any re-zoning, redevelopment, demolition, or other forms of modification of the Property – including land and preexisting buildings?

The SYSC campus property was determined in 2004 to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district. However, the property is not formally listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Please review information on the following linked web page hosted by the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources to gain a better understanding of what listing a property on the National Register of Historic Places does and does not do (scroll down the linked page to review “Benefits of Listing” and “What National Register Listing Does Not Do”):

https://www.nhdhr.dncr.nh.gov/registers-recognition/national-register-historic-places

9. Respondent recommends having an appraisal done by a third party for the SYSC campus property described in the RFP. Would the State consider a third-party appraisal to be completed as part of the State’s sale process, in order to capture any overlooked value within this Property?

Yes. If the successful respondent recommends or proposes to hire a third-party certified general appraiser licensed in NH as its subcontractor for the purpose of commissioning a market value appraisal of the SYSC campus property to aid the respondent and the State in determining an appropriate sale price for the property, then the State will consider such recommendation or proposal as part of the respondent’s overall proposal to market the property. However, the State has no available funding appropriated for such an appraisal (or any other pre-listing or pre-sale due diligence), so the cost of such appraisal must be borne exclusively by the respondent. Also note that this property presents a particularly unusual (unique?)

and challenging appraisal problem, given the likely impossibility of finding any suitable comparable sales, so any third-party appraiser ought to be selected carefully and should seek guidance from the State and the respondent about all reasonable and extraordinary assumptions to be made. E.g., it would seem as though any appraiser who tackles this particular appraisal problem must come up with a realistic estimate of the relatively large demolition cost overhead facing any buyer of this property as a redevelopment project. Please note that DAS has been urged to dispose of this property as soon as possible, which is a direct result of the anticipated sale proceeds already being budgeted as projected revenues during the 2027 State fiscal year (ending June 30, 2027). This apparent urgency to close by the end of the current State biennium may force any appraisal to be done while the successful respondent is actively marketing the property and soliciting purchase offers.

https://www.nhdhr.dncr.nh.gov/registers-recognition/national-register-historic-places