B08_Solicitation_(Attachment_1_-_Scope_of_Work).pdf

SCOPE OF WORK

HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY

ULYSSES S. GRANT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

MISSOURI

PMIS: 324314

I. Introduction

The National Park Service (NPS), through the Midwest Regional Office which oversees National Park System units in Interior Regions 3, 4, 5, requires the performance of research and writing of a Historic Resource Study for Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site in St. Louis, Missouri. The study will help complete basic historical documentation of the park’s story and resources. The information contained in the Historic Resource Study is essential for present and future interpretation and resource management at the park.

This Historic Resource Study (HRS) is a comprehensive synthesis of primary and secondary source material that is pertinent specifically to Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. The park’s first Historic Resource Study was published in 1993 but is now out of date and in need of substantial revisions. This project will represent the second Historic Resource Study prepared for this unit of the National Park System. The study shall conform to professional standards regarding methodology of historical research and writing. Stylistic, bibliographical, and report production standards shall conform to the current edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. In addition, reference should be made to the NPS Harpers Ferry Center Editorial Style Guide for NPS-preferred terms and methods of approach in public documents. See:

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/hfc/hfc-editorial-style-guide.htm

A. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES (section A overview adopted from the park’s brochure) Overview

Ulysses S. Grant is one of the most famous Americans of his era. As the commanding general of the US Army during the Civil War, he led the fight to preserve the Union. As 18th president (1869-1877), he championed civil rights for African Americans. Grant’s life and legacy are commemorated in many ways, at many places: Civil War battlefields like Shiloh and Vicksburg, the equestrian statue beside the US Capitol honoring his war-time heroism, and the solemn quiet of his New York City tomb.

But beyond these public roles, several characteristics defined the man and his character—loving devotion to his wife Julia and their four children, genuine affection for family and friends, keen sense of duty to country, and deep concern for humanity.

It is his legacy as a person that resonates so strongly at his White Haven home in Missouri, now known as Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site.

As a young officer, Grant visited White Haven, a plantation owned by “Colonel” Frederick Dent.

Here, he met and courted Julia Dent. Ulysses and Julia lived at White Haven 1854-1859 and raised their young family. Grant helped manage his father-in-law’s plantation and its enslaved workers. Grant himself owned at least one enslaved man, William Jones. Times were tough during the Grant family’s time at White Haven. Struggling through a weak economy, health problems, and even a frost-filled summer, the Grants fought poverty and hardship. They moved to Galena, Illinois, about a year before the outbreak of the Civil War.

Today White Haven is both a national historic landmark and the centerpiece of this National Park Service (NPS) site. It is a place where visitors may examine the lives of the Grant and Dent families and the enslaved people. For some, White Haven was a place of leisure, entertainment, and family. For others, it was a place of backbreaking labor, daily struggles, and longing for freedom. These people and their experiences are inseparable from White Haven’s story and the story of a country enduring its most tumultuous times.

B. Scope of Historical Analysis

The historic White Haven estate was constructed between 1812 and 1816. First Lady Julia Dent Grant (1826-1902) grew up at the home alongside six siblings that lived to adulthood. Ulysses S.

Grant was associated with the property from 1843, when he first visited the home as an Army officer stationed at nearby Jefferson Barracks, through his death in 1885. As previously mentioned, Grant lived on the property with his family from 1854 to 1859. After the end of the Civil War, Grant obtained ownership of the property in 1866. Even though he never lived at the home after the war, White Haven remained in his possession until shortly before his death.

The primary historical period of analysis will span the original construction of White Haven in the 1810s through Grant’s death in 1885. Secondary periods of analysis will include Indigenous settlement of the lands that constituted White Haven prior to Euro-American settlement in 1796 and ownership of White Haven after Grant’s death through the last private owners of the property, who sold it in 1986. While the park’s first HRS offered new research into the Dent and Grant families’ experiences at White Haven—particularly chapters 2, 3, 5, and 7—most of the study focused on Ulysses S. Grant’s entire life story. Much of the narrative jumps into various discussions of Grant’s experiences away from St. Louis. The new HRS will implement a much tighter focus. It will serve primarily as a biography of the White Haven property and the many people who called it home for more than 170 years rather than primarily serving as a biography of Ulysses S. Grant.

Ulysses S. Grant first arrived at the White Haven estate as a young Army officer in the fall of 1843; he later met his future wife, Julia Dent Grant, at the home in February 1844. They began a three-month courtship that culminated in Ulysses proposing marriage to Julia on the front porch of the house. Ten years later, Ulysses resigned his Army commission and moved back to White Haven to try his hand at farming. From the summer of 1854 until early 1859, Grant struggled to succeed in farming due to sickness, a poor economy, and poor weather. From the spring of 1859 until May 1860, the Grant family lived in downtown St. Louis at various residences. Despite their struggles and hardships, the Grants nevertheless enjoyed many happy family memories during their time in the area.

Every White family that lived at White Haven before the Civil War—including Ulysses S.

Grant—participated in the enslavement of Black Missourians. U.S. Census records indicate that as many as thirty African Americans were enslaved by Grant’s father-in-law, Colonel Frederick F. Dent, at one point. Enslaved laborers most likely constructed the White Haven estate and were central to its operation prior to the Civil War. At some point during his time on the property, Ulysses S. Grant obtained ownership of an enslaved man named William Jones. In March 1859, Grant voluntarily freed Jones at the St. Louis Courthouse. However, four enslaved people who were informally gifted to Julia from her father continued to serve the Grant family’s needs until they left St. Louis in May 1860.

Following the end of the American Civil War, Ulysses and Julia Grant expressed an interest in acquiring White Haven from the Dent family. Ulysses acquired full ownership of the property in 1866 with the intention of breeding and raising horses on the farm. Grant owned White Haven for nearly twenty years until his death in 1885. From 1866 to 1875, Grant took a particularly active interest in the property, hired caretakers to manage the land, and wrote many letters from Washington, D.C. with questions and instructions to implement his vision for the farm. In 1875, Grant sold his livestock and equipment and began leasing out the property to tenants, an arrangement that continued for ten years until his death.

Several different owners occupied the White Haven property in the subsequent 100 years between Grant’s death and eventual sale to St. Louis County. Farming continued well into the 1930s, however, large portions of the property were sold off in piecemeal fashion over the years.

In 1903, more than 200 acres were sold to August A. Busch of the famous Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company. In 1924, another 100 acres were sold to a local church for a cemetery, and in the 1930s and 1940s a suburban neighborhood called Grantwood Village was developed on much of the original property. Today, 9.6 acres of the original property remain under the National Park Service’s management.

In 1986, the last private owners of the White Haven property sold it to St. Louis County for $510,000.

St. Louis County provided some preventative maintenance to the home and property during its three-year ownership but sought a permanent caretaker that would ensure White Haven’s long-term stability. Congress passed and President George H.W. Bush signed Public Law 101-106 on October 2, 1989. This law transferred ownership of the property to the National Park Service, who would operate the site under the name Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. There are five historic structures preserved by the agency today, including the main house, stone building, ice house, chicken house, and horse stable/barn.

This Historic Resource Study aims to accomplish several goals. It will offer a comprehensive analysis of the many people who lived at White Haven for 170 years, exploring their experiences on the property and detailing the land’s usage over time. While Ulysses S. Grant’s experiences as a farmer in the 1850s will be explored in detail, this study will also strive to offer an inclusive narrative that includes discussions of other historical characters on the property during his association with it. For example, using previous archeological and cultural studies of the enslaved people at White Haven, this HRS will aim to better integrate African American experiences at White Haven alongside those of the Grant and Dent families.

This consideration is particularly important given that this HRS is being funded through the Civil Rights Commemorative Initiative, a special NPS funding allotment. Enslaved people most likely constructed the White Haven estate and were central to its daily operation well into the Civil War. Their experiences were hardly mentioned in the 1993 HRS, when knowledge of slavery at White Haven was limited. Since that time there have been forty enslaved individuals who have been identified by at least a first name. Two recently discovered post-Civil War newspaper articles about people formerly enslaved at White Haven along with two new documents pertaining to enslaved people who were freed by Grant’s father-in-law before the Civil War have enhanced what is known about the enslaved people at White Haven. These new discoveries, along with a strong collection of slavery-related artifacts discovered on the grounds in the 1990s, presents a unique opportunity to enhance the historiography of slavery in St. Louis and Missouri more broadly. More specifically, this documentary evidence, while still limited in scope, presents an opportunity to study enslaved peoples’ religious and cultural practices at White Haven beyond their experiences as laborers on the property. A more holistic view of enslaved experiences at White Haven can do much to enhance popular understandings of the Grants, Dents, and enslaved peoples interrelated experiences on the property during the 1840s and 1850s.

Other resources such as newspaper articles, autobiographies, and interviews will be used to examine the lives of other Dent and Grant family members who were around Ulysses and Julia Grant during their time in St. Louis. Further research will also be conducted to study people associated with the property before and after Grant’s time at White Haven.

Many studies of White Haven, including academic journal articles, book chapters, the park’s own website, and several NPS cultural resource baseline documents have been previously published.

The HRS will synthesize this research alongside other Grant-related scholarship published by university and popular presses that discuss his life more broadly, including his time in St. Louis.

A partial selection of secondary source scholarship to be consulted includes the following:

Foundation Document: Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. 2016.

Hamilton, Esley. White Haven (Grant-Dent House): National Register of Historic Places, National Register Nomination. 1985 (updated nomination forthcoming).

Little, Kimberly S. White Haven: A Place Where Extraordinary People Came to Live Ordinary Lives, 1796-1885. 1993 (current HRS for Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. .

O’Bright, Alan W. and Marolf, Kristen R. The Farm on the Gravois: Historic Structures Report.

1999.

Raths, Raths, & Johnson. Cultural Landscape Report: Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site, July 2024. Historic Architecture and Landscapes Program, Midwest Region, 2024.

Richner, Jeffrey J. and Roberts, Karin. Slavery and Slave-Related Artifacts at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. 2017 (Draft).

Sacco, Nick. “Historic Preservation From the Grassroots: A History of Save Grant’s White Haven.” 2017.

Sacco, Nick. “I Never Was an Abolitionist’: Ulysses S. Grant and Slavery, 1854-1863.” Journal of the Civil War Era 9, no. 3 (September 2019): 410-437.

Sacco, Nick. Slavery at White Haven: A Special Resource Study. (currently in draft form).

Sanfilippo, Pamela K. The Grants and White Haven: Essays on the People and the Property.

1999 (never published but accessible in the park’s archival files).

Scott, Douglas D., Roberts, Karin M., and Noble, Vergil E. Under White Haven: An Archeological Overview and Assessment of Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. 2004.

Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site Long Range Interpretive Plan. 2011.

Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site Long Range Interpretive Plan. 2024 (publication forthcoming).

Weekly, Mark. Cultural Landscape Assessment: Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. 1993.

Contractor shall utilize the following organizations to conduct research for this project:

The State Historical Society of Missouri Saint Louis Research Center, 1 University Boulevard, 222 Thomas Jefferson Library UMSL, St. Louis, MO 63121

Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site Archival Collections, 7400 Grant Road, St. Louis, MO 63123

Missouri Historical Society Library and Research Center, 225 S. Skinker Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63105

Ulysses S. Grant Presidential Library, 395 Hardy Rd, Starkville, MS 39759

The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant | The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant | Mississippi State University (msstate.edu)

II. Research Project

The National Park Service seeks to increase its understanding of the history and full extent of cultural resources at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site. An updated HRS must be compiled to ensure that park staff are utilizing the latest scholarship to shape their collective understanding of these resources contained within the park boundaries. The HRS synthesizes cultural resource information from all cultural resource disciplines1 in a narrative designed to serve managers, planners, interpreters, cultural resource specialists, and the interested public as a reference for the history of the region and the resources within the park. Entailing both documentary research in primary and secondary sources, and field observations to determine and describe the integrity, authenticity, associative values, and significance of the resources, the HRS supplies data for resource management and interpretation.

The HRS will provide a historical overview of the park that identifies and evaluates the park’s cultural resources within historic contexts. The study shall use current scholarship and other available cultural resources information to develop a synthesis for placing the history of Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site within a broader local, regional, national, and international context. The HRS will provide a Cultural Resources Base Map(s) depicting all known historic sites and structures, cultural landscapes, and trails and roads. A separate map depicting known archeological and ethnographic resources will be prepared but will not be included in the final published HRS. All available cultural resources data will be synthesized in a narrative report.

The study will involve documentary and non-archeological field investigations to determine and describe the integrity, authenticity, associative values, and significance of the park’s historic resources, including but not limited to structures, sites, objects, districts, cultural landscapes, complexes, and historic functions. The recommendation section will identify future needs for special history studies, cultural landscape reports, and other detailed cultural resource studies, as well as making recommendations for resource management and interpretation.

Therefore, the HRS shall include all of the following elements:

A. A comprehensive literature review and outline to formulate a historiographical analysis of relevant scholarship;

B. An evaluation of cultural resources in the context of the relevant time frames, the surrounding region, and all applicable historic themes;

C. An evaluation of the level of existing knowledge of the resources measured against accepted professional standards;

D. Discussion of European American settlement at the White Haven estate;

E. Solicit and include historical contributions from Affiliated Tribes historically associated with the St. Louis area;

F. Discussion of pre-contact Indigenous settlement in the areas that would later encompass the White Haven estate in the nineteenth century;

1 Cultural resource disciplines include History, Archeology, Ethnography, Historic Architecture, Historic Landscape Architecture, and Museum programs.

G. Comprehensive history of Ulysses and Julia Grant’s historical associations with the White Haven Property during the nineteenth century;

H. Discussion of African American enslaved people and their experiences at White Haven during the pre-bellum and Civil War eras;

I. Analysis of Ulysses and Julia Grant’s association with the White Haven property after the Civil War, particularly their ownership and management of the farm during the Reconstruction era;

J. Study of later owners associated with the White Haven property following Ulysses S.

Grant’s death in 1885;

K. Study of local and national efforts to establish White Haven as a unit of the National Park Service in 1980s;

L. A cultural resources base map showing areas inventoried for historic resources and architectural or landscape features, drawn to scale with as many sheets as necessary.

Contractor is to utilize the GIS mapping produced by NPS reflecting historic structures and landscapes. A separate map(s) depicting archeological sites will be prepared, but not included in the final published HRS;

M. A representative sampling of historic and contemporary photographs of the area and its cultural resources;

N. A bibliography of White Haven-related source material literature, including all previous research, surveys, and reports;

O. Pertinent appendix materials, including recommendations for future cultural resource-related studies. (Identification of continuing deficiencies in the inventory, study, evaluation, and treatment of the resources, and recommendations for correcting them);

P. Following final approval of the HRS by the National Park Service, an “Index” will be prepared which incorporates all names, places, structures, sites, objects, districts, cultural landscapes, complexes, historic functions, and themes referenced in the document. Used in conjunction with the “Table of Contents,” the index will assist readers in finding particular topics of interest with ease.

Although not to exclude other topics, historical research must, at minimum, be based on current scholarship, and focus in the following areas:

A. Geological history, in context with how it affected cultural history.

B. An overview of the area’s prehistory, and a discussion of pre-contact American Indian cultures.

C. Discussion of known archeological resources without specific location data (does not involve any new fieldwork or ground disturbance).

D. American Indian history relevant to Eastern Missouri (includes specific Affiliated Tribal participation in Euro-American settlement and conflicts).

E. Euro-American contact/exploration; Euro-American/American Indian relationships and rivalries; treaties/land cessions; and United States control, military presence, and related federal policies, including American Indian removal. Freed Blacks and enslaved labor in the area as described elsewhere in this Scope of Work.

F. Comprehensive history of White Haven, drawing on existing sources, that explores its role in Grant's life, as well as a discussion of his family, slavery, and the site's pre- and post-Civil War context.

G. Post-war history of land speculation, settlement, and changes to the site; an analysis of the Reconstruction Era at White Haven and St. Louis County

H. Area agricultural and other natural resource-use history, including development of industries in and around St. Louis County, MO.

I. History of the development and use of all land areas included in Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site, emphasizing discovery and preservation of significant cultural resources. This includes summarizing results of archeological investigations and development of park infrastructure.

It must be emphasized that all known extant cultural resources be correlated both to the narrative history and identified on cultural resource base maps already produced for historic structures and landscapes utilizing GIS. In cases where identification of significant archeological resources might place those sites in jeopardy, site-specific identifications will be decided on a case-by-case basis during internal review of the HRS by the NPS Midwest Archeological Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. Review by affiliated tribes, including: the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, Otoe-Missouria Tribe, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, Delaware Nation of Oklahoma, Absentee- Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Osage Nation of Oklahoma, Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Indians of Texas, Kickapoo Tribe of Indians in the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma, Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska, Sac & Fox Nation of Oklahoma and the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa will also be coordinated by the contractor to ensure sacred sites that tribes do not wish to be publicized or placed on base maps are respected.

The contractor receiving the award will utilize existing National Park Service cultural resources databases in developing cultural resources base maps and summarize those resources in the study narrative. These include the List of Classified Structures (LCS), Cultural Landscape Inventory

(CLI), and Archeological Sites Management Information System (ASMIS). All of these databases have recently been consolidated into a single Cultural Resources Information System

(CRIS).

In addition to the historical research, the contractor must consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of Missouri and affiliated tribes. SHPOs are charged by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, to identify, evaluate, register, and protect cultural resources important to local, state, and national history. As such, SHPOs have developed historic contexts and cultural resource plans for their states as well as amassed cultural resource database files. The contractor shall work with the Missouri SHPO to uncover previous cultural resource survey efforts and incorporate pertinent data in the HRS.

Similarly, the contractor will work with all Affiliated Tribes in researching and developing the HRS, including affording Tribes an opportunity to review and comment. Because Tribes are sovereign nations and contacts are to be conducted on a government-to-government level, such contacts will be coordinated with the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site Superintendent and the tribal contact and review will be an element discussed at the contract post-award meeting.

The contractor shall make recommendations in an appendix for further cultural resources research at the park such as special history studies, updated park administrative history, ethnographic studies, additional cultural landscape reports, etc.

III. General Proposal Outlines

The prospective contractor must formulate a study proposal in response to this scope of work.

The proposal must describe in detail the investigator’s research strategy, qualifications of personnel responsible for completion of the study, discussion of accomplishing past research project within contract terms, and an itemized cost estimate. Minimally, the study must address the topics discussed in Section III, above.

The proposal will consist of:

A. Research strategy

1. A description of the methods, techniques, and procedures of research, including a summary of all repositories and other sources of information to be used.

2. A schedule for submittal of quarterly reports, a detailed Historic Resource Study outline, first drafts for National Park Service review, final review drafts, and, following approval by the Regional Director, 100 off-set printed and perfect-bound copies.

B. Personnel qualifications

1. The Principal Investigator

The Principal Investigator (PI) is responsible for all aspects of the proposed study. The PI must have, at minimum, a Master of Arts degree in United States History or Public History from an accredited university. Degrees in fields other than history will not be accepted.

The PI shall have a publication record demonstrating a professional level of research, analysis, and complex historical report preparation. It is expected that the publication record will reflect previous experience on historical topics enumerated above, education and experience beyond that of a project historian, and a good understanding of research methodology. Previous experience also entails completing contract history studies within the scope and schedule of federal government contracts and include contact information of the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

2. Project Historian(s)

Although the overall research design, guidance, and responsibility for the completed study lies with the Principal Investigator, the PI may utilize the assistance of project historians (PH) to accomplish the research. The minimum requirements for a PH are a Master of Arts degree in United States History or Public History from an accredited college or university, with a subsequent record of research and publication.

3. Standards for consultants

Personnel hired or subcontracted for their special knowledge and expertise must carry academic and experiential qualifications in their particular area of expertise. Such qualifications are to be documented by means of vitae attachments to the proposal or submitted at a later date if the consultant has not been identified at the time of the proposal.

C. Estimated price

The prospective contractor must submit a price estimate including the following items:

1. Personnel services

a. Principal Investigator

b. Other personnel

c. Miscellaneous personal expenses

2. Supplies and equipment

3. Travel

4. Price of analysis and report preparation

5. Overhead (if applicable)

6. Other expenses

7. Total price

Partial payments up to 75 percent of the contract price may be made. Quarterly progress reports are required to demonstrate work accomplished. Additionally, invoices must include a description of all charges being invoiced for. Failure to meet the agreed upon work schedule without satisfactory reasons may result in termination of the contract. A 1-day post-award “kickoff” meeting shall take place at Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site within 30 days of award via the Microsoft Teams application.

Salary levels are governed by the current base salary rate for the individual when not otherwise employed by the research project (41 CFR 1-15.309:7). Quotes will be submitted electronically.

Considerable care should be exercised in the budget justification to allow an opportunity to assess the reasonableness of the proposed charges. The budget will include a work schedule diagramming the duration of field and archival work outlined in the research strategy section of the proposal.

IV. Additional Contract Requirements

N/A

A. General provisions

Prospective contractors should note that the research design submitted by the contractor becomes a binding element of the contract. The research performed and reported must meet the minimal requirements.

B. Report standards/format and submission schedule

The final report will be in Microsoft Word (latest version) and include the information required in the specifications listed in Section II, above. It must be on 8-1/2 by 11-inch white paper. All pages must be numbered. All final published copies shall use archival bond. Copies of photographs (screened for reproduction clarity), maps, drawings, and text must be clean, clear, and legible. The format must comply with the current edition of the Chicago Manual of Style.

The final report shall be Section 508 compliant. In addition, all reports must contain the following:

1. Title page listing the name of the Principal Investigator. If the report is authored by someone other than the PI, the title page must identify the author(s) and bear the inscription, “Prepared under the supervision of (name), Principal Investigator.”

The title page shall also include signature and date lines for three approving officials in the following order: Recommended/Superintendent, Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site /Date;

Concurred, Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources/Date; and Approved/Regional Director/Date.

2. Revised National Register nomination now being prepared shall appear as an Appendix in the

HRS.

3. Five (5) hard copies of the draft report (two to the COR and three to the park) and a digital PDF shall be submitted by the date agreed upon by the contractor and NPS. The draft will be typed, double-spaced, with each line of text numbered on the left margin of each page of text, and shall include all maps, graphics, footnotes, and appendices (including cultural resource base maps) to be included in the final report. The draft report will not be reviewed unless all of these materials are submitted. The contractor shall have the draft material proofread by a professional editor prior to submitting it to the National Park Service for review. Should a substantial number (i.e., more than 50) of editorial errors be found so as to detract reviewers from concentrating on content concerns, the review document shall be returned as non-responsive to the contractor for correction prior to re-submittal—at no additional expense to the National Park Service. The draft will be reviewed by the National Park Service for contract sufficiency and professional quality. Within 45 days of receipt by NPS, the draft will be reviewed and the contractor will be notified when review comments will be transmitted. During the period of revision of the draft, the contractor will consult with the COR to ensure the satisfactory resolution of review comments.

4. Five (5) hard copies of the final draft report (two to the COR and three to the park) and a digital PDF addressing and incorporating NPS review comments shall be submitted prior to printing the final document. It will conform to the same standards as the draft material except the line-numbering of text in the left margins shall be removed. The final text may also be single-spaced and formatted in final pre-publication format. The contractor will design appropriate title/approval page and cover art/graphics for the camera-ready final document including the official National Park Service arrowhead logo and devise a descriptive title, leaving “Historic Resource Study, Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site” as its subtitle. Printing on the document’s spine will include the title, author(s), National Park Service, and year of publication. Graphic standards shall conform to the National Park Service’s Graphic Guidelines available online at http://www.graphics.nps.gov . Within 60 days of NPS acceptance of the final draft (indicated by the three required signatures specified above), the contractor will prepare and incorporate an Index into the HRS and furnish 100 separately bound copies of the report as well as a CD-ROM containing the final document in WORD (latest format). The CD-ROM will be used to upload the Historic Resource Study to the National Park Service’s website. The camera-ready final document used for publication will also be submitted at the same time to NPS. Estimated length of the final document is 250 to 350 pages, including appendices, and shall consist of at least eight chapters. All press photographic and plate material used to reproduce the final document is the property of the National Park Service and may be used to produce additional copies in the future.

C. Schedule

From the date of contract award, the submission schedule shall be as follows:

Contract award is anticipated to occur prior to September 30, 2025. The period of performance begins when the contract award is made. Preliminary historical research begins, and the Principal Investigator shall contact the COR to schedule a post-award meeting within 30 days of contract award.

Historic Resource Study outline and bibliography are submitted for National Park Service review with the required line-numbering in the left margins by seven months after contract award.

The outline shall feature descriptions of each chapter containing sufficient detail to demonstrate the complete range of topics and themes to be discussed as well as chronological periods and events. The National Park Service will provide review comments on these products to the PI within 45 days. The PI shall make necessary revisions and re-submit the final chapter outline to the National Park Service within 30 days. A longer review period may be required for review and comment by Affiliated Tribes and require adjustment of the contract performance schedule.

By twenty months after contract award, historical research and writing is completed; the completed Historic Resource Study (including appendices) is submitted for 45-day National Park Service review and comment.

Principal Investigator resubmits completed Historic Resource Study in final form, completed with cover graphics and an Index. Historic Resource Study is approved by Regional Director (with all required signatures), and 100 copies are off-set printed and perfect-bound and 15 are delivered to the COR and 85 are delivered to the park by twenty-four months after contract award.

Standards for the published final product are as follows: The cover stock shall be Hammermill CopyPlus (67 lb.), with a pH of 6.8 or higher or its equivalent. Bound copies shall be on PermaDur Bond (20 lb., long grain) archival bond with a pH of 8.5. The Historic Resource Study shall be perfect-bound with required printing on the spine. Plastic-comb binding is not permitted. All costs related to report production, duplication, binding, office supplies, word processing, disk copies, and related production expenses are the Contractor’s responsibility.

V. Endorsement

Proposals submitted for consideration must bear the endorsement, by means of signatures, of the proposed Principal Investigator. If the proposal is submitted by an organization it must bear the endorsement of both the Principal Investigator and a representative of the organization who is empowered to commit the organization to such an undertaking.

VI. Evaluation of proposals

Responses to the Scope of Work will be evaluated by at least one National Park Service historian.

Each proposer must submit a formal written proposal. The technical portion of the proposal will be the most important single consideration in the award of the contract, and should, therefore, be as complete as possible.

The merits of each proposal will be carefully evaluated in terms of the requirements of this Scope of Work and in context with the other proposals under consideration. A proposal that does no more than reiterate the information contained in this Scope of Work will be considered a non-responsive offer.

The National Park Service will evaluate each proposal on the following criteria:

A. Personal experience and qualifications. A resume of the background, skills, and experience of each individual who will work on the project and a precise definition of his/her role must be included. The experience of the Principal Investigator in organizing and conducting similar studies will be of particular interest; however, the experience and background of all project personnel involved in the preparation of the report will be weighed.

B. Individual or institutional experience. A statement which demonstrates the prospective contractor’s ability to complete the project, as specified.

C. Research strategy. A statement describing how the prospective contractor will organize, manage, execute, and evaluate the project. Of particular interest is the identification of repositories and other information sources to be searched.

D. Previous experience and past performance on similar projects resembling an NPS Historic Resource Study. The proposal should demonstrate the ability of the prospective contractor to produce a complex, high-quality historical report and to meet deadlines. Specific examples of past contract work and how it conformed to contract scope and schedule will be included, as well as contact information for the past COR.

E. Price estimate. A statement of pricing reflecting reasonable and cost-efficient approaches to the proposed program. The estimate should reflect the best technical proposal at the most favorable price that the proposer can offer the government.

VII. Additional Contract Requirements

A. The PI shall be responsible for taking minutes of all meetings held with the Contracting Officer and/or COR in regard to substantive contract issues. Minutes of such meetings shall be circulated within 10 days to the Contracting Officer and COR for review and approval.

B. The PI shall be responsible for determining specific submission deadlines outlined above for all specified components. These calendar deadlines will be determined at a required post-award “kickoff” meeting.

C. Disposition of data: All data uncovered during the course of this study are the property of the United States Government. At the conclusion of research and prior to final payment, all notes, records, maps, drawings, photographs, negatives, slides, and other data acquired during the course of this study shall be submitted to the COR.

D. Submission of quarterly progress reports: Quarterly progress reports shall be submitted to the COR which demonstrate work accomplished. Quarterly reports shall be a briefing sent by email and shall include, at minimum, a narrative discussion of repositories visited; source materials gathered; identification of deficiencies in data; the status on completion of chapters and appendix materials; and an assessment of how work performed meets the negotiated work schedule; the percent of HRS completion; and a detailed discussion of any anticipated problems which may hinder completion of future work. Failure to meet the agreed upon work schedule without satisfactory reasons may result in termination of the contract.

When appropriate, completed sections of the draft work shall be submitted in support of the progress achieved to date. Review and final products will be submitted to: Cultural Resources, Park History Program, Attention: Contracting Officer’s Representative (name provided at the time of award), National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

E. Payment

The PI will be reimbursed as actual travel costs are incurred. Payment shall be made in increments of 25% of overall contract award. As 25% of work is performed and approved, payment shall be made (prorated to reflect deduction of travel reimbursements). The final 25% payment will be made when all products and research materials are submitted in final form to the National Park Service. Invoices may be submitted up to once per month (30 days), or less often, following the invoicing instructions provided at the time of award.