Updated Statement of Work_Tactiles_Clean Copy.pdf

Updated Statement of Work (SOW) – Tactile Project for

Exhibition Design, Fabrication, and Installation Services for Interactive Educational Exhibits

1. Purpose The purpose of this contract is to design, fabricate, install, and commission three interactive educational exhibits for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—Innovation Center. The exhibits shall provide engaging, tactile, and historically accurate learning experiences for middle and high school students, supporting the Innovation Center's educational mission of making complex historical and scientific concepts accessible through hands-on discovery.

2. Background The Innovation Center serves middle and high school students through interactive educational exhibits that emphasize physical interaction, mechanical engagement, and hands-on learning over screen-based interactions. Consistent with this approach, the three exhibits covered by this SOW are intentionally designed to be low-tech, tactile, and durable.

While limited stand-alone electronic components may be incorporated where necessary to support the visitor experience, none of the exhibits or associated systems shall require or permit connection to a network or internet service. All interactive components shall operate independently without network connectivity.

The three exhibits are:

• Exhibit 1 – Morse Code Experience: An interactive exhibit located within a hallway that allows students to send Morse code messages to one another across a distance using physical transmitters and receivers, demonstrating the principles of coded communication.

• Exhibit 2 – NASA Materials Experience: An interactive exhibit allowing students to explore materials historically used in NASA spacesuits through physical samples, interpretive information, and a stand-alone scenario-based question interactive.

• Exhibit 3 – Suffrage Voting Booth: A historically appropriate voting booth representative of the early women's suffrage era, allowing students to cast votes on historical issues of the period and receive a commemorative item upon completion.

3. Scope of Work The Contractor shall provide all labor, supervision, project management, exhibit design, engineering, fabrication, procurement, installation, testing, commissioning, documentation, and coordination necessary to deliver three complete, operational museum-quality interactive exhibits.

3.1 Exhibit 1 – Morse Code Experience

Design and fabricate an interactive exhibit located within a hallway introducing visitors to Morse code communication. The exhibit shall allow students to send Morse code messages to one another across a distance using physical transmitters and receivers located within the exhibit space, encouraging collaboration while demonstrating the principles of coded communication.

The exhibit shall be engaging, intuitive, and durable, suitable for repeated use by school groups.

The mock trial is an interactive courtroom experience based on an actual 1886 patent dispute between inventors Granville T. Woods and Lucius J. Phelps. Students take on the roles of the judge, attorneys, inventors, witnesses, bailiff, and jurors as they consider competing claims to an invention that allowed moving trains to communicate with one another and with train stations.

Through testimony, evidence, objections, and jury deliberation, students explore patent law, technological innovation, and the historical barriers Woods faced as an African American inventor.

Morse code is introduced near the beginning of the experience to help students understand the communication technology at the heart of the dispute. Students learn how a traditional telegraph transmitted information through electrical signals represented by dots and dashes, including how short and long presses corresponded to those signals, and then work through several Morse code examples themselves. This provides important context for understanding the inventors’ challenge: adapting telegraph technology so messages could be transmitted to and from moving trains without a physical wire connecting the train to the station. Morse code therefore serves as a hands-on entry point into the underlying technology that students later evaluate as evidence during the trial.

3.2 Exhibit 2 – NASA Materials Experience

Design and fabricate an interactive exhibit allowing students to explore materials historically used in NASA spacesuits. The exhibit shall include:

• Physical samples of various spacesuit materials that visitors may safely touch.

• Interpretive information explaining why each material was selected for its intended purpose.

• A stand-alone interactive component presenting scenario-based questions.

• Physical buttons or similar controls allowing visitors to select the material they believe best answers each question.

• Immediate feedback indicating whether the selection is correct.

• Educational content explaining the correct answer and providing an interesting fact about the material.

The interactive system shall function independently without requiring any network connectivity.

Spacesuit materials and content related to the materials, as well as the questions and answers, will be provided by the Court.

3.3 Exhibit 3 – Suffrage Voting Booth

Design and fabricate a historically appropriate voting booth representative of the early women's suffrage era. The exhibit shall allow students to cast votes on historical issues that early women voters may have encountered, such as Prohibition and other issues of the period; these issues will be supplied by the Court.

Upon completion of the voting experience, the exhibit shall dispense either:

• A commemorative "Votes for Women" button; or

• An "I Voted" sticker.

The Contractor shall recommend and provide a reliable, refillable dispensing mechanism suitable for continuous museum operation. The exhibit should balance historical authenticity with durability, accessibility, ease of maintenance, and visitor engagement.

3.4 Design Requirements

The Contractor shall develop exhibit concepts that:

• Appeal to middle and high school audiences.

• Encourage active participation and hands-on discovery.

• Promote curiosity, collaboration, and critical thinking.

• Support educational objectives through engaging storytelling.

• Utilize durable museum-quality materials.

• Minimize long-term maintenance requirements.

• Emphasize tactile and mechanical interaction over screen-based experiences.

• Incorporate only stand-alone electronic components where necessary.

• Require no network or internet connectivity.

• Comply with applicable accessibility, life safety, and building requirements.

• Coordinate closely with Government staff throughout the design review process.

3.5 Fabrication and Installation Requirements

The Contractor shall:

• Fabricate all exhibit components in accordance with the approved designs.

• Coordinate fabrication with the Exhibition Design Firm throughout the project (where a subcontracting arrangement is used).

• Procure all required materials and equipment.

• Deliver and install all exhibit components.

• Conduct operational testing.

• Commission all exhibits.

• Train Government personnel on routine operation and maintenance.

• Correct deficiencies identified during acceptance testing.

• Provide all warranties and closeout documentation.

• Coordinate with the Court's ITO department for verification and approval of any AV integration or electronic components.

3.6 Period of Performance

The Contractor shall complete all required work within seven (7) months after receipt of the Notice to Proceed.

3.7 Coordination

The Contractor shall coordinate regularly with Government representatives throughout design, fabrication, installation, testing, and final acceptance to ensure all work meets project objectives.

4. Deliverables At a minimum, the Contractor shall provide:

1. Exhibit concept designs

2. Interpretive design package

3. Educational content recommendations

4. Preliminary and final exhibit drawings

5. Material and finish selections

6. Fabrication drawings

7. Prototype samples or mock-ups, if requested

8. Project schedule

9. Regular progress meeting minutes/reports

10. Installation plan

11. Testing and commissioning documentation

12. Operations and maintenance manuals

13. Warranty documentation

14. Final as-built documentation

4.1 Deliverables Table

Due dates are expressed relative to Notice to Proceed (NTP) and assume a seven (7)-month period of performance. The Contractor shall propose a detailed schedule under Volume 1, Management Plan that may refine these dates, subject to Government approval, provided the overall seven-month period of performance is maintained.

# Deliverable Measurement Standard Expected Due Date

1 Project schedule (baseline)

Government acceptance; schedule reflects all milestones in this table and demonstrates completion within 7 months

NTP + 2 weeks

Exhibit concept designs (all 3 exhibits)

Government written approval of concept design package prior to proceeding to preliminary drawings; concepts address all functional, educational, and interpretive requirements in Section 3

NTP + 3 weeks

3 Interpretive design package

Government approval; package clearly ties interpretive content/storytelling to educational objectives for each exhibit

NTP + 5 weeks

4 Educational content recommendations

Government approval; recommendations align with Court-supplied source material (spacesuit materials/Q&A, suffrage-era voting issues)

NTP + 5 weeks

5 Preliminary exhibit drawings

Government written approval; drawings sufficiently detailed to support cost/constructability review

NTP + 7 weeks

6 Material and finish selections

Government approval; selections meet durability, accessibility, and museum-quality standards in Section 3.4

NTP + 7 weeks

# Deliverable Measurement Standard Expected Due Date

7 Final exhibit drawings

Government written approval; drawings incorporate all preliminary review comments and are approved for fabrication

NTP + 10

weeks

8 Fabrication drawings Government approval; drawings sufficient for fabrication without further design clarification

NTP + 10

weeks

Prototype samples or mock-ups (if requested)

Government acceptance; sample/mock-up demonstrates function, durability, and design intent prior to full fabrication

NTP + 12

weeks

10 Installation plan Government approval; plan addresses site logistics, sequencing, safety, and coordination with Court ITO department

NTP + 16

weeks

11 Complete Fabrication (all 3 exhibits)

Internal Contractor QC sign-off; components conform to approved fabrication drawings

NTP + 22

weeks

12 Delivery and installation complete

All exhibits physically installed at designated locations, ready for testing

NTP + 25

weeks

Testing and commissioning documentation

Successful completion of operational testing with no unresolved critical deficiencies;

documentation signed off by Government representative

NTP + 27

weeks

14 Final as-built documentation

Government acceptance; as-builts accurately reflect final installed condition of all 3 exhibits

NTP + 30

weeks (final month)

15 Final acceptance / project closeout

Government written final acceptance of all 3 exhibits as fully operational and compliant with SOW requirements

NTP + 7

months (project completion)

4.2 Place of Performance: 717 Madison Pl, N.W, Washington, D.C 20439

4.3 Work Hours: 8am-5pm, not including court week (Court week is normally the first week of the month).

4.4 Security/Access Requirements: Please see Attachment E.

5. Instructions to Offerors

5.1 Pre-Proposal Conference and Site Visit.

No pre-proposal conference will be conducted. However, interested offeror may request a site visit prior to proposal submission to familiarize themselves with the exhibit spaces, existing conditions, project objectives, and opportunities for questions and clarification. Attendance is strongly encouraged. Offerors should use this opportunity to assess field conditions, existing infrastructure, access constraints, and any coordination needed with the Court's ITO department, as no allowance will be made for a lack of familiarity with site conditions after award.

A site visit has been scheduled on August 7, 2026 at 10:00 am at the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), The Innovation Center, 717 Madison Pl, N.W, 20439. To confirm your attendance, you must submit an email to: pcs@cafc.uscourts.gov with the subject line:

“Site Visit Attendance Confirmation, RFQ No. _______and RFQ Title_________.” The request must clearly indicate the vendor’s name and the name(s) of the person that will conduct the site visit.

5.2 Contracting Arrangement.

The Government anticipates that full implementation of this project may require both exhibition design expertise and exhibit fabrication/installation expertise, which may not reside within a single firm. Accordingly, the Government intends to award one contract, and anticipates that the awardee may be structured as either:

• A single firm possessing both in-house design and fabrication/installation capabilities; or

• A prime contractor and subcontractor arrangement, in which one firm serves as the

Exhibition Design Firm responsible for conceptual, educational, and interpretive design, and a second firm serves as the Fabrication and Installation Firm responsible for fabrication, procurement, delivery, installation, testing, and commissioning.

Regardless of contracting structure, the prime Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring close collaboration between the design and fabrication/installation functions throughout all project phases, and for ensuring the finished exhibits faithfully reflect the approved design intent while meeting all functional, safety, accessibility, durability, and maintenance requirements.

5.3 Proposal Format and Content.

Proposals shall be organized into the following volumes/sections so that the Government can evaluate each factor discretely:

1. Volume 1 – Technical Proposal

Section I – Technical Approach.

Offerors shall describe their proposed approach to exhibit design, interpretation, educational experience and visitor engagement, and fabrication, installation, durability, and maintainability, addressing each of the three exhibits individually. This section shall be organized under the following sub-headings, corresponding to the sub-factors in Section 6, Factor 1:

mailto:pcs@cafc.uscourts.gov

1. Design.

Offerors shall submit:

• The offeror's interpretive planning and storytelling methodology, and its process for transforming exhibit concepts into engaging, age-appropriate visitor experiences.

• A description of how the design will encourage active participation, accommodate varied learning styles, and present historical/scientific content in a way that promotes curiosity, discovery, collaboration, and critical thinking.

• A description of proposed materials, fabrication methods, and quality control procedures, and how the exhibits will be maintained for long-term, high-volume public use.

• A discussion of how the offeror will ensure that fabricated exhibits faithfully reflect approved design intent, including how the design function and the fabrication/installation function will coordinate (whether performed by one firm or through a prime/subcontractor arrangement).

• References to prior educational exhibit projects that illustrate the proposed approach, where applicable.

2. Fabrication and Installation.

• A description of proposed materials, fabrication methods, and quality control procedures, and how the exhibits will be maintained for long-term, high-volume public use.

• A discussion of the reliability approach for mechanical and stand-alone electronic interactive components.

• A discussion of how the offeror will ensure that fabricated exhibits faithfully reflect approved design intent, including how the design function and the fabrication/installation function will coordinate (whether performed by one firm or through a prime/subcontractor arrangement).

• References to prior fabrication/installation projects that illustrate the proposed approach, where applicable.

3. Optional Enhancements

Any proposed optional alternative concepts or enhancements (see Section 5.5 and Section 6, Factor 1), described below.

Alternative concepts shall:

• Build upon the base proposal and provide additional educational value, visitor engagement, durability, or interpretive impact.

• Clearly describe the enhancement and its benefits.

• Identify any changes to materials, fabrication methods, technology, or visitor experience.

• Be presented as **optional enhancements** that the Government may elect to include or exclude at the time of award.

For each proposed alternative, the offeror shall provide:

• A description of the enhancement.

• The rationale and anticipated visitor benefit.

• Any schedule impacts, if applicable.

Examples of optional enhancements may include, but are not limited to:

• An enhanced Morse Code experience incorporating additional interactive or mechanical features beyond the minimum requirements.

• Alternative methods of presenting the NASA materials challenge that provide increased educational engagement.

• Enhanced fabrication details or interpretive features within the Suffrage Voting Booth experience.

Section II – Corporate Experience and Past Performance.

This section shall be organized under the following sub-headings, corresponding to the sub-factors in Section 6, Factor 2:

1. Corporate Experience.

Offerors shall submit:

• Have a minimum of three (3) years of demonstrated corporate experience in exhibit design, fabrication, and installation (This experience can be for the prime or sub-contractor).

• Demonstrate successful completion of comparable museum, educational, or interpretive exhibit projects.

• Possess in-house capabilities or established partnerships for exhibit design, fabrication, installation, and project management.

• Demonstrate experience developing durable, hands-on interactive exhibits intended for high-volume public use.

• Demonstrate the ability to complete the project within the required period.

• A narrative summary of the firm's (and, if applicable, subcontractor's) relevant corporate experience, including at least seven years designing, fabricating, and/or installing museum exhibits, interpretive environments, visitor centers, science centers, children's museums, educational exhibits, or projects of similar scope and complexity.

• Supporting photographs or renderings for each referenced project, where available.

2. Past Performance.

• A completed Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment A, below) for each of a minimum of three (3) completed projects performed within the past five (5) years that are similar in scope, complexity, and educational intent. At least one submitted project should reflect a design-firm/fabrication-firm collaboration if the offeror is proposing a subcontracting arrangement. (This experience can be for the prime or sub-contractor).

• Written consent for the Government to contact the client point of contact listed on each Past Performance Information Sheet.

The Government reserves the right to verify all submitted experience and past performance references and may contact references directly.

Section III – Management Approach and Staffing Plan.

1. Management Approach

• A detailed project schedule demonstrating completion of all work within the required seven (7) months from Notice to Proceed, showing major milestones for design development, Government review/approval, fabrication, delivery, installation, testing, commissioning, and training, consistent with the Deliverables Table in Section 4.1.

• A description of the offeror's project organization, including how the exhibition design function and fabrication/installation function will be coordinated and managed (whether in-house or via a prime/subcontractor arrangement), lines of communication with Government representatives, the design review and approval process, and quality assurance/quality control procedures.

• A risk management approach identifying anticipated project risks (e.g., material lead times, design approval delays, coordination with the Court's ITO department) and proposed mitigation strategies.

2. Staffing Plan

• Identification of proposed key personnel — at minimum a Project Manager, Lead Exhibit Designer, Fabrication Manager, and Installation Supervisor — including resumes, qualifications, certifications, and relevant project experience for each, and each individual's role and percentage of time committed to this project.

Volume 2 – Price Proposal

Please utilize the price sheet template to ensure consistency across Offerors (see Attachment B).

Offerors shall submit:

1. Base Proposal

• A complete MS Excel price proposal for the base solution described in the offeror's technical proposal, broken out by exhibit (Morse Code Experience, NASA Materials Experience, Suffrage Voting Booth) and by major cost element (design, fabrication, materials, installation, testing/commissioning, training, project management, and any other applicable elements).

• Price narrative with sufficient detail to allow the Government to assess price reasonableness.

• Where enhancements are proposed that exceed the Rough Order of Magnitude, the proposal should have a base proposal within the ROM and costs that exceed the

ROM/base requirements should be priced as an option per exhibit. The Government may exercise options at its discretion.

2. Enhanced Proposal (Option) Offerors may submit priced alternative concepts or enhancements for one or more exhibits.

Alternative concepts shall build upon the base proposal.

• Separate, itemized pricing for any proposed optional alternative concepts or enhancements, clearly tied to the narrative description provided in Volume 1, Section I.

• Price narrative on each enhancement and its benefits.

To be considered for award, the quote must be valid for at least 30 days.

5.5 Submission Instructions

Offerors must clearly indicate the contractor’s name, RFQ # and Title in the email subject line with separated technical and price proposals. The attachments must be clearly labelled e.g.

Technical Proposal, Price Proposal, Annex, Attachment, etc. This can be submitted via one email or separate emails.

The quotations must be submitted by the deadline specified on the cover page/SF-18. The deadline to receive questions in connection with this RFQ is August 14, 2026. Responses to questions received, if applicable, will be answered via an RFQ amendment.

Quotes must be submitted electronically to : pcs@cafc.uscourts.gov with the subject line:

“Vendor Name, RFQ No. _______and RFQ Title_________”

Award is anticipated to be made by September 30, 2026 and notice to proceed (NTP) issued 2 weeks after award. Any shifts in timelines will be communicated as appropriate.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Factors 1 through 3 are listed in descending order of importance and, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4. Sub-factors are of equal importance unless otherwise specified.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Sub-factor 1: Design. The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror's understanding of project objectives and the comprehensiveness of its exhibit design, interpretation, educational engagement, including:

• Interpretive planning, storytelling approach, and integration of historical accuracy with visitor engagement.

• Creative exhibit design methodology and design development process from concept to final approval.

• How design will encourage active participation, tactile/hands-on learning, and age-appropriate presentation of historical and scientific concepts.

mailto:pcs@cafc.uscourts.gov

• The soundness of the approach to coordination between the Government, design and fabrication/installation functions.

Sub-factor 2: Fabrication and Installation. The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror's fabrication and installation such as durability, and maintainability, including:

• Reliability of mechanical and stand-alone electronic interactive components.

• Fabrication methods and quality control procedures to fabricate exhibits consistent with approved design intent.

• Selection of durable, museum-quality materials and reliability of mechanical/stand-alone electronic components.

• The soundness of the approach to coordination between the design and fabrication/installation functions, including any proposed prime/subcontractor arrangement.

Sub-factor 3: Enhancements (Optional). As applicable, the Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror’s proposed optional enhancements, including:

• An enhanced Morse Code experience incorporating additional interactive or mechanical features beyond the minimum requirements.

• Alternative methods of presenting the NASA materials challenge that provide increased educational engagement.

• Enhanced fabrication details or interpretive features within the Suffrage Voting Booth experience.

Factor 2 – Corporate Experience and Past Performance

Sub-factor 1: Corporate Experience. The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror's demonstrated corporate experience (minimum seven years) designing, fabricating, and installing museum exhibits, interpretive environments.

Sub-factor 2: Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror’s performance in terms of quality, innovation, craftsmanship, durability, visitor engagement, and successful completion of projects of similar scope or complexity.

The offerors shall submit Past Performance Information Sheet using Attachment A to provide evidence of corporate experience and past performance. The Government reserves the right to verify all submitted experience and past performance references.

Factor 3 – Management Approach and Staffing Plan

Sub-factor 1: Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror's project schedule and implementation plan, including:

• The credibility and detail of the project schedule and its demonstrated ability to complete all work within seven (7) months of Notice to Proceed.

• The soundness of the implementation plan, including project organization, coordination between design and fabrication functions, design review/approval process, quality assurance procedures, and risk management approach.

Sub-factor 2: Staffing Plan. The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror's proposed key personnel, including:

• The qualifications, certifications, and relevant experience of proposed key personnel (Project Manager, Lead Exhibit Designer, Fabrication Manager, and Installation Supervisor), and the adequacy of their proposed commitment to the project.

Factor 4 – Price Price will not be scored or rated but will be evaluated for reasonableness, completeness, and consistency with the offeror's proposed technical approach. The Government's rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate for this effort is not to exceed $200,000. The Government may consider proposals that exceed this ROM estimate where the offeror demonstrates that the additional cost is commensurate with and justified by its proposed technical approach. As indicated under technical approach instructions (see Factor 1), offerors may submit priced alternative concepts or enhancements for one or more exhibits. For each proposed alternative, the offeror shall submit an itemized price for the enhancement. $200,000 should be structured as the base proposal and any approaches that exceed $200,000 should be priced as an option.

7. Award Basis:

Award will be made using a best-value tradeoff considering the above listed evaluation factors.

The Government will evaluate optional enhancements independently from the base proposal and reserves the right not to select any optional enhancement. The Government may elect to award:

• The base proposal only;

• The base proposal with one or more optional enhancements; or

• Any combination of enhancements that is determined to represent the best overall value to the Government.

[End]