Amendment 0002 Updated Q and A under_RFQ CAFC26-0009.pdf

Attachment 1: Amendment Number 0002/RFQ CAFC26-0009 – Bridge to the Past

Questions and Answers

1. Number of exhibits in the deliverables table. Section 2 and Section 3 describe five exhibits, A through E. The Deliverables Table in Section 4.1 refers throughout to "all 3 exhibits" - see deliverables 2, 11, 12, and 14. Please confirm whether the deliverables table should read five exhibits, or whether the fabrication and installation deliverables are scoped to only three of the five because Exhibits B and D are existing installations receiving evaluation and integration rather than new fabrication. This changes the fabrication and installation line items materially.

Response: This RFQ section has been updated to read “all 5 exhibits.”

2. Educational content recommendations, deliverable 4. The measurement standard for deliverable 4 requires that recommendations "align with Court-supplied source material (spacesuit materials/Q&A, suffrage-era voting issues)." Neither spacesuit materials nor suffrage-era voting appears anywhere in the exhibit descriptions in Section 3, which cover Dolley Madison's Parlor, Paul Jennings, Murder at Lafayette Square, Secretary Seward, and the Witness Tree. Please confirm whether this line is carried over from another requirement, or whether there is additional Court-supplied source material on those two topics that offerors have not seen.

Response: This RFQ section has been corrected with applicable recommendations.

3. Fabrication scope. Section 3 assigns the Contractor exhibit design, digital media design, AV integration, installation, programming, and commissioning, and Section 3.9 refers separately to "exhibit fabricators" as a party the Contractor coordinates with.

Deliverable 11, however, is "Complete Fabrication (all 3 exhibits)" with Contractor QC sign-off. Please clarify whether physical fabrication of the dioramas and exhibit cases is within this contract's scope and price, or whether fabrication is a separate Government procurement that this Contractor coordinates but does not perform. This is the single largest open question in the pricing.

Response:

(i) This RFQ section has been corrected on the number of exhibits, see #1 above.

(ii) All costs for fabrication and drawings that relate to digital media and AV components are part of this RFQ. Physical backdrops and case components are separate. For example, if proposing a digital illustration, any costs associated with that fall under this project. The Court project designer contractor will handle physical fabrications and design (wall wraps, physical background graphics, etc. The designer will also be the lead on the overall vision of the space and work with the Bridge to the Past project contractor to ensure the physical and digital become one cohesive experience.

4. Section 3.4 reference in deliverable 6. Deliverable 6, material and finish selections, is measured against "durability, accessibility, and museum-quality standards in Section 3.4." Section 3.4 of the SOW is the Murder at Lafayette Square exhibit description and does not contain material standards. Please identify the correct reference.

Response: This RFQ section has been updated to remove deliverable 6 “Material and Finish selections” because it is not applicable under this RFQ. The deliverables numbering has been updated.

5. ROM estimate and the five-exhibit scope. Section 6, Factor 4 states a rough order of magnitude not to exceed $300,000. Read against a five-exhibit scope that includes projection mapping or holographic treatment for Exhibit A, comparable digital storytelling for Exhibit C, a camera-based interactive across three hallway walls for Exhibit E, plus hardware, installation, programming, commissioning, and a seven-month managed schedule, that figure is tight. Please confirm the ROM contemplates all five exhibits, and confirm the Government's guidance that proposals exceeding the ROM will be considered where the technical approach justifies it.

Response: Yes. Your understanding is correct. $300,000 is the base price proposal ceiling. Any approaches that exceed $300,000 should be priced as options per exhibit.

6. Witness Tree image handling. Exhibit E captures visitor photographs and incorporates them into a wall display. Please confirm the Government's requirements for how visitor images are stored, how long they persist on the display, whether any consent or signage mechanism is required, and whether images must be purged on a schedule. Section 5.3 requires that all interactive components operate without network connectivity, which implies local-only storage, and we want to price the retention and purge design correctly.

Response:

(a) There is no storage requirement. The picture will remain on the witness tree for a few hours (tours are usually up to 3 hours) and then be removed/purged at the end of the tour, manually if necessary. The requirement is to only have the images stay for a day and then switch to a screensaver type group of pictures so that consent is not an issue.

(b) No consent will be needed.

7. Court ITO coordination. Section 5.3 requires verification with the Court's ITO department that interactive components operate independently of the network.

Please confirm whether ITO review is a formal gate with its own approval milestone, and if so, where it falls in the deliverable schedule, so it can be reflected accurately in the seven-month project schedule.

Response: Coordination with ITO is within the 7-month project period. The ITO review is not currently established as a formal gate with its own approval milestone.

It is conducted as part of the due diligence process to ensure the Court’s technical and security requirements are met.

8. Exhibit D display procurement. Section 3.5 requires the Contractor to recommend and procure the display, media players, mounting, power distribution, cabling, and ventilation for the Seward exhibit. Please confirm whether the existing exhibit case dimensions and power provisions will be furnished as drawings before quotes are due, or whether offerors should base the Exhibit D price on observations from the August 10 site visit.

Response: New cases will be installed but will have a similar footprint to the ones that currently exist. Vendors are permitted to take measurements. Once case shop drawings are available, they will be shared with the successful vendor.

9. Past performance sheets and subcontractor projects. Section 5.3, Volume 1, Section II requires a minimum of three completed projects within the past five years.

Please confirm whether projects performed by a proposed AV Integration subcontractor may be submitted toward that minimum of three, and whether the Government will count a joint project performed by the Prime and the proposed subcontractor together as one reference or two.

Response:

(i) The subcontractor’s separate experience maybe counted towards the minimum of three projects.

(ii) If both the subcontractor and prime contractor worked on the same project, that will count as one project.

10. Period of performance start. Section 3.8 sets seven months from Notice to Proceed.

Please confirm the Government's anticipated award and Notice to Proceed dates, since equipment lead times for projection and display hardware are the principal schedule risk and the mitigation plan required under Factor 3 depends on when the clock starts.

Response: The anticipated award date is no later than September 30, 2026. The notice to proceed is anticipated 2 weeks from award date. If there are any shifts of timelines before award is made, vendors that submitted proposals will be notified.

11. Corporate experience gained on the institution side. Factor 2, Sub-factor 1 requires a minimum of three years serving as lead designer or Prime Contractor for museum exhibits, visitor centers, historic sites, or comparable interpretive environments including digital exhibit design and audio-visual integration. Please confirm whether experience gained by proposed key personnel on the institution side of comparable projects - for example, serving as head of production for a major museum and directing its digital exhibit and audio-visual programs - may be presented toward this factor, and whether the Government would prefer that experience documented in the Corporate Experience narrative, in the Staffing Plan resumes, or in both.

Response: No. Only relevant corporate experience should be provided. Any individual experience should be provided under staffing plan.

12. Past performance for projects led by key personnel in a prior role. Volume 1, Section II requires three completed projects within the past five years that are similar in scope and complexity, supported by Attachment A sheets with client point-of-contact consent. Please confirm whether the Government will accept Past Performance Information Sheets for projects completed within that window by proposed key personnel in a prior role at another organization, where the individual led the project but the offeror entity was not the contracting party. If such references are acceptable, please indicate how the Government would like that relationship identified on Attachment A so the submission is not read as claiming contract performance by the offeror.

Response: See response to question #11.

13. Please identify which concepts, graphics, layouts, scripts, and other design elements shown in Attachment C are approved and fixed, and which are conceptual and subject to further development. When will editable source files and final design standards be provided?

Response:

(a) All the supplied items in Attachment C “Additional Information” are conceptual and subject to change as plans are finalized. However, the concepts are meant to provide the future general direction. The concepts provided are not fixed. If the Government design contractor and digital media team come up with a design that is more cohesive for a physical and digital experience, that could be considered.

(b) The editable source files and final design standards will be provided to the successful vendor with advance notice subject to negotiation.

14. Amendment 0001 distinguishes digital media and AV fabrication from the separately contracted physical cases, backdrops, wall wraps, and background graphics. Could your team provide a responsibility matrix defining the remaining interfaces among this contractor, DesignMa, the physical exhibit fabricator, the Court, and Court ITO, including responsibility for mounting substrates, blocking, case openings, ventilation, electrical work, cable pathways, and final installation.

Response: Please see illustrative responsibility matrix as Attachment D.

15. What physical interventions are permitted in the exhibit areas, including anchors, wall or ceiling penetrations, cable routing, temporary or movable furnishings, lighting, cameras, and sensors? Who is responsible for restoration and any required building, fire/life-safety, or historic-preservation approvals?

Response:

(a) All the listed interventions are permitted in the exhibit areas, as deemed appropriate by the contractor.

(b) The contractor shall be responsible for restoration and any required approvals and shall coordinate with the Courts Facility Department.

16. For equipment located in the server room, will the Court provide racks or shelving, power, UPS, cooling, cable pathways, and physical security, or must these items be included in the contractor’s scope and price?

Response: Yes the Court will provide racks or shelving, power, UPS, cooling, cable pathways, and physical security.

17. Is it possible to provide a corrected final deliverables table? The updated SOW still includes “Material and finish selections,” duplicates Deliverable 6, and requires “Complete Fabrication (all 5 exhibits),” although Amendment 0001 states that material and finish selections were removed and that physical case and backdrop fabrication is under a separate contract.

Response: Page 9 under Section 4.1 “Deliverable Table”. There is no duplication.

Material and finish selection deliverable has a strike through to show changes made. A clean copy is added for reference.

18. In addition to the figures, historical research, and requested text identified in the updated deliverables table, please clarify the Court-furnished content package and delivery schedule, including approved scripts, images, media files, usage rights or releases, dialogue, and accessibility requirements. How many Government and design-team review cycles should be included for each deliverable?

Response:

(a) The Court will supply figures and historical research at the beginning of the project. Any additional information is needed will be sent to the Court team, and they will supply whatever is needed and within their ability within a week, unless it is final scripts or design, which will require two weeks to go through a more thorough review.

(b) Review cycles cannot be pre-determined in advance. This will vary depending on the content and quality of submission. The review may be done by the Government contracted designer, and/or the four members of the Innovation Center team. However, if applicable, the final stage will be reviewed by the Chief Judge. The review will vary on a case-by-case basis and in some cases may not require review by all parties.

19. What measurable criteria will govern testing and final acceptance for each exhibit, including image quality, audio levels, system response time, accessibility, visitor throughput, reliability, and operating duration?

Response: The Court has not established specific testing and acceptance criteria.

However, Vendors may suggest measurable criteria for Government’s consideration as part of its proposal, or this can be negotiated with the successful vendor subject to the Court’s approval.

20. Please identify the installation and post-installation requirements that must be priced, including permitted work hours, escorts or background checks, union or prevailing-wage requirements, warranty duration, maintenance-response expectations, spare equipment, software licensing, and ownership and turnover of source files and code.

Response: Vendors shall include pricing for the following installation and post-installation requirements:

(a) Work Hours. Please see Attachment E for general guidance. Any changes will be discussed with the successful vendor.

(b) Background checks/Access Requirements. Please see Attachment E.

(c) Warranty Duration. Not specified by the Court; must be proposed by the vendor consistent with industry standards for AV/digital exhibit installations.

(d) Maintenance Response Expectations. Not specified by the Court; must be proposed by the vendor consistent with industry standards

(e) General Wage Determination. See Attachment F, General Wage Determination, which governs applicable wage rates for this contract.

(f) Spare Equipment. The Government has no established list; vendors may propose spare equipment as an optional line item.

(g) Software Licensing. The Government has no established list, but the vendor may suggest subject to Court’s approval.

(h) Ownership and Turnover of source files and code. To be coordinated with the

Court's Information Technology Office (ITO) prior to final acceptance; vendor proposals should assume full turnover of source files and code to the Court upon project closeout.

21. For Witness Tree pricing and system-capacity planning, please confirm that the experience should accommodate approximately 40–65 children per tour, divided into two groups. Should the contractor also provide Court staff with controls to remove an individual image or manually purge all displayed images when necessary?

Response:

(a) This is confirmed. Each tour should accommodate 40-65 children

(b) Yes, the proposed solution should have the ability to remove an image and purge manually, if necessary. We would only require short term storage for the visiting images, but would like to have a sort of screensaver set of images so there is always something on the “trees.”

22. For the Paul Jennings exhibit, is the intent to retain the existing monitor unless the contractor recommends a smaller replacement that better fits the new exhibit case, with all media players, cabling, power distribution, ventilation, and other AV components concealed inside the case? What case dimensions and technical assumptions should be used for proposal pricing, and will material differences in the final post-award shop drawings permit an adjustment to price or schedule?

Response:

(a) The intent is to maintain the existing monitor. The Court may consider replacing the screen provided components are concealed inside the case provided the screen flushes to the wall. Any alternate solution should be priced as optional.

(b) Dimensions are: 93.5” W x 19” H x 12” D.

23. The SOW identifies Exhibits A through E, while the Deliverables Table refers in several places to “all 3 exhibits.” Please confirm which exhibits are subject to each deliverable and whether references to fabrication of three exhibits apply specifically to Exhibits A, C, and E.

Response: Please see response to questions #1 and 3.

24. Deliverable 4, “Educational Content Recommendations,” references “spacesuit materials/Q&A” and “suffrage-era voting issues.” Please confirm whether these references apply to this project. If so, please provide additional information regarding the associated content and requirements.

Response: Please see response to question #2.

25. Please clarify the division of responsibility for physical exhibit design and fabrication. Are preliminary exhibit drawings, final exhibit drawings, material and finish selections, and fabrication drawings intended to cover only digital/AV components, or is the Digital Exhibit Design Firm responsible for physical/scenic exhibit design and fabrication as well?

Response: They are only responsible for the those necessary for the digital/AV components. Physical design and fabrication is part of the already-awarded court designer scope.

Suggested language.

RFQ Section 3.9 has been updated to address this question.

26. What interpretive content and source materials will be provided by the Court at Notice to Proceed, including historical research, written content, scripts, photographs, illustrations, archival media, and other assets? To what extent is the Contractor expected to conduct original historical research and content development?

Response:

(a) At Notice to Proceed, the court will provide all historical research, photographs for this project. Illustrations will not be provided. Any archival material, pictures, or research needed that has not been supplied can be asked for and we will do our best to provide it.

(b) Extent of Research and Development. Any written content created will be reviewed by the Court to ensure reading level and accuracy of information.

27. Please clarify the scope and role of the Government’s project designer. What concept designs, artistic direction, drawings, or other design materials will be provided to the Contractor at Notice to Proceed, and which elements of the current design should be considered fixed versus open to development?

Response:

(a) The Government’s project designer will create the whole concept for the exhibit. Anything related to the overall experience of each case, how the ideas of the digital designer will fit into the overall theming, as well as the fabrication of all non-digital materials, are part of project designer’s role and scope.

(b) All digital designs and A/V components will be discussed with the project designer and the Court’s IT department before implementation and creation.

(c) Notice to Proceed.

(d) Elements of Current Design.

28. Please clarify responsibility for asset licensing, copyright permissions, image and archival-media clearances, talent releases, and other third-party rights required for digital media produced under the contract. Will the Court provide rights-cleared assets, or should the Contractor include licensing and rights-clearance costs in its proposal?

Response: The Court will provide rights-cleared images/content with appropriate copyright permissions. Any content provided by the contractor will need them as well, but will not be done by the Court.

Suggested language:

The Court will furnish rights-cleared images, archival media, and historical source content at Notice to Proceed, with all necessary copyright permissions already secured by the Court. Please also see updated made in RFQ Section 3 “Scope of Work”.

29. Can the Court provide available documentation of existing site conditions, including exhibit case dimensions, architectural drawings, power and data locations, mounting conditions, pathways, lighting conditions, and existing AV infrastructure?

Response:

(a) Interior Case Dimensions: 93.5” W x 19” H x 12” D

(b) Architectural drawings.

(c) Power and data locations, mounting conditions, pathways, lighting conditions, and existing AV infrastructure Kevin, not sure how much information you are able to provide for power/data locations.

30. If the Prime Contractor performs AV system design, engineering, programming, integration, testing, and commissioning in-house, may onsite installation labor be provided through a local installation subcontractor without that firm serving as the Prime Contractor’s principal AV Integration Firm?

Response: Vendors are at liberty to proposal solutions that best meet the requirements or the appropriate contractual arrangements. See also RFQ Section

5.2 “Contracting Arrangements.”

31. Please confirm that ongoing post-acceptance maintenance, technical support, software updates, and content updates are not included in the base contract beyond required training, documentation, and applicable equipment and workmanship warranties.

Response: Yes, that is correct.

32. The RFQ Instructions does not indicate to whom the proposal volumes should be submitted. Can you provide email where proposals should be submitted?

Response: RFQ section 5.5 has been updated with submission instructions.

33. I’m interested to submit a proposal to the Bridge to the Past Project - Digital Exhibit.

What exactly exists today?

Response: The cases are being redone as part of this project and are a separate already-awarded contract Vendors can assume the size of the cases will remain roughly the same, meaning the cases will not be significantly enlarged or shrunk to accommodate the experience. The Court currently has the Paul Jennings experience done but the sound/tv/mount can all be changed, if that is needed.

Suggested language RFQ Section 3.9 “Coordination” has been updated to address this question.

34. What can we modify?

Response: Cases are already awarded but the contractor for this award will work with the designer and case company to ensure case components work with the proposed design. Case expenses are not part of this bid.

Suggested language The physical exhibit cases have already been designed and are being fabricated under a separate, previously awarded contract with the Court's project designer.

This Contractor may not modify the exterior case frame or overall footprint — all four cases must retain a consistent appearance.

35. Are you expecting replacement or augmentation? Is your vision primarily to improve the content within the existing installations, or are you expecting substantial new display technology?

Response: The Court wants new display technology to enhance the experience.

The case size cannot change, but interior modifications can be made to allow ventilation and service access as well as accommodate the proposed technology. The wall is hollow so there is room to work above and below the case. The case frame needs to remain pretty much the same so all four cases match in appearance.

36. What content already exists?

Response: Please see Attachment C with video link for the Seward experience.

37. What are the actual stories?

Response: A detailed narrative summary for each exhibit — including key historical figures, events, and storylines — is provided in Attachment C.

38. Paul Jennings: Can we get access to the existing AI portrait system? What platform/model is powering it? Are you open to replacing both the underlying system and the physical presentation?”

Response:

The Court is not looking to replace either the underlying system or the physical presentation of the Paul Jennings portrait. The existing AI-enabled talking portrait will remain in service as described in the project materials. The goal is instead to enhance the experience by adding new digital features—specifically, elements such as people moving in the windows of the house and the ship moving in the waves—to enrich the storytelling and overall immersion without altering the core portrait system or its display.

39. Clarify the offline requirement. The RFQ says none of the exhibits may connect to a network or internet service. Is that an absolute requirement even for AI-powered experiences? Would an entirely locally hosted AI model running on an exhibit computer be acceptable?

Response: Yes, that is a requirement none of the exhibits my connect to the internet. Yes, a locally hosted AI model running on an exhibit computer is acceptable.

40. What do you dislike about the current experience.

Response: The Court is just getting started on this project under a separate contract and love the direction but wants to add some digital components to really enhance the experience and tell the story. The goal is for the Vendor under this project to work with the contracted designer to ensure a complete experience.

41. Clarify Witness Tree hardware expectations.

Response: The pictures shown are just early mock-ups. Our designer will be creating the experience but will work closely with the digital designer to ensure the look of the trees incorporates the tech options and ideas of the digital designer.

42. The SOW states that exhibit systems may not connect to a network or internet service. Please confirm whether isolated local communication between exhibit devices is permitted.

Response: Please response to question #39.

43. For the Witness Tree experience, please clarify requirements related to visitor photographs, including consent, privacy, image retention/deletion, moderation, and any restrictions on storing visitor-generated images.

Response: Please response to question #6.

44. We were wondering what the ages are of students visiting the exhibits and if you had exact measurements of the walls along the hallway.

Response:

(a) The Court serve middle and high school students.

(b) Measurements of the walls. Please see response to question #22.

45. Do the costs for purchasing the recommended hardware and AV elements need to be included in the 300K budget cap or are those hardware costs covered separately from this RFP?

Response: Yes, both AV and hardware should be included in the proposal. For example, the Seward display needs to be ordered custom to fit in the space.

46. How much flexibility is there to rethink the physical exhibit experience? Are we expected to work within the existing exhibit cases and floor plate, simply replacing or enhancing the digital media, or is there flexibility to modify the physical experience if that better supports the visitor experience?

Response: The physical exhibit cases and floor plate are fixed and are being fabricated under a separate, already-awarded contract with the Court's project designer. This Contractor's scope is limited to the digital and AV experience within and around those fixed physical elements. Vendors should design their technical approach around the existing case dimensions and floor plate as described in this RFQ and its attachments. Interior case modifications (e.g., for ventilation, service access, or technology accommodation) are permitted as described in the response to Question #15.

47. What assumptions were used to establish the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) budget? The current ROM appears low relative to the scope described. Was it based on previous projects, preliminary estimates, existing vendor input, or another methodology?

Response: The ROM was developed based on the Government's preliminary budgetary estimate for comparable AV integration scope and does not reflect a detailed vendor quote. Vendors are encouraged to propose the technical approach that best meets requirements and to price accordingly; proposals exceeding the ROM will be considered per Section 6, Factor 4.

48. What existing assets are already available? How much of the interpretive content, media, hardware, software, and exhibit infrastructure already exists, and what is expected to be reused versus newly developed?

Response: The Paul Jennings experience already exists as does the Seward experience. The case infrastructure is not part of this RFQ and has already been awarded under a separate contract. Final design of cases will be dependent on Government designer plan and the consultation with awardee of this contract. See also updated RFQ Section 3 “Scope of Work”.

49. Would CAFC consider a phased approach? Rather than moving directly into full implementation, would CAFC be open to an initial Concept Refinement & Discovery phase that would allow for:

o Full assessment and evaluation of the existing conditions and existing assets;

o validate what can realistically be reused;

o work with CAFC’s project designer to refine the visitor experience concepts;

o align project ambitions with available funding;

o produce a realistic implementation roadmap and budget for subsequent phases?

Response: The RFQ as structured contemplates a single seven-month period of performance inclusive of concept development through final acceptance (see Deliverable Table, Section 4.1). The Government is not restructuring the procurement into a separate discovery phase at this time. Offerors should incorporate concept refinement and discovery activities within the existing schedule under Deliverables 2–5 (Exhibit concept designs, interpretive design package, educational content recommendations, and preliminary drawings), all due within the first seven weeks of Notice to Proceed.

50. What does success look like for this project? Is success delivering the best possible experience within today's budget and existing infrastructure, or is the goal to create a foundation for a more ambitious digital storytelling experience that can evolve over time? If the answer is the latter, are you open to alternative schedule, budget, and contracting approaches?

Response: Success is defined as delivering a complete, fully operational, museum-quality digital exhibit experience across all five exhibits within the stated budget ceiling and seven-month period of performance, consistent with Section 1 (Purpose) and Section 6 (Evaluation Criteria) of this SOW. The Government is not proposing to alter the schedule, budget, or contracting structure at this time.

Offerors are encouraged to propose optional enhancements per Section 5.4 that could extend the experience in future phases, which the Government may consider for separate award at its discretion.

51. What existing assets are already available?

a. Regarding Attachment C posted to Sam.Gov on 8/11/26, are the graphics on Pages 15 and 16 (Dolly’s Parlor) and Page 23 (Lafayette Square) to be considered as the final image concept for these two exhibits or are they to serve as inspiration for what is still to be further developed?

b. Is there existing equipment and infrastructure that must be re-used/re-incorporated into the final solution(s)?

Response: See response to Question #27 — all concepts and graphics in Attachment C are conceptual and subject to further development; they are not fixed final designs. Regarding existing equipment/infrastructure: see response to Question #48 above for a by-exhibit breakdown of existing assets expected to be reused.

52. Does CAFC desire a single, centralized system to monitor, edit, change all five exhibits?

Response: A centralized management/monitoring system is not a current mandatory requirement of this SOW. Offerors may propose a centralized content management approach as part of their technical approach (Section 5.3, Volume 1, Section I) if it improves operational efficiency, provided it complies with the no-network/no-internet-connectivity requirement in Section 3.7 (i.e., any centralization must occur via local/offline means, such as a local server, rather than networked or cloud-based management).

53. Content Creation/Management. Will all graphical content be developed and maintained by CAFC and/or CAFC’s design consultant? What content management system does CAFC intend to utilize?

Response: Digital and AV content development is within this Contractor's scope per Section 3 of the SOW; the Court's separately-contracted project designer is responsible for physical/scenic design only (see response to Question #3). The Court has not designated a specific content management system; offerors may propose a CMS or content-update approach appropriate to a fully offline/non-networked environment as part of their technical approach.

54. Exhibit D – Secretary of State William H. Seward. Per the CAFC’s SOW, it appears the scope is limited to the procurement, installation and configuration of hardware only to support the existing digital experience. On what platform/CMS is this content running?

Response: The existing Seward exhibit content currently runs on a standalone media player. This information, along with existing shop drawings, will be shared with the successful vendor once available (see response to Question #8).

55. Are these type of large touch screen interactive monitor floor pole mounting systems acceptable for use in this space, as opposed to a more direct wall mounting systems ?

Response: Vendors are at liberty to propose the mounting solution that best fits the space and their technical approach, consistent with the response to Question #15, provided it does not require permanent modification to the case frame appearance across all four cases.

56. Are these types of digital interactive LED display panels acceptable for placement in the existing wall display nooks which would cover ¾ of each of the nooks, while still leaving ¼ of the space open for physical artifact display ?

Response: Please see response to question #55.

57. Would this type of high resolution LED video wall mounting bracket be acceptable for placing a digital canvas life size Historical interactive display and selfie station at the far end of the space ?

Response: Vendors may propose mounting systems, display technologies, flooring treatments, and lighting changes as part of their technical approach, subject to the physical-intervention parameters described in Question #15.

58. In regards to making the space a bit more museum galley like in both appearance and style:

(a) Could the existing very shiny terrazzo style flooring in the space be covered with a more up to date and warmer looking wooden style floor covering such as this ?

Response: See response to question #57 above.

(b) Could the ceiling tile and rail grid be painted flat black to reduce computer screen glare and create a much, much more dynamic and dramatic space for the project area ?

Response: See response to question #57 above.

(c) Could the existing ceiling lights be replaced with more modern indirect lighting units to give the space a softer and more controlled lighting pattern for the displays, and less glaring on all the interactive video Monitor equipment and systems.

Response: See response to question #57 above.

[End of Amendment Number 0002/RFQ CAFC26-0009]