STLI001-24-Amendment No.1 final.pdf

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 1

AMENDMENT NO. 1

SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24

Contents:

Service Responses to Offerors’ Questions on Solicitation Page 1 Service Amendments to Prospectus Documents Page 11

To: All Recipients of the Prospectus, CC-STLI001-24, to Provide Ferry Transportation and Related Services at Statue of Liberty National Monument and Ellis Island

In the Prospectus issued September 1, 2022, the National Park Service (“Service”) stated it would respond to questions about the Prospectus if submitted in writing and received by September 30, 2022. Questions were received timely, and the National Park Service responds to questions as described below.

In developing this Prospectus, the Service relied on the advice of consultants and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center. The reports, studies and documents provided to the Service by the Consultants and the Volpe Center are protected by the deliberative process privilege with respect to the Freedom of Information Act.

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). To the extent the Service divulges any information contained in those reports, studies and documents for the purpose of answering the questions submitted in relation to the Prospectus, such disclosure shall not be considered a waiver of the deliberative process privilege by the Service with respect to those reports, studies and documents as a whole, or to any other information contained therein.

Service Responses to Offerors’ Questions on Solicitation #: CC-STLI001-24

Glossary of terms used throughout this document.

Concessioner: refers to the new concessioner to be awarded the Draft Contract through this solicitation process.

Draft Contract: refers to the new concession contract to be awarded through this solicitation process (CC-STLI001- 24).

Offeror(s): refers to the entities that submit a proposal in response to the solicitation for the Draft Contract.

GENERAL

QUESTION 1. Questions and Responses. Will the 81 Questions and Answers set out in Appendix I, which were asked and answered in regard to the 2019 Prospectus for CC-STLI001-20, have the same force and effect as the Questions and Answers which are asked and answered in regards to the current Prospectus for CC-STLI001-24??

SERVICE RESPONSE:

To the extent that the questions and responses are still relevant and do not conflict with responses provided in this amendment or other future amendments to the STLI001-24 solicitation, the responses set out in Appendix I will have the same force and effect as the questions and responses provided in amendments to the STLI001-24 solicitation.

BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY

QUESTION 2. Statue of Liberty Museum (page 5). The Service opened the new Statue of Liberty Museum on Liberty Island in 2019. How many visitors enter the Statue of Liberty Museum on a daily basis now or in the pre-

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 2

Covid year? Do visitor volume and the time visitors spend in this attraction contribute to the volume needs or schedule needs for the Take Home service as it relates to Liberty Island?

SERVICE RESPONSE:

The Service does not have daily visitation statistics for the new museum on Liberty Island so it cannot comment on the Museum’s impact on take home service. The Service estimates 1/3 to 1/2 of visitors that disembark at Liberty Island visit the new museum daily.

QUESTION 2. Statue of Liberty Museum (page 5). Has visitors’ average duration of their stay on Liberty Island changed since the opening of the Statue of Liberty Museum? Please provide any data supporting the answer.

SERVICE RESPONSE:

The Service does not have statistics on the average length of stay for visitors on Liberty Island. The Service recommends an early ferry departure for visiting both islands. The Service estimates the average round trip from mainland embarkation point is typically 5 hours for both islands and typically 3 hours for a one island visit.

QUESTION 3. Statue of Liberty Museum (page 5). If visitors have been staying longer, will NPS reassess whether an increase in the maximum capacity of visitors on Liberty & Ellis Islands is warranted?

SERVICE RESPONSE:

The Service does not have statistics on the average length of stay for visitors on Liberty Island. With respect to island capacities, the Service makes such determinations based on many factors including but not limited to visitor safety, preservation of park resources, and the visitor experience.

QUESTION 4. Handling Fees (page 8). Since this Concessioner manages the collection of charges for the Audio Tour and Hard Hat Tour on behalf of Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island Foundation and Save Ellis Island, Inc., respectively, can the Service stipulate that when the Concessioner passes through the collected proceeds (reduced by NYC P&R or NJDEP license fees and reduced by “handling fees”), the amount passed through also would be reduced by sales taxes and credit card fees that the Concessioner must pay in making these collections?

SERVICE RESPONSE: No. The Concessioner will pass through Audio Tour proceeds to the Foundation monthly, net of a 3.5% handling fee the Concessioner retains and net of a percentage of proceeds to the City of New York and the State of New Jersey under the applicable terms of the Concessioner’s licenses with those entities.

QUESTION 5. Handling Fees (pages 8 and 21). Two parts of the Business Opportunity appear to be inconsistent regarding pass-throughs to Save Ellis Island, Inc. [emphasis added]:

For both the Audio Tour and Hard Hat Tour, pages 8-9 state that the Concessioner will pass through to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island Foundation and Save Ellis Island, Inc., respectively, the tour proceeds “net of a 3.5% handling fee the Concessioner retains and net of a percentage of proceeds to the City of New York and the State of New Jersey under the applicable terms of the Concessioner’s licenses with those entities.”

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 3

However, page 21 states, “The Audio Tour Handling Fee projection in Exhibit 5 assumes that all ferry passengers in 2024 pay $4.00 for the Audio Tour, and the Concessioner keeps 3.5% of this (14 cents per Audio Tour) as Handling Fee revenue. The remaining 96.5% is passed through to the Foundation.”

Can the Service please clarify the exact pass-through for these tours?

SERVICE RESPONSE: Page 21 of the business opportunity is amended to state “The remaining tour proceeds, net of a percentage of proceeds to the City of New York and the State of New Jersey under the applicable terms of the Concessioner’s licenses with those entities, is passed through to the Foundation” See below - Service Amendments to Prospectus Documents for Solicitation #: CC-STLI001-24.

QUESTION 6. Battery Park seawall project (page 11). Ferry throughput will continue to be substantially reduced due to the required use of a single slip during the NYC Parks large and extended reconstruction project of the Battery seawall and its environs. Further, with one slip available at the Battery, the time needed for the vessel sweeps by the USPP K9 unit for the morning service, Back Up vessels, and Take-Home vessels can delay ferry service and interfere with ferry schedules.

This is a NYC Parks project, and it already has been delayed from its original plans. Since reduced volume clearly will continue for some time, can the Service provide any assurances or guidance about the scope of further reductions to operations, or how long reduced operations may last under the new contract, so offerors can make appropriate adjustments to their revenue projections?

SERVICE RESPONSE: As stated in the Business Opportunity, Offerors should check The Battery Coastal Resilience site periodically for the project’s scope and timeline. See https://www1.nyc.gov/site/lmcr/progress/battery-coastal-resilience.page for updates.

QUESTION 7. Battery Park seawall project (page 11). Once the reconstruction of the Battery wharf is complete, will the new elevation of the esplanade impact the ability of passengers to safely board vessels in an ADA compliant manner? If any changes to the services provided by concessioner become necessary, how does NPS anticipate addressing such additional costs?

SERVICE RESPONSE: In response to the first part of the question, the Service, working with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center, has determined that passenger throughput will not be impacted by the Lower Manhattan Coastal Resiliency (LMCR) project, including accessibility. For the second part of the question, the Service is unable to determine what “changes to services” the question is referencing. The Service notes, as explained on Page 11 of the Business Opportunity, if the Service requires the Concessioner to move to another NPS-approved embarkation location in, adjoining, or in proximity to Battery Park, the Concessioner will bear its own costs for any such move.

QUESTION 8. Battery Park seawall project (page 11). In light of the City of New York’s plans to reconstruct the entire Battery wharf during the term of the next contract for Statue of Liberty / Ellis Island ferry services:

a) Will NPS consider an Offeror’s proposal to run this service from an alternate location in Manhattan during the period of any possible disruption?

b) How will the ferry operation at Battery Park need to be reconfigured during the reconstruction of the Battery Wharf?

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/lmcr/progress/battery-coastal-resilience.page

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 4

c) The plans for the reconstruction include elevating the wharf several feet. Has NPS considered how this would affect: (1) operations, (2) the Offeror’s responsibilities, (3) the Offeror’s capital investment in the docking facilities? Have these expenses been contemplated or included in the Business Opportunity?

SERVICE RESPONSE: The Concessioner is required to provide the passenger ferry service from Service-approved embarkation locations in, adjoining, or near Battery Park (Manhattan). The Service-approved embarkation location for Battery Park (Manhattan) is the Battery wharf managed by NYC Parks. The LMCR Project will raise the wharf elevation at Battery Park by five feet to protect against anticipated sea level rise. See https://www1.nyc.gov/site/lmcr/progress/battery-coastal-resilience.page for updates. Phased construction may result in a temporary change in the assigned embarkation slips at Battery Park. The Concessioner may have to operate temporarily out of slips 1 and 2 before moving operations back to slips assigned by a license. NYC Parks plans to work closely with the Service to minimize disruption to ferry embarkation operations during construction. The Service, working with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center, has determined that passenger throughput will not be impacted by the LMCR project. The Service used professional consultants, with subject matter expertise, to develop the assumptions and estimates related to investments in determining the minimum franchise fee. The determination of the minimum franchise fee considered the entire capital investment.

QUESTION 9. Dredging (page 19). Regarding the possibility of dredging during the term of the contract, is the concessioner responsible for maintenance dredging in the defined area(s) and not responsible for dredging resulting from catastrophic events? Please define concessioner’s full responsibilities for dredging under the Draft Contract.

Further, what is the extent of the dredging anticipated and / or required under the Draft Contract? Lastly, does the NPS startup cost estimate in the business opportunity include dredging? If so, please indicate the estimated cost, how it was determined and what line item it is included in. If this cost was not included in the estimate, why not?

SERVICE RESPONSE: The Concessioner must dredge the vessel docking areas at Liberty and Ellis Islands as needed to keep docking areas open and accessible. The Service in consultation with the Concessioner will determine the frequency and specific areas that require dredging. The Concessioner must fund the entire cost of dredging. It is unknown to the Service if dredging will be needed during the term of the Draft Contract. The last time the Service dredged the vessel docking areas at Liberty Island was 1950. Since 1950, a previous Concessioner dredged the vessel docking areas at Liberty Island several times, but the Service does not know the date of the last dredging. The vessel docking area at Ellis Island was last dredged in 2009. Because it is unknown to the Service if dredging will be needed during the term of the Draft Contract, the startup cost estimate in the business opportunity does not include dredging. To be conservative, however, the Service included a cost of $2,523,000 based on 32,000 cubic yards of dredging as a cash flow investment expense at the start of the contract when calculating the minimum franchise fee.

QUESTION 10. Vessels (page 16). If the incumbent operator is not the awardee of the current solicitation, is the incumbent operator required to consent to its successor’s use of the incumbent’s vessels that are currently used for the service? If so, what are the terms for the successor’s use of such vessels? (e.g. purchase or charter at fair market value, etc.)?

SERVICE RESPONSE: The Existing Contract (TC-STLI001-21) does not require the Existing Concessioner to sell its vessels to the next concessioner.

QUESTION 11. Vessels (page 16). Does NPS anticipate including a provision in the new contract requiring the concessioner to make the vessels that it would use on the service available to a successor, and if so, what would be the required terms of such an arrangement?

SERVICE RESPONSE: No. The Draft Contract (CC-STLI001-24) does not contain such a provision.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/lmcr/progress/battery-coastal-resilience.page

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 5

QUESTION 12. Island Capacity (page 7). How many days on average per year was the Service curtailed due to maximum capacity having been reached on Liberty & Ellis Islands? Please provide information for both the pre-and post-COVID time period.

SERVICE RESPONSE:

The Service has not been curtailed due to maximum capacity limits having been reached on Liberty and Ellis Islands. For safety and security concerns, and to provide a high-quality visitor experience, the Service limits the number of visitors to 4,500 visitors at any one time on each island. Consequently, the Concessioner must monitor the number of visitors on each island (by counting passenger arrivals and departures) and limit the mainland boardings to maintain these limits.

QUESTION 13. Average Rates (page 21). Exhibit 10 in Business Opportunity (page 21) indicates 2019 ferry transportation revenue of $56,038,571. Visitation for the same period was 4,240,461, giving a 2019 average transportation revenue per ferry passenger of $13.22. This is 29% less than the marked adult price of $18.50.

Exhibit 5 (p.14) indicates expected 2025 average transportation revenue per ferry passenger range of $19.00-$19.50, which is 12%-9% below the adult ticket price of $21.50. How does NPS account for the lower revenue per passenger in 2019? Is $19.00-$19.50 a realistic range to expect in 2025?

SERVICE RESPONSE: The lower revenue per passenger in 2019 is due to differences in the revenue share from the child and senior rates charged in 2019 when compared to the revenue share from child and senior rates projected in 2025.

QUESTION 14. Minimum Franchise Fee (page 18). Considering the initial capital investment of $43.5M and $3M/year required payments to New York City Parks and NJDEP, can NPS please explain the economic rationale behind the determination of the minimum franchise fee levels of 25.0% & 40.0%?

SERVICE RESPONSE: The Service used professional consultants, with subject matter expertise, to develop the assumptions and estimates related to investments in determining the minimum franchise fee. The determination of the minimum franchise fee considered the entire capital investment and all required payments.

QUESTION 15. Passenger Accessibility (page 8). Does NPS anticipate resolving the current legal matter regarding ADA compliance and access to the existing vessels at the Battery prior to awarding the concession? Does NPS anticipate any physical or operational changes to any element of the service, including but not limited to the operation at the Battery, to address ADA considerations? If any such changes become necessary, how does NPS anticipate addressing any additional costs to the concessioner?

SERVICE RESPONSE: It is unclear what legal matter this question refers to. The NPS is aware of ADA-related litigation involving Statue City Cruises, the existing concessioner, but the NPS is not a party to that matter. With respect to ADA considerations, the Draft Contract requires the next Concessioner to develop and submit to the Service for review, no less than 15 days prior to the Contract effective date, an Accessibility Plan specific to the needs of guests with disabilities, including disabilities related to mobility, sight, hearing and cognition. Plan elements will include descriptions of boarding procedures and waiting areas, safety equipment used to assist a person with a disability, staff training and other protocols for passengers requiring assistance. The Concessioner must implement the Accessibility Plan starting on the effective date of the Contract. The Concessioner will bear all costs associated with implementing the Accessibility Plan.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 6

QUESTION 16. Special Events (page 9). Can NPS please provide the number of special events requiring additional use of vessels, by month, for the past 5 years?

SERVICE RESPONSE:

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 January N/A 0 3 0 0 0 February N/A 2 0 0 0 0 March N/A 0 0 0 0 3 April N/A 3 2 0 0 0 May N/A 4 5 0 1 5 June N/A 3 4 0 1 2 July N/A 1 0 0 2 3 August N/A 5 3 0 2 4 September N/A 3 2 0 1 3 October 6 5 4 0 1 3 November 3 2 4 0 0 N/A December 2 0 3 0 1 N/A

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

QUESTION 17. Page 3. The descriptions of Secondary Selection Factors in Proposal Instructions subsection 6)c) are inconsistent with the descriptions of Secondary Selection Factors in the Proposal Package.

The Proposal Instructions subsection 6)c) states, “Secondary Selection Factor 2 will be scored from zero to two.

Secondary Selection Factor 3 will be scored from zero to one.”

However, the Proposal Package, page 23, describes Secondary Selection Factor 2 as scoring “(0-1 POINT),” and includes no Secondary Selection Factor 3.

Since these two sections differ, can the Service please clarify the scoring of Secondary Selection Factors 2 and 3 (if any)?

SERVICE RESPONSE: The Proposal Instructions Section 6)c) is amended to state “The first four principal factors will be scored from zero to five. The fifth principal selection factor will be scored from zero to four (with a score of one for agreeing to the minimum franchise fee contained in the Prospectus). Secondary Selection Factor 1 will be scored from zero to three. Secondary Selection Factor 2 will be scored from zero to one. The Service then will assign a cumulative point score to each proposal based on the assigned score for each selection factor” See below - Service Amendments to Prospectus Documents for Solicitation #: CC-STLI001-24.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 7

PROPOSAL PACKAGE

QUESTION 18. PSF2(a). Will NPS distinguish (in scoring) between the lesser safety standards of grandfathered vessels versus higher safety standards in new vessels? Specifically, boats built after 1996 meet higher standards in terms of: fire, navigation, stability and egress compared to older boats. If not why not?

Could NPS change PSF (2) to reflect the fact that the minimum safety features provided in 1940’s – 1995 built USCG certified vessels are drastically reduced from the minimum safety features required in 1996-2020 USCG certified vessels. The question as currently posed allows for offerors who have old vessels to meet lower safety standards than those offerors who have new boats. The selection factor, as written, also does not provide credit for the numerous safety features that exist in newer boats because of updated USCG requirements and do not exist in old boats that have been grandfathered in at a lower standard.

SERVICE RESPONSE: The Service is interested in safety features that will benefit passengers standing as the vessels dock. To better express the Service’s interest, and that the Service will evaluate the merits of the proposed safety features rather than comparing proposed safety features to a set of standards, the Service has amended the Proposal Package Principal Selection Factor 2(a) to remove the word “enhanced” before “safety features” and replaced “..that will benefit passengers, especially those with small children and those who are standing as vessels dock” with “…will benefit passengers (including small children) that are standing as vessels dock.” The Service will assess each timely proposal under each of the selection factors on the basis of a narrative explanation discussing any subfactors when applicable and other supporting information. For each selection factor, the Service will assign a score that reflects the determined merits of the proposal under the applicable selection factor and in comparison, to the other proposals received, if any. See below - Service Amendments to Prospectus Documents for Solicitation

#: CC-STLI001-24.

QUESTION 19. PSF1. The instructions state, “Supporting third-party documentation need not be duplicated (e.g., engine manufacturer cutsheets are only required for each model of engine used within the fleet and not required for each vessel).” In these cases of repeated third-party documentation, can we include a copy in the response for a single vessel, and then for the other vessels just include a reference to that copy?

SERVICE RESPONSE: Correct. Offerors do not need to include duplicate, supporting third-party documentation when such documentation is identical for multiple vessels. For example, if the proposal is to upgrade four vessels with the same engine, the Offeror only needs to include the entire supporting third-party documentation for one of the four vessels and can reference the supporting third-party documentation for the other three vessels.

QUESTION 20. PSF1. The Response Item 4 instructions do not indicate whether or not technical data sheets, specifications, quotes, or other backup are allowed or expected, in addition to the one-page summary for each vessel.

Can you please clarify?

SERVICE RESPONSE: For Response Item 4 (Onboard Renewable Energy Systems), the Service will allow only the one-page summary for each vessel (no additional supporting documentation).

QUESTION 21. PSF1 (Form A). Form A requests Passenger Inside Seating capacity and Inside Passenger Area.

To evaluate compliance with the USCG combined interior/exterior seating standards, should we also report exterior seating and exterior standing area as well, since combined interior and exterior seating are called for in Appendix B Operating Plan 4)D)(7)(b), Page B-20?

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 8

SERVICE RESPONSE: Principal Selection Factor Form A in Appendix B is amended to include “Passenger Outside Seating (number of seats)” and “Outside Passenger Area (standing area square footage).” See below

- Service Amendments to Prospectus Documents for Solicitation #: CC-STLI001-24.

QUESTION 22. PSF1 (Form C). The notes with examples of the supporting information attachments for this form primarily list manufacturer documentation. If portions of design, systems engineering, or preliminary installation are being done in-house rather than through a third party, can the corresponding schematics, calculations, and engineering evidence still be provided and still be excluded from the page limitations?

SERVICE RESPONSE: Yes. If portions of the supporting information described under Form C are being done in-house rather than through a third party, Offerors can attach corresponding schematics, calculations, and engineering evidence that the Service will exclude from the page limitations. Offerors should use Form C to describe the hybrid systems’ integration into the vessel(s) and their related operation. The Offeror should provide information to support claims made in Form C and provide evidence of the Offeror’s due diligence whether completed by the Offeror or by a third party. All stakeholders should be considered when providing supporting documentation. For example, an Offeror can claim they will have power at a specific location, but the Offeror may not have ability or permission to do so from the marina or power company. Similarly, an Offeror can claim a battery system can fully charge within a given timeframe but providing documentation of the batteries charging amp-hour rating from the battery manufacturer will help the Service better evaluate the Offeror’s claim.

QUESTION 23. PSF1 (Forms C - G). PSF1 instructions for several forms utilize an 80-minute roundtrip for vessels in an Option 1 fleet and a 75-minute roundtrip in an Option 2 fleet. Using the Battery Park vessel schedule (such as the examples provided In Operating Plan Attachment A and in Business Opportunity Exhibits 8 and 9), departures would be every 20 minutes for Option 1 fleets and every 15 minutes for Option 2 fleets. If Battery Park ferry service started at 8:30am and finished at 4:30pm, the Option 1 fleet would provide 25 departures (6.25 trips/vessel) and the Option 2 fleet would provide 33 departures (6.6 trips/vessel). As a result, does the overall fleet emissions profile calculation take into consideration the different number of trips per day per vessel based on the fleet Option chosen, or is the same number of daily trips assumed for each vessel regardless of the fleet Option?

SERVICE RESPONSE: Yes, the overall fleet emissions profile calculation takes into consideration the different number of trips per day per vessel based on the fleet option chosen. For Draft Contract Section 8(e)(2)(i) Option 1, the Service assumes that each of the six vessels in service makes an average of 7 roundtrips per day during the peak season (42 roundtrips daily). For Draft Contract Section 8(e)(2) (i) Option 2, The Service assumes that each of the seven vessels in service makes an average of 7 roundtrips per day during the peak season (49 roundtrips daily).

QUESTION 24. PSF1 (Forms C - G). How will NPS fairly compare the emissions profiles of competing bids with Vessel Fleet Options 1 and 2, since one option will have fewer vessels and trips?

SERVICE RESPONSE: The Service will evaluate the aggregate responses to Principal Selection Factor 1 in order to consider the overall emissions profile of the vessels used under the Draft Contract. For Draft Contract Section 8(e)(2)(i) Option 1, the Service assumes that each of the six vessels in service makes an average of 7 roundtrips per day during the peak season (42 roundtrips daily). For Draft Contract Section 8(e)(2) (i) Option 2, the Service assumes that each of the seven vessels in service makes an average of 7 roundtrips per day during the peak season (49 roundtrips daily).

QUESTION 25. PSF1 (Form D). Appendix B PSF1-Forms, Response Item 2 Form D: Conversion Timeline (page 17)

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 9

The prelude reads: “Responses to Form D are limited to a single two (2) page introduction and the form itself (only one form for the entire fleet).”

This is in apparent conflict with the instruction in the form title: “Form D: Conversion Timeline (complete separate sheet for each vessel)”

Can the Service please clarify the apparent disagreement in these instructions? While the instructions for Forms E, F, and G do not have the same discrepancy, can the Service also clarify whether each of forms E, F, and G are to be submitted as only one form for the entire fleet, or instead submitted as a separate sheet for each vessel?

SERVICE RESPONSE: Principal Selection Factor Form D in Appendix B is amended to remove the parenthetical “(complete separate sheet for each vessel)” above the table on page 17. See below - Service Amendments to Prospectus Documents for Solicitation #: CC-STLI001-24.

Additionally, the Service clarifies there should only be one Form E, one Form F, and one Form G for the entire fleet.

QUESTION 26. PSF4 (Excel Spreadsheet). Please clarify which information should be shown on the respective yearly columns of the Income Statement, Operating Assumptions and Cash Flow Statement forms. The columns in these forms are labeled for the years 2024 through 2033; however, Year 1 of the contract begins on March 1, 2024.

The general notes in the Proposal Package for PSF4 on page 17 also state, “For purpose of the pro forma statements, use the calendar year as the fiscal year.”

Please clarify if, alternatively, the column for Year 2024 may include 10 months of operations (March 1 through December 31), subsequent columns include 12 months each, and one additional column may be added for Year 2034 including 2 months of operations (January 1 through February 28).

SERVICE RESPONSE: The Service prefers that you do not provide a portion of a year. Instead, please assume one year of operations per year. For example, 2024 would include 12 months, running March 1, 2024 to February 28, 2025.

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT OPERATING PLAN

QUESTION 27. Vessel Length (page B-20). The stern of any vessel over 130’ in length likely will extend well past the end of the New York side of the Liberty Island dock when docked at that location. Will the Concessioner have the ability to modify schedules to accommodate New Jersey vessels also over 130’ in length arriving and departing Liberty Island with a New York vessel over 130’ in length at the dock?

SERVICE RESPONSE: The Concessioner will propose a detailed Operating Schedule for Service approval after the award of the Draft Contract. The proposed Operating Schedule will include departure times for each sail from Liberty Island, Ellis Island, Liberty State Park (if applicable), and Battery Park (if applicable); however, the Service does not anticipate significant changes to the current Operating Schedule.

QUESTION 28. Boarding (page B-21). Does the Service have a preference among side load, bow load and upper deck and/or multiple points of boarding & disembarking to quicken the loading and unloading process?

SERVICE RESPONSE:

The Service does not have process preference. All vessels must be capable of accessing, docking, and safely loading and unloading passengers at all docks and piers assigned to or used by the Concessioner during all normal tidal conditions. The Concessioner must develop a Passenger Boarding Plan describing passenger queuing, loading, and

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 10 unloading procedures for all docking facilities. The Concessioner must develop and submit the Passenger Boarding Plan to the Service for review and approval. Specifically, to maximize efficiency in loading and unloading, the Plan must address the number and placement of gangways and queuing lines at embarkation sites and on Liberty Island and Ellis Island. The Concessioner must submit its Plan by the effective date of the Contract.

QUESTION 29. Boarding (page B-21). Will the Service permit the permanent installation of the offeror’s equipment at the site, such as gangways, floating docks or spud barges, that might speed up boarding and disembarking?

SERVICE RESPONSE: The question posed does not specify a “site”. In general, for the embarkation sites in NJ and NY, the Concessioner would have to work with the licensing entities to evaluate such permanent installations.

However, in evaluating Principal Selection Factor 2(b), the Service will not consider any signage or other personal property or real property improvements that would be placed outside of the assigned areas identified in Exhibit D of the Draft Contract. For Liberty Island and Ellis Island, the Service will not permit the permanent installation of such equipment.

EXHIBIT F – DRAFT MAINTENANCE PLAN

QUESTION 30. Docking Areas (page H-8). Does the Concessioner’s responsibility to maintain the Liberty Island docking area (as part of assigned Concession Facilities) extend to the canopy and roof over the dock?

SERVICE RESPONSE: Yes. The Concessioner must inspect and maintain all docking areas and facilities assigned to the Concessioner on Liberty Island and Ellis Island (Concession Facilities) and related support facilities, including but not limited to piers, pilings, fender systems, anchor systems, winches, cables and blocks, catwalks, decking, walkways, railings, shelters, visitor seating, crowd control barriers, gangways and loading docks.

DRAFT EXHIBIT I – INSURANCE REQUIRMENTS

QUESTION 31. Liability Insurance. Are deductible levels for the liability insurance policies in Exhibit I negotiable?

SERVICE RESPONSE: The deductible levels are not negotiable for the Draft Contract.

QUESTION 32. Hull Insurance. Insurance industry standards for Hull Insurance, as with other personal property policies, provide for recovery based on market value, not replacement value. Would market value be acceptable to the Service?

SERVICE RESPONSE: If the market value would provide for replacement and loss recovery without deduction, market value would be acceptable to the Service.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 11

Service Amendments to Prospectus Documents for Solicitation #: CC-STLI001-24

1) Business Opportunity, Page 21, Historical Gross Receipts

Delete the following, in its entirety:

“The remaining 96.5% is passed through to the Foundation.”

Replace with the following:

“The remaining tour proceeds, net of a percentage of proceeds to the City of New York and the State of New Jersey under the applicable terms of the Concessioner’s licenses with those entities, is passed through to the Foundation.”

2) Proposal Instructions, Page 3, Section 6) c)

Delete the following, in its entirety:

“The first four principal factors will be scored from zero to five. The fifth principal selection factor will be scored from zero to four (with a score of one for agreeing to the minimum franchise fee contained in the Prospectus).

Secondary Selection Factor 1 will be scored from zero to three. Secondary Selection Factor 2 will be scored from zero to two. Secondary Selection Factor 3 will be scored from zero to one. The Service then will assign a cumulative point score to each proposal based on the assigned score for each selection factor.”

Replace with the following:

“The first four principal factors will be scored from zero to five. The fifth principal selection factor will be scored from zero to four (with a score of one for agreeing to the minimum franchise fee contained in the Prospectus).

Secondary Selection Factor 1 will be scored from zero to three. Secondary Selection Factor 2 will be scored from zero to one. The Service then will assign a cumulative point score to each proposal based on the assigned score for each selection factor”

3) Proposal Package, Page 11, Principal Selection Factor 2(a)

Delete the following, in its entirety:

“(1) Provide a detailed description of enhanced safety features (stabilization systems, hand holds, etc.) onboard all vessels that will benefit passengers, especially those with small children and those who are standing as vessels dock”

Replace with the following:

“(1) Provide a detailed description of safety features (stabilization systems, hand holds, etc.) onboard all vessels that will benefit passengers (including small children) that are standing as vessels dock.”

4) Appendix B: Principal Selection Factor 1 Forms, Form A: Vessel Specifications.

Principal Selection Factor 1 Form A in Appendix B is amended to include “Passenger Outside Seating (number of seats)” and “Outside Passenger Area (standing area square footage).

5) Appendix B: Principal Selection Factor 1 Forms, Form D: Conversion Timeline.

AMENDMENT NO. 1 SOLICITATION #: CC-STLI001-24 Page 12

Principal Selection Factor 1 Form D in Appendix B is amended to remove the parenthetical “(complete separate sheet for each vessel)”above the table on page 17. The language above the table now reads “Form D: Conversion Timeline.”