ESBD_392441_1739536755605_Addendum-1_CAM-CP2000153.pdf

CAM CP1014774 11/26/2024 ADD 1-1

February 11, 2025

ADDENDUM:

To: All Interested Parties

From: Trina Bickford, Contracts Manager

Re: ADDENDUM NO. 1 to the Solicitation Documents for

CAM – Historic Context Study and Resource Study

RFQ 25PSS001 Project # CP2000153

This Addendum is a part of the Documents for the above named project and shall become an integral part of the originally issued Solicitation Documents dated 1/24/2025. Wherein the items of Addenda differ from the original Specifications, this Addendum shall take precedence. All other terms and conditions not specifically affected by this Addendum will remain unchanged. Revise the Specifications referenced below as described. This Addendum contains only sheet ADD 1.1-1.4.

Respondent shall acknowledge receipt of all Addenda by notation in response.

I. GENERAL

None

II. SPECIFICATIONS

Section 2.3, 3rd paragraph, is revised as follows:

The reconnaissance-level investigation must document the character defining features of every resource within the identified boundaries, regardless of condition, age and/or date of construction, for all resources constructed prior to 1980. The field crew must ascertain how the buildings, objects, cultural landscapes and structures have changed over time and how the alterations have affected the ability to convey a sense of the past and the overall character of the property. The results of the field surveys will provide data to the selected firm, to generate a comprehensive inventory of resources on the property, to classify each building/structure/object as a contributing or non-contributing element and to describe salient and character defining features. For buildings, character-defining features are to be identified on the exterior and the interior.

Section 2.3, Task 7 is revised as follows:

Task 7: Consultation with the University and the Texas Historical Commission

The selected firm must conduct ongoing consultations with the University and the Texas Historical Commission on a mutually agreeable schedule to be determined. If issues arise with the Context Study throughout the course of this project, the selected firm must work to affect an acceptable resolution.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

25PSS001

Historic Context Study and Resource Study

CAM CP1014774 11/26/2024 ADD1-2

III. CLARIFICATIONS

QUESTIONS/ANSWERS: The following questions received against the referenced solicitation - corresponding responses are included. Questions may have been edited and/or combined for clarity, and information contained in the remainder of this addendum addresses questions not specifically listed below.

Question: Can UT furnish an example of the type of report requested for this project?

Answer: No – the University has not yet produced or contracted with an outside firm to produce a report that matches this solicitation and has not example to share.

Question: Will the University provide a map of the survey area?

Answer: See attached.

Question: How many buildings are in each survey area?

Answer: Refer to the attached maps which include survey areas. The survey area for main campus contains approximately 150 buildings and the survey area for Pickle Research Center contains approximately 50 buildings, only some of which are of historic age.

Question: What is the period of performance? What is the reason for a 10-month timeline?

Is a longer timeframe to perform the work possible?

Answer: The 10-month time frame is the University best estimate of the anticipated time to complete work described in this RFQ; however, a longer time frame is possible if necessary.

Question: THC review is noted throughout the RFQ. Is this a requirement? What timeline should be associated with THC review?

Answer: Texas Historical Commission is a subject matter expert and their involvement is anticipated to be a value add to the project. Respondents should plan for a maximum 30-day review of formal submissions to THC.

Question: Section 2.2 states that the project manager and “applicable staff” must meet the

Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards and must have a minimum of 10 years of relevant experience. Please clarify what staff roles are considered “applicable staff”? Does the University expect these minimum requirements to be met by those conducting “reconnaissance-level surveys” or only those working with the University primary/secondary source documents?

Answer: The University expects the minimum requirements to be met by staff involved in the research, writing, survey and other similar tasks. The requirement would not include staff responsible for administrative support, billing, scheduling, etc.

CAM CP1014774 11/26/2024 ADD1-3

Question: The RFQ mentions “two contexts” and adherence to the NPS bulletin “How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Document” but does not indicate whether or not one of the projects will be a completed multiple property form.

Please clarify.

Answer: The contexts sought through this solicitation are intended to follow the guidance developed by the National Park Service. A completed multiple property form is not required; nomination of properties to the National Register is not included in the scope.

Question: On page 13, the RFQ refers to the “Context Study and/or individual National

Register nominations” but individual nominations are not referenced anywhere else in the RFQ. Please clarify.

Answer: Nomination of properties to the National Register is not included in the scope described in this solicitation. Please see revision to Section 2.3, Task 7, above.

Question: What is the anticipated frequency of reviews by the Advisory Board? How long will the Advisory Board have for each review?

Answer: For responses to this RFQ, plan for tow reviews: a one month review period for the first draft and a two week review period for the second of the historic context studies.

Question: Should the review period for the public be included in the schedule? If so, how long will the public be given to review the documentation?

Answer: Public review of a draft is not anticipated.

Question: Will the Advisory Board and/or the public only be reviewing the Historic Contexts or will they also be reviewing the NRHP evaluation documentation?

Answer: For responses to this RFQ, plan for the Advisory Board to review the evaluation information for individual resources in addition to historic contexts.

Question: Does the University have any preferences for technology used to conduct, document or integrate any collected condition data into existing UT planning or facilities management tools?

Answer: Integration of integrity data into existing tools is not currently anticipated although this subject could be discussed further with the awarded respondent.

Question: Does performing this work preclude the selected team from any future work with the University?

Answer: No.

Question: Would the University be able to provide an official list of facilities and square footage that will be included in the study?

Answer: This information will be provided to the awarded respondent.

CAM CP1014774 11/26/2024 ADD1-4

Question: Will any kind of conditions assessment be required for the buildings in the study?

Answer: The RFQ requires integrity assessments; full condition assessments are not within the scope.

Question: What is the focus of the study? In the presubmittal meeting, the Austin main campus and the Pickle Research Campus seemed to be the focus. Will inventorying of building and structures on other campus be required? Should the history of the development of those campuses be included as a part of the overall context study as well?

Answer: This RFQ covers main campus as well as Pickle Research Campus.

Question: The RFQ requests an inventory of all buildings, structures, objects landscapes, etc.

Should things like statues, art, courtyards, landscape/hardscape elements, bridges, etc. be included individually in the inventory for the study?

Answer: Resources constructed prior to 1980 including buildings, objects, cultural landscapes and structures must be surveyed individually.

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1