NCPC_Penn Ave RFP 2_QA_24_01_24_v2.pdf

A New Pennsylvania Avenue Plan RFP 2

Questions, NCPC Responses, and FAQ Part 2*

Last Updated: Wednesday, January 24, 2024

*The Questions and Answers are posted in two parts. Part 1 was posted on January 17. This document is Part 2 which addresses the remaining questions. Due to an error in a formula, an updated Fee Worksheet will be posted no later than Friday, January 26.

1. Qualifications

Will the commission entertain offers from joint ventures or similar partnerships?

Are prime joint ventures acceptable?

All offers must demonstrate they meet the baseline requirements and qualifications as stated in the RFP. NCPC will not dictate or advise on any structural joint ventures or partnerships or the compositions of companies. In a joint venture or partnership, there must be one designated Prime as NCPC will only contract with one entity. Offerors must clearly identify any partnership structures and define how they will best deliver the project to NCPC and the Partners.

2. Scope Information

Please clarify the geographic extent of the urban design work in areas including and beyond the ROW.

What are the design opportunities for the three open spaces that are part of the 1.2-mile segment of Pennsylvania Avenue?

The MP Team should develop concept designs to convey the intent, quality, and character of the corridor, three Urban Rooms, and adjacent related improvements, for daily activities and events, considering visual, environmental, and cultural resources.

The map on page 8 of the RFP and the three early vision concepts are the best guide to illustrating the project area. The New Pennsylvania Avenue Plan Phase 2 scope is for design of ROW – building face to building face from 15th to 3rd streets NW, as well as consideration of the segment of the Avenue east of 3rd Street that terminates as the Peace Monument. Except for the Mellon Fountain at the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and 6th Street, NW., the scope includes the Avenue’s three main public spaces – the western end (around Freedom

Plaza), center (around Market Square), and eastern end (around John Marshall Park/4th Street

NW).

Concept designs should address the general uses and spatial qualities, including configuration (horizontal and vertical) and circulation of the corridor and public spaces. This work will also include the N/S streets at least one block north and south of the Avenue. The focus will include the vertical and surface streetscape elements, as well as activity and event components, such as security, infrastructure, and lighting needs.

Per the scope of work, Phase 2a will focus on developing a framework concept and set of assumptions for the public spaces that incorporate findings from the Phase 1a Program of Requirements. Please refer to the scope and deliverables for each phase. Phase 2b includes developing master plan/public realm plan concept-level designs as required for NEPA, NCPC, and CFA review and approvals.

Regarding the map on page 8, the section of the Avenue east of 3rd Street is under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol. This segment is not in the planning area; however, the scope includes considering and conceptually illustrating how the Avenue terminates at the Peace Circle. The PADC boundary is a congressionally authorized planning area from the 1974 plan. This boundary may change with the New Pennsylvania Avenue Plan.

Test Fits: how much will they be along the lines of what was presented earlier (three early vision concepts)?

The MP Team will use the Program of Requirements developed by the IP Team in Phase 1, to test the three early vision concepts as they were presented to the public. Testing of the concepts will inform refining the Program of Requirements in an iterative process and the evolution and refinement of the preferred concept designs that will be the basis to initiate NEPA/106 consultation. The eventual preferred alternative may be a solution that includes some aspects of all three early vision concepts.

Pershing Square: Is this site out of play? At least one approach of the 3 concepts seems to lead to expansion of the park.

This project is not revisiting the design of the park; however, the new design of the corridor may affect the circulation around and connection to the park and the adjacent public spaces.

FBI Site – Is this included in the scope, or is the potential redevelopment of that site a separate process?

Redevelopment of the FBI site will be considered through a different and separate process, and teams should stay informed regarding plans for the site. NCPC developed square guidelines for the site, which provide guidance on massing, height, and use for any new development. The MP Team should refer to the square guidelines on how that site may be redeveloped.

Can you elaborate on what the scope for the Public Art Strategy consultant would be?

Can you elaborate on what the scope for a Cultural consultant would be?

Please provide further clarity around your expectations for scope from the following designated area of expertise:

• Architecture

• Planning (Phase 1b Compliance with Regulatory Processes; Phase 1d Legislative and

Regulatory Changes are listed under the IP scope as well as Phase 2b Regulatory Provisions listed under the MP scope)

• Accessibility

• Environmental

• Cultural Programming and Curation (in relation to those on the IP Team tasked with preparing a program of requirements)

NCPC and the Partners consider these subject matter experts critical to a holistic approach to the Avenue. With your understanding of the vision and concepts and the character, role, and function of the avenue, please propose a team of subject matter experts who will work together to deliver the new Pennsylvania Avenue Plan.

Cultural Programming, Curation, and Public Art Strategy The IP Team’s cultural curation scope focuses on developing a program and calendar of activities and special events. The MP Team’s focus should be on developing the public space to accommodate the event program per the Program of Requirements, as well as developing a potential physical framework for cultural elements in the public space. An understanding of social and cultural significance of local and American history and aspirations will be helpful.

Architecture The Public Space Master Plan may include general concept level design of any vertical structures, such as vending, shade, and comfort needs, within the public right of way, or coordination of these type of uses with adjacent spaces.

Planning The Partners consider planning expertise to be helpful in both phases. Regulatory planning as it relates to NEPA / NHPA Section 106 will be the focus of the IP Team, who will also lead the administrative and communications effort. General or multi-disciplinary planning expertise as it relates to technical data collection, studies, and analysis to support concept development and integration into the New Pennsylvania Avenue Plan will be the focus of the MP Team.

Regulatory Provisions This may include coordination with the IP Team to update and/or amend the regulatory review process at set forth in congressional legislation and the 1996 MOA (https://www.ncpc.gov/docs/PADC_MOA_1996.pdf), and to assess if future amendments to the existing square guidelines may be necessary.

Accessibility Includes Universal Design and experience, ADA, and ABAAS

Environmental Includes the expertise to address all the environmental considerations in accordance with NEPA.

3. Studies and Data Collection and Analysis

Is security risk assessment included in this scope of work?

In Washington DC, consideration of public space and event security is critical. A holistic approach will need to consider security in all phases.

Per Task 3, the MP Team should consider the security approach in concept development. This approach should include three types of security: building, public space, and event security.

The focus groups will include representative security experts of all three types.

For building security, the intent is to establish the building perimeter security line and general approach for federal buildings, not to design the perimeter security. GSA will define their needs as part of the existing conditions information.

Has a cultural landscape resources report for this study area been created, if not, should that scope be included as part of Task 6?

Within the study area, does this scope include the creation of any new historic resources baseline documentation?

The 2016 National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory (link in resources section) will serve as the baseline for documentation of historic resources related to landscape features. It may require updating to capture any new information that has been discovered since its completion, or changes in any resources. Any buildings that are within the area of potential effect would need to be documented and updated to consider their current historic status.

4. Phase Coordination

Phase 2b: Explain why it is listed as an option.

As in the Phase 1 / IP RFP, we are contracting the subsequent phase parts as options to allow the flexibility to ensure the consultants are well-suited for the Tasks, there are no duplicative efforts among the two consultant teams (IP Team and MP team), and that we can refine the scope as needed. For example, in Phase 2, we anticipate that NEPA will require an EA, but findings in Phase 2a could reveal that an EIS is needed, which would impact the scope for Phase 2b.

Please clarify the schedule for RFP 2, and whether there are extended pauses whilst RFP 1’s deliverables are prepared, or for any other reason.

We don’t anticipate extended pauses. The Team should estimate a two-week review period after submission of deliverables, plus up to a week for NCPC to consolidate and coordinate feedback. There will be a slight pause before NEPA kickoff at the end of Phase 2a, and slight pauses after submittal of plans for Commission and/or public reviews in Phase 2b.

Commission review generally requires 30-45 days to prepare for presentations, for example, presentation materials are due to NCPC 14 days prior to the commission submission deadline which is 14 days in advance of the Commission date.

How will the project management coordination process between the IP and MP teams be determined? Is it the responsibility of one team, both teams or NCPC to develop a collaborative work plan, including the meeting schedule, agendas, and method for confirming key decisions, and timeline of Project Partner feedback and responses?

It is the responsibility of the Project Managers from both the IP and MP Teams to collaborate and work together in consultation with NCPC.

5. NEPA Coordination

We understand that the MP team is responsible for the drawings and technical documentation required to complete the Environmental Assessment and NEPA Section 106 compliance. Will the MP team be responsible for all text and narrative in the Environmental Assessment? Or will some/ all of this be championed by the IP Team?

The MP Team will be responsible for writing and finalizing the technical reports based on their data collection, analysis, and findings. The IP Team will coordinate and package the reports, construct the overall narrative, and in consultation with the MP Team ensure consistency and compliance.

Is there a more detailed breakdown of Task 6 between the MP team and the IP team?

Please elaborate on the actual detailed responsibilities between the IP and MP Teams on the content and deliverables for NEPA/NHPA Section 106.

Re: Phase 2b (anticipated) Environmental Analysis, will NCPC consider defining the number of meetings per phase/task or elaborate on a more detailed anticipated scope? This will enable competing teams to prepare fees based on a consistent scope and thereby focus differentiation between teams through each team’s methodology and approach.

The outcomes of Phase 2a will help detail and prepare the scope for Phase 2b. The information provided in the RFP (Phase 2b Scope and Deliverables section, and NEPA / NHPA Section 106 Outline) can serve as a baseline for the details of Task 6 as well as the anticipated number of meetings. The Fee Worksheet should include an estimate for a NCPC NEPA process in Phase 2b. Please refer to the resource list on page 70 of the RFP for information on NCPC’s NEPA Regulations and EA requirements. We will request that the consultant team prepare a detailed scope of work for Phase 2b prior to the conclusion of 2a. The final scope and fee for Phase 2b will be defined and contracted following completion of Phase 2a.

What level of refinement are deliverables expected to meet? For example, when you say “final concept design” regarding the NEPA / NHPA Section 106 process, is that at an architecture/engineering level, or at a planning level?

Per the scope of work, Phase 2 includes developing master plan/public realm plan concept-level designs as required for NEPA, NCPC, and CFA review and approvals.

6. Partners Roles and Approvals

What is DDOT’s role in this project?

Can you please clarify the anticipated roles of DDOT and WMATA in this study process and will these agencies have to formally approve specific design or operational concepts for them to move forward?

On Page 42, for agency approvals only CFA and NCPC are listed. Would DDOT also be a key stakeholder that NCPC would need approval from?

The District of Columbia is a Project Partner and needs to concur with the proposed Public Space Master Plan/Concept Design. DDOT does not have a formal individual review and approval responsibility for Phases 1 and 2.

NCPC will serve as the lead agency for purposes of compliance with NEPA and NHPA Section

106. GSA and NPS will participate as cooperating and consulting agencies in the NEPA and NHPA compliance process for the New Pennsylvania Avenue Plan. The District of Columbia will review all regulatory applications regarding requirements for the new plan to satisfy applicable District laws including NEPA.

Who is the deciding agency for the project?

The Project Partners must concur on the design concepts and Plan prior to formal reviews.

CFA and NCPC will formally review, accept, and sign off on the concept design and Plan, but GSA is the deciding agency per the1996 MOA (https://www.ncpc.gov/docs/PADC_MOA_1996.pdf). The 1996 MOA sets forth the framework for project review and approval and requires that NPS and NCPC recommend approval to GSA. GSA then transmits the approved Plan to Congress where several congressional subcommittees will have the opportunity to review and provide input during a 60-day review period.

7. Communications and Engagement

Do you anticipate any additional community engagement as part of this phase?

Will collaboration and engagement with local government and federal stakeholders be facilitated by the NCPC or by the design team?

Is it correct to assume that the MP team will need to meet with each of the four Focus Groups (listed on page 95 of the RFP) individually on a bi-weekly basis, throughout the duration of Phase 2a and Phase 2b?

Beyond the Focus Group meetings, do you foresee either the IP team or MP team performing any public outreach and engagement as a part of this project?

The IP Team will lead the facilitation and communication strategy for the New Pennsylvania Avenue Plan work. Stakeholder and Focus Group engagement will commence with the start of Phase 2a, and the public outreach will commence with the initiation of NEPA / NHPA Section 106 at the start of Option Phase 2b. Organization and facilitation of public meetings will be led by the IP Team. The MP Team will collaborate with and provide support to the IP Team with design exhibits, meeting materials, and presentations.

The IP Team, in consultation with the MP Team and NCPC will set the schedule, determine participants, and facilitate the Focus Group meetings. It is not intended that each Focus Group attend a bi-weekly meeting for the duration of the project.

We suggest referring to both the IP RFP (released in September 2023) and this MP RFP to understand the full picture of stakeholder engagement and public outreach responsibilities across the two Phases and Teams, including outreach and engagement related to NEPA and Commission review.