RFI_20220418.pdf

NORTHWEST LAS VEGAS

CAMPUS ACQUISITION

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

VERSION 1

National Nuclear Security Administration | April 18, 2022

Northwest Las Vegas Campus Acquisition | Page 2

Issue date: APRIL 18, 2022, Version 1

Response date: MAY 31, 2022 5:00pm Mountain Time

Agency: National Nuclear Security Administration

Office of Infrastructure Planning & Analysis (NA-521) P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185

Federal Agency Contact: Questions must be submitted via email or in writing to the following contact(s):

Sarah J. Watts Real Estate Contracting Officer 505-304-7483 sarah.watts@nnsa.doe.gov

Delivery address (US Mail or package carrier):

National Nuclear Security Administration Office of Infrastructure Planning & Analysis (NA-521) P.O. Box 5400, Bldg 401 Albuquerque, NM 87185

National Nuclear Security Administration Office of Infrastructure Planning & Analysis (NA-521) Pennsylvania & H Street, Bldg 401 Albuquerque, NM 87185

Electronic Submission: realestate@nnsa.doe.gov or via this QR code:

Campus Acquisition | Page 3

Executive Summary

Established by Congress in 2000, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear science. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; works to reduce the global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and militarily effective nuclear propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the United States and abroad.

After the development and use of the atomic bomb in 1945, the U.S. Government created the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (now NNSA) in 1947 as the agency for controlling nuclear materials and developing nuclear weapons. Nevada’s part of the story begins in 1948 after the atomic test series in the Pacific Ocean. Although oceanic tests were successful, logistics, weather, security and safety concerns during the operation illustrated the need for a continental test site. As a result, the U.S. military conducted a top-secret feasibility study, and concluded that the arid-Southwest section of the United States was an ideal location. In 1950, President Harry Truman designated part of the Las Vegas Bombing and Gunnery Range as the Nevada Proving Ground (now the Nevada National Security Site [NNSS]), thus establishing a continental nuclear test site.

As NNSS is 60 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and in recognition of the difficulty of commuting to the remote NNSS for daily administrative operations, the AEC created the Nevada Operations Office (now North Las Vegas Facility [NLVF]) on March 6, 1962. Approximately 1,300 members of the workforce are currently based at the NLVF which provide the administrative oversight of all the contracts related to NNSS’ mission. Through these efforts, NLVF helps ensure safe and secure operation at the NNSS, successful execution of nuclear programs, and long-term viability of NNSA’s customers.

Today, NNSA plans to replace the current NLVF with a new, right-sized campus for administrative and light lab operations in northwest Las Vegas to better serve the NNSS. NNSA is committed to developing a more robust and sustainable workforce by providing state-of-the-art work environments that will attract the very best talent. To support NNSA’s mission, administrative functions such as engineering, procurement, finance, and human resource departments need to be co-located to promote space collaborations and teamwork.

Campus Acquisition | Page 4

General This Request for Information (RFI) is being published as of this date, April 13, 2022, on Contract Opportunities (sam.gov), formerly known as Federal Business Opportunities (AKA FBO or FedBizOpps). Links to this RFI are planned to be posted and/or published in the near future in other local and national contracting opportunity sites (i.e., commercial real estate marketplace websites, local news sources, and/or real estate developer trade journals).

This RFI is public notice that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is investigating possible sites to be used for the consolidation and relocation of the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) to the northwest sector of Las Vegas, Nevada. As part of this investigation, NNSA hereby is exploring options to purchase improved or unimproved property or receive a donation of a site to the United States of America. Potential approaches to meet the mission need include:

Approach #1: Acquire land and construct a new campus Approach #2: Construct a new campus in partnership with a commercial developer Approach #3: Acquire existing facility(ies) to remodel into a new campus Approach #4: Alternate development solutions Development opportunities that demonstrate an alternate solution to the above approaches may be submitted through this approach. Proposals should clearly illustrate how the solution would deliver property/facilities for NNSA’s use.

Selection Criteria Responses will be reviewed against the criteria listed in and/or used to inform/finalize Attachment A, Site Parameters and Evaluation Criteria, and related to which Approach the respondent elects to respond to. In addition to the attached criteria, the total project cost, comprising both the site acquisition cost and estimated development and operating costs, will be considered. Based on responses to this RFI, NNSA may choose to select the site deemed to be most advantageous to the United States, all factors considered; choose to modify its acquisition approach; or choose to cancel the acquisition altogether. To ensure that the selected site is most advantageous to the United States, NNSA also will consider any unique attributes or other nuances of a site deemed worthy of consideration, even if not listed in this RFI.

None of the listed evaluation criteria are considered to be more important than any other.

However, as sites are evaluated, each site’s unique attributes may result in one or more criteria becoming more important with respect to that particular site.

Per the National Historic Preservation Act and E.O. 13006, when operationally appropriate and economically prudent, NNSA will consider historic buildings and sites within historic districts.

Demolition of historic buildings in anticipation of Government use may disqualify a respondent from consideration.

Property access NNSA requires physical access to the offered property(ies) to complete the necessary due diligence, including, but not limited to environmental assessments, historical and cultural

Campus Acquisition | Page 5 evaluations, and assessment of wildlife and native plant habitats. By submitting a response to this RFI and including a completed Right-of-Entry for Survey and Exploration (Attachment D), respondent agrees to allow such access.

Aggregation of Parcels Responses may include multiple parcels with multiple owners, and a plan to aggregate those parcels. However, any such responses should include written statements of interest from each legal property owner and the designation of a single representative for the response. Failure to provide written statements of interest or a single representative for the aggregated parcel may be interpreted as a barrier to development for the aggregated parcel.

Agent Representation Owners may submit their own responses. Responses submitted by agents must be accompanied by documentary evidence of the agent’s authority to make such offers.

Responses Respondents may submit the following information using their own formatting and submit via e-mail, using the response form in Attachment C and submit via e-mail, or complete the form via the QR code on page 2 of this RFI:

• Submitted in response to what Approach (See Approaches 1 – 4 above)

• Completed and signed Right-of-Entry for Survey and Exploration (Attachment D)

• Respondent Information:

• If corporation, company, or real estate entity(ties):

• name(s) or organization(s) and addresses

• contact information

• size(s) of organization(s) in terms of revenue and employees

• years in business

• type(s) of entity(ties)

• If individual, private landowner or landowners:

• name(s) of landowner(s) or their representative(s) with knowledge of the parcel(s) listed in the response

• contact information

• years of ownership

• types(s) of entity(ties) or ownership

• Parcel(s) Information:

• Location

• Surrounding land use(s)

• Ownership and representation

• Legal name(s) of landowner(s) or

• Legal name of corporation or other entity with ownership interest in the land

• Must include all entities with an ownership interest in the land

• Legal description and current land survey

• Title research demonstrating unencumbered ownership with authority to enter into a sales contract

• Sales and information sheets for any portion of the proposed parcel(s) that are currently being marketed for sale, lease, or development

Campus Acquisition | Page 6

• Known environmental issues; copies of any environmental assessment(s) performed

• Map(s) including

• Parcel size and shape

• Adjacent road names

• Topography, if available

• Wetland, waterway, FEMA flood zone designations

• Easements and rights-of-way

• Existing infrastructure, if present

• Existing buildings, if present

• Historical markers or sites; protected habitats for endangered animals or plants

• Identify if the property is a greenfield, brownfield, a previously improved property or a

SuperfundNon-owner tenancy including through lease or rental agreement, adverse possession, or other statutory obligation

• Public or private oil, gas, mineral, air or other existing property rights separate from property ownership

• Current or historical railroad rights-of-way, easements, and any public or private reversionary interests

• Improvement(s) Information (if any):

• Building type and size, including construction type(i.e., brick office building, metal warehouse, etc.)

• Current occupancy type and duration; specific lease terms

• Age and condition assessment

• Alternative energy infrastructure (i.e., solar farm, geothermal, etc.)

• Municipal Information:

• Existing zoning and any known proposed or planned zoning changes

• Authorities having jurisdiction, including, but not limited to:

• County

• Municipality

• Public road or levee district

• Community Improvement District

• Transportation authority (airport, port, railroad) Development Considerations

• Existing and planned public or private utilities, easements for utilities, utility distribution, pipelines, or other utility infrastructure, including overhead, ground-level, and underground

• Existing and planned public or private telecom installations and easements for telecom installations, including, but not limited to, fiber optic infrastructure, distribution, and service delivery installations

• Current and future planned infrastructure construction including, but not limited to, transportation networks, basic services, and utilities, within 3-5 miles of proposed property or properties

• Any public or private access easements or agreements not otherwise requested above

Disclaimers This RFI is not a basis for negotiation, and the right is hereby reserved, as the Government’s interest may require, to reject any or all responses and consider sites other than those offered in response to this RFI. This RFI is not an offer to purchase, nor does it guarantee an acquisition will

Campus Acquisition | Page 7 be completed.

This site acquisition is being conducted pursuant to statutory authority contained in Section 161g of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2201g). NNSA is authorized under this statute to conduct this site selection without regard to the competitive procurement procedures contained in Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, commonly referred to as the Competition in Contracting Act.

Attachments Attachment A, Site Parameters Attachment B, Delineated Area Attachment C, Response to RFI Attachment D, Right-of-Entry for Survey and Exploration

Campus Acquisition | Page 8

Attachment A, Site Parameters and Evaluation Criteria Potential approaches to meet the mission need include:

Approach #1: Acquire land and construct a new campus Approach #2: Construct a new campus in partnership with a commercial developer Approach #3: Acquire existing facility(ies) to remodel into a new campus Approach #4: Alternate development solutions

ACQUISITION FACTORS

Site Availability Property availability is one of the most fundamental criteria for locating capital improvements. The title to the site should be free of legal encumbrances, platted and surveyed with an accurate legal description and have a single owner.

Evaluation Scores Approach Clear or unclear title, owner/seller not interested 0

ALL

Unclear title/boundaries, multiple owners 1

Some encumbrances/easements, etc., multiple owners 2

Clear title, recent survey, possibly available 3

Clear title, recent survey, definitely available 4

Site Cost Property should be available at an affordable cost. The most favorable situation is one in which the parcel is public land available at no cost to the federal Government. The cost of some parcels may be beyond available funds or outside of the permissible NNSA valuation for acquisition.

Evaluation Scores Approach Site is cost prohibitive 0

ALL

Site is above fair market value but within the budget 1

Site is available at fair market value 2

Site is below fair market value 3

Site is available at no cost or has a nominal admirative acquisition fee 4

Location/Delineated Area See Attachment B. The campus must be located near the US-95 corridor in the Northwest area of the Las Vegas metropolitan area, specifically east of N Shaumber Rd, north of W Ann Rd, west of N Tenaya Way. This is the approximate area within a 5-10-minute drive to the Exit 95 on the US-95 highway which is 45 minutes to the Mercury exit.

Evaluation Scores Approach Site is over 15 minutes of Exit 95 on the US-95 corridor 0

ALL

Site is within 15 minutes of Exit 95 on the US-95 corridor 1

Site is within 10 minutes of Exit 95 on the US-95 corridor 2

Site is within 5 minutes of Exit 95 on the US-95 corridor 3

Site is immediately adjacent to Exit 95 on the US-95 corridor 4

Building Footprint The existing building must be able to accommodate 1,300 employee spaces and any additional space needs such as conference rooms, cafeteria, VTRs, etc. Site must be large enough to accommodate internal traffic, parking and security control requirements including fencing if required at the site.

Evaluation Scores Approach Building is under 200,000 SF 0

#3 & #4

Building is over 200,000 SF and has 1,000 parking spaces 1

Building is over 250,000 SF and has 1,300 parking spaces 2

Building is over 300,000 SF and has 1,500 parking spaces 3

Building is over 350,000 SF and has more than 1,500 parking spaces 4

Campus Acquisition | Page 9

DEVELOPMENT FACTORS

Site Size The new campus must be between 25 - 40 acres to accommodate all the building and support infrastructure, including 25% additional space for future expansion. The preferred lot size is 40 acres for this analysis.

Evaluation Scores Approach Site is less than 25 acres 0

ALL

Site is 25-32 acres for the proposed campus 1 Site is 33-36 acres for the proposed campus 2 Site is 37-40 acres for the proposed campus 3 Site exceeds the space requirement for the proposed campus 4

Expansion Capability Site acreage will impact future expansion capabilities and construction type.

Evaluation Scores Approach Parcel is under 25 acres of developable area 0

ALL

Parcel is over 25 acres and is completely developable 1 Parcel is over 30 acres with 85-90% developable area 2 Parcel is over 35 acres with 85-90% developable area 3 Parcel is over 40 acres with 85-90% developable area 4

Proximity to Amenities Existing amenities in close proximity to the proposed site would add value as convenience to employees compared to sites with no amenities nearby. Restaurants, stores, schools and medical facilities located within predefined distances will be considered positive attributes for the parcel.

Evaluation Scores Approach No Amenities within 1/2 mile of property boundary 0

ALL

Food services within 1/2 mile of the property boundary 1 Several amenities within 1/2 mile of the property boundary 2 Multiple amenities of various types within 1/4 mile of the property boundary 3 Multiple amenities of various types within 500' (easy walking distance) of the property boundary

Road Access Access to the new campus from minor arterial or collector roads is more compatible than access from high speed or high-volume traffic corridors or from low volume residential streets. Access points must consider speed and volume of the road at the new driveway. Roadway classification and traffic volume information may be available the Department of Transportation and the local municipalities. Independent test may be required to meet NNSA’s requirements.

Evaluation Scores Approach Driveway access from National Highway System, Principal Arterial or Interstate 0

ALL

Driveway access from a low volume internal residential only street 1 Driveway access from a Major Arterial roadway 2 Driveway access from a Minor Arterial roadway 3 Driveway access from Local Road or Collector (not generally a low volume/residential-only street)

Driveway Opportunity/Conflict Driveway access options are limited by the roadway frontage. The greater the frontage along a road or along adjoining roads, the greater the opportunity to locate driveways that will provide multiple options for improved internal site circulations of vehicular traffic (buses, employees, visitors and government owned vehicles), pedestrian and potential bicycle traffic. Evaluation of driveway access and internal circulation options will occur within the site area planning process. Driveway separation requirements will align with either the city or the county depending on the site location.

Evaluation Scores Approach Road frontage limits access to one driveway; site restrictions or limits internal site circulation, or driveways and access frontage is insufficient for multiple modes of access.

#2, #3, #4 Road frontage limits driveway access option; site allows internal site circulation options.

Frontage limits multiple modes of access.

Road frontage is wide enough for multiple driveways and other modes of travel: site allows internal site circulation options.

Campus Acquisition | Page 10

Roadway Capacity, Safety Requirements Potential traffic conflicts at driveways entering established roadways, particularly where slopes, curves and obstacles inhibit clear sight distances, can be mitigated utilizing sight distance design calculations based on the roadway speed and traffic control devises such as stop lights. For each parcel, evaluate the sight distances of the existing intersection and potential driveway access points for adequacy. Refer to DOT and local design requirements to determine minimum safe distances.

Evaluation Scores Approach Adequate intersection site distance cannot be provided or would be very difficult/costly to obtain

#1, #2, #4 Adequate intersection sight distances can be provided but require clearing existing obstacles or excessive earthwork

Adequate intersection sight distances can be provided without any major work 4

Pedestrian Access Safe walking routes will enable employees the opportunity to walk or ride a bicycle to work. Minor collectors and local roads within easy access to the campus a best suited for pedestrian traffic. Roads with significant amount of traffic act as barriers to access and require traffic control devices when crossing. Evaluate surrounding roadways and walking conditions for safe access.

Evaluation Scores Approach No walking routes are available, nor can reasonable routes be constructed 0

ALL

Walking routes can be constructed, but significant path construction would be required.

Traffic control devices could be extensive and would require tunnels, bridges and signalization

Walking routes can be constructed at-grade without major right-of-way or road work 2 Existing walking routes are suitable for 1/4 to 1/2-mile travel, additional signaling may be required

Existing waking routes are suitable for 1/4-1/2-mile travel without any improvements 4

Solar Aspect The site should allow design to take full advantage of available sun angles. Facilities benefit from solar gain of winter sunlight, interior lighting and photo-voltaic panel orientation. Large stands of trees, north-facing slopes and adjacent structures can be detrimental. Evaluate these criteria based on the year-round use of the facility.

Evaluation Scores Approach Site is in constant shadow during fall, winter and spring months 0

#2, #3, #4 Site is mostly in shadow during the winter months with some fall/spring sun 1 Site is mostly exposed winter sun 2 Site is mostly exposed to year-round sun with some obstructions 3 Site is exposed to full year-round sunlight; no obstructions 4

Site Drainage/Flooding Sites with good drainage are easier to develop and maintain. Good drainage reduces the chance of water collecting around a facility which could cause erosion, undermining, decay and or heave leading to structural damage. Poor drainage can also make general use and occupancy of the site difficult. Evaluation is based on natural features and development of surrounding properties as well as existing storm drainage and diversion infrastructure.

Evaluation Scores Approach Site is generally low; surrounding areas drain into it with no existing storm drainage infrastructure

#2, #3, #4

Drainage collects in some areas within the site 1 Drainage collects in areas adjacent to the site 2 Site has positive drainage; water contribution from surround properties is easily accommodated with the existing storm drainage infrastructure

ALL

Site has positive drainage; no water contributions from surrounding properties 4

Zoning/Land Use Current and projected zoning and land use should be compatible with the use of the site for an NNSA administrative campus. If the current regulations do not allow office/commercial facilities, then a potentially lengthy process to change the zoning or conditional use permit will be required. Evaluate this criterion according to the difficulty and associated risk.

Evaluation Scores Approach Present/future zoning does not permit use of the site for a new campus 0

ALL

Not zoned for office/commercial but a change or exemption can be requested 1 Current zoning will allow for office space as a conditional use application 2 Currently zoned for office/commercial, not likely to change 3 Present/future zoning permits office/commercial or no zoning restrictions exist 4

Campus Acquisition | Page 11

Alternative Energy Sources/Capacity When evaluating existing facilities, any existing or potential alternative energy capabilities would be considered a positive attribute to that facility. The new campus will require sufficient capacity to offset the energy usage per NNSA’s requirements.

Evaluation Scores Approach No alternative energy or capability to install 0

#2, #3, #4 Some alternative energy with no space to expand to meet NNSA’s requirements 1 Some alternative energy with some space to expand to meet 50% NNSA’s requirements 2 Some alternative energy with ample space to expand to meet 100% NNSA’s requirements 3 Existing alternative energy will meet NNSA’s requirements 4

Proximity to Fire Response Equipment In areas with fire hydrants and a continuous/reliable water supply, sites may be rated by response time for the given service area.

In facility design, sprinkler systems will be specified which become part of the fire protection equipment which is independent of the site location except as it relates to water supply. Evaluate each site to determine if it is within a service area and is in close proximity to a fire station.

Evaluation Scores Approach Support fire station proximity is over four miles to the property 0

ALL

Support fire station proximity is within three miles to the property 1 Support fire station proximity is within two miles to the property 2 Support fire station proximity is within one mile to the property 3 Support fire station proximity is within one-half mile of the property 4

CONSTRUCTION COST FACTORS

Parcel Characteristics Parcel(s) shape and continuity are important factors when creating a functional and cost-effective campus plan. Properties that are odd shaped, long and narrow, or bisected by existing infrastructure such as roads or powerlines can be costly to develop and create obstacles to internal circulation and construction. Evaluate each site for contiguous parcels and easily developable characteristics.

Evaluation Scores Approach The property is bisected, not contiguous and/or does not have a large developable region 0

#1 The property is rectangular, not bisected and contains a large developable region 2 The property is square or slightly rectangular with no obstructions for construction 4

Site Topography The site should be fairly level with some topographic relief that can provide opportunities for design development. Level properties may not be available so consideration should be given to the property that best meets the programmatic needs of the facility.

Evaluate this criterion by consideration of amenities required for the facility (i.e., parking lots, bus stops, security infrastructure, internal roads and buildings).

Evaluation Scores Approach Site contains significant topographic relief and cannot accommodate anticipated use 0

#1 Site is not level and can only accommodate a limited number of anticipated uses 1 Site is not level but can still accommodate all anticipated uses 2 Site is mostly level and can accommodate all anticipated uses 3 Site is level and can accommodate all anticipated uses 4

Flood Mitigation Requirements Flooding potential from adjacent bodies of water and surface drainage from the surrounding watershed must be considered in the site selection process. The site must not be located within a 100-year floodplain and ideally will not be located in a flood prone area. Evaluate this criterion based on the FEMA flood plain maps and individual site assessment of surrounding storm water drainage.

Evaluation Scores Approach Site floods routinely or is entirely within the floodplain 0

ALL

Site is 50% or greater within the flood plain boundaries 1 Site is in close proximity to floodplain or major floodwater diversion basins 2 Site is in proximity of bodies of water or diversion basins but not in the floodplain 3 Site is not in floodplain; no nearby bodies of water or storm water basins 4

Campus Acquisition | Page 12

Proximity to Infrastructure - Water Connection to an existing, reliable water supply system with adequate capacity is preferred. Sites closest to the existing system would be rated highest. If a new water system is required, proximity to existing support infrastructure will be considered.

Evaluation Scores Approach No existing water system; no known/potential water supply within 1 mile of the property 0

#1, #2, #4

No existing water system; nearest water infrastructure is within 1 mile of the property 1 No existing water system available; nearest water infrastructure is within 1/2 mile of the property

Adequate, reliable water system is available adjacent to or near the site 3 Adequate, reliable water system is available within the site 4

Proximity to Infrastructure - Sewer Connection to an existing, reliable waste water/sewage system with adequate capacity is preferred. Sites closest to the existing system would be rated highest. If a new sewage system is required, proximity to existing support infrastructure will be considered.

Evaluation Scores Approach No existing sewage system; no known/potential sewage supply within 1 mile of the property 0

#1, #2, #4

No existing sewage system; nearest sewage infrastructure is within 1 mile of the property 1 No existing sewage system available; nearest sewage infrastructure is within 1/2 mile of the property

Adequate, reliable sewage system is available adjacent to or near the site 3 Adequate, reliable sewage system is available within the site 4

Proximity to Infrastructure - Power Connection to an existing, reliable electrical distribution system with adequate capacity is preferred. Sites closest to the existing system would be rated highest. If a new electrical system is required, proximity to existing support infrastructure will be considered. Evaluate this criterion based on known improvements and projected requirements.

Evaluation Scores Approach No existing electrical system; no known/potential electrical supply within 1 mile of the property

#1, #2, #4 No existing electrical system; nearest electrical infrastructure is within 1 mile of the property 1 No existing electrical system available; nearest electrical infrastructure is within 1/2 mile of the property

Adequate, reliable electrical system is available adjacent to or near the site 3 Adequate, reliable electrical system is available within the site 4

Proximity to Infrastructure - Natural Gas Connection to an existing, reliable natural gas distribution system with adequate capacity is preferred. Sites closest to the existing system would be rated highest. If a new natural gas system is required, proximity to existing support infrastructure will be considered. Evaluate this criterion based on known improvements and projected requirements.

Evaluation Scores Approach No existing natural gas system; no known/potential natural gas supply within 1 mile of the property

#1, #2, #4

No existing natural gas system; nearest natural gas infrastructure is within 1 mile of the property

No existing natural gas system available; nearest natural gas infrastructure is within 1/2 mile of the property

Adequate, reliable natural gas system is available adjacent to or near the site 3 Adequate, reliable natural gas system is available within the site 4

Site Soils/Foundation Conditions Ideal properties for construction contain well-graded, stable soils with high soil bearing pressure an no known caliche deposits.

Soil conditions should allow conventional, economical foundation systems which can meet or exceed a 50-year life expectancy with little maintenance. Soil conditions which can adversely affect construction including caliche or expansive soils should be avoided. Sites should be assessed for the quality of their soils based on known conditions or on-site investigations.

Evaluation Scores Approach Unstable soils throughout; highly specialized foundation required 0

#1 Mostly unstable soils; specialized foundation or excessive excavation likely 1 Isolated areas of the site have unstable soils, some specialized foundation likely 2 Most areas of the site have stable soils; conventional foundations possible 3 Stable soils; conventional foundation system possible 4

Campus Acquisition | Page 13

Existing Site Development Vacant, undeveloped land is preferable; if developed or currently utilized an alternative site for the existing use must be available.

Evaluate based on the magnitude of the existing uses requiring relocation and/or demolition as well as complexity and cost of such action.

Evaluation Scores Approach Site has many existing uses; all will be problematic/expensive to relocate or demolish 0

#1, #2, #3 Site has less than 10,000 SF or less of existing uses; all are relocatable or easily demolished

Site has no existing construction or uses 4

Campus Acquisition | Page 14

Attachment B, Delineated Area

Delineated area street boundaries Sites which are outside the delineated area boundary but are within a 10-15-minute drive of Exit 95 on Hwy US-95 may also be considered.

Legend

Within a 10-min drive of Exit 95

Within a 15-min drive of Exit 95

Campus Acquisition | Page 15

Attachment C, Response to RFI: NORTHWEST LAS VEGAS CAMPUS

ACQUISITION

Section I – Respondent Information

1. Respondent's Name 2. What is your affiliation with the owner of the recommended property(ies)?

3.A. Address Where do you wish correspondence regarding this project to go to?

4. Company Name

3.B. City 3.C. State 3.D. Zip code

5. Respondent's Phone Where do you wish phone calls regarding this project to go to?

6. Respondent's E‐mail Where do you wish e‐mail regarding this project to go to?

Section II – Approach

7. Which approach are you responding to?

Approach #1: Acquire land and construct a new campus Approach #2: Construct a new campus in partnership with a commercial developer Approach #3: Acquire existing facility(ies) to remodel into a new campus Approach #4: Alternate development solutions

Section III – Parcel Information

8. Parcel Address If multiple parcels are being stitched together to form one response and/or to fall within the 25‐40 acre requirement, please use the address of the largest or main parcel.

9.A. Existing Infrastructure?

Please check the box if there any existing structures on the property (i.e., retail center, surface parking, drainage basins, etc.).

9.B. Please describe the existing infrastructure.

• Structure type and size, including construction type (i.e., brick office building, metal warehouse, parking structure, etc.)

• Current occupancy type and duration

• Age and condition

10. Landowner

• Legal name(s) of landowner(s) or

• Legal name of corporation or other entity with ownership interest in the land(s)

• Must include all entities with an ownership interest in the land(s)

Campus Acquisition | Page 16

11.A.

Environmental Issues?

Please check the box if there any known environmental issues on the parcel(s).

11.B. Please describe any known environmental issues.

12. Please select the condition of the parcel(s).

13. Historic?

Please check the box if the parcel(s) are in a historic district or if there are existing historic structures on the parcel(s).

14. Protected Habitat?

Please check the box if the parcel(s) contain any protected habitats for endangered animals or plants.

15. Non‐owner Tenancy?

Please check the box if the parcel(s) or existing structures are leased out to another entity.

16. Other Rights?

Please check the box if oil, gas, mineral, air or other existing property rights are separate from the land(s) ownership.

17. Encumbrances?

Please check the box if there are current or historical rights‐of‐way, easements, and any public or private reversionary interests.

18. Existing Zoning What entity has jurisdiction for zoning over this parcel(s)?

19. Planned Zoning Please describe any known proposed or planned zoning changes.

20. Jurisdiction What other authorities may have jurisdiction over this parcel(s)?

• Municipality

• Public road or levee district

• Community Improvement District

• Transportation authority

21. Existing Utilities?

Please check the box if utilities are already at the parcel(s).

22. Distance to Water If water is not at the parcel(s), what is the distance from the main parcel to water?

23. Distance to Sewer If sewer is not at the parcel(s), what is the distance from the main parcel to sewer?

24. Distance to Electric If electric is not at the parcel(s), what is the distance from the main parcel to electric?

25. Distance to Communication If communication is not at the parcel(s), what is the distance from the main parcel to communication?

26. Surrounding land use What surrounds the recommended property? Residential? Commercial? Social services (fire, police, etc.)?

Section III – Attachments Please mark attachments included in your response:

The following is required:

Right‐of‐Entry for Survey and Exploration

The following is recommended:

Response to Approach #4 Attachment C, Response to RFI Deed(s) Documentary evidence of an agent’s authority to respond on the owner's behalf Title research demonstrating unencumbered ownership with authority to enter into a sales contract Sales and information sheets for any portion of the proposed parcel(s) that are currently being marketed for sale, lease, or development Environmental assessment(s) Lease or Rental Agreement(s) Map(s) including:

• Parcel size and shape

• Adjacent road names

• Topography, if available

• Wetland, waterway, FEMA flood zone designations

• Easements and rights‐of‐way

• Existing infrastructure, if present

• Existing buildings, if present

Campus Acquisition | Page 17

Section IV – Remarks

27. Please add anything you'd like to tell us about your response.

Campus Acquisition | Page 18

Attachment D, Right-of-Entry for Survey and Exploration

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

RIGHT-OF-ENTRY FOR SURVEY AND EXPLORATION

The undersigned, hereinafter called the “Grantor”, and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter called the “Grantee”, hereby grants to the Grantee, a Right-of-Entry upon the following terms and conditions:

1. The Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee an irrevocable right to enter upon the property hereinafter described with seventy-two (72) hours notice within a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of this Right-of-Entry, to survey, make test borings, and carry out such other exploratory work as may be necessary to complete the investigation being made of said property by the Grantee.

2. All tools, equipment, and other property taken upon or placed upon the land by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee and may be removed by the Grantee at any time within a reasonable period after the expiration of this Right-of-Entry.

3. If any action of the Grantee’s employees or agents in the exercise of this Right-of-Entry results in damage to the real property, the Grantee will, in its sole discretion, either repair such damage or make an appropriate settlement with the Grantor. In no event shall such repair or settlement exceed the fair market value of the fee title to the real property at the time immediately preceding such damage. The Grantee’s liability under this clause is subject to the availability of appropriations for such payment. The provisions of this clause are without prejudice to any rights the Grantor may have to make a claim under applicable laws for any damages other than those provided for herein.

4. The land affected by this Right-of-Entry is located in the State of Nevada, Clark County, and is shown depicted on Exhibit “A” attached to this Right-of-Entry. It is further described as follows:

5. All notices regarding the specific terms and conditions of this Right-of-Entry shall be in writing and addressed to the parties at the following respective address, or to such other persons or at such other addresses as may be designated in writing by either party to the other:

If to the Grantor: If to the Grantee:

Real Estate Contracting Officer National Nuclear Security Administration, NA-521 P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 realestate@nnsa.doe.gov

The above terms and conditions are acknowledged and agreed upon as indicated by the signatures affixed below:

GRANTOR: GRANTEE:

Typed Name: ____________________________ Sarah J. Watts Real Estate Contracting Officer National Nuclear Security Administration

Typed Title: _____________________________

Date: __________________________________ Date: __________________________________