Preparation of Scope of Collection Statements (SOCS) At Multiple National Park Units and Develop Tool for Museum Property Removal for the National Park Service, Interior Regions 3, 4, and 5
The purpose of amendment 0001 is to provide questions and answers.
Q1: For scheduling and budgeting purposes, what is the minimum and maximum number of consecutive days parks will provide collection access and staff availability per required site visit? (SOW On-site evaluations)
A1: Due to staffing shortages, parks may only be able to provide a minimum of 1-day onsite access with a maximum of 2 days of consecutive onsite access.
Q2: May the three required park visits be scheduled consecutively in a single travel event, or should each park be visited individually at separate times? (SOW On-site evaluations)
A2: The onsite visits may be conducted consecutively if this is of best value to the government.
Q3: May two contractor personnel (collections specialist and project manager) attend each required park visit simultaneously? (SOW Site visits)
A3: Yes, if it is of best value to the government.
Q4: Does the Government require final deliverables to be submitted as both native Microsoft Word and Excel documents plus a 508-compliant PDF, or as Microsoft Word alone? (SOW Digital deliverables)
A4: 508-compliant Microsoft Word and Excel
Q5: Please specify the required conformance level for Section 508 compliance (e.g., WCAG 2.0 AA, WCAG 2.1 AA). (SOW Section 508 Compliance)
A5: Department of the Interior Section 508 Policies | U.S. Department of the Interior
Q6: Is original photography production by the contractor required, or will all required photographs be provided by the parks? (SOW Inclusion of photographs)
A6: The document may include color photographs to be inserted into the text.
Q7: Will payments for ¿acceptance of Review Drafts¿ occur separately for each park's SOCS upon acceptance, or after all three park drafts have been collectively approved? (SOW Payment Schedule)
A7: The awardee may submit one invoice up to once per month for work performed or for costs incurred or less often. Either must first be accepted and approved by the appointed Contracting Officer¿s Representative.
Q8: Is hands-on inspection or physical interaction with collection items expected or permitted, or must review strictly be based upon accession records and documentation only? (SOW Working from "scratch")
A8: Access to museum collections is permitted under the supervision of the regional curator. Onsite visits are required per the SOW.
Q9: Please confirm the authoritative schedule for deliverable submissions and reviews (reconciling 14 calendar days, 15 working days, and 30 days mentioned). (SOW Deliverables table vs. narrative)
A9: The "Project Schedule and Deliverables" table should be followed. The final draft submission is measured in working days, the other deadlines are calendar days. The narrative has errors, so follow the table.
Q10: Will review comments from park and regional offices be consolidated into a single response per draft SOCS, or provided separately per reviewing entity? (SOW Comments Coordination)
A10: Single response consolidated by COR.
Q11: Does the 300-calendar-day performance period officially start from the date of contract award (SF-18 Block 26) or from the post-award kickoff meeting date? (SOW Performance period)
A11: The period of performance begins the date of contract award.
Q12: Does the Government prefer the cost proposal breakout by individual CLIN, by individual park, or both? (ITO Price breakdown)
A12: By CLIN.
Q13: Do bibliographies or extensive project lists count towards the two-page resume limit, or may these be provided separately outside the page limitation? (ITO Resume page limits)
A13: Yes.
Q14: Does the Government have a page limit or other restriction on length for Technical Questionnaire responses, or is length unrestricted? (ITO Technical Questionnaire length)
A14: Page limit of 20 pages.
Q15: Given the performance period of 300 calendar days, will the Government consider an Economic Price Adjustment clause for potential travel cost inflation? (ITO Pricing duration)
A15: If an award is made, it will be Firm Fixed Price.
Q16: Are Technical and Past Performance evaluation factors equally important and individually more important than Price, or does another explicit weighting apply? (FAR 52.212-2 Factors)
A16: There is no weight assigned. If an award is made, it will be a firm-fixed price award to the offeror submitting the quote that provides the best value to the Government as evaluated by the Government.
Q17: Will the Government apply standard NPS adjectival ratings (Outstanding/Good/Acceptable, etc.) and document strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies per factor? (FAR 52.212-2 Rating method)
A17: Adjectival ratings are not required in Part 13. Quotes will be evaluated to determine which provides the best value to the government considering the information provided in response to technical, past performance, and price.
Q18: Does the Government intend to award strictly without any discussions, or are clarifications/interviews anticipated following proposal submission? (FAR 52.212-2 Clarifications)
A18: We intend to award without discussions but reserve the right to conduct them.
Q19: Please clarify explicitly if the source selection approach will be based on a Best Value trade-off method or Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). (FAR 52.212-2 Best value method)
A19: Neither a trade-off method nor LPTA is selected. Quotes will be evaluated to determine which provides the best value to the government considering the information provided in response to technical, past performance, and price.
Q20: How will proposed travel costs be evaluated: realism analysis, reasonableness-only evaluation, or a combination of both methods? (FAR 52.212-2 Travel cost evaluation)
A20: Quotes will be evaluated to determine which provides the best value to the government considering the information provided in response to technical, past performance, and price.
Q21: Will minor administrative proposal omissions permit opportunity for correction, or will such proposals be immediately eliminated? (FAR 52.212-2 Preliminary review)
A21: We intend to award without discussions but reserve the right to conduct them.
Q22: Must the "anticipated schedule of events" strictly align with the exact deliverable dates from the SOW, or may the contractor propose additional intermediate milestones/events? (TQ Item #1)
A22: The "Project Schedule and Deliverables" table should be followed. However, due to limited availability of funds for COR travel the onsite visits must be completed prior to September 15, 2025.
Q23: Are provided examples required to explicitly demonstrate multiple SOCS projects completed concurrently across geographically dispersed locations, or are single-location SOCS examples equally acceptable? (TQ Item #2)
A23: Examples should accurately demonstrate the experience of the vendor.
Q24: Should provided examples specifically demonstrate Section 508 compliance experience for museum collection documents, or is general document accessibility experience sufficient? (TQ Item #2)
A24: Examples should accurately demonstrate the experience of the vendor.
Q25: Must the submitted project examples explicitly include experience in collections disposal/deaccessioning recommendations, or is general SOCS experience acceptable? (TQ Item #2)
A25: Examples should accurately demonstrate the experience of the vendor.
Q26: Are provided examples limited strictly to NPS-specific museum standards experience, or are equivalent federal agency museum standards acceptable? (TQ Item #2)
A26: Examples should accurately demonstrate the experience of the vendor.
Q27: Is explicit citation/reference of NPS Museum Handbook required in the proposal, or is narrative description of compliance methodology sufficient? (TQ Item #3)
A27: Proposal should accurately reflect the experience of the vendor.
Q28: What is the total page count of each existing SOCS document at BUFF, FOSM, and SACN? (Ref: SOW "Review each park's SOCS")
A28: BUFF - 37 pages; FOSM - 25 pages; SACN - 28 pages
Q29: How many meetings with park and curatorial staff are anticipated or required at each park during site visits? (Ref: SOW "Discuss museum collection management and SOCS with Midwest Regional Curator, park curator, and other staff")
A29: An initial onsite meeting with park staff and the regional curator.
Q30: Approximately how many interviews with archeological staff or MWAC advisors are required at each park, and what is the anticipated length per interview? (Ref: SOW "contact park archeological staff and/or MWAC archeology advisor")
A30: Dependent upon the size of the archeological collection.
Q31: Approximately how many additional pages or sections per SOCS are anticipated beyond existing SOCS due to updates and new formatting requirements? (Ref: SOW "Reformat and update the three SOCS using the current SOCS template")
A31: Dependent on findings during onsite visit.
Q32: Please specify explicitly the required conformance level for Section 508 compliance (WCAG 2.0 AA, WCAG 2.1 AA, or other)? (Ref: SOW "Section 508 Compliance")
A32: See 5A.
Q33: How many distinct permitted activity types require a written Best Practices discussion in the SOCS appendix? (Ref: SOW "Best Practices for collections created through permitted activities")
A33: Dependent on park permitted activity.
Q34: What is the anticipated or permitted average duration (number of days onsite) per required park site visit? (Ref: SOW "Conduct one site visit to each park")
A34: See 1A.
Q35: What is the estimated total number of relevant documents, database records, or interviews per park requiring review? (Ref: SOW "conduct onsite collection research, documentary research, database reviews, and interviews")
A35: Total is different for each park and dependent on findings during onsite visit.
Q36: How many contractor personnel are permitted to attend each required park site visit? (Ref: SOW "Conduct one site visit to each park")
A36: The best value to the government.
Q37: Are there any explicit restrictions regarding hands-on inspection or physical interaction with collection items, or must review be strictly accession/document-based? (Ref: SOW "Not a hands-on item level review")
A37: See 8A
Q38: How many internal QC/review cycles per SOCS deliverable does the Government anticipate or require? (Ref: SOW "Review/comments submitted to contractor")
A38: Each SOCS and removal tool will be reviewed by the NPS during the 45-day period outlined on the "Project Schedule and Deliverables" table. The contractor then has 15 working days to submit the final draft.
Q39: Beyond the Excel spreadsheets provided by the Government, is additional detail or a separate tool/application required for the "Museum Property Removal Tool"? (Ref: SOW "COR will provide contractor copy of Excel spreadsheets")
A39: From the SOW: "The SOCS for each park will include an appendix detailing recommendations for removal/disposal of museum property that does not fit the scope or mission of each respective park unit...These recommendations for collection refinement will be presented with rationales and tables or lists by deaccession/disposal action type."
Q40: The current payment schedule outlined in the SOW allows for 25% contract amount to be invoiced after all site visits are completed. This will require contractors to carry travel costs for up to 90 days before invoicing. Is the contracting team open to alternative payment schedules, such as allowing contractors to invoice for roughly 8.33% after each site visits to offset the travel costs? (Then the 50% after Draft 1 and 25% after final draft submittals, as outlined in the SOW).
A40: Allowing payments after the completion of each site visit is acceptable.
Q41: The current project schedule and deliverables outlined in the SOW would mean that all work is completed by approximately week 25 of a 43-week period of performance. Is the contracting team open to an alternative project schedule that allows for 1) more time to complete the site visits; 2) more time to compile drafts; and 3) more time for the NPS Draft 1 review?
A41: Completing the site visits requires a COR to be onsite with the contractor. Funds for COR travel are only available for the fiscal year so all travel must be completed prior to September 15, 2025. Flexibility may be allowed for compiling drafts and NPS draft review.
Reminder that all amendments must be acknowledged by the solicitation close date and time.
James Bissaillon
Contract Specialist
DOI, National Park Service, Interior Region 3,4,5
ConOps Central, Nebraska Major Acquisition Buying Office
Email: james_bissaillon@nps.gov
Phone: (402) 800-8292
