RFP Details – Architect/Engineer

Query: Are existing engineering drawings available for the building?

Response: No.

Query: Would you be able to give us the total square feet of the area that needs to be renovated?

Response: Total area is about 7,200 sq. ft. broken down into roughly 2,400 sq. ft. per floor (Basement, 1st floor, 2nd floor).

Query: Is the intent of removing “obsolete wiring” in the basement to replace abandoned wiring or to replace all existing wiring within the basement with new.

Response: All non-functional wiring should be considered debris and removed. Functional wiring will need to be evaluated as to whether it meets current building codes.

Query: We are assuming that the “solar panels” on the roof to be photo-voltaic, not hot water solar. Please confirm.

Response: Photo-voltaic.

Query: It is our understanding that the building is on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, can solar panels be installed on the roof of the building?

Response: SHPO has given preliminary approval for solar panels on the south-facing roof slope. They will not be visible from the street look.

Query: Does the scope of work for “detection and alarm” on the top of RFP, page 4 refer to Fire Alarm, Security or both.

Response: Both.

Query: Define scope of “install new electrical”. Is the intent to replace all power wiring and equipment within the building or only as needed to support the renovation?

Response: Only as needed to support the renovation and bring existing systems up to current code.

Query: Is the intent to have a generator installed that will provide full building backup or partial backup. If partial, what loads are to be backed up?

Response: Full building backup is preferred, but final scope will depend on budget/cost constraints.

Query: Is the plumbing piping scope limited to the work required to integrate the new drinking fountains and toilet rooms into the existing system.

Response: Yes, plus the addition of a basement central drainage line.

Query: The time between the anticipated receipt of responses to our questions and the November 2, 2026, submission deadline appears insufficient to adequately review the clarifications and prepare, print, bind, and mail the required hard copies. Would PML kindly consider extending the submission deadline by two weeks to allow us sufficient time to carefully review the responses and prepare a thoughtful, comprehensive proposal?

Response: The schedule has been modified and the new date for submission is November 16, 2026.

Query: We assume that PDF is the preferred format for the digital submission. Is there a file size limit?

Response: No.

Query: The hard copies must be received at the library or the PO Box by 4:00 PM on November [16]? Either one is acceptable?

Response: Hard copy submissions must be post-marked by the due date (electronic submissions must be time-stamped by the due date).

Query: We’re assuming that the grant administrator mentioned in the RFP is already retained by PML, not a consultant that the design team needs to include in the proposal. Please confirm.

Response: We have a separate RFP out for a Grant Administrator.

Query: Beyond the anticipated December 1, 2026 commencement date, has PML established a preliminary schedule for design development, agency approvals, bidding, construction commencement, and substantial completion?

Response: The date has been revised, but a general schedule hasn’t been developed yet.

Query: Does PML have a preference or requirement for project documentation to be prepared using AutoCAD or Revit? (Note that Revit is preferred method of drafting and coordination for RA. We are wondering if BIM model would be part of deliverables.)

Response: As we are not professionals, we do not. We would anticipate that this is a discussion that needs to be made with the General Contractor.

Query: Does PML anticipate weekly, biweekly, or other regularly scheduled virtual coordination meetings during the design phase? Are there anticipated requirements for in-person meetings?

Response: Good communications are a necessity; formal meetings less so unless they are determined to enhance rather than detract from the process. The Building Committee will need to have up-to-date information on a continual basis. They will update the Board of Trustees at their monthly meeting. The need for in-person meetings will probably be determined by the joint decision of the architect team and PML.

Query: Does PML anticipate weekly, biweekly, or other regularly scheduled virtual meetings during construction administration? Are there specific expectations for on-site construction meetings or inspections?

Response: As above, this will need to be a joint decision of the people involved. On-site meetings will need to occur periodically to validate that the work meets the specs. We do not want tear-out and redo because specs ar not being met.

Query: Does PML anticipate maintaining library operations on the first floor throughout construction? Are there specific operational constraints, seasonal activities, or community events that should inform project phasing and scheduling?

Response: We would like to keep it functional as much as possible.

Query: Would PML require the design team to deliver an Operations & Maintenance Manual or would that be expected from the builder?

Response: The builder.

Query: We have experience with agencies such as SHPO, NYSERDA, NYS DOS, DOE, various decarbonization certifications, SCA, and USDA. However, we do not have experience with HCR or US Dept of Housing and Urban Development, and NYS Dept of Education or Council on Arts. We can fulfill the gap by hiring consultants as needed. Would that suffice?

Response: Yes.

Query: Please let us know if PML has conducted previous systems assessments or feasibility studies that were conducted prior to this RFP. If yes, would you be able to share those with us as part of this RFP process?

Response: A Preliminary HVAC Quote was made for the purpose of a grant application.

Query: Has a preliminary assessment been completed regarding the feasibility, capacity, structural implications, or funding eligibility of the proposed rooftop solar installation? (We understand that portions of the roof structure may need to be replaced due to deterioration.)

Response: No. The entire roof is due to be replaced.

Query: Should we include geothermal studies as an option?

Response: No.

Query: Is the 100–150 occupant load for the second-floor Opera House based on its historic usage or desired capacity? We are assuming that the hired design team is to conduct feasibility/egress capacity review for this occupant load. Please let us know if there have been previous studies that we should be aware of.

Response: The load is based on estimated capacity. The Scope Drawings indicate the formulas used to derive that number. The seats are concept only in that fixed seating is not desired. Reference: Conceptual Drawings.

Query: Would the design team be expected to prepare existing conditions architectural background drawings and formal assessment reports documenting the findings of the existing conditions evaluation? (Related to item #1 in the RFP under “Services Required”.)

Response: The Initial Scope Document will need to be reviewed to confirm original findings and update changes. Additional Resources: Building Photos, and Full Scope with Drawings.

Query: We are assuming that PML has not conducted asbestos, lead-based paint, or other hazardous materials surveys. If these assessments have been conducted, could you please share the reports with us?

Response: An asbestos study has been completed: Peck Library Asbestos Survey Report.

Query: We are assuming that PML is expecting the architect to be the Prime Consultant, engaging all required design-related subconsultants under one contract. Please let us know if PML prefers to hold a separate contract with each consulting firm instead.

Response: Your assumption is correct.

Query: Based on the number of professionals required to fulfill the scope of work outlined in the RFP, it’s possible that the proposed professional fee would be disproportionate to the current available funding. Would PML be willing to allow discovery period to evaluate and adjust the scope and fee accordingly?

Response: We believe the modified schedule accounts for this.

Query: Regarding item 1 under Services Required, “Assessment of exterior and interior conditions to identify rehabilitation needs consistent with the funding awards.” –We assume this means PML would like the design team to prioritize the most urgent rehabilitation needs within the available funding. However, the total project funding is yet to be determined. Is that correct?

Response: Correct

Query: In the event that certain elements of the scope of work are interdependent and cannot be separated, potentially resulting in construction cost exceeding the target budget, would the design team be compensated based on the actual scope of design services required rather than the target construction budget?

Response: To some extent this could be negotiated but the determining cap on design components is subject to the maximums allowed by various grants.

Query: As the project progresses and evolves, we understand that PML would allow fee adjustments to match the actual scope. Please confirm.

Response: Same as the last answer.

Query: If construction costs exceed the available funding, how does PML anticipate addressing the shortfall?

Response: The scope of work will need to be modified so that there is not a shortfall.

Query: Would value engineering efforts be compensated as Additional Services?

Response: We are not familiar with the term.

Query: The time required to fulfill documentation and reporting required by various grant-administering and regulatory agencies can be unpredictable. Would PML allow these services to be billed on an hourly basis?

Response: If this is something you want covered, it should be identified and quantified in your proposal.

Query: The “Proposal Content” section is requesting cost estimates. Did you mean fee estimates? If PML is expecting us to provide an anticipated construction budget in addition to our proposed professional fees, we believe it would be premature to do so at this stage. Please clarify.

Response: Fee estimates would be correct.

Query: Can PML confirm that compensation for architectural and engineering services will be secured independently of the receipt of pending grants or other incentive funding? If professional fees are to be paid through grant funds, are those funds currently awarded and available for expenditure?

Response: Architecture and engineering services will be funded with grants. The majority of the remaining grant awards should be known in December. None of the grants awarded have been contracted yet; this is expected to happen in November.

Query: Above question worded differently: We are assuming that the awarded grant is intended to cover professional fee through the completion of Construction Documents and Bidding phases, with subsequent phases to be determined following the evaluation of final bids. Please confirm or explain.

Response: We’re not sure exactly what is implied here, but the fee proposal should include all phases of the project through Construction.

Query: Our Asbestos Designer is saying that they will not be able to provide an estimate on services without a hazardous materials assessment.  The RFP makes it sound like that work has already been completed.  Is there a way to get ahold of that documentation?

Response: Yes. Asbestos Survey Report.

Query: Are there any existing drawings, specifically ones that show the structure? If no existing drawings exist, can selective demo be done in order to expose the existing structure in the areas that work is being performed?

Response: No structural drawings to our knowledge. At this stage, we would prefer not to have any demolition done.

Query: Are existing engineering drawings available for the building?

Response: No, just conceptual floor plans.

Query: Are floor areas available for the parts of the building to be renovated?

Response: Yes

Query: Is the intent of removing “obsolete wiring” in the basement to replace abandoned wiring or to replace all existing wiring within the basement with new.

Response: We would want to remove wiring no longer being used and replace only wiring that doesn’t meet building codes.

Query: Are the “solar panels” on the roof to be photo-voltaic or hot water solar?

Response: Photo-voltaic

Query: Does the scope of work for “detection and alarm” on the top of page 4 of the RFP refer to Fire Alarm, Security or both

Response: Both

Query: Is the intent to have a generator installed that will provide full building backup or partial backup.  If partial, what loads are to be backed up?

Response: Naturally we would like it to serve the entire system but cost will be the determining factor.

Query: Is the plumbing piping scope limited to the work required to integrate the new drinking fountains and toilet rooms into the existing system.

Response: Yes, unless it is determined that another arrangement would be needed by code regulation or cost effectiveness. Note that a there is also a central drain line and sump pumps for the basement also.

Query 1: Sustainability

• Is there additional information regarding the project’s sustainability objectives?
• Do you have preferred sustainability goals, performance metrics, certifications, or benchmarking requirements for this project related to MEP?
• Should proposers assume evaluation of Net Zero, Passive House, LEED, or other certification systems as alternatives only, or are they all to be applied to the project? Of these approaches, do any take priority over others?
• Are there any other certification systems under consideration?
• Is there a stated LEED rating goal or requirement (Silver, Gold, Platinum, etc.)?
• Are there any specific sustainability aspirations beyond the photovoltaic panel array on the roof?

Response 1: We do not have any certification in mind. We would like to minimize the extra use of energy that will be required as we regain use of the entire building.

Query 2: Will the full scope be designed and bid as one package, or is phasing anticipated as the various funding sources are confirmed?

Response 2: The full scope should be designed and bid as one package although the construction may take place in phases. We anticipate the project taking 18-24 months.

Query 3: Are there any grant-driven deadlines that will affect the project’s design and construction schedule?

Response 3: Not that we are aware of at this time.

Query 4: Will there be another opportunity to visit the site?

Response 4: Feel free to visit anytime; just let me know.

Query 5: Will a list of responding firms be provided?

Response 5: We are not planning to do so before a firm is selected, but possibly after.

Query 6: To what extent should the design team rely upon the existing documentation provided by the Owner? For example, should a new or updated hazardous materials evaluation be completed?

Response 6: The current report only covers asbestos. We expect that if additional hazardous materials evaluations are required, they will be included in the scope of work for the project.

Query 7: Is there a building superintendent or handyperson who can be consulted during the design process about the particulars of the existing building and systems?

Response 7: No, we do have some volunteers who may have some knowledge.

Query 8: Does the library or board have any design standards (architectural, mechanical, etc.) to be reviewed and followed?

Response 8: We are not aware of any requirements and standards other than SHPO and standard building codes.

Query 9: Is access to the tower easily available from the attic?

Response 9: It’s accessible; easy depends on your definition.

Query 10: During the site walk, it was mentioned that no work was required at the entry ramp, assuming its slope is compliant, but the RFP mentions improvements. Please clarify.

Response 10: We are open to suggestions.

Query 11: During the walkthrough, it was mentioned that roof work would be undertaken soon. Please clarify whether it is proceeding independently of this project or should be included in it. Alternatively, should it be part of an early phase?

Response 11: We are expecting to receive the funding for the roof soon. However, we would like to have it included with the project as the original scope of work for it did not anticipate structural needs for the use of solar panels or the replacement of the crenellation.

Query 12: Are new exterior porches expected to be designed with ramps, and is there any site or landscape work anticipated?

Response 12: This will be dependent on SHPO and ADA.

Query 13: Is a draft contract available for advance review?

Response 13: We expect that the chosen firm will develop the contract for our review.

Query 14: Will coordination be required with the Owner’s lighting designer/vendor for theatrical lighting and dimming systems at the Opera House and stage?

Response 14: These items are not included in the Scope of Work for this project. Some thought during the design phase will be needed for providing electricity for the stage and balcony areas.

Query 15: When is the requested funding ($1.9 million) expected to be awarded? Should the project be scoped in two or more phases in case the funding is delayed?

Response 15: The design phase for the project should be comprehensive. Some grants will be awarded this December and one next December. Each grant has their own draw percentages based on level of completion. These will necessitate ‘phasing’ during the construction phase.

Query 16: The budget mentions only HVAC on the second floor, but the site walk discussion also included mention of adding ductwork to the first-floor library. Please clarify the scope.

Response 16: The scope is for both the 1st and 2nd floors to be provided with HVAC. The budget sheet was meant to provide a snapshot of the funding sources and how they might be used to accomplish different portions of the project.

Query 17: Will the library stay open during construction, or will it be moved temporarily or closed to provide full access to the building?

Response 17: We would like to keep it functional as much as possible.

Query 18: If the additional $1.9 million in funding is not forthcoming, are any additional funding sources available to the Owner?

Response 18: We will be starting another fund drive in 2027 and we have some funds in our operational reserves.

Query 19: Are there any additional funding sources available to the Owner beyond the expected $3.9 million, if needed for additional scope not yet identified?

Response 19: As above.

Query 20: Are there any Owner requirements with respect to software programs used to create the project documents (AutoCAD, Revit, etc.), and what final deliverable format is expected (e.g., *.dwg, *.rvt, *.pdf files)?

Response 20: This depends on what the documents are and who needs to use them. We do expect a complete set of drawings and bid specs for our files and others for the contractors.

Query 21: Please confirm that the design team is expected to provide only Record Drawings and that As-built Drawings will be provided by the contractors. Architects can only provide Record Drawings reflecting the contract documents and updates. Contractors typically provide As-built drawings and files per Owner requirements.

Response 21: Please stipulate that in your proposal.

Query 22: Will you provide information on the number of firms expected to respond?

Response 22: At this time there are more than a dozen firms who have asked questions about the RFP.

Query 23: Is any additional programming effort anticipated, or can the preliminary plans be relied on to indicate the Owner’s preferred space program?

Response 23: This question is unclear.

Query 1: Are there any known structural deficiencies or remediation requirements (including removal of load-bearing elements, reinforcement, or foundation work) beyond those stated for the Opera House balcony? What structural assumptions should we include in our scope and fee?

Response 1: There are no critical deficiencies we are aware of however the basement should be inspected and the southern roof framing will need to be evaluated for solar panel installation.

Query 2: Are there any structural plans/drawings, reports, etc., from prior investigations, such as the 2025 preliminary design/planning effort?

Response 2: Not that we are aware of.

Query 1: Is any work expected outside of the building envelope beyond disconnection and reconnection of existing electrical, plumbing, sewer, drainage, and utility services?

Response 1: With the installation of a central drain line in the basement, connection to the storm drain will need to be investigated.

Query 2: Are any existing MEP/FP drawings or condition reports available?

Response 2: No.

Query 3: What design occupancy should be used for the Auditorium/Opera House? The RFP states 100–150; the draft plan shows 160 seats.

Response 3: These were for planning purposes only (number of toilet facilities, etc.) We do not envision permanent seating.

Query 4: Are there any archive/rare book areas or art requiring tight temperature and humidity control?

Response 4: No, the stained-glass windows are the only items that may require special consideration.

Query 5: Is the new generator intended to serve life-safety systems only, or are other systems intended to be backed up?

Response 5: Naturally we would like it to serve the entire system but cost will be the determining factor.

Query 6: No existing sprinkler systems were observed. The RFP requires new fire suppression systems across the first and second floors, while the budget only references sprinklers on the second floor. Please confirm the intent for the new sprinkler system to cover the basement, first floor, second floor, and attic to provide a fully sprinklered building.

Response 6: We will need to meet current building codes.

Query 7: Does the Owner have a vendor who will design and specify the photovoltaic (solar panel) system?

Response 7: No.

Query 1: Please confirm whether the design services listed below are required as part of the base proposal or should be excluded at this time:

• Acoustical Consulting
• Audiovisual (AV) Design
• Information Technology (IT) / Telecommunications Design
• Electronic Security / Access Control / CCTV Design

Response 1: At this time, they may be excluded.

Query 1: The floor plans provided show the balcony level above the second floor as “unoccupied.” Please clarify whether this renovation will reestablish the balcony as usable space. Use of the area for a technical booth was mentioned at the site walk, for example.

Response 1: The balcony will not be considered as usable space and open to the public. See Architecture Query/Response #14.

Query 2: For lighting controls, we will provide control zoning only for specification of controls by others. Please confirm if this is acceptable or if lighting controls recommendation services should be provided.

Response 2: All areas of the 2nd floor including the stage should have general lighting and zoning. ‘Stage lighting’ (Fresnels, Spots, etc.) is not included in the scope of this project.

Query 3: Are the services of a lighting designer expected in the fee / response?

Response 3: Only in relation to the previous answer.

Query 1: Should the elevator design presume a stop on the Opera House balcony for future use?

Response 1: No.

Query 2: Are design services required for the proposed stage lift, or is it a turnkey item requiring only electrical service?

Response 2: Since this will require reconstruction of walls, flooring, etc. design service will likely be required.

Query 1: Are the services of a cost estimator required, or does the Owner expect to contract for these services directly, coordinate through the Grants Administrator, or use a preferred contractor?

Response 1: As we understand it a cost estimator should be included as part of the Architecture/Engineering design. We do not plan to hire one directly.

Query 2: If cost estimating services are to be provided, at what milestones does the Owner expect cost feedback?

Response 2: This will need to be negotiated with the Grant Administrator. The bottom line is we don’t want to commit to any costs where the funding is not available to cover them.

Query: Would it be possible to also team up with various other firms to submit to the final RFP?

Response: We will contract an architectural firm who may or may not subcontract firms to accomplish their required tasks.

Query: Can we assume the existing mechanical systems will remain, with no additional work beyond the locations specifically identified in the RFP?

Response: In general, yes; changes to these systems will only be necessitated by building code and engineering of new MEP.

Query: Does the basement require replacement of the existing electrical systems and distribution?

Response: Only if they are not up to code; old, unused equipment should be considered debris and removed.

Query: What systems or equipment are anticipated to be connected to the emergency generator?

Answer: All.

Query: Is the building currently sprinklered, and if so, will a new water service be required?

Response: No.

Query: Will new electrical service required to the building?

Response: Engineer will need to determine how building should be brought to code.

Query: Do you require an energy model?

Response: Undetermined; this will probably be dependent upon grant requirements.

Query: For the various functions anticipated in the 2nd floor space, do you want to include as part of the design the necessary equipment to support them, such as theatrical lighting, projection equipment, and sound equipment? Or do you envision this project as a “shell” that you would fit out later and/or those using it would need to bring their own?

Response: Treat the design as a shell.

Query: Is a current site survey with topographical and utility information available that you are willing to share with the selected team, or should our proposal include a site and utility survey?

Response: We do not have a site survey with that information. There is a Site Map. 

Query: Are base drawings available in CAD or Revit format that you are able to share with the selected team, or should our proposal include measuring and drafting the existing building?

Response: We have no base drawings.

Query: Often the scope related to the abatement of asbestos is handled directly by the owner prior to start of construction, and documentation of abatement is not part of the design team scope. Can you confirm if this approach is acceptable?

Response: Since at least some of the work will require removing and replacing damaged acoustic tiles thus exposing more asbestos adhesive, abatement will need to be factored into the construction work.

Query: With the proposal due on Monday, November 2, at 4:00 PM, is it acceptable if we submit the electronic proposal by the deadline and the required hard copies (one (1) unbound original and three (3) bound copies) are sent the same day (thereby arriving after the due date)?

Response: Yes, that is acceptable.

Query: We were wondering if the firm that produced the Inclusive Project Scope is permitted to submit a proposal for the project itself?

Response: They have been invited to submit a proposal.

Query: What is/are the local/state jurisdictions that are required to review and approve the project for permitting/construction?

Response: The Village of Marathon has its own code enforcement officer.

Query: What type of community outreach is expected as part of the early design phases?

Response: Community outreach was done in preparation for various grants, most specifically in preparation for the NY Forward grant.

Query: How many firms were invited to respond to the RFP?

Response: 340 architectural firms including both MWBE and non-MWBE enterprises were sent RFP emails.

Query: Have you performed any due diligence reports or inspections of the existing building?

Response: We are not sure what due diligence reports are being referred to. The project has a preliminary approval from SHPO. An asbestos determination has been made and the results are available here.  

Query: Are there floor plans available in any format?

Response: The conceptual floor plans that were developed for the purpose of grant applications are available here.  

Query: What AV expectations are required for the assembly space?

Response: They are undetermined at this point.

Query: What function types are anticipated for the assembly space?

Response: We wish to have a multifunctional community space. We envision presentations, community meetings, concerts, displays, classes, etc.

Query: Will all the acoustic tiles on the second floor be replaced and the surface replastered?

Response: No, the broken and missing ones will be replaced with like kind after the black adhesive has been abated for asbestos. Replastering will only be done where needed to provide a stable surface for the replacement tiles.

Query: In evaluating RFPs is proximity a concern?

Response: No. We are looking for a firm that is exceptionally competent and cost effective. We expect the firm to be available when questions arise and to be on-site when necessary for problems, changes, and confirmation that the project work meets the requirements as specified.

Query: Could you clarify the anticipated scope of bidding-phase services? For example, should the consultant assume responsibility for issuing bid documents, responding to bidder questions, preparing addenda, attending a pre-bid meeting or walkthrough, reviewing bids, and making a recommendation for award?

Response: Yes

Query: For the construction-phase services, should the proposal assume full construction administration through project closeout? If so, is there an anticipated construction duration or frequency of site visits that firms should use in developing their fee?

Response: Construction administration would be primarily the responsibility of the Grant Administrator and General Contractor. During this time consultations will be necessary as problems are encountered and modifications are required. The duration of the project is expected to be 18-24 months. Site visits would be required to confirm that the work meets the requirements that were specified.

Query: Could you clarify which subconsultants PML expects the Architect/Engineer to include within its proposal? We assume the team will need an Architect, structural engineer, and MEP consultant.  But, for example, should the team also consist of lighting, hazardous materials, cost estimating, or other specialty consultants?

Response: We expect that the Architect/Engineer would use whatever specialists they deemed necessary to produce bid-ready engineering drawings and bid specifications.

Query: Will PML be scheduling a formal walkthrough, or should interested firms contact you directly to arrange a visit?

Response: Interested firms should arrange a visit with the contact person identified in the RFP

Query: I am wondering whether you can identify the firm that conducted the initial assessment?

Response: Crawford & Stearns / Architects and Preservation Planners, PLLC

Query: What grants are you receiving for this work? Is this an Historic Tax Credit project? Is a site visit possible?

Response:  Additional grant information is in the RFP. This is not a Historic Tax Credit project. Yes a site visit is possible; contact person for arranging it is listed in the RFP.

Query:  I’m wondering if you can tell me whether this is an open call or an invited RFP…

Response: This is an open call to all NY MWBE and Central NY architectural firms.

Query: I am wondering whether any existing conditions drawings or a conditions assessment were completed for the building?

Response:  An initial scope was done last year during the preparation of grant applications that included a preliminary assessment of the existing conditions. A copy of that scope document and accompanying photos are available here: Initial Scope & Building Photos

Query: I’m not proposing to compete for the full A/E scope, but I wonder whether the Library would consider treating the interior design of the Opera House and associated public spaces as a distinct scope, or encouraging the selected A/E to bring on a design architect/interiors consultant for that portion of the work.

Response: Currently we are only considering full-scope proposals but will keep your firm in mind during the design phase of the project.