This page was last updated January 8, 2019.
What is the Presidio of San Francisco?
Once a U.S. Army military post, the 1,491-acre Presidio of San Francisco is a National Historic Landmark District and in 1994 became a national park at the center of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) in Northern California. The 82,000-acre GGNRA is one of the largest national parks in an urban area in the world.
Over the past two decades, the Presidio Trust, the National Park Service (NPS), and non-profit Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy (Conservancy) have led the Presidio’s “post to park” transformation. Today, the Presidio is home to 3,000 residents and 200 innovative organizations. The park also welcomes seven million visitors each year. Visitors can hike on a 24-mile trail network, enjoy museums, art, and cultural attractions, engage with history, and explore the Presidio’s beautiful open spaces, views, and natural areas.
What is the Presidio Trust?
Working with the National Park Service and the non-profit Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, and at no cost to taxpayers, the Presidio Trust brings alive the unique historic, natural, and recreational assets of the Presidio for the inspiration, education, health, and enjoyment of all people.
The Presidio Trust is an unusual federal agency. In our founding legislation, the Presidio Trust was charged with operating without taxpayer support. Funds earned primarily through leasing are used for park management and capital improvements. The Presidio Trust manages 80 percent of Presidio lands, including most of the six million square feet of building space, including the Fort Winfield Scott campus. The National Park Service manages the Presidio’s coastal areas.
The Presidio Trust is pursuing three goals to ensure that the Presidio will be preserved for the enjoyment of all people for generations to come:
- The Presidio will be visited and loved by all.
- The Presidio Trust will be a model of environmental stewardship.
- The Presidio Trust will be a model of operational excellence and financial sustainability.
Where is Fort Winfield Scott? Why was it built and why is it important?
Fort Winfield Scott is located within the Presidio of San Francisco along the park’s Pacific coast just a short walk from the Golden Gate Bridge. The campus is nestled within the eucalyptus and cypress trees of the Presidio’s historic forest.
Fort Winfield Scott, named for the most prominent U.S. Army officer of the 19th century, was initially established as an independent post for the Coast Artillery Corps. While located within the Presidio Army post, Fort Scott functioned separately with its own commander until after World War II. Over the course of half a century, it served as headquarters for the defense of the Bay Area’s coastline, from the era of breech loaded, rifled guns to Nike missiles.
Constructed between 1909 and 1912, Fort Scott features the earliest example of the Mission Revival architectural style at the Presidio. This style ultimately set the precedent for white buildings with red roofs that is now typical of most Presidio buildings.
What is the Presidio Trust’s vision for Fort Winfield Scott?
The rehabilitation of
Fort Winfield Scott is the latest chapter in the Presidio’s ongoing transformation which has already revitalized Crissy Field, the Main Post, and most other parts of the national park.
We believe that the iconic and historic Fort Winfield Scott campus should be a place of public service where 21st century environmental and/or social challenges are addressed. This is in keeping with the long-standing belief of park managers and the public that this campus has special potential for achieving public good given its dramatic setting and legacy of service.
What is the Presidio Trust’s approach for revitalizing the Fort Winfield Scott campus?
The Presidio has pursued a two-step process to consider the future of Fort Winfield Scott. Step one began in January 2018 with the release of the Request for Concept Proposals. Step two began in October 2018 with the release of the Request for Proposals. To learn about our approach, visit the
Process page. The project timeline is available on the
What are the challenges of revitalizing the Fort Winfield Scott campus?
Fort Winfield Scott’s historic buildings, landscapes, and infrastructure require a significant investment, estimated in the range of $200 million. Given that this is public land – both a national park and a National Historic Landmark – revitalization must be careful to preserve the historic and natural elements of the campus. The buildings in the RFP are “certified historic structures” and the project may be eligible under the current Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program. Accordingly, there may be an opportunity to earn a federal income tax credit of up to 20 percent of qualifying expenses taken ratably over five years.
What are your project objectives?
In addition to the overarching goal of establishing Fort Winfield Scott as a campus for one or more mission-driven organizations focused on addressing the significant environmental and/or social challenges of our time, we have the following objectives for the Fort Winfield Scott campus:
Rehabilitate Historic Resources – The historic buildings and landscapes at Fort Winfield Scott that contribute to the National Historic Landmark District will be rehabilitated according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, site and design guidelines, and prevailing building codes.
Be a Model of Environmental Sustainability in Design, Construction, and Operation – Fort Winfield Scott will be a model of environmental sustainability in all aspects of design, construction, and operation, including transportation management emphasizing alternative modes of transportation.
Enhance the Public Realm – Fort Winfield Scott’s public realm will be improved to sustain and ideally enhance the biodiversity of the Presidio, and to make the Fort Winfield Scott area more accessible and inviting for visitors to the Presidio.
Enhance the Park by supporting the Presidio Trust’s Financial Sustainability – Fort Winfield Scott will contribute to the financial sustainability of the Presidio Trust.
Deliver the Improvements Expeditiously – Fort Winfield Scott will be rehabilitated expeditiously.
What role will the Presidio Trust have in operating or curating Fort Winfield Scott if a developer is selected?
As public land, the Presidio Trust will retain ownership over the buildings and site. Our intention is to select a third-party organization to fund rehabilitation of Fort Winfield Scott and implement the project. The Presidio Trust would not be a financial sponsor or a curator of the program.
How will you ensure that Fort Winfield Scott’s history is protected and interpreted?
We will require the selected developer to identify opportunities to interpret the history and significance of Fort Winfield Scott for the visiting public. For instance, the selected developer would be required to restore and make available to the public the historic murals in Building 1216 dating from the 1950s.
How will the general public be able to use and enjoy Fort Winfield Scott?
The general public will continue to be invited to use and enjoy Fort Winfield Scott, as they do today. The ball fields will be improved and will remain available for public play under the Presidio Trust’s permit system. Transit service and food service will be added to the district. We are also exploring the possibility of improving trail connections within the district.
How will you manage traffic in this already congested portion of the Presidio?
A required element of the revitalization plan is for the selected developer to construct a new transit center at Fort Winfield Scott for use by tenants and the public. The new transit center would offer connections to MUNI, the PresidiGo Shuttle, and ride share. As with other tenants in the Presidio, the developer would be required to submit a Transportation Demand Management plan.
Questions and Answers from the Fort Winfield Scott Conference Call with Teams - October 11, 2018
If the teams decide to keep the United States Park Police (USPP) on the Fort Winfield Scott campus, will the USPP pay rent and service district charge? What is the plan for the USPP while a building is being rehabilitated for their long-term use? Is it the Presidio Trust’s preference that a building is rehabilitated for the USPP first?
In any scenario, whether the respondents decide to rehabilitate a building in or out of Fort Scott, the USPP must remain operational. The Presidio Trust’s preference is that the USPP facility is completed early in the project. The Presidio Trust is willing to consider other proposals.
If the respondents decide to keep the USPP in a rehabilitated facility at Fort Winfield Scott, then the USPP would pay its share of Service District Charge. If respondents require rent from the USPP, then that should be included in their response.
What is the Presidio Trust’s process for answering questions though the December 17 date noted in the Request for Proposals (RFP)?
All questions should be addressed to the
email@example.com email address. The Trust will respond shortly thereafter via the Q+A section of this project website to ensure that all teams have access to the same information. Per the RFP, the last day to submit questions is December 7. The last day the Presidio Trust will provide responses is December 17.
Can you speak to degree of detail you are looking for in the concept plans?
Please refer to the submittal requirements in the RFP.
When does the Presidio Trust expect to begin to receive service district charge? What will be the basis for Service District Charge – gross or net square feet?
The obligation to pay Service District Charge begins to accrue when the respondent takes possession of the premises/site. Service District Charge will be based on the gross square footage.
Are floor plans required for the proposed new construction?
Yes; please refer to page 8 of the RFP.
Item #7 of the RFP requires each team to provide a project schedule. The Presidio Trust typically takes the lead on the NEPA/NHPA process. Will the Trust provide a NEPA/NHPA compliance schedule?
If your team is pursuing historic tax credits, then your team should provide the schedule assumptions for the historic tax credit process.
The Presidio Trust intends to release the draft environmental document in March 2019 and will respond to comments and circulate the final document in June 2019. We expect to conclude the NEPA/NHPA process in July 2019.
What are the Presidio Trust’s fees associated with obtaining a building permit in the Presidio?
Section C.2 – Permitting of the Tenant Handbook for a description of the permitting process and the fees. Because permit review and inspection fee amounts vary depending on a project’s scope of work and projected cost of permitting activities, at this stage of the development process, fees are generally estimated to be 1.2% of the hard construction costs.
Is the finalist team selected for negotiations expected to pay for the costs of the Presidio Trust staff or other costs incurred by the Presidio Trust during the negotiations?
Not beyond the $300,000 deposit. See pages 6 and 13 of the RFP for information on the required $200,000 deposit with the proposal and $100,000 additional deposit upon selection.
What does the $300,000 deposit cover?
Deposits will be applied to the Presidio Trust’s expenses and costs. From page 6 of the RFP: “Deposit. Please provide a $200,000 refundable earnest money deposit made payable to the Presidio Trust, refundable to those that are not selected for exclusive negotiations.” From page 13 of the RFP: “Upon execution of the Letter of Intent, the selected proposer’s initial deposit will become non-refundable, and the selected proposer will make an additional non-refundable deposit of $100,000.”
Can you please describe the level of environmental cleanup on the site, for example lead paint stabilization and lead in the drip line of the soil?
Please refer to the information in the Project Documents section of the website (https://www.presidio.gov/fort-winfield-scott/about/project-documents). Please submit any further questions in writing.
Will the ballfields remain in operation other than during the reconfiguration of the ballfields themselves?
Yes, the Presidio Trust’s preference is for the ballfields to remain in operable condition other than when the ballfields are in construction or if there are hazardous site conditions that do not allow for the safe use of the ballfields.
Will the Presidio Trust make available space on site for laydown and construction?
Yes, the Trust’s preference is that laydown and construction activities be contained within the boundaries of the area shown on Appendix C, Site Boundaries Map of the Request for Proposals.
For the utility infrastructure improvements, how much detail needs to be submitted in the RFP? Are the teams expected to fund all of the utility infrastructure improvements?
Page 8 of the RFP asks teams to respond with their approach to evaluating and identifying the necessary utility infrastructure improvements and to provide a schedule to implement those improvements. The Presidio Trust does not expect to receive complete utility infrastructure plans. Please refer to Appendix D for additional information. The Trust will work with the finalist team to determine the scope of work. Consistent with the RFCP and the RFP, respondents are required to fund all of the utility infrastructure improvements.
The utility infrastructure improvements are complex. What level of budget analysis are you expecting in the RFP response as opposed to the actual negotiation?
Based on the information available, teams should include a line item in their budget for utility infrastructure improvements.
Has the Presidio Trust prepared a scope of work for the utility infrastructure improvements?
Preparation of the Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) will be a significant expense. Can you describe further what the Presidio Trust is looking for in the TDM?
The TDM Plan is a critical element of each proposal and therefore should demonstrate the team’s financial and programmatic commitment to achieving the goals identified in the Presidio Trust Management Plan (see Appendix D). The TDM plan should identify the project or site-specific measures as well as any contribution to Presidio Trust-operated measures.
The Presidio Trust has mentioned a $200 million cost estimate for Fort Winfield Scott. Will the Trust provide any more detailed information or the assumptions used to generate the $200 million figure?
By way of example only, the Presidio Trust prepared an estimate suggesting that the rehabilitation of the Fort Winfield Scott campus is in the $200 million range. Respondents must develop their own cost estimates specific to their proposal. The Presidio Trust’s estimate assumes completion of all of the required and optional elements described in the
Request for Concept Proposals. The estimate represents an “all in” development cost assumption inclusive of soft costs, hard costs, tenant improvements, and contingency. It does not include financing costs. The estimate was developed based on actual costs incurred on comparable projects within the Presidio (escalated to 2016 dollars) as well as third party cost estimates for specific scopes of work.
Optional New Construction||$12,000,000|
Relocate USPP (off campus)||$20,000,000|
Site Improvements and Infrastructure||$23,000,000|
Will Josh Bagley be negotiating the deal?
The Presidio Trust will assemble a team to support the negotiations.
The RFP states in Section 4 on page 12:
Proposals that are received on or before the proposal deadline will be evaluated by the Presidio Trust with an emphasis on the completeness of the proposal, the proposal’s ability to achieve the Presidio Trust’s objectives, and the financial, managerial, and operational capacity of the submitting organization, as well as other factors the Presidio Trust may determine to be in the best interests of the Presidio.
Who at the Presidio Trust will review the proposals? Will the Board be involved in the review of the proposals? What weight will be placed on the various elements of the proposals (e.g., mission, experience, financing plan, business terms)? What are the “other factors” that the Presidio Trust “may determine to be in the best interests of the Presidio?”
Presidio Trust staff and select consultants will review the proposals and prepare a staff recommendation to the Presidio Trust Board. The Board will receive all proposals and the staff recommendation. The Board will make the final decision. See page 13 of the RFP. The various elements of the proposals are not weighted. The Presidio Trust will consider all information submitted in the proposals.
These two documents: Presidio Trust Municipal Services Rate Table (2017) and the Historic Plan Set, listed in Appendix B of the RFP are not available on the project documents webpage.
The documents have been added. The Presidio Trust Municipal Services Rate Table is the current one (2018), for Fiscal Year 2019 (October 2018 – September 2019). The Historic Plan Set is a 1909 set of plans for the Coast Artillery Barracks from the Park Archive. There are many additional historic plans, photos, and other documents available at the Park Archive. See Page 17 of the RFP for information on visiting the Archive.
Questions and Answers - November 1, 2018
There seem to be discrepancies between the square foot totals shown in the various documents (RFP, building reports, etc.). Do you have a Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) certified study of the square foot totals for each building, with breakdowns of gross square feet, rentable square feet and usable square feet? Do you have rentable square feet assumptions everyone should be using if not?
We do no not have a BOMA-certified study of the buildings. We do not have rentable square feet assumptions. Please use the gross square footage provided for each building in Table 1 of the Request for Concept Proposals, page 13.
Can we get a list of specific building-related improvements required by the United States Park Police (USPP)? Or at least a narrative of the minimal improvements required for their buildings?
A detailed program for the USPP will be developed in the post-RFP phase.
Is 40K square feet all the United States Park Police (USPP) needs now and in the future? Is there any expectation that they will expand/shrink?
Please assume that the USPP space needs will remain stable at 40,000 square feet.
Does the United States Park Police (USPP) need the 40K square feet to be adjacent, or is there an opportunity to move some of their space elsewhere, and/or leave some at Fort Winfield Scott?
The preference is for the space to be adjacent; however, the Presidio Trust will consider alternative proposals.
Can you identify what testing has been done regarding lead in soils, and estimates for costs to abate?
Project Documents and
Various Environmental Documentation sections of the website for documents that present testing and abatement that has been done regarding lead in soils. The Presidio Trust will not provide estimated abatement cost projections for Fort Scott.
Do you have hazardous materials abatement costs for similar buildings around the Presidio that you can share?
Are there any other discretionary approvals besides NEPA and Section 106 that will be required?
Please refer to Part C “Project Compliance Review and Permitting Guidelines” in the Presidio Trust’s
Is the developer expected to fund and construct all infrastructure improvements as shown in the district, or just determine loads? Will the Presidio Trust fund and construct infrastructure improvements outside project boundary? Is funding in place for the Presidio Trust share (for example, replacement of electrical substation 680 that serves the entire district, not just Fort Winfield Scott)?
The respondent will be required to fund and construct all infrastructure improvements, without financial contribution from the Presidio Trust.
Is there any Presidio Trust participation in infrastructure costs within the project boundary?
The respondent will be required to fund and construct all infrastructure improvements, without financial contribution from the Presidio Trust.
You strongly encourage us to employ sustainable strategies and refer to the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines on doing so. Will those be the only guidelines/restrictions to use for whether a system is compatible?
All building rehabilitations and new construction are required to meet LEED certification and comply with Presidio Trust adopted codes both as specified in the
2013 Building Codes Standards and Guidelines.
Do any prior analysis of the existing electrical system capacity exist, and is that prior analysis available for review?
The Presidio Trust has no available system capacity analysis.
Does any prior analysis of the existing electrical system physical condition exist and is that prior analysis available for review?
The Presidio Trust has not performed a condition analysis of the electric distribution system. However, all equipment at Substation 680 was constructed around 1970 and is generally in poor condition.
Do you have single line diagrams of the existing electrical system at Fort Winfield Scott?
Single line diagrams for Substations 568, 70, 680, and 1449 are available and will be provided in the post-RFP phase.
Are there requirements for natural gas service to any of the buildings?
Natural gas service is owned and distributed by PG&E. Please refer to PG&E to determine PG&E’s requirements.
Please provide the location and any known condition or capacity constraints relative to natural gas service. The RFP and reference documentation state that there are 4” high pressure lines, but there isn’t a map of their locations in the RFP.
The Presidio Trust does not have capacity information or gas distribution maps for PG&E’s distribution system. Planning and design of new gas service should be determined by engaging directly with PG&E according to their procedures.
What is the status of the current telecommunications infrastructure? Can any of it be saved or reused?
Respondents should determine the campus needs and work with an outside service provider to determine if any of the existing telecommunications infrastructure is usable.
Presidio Trust fiber and copper telecommunications systems run throughout the site for use by the Presidio Trust for other areas of the park. Those facilities must be protected. There are Presidio Trust fiber and copper systems in many of the buildings, which we expect will need to be removed during rehabilitation.
Questions and Answers - December 14, 2018
Has lead paint abatement been completed in conjunction with exterior painting work on the buildings? Should we assume that exterior lead paint abatement will be required?
The exteriors of some buildings have been stabilized, however none have had lead-based paint removed from the exterior surfaces. Developers should assume that elimination of lead hazards will be required.
Are the Versar reports the only hazardous materials-related reports the Presidio Trust has on the Fort Winfield Scott buildings?
For the un-rehabilitated buildings, all hazardous materials-related reports the Trust has are available in the Project Documents section of the website (https://www.presidio.gov/fort-winfield-scott/about/project-documents). For the rehabilitated buildings (Buildings 1201 and 1202), additional testing was performed prior to hazardous materials work. Those reports will be available in the next phase.
Can you confirm the NEPA and NHPA Section 106 processes will be led by the Presidio Trust, and the expectations you have of the developers?
The Presidio Trust will serve as the “lead agency” with primary responsibility for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) on the Fort Winfield Scott project. The Trust expects the developers to cooperate with the Trust by providing information and assistance, as requested, for the Trust to complete the NEPA/NHPA compliance process.
What infrastructure cost estimates do you have, and for what specific scope of improvement?
This question was addressed earlier in the Frequently Asked Questions.
Do Historic Structure Reports (HSRs) need to be prepared for each building?
Teams are not required to prepare Historic Structure Reports (HSRs) for each building. The Presidio Trust has already prepared HSRs for several of the buildings that are part of the RFP offering (Buildings 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204 and 1216). The existing HSRs for the barracks buildings were written to be extrapolated to the other barracks (Buildings 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1217 and 1218). Teams should use this existing documentation to facilitate building surveys and identify historic features to incorporate into the rehabilitation designs. For the other buildings, documents known as “Physical History Reports” (PHRs) are available for teams to use. These identify character defining features (labeled as “highly sensitive to alteration”) and less-significant/non-contributing features (labeled as “less sensitive to alteration”) for all building interiors and exteriors. Teams should use these documents to develop designs and demonstrate that their rehabilitation approaches are in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. One building that may benefit from HSR-level research is Building 1331, due to its complicated construction history and the paucity of available documentation.
Our responses to the next five questions are preliminary, based on the Presidio Trust’s experience managing other historic preservation projects in this National Historic Landmark District. Please be aware that if projects are submitted for consideration under the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program, final decisions about the appropriateness of preservation choices will be made by National Park Service and the California Office of Historic Preservation, not the Presidio Trust. Accordingly, these responses should be treated as general guidance, not definitive direction on preservation approaches at Fort Winfield Scott.
Can solar panels be installed on building roofs?
The Presidio Trust uses the National Park Service’s 2011 document The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings to evaluate proposals for sustainable design elements in historic rehabilitations. Generally speaking, the recommended approaches in that document for the installation of solar panels are not achievable with the building types and site conditions at Fort Winfield Scott.
Can the bars on Building 1219’s windows be removed?
The bars on Building 1219 are not original to the building, are not listed as a character defining feature (see the Building 1219 Physical History Report), and could be removed without adversely affecting the building. In general, the removal of security bars on historic buildings is considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the historic significance of the feature, when the bars were added to the building(s), and other program considerations/code requirements.
Could the barrack buildings’ third floor dormers be expanded or more dormers added?
Compatible and consistent alterations to the dormers could be considered, likely limited to the rear (not parade-facing) roof pitches of the barracks buildings. Detailed proposals, rationales, and alternatives for this change would need to be studied in order to determine if this could be accomplished without adversely affecting the historic building(s).
Can windows be added to the long sides of Building 1369?
Generally speaking, adding new window openings to exterior walls is not an acceptable rehabilitation approach.
Can the porches on Building 1213 (first floor) and Building 1214 (second floor) be opened up to their original layout?
Reopening the first floor porch on Building 1213 and the second floor porch on Building 1214 could be considered, as the enclosures are later changes to the buildings’ original design and are not character defining. Originally-open porches were commonly infilled in the Presidio, and various rehabilitation treatments have left them enclosed (see Building 1201), re-opened (see Building 100 on the Main Post), or a combination (see Buildings 86/87 and 36 on the Main Post). Detailed proposals will need to be evaluated as part of an overall rehabilitation plan in order to determine if this could be accomplished without adversely affecting the historic buildings.
All information is provided without representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind, including with respect to accuracy or completeness. The Presidio Trust accepts no liability regarding any election to rely on any such information, to proceed to incur costs on the basis of any such information, to forego other opportunities, or for any resulting projections or assumptions made by any of the proposers.