VA 854-042 - JBNC Phase 1 - RFI Master List.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 77 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery, Sylvan Springs, Phase 1 Development Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C10F25R0006
About this file
The provided file appears to be a Request for Information (RFI) Master List Excel spreadsheet related to the Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery (JBNC) Phase 1 Development project. The solicitation, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Construction and Facilities Management, seeks to expand the 33.6-acre cemetery to increase burial capacity for veterans in the St. Louis area. The project aims to provide an additional 15-year inventory of burial options through 2045 and includes infrastructure improvements.
The solicitation is set aside specifically for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns, utilizing a tiered set-aside evaluation approach that includes other than small businesses to minimize re-solicitation delays. The project will serve an estimated 208,000 veterans within a 75-mile service area, with the primary goal of extending burial capacity and enhancing cemetery operational capabilities. The contract specialist for this opportunity is Joshua Gibson, who can be contacted at Joshua.Gibson2@va.gov for further information.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery, Sylvan Springs, Phase 1 Development has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Review Comments JBNC Sylvan Springs RFI Master List
SOLICITATION NUMBER 36C10F25R0006
| Item No. | Reference | RFI | Government Response | |
| 1 | Solicitation | What time is the organized site visit on September 10, 2025? | Pg. 13: A pre-proposal conference and job site walkthrough was held on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, at 10:00 AM Central Time (11:00 AM ET). | |
| 2 | Solicitation | Confirming that this project does not have a PLA requirement? | This project is exempt from the PLA requirement. | |
| 3 | General | Will the VA be providing the successful offeror sales tax-exempt certificates for Missouri and Illinois? | No. Federal, State, and Local taxes shall be included in each offeror’s proposal price. A copy of the executed contract will be provided to the eventual awardee for tax exemption purposes. If contractor is able to secure state or local tax savings post award, a modification to the contract will be executed to recapture those savings. | |
| 4 | General | Can AutoCAD files be provided to aid in project take-offs? | AutoCAD Files will not be provided during the solicitation phase | |
| 5 | General | Please clarify what all work is required to be included with the ETO. | ||
| a. | Is the Entry Feature to be included with the ETO? | |||
| b. | Is the work for Sheridan Road to be included with the ETO? | Entry feature is a part of the ETO. Sheridan Road work in area of the ETO will be included as needed to complete the entrance drive and roadway. | ||
| 6 | Offeror Submission Instructions, Sub-factor 1.2 | Is the Project Manager required to be onsite daily? | A Project Manager is not required to be onsite daily | |
| 7 | Offeror Submission Instructions, Sub-factor 1.2 | Are copies of each personnel’s certificates to be included in the proposal, or just provide a list of their certificates in their resume? | Please provide copies of each certificate | |
| 8 | Offeror Submission Instructions, Sub-factor 1.2, 01 45 00 | The proposal requirements require the CQC Manager to have a “Bachelor’s degree in engineering, Construction, Architecture, or Landscape Architecture”. Specification 01 45 00 does not have this same bachelor degree requirement for the QC Manager. Contractor requests that the VA reconsider the bachelor’s degree requirement for Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager as stated in the proposal requirements. | Minimum qualifications regarding education & experience stated in the solicitation & specification 01 45 are complimentary & both should be followed | |
| 9 | Statement of Work | If all options are not awarded, is there an order of precedence for the award of the options? IE, if there is insufficient funding, is Option #4 the first to not be awarded, followed by 3, then 2, and then 1? | There is no order of precedence for the award of Options. | |
| 10 | Scope of Work | The Scope of Work lists “Temporary trailers to support VA staff and cemetery visitors during construction (for example, restroom trailer, office space, etc.)” but no other details have been located. Please clarify what is required. | Temporary Trailers are for the Contractor and SRE/RE. Trailers for visitors and staff are not required. | |
| 11 | 01 00 01 | What system will be utilized on this contract for submittals, RFIs, daily logs, etc.? A system such as Tririga, Kahua, Procore, etc.? | ||
| a. | Who is responsible for the licensing, the VA, or the contractor? | Kahua shall be utilized |
The Government will provide the necessary license for each individual responsible for providing data through Kahua
| 12 | 01 00 01 | This spec section is included in the specifications twice? | This error has been corrected |
| 13 | 01 00 01 | Specification 01 00 01 indicates that the RE/COR field office and facilities will need to be relocated once during the project. |
Will Contractor trailers, staging, and storage also need to be relocated?
| a. | Where are these items to be relocated to? | |
| b. | When in the project phasing is this relocation to occur? | |
| c. | Are utilities readily available at the relocation location? | Staging for this project is difficult in that the entire site is going to be cleared. Our best assumptions were made as to staging and placement of contractor layoff areas. This will be a coordinated effort between the contractor and CFM - RE/SRE. |
Relocation will happen when the Maintenance area is developed.
Utilities will be available at the relocation area.
| 14 | 01 00 01 | The specification requires construction fencing with a height of 7’. This is not a typical size and contractor suggests the industry standard 6’ height be utilized. Please clarify? | The requirement is a height of 7' or greater. |
| 15 | 01 32 16 | Please provide a schedule of anticipated monthly weather days to be utilized in the schedule. Otherwise, the contractor will need to create their own. | The Contractor must develop and submit the monthly weather day allowances as part of the Initial Baseline Schedule support data, including data and calculations for the number of weather days per month shown on the calendars. VA does not furnish a preset monthly table; justification must use NOAA 10-year climatological data for unusually severe weather claims, and weather is reviewed monthly with schedule updates. |
Spec basis:
Baseline schedule supporting data must include “data and calculations supporting the number of weather days per month reflected in the schedule calendars.” 01 32 16.13, ¶3.1.B.3.e (pp. 01 32 16.13-10/-11).
Weather analysis method: use NOAA 10-year averages; weather reviewed monthly; no overhead on weather-time extensions. 01 32 16.13, ¶3.5.D.1 (pp. 01 32 16.13-19/-20).
| 16 | 11 83 00 | Contractor is aware that a GIS system has been previously installed at the Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery. | |
| a. | Please confirm that a new Base Station is required? | ||
| b. | Please confirm whether or not the cemetery’s existing GIS system will be integrated with this project or if this project will have a standalone system? | ||
| c. | Please confirm how many rover units are required? | ||
| d. | Please confirm that an additional radio survey is required? | ||
| e. | Please confirm that the specified equipment is readily available from Trimble? | ||
| f. | Please confirm that additional survey reference monuments are required? | ||
| a. | Depends on the radio survey. If covered by current GNSS configuration then no. If not covered by current GNSS configuration a repeater (ARF) will need to be installed to boost signal to that part of site. Include Radio Survey with pricing, and if additional equipment is needed as a result of the survey, there will be a modification at that time. | ||
| b. | Depends on the radio survey. Please see the answer to a. | ||
| c. | Zero. Rover units are not required. | ||
| d. | A Radio Survey is required. | ||
| e. | Yes | ||
| f. | No additional monuments needed | ||
| 17 | Sheet GC002, Statement of Work | Please clarify the scope of work relating to Communications/Physical Security. | |
| a. | Plan sheet GC002 indicates that this scope of work is contractor designed. Is that correct? | ||
| b. | The statement of work states “Upgrade the physical security systems for the entire cemetery, including the administration building and maintenance complex, to meet the 1 October 2020 Physical Security and Resiliency Design Manual, revised 1 June 2023, including automatic security gates at the admin/maintenance complex.” Please indicate what systems are required, the quantity required, and all locations that they are required. | ||
| c. | Does this include running fiber optics to connect all new and existing buildings (and any other necessary locations?) within the cemetery? | ||
| d. | What hardware/equipment will be government provided or reused? | ||
| e. | Is this feature of work design-build? | ||
| Please better define this scope of work. | Bidders shall assume a Cat 6 indoor/outdoor cable from the maintenance bldg to the gravesite locater and a 24 strand OS1 indoor/outdoor single mode fiber from the existing maintenance building to the new maintenance building. This shall be reviewed and coordinated with the client prior to installation to ensure it complies with the current and future requirements. | ||
| 18 | Sheet I-109 | ETO Note 4 states “ONLY INSTALL ROADWAY LATERAL PIPE AND SPRINKLERS FOR THE ETO BURIAL SECTION. COORDIANTE TIMING OF SPRINKLERS TO BE INSTALLED ALOING THE WALL WITH COR AND WALL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE.” What “WALL” is this note referencing? | |
| a. | Please clarify what is to be included with the ETO and what can be provided at a later date. | The wall noted is the entry wall/fence. The ETO irrigation is everything within the boundary, the note is to let the contractor know that installing the irrigation laterals and sprinklers adjacent to the wall and fence before the wall/fence has been staked and possibly constructed. Therefore the installation of the sprinkler laterals and heads in the burial section could be earlier than the sprinklers south of the wall/fence. | |
| 19 | Sheet CG120 | The plans show a significant amount of underdrainage in section 209. Other plan sheets list this area as a Traditional Burial area. | |
| a. | Confirming that underdrainage is to be installed in a Traditional Burial area? | ||
| b. | If so, can details please be provided? | ||
| c. | Is this Traditional Burial area to be over-excavated and filled with a particular material? | ||
| d. | If so, to what depth below finish grade? | Section 209 is traditional burial spaces. No crypts will be installed in this section. Underdrains should be deleted. | |
| a. | Underdrains will not be installed in Section 209. | ||
| b. | No details | ||
| c. | Refer to RFI Question 20 Response. | ||
| 20 | Civil and LS Drawings | Please provide details for the In-Ground Cremains areas. | |
| a. | Are these areas to be over-excavated and filled with a particular material? | ||
| b. | If so, to what depth below finish grade? | ||
| c. | If so, can details please be provided? | a. Areas to be over excavated. Clean excavated material may be utilized for fill meeting specification requirements for fill. |
b. Minimum 3 feet below proposed finished grade within new gravesite extents
c. Details provided 21 Sheet G-001, Statement of Work, Drawings There are gravesite quantity discrepancies between the individual line items within the Summary Yield Table (plan sheet G-001), the Total Gravesites within the Summary Yield Table (plan sheet G-001), the Statement of Work, and what is drawn within the plan sheets. Please clarify the quantities for PPC, Traditional, IGC, CN, and Total Gravesites. Section 209 Number in Summary Table is incorrect, it should be 2,123 Gravesites. Summary Table has been updated.
Section 211 Number in Summary table is incorrect, it should be 2,424 Gravesites. Summary Table has been updated.
All other sections are correct.
Traditional Gravesite total 2,123 IGC Total 10,855
| 22 | Sheet LS511 | Plan sheet LS511 has details for Oversized Crypts. Where are these Oversized Crypts located? Contractor is unable to locate any other references to Oversized Crypts. | Oversize Crypts will not be utilized in this project. Details can be omitted…bid package has been updated. |
| 23 | LC520, 04 43 00 | The required masonry veneer anchors called out by the plans are different from those specified. Please clarify what is required. | Masonry Anchors shown on Drawing LC520 are correct. |
| 24 | CI Drawings | Some of the retaining wall details show a consistent 1’-0” concrete thickness from top to bottom, whereas other details show the concrete thicker at the bottom of the wall. For constructability purposes, contractor recommends the concrete retaining walls have a consistent thickness top to bottom and install the batter within the masonry (and not within the concrete), as was done on the previous construction phases at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery. | Concrete wall and footings are sized per the relevant structural and seismic design requirements. |
Walls and footings cannot be downsized, or made smaller/thinner than designed for the design height of the section of wall.
| 25 | LS512, 32 33 00 | Please clarify if the Gravesite Grid Monuments are to be aluminum or bronze (conflicting plans and specs). | Grid Monuments are to be Aluminum. | |
| 26 | B and CG Sheets, 31 20 00 para 1.3 | We suspect that the project may require a significant amount of rock excavation. Most of the borings were terminated at approx. 15’ below existing grade, however the project requires excavation significantly deeper than that in crypt fields and for utilities. | ||
| a. | Is any additional subsurface information available to identify how much rock may be encountered at the excavation depths of this project? | |||
| b. | Confirming that in accordance with 31 20 00 para 1.3, any necessary rock excavation is a Differing Site Condition? | |||
| c. | If this is not a Differing Site Condition, may offerors perform additional subsurface exploration prior to the submittal of an offer? | |||
| d. | In crypt fields, how much clearance (limits) is required under and adjacent to the crypts and rock? | Please see geotechnical reports and soil borings. |
| a. | No additional subsurface information is available beyond the two geotechnical reports. Bidders should assume a minimum of 2,000 Cubic Yards of rock removal for the entire project. |
| b. | Boring B6 (Vol II of specs) shows limestone encountered beginning at 9.7ft below grade. All other borings do not show rock to their depth of 15ft. If rock is encountered above 15ft (where the boring stopped) at those locations it would be differing site conditions. If it is known rock will be encountered it will not be a differing site condition. |
| c. | Requires SRE/COR approval. |
d. In crypt fields, sufficient clearance is required for the install of the aggregate bed and underdrains beneath the burial crypts.
| 27 | 31 20 00 | Paragraph 3.2.D states “Blasting of materials classified as rock is permitted only when authorized by RE/COR.” Paragraph 3.2.E states “Blasting is not acceptable.” Please clarify whether or not blasting of rock will be allowable. Contractor suggests that the blasting of rock be allowed. | Bidder shall assume blasting will not be authorized. | |
| 28 | 31 20 00 | Is it the intention that “Fills” as specified in paragraph 2.2.B be required for all earthwork fill onsite except for any areas that specifically require “Engineered Fill”, “Bedding/Selected Earth Bedding”, “Drainage Fill”, or “Granular Fill”? | ||
| a. | None of the provided borings in the expansion area demonstrate excavated material onsite meeting the requirements of “Fills”. So, all site excavation must be exported and any required fill performed with imported material meeting the definition of “Fills”? Note that this will be a very significant expense. | |||
| b. | Paragraph 3.2.I.1.f states “When unsuitable material is encountered and removed, contract price and time will be adjusted according to Articles, DIFFERING SITE CONDITIONS, CHANGES and CHANGES-SUPPLEMENT of the GENERAL REQUIREMENTS as applicable. Adjustments will be based on volume in cut section only.” So, based on this paragraph, are contractors to base their bids on the assumption that the onsite material to be excavated meets the requirements for “Fills” and when it does not, it is a “Differing Site Condition”? | Fill soils should be suitable to the use per specifications and details provided. Existing soils on property can be utilized as fill, provided the contractor follows guideance provided in the Terracon Geotechnical Report. |
Not all details are civil, so there may be specific requirements called out in non-civil details.
| a. | Not necessarily. It depends on the soils excavated and the intended use. |
| b. | If something is “Unsuitable” or not is a decision made by the RE/COR. This applies more to completely unknown conditions, not to known and documented soils conditions on the property. |
For example, the Terracon Geotech report specifically mentions that fat clay (CH) on site is high plasticity (expansive soils) and that additional undercutting is required for construction of foundations, pavement, etc. when dealing with that type of soil.
29 31 20 00, 32 90 00 Is it a valid assumption that the site’s topsoil is inadequate in quality and quantity, resulting in all required topsoil needing to be imported? That is a valid assumption.
See soils reports for more information about available soils on site.
| 30 | LS510, LP111 | The details on sheet LS510 call for 4” of imported topsoil. Note 1 on sheet LP111 calls for 6” of topsoil. Please clarify the required thickness of topsoil. | ||
| a. | If 6” of topsoil is to be installed on top of the crypts, should the Engineered Fill thickness be reduced? | Landscape areas are to have 6” of topsoil. Details for topsoil for PPCs should be as noted (4”). | ||
| 31 | LS510, 31 20 00 | Details on sheet LS510 call for “Engineered Fill” above the crypts and within irrigation aisles. The definition of “Engineered Fill” will require an imported material to meet the specification. This appears to be an unnecessary expense. May excess materials from site excavation be used for fill above the crypts and within irrigation aisles? | No substitution is allowed without VA (RE/COR) approval. | |
| 32 | LS512, 31 20 00 | Details on sheet LS512 call for “General Fill” on the outside perimeter of crypts. | ||
| a. | Is “General Fill” the same thing as “Fills” as defined in 31 20 00 para 2.2.B? | |||
| b. | Materials meeting the definition of “Fills” in 31 20 00 para 2.2.B do not exist onsite per the geotechnical report, resulting in this material needing to be imported to meet the spec. This appears to be an unnecessary expense. May excess materials from site excavation be used for fill around the perimeter of crypts? | |||
| c. | May excess materials from site excavation be used for fill elsewhere onsite? | a. | Yes, it is the same. | |
| b. | It depends on the soils being reused. Not all soils are suitable as Fill. Not all soils are suitable for construction. | |||
| c. | It depends. Not all soils are suitable for construction. |
For example, the Terracon Geotech report specifically mentions that fat clay (CH) on site is high plasticity (expansive soils) and that additional undercutting is required for construction of foundations, pavement, etc. when dealing with that type of soil.
See Terracon Geotechnical Report, Geotechnical Overview for more information.
| 33 | 31 20 00 | Please confirm that for bid purposes, contractors are to assume that: | |
| a. | they will not be excavating rock, | ||
| b. | all material that is excavated onsite may be re-used onsite as “Fills” and “Engineered Fills”, | ||
| c. | “Fills” and “Engineered Fills” will not have to be imported, and | ||
| d. | If these assumptions are not correct, that will be a “Differing Site Condition” and the contract price and time will be adjusted appropriately? | See two Geotechnical Reports. Not all soils on site are suitable for reuse. Findings and conclusions from the Geotechnical reports were utilized as a basis of the design. |
| a. | It is possible that rocks or other outcroppings could be encountered during construction. See the two Geotechnical Reports for more information. |
| b. | Not all soils on site are suitable for construction. |
| c. | Cannot confirm that. |
d. Cannot confirm that. Contractor should contact VA.
| 34 | General Civil | Was the project cuts and fills designed to balance? | ||
| a. | If not, was the designer planning on material being exported or imported? | Contractor must calculate cut and fill quantities. | ||
| 35 | 11 83 02 | Will the GIS data need to be created in a new database, or integrated into an existing database? | See RFI #16 for response | |
| 36 | 01 35 26 para 1.7.B | Specification 01 35 26 para 1.7.B states “A Certified Safety Professional (CSP) with specialized knowledge in construction safety or a certified Construction Safety and Health Technician (CSHT) shall randomly conduct a monthly site safety inspection. The CSP or CSHT can be a corporate safety professional or independently contracted. The CSP or CSHT will provide their certificate number on the required report for verification as necessary.”. | ||
| a. | If the contractor’s SSHO assigned to the project satisfies the CSP/CSHT requirement, may that person perform the specified random monthly site safety inspection, or must this inspection be performed by a person not otherwise assigned to the project? | No. This monthly inspection is |
intended to be above and beyond the typical daily safety duties of an SSHO. it is not intended to be performed by a person assigned directly to the project.
| 37 | Solicitation Special Clause 5.38 | Please clarify the responsibilities of the LEED/Commissioning Coordinator as referenced in special clause 5.38 of the solicitation. Contractor has not located other references to this position (specifically in regards to LEED). | |
| a. | Please clarify the LEED requirements of the project and the contractors responsibility for meeting those requirements. | The project does not have LEED |
Certifications it is trying to achieve.
| 38 | CP207, 14/CS501 | Please clarify whether or not Sheridan Road from 0+00 to 13+78 is to have mountable curbs installed and the subgrade reconstructed as shown in detail 14/CS501, or is this area to not receive mountable curbs and to simply be a mill and replace as shown in drawing CP207? | |
| a. | Are the new asphalt grades to match the existing asphalt grades? | This section of Sheridan Road only requires mill and replacement of existing asphalt pavement. No new curbs are to be installed here. |
a.New asphalt grades shouldmatch existing.
| 39 | CP208, 15/CS501, 16/CS501 | Please clarify whether the existing width of Sheridan Road from 13+78 to 22+65.45 is to have the subgrade reconstructed as shown in details 15/CS501 and 16/CS501, or is the existing width of Sheridan Road to simply be a mill and replace as shown in drawing CP208? | |
| a. | Are the elevations of the existing width of Sheridan Road changing? The profile view on sheet CP208 shows some grade differences. | ||
| b. | Details 15/CS501 and 16/CS501 show curbs. Plan sheet CP208 only shows curbs in certain areas. Please clarify if both sides of Sheridan Road throughout this length require curbs or if curbs are to only be installed as shown on CP208. | Existing pavement at Sheridan Road is to be milled and replaced. |
b.Elevations at existingcenterline of Sheridan Roadshould remain the same.
c.New Curbs to be installed as shown on CP208.
| 40 | CI504 | Please clarify the following callout on sheet CI504: “Granular engineered fill for all of retaining wall #3 and locations where unsuitable soil is found at retaining walls #1 and #2.” | |
| a. | Is this applicable to this project? | ||
| b. | Where are retaining walls #2 and #3? | This is a typo. No other retaining walls except Retaining Wall #1. |
Unsuitable fill condition should not be encountered since the entire area has new fill soils to a depth several feet below the proposed retaining wall footing.
41 1/CI504, 2/CI504 A previous question has been asked to clarify what is to be installed within the section behind the retaining wall (section 209). It is currently not clear if this area is a Traditional Burial Area or a crypt field. Please clarify which detail is applicable to Retaining Wall #1 on this project, detail 1/CI504 or detail 2/CI504. Meeting was held to discuss. Burial Section 209 is Traditional Burial. No underdrains are required in the burial section.
Retaining wall has its own system of drains on high side of wall. These shall remain.
42 8/CI502 Please clarify where any pipe penetrations as shown in detail 8/CI502 are located. See CI201/1, ±Sta:1+80.00 Underdrain on pipe high side, through pipe penetration at footing to structure S138.
| 43 | LP Drawings | LP Drawings – Confirming that everything disturbed is to receive sod? | ||
| a. | No areas are to receive Lawn Seed and Slope Meadow Seed? | a. All areas to be sodded. | ||
| 44 | 33 41 13 para 2.1.C.2, multiple plan sheets | The plans and specifications are contradictory in regards to the material type for the subdrainage pipes on this project. Is this material to be PVC, single wall HDPE, or double wall HDPE? Please clarify the material to be utilized. | Burial section underdrains constructed of 4” rigid perforated HDPE underdrain. Use Wyes and 45-degree bends in lieu of tees and 90-degree bends. |
6-inch solid double wall HDPE pipes under roads and outside burial sections.
PVC used at cleanouts. 45-degree elbows, gasket PVC elbow manufacturer specifically for converting from corrugated HDPE to PVC. Nyloplast fitting or approved equal.
See sheet LC521 for more information about pipe materials and connections.
| 45 | Phase 2 Erosion Control Plans, detail 1/CG502 | Please clarify the required pipe sizes for the temporary slope drains. | Typically, 12-inch minimum for each 0.5-acre drainage area. Increase to 18-inches for 1.5-acres. | |
| 46 | 3/S-105, 4/S-105, 5/S-105 | Details 3/S-105, 4/S-105, 5/S-105 – Please clarify where these details apply? | ||
| a. | Detail 3/S-105 – Is shown as a cut section on1/S-105, but detail 3/S-105 does not appear to match the location of the cut on 1/S-105. Please advise? | |||
| b. | Details 3/S-105 and 4/S-105 – Appear to contradict? | |||
| c. | Detail 5/S-105 – Is this detail applicable to this project? If so, where? | Details have been coordinated with Strutural and Columbariuim Layout drawings. | ||
| 47 | LC520, S-105 | Please clarify which drawing is to be utilized for columbarium dimensions, as the dimensions shown / scaled from these drawings is contradictory. Each drawing references the other, but have differing dimensions. | ||
| a. | Please confirm that whichever drawing we are directed to use has details that are properly dimensioned and are drawn to scale. | Details have been coordinated with Strutural and Columbariuim Layout drawings. | ||
| 48 | 33 41 13 para 2.1.F.2.a | Specification calls for the filter fabric to have a physical strength of 1140 per inch per ASTM D 5034. This strength value appears very excessive and our supplier is unaware of any filter fabric that satisfies this requirement. Please clarify? | ||
| a. | Contractor has successfully used Mirafi 140N and 160N on previous projects. Is one of these materials acceptable? | Contractor can use Mirafi 140N | ||
| 49 | 01 00 01 paras 1.14.C and 1.14.D, 11 83 02 | Specification 01 00 01 paragraphs 1.14.C and 1.14.D require a significant amount of items that require certification by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer. All of these items are also required to be shot (again) for the GIS database (specification 11 83 02). This seems excessive to shoot essentially every site feature twice post construction. Can these requirements (data collection and submissions) be reduced or combined into a single operation? | No. Provide survey certification as specified | |
| 50 | 33 40 00 para 2.7 | Specification 33 40 00 paragraph 2.7 is noted as “(NOT USED)”. Assuming that is incorrect? | ||
| a. | This paragraph lists 2 different types of RCP pipe, both Class III Wall C and Class IV Wall C. Please clarify which class of RCP pipe is required for this project. | Class III RCP is used unless specified otherwise. | ||
| 51 | I-104 and I-105 | In Sections 1HH, 1II-A, and 1II-B (that already have burials and are utilized by the public), is construction fencing required? | ||
| a. | If yes, will these areas be completely shutoff from the public while we are working in these areas? | |||
| b. | If no, what measures should be taken to protect the public from the construction operation in these areas? | Areas will have fence along the front between road and burial section and typical signage. Fence does not need to enclose the entire burial section, only excavations. Per the specifications |
A. Install and maintain safety fencing around all unattended excavation. Place safety signs adjacent to construction area roadway to the satisfaction of the RE/COR.
B. All excavations must be backfilled by the end of each workday. Do not leave any open trenches overnight, on weekends or on holidays.
C. If trenching operation restricts access to a burial section, provide plywood and safety fencing across open trench to allow access to burial section. Provide access to the satisfaction of the RE/COR.
| 52 | I-105 | a. | Please clarify the irrigation work shown on the bottom right corner of sheet I-105 (south of Sheridan Road and east of section 1II-B). Contractor is not certain what is being shown there. | |
| b. | On the south side of the proposed maintenance area, an irrigation mainline appears to dead-end next to Sheridan Road. Please clarify what is to occur in this location. | Bottom right corner of I105 is a continuation south of 1IIB. |
The line noted on the south of the maintenance building is the potable water line from the Sheridan road, refer to civil drawings.
| 53 | CP207 and CP208 | During the construction of Sheridan Road, what is expected for traffic control? | |
| a. | Temporary traffic lights? | ||
| b. | Are there any specific requirements, particularly regarding access to the National Cemetery? | a. Temporary traffic lights not needed, contractor preference. |
b. Recommend St. Louis County DOT typical traffic control measures appropriate for work performed. Access to JBNC should be maintained. If road closures required, coordinate any detours or disruptions with COR
| 54 | CG100 – CG106 and CG109 – CG115 | The erosion and sediment control plan, as shown in the drawings, consists of 2 phases. As shown in the drawings, the basis for both phases within the Sylvan Springs development area is a series of 5 sediment basins that are located in areas that will need to be developed. | |
| a. | At what point in the project can the sediment basins be removed so that site development in the vicinity of the sediment basins be completed? | ||
| b. | Should there be a 3rd (or more) phase(s) of the erosion and sediment control plan for when the sediment basins are removed? | ||
| c. | Contractor assumes that once the storm sewers and sub-drainage work is completed onsite (to the extent possible because there will be sediment basins in the way) that the sediment basins can be removed. Is that correct? | ||
| d. | If the contractor installs the storm sewers before doing mass excavation, are all of the sediment basins still required? | ||
| e. | The erosion and sediment control plan appears incomplete. Will the VA/designer be providing additional phasing, or is it up to the contractor to design the remaining erosion and sediment controls? | ||
| f. | If it is up to the contractor to design, can CAD files be provided so contractors can do the remaining necessary erosion and sediment control plan design? | a. Sediment basins can be removed or resized based on the stabilization of each contributing drainage area to each basin. As the disturbed area decreases, individual basins can be reduced, with additional area becoming available for grading/construction. |
b. See grading and drainage sheet CG118-CG126 for 3rd (final phase) for complete stabilization of the site.
c. Yes. Drainage basins are removed/resized as work is completed, and stabilized.
d. No. In case of linear construction such as pipe install/replacement, basins are not required. Would need to coordinate such phasing when preparing/submitting for the erosion control permit and major land disturbance permit.
e. It is up to the contractor to design and provide additional phasing of work.
f. CAD files shall be provided to the awardee post contract award 55 General What permits will be acquired by the VA/designer and what permits will be the contractor’s responsibility? Contractor is responsible for paying/acquiring all permits. Includes but not limited to:
• Major Land Disturbance Permit,
• SWPPP (to be provided by contractor)
• MSD connection/recording fees for easements of sanitary, stormwater, and BMPs.
• MSD: $ 3,111.00 connection fee
• MSD recording FEE is TBD.
• County Park work Permits
• Erosion Control Permit
• Philips 66 pipeline crossing permit/fees (if applicable) MAW fees (if applicable)
| 56 | 3/LS-503, 32 33 00 para 2.7 | Detail 3/LS 503 calls for 6’ Victor Stanley FR-7 benches, whereas specification 32 33 00 paragraph 2.7 calls for benches that are entirely different. Please clarify whether to follow the plans or specifications for the benches. | ||
| a. | If we are to follow the specification, is there a specific “Basis of Design”? | The Victor Stanley FR-7 Bench (Detail 3 on sheet LS503) is correct. This bench matches benches in the existing columbarium. For CLIN 0006 -Comittal Shelter 4, benches shall match those in existing Committal Shelter #7. Victor Stanley RB26 Bench. Detail 3 on Sheet LS503 has been ammended. | ||
| 57 | I-104, I-105 | The matchline between these drawings does not appear to be correct, with a significant area not shown on either drawing. Please advise? | ||
| a. | Contractor has not verified if this issue persists on any other drawings. | Drawing with revised viewport will be distributed. | ||
| 58 | GC404 | Please provide dimensions for the flatwork and sidewalks shown on sheet GC404. | Dimensions are shown on Sheet GC404. | |
| 59 | CU205 | Note 1 on sheet CU205 states “CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE TAP BID COST AND INSTALLATION FEES WITH MISSOURI AMERICAN WATER COMPANY.” We are coordinating with a Missouri American Water Company (MAWC) approved contractor for this work. However, MAWC is not wanting to provide an estimate of their tap fees to anyone but the owner (the VA). | ||
| a. | Can the MAWC tap fees be handled directly by the VA? | |||
| b. | If not, can the VA provide an allowance for these tap fees to be included within each contractor’s bid? | a. MAW should provide a fee based on labor and materials cost from MAW approved contractor, cost of work for the main extension from existing tap to the property line. |
b. MAW should provide these fees. If not, then an allowance or assumption could be made for the cost. I don’t know why MAW would not provide that information to the GC.
| 60 | CU100, CU207, CD Drawings, LP Drawings | Plan sheets CU100 and CU207 show a waterline relocation that is to occur outside of the cemetery boundaries. | |
| a. | There appear to be existing trees directly in-line with this proposed relocation that are not shown to be removed by the plans. Do contractors need to plan on doing additional clearing not shown within the drawings? | ||
| b. | The landscape drawings also do not appear to address this area. How should this area be restored? Grass seed? Sod? Tree plantings? | a. Contractor shall protect all trees, tree roots on park property from any damage. This is a relocation of water supply line for the park. Park personal are to be notified of all work on park property, and may require permits/approval to work on park property. Recommend use of hydrojet for sub surface excavations to protect existing trees from damage. |
b. Disturbed soils and lawns should be restored using temporary and permanent seeding measures.
c. We have been notified that damage to existing trees and roots from install of the water line may incur fees based on the size of the trees and roots.
| 61 | ED-101, E-106, E-502, E-503, Statement of Work | Please confirm that work relating to the existing maintenance complex is limited to what is shown on drawings ED-101, E-106, E-502, and E-503? | ||
| a. | The Statement of Work states “Install a new electrical generator.” for Bldg. 3001. Where are the details for this generator and what panels/circuits is the generator to power? | Work is limited to the drawings provided | ||
| 62 | AE102, A-601, A-602 | Please confirm that work relating to the existing administration building is limited to what is shown on drawings AE102, A-601, and A-602? | Yes, the basic scope of services are limited to the items listed plans. Aged and deteriorated material identified during construction to be brought to the attention of the government. | |
| 63 | 32 33 00, C8/LS512, F7/LS512 | The Gravesite Grid Monuments and Markers Specification (32 33 00 2.3 Gravesite Layout Markers) contradicts the plan details (C8/LS512 and F7/LS512). | ||
| a. | Should the markers be bronze or aluminum? | |||
| b. | Should the diameter be 3-1/2” or 3-1/4”? | Gravesite Grid Markers are to be Aluminum. Specification has been changed. Diameter should be 3-1/4" | ||
| 64 | 1/I-505 | 1/I-505 – Please clarify the pipe, fitting, and device sizes. | ||
| a. | Upstream and downstream of the backflow assembly is shown as 8”, but the pipe and components for the backflow assembly are to be 6”? | |||
| b. | The detail is calling for 6” pipe and components, but is calling for a 3” flow sensor? Note that a dimension for the backflow prevention device is not shown. | |||
| c. | The right side of the detail calls for a 4”x8” concentric reducer connecting to 6” and 8” pipes? | |||
| d. | The plan view does not match the section view. | A. correct B. 6 inch compnents to match pipe size. C. corrected to 6" x 8" D. Drawing was previously corrected. | ||
| 65 | 1/I-506 | 1/I-506 – Please clarify the pipe, fitting, and device sizes. | ||
| a. | Upstream and downstream of the backflow assembly is shown as 4”, but the pipe and components for the backflow assembly are to be 6”? | |||
| b. | The detail is calling for various sizes of pipe and components including 3”, 4”, and 6”, but is calling for a 3” flow sensor and a 3” backflow prevention device? | |||
| c. | The right side of the detail calls for a 6”x6”x3” tee with 4” pipes on either side? | |||
| d. | The right side of the detail calls for a 3”x4” concentric reducer with 4” pipes on either side? | |||
| e. | The left side of the detail calls for a 4”x4”x3” tee connecting to a 6” pipe? | |||
| f. | The plan view does not match the section view. | A. | Per the detail fittings the pipe downstream of the tee is 3-inch as are the components. | |
| B. | See above. | |||
| C. | Misplaced note, should read 3” x 3” x 3” tee | |||
| D. | Correct. | |||
| E. | See answer A | |||
| F. | Plan view is correct | |||
| 66 | General | To date a significant number of Pre-Proposal Inquiries (PPIs) have been submitted and many of them significantly impact the scope of work. Less than 2 weeks remain until the proposal due date. Offeror respectfully requests that the offer due date be extended to a minimum of 2 weeks after the PPIs are answered. | Extension has been granted | |
| 67 | Division 02 | The Specifications include sections within Division 02 – Existing Conditions on abatement and lead paint removal, however, the solicitation, bid schedule, and plans make no remarks on the topic. | ||
| a. | Can the government please clarify this scope of work? | |||
| b. | Can the asbestos inspection report on the buildings being demolished/renovated be provided? | |||
| c. | Is it to be assumed that there is no lead and asbestos to be encountered on this project? | Refer to Environmental Assessment | ||
| 68 | Proposal Requirements | Page 19 of the solicitation states “Provide a printed copy of the offeror's “Representations and Certifications” as submitted on www.sam.gov.” Page 17 of the solicitation limits this proposal volume to 30 pages. The printed copy of “Representations and Certifications” vastly exceeds the page limitation. Please clarify this requirement or the page limitation. | Rep & Cert pages do not count towards total page count. | |
| 69 | CP Drawings | The CP drawings reference sheet C-501. Where is sheet C-501? | Now on CS101 | |
| 70 | 1/CS501 | Are all asphalt roads (including the widening of Sheridan Road and reconstruction of Sheridan Road) to be built in accordance with detail 1/CS501? |
Are all asphalt roads (including the widening of Sheridan Road and reconstruction of Sheridan Road) to be built in accordance with detail 1/CS501?
| a. | If not, please clarify what detail is to be utilized. | |
| b. | Contractor suspects that the asphalt thickness shown in detail 1/CS501 will not be acceptable to St. Louis County on Sheridan Road. Please advise? | 1. Yes, all new asphalt roadways are to be constructed using detail 1/CS501. |
2. Yes, where new asphalt roads or lanes are constructed, use detail 1/CS501.
a. See detail 2/CS501 for typical mill and replace depth and tie back to existing.
b. Multiple attempts have been made to contact St. Louis County DOT for review. They have remained unresponsive.
| 71 | CP207, CP208, CS501 | Is there a requirement that all of Sheridan Road be completed at the same time? | |
| a. | Can the widening occur early in the project to coincide with the ETO (if required with the ETO), and the mill and replace (or potentially re-construction, depending upon where you look in the plans) be completed later? | No, the work on Sheridan Road can be phased as needed. In general the surface course should be installed at the same time on the entire roadway to ensure a consistant paving surface. |
a. Yes, widening can occur early and mill/replace or re-construction can occur later.
| 72 | CS104, CS105 | There appears to be different hatching over Sheridan Road on these plan sheets. What do these different hatches mean? | Key notes on the drawings describe the different hatching. (RSB VA SRE) | |
| 73 | CP207, CP208, CS501 | Please clarify the asphalt and aggregate thicknesses for the road widening on Sheridan Road. | See 1/CS501 Asphalt Pavement Detail (Typical) | |
| 74 | CP207, CP208, CS501 | Please clarify whether or not full-depth replacement is required for Sheridan Road. | ||
| a. | If full-depth replacement is required, please clarify the asphalt and aggregate thicknesses. | Existing Pavement at Sheridan Road is to be milled and replaced. |
a. If there are sections that require full-depth replacement is required, then use detail 1/CS501 for that work. Typical.
| 75 | General | Who will be responsible for getting a permit from St. Louis County for work on Sheridan Road, the VA or the contractor? | Contractor is responsible for any permits. | |
| 76 | Structural | Where are the structural details for the entry feature? | See detail 4 on S-105 | |
| 77 | Structural | What structural element does the column pier and footing detail on drawing S-601 refer to? | Per the plans, P1 is called out on S-102, P1 and F6 are called out on S-104. See new plan note #11 on both sheets for clarification | |
| 78 | 12/CS501, GC405 | Detail 12/CS501 shows a mow strip along the maintenance yard slab, but this mow strip is not shown on GC405. Please clarify whether or not this mow strip is required. | ||
| a. | Sheet GC405 appears to indicate full depth heavy duty concrete pavement beyond the fence. Is that correct? | Fencing will have a mow strip and layout is shown on Enlarged Site Plans GC111 through GC116. | ||
| 79 | LC500 | It has been determined that the provided scale on this drawing is clearly incorrect. Please correct the scale. | Graphic Scale was incorrect. Was changed to 1"=10'-0" | |
| 80 | A-602 | I am not seeing the columbarium addressed within the finish schedule. Please advise? | Finishes are noted on Sheets LC500 through LC524. | |
| 81 | AA102 | On sheet AA102 (Gravesite Locator), the plan calls for exterior walls to have full-height drainage material 2-1/2” thick. This material comes in thicknesses of 3/8” or ¾”. There is an alternative material that comes in thicknesses up to 1-3/4” (still less than what is called for). Please clarify the intent of the 2-1/2” thickness. | ||
| a. | Is the intent to install multiple layers of drainage material? We are not aware of that being a recommended installation method. | The intent is to use 3/4" drainage material over the rigid insulation. The remainder of the 2 1/2" space is the 1-3/4” air gap. | ||
| 1 | Confirming Small Business Subcontractor Plan is only upon request and not needed for proposal submission? | Only required for non-small business offerors | ||
| 2 | Will the staff (both Govt and Construction Management) all have degrees, OSHA 30 within last 5yrs and active QCM to perform oversight role? | The staff will have the necessary qualifications to perform the work | ||
| 3 | Please provide copy of soils report. | Geotechnical Reports are included as appendix of the Specifications. | ||
| 4 | Confirm Land Surveyor does not need to be licensed in Missouri. | Land Surveyor is to have an active license in the state they are working in. | ||
| 5 | Will certification of forms be submitted as submittal and subjected to submittal review time? Impact to contractor if submitted as submittal and delay in review time prior to next pour. | Refer back to the specs. |
A licensed surveyor certifies the formwork. However, they aoften jsut sign it without reviewing the actual information. The survey data needs to be reviewed and confimed is in tolorance before preceeding. This review should be expedited and should not take 20 work days to review.
(RSB 20251105)
| 6 | Typically, photocopier provided to VA cannot be connected to VA Network and used – confirm this is still a required item to provide in RE Trailer. | It is a requirement. | |
| 7 | Confirm the requested vehicle will be used by VA employees and not Construction Managers – separate insurance would be required. | VA and CMs will use the vehicles (RSB 20251105) | |
| 8 | 1.28 & 1.29 | Please review Construction Digital Images (entire section) appears to be direct from SPEC TILL and not edited to project. | Section was revised to be site specific |
| 9 | 1.31 vs 01 35 26 | Both General Requirements and 01 35 26 calls out requirements for APP – which is to be followed – can these sections not be combined so to ensure all requirements can be met. | APP is only addressed in Spec 01 35 26 and 01 45 00. Spec 01 45 00 does not conflict with Spec 01 35 26. |
| 10 | Is project pursuing LEED Certification, if no, then can 1.32 Project Sustainability Goals | 1.32 is to remain | |
| 11 | 01 81 11 Sustainable Design Requirements – referenced, not part of project – please clarify. | 01 81 11 should be 01 81 13 | |
| 12 | 01 00 01 pages 1-68 and then 69-111 thru appear to be redundant – what is difference between? | Binding error corrected in this submission. | |
| 13 | Use of VA program for submittals is not called out – please state what will be used, will it be contractor or govt cost? If Kahua being used, please confirm training will be made available and how many licenses will be provided. | Kahua will be used. The Government will provide the necessary training (coordinated through SRE/COR). The Government will provide the necessary number of licenses to each individual responsible for providing communication/feedback through Kahua. |
14 01 33 23 The issued SPECs have items upon items called out to be submitted as submittals (shop drawings, product data, etc.) for items that are “not on project or applicable to scope” is the contractor responsible for identifying those or Govt upon providing the initial submittal register. Government is providing the submittal register to provide the contractor.
The contractor is responsible for reviewing the submittal and noting any descrepancies such as items not applicable.
15 01 33 23 Why is a transmittal form being called out for use and a stamp, when the 4025 has the same information with signature as the stamp – this addition part (stamp) brings no value and just adds addition work and time. There is no specified transmittal form in the specification.
The ENG FORM 4025 (Assuming this is the form referenced) does not have a section that the contractor can mark that states “Approved with corrections as noted on submittal data and/or attached sheets(s)”
Because of this, it does bring value and actually saves time and work by identifying ahead of time any deviations and variances from the original contract documents for the Government to review to avoid immediate revise and resubmit as the deviations were not identified and explained during the submission.
| 16 | 01 33 23 | Why are submittals being emailed? | Submittals will be sent through Kahua. 1.6.D was revised to reference upload to Kahua |
| 17 | 01 35 26 | Only references in SPEC are OSHA – confirm EM-385 isn’t also to be incorporated, if yes, please update SPEC vs. only providing FAR reference (this will be three locations now needed to reference for safety) | No, EM-385 is for USACE/DoD projects |
| 18 | 01 43 39 | Can mock-ups be performed in-situ versus another location – it has shown on other projects providing at location can identify possible errors and omissions in place and resolve quicker. | Provide Mock-ups per the specs |
| 19 | 01 45 00 | As this is a bid build – why is contractor required to have ABA individual to review, test, etc. shouldn’t this be covered during design to confirm compliance. | This is a design bid build not a design build. |
While the design meets ABA, experience has shown contractors do not always construct to the designs. This is to confirm the contractor has followed the design per the ABA requirements as shown in the drawings.
| 20 | 01 45 00 | Why is QC Plan to be submitted in in three-ring binder vs. email (electronically) as called out in 01 33 | Electronic is acceptable |
| 21 | 01 45 00 (Section 1.9) | QC Meetings: information being requested is out of date and not applicable– can this be updated? | Explain how it is out of date in order to provide a response to the RFI. Experience with other projects have proven the failure to hold these meetings regularly directly impact the level of quality control on the project and have been annotated on the Contractors evaluations. |
| 22 | 01 45 00 | IAQ: update IAQ requirements, the Admin Bldg. is mostly cosmetic changes and would an IAQ be required | Please specify what requirements need to be updated |
| 23 | 01 45 00 | Part M: Submittals conflict with 01 33, which is to be followed? | Cannot find Part M of Spec 01 45 00 to determine if it conflicts with 01 33 (23?). |
| 24 | SPECs appear to be taken directly from the TILL, confirm they are edited to project specific use and erroneous unrelated information will not need to be sifted through. | Specification sections were edited for this project. | |
| 25 | Please confirm if this project tax exempt? | No. Federal, State, and Local taxes shall be included in each offeror’s proposal price. A copy of the executed contract will be provided to the eventual awardee for tax exemption purposes. If contractor is able to secure state or local tax savings post award, a modification to the contract will be executed to recapture those savings. | |
| 26 | CD101 | Note #23 states to remove remaining park items. Are these items to be salvaged or disposed? | Disposed, off site. |
| 27 | Please advise of status for Electrical, sewer and water demolition and rerouting as the demolition of these features are contingent upon others. | Refer to the utility plans, Contractor responsible for coordination and phasing of demolition of existing utility lines and installation of new utilites line. Contractor responsible with coordination with utility providers. | |
| 28 | C-001 | Siltation Note #2 states SWPPP inspections are to be inspected by the contractor. Please confirm that the contractor is permitted to perform SWPPP inspections in house? | Contractor is responsible/required to preform inspections of all erosion control/siltation control measures installed as part of this project. Personel performing inspections should be trained and have any required training/certifications required in Missouri for this work. |
| 29 | Can exposed concrete on retaining wall caps and columns be stained? | No |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .