36C24219B0030-0002000.docx

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED

BPA NO.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE

CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 11/2016)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office.

is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30

PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243 (Type or print) (Type or print) (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (If other than Item 6) (Specify type of modification and authority) (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer) 528A8-18-807 Tony Clemente, Contracting Officer Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office 2 20 Madison Ave Ext Albany

NY

12203 Tony Clemente, Contracting Officer Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Activity 20 Madison Ave Ext Albany

NY

12208-3410 To all Offerors/Bidders

36C24219B0030 05-06-2019

X X X

NOT APPLICABLE

X

This amendment is for the issuance of RFIs and the VA's responses.

See attached document.

Tony Clemente Contracting Officer Request For Information (RFI)

Stratton VA Medical Center Project Name: Fireproofing Repairs Project #: 528A8-18-807 Solicitation#: 36C24219B0030

June 4, 2019

RFI #1

After discussion with the specified manufacturer (ISOLATEK – CAFCO) they are advising me that CAFCO 400 (a wet-mix SFRM) must tie-in with the existing BLAZESHIELD (dry-mix SFRM) in the attached manner. They are recommending the use of metal lath at the transition point from new material to the old material, when using the CAFCO 400.

They add that when using BLAZESHIELD over the existing BLAZESHIELD fireproofing, this metal lath application does not need to occur.

Please review and let me know if you have any questions.

With this information it is my recommendation to add CAFCO BLAZESHIELD HP (equivalent to CAFCO 400) to the list of specified products (data sheet attached). And also add the requirement that when using CAFCO 400 or similar wet-mix SFRM’s that the use of metal lath is done at the transition point from the new wet-mix SFRM to the existing dry-mix SFRM.

a) VA Response – CAFCO BLAZESHIELD HP appears to be an acceptable product to be implemented. I agree, metal lath shall be implemented at transition points from new, wet-mix SFRM to existing, dry-mix SFRM.

RFI #2

We’d suggest the use of CAFCO BOARD as an alternate product to use in the mechanical rooms where we see fit, just so long as it is installed as per the letter attached.

a) VA Response – The product appears acceptable, but I’m concerned with CAFCO BOARD’s and your approach to the installation method. The letter states the board “shall be attached via No. 12 self tapping screws or 10 gauge weld pins with washers”. Has this product been installed around existing or new SFRM. This installation sounds like it may heavily disrupt the existing conditions. What assurances can you provide me that it won’t impact existing SFRM? Also, I’m concerned with your use of the product: “where we see fit”. In what situations would you install this product? Could you show on the drawing(s) where CAFCO BOARD would be installed in each room and the approximate square footage?

2a. Contractor Response - We feel the CAFCO Board can be used where SFRM overspray may be a concern and/or where space is limited for proper spray application as per manufacturer guidelines. When the CAFCO Board is used, the area in which it is applied would have to have the existing SFRM removed so as to provide a suitable substrate for the board material. Once the existing SFRM is removed, we would install CAFCO BOARD using weld-pins as per manufacturers specs. No penetrable fasteners would be used.

3a. VA Response – VA COR concurs with Contractor’s response.

RFI #3

1. The Drawings are indicating sprinkler work and information. Please verify that this work does not apply to the Bidding Fireproofing Contractors.

a. VA Response – Sprinkler work does not apply to the Bidding Fireproofing Contractors. The VA Plumbing and Electric shops will conduct the sprinkler work. The VA asks the Fireproofing Contractor to coordinate with the VA, so the sprinkler lines are de-energized (by the VA Plumbing and Electric shops) prior to Fireproofing Contractor’s demolition. This coordination would prevent damages to the MER(s) if the Contractor hit an energized sprinkler head.

1. Based on the General Note #2 we are to notify you of discrepancies to the drawings. It appears that in room # Core 242, Dwg. A-101 and B1103a, Dwg. # A-103 that there is more damage than shown on the drawings. Please clarify.

a. VA Response – Because the project’s scope is to conduct patchwork on deficient areas rather than replacing all SFRM on the deck, there are bound to be discrepancies in locations the VA did not find. Within the two mechanical rooms specified, could you express where the additional damage is located and the approximate size (square footage)? Ultimately, all decks in the 5 mechanical rooms need to have a 1-hour fire rating. If there are deficient locations the drawings don’t portray, the additional work for the Contractor would be determined by the VA’s Contracting Officer through a supplemental agreement – Please refer to Drawing A-101, General Note 3.

2a. Contractor Response - Based on your request to identify the additional areas please see attached drawings annotated with Yellow. Room #242 approx. 15 SF additional and room A1106b will be approx. 60 SF.

3a. VA Response – VA COR concurs with Contractor’s response.

1. Has all the rooms for which repairs are to be made been evaluated for existing bond strength? In the event we find areas that appear to be intact at bid time and are not what would be the procedure for effecting repairs?

a. VA Response – None of the rooms have been recently evaluated for existing bond strength nor is there existing documentation of the test(s). The primary objective is to patch the deficient areas and leave existing, already compliant (meeting 1-hour fire rating) areas alone. If areas of existing SFRM (that appear sufficient in bond strength during bid time) fall/lose adhesion during Contractor’s demolition, surface preparation, installation, etc., each instance would have to be reviewed between the Contractor, VA CO and VA COR. If the instance is at no fault of the Contractor, the work to patch the additional deficient area (existing SFRM fallen post-bid) will be determined by the VA’s Contracting Officer through a supplemental agreement – Please refer to Drawing A-101, General Note 4.

1. Are there limits of removal to cut back to sound material prior to respraying. See Question 3. Above.

a. VA Response – VA recommends cutting back existing SFRM to edge(s) that appears sufficient in bond strength. This method should hopefully minimize the instances related to RFI #3, Question 3 while remaining true to the SOW.

1. There is a conflict between Note # 14., indicating ½” thk. Minimum, and Fireproofing Repairs Drawings are indicating additional thicknesses. For a 1 hour rating the original UL Design would be needed to determine thicknesses. Otherwise would this be a patch to match existing thicknesses?

a. VA Response – Yes, UL Design would ultimately determine the required thickness for a 1-hour fire rating. I had received prior research noting the minimum ½” thickness would be enough for a 1-hour fire rating implementing CAFCO 400. The thickness may vary if other products are implemented. The Contractor shall meet UL Design requirements, do not just match existing thickness.

b. VA Response – Regarding Drawing T-2, General Note 14 and Drawing A-101, Installation Note 2, the minimum required thickness is ½” based on the implementation of CAFCO 400. If CAFCO 400 was hypothetically used, the installation note says the first pass maximum thickness is ½”. The Contractor is not required to meet the requirement in just 1 pass.

1.