36C24620R0033-0008002.pdf

Request for Proposals 36C24620R0033

Project: 652-315, Expand Women’s Health/Primary Care Addition

Responses to RFP Questions

1. Question: Section 230924 – Continuous water quality monitoring and instrumentation. The system described in this spec section is not typical for the Richmond VAMC, can you please list acceptable manufactures of Water Quality Monitoring Station/System?

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Items No. 5.A, 5.B and 5.C (dated May 11, 2020)

2. Question: Section 230924 – Continuous water quality monitoring and instrumentation. Please indicate mechanical or plumbing drawings that shows details of this system and where in the building it will be installed.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Items No. 5.A, 5.B and 5.C (dated May 11, 2020)

3. Question: GN-2/C001 says "OBTAIN AND/OR PAY FOR ALL INSPECTIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, EQUIPMENT, ETC. THAT MAY BE REQUIRED." Typically Federal government projects do not require 3rd party inspections. If this project requires 3rd party inspections, please provide a list of required inspections, the agency's name and the cost associated with the inspections so all bidders can bid the same scope.

Answer: Section 014529 “Testing Laboratory Services” section 1.1 states that the testing laboratory/services is to be retained by the General Contractor. That section lists specific civil sections requiring testing and the individual sections call out testing requirements in greater detail.

4. Question: This project is a ground-up new building which will require staking out of the building foundation and the associated utilities. Please provide the VA's survey requirements and specifications.

Answer: Building stake out requirements are shown in Section 01 00 00 “1.13 Layout of

Work”

5. Question: GN-13 D/C001 says "COORDINATE ALL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING

UTILITY RELOCATION, INCLUDING TEMPORARY POLE BRACING AND GUY WIRE

RELOCATION, WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY. COSTS ASSOCIATED

WITH THIS COORDINATION, MEASURES REQUIRED BY THE UTILITY COMPANY, AND

COSTS INVOICED BY THE UTILITY COMPANY FOR WORK PERFORMED BY THEM

SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTRACT." We did not see any utility relocation in any of the drawings during our review. Please advise us if any such utility relocation is required so that we can include the cost in our bid.

Answer: It is anticipated that the trenching of the storm sewer could approach the light pole along 2nd St. Lights poles are shown to be relocated on CD101.

6. Question: GN-13 E/C001 says "COORDINATE WITH THE UTILITY OWNER, SHOULD THE

CONTRACTOR'S EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES REQUIRE SHORING AND BRACING OF

EXISTING UTILITY POLES. VIRGINIA POWER SHALL BE NOTIFIED TEN WORKING

DAYS BEFORE ANTICIPATED SHORING AND BRACING ACTIVITIES COMMENCE. ALL

SHORING AND BRACING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY VIRGINIA POWER

PERSONNEL AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE." There is no reference to shoring & bracing of any utility poles in the drawings. Please advise us if any utility pole shoring or bracing is going to be required so that we can accommodate the cost in our bid.

Answer: The trenching detail is shown on F5/C504. It will be considered part of the contractor’s means and methods to determine if shoring and bracing is required or preferred in coordination with existing utilities to be protected.

7. Question: Part of GN-23/C001 says " ANY TEMPORARY REMOVAL AND REINSTALLATION

OF EXISTING STREET LIGHTS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH DOMINION VIRGINIA

POWER AND SHALL BE AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER

MAY REQUIRED SIGNIFICANT ADVANCE NOTICE FOR SCHEDULING WORK." Demo note

5/CD101 & construction note 14/CS101 discuss relocated light poles. Are these light poles the street lights referenced in note 23? If yes, please provide us with contact information for the person at

Dominion Virginia Power who can give us a budget for the relocation so that we can incorporate the cost in our bid. * If not, who owns these light poles and can you provide us with their contact information so that we can request a quote for relocation.

Answer: It is part of the general contractor’s bid and scope to coordinate the relocation of the lights poles shown on CD101.

8. Question: Demo note 1 on CD101 "REMOVE TREE/STUMP." is annotated on the NW of the proposed building on the island however, it is not marked with an "X" on the tree symbol. Please confirm if tree removal is required at this location.

Answer: It is intended to show all demo notes “1” marked with an “X”, so all “REMOVE

TREE/STUMP” callouts are to be removed.

9. Question: Note 22 on CS102, which is annotated near Building 500, states " CONCRETE

SIDEWALK PATCH (MATCH EXISTING)." It looks like a colored or stamped concrete along with brick/stone pavement. We can do our best to match the existing however the patch will be evident as the existing stained or stamped concrete has aged. Is that acceptable? Is the color integral or topical?

Answer: Integral color is preferred. It is understood the match may not be perfect in color, but certainly should be close. The colors wills not need to match the aged concrete exactly.

10. Question: The room finish legend on A 601 mentions wall protection WP-1 and WP-2 but there is no reference to WP-1 or WP-2 on any of the interior elevation drawings or millwork details. Please clarify where this condition occurs.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 6.A (dated May 11, 2020)

11. Question: The solid surface colors that are called out on page A 601 under the Room Finish

Legend, SS-1 and SS-2 are both discontinued/non merchandised colors as of March 2nd, 2020. Please recommend replacement colors. Please clarify on the finish plan where these products apply.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 6.B (dated May 11, 2020)

12. Question: The finish schedule on A601 lists the base for all LVT floors as coved RB-1 and the base for the corridors as RB-2 Pinnacle Plus but the corridors all have LVT floors. Please clarify which base is the correct one.

Answer: RB-1 & RB-2 are the same manufacturer and color (Roppe, 632 Flax). RB-1 has a basic cove/straight profile and should be installed at spaces requiring resilient base, except for Corridors and Waiting. RB-2 has Profile #90 and should be installed at

Corridors and Waiting.

13. Question: The door schedule on A611 shows the exterior slider, door 101A, type D, to be a blast door, but we don't see any specifications/model selection for this door. Please provide a basis of design for the sliding door.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 7.A (dated May 11, 2020)

14. Question: The door schedule on A611 also shows the interior auto door, door 101B type C, but we don't see any specifications/model selection for this door. Please provide a basis of design for the sliding door.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 7.B (dated May 11, 2020)

15. Question: There are multiple references to “blast requirements” on the door type elevations on A611 but the door schedule, also on A611, does not indicate which doors are required to be blast rated, or to what level. Please clarify which doors need to be blast rated and to what level.

Answer: All exterior doors are required to meet the blast requirements of the VA Physical

Security Design Manual for Life Safety Protected Facilities.

16. Question: Drwg A611, door type “B” calls for “blast-resistant glass,” yet the only openings calling for door type “B” are 110A & 110B, which are wood doors with no reference to a blast requirement. Please clarify.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 7.C (dated May 11, 2020)

17. Question: On Drwg A611, openings 110A & 110B both call for Hardware Set “8E” and carry a remark “ADO,” which appears to be Automatic Door Operator but this hardware is not compatible for use with an ADO. Please clarify.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 4.D (dated May 11, 2020)

18. Question: Section 1.4 Submittals, Paragraph “G” under specification section 08 11 13 references blast resistance performance for 4 different design threats. Which blast resistant doors in the A611 door schedule need to meet which design threat? What are the minimum blast resistance requirements we should use for pricing purposes?

Answer: Refer to system Performance Section 2.1.A.5 of the referenced specification for blast resistance requirements.

19. Question: Section 2.1 System Performance, Paragraph A, sub-paragraph 4 in specification section 08 11 13 references a minimum STC of 45. Which openings need to meet this requirement?

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 3.A (dated May 11, 2020)

20. Question: Section 2.2 Flush Wood Doors, Paragraph G, sub-paragraph 1 in specification section 08 14 00 references a minimum STC of 35. Which openings need to meet this requirement?

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 4.C (dated May 11, 2020)

21. Question: Section 2.2 Flush Wood Doors, Paragraph B in specification section 08 14 00 mentions both stained and painted finishes but Section 2.4 Finishes, Paragraph 4 in the same specification section only mentions stained finishes. Please clarify if all doors are to have a stained finish or if some are painted. If the later, please provide a schedule showing which doors receive which finish.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Items No. 4.A and 4.B (dated May 11, 2020)

22. Question: Structural Steel Note 1.01 C2a on S002 states "FABRICATOR SHALL BE AISC

QUALITY CERTIFIED FOR THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY: 1) STDSTANDARD FOR

STEEL BUILDING STRUCTURES." If the subcontractor has a third party annual inspection such as "Klaus J. Worrell, P.C.", would you consider this as an equivalent certification? Can the AISC certification requirement be waived on this project?

Answer: No

23. Question: Foundation Note 1.02 on S001 states "THE SAFE BEARING CAPACITY OF

THE FOUNDATION SOIL SUPPORTING FOOTINGS OUTSIDE OF AGGREGATE

PIERS SHALL BE A MINIUM OF 2,000 PSF AND SHALL BE TESTED AND

APPROVED BY A PROFESSIONAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR

CONFIRMATION OF THIS VALUE PRIOR TO CASTING FOOTING CONCRETE. ALL

FOOTINGS SHALL BEAR ON ORIGINAL UNDISTURBED SOIL OR CONTROLLED

FILL." Who is responsible for hiring a soil testing contractor and a geotechnical engineer?

Answer: The contractor is responsible.

24. Question: Aggregate Pier note 1.01 on S001 states "DESIGN, FABRICATION, AND

INSTALLATION OF AGGREGATE PIERS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS PROVIDED FOR THIS PROJECT." Please confirm if the GC is responsible for this task. It is our understanding that aggregate piers are only required under the footings and spread pier footings shown on drawing S101, and not under the slab on grade. Please confirm.

Answer: Aggregate piers are only required where shown. Aggregate pier design, fabrication and installation shall be by the contractor.

25. Question: Please provide the depth of the aggregate piers to be used in the proposal. Sections

2 and 3 on sheet S302 note that the piers are to be a "Mininum" of 15' deep.

Answer: The minimum depth required is shown. Final depths will be provided by the contractor’s aggregate pier engineer.

26. Question: There is no mention of WWR in the concrete topping at the interstitial floor or roof floor along with the tie reinforcement as per drawings S102 & S103 however, there are multiple references to WWR in the steel detail drawings. Please confirm that WWR is not required in the concrete topping.

Answer: Roof and interstitial slab reinforcing are shown on Sheets S104 and S105 respectively. Welded wire reinforcing is required where shown on S504.

27. Question: GN-E/PL 101 to 104 states "ALL HORIZONTAL STORM DRAINAGE PIPING

SHALL BE INSULATED." Please clarify if the horizontal storm piping shown on drawing

PL101 (below foundation) is also required to be insulated.

Answer: Only the Storm Drainage, including Overflow piping, above the floor that is routed horizontal is required to be insulated. The storm drainage below the floor slab on grade is NOT required to be insulated. This is a condensate issue.

28. Question: The fixture unit calculation table on drawing P-501 includes emergency eye & face wash fixture P-708 but there is no reference to this fixture on the isometric riser diagrams PP301 and PL201. Please clarify.

Answer: P-708 is an Emergency Eye and Face Wash Faucet on P-530 Plumbing Fixture.

Design Basis SPEAKMAN, MODEL SEF-1801 as indicated on drawings. This information is located in the Specification Section 22 40 00; Part 2 – Products; 2.9 Sinks;

F.

29. Question: We were not allowed to visit the final connection location of the steam and condensate return in the existing building 500 during the walkthrough. Please provide the following information:

The VA should be able to further clarify but the A/E’s experience in that area is as follows:

* What is the head clearance in the crawl space?

Answer: 6’ to 7’

* Is a confined space permit required in the crawl space?

* Is there any access to the crawl space from outside of the building, which would allow us to deliver construction materials and perform work without disturbing the hospital?

Answer: No, no access from the outside.

* What are the dimensions (length, width) of the access door?

Answer: From inside the basement level, which is lower than the crawl space, it is a standard 3-0 door at the top of a set of stairs.

* Is there any infection control requirement in the crawl space?

Answer: No, but space would still have to be treated as part of the hospital, so certain rules may still apply as far as dust and noise are concerned.

* Please provide the foundation detail for the wall where the proposed steam and condensate return is going to penetrate the existing Building 500.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Items No. 8.A and 8.B (dated May 11, 2020)

* Please provide existing condition photos at the location of the steam piping connection, as KN-4/M-108 indicates that this is a highly congested area.

Answer: pipes are as shown on the plans, area of connection is less congested.

* Is there access and a pathway for scaffolding as KN4/M-108 states that the piping is located approx. 20' AFF ?

Answer: Yes it is above a wide corridor.

* Is there any relocation/rework required due to tapping of the new steam pipe?

Answer: No, should be able to tap the top of the pipe show.

* Is there any shutdown required for the tapping of the new steam pipe?

Answer: Yes, there is at least one isolation valve upstream of the tap location.

* Do we need to rebalance the existing steam system? If yes, please provide the scope of work.

Answer: Not required.

30. Question: KN-1/M401 for steam routing calls for steam pit 1 and is annotated by building

500. It is also called out between loop#2 & loop#3 but there is no symbol for the steam pit at this second location. We believe that the second annotation is an error, as a total of 4 steam pits are called out in the drawings. Please confirm.

Answer: Correct, Note bubble 1 located between loop 2 and loop 3 is in error.

31. Question: KN-4/M401 for the steam and condensate pipe trench calls for a 24-inch cover over 4-inch steam pipe with the first 12" of cover material specified as sand. The next 12" of the material is unspecified. Do you want the remaining 12" of material to be sand as well?

Answer: Use topsoil; Civil spec 312011 3.5 states that topsoil should be replaced to a minimum of 4 inches and Civil General Note 35 states that all areas within the project limits not occupied by structures, pavement or sidewalks shall be topsoiled and seeded.

32. Question: We do not see any makeup water lines being run to the proposed chiller on the equipment pad in M-102. Please provide the detail for the makeup water line.

Answer: Both the hot water and chilled water makeup details are shown on M503 details 1 and 4. They both are to be provided in the interstitial space as indicated at the expansion tanks shown in sheet M105. The makeup water does not go out to the chillers. Also, Make-up water Back Flow Preventer for HVAC is shown on PP102 Note Number 12.

33. Question: Sump pumps are shown in all four steam pits as noted in the mechanical drawings

KN10/M-401 & KN5/M-402 however in the electrical drawings, the electrical connection from existing building 500 to the sump pump is only shown for steam pit 1. How are the other 3 sump pumps being fed electrically? Please provide size and routing for the remaining

3 steam pit sump pump electric connections.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 9A, 9.B, 9.C and 9.D (dated May 11, 2020)

34. Question: The controls for high water monitoring are shown in all four steam pits, as noted in mechanical drawings KN11/M-401 & KN9/M-402 which call for routing the sensor wiring in conduit and pipe trench to the controls in the new building however the route for the control conduit to the new building is not shown. Please provide a path for the control conduit and information on the required size of the conduit and wire. Can we run this proposed control conduit in the same trench as the steam piping?

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 9A, 9.B, 9.C and 9.D (dated May 11, 2020)

35. Question: We are assuming the utility transformer and the power connection to the transformer will be provided by the utility company and paid for by the VA. If these are to be provided and paid for by contractor, please provide us with contact information for the person who can provide pricing for the transformer and the hook up fees.

Answer: The service transformer and primary feeder and primary feeder hook ups are by

Dominion Power. Secondary feeder connections are by the electrical contractor.

36. Question: If the above statement is correct, please provide the utility transformer size so that we can consider the right size of the concrete pad.

Answer: Pad provided by Dominion Power.

37. Question: There is no conduit and wiring detail shown on the drawing from the utility transformer to the electrical room. Who is responsible for the power connection from the transformer to the main panel in the electrical room? If the contractor, please provide the conduit run and wiring detail.

Answer: The electrical contractor is responsible for the power connection from the utility transformer to the main panel and the feeder sizes are shown on the power riser diagram on sheet E001. The contractor is also responsible for the transformer pad, grounding and conduits stubbed out on the primary side of the utility transformer for the utility company to utilize and several notes on ES101 pertain to the electrical service.

38. Question: Spec section 07 11 13 "Bituminous dampproofing" is included in the spec book but there is no mention of such scope in the drawings. Please provide the damp proofing scope.

Answer: Face of masonry/concrete below grade.

39. Question: This is a new building. Is there any termite treatment required for the foundation?

If yes, please provide the termite treatment specifications.

40. Question: KN-1/A101 calls for an 8' high screen wall enclosure with a Basis of Design

Architectural Louvers: V2TV7. Please provide us a detailed specification for the product.

Answer: See 2/A102, 9-12/S504 for details.

41. Question: Please provide a layout and detail for the equipment pad showing all required mechanical, plumbing, and electrical equipment.

Answer: Contractor coordination required based on final selection of equipment provided.

There is not plumbing at the pad.

42. Question: The exterior elevations for the proposed building call for ACM wall panels. What is the Basis of Design?

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 1.B (dated May 11, 2020).

43. Question: Please provide a hoizontal metal siding specification to be used when pricing alternate # 2 and indicate the location for the siding lieu of the ACM panels – the alternate says to substitute the material at the ground floor yet the ground floor is all brick in the base bid. Is this alternate to change all ACM to siding?

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 1.C (dated May 11, 2020) (Per Bid Alternate #2, change ALL ACM to horizontal siding.)

44. Question: Please provide contact information for the preferred/maintenance temperature control contractor.

Answer: We usually have Johnson Controls do most of the work here in the facility, they are familiar with the system.

45. Question: Please provide the basis of design for the cold formed metal framing (gauge and spacing) that is to be used in the proposal.

Answer: Minimum light gauge blast loading requirements for the exterior envelope are shown on S103.

46. Question: KN-15/ES101 states "PENETRATE CRAWL SPACE WALL AT THIS

LOCATION AND ROUTE THE (2) 4 INCH CONDUITS WITH INNERDUCTS UP

INSIDE WALL OF THE CRAWL SPACE AND PROVIDE A 24 IN X 24 IN PULL BOX

ON CEILING OF CRAWL SPACE TO TERMINATE CONDUITS. EXTEND THE (2) 4

INCH CONDUITS FROM THE PULL BOX ALONG THE CEILING OF THE CRAWL

SPACE TO TELEPHONE ROOM BG-145 (APROX. 375 FT.)"*

* What are the ceiling types along the entire route for the conduits to BG-145? The hospital standard and must of the ceiling down in the LL are open.

* We need this information so that we can incorporate ceiling demo, patching, and painting, if required.

* Is there any infection control requirement along the path of the conduit run? If contractor is doing work in open area involves patient or employees, then the must follow contract on containment.

* Are we to assume there are no obstructions or accessibility issues that would interfere with installing the conduits? Yes

Answer: Few ceilings along this route, very accessible open to structure above.

47. Question: The specifications state that the contractor is responsible for restoring areas damaged during construction to the existing condition. Is seeding the existing grass area an acceptable method or does the VA expect us to replace it with sod? Please clarify.

Answer: Section 31 20 11, paragraph 3.5, states that topsoil should be replaced to a minimum of 4 inches and Sheet C001, General Note 35, states that all areas within the project limits not occupied by structures, pavement or sidewalks shall be topsoiled and seeded.

48. Question: Please provide us with the testing schedule for spec section 01 45 29.

Answer: Per Section 01 45 29, paragraph 3.11, refer to specific sections for required testing.

49. Question: Due to weather conditions (tornado warnings) which limited the scope of the original site visit, 5366 Logistics Leopardo MPA SDVOSB JV, LLC. would like to request another walkthrough.

Answer: No, it was one site visit and there wasn’t any bad weather that day.

50. Question: The bid form in the solicitation includes Proposal Alternate 1 to "replace the SBS

Modified Bitumen Roofing system found at the low slope roof location with a complete, flashed single-ply TPO roofing system including walk pads as described in specification

Section 07 54 23." It is unclear what the borders of the low roof section would be. Do we need to install a single-ply TPO roofing system instead of the originally called SBS modified bitumen roofing specification for the entire roof in Alternate 1? If not, please provide drawings showing the area that is to have TPO roofing in place of SBS Bitumen in Alt. 1.

Answer: For this alternate, TPO roofing would be substituted at all areas currently showing

Mod Bit roofing. Metal roofing is not included as part of this alternate.

51. Question: Please provide TPO roofing specifications.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 2.A (dated May 11, 2020)

52. Question: GN 19 and GN 20 on A601 refer to the cubicle curtain/track but it is not annotated anywhere on the drawings where the cubicle curtain will be installed. Please clarify and provide a detailed spec for the cubicle curtain.

Answer: See Sheets A101, A111 – RCP Legend, A401-403 at door locations to patient care rooms and Lactation Room.

53. Question: No detail is provided for how the cubicle curtain attaches to the ceiling. Please provide detail to help us determine if wood blocking or backing will be required or not.

Answer: See Basis of Design manufacturer’s standard installation details.

54. Question: The RFP caps the number of pages in Volume I - Technical Capability at 20 pages however, sub-factor 4 (Contractor Responsibility Items) requires us to submit 3 years of

OSHA records and an EMR letter. With such restrictions on the page count, would you consider either raising the page limit or excluding those items from the page count?

Answer: OSHA records and EMR letter are hereby excluded from the 20 page limitation of the Technical Proposal.

55. Question: Sub-factor 5 (Subcontractor List and Qualifications) asks bidders to provide a list of subcontractors intended for use on the project. If we were to include all possible subcontractors, we would exceed the 20 page limit for Volume 1. Can you clarify which subcontractor trades are required for the submission? Would you consider raising the page limit to accommodate inclusion of the requested information? If information is provided in a table format, can that table be on 8.5" x 14" or 11" x 17" paper? Since many subcontractors turn their bids in at the last minute, would the VA like information on all potential subcontractors or could this information be submitted within 3-4 hours after the bid due date/time to allow the subcontractor list to be finalized?

Answer: Please respond to the solicitation as written with regard to this item. Historically, other offerors on other solicitations have not had an issue responding. A table format is suitable.

56. Question: The RFP asks for a brief, tentative schedule in the PMP. Typically a schedule would be several pages long. Since there are a limited number of pages for this section, would providing milestone dates be sufficient to meet this requirement? Alternatively, can the schedule be excluded from the Vol 1 page count?

Answer: The schedule is hereby excluded from the Volume 1 Technical Proposal page count.

57. Question: Section 1.7 (Qualified Contractors) in specification 31 74 00 lists three companies that have been prequalified. Is the bidders list limited to only these three subs or can other other subs bid this project?

Answer: The referenced specification and paragraph states, “The aggregate pier contractor shall meet the requirements stated in section 1.8 of these specifications.”, and then lists three prequalified contractors. The list of three prequalified contractors does not preclude the use of another contractor that meets the requirement stated in paragraph 1.7 of Specification Section 31 74 00.

58. Question: Is this project tax exempt? If yes, please provide a copy of the tax exemption.

Answer: Exemption from State taxes on Federal purchases varies by State. The tax exemption form is provided as an attachment to these responses and the contract itself, once awarded, may also serve as evidence depending upon the State. Tax exemption of the project depends upon the State from which materials are being purchased. The State of

Virginia recognizes sales tax exemption on Federal purchases.

59. Question: I was looking at PROJECT 652-315, EXPAND WOMEN'S HEALTH/PRIMARY

CARE RICHMOND VA. I am interested in the standing seam system but cannot locate the type of system that you are specifying.

Answer: See Addendum No. 1, Item No. 1.A (dated May 11, 2020)

60. Question: In the RFP, Section C.2 Wage Determination shows VA2020 0007 dated

01/24/2020. This wage scale is for Richmond County, which is further north in Virginia. In past projects at H.H. McGuire, we were given the wage scale for VA2020 0155, which shows Richmond City. Please advise if we are to use VA2020 0155.

Answer: This was addressed by an earlier amendment. Wage Determination VA2020 0155 has been provided to replace VA2020 0007.

61. Question: In the RFP, Section M, paragraph 7.4.1, the Site Superintendent and Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) may be the same person if qualified in accordance with the

Specifications. The Specification Section 01 35 26 Safety, paragraph 1.7.C states the SSHO has to be a separate qualified individual from the Prime Contractor’s Superintendent and/or

Quality Control Manager with duties only as the SSHO. Please confirm the RFP supersedes the Specification.

Answer: RFP, Section M, paragraph 7.4.1 hereby supersedes the language at Specification

Section 01 35 26 Safety, paragraph 1.7.C, specifically regarding the Site Superintendent and Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) being the same person.