36C24718R0231-00006001.pdf

36C24718R0231 Project #509‐12‐104 "Renovate Mental Health Wards"

Request for Information (RFI) LOG Amendment #00006

Question

Question Government Response

On sheet AE109 a Pre‐manufactured Canopy is shown. However, in previous amendments it was noted that this project was for 2F only with no courtyard work. Could you please confirm if the pre‐ manufactured canopy is still desired? The courtyard work is no longer required as a part of this project.

Question 36. Answser states that courtyard is not part of project. The deductive alternative states to delete the work involving courtyard.

It is not. Since the courtyard work is not longer a part of the project, then do not price it as a deductive.

Question 25. Answer states that if you don't have a 1 million (Anit‐ligature) project in you history, you will not be eligible to bid.Our other concern is this scope with the term “anti‐ligature” and the 1 million dollar project being required in our resume of work. This is reducing the field down to only one company. That is stopping the competitive low price value the government is looking for.

There has only been one renovation locally to a mental health that exceeds that amount and this restriction discounts all other companies like ourselves who are extremely capable of completing this project. Is the ant‐ligature stipulation going to be erased as the VA construction management and engineers have requested?

The VA has never stated offerors cannot submit offers if they have not completed an anti‐ ligature project. The VA has defined what magnitude and similar scope are. Mental health projects are more specialized than regular renovation projects. The VA did not specify Interested parties have to be local to submit an offer. Projects submitted in response to the solicitation evaluation factors are not limited to those completed locally.

The evaluations factors will remain as stated in the solicitation or as amended.

“Recent – ongoing contracts with a performance history, and contracts with a minimum of 70% completion within six (6) years. Is this for the PPQ, or are you asking for an additional past performance reference here?

No. The factor is asking offerors to provide projects that are at least 70% completed. If it is 100%completed, the VA would like to be able to ask about the completed project if it is not one that is included in factor 4. Offerors do not have to include it in factor 4.

Paragraph 4 goes on to ask for several different responses, but I’m confused as to whether this has anything to do with the PPQ or if this is totally separate.

As written, they are separate. The PPQ does not contain all of the information requested in paragraph 4. The PPQ should be sent from the client. If all of the information in paragraph 4 is incorporated into the PPQ, that will also be acceptable.

In the response to Question 28 d it is stated, ”yes, all space will be available (2F is the only space being renovated). 2G and courtyard have been removed. In the response to Question 28 d it is stated, ”yes, all space will be available (2F is the only space being renovated). 2G and courtyard have been removed. The Courtyard requirements are still contained in the drawings on Sheets AE109, AE201, AE202 and AF101. Additionally, the Price Offer Schedule contained on page 5 of the Solicitation still lists the improvements to the existing exterior courtyards as Deductive Alternate #2, Line Item #3. Based on the response to the RFI above should we leave the improvements to the existing exterior courtyards off of our base bids and offer no deduction for Bid Alternate #2 or will you revise the Price Offer Schedule and the Scope of Work to remove the improvements to the Existing Exterior Courtyards from the base bid a delete Deductive Alternate #2?

Leave the improvements to the existing exterior courtyards off of our base bids and offer no deduction for Bid Alternate #2.

Attachment #1 - Page 1 of 1