Attachment 1 - RFI Responses.pdf

RFI’s & Answers

Solicitation # 36C24925R0003

596-21-104 - AJP – Replace Deteriorated Underground Utilities

1. Solicitation states the Offeror’s Technical proposal shall be no more than 50 pages’ total, which is not inclusive of the solicitation and any amendments issued thereof. However, it looks like the Solicitation documents and amendments may be part of the Price Proposal. Can you please confirm if these documents are part of the technical proposal or the price proposal?

Answer: The submitted proposals should contain two (2) sections, each section being one (1) attachment: a.) Technical Proposal b.) Price Proposal. The Offeror’s Technical proposal shall be no more than 50 pages’ total, which is not inclusive of the solicitation and any amendments issued thereof. The Offeror’s Price Proposal shall be no more than 25 pages inclusive of the bid bonds required. The Offeror is hereby advised that “Attachment 3 Pricing Schedule” worksheet shall be considered as 20 pages, regardless of the overall total.

2. It is not very clear what is to be included in the price proposal. Please confirm on page 15 of the solicitation where it just says price that it should say price proposal, and this is not a technical factor.

Answer: Pricing is not related to Technical Factors 1-3.

3. The Offeror is hereby advised that “Attachment 3 Pricing Schedule” worksheet shall be considered as 20 pages. Can you please clarify why this would take up 20 pages?

Answer: It is not anticipated that it would take anywhere near 20 pages but will count as 20 towards the 25 total pages that are to make up “b.) Price Proposal”.

4. The solicitation has other requirements listed on page 6 of the solicitation. These include representations and certifications, limitations to subcontracting, and the EMR certification documents. However, I do not see any instructions on where these are to be placed in the proposal or if they count against the page count. Please clarify.

Answer: The documents mentioned in this question should be put in the Technical Proposal.

5. Please confirm where Attachment 4- Self Calculation Worksheet is to be placed.

Answer: Technical Proposal.

6. Are we required to submit attachment 5, General Conditions Breakdown?

Answer: Yes

7. It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain Past Performance Questionnaires from Federal Contracting Officers on a project-by-project basis when they have already completed a CPARS evaluation for us. Considering this, will the Government consider allowing us to submit completed CPARS evaluation forms with our proposals in lieu of having our references send the provided PPQ? Several Contracting Officers declining to fill these out have sited From FAR

42.1501 General: (b) Agencies shall monitor their compliance with the past performance evaluation requirements (see 42.1502) and use the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) metric tools to measure the quality and timely reporting of past performance information. CPARS is the official source for past performance information on federal projects.

Answer: Yes, CPARS evaluations are acceptable.

8. If CPARS are acceptable, may they be emailed directly to the Contracting Officer by (ADD

DUE DATE OF PPQ’S FROM RFP) or to be included as an addendum that does not count against the page requirement in the final proposal.

Answer: CPARS evaluations can be submitted in lieu of PPQ’s. If using CPARS, they should be included in the Technical Proposal.

9. Spec 01 35 26.1.9.B states that monthly inspections are required by a third-party Certified Safety

Professional (CSP). Are these monthly inspections required?

10. If the monthly inspections are required, can they be performed by our Corporate Safety Officer with 30-hour OSHA in lieu of a CSP?

Answer: No

11. Spec section 01 45 00 3.4.B which identifies the qualifications required for the CQC Manager.

According to this spec section “The CQC system Manager is required to be a graduate engineer, graduate architect, or a graduate construction manager, with a minimum of 10 years construction experience on construction similar to the scope of this Contract”. This statement would require an on-site person with a 4-year degree in either architecture, engineering, or construction management to be employed full-time, onsite, and for the duration of the project. This is typical of a US Army Corps of Engineer spec reserved for projects with much higher complexity and magnitude than this SDVOSB solicitation for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Enforcement of this spec would require creating an additional high paying position within the onsite staff, thereby increasing monthly overhead project cost to the Government on every project. Meeting this requirement in an industry that already has a significant shortage of labor resources will be both difficult to fill and costly to the project. Based on the size and complexity of this project, we respectfully request that this spec requirement be revised to add the statement “or a construction professional with a minimum of 7 years related work experience” at the end of the sentence quoted above.

Answer: We will allow experience to be a substitute for the education requirement. However, there CQC system manager will be required to have 10 years of experience on construction similar to the scope of this project. The past experience shall be submitted for approval.

12. The new administration has indicated that they intend to impose tariffs on many imported goods.

Under the Buy American Act components of end products that are sold to the federal government can also be subject to tariffs. These tariffs will most likely cause a significant escalation in material and equipment prices at the time of implementation not only for imported goods, but also items produced domestically that compete with imported goods. Tariffs may also delay the receipt of material/equipment processing times at the ports of entry. The potential monetary and schedule impacts are impossible to quantify prior to any action being taken by the administration. If tariffs are instituted and cause quantifiable material escalations, will the Government provide relief through a contract modification for any unforeseen cost escalations and/or schedule delays created by tariffs?

Answer: No, this solicitation will result in a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract.

13. Economic Price Adjustment for Labor and Material: Due to the fact that this solicitation requires us to “hold” our pricing for 120 calendar days for acceptance and given the recent uncertainty in materials and labor costs due to potential tariffs; would the government consider including the FAR Clause 52.216-4, Economic Price Adjustment for Labor and Material in this solicitation? If this clause is not incorporated, bidders will be forced to make a worst-case assessment on potential material escalation and pass the monetary cost of this risk on to the government in their submitted price proposals.

Answer: No, this solicitation will result in a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract.

14. Drawing GC107, Note 6 states that a typical channel can be found on detail 1 of CU402. The detail is not on this sheet. Can you let us know where the detail can be found?

Answer: Detail can be found on CU403

15. CU201 Note 8 , “THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IDENTIFIES ROCK MAY BE

ENCOUNTERED AT ON AVERAGE BETWEEN 5FT. AND 10FT. GIVEN THE DEPPTH

VARIES, CONTRACTOR TO REFER TO THE BORING LOGS FOR SPECIFIC AREAS.”

The boring logs start on Drawing BL001 through BL004. There are only a total of 7 borings for this entire site. The bedrock ranges on the logs from 7.8’ to 13.8’ and the average is 10.4’. With only 7 boring logs, it will be hard to determine how much bedrock requires excavation. For bidding purposes, can the VA provide estimated an quantity of bedrock to be removed for bidding purposes and a unit price for all bedrock above this quantity? If no estimated quantity is provided, then bidders will be forced to assume worst case scenario and pass the cost of this risk factor onto the government in their price proposals.

Answer: Contractor should review the boring logs and all other information provided and make a decision on their own assumption of rock depth based on the information provided. If rock is encountered at depths shallower than anticipated based on the boring logs and other information provided, the contractor may submit a request for modification in accordance with the appropriate clause.

16. CU201 Note: “(7) EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE ADJUSTED IF IN CONFLICT WITH

PROPOSED UTILITY. A CHANGE ORDER WILL NOT BE APPROVED FOR

ADJUSTMENT TO EXISTING UTILITIES” This note is hard to quantify for bidding purposes. Is the Contractor to only price adjusting existing utilities that are currently shown accurately that conflict with new utilities in the plans? Is it correct to assume for bidding purposes that any existing utilities not shown on the drawings that need to be adjusted would result in a change order? Unless the drawings specify the depth, size, spacing, and/or pipe material of existing utilities in relation to new utilities it would be impossible to make assumptions for pricing. Should bidders assume that they will receive a change order to adjust the existing utilities as necessary?

Answer: Contractor to review the plans and visit the site. There will not be a modification issued for any existing utilities (active or abandoned) shown on the plans that is required to be adjusted for a new utility. If the existing utility (active or abandoned) is not shown, the contractor may request a modification in accordance with the appropriate clauses.

17. CU201 note 9 “SANITARY STRUCTURES PROPOSED TO BE RE-USED, SHALL BE

INSPECTED, CLEANED, AND VACUUM TESTED PRIOR TO REUSE. THE

STRUCTURE SHOULD BE REPLACED IF TESTING FAILS.” Without knowing which structures will pass a vacuum test should the Contractor bid replacing all sanitary structures or should the contractor assume all structures will pass at bidding stage and the individual structures that fail the vacuum test during the course of construction be replaced under a change order?

There is no way to quantify the cost without further information.

Answer: Assume all sanitary structures will require replacement. Provide separate pricing that will be deducted if the structure does not require replacement. Pricing should be appropriately supported.

18. 7’ Fencing with wind screen around all active work areas is noted on 4/GC502 Contractor is planning to work in sections of piping. Can fencing the “active work area” be removed or relocated to a different section of work once final grading is completed?

Answer: The fencing is intended to prevent unwanted intrusion into the work area by people.

Once the trenches are backfilled and there are no remaining safety risks to people, the fencing may be removed. The area will still require appropriate erosion control until grass has been established.

19. General – It is our understanding that a campus wide underground utility identification project was recently completed (in the last 2-3 years) at this facility. Will the government provide the drawings and any additional data that resulted in this effort for bidders review in order to identify any other utilities that may be present and not shown on the bid documents?

Answer: All available information is reflected in the plans, specifications, Geotechnical report, IMEG Test Pit report, and CCTV Inspection report for this project. Contractor is required to hire a private utility locator and dig their own test pits for location confirmation. Required test pit location of the contractor are shown on the CU drawings indicated by the following symbol:

Also reference Existing Utilities and Sub-Surface Conditions Note 2 on drawing GI002 and Sanitary Sewer Note 1 on the CU Drawings.

20. Clarification is needed on pricing for the statement of offer items it seems a bit confusing as it says pricing should be provided separately for the items listed below assuming Items IA, IB, and IC. Should we be including base bid + Item IA, base bid+Item IB, and base bid+ Item IC?

Answer: Items IA, IB, and IC comprise the “Base” items but are broken into 3 pieces. They are to be bid separately though all 3 can be awarded. Bids should reflect pricing knowing that any one, two, or all of those items may be awarded as the base.

21. There are 5 additional alternates listed on the Statement of offer items. Can you clarify if we are providing pricing for these as well?

Answer: Yes, pricing should be provided for the Add Alternates as requested.

22. Are we only submitting our pricing on the pricing Schedule Worksheet? Page 6 of the solicitation states prices on all line items listed on the Price/Cost Schedule. I do not see any other pricing forms to fill other than the worksheet.

Answer: Pricing is to be provided as stated in the solicitation. That includes submission of the Pricing Schedule.

23. Where should we fill in our pricing for the line-item pricing on the statement of offer items?

Answer: Not sure exactly what is being asked here. State pricing where the solicitation says to state it.

24. What is the turnaround time for the RFI responses? We are already 7 business days from the proposal submission and there are some important questions that require responses to be compliant.

Answer: Planned date of publishing is 3/17/2025.

25. Will the VA pay for the engineering and design submittals, as well as all applicable deposits required by various manufacturers to put equipment into design and/or production?

Answer: No, the VA does not pay for submittals. The VA will only pay for work in place.

26. Is the new VA memorandum on bolts for steam and hot water systems applicable to this project?

To our understanding A307 bolts are no longer allowed.

Answer: A307 bolts are not mentioned in these specifications, it appears to not be applicable to this project.

27. Where will the contractor be able to put an office on site?

Answer: Reference drawing CI100 which shows an area for staging and trailer.

28. Where will the contractor be able to put a dumpster on site?

29. Where will the contractor be able to put three 40 foot Connex boxes on site?

30. Can the QC Manager share collateral duties with the site safety?

Answer: No. Reference 01 35 26 – 13 which states that the SSHO has to be a separate qualified individual from the superintendent and/or Quality Control Manager.

31. Can the QC Manager share collateral duties with the site superintendent?

Answer: No, the intent is that the Superintendent may not share duties with the QC Manager.

32. Can the site safety, QC Manager, and Site Superintendent share collateral duties?

Answer: No. Each of those positions must be a different and appropriately qualified individual.

33. Can the site safety share collateral duties with the site superintendent?

Answer: No.

34. Please confirm that and all Basis of Design items and materials that the VA has satisfied any and all Buy American Waivers, if applicable, and sole source requirements as needed. Please provide us any Buy American Act Waivers that would be provided under this contract. This is not currently in the plans, documents, or specifications.

Answer: Is it believed that all materials specified are standard construction materials that should be available from manufacturers that comply with the Buy American Act. The VA cannot guarantee that the basis of design materials are compliant with the buy American act. The VA has not sole sourced any material listed. Materials listed as basis of design for information only and an equivalent product may be submitted for approval.

35. Please provide the soil sample report referenced in the specifications.

Answer: Reference the Geotechnical Soil Boring Logs in the plans which provide information on the soil encountered in the borings. Please also reference Geotechnical report, IMEG Test Pit report, and CCTV Inspection report for reference. Geotechnical report, IMEG Test Pit report, and CCTV Inspection report have been provided with these RFI responses.

36. Can the Contractor submit CPARS in lieu of PPQs?

37. Is the Commissioning Agent appointed by the VA?

Answer: No commissioning agent is required. Specification section 33 08 00 was errantly included and is no longer applicable.

38. In Spec Sections 33 30 00 & 33 40 00, Related Work list; Fabrication of Steel Ladders: Section

05 50 00, Metal Fabrication, this is missing please provide.

Answer: CU453 has standard frames, covers, and steps detail. The steps are the same for the sanitary structures. the detail specifies a No. 3 steel rod coated in polypropylene. The contractor should follow the details on the plan for the structures and associated parts.

39. Will the owner accept Procore Project Management software as the primary submittal and data tracking tool for this project?

40. As a result of the effect of COVID-19 throughout the U.S., and the resulting Federal, State and local governments’ responses /requirements of safe distancing and potential advocations of working remotely and/or complete organization closures, please advise how the Government intends to address delays resulting there as it pertains to the current solicitation schedule for this and all future projects.

Answer: There are no known restrictions in place regarding COVID 19. Especially with this work being 100% outdoors, social distancing is not a consideration.

41. What is the approximate duration between issuing the award and issuing the NTP?

Answer: Within 10 to 30 days.

42. For planning the preliminary project schedule, can you please provide an anticipated award date?

Answer: Would estimate late April.

43. How many calendar days should be included in the critical-path method schedule for owner and

A/E review and respond to RFIs? Reference specification 01 33 23 – 7.

Answer: The VA review period for submittals is 15 business days. The VA review period for RFIs is 10 business days. These time periods should be input into a scheduling program accordingly and if they encounter a government holiday or weekend it will adjust the calendar days accordingly.

44. Can the entrance to the VA off of Leestown Rd, south of the main entrance, be utilized as a construction entrance?

Answer: If you’re asking about the entrance circled in red below, then it depends. It may be used for work in that area. However, in order to get to the main road you would have to go thru the Fisher House parking lot which is not permitted. If you’re asking about the entrance circled in blue, yes that entrance may be used.

45. Page CS501, details 4-6, mention a geotechnical report by ECS and Terracon dated 8/17/2023, but this report was not provided as part of the project documents. Please provide a copy of the referenced geotechnical report.

Answer: Geotechnical report provided with these RFI responses.

46. On Sheet GI002, note 6 under "Existing Utilities and Sub-Surface Condtions" and note 9 under

"Utilities" contain conflicting information regarding requirements for open trenches. Please confirm if trenches in landscape areas require temporary fencing and/or steel plating.

Answer: That language is re-stated here. Trenches shall be steel plated when they cannot be immediately backfilled. If they are open overnight, they must have a steel plate AND a temporary fence.

47. On Sheet GI002, note 6 under "Existing Utilities and Sub-Surface Condtions" and note 9 under

"Utilities" contain conflicting information regarding requirements for open trenches. Please confirm the requirements for open trenches in roadways or parking areas that are open overnight.

Answer: Trenches in roadways must be backfilled by the end of each work day, if practice.

Otherwise, the trench may be plated to allow traffic to flow. Ensure appropriate type of plating, signage, and cones are provided.

48. The height requirement for the temporary fence is stated as 7 feet on spec sheet 01 00 00 - 5 and 6 feet on drawing sheet CU303. Please confirm which requirement is correct.

Answer: Fences are required to be 7 feet high.

49. Our site investigations indicate a concrete structure around 7 feet underground NE of Building

67. Please provide any known details of this structure.

Answer: All known details have been provided in the contract documents. If you are aware of the presence of a structure not shown in the documents and that structure conflicts with a designed path, your bid should account for it.

50. 1.4 in spec section 31 20 00 mentions unclassified excavation. Are all unforeseen subsurface conditions considered to be classified or unclassified?

Answer: No, the contract documents provided include information on soil from various samples.

Areas that were not sample or for which there is no information should be assumed to be unclassified.

51. Please identify the locations where hydro jetting will be required for excavation due to existing utilities.

Answer: Hydro jetting or hydro excavating is a means and methods decision by the contractor. It is acceptable as long as it doesn’t damage the pipe. Hand digging is another acceptable means.

Ultimately up to the contractor.

52. Should the temporary chain link fencing be mounted in the ground or will block-mounted fencing suffice?

Answer: Block mounted is acceptable.

53. Has the Owner submitted for the Land Disturbance Permit (LDP)? From our previous experience, this process can take anywhere from 5-8 months.

Answer: A land disturbance permit is required, however, we were unable to start the process as the construction contractor must be named in the permit. The AE will assist in compiling, submitting, and acquiring a land disturbance permit. AE will provide plans and analysis and other document needed to obtain permit. All permitting fees are the responsibility of the construction contractor.

54. Will the Owner or the contractor be responsible for the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP)?

Answer: SWPPP is required, it is a joint responsibility of AE and Contractor. Contractor will pay all associated permitting fees. Contractor will provide the AE construction specific information for the SWPPP. AE will coordinate and facilitate compiling the SWPPP.

For Add Alternate 1, Channel Improvement scope, additional permitting will be required. AE will facilitate, contractor will pay fees and may need an environmental permit expediter.

55. Will the gate at the tunnel between B28 and B29 be allowed to be utilized?

Answer: Yes, coordinate with VA COR.

56. Will the LDP and SWPPP permits cover all phases of the project?

57. Are there any seasonal restrictions for tree removal due to brown bats?

Answer: No.

58. Should the required pricing schedule match the specification sections for this project?

Answer: Provide pricing to match the Statement of Offer Items.

59. The required pricing schedule includes divisions that are not relevant to this project. When filling out the pricing schedule, how should these divisions be handled?

Answer: The Pricing Schedule is simply a template so what’s currently on there may not be applicable. When a proposal is put together, contractors should include all appropriate divisions for the work.

60. The required pricing schedule is missing Divisions 31 and 33 which will be included in this project. Will an updated pricing schedule be provided, or should the contractor alter the pricing schedule?

Answer: The Pricing Schedule is a template. Is it to be edited by Contractors to include appropriate divisions. No, the VA will not supply a new template.

61. Regarding general note 8 on sheet GC001, please provide additional details regarding the requirements to "detain and clean water to acceptable EPA standards"

Answer: As long as requirements and details on erosion and sediment control plan are followed, that will be in compliance with the applicable EPA standards.

62. Regarding general note 9 on sheet GC001, please provide additional details for sediment-laden water prior to discharge.

Answer: Sediment-laden water stems from disturbed areas exposed to rainfall. The erosion and sediment control plan depicts the locations of storm structure inlet protection and silt fence. A sediment filter bag and dewatering pump would be required for restoring an open trench back to dry working conditions. Below is a scenario with a filter bag being used. Trench dewatering is only anticipated if the trench is inundated with water. Otherwise, the silt fence and inlet protection should be adequate. All disturbed areas must be treated with silt fence, inlet protection or another approve measure prior to entering the existing storm system.

63. Regarding general note 10 on sheet GC001, please provide additional details for the process wastewater to be "collected and disposed of at a publicly owned treatment works."

Answer: If wastewater is produced or collected it should be disposed in accordance with the local and state requirements. The contractor should contact Lexington Fayette Urban County Government Environment Quality and Public Works for assistance.

64. Detail 1 on CU403 states “design for channel retaining wall to be provided by licensed structural engineer.” Please clarify if the structural engineer will be employed by the owner or by GC and if, for bidding purposes, the information displayed in detail 1/CU403 is assumed to be the correct design.

Answer: Structural engineer should be employed by the GC. Should be covered with bidding.

The details and notes are correct. Note the wall design, materials, and construction must conform to the notes on CU403 in order to comply with the SHPO approval conditions. SHPO will want as-builts to confirm compliance post construction. Below is a photo of the existing wall which the new walls need to match according to the SHPO conditions.

65. Construction note 11 on GI002 and detail 3 on CU451 mention dewatering by contractor.

Considering the ambiguous nature of quantifying the dewatering scope, please quantify the dewatering scope (XXX gallons) to be included in each bidder’s proposal or confirm to exclude dewatering, which will be resolved later as a change order.

Answer: Dewatering required any time the excavation area retains water. No biddable quantity shall be provided. No modifications will be executed for dewatering.

66. Construction note 12 on GI002 requires spoil removal by GC. Considering the ambiguous nature of quantifying the spoils removal, please quantify the spoils removal scope (XXX CY) to be included in each bidder’s proposal or confirm to exclude spoils removal, which will be resolved later as a change order.

Answer: Spoils refers to additional dirt or other items dug up during excavations that are leftover after all excavations have been appropriately backfilled. No modifications will be executed for spoil removal.

67. Boring log B-01 on BL001 mentions gravel and crushed rock at 1.5’ BFG. Similarly, boring log

B-02, B-03, and B-06 on BL001 and BL002 mention concrete fragments, crushed stone and debris, and gravel and debris approximately 1.5’ BFG. Considering ambiguous nature of hard dig scope on this project, please quantify the amount of hard dig for contractors to include in their bid or clarify to exclude hard dig, which will be resolved later as a change order.

Answer: Reference additional information from the Geotechnical report.

Additional information from duct bank excavations performed for the current CLC Phase 2 project: The rock encountered would flake when hit with the mini excavator / hoe-ram attachment. Picture below, figure 67-1.

Figure 67-1

Contractor should review the boring logs and all other information provided and make a decision on their own assumption of rock depth based on the information provided. If rock is encountered at depths shallower than anticipated based on the boring logs and other information provided, the contractor may submit a request for modification in accordance with the appropriate clause.

68. Due to work happening in the proximity of the armored artillery vehicle, is there a minimum distance requirement that must be maintained?

Answer: It appears there is adequate space to avoid conflicts with armored artillery vehicle.

Comply with the excavation limits shown on the drawings.

69. The Solicitation Statement of Offer Item(s) on page 5 of 57 mentions that GC’s bid will include waterline improvements as part of base bid item 1B and the water demolition add alternate will be listed as add alternate 3. If add alternate 3 will not be accepted, please clarify what demolition/abandoning scope GC will include as part of waterline improvements base bid item 1B. Would GC merely close any existing valves and cut the pipe or would any other scope be required to be done to the existing water line to abandoned (e.g., capping lines, etc.)?

Answer: If add alternate to remove the pipe is not awarded, contractor is required to cut, cap, fill with flowable fill, and abandon in place in accordance with the plans and specs.

70. CU305 keynote 15 mentions test pit investigation report dated 3/1/24-3/19/24. Please provide a copy of this report.

Answer: Reference IMEG Test Pit Report provided with these RFI responses.

71. CU305 keynote 15 mentions test pit investigation that identified concrete under asphalt. Please quantify the extent of buried concrete to be removed by the GC or confirm to exclude buried concrete scope, which will be addressed later as a change order.

Answer: Contractor to utilize all information provided in the project drawings, specifications and site visit(s) to make their own assumptions on concrete that they may encounter.

72. Numerous pages show test pits. Please confirm test pits will be done by others (NIC for GC).

Answer: Some test pits were performed by the AE. Those test pits are denoted with the following symbol:

Additionally, the Contractor is required to hire a private utility locator and dig their own test pits for location confirmation. Required test pit location of the contractor are shown on the CU drawings indicated by the following symbol:

Also reference Existing Utilities and Sub-Surface Conditions Note 2 on drawing GI002 and Sanitary Sewer Note 1 on the CU Drawings.

73. Page CU402 has an unnumbered detail for building 12 and this detail highlights waterline in green and has a note “refer to waterline realignment profile”. However, page CU305 does not show any waterline realignment profile and the waterline that’s highlighted in green on CU402 is not show as part of scope on CU305. Please confirm to ignore the note for waterline realignment profile or provide additional details for waterline realignment profile at Building 12.

Answer: Waterline realignment profile is provided is on CU402.

74. Which items from the pricing schedule apply to this project?

Answer: It’s a template, offerors are to change and include all appropriate divisions.

75. Who are the inspectors and are they on site daily, if not daily how often?

Answer: VA Inspector is the VA COR. VA COR is typically available daily.

76. Where is the laydown area and how much space do we have to store materials?

Answer: Reference drawing CI100 which shows an area for staging and trailer. Area shows 39,000 square feet of space available.

77. We are planning on bringing in 2 office trailers that are 12’x60’ each, is there available room and can we hook up to utilities and plumbing?

Answer: Reference drawing CI100 which shows an area for staging and trailer. Electrical connections are available. No water or sanitary hookups available.

78. If our subcontractor meets the past performance requirements outlined in FACTOR 3 of the RFP

(regarding completed projects of underground site utility work equal to or greater than $5,000,000 with the last 5 years), will we be deemed technically acceptable for the project?

Answer: This question cannot be definitely answered yes or no without seeing provided details.

79. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY VA: Design Note 6 on Drawings LS501 is no longer applicable. Reference LS107 for required number and location of trees to be replanted.

END RFI’S & ANSWERS