621-22-108 - Replace Site Underground Chilled Water Piping _ RFI Updated Responses 3-5-2026.pdf

36C24926R0013 Replace Site Underground Chilled Water Piping

Updated RFI Responses – 3-05-2026

1. Response #1- Neither the Solicitation nor this response clarifies which Factor the EMR response is to be inserted. Please define Technical or Price?

Response: Technical Volume, and not included toward page limit

2. Response #2- Solicitation reference to SAM and DSBS registrations are not noted to be included in the proposal but registered with the appropriate agency. The response is unclear if we are to obtain verification from these agencies of proper filings and include this documentation “separately” as noted in this response. Please define if this is to be included in Price or Technical.

Response: Should be submitted in the Technical Volume and do not count toward the proposal’s page limit

3. Response #4- Response does not address the question properly to allow bidders to be compliant. Attachment 3 Price Schedule will not contain 20-page count and solicitation reference to this as 20 pages count requirement is inconsistent with factors necessary to include all price containing documents in this maximum 25-page requirement. Please review the response and provide clarification if the only items to be included in Price is SF 1442 pages 1 and 2, and three pages of Bid Bond documents, and Attachment 3 Price Schedule. All other price related items are to be included in Technical as noted in Response 81 and 82.

Response: Bid guarantee documents will be excluded from the count. All price‑related narratives, explanations, or breakdowns (other than the actual Price Schedule, SF 1442, and Bid Bond) belong in the Technical Volume.

4. Response 63- Response references Specification Section 33 60 10 is not included in the Solicitation documents. Please provide this Specification or clarify if flushing of water lines can be pumped into sanitary, storm, or both.

Response: This is a typo, it should have been specification 33 63 10, not 33 60 10.

5. Response 81- Response directs bidders to submit General Condition price information into technical proposal. Please confirm this is correct as the Solicitation requires Price to be in separate proposal.

Response: All price‑related narrative, explanations, or breakdowns (other than the actual Price Schedule, SF 1442, and Bid Bond) belong in the Technical Volume.

6. In reference to the missing specification 33 60 10, are we to follow the requirements outlined on the various drawing sheets and/or details in flushing in lieu of the missing specification. See example flushing image from the drawings below.

Response: This is a typo, it should have been specification 33 63 10, not 33 60 10.

7. Response 82- Response direct bidders to submit Self-performed price information which included proposal total into technical proposal. Please confirm this is correct as the Solicitation requires Price to be in separate proposal.

Response: All price‑related narrative, explanations, or breakdowns (other than the actual Price Schedule, SF 1442, and Bid Bond) belong in the Technical Volume.

8. C700 Indicates a new laydown yard for this project. This location appears to be an existing stone parking lot. Is the existing stone parking lot reused as the new laydown yard or should all existing stone be removed and replaced per Detail 2/C100?

Response: The laydown yard will have to be prepared per the construction documents. If removal of existing stone is required to meet the requirements, then it will have to be removed.

9. Please confirm Detail 1/C100 is referring only to fencing for contractor laydown yard.

Response: Detail 1/C100 would only be required for the laydown yard. The temporary fencing to secure the trenching can use panel stands instead of posts, but the panel stands must be weighted down so they will not fall over under high winds.

10. General Note for Sidewalk Diversion 5 indicates the construction barrier fence may be 32” orange snow fence. Is this referring to ALL site fencing shown on MOT drawings?

Response: Orange snow fence will not be allowed on this project.

11. Please clarify how long of a trench would Mt Home Engineering allow GCs to keep open at one time or clarify if a 500’ long trench would be acceptable to the government.

Response: The trench cannot traverse more than 1 roadway or parking at a time, resulting in multiple road or parking lot closures. Refer to the MOT plans for phasing of the excavations.

12. With submission of CPARS in Factor 3 acceptable, per Amendment 2, can the Government confirm that any CPARS submitted is/are excluded from the 50-page (technical proposal) limit – since new PPQ evaluations submitted to the Government would presumably not have counted against the technical proposal page limitation?

Response: CPARS submitted are excluded from the 50-page (technical proposal) limit

13. Attachments 4, 5, and 7 apply to the Technical Proposal, per Amendment 2. Can the Government clarify if these attachments are counted against the 50-page (technical proposal) limit?

Response: Offerors should submit these documents as separate files

14. The RFP limits the Price Proposal to 25 pages, with the Pricing Schedule considered as 20 pages, leaving 5 pages for other material. RFP p. 16 of 60 states that the price proposal must include the Pricing Schedule worksheet (considered as 20 pages), the signed SF 1442 (2 pages), with acknowledgment of any amendments, plus the Offeror’s Bid Guarantee documents (5 pages). All together, these items add up to 27 pages. In addition, offerors must submit: 1) the Vets 4212, 2) a copy of SBA verification, and 3) completed Representations and Certifications section (FAR 52.204-8, 52.209-5 (Deviation), and 52.209-7). Are these last 3 documents included in the Price Proposal, or should offerors submit them as separate files along with the Technical and Price Proposals?

Response: Offerors should submit these documents as separate files, along with the Technical Proposal volume.