Round 2 Technical Questions - Ann Arbor - 506-334 - FINAL - 7-22-24.pdf

Solicitation #36C25024B0031_1 Construct Private In-Patient Rooms and Primary Clinics – Ann Arbor Technical Questions and VA Response Tracking Sheet

Round 2 Questions 7-22-24

ITEM

NO. QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

80. Is there a sign schedule for the project? Is there a signage plan for the 1st, 2nd and 6th floors?

There is no signage for the first, second or sixth floors.

81. The Drawing A403 was not replaced with an Amendment #2 drawing. The original drawing was included in the Amendment.

The revised drawing is pg 14 of attachment “Amended Drawings” posted as part of Amendment 002. Reissued as part of Amendment 004 in attachment “Amended Drawings - 7-22- 24”.

82. The Revised Drawing IF 302 has no Key Notes on the sheet

Refer to revised drawing with notes

83. There are Plumbing Drawings PG105, PL102, PL103, PL104, PP 103, PP 104 and PP 105 issued as part of the drawing set for this amendment. There is no mention in the Amendment Write-up of these drawings. The drawing indicate they had been changed with a Number 1 designation but are marked as Amendment #2 on the issue box. Are these to be included in Amendment #2?

Refer to attachment “Plumbing Drawings Write- Up” that should have been included as part of amendment 0002.

84. We note that the answer to RFI Question #65 eliminates all but 1 steel fabricator in the local area. Since this stated certification is from a dues requiring organization many large fabricators and erectors have chosen not to join. We see this certification requirement for erectors from time to time but rarely fabricators whose fabricating

The requirement will not be waived. This certification is a code requirement. Typically, THP allows for an alternate for compliance with AISC Certification. Suggested language matches IBC Chapter 17 (section 1704.2.5) which gives the contractor 3 options for providing the necessary documentation of the steel.

1. AISC Certification shops are mainly automated. Could this requirement be waived for fabrications shops?

2. Established in-house quality control program (that follows the Code Requirements)

3. Additional inspection is performed by the owner’s inspection agency at the contractor’s expense.

a. The additional inspection to satisfy the requirements of

1704.2.5 will be in additional to the special inspections already being performed by the Owner’s inspection agency.

Fabricator: Evidence of current auditing by an independent, approved inspection agency that the fabricator has established quality control procedures comparable to the AISC program may be considered in lieu of AISC certification.

Steel fabricator must have an established in-house quality control program for shop drawing production, material tracking, material inspection, welder certification, weld quality, and fabrication accuracy. Fabricator shall be registered and approved per Section 1704.2.5 of the Building Code and submit required certificate of compliance. Failure to meet these qualifications will require additional inspections prescribed in Building Code Chapter 17 to be performed by the Owner’s inspection agency at the Contractor’s expense.

Installer/Erector: Evidence by an independent, approved inspection agency that the erector has established quality control procedures, including weld testing, comparable to the AISC program may be considered in lieu of AISC certification.

85. It is difficult and almost impossible to determine the areas that are meant for the 4 different Infection Control Risk Assessment packets. Can this be clarified and could a sketch to distributed showing how the assessment requirements can be accomplished. (where the control rooms are to be built). Do the temporary partitions shown on the drawings satisfy the partition requirements intended for the issued Control Risk Assessments?

How the contractor performs the work to meet the assessment requirement is means and methods.

The temporary walls shown on the drawing are intended to be used as part of the ICRA barrier.

Contractor is responsible for negative isolation along with monitoring requirements.

86. Without more of a specific list of asbestos abatement requirements for this project it is impossible to assess the abatement scope of work. Could a contract allowance be established for this abatement work?

No. The NESHAP survey provided is our only reference for known asbestos within the project area. If additional asbestos is found, it will be treated as a differing site condition.

87. LVT 4 is called for on Drawing IF501 but it Is not scheduled in the Finish Legend on Drawing IF001.

It should be LVT-1, not 4. The drawing has been revised to LVT-1.

88. CPT 2 is called for on Drawing IF301 but it is not scheduled in the Finish Legend on Drawing IF001.

All CPT should be CPT-1, no CPT-2 in the project. The drawing has been revised to update all CPT-2 references to CPT-1.

89. Do we have a mix up on amendments and addendums. The VA issued Amendment #2 but the drawings are labeled Addendum #2.

The AE drawings used the nomenclature “addendum” versus amendment. All revised drawings referring to “addendum” are revised to “amendment”.