Register containing all RFI Inquiries _ Responses.pdf

Solicitation No. 36C25621R0172 Project 629-18-107 Construct Surface Level Parking Lot, New Orleans

Solicitation No. 36C25621R0172 – Project No. 629-18-107 Construct Surface Level Parking Lot, New Orleans, LA Register of all RFI Proposal Inquiries & Responses:

First Set of Q&Rs:

Proposal RFI #1 – It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain Past Performance Questionnaires from Contracting Officers on a project-by-project basis, especially when they have already filled out a CPARS evaluation for us. In light of this, will the VA accept completed CPARS evaluation forms instead of the provided PPQ to fulfill the requirements for Factor 2: Past Performance?

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.

Response: Yes, we should use CPARS, but we are not limited to CPARS. The use of PPQs is a well historied item. We have used PPQs for the past 15 years at least, and other agencies do the same. Thank you for the suggestion, but we will maintain our own guidance on what is best for the evaluation of past performance.

Proposal RFI #2 – For Factor 2: Past Performance, will the VA consider allowing submission of PPQ’s for projects that are currently ongoing?

Response: Yes, please refer to page 22 of subject solicitation, which states as follows:

The Offeror shall demonstrate recent (within the last five (5) years from proposal issuance date) successful performance under contracts (ongoing or completed) which are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the subject requirement via SUBMISSION WITH PAST

PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL OF EXHIBIT A PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY SURVEY.

SUBMIT EXHIBIT A ON NO MORE THAN FIVE (5) PROJECTS, including information on problems encountered and corrective actions.

Second Set of Q&Rs:

Proposal RFI #1 – Provide clarification of requirements of on-site personnel.

–Can the Site Superintendent also act as other onsite manpower (SSHO & QCM) if they meet all necessary project requirements?

Response: Yes, as-long-as all certificates are current.

Proposal RFI #2 - Verify that project is taxable on materials?

Response: This project is not sales tax exempt. In accordance with FAR 29.303, the Head of the Agency has not designated the prime contractor and subcontractors as agents of the

Government for the purpose of claiming immunity from State or local sales or use taxes for this procurement.

Proposal RFI #3 - Provide the location of proposed GC lay down area on project site.

Response: Laydown is not available beyond the perimeter of the jobsite. See Statement of Work, Par. D-12.

Proposal RFI #4 - What is approx. water table elevation.

Response: Based on 2009 geo-tech report water table is believed to be between -5 and -6.

Proposal RFI #5 - Are there existing fiber optic lines within the work area?

Response: No.

Proposal RFI #6 - Are there existing public utilities which are within the work area and if so, what companies and their respective contact information.

Response: Topographic survey does not note any public utilities within the work area.

However, contractor is responsible for locating utilities within work area prior to start of construction.

Proposal RFI #7 - Will the VA provide temporary power available for GC use at GC trailer with understanding that GC will be responsible for connection / disconnection.

Response: There are no electrical connections within the work area other than the lighting circuits.

Proposal RFI #8 - Are there ICRA requirements for the project scope?

Response: Yes, but the risk level is Low.

Proposal RFI #9 - Confirm that no ADA handicapped spaces are to be installed?

Response: Correct. Accessible spaces are provided elsewhere on the site.

Proposal RFI #10 - Site meeting statement was made that the existing Loading Dock would need to remain accessible during construction. Will there be times when work can be engaged within Phase 1, retention basin construction.

Response: Yes, but vehicles will still need access to the loading dock. The contractor cannot interrupt the flow of goods and services to the loading dock.

Proposal RFI #11 - Confirm that sod is to be installed vs. seed for landscaping areas

Response: Sod is called for in plant schedule.

Proposal RFI #12 - Specification Section 01 00 00 and Section 31 62 00 Driven Pile calls out geotechnical report. Provide report Professional Service Industries, Inc. – Geotechnical Engineering Report – October 16, 2009.

Response: Provided as an attachment.

Proposal RFI #13 - Has there been a soil boring test for all areas where new work is to take place. Borings are referenced in Specification 01 00 00

Response: Project utilizes a Geotech report completed by Professional Service Industries, Inc in 2009. Reference borings B5 to B8 for closest borings.

Proposal RFI #14 - ADA tactile panel specifications and designated color to be used.

Response: An ADA tactile panel is not required for this project.

Proposal RFI #15 - Will the existing street which runs through the project site be closed for the duration of the on-site work?

Response: Access to existing loading dock must be maintained throughout the duration of the project.

Proposal RFI #16 - Is commissioning of site utilities to be completed at completion of all installations.

Response: Yes.

Proposal RFI #17 - Sheet C100:

Note 18: provide specification for removable bollards.

Response: Provided as attachment.

- Note 9: can route of new sewer be rerouted to reduce sawcut into existing concrete paving and move 2 new catch basins West to fall within the new pavement in lieu of existing pavement?

Response: Routing shown on drawings was done to maintain existing drainage patterns. Inlets utilized are existing to remain. Relocation of these existing inlets will require pavement removal as well.

Potential VE options can be evaluated once contract is awarded.

Proposal RFI #18 - Sheet C102:

Existing concrete drainage structure at retention basin to be relocated.

(East side retention basin at parking spaces.

Response: Correct. The existing outfall structure is to be reused as the outfall to the modified retention basin.

Proposal RFI #19 - Sheet C104:

Can catch basin located in new parking island be routed North to allow for less damage to existing pavement?

Response: Storm sewer is routed as shown to maintain existing drainage patterns.

Potential VE options can be evaluated once contract is awarded.

Proposal RFI #20 - Sheet CZ001:

Detail 1: Light pole foundation detail references inclusion with piling for foundation. Can an accurate benchmark be provided on plan for coordination and accurate installation.

Response: Benchmark available is shown on civil drawings. Location of poles should be field determined by GPS instrumentation.

Detail 5: provide specification for pipe bollard.

Response: See attachment.

Detail 6: Provide specification and size for steel bollard.

Detail 8: Provide specification for the removable steel bollard

Proposal RFI #21 - Sheet CZ006:

Details 1 & 2: provide approx. weights and composition of existing security stones to be relocated.

Response: Existing security stones are similar in size, composition and weight as the stones provided in drawings on CZ006. Approximate weight is 3,800 lbs per stone.

Proposal RFI #22 - Sheet L001:

Parking lot islands on South end of parking island are not called out to contain Cynodon x `Tifton 328` materials. Provide approx. square footage of these areas.

Response: 236 square feet of Cynodon sod for these two islands at the south end of the central parking median.

Provide location of existing irrigation heads to be relocated

Response: See attached drawing. Contractor to confirm locations in the field prior to work commencing.

Proposal RFI #23 Sheet L003:

Confirm that existing irrigation meter “M” as shown has sufficient capacity to handle larger irrigation area?

Response: Because we are tying into an existing system, additional rehab and/or replacement of the onsite meters may be required.

Can irrigation sleeves be relocated to reduce creating patches in existing pavement?

Response: Yes, but proposed reroute will have to be submitted to landscape architect for approval prior to installation.

Proposal RFI #24 - Sheet A001:

Pavement sawcut for future parking gate: provide width of sawcut opening.

Response: Minimum of 24 inches or wide enough to excavate and install 2 each 4-inch conduits.

Proposal RFI #25 - Sheet E001:

Confirm the requirement for electrical underground PVC to be concrete encased?

Response: Underground conduits shall be direct-buried PVC schedule 40

Provide location of panels L3411 and R32111A.

Response: See attached Building H electric plan.

Light poles with cameras shown will have new conduits ran to building (to unknown location). Provide location of piping termination. Coded notes 14 & 15

Response: Routing of conduit pathways for camera cabling indicated on drawings.

Existing building location where pipe penetrations are shown. Provide more information on existing building wall construction and location in relation to all panels to be connected to.

Response: Metal panels affixed to metal studs with sheetrock on the inside of the wall. The wall penetrations shall be along the south wall of the loading dock area at the far inside corner of the building. Location is shown on sheet E001.

Third Set of Q&As:

Proposal RFI #1 – Drawing E001, Specific Note #12 states to reuse existing light poles at garage northside entry & exit points. The drawing also indicates new conduit and wire to be routed between these existing poles. What is the designer’s intent to connect the new conduits to the existing poles? There is no demo work shown associated with the existing conduit or circuitry to these poles. Please advise.

Response: New conduits may stub up alongside of existing pole base and penetrate pole using condulet. Where existing fixture is to be refed, remove existing wiring and any exposed raceway.

Proposal RFI #2 – Drawing E001, Specific Notes 14 & 15 call to install surface mounted outlet boxes to specified new light poles for future security cameras at a determined height to be provided by the owner. What is the specified height for these boxes?

Response: Install two (2) feet above base of pole.

Proposal RFI #3 – Drawing E001, Specific Note 14 & 15 states to route flexible sealtite in the interior of the pole and connect to the above mentioned security outlet boxes. Will there be a warranty issue with the pole manufacturer by drilling holes in the poles for the camera conduit rough ins?

Response: Information to be provided by equipment manufacturer during submittal process.

Proposal RFI #4 – Electrical drawing E001 does not indicate any electrical rough in requirements for an irrigation/sprinkler system. Will the irrigation/sprinkler system require any electrical rough in? If so, please provide required design.

Response: Existing rough in to be re-used. Some modifications to existing may be required for new.

Fourth Set of Q&As:

Proposal RFI #1 – Is this project sales tax exempt?

Response: No.

Proposal RFI #2 - Security systems to tie in?

Response: None.

Proposal RFI #3 - Sign in sheet available?

Response: Provided as attachment.

Proposal RFI #4 - Temp drive entrance from Rocheblave required?

Response: No.

Proposal RFI #5 - Please confirm if the SSHO and super can be double hatted by the same qualified individual.

Response: Yes, as-long-as all certificates are current.

Proposal RFI #6 - 42.64’ & 44.69 in the C100 are heavy duty 8 “Concrete while 25.98’ & 18’ is 6”. Don’t think I saw an expansion joint layout or notes indicating where which thickness is stopping and starting? –

Response: Please refer to sheet CZ004 details 1,2,3. Construction/Contraction joints are 15-ft max spacing. Expansion joints are 60-ft max spacing.

Proposal RFI #7 - Plans have two details for pole footings, please confirm that the one on pg, CZ001 is for new poles and the one on the electrical sheet is for existing poles. – Civil response:

Detail 1/CZ001 is to be used for light pole foundation

Proposal RFI #8 - On Drawing C102, Section A; calls for “NEW HIGH FLOW MEDIA FOR SWQ TREATMENT.” Would like HIGH FLOW MEDIA TREATMENT defined or provide acceptable products/materials. Could find no reference on drawing notes or in specs to HIGH FLOW MEDIA.

Response: High flow medial should consist of 80/20 mix of river sand and organic material.

Fifth & Final Set of Q&As:

Proposal RFI #1 – Drawing C102, detail A. Please provide a more detailed description, acceptable product, or manufacturer for the “NEW HIGH FLOWMEDIA FOR SWQ TREATMENT.” Is this an erosion control blanket, similar to a biodegrading coco fiber mat overlay on the slopes?

Response: High flow media should consist of a mix of 80/20 river sand to organics.

Proposal RFI #2 – Can a wire mesh substitution be considered for the sidewalk, 6” & 8” concrete pavement. For example a mesh size of 4X4 D6.0/D6.0 should meet the requirements for the 6” & 8” pavements and a 6X6 D5.0/D5.0 should meet the requirements for the sidewalk.

Response: Due to difficulty of keeping wire mesh in the center of concrete pavement it is not an acceptable substitute.

Proposal RFI #3 – Does the timber pile supporting the light fixture foundation need to be 60’-70’ long? Can all pilings for the light fixtures be driven during Phase 1, thus eliminating a costly 2nd mobilization for the piledriving rig in Phase 2? (Ref. Drawing CZ001, Detail 1)

Response: Piling is to be installed per light pole detail in drawings. Schematic phasing is shown in drawings but detailed phasing can be determined by contractor if approved by VA.

-END-