A0005_36C25622R0140 - RFIs_Additional Responses 03.07.23.pdf

36C25622R0140, Construct Inpatient Dialysis

Request for Information

9. Do any of the sinks in clean rooms require a sink apron or shroud? If they do they VA provide drawings specifications and list salient characteristic for minimum requirements.

A: If sinks are wall hung then no shroud is required.

11. Drawing AE501 references "Horcher" ceiling mounted patient lift. Is there a J&A for this specified product? Will the VA please specify all salient performance/design criteria/characteristics to establish minimum requirements for the ceiling mounted patient lift? A: The equipment listed is the basis of design. All substitutions are to be submitted for VA approval before any equipment is ordered.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: This RFI response does not answer the question asked. The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” FAR 11.104 pertains to “Brand Name or Equal purchase descriptions.” It is attached for your convenience. While Horcher is listed as the “Basis of Design”, the question asked is there is a J&A (Justification and Approval) for this specified product. Potential offerors need to know if this is a performance specification or a purchase description and if a J&A is provided as the answer has a cost impact on potential offerors proposals.

• Performance Specifications are “Technical requirements that set forth the operational characteristics of an item. They indicate what the final product must be capable of accomplishing rather than how the product is to be built or what its measurements, tolerances, or other design characteristics must be. Ralph C. Nash et al., The Government Contracts Reference Book 432 (3d Ed. 2007).”

• A purchase description is “a description of the essential physical characteristics and functions required to meet the government’s requirements. Ralph C. Nash et al, The Government Contracts Reference Book 468 (3d Ed. 2007). E.g., Brand Name or Equal Purchase Description identifies a product by its brand name and model or part number or other appropriate nomenclature by which it is offered for sale and permits offers on products essentially equal to the specified brand name product. FAR 11.104.

A product that meets the salient characteristics outlined in the specifications but is not the A/E listed “Basis of Design” product is not a “substitution;” rather, it is product that meets the requirements outlined in the technical specifications. A substitution would be a product that does NOT meet the requirements outlined in the technical specifications.

Please answer the following:

1. Is the Horcher “Basis of Design” product intended to be a purchase description? A: Basis of Design is used by Architect/Engineers has a parameter for requirements that meets a desired equipment operation. As stated, Horcher is the Basis of Design (requirements are based on the product generally designed for) and no J&A is required. The GC can select the patient lifts that he wants to provide but they have to meet the requirements listed in the specifications and on the drawings. It is the same way with HVAC equipment, there is many manufacturers to select but the basis of design sets the requirements that the equipment needs to meet.

2. If the Horcher “Basis of Design” product is intended to be a purchase description, will the VA provide a Justification and Approval (J&A) as part of the Solicitation documents in accordance with the FAR? See above

3. Does the VA consider a product that meets the salient characteristics/technical requirements outlined in the specifications but is NOT the “Basis of Design” product a “substitution”? See above

12. Drawing AE501 references "Horcher" ceiling mounted patient lift. Horcher’s website indicates that they are no longer taking new customers (http://www.horcherlifts.com/), see image below. Will the government advise on the salient performance/design criteria/characteristics to establish minimum requirements for the ceiling mounted patient lifts? A: See Q11 response

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: This RFI response does not answer the question asked. Will the VA answer Question 12 and provide the salient performance/design criteria/characteristics to establish minimum requirements for the ceiling mounted patient lifts?

A: The VA is considered an existing customer if the GC so chooses them.

13. General Note 1 on AE501 says "CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FINAL DESIGN AND STRUCTURAL

ATTACHMENTS AS A DELEGATED DESIGN". Is this typical to see? Can the manufacturer provide this delegated design? Confirm it is the VA's intention for the contractor to provide design services for the final design and structural attachments?

A: Design is correct as shown for the basis of design. The basis of design has the requirements for structural connections and the GC to field verify connection points for the equipment provided.

14. Please refer to specification 11 73 00 para 1.4.A.2. Shop drawings and structural calculations shall be signed and stamped by a registered structural engineer and shall meet all code requirements in the jurisdiction having authority. Please confirm that bidders are required to provide structural engineer stamp drawing as indicated in the specifications.

A: Design is correct as shown for the basis of design. The basis of design has the requirements for structural connections and the GC will verify that those connection points for the equipment provided.

19. What is the required submittal exchange software required for this project? Will the government provide said submittal exchange for the contractor to upload submittal data?

A: General Contractor is responsible for choosing and acquiring the construction management software services and maintaining this service thru the life of this contract. Contractor’s discretion on software choice.

23. Sheet AE501 General Note #1 states that the contractor shall provide final design and structural attachments for the patient lifts. Will the VA please confirm that the VA wants the Contractor to provide this in lieu of the A/E of record?

structural connections and the GC is to verify connection points for the equipment provided.

24. If the final design and structural attachments for the patient lifts is to be done by the general contractor, then this would make this portion of the contract now a design build. If so, what it the timeline for the design and at what budget should the GC’s use?

structural connections and the GC is to verify that connection points for the equipment provided.

28. Will the VA please provide patient lifts warranty requirements? The Specification appears to be silent on this. A: GC will have warranty coverage listed in close-out documents.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: This response does not answer the question. The question is asking what the warranty requirements for the patient lifts are not where they will be listed. For example, what is the minimum number of years required for the chair lift warranty? This answer is imperative to obtaining accurate pricing during the procurement process bid-stage. An ambiguous answer does not allow offerors to obtain accurate pricing.

A: A one year warranty by the manufacturer after the one year warranty for the GC construction period.

29. POP is shown as 300 days. After concurring with several trades and trying to put together a schedule, meeting the 300 POP will not be possible. Will the VA increase the POP to 365 days due to raw material shortages and pandemic related delays? A: PoP is the current construction performance. If POP is warranted, the VA is open to revisiting the number of performance days.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The response to the question states that the VA is open to revisiting the number of performance days if POP is warranted. This answer is vague. Does this mean that the VA is open to revisiting the number of performance days prior during the bidding phase or after award? After reviewing Amendment 4 and consulting with several trades regarding length of time for performance of the work and lead times for equipment/materials, it is the consensus that a 300 day period of performance is nearly impossible if at all. Will the VA reconsider the response to Question 29 and extend the period of performance to 365 days?

A: Yes, we can increase to 365 days.

35. Will the VA provide current as-built drawings (specifically for previous renovation projects in the construction area) for the mechanical/electrical/plumbing so that proper access for the under floor work can be planned accordingly? A: This will be discussed with the Awardee.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: This response does not fully answer the question. The current as-built drawings of the construction area were requested in the bidding phase so that potential offerors could review and identify as many potential differences and/or conflicts with the construction documents (specifications and drawings) in advance of submitting a proposal and to avoid delays and/or encountering of differing site conditions so that the VA is provided with the best opportunity to receive proposals that present the best value. This could impact potential offerors technical and cost proposals. Will the VA reconsider this response and provide current as-built drawings (specifically for previous renovation projects in the construction area) for the mechanical/electrical/plumbing?

A: We will provide what drawings that we have.

38. Staff room 1C-102, HAC 1C-104 and Storage 1C-106 have exceptionally low ceiling heights (exp.

7’- 2”) as compared to the remainder of the project. New Ceiling in that area will only be 7’-3”. Will this allow enough room above ceiling tiles to install new light fixtures?

A: New ceiling height will allow for new light fixtures to be installed in those areas (reference Spec section 09 51 00).

39. Can the VA explain why the ceiling heights in those areas is so low and only going back 1” higher?

A: Ceiling heights in this area are low due to the existing pneumatic tube system in the plenum space above the ceiling.

41. Will the VA confirm that surveillance is not part of this project? This does not appear to be included in this project. A: VA personnel will perform daily site visits to the jobsite. The GC QA/QC and SSHO should be doing their own jobsite surveillance.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: This question is asking whether surveillance (security surveillance and/or cameras, Division 28) are required/requested in this project. Will the VA confirm that security surveillance and/or cameras is not part of this project?

A: Security cameras are not required.

42. There are access control symbols on the plans. Please indicate which division is to provide and install door hardware.

A: Refer to Division 8 – Opening, 08 71 00 Door Hardware

43. Please provide a picture of the data closet of the front and back of the existing telecommunications rack. This area was not accessible during the site visit. A: I am working on getting pictures for that room.

FOLLOW UP: This response does not answer the question. The Data Closet was not viewable at the site visit. Photographs of the existing telecommunications rack were not provided with the Solicitation documents or construction drawings. Will the VA provide photos of the data closet of the front and back of the existing telecommunications rack as it was not accessible for viewing/inspection during the site visit? The answer to this question impacts potential offerors technical and cost proposals.

A: See 4 photos below

48. On page EP102 there are “ENT” icons which indicate a conduit box for “access control entrance device” should it be assumed that this comment is referring to a card reader?

FOLLOW UP: While this question could have been worded differently, the response to “coordinate with the COR” seems to direct potential offerors to directly contact the COR to seek clarification. This would result in the potential offeror who coordinates with the COR to have information not available to other potential offerors. Will the VA state whether the reference on EP102 for ENT icons is for a combination card reader or keypad?

A: Combination card reader and keypad is being referred to.

52. Please refer to FA101 note 7. Contractor to provide new SLC and audio circuits from existing EST panel on lower floor in GB-113-170, which will come up to this floor in telephone 1B-125-170 and route corridors to new panel. Allocate 400' path between panels. Contractor to coordinate work through occupied areas. However, during the visit, the electrical GB113-170 and telephone GB112- 170 rooms were not shown, only the machine room on the ground floor next to the corridor CGB5- 170.Will the VA set up a new site visit to look at the conditions of these spaces? Will the VA provide detailed photographs?

A: No to 2nd site visit. VA will provide photographs- coordinate with COR if needed

53. Please refer to the partition type E14c note on page AE102. According, to the partition notes and legend on page GI002, acoustical insulation is not required. Please confirm that this partition doesn't need to be insulated.

A: That is correct, and it is a 1-hr Fire Rated Wall.

56. Note #1 on partition type legend on sheet G1002 indicates walls that are not smoke or acoustical to terminate 4” above ceiling. Please confirm wall type J_4w extends to floor deck above with mold and mildew resistant gyp board on each side of the wall with mold and mildew resistant gypsum board extending to deck? . Note #1 on partition type legend on sheet G1002 indicates walls that are not smoke or acoustical to terminate 4” above ceiling. Please confirm wall type J_4w extends to floor deck above with mold and mildew resistant gyp board on each side of the wall with mold and mildew resistant gypsum board extending to deck? A: The inquiry will be clarified by a future amendment if required

FOLLOW UP: This response does not answer the question asked. Will the VA reconsider this response and provide a complete response to Question 56? Please confirm wall type J_4w extends to floor deck above with mold and mildew resistant gyp board on each side of the wall with mold and mildew resistant gypsum board extending to deck?

A: There is no J_4w wall type but if you are referring to J_4e then ‘J’ partition wall extends to 4” above the reflected ceiling and variation code ‘e’ is a moisture resistant gyp bd on headwall side of partition. Review the codes closely to ensure that you have the correct wall types being provided.

64. Instruction to offerors: What are the performance confidence ratings? Please provide definitions for the confidence performance ratings. FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Neither Exhibit A nor Exhibit B list or define confidence performance ratings to be objectively evaluated. Will the VA be using the performance confidence ratings listed below as the evaluation criteria? A: See Exhibit A for Performance Relevancy, along with Exhibit B Past and Present Questionnaire. Combined with all relevant factors of the evaluation elements, the Government is assured of a successfully completed project. A cumulation of all elements produces the performance confidence rating.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: Neither Exhibit A nor Exhibit B list or define confidence performance ratings to be objectively evaluated. Will the VA be using the performance confidence ratings listed below as the evaluation criteria?

A: We did not see your performance confidence rating in the solicitation. However, an assessment will be made based upon receipt of the required documents submitted by the offeror.

65. Instructions to Offerors: Performance Currency, Trends, and Relevancy paragraph states “The evaluation will consider the sub-factors as described herein” relating to Performance Confidence Ratings. It is not clear what the sub-factors are for Performance Confidence Ratings. Please provide the sub-factors to be evaluated for Performance Confidence Ratings. A: See question 64

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The response to Question 64 does not answer the question. Neither Exhibit A nor Exhibit B list or define confidence performance ratings to be objectively evaluated. Will the VA be using the performance confidence ratings as outlined in the follow up question to Question 64 as the evaluation criteria?

A: See question 64

66. Instructions to Offerors: The Past Performance evaluation information in the Instructions indicates the evaluation is a two-step process (Performance Relevancy Rating and Performance Confidence Rating). The instructions only state and define the Performance Relevancy Ratings. What are the Performance Confidence Ratings and definitions that will be evaluated? A: See Q64 response

FOLLOW UP: The response to Question 64 does not answer the question. Neither Exhibit A nor Exhibit B list or define confidence performance ratings to be objectively evaluated. Will the VA be using the performance confidence ratings on the chart provided in the follow up to Question 64 as the evaluation criteria?

A: See question 64

70. Please refer to the demolition note D2 clouded in room 1C-102. Will the VA consider vacating pharmacy room 107-170 to build the new 1hr partition so as not to interfere with activities during construction?

A: Pharmacy will not be moving. There is no work inside the pharmacy area. There is no work being done on the 1-hr fire rated wall except patch and paint.

71. Please refer to PL102 note 1. The existing 6" sanitary line is located in the crawl space and exits building in the direction of plan north. During the visit, no crawl space was accessible. Will the VA set up a new site visit to allow contractors and subcontractors to look at the conditions of this area? Will the VA provide photos?

A: No to 2nd site visit. VA will provide photos if required.

72. Plan AH101 reference “Any actions taken by the contractor without obtaining guidance from the Atoka, Inc., shall become the sole risk and responsibility of the GC / asbestos abatement contractor. all costs incurred due to such action are also the responsibility of the GC / asbestos abatement contractor”.

The plan also states, “the GC will incur all costs of Atoka, Inc., PIH, including all sampling/analytical costs to assure compliance with OSHA/EPA/state requirements related to failure to comply with the regulations applicable to the work”. Will the VA clarify what role ATOKA, Inc. had or will have in the project?

A: ATOKA is means of reference for the abatement work. The GC can select their own abatement subcontractor if determined to be needed.

73. Will the VA provide their contract with ATOKA, Inc. that outlines the terms, conditions, and pricing, so the contractor can include in their price proposal?

A: No, contractor’s discretion on their proposed abatement method if required.

74. Will VA organize a second site visit after receiving the answers of the RFIs?

A: No, not at this time.

75. Please refer to note 2 on page QH101. “Coordinate locations for A5215 - bracket, television, ceiling mounted 36" x 6" and M0506 - television, flat screen with RCP and interior elevations”. Will the VA provide the product data for the televisions to be furnished and installed by the VA so the contractor can estimate for the appropriate blocking to be installed and the specific location of the blocking? A:

Television are user provided.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: This response does not answer the question. Potential offerors need to know the product data of the user provided televisions in order to properly estimate for its installation. Will the VA reconsider the response to Questions 75, 76 and 77 and provide complete answers?

A: Product data will be available once user has made their selection and verified their purchases. We do not have that information at this time.

76. Can the VA provide the manufacturer requirements for the backing/blocking for the installation of the VA furnished and/or installed equipment (all those items listed as VV on the equipment schedule)?

A: No, this is a means and methods question. It is not the VA position to define contractor’s means and methods for accomplishing the required work for this project.

77. Will the VA provide the specifications (weight size, etc.) listed as VV on the equipment schedule?

A: Information to be provided to awardee if requested.

78. During the site visit organic growth (mold) was found in the chase between the restrooms 1C- 170 and 1C-167. Has the organic growth been tested? If the organic growth has not been tested, should the contractor include testing in their bid?

A: No, the testing has not been done. No testing is required per VA Safety office.

79. Should the contractor include remediation on their bid?

A: Refer to requirements in Specs and SOW 2.1 “Moisture Remediation Coating”.

85. Will we be permitted to use exit door by room 1C-165A for use in stocking materials into work areas?

A: To be determined and discussed with Awardee.

86. Please verify specification section 01 32 16.15-4 1.5.F and verify the amount of work activities to be included in the project schedule.

A: The Project Schedule will be developed by the GC Project Manager to reflect the tasks, milestones, and critical paths to perform and complete the required work in the allotted timeframe in the SOW.

This will be in a Gantt Chart format. This should reflect part of contractor’s Means and Methods.

99. Please refer to FS 101 detail F1. The fire suppression line extends beyond 1C-173 and goes through the corridor on the other side of the new wall. This will require ACT removal, reinstallation, HEPA, ICRA, etc. Will the VA want the existing grid reinstalled or go back with new grid?

A: If the ceiling grid is salvageable and in good condition then re-use it, but if it is damaged then replace with new ceiling grids.

107. The abatement crew will need water for surfactant. Are any of the water sources, taps, drains, or restrooms in the workspace active and available for use? 107. The abatement crew will need water for surfactant. Are any of the water sources, taps, drains, or restrooms in the workspace active and available for use? A: TBD in coordination with Awardee.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: This RFI response does not answer the question. It is necessary for the potential offerors to know this in order to price accordingly if water is not active and available for use at the site. Will the VA reevaluate the response to Question 107 and provide a revised response?

A: There are water connections in the construction space that can be used before any demo is conducted. The GC shall ensure that no cross connection happens if the water supply is utilized.

109. There is a wall type conflict between GI005 and HA101/AD101 on what the existing condition of walls separating the workspace from existing Copier/Fax 110-170 and existing Assistant Director 109-

170. They are not shown as 1 hour rated on GI005 but are shown as rated on HA101/AD101. Can we assume these are 1 hour rated walls and will NOT need to be extended to deck to meet the ICRA Class IV requirement? A: Do not assume if answer will impact proposal contact COR, otherwise to be addressed with Awardee.

FOLLOW UP: This response does not answer the question. This question identifies a potential difference or conflict of requirements contained within the contract drawings. Potential offerors have requested clarification pre-bid. This answer is incomplete, provides for ambiguous requirements, and does not give the potential offerors the information necessary to provide an accurate proposal to the VA. The answer will impact potential offerors proposals. The response to “contact COR” if answer will impact proposal seems to direct potential offerors to directly contact the COR to seek clarification. This would result in the potential offeror who coordinates with the COR to have information not available to other potential offerors. Will the VA reconsider the response to Question 109 and state whether the walls that are not identified on G1005 as 1 hour rated are in fact fire rated? Will these walls need to be extended to the deck to meet the ICRA Class IV requirement?

A: The drawings indicate what type of walls they are. For your proposal, it is up the GC to determine the risk of including or not the ICRA barrier above the ceiling in those areas.

110. Does ACM floor tile/mastic go under walls? Is the same ACM tile/mastic on the Corridor on the North 1C-C1? A: if answer will impact proposal contact COR, otherwise to be addressed with Awardee.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: This response does not answer the question. Potential offerors have requested clarification pre-bid. This answer is incomplete, provides for ambiguous requirements, and does not give the potential offerors the information necessary to provide an accurate proposal to the VA. The answer will impact potential offerors proposals. The response to “contact COR” if answer will impact proposal seems to direct potential offerors to directly contact the COR to seek clarification. This would result in the potential offeror who coordinates with the COR to have information not available to other potential offerors. Will the VA reconsider the response to Question 110 and fully answer the questions?

A: We have provide the asbestos surveys per these technical questions and it is the responsible of the GC to include the abatement in their proposals or not.

111. Sheet AG101 show the Existing North Corridor hatched in Red which indicates Area not in Contract but has signage symbols denoted. Please confirm the signage in the existing Corridor is part of the contract.

A: Locations for signage in the existing south corridor is part of the contract. There is no signage required for existing corridor north of 1C-173 since that is a new 1-hr fire rated wall.

115. Paragraph 4.12 of the Solicitation incorporates FAR 52.236-21 SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS

FOR CONSTRUCTION (FEB 1997) ALTERNATE II (APR 1984)

(a) The Contractor shall keep on the work site a copy of the drawings and specifications and shall at all times give the Contracting Officer access thereto. Anything mentioned in the specifications and not shown on the drawings, or shown on the drawings and not mentioned in the specifications, shall be of like effect as if shown or mentioned in both. In case of difference between drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern. However, this FAR Clause appears to differ from what is found in Demolition Note 6 on Drawing AD201 states "IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS – DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS – THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BID THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION; IN THE EVENT OF THE CONTRACTOR BIDDING THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, AND THE DESIGN REQUIRING THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION – THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE

RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION AT NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE VA.

Will the VA please advise if the FAR Clause or the note on said drawing prevail?

A: This is a Firm Fixed Price contract, where FAR52.236-21 would prevail. Contractor should bid accordingly.

116. Instructions to Offerors, Evaluation Factors, Factor 1 – Technical Construction Management, Subfactor 1 states G.C.’s must have a minimum of 3 projects completed or in progress of similar size, scope, and complexity within the past 5 years. As this Solicitation is set-aside for small businesses (SDVOSB), will the government expand the timeframe of which those 3 projects can be in progress or completed from 5 years to 10 years to increase open competition?

A: No, the 5-year requirement must be met.

117. FAR 36.521 Specifications and drawings for construction states, in part, “The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.236-21, Specifications and Drawings for Construction, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price construction contract or a fixed-price dismantling, demolition, or removal of improvements contract is contemplated, and the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.” This project exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold. FAR 52.236- 21 (Feb 1997) Alternate II (Apr 1984) is included on page 35 of the Solicitation. Paragraph (a) of FAR 52.236-21(a) states, in part, “In case of difference between drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern.” However, Demolition Note 6 on Drawing AD201 states "IN THE EVENT OF A

CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS – DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS – THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BID THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION; IN THE EVENT OF THE CONTRACTOR BIDDING THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, AND THE DESIGN REQUIRING THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION – THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION AT NO

ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE VA. This demolition note directly contradicts FAR 52.236-21 and/or appears to modify the intent of the order of precedence clause. Is FAR 52.236-21 not applicable to this project?

A: See Q115 response. This a Firm Fixed Price contract.

118. Notes throughout the design drawings, including Demolition Note 6 on Drawing AD201 states "IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS – DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS – THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BID THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION; IN THE EVENT OF THE

CONTRACTOR BIDDING THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, AND THE DESIGN REQUIRING THE MORE

EXPENSIVE OPTION – THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION AT NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE VA. Define what is meant by the term “design” as used in this note. Does “design” mean drawings? Is this intended to mean “design intent”?

A: The construction drawings are designed to meet the requirement and therefore is the “basis of design.”

119. Notes throughout the design drawings, including Demolition Note 6 on Drawing AD201 states "IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS – DURING THE BIDDING PROCESS – THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BID THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION; IN THE EVENT OF THE

CONTRACTOR BIDDING THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION, AND THE DESIGN REQUIRING THE MORE

EXPENSIVE OPTION – THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION AT NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE VA. Please define the VA’s interpretation of the use of the word “conflict” in this note. Per the order of precedence clause in FAR 52.236- 1(a), if there is a “difference” between the drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern.

A: See Q115 response. This a Firm Fixed Price contract.

120. Specification 11 73 00, paragraph 3.4(2) states: Periodic Inspection shall be provided by the manufacturer on a yearly basis in compliance with ISO 10535. Will the VA provide minimum terms of periodic inspection requirements? A: The inquiry will be clarified by a future amendment if needed – Not acceptable response

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: This response does not answer the question which is based specifically on the lack of inspection requirements that are to be included by the Spec Writer pursuant to the VA Master Plans. See VA Master Spec 11 73 00, page 8 (attached). Please provide the minimum terms of period inspection requirements for the chair lifts.

A: Inspections will be conducted during the GC warranty period (monthly, semi-annual, annual) depending on the manufacturer’s recommendation and during the manufacturer’s warranty period after the GC warranty period.

121. The Cover Sheet the Addendum 1 – Construction Documents states “MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENCY EXITS AND COMMUNICATION DURING CONSTRUCTION: CONTRACTORS AND STAFF SHALL

COMPLY WITH NFPA 241 “STANDARD FOR SAFEGUARDING CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, AND

DEMOLITION OPERATIONS” 2019 EDITION. A more recent version of NFPA 241 was issued in 2022. Does the VA want the contractor to comply with the most recent 2022 version of NFPA 214?

A: Comply with the current NFPA 241.

122. Drawing AE403 depicts the lockers with a sloped top. Specification 10 51 13 para. 2.1 references “Republic Storage “Standard Lockers” as the basis of design. Para 2.2.A.6 states “Sloping top – 20 gage.”

Para 2.2.A.7 states “Flat top – 20 gage.” Also, a review of Republic Locker’s Size table on their website for their “Standard Locker” does not show that a sloped top is available. Para 2.3.G states ”Provide flat top, closed ends and trim. Trim shall be anchored to lockers with concealed fasteners.” Para. 2.3.H states “Provide continuous sloping tops constructed to resist denting and sagging with no exposed fasteners.”

Does the VA want the contractor to price a sloped top or flat top locker? Are both flat top and sloped top lockers required in different locations? If so, please provide details of where the flat top lockers and/or should be and how many in each location? A: Design is correct as shown. Please bid in compliance with information currently provided in the plans and specs. 2023 Republic Locker Guide shows sloped tops as options for all lockers.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: This answer does not answer the question. The answer directing potential offerors to “bid in compliance with information currently provided in the plans and specs” is not possible without further clarification. The potential offeror has identified a conflict within the specifications itself AND differences between the specifications and drawings.

1. The specifications identify a requirement for both sloped top lockers (2.2.A.6) and flat top lockers (2.2.A.7). Which does the VA want in all locations - sloped top lockers or flat top lockers?

2. Because reference is made to sloped top lockers (2.2.A.6) and flat top lockers (2.2.A.7), potential offerors are seeking clarification on whether the VA wants ALL lockers to have the same type of top or if there are to be two different types of lockers in this project in different locations?

The potential offeror is asking this question so as to avoid any ambiguity or confusion in the items priced. Because specifications take precedence over construction drawings per the FAR and the specifications reference both types of lockers the requirement, clarification is requested. An ambiguous answer does not allow offerors to obtain accurate pricing.

A: It is up the GC to provide a cost in his RFP but the exact lockers will be approved during the submittal process after the contract is awarded.

123. A discrepancy exists in Specification 10 51 13 as it relates to the identification of “Republic Storage ‘Standard Lockers’” as the Basis of Design product and the product specifications of Republic Storage’s Standard Lockers. Several of the salient characteristics outlined in Specification 10 51 13, Part 2 for metal lockers are not consistent with the specifications (product material composition) published by Republic Storage for their “Standard Lockers” on their website and it appears that these “Standard Lockers” could not be approved under the current specification requirements. Specifically:

a) Hinges – Para. 2.2.A.C.1 of the Specification states “Hinges shall be not less than 2" high, 0.050" thick steel with nonremovable pin.” Para. 2.3.9 of Republic Storage’s Standard Lockers specification reads “HINGES: Hinges shall be 2" high, 5-knuckle, full loop, tight pin style, securely welded to frame and double riveted to the inside of the door flange.” (emphasis added). It is not possible to have a nonremovable pin and a tight pin style in the same product. Does the VA want the contractor to include pricing in accordance with the Specification and outlined salient characteristics as written? If no, will the VA provide a revised Specification for metal lockers?

A: Provide pricing as outline in solicitation.

b) Handles – Para. 2.2.A.C.2 of the Specification requires handles to be “chrome-plated, die cast zinc alloy, with cadmium plated lock lifting mechanism.” Republic Storage’s “Standard Lockers” specification reads: 2.3.8 HANDLES: A non-protruding 14 gauge lifting trigger and slide plate shall transfer the lifting force for actuating the lock bar when opening the door. The exposed portion of the lifting trigger shall be encased in a molded ABS thermoplastic cover that provides isolation from metal-to-metal contact and be contained in a formed 20 gauge stainless steel recessed pocket. This stainless steel pocket shall contain a recessed area for the various lock types available and a mounting area for the number plate. (emphasis added). Does the VA want the contractor to include pricing in accordance with the Specification and outlined salient characteristics as written? If no, will the VA provide a revised Specification for metal lockers?

A: Provide pricing as outline in solicitation.

124. Please refer to plan MH101. The drawing shows a new exhaust fan passing through the courtyard. The Demolition Floor Plan Keyed Note D16 states, "Existing exterior window to remain," meaning The contractor will need to lintel off the exterior brick to make an opening for the new exhaust fan to pass through the wall into the building. How does the VA want the contractor to reinforce that brick veneer wall to prevent it from collapsing? Will the VA provide a design drawing showing how to secure that opening?

A: Contractor to provide best solution to meet requirement goal.

125. The specifications do not include Masonry. However, it will be required to work around the new opening/exhaust fan area. Will the VA provide this specification?

A: See Q124 response.

128. What type of slings are required to price reusable or disposable? A: The Government is unclear on the question being asked.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The question is related to the ceiling mounted patient lifts. These come with either reusable or disposable slings. The type of slings required by the VA will impact the potential offerors proposal. Does the VA want the potential offers to price and include reusable or disposable slings in their proposals?

A: The slings are being provided by the VA and currently being used in other locations in the facility.

130. Drawing AE501 references “Horcher” ceiling lift system. Is this intended to be a purchase description or a performance specification? A: Horcher is a Basis-of-Design product.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The RFI response does not answer the question asked. The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” FAR 11.104 pertains to “Brand Name or Equal purchase descriptions.” While Horcher is listed as the “Basis of Design”, the question asked is if this is intended to be a purchase description or a performance specification? Performance Specifications are “Technical requirements that set forth the operational characteristics of an item. They indicate what the final product must be capable of accomplishing rather than how the product is to be built or what its measurements, tolerances, or other design characteristics must be. Ralph C. Nash et al., The Government Contracts Reference Book 432 (3d Ed. 2007).”

• A purchase description is “a description of the essential physical characteristics and functions required to meet the government’s requirements. Ralph C. Nash et al, The Government Contracts Reference Book 468 (3d Ed. 2007). E.g., Brand Name or Equal Purchase Description identifies a product by its brand name and model or part number or other appropriate nomenclature by which it is offered for sale and permits offers on products essentially equal to the specified brand name product. FAR 11.104.

Potential offerors need to know if this is a performance specification or a purchase description and if a J&A is provided because the answer has a cost impact on potential offerors proposals. Will the VA answer Question 13 and state whether this is intended to be a purchase description or a performance specification?

A: See #11 response for Basis of Design statement

131. If this is intended to be a purchase description, will the VA accept a substitution for a different brand (Guldmann, Handicare, etc.) with equal weight-lifting capacity? If not, will the VA provide the Justification and Approval documentation? A: Horcher is a Basis-of-Design product.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The RFI response does not answer the question asked. The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” FAR 11.104 pertains to “Brand Name or Equal purchase descriptions.” FAR Part 6 requires a J&A for brand product descriptions and states that “the justification shall be posted with the solicitation.” Potential offerors need to know if this is a performance specification or a purchase description and if a J&A is provided because the answer has a cost impact on potential offerors proposals. Will the VA answer Question 131 as asked previously?

132. The drawing specifies the window frame type Kawneer -1630 SS IR- (Wet Glazed) curtain system as the basis of design on page AE503. Is this intended to be a purchase description or a performance specification? If this intended to be a purchase description will the VA accept a substitution for a brand name or equal with a similar sightline and depth? If not, will the VA provide the required Justification and Approval documentation?

A: Has been addressed by deleting the curtain wall spec and replaced with the new storefront specification 084113 issued with this amendment. See attachment A0005_084113.

134. There is a note on Drawing IN101 referencing "Stonhard, Stontec" as the basis of design. Is this intended to be a product description or a performance specification? Will the VA accept a substitution for a different brand (Sikafloor/ DecoDur Flake FX; Dura-A-Flex/ Hybri-Flex EC, Etc.) with the same flake broadcast system? If not, will the VA provide the justification and Approval documentation? A: Stonhard is a Basis-of-Design product.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The RFI response does not answer the question asked. The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” FAR 11.104 pertains to “Brand Name or Equal purchase descriptions.” FAR Part 6 requires a J&A for brand product descriptions and states that “the justification shall be posted with the solicitation.” Potential offerors need to know if this is a performance specification or a purchase description and if a J&A is provided because the answer has a cost impact on potential offerors proposals. Will the VA answer Question 134 and answer the following: 1) Is this intended to be a product description or a performance specification? 2) Will the VA accept a different brand with the same flake broadcast system? and 3) if the VA will not accept a different brand with the same flake broadcast system, will the VA provide the Justification and Approval documentation?

135. The finish legend on Drawing IN101 shows the “TRU DOOR” brand as the door's basis of design.

Will the VA accept a substitution for a brand with similar characteristics? If not, will the VA provide the Justification and Approval documentation?

A: See Q145 response.

136. The finish legend on Drawing IN101 shows the “Corian” brand as the solid surface's basis of design. Will the VA accept a substitution for a brand with similar characteristics? If not, will the VA provide the Justification and Approval documentation? A: Corian is a Basis-of-Design product.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The RFI response does not answer the question asked. The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” FAR 11.104 pertains to “Brand Name or Equal purchase descriptions.” FAR Part 6 requires a J&A for brand product descriptions and states that “the justification shall be posted with the solicitation.” Potential offerors need to know if this is a performance specification or a purchase description and if a J&A is provided because the answer has a cost impact on potential offerors proposals. Will the VA answer Question 136 and 1) state whether a substitution for a brand with similar characteristics will be accepted? and 2) will the VA provide the Justification and Approval documentation?

137. The finish legend on Drawing IN101 shows the “ACROVYN” brand as the wall protection's basis of design. Will the VA accept a substitution for a brand with similar characteristics? If not, will the VA provide the Justification and Approval documentation? A: Acrovyn is a Basis-of-Design product.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The RFI response does not answer the question asked. The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” FAR 11.104 pertains to “Brand Name or Equal purchase descriptions.” FAR Part 6 requires a J&A for brand product descriptions and states that “the justification shall be posted with the solicitation.” Potential offerors need to know if this is a performance specification or a purchase description and if a J&A is provided because the answer has a cost impact on potential offerors proposals. Will the VA answer Question 137 and 1) state whether a substitution for a brand with similar characteristics will be accepted? And 2) will the VA provide a Justification and Approval documentation?

138. The finish legend on Drawing IN101 shows the “In Pro-Click EZ” brand as the cubicle curtain basis of design. Will the VA accept a substitution for a brand with similar characteristics? If not, will the VA provide the Justification and Approval documentation? A: In Pro-Click EZ is a Basis-of-Design product.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The RFI response does not answer the question asked. The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” FAR 11.104 pertains to “Brand Name or Equal purchase descriptions.” FAR Part 6 requires a J&A for brand product descriptions and states that “the justification shall be posted with the solicitation.” Potential offerors need to know if this is a performance specification or a purchase description and if a J&A is provided because the answer has a cost impact on potential offerors proposals. Will the VA answer Question 138 and 1) state whether a substitution for a brand with similar characteristics will be accepted? And 2) will the VA provide a Justification and Approval if this is intended to be a purchase description?

139. Please refer to specification 27 52 23 para. 2.3.A. “The products specified shall be new, FCC and UL Listed, labeled and produced by OEM manufacturer of record. The basis of design OEM is NOVUS CONNECT by WEST-COM. Will the VA accept a substitution for a brand with similar characteristics? If not, will the VA provide the Justification and Approval documentation? A: The equipment listed is the basis of design. All substitutions are to be submitted for approval before any equipment is ordered.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The RFI response does not answer the question asked. The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” FAR 11.104 pertains to “Brand Name or Equal purchase descriptions.” FAR Part 6 requires a J&A for brand product descriptions and states that “the justification shall be posted with the solicitation.” Potential offerors need to know if this is a performance specification or a purchase description and if a J&A is provided because the answer has a cost impact on potential offerors proposals. Will the VA answer Question 139 and 1) state whether a substitution for a brand with similar characteristics will be accepted? And 2) will the VA provide a Justification and Approval if this is intended to be a purchase description?

140. Specification 28 13 00, paragraph 1.1 Description states, in part, “This installation shall be fully compatible with and identical in operation to match the existing systems, and so basis of design is the HIRSCH system by IDENTIV. No alternate system will be considered if it is not fully compatible with the basis of design system.” Will the VA publish the supporting Justification and Approval as required by FAR part 11 (11.107) for this “brand name [or equal” purchase description? A: The equipment listed is the basis of design. All substitutions are to be submitted for approval before any equipment is ordered.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The RFI response does not answer the question asked. The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” FAR 11.104 pertains to “Brand Name or Equal purchase descriptions.” FAR Part 6 requires a J&A for brand product descriptions and states that “the justification shall be posted with the solicitation.” Potential offerors need to know if this is a performance specification or a purchase description and if a J&A is provided because the answer has a cost impact on potential offerors proposals. Will the VA answer Question 140 and 1) state whether a substitution for a brand with similar characteristics will be accepted? And 2) will the VA provide a Justification and Approval if this is intended to be a purchase description?

141. Specification 28 13 00, paragraph 1.1 Description states, in part, “This installation shall be fully compatible with and identical in operation to match the existing systems, and so basis of design is the HIRSCH system by IDENTIV. No alternate system will be considered if it is not fully compatible with the basis of design system.” Will the VA provide the specific and minimum characteristics that an alternative/equal product must meet to be approved? A: The equipment listed is the basis of design.

All substitutions are to be submitted for approval before any equipment is ordered

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The RFI response does not answer the question asked. The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” FAR 11.104 pertains to “Brand Name or Equal purchase descriptions.” FAR Part 6 requires a J&A for brand product descriptions and states that “the justification shall be posted with the solicitation.” Potential offerors need to know if this is a performance specification or a purchase description and if a J&A is provided because the answer has a cost impact on potential offerors proposals. Will the VA answer Question 141 and provide the specific and minimum characteristics that an alternative/equal product must meet to be approved?

142. Will the VA amend the Solicitation to incorporate FAR 52.211-6 – Brand Name or Equal? A: Yes;

However, the equipment listed is the basis of design. All substitutions are to be submitted for approval before any equipment is ordered.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION: The FAR does not contain a definition or clause for “Basis of Design.” If the equipment/products listed as “basis of…