Attch A_RFIs for Building 65 Structural Repairs 36C25625R0087 - VA Response.pdf

RFI’s and Government Responses 36C25625R0087

Project: 598-23-106 B65 Structural Repairs

1. The VA has assigned the responsibility and risk for the delegated design of the shoring plan to the contractor. In our experience, engineered shoring of this complexity and volume could reach as high as $700,000. Until the contractor has the final shoring design, which can only be completed after the award, the cost will remain unknown and the risk to the contractor will be high, meanwhile the risk to the VA will be minimal. We request that the VA add a Contract Line-Item with pre-set pricing for the following:

• CLIN 0002 – A negotiable contingency budget to accomplish Delegated Design - $75,000.

• CLIN 0003 – A negotiable contingency budget for shoring construction costs associated with the Delegated Design - $800,000.

To mitigate this risk, will the VA provide allowances on the pricing schedule for the shoring budget similar to those numbers above?

• Shoring needs to be closely coordinated with the construction team for phasing and access. Drawings clearly show all required shoring loads, and the A/E firm is aware of many firms willing to provide pricing based on drawings provided.

2. Detail 3 on S-551 indicates the shoring tower extends to the underside of the roof.

Contractors missed inspecting the second and third floors during the site visit, which is necessary to understand access, erecting shoring posts, and adjusting fire suppression heads during ACT tile or hard-lid ceiling removal. We request the VA to coordinate for a second site visit to allow access to these areas and for a second look in the crawl space area of the building?

• Manpower does not permit a second site visit for this project at this time.

3. The July 2022 building structural assessment report included cores and samples of two vertical columns and two slabs only. If a second site visit is granted, can we take coring samples of the existing horizontal joist and girder beams for engineering and testing purposes?

• See response to Q2 above.

4. Refer to the Drawings Page S-001. There is too much unknown amount of work associated with the base bid, and the allowances listed on the “Work List” for the pricing are not on the pricing worksheet. For standardization purposes, will the VA please itemize the “Work List” allowances on the pricing spreadsheet with the given Unit of Measurement and quantity so that all contractors are on the same page?

• See Work Task table for unit costs attached to this solicitation (Attch B).

5. Refer to the Drawings Page S-001. Work List Note 1 below the chart states to use the quantities listed in the work list for bid purposes and provide unit costs. Note 3 states to maintain a schedule of values of the items on the work list and to present overages or shortages. These notes as written support collaboration and transparency between the VA and the contractor while providing a risk balanced approach to the pricing of this solicitation.

Will the VA provide a risk balanced approach by inserting additional CLINs associated with the work list items, allowances, and notes to allow for transparency in the bidding process and to account for the added or subtracted cost of pricing affiliated with such overages and shortages?

• See response to Q4 above.

6. The QA plan on S-002 states that the cost of the special inspector or inspection agency shall be borne by the owner. There will be multiple milestones where these inspections will need to occur. Some of the inspections are to be observed and some of them are to be performed.

These inspections have a high probability of becoming critical path items and ultimately delaying the project if the VA delays in getting the inspections started or completed. Our questions are as follows:

• Will the special inspector be the CCR or COR?

• Per VA Standards and as the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), the VA has determined the Special Inspector is to be borne by the GC. Note 2 under quality assurance plan and statement of special inspection notes on Sheet S-002 will be revised. The word ‘OWNER’ shall be changed to ‘CONTRACTOR’. Comply with all other special inspection directives per contract drawings and specifications.

• Will the special inspector be local to the Central Arkansas area?

• Special Inspector selection is at contractor’s discretion as long as they meet the minimum requirements per the specifications.

• For scheduling and budgeting purposes, what are the maximum number of days between the time that the contractor calls for the inspection, and the time that the VA will have the inspection completed?

• Special Inspector selection is at contractor’s discretion, coordination to be done by contractor

• Structural observation is separate from special inspection and will be performed by design engineer. Approximate 3 week look ahead should be first knowledge of potential trips and final date should have at minimum 7 day notice.

7. Solicitation Page 11 of 71 section M states that the Superintendent cannot carry the responsibility of any other role on another project, and must be dedicated to this project.

However, nowhere in the solicitation nor the specification 01 35 26 does it state that there must be a dedicated QCM nor does it state that the Superintendent cannot share the role as a QCM. Please confirm that the Superintendent can share the role of CQM on this project?

• The Superintendent shall be a dedicated person with no other responsibilities on the project.

8. The specifications state that the SSHO must be a dedicated person with no other responsibilities on the project. Can the SSHO be shared from another project working as a SSHO concurrently on the VA Campus?

• The SSHO shall be assigned to a single project.

9. Government agency contracting officers have expressed frustration regarding the daunting and exhausting task of completing repeated PPQs over and over again for the same completed projects. They want the VA to recognize the CPARS write-ups that they have already submitted, or create a stockpile of Contractor specific PPQs that they have previously submitted on for the same project.

• Will this VA allow for submission of CPARS reviews in-lieu of PPQs?

• The government will review CPARS of relevant submitted projects in-lieu of PPQs.

• Will this VA allow for previous submissions of PPQs from the same completed projects by the same contracting officers to be used on this project?

• The government will review CPARS of relevant submitted projects in-lieu of PPQs.

10. The project PoP on the solicitation is 365 days which is not possible. During the walk through the COR made a comment that this was at least a two year project. Notwithstanding delays and differing site conditions, a rough schedule of the work identified in Solicitation, Statement of Work and Drawings has identified that this project will require a phased approach and a minimum of 24 months to accomplish and likely a maximum of 30 months. Will the VA please modify the PoP to 30 months?

• The Period of Performance (POP) is 365 days.

11. The SOW includes the installation of louvers, vents, and exhaust fans to create airflow in the crawl space. One of the intents of the airflow is to cut down on RH and prevent mold growth.

Private industry is shifting to a dehumidified environment and sealing off of louvers and vents.

Introduction of hot and humid Arkansas summer air from the outside and into the crawlspace has the potential of magnifying the chances of mold growth. We have performed the following mitigation measures on other Federal construction projects. We suggest not installing the entry louvers, and to deny the entry of ambient outside air into the crawlspace by leaving the vents sealed off. The exhaust fans can pull conditioned and moisture stable air through the crawl space entrances or other access panels located inside the building.

Additionally, we suggest installing a dozen or more industrial grade dehumidifiers in and around the crawlspace and have those discharge into the sump pump basins. Both measures will cut down on the RH in the crawlspace while simultaneously drying the air out. Is this approach something the VA is interested in?

• The contractor shall provide proposals for the design as solicited.

12. The Architectural drawings show the ACT panels being replaced in A101-103. Installing shoring post from the crawl space floor to the top of second floor will require ACT panels being removed and a partially exposed ceiling.

According to Drawing A-101, paint existing ceiling grid and install new ceiling tiles in A101 and A103. A102 (Electrical Room) is not part of the main floor rework boundary.

• To mitigate the partial exposure and partial fire protection, does the VA want all of the ACT panels temporarily removed in all of the areas receiving shoring?

• Contractor’s means and methods. If the contractor’s preferred method for installing the shoring is removal and storage of all ACT panels, it would be the contractor’s means and methods.

• If yes to 12.a - where shoring is being installed, does the VA want the fire suppression heads turned up in A101,102, and 103 along with the associated rooms above in the second and third floors?

• Regardless of the contractor’s means and methods for shoring, the heat barrier shall be continuous for sprinkler activation in the event of a fire.

13. Drawing page S-101 detail 1 shows the installation of five new HSS 4x4x1/4”. A 4”x4” HSS is not a sufficient substitution to a 13”x13” concrete column. Will the VA please consider a larger HSS in these locations.

• Structural analysis has been performed and the HSS4x4x1/4 are structurally acceptable. A larger size may be installed at contractor’s cost and discretion.

14. Drawing Page S-001 submittal note 3E states the following: WALLS, GRADE BEAMS AND THE

UNDERSIDE OF CONCRETE ON METAL DECK SHALL BE CONSIDERED CRACKED FOR

THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNING ANCHORS FOR ATTACHMENT OF DEFERRED

SUBMITTAL ITEMS. The existing beams, walls, and girders were built nearly 80 years ago, and the structural integrity of the concrete is already in question. Drawing S-501 detail 6 identifies a C8x11.5 flush against the column between the W10x17 and the column footing. This C8 redistributes the load bearing capacity onto the footing and off the walls and beams that are considered to be “cracked”. No other detail on S-501 uses the C8x11.5 leg for structural support in concrete that is considered cracked.

• Detail 3 shows a L3 x 3-1/2” piece of angle welded to the W10 and bolted to the building stem wall using epoxy & two ¾” diameter wedge anchor bolts through.

Those two bolts are carrying 100% of the weight of the W10x17 and the concrete on top of the W10. The unsupported nature of this setup is a cause for concern.

There is no supporting concrete, iron, or leg of any type under the W10 along grid lines 2, 5, 14, & 17. We suggest mirroring detail 6 at those stem wall locations (grid lines 2, 5, 14, & 17) by installing a C8x11.5 against the stem wall between the W10x17 and the footing. This gives added support under the W10 and redistributes the weight off of the two ¾” bolts that hold the W10 in place. Will the VA accept this risk mitigation plan to include the C8x11.5 legs at detail 3?

• Concrete cracks in and of themselves do not imply an error or failure of the concrete needing repair. This note would be used if the slab joist system was poured completely new in this project. Your deferred submittal designer will understand the intent of the note as it affects their anchorage. It is not related to any anchorage of elements shown on the structural drawings as this was already taken into account.

• Please refer to S-103. There is an 8’ section of dead space where there is no structural steel between column lines 3 & 4, 15 & 16, G-K. This insinuates that the steel deck will not have structural support in the center of that crawl space area from grid G-K. Adding a W10x17 to span that 8’ between gridlines G-K will provide the support needed to distribute the weight of the new concrete. Does the VA want to add ten structural steel members with reinforcing C8x11.5 legs to the construction drawings and placed in these locations?

• Drawings clearly show the metal deck span direction change in this area.

Added beams are not necessary but may be added at contractor’s discretion and expense.

• Please refer to Drawing S-103 detail 7. In option A, if the concrete girders are cut too short or they crumble off during saw cutting operations, then the instructions state to default to option B. Option B shows the concrete deck supported to the girder beam via a continuous L4x4 angle iron. For vertical support and to distribute some amount of load off the continuous angle iron, I would suggest adding a C8x11.5 to the face of each pilaster or column, between the footing and bottom of L4x4 angle, wedge anchored and similar to detail 6. Is this risk mitigation plan acceptable to the VA?

• There is no detail 7 on S-103. We assume this is meant for 7/S-501.

Specifics of contractor’s plan would need to be reviewed through a substitution request after project award.

• Drawing S-103 detail 4 shows a steel girder to concrete column connection. These connections should have the C8x11.5 between bottom of W10x17 and the column footing. The C8 should be wedge anchored into the column and footing. This detail should be similar to detail 6. Is this risk mitigation plan acceptable to the VA?

• Substitution requests may be submitted after award with cost benefit to owner clearly identified.

15. Note 6 on AD-101 states to remove and replace insulation on the underside of slab in the two east wings.

• Can we replace the existing insultation with 2” of closed cell spray foam?

• Insulation shall be installed per drawings and specifications.

If yes to 15.a - Does the VA want the entire underside of deck insulation replaced with closed cell foam insulation?

• Insulation shall be installed per drawings and specifications.

16. The 2022 building structural assessment report calls for additional work outside of the building to prevent or eliminate the water intrusion into the crawl space. The construction drawings appear to have omitted most of that important work. Will the work associated with water intrusion prevention be under a different contract in the future?

• Direct cause of water infiltration was subsequently identified as missing storm water distribution piping and other leaks in the space. These items are called out for repair in the design documents.

17. During our site walk it was noted that many of existing joists and overhead slabs were shown to have low concrete coverage at many locations and in need of repair. Per Drawing S-001, Concrete Notes, Item 6 provides clear coverage requirements for reinforcing steel exposed to earth and weather. Do these requirements apply to partial depth, joist, beam, column, and wall repair as depicted on Details 1 through 6/S-552 such that additional depth or a thickened repair area will be required?

• See 6/S-552 Note 4.

18. Solicitation page 14 of 71 identifies the page count maximum for each factor we submit

on. Due to the nature and complexity of this project, we are bumping up on page limits and assess that we will need more allowance to cover the important resumes and information for past performance and the technical narrative.

• Will the VA please add ten additional pages to the limit on Vol 1 & 2, for a total of

40 pages each? Yes, Vol 1 and 2 shall not exceed 40 pages each.

• Will the VA please add five additional pages to the schedule Vol 3, for a maximum of 15 pages? Yes, Vol 3 shall not exceed 15 pages.

19. If the VA offers an additional site visit, will the VA please extend the due date for additional follow up RFIs that may come about from the second site visit?

• See response to Q2 above pertaining to an additional site visit. Therefore, no extension will be provided for additional RFIs.

20. If an additional site visit is not awarded, will the VA extend the due date for RFIs to cover those that were relevant but submitted late due to time affiliated with scope development?

• RFI due date was 05/22/2025. The VA has already accepted RFIs sent after the due date and incorporated them into these responses being provided.

21. There is a pavilion canopy structure that extends the length of the entire south side of the east wing. This canopy structure is not refenced anywhere in the drawings and will need to be removed from the building in order to install the reinforcing shoring tower as designed.

• Does the VA want this pavilion canopy removed and reinstalled at the contractor’s expense?

• Does the VA want the contractor to store the components of the canopy at the contractor’s expense?

• Will the VA provide a temporary storage location where the contractor can relocate the canopy components to?

• Contractor’s means and methods. Most and potentially all shoring can occur from the inside. If the contractor’s preferred shoring method interferes with the canopy, it would be the contractor’s means and methods on if they want to shore to and below the canopy or remove and replace.

22. Solicitation Page 15 of 71, Factor-1 Technical/Experience – States to provide documentation of specific projects (minimum of three) relating to preparing site for building operations, including demolition, removal of existing structures, furnish labor and materials, and to perform the work in accordance with the plans and specifications for project B65 Structural Repairs or similar projects in a hospital environment;

successfully completed or above 75% in progress, that was coordinated and performed by the general contractor in the last 5 years of a similar size ($5,000,000.00 to $10,000,000.00), in scope and complexity.

• Building 65 is the VA regional administrative building and there are no healthcare activities occurring in this building. The healthcare and hospital related activities are occurring in building 170 across the street and in a separate facility. Since this is not a hospital environment, will the VA please remove this language from the subfactor 1 requirement?

• Although there is no direct patient care or healthcare activities occurring in this space, the project is on a hospital campus, and therefore, consistent with the subfactor language.

• In regards to the verbiage “similar scope and complexity”. Rarely and if ever, will the VA, a hospital, or general industrial customer solicit a construction project for shoring of a building, removal of an entire structural floor system, installation of a new structural steel foundation, and installation of a new slab-on-deck connected to the existing structure. The SDVOSB contractor that could meet the requirement of 3 projects in 5 years with this level of similar scope and complexity likely does not exist. If this contractor did exist, then that firm would have come to the site visit and that firm would likely be bidding on this project. If we have a specialty subcontractor with the subject matter expertise for the repairs as needed on this project and a written teaming agreement in place between the firms, will the VA accept the joint experience to be provided and evaluated so you have a competent and experienced contractor team to successfully complete this project?

• Yes, however, the SDVOSB contractor(s) must be registered in VetCert and SAM.gov as a Joint Venture prior to award.

23. After viewing the existing conditions, our industry expert teaming partner suggests that the underside of the floor slab can be repaired versus being removed and reinstalled. The base bid as designed will likely cost upwards of $10M and take 24- 30 months to complete. In addition to a proposal that includes the work in the base bid, can we provide the VA with a more cost and time effective VE alternative to structurally repair the underside of the slab?

• See response to Q11 above.

24. The shoring post (as depicted in S551/3) are to be aligned under and on top of the perimeter grade beams and will require the post to be installed as close to the perimeter block wall as possible. After further analysis of S551 detail 3, S501 detail 3, and having seen the existing conditions, we assess that at a minimum, the interior drywall from the floor to the ceiling may need to be removed from A101,102, and 103 and shoring posts installed between the metal studs. Worst case, portions of the track and certain studs may need to come out in their entirety. If the shoring posts are installed offset from the wall as depicted, the contractor will not have the room to sawcut the floor to remove the slab on top of the girder beam. The post must be as close to the clay tile wall as possible.

• Can the VA confirm if the existing interior wall is built using hat channel, structural, or non-structural metal studs, and are those studs 2x4 or 2x6 in nature?

• The VA cannot confirm the existing interior wall construction.

• Is the VA able to tell if there is anything between the hollow clay tile infill wall and the back of whatever metal stud wall partition is currently there?

• The VA cannot confirm the hollow clay tile wall infill or the metal stud wall construction.

• Full floor to ceiling drywall removal for the shoring posts may be necessary on the second and third floors as well. Since during the first site visit we did not get to view the second and third floors, will the VA authorize another site visit?

• See response to Q2 above.

25. AD-101 Detail 1 represents the Ground Floor Demo and Demo Note 1 States: REMOVE

CONCRETE FLOOR AND FLOOR SUPPORT MEMBERS IN CRAWL SPACE. SEE STRUCTURAL. A-

101 represents the Ground Floor and New Key Note 1 States “INSTALL NEW CONCRETE FLOOR AND FLOOR SUPPORT MEMBERS IN CRAWL SPACE. SEE STRUCTURAL”. S-101 Represents the area inside the crawl space and Sheet Note 6 States: NEW MUD SLAB TO BE INSTALLED IN

ENTIRE CRAWL SPACE. SLOPE TO DRAINS PER ARCH AND PLUMBING. INTENTION IS TO BUILD

UP FROM CURRENT ELEVATION. DO NOT EXPOSE ANY OF THE FOUNDATIONS MORE THAN

THEY CURRENTLY ARE. As written, the words in AD-101 and A-101 insinuate that the contractor is to remove the concrete floor (also referred to as the mud slab) and reinstall a new concrete floor in the crawl space. The words as written in S-101 contradict the A & AD pages and insinuate to build a new mud slab on top of the current mud slab. Building 160 is 15,000 square feet. This amount of mud slab demolition and grading in the crawl space could cost upwards of $7/sqft. If the contractor misinterprets the language and does not account for the removal of the mud slab in the crawl space, it will be a large bust to their budget. Likewise, the opposite is true for the VA if it is accounted for and not needed. Will the VA please clarify if the existing mud slab is to be demoed out prior to the new mud slab being installed?

• The new mud slab will be installed on top of the existing mud slab for the entire crawl space per New Keynote 1 and Crawl Space Plan 1 on Sheet A-102 and Sheet Note 6 on Sheet S-101.