36C25924R0038 0002.pdf

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 11/2016)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 21

575-19-101

36C259

Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office

NCO 19

6162 South Willow Drive, Suite 300 Greenwood Village CO 80111

36C259

Department of Veterans Affairs Network Contracting Office

NCO 19

6162 South Willow Drive, Suite 300 Greenwood Village CO 80111

To all Offerors/Bidders

36C25924R0038

12-20-2023

X

X X

** HOUR & DATE for Receipt of Offers is EXTENDED to: 03/22/2024 10:00 AM Mountain Time (MT)

X 1 (one)

The purpose of this amendment is to officially and effectively make the following changes/updates listed below:

1. Post the answers to the RFIs.

2. Extends the date for all proposals from 3/8/2024 to 3/22/2024. All proposals are due on 03/22/2024 to the Contract Specialist, Angel Waalkes, at angela.waalkes@va.gov, by 10:00 AM MT.

All other terms and conditions remain the same.

Lance Davis Contracting Officer

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

VHA Network Contracting Office 19 Rocky Mountain Acquisition Center 6162 South Willow Drive, Suite 300

Greenwood Village, CO 80111 for

VA Western Colorado Health Care System Grand Junction, CO 81501

Remodel Emergency Department Space

CONTRACTOR Q&As #1

Question No. 1: Is the existing roof asbestos containing? Please advise hazmat report if any.

Answer No. 1: See SOW Special Conditions. See Sampling report dtd 8 December 2021 (Abatement report).

Question No. 2: Although the RFP noted that there is no existing asbestos in the work area based on VA survey, is the contractor still required to perform their own testing prior to start of work/demolition of existing? Is there a full Asbestos Report for this project?

Answer No. 2: See question 1.

Question No. 3: Concrete: Does concrete need to be light weight for cast in place. There is a higher cost associated.

Answer No. 3: No exceptions to SPEC 03 30 00 shall be made.

Question No. 4: Please provide contact info for the Comm contractor that handles controls.

Answer No. 4: Comm contractor is either a sub of the VA or GC. If the VA then the VA will give out that information. If the GC then please contact your bidding GC.

Question No. 5: Spec Section 27 15 00 indicates that it is for the “Genomic Medicine Addition” project at the Salt Lake City VA. Please confirm this section is correct/appropriate for this project (and that it is just an error in the header information).

Answer No. 5: Error in name of spec. Please disregard name in header. ADD #2 will fix this.

Question No. 6: Regarding 1-AHU-4 by Energy Labs on drawing M-601, the equipment manufacturer has no record of the design of this unit and therefore is unable able to price the unit as laid out in the drawings. The manufacturer is requesting more information from the design teams. Please advise.

Answer No. 6: 1-AHU-4 appears to have been selected by Energy Labs under the name SU- AHU-4B. Refer to attached sheet for additional information.

Question No. 7: Headwalls-Can we get a basis of design elevations that show gas and electrical requirements? Will the current gas and electrical feeds be reused?

Answer No. 7: See SPEC 10 25 13

Question No. 8: What services (gas, O2, vac, emergency power, non-emergency power, etc.)

are needed in each headwall?

Answer No. 8: See SPEC 10 25 13

Question No. 9: Would they like to replace their vertical headwall system with a similar type of form factor, or are they considering a horizontal headwall instead?

Answer No. 9: See SPEC 10 25 13

Question No. 10: What equipment would they like to mount on a headwall rail?

Answer No. 10: See SPEC 10 25 13

Question No. 11: How many headwalls are required (A1107)?

Answer No. 11: See drawing layouts of bed-layouts on A1.1 Floor Plan +

Question No. 12: How many exam lights are required (M7490?) Would they like wall controllers for any of the exam lights?

Answer No. 12: 1 Exam light per Procedure / Exam room. Controls of light on the light itself.

Question No. 13: Please confirm that an approved alternate can be used for the FRP system in lieu of Fyfe Co. LLC.

Answer No. 13: Yes, an alternate system for FRP can be used. Simply request such in a Change Request during the construction process.

Question No. 14: The structural steel drawings are complete in detail as designed by Paradigm, please advise if the structural steel drawings will still require an engineer stamped shop drawings and calculations in reference spec section 05 12 00. Note that additional information will be needed (ex, soil conditions, loads, etc.) that are not provided in this RFP.

Answer No. 14: No exceptions to SPEC 05 12 00 shall be made.

Question No. 15: On Sheet SG101, under part D. Concrete noted that ‘All concrete shall be per specification (Lightweight/Normal Concrete). Where no specific strength is called out, use normal weight concrete”. -Please clarify which type of concrete will be used for the project.

Answer No. 15: Light weight concrete.

Question No. 16: Note 11 on sheet CD101 requires contractor to provide shoring as required during construction (on the existing sidewalk) What is this shoring for? Is this pertaining to a temp shoring and erosion control to prevent destabilization of soil beside the sidewalk?

Answer No. 16: Shoring is for possible ground slope in excess of normal construction of sidewalks wood formed boarders thereby needing minor shoring.

Question No. 17: Sheet AD101 demolition legend shows a solid line pertaining to partitions to be removed, the drawings however appear to indicate that dashed/broken lines are for removal.

Please confirm that the drawing legend should show dashed /broken lines for walls required for removal.

Answer No. 17: Correct, dashed lines are to be demolished. Legend is in error.

Question No. 18: Sheet AD101 demolition legend for door and frame removal are in solid lines.

Please confirm that these should be dashed/broken lines to indicate removal as shown on the drawings.

Answer No. 18: Correct, door and frame are to be removed as part of demolition.

Question No. 19: Scope of work includes removal and reinstallation of Audiology booth per manufacturer representative. Please advise brand, model number and contact rep for the Audiology booth. -Note that the 2nd floor was not allowed access by VA during the site walk.

Answer No. 19: Brand/Vendor Natus. POC is Kim Parker, (846) 534-6964 kim.parker@natus.com

Question No. 20: On sheet AE103, note #7 says - PREFABRICATED RAISED METAL PLATFORM AND SLOPED WALK, FIELD VERIFY. Is this existing as part of the Audiology booth? Is contractor to remove and return this platform only? Please send photos of the Audiology Booth and ramp as this was not shown during the site walk.

Answer No. 20: See photos audiology room 2625 and 2626, posted with amendment P0001.

Question No. 21: Are slotted overhead tracks for wall framing required for this project?

Answer No. 21: See SPEC 09 22 16

Question No. 22: SECTION 11 73 00 – CEILING MOUNTED PATIENT LIFT SYSTEM Part 2 – Products

2.2 Lift Unit

A: Basis of Design: ARJO Huntleigh Maxi Sky 1000 patient lift system.

Question: Our bariatric system (Hillrom-Baxter/LIKO) provides for 1100 lbs. lifting capacity in the veteran’s sleeping/exam room using dual 550 lbs. motors. Do all lift units need to be configured for access to the toilet/shower? Is a bariatric system that provides 1,100 lbs. lifting capacity using dual 550 lbs. in the veteran’s room? Is a bathroom extension of 550 lbs.

acceptable? Or would an 800 lb. single motor be acceptable for the bariatric configuration?

Answer No. 22: See SPEC 11 73 00. No exceptions.

Question No. 23: SECTION 11 73 00 – CEILING MOUNTED PATIENT LIFT SYSTEM Part 2 – Products

2.2 Lift Unit

A: Basis of Design: ARJO Huntleigh Maxi Sky 1000 patient lift system.

Question: Our bariatric system provides for 1100 lbs. lifting capacity in the veteran’s sleeping/exam room using dual 550 lbs. motors. Do all lift units need to be configured for access to the toilet/shower?

Answer No. 23: See SPEC 11 73 00 2.2 Lift Unit. See Drawing AE111

Question No. 24: Project requirement: C. The Lift system shall have the following features.

C.7: Horizontal axis motor.

Question: Horizontal Axis Motors are normally used when a patient/veteran is self-operating the lift, without caregivers present. Is this feature that is the be quoted for every system, or will this be an added feature in only a select few of the rooms where lifts will be installed?

Answer No. 24: See Drawing AE111

Question No. 25: 2.5 Charger Question: Charging type was not clarified. Assumption is wall charging unless directed otherwise? What type of battery charging is desired, as no specifics between wall charging or in-rail charging was given?

Answer No. 25: Wall charging and not battery.

Question No. 26: Can galvanizing be substituted for Sherwin Williams Zinc Clad IV (85)? See attached PDF.

Answer No. 26: See SPEC 09 90 00. No exceptions.

Question No. 27: S-301/ detail 8, S-303/ detail 1 and 2, all call for rebar location by nondestructive scans. Is this done third party and relayed to shop fabricator?

Answer No. 27: Shop fabricator is desired. No third party unless approved by the VA COR.

Question No. 28: SF103 shows one beam at W18x22 in-between gridline B.1 and B.9, and 3 and 3.9. Can clarity be given on beam size. Drawing is calling for W18x22 which is not a manufactured sized beam, is it supposed to be W14x22?

Answer No. 28: Please use W14x22.

Question No. 29: SF102B/ detail 4/S-303 shows W10x?? for beam size. Can a weight size be given to this beam?

Answer No. 29: No weight size determined at this time.

Question No. 30: Site demolition drawings (Sheet CD101) noted VA to demolish existing concrete sidewalk (Note 28), half of the sidewalk length has note 2 which is by contractor.

Please confirm.

Answer No. 30: Sidewalk demo is partially by GC to coordinate with VA demo taking place.

Coordinate with VA COR for extent of sidewalk demolition per Keynote #28.

Question No. 31: Plan MD101 note 4 shows to remove hepa filter, duct is also shown to be removed but drawing stops short of showing the location the duct is to be removed to. Please clarify.

Answer No. 31: Sheet MD101 shows keynote pointing at the Hepa Filter and the duct being removed. Please review sheet.

Question No. 32: Plan MD101 note 5 shows relocating VAV to serve room 1658B, however there is no note 5 shown on the drawing. On plan MH101 it calls for VAV serving room 1658B to be “1-TU-125”. Plan M601 Air Terminal Unit schedule calls for VAV “1-TU-125” to be new. Please clarify.

Answer No. 32: Use new 1-TU-125 VAV for room 1658B, disregard retaining and reinstalling VAV during demolition.

Question No. 33: Are as-built drawings available for this project. Please provide the following as-builts for contractor reference; Site utility plan/underground, Structural as-built, MEPF as-builts.

Answer No. 33: Researching further.

Question No. 34: In reference to spec section 01 90 00, please confirm that general commissioning is not required in this contract. No specification has been provided.

Answer No. 34: See SPEC 00 01 15.

Question No. 35: Fixtures C & J are the only 120V light fixtures, which will require a dedicated circuit to those fixtures. Please advise on the location of the C&J fixtures; as they cannot be seen on pages (EL102, EL101 & ES101).

Answer No. 35: Light fixture type “C” is located on drawing EP103 and light fixture type “J” is indicated on drawing EM103.

Question No. 36: Is there any Lead based paint in the project that will require remediation?

Answer No. 36: None known of. If found it would constitute an unforeseen condition.

Question No. 37: Please advise the existing DDC system in the facility.

Answer No. 37: Metasys

Question No. 38: The specifications noted; 2.1 AUTOMATIC ENTRANCE DOORS Manufacturers: Stanley Access Technologies; Besam Entrance Solutions; or Horton Automatics.

Please advise if an approved equal from RECORD product is acceptable as well.

Answer No. 38: Approved equal is accepted, manufacturers noted are basis of design. Gain VA COR approval.

Question No. 39: Is lightning protection included in the scope of work? Please advise lightning protection plan. Also, the specs references section 26 41 00 Facility Lightning Protection but is not included in the specification package. Please advise/provide.

Answer No. 39: Lighting protection is not included in the SOW. Spec references are in error.

Question No. 40: Sheet ET503 shows telemetry riser diagram. Please provide specification for Telemetry, is there a product preferred for telemetry devices? What is the existing telemetry system in the facility? Is it Nihon Kohden?

Answer No. 40: Telemetry devise is only basis of design using Nihon Kohden which is the existing system in the facility.

Question No. 41: SECTION 27 52 23 – NURSE CALL AND CODE BLUE SYSTEMS Part 1 – General

2.1 Section Summary

A. The new nurse call system shall be manufactured by Rauland, model No. Responder 5.

Part 2 – Products / Functional Requirements

2.0 General Requirements for Equipment and Materials

B. The nurse call system shall be manufactured by Rauland, model No. Responder 5 (No exceptions).

Question: The RFP specified Rauland Responder 5 nurse call. Please advise if the contractor can propose an alternate/equal product for the new Nurse Call System? Prior bids referenced Rauland as a basis of design and were opened to other manufacturers.

Answer No. 41: Rauland Responder 5 Nurse Call is basis of design. Follow up with contracting.

More information shall be provided award.

Question No. 42: The nurse call system is included in the scope of work. Please advise existing Nurse call system in the facility, is contractor required to match existing product/system? The specification requires a Rauland Model no Responder 5, is this the same as existing? If different, is this compatible programming with the old system?

Answer No. 42: Existing system in Zittler. Rauland Responder 5 Nurse Call is basis of design.

Follow up with contracting. More information shall be provided award.

Question No. 43: Please confirm if there should be any integration from the Nurse Call system to the lighting controls for patient bedside lighting controls?

Answer No. 43: The lights shall not be controlled by the bedside controls.

Question No. 44: What is the location for the Rauland nurse call headend?

Answer No. 44: Main server for the nurse call system shall be located on 3rd floor room 3608.

Question No. 45: The drawings specify a panic button in the nurse call system.

• What is the location that the calls will ring too?

• What would you like the buttons to be labeled as?

• Should the panic buttons be a separate standalone security system?

Answer No. 45: Calls will ring to Police; buttons should be labeled Panic Alarm; See SPEC 27 52 23. No exceptions

• Police

• Panic Alarm

• See SPEC 27 52 23. No exceptions.

Question No. 46: Please confirm the acceptance of UL listed mechanical T’s.

Answer No. 46: Accepted.

Question No. 47: Please confirm that roll grooves are acceptable for Victaulic connections, that cut grooves will not be required.

Answer No. 47: Roll grooves acceptable.

Question No. 48: Sheet EM102 keynote 2 is calling out for the contractor to provide VFD for mechanical equipment. Because this is listed in the Electrical Drawings, it is assumed these are being directed to be provided by the Electrical Contractor. It is typical that the VFD’s are selected and provided by the Mechanical Equipment Manufacturer, so they are best matched up to the mechanical equipment it is serving. Please confirm that VFD’s and Motor Starters for mechanical and plumbing equipment should be provided by the Mechanical and/or Plumbing Contractor instead of the Electrical Contractor?

Answer No. 48: Whom provides is a GC means and methods question. Refer to bidding GC.

Normally provided by Mechanical Contractor but confirm with Bidding GC.

Question No. 49: Sheet EL501 noted that all light fixtures must be compatible with the nLight control system. Please confirm that all light fixtures listed in sheet EL501 are compatible.

Answer No. 49: Confirmed.

Question No. 50: Please confirm if RTSL cabling, devices, startup, and commissioning will be by the VA or VA representative outside of this contract?

Answer No. 50: See drawing sheet ET 101 – Key Note 10.

See drawing sheet ET 101 – General Note L.

See drawing sheet ET 102 – Key Note 7.

See drawing sheet ET 502 – Note D, F, G, 2.

Question No. 51: Please provide spec and model information for Telemetry System called out on

ET503.

Answer No. 51: Light fixture type “C” is located on drawing EP103 and light fixture type “J” is indicated on drawing EM103.

Question No. 52: Sheet ET502 is calling out a 12port Distribution Switch to be contractor provided and installed. Please provide spec and model of switch or basis of design switch for bidding purposes.

Answer No. 52: 12 Cisco, model No. 9300 series (For bidding purposes), however the manufacturer of the telemetry equipment is unknown at this time, and the manufacturer may recommend different manufacturer and model number.

Question No. 53: Are there any DAS (Distributed Antenna System) or ERRS (Emergency Responder Radio System) requirements for this project?

Answer No. 53: No.

Question No. 54: Please confirm the New PACS system called out on Sheet EY101 is limited to the scope area of this project?

Answer No. 54: See SPEC 28 13 00

Question No. 55: Regarding domestic water system/piping, please advise if pro-press copper fittings is allowed for this project.

Answer No. 55: See SPEC 22 11 00. No exceptions shall be made.

Question No. 56: Please advise on what the design intent is with the Security System detailed out on Sheet EY503?

Answer No. 56: Physical security and doors and other places.

Question No. 57: Reference div 28 13 00- PACS, require C-cure 9000 hardware (Istar panels) and HSPD12 compliant hardware. Note that the design is asking for a system type that will not work with the current system installed at the hospital. Currently the Hospital employs a P2000 system. This is an old proprietary system that is no longer produced or supported and can only be serviced by veteran JCI personnel with specific training that is no longer available. The system called out in the specification is C-cure 9000 with FIPS201 compliance protocols. These two systems will not work, and it is physically impossible to make them work together. Please advise.

Answer No. 57: See SPEC 28 13 00 1.1H. The facility is currently upgrading the system.

Question No. 58: Please verify that there will be no need for room pressure monitors on this project.

Answer No. 58: See SPEC 01 35 26. No exceptions shall be made.

Question No. 59: A room pressure monitor is required in the RFP. Please provide a spec on the room pressure monitor, or can the contractor propose one.

Answer No. 59: See SPEC 01 35 26. No exceptions shall be made.

Question No. 60: In compliance with Buy American Act, please confirm that the light fixtures provided on sheet EL- 501 all comply with the requirement.

Answer No. 60: Light fixtures on sheet EL-501 are basis of design.

Question No. 61: Please advise who will commission the Medgas after completion of work? Or does the VA use a third Party? What company is the VA using for Medgas verification?

Answer No. 61: See SPEC 22 62 00. No exceptions shall be made.

Question No. 62: Please advise us of existing roofing material used for the project. Who is the previous contract (for warranty).

Answer No. 62: Researching further.

Question No. 63: Existing wood doors – Please provide species, finishes? Are we matching existing wood door finishes in the facility, or does the VA have a specific finish they prefer?

Answer No. 63: See SPEC 08 14 00. No exceptions shall be made.

Question No. 64: Existing lock cores – please provide manufacturer and keyway of existing lock cores for contractor to match and price accurately.

Answer No. 64: See SPEC 08 71 00. Existing system is Best 7 pin dual cylinder. Not CORMAX.

Existing keyway shall be provided upon award.

Question No. 65: Is 100% conduit required or can we follow standard plenum cabling with conduit where required?

Answer No. 65: See SPEC 27 52 23. No exceptions shall be made.

Question No. 66: Will the VA provide CADD drawings for trade shop drawings (MEPF)

(STRUCTURAL).

Answer No. 66: Researching further. Refer to VA COR for answer.

Question No. 67: Please provide structural as-built drawings for reference on structural demolition.

Answer No. 67: Researching further. Refer to VA COR for answer.

Question No. 68: Please provide drawing files at 100%.

Answer No. 68: Drawings were provided as part of the solicitation.

Question No. 69: Please provide a spec on the air flow control valves. We are assuming they will come with factory mounted controllers that are BACnet MSTP compatible. Please verify.

Answer No. 69: See SPEC 23 36 00

Question No. 70: During the site walk the 2nd level roofing was not included in the inspection.

Please advise us of existing roofing material used for the project.

Answer No. 70: Researching further.

Question No. 71: Index of drawings listed sheet GI013, Temporary Ramp Plan. This is not included in the drawing sheets. Please provide.

Answer No. 71: GI013 is within the plan set. Seek VA COR to give plan sheet.

Question No. 72: Please confirm if Wireless Access Points and Network Equipment will be provided by the VA for Contractor Installation, or if Wireless Access Points and Network Equipment is to be provided and installed by the VA?

Answer No. 72: Researching further.

Question No. 73: Is Cambridge Sound masking system an allowed substitute?

Answer No. 73: See SPEC 27 51 15.

Question No. 74: Is there an existing sound masking system that this area needs to tie into? - If yes what is the manufacture and model number?

Answer No. 74: Researching further.

Question No. 75: Spec section for division 21-13-16 calls for FM approved fire sprinkler listings as well as NFPA design criteria. Please confirm that NFPA design criteria, and UL listed components (including sprinklers) will be acceptable.

Answer No. 75: Design shall be submitted and confirmed by AE.

Question No. 76: Sheet S-604 noted that general soil conditions on the facility is available on boring logs on the 1986 addition drawings. These are not included in the bid drawing sheets.

Please provide Geotech report for contractor reference.

Answer No. 76: See VA COR for boring log report.

Question No. 77: Our subcontractor has reached out to DSI (Dywidag Systems) as noted in the Micro pile drawings, the following were issues/questions raised from DSI.

• The callout for the epoxy coating is ASTM A934. The common callout is A775 applied at 7-12 mils, and the available product from DSI conforms to that spec (A775). Please confirm if A775 is acceptable.

• The available couplers and Hex Nuts for the DSI product develop 100% of the ultimate strength of the bar, not 160% of yield as noted on the plans. Confirmed by DSI. – Please confirm if 100% of the ultimate strength is acceptable in lieu of 160%.

• The corrugated sheath on the available DSI product is HDPE 40 mil 2.448”x 2.008”.

The callout is 3.58” o.d. with 80 mil wall thickness. The smaller size is what is engineered to work with the #11 bar size. This is what they will provide. Also note the thinner wall dimension – 40 mils V. 80 mils as spec’d. – Please confirm HDPE 40 mil 2.448”x 2.008” is acceptable.

• The requirement to torque the coupled connection to 200 Ft./lbs. is unusual. Because of the construction of the bars (epoxy coated, in a grouted sheath) it is not possible to achieve that type of coupling torque without damage to the corrosion protection elements of the micro pile assembly. The only practical way to achieve this level of torque is to use pipe wrenches which damage the epoxy coating. This coating can be repaired with a brush-on repair kit supplied by DSI, but it needs to be approved by the Owner’s engineer. Please advise if this process is acceptable.

Answer No. 77: Yes, all are acceptable.

Question No. 78: Are non AISC approved fabricators permitted to perform in-shop fabrication if they have an AWS CWI employed on staff full-time?

Answer No. 78: See SPEC 05 12 00. No exceptions shall be made.

Question No. 79: Can you provide clarity on the below please?

For GL-1 and GL-2, what is the Ballistic level needed?

2.3 SECURITY GLAZING ASSEMBLY

A. Provide ballistic level as scheduled in accordance with UL 752.

Answer No. 79: Threat class 3. Confirm with VA COR.

Question No. 80: Please confirm if access control programming will be performed by the VA in-house tech/IT.

Answer No. 80: See SPEC 28 13 00. No exceptions shall be made.

Question No. 81: Please confirm if the Superintendent (assuming this person is fully qualified for the other roles) may “dual-hat” the roles of SSHO and QC Manager, or if these roles must be filled by separate personnel?

Answer No. 81: See SPEC 01 45 00

Question No. 82: The Solicitation and Specifications seem to indicate that normal working hours on this project will be approximately between 7am and 6pm. Please confirm what, if any, work will be required to take place off-hours (nights/weekends)?

Answer No. 82: See SOW, Hours of Work; See SPEC 01 00 00 Phasing.

Question No. 83: Please advise if the VA will be enforcing weekend work after award for site demolition due to noise and dust. This needs to be determined now to provide an accurate price proposal.

Answer No. 83: See question 82.

Question No. 84: There is expected noise generated during construction such as cutting, grinding, power tools. please confirm that this does not imply that a possible change in hours from daytime to evening /weekend work is anticipated. The contractor is basing the proposal on regular 8-hour work hours.

Answer No. 84: See question 82.

Question No. 85: The RFP specifically identified normal working hours, to minimize impact on the facility. Please confirm that work hours will not change after the contract has been awarded.

No night work is anticipated for this work. - NOTE that any request for weekend and after hours will be by the contractor as needed. If an activity is required by the VA to be performed on a weekend or after hours, this will be evaluated as a change order. Unless the VA can identify during bid which activities will be performed on nights and weekend so the contractor can properly price the proposal.

Answer No. 85: See question 82.

Question No. 86: Are spare lamps and lenses required to be provided to the facility after completion of the project?

Answer No. 86: See SPEC 26 55 71

Question No. 87: Please confirm if this project is subject to any sales and use taxes/ tax exemptions.

Answer No. 87: No tax exemptions shall be granted.

Question No. 88: With the size/extent of work, is contractor allowed to add containers for storage, Temfacil on site?

Answer No. 88: See SPEC 01 00 00 1.6 Operations and Storage Areas. See drawing GI008.

Question No. 89: In consideration of Leadtime and escalating price of materials, is the contractor allowed to bill for delivered / stored materials on site or supplier warehouse?

Answer No. 89: No.

Question No. 90: Please confirm if the contractor is allowed to use the VA canteen and bathrooms during the course of the project.

Answer No. 90: See SPEC 01 00 00. No exceptions.

Question No. 91: The specification allows contractor Temfacil, parking and laydown yard, dumpster in the area. As an existing contractor in the facility, please confirm if we are allowed to use the existing location of our Temfacil and laydown yard. This will eliminate re-mobilization/moving of Temfacil once the area is ready to be disturbed for site construction.

Answer No. 91: Contractor can remain at existing locations until existing contracts are completed. Once existing contracts are completed, the contractor shall move to the new location.

Question No. 92: Sheet GI008 shows contractor laydown yard. We noticed that a contractor parking is not provided in the layout/ inside the laydown yard fence. Please advise whether the contractor is allowed to park in the covered parking structure.

Answer No. 92: See SPEC 01 00 00 1.5 F. No exceptions shall be made.

Question No. 93: Please confirm that the construction operations plan (sheet GI008) can be modified by the contractor after award to suit contractor operational needs during construction. - If the contractor is already on site for other projects, can the contractor use the existing site laydown yard?

Answer No. 93: See question 91

Question No. 94: Please confirm if the contractor is allowed to tap power and water supply to the existing facility throughout the course of construction.

Answer No. 94: See SPEC 01 00 00 1.17 Temporary Use of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment. No exceptions.

Question No. 95: Can pictures of the interior of the existing Ambulance Bay be provided to understand the extent of demo?

Answer No. 95: See Ambulance Bay picture included in Amendment P0001 of this solicitation.

Question No. 96: During the site walk, attendees were shown access to the basement from the North side of the building. Is there any other access available closer to where the basement structural work will be performed? In consideration of equipment access constraints, is the contractor allowed to have an opening on the existing basement wall for access?

Answer No. 96: The site walk did not visit the basement from the North side of the building.

Areas visited Electrical room, Ambulance Bay, Limited Access to ER: ER 1, Clean Room, Dirty Room, Data room, Restroom, ER1: Breakroom to exit.

Submit a more detailed RFI during award.

Question No. 97: If we are to construct 1 hour wall barriers per detail, please confirm that we can re-use removed doors and frames from existing walls.

Answer No. 97: See SPEC 01 35 26. No exceptions. See SPEC 01 74 19. No exceptions.

Question No. 98: Are Starc wall systems acceptable for hard ICRA barriers? (in lieu of the wall detail shown on sheet GI006). - Considering costs, can the VA supply the Starc Wall Systems (Contractor installed) since the VA has them in their site warehouse already?

Answer No. 98: Starc walls are an acceptable system. VA supplied walls shall result in a credit to the VA for the barriers.

Question No. 99: Please confirm that the contractor is allowed to dispose of all metal debris to VA dumpster.

Answer No. 99: If it does not overfill the dumpsters, the contractor is allowed to dispose of metal debris in VA dumpster. Contractor shall NOT overfill dumpster.

Question No. 100: Please advise access to the 2nd floor for construction work. -Note that this was not accessed during site walk per VA. Please show in key plan where the construction access will be for Contractor reference and planning.

Answer No. 100: See drawing GI007.

Question No. 101: Is there a timeline for the start of construction for Urgent Care Renovation Project? - Is the VA relocating existing ER facility personnel to another floor?

Answer No. 101: Construction of project shall not begin until ER is relocated.

Question No. 102: Is the work area going to be turned over to the Contractor as a whole?

Please advise if the project will be divided into Phases. Note that the phasing of work will affect the overall project schedule and duration.

Answer No. 102: See GI006 drawings.

Question No. 103: Please confirm that the project requires separate persons for SSSHO, Superintendent and QCM.

Answer No. 103: See SPEC 01 35 26 1.6. No exceptions.

Question No. 104: Under par 1.5 Quality Assurance in Section 05 12 00, the specification calls for a requirement of an AISC Installer. We would like to request this requirement be waived on this project for the following reason.

• There is a significant cost difference using an AISC contractor for the project.

• Finding an AISC contractor in the GJ and nearby areas is very limited to none- which again adds to the cost with a sub coming from farther locations.

• The qualification, experience, and capability of the non- AISC Steel Erector is comparable or even better than an AISC contractor.

The contractor is proposing to perform the work in compliance with Spec requirement under Par 1.5.A.1 and 1.5.A.2.

Our Subcontractor complies with the spec requirement under par 1.5.A.1 and 1.5.A.2:

1. Regularly fabricate and install specified products.

2. Fabricated specified products with satisfactory service on five similar installations for a minimum of five years.

Subcontractor Qualifications:

Contractor requests a variance that a non AISC Contractor be approved to perform work for this project and waive the requirement for AISC certification noting that the Subcontractor regularly fabricate and install structural steel with satisfactory service performed for completed work in the past 41 years.

All work will be performed in strict compliance and in accordance with Engineered Structural

Drawings, AWS Standards and further verified and inspected by 3rd party ICC special inspection during Installation.

Answer No. 104: No exceptions to the specs shall be made.

Question No. 105: Per Solicitation under special conditions item No 6 noted; All inspections (fire sprinkler system, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, framing, doors and windows, patient lift system, communication system, access control) shall be done by an independent third party who has been hired by the VA and coordinated by the COR. Notification for inspections must be given to the COR in writing at least 5 working days prior to the proposed inspection date. -Please confirm if this covers SPECIAL INSPECTIONS under section 01 45 35 of the specifications.

Answer No. 105: See SPEC 01 45 35 description.

Question No. 106: In consideration with lead times, delivery, and fabrication of materials that we are still experiencing, please advise if project duration can be extended to 18 months to include submittal and procurement periods.

Answer No. 106: See SPEC 01 32 16.15. No exceptions. Contractor shall bring up long lead times in kick off meeting.

Question No. 107: The specification requires card readers, please advise current manufacturer preferred by the VA. Also please advise us of the existing access control system.

Answer No. 107: See SPEC 28 13 00.

Question No. 108: Please advise if there are any shutdown notices required for utility shutdowns (Electrical, Gas, HVAC, FP, FA, etc.).

Answer No. 108: See SPEC 01 00 00. No exceptions shall be made.

Question No. 109: Will the government allow/participate in the use of Project Management software such as Procore?

Answer No. 109: Provide access to the COR, Alt COR, AE, CO and Construction Management Services. Names shall be given on award.

Question No. 110: The solicitation indicates that bid bonds should be mailed (hard copy). Is the VA willing to accept electronic copies (in lieu of hard copies)? Confirm that hardcopy original of the bid guarantee does not need to be mailed and electronic copy included in proposal is acceptable. If not, please confirm the address where the hardcopy bid guarantee is to be sent.

Answer No. 110: Bid bonds can be sent via electronic copy through email to the Contract Specialist, Angel Waalkes, at angela.waalkes@va.gov.

Question No. 111: Can you advise if the solicitation is for construction only or is capital medical equipment in the Emergency Department to be replaced as well?

Answer No. 111: This is primarily a construction project, however on the List of Attachments document, DWG.1 Renovate Urgent Care, there is a list of contractor procured equipment on pages 86-89. It is up to the potential contractor to make sure this is the only equipment required by the contractor.

Question No. 112: Most price proposals have a standard of 30 days validity, is the VA considering award within 30 days?

Answer No. 112: The submitted price proposals should be valid for 120 days as per block 13d on page 1 of the solicitation and block 17 on page 2 of the solicitation.

Question No. 113: Our subcontractors are requesting more time to review the plans and specifications to generate relevant RFI’s. Please advise if a second round of RFI’s can be submitted after January 26th.

Answer No. 113: There will be one (1) additional RFI to be submitted by March 7, 2024, by 10:00 AM MT. Any RFIs received after this time will not have the opportunity to be read or answered. RFIs are to be emailed to the Contract Specialist, Angel Waalkes, at angela.waalkes@va.gov.

Question No. 114: Please provide a second site visit for areas that were not available during the Jan 18, 2024, site visit. Sub-contractors need to be able to see the access and constraints for their scope of work.

Answer No. 114: This is not presently scheduled due to the nature of the VA hospital business.

See photos, attached to amendment P0001 of the solicitation, of areas that were not accessible during the site visit.

Question No. 115: With the amount of work required per scope, and current condition with manufacturing and delivery lead times, please advise if an ADMINISTRATIVE NTP can be issued for submittal/lead time and procurement after award.

Answer No. 115: This will be discussed at a pre-construction meeting with the chosen vendor.

Question No. 116: Will the government consider extending the deadline for proposals? This will allow adequate time for the government to answer questions, and for contractors to incorporate those answers into our proposals/bids.

Answer No. 116: The date for proposals has been extended to March 22 at 10:00 AM MT.

Proposals are to be emailed to the Contract Specialist, Angel Waalkes at angela.waalkes@va.gov.

Question No. 117: Sheet S604 detail shows a callout for 65-foot minimum length for micro piles but also 50 feet measured from bottom of pile cap. Please clarify the micro pile length.

Answer No. 117: 65’

Question No. 118: Multiple notes and callouts designate the center bar as #11, but one callout notes the bar as #14. Please confirm the bar is meant to be #11.

Answer No. 118: #11

Question No. 119: Note 8 requires the micro pile bars to be delivered full length to the job site, however, if they are meant to be 65 feet long, this will not be possible using standard trucking. Please clarify this requirement.

Answer No. 119: #11 used.

Question No. 120: Note 15 requires all micro piles to be proof tested. Please confirm this is the only load testing required and there are no pre-production verification tests required.

Answer No. 120: Only test noted on documents.

Question No. 121: Please confirm neat cement grout using type 1L Portland and water is acceptable assuming it meets the 5ksi strength requirement.

Answer No. 121: Must meet 5 ksi strength requirement.

Question No. 122: Per the project documents, it calls for GL-1 and GL-2 to be ballistic rated glass but on information on the ballistic level. Please provide additional information.

Answer No. 122: See question 79.

Question No. 123: Are all wood doors to be prefinished or finished on site to match existing door finish?

Answer No. 123: Finished on site to match existing doors.

Question No. 124: Sheet SF102A, Reinforcement Note #3 – The note states that “FRP reinforcing to provide a uniform live load capacity of 150 PSF on top of the slab and an additional 25 PSF suspended from the slab. Beams and girder on four sides of the existing roof slab to be reinforced for shear and flexure with FRP reinforcing such as to transfer all live loads to the supports.”

A. There is not sufficient information to design the FRP system for the slab and beam elements. Please provide cross sectional information and or details of the girders along grids 3, 3.9, C, and B.

B. Please provide the existing concrete compressive strength of existing slabs and beams to be strengthened with FRP.

C. Please provide the additional moment capacity (kip-ft.) and the shear capacity (kip) that the FRP strengthening is required to add to the existing girders.

D. Please provide the additional moment capacity (kip-ft. per ft.) that the FRP strengthening shall provide to the one-way slab.

Answer No. 124: A. Cross section to be designed after award. Bid appropriately.

B: Existing concrete slab compressive strengths are unknown unless the VA will allow a core drilling test.

C: No additional moment or shear capacity strength to be added to existing girders.

D: One way slab (existing) to have no additional moment capacity for FRP.

Question No. 125: Sheet SF102A, Keyed Note #6 – The note states “HSS6x6x1/2 column and plate below, centered on existing concrete beam, see detail 2/S303.”

A. If there is an HSS section applied at the mid-point of the girders, is FRP strengthening still required at the underside of the girder?

B. Shall the HSS act as a vertical support?

Answer No. 125: A. No B. Yes

Question No. 126: Please confirm if the 3 Sliding Automatic Door located in the vestibule Rm 1662 and 1611 are to be ballistic rated rather than Blast-Resistant. The drawings call out for the glazing to be ballistic rated but the specification calls out for blast resistance.

Answer No. 126: Blast rated.

Question No. 127: If Blast Resistance Doors are required, these do not have a breakout functions, only available in a 96” height specially for the doors that has a transom. Please clarify requirement.

Answer No. 127: Blast resistance is required per VA guidelines, specialty doors may be required.

Question No. 128: In reference to Door Number 1611, 1662A & 1662B, which are 3-panel telescopic configuration, Either Blast or Ballistic door manufactures including Horton Automatic only comes in a 2-panel “single-slide” (max slide opening 2’-10 ¼”) or 4-panel “bi-parting” (10’ unit width & 3’-9 ¼” max slide opening) versions. Please advise if 2 panel single slide is acceptable.

Answer No. 128: 2 Panel single slide is acceptable using Horton if that the only item that Horton allows for.

Question No. 129: Please confirm if the Exterior windows system are to be blast resistance or only the glazing needs to be ballistic rated.

Answer No. 129: Exterior windows replaced in whole (frame and glass) are to be blast resistant.

VA guidelines for blast resistance includes typical anodized aluminum window frames (steel only required for higher level blast resistance). Glass is to be blast resistant.

A.1 Attachments

See attached document: Drawing AHU-4 Rev 05.25.2021.

A.1 Attachments