635-21-139 Questions and Responses 3.docx

635-21-139 Repair Parking Garage 1 Questions and Responses 3

1) Q&A2 answers yes to combining Superintendent and QC Manager but quotes a specification saying the QC Manager does not also have superintendent duties. Please confirm whether one qualified MMC employee may fill both roles, with a separate dedicated SSHO and separate third-party commissioning provider. Yes, one qualified employee may fill both roles with a dedicated SSHO and separate third-party commissioning provider.

2) The solicitation requests at least two relevant projects of $2 million or more but also provides neutral evaluation for a new offeror and discusses accurately attributed key-personnel experience. Can a new prime without two own projects submit its proposed employees' relevant experience, clearly attributed, without failing a mandatory submission criterion? Yes, employees’ relevant experience may be submitted, although it may not be evaluated the same as the prime contractor’s experience. The submission will satisfy as responsive to the requirements.

3) Please confirm the October 5 11:30 a.m. deadline is Central daylight time as shown on SF30, and the correct offer address is Christina.Beeler-Blackburn@va.gov. The public narrative omits the hyphen. Yes, 10/5/26 at 11:30 AM CT is the correct proposal date/time. All submissions must be sent to Christina.Beeler-Blackburn@va.gov.

4) Section I.5B permits one 15MB email, while electronic instructions say 5MB. Which limit controls? How should the digital signed SF24/Power of Attorney be grouped with the three named proposal attachments? The SF24/Power of Attorney can be included in the past performance attachment. The correct size limit is 15MB.

5) RFI #1 - Both the RFI response and revised statement of work state that the Contractor is responsible for third-party commissioning. Please clarify:

a. Is the Contractor required to hire a Commissioning Agent or Agency? Yes, the contractor is required to hire the Commissioning Agent or Agency.

b. Can the VA provide a commission specification? Yes, the VA can supply the contractor with the General commissioning requirements specifications 01 91 00. The specifications should be included with the responses to these RFIs.

c. Can the VA provide a list of what systems will require commissioning and what activities are required for each? The Genetec security camera system.

d. Will the VA provide Specification Section 28 08 00, Commissioning of Electronic Safety Systems, which is referenced in the current specifications but was not included? Yes, the VA will supply the commissioning specification 28 08 00. The specification should be included with the responses to these RFIs.

6) RFI #32 - The response requires a new 24-strand fiber run from the parking garage to VA Police Monitoring Room 11A113C. Will any portion of this run be underground? If so, please provide the burial requirements? “Not Underground.” The entire 24-strand single mode fiber run from the parking garage fiber enclosure to the VA Police Monitoring Room is above grade, so no burial requirements apply and none need to be issued. Routing is as shown on sheet E000: within conduit in unfinished and parking areas, in cable tray above interior accessible ceilings, and within conduit above interior inaccessible ceilings. The fiber will be run to the VA Police Monitoring Room 1A113C.

7) RFI #36 - The response directs offerors to attachment 055000-2.0 Metal Fabrications SD ASI ACG VA for details of the existing system. That attachment contains details for the sump pit, elevator towers, ladders, bollards, embeds, and ramp handrails, but we could not locate details for the fall protection system. Was the wrong attachment provided? The specification section 055000-2.0 does not have fall protection details. The Fall protection details that do exist in the issued set are details 4 and 5 on sheet S-501 (Addendum 01): detail 4 FALL PROTECTION SCREENING and detail 5 FALL PROTECTION AT ROOF. This should answer your underlying need.

a. In addition, attachment 055000-6.0 Metal Fabrications-Suicide Fence SD ASI ACG shows the mesh infill but does not identify the framing members for the fall protection system. Please provide the missing framing details or confirm whether pages are missing from the attachment? This is a deferred design element with final design by the contractor. No pages are missing from attachment 055000-6.0 - the framing members were never specified and will not be. Consistent with response to Set 2 Q41e Amendment 004 (“Fall protection steel is deferred design item delegated to the contractor. Schematic connection details of posts is as shown on detail 4 & 5/S-501”) and with both S-501 details labelling the assembly ‘FALL PROTECTION SCREENING, BY OTHERS’ and ‘SCREENING CONNECTION, BY OTHERS.’ Framing is sized by the contractor’s engineer to the 200 lbf load in 05 50 00 §2.1.C. OPEN BID EXPOSURE: mesh opening size (Set 2 Q41c) is still not specified by anyone, and a delegated-design mesh assembly cannot be priced without it. || HFG (10/09/2026) concurs with the deferred-design response and adds design history: at design phase the VA directed HFG to match the new/future North Parking Garage. HFG worked from that project's architectural as-built NOTES - the same notes carried into this project's suicide fencing notes - because neither the architectural nor the structural as-builts for that project contain any fence details; the fencing is called out only by keynote. HFG scaled those as-built drawings and read the framing as 2" x 2" tube, and showed 2" x 2" graphically on our drawings. This corroborates the dimension already on sheet A108, where details 2, 3, 4 and 5 note frame members as 2" typical. HFG recommends Calibre to confirm 2" x 2" tube is acceptable as a stated reference size. HFG also notes the North Parking Garage is now under construction, so shop drawings or the installed fence may be available to confirm the framing visually. The design team nor does the VA hold as-built documents for this project and has none to transmit; the North Parking Garage material referenced above was design-phase reference information. The VA submitted example fall protection submittal and example engineered plans.

8) RFI #43 - The response states that the AE will provide either a photograph and dimensioned detail of the existing NE stair guardrail or a full specification. We could not locate either in Amendment 4. Will the AE/VA please provide this missing information? Existing guardrail assemblies in other locations pics for and Elevation are Attached. The overall intent is that the new guardrail assemblies (in other areas and various levels of this project) are to match to the existing guardrail assemblies currently present on site – see snippet directly below of “new” guardrail assemblies on Level 1 at the east side of the parking garage (per dtl. 4/A108) : New guardrail assemblies are also required on Level 1 at the west side of the parking garage along the existing conc. sidewalk portions between existing conc. columns that are adjacent to the existing vehicular drive (per dwg. sheets A102 & A103).

9) RFI #45 - Two responses state that Section 32 17 23, Pavement Markings, has been issued for new striping. Please confirm that this statement applies to the new striping areas shown on the plans and is not intended to require restriping the entire parking garage? Re-striping entire garage is not part of this project. All restriping is indicated on civil or arch plans.” Confirms the scope limit the question asked for - Section 32 17 23 Pavement Markings applies only to the striping areas shown on the civil and architectural plans, and a full garage restripe is not required. Bid the plan-indicated areas only.

a. The response also states that the VA will furnish existing striping plans or a certified parking space count by level. Is the VA still working to provide this information to the offerors in a forthcoming Amendment? No, there have been multiple alterations since our last set of plans. This will require the contractor’s direct observation.

10) RFI #47 - The response identifies the TKH Security M5 Smart Sensor System as the basis of design. TKH Security has advised us that it cannot provide pricing by the October 5 proposal deadline and expects October 12 to be the earliest it can provide a price. Please confirm whether other parking guidance systems will be acceptable. Alternatively, please consider extending the proposal deadline to allow offerors to obtain basis-of-design pricing. We are descoping the TKH Security M5 Smart Sensor System or similar from the project, because of a recent policy change. Proposal due date is extended in Amendment 006.

image3.png image4.png image5.png image6.png image1.png image2.png