Attachment 5 - QA .pdf

Attachment 5: 692-CSI-101 Q&A (answers in italics)

NOTE: Some questions have been edited for clarity with regard to referenced Attachments

1. The RFP includes FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (OCT 2022). There is no set-aside indication in the RFP, but the Site Walk Agendas provided in RFP Amendments 0001 and 0004 each indicate this procurement is full and open, unrestricted. However, VAAR 852.215-70 is included in the RFP and indicates the VA shall evaluate offerors based on their SDVOSB certification status. Also, RFP Attachment 6 (JA Partial Sole Source_Redacted), under Description of Efforts Made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as deemed practicable (p. 2 of 4), it states that 692-CSI-101 as a whole will be competed full and open after total set-aside for SDVOSBs. Amendment 0004 also adds Evaluation Factor 4: Evaluation Preferences for SDVOSB, VOSB, and HUBZone offerors. We are a SDVOSB and need to know if/how FAR 52.219-14 (Limitations on Subcontracting) may be applied to SDVOSB offerors.

a. Please confirm this is a full and open procurement.

• This is a full and open, unrestricted procurement.

b. For purposes of FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (if applicable), is this Contract considered to be ‘Services (except Construction)’, ‘General Construction’, or a combination of the two? If a combination, please clarify which portion(s) of the Contract are considered ‘Services’.

• This clause may or may not be applicable, pursuant to FAR 19.507(e) depending on awardee. Since there is potential it may be included in an award, it was included in the RFP, and will be removed at award if not applicable.

c. FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting indicates this clause does not apply to contracts that have not been set aside for small business concerns. If a SDVOSB submits an offer and is evaluated with preference over other than small business concerns, does that make FAR 52.219-14 applicable to said SDVOSB firm?

• No- VAAR 852.215-70 and 852.215-71 do not alter the applicability of FAR 52.219-14.

d. As this Contract uses the HUBZone price evaluation which also gives preference to otherwise successful offers from small business concerns, if a SDVOSB does not waive the HUBZone price preference, could that potentially make 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting applicable to said SDVOSB concern?

• Please review FAR 19.507(e) for applicability.

e. For a SDVOSB prime contractor: Please clarify the maximum percentage of the amount paid by the Government on this Contract that the Prime Contractor may pay to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities.

• There is no SDVOSB specific limitation; however, all companies must comply with the self-performance requirements in FAR 52.236-1, and any HUBZone small business awardee would be required to comply with FAR 52.219-14.

VHAPORValenM Cross-Out

2. The RFP includes VAAR 852.236-72 Performance of Work by the Contractor (APR 2019) Alternate I (APR 2019), but does not indicate the required percentage of work to be performed by the Contractor. Please advise.

• VAAR 852.236-72(a) is supplemental to FAR 52.236-1. FAR 52.236-1 indicates the minimum required percentage is 12%.

3. The RFP includes FAR 52.247-2 Permits, Authorities, or Franchises (JAN 1997). This is a fill-in clause asking if the offeror does or does not hold authorization from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or other cognizant regulatory body.

a) We’re not sure what type of authorization this is referring to. Please advise.

• This refers to authorization(s) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and requires the offeror to fill in if they hold any authorizations. This is for if the offeror’s transportation plan is regulated by FHWA or other applicable regulatory body such as state agencies.

b) Is the offeror required to hold said authorization at the time of offer?

• Offeror is required to hold any authorizations that they list in FAR 52.249-7 at time of offer.

4. The RFP includes FAR 52.247-21 Contractor Liability for Personal Injury and/or Property Damage (APR 1984). This Clause states that the Contractor, at the Contractor’s expense, shall maintain adequate public liability and property damage insurance during the continuance of this contract, insuring the Contractor against all claims for injury or damage.

a) Please clarify insurance coverage/limits that will be considered adequate on this Contract.

• It is up to the contractor to ensure that they hold insurance sufficient to insure them against all claims for Personal Injury and/or Property Damage as the liable party. VA will not define adequacy of insurance coverage or limits but has provided VA minimum requirements in the section titled “Supplemental Insurance Requirements”.

b) Section 4.37 on RFP pages 63 and 64 of 69 describes Supplemental Insurance Requirements. Are the minimum coverages described in this section adequate for this Contract?

• Adequate insurance coverage is a business decision for an individual entity and shall not be defined by the VA. VA has provided VA minimum requirements for its contractors in the section titled “Supplemental Insurance Requirements”.

5. RFP pages 55 and 56 of 69 include an index of drawings, as does Drawing G-001. Both of these indicate we should have Drawing ‘S-100 Plan View’. Drawing number S-100 is not included with the RFP documents, but we do have ‘S-102 Plan View’. Please confirm we have the correct drawings.

• There is no S-100. S-102 is the correct drawing.

6. Reference Proposal Submittal Requirements for Trade Off Analysis on pages 65 and 66 of 69:

The description of Key Personnel indicates the Project Manager(s) must be present at all times on active site(s).

a) Was it the Government’s intent to indicate the Superintendent(s) must be present at all times on active site(s) in lieu of the Project Manager’s as is normally customary?

• Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO), and Quality Control Manager (QCM) must be on site during all construction activities. These roles can be combined into one qualified and accepted individual.

b) Please confirm it is the Government’s intent to require the Project Manager(s) to be onsite at all times on active site(s) when the Superintendent and QCM are also onsite?

The requirement for the Project Manager to also be onsite at all times the site(s) are active adds additional costs to the Government that we feel are unnecessary.

• Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO), and Quality Control Manager (QCM) must be on site during all construction activities. These roles can be combined into one qualified and accepted individual.

7. Reference Proposal Submittal Requirements for Trade Off Analysis on pages 65 and 66 of 69:

The description of Key Personnel indicates offerors may only have the same person occupy the Project Manager and Quality Control Manager position if the specifications attached to the RFP say it is permittable. The Specifications do not explicitly state whether it is or is not permissible for the Project Manager and the Quality Control Manager to be the same person. Please advise.

• Superintendent, Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO), and Quality Control Manager (QCM) roles can be combined into one qualified and accepted individual.

8. When work is occurring at both the Vancouver and White City sites simultaneously, will a

Project Manager, Superintendent, SSHO, and Quality Control Manager be required at both sites?

• See Statement of Work (SOW) for phasing. The SOW does not allow for simultaneous phasing, it is sequential.

9. Section 01 45 00 para 3.4 (C.) has not been edited. Please confirm that specialty CQC Personnel may be employees of the prime or a subcontractor, and that they can perform other duties.

• CQC Personnel shall be employees of the prime.

10. RFP Attachment 6 indicates sole-sourced scope to GE Healthcare for de-installation, installation, inspection, and certification of the MRI equipment before and after transport. This document also states that all other project work will be done by awarded SDVOSB contractor. Please clarify whether the VA or the Contractor will be responsible to contract with GE Healthcare.

• The VA is soliciting offers for all project work and will not consider offers to only complete part of the work. VA does not intend to enter into multiple contracts to complete project work at this time.

11. Reference Drawing S-002: Under Foundations, Item 1. states, ‘Foundation design is based on Final Geotechnical Report by Applied Geotechnical Engineering Dated: October 30 2013 Project No. 3725-13 VA DOM Chappel, which is adjacent to the project site.’ Item 2 states, ‘Foundation work and site preparation shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, and the Contractor shall be familiar with the report.’ We do not find a Geotechnical Report included with the RFP documents. Please provide this.

• Geotechnical Report attached (Attachment 3 to this amendment).

12. The details shown on Sheet S-401 indicate depth of footings to be determined by Project Geotechnical Engineer. Please provide a depth to be assumed for bidding purposes.

• Use “Min” depth shown on the details of Sheet S-401 for proposal purposes. The geotechnical report provides required over-excavation and soil replacement requirements below the footings.

13. What are the existing panels manufacturers and breaker types?

• The existing panels and circuit breakers are by Square D, however the Government is not mandating the use of Square D.

14. E-703 existing underground conduit is 4” pvc is it okay to stay with 4” pvc conduit for medium voltage?

• Medium voltage conduits shall be PVC and concrete encased per detail 1 on sheet E-501 and enlarged electrical plan on sheet E-401.

15. EP 102 Panel B, this panel does not show up on E 601 one-line diagram. Where is this panel being fed from and where is the panel schedule for this?

• This existing panel is to remain and is fed from the MRI building’s main panel “BLDG MDP”. It does not need to be modified. It is not shown on the one-line diagram.

16. ES 102A will the existing medium voltage conduit be in the way of the building stem walls and need to be moved?

• Yes, the existing underground medium voltage conduits will be in the way of the building stem walls and will need to be moved as needed.

17. Will any fire alarm systems be required?

• No, there will not be any fire alarm systems required for this project.

18. On the last page of RFP Attachment 3 SOW, under Permitting item 3 it indicates the VA has provided documentation as part of the contract attachments as a starting point for the contractor’s application for the 1200CN permit. We do not find this information included with the RFP documents. Please provide.

• This information was provided as the specifications, (RFP Attachment 2), and the drawings, (RFP Attachment 1). These documents are considered a starting point for informational purposes for the permit application process, and the contractor will need to develop documentation reflecting the contractor’s specific means and method in approaching the work that requires the 1200CN permit in its permit application.

19. RFP Attachment 3 (SOW) on Page 1 of 3 under General Scope of Work, item b. states, “…installation (of the MRI) into the new manufactured double wide trailer.” Similarly on Page 2 under NTP 2 it also states, “Installation of the MRI into the new manufactured double wide trailer…”. Please confirm there are no new trailers required on this project, and that the only trailers to be installed are the existing trailers being relocated from Vancouver.

a) See Attachment 1 to this amendment – 692-CSI-101 SOW. This attachment supersedes RFP Attachment 3 - 692-CSI-101 SOW 11.26.24.

20. Regarding the double-wide office modular - Is there additional information available as to who the manufacturer of the modular is? Or perhaps additional specifications in the VA record regarding the weight capacity? picking details for rigging?

• Manufacturer: Design Space Modular Buildings. We do not have picking details, weight capacities, or any other info for the double wide trailer.

21. Is there a geo soils report available for the White City VA area where the modular units and MRI will be relocated?

a) See provided report (Attachment 3 to this amendment).

22. In discussion with a GE Healthcare technician who’s familiar with the MRI to be moved on this project, we were told that the existing modular MRI building has a crown in the floor under the MRI. This could be caused by any number of things and the potential extent of repairs is unknown. Should repairs be required, there could be delays in installing the MRI magnet at White City.

a) Is the Government aware of this condition? If so, please provide any information available pertaining to potential cause(s), severity, repair effort, etc.

• The Government has inspected the area in question. The flooring has expanded and contracted, leaving gaps between the tiles. It does not appear there are any structural flaws causing the Vinyl Composite Tile (VCT) to separate. The Government is not currently anticipating any revisions to the existing scope.

b) Will the Government allow another site visit opportunity so prospective offerors can view this condition?

• No, the Government has provided multiple organized site visit opportunities and at this time considers the flooring a patent issue that could have been observed at any of the site visit opportunities afforded.

23. Please provide as-builts/record drawings of the existing modular MRI building foundation.

• As-builts/record drawings of the existing modular MRI building foundation are not available to be provided at this time.

24. The MRI magnet will need to be ramped down for transportation. Once this occurs, time is of the essence to get the magnet installed at its new location so it can be ramped back up to minimize helium loss. There is a potential for unforeseen and/or differing site conditions that could cause delays in getting the MRI magnet installed at the new location. Such delays could be very costly to keep the magnet on life support to manage the helium levels, and the longer the delay the higher these costs would be. We feel it would be prudent for the Government to add two unit price line items to the price schedule: one that covers the daily cost to maintain the magnet during downtime in excess of five days; and a unit price per liter to fill the magnet back up with helium in the event that the helium loss during downtime exceeds that which could be reasonably expected.

• The contractor is in full control of development of their baseline schedule for the project within the requirements in the specifications, which provides them the ability to schedule/plan all phases of work to ensure that the MRI downtime is minimized and meets contract requirements. Requirements include a set maximum downtime for the MRI magnet that, at time of project development, was determined within reason to avoid any damage or loss to the magnet or its systems.

25. Section 01 33 23 para 1.10, item E indicates VA review period is 10 business days for RFIs. As mentioned in the previous question, MRI downtime is extremely time sensitive and becomes more costly the longer it takes to get the magnet ramped back up after installation. It is unreasonable to expect the contractor to wait 10 business days for RFI response while the MRI is down. We request the Government reduce VA review and response time for RFIs to one or two calendar days.

• No, the VA will not reduce review and response time. The 10 business days for RFI response is a standard time frame from the VA Technical Information Library. The contractor is expected to ensure that they have all necessary information prior to executing the MRI magnet removal, transportation, and ramp up by timely submitting their RFIs.