36C26026R0013 0002.docx

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)

11-05-2025

531-24-101 NCO 20 Network Contracting Office

ATTN: V4CONT

1601 E. Fourth Plain Blvd Bldg.17, Suite B428 Vancouver WA 98661

NCO 20 Network Contracting Office

ATTN: V4CONT

1601 E. Fourth Plain Blvd Bldg.17, Suite B428 Vancouver WA 98661 To all Offerors/Bidders

36C26026R0013 10-09-2025

X

X

** HOUR & DATE for Receipt of Offers is EXTENDED to: 11-12-2025 12:00 MST

The purpose of this amendment is to provide VA's responses to additional questions/RFIs that have been received and to extend the proposal due date until 12:00PM MT on Wednesday, November 12, 2025.

Please see attached RFI responses.

-------------------------------------------------SEE CONTINUATION PAGE--------------------------------------------------

Stephen Slaby

Solicitation 36C26026R0013, Amendment 0002 Renovate Building T111, Boise VA Medical Center VA Project Number: 531‐24-101

Questions/RFIs and VA Responses

1. We noted that Exhibit A, included in the solicitation package is only one page, and does not call for client contact information, only offeror and contract information. Can the Government confirm that this is the complete form, and that no other reference or evaluation information is required?

VA Response: The solicitation form is the complete form. Offerors shall input client contact information into the following blocks: Point of Contact (POC), POC Phone Number, Email.

2. Can the Government please confirm that no full PPQs are required.

VA Response: Confirmed, no full PPQs are required.

3. If PPQs are required, is it acceptable to submit previously completed PPQs from past submissions?

VA Response: PPQs are not required. It is acceptable to submit other past performance utilizing completed PPQs from past submissions.

4. Can the Government please clarify whether past performance examples must be from the offeror acting as a Prime Contractor, or if the offeror’s relevant experience as subcontractor will also be considered?

VA Response: Offeror past performance shall be completed as the prime contractor.

5. Do projects presented for Technical Expertise and Past Performance need to be complete, or can they be ongoing and substantially complete (at least 50%)?

VA Response: Under Factor 1, Technical Expertise, Projects submitted shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP for full building renovation projects. Completed is considered as customer acceptance of the project as either beneficial occupancy or 100% complete. If offerors submit projects as beneficial occupancy (for completion) they shall so annotate so that it is evident to evaluators.

6. Will the Government consider past performance examples from proposed subcontractors or team members, including those under an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Agreement, provided the projects meet the stated relevance criteria (e.g., scope, complexity, dollar value)?

VA Response: Offeror past performance shall be completed as the prime contractor.

7. If subcontractor or Mentor-Protégé past performance is permitted, is a Subcontractor Consent Form or Letter of Commitment required at the time of proposal submission? If so, is there a specific format or template the Government prefers?

VA Response: Offeror past performance shall be completed as the prime contractor.

8. For projects performed by subcontractors or Mentor-Protégé entities, are there any specific labeling or formatting expectations (e.g., identification of prime vs. sub role, duration of involvement, or dollar share) the Government requires within the Experience or Past Performance sections?

VA Response: No.

9. Will the Government consider and evaluate past performance examples under the $1M threshold?

VA Response: The Government will consider and evaluate past performance examples under the $1M threshold in accordance with the solicitation.

10. Specification Section 01 00 00, Part 1.11-A refers to a Geotechnical Engineering Report dated 11/11/20. Part 1.11-D states this report should be considered part of the contract documents. In order to provide a responsible bid, will the VA provide the Soils Report via amendment??

VA Response: Please see attached “GeoTech Report used for T111.pdf”.

11. Specification Section 01 00 00, Part 1.30 requires the Contractor to hire a Professional Photographer to document this project. As this will add significant cost to the project, will the VA clarify if this will be a requirement or will in-house photographs be acceptable?

VA Response: A professional photographer is not a requirement; it is recommended that contractors document with photographs in instances where it is required to return building elements or the site to pre-project conditions.

12. Will the VA provide a current HAZMAT Survey prior to any demolition or disturbance of existing improvements, or will a pre-demolition HAZMAT Survey be in the scope of work and the responsibility of the Contractor?

VA Response: The Contractor is responsible for demolition, a HAZMAT survey is not a requirement.

13. Will the VA clarify whether the Contractors Supt., if duly qualified, may also serve in the roles of CQC and SSHO, or will separate individuals be required for either of those two roles?

VA Response: The Superintendent shall have no other roles.

14. Specification Section 01 45 00, Part 3.4-A & C requires the Contractor to retain additional specialized individuals who must be present at all times during work in these individual’s specific area of responsibility. For this project, this requirement would mean the Contractor must retain a Civil Engineer, a Structural Engineer, an Architect (or Const. Professional with 5 years’ experience), a Mechanical Engineer, an Electrical Engineer, and an Environmental Engineer, all to be present onsite during activities in their respective areas of responsibility. Since the hiring all of these Architects/Engineers, and having them onsite during any work taking place in their respective areas of expertise, will add significantly high costs to this project, will the VA clarify whether this will be a requirement for this project?

VA Response: In paragraph 3.4A a design quality manager is considered not applicable to this project. This amendment hereby removes paragraph 3.4C and the experience matrix in entirety. For this project, only a CQC Manager is required for the CQC role.

15. The drawings require delegated design for helical piles and state to include 20 LF per pile minimum with payment adjusted by unit prices; however, the bid schedule has a single CLIN and no unit-price lines. As written, bidders must perform pre-award design/engineering at their own cost and can make differing assumptions. Please establish a prescriptive bidding baseline (e.g., specify unit rate per LF or provide design parameters).?

VA Response: As per structural notes, 20’ depth is the length to be used for bidding purposes. Unit pricing shall be derived parametrically.

16. The drawings and specs reference a “Geotechnical Engineering Report dated November 11, 2020,” but it was not included in the solicitation documents. Will the VA provide this report prior to bid?

VA Response: Please see attached “GeoTech Report used for T111.pdf”.

17. While installing the helical piles, will we be required to continue if we hit refusal prior to the mentioned 20’ depth minimum requirement?

VA Response: If helical pier installer hits refusal prior to 20 feet of depth and is able to achieve the bearing capacity denoted within the structural construction documents, it is acceptable to have a shorter helical pier. As per structural notes, 20’ depth is the length to be used for bidding purposes.

18. On S5.00 Foundation detail page it calls out “6" VOID FORM BELOW GRADE BEAM & PIER CAP " will this be filled with concrete when the grade beam is poured?

VA Response: No, the space below the beam shall be a void as shown in the details.

19. Section 01 35 26 states “SSHO and CP – NOT USED,” yet requires an SSHO with specific qualifications. Section 01 45 00 assigns QC to the Superintendent but doesn’t specify separation.

a. Is a dedicated SSHO required, and if so, may the Superintendent serve in that role if qualified?

b. May one person perform multiple roles on a single-shift project?

VA Response: The Superintendent is a stand-alone role, they shall perform the duties of no other position. The CQC may be allowed to additionally perform the SSHO role, at the undisclosed, sole discretion of the VA; the individual must be dually qualified meeting the requirements of the contract specifications for both roles and there must be a demonstrated, compelling reason to allow the dual role. It shall not be allowed based solely on the contractor’s request to do so; requests without demonstrable reasons shall be dismissed.

20. Drawings specify aluminum windows of a certain series/manufacturer. May an alternate manufacturer or equivalent product be proposed via RFI/substitution during the bid phase? Refer to attachment “RFI20 Substitution Request.”

VA Response: There is no sole source requirement – the finish specified is to be considered the basis for design. Products of similar and comparable quality may be considered if the specifications’ requirements are met.

21. Sections 01 57 19 and 01 74 19 reference waste tracking, but it’s unclear if soil testing for contamination is required before offsite disposal. Please confirm disposal classification and testing responsibility.

VA Response: No soils testing is required.

22. The specified Hubbell DLCPCO photocell requires a control box, but none is shown or described in the electrical drawings. Please confirm whether an existing control box is to be reused or if a new control system must be provided.

VA Response: All systems are required to function as designed, appurtenances and accessories necessary for full functionality are required.

23. Electrical drawings and Division 28 indicate that doors are tied to the Physical Access Control System (PACS), but do not specify if 120V power to door locks is required or if they are powered from a low-voltage access control power supply. Please confirm power source requirements.

VA Response: Doors are operated from the card reader system utilizing electronic strikes. The electronic strike used as the basis of design uses a selectable 12/24V signal. The signal for this is intended to come from the door controller shown in IT room 120 on floorplans 1 and 3 on sheet E 1.10. Detail 4 on sheet E 0.20 shows the anticipated access control components for use on this project. Contractor to provide and coordinate final power source requirements with the door hardware vendor for final equipment to be supplied and installed on this project.

24. Please confirm the required finish for exterior and interior steel lintels or if they are to remain galvanized.

VA Response: Provide painted finish P5. See specification section 09 06 00 Schedule of finishes.

For exterior exposed loose lintels for brick veneer, contractor to provide hot-dip galvanized finish (as per structural drawings).

25. On Sheet AD1.0 Keynotes 02-21 & 02-26 are missing descriptions.

VA Response: Keynote 02-21 should be: 02-21 Remove existing signage. Keynote 02-26 should be: 02-26 Remove portion of existing wall and existing finish panel at sill, jamb, and head remove existing wood casing for new window. Bidders shall field verify.

26. Please confirm 7’ tall construction temp fencing is required for this project. Typically 6’ is the standard.

VA Response: 6’ is acceptable.

27. Please confirm the government will remove all furniture and items from the building prior to the construction.

VA Response: Confirmed.

28. Spec section 01 00 00-15, 1.13. F states an as-built site survey is required to be done by a registered surveyor. Please confirm that this is required for this project.

VA Response: An as-built site survey is not required.

29. Is a job site construction trailer required, or can the government provide an area within a building very close to the contractor office?

VA Response: The VA does not have any area within buildings available for contractor office. Any jobsite facilities that are required are the contractor’s responsibility.

30. Please clarify the SSHO may also be the site superintendent.

VA Response: No.

31. Spec section 01 35 26, 1.16 states all contract employees assigned to work have had a pre-placement tuberculin screening 90 days prior to project assignment. Please confirm this is required and the employee only has to be tested prior to starting and not frequently during the project.

VA Response: A pre-placement tuberculin screening is not required.

32. Spec section 01 45 29, 3.2 for the foundation piles, states to perform the load test per ASTM D1143, can this engineer be with the pile firm or do they have to be a third-party engineer? Along with the continuous inspection, does this need to be a third-party engineer?

VA Response: Load testing can be performed by an engineer within the pile installer’s firm. Report/testing results must be provided to the COR. Continuous inspection shall be performed by a third-party inspector.

33. Spec section 01 57 19 references erosion control measures but known are shown on the drawings. Please confirm none are required. If required, please provide a drawing showing what erosion control measures are required.

VA Response: Erosion and sediment control are required in accordance with local regulations.

34. Drawing AS1.00 shows a key legend for new landscape rock with metal edging. Please clarify the type, color, and thickness of the rock. Specs?

VA Response: See Sheet notes #4 and #5 regarding rock mulch requirements.

35. What are the requirements of the metal edging around the landscape rocks? Specs?

VA Response: Contractors are required to provide the following:

Steel Edging: Commercial‑grade steel product with rolled edge, in standard lengths, with steel loops for installation with stakes.

Edging Size:1/4 inch wide by 4 inches deep.

Stakes: Steel to match edging, tapered, minimum 12 inches long.

Accessories: End pieces, end stakes, corner stakes, and splicing stakes.

Finish: Painted, Color: Black

36. Please clarify what is to be done with the disturbed areas beyond the landscape rock? Seed or sod?

VA Response: See sheet note #12 on AS.100.

37. Can the existing soils excavated for the foundations be used to fill in at the ramp area? Please confirm the soil is likely not contaminated.

VA Response: Yes existing soils may be used if they meet backfill soil requirements. The soil is considered not contaminated.

38. There does not appear to be any grading drawings showing the existing grades and proposed grades around the building nor the height of the existing skirting to determine if fill will be required to be brought in or removed. Can this be provided? It appears the existing grade in the area where the shrubs are is a foot or so higher than most of the perimeter; are we to backfill as is or grade the site to bring this area back down?

VA Response: A grading plan was not provided as no survey was conducted. Use of VA site drawings with minimal grading was utilized for design. An additional grading plan will not be provided. Contractor to verify existing grades with new building conditions for required fill material either removed or brought in. Contractor shall provide positive drainage away from building for any fill or topsoil brought in and tie into existing grading conditions verified during construction. Bidders shall field verify.

39. Is the tree stump to be removed or ground down below final grade?

VA Response: Full removal.

40. Since the concrete foundation will require forming underneath the existing building, can the inside forms be left in place if the inside forms are built with treated lumber? Similar to that shown on 3/S5.00. Removal of these inside forms will take a lot of undue effort.

VA Response: Forms may be left in place.

41. Is an Idaho Public Work Permit required by all subcontractors or the general contractor, since not state owned? If not all, which ones?

VA Response: All workers must be legally qualified; this is a federal facility.

42. Please confirm the shrubs are to be removed and not to be replaced.

VA Response: Confirmed.

43. Sheet AD1.00, Keynotes 02-21 & 02-26 do not have a description for them, please provide.

VA Response: All flooring is to be removed in all rooms, except rooms HAC 106 and IT 120. See sheet A5.00 detail 1 floor finish plan for new flooring in rooms.

44. Sheet AD1.00, office 105, mech 108, toilet rooms 109 & 110, and 120 do not show the flooring to be removed as all the other rooms are shown. Please advise.

VA Response: see #43.

45. Please provide the specific brick we are to match the campus brick.

VA Response: Bricks shall match visually and physically the existing bricks on campus.

46. At what psi is the concrete in the grade beams around the porches need to be before backfilling can occur? Could early strength concrete be used in lieu of the specified to speed up the down time of waiting on the concrete to reach its designated strength.

VA Response: Backfilling of the grade beams around the porches can begin once the concrete has reached 3/4 of its specified design strength denoted within the structural drawings.

47. Confirm the walls can be placed on the grade beams within three days of pouring.

VA Response: Yes.

48. How long will the concrete in the grade beams need to wait until the trusses are set?

VA Response: Wood roof trusses can be set atop the wood stud bearing walls once the concrete has reached 3/4 of its specified design strength denoted within the structural drawings.

49. Sheet S5.00, framing details show a HGA10 tie at each end of the blocking between the trusses, confirm these are to be HGA10KT? Are these to be G90 or hot dip galvanized angles?

VA Response: The "KT” portion refers to the “kit” that is typically sold with a group of 10 HGA10 connectors & screws. The HGA10KT kits are the correct hardware. They are not required to be HDG.

50. Are the brick lintels to be painted?

VA Response: See response to RFI#24.

51. Spec section (General Requirements) 01 00 00-9, item K: Current plans do not seem to illustrate the perimeter for temporary construction fence, please provide area extent needed for ease of construction?

VA Response: See drawing GO.O2.

52. Spec section (General Requirements) 01 00 00-15. item 1.11 Physical Data - Soil Conditions, Section A. 1. Can you please release the Geo Technical Report dated November 11, 2020 with the Q&A responses?

VA Response: See response to RFI#10.

53. Drawing S0.01 IBC Inspection Tables: Please provide required KIPs for the Helical Piles for total depth based on Geo Tech report and Testing Requirements.

VA Response: Helical pier designer/installer shall set helical piers to a depth suitable to meeting Helical Pier Loads denoted in Table T7 (Schedule – Helical Pier) on structural drawing S6.00.

54. Field Office Staffing Requirements; Reference: Specification Sections 01 00 00 paragraph 1.5; 01 45 00 paragraph 1.4 C; and SOW Section 10

Question: Confirm whether the contractor must provide three distinct full-time individuals serving as Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, and Site Safety and Health Officer, or whether these positions may be combined when personnel possess all required qualifications such as OSHA 30, CPR/First Aid, and QCM certification. Also confirm whether qualified alternates with equal training must be designated prior to award.

Reason for RFI: The specifications list these three positions but do not clarify if combined roles are acceptable or if alternates are required. This information is necessary to accurately determine field-office overhead and staffing costs.

VA Response: See response to RFI#19.

55. Schedule Requirements; Reference: Specification Section 01 32 16.15 paragraphs 1.2 and 1.7

Question: Confirm whether the project schedule must be prepared or managed by a licensed or certified scheduler and identify any minimum qualifications, certifications, or experience requirements. Also clarify whether the baseline schedule must be cost loaded for progress payment purposes or if a time-based CPM schedule is acceptable.

Reason for RFI: The specification mentions CPM scheduling requirements but does not define qualifications for the preparer or specify whether cost loading is mandatory. This clarification affects staffing, software, and schedule development costs.

VA Response: Schedule shall be Critical Path Method (CPM) and activities shall be cost loaded. The specification section is considered to have all requirements stated within.

56. Site Safety and Health Officer and Competent Person Requirements; Reference: Specification Section 01 35 26 paragraphs 1.9 and 1.10 through 3.5

Question: Confirm whether a dedicated Site Safety and Health Officer and Competent Person are required for this project. If not required, clarify which position will assume daily safety inspection, training, and reporting duties.

Reason for RFI: Paragraph 1.9 states these roles are “not used,” yet subsequent paragraphs assign responsibilities to them. Clarification is required to establish proper safety staffing and cost allowances.?

VA Response: See response to RFI#19.

57. Quality Control and Delegated Design Responsibilities; Reference: Specification Section 01 45 00 paragraphs 1.3 A(2), 1.3 A(3), 3.1 C, and 3.2 QC Plan Subsection 3; Specification Sections 05 12 00 paragraph 1.4 B and 21 13 13 paragraph 1.2 A; SOW Section 3

Question:

· Confirm that this project is Design-Bid-Build and that the contractor’s quality control obligations are limited to construction execution and compliance, not design validation.

· Clarify that all references to “quality control of the design” or “review of the design for compliance” do not apply unless specifically directed otherwise.

· Identify any delegated design elements such as structural steel connection calculations or fire sprinkler hydraulic calculations that require sealed engineering submittals, NICET certifications, or other licensed design documentation.

Additional Note: Section 01 45 00 paragraph 3.2 QC Plan Subsection 3 outlines additional quality control requirements for Design-Build projects. It is understood these provisions do not apply to this Design-Bid-Build contract unless otherwise directed in the Government’s response to this RFI.

Reason for RFI: The specification includes language implying contractor responsibility for design quality control, which is inconsistent with a Design-Bid-Build contract. Clarification is required to define the correct scope of quality control and delegated design responsibilities.

VA Response: Project is Design-Bid-Build (DBB), not Design-Build (DB); delegated design is described where applicable in the drawings and specifications; see drawing S0.00 note 7 of Delegated Design and response to RFI#65.

58. Testing and Laboratory Services Responsibility; Reference: Specification Sections 01 45 00 paragraph 3.6, 01 45 29, and SOW Section 6

Question: Clarify which party is responsible for procuring and paying for all third-party field and laboratory tests such as concrete compression tests, soil compaction tests, HVAC test and balance, and fire suppression acceptance tests. If the contractor is responsible for testing, confirm whether the VA will also conduct its own testing and how discrepancies between results will be resolved.

Reason for RFI: The referenced sections contain conflicting language regarding who furnishes and pays for testing and laboratory services. Clarification is necessary to avoid duplication of costs and ensure accurate bid pricing.

VA Response: The testing as described in the drawings and specifications is the responsibility of the contractor.

59. Occupancy and Infection Control Requirements; Reference: SOW Section 4; Specification Section 01 35 26; Drawings G0.02 and G1.00

Question: Confirm whether Building T111 will be occupied during construction. If the building will be occupied, specify the required Infection Control Risk Assessment (ICRA) level and any specific infection-control measures required. If the building will be unoccupied, confirm whether any infection-control provisions are required.

Reason for RFI: Occupancy status directly impacts containment, barrier construction, and negative-air requirements, which affect project cost and execution planning.

VA Response: The building will be unoccupied.

60. Warranty Inspection Mobilizations; Reference: Specification Section 01 00 00 paragraph 1.15

Question: Clarify whether the four-month and nine-month warranty inspections must be performed onsite as separate mobilizations or if remote verification is acceptable.

Reason for RFI: Clarification is needed to determine whether post-construction warranty inspections require physical re-mobilization, which affects closeout and warranty-phase cost planning.

VA Response: Inspections after construction completion shall be performed with personnel onsite.

61. Window Schedule; Reference: Architectural Drawings A1.00 through A2.00; Specification Sections 08 11 13 and 08 51 13

Question: The drawings include a window type detail but do not include a window schedule identifying sizes, quantities, or specific locations. Please provide a window schedule or confirm that bidders should field verify existing openings and provide new windows to match those dimensions.

Reason for RFI: A complete window schedule is required to accurately determine window quantities, dimensions, and performance criteria to ensure correct pricing and material ordering.

VA Response: Window performance, sizes, and quantities are to match existing. Bidders to field verify.

62. Geotechnical Report Availability; Reference: Specification Section 01 00 00 paragraph 1.6; SOW Section 5; Structural Drawings S1.00 and S1.01

Question: Confirm whether a geotechnical report for Building T111 is available and can be provided to bidders. If no report exists, please indicate the assumed soil-bearing capacity, groundwater conditions, and compaction requirements to be used for estimating and construction.

Reason for RFI: The project includes new concrete foundations and ramps, but no geotechnical data are provided. This information is necessary to confirm design assumptions and prevent discrepancies in excavation, backfill, and foundation pricing.

VA Response: Please see attached “GeoTech Report used for T111.pdf”.

63. Helical Pier Specification Sections and Design Criteria; Reference: Structural Drawings S0.00 and S6.00 Detail T7; SOW Section 5

Question: The drawings include a helical pier load schedule identifying service loads and detailed installation notes but no specification sections governing helical pile materials, installation, testing, or acceptance criteria are provided in the specifications. Please confirm whether a specification section for helical piers (typically 31 63 16 or equivalent) will be issued and, if so, provide it. The specification should define design criteria, material standards, installation procedures, torque correlation requirements, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for the helical piles.

Reason for RFI: Without the specification sections governing helical pier design and installation, bidders cannot determine required materials, installation methods, or testing standards needed to meet VA and industry requirements. This information is necessary to prepare accurate pricing and ensure compliance with project criteria.

VA Response: Specification section 31 63 21 Helical Piers, attached, is hereby added to the contract specifications.

64. Helical Pier Design Responsibility and Acceptance Criteria; Reference: Structural Drawing S0.00 Helical Piers Notes Items 1 through 8; SOW Section 5

Question: The Helical Piers notes state that the helical pier contractor is responsible for design by a licensed professional engineer with review and approval by the structural engineer of record. Please confirm whether the helical pier system is intended to be fully delegated design by the specialty contractor and clarify the following:

· The design performance criteria including ultimate and allowable capacities, required factor of safety, deflection limits, and acceptance torque correlation.

· Whether the structural engineer of record will provide design loads only or will review and approve the specialty engineer’s calculations for acceptance.

Reason for RFI: The notes assign design responsibility to the helical pier specialty engineer but do not establish the required design criteria or approval process. Clarification is needed to define the extent of delegated design and coordinate approval and certification requirements.

VA Response: See added specification section 31 63 21 for additional information. Helical pier design is intended to be a fully delegated design item. Engineer of Record (EOR) to only provide design loads (as denoted in structural construction documents). EOR to review submittal from delegated designer for overall conformance only.

65. Delegated Design Scope Clarification; Reference: Structural Drawing S0.00 Delegated Design Notes Items 1 through 7; Specification Section 01 45 00 paragraph 1.3 A; SOW Section 3

Question: The Delegated Design notes on S0.00 assign professional design responsibility to specialty engineers for several systems including helical foundations, exterior wall systems, and non-structural framing. Please confirm which systems are intended to be delegated design under this project and which remain part of the design provided by the contract drawings.

Reason for RFI: The notes reference delegated design for multiple systems that appear to already be defined in the drawings and specifications. Clarification is needed to confirm the extent of contractor design responsibility and prevent duplication of engineering services or liability beyond the intent of a design-bid-build contract.

VA Response: Delegated design items are required only for items that fall within the list on drawing S0.00 and are NOT included within the construction documents package. None of the items listed in note 7 of the Delegated Design Section on drawing S0.00 are included in the structural construction documents.

66. Helical Pier Unit Pricing Requirement; Reference: Structural Drawing S0.00 Helical Piers Note 2; RFP Section A Price/Cost Schedule; SOW Section 5

Question: Structural Note 2 under “Helical Piers” specifies that the base bid shall include a minimum of 20 feet of installed helical pier measured from the bottom of the concrete grade beam or pile cap, and that payment shall be adjusted per the actual installed length based on unit prices provided in the bid form. The bid form and price schedule do not include a line item or provision for unit pricing. Please confirm whether unit pricing for helical pier installation will be added by amendment, and if so, identify the required format and measurement basis.

Reason for RFI: The drawings require unit-price adjustments for installed pier length, but the solicitation documents provide no line item or format for including such pricing. Clarification is needed to ensure consistent bid submission and prevent disputes in post-award payment adjustments.

VA Response: Pricing shall reflect the minimum 20’ depth for all piers, unit pricing shall be derived parametrically.

67. Referenced Geotechnical Report Not Provided; Reference: Structural Drawing S0.00 Foundation Notes Item 1; SOW Section 5; Specification Section 01 00 00 paragraph 1.6

Question: The foundation notes on Drawing S0.00 reference a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Materials Testing & Inspection (MTI File Number B201282g, dated November 11, 2020, titled “Boise VA Primary Care and Mental Health Building”). This report is not included with the solicitation documents. Please confirm whether this report will be issued to bidders or replaced with an updated geotechnical report for the Building T111 project.

Reason for RFI: The structural design references geotechnical recommendations, including an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf and helical-pier foundation criteria, from a report that was not provided. Access to this report or confirmation of applicable soil parameters is required for accurate pricing and foundation design coordination.

VA Response: Please see attached “GeoTech Report used for T111.pdf”.

68. The language describing the required format for Volume II and calls for its format to be:

Can I assume that the order should actually be as follows?

VA Response: Yes.

69. Spec section (General Requirements) 01 00 00-9, item K: Current plans do not seem to illustrate the perimeter for temporary construction fence, please provide area extent needed for ease of construction?

VA Response: See drawing number G0.02.

70. Spec section (General Requirements) 01 00 00-15. item 1.11 Physical Data - Soil Conditions, Section A. 1. Can you please release the Geo Technical Report dated November 11, 2020 with the Q&A responses?

VA Response: Please see attached “GeoTech Report used for T111.pdf”.

71. Drawing S0.01 IBC Inspection Tables: Please provide required KIPs for the Helical Piles for total depth based on Geo Tech report and Testing Requirements.

VA Response: See response to RFI#53.

See attached document: GeoTech Report used for T111.

See attached document: 31 63 21 Helical Piers.

36C26026R0013 Amendment 0002 image1.png