663-21-100- 36C26026R0029 - Contractor Questions and Answers rev 4_1_26.pdf

Page | 1

Request for Information – Government Response

663-21-100 Solicitation Number: 36C26026R0029

Puget Sound VA Medical Center

2/13/2026 Updated 4/1/2026

Below are questions that were submitted by potential Contractors for the above referenced project along with the Government’s answers to the Request for Information.

Contractor Questions Government Response

1. The Statement of Work specifies that the Physical Access Control System (PACS) must be compliant with FIPS-201 and FICAM requirements. However, the solicitation does not state that the PACS must be designed, reviewed, or approved by a Registered CSEIP (Certified System Engineer ICAM PACS) professional prior to submission to the Contracting Officer.

Because CSEIP professionals are the only federally recognized engineers trained specifically in the design, installation, and validation of FIPS-201 and FICAM-compliant PACS implementations, please confirm whether a Registered CSEIP will be added as a key personnel requirement to ensure proper engineering, compliance, and federal alignment.

Review and approval of the Physical Access Control System (PACS) design falls under the purview of the construction period services that Station has contracted with the A/E firm for design development.

The Construction Contractor will not be expected to submit a Registered Certified System Engineer ICAM PACS as a key personnel.

2. The solicitation calls for installation of a new PACS intended to support high-level physical security objectives. However, it does not state that the PACS must be designed, reviewed, or approved by a Registered PSP (Physical Security Professional) prior to submission to the Contracting Officer.

Given that this project directly affects federal access control points and physical security posture, please confirm whether a Registered PSP will be added as key personnel to perform threat-informed design review, ensure adherence to physical security standards, and support Government review prior to mobilization and installation.

Review and approval of the Physical Access Control System (PACS) design falls under the purview of the construction period services that Station has contracted with the A/E firm for design development.

The Construction Contractor will not be expected to submit a physical security professional as a key personnel.

Page | 2

3. The specifications indicate RCDD involvement for communications design and installation. To ensure accurate interpretation:

Please confirm whether the RCDD is required to:

• Stamp telecom drawings, and

• Perform on-site verification prior to close-in (wall closure) inspections, specifically for communications and low-voltage pathway compliance.

RCDD involvement is required for performing on-site verification prior to close-in inspections on this project, particularly in light of the limited work taking place under high traffic areas of which it would be to the benefit of the contractor and the VA to inspect and close those trenches in a timely manner.

4. RFP Page 11 under Factor 4, it indicates if a Joint Venture (JV) does not have ex5perience, Past Performance shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. We believe this should not apply to an SBA approved All Small Mentor- Protégé Joint-Venture as the purpose of this program is for the mentor to help the protégé develop their capabilities and experience. We respectfully request the Government allow projects submitted by the mentor only of a Mentor- Protégé JV to satisfy the requirements for Past Performance/Relevant Experience.

Past Performance for the Protégé is required to determine that the contractor can perform the work. As per the SBA guidelines the protégé is responsible for performing most of the work under the mentor’s guidance.

Updated – 4//2026 For Mentor-Protégé JV, if the Protégé has past performance that is applicable to the project it will be evaluated along with the Mentor’s past performance.

If the Protégé does not have past performance, it will be rated neutral and the Mentor’s past performance will be evaluated solely.

5. Phase 3 Demo – Power to Building 34 The Phase 3 demolition plan (top left corner) shows existing power feeding Building 34, removal and replacement of HMA pavement, and installation of ten (10) new power conductors.

Are we expected to install the new power conductors through existing conduit, or are we required to install both new conduit and new power conductors?

The intent of the plan is the creation of a new power conduit and conductors: it appears this work will not be routed through existing conduits in the area.

6. Parking Lot Gate Controllers – Access Control Integration Will the parking lot gate controllers be connected to and integrated with the existing access control system for use with employees’ Government-issued PIV cards?

Ultimately, the gate controllers should be integrated into the existing campus physical access control network.

7. Access Control System Information If integration with the access control system is required, what is the manufacturer and system type, and what is the System ID?

To the best working knowledge of the station, the answer to this question is that card access control is maintained via ethernet connections on campus. As such, any PACS will require an access controller for

Page | 3 ethernet features and a subsequent wired hook up to the campus data network. No additional specialized interfacing should be required.

8. Controller Enclosures Are we required to provide a separate enclosure and board controller for each gate controller location, or are these to be connected back to existing control panels?

To the best working knowledge of the station, separate enclosures and board controllers will need to be provided at each location as there are no existing physical access control panels local to the project area.

9. Proposal Due Date Extension Request Due to the overall size of the project and the engineering required for underground power, pavement replacement, and access control integration, will you consider a seven (7) to ten

(10) business day extension to the proposal due date?

The submission date will be extended to Friday, February 27th.

10. Please confirm the existing asphalt thickness in the parking lot areas where trenching or underground work is anticipated.

Unknown. To the best knowledge of the VA, the parking long is 4-6 in of asphalt due to needing to occasionally host trailers or route heavy deliveries across the surface, however, this is merely an estimate: wear, resurfacing, and previous renovations mean this figure is merely and educated guess.

11. Could the VA provide estimated fiber optic cable lengths between field devices and the data center? During both site walkthroughs, access to the data center was not available, which limited our ability to determine accurate cable distances.

The location of the Data Room is shown on sheet ES101. The Site plan is to scale and can be utilized to measure the fiber optic cable lengths. Of note, the “F- 08” mark follows the intended path to tie the data vaults into the data center.

12. Specification 26 05 41 indicates underground conduits (ducts) are to be concrete-encased, while drawing E-501, Detail 2 shows conduits installed with 6 inches or more of clean sand or approved excavated material. Please confirm which installation method is required:

1. Concrete-encased duct bank, or

2. Sand bedding installation

The Specification covers when a concrete-encased duct bank is called out on the drawings. Detail 2/E- 501 does not show a concrete-encased duct bank.

13. If concrete encasement is required, please confirm whether rebar reinforcement is only required under roads and driveways.

Answer #12 indicates that concrete-encased duct banks and sand bedded installations are utilized in different scenarios. Carefully regard the plans and specs. If there still remains an encasement for which its structure and/or reinforcement is unclear, assume rebar reinforcement.

14. If sand bedding is acceptable, please confirm whether the specified 95% compaction requirement applies to native backfill material.

Yes, the combination of the 6” of clean sand or approved excavated material plus the backfill material

Page | 4 to reach the appropriate utility depth must meet the 95% compaction requirement.

15 We request to submit the Attachment 8 price schedule 48 hours after bid submission to allow us to provide a more accurate cost breakdown.

The proposal response requirements are unchanged and remain April 10, 2026.