Combined responses RFIs VA Mather Parking Lot 6-11-20.docx

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Sensitive Information—See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

PROPOSAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FORM

SOLICITATION: 36C26120B0011 – Mather Land Development Parking Lot

NOTE: ALL PRE-PROPOSAL INQUIRIES SHALL BE SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL TO joey.korst@va.gov BY AN EDITABLE USE OF THIS FORM. Please identify, in numerical sequence, each set of inquiries that you send.

Question(s) is/are on the solicitation [ x ] Question(s) is/are on the drawings, specifications, technical data [ x ]

Company Name and Offeror:

From (person submitting question): __

Date of Proposal Inquiry: ___June 1, 2020____________

Phone Number:

Proposal Inquiry: (Type inquiry below)

Proposal RFI #2 – In Pavement Design Report (e.g. Geotechnical Report): the Government’s report is silent in regards to the OSHA classifications of existing soils within the site. Please provide Contractor with specific soil type (Type A, B, or C).

Answer: Majority of site is Type C.

Proposal RFI #3 - In Pavement Design Report (e.g. Geotechnical Report), Page 9 of 23: the VA specifies two (2) separate Caterpillar 825 coverages to achieve appropriate compaction: “…at least four successive coverages….” and then “…at least six complete coverages…” with a Caterpillar 825 for the “…upper six inches of final pavement subgrades…”.

Question: Please confirm that the VA wishes to have a total of ten (2) successive coverages to achieve appropriate compaction.

Answer: Geotech report shall be followed with ten complete coverages

Proposal RFI #4 – In Apogee Combined Drawings attachment, Drawing EP101, Key Note #1, Drawing 2 of 5, the VA references “Stub-up Site Lighting Conduits”. Please specify the existing VA Power Source for Contractor to install new LED Pole Lights.

Answer: The stub up location is approximate to the location of the future building electrical room. The conduits will be intercepted and extended to the exact location of the future electrical room at a later date, so as not to disturb parking surfaces installed as part of this project. The LED pole-lights specified in the Luminaire Schedule of Sheet E-001 are solar-powered and will operate as ‘stand-alone’ until the new building is constructed.

Proposal RFI #5 – In Apogee Combined Drawings attachment, Drawing CG103, Drawing 7 of 15: The plans do not indicate the Aggregate Base (AB) required under the concrete areas. Please provide Contractor with specific AB for concrete areas.

Answer: Use 4” under parking and pedestrian areas and 5” in other (heavily trafficked areas).

Proposal RFI #6 – In Pavement Design Report (e.g. Geotechnical Report), Section “Site Clearing”, Pages 7 & 8 of 23: the Government discloses “…undocumented fills [e.g. slickens] located in the ‘south’ parking lot areas (that) must be completely removed to expose native, firm undisturbed soils, as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative”. The Government does not quantify the amount (approximate cubic yards) of the existing undocumented fill. The Government does, however, place the burden upon Contractor of removing and remediating said undocumented fill.

Question: please provide Contractor with approximate cubic yards of undocumented fill to be “completely removed” by Contractor.

Similarly, if Government at this time cannot quantify the approximate cubic yards of undocumented fill to be removed by Contractor, shall the Government allow Contractor to include an estimated approximate cubic yard amount of undocumented fill within Contractor’s Bid to the Government that the Contractor would be responsible for removing and remediating?

Answer(s): For bidding purposes use the following volumes (cubic feet), which are separate per add alternative and not cumulative:

1. Base bid = 0 cuft

2. Add Alt. #1 = 6,300 cuft

3. Add Alt. #2 = 87,000 cuft

Proposal RFI #7 - Please specify the on-site location for stockpiling excess material (e.g. soil).

Answer: Temporary stockpile location can be decided by the contractor but within reasonable distance from the work area. Any excess soil not reused on site shall be off hauled.

Proposal RFI #8 – Please specify the on-site water source location available for Contractor during the course of construction (to fill water trucks, for example).

Answer: There is a hydrant on VA property, (surrounded by a 5 foot utility easement) It is located on the south west corner at Femoyer and Airpark. Contractor to coordinate use with Golden State water company.

Proposal RFI #9 – In Solicitation, Section 2.3 Bid Schedule: Please clarify Government’s Statement of Bid Items:

Shall Base Bid Item #1 include all grading and/or underground work associated with the additional site areas for “Add Alternate 1” and/or “Add Alternate 2” as reflected within Apogee Combined Drawings attachment, Drawing CS101?

Or shall Base Bid Item #1 specifically exclude any grading and/or underground work within the areas reflected as “Add Alternate 1” and “Add Alternate 2” in Drawing CS101?

Answer(s): Base bid shall exclude grading and underground work within the areas reflected as Add Alternate 1 and Add Alternate 2, with the exception of facilities needed to serve the base bid areas (i.e. storm drains must extend downstream to point of connection)

Similarly, please confirm that all Landscaping scope(s) are included ONLY within Bid Add Alternate No. 3 and no Landscaping is included within Base Bid Item #1, Bid Add Alternate No. 1 or Bid Add Alternate No. 2.

Answer: Required landscaping for the stormwater management areas shall be included for each phase of development (base bid, add alternate 1, and add alternate 2). The add alternate 3 includes all additional landscape outside of the stormwater management areas for the full project site.

Proposal RFI #10 - We want to confirm that the hashed portion (see attached partial drawing) is just a striping detail for handicap spots. There is no handicap label on the parking spots in that location.

Answer: Stalls are intended to be ADA stalls with the symbol and related striping included.

Proposal RFI # 11 – In Solicitation, please confirm the all required site/soil testing and/or surveying is conducted by the VA.

Answer: The VA doesn’t require testing beyond what was provided in bid package documents. Any off haul testing shall be done by the contractor.

Proposal RFI # 12 - Plan page CD101, demo note #2 says “the plan does not account for removals of potentially hazardous materials” and that that the “contractor is responsible for familiarizing themselves with the scope and extent of the removal”. What hazardous materials are likely to be found here and in what quantity? How do we bid for something that is not defined?

Answer: A Phase 1 environmental study has not been performed to our knowledge. We do not anticipate hazardous material to be an issue, but we also don’t have the documentation to rule it out.

Proposal RFI # 13 - It seems there is a discrepancy between Drawings EP102X and EP103X. There are no Conduits going to four fixtures on EP103X. Also need to verify what Alternate these Pole Bases will go on? Alternate 1 or 2?

Answer: The conduit installation is depicted so that conduits will be installed to required locations depending on the extent of alternate items selected. Conduits shown on Sheet EP101 are extended to alternate locations required for EP102X (see EP101, Key Note-2) so that if the alternates are not selected, the conduit will be installed and ready for future use without having to disturb surfaces installed in the base scope. Similarly, the work of EP103X will rely on utilizing conduits installed as shown on Sheet EP102X (see EP102X, Key Note-2) if that work is selected. Pole bases are specific to poles shown and apply to the extent of the alternate scope depicted. Poles shown on EP102X & EP103X apply to Alternate-1 & -2, respectively, as described by the plan-view title for each.

Proposal RFI #14 - The Electrical Plans are showing that all conduits are empty. Please confirm this is the intent and no wire is required.

Answer: Conduits installed for this project are empty, with only pull-string/rope installed, to be utilized for permanent power connections after permanent electrical service facilities, at/in the future building, has been constructed and is in-place.

Proposal RFI #15 - Photometrics EL101, show (2) Poles 9' apart at two locations, when in reality this could be (1) Pole Base with (2) Light Heads. Confirm lighting quantities are as shown on power plans EP101, 2, 3.

Answer: Light pole quantities have been depicted to account for alternate scope items (to meet future required lighting levels) that may or may-not be selected for installation at this time. The luminaires specified are solar-powered, ‘stand-alone’ (see Luminaire Schedule, Sheet E-001) and the capability for supporting (2)-light sources in a single pole assembly was not included in the basis-of-design. Therefore, it is expected that each luminaire will include a single luminaire to be supported by a photovoltaic-panel and system included as part of the packaged solar-luminaire-pole assembly.

Proposal RFI # 17 - Page 9 of the Wallace-Kuhl Geotechnical Report discusses the mitigate of encountered uncontrolled fills. The contractor will not know the extent of the existing uncontrolled fills until the grading activities are started. The quantity of this work is unknowable at bid time. How will the owner track and reimburse the contractor for this contingent work?

Answer: See answers above

Proposal RFI# 18 - Can excess dirt generated from the project be left onsite for future phases?

Answer: No- the intent is that the excess soil shall be off hauled from the site.

Proposal RFI# 19 - The Wallace-Kuhl Geotechnical report refers to the need to have a geotechnical engineer on-site during earthwork operations (see following typical examples). Is this requirement a VA contract requirement?

Note: A representative of the Geotechnical Engineer should be present during site grading to evaluate compliance with the recommendations provided in this report. The Geotechnical Engineer of Record referenced herein should be considered the Geotechnical Engineer that is retained to provide geotechnical engineering observation and testing services during construction.

Adequate removal of debris may require laborers handpicking to clear the subgrade soils to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative

Discing operations, if approved, should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative and be continuous until the organics are adequately mixed into the surface soils to provide a compactable mixture of soil containing minor amounts of organic matter.

Depressions resulting from site clearing operations, as well as any loose, soft, disturbed, saturated, or organically contaminated soils, as identified by the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative, should be cleaned out to firm, undisturbed soils and backfilled with engineered fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

Undocumented fills located in the “south” parking lot areas must be completely removed to expose native, firm undisturbed soils, as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative.

Answer: This is not a VA requirement.

Proposal RFI #20 - General Requirements 1.5 C.1 , requires the contractor to supply a security guard after construction hours, please confirm this will be a requirement of the Solicitation.

Answer: This requirement is not needed.

Proposal RFI #21 - Statement of Bid Items 1.3A calls for security cameras to be installed, however this item was not noted on the plans, please provide security camera specification, quantity and location of the tie-in point to the security system.

Answer: This requirement is not needed.

Proposal RFI#22 - Is the Mass Grading for the entire site to be part of the Base Bid? Or is grading to be separated for each line item / Alternate?

Answer: Grading shall be separated for each line item.

Proposal RFI #23 - General Requirement 1.18F calls for the contractor to furnish a temporary water service. Where is the tie-in point for the VA's water distribution system? What size is the supply distribution line? Can the contractor opt out of the requirement to supply a temporary water service and instead use the public water system?

Answer: There is not currently a water tie-in on the site. Use of the public water system is acceptable if the city/county approves the connection. Also see above response to RFI#8

Proposal RFI #24 - Is the entire Storm Drain system to be part of the base bid?

Answer: The storm drain system needed to drain the parking facility is to be included as part of the base bid. Specifically, downstream storm drain lines, inlets, and junction facilities must to be installed per plan for the drainage system to be functional.

Proposal RFI #25 - Are all of the Bioinfiltration Basins to be part of the base bid?

Answer: Only the basins that are located in the bid area need to be installed. Those located in future phases do not need to be installed; however, the catch basins will need to be installed to convey upstream flow to the point of connection.

Proposal RFI #26 - The Geotechnical report identifies undocumented / uncontrolled fill on site, that will require removal. For bidding purposes, please provide a quantity of fill to be removed or a price to be paid per cubic yard to the contractor, for removal.

Answer: See above response

Proposal RFI #27 - If there are excess spoils from grading, will the spoils become the property of the contractor to be removed from the site? Or will the VA want to stockpile the excess material? If the VA wants to retain the excess grading material where will the VA want it stockpiled?

Answer: Excess soil shall be off-hauled from the site

Proposal RFI #28 - There was not a requirement for landscape irrigation system found in the solicitation. Gator bags were required for the trees which need to be filled regularly.

What is the expectation for keeping the planting alive over the two year warranty period?

Is the contractor expected to hand water the plantings for two years?

Answer: Please see attached irrigation plan. A water connection (via another project) will be established onsite after this project is completed. Contractor will be responsible for the maintenance until the project close out at which time the VA will take over. The 2-year warranty will not be required for this project.

Proposal RFI# 29 - The Solicitation Project Description identifies “Fencing” , but the drawings and specifications do not offer design details or data for fencing, Please advise if this fencing scope is part of the project and will the VA offer more description on this scope via drawings and specifications.

Answer: Fencing was a part of the project but was removed for budgetary reasons. The fencing drawings were not developed to bid document level and are excluded from this requirement.

Proposal RFI #30 – The description of work in the pricing schedule for the “Base Bid Item #1” mentions fencing, plumbing, mechanical, fire protection, and telecommunications. Please confirm none of those items are part of this project.

Answer: None of these items are part of the base bid.

Proposal RFI #31 – The Price Schedule in the solicitation has a Base Bid Item #1, Bid Add Alternate No. 1, Bid Add Alternate No. 2, Bid Add Alternate No.3, and a statement that says the following: “BID ITEM #1 except add the following work: ALL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH ADD ALT 3 TO THE STATEMENT OF BID ITEMS.” Please confirm the last statement on the Price Schedule is not applicable, and that Base Bid Add Alternate No.3 only adds landscaping as shown on the plans and nothing else.

Answer: Add Alternate No. 3 only includes planting outside of the designated stormwater management areas. This includes all landscaping (excluding stormwater management areas) for the expanded parking lot areas in add alternate 1 and add alternate 2.

Proposal RFI #32 – A NPDES permit is required for this project. If Bid Add Alternate No. 3 is not awarded, we will not be allowed to file a Notice of Termination for the permit because the site is not permanently stabilized by landscaping. How will this be handled?

Answer: The VA has an existing NPDES permit with the water board that includes this property. A SWPPP template for this site will be provided to the contractor to complete and submit.

Proposal RFI #33 – The Pricing Breakdown sheet in the solicitation includes Division 12 – Site Furnishings. Please confirm this is not applicable to the project.

Answer: This is not applicable.

Proposal RFI #34 – The Solicitation states that July 15th is the anticipated NTP date. Please confirm this is still the intent of the Government. If not, what is the anticipated NTP date?

Answer: The solicitation does not mention an anticipated NTP. The NTP will be discussed with the contractor once award is made.

Proposal RFI #35 – Spec section 32 12 16, paragraph 3.6 – Application of seal coat. Please confirm seal coat will be required. The manufacturer requires 28 days of cure time for the asphalt before the seal coat can be applied. Seal coat application is weather/temperature dependent. If this is required and the weather will not allow for application, how will this be handled?

Answer: If weather does not allow for seal coat, this application can be delayed until weather allows (Government to provide a date at which this can be waived to close out the project) Proposal RFI #36 – Spec section 32 17 23 – Pavement Markings indicates that glass beads will be required. These are typically installed on roadways for better night vision. Please confirm the application of glass beads in the striping is required.

Answer: Glass beads can be omitted from parking lot striping.

Proposal RFI #37 – Spec section 32 90 00 – Planting. A 2 year warranty period is required for this section. This project does not include any irrigation. Without irrigation, there is no way to guarantee the plantings will survive. How will this be handled?

Answer: See response above to RFI #32 Proposal RFI#38 - Proposal RFI #11 – Can the Government please provide the AUTOCAD design files from the civil engineer associated with this Solicitation?

Answer: CAD files are available; however, the system only allows for PDF or word documents to be posted. If you would like them, please send an email requesting the CAD drawings to joey.korst@va.gov.

Proposal RFI#39 – Please confirm all storm drain utilities shown on the drawings are to be included in “Base Bid Item #1”, even though they extend outside of the Base Bid Item #1 area of work limits.

Answer: Required as needed to drain the site. See previous RFI responses.

Proposal RFI #40 – Please confirm no electrical wire is to be pulled in the installed lighting conduits. Only a pull string/rope will be provided for future wire installation.

Answer: Conduits installed for this project are to be empty, with only pull-string/rope installed, to be utilized for permanent power connections after permanent electrical service facilities, the future building, has been constructed and is in-place.

Proposal RFI #41 – Please confirm the extents of demolition Notes 1 and 2 on Sheets CD101 and CD102 should only include the area(s) shown the on grading plans.

Answer: Confirmed. See attached revised Demolition plan

Proposal RFI# 42 – The Construction Notes/ Legend do not call out to construct the sidewalks, please confirm if the sidewalks are to be included in the bid items.

Answer: Yes, as detailed in the plans and specifications

Proposal RFI# 43 – Plan page CG-103 Detail 8, calls for a Typical sidewalk section/ thickness of 4 inches, just below in the section detail the plan calls for a 6 inch minimum sidewalk thickness, please clarify the required thickness of the sidewalks.

Answer: Sidewalks shall 4-inches based on Geotech traffic index = 4.5. The “typical section” portion of detail 8 is incorrect.

Proposal RFI# 44 – The plans do not call out a sidewalk width, please clarify the required width of the sidewalks.

Answer: All plans and details are scaled, scales are noted.

Proposal RFI #45 – The electrical plans do not show where to tie-in for the power source for the lighting. Please clarify where electrical power is to come from.

Answer: See RFI responses to #4, 13, 14,15