Part II RFI Responses - Install Fall Protection Fresno.pdf

VA Responses to Requests for Information (RFI’s), PART II

Solicitation# 36C26125R0030

Project Title: Install Fall Protection, VA Fresno Medical Center

Project Number: 570- 21-109

PART II, RFI # 1: Amendment 0003, VA response to questions #1 & #2 asking about the possible presence of ACM in the areas of work was to provide a 2012 Asbestos Report. The 2012 Asbestos Report indicates the presence of asbestos on the roofing system only for Buildings 32 in the roof flashing sealant. Will the VA clarify the following?

a) Will the Va confirm that all of the roofing systems have been tested for ACM and that with the exception of B32, are considered non-ACM systems?

b) If the roofing systems are not fully tested, will the Contractor be expected to conduct HAZMAT testing prior to construction?

c) Will the VA clarify that if the roof flashings on B32 are not disturbed, there will be no need for abatement?

d) If any abatement will be required, will the VA provide the requisite Specification Sections and allow for enough time prior to the bid date to include this new trade and information?

PART II, RFI #1 Response:

a) Yes

b) Please see below, Reference RFI Responses, Part II RFI #3

c) That is correct if we don’t touch the flashing we don’t need to do any abatement

d) It is unknown if abatement will be needed at this time, however, after contract award if its determined it is needed, VA will provide these required abatement specifications via our VA A/E Team for any potential change order.

PART II, RFI # 2: Amendment 0003, RFI #3 asked the VA if the fall protection work for Building 32 should be excluded from the scope of work for this project. The VA response was that the Building 32 project would be completed on Oct. 3, 2025. This does not answer the question as to whether the work should be excluded form this project. Will the

VA clarify if the scope of work for Building 32 should be excluded since it is being performed under another contract?

PART II, RFI #2 Response: The fall protection work for building 32 will be included in the contract, the contractors walked the warehouse roof during the bid walk and are aware of the conditions.

PART II, RFI # 3: Amendment 0003, RFI #7 states that the VA will provide Material Testing, presumably under a separate contract. This is unusual from our experience. Will the VA confirm that they will engage a Material Testing Lab for this project and that this will not be a cost to the Contractor?

PART II, RFI #3 Response: If there is a material that is not listed in the 2012 asbestos report then the contractor will inform us. The VA currently has an environmental contract, and we can have them perform the testing. If there turns out to be asbestos, then the Contractor will perform the abatement per a contract modification.

PART II, RFI # 4: Amendment 0003, RFI #8 and RFI #30 asks if the Contractor’s Site Supt., if duly qualified, may also serve in the roles of SSHO and CQC. The VA response was to refer to Specification

Section 01 35 26 – Part 1.7. This Section requires the SSHO to be a separate individual but this does not answer the RFI question in regard to the CQC Manager. Will the VA clarify if the Contractor’s Site Supt., if duly qualified, may also serve in the role of CQC?

VA Responses to Requests for Information (RFI’s), PART II

Solicitation# 36C26125R0030

Project Title: Install Fall Protection, VA Fresno Medical Center

Project Number: 570- 21-109

PART II, RFI #4 Response: No, the site Superintendent can’t be the CQC. However, the SSHO can be the

CQC if qualifies.

PART II, RFI #5: Amendment 0003, RFI questions #20, #21, #22, & #23 were all requests for as-built drawings to determine the actual costs for work in various areas where full details were not provided. The VA response to all (4) RFI questions was to prepare our bids based solely on the current information provided. Will the VA clarify that in lieu of the information on as-built drawings, any work not explicitly depicted on the current drawings would then be considered a

“Differing Condition”?

PART II, RFI #5 Response: All vendors were offered a Pre-proposal site visit opportunity to walk the site, an opportunity for any RFIs and questions, and are responsible for reading and preparing any proposals based off documents and drawings provided in the solicitation.

No general prescriptive assumption should be made or will be presumed as what a “differing condition” is or defined as. Each situation and circumstance are different and provide different conditions outlined in the FAR for a differing site condition. The Contractor is responsible for providing a written notice to the Contracting

Officer of any differing site condition promptly upon discovery, then the Contracting Officer will investigate the differing site condition, IAW FAR 52.236-2.

Please note that any as-built drawings, even if they were provided or become available later, will need to be fully verified for accuracy by the contractor, and it is their full responsibility. Any additional work that is required to be performed in addition to the scope will need to follow the VA construction modification process and notification procedures for consideration and approval, as is normal with any other construction modification under the clauses 52.243-4 Changes and VAAR 852.243-70 Construction Contract Changes

Supplement (SEP 2019) when the time arises.

PART II, RFI #6 : Additional clarification in regards to RFI #14 in the RFIs posted with amendment 0003 on 4/18/25.

PART II, RFI #6 Response: VA is attaching drawings with Amendment 0005 titled: “570-20-109 Install

Fall Protection_ Plans_ASI # 0001” that will help clarify any additional questions related to RFI #14.

END OF RFI RESPONSES, PART II

SOLICITATION# 36C26125R0030

PROJECT NUMBER: 570- 21-109