S06 VA Response to RFIs Solicitation No. 36C26126Q1261.pdf

VA Response to RFIs for Solicitation

RFQ No. 36C26126Q1261 Re-slurry and Re-stripe Bldg. 88 and 98 Parking Lots

RFI # 1-The south lot ADA differs from what is show on the plans. Are we to put back as existing? Or are we to re layout the striping per plan? which would entail removing existing wheelstops and signage. And re installing new wheelstops and sign posts.

VA Response: The Reference Drawings display the intent of the new striping to meet VA Barrier Free compliance (https://www.cfm.va.gov/til/etc/dsBarrFree-2025-05.pdf), of which the existing striping may not meet. Specifically, for accessible parking spaces, 5 feet of access aisles are now required on each side of an accessible parking space. If existing striping does not meet this requirement, the Contractor must ensure the new striping, as well as wheel stop and signage, are installed appropriately. The SOW was written to ensure that the Contractor provided the VA with a striping plan that met these requirements so that the VA may approve the Contractor to proceed with new striping.

No structural modifications to curbs and walkways are requested other than new signage placement per VA102. Existing parking lot boundaries are to be maintained.

RFI # 2 - The existing "patient parking only" stencils are 8" tall. The detail calls for 12" tall stencils. 12' seems too big. Do we put back per plan or per existing?

VA Response: Drawings have been updated to show 8” tall stenciling where appropriate for proper fit of texts. See VA104.

RFI # 3 - Do we include repainting the existing painted curbs?

VA Response: Yes. Sheets VA101, VA102, and VA103 now show colored curbs and their callouts.

RFI # 4 - Again the site drawings do not reflect what is existing in all the lots. Do we include striping the basic crosswalks, compact stencils, 8' stop legends, 8' only legend, arrows etc.?

VA Response: Yes; the Statement of Work, Part 2. Scope of Work, Subpart A. requires the Contractor to capture these items in a survey and include these items in their striping plan, Part 2., Subpart C. and D, for VA approval. Existing markings to be included are now shown on the Reference Drawings.

RFI # 5 – Is Bid bond and Performance and Payment Bonds required?

VA Response: Yes they are required. Please see FAR 228-1.

RFI # 6 – RFP, Part A.4 – Statement of Work, Sub-part 1-F states that the work will occur Mon-Fri during normal working hours. During the Site Visit it was observed that these lots were nearly completely full on a typical weekday. Since premium time will be higher for nights and weekends, for estimating purposes will the VA confirm that this work will take place only during Mon-Fri during normal business hours? If work afterhours or around weekends will likely be preferrable, will the VA make that clear during the pre-offer phase as opposed to post-award?

VA Response: Statement of Work Part 1. General Intention, Subpart H allows the Contractor to close one entire parking lot at a time. Part 1, Subpart I provides the sequence of parking lot closures. Part 2. Scope of Work, Subpart E provides the general sequence of work.

RFI # 7 – To develop an estimated cost for temporary signage and barricades, does the VA have a preliminary plan for where the vehicles will be detoured to (alternate parking lots) during each parking lot closure?

VA Response: Sheet VA100 of the Reference Drawings shows the optional parking in front of VA Building 911 located at Palm Street and Dudley Boulevard.

RFI # 8 – If any vehicles remain unclaimed and left on a parking lot after the parking lot closure announcements, will the VA confirm that the VA will be responsible for the towing of those vehicles?

VA Response: Yes, confirmed that VA will have vehicles removed if VA’s notifications and Contractor’s approved signage and barriers do not work.

RFI # 9 – RFP, Part A.4 – Statement of Work, Sub-part 2-A requires the Contractor to “survey” the existing features of the three parking lots for this project. Will the VA confirm that the Contractor is required to hire a Registered Land Surveyor to perform this survey of the 3 parking lots, as per Specification Section 01 00 00, Part 1.14? If so, will the VA clarify the list of deliverables and drawings that will be required from the Surveyor?

VA Response: The surveyor is not required to be a Registered Land Surveyor.

Professional surveying services are not required, therefore 01 00 00 Part 1.14 does not apply. Follow the guidelines of the Statement of Work, Part 2, Subpart A.

RFI # 10 – RFP, Part A.4 – Statement of Work includes requirements for cleaning, crack sealing, slurry sealcoating, and restriping. No mention is made of any asphalt repairs. Will the VA confirm that any areas discovered that may need grade modifications or asphaltic concrete repairs will be treated as a “differing conditions”?

VA Response: Confirmed, any location requiring asphalt repair is to be treated as a differing condition and managed through the RFI process. However, existing grades that are out of compliance are to remain as the intent of the project is to reseal and restripe and not for correcting all deficiencies.

RFI # 11– RFP, Part A.4 – Statement of Work makes no mention of any existing or any new wheelstops. Will the VA confirm that there will be no work involving the removal, replacement, or installation of any new wheelstops for this project?

VA Response: Existing wheel stops are to be retained and reinstalled. Damaged wheel stops are to be replaced by the Contractor. (4) wheel stops are now called out to be replaced on the Reference Drawings.

RFI # 12 – Specification Section 32 17 23 – Pavement Markings contains no instructions or requirements for parking lot signage. Will the VA confirm that pavement markings will be required but no permanent parking lot signage is required for this project?

VA Response: Retain existing parking lot signage. VA103 now calls out (2) new signs and VA104 shows the signage required.

RFI # 13 – Specification Section 01 00 00, Part 1.7-J requires the Contractor to erect a temporary 6’ chain link fence around the entire parking lot under construction. Will the VA require this 6’ chain link fencing for each parking lot being renovated, or will a 4’ orange plastic barrier fencing be acceptable? If the chain link fencing will be required, will the VA also require the visual screening cloth material to be installed with the CL fencing?

VA Response: VA requires 6’ chain link fencing around parking lots under active construction as a deterrent and preventative measure so that unwanted access is not easily gained. The Contractor is liable, at all times, for their site security. VA is not responsible for incidences that occur on the Contractor’s site. The Contractor can always provide more stringent perimeters at no cost to the VA, but VA is opposed to reducing the chain link fencing requirement. Depending on the Contractor’s methods for preparing the surface, if dust is to be created then screens will be required.

RFI # 14 – Specification Section 01 00 00, Parts 1.30 & 1.31 requires the Contractor to construct painted & lettered wooden Construction & Safety Signs on 4x4 posts to be embedded in the ground for this project. Will the VA clarify if this will be a requirement for this project and if so, designate the location for the installation of these signs?

VA Response: These signs are required as a means to notify the public of the construction activity and the Contractor responsible. VA believes the best location for the signage will be near the parking lot entrance coming from Dudley Boulevard and Arnold Avenue. Contractor may suggest a different location in their Signage Plan submittal for VA consideration.

RFI # 15 – Specification Section 01 35 26, Part 1.9-A requires that the SSHO may have no other duties. With the scope of work in mind for this project, and to reduce the overall cost to the VA, will the VA clarify if the Contractor’s Site Superintendent, if duly qualified, may also serve in the dual role of Supt/SSHO for this project or will the VA require a separate individual to serve in the SSHO role?

VA Response: VA would accept the Superintendent to have collateral roles as the SSHO and QCM for this project.

RFI # 16 – Will the VA clarify whether the contractor’s Site Superintendent, if duly qualified, may also serve in the role of CQC or will the VA require a separate individual for the CQC role?

VA Response: VA would accept the Superintendent to have collateral roles as the SSHO and QCM for this project.

RFI # 17 – Could you please confirm whether this solicitation is set aside for Service- Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs)?

VA Response: Please read the solicitation as to who is eligible to quote on this solicitation.

RFI # 18 – The project title references “re-slurry,” while the SOW requires two sealcoat layers throughout and a third layer in drive aisles. Please confirm the required material, application rate, and whether a specific product is required.

VA Response: VA project titles are meant to be unique and may not always apply to a project in a literal sense. The project requires seal coating with the material requirements found in specification 32 12 16 and in VA response to RFI #24.

RFI # 19 - The Building 88 drawing identifies street-side stalls as “no asphalt resurfacing.” Should these stalls receive crack repairs and restriping only, with no sealcoat?

VA Response: Correct, this street is not a VA property to maintain with sealcoating, but the VA does maintain the striping. Repairing the cracks will allow for a surface to stripe.

RFI #20 – Bid guarantee amount and form Reference: SF1442 block 13b (offer guarantee "is" required); Instructions to Offerors 2.1, Quote Submission Instructions; Section 2.2, Bid Guarantee; Section E.10 (FAR 52.228-1 incorporated by reference).

Question: The RFQ requires a bid guarantee with the quote, but FAR 52.228-1 is incorporated by reference only, so the required amount is not stated anywhere in the

RFQ. Please state the required amount (a percentage of the quoted price or a dollar amount, and any maximum).

Please also confirm that a bid bond on Standard Form 24 is the required form, and whether a bid bond issued electronically by the surety, with a digital seal and an online verification number, is acceptable in place of a scan showing a raised seal.

VA Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The RFQ has been revised with FAR 52.228-1 in full text. Please see the revised RFQ dated 10-28-2026. Quoters are instructed to only use the RFQ dated 10-28-2026 in their submission. Quoters are advised that any quotes received using outdated solicitation documents will not be considered.

RFI #21 – Quote due time Reference: SF1442 block 13a (12:00 PST, 11-03-2026); Amendment 0001, page 3

("12:00 PM PDT").

Question: SF1442 block 13a gives 12:00 PST and Amendment 0001 gives 12:00 PM PDT for 3 November 2026. Daylight saving time ends on 1 November 2026. Please confirm that quotes are due by 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (local time) on Tuesday, 3 November 2026.

VA Response: Responses are due by 12:00PM Pacific Time on the required due date.

RFI #22 - Site visit information for offerors who did not attend Reference: Instructions to Offerors 2.1, Pre-Quote Site Visit ("This will be the only opportunity for potential offerors to visit the site"); SOW paragraph 1 ("Visits to the site by bidders may be made only by appointment with the Contracting Officer");

Amendment 0001 (sign-in roster only); SOW paragraph 3.

Question: Amendment 0001 provides only the 13 October sign-in roster. Will the VA publish any questions asked and answered at the visit, minutes, or photographs of the existing pavement (cracking, oil stains, existing markings, wheel stops and signs), so that all offerors price the same conditions?

The Instructions to Offerors state that the 13 October visit was the only opportunity to visit the site, while SOW paragraph 1 allows visits by appointment with the Contracting Officer. If no record will be issued, may an offeror that did not attend arrange a brief escorted visit by appointment before quotes are due?

VA Response: Potential quoters were highly encouraged to attend the one and only formal site visit. No potential quoter is allowed to visit the site outside of the formal site visit which has already been held. As instructed to all site visit attendees, no questions would be answered by the VA during the site visit and only questions submitted on the provided RFI form would be answered by solicitation amendment in order to provide fair competition. There will not be any additional site visits until after award with the awardee and COR.

RFI #23 – Performance period and weather Reference: SF1442 block 11 (90 calendar days after NTP, mandatory); Instructions to Offerors paragraph 10 (Notice to Proceed); PCRA and ILSM item 1.8.1 (phases 16 November to 7 December 2026); Specification 32 17 23, 1.8.A.1.a; Specification 32 12 16, 3.1 and 3.2.A; Section C.20 (FAR 52.212-4, paragraph (f)).

Question: With quotes due 3 November and bonds due within 10 days of award, the 90-day period would run through the Sacramento winter. The sealer and the marking paint need dry pavement and temperatures at or above their minimums (32 17 23 requires 50 degrees F surface and ambient).

Please state the anticipated NTP date, and whether the VA will schedule the NTP, or allow the field work to be scheduled, for a dry-weather window. FAR 52.212-4(f) excuses only unusually severe weather. Please also state whether the VA will extend the 90 days, or suspend the work, for days on which normal seasonal rain or temperatures below the manufacturer's minimums prevent sealing or striping.

VA Response: The period of performance (PoP) has been extended to a 190-calendar day PoP. Please see the revised solicitation.

RFI #24– Surface treatment: slurry seal or sealcoat, and application rate Reference: SF1442 block 10a and project title ("Re-slurry"); SOW paragraph 2 (two layers of sealcoat throughout, a third layer in drive aisles); Specification 32 12 16, 1.1, 2.1.A, 2.2.A, 3.1, 3.2.A and 3.2.D; PCRA item 4.8.

Question: The title calls for a re-slurry; the SOW and 32 12 16, 2.2 describe a fibrated asphalt-base sealer (sealcoat); 32 12 16, 1.1 describes hot asphalt concrete paving. No application rate is given; 3.2.A defers to the manufacturer's recommendations. Please confirm:

(a) the surface treatment is an asphalt-emulsion pavement sealer (sealcoat), not an aggregate slurry seal (ISSA A105 or Caltrans Section 37 type);

(b) the minimum application rate per coat (gallons per square yard) and the maximum dilution, or that the sealer manufacturer's published rate and dilution are acceptable;

(c) whether sand or aggregate must be added to the sealer, and at what rate;

(d) which state highway specification, and which edition, 32 12 16, 2.1.A and 3.1 refer to (we assume the current Caltrans Standard Specifications); and

(e) whether the squeegee-applied first coat in 3.2.D is required, or spray application of all coats is acceptable.

VA Response: VA specification sections that do not apply to the project, such as those mentioning hot-asphalt mixture, do not apply to this project. VA does not recommend removing whole sections, so they are left in to maintain the structure of the specification.

a. Caltrans section 37 Seal Coats allow for 3/8-inch aggregate for seal coats.

b. Minimum application rate of 0.25 gallons per square yard of emulsion with a maximum dilution of 10% by volume, or as recommended by the manufacturer.

Whichever is more stringent.

c. 3/8-inch aggregate at 100 lb per square yard.

d. Correct, use the latest version of the Caltrans Standard Specifications.

e. Squeegee application is required for the first coat.

RFI #25 – Third coat in drive aisles: area Reference: SOW paragraph 2 (area list and sequence of work); Drawings VA101, VA102 and VA103.

Question: The SOW requires a third coat in the drive aisles but gives only the total area of each lot, and the plan sheets have no legend separating drive aisles from stalls. (The lot areas we measured from VA101 to VA103 agree with the SOW figures.)

Please state the drive-aisle area for each lot, or confirm that "drive aisle" means all paved area outside the striped stall limits, including the entrance drives. Please also confirm that the third coat does not apply to the street parking (1,440 SF) or the crosswalk (780 SF).

VA Response: Confirmed, driving aisles exclude parking spaces, striped no parking spaces, and the street between buildings 98 and 88 (except when it transitions into building 88’s parking lot), but includes entrance drive aisles, except where masonry exists such as shown on VA102.

RFI #26– Building 88 street parking (1,440 SF): sealcoat or not Reference: SOW paragraph 2 ("Additional Street Parking - 1,440 square feet"); Drawing VA101, note at the street stalls.

Question: The SOW lists 1,440 SF of street parking as a project work area. Drawing VA101 marks the same stalls "NO ASPHALT RESURFACING THESE STALLS, REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING, REPAIR ASPHALT CRACKS AND REPLACE WITH

NEW BORDER STRIPING."

Please confirm whether these stalls receive sealcoat, or only striping removal, crack repair and new border striping. Please also confirm what "repair asphalt cracks" requires here (crack sealing, or cutting and patching).

VA Response: Per RFI #19, this street is not a VA property to maintain with sealcoating, but the VA does maintain the striping for patient safety. Repairing the cracks will allow for a prepared surface to stripe.

RFI #27 – Crosswalk (780 SF) Reference: SOW paragraph 2 ("Additional Crosswalk feature - 780 square feet");

Drawings VA100, VA101 (callout 7/VA105) and VA102; Detail 7/VA105; ILSM item 3.2 (fire hydrants along the public right-of-way); PCRA item 8.1 (MUTCD when working in roadways).

Question: (a) Is the 780 SF crosswalk area to be sealcoated before striping, or is it re-striping only?

(b) Detail 7 shows 2-foot bars with 1-foot gaps (about 24 bars across the 70-foot crossing), but VA100, VA101 and VA102 draw 18 bars, each 2 feet wide, at 4-foot centers. Please confirm which governs, and the bar color (white or yellow), which Detail 7 does not give.

(c) The crosswalk crosses the drive between the Building 98 North lot and the Building 88 street parking, outside the three lots. Are that drive and the Building 88 street parking VA property, or is a permit or traffic control plan from McClellan Park or Sacramento County needed? May the drive be closed briefly for the crosswalk work, and should that work be done in Phase I (Building 88) or Phase II (Building 98 North)?

VA Response:

a. Repair and restripe, no seal coating is required for this crosswalk.

b. 2’ wide and 1’ gaps govern using white. The Reference Drawings are not precise and are for reference, only.

c. Temporary closure will be coordinated with the COR. McClellan Park and

Sacramento County are not involved with this project. Perform the work during Phase II Building 98 North Lot.

RFI #28– Crack sealing: extent, product and method Reference: SOW paragraph 2 ("fill cracks with sealant"); Drawing VA101 note ("repair asphalt cracks"); Specification 32 12 16 (no crack sealant requirements); Specification 01 00 00, 1.13.

Question: No crack quantity, width criteria or crack sealant product is specified. Please provide:

(a) the estimated linear feet of cracks to be sealed in each lot, or a unit-price basis for crack sealing;

(b) the crack width range to be sealed, and how cracks wider than about 1 inch and areas of alligator (fatigue) cracking are to be treated;

(c) the required sealant (for example, hot-applied rubberized sealant to ASTM D6690, or a cold-applied emulsion); and

(d) whether routing, and cleaning with hot compressed air, are required.

VA Response:

a. Apply a 30% estimate based on surface area for each lot in bids. The Contractor’s survey will show the existing cracks to be repaired. The Contractor’s survey will confirm if the 30% estimate is adequate.

b. Should 1-inch and wider cracks and alligators exist then continue seal coat per the scope and VA will perform spot corrections of the structural base at a later project.

c. See VA’s response to RFI #24.

d. For cracks larger than ¼-inch, routing and hot compressed air cleaning is required. This is not a requirement for cracks ¼-inch and smaller.

RFI #29– Asphalt patching, concrete and drainage work Reference: Specification 32 12 16, 1.1, 1.4 and 3.2.C; SOW paragraph 4 (as-built drawings "including pavement repairs, concrete work, and drainage features if applicable"); SOW paragraph 5 (warranty of asphalt, concrete and slurry seal); Drawing VA103 (concrete patch at two sign-post holes).

Question: The drawings show no patching, concrete or drainage work other than filling two sign-post holes on VA103, but 32 12 16 describes hot asphalt concrete paving, grade control and new patches, and the SOW refers to pavement repairs, concrete work and drainage features.

Please confirm that no asphalt patching, base repair, grading, concrete or drainage work is included. If failed pavement is found, will repairs be handled by change order, or should offerors include a unit price per square foot for patching?

VA Response: No asphalt patching, base repair, grading, concrete, or drainage correction work is included in this project. If failures found are not salvageable with seal coating per this project then VA will correct these failures at a later project.

RFI #30 – Oil spot treatment Reference: SOW paragraph 2 ("clean the surface, including removing oil spots");

Specification 32 12 16, 3.2.A; Specification 32 17 23, 3.1.C.4.

Question: (a) Please provide the approximate number or area of oil-stained spots in each lot.

(b) 32 12 16, 3.2.A requires surface preparation in accordance with the sealer manufacturer's recommendations, and 32 17 23, 3.1.C.4 calls for degreasing and sealing oil-soaked areas with cut shellac before marking. Please confirm that cleaning and priming oil spots with the sealer manufacturer's oil-spot primer meets the requirement, or state whether oil-saturated asphalt must be cut out and patched.

(c) If cutting out and patching is required, please give the quantity to include, or confirm that it will be handled as a change.

VA Response:

a. Assume 20% of the parking lot surface are needing oil spot treatment.

Contractor’s survey will need to include the actual amount and see if the default 20% is adequate.

b. Cleaning and priming oil spots with cut shellac per 32 17 23, 3.1, C.4.a is acceptable.

c. Cutting out and patching is not required.

RFI #31 – Existing striping removal method Reference: SOW paragraph 2 ("remove all existing striping to expose the asphalt");

Specification 32 17 23, 3.1.C.2 and 3.1.C.3.

Question: The SOW requires all existing striping to be removed to expose the asphalt.

32 17 23 allows removal by scraping, wire brushing, sandblasting, mechanical abrasion or chemicals as directed by the COR, or covering with black paint. The lots will then receive two or three coats of sealer. Please confirm:

(a) whether existing markings must be physically removed before sealing, or may be covered by the sealcoat after preparation in accordance with the sealer manufacturer's instructions;

(b) if removal is required, which methods are acceptable (grinding, water blasting or shot blasting), and whether grinding scars are acceptable under the sealcoat; and

(c) whether any thermoplastic markings, raised pavement markers or painted curbs are present and are to be removed.

VA Response:

a. Bleed-through of existing markings has been an ongoing issue across VA Northern California campuses; causing confusion for both staff and patients when parking. VA allows the Contractor to use their expert judgement for developing their means and methods within allowable parameters to accomplish the end goal of having a finished product where existing markings never bleed through.

b. All methods mentioned in 32 17 23, 3.1, C.2 are acceptable. The Contractor must use their expert judgement to ensure the work is performed correctly so that the final product is acceptable to the VA.

c. No thermoplastic markings or raised pavement markers are present. Reference drawings have been revised to show painted curbs to be repainted.

RFI #32 – Lot closure duration, weekend work and inspections Reference: SOW paragraph 1 (one lot at a time, sequence VA101, VA102, VA103; off-hours work by written request three working days in advance); SOW paragraph 2 (VA inspection of surface preparation and chalk layout); Specification 01 00 00, 1.7.H;

PCRA and ILSM item 1.8.1 (five days per phase).

Question: (a) What is the maximum number of consecutive calendar days each lot may remain closed? The PCRA and ILSM show five days per phase.

(b) Will the VA consider weekend or holiday work, when the clinics are closed, so that each lot can be closed with less impact on patients?

(c) How much notice does the COR need for the surface-preparation and chalk-layout inspections, and can each inspection be made on the day requested?

VA Response:

a. The current plan is that each lot will remain closed for up to 30 consecutive days, one at a time. PCRA and ILSM will be updated once the Contractor has an approved schedule.

b. The Contractor may include premium costs for weekend work in their bid and if awarded the contract then VA will attempt to accommodate weekend work depending on the Contractor’s submitted schedule.

c. Three (3) calendar days’ notice is a standard requirement, unless noted otherwise. COR is not stationed at McClellan but is stationed at Mather, so inspections requested for the day of the request must not be expected by the Contractor.

RFI #33 – Patient and accessible parking during closures Reference: SOW paragraph 1 (closure signage and detours); Drawing VA100 note (option to park at Building 911); ILSM item 1.7 (pedestrian access to remain open);

Drawings VA101, VA102 and VA103.

Question: Each lot contains accessible stalls (VA101: 3; VA102: 6; VA103: 12 plus 2 van-accessible).

(a) While a lot is closed, must the contractor provide temporary accessible stalls elsewhere (for example, in an open lot or at Building 911), or will the VA arrange alternate accessible parking?

(b) Beyond the closure signage at each lot entrance, is the contractor responsible for any signage, marking or attendants at Building 911?

(c) Must the patient drop-off at the Building 98 entrance remain open during Phases II and III, and if so, where?

(d) Before each closure, will the VA clear the lot of all vehicles, including staff and Government vehicles, and remove any vehicle left in a closed lot? If the contractor must arrange this, please state the procedure and who authorizes towing.

VA Response:

a. Existing accessible parking will be on a first come first served basis. Contractor is not required to provide temporary accessible parking elsewhere.

b. No, Contractor is not responsible for attending to or signage at building 911’s parking lot.

c. Patient drop-off must also be closed with their respective parking lot closure during construction.

d. VA will be responsible for removing vehicles that have not relocated after VA notifications and Contractor’s signage does not work.

RFI #34 – Construction fence or barriers Reference: SOW paragraphs 1 and 2 (signage and barriers at each entry and exit point); Specification 01 00 00, 1.7.J (six-foot chain-link construction fence around the construction area); ILSM item 3.2.

Question: The SOW and the ILSM call for signage and barriers at the lot entrances that can be moved for emergency access. 01 00 00, 1.7.J requires a six-foot chain-link fence around the construction area.

Please confirm that signage and barricades at each entry and exit, as shown on the approved Signage and Barrier Plan, meet the requirement, and that a chain-link fence around each lot is not required.

VA Response: Chain link fencing serves to deter unwanted access to Contractor’s construction site and fencing is the minimum VA is requiring. Lots will be closed one at a time, so it will only be the perimeter of one lot at a time. The Contractor is liable for all incidences on their site, even after hours.

RFI #35 – Staging, crew parking and water Reference: SOW paragraph 1 (no staging areas; no contractor parking in patient parking); Specification 01 00 00, 1.7.D, 1.21.F and 1.27.

Question: (a) During each closure, may the closed lot be used to stage the sealer tank and equipment, a debris container and crew vehicles?

(b) Where else may crew vehicles and equipment be parked or staged, given that 1.27 states no on-site parking is available to the contractor?

(c) Please identify the water connection point near each lot that the contractor may use

(with a reduced-pressure backflow preventer, per 1.21.F) for mixing sealer and for cleaning.

VA Response:

(a) Yes, during parking lot closure the parking lot is essentially the property of the Contractor, including security of that site.

(b) Building 911 parking lot is available for parking and staging. For staging, please request an amount of space for consideration through the COR.

(c) Contractor may submit a formal request for utility usage for consideration through the COR after contract award.

RFI #36 – Accessibility standard, stall dimensions and colors Reference: SOW paragraph 2 (striping plan to confirm minimum stall and access aisle widths; contractor responsible for compliance with applicable codes and standards);

Drawings VA101, VA102 and VA103; Details 1, 2, 3 and 4/VA105; ABA Standards

208.2 and 208.2.4.

Question: Detail 1 and the plan sheets show accessible stalls at 8 feet minimum and van stalls at 11 feet minimum, with 5-foot access aisles, and Detail 4 shows white aisle borders with hatching "blue or white preferred." These follow the federal (ABA/ADA) dimensions. California Building Code Chapter 11B requires 9-foot accessible stalls, 12-foot van stalls (or 9 feet with an 8-foot aisle) and blue aisle borders. Please confirm:

(a) which standard governs the striping plan;

(b) the color of the aisle borders and the hatching;

(c) if the survey shows that the layout on VA101 to VA103 cannot meet the minimum widths, whether the number and location of accessible stalls shown govern, or the minimum widths govern with a reduced total stall count; and

(d) VA101 shows 3 accessible stalls and VA102 shows 6, with no van-accessible stall in either lot (VA103 shows 2). ABA 208.2.4 requires at least one van-accessible space for every six accessible spaces, counted for each parking facility. Is a van-accessible stall to be added in VA101 and in VA102, and if so, where?

VA Response:

a. VA Barrier Free Design Manual governs accessible parking requirements:

https://www.cfm.va.gov/til/etc/dsBarrFree-2025-05.pdf

b. White is preferred for hatching. Color borders have been updated to show white except at ADA stalls where blue borders are desired.

c. Minimum widths for accessible parking govern over the number of parking stalls.

Non-accessible parking may be reduced, if needed, to maintain the number of spaces.

d. To be compliant, non-accessible parking may be converted to accessible parking, and existing accessible parking may be converted to van accessible parking. Keep accessible parking in the same location and grouped together, otherwise, Contractor is free to determine the best layout for the existing dimensions.

https://www.cfm.va.gov/til/etc/dsBarrFree-2025-05.pdf

RFI #37 – Accessible parking signs and wheel stops Reference: Drawing VA103 notes (remove two existing metal sign posts; remove three wheel stops, retain two and reinstall them per Detail 8/VA105); Drawings VA101 to VA105; SOW paragraph 2.

Question: (a) VA103 removes two existing sign posts at the van-accessible stalls, and no accessible parking signs are shown on any sheet. Are new or relocated accessible parking signs (accessible symbol, van-accessible and tow-away signs) and posts included? If so, please provide the sign types, quantities, locations and post and footing details. If not, please confirm that the existing signs at VA101 and VA102 remain as they are.

(b) Are there other existing wheel stops in any of the lots that must be removed and reset for sealing, and are any new wheel stops required?

VA Response:

a. Contractor to provide two new signs that are compliant with the latest California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Contractor must remove the two existing signs and repair the concrete to match the level of the existing walkway. Signage and footing details are shown in Detail 7 and 8, respectively, on sheet VA104.

b. VA is not expecting wheel stops to be removed for seal coating purposes. (1) wheel stop on sheet VA101, (1) wheel stop on sheet VA102, and (2) wheel stops on VA103 are now called out for replacement.

RFI #38 – Curb painting, arrows and other markings Reference: SOW paragraph 2 (survey of crosswalks, directional arrows, texts and "no stopping" zones); Specification 32 17 23, 3.5.A.2 ("on curbs"); Drawings VA101, VA102 and VA103; Details 5 and 6/VA105.

Question: The drawings show stall lines, "PATIENT PARKING ONLY," accessible symbols, "NO PARKING," no-stopping hatching and the crosswalk, but no directional arrows, curb painting or fire-lane markings.

Please confirm whether existing arrows, text and curb painting (red or blue curbs) found in the survey are to be replaced. If curb painting is included, please give the linear feet and colors.

VA Response: VA confirms all marking are to be included, including painted curbs.

Reference Drawings are now updated to show colored curbs, their callouts, and other necessary markings.

RFI #39 – Pavement marking paint: VOC requirements Reference: Specification 32 17 23, 2.2.A.1 (VOC limits in Section 01 81 13);

Specification Table of Contents, Section 00 01 10.

Question: Section 01 81 13, Sustainable Construction Requirements, is cited for VOC limits but is not included in the specifications. Please provide it, or confirm that marking paint meeting the local air district's VOC limit for traffic marking coatings is acceptable.

VA Response: VA confirms that marking paint meeting the local air district’s VOC limit for traffic marking coatings is acceptable.

RFI #40 – Survey, striping plan and as-built requirements Reference: SOW paragraph 2 (survey report and striping plan); SOW paragraph 4 (as-built drawings); Specification 01 00 00, 1.4, 1.14 and 1.16 ("As-Built Drawings (Not Applicable)"); Specification 02 21 13, 1.4 and 3.4.A; Attachment - Pricing Breakdown, item 01.I.

Question: (a) Must the existing-features survey be performed by a California licensed land surveyor or civil engineer (01 00 00, 1.14), or may the contractor's own staff measure the lots, since 02 21 13, 1.4 is marked "Not Applicable"?

(b) Must the striping plan be stamped by an engineer?

(c) Will the VA provide the AutoCAD files of the Reference Drawings for use as the survey base (01 00 00, 1.4)?

(d) SOW paragraph 4 requires as-built drawings at closeout, although 01 00 00, 1.16 marks them "Not Applicable." Please confirm that the approved striping plan, updated to the final conditions, satisfies the as-built requirement.

VA Response:

a. No, VA is not requiring a CA licensed surveyor or civil engineer as this is not a true survey for land use purposes. Your staff must ensure striping is captured and laid out so that stalls have a ±1” tolerance for width and length.

b. No, VA is not requiring stamped plans for this project.

c. VA can provide the CAD files for the winning Contractor, however, these files are generic and not meant to be used as a basis for the Contractor’s survey. CAD file is not within the ±1” tolerance.

d. VA is not requiring as-builts for this project. Contractor’s approved striping plan will suffice as a record document once VA approves the final product.

RFI #41 – Reference Drawings: completeness of the set Reference: ATTACHMENT Reference Drawings revised 09-02-26 (sheets VA100, VA101, VA102, VA103 and VA105).

Question: The set skips from VA103 to VA105, and the title blocks carry no revision entries for the 09-02-26 revision (VA103 shows a revision cloud at the van-accessible stalls, with no revision entry). Please confirm whether a sheet VA104 exists and is part of the contract documents, and that VA100 to VA103 and VA105 are the complete current set.

VA Response: That is an error on VA’s part. Sheet VA105 has been updated to sheet VA104. There is no sheet VA105 with this correction.

RFI #42 – Site Safety and Health Officer Reference: Specification 01 35 26, 1.9.A, 1.9.C, 1.10.B and 1.11.B; ILSM item 9.3.

Question: 01 35 26 requires a full-time SSHO with no other duties, separate from the superintendent, and a monthly site inspection by an outside CSP or CHST. ILSM item

9.3 already names the Construction Superintendent as responsible for daily hazard surveillance. For a short exterior sealing and striping project, will the VA accept the superintendent, holding the OSHA 30-hour course and the required experience, as the SSHO on a collateral-duty basis? Will the monthly outside inspection apply to a project of this duration?

VA Response: VA will accept the Superintendent to have collateral duties as the SSHO and QCM. VA regularly inspects sites, weekly. Superintendent is not required to attend, but they may attend, as COR will provide notification of any safety deficiencies found.

RFI #43 – Background investigations and badges Reference: Instructions to Offerors paragraph 12 (Low Risk investigation, cost borne by the contractor); Section C.18, VAAR 852.204-72 (Tier 1, all positions); Section C.21, VAAR 852.204-70.

Question: For crew members and subcontractor personnel who will be on site for only a few days of exterior work, will the VA accept escorted access or temporary contractor badges in place of Tier 1 investigations and PIV cards? If an investigation is required for every worker, please state the current cost per person and the typical processing time, so that both can be included in the price and the schedule.

VA Response: VA will accept an escort or temporary contractor badges given the work is exterior and there is no contact with patient care services.

RFI #44 – ProCore access Reference: SOW paragraph 2 ("Awardee will utilize ProCore for their submittals and RFIs").

Question: Will the VA provide the awardee access to the VA's ProCore project at no cost, or must the contractor purchase its own ProCore license?

VA Response: The Contractor must provide Procore for the project and give VA access to review and respond to items.

RFI #45 – Hatch spacing and accessible aisle borders Reference: Detail sheet VA105, details 4 and 5 ("3' MAX O.C."); plan sheets VA102 and

VA103.

Question: (a) Details 4 and 5 call for the 45-degree hatch at 3 ft maximum on center, while the plans draw the hatch about 3.75 ft apart measured along the stall edge (about

2.65 ft measured square to the lines). Please confirm whether the 3 ft spacing is measured square to the hatch lines or along the edge of the aisle, so that the hatch quantity is priced the same way by all offerors.

(b) The plans draw the accessible aisle borders as closed rectangles, while details 4 and 5 show a border open at one end. Please confirm which governs.

VA Response:

a. Plans are for reference only. Use Detail 4 and 5 dimensions showing 3’ max offset (square) space from hatch lines.

b. Break lines are now added to Details 4/VA104 and 5/VA104; a closed polygon is required.

-------------------------------------END OF VA Responses to RFIs-------------------------------------