36C26126Q1297 RFI Question and Responses.docx

36C26126Q1297 RFIs Question / Responses Remediate Old Parking Garage RFI #1 – Factor II: A/E subcontractor personnel and dual-role staffing Reference: Section M, Factors II and IV; Key Personnel Evaluation attachment; PWS §1.3.

Question: Factor II states that the Architect and Civil Engineer must be employees of the prime contractor or commit to becoming prime employees before award, while the solicitation contemplates A/E subcontractors. May these two key personnel remain employed by the proposed A/E subcontractor and be supported by commitment letters from that firm? Separately, may one qualified individual serve in more than one key personnel position (for example, Project Superintendent and Safety Officer), provided a separate Key Personnel Evaluation form is submitted for each position?

RESPONSE :

- Yes, one qualified individual may serve in more than one key personnel position provided a separate Key Personnel Evaluation is submitted for each position.

RFI #2 – Architect position: Registered Architect (RA) requirement Reference: Section M, Factor II, Architect position; Key Personnel Evaluation attachment, “Professional Registration (if any)”; PWS §2.3.

Question: Is an active Registered Architect (RA) license a mandatory qualification for the Architect key personnel position under Factor II, or may a qualified candidate without RA registration be accepted based on experience? If RA registration is required, must the individual be registered in Nevada when the Phase 1 proposal is submitted, before award, or only before performing any work requiring a Nevada architect's seal?

RESPONSE :

· A current Licensed Registered Architect is a mandatory qualification for the Architect key personnel position under Factor II. However, the individual does not have to be registered in Nevada but in any of the States of the U.S.

RFI #3 – Civil Engineer position: Professional Engineer (PE) requirement Reference: Section M, Factor II, Civil Engineer position; Key Personnel Evaluation attachment, “Professional Registration (if any)”; PWS §2.3 (PE-stamped plans).

Question: Is an active Professional Engineer (PE) license a mandatory qualification for the Civil Engineer key personnel position under Factor II, separate from the requirement that final design documents be PE-stamped? If required, must that individual hold Nevada PE registration at Phase 1 submission, before award, or before stamping the design? Please also confirm whether a Nevada-licensed Structural Engineer (SE/PE) is acceptable for the Civil Engineer key personnel position.

RESPONSE :

· A current Licensed Professional Engineer is a mandatory qualification for the Civil Engineer key personnel position under Factor II. However, the individual does not have to be registered in Nevada but in any of the States of the U.S.

· A Nevada licensed Structural Engineer is acceptable for the Civil Engineer key personnel position.

RFI #4 – Factor IV: A/E specialized-experience eligibility and project value Reference: Section M, Factor IV – Specialized Experience; Instructions to Offerors, Phase 1.

Question: Where the prime contractor relies on one or two A/E design projects under Factor IV, does the $1 million minimum refer to the total construction/design-build project value or the A/E design fee? May an A/E submit a design project performed as a subcontractor? Does a completed design assignment qualify when construction of the overall project is still ongoing?

RESPONSE :

- The $1 million minimum refers to the total construction Design Build or for a Design-Bid-Build value.

- Projects must demonstrate an offeror’s experience as a prime contractor managing multiple subcontractors to include A-E firms if applicable.

- If the overall project is still ongoing and construction is more than 20% complete, and overall project is valued at more than $1 million, then it would qualify as a completed design assignment.

RFI #5 – Factor V: CPARS versus completed client PPQs Reference: Section M, Factor V – Past Performance; Factor IV – Specialized Experience.

Question: Factor V directs offerors to submit a completed CPARS evaluation for each project “under Factor 4.” Please clarify whether CPARS are required for the Factor IV specialized-experience projects, the three Factor V past-performance projects, or both. When CPARS are unavailable for completed A/E design projects, may the A/E submit previously completed or newly completed client-signed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), such as a NAVFAC/USACE PPQ, or client reference letters instead? If PPQs are acceptable, please specify any required form and whether they should accompany the proposal or be sent directly by the evaluator.

RESPONSE :

· CPARS is required for three similar projects under Factor IV. Similar projects can be specialized-experience projects.

· Yes, in the absence and in lieu of CPARS, PPQs may be submitted.

· PPQs shall come from VA or from any other US Federal agency.

RFI #6 – Applicability of A/E special provisions and design-review stages Reference: PWS §§2.2–2.3; Design-Build Special Provisions SP-1 through SP-33; Section M, Factor I.

Question: Several A/E special provisions appear to describe a separate Government-contracted A/E agreement and multiple design review stages. Please confirm which of these provisions apply to the design-build contractor under this solicitation and whether the PWS requirement for a PE-stamped design package within 30 days of NTP governs the design submission sequence. If additional Government review stages are required, please identify them for the Phase 1 design approach and schedule.

RESPONSE :

· There is no separate Government contracted A/E agreement and multiple design review stages. The PWS requirement for a PE-stamped design package will be gate reviewed by the Government within 30 days of NTP. NTP governs the design submission sequence (see 4.2.4 and 4.2.4.5. of the PWS)

RFI #7 – Existing-condition documentation and common repair-quantity basis Reference: PWS §§1.2, 2.1 and 5.1; CLIN 0001; drawing notes S-001 and sheets S-100/S-100.1.

Question: Repair quantities are to be established through the post-award condition investigation, but CLIN 0001 is lump sum and the bridging drawings do not provide measurable quantities for all repair types. Please provide any available garage structural evaluation report and complete structural as-builts referenced in the bridging drawings (including Project 654-308 sheets where available). If quantities remain unknown before Phase 2 pricing, will the VA establish common base quantities or unit-price/adjustment provisions for concealed deterioration and repairs beyond the base scope?

RESPONSE:

· As-built drawings from 2006 will be made available.

· This is a Design Build project and measurable quantities for all repair types are to be determined by the Offeror prior to bidding. In Phase 2, Price and its detailed breakdown (see 3.g of the Instruction to Offerors, page 21 of 95 of the Solicitation) plus Factor 2, Technical Solution, will be taken into consideration in the award of the project.

· Also, there is a scheduled site visit for the Offeror to be fully familiarized with the project. Offerors who have been selected for phase II are highly encouraged to come to the site visit so that Offeror will be able to provide a detailed breakdown of their cost.

· Any unit-price/adjustment provisions for future concealed deterioration and repairs beyond the base scope will be treated separately and subject to the CO’s approval.

RFI #8 – Second-floor traffic coating: full replacement or localized repairs Reference: PWS §2.4.6; S-100.1 keynote 7; S-102 Upper Deck Concrete and Coating.

Question: PWS §2.4.6 calls for removal of the existing traffic coating and installation of a new vehicular traffic coating across the entire second-floor parking area, while the bridging drawings identify localized coating repair locations. Please confirm whether full-area replacement is required, including ramps and landings, and identify the coating performance/specification basis bidders should use.

RESPONSE :

· Follow 2.4.6. of the PWS: Traffic Coating Restoration and Striping Remove deteriorated traffic coating, prepare deck surfaces and install new vehicular traffic coating over entire second floor parking area to restore waterproofing protection. Paint and re-stripe second floor parking lot.See attached Specification for Pedestrian Traffic Coatings (Section 07 18 13)

RFI #9 – Maintaining garage operations during repairs Reference: PWS §§2.5 and 2.7; Section M, Factor III – Schedule Phasing Management.

Question: For Phase 1 schedule phasing, please confirm whether the parking garage must remain open 24 hours per day, whether the upper level may be fully closed during deck coating work, and whether there are limits on the number of stalls or bays that can be closed at one time. Please also identify essential access that must remain open and whether night/weekend work is required or merely permitted.

RESPONSE :

Response Only : Factor III, Schedule/Phasing will be removed from the Phase 1 requirements and will instead become a requirement in Phase 2.

RFI #10 – Opportunity for additional RFIs after the Phase 2 site visit Reference: Amendment 0002 (Phase 2 site visit on December 2, 2026); Instructions to Offerors – Technical Questions/Requests for Information (October 28, 2026 deadline).

Question: The October 28 RFI deadline occurs before the December 2 Phase 2 site visit. Will the VA allow an additional period for written technical RFIs following the site visit to address conditions or scope questions identified during the inspection? If so, please confirm the submission deadline and whether responses will be issued by solicitation amendment before Phase 2 quotes are due.

RESPONSE :

· A second RFI date will be established in Phase II.

RFI #11 – Period of performance: design review and construction NTP Reference: SF-1442, Blocks 10.a and 11; PWS §§2.3 and 2.14; Section M, Factor III – Schedule/Phasing.

Question: For purposes of the Phase 1 schedule, please confirm whether the 210-calendar-day period of performance includes Government design review and approval, or whether the 180-day construction period begins only after the design is accepted and a separate construction Notice to Proceed is issued. If Government review time is included in the 210 days, please identify the review duration offerors should allow.

RESPONSE :

· The 210-calendar day period of performance includes design and construction. This is a Design and Build, and the Government will do a gate review to approve the design. The expectation is that the Contractor will be able to finish the design quickly and have it approved by the Government within the 30-design period. Note, however, that the Contractor is responsible for the validity of the design but shall have a licensed PE stamp and sign over the design construction plans.

RFI #12 – Slab-edge metal closures and flashings: full or selective removal Reference: PWS §2.4.2; Drawing S-100.1, keynote 1; Drawing S-101, Deck Edge Corrosion repair procedure.

Question: PWS §2.4.2 requires removal of all metal edges and flashings for consistency, whereas Drawing S-100.1 calls for cutting and removing the deck-edge metal closure where severe deterioration occurs. Please clarify whether removal is required around the full slab perimeter or only at deteriorated locations. Where metal closures and flashings are removed, must they be replaced as part of the base scope?

RESPONSE :

· Follow 2.4.2. of the PWS: Slab Edge Repairs Remove all metal edges and flashings for consistency. Repair deteriorated slab edges by removing damaged concrete and metal edge closures; Restore reinforcing steel, reconstruct edges with structural repair mortar, and apply protective coatings.

RFI #13 – Severely corroded metal deck: replacement or structural reinforcement Reference: PWS §2.4.4; Drawing S-100.1, keynote 3; Drawing S-101, Metal Deck at Underside repair procedure; existing framing drawing 13-S2.2.

Question: PWS §2.4.4 and Drawing S-101 direct removal of severely corroded metal deck sections but do not clearly state whether removed decking must be replaced or the affected slab structurally reinforced. Please confirm the intended repair scope and whether deck replacement or other engineered structural strengthening should be included in the base price.

RESPONSE :

· The replacement of the decking and/or the reinforcement of the affected slab is at the discretion of the designer (PE or EOR) that the Contractor will use for this project.

RFI #14 – Bid Guarantee: Timing and Amount (Section 2.1, Bid Guarantee; Instructions to Offerors, para. 3.h). Section 2.1 states that a bid guarantee “must be submitted in a form of bid bond by the quote submission due date and time,” while Instructions to Offerors para. 3.h states “Bid bonds are not due until Phase 2.” Please confirm whether the bid guarantee is required with the Phase 1 submission (due 11/20/2026) or only with the Phase 2 price submission, and state the required bid guarantee amount or percentage of the bid price.

RESPONSE :

· CO/CS to respond to this. However, we respectfully suggest the following response to the second question, as follows:

- A Letter of Intent from a Surety Company to provide Bonds to the offeror is required for Phase 1 while Bid Bonds are required for Phase 2.

RFI #15 – Nevada Contractor Licensing and PE Registration (not addressed in the solicitation; PWS Scope para. 2.3). This work is federally funded and will be performed on the VA Sierra Nevada HCS campus (federal property). Please confirm whether a Nevada State Contractors Board (NSCB) license is required (a) to submit a quote, or (b) to perform the work, for the prime contractor and/or its subcontractors. In addition, PWS para. 2.3 requires construction plans to be signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer. Must the Engineer of Record be registered in the State of Nevada, or is a PE license from another U.S. state acceptable?

RESPONSE :

· A Nevada State Contractors Board License is not required.

· Construction plans must be signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer. The Engineer of Record does not have to be registered in the State of Nevada, and a PE license from another U.S. state is acceptable.

RFI #16 – Existing Condition Data and Quantities (PWS paras. 1.2 and 2.1; Section D, Bridging Documents drawings S-001 through S-102). The bridging drawings by Alares Architects & Engineers (“Parking Garage Structural Evaluations”) show keynoted repair locations but no quantities. Will VA release the underlying condition survey, any prior assessment reports, or estimated quantities, specifically concrete spall/repair (SF), metal deck replacement (SF), structural steel coating (SF), and expansion joint (LF)? If no quantities will be provided, please confirm the basis offerors should use for Phase 2 pricing so that all offers are priced on an equal basis.

RESPONSE :

· Contractors selected for Phase II should attend the site walk on December 2nd, 2026.

· Site Walk gives the contractor a better grasp of what the needed repairs are and for them to establish the quantities to bid on.

· The Government will not release underlying condition surveys, any prior assessment reports, or estimated quantities, specifically concrete spall/repair (SF), metal deck replacement (SF), structural steel coating (SF), and expansion joint (LF).

· Basis for evaluation for Phase 2 pricing is in Section M (see page 29 of 95) and item 3.g. of the Instruction to offerors (see page 21 of 95).

RFI #17 – Site Visit Timing (Instructions to Offerors, para. 4, Pre-Quote Site Visit). The only pre-quote site visit is scheduled for 12/02/2026, after Phase 1 submissions close on 11/20/2026. Phase 1 Factor I (Technical/Risk Approach) and Factor III (Schedule/Phasing) require offerors to describe their design, construction, and phasing approach for the existing structure. Can VA offer a site visit before 11/20/2026, or alternatively provide current photographs and/or video of the garage (decks, soffits, steel framing, stairs, and expansion joints) before the Phase 1 due date?

RESPONSE :

· No site visit before Phase 1 is due. However, as mentioned in Question 9, Factor III (Schedule/Phasing) will be moved to Phase 2. Phase 1 Factor I remains due with Phase 1.

RFI #18 – Past Performance Without CPARS (Section M, Factor V, Past Performance). Factor V requires offerors to “submit a completed CPARS evaluation for each project under Factor 4.” For a relevant project that has no CPARS evaluation (for example, private, state, or municipal work, or federal subcontracts), will VA accept a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) from the project owner instead? If so, please provide VA’s preferred PPQ form. Please also confirm whether the three past performance projects must be the same projects submitted under Factor IV (Specialized Experience).

RESPONSE :

Government will accept a completed PPQ that comes from VA or any US Federal institution.

· Yes, the three past performance projects must be the same projects submitted under Factor IV (Specialized Experience).

RFI #19 – Key Personnel: Architect and Civil Engineer (Section M, Factor II, Key Personnel; Key Personnel Evaluation attachment). Factor II requires each key person to be a current employee of the prime contractor, or to provide a letter of commitment stating the individual will become an employee of the prime contractor prior to award. For this design-build effort, may the Architect and Civil Engineer instead be provided by a teaming/subcontracted A/E firm, supported by signed letters of commitment from the individuals and the A/E firm, without becoming employees of the prime contractor?

RESPONSE :

-Yes, the Architect and Civil Engineer can instead be provided by a teaming/subcontracted A/E firm, supported by signed letters of commitment from the individuals and the A/E firm, without becoming employees of the prime contractor.

RFI #20 – Key Personnel: Single Engineer for Architect and Civil Engineer Roles (Section M, Factor II, Key Personnel; Key Personnel Evaluation attachment). Follow-up to RFI #6. Section M, Factor II lists five key personnel, each requiring a resume on the Key Personnel Evaluation form: Project Manager, Project Superintendent, Safety Officer, Architect, and Civil Engineer, with the Architect and Civil Engineer listed as separate positions. Each must have a minimum of five (5) years’ experience and three (3) projects of similar size and scope. The scope of this project (PWS para. 2.1) is structural repair of the existing parking garage: concrete, reinforcing and structural steel, metal decking, expansion joints, traffic-bearing waterproofing, steel stair assemblies, and restriping. PWS para. 2.3 requires the construction plans to be signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer. (a) May a single licensed Professional Engineer (civil/structural) fill both the Architect and Civil Engineer key personnel positions? (b) Alternatively, will VA waive or omit the Architect key personnel position for this structural repair project, provided a licensed civil/structural Professional Engineer is proposed?

RESPONSE :

-a. Yes, a single licensed Professional Engineer (Civil/Structural) may fill both the Architect and Civil Engineer key personnel positions.

-b. No, VA will not waive or omit the Architect key personnel position for this structural repair project and see response item 20.a. above.

-c. A licensed Civil or Structural Professional Engineer is still required.

RFI #21 – Insurance: Asbestos Exclusion on General Liability (Section C, Clause C.2(d), Supplemental Insurance Requirements). Clause C.2(d) states: “The successful bidder must present to the Contracting Officer, prior to award, evidence of general liability insurance without any exclusionary clauses for asbestos that would void the general liability coverage.” TSC’s general liability policy carries a standard asbestos exclusion endorsement that our carrier will not remove. The PWS and bridging drawings do not identify asbestos-containing materials or asbestos abatement as part of this scope. (a) Will VA waive or modify the C.2(d) requirement for this project and accept a general liability policy with a standard asbestos exclusion? (b) Alternatively, will VA accept a separate Contractor’s Pollution Liability (CPL) policy that includes asbestos coverage to satisfy C.2(d)?

RESPONSE :

-The PWS and the bridging documents do not identify asbestos containing materials or asbestos abatement as part of scope of work and there is no assurance that there are no asbestos containing material that could be found in this project. However, given the age of the facility, it is highly unlikely that asbestos was used in this facility.

-The answer to both items a and b is NO.

RFI #22 - Section 1.2 references an investigation report. Where does this report fit within the overall schedule of deliverables and repairs?

a) If a report is required, what is its intended purpose?

b) Will the report be used to support or guide repair decisions while developing the construction documents?

c) Should the report include the Contractor's repair recommendations and/or cost estimates based on the observed deterioration and distress?

RESPONSE :

· The investigation report is part of 4.2.4.5 (of the PWS) – Contractor developed Construction Plans with design Calculations and signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer. On the other hand, 4.2.4.6. is the Contractor developed Risk Assessment Report: PCRA. Both submittals (under 4.2.4 of the PWS) are due thirty days after issuance of Notice to Proceed

a. The report(s) are Construction Plans, design calculations and the PCRA.

b. The report is the construction documents

c. Yes, the report includes the Contractor's repair recommendations, but cost estimates (breakdown) will be used for the Schedule of Values.

RFI #23 - Based on Sections 4.2.4.5 and 2.3, the Contractor is required to develop the plans within 30 days of Notice to Proceed (NTP). Can this timeframe be negotiated following award to account for the time required to complete the assessment, followed by drawing development?

RESPONSE :

- Yes, this timeframe can be negotiated but subject to the CO’s approval.

RFI #24 - Has any destructive investigation been performed to expose the column bases at the slab-on-grade interface? In our experience, severe deterioration often concentrates at these locations. Based on the photographs provided, it appears that deterioration may be occurring at the column bases immediately above the slab-on-grade.

RESPONSE :

· No destructive investigation has been performed to expose the column bases at the slab-on-grade interface

RFI #25 - Please confirm that no intermediate design deliverables, such as Schematic Design (SD) or Design Development (DD) submissions, will be required from the Engineer of Record (EOR).

RESPONSE :

· This is a Design-Build project and what we need are Construction Plans. There are no intermediate design deliverables, such as Schematic Design (SD) or Design Development (DD) submissions. Ultimately, the designer (the PE or EOR) will be responsible for the technical viability of the plans.

RFI #26 - Is a complete set of record drawings from the 2005 construction available, or is the plan sheet included with the bridging documents the only record drawing currently available?

RESPONSE :

· As-built drawings from 2006 are available.

RFI #27 - Will quantities for expected repair types be provided to bidders at the beginning of Phase II of the solicitation process?

RESPONSE :

· Offerors are responsible for establishing the quantities for expected repair types which they will later use to bid during the Phase II solicitation process. The quantities shall be established in the price proposal as a baseline to determine any changes in requirements for a contract modification.

RFI #28 - The solicitation states that wind and seismic should be considered if needed. If selected to move on to Phase II of the solicitation process, should bidders include a full lateral analysis of the structure in our pricing? Are any calculations or lateral design models available from the original design EOR?

RESPONSE :

· During the December 02 site visit, it is for the offeror to determine if a full lateral analysis of the structure needs to be included in their bid offer.

RFI #29 - Can the Government please clarify whether Phase I Factors I–V can be submitted in one single file, or whether Offerors should submit each factor in a separate file?

RESPONSE :

· A single file containing all the factors is acceptable. Just label them properly.

RFI #30 - Factor V, Past Performance (p. 28), states that Offerors must "SUBMIT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION FOR EACH PROJECT UNDER Factor 4." Can the Government please provide a PPQ form for projects that do not have CPARS?

RESPONSE :

· Use the PPQs that were provided for Government projects that do not have CPARS.

RFI #31 - Currently, the site visit is scheduled for December 2, 2026. With the emphasis the Government is placing on risk mitigation, can the Government move the site visit to a date before the Phase I deadline so Offerors can accurately assess risk within the Phase I proposal?

RESPONSE :

· See response in RFI#17

· Phase I is establishing the technical team only. Phase II involves pricing and assessment.

RFI #32 – SF 1442 –13b- says offer guarantee is required. Whereas bid bonds are not due until phase 2 (3.h page 21 of 95). Please confirm.

RESPONSE :

· A letter from surety will suffice for phase I.

· Actual bonds are not required until phase II.

RFI #33 – THE RFP calls for two phase design build selection, please confirm what is required in phase 1.

· All Factors stated in Phase 1 except for Schedule Phasing Management which has been moved to Phase 2.

RFI #34 – 4.2.3 - Page 15 of 95 in the RFP calls for documents to be submitted 30 days before the bid date? Please confirm.

RESPONSE :

· Please remove line 4.2.3 where it states submittals before bidding :Due thirty days before bid date. Follow Phase 1 due date which is November 20, 2026.

RFI#35 – Number of days for the Design phase is not clear in the RFP.

RESPONSE :

· Design Phase will be 30 days from NTP issuance.

RFI#36 - Project completion 210 days -does it include both design and construction?

RESPONSE :

· Yes, Design 30 days and construction is 180 days.

RFI#37 - Please extend the RFI submission due date by another week if possible.

RESPONSE :

· RFI submission will not be extended.

RFI #38 – Concrete repair locations and quantities: Please provide marked-up plans identifying the concrete remediation areas by level and location, including slabs, slab edges, ramp transitions, stairs, and concrete adjacent to metal deck repairs. Please provide estimated repair quantities and dimensions, including square footage, linear footage, and anticipated repair depths, as applicable.

RESPONSE :

· Since this is a Design-Build project and in order for offeror to come up with a bid with breakdown, offeror shall be responsible for marked-up plans identifying the concrete remediation areas by level and location, including slabs, slab edges, ramp transitions, stairs, concrete adjacent to metal deck repairs., estimated repair quantities and dimensions, including square footage, linear footage, and anticipated repair depths.

RFI #39 – Supporting condition information: Please provide any available structural evaluation reports prepared by Alares Architects & Engineers, concrete condition surveys, sounding/delamination maps, photographs, and repair details supporting the bridging drawings. Please identify the concrete repair methods and limits associated with each documented area.

RESPONSE :

· See similar response in RFI#26

· As-built drawings from 2006 are available.

RFI #40 – Basis for pricing: The PWS requires the design-build contractor to investigate existing conditions before repairs. If repair locations and quantities are to be determined after award, please clarify the quantities or allowances offerors should include in the firm-fixed price and how repairs exceeding that basis will be addressed. Can sufficient existing documentation be provided to price the concrete work without a pre-quote site visit?

RESPONSE :

· A pre-quote site visit is tentatively scheduled for December 02, 2026 for those firms selected to go to phase II of the solicitation. See Item 4 of Instruction to Offerors (page 21 of 95 of Solicitation)

RFI #41 – Phase 1 Submission Requirements The Instructions to Offerors reference pricing, bid guarantees, completed representations and certifications, and submission of all solicitation pages, while also indicating that pricing and bid bonds are required only in Phase 2.

Question: What specific documents and attachments are required for the November 16, 2026, Phase 1 submission, and which items are required only from offerors selected to advance to Phase 2?

RESPONSE :

· Phase 1 factors are due on November 20, 2026 which are Technical Approach/Risk Approach, Key Personnel, Specialized Experience, and Phase Performance. Phase 2 will submit factors on December 11, 2026 which are Price, Technical Solution, and Schedule Phasing Management.

RFI #42 – Phase 1 and Phase 2 Design Deliverables The solicitation establishes a two-phase design-build evaluation involving technical qualifications followed by technical solution and price.

Question: What level of design development, including narratives, conceptual drawings, engineering analyses, or preliminary design documents, is required during Phase 1 versus Phase 2?

· Phase 1 is focused on offeror’s capabilities/expertise that is subject to evaluation so primarily this will constitute past projects done. Phase 2 on the other hand is focused on the project itself.

RFI #43 – Evaluation Methodology Section M describes a best-value evaluation involving technical qualifications, technical solution, past performance, and price, while the bid-guarantee provisions state that selection will be based on price only.

Question: Will award selection be conducted using the best-value tradeoff methodology described in Section M, or will the Government use a lowest-price technically acceptable or price-only methodology?

RESPONSE :

· The Government will be using Best-Value Tradeoff Methodology for this requirement.

RFI #44 – Comparable Specialized Experience The Specialized Experience factor requires completed prime-contractor projects valued at $1 million or more and comparable in size, complexity, and scope.

Question: Will the Government consider completed projects involving structural rehabilitation, concrete restoration, structural steel repair, waterproofing, or comparable construction activities, even when the projects did not specifically involve parking-garage rehabilitation?

RESPONSE :

· Yes, the Government will consider completed projects involving structural rehabilitation, concrete restoration, structural steel repair, waterproofing, or comparable construction activities, even when the projects did not specifically involve parking-garage rehabilitation.

RFI #45 – Prime Contractor and A/E Experience The Specialized Experience factor permits submission of completed A/E projects when the construction contractor does not possess qualifying design-build experience.

Question: May an offeror demonstrate its construction qualifications through completed prime-contractor design-bid-build projects and supplement those examples with completed design projects performed by its proposed A/E subcontractor, with each entity evaluated for its respective construction or design responsibilities?

RESPONSE :

- Yes, an offeror may demonstrate its construction qualifications through completed prime-contractor design-bid-build projects and supplement those examples with completed design projects performed by its proposed A/E subcontractor, with each entity evaluated for its respective construction or design responsibilities. However, it is very much preferred if Contractor will be able to provide project information on where both Contractor and A/E worked together.

RFI #46 – Use of the Same Projects for Experience and Past Performance The solicitation establishes separate Specialized Experience and Past Performance factors with different project eligibility requirements.

Question: May the same completed projects be submitted under both factors, provided each project independently satisfies the applicable requirements for Specialized Experience and Past Performance?

RESPONSE :

· See similar response in RFI#18

· The three past performance projects must be the same projects submitted under Factor IV (Specialized Experience). Past performance pertains to CPARS or PPQs that were provided for the specialized experience projects.

RFI #47 – Reconciliation of Specialized Experience and Past Performance Requirements Section M establishes different project eligibility criteria for Specialized Experience and Past Performance. Specialized Experience requires one to three completed projects, while Past Performance requires three projects and expressly permits active or completed efforts.

Question: How should offerors reconcile these differing requirements when selecting projects for submission, particularly if the same projects are permitted under both evaluation factors? Must projects submitted under both factors satisfy the more restrictive completed-project requirement, or will each factor be evaluated independently under its stated eligibility criteria?

RESPONSE :

· See similar response in RFI#18 and RFI#46

· The three past performance projects must be the same projects submitted under Factor IV (Specialized Experience). Past performance pertains to CPARS or PPQs that were provided for the specialized experience projects.

RFI #48 – PWS Completed-Project Requirement PWS Section 4.2.3 requires references for at least three completed similar projects, while Section M permits one to three completed projects for Specialized Experience and active or completed projects for Past Performance.

Question: Does the requirement in PWS Section 4.2.3 establish an additional requirement for three completed similar projects, or will the project quantity and completion requirements established separately for Specialized Experience and Past Performance in Section M govern Phase 1 submissions?

RESPONSE :

· See similar response in RFI#18

· CO/CS to respond to this. However, we respectfully suggest the following response:

PWS Section 4.2.3. is just a mirror of Section M of the Solicitation. For purposes of clarification of requirements for Phase 1 submission, follow Section M of the Solicitation.

RFI #49 – CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires The solicitation requests completed CPARS evaluations for the submitted past-performance projects.

Question: When a completed CPARS evaluation is unavailable for an otherwise qualifying project, will the Government accept an existing Government-completed Past Performance Questionnaire, an available interim CPARS evaluation, or another documented Government performance assessment in its place?

RESPONSE :

· See similar response in RFI#18

· CO/CS to respond to this. However, we respectfully suggest the following response: Government will accept a completed PPQ that comes from VA or any US Federal institution only. An interim CPARS evaluation will not be accepted.

RFI #50 – Past Performance Supporting Documentation The Past Performance factor states that performance context and general trends will be considered.

Question: May offerors include contractor comments, corrective-action information, and other relevant supporting documentation with their CPARS evaluations, and will CPARS, PPQs, and supporting documentation be excluded from applicable narrative page limits?

RESPONSE :

· CO/CS to respond to this. However, we respectfully suggest the following responses:

- No, do not include contractor comments, corrective-action information, and other relevant supporting documentation with the CPARS evaluations.

-Do not exclude CPARS, PPQs, and supporting documentation from applicable narrative page limits.

RFI #51 – Employment of Design Professionals The key-personnel requirements identify the Architect and Civil Engineer and include employment or pre-award employment commitment provisions.

Question: May the proposed Architect and Civil Engineer remain employees of a qualified A/E subcontractor rather than becoming employees of the prime contractor, and would commitment letters from the A/E firm and designated professionals satisfy the applicable personnel commitment requirements?

RESPONSE :

· See similar response in RFI#19

· Yes, the Architect and Civil Engineer can remain employees of a qualified A/E subcontractor rather than becoming employees of the prime contractor, and supported by signed letters of commitment from the individuals and the A/E firm, without becoming employees of the prime contractor.

RFI #52 – Comparable Key-Personnel Experience The solicitation establishes minimum experience and comparable-project requirements for designated key personnel.

Question: Will comparable-project qualifications for key personnel be evaluated according to each individual's proposed responsibilities, including relevant structural rehabilitation, concrete restoration, federal construction, and occupied-facility experience, rather than requiring every individual to have performed three parking-garage rehabilitation projects?

RESPONSE :

- Yes, comparable project qualifications for key personnel can be evaluated according to each individual's proposed responsibilities, including relevant structural rehabilitation, concrete restoration, federal construction, and occupied-facility experience, rather than requiring every individual to have performed three parking-garage rehabilitation projects.

RFI #53 – Nevada Professional Licensure The requirement involves professional engineering and design services in Nevada.

Question: Must the proposed Architect and Engineer of Record hold active Nevada professional registrations at Phase 1 submission, or may appropriately qualified professionals licensed in another U.S. jurisdiction obtain the necessary Nevada registrations before performing services requiring those credentials?

RESPONSE :

· See similar Response in RFI#2 and #3

· The proposed Architect and Engineer of Record do not necessarily have to be actively registered in Nevada but should be actively licensed in any of the States of the U.S. during Phase 1 submission.

RFI #54 – Site Visit Timing The tentative schedule establishes a November 16 Phase 1 submission deadline, a November 25 down-selection, and a December 2 site visit.

Question: Is the December 2, 2026, site visit intended only for offerors selected to advance to Phase 2, and is attendance at that visit unnecessary for Phase 1 qualification?

RESPONSE :

· Yes, site visit is only intended for offerors selected to advance to Phase 2. Site Visit is unnecessary for Phase 1 qualifications.

RFI #55 – Period of Performance The SF 1442 and price schedule identify 210 calendar days, while the PWS references 180 construction days following design acceptance and a subsequent Notice to Proceed.

Question: Does the 210-calendar-day period include investigation, design, Government review and approval, construction, and closeout, or does the 180-day construction period begin separately after design acceptance and issuance of the construction Notice to Proceed?

RESPONSE :

· 210 Calendar day period includes Design 30 days and Construction 180 days.

RFI #56 – Government-Furnished Existing Conditions Information The design-build scope requires investigation and rehabilitation of an existing parking structure, and the PWS references bridging documents prepared by Alares Architects & Engineers.

Question: What existing as-built drawings, structural assessments, inspection reports, repair histories, or other available existing-condition documents will the Government provide to Phase 2 offerors to support development of their technical solutions and pricing?

· Government will provide the As-Built Plans from 2006.