RFI Responses Repair Ext. Finishes FRE.pdf

VA Responses to Requests for Information (RFI’s)

Solicitation# 36C26126R0034

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical

Center

Project Number: 570-21-108

RFI #1: We respectfully request clarification regarding the past performance requirements outlined in the solicitation, specifically the requirement for projects performed in an “active hospital environment.” The solicitation states that Offerors must submit a minimum of three (3) CPARS for projects involving repair or replacement of exterior finishes performed in an active hospital environment. Our team has successfully completed multiple federal and institutional projects of similar scope, complexity, and magnitude including exterior envelope repairs, roofing systems, façade work, and phased construction in occupied and mission-critical facilities.

These projects required:

• Strict phasing and coordination to maintain continuous operations

• Implementation of safety, infection control, and site access protocols

• Work in secure and restricted environments

• Noise, dust, and vibration mitigation

• Coordination with facility stakeholders to avoid operational disruption

However, while functionally equivalent in terms of operational constraints and risk management, these projects were not specifically performed at hospitals.

Request for Clarification

Would the Government consider past performance projects performed in occupied, mission-critical, or continuously operating facilities (e.g., federal buildings, secure facilities, industrial plants, or similar environments) to be acceptable as comparable experience to an “active hospital environment,” provided the Offeror demonstrates equivalent complexity, coordination, and operational constraints?

Additionally, will the Government evaluate past performance based on the relevance of scope, complexity, and performance quality, rather than strictly limiting consideration to hospital-specific projects?

RFI #1 Response: Yes. As stated in the Instructions to Offerors, the definitions of Relevancy, Size, and Complexity on page 23 govern the evaluation of past performance. The Government will consider past performance that meets those definitions. Because performance under this solicitation will occur in an “active hospital environment”, past performance performed in a similar operational setting (e.g., VA medical centers or other continuously operating healthcare facilities) will be assessed as more similar to the requirement and may support a higher confidence or evaluation rating under the solicitation’s past performance factor. This is due to the heightened coordination, infection control, patient-safety considerations, and operational constraints typical of such environments. At the same time, hospital-specific experience is not a minimum requirement, and its absence will not, by itself, render an Offeror unacceptable. The Government will evaluate all submitted past performance that meets the solicitation’s

Relevancy, Size, and Complexity definitions and will credit experience from other occupied, mission-critical, or continuously operating facilities where the Offeror demonstrates equivalent operational constraints and risk management (e.g., strict phasing, noise/dust/vibration controls, secure access, and stakeholder coordination). This clarification does not change the evaluation factors, relative importance, or definitions in the solicitation; it only explains how similarity of operational environment will be considered within the existing past performance factor to assess risk and confidence consistent with Veteran and patient safety.

RFI #2: The Solicitation requires the submission of a minimum of three (3) CPARS (or PPQs) for projects featuring repairing or replacing various exterior finishes in an active hospital environment. Our firm has not had standalone exterior envelope repair projects within the past five (5) years. However, we have successfully completed multiple ground-up construction projects within the required timeframe, including the complete construction of exterior building envelopes, roofing systems, wall assemblies, glazing systems, waterproofing, and associated structural and coordination work. These projects were performed in or adjacent to occupied healthcare or mission-critical facilities, requiring active coordination, safety controls, quality management, and adherence to schedule.

Could the Government please clarify whether ground-up construction projects that include full exterior envelope construction

(roofing, exterior walls, glazing, waterproofing, and related systems) may be considered relevant past performance for Evaluation

Factor 3, provided the Offeror clearly identifies and substantiates the exterior envelope scope and demonstrates performance consistent with the stated evaluation criteria?

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical

RFI #2 Response: The Government confirms that ground-up construction projects that include full exterior envelope construction such as: roofing, exterior walls, glazing systems, waterproofing, and associated structural and coordination work may be considered relevant past performance for Evaluation Factor 3, provided the Offeror clearly identifies the exterior envelope scope and demonstrates how the project meets the solicitation’s stated definitions of Relevancy, Size, Complexity, Scope, and Recency on page 23 of the Instructions to Offerors.

As defined in the solicitation, “Relevant projects” include new construction and/or repair, alteration, and related demolition of existing infrastructure completed within the past five (5) years. New construction expressly includes projects that provide new facilities or infrastructure as well as repair or modernization of existing facilities. Therefore, a ground-up project may qualify as relevant so long as the Offeror substantiates the aspects of the work that align with the exterior finishes and systems described in the

Statement of Work.

Consistent with RFI #1, the Government will evaluate past performance based on similarity in size, scope, and complexity, including work performed in occupied or mission-critical environments. While past performance performed specifically in an

“active hospital environment” may demonstrate a higher degree of similarity to the conditions of this project and therefore, may be evaluated as more favorably hospital-specific experience is not required, and Offerors will not be rated unacceptable solely for submitting ground-up or non-hospital projects.

Offerors should, therefore, ensure that each submitted past project clearly documents:

• The exterior envelope components constructed or repaired (e.g., roofing, walls, glazing, waterproofing).

• The complexity of coordination across disciplines and construction phases.

• Any work performed in or adjacent to occupied, healthcare, or mission-critical facilities requiring operational coordination, safety controls, and uninterrupted operations.

• Evidence supporting size, scope, and recency in accordance with the definitions on page 23.

This approach ensures all Offerors are evaluated under the stated criteria and that their past performance is assessed fairly and consistently with the solicitation. See actual key definitions from instructions to offerors below located on page 23 of the solicitation as well in the instructions to offerors:

“Key Definitions:

i) Relevant projects are those that are of similar size, and/or complexity, and/or scope. A project does not have to have all three (3) to be evaluated.

ii) Size is defined as any project over $5,000,000.00

iii) Complexity is defined as a project that includes work in several different locations on campus, and the ability/experience working with multiple disciplines, such as mechanical, electrical, HVAC, plumbing, demolition, etc. including ability to coordinate multiple phases of construction.

iv) Scope is defined as work or activities related, or closely related to that which is outlined in the Statement of Work such as but not limited to;

installation and repair of exterior-related finishes work, glazing work, roofing and civil work.

v) Recency is defined as a project completed within the previous five (5) calendar years unless otherwise stated.

vi) Relevancy is defined as for purposes of this evaluation, as new construction and/or repair, alteration and related demolition of existing infrastructure completed within the past five (5) years of the proposal issue date of this Request for Proposal (RFP). Infrastructure is defined as: 1) construction of a healthcare facility; 2) construction for industrial buildings and warehouses; 3) non-residential buildings, other than industrial buildings and warehouses; or

4) improvements such as utilities, landscaping, and roadways. “New Construction” is defined as construction that provides for new or expanded facilities or infrastructure. New construction also does include repair and/or modernization of an existing facility, it also does include replacement or upgrade to an existing infrastructure.”

RFI #3: Sheet A302 scope 2 part 2.1.1 under new work states that in building 1, the lower glazing unit of the arcade storefront, the blast film will have a white translucent tint. We are being told by Glazing contractors that there is no such thing as blast film with a white tint.

a. Will the VA clarify what is needed or provide a basis of design for white-tinted blast film?

b. Would blast film on one side of the glazing and white tint on the other be acceptable instead?

c. Do the new double-glazed windows with integral blinds, as described in 2.1.2, also require blast film and white tint?

RFI #3 Response:

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical

a. Clarification / Basis of Design

All new exterior glazing, including exterior door glazing, shall be laminated glass, with insulated glazing units (IGUs) requiring laminated glass only on the interior lite, and glazing performance shall meet a probability-of-failure criterion of 500 breaks per

1000. The “white translucent tint blast film” shown on Sheet A302 is not a commercially available white-tinted blast-rated film. The design intent is to provide glazing that meets both the required blast-resistant performance and the specified white translucent aesthetic. This may be achieved by providing a laminated blast-resistant glazing assembly that incorporates a white translucent interlayer or by applying a white translucent tint or frit on a non-blast-critical surface, provided it does not compromise blast performance or violate manufacturer requirements.

b. Acceptability of Blast Film on One Side and Tint on the Other

A configuration consisting of a clear blast-rated film (or laminated blast-rated inner lite) on the blast-critical surface and a separate white translucent tint on the opposite surface is acceptable, so long as the combined assembly maintains all required blast-resistant performance, does not impair adhesion or warranties, and meets all applicable manufacturer limitations. Final acceptability remains subject to review and approval through the standard submittal process by the VA/COR and A/E.

c. Requirements for IGUs with Integral Blinds

New IGUs with integral blinds are considered exterior glazing and must therefore include laminated glass on the interior lite to meet the blast requirement. Where a white translucent lower-glazing condition is required by the design, the IGU must incorporate a compliant white translucent interlayer or a compatible exterior-lite surface treatment that does not interfere with blind operation or violate the IGU manufacturer’s requirements. All proposed assemblies must be submitted for approval by the VA COR and A/E

Note: All new exterior glazing, including door glazing, must be laminated glass. For insulated glazing units (IGUs) the laminated glass is required only for the inner lite. Glass performance is to be evaluated using a probability of failure of 500 breaks per 1000.

RFI #4: Do you have a bidders list of GC's for the project at Fresno RFP#36C26126R0034 repair exterior finishes?

RFI #4 Response: There is no list of GC bidders, this is an open market procurement set aside for all capable and eligible

SDVOSBs who want to submit a proposal for the project. However, Amendment 0001 posted online to the solicitation has a list of

GC’s and various vendors name and contact information that attended the site visit on May 6, 2026. For Solicitation details, please review the solicitation posted on SAM.gov at https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/9b928f42d39b4ed292b683fd4743f17c/view .

RFI #5: Please provide the engineers estimate if it is readily available.

RFI #5 Response: See page 1, item #5 of the solicitation on SAM.gov “The magnitude of Construction is between $5,000,000.000 and $10,000,000.00 for the total contract value, per VAAR 836.204 Disclosure of the magnitude of construction projects.”

All Solicitation information and attachments, are available on SAM.gov online at this link:

https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/9ad58e8419b34297b74c31ce02aa2746/view

RFI #6: Can you provide as-built drawings for this project?

RFI #6 Response: Yes, as-built drawings can be provided; however, please note that they are for reference purposes only. The VA does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of existing as-built documentation. The contractor remains responsible for verifying all field conditions and ensuring that any work performed complies with the contract documents and actual site conditions.

RFI #7: Have roof cores been performed on the OPC roof or Building 1 West Wing roofs?

RFI #7 Response: The VA is not aware of any roof cores having been performed on the OPC roof or the Building 1 West Wing roofs is not aware of any roof core sampling having been performed on either the OPC roof or the Building 1 West Wing roofs, and no existing VA records or prior project documentation indicate that any such roof cores were conducted. At this time, the

Government does not possess roof core data for these roof areas. Contractors should base their proposals on the existing solicitation https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/9b928f42d39b4ed292b683fd4743f17c/view https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/9ad58e8419b34297b74c31ce02aa2746/view

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical documents and field observations, and any required roof core testing will need to be performed by the contractor as part of the work if necessary to complete the project in accordance with contract requirements.

RFI #8: Have the existing roofs been tested for asbestos?

RFI #8 Response: The VA has a 2012 asbestos survey report available for reference and is attached. We will provide the report for your review. Please note that this information/Report is offered for reference only is provided for reference only and may not comprehensively cover all roof areas or current field conditions; the VA does not warrant the completeness or currency of the 2012 survey. Contractors remain responsible for complying with the asbestos requirements in the Construction Documents to complete the work in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations and the contract. All existing conditions must be field-verified, and any proposed abatement approach must be submitted for review and approval by the VA/COR pursuant to the specifications and submittal procedures if it arises.

RFI #9: Can you provide the total height of the existing roof system?

RFI #9 Response: The VA does not possess verified measurements or documentation establishing the total height of the existing roof system, and no as-built information on record provides this dimension. Existing conditions must be field-verified by the contractor as part of the project requirements. Contractors are responsible for confirming the existing roof system height during their site investigations and incorporating verified conditions into their proposals in accordance with the solicitation.

RFI #10: The specifications require an average R-33 insulation, a 5/8” substrate board, and a 1/2” coverboard, bringing the new system height to approximately 6.2”. This added height will create challenges for mechanical curbs that are already low. Is the contractor responsible for raising any curbs that do not meet the standard 8” height requirement after the new roof is installed?

RFI #10 Response: Per the requirements of Division 07 (Roofing) and Division 23 (HVAC/Mechanical), the contractor is responsible for ensuring that all mechanical equipment curbs meet the minimum 8-inch height above the finished roof surface after installation of the new roofing system, including all layers required to achieve the specified R-33 insulation value and substrate/cover board thickness. If the added roof system thickness reduces the existing curb height below the required 8 inches, the contractor is responsible for raising those curbs and providing all associated work including blocking, flashing, counter-flashing, mechanical coordination, and integration with existing equipment to maintain code compliance, system warranties, and watertight integrity. All curb modifications must be included in the contractor’s proposal and reflected in the required roofing, mechanical, and sheet-metal submittals for VA/A-E/COR review.

RFI #11: Does the concrete deck have a natural slope? If so, what is the existing slope.

RFI #11 Response:

The concrete deck does not have a natural slope is intended to be flat and does not have a designed or inherent structural slope. The

VA does not have documentation indicating any existing measurable slope in the concrete deck. Contractors are responsible for field-verifying actual conditions in accordance with the solicitation. Any required roof slope for drainage will be provided through the new roofing system per Division 07 requirements.

RFI #12: Please clarify the page limit for Volume I (40 pages total). Do covers, tables of contents, resumes, matrices, and appendices count toward the 40-page limit or are they excluded?

RFI #12 Response:

For Past Performance, the solicitation does not mandate a specific narrative or graphic format and no page limit noted, however explanations cannot exceed 4 pages total allowed as stated below. Offerors may use narrative text, tables/matrices, or a combination, so long as the submission clearly demonstrates how each referenced project past performance meets the definitions of Relevancy, Size, Complexity, Scope, and Recency in the Instructions to Offerors.

RFI #13: For Volume I – Past Performance, please confirm the preferred format (narrative only, graphic matrix, or combination) and whether tables/matrices count against the page limit.

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical

RFI #13 Response: For Past Performance, the solicitation does not mandate a specific narrative or graphic format and no page limit noted, However, past performance explanations cannot exceed 4 pages total allowed as stated below. Offerors may use narrative text, tables/matrices, or a combination, so long as the submission clearly demonstrates how each referenced project past performance meets the definitions of Relevancy, Size, Complexity, Scope, and Recency in the Instructions to Offerors.

Note: If no PPQs or CPARS are available to provide, the offeror will receive a “Neutral” rating for Factor 3. If the offeror has limited or no relevant past performance on similar exterior restoration projects, they should provide a one (1) page narrative citing this.

As stated in the solicitation, Offerors must submit a minimum of three (3) and up to a maximum of four (4) fully completed CPARS.

If CPARS are unavailable PPQs from the person who completes it or signs the PPQ form, for projects involving repair or replacement of exterior-related finishes in an active hospital environment (or projects demonstrating equivalent relevancy).

However, if no PPQs or CPARS are available the contractor will receive a “Neutral” rating for this factor.

Specifics regarding PPQs as cited on page 26 of the Solicitation: “If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, then submit Past

Performance Questionnaires (PPQ – Attachment 7). PPQs will not be accepted directly from the offeror, or from the designer on a design-build project, or from a prime contractor for work performed by a subcontractor. All PPQs must be fully completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for construction contract administration. All PPQ’s must be submitted to the Contracting Officer via e-mail directly by the person who completes and signs it. Any PPQs not emailed directly to the Contracting Officer (CO) from the person who completes it and signs it will not be considered for evaluation.”

“Offerors may provide any clarifying information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted.

Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues in their proposal narrative for this factor. Explanations will not exceed one (1) single-sided pages in total, out of the four (4) pages total allowed.”

RFI #14: What is the Government’s definition of “relevant” past performance for this exterior envelope repair project? Will experience on VA medical facility exterior restoration, terra cotta/stucco repair, or roofing projects receive higher consideration?

RFI #14 Response: See VA Responses to RFIs #1 and #2 above for Definitions, also Page 23 of the Solicitation.

RFI #15: Is there a preferred or maximum number of past performance projects to include in Volume I? Will all submitted projects be evaluated or only the most relevant?

RFI #15 Response: There is no preferred, number. Relevancy must meet the “key definitions:” section stated in the solicitation on page 23 and cited in RFI responses 1 and 2 above.

As cited in solicitation, pages 25 and 26: “Offerors must submit a minimum of three (3) and up to a maximum of four (4) fully complete CPARS. If CPARS are unavailable PPQs from the person who completes it or signs the PPQ form, for projects involving repair or replacement of exterior-related finishes in an active hospital environment (or projects demonstrating equivalent relevancy).” However, if no PPQs or CPARS are available the contractor will receive a Neutral rating for this factor.

Specifics regarding PPQs as cited on page 26 of the Solicitation: “If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, then submit

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ – Attachment 7). PPQs will not be accepted directly from the offeror, or from the designer

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical on a design-build project, or from a prime contractor for work performed by a subcontractor. All PPQs must be fully completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for construction contract administration. All PPQ’s must be submitted to the Contracting Officer via e-mail directly by the person who completes and signs it. Any PPQs not emailed directly to the Contracting Officer (CO) from the person who completes it and signs it will not be considered for evaluation.”

RFI #16: Please confirm the exact time period considered “recent” for past performance is limited to the last 5 years or can that be extended to 7, 8 or even 10 years?

RFI #16 Response: As stated on page 23 of the Key Definitions, Recency is defined as: “Recency is defined as a project completed within the previous five (5) calendar years unless otherwise stated.”

Evaluation Factor 3, Past Performance states:

“Offerors are to submit a minimum of (3) and up to a maximum of (4) fully completed CPARS for projects featuring repairing or replacing various exterior finishes in an active hospital environment for the same or similar area being repaired. All projects must be completed within five (5) years from the date of the posting of this solicitation to SAM.gov.”

This Solicitation was posted to Sam.gov online on April 28, 2026

RFI #17: Will Volume I (Technical and Past Performance) be evaluated on a pass/fail basis or will it be scored/weighted in the best-value trade-off with Price (Volume II)?

RFI #17 Response: Each Evaluation factor has its own basis for evaluation and is scored/weighted in the best-value trade-off. As stated in the solicitation starting on page 22 thru 28.

In accordance with both RFO 15.103-1 Tradeoff approach process and RFO 15.202 (b)(2), the best value trade-off sources selection evaluation process will undergo a trade-off evaluation.

Factors Order of Importance: The basis for award is the best value trade-off where all non-price evaluation factors, when Factors

1,2, and 3 are combined are approximately equal to Factor 4 – cost/price.

Any award will be made based on the best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) following evaluation factors (in accordance with RFO 15.202 (b)(2) and 15.103-1) in order of descending importance:

1. Evaluation Factor 1 – Project Schedule

2. Evaluation Factor 2 - Project Team and Experience

3. Evaluation Factor 3 – Past Performance

4. Evaluation Factor 4- Cost/Price

RFI #18: If an Offeror has limited or no relevant past performance on similar exterior restoration projects, what minimum information must be submitted in Volume I to be considered acceptable?

RFI #18 Response: If no PPQs or CPARS are available to provide, the contractor will receive a “Neutral” rating for Factor 3. If the offeror has limited or no relevant past performance on similar exterior restoration projects they should provide a one (1) page narrative citing this. There is no Volume I submission only separate evaluation factors.

Offerors are responsible for reviewing the Key Definitions on page 23 of the Instructions to Offerors to determine whether they can

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical meet the requirements for Relevancy, Size, Complexity, Scope, and Recency as defined in the solicitation. These definitions apply to Evaluation Factor 3 Past Performance.

Offerors with limited experience may enhance their submission by:

• Clearly documenting how each project aligns with the Relevancy, Size, Complexity, Scope, and Recency definitions; and

• Providing an explanation allowed by the solicitation to address adverse performance issues, challenges encountered, and corrective actions taken.

This ensures all Offerors are evaluated consistently and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria.

RFI #19: The drawings and SOW reference extensive terra cotta restoration, stucco/EIFS repairs, and fenestration work. Please confirm whether a Basis of Design manufacturer or specific product is required for terra cotta repair materials, or if any qualified product meeting performance criteria is acceptable.

RFI #19 Response:

There is no designated Basis of Design manufacturer for terra cotta repair materials in the drawings or specifications. Contractors may propose any qualified repair product; however, the material must fully comply with all performance, compatibility, and testing requirements specified in Section 04 20 00 and related sections of the specifications, including demonstrable compatibility with existing terra cotta in density, porosity, thermal expansion, permeability, bonding, and color and texture matching. Proposed materials must be supported by complete manufacturer technical data, required test results, and written recommendations confirming suitability for terra cotta restoration.

All products will be subject to evaluation through the required on-site mock-up, which must achieve approval by the VA COR and

A/E before use in the Work. Final acceptance will be based on demonstrated performance, long-term compatibility, and visual conformity with adjacent terra cotta as verified in the approved mock-up.

RFI #20: Specification Section 04 20 00 Terracotta Masonry and related sections do not list a Basis of Design. Please confirm whether “or equal” substitutions are permitted for terra cotta repair, cleaning, and restoration materials.

RFI #20 Response:

There is no Basis of Design manufacturer identified in Specification Section 04 20 00 (Terra Cotta Masonry) or related sections. “Or equal” substitutions are permitted; however, any proposed terra cotta repair, cleaning, or restoration material must fully comply with all performance, compatibility, and testing requirements specified in the contract documents. Submitted materials must demonstrate compatibility with existing terra cotta in density, porosity, thermal expansion, permeability, bonding, color, and texture, and must include all required manufacturer technical data and test results.

Acceptance of any proposed product is contingent upon successful completion and final approval of the required mock-up by the

VA COR and A/E. Final approval will be based on demonstrated performance, compatibility with adjacent materials, and conformance to the visual and technical criteria established in the specifications and mock-up evaluation.

RFI #21: Please clarify the exact scope and quantities for the vestibule renovations shown on drawings A308–A311 (north, east, and south vestibules)?

RFI #21 Response: Please reference Scope Item 5 and drawings A308 through A311. The contract documents identify the vestibule renovation work and show one vestibule at the north, east, and south locations. The drawings and notes describe related work including framing modifications, glazing and spandrel installation, door replacements (including both exterior and interior doors at each vestibule), ceiling and soffit repairs, and the additional east-vestibule flashing work. This response is provided solely to direct the contractor to the applicable contract documents and is not intended to define, interpret, limit, or confirm the completeness of the full scope of work required by the contract.

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical

RFI #22: The solicitation includes two add alternates (Scope 6 – OPC Ballast Roof Replacement and Scope 7 – Building 1 West

Wing Roof Replacement). Please confirm whether these alternates will be awarded with the base contract or may be awarded separately.

RFI #22 Response: The Add Alternates if VA can afford them will be as separate line items, if awarded but under the same contract. Please See Basis of Evaluation for Factor 4 Price, as stated in the instruction to offerors page 27 it states the following:

“The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness by the CO. The Offeror must complete a price breakdown worksheet and submit it with signed copy of 1442 and all amendments. The total evaluated price will be determined by the Offeror’s price for all division items considering the base offer and all add alternates. The Government after performing evaluation, will determine available funding and award to the “best value” firm with the most add alternates the Government determines it can afford. The evaluation will consider whether pricing reflects all major elements of the work described in the

Statement of Work (SOW), including exterior envelope repairs, glazing replacement, roofing, structural modifications, and vestibule work.”

“Note: The VA will look at the total evaluated price and non-price factors to determine the best value. “Best Value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements. The Government after performing evaluation, will determine available funding and award to the “Best Value” firm with the most add alternates the Government determines it can afford.”

RFI #23: Are complete as-built drawings available for the existing exterior envelope, roofing systems, terra cotta, stucco, windows, and MEP penetrations?

RFI #23 Response: See VA Response to RFI #6.

RFI #24: Will the Contractor be responsible for full removal and disposal of all existing roofing materials (including ballast, insulation, and membrane) on the OPC and Building 1 West Wing for the add alternates?

RFI #24 Response:

Yes. Under the Add Alternates for the OPC roof and Building 1 West Wing roof, the Contractor is responsible for the complete removal and disposal of all existing roofing materials, including but not limited to ballast, insulation, membrane, coverboard, vapor retarders, substrate boards, and any associated roofing components. The Contractor must legally dispose of all materials per

Section 01 74 19 and manage hazardous materials per Sections 02 82 13.21 and 02 83 33.13. All demolition, removal, protection, and daily watertight requirements will be completed in accordance with the specifications.

RFI #25: The SOW and drawings reference asbestos roofing abatement and lead-based paint removal. Please confirm the extent of abatement required and whether the Government has provided a comprehensive hazardous materials survey.

RFI #25 Response: The VA has a 2012 asbestos survey report available for reference. We will provide the report for your review.

Please note that this information is offered for reference only, and bidders are responsible for conducting their own due diligence and verifying existing field conditions in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

RFI #26: Per the ICRA and PCRA requirements for work on an occupied medical campus, what infection control and safety precautions will be required for exterior envelope work?

RFI #26 Response:

According to PCRA protocols, any construction—even exterior—affecting indoor contamination, air handling, utilities, or patient access must be reviewed under four risk domains: infection control, life safety, utility systems, and noise/vibration/odor

RFI #27: Please confirm the required phasing and sequencing of work to maintain continuous hospital operations, including corridor ICRA plans shown on drawings A402–A403.

RFI #27 Response: The contract documents do not provide a specific phasing plan or sequence of work for this project. The contractor is responsible for coordinating with COR and developing the required phasing and sequencing necessary to maintain hospital operations in accordance with the ICRA requirements, specifications, and all applicable safety and infection-control protocols. This response is provided solely to direct the contractor to the existing contract documents and is not intended to define, interpret, or limit the contractor’s responsibilities or means and methods.

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical

RFI #28: Specification Section 07 54 19 (PVC Roofing) and 07 54 23 (TPO Roofing) are referenced. Are there any preferred manufacturers or is “or equal” allowed for the roofing systems in the add alternates?

RFI #28 Response:

“Brand name or equal” roofing systems are acceptable for the PVC and TPO add-alternate roofing systems, provided the proposed systems fully comply with all requirements of Specifications in any related sections. Any submitted roofing system must meet all specified technical criteria, warranty provisions, testing and inspection requirements (including uplift testing, seam testing, and moisture/digital scanning, as applicable), and manufacturer qualifications. All proposed “or equal” systems are subject to VA review and final approval through the standard submittal process, and final acceptance will be based on demonstrated compliance with the contract documents and performance requirements.

RFI #29: The drawings show new access and vestibule modifications. Please clarify whether the Contractor is responsible for furnishing and installing all doors, frames, hardware, and glazing, or if any items will be Government-furnished.

RFI # 29 Response:

The Contractor is responsible for furnishing and installing all doors, frames, hardware, and glazing required for the new access and vestibule modifications, as shown in the drawings and specified in the contract documents. No items associated with these assemblies are designated as Government-furnished. All components must comply with applicable specification sections, meet required performance and security criteria, and be submitted for VA/COR review and approval through the standard submittal process. The Contractor is responsible for providing a complete, functional, and code-compliant installation

RFI #30: Please confirm the required depth, reinforcement, and forming requirements for all new concrete work associated with vestibule foundations and exterior repairs.

RFI # 30 Response:

Concrete Strength (from VA spec Section 03 30 00)

• Minimum compressive strength:

o 4,000 psi for structural concrete (typical for slabs, footings, exterior work) o 5,000 psi when noted in structural general notes

Rebar Requirements

• Reinforcing steel: ASTM A615, Grade 60.

• Concrete cover:

o 3 inches for concrete cast against earth o 2 inches for exterior concrete exposed to weather o 1½ inches for slabs not exposed to weather

• Ties and stirrups: ASTM A615, Grade 60, from typical details on S5.1

• Dowels:

o Where new slab or footing connects to existing,

▪ #4 or #5 bar dowels are required

▪ Embed 6" minimum into existing concrete with Hilti HY-200 epoxy

▪ Spacing typically 12"–16" o.c. depending on detail (not explicitly provided for vestibule)

• Lap lengths:

o For #4 bars, ≈ 24" o For #5 bars, ≈ 30"

Concrete Forming Requirements

(From Section 03 30 00 – Cast in Place Concrete)

• Forms must be tight, braced, and dimensionally stable to prevent honeycombing.

• Chamfer exposed corners using standard ¾" chamfer strips.

• Form release agent required.

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical

• Forms removed only after concrete reaches sufficient strength per ACI 347 and VA specs (often 70% of f'c).

Foundations and Footings Requirements (General Notes, Structural Set)

Although vestibule-specific footing drawings were not included, all new concrete footings MUST follow:

• Minimum footing thickness: 12 inches (VA standard unless noted otherwise)

• Minimum footing depth:

o Extend below frost line or to native soil o For Fresno, frost depth ≈ 6 inches, so typically placed on engineered soil per Geotech

• Minimum reinforcement for footings:

o (2) #5 bars continuous top & bottom, unless footing width < 2'-0" (then single mat)

• Concrete bearing:

o On engineered fill or native soil o 95% compaction required, per special inspection requirement

• Special inspections required for:

o all foundation excavations o footing placement o rebar placement o concrete placement exceeding 2,500 psi (all structural concrete)

Slab Requirements (General)

If vestibule slabs are to be cut/replaced:

• Minimum slab thickness: 4" (VA standard)

• Slab reinforcement:

o #4 bars @ 12" o.c. each way (typical VA requirement) o or 6×6 W2.9/W2.9 welded wire mesh where allowed

• Control joints: typically 10'–12' spacing

If exterior concrete is being patched:

• Remove all delaminated/spalled material until sound concrete is reached

• If rebar is exposed:

o Clean to white metal o Epoxy coat o Replace deteriorated bars with Grade 60 rebar o Provide lap splice per ACI

• Patch using cementitious repair mortar compatible with existing concrete

• Apply elastomeric coating to match existing finish

RFI #31: Are there any specific manufacturer or performance requirements for the exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS) and stucco repairs beyond what is shown in the specifications?

RFI # 31 Response:

All manufacturer, performance, installation, quality-control, and warranty requirements for EIFS and stucco repair work are fully defined within the contract specifications. There are no additional manufacturer or performance requirements beyond those included in specification sections. Contractors must select EIFS and stucco repair materials that comply with all specified technical criteria including compatibility with existing substrates, required reinforcement, moisture management, joint treatment, and finish system performance and must submit complete manufacturer technical data, installation instructions, and warranty documentation for VA

COR review. Compliance will be verified through the submittal process and field inspections. There are no hidden, preferred, or supplemental requirements apply beyond what is explicitly stated in the contract documents.

RFI #32: Will the Government require mock-ups for terra cotta restoration, stucco repair, or window installation prior to full-scale work?

RFI # 32 Response:

Yes. Mock-ups will be required for terra cotta restoration, stucco repairs, and window installation work. These scopes are highly visible components of the exterior envelope and require verification of color, texture, workmanship, joint treatment, and overall

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical aesthetic integration with adjacent existing materials. Mock-ups must be constructed in accordance with the specifications and must demonstrate the proposed repair materials, installation methods, finish appearance, and interface details. All mock-ups are subject to review and approval by the VA COR and A/E prior to commencement of full-scale work, and the approved mock-ups will serve as the standard of quality for the project.

RFI #33: The SOW references non-abrasive cleaning and inspection of the exterior envelope. Please clarify the acceptable cleaning methods and any testing requirements for the terra cotta and stucco surfaces.

RFI #33 Response:

Cleaning must use non‑abrasive, neutral‑pH, VA‑approved methods, and test panels are required for both terra cotta and stucco.

Abrasive, acidic, high‑pressure, or mechanically destructive cleaning is prohibited.

• Cleaning operations must be included in the project’s Activity Hazard Analysis (AHA).

• For areas with potential hazardous dust, use wet suppression and HEPA vacuuming.

• All work must comply with VA Quality Control requirements and be documented in daily QC reports.

The specifications require pre-testing and mock-up cleaning before full-scale work begins:

A. Test Areas / Sample Panels Required

Contractor must prepare representative test areas (minimum 1 m² or as directed) for both terra cotta and stucco cleaning, demonstrating:

• Cleaning agent effectiveness

• Absence of staining or discoloration

• No surface etching, degradation, or change in texture

• No residue left following rinsing

These test locations must be reviewed and approved by the VA COR prior to proceeding.

B. Submittal Requirements for Cleaning Agents and Methods

Per Section 01 33 23, Submittals, Contractor must provide:

• Product data for cleaning agents

• MSDS/SDS for chemicals used

• Manufacturer’s recommended cleaning procedures

• Documentation of proposed cleaning methods

• Field test schedule and locations

• Test results or photographs

No cleaning may begin until the VA has issued written approval.

C. Inspection and Acceptance Testing

• COR will inspect cleaned test areas for compliance.

• Any evidence of surface damage, color change, residue, or deterioration requires revision and re-testing.

• Entire building cleaning must match the approved test area standard.

RFI #34: Please confirm whether temporary protective measures (scaffolding, weather enclosures, debris containment) must be provided for all phases of exterior work.

RFI #34 Response:

Temporary protective measures—including scaffolding, weather and environmental enclosures, and debris and dust containment systems—are required for all phases of exterior work under this contract.

These requirements are part of the mandatory safety, environmental, and operational protection provisions in Division 01 – General

Requirements

RFI #35: Are there any preferred outage windows or coordination procedures for utility tie-ins and temporary shutdowns of exterior lighting or security systems?

RFI #35 Response:

The VA requires advance written notice (15–30 days), COR approval, and strict coordination for any outage. Security and exterior lighting systems must remain operational, or the Contractor must provide temporary substitute measures. Outages that

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical affect operations must occur after hours or weekends, unless the COR permits otherwise.

The VA Medical Center is a 24/7/365 facility; therefore all utility interruptions must be minimized, scheduled, and approved in advance, and may require after-hours or weekend execution depending on operational impact.

Utility service shutdown notification requirements

• Contractor must submit a detailed written request 15 days in advance of any planned utility shutdown.

• For “major interruptions,” the Contractor must provide 30 days advance notice.

• COR may approve or direct rescheduling depending on clinical operations.

• Requests must specify:

o Type of system affected o Exact start/stop times o Scope of outage o Impact mitigation plan o Temporary measures o Restoration procedures

No work may begin without formal COR approval.

Per Section 26 56 00 (Exterior Lighting), and general outage requirements:

• Contractor must ensure temporary illumination if security or egress lighting is affected.

• Work must be scheduled to minimize nighttime impact, meaning most outages will be required to occur during daylight hours, unless otherwise approved.

• All lighting must be restored, tested, and verified prior to releasing the work area.

If temporary shutdown is unavoidable:

• Contractor must coordinate with VA Police and COR for system bypass, surveillance coverage, or physical guard posts.

• Work must be scheduled after hours or weekends unless the COR authorizes otherwise.

RFI #36: Specification Section 13 05 41 Seismic Restraint Requirements applies to non-structural components. Please confirm the extent of seismic bracing required for new exterior elements.

RFI #36 Response:

Section 13 05 41 explicitly applies seismic restraint requirements to all non-structural exterior building components, including:

• Terra cotta cladding

• Stucco systems and plaster repair

• Exterior insulation systems (EIFS)

• Storefronts & curtainwall framing

• Window replacement assemblies

• Metal sunshades

• Louvers & grilles

• Roof accessories (curbs, flashings, dunnage, drains)

• Exterior mechanical/electrical/security devices

• Anchors, fasteners, clips, ties, and sub-framing systems

Per the specification, all exterior non-structural components must be designed and anchored to:

A. Use Importance Factor Ip = 1.5 (Critical Facility)

• The VA Medical Center is classified as a facility that must remain functional after an earthquake, requiring heightened anchorage and bracing.

B. Meet Seismic Design Category (SDC) C–F Provisions

• The specification requires compliance with ASCE 7 criteria for non-structural components located in SDC C through F.

Fresno County is within SDC D, which triggers mandatory mechanical anchorage and bracing for exterior systems.

C. Remain Operational Post-Earthquake

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical

• Exterior systems must not detach or endanger occupants and must maintain weather and security barriers after seismic shaking.

Specific Exterior Conditions Requiring Seismic Bracing

A. Cladding Systems (Terra Cotta, Stucco, EIFS)

Bracing and anchorage must comply with:

• Required embedments and fasteners

• Mechanical anchors (ASTM E488 / ACI 355.2)

• Independent framing where seismic joints exist

Terra cotta reset anchorage must meet current code anchorage loads, not match existing historic anchors.

B. Window & Storefront Assemblies

All new glazing systems must include seismic anchorage of:

• Frames

• Mullions

• Reinforcement members

• Anchors to backup walls

• Perimeter sealants compatible with seismic drift

If windows interface with the terra cotta or stucco, that interface must also be seismically compatible.

C. Exterior-Mounted Equipment & Accessories

The following must be seismically restrained:

• Cameras, security devices

• Exterior lighting fixtures

• Sunshades

• Louvers

• Vents

• Roof drains, curbs, and dunnage

Testing and certification may apply for anchor pull-out or torque verification.

Submittal / Engineering Requirements

Section 13 05 41 requires:

• Shop drawings for each component showing anchorage and bracing

• Stamped calculations by a state-registered structural engineer with ≥5 years seismic experience

• Third-party special inspections for anchorage and seismic hardware

This applies to exterior systems, not just to interior mechanical or electrical components.

Testing Requirements

Seismic specification mandates:

• Fastener pull-out tests (existing substrate anchorage verification)

• “Zero-failure” anchor testing for sampled components

• Installed bracing inspection reports

All new exterior elements in this project—regardless of scope—must be seismically restrained in accordance with Section 13 05 41, ASCE 7, and IBC requirements. This includes façade repair items (terra cotta, stucco), EIFS/insulation, storefront and window systems, sunshades, louvers, metal panels, and all exterior-mounted devices.

RFI #37: Can’t find any defined scope for the plumbing. I was going to ask that a scope be provided and roof drain locations and type if any roof drains were required.

RFI #37 Response:

Existing plumbing systems are to remain unless specifically noted otherwise on the drawings.

Project Title: Repair Exterior Finishes, Building 1 and OPC, Fresno VA Medical

Roof drainage shall be replaced with a new drainage system in accordance with the existing building design.

Drain locations, quantities, sizes, and types shall match existing conditions.

RFI #38: Will the Government require a dedicated full-time Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) separate from the

Superintendent and CQC Manager?

RFI #38 Response:

The Government requires a dedicated, full-time Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) who is separate from the

Superintendent and the Contractor Quality Control (CQC) Manager.