Responses to Questions (3 pages).pdf

Responses to Questions Submitted for Solicitation 36C26321R0155:

Q: Page 13 of 72 of the solicitation Factor 1 Relevant Experience of the Prime Contractor says: Relevant

– Prime Contractor on projects similar in nature to the solicitation project in scope and magnitude. For this requirement, similar project scope is defined as projects that involve boiler replacement/heavy mechanical work on a hospital or medical facility. Please confirm that if the Offeror submits projects for Factor 1 Relevant Experience that primarily involve more heavy mechanical scopes of work in lieu of boiler scopes of work this will be acceptable.

A: Yes; however, the projects submitted must meet a similar magnitude along with meeting the requirements of being a recent project in order to be considered acceptable.

Q: The campus at the VA Hospital here in Omaha is a Schneider Electric EcoStruxure platform. On drawing 2M801 indicates a JCI network control engine. This is not compatible with the rest of the campus and will not connect to any existing controller in the boiler house.

A: Drawing 2M801 updated to reflect VA Hospital site; Schneider Electric Ecostruxure Platform.

Q: The solicitation mentions that Past Performance Questionnaires are requested for the “Determination of Contractor’s Responsibility,” but PPQ’s are not mentioned in the Technical Evaluation Factors. Could you please confirm that PPQ’s are NOT required to be submitted in order for a proposal to be found Technically Acceptable?

A: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) are only used for responsibility determinations; they are not used as an evaluation factor.

Q: It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain Past Performance Questionnaires from Contracting Officers on a project-by-project basis, especially when they have already filled out a CPARS evaluation for us. In light of this, will the VA accept completed CPARS evaluation forms in order to complete the “Determination of Contractor’s Responsibility” instead of the provided PPQ?

A: Yes, Past Performance Questionnaires were requested but not required. CPARS evaluations or any other past performance documentation for recent/relevant projects can be submitted to assist the Government in making a responsibility determination.

Q: Does a physical, original bid bond need to be provided prior to the bid date, or will a scanned electronic copy provided with the proposal suffice?

A: A scanned electronic copy will be permissible with electronic submission of proposal; however, the hard copy bid bond from the apparent awardee will need to be mailed to the Contracting Officer prior to award.

Q: The roof may have been replaced with a WindSmart vented roof system in 2019 and is under warranty. To maintain that warranty, any penetrations or modification to the roof need to be air sealed and the work needs to be done by a trained applicator in the WindSmart System. An inspection will need to be done at some time as part of the modifications. If someone could verify if this is the same roof and let us know, it would be appreciated.

A: Yes, the roof is currently under a warranty and it applies, References Sheet 2SG101 Note 8/07 53 23.

See Attached warranty information 1108 WWS01-EPDM60-PE-NE-1108 Omaha _Revised Warranty.pdf;

Warranty Cover Letter - owner- 1108.pdf; EV Layouts and Campus Map - Omaha.pdf

Q: Is this project sales tax exempt?

A: No tax exemption certificates will be issued for this project. All proposals shall include all applicable taxes.

Q: The scope of supply in terms of what is to be reused (existing) and what is to be replaced (new) varies a bit between mechanical drawings and piping diagrams. For example, the piping diagram on 2M602 shows the inlet valve and strainer to 2-FWP-3 as beeing part of the new scope of supply but detail 3 of 2MP301 does not. There are similar differences between detail 2 of 2MP301 and the piping diagram on 2M602 in terms of the condensate pump scope of supply. Please confirm which drawings/details take precedence. For now, I am considering 2M602 since it shows the greater scope of supply.

A: Revised plan drawings to coordinate work scope as follows: 2MD602, 2M501, 2M601, 2M602, 2M801, 2M803, 2M804.

Q: There is a 2" HPS line on detail 5 of 2M501 that takes off from the boiler steam drum but then loops back to drains on both ends? This looks like a remnant of a soot blower line that would not be applicable to this project. Please confirm.

A: Updated detail.

Q: Drawing 2M803 shows two chemical feed connections to the boiler; one on the top rear drum head and one on the bottom front drum head. Are two connections really required?

A: Deleted one connection.

Q: Drawing 2M602 shows two strainers on the inlet to the boiler feedwater station, one before and one after the bypass for the flow control valve. Are the two required?

A: Deleted one strainer.

Q: There are several differences between the boiler piping diagrams on drawings 2M601 and 2M602 and that on drawing 2M803. Notable examples are:

A: Coordinated diagrams with details.

- 2M803 shows an isolation valve directly after the boiler stop and check valve whereas 2M601 does not.

A: Deleted valve in diagram.

- Configuration of feedwater piping are significantly different on 2M803 as compared to 2M602 A: Coordinated diagrams with details.

- 2M803 shows atomizing steam taken directly from steam drum whereas 2M601 shows it taken from steam header.

A: Changed atomized steam source to steam header.

- 2M803 shows instruments and valves for drum heater as well as a temperature transmitter for heater control whereas other drawings and the written specification call for the these connections to be capped for future use.

A: Changed drum heater to steam-fired only.

Q: Please confirm which piping diagrams take precedence. For now, we are considering 2M601 and 2M602 since they are more in line with the written specification as well as previous VA projects we have done.

A: Coordinated diagrams with details.

Q: In the spec they are calling for a minimum design pressure of 250 psig. Our rental boilers that we would provide for the project would only have a design pressure of 150 psig but will be able to handle all of the required operating conditions. Do you have any issue with us providing boilers with a design pressure of 150 psig?

A: Firetube type 200 psig; Watertube 250 psig are acceptable.

Q: Could you please confirm that the correct Site Class for the Seismic Restraint Requirements is Class D? The local Omaha municipal code is Class A (the lowest).

A: The Omaha Municipal Code no longer specifies seismic accelerations, site class, nor seismic design category. It defers to the IBC and its referenced standard, ASCE 7, for such information, which is indicated on Sheet 2SG101.

Q: How to replace the steam valves on the boiler header piping if we have to keep the system live and tie the temp boilers into the same valves needing replaced? Are there capped valves in the main hospital that we can tie the temp boilers into (if so the temp boilers need to be at the hospital and not the boiler plant)? If not how do we isolate the main from the hospital to replace valves and keep redundancy?

A: A brief downtime would be permitted for this scenario. No capped valves exist. This would be coordinated with the COR.