The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
SOLICITATION # 36C77624R0040
Construction of Valley Site Improvements Project No. 650-348- Providence, RI
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND VA RESPONSE TRACKING SHEET
ITEM
NO.
| DATE QUESTION RECEIVED |
| DATE QUESTION ANSWERED |
| QUESTION |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE |
| The SF1442 Block 10 states that we are to complete the necessary work for the “EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades Construction Project.” The presolicitation and other documents state that the title of this project is “Valley Street Parking Lot Improvements” or “Site Improvements at 500 Valley Street”. Is the title in Block 10 of the SF1442 incorrect? |
| After this was brought to our attention, Contracting noticed issues in updates posting to sam.gov. Yes, SF1442 Block 10 in incorrect as “EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades Construction Projects” and should read project title as “Valley Street Parking Lot Improvements”. This has been corrected on the solicitation on sam.gov. |
| The SF1442 Block 10 states that construction magnitude is between $5,000,000 and$10,000,000, but the presolicitation on Sam.gov had it listed as $10,000,000 to $20,000,000. Is the title in Block 10 of the SF1442 incorrect? |
| The SF1442 is correct that the construction magnitude is between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000. |
| Reference 2.8 Proposal Requirements, B. Proposal Format, 1. Volume I Technical, subpart b where it mentions utilizing 11x17 paper for the “project schedule” only. Section 2.8, C. Technical Proposal Requirements, Part 2. Factor 2, Technical Approach (Technical) does not list a “project schedule” as one of the items to be included. The first bullet item lists things that are commonly shown in a project schedule, but it does not specifically say to include these items in a “Project Schedule”. Was it the intent for the first bullet to read to provide a “project schedule” to include these items? |
| It was not the intent of factor 2 to read project schedule. Factor 2 remains Technical approach. |
A formal “project schedule” is not required as defined by the minimum requirements for the criteria. Offerors just need to respond to all parts listed in the Technical Approach Criteria. If an offeror were to submit a “project schedule” it would need to conform to the reference.
| Reference 01 00 00, 1.19, parts C, D & E. Parts D & E state that power and water are available at no cost. Part C states that contractor shall install meters and furnish the VA a monthly record of usage. Question: is the contractor still required to install meters and provide monthly records if the cost of said temporary utilities is at no cost to the contractor? |
| If power and water are available at a cost to the government, contractor is required to provide meter and furnish monthly record of usage. |
| 5. |
| 1/30/2024 |
| VA |
| Reference 01 35 26, 1.9.B. Is a monthly inspection / report still required by a CSP or CSHT if a qualified SSHO is on site daily? |
| Yes, it is. |
| 6. |
| 1/30/2024 |
| VA |
| Reference 01 35 26, 1.13. Is TB screening and documentation still required for this project considering all work on the site and not in the hospital itself? |
| Yes, it is required. |
| 7. |
| 1/30/2024 |
| A/E |
| Reference 01 45 00, 3.2.C. Confirm that a DQC is not required considering the project is fully designed. |
| Confirm. A DQC is not required. |
| 8. |
| 1/30/2024 |
| VA |
| Reference 01 81 13. Much of this specification is Not Applicable to this job. Is this specification, and requirements therein still required for this project? |
| Yes, this specification 01 81 13 Sustainable Construction Requirements is necessary for this project as it is referenced in specification 32 17 23 Pavement Markings concerning Low Pollutant Emitting Materials for painting VOC limits. |
| Attachment 19, Contractor Safety and Environmental Record Evaluation Form is not discussed in RFP 36C77624R0040; however, it was included in the list of attachments. Is it to be completed and included in our submission? If yes, please provide the Volume # and location of where it should be included. |
| Attachment 19 shall be included in volume 3 of the proposal. |
| If Attachment 19 is to be included in our response, does the government want copies of our OSHA 300 Forms for 2019 – 2022 included as well? |
| OSHA 300 forms can be included in volume 3 of the proposal. |
| Section 2.6 Amendments and 2.8 Proposal Requirements (2. Volume II Price, c.) indicate that amendments are to be acknowledged by filling out section 19 of the SF 1442. Are signed copies of the amendments to also be included in our response? If yes, will they be included in the 20 page limit for Volume II? |
| Amendments should be signed and included in the proposal. |
Amendments will not count towards any page limitations and could be included in Volume 3 of the proposal.
Reference 31 66 00 spec and drawing sheet S-07 concerning Instrumentation Monitoring.
a) Reference 31 66 00 spec and drawing sheet S-07 concerning Instrumentation Monitoring. Since the sheet pile installation is via an approved hydraulic press-in method and hammer impact and vibratory methods are not allowed, is this scope or work still required for this project?
b) If it is still required, does it apply only to the VA owned property, or does it extend to surrounding properties that are not owned by the VA?
a) This scope is still required.
b) It applies to VA owned property and the surrounding properties that are not owned by the VA.
| Reference -Detail B/E400 indicates Duct Markers not shown on the site plan. What should be the spacing and location of these duct markers? |
| Duct Markers to be placed at start and end points of the duct path, each change of direction, and over the ends of ducts which are installed under paved areas and roadways. |
| Reference -Sheet E101. The total count of CCTV cameras shown is six (6) confirmed by A/E-801. However, E101 shows two individual PTZ cameras at the West and East ends of the parking lot. Is it the intent to have individual PTZ cameras at each spot or would a single fixed multi-sensor camera be desired in lieu of two PTZs at each location? |
| It is the intent to have individual PTZ cameras at each spot. |
| Drawing S-01 depicts tiebacks at the end of Wall C and beginning of Wall D crossing each other. Plans indicate that Section C tiebacks are to be drilled at 15 degrees and wall D tiebacks at 20 degrees. Please advise if it would be allowable to further increase the angle of the tiebacks (at a minimum the 1st 5 tiebacks) in section D to ensure that tiebacks do not intercept each other. |
| Further increase to the angle of tiebacks for the first 5 anchors are allowed if the bond length is increased accordingly to have the same horizontal tieback load capacity. |
| Specification 31 64 00 Steel Sheet piles item 2.5 A, states use Volclay joint seal to seal all exposed interlock joints. Please specify the Volclay product / model number. |
| Contractors shall consult directly with the manufacturer to select the appropriate product / model number. |
| Reference 31 64 00, 1.9.E. Is it the intent that the contractor performs an additional site investigation report, including soil borings above and beyond what the owner has already performed and provided in the RFP to be submitted with the sheet pile design submittal? |
| There is no specific additional information required. However, as indicated in the specification, any additional information “deeded necessary by the Contractor” for the design must be submitted. |
| Have there been any additional site investigation / soil boring reports performed for this site besides the one provided in the RFP specifications? If so, can it be provided for review also? |
| The March 2023 WSP report was included. A portion of the January 2019 SW Cole report was included in this document. |
See the following attachments:
· The April 2009 Jacques Whitford report.
· The January 2019 SW Cole report.
· The February 2019 Aldinger report.
· Phase I & II Environmental Property Assessment May, 2018.
