Attachment 05 Follow up Technical Questions Tracking Spreadsheet.docx
DOCX document 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Y1DA--512-22-710 EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades - Loch Raven MD - Construction (VA-24-00060549) Solicitation
- Solicitation number
- 36C77624R0114
About this file
This is a technical questions and answers tracking spreadsheet for RFP 36C77624R0114 regarding EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades at Loch Raven, MD. The document addresses four technical questions received on January 13, covering requests for the geotechnical/soil report, feeder schedule, specifications for electrical equipment testing, and clarification about in-wall conduit pathways.
The government responses direct contractors to various attachments in Amendment 0006 for the first three questions. For the fourth question regarding conduit pathways, contractors are instructed to assume existing in-wall conduit pathways and backboxes for communication cabling can be reused, with existing conduit assumed to be ¾" - 1" in size for in-wall pathways. New conduit is required for other cable runs.
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP 36C77624R0114_1 EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades - Loch Raven, MD - Construction
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND VA RESPONSE TRACKING SHEET
ITEM
NO.
| DATE QUESTION RECEIVED |
| DATE QUESTION ANSWERED |
| QUESTION |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE |
| 1. |
| 1/13 |
| Geotechnical / Soil Report – Per Spec. Section 01 00 00, 1.11 B – ‘B. A copy of the soil report is provided as an appendix to this specification set. |
| See attachment 02 in Amendment 0006 |
| 1. |
| 1/13 |
| Feeder Schedule per Technical Questions and Answers #72 |
| See attachment 03 in Amendment 0006 |
| 1. |
| 1/13 |
| Specification Section for Requirements for Testing of the Electrical Equipment – 3rd Party Electrical Acceptance Testing. Per Technical Questions and Answers #64 |
| See attachment 04 in Amendment 0006 |
| 1. |
| 1/13 |
| In response to RFI #28: For bidding purposes, is the contractor to assume that in-wall conduit pathways and backboxes currently exist and meet specifications / max fill requirements at all drop locations where the same amount of cables are to be removed and replaced? Is the contractor to assume all data drop locations require new conduit? If unknown, for purposes of bid levelling please provide an estimated percentage of drops assumed to require new conduit as opposed to those where existing conduit is assumed to be reusable. |
| For bidding purposes, contractor is to assume existing in-wall conduit pathways and backboxes for communication cabling are able to be reused. Contractor can assume existing conduit is ¾” – 1” in size for in-wall pathways. Contractor to assume new conduit will be required for other cable runs. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .