Tech Questions Tracker - DB Parking Structure - Martinez CA 6-12-25.docx
DOCX document 81 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Y1LZ--612-165 Construct Parking Structure Replacing Expiring Lease Design-Build 2024 (VA-24-00039480)
- Solicitation number
- 36C77625R0021
About this file
This document is a Technical Questions Tracker for a Design-Build Parking Structure project at the Martinez VA Medical Center in Martinez, California, solicitation number 36C77625R0021. The document contains 38 technical questions and responses from potential contractors to the VA, covering critical project details such as project scope, design requirements, and submission guidelines. Key clarifications include extending the project experience timeframe to 8 years, confirming 350 new parking spaces, addressing demolition of temporary buildings, and specifying design requirements for solar array support, elevators, signage, and electrical systems.
The technical questions tracker reveals important modifications to the original Request for Proposal (RFP), including changes to evaluation criteria for Factor 2 Technical Qualifications, past performance submissions, and page limitations for Phase I proposals. Notable adjustments include allowing separate resumes for mechanical and electrical engineers, clarifying licensing requirements for architects and engineers, and increasing the proposal page limit from 35 to 50 pages. The project involves constructing a new parking structure to replace an expiring lease, with specific technical and design requirements that contractors must carefully address in their submissions.
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
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
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND
| SOLICITATION #: |
| 36C77625R0021 |
| RESPONSES TRACKING SHEET |
| PROJECT TITLE: |
| Design and Construct Parking Structure Replacing Expiring Lease at the Martinez VA Medical Center in Martinez, CA |
| # |
| RECEIVED |
| ANSWERED |
| CONTRACTOR QUESTION |
| VA RESPONSE |
| 1 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 5/22/2025 |
| Reference the RFP, section 2.7, part B Phase 1 Format, Factor 2 Design-Build Team Experience and Factor 3 Past Performance where it states that projects provided shall be completed within the last 5 years. Considering the 5-year window encompasses the COVID era and not as much work was performed over this period, can the time frame for past performance of projects be extended to 7 or 8 years from the date of this solicitation? |
| In response to the inquiry regarding the limited project activity during the COVID era, the Government agrees to extend the allowable timeframe for relevant project experience and past performance submissions. Offerors may now include projects completed within the last 8 years from the date of this solicitation. – VA CO |
| 2 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/12/2025 |
| Please clarify the total number of parking spaces for the new parking garage, i.e., 350 new spaces plus the 100 lost to the construction for a total of 450, or 350 total? |
| The SOW is correct that 350 new spaces will be constructed. VA COR |
| 3 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Please provide a copy of the as-built/record drawings for Temporary Buildings AB-5, AB-6, and AB-7 that are noted for demolition. |
| No as-built are available. VA COR |
| 4 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Will the temporary buildings slated for demolition be empty of furniture and any miscellaneous items? |
| Empty of furniture. VA COR |
| 5 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Are there any environmental testing reports available for the temporary buildings which would note the need for sampling or additional testing required for lead, asbestos, or any other hazardous materials in or around the existing temporary buildings? If so, please provide. |
| These modular building were built in 1990 and are not anticipated to have any asbestos or other environmental hazards associated with them. No test reports exist for these associated structures. – VA COR |
| 6 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| Please provide a copy of the as-built/record drawings for the solar system noted for demolition. |
| See attachment 2 to amendment 0002 |
| 7 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Please provide a copy of the as-built utility drawings for buildings AB-5, AB-6, AB-7, and the Solar System. |
| See response to RFI 6 and 3. – VA COR |
| 8 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Are we required to turn over any of the solar system or its components to the VA? |
| No – VA COR |
| 9 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Are we required to re-cycle the solar panels and/or electronics which are to be demolished based on the building demolition and solar system demolition? |
| No – VA COR |
| 10 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Are the existing utility systems/connections, i.e., water, sewer, electrical, telecommunication systems serving Buildings AB-5, AB-6, AB-7, and in general the VA Campus VA owned or privately owned by the various utility companies? |
| VA owned for water and sewer utilities on site. Power and gas on to the campus is owned by PG&E all the way up to the transformer and meter, then VA owned after that. – VA COR |
| 11 | |
| 5/21/2025 | |
| 6/2/2025 | |
| Please clarify the following for the structural and electrical design requirements for the possible solar array that is in the planning stages for the roof level of the new parking garage: | |
| a. | Should our design include structural supports for a flat solar array support system with a 9 ft. clearance (or advise the minimum height)? |
| b. | Should our design be based on a cantilevered solar support system (future) to minimize the number of support columns for the future solar array support system? |
| c. | Should our structural design include a column extension to 4 ft. above the roof level for attaching the solar support system? |
| d. | Should our design include fall protection at the roof level to 8 ft. (or advise on the height) above the drive surface to avoid interfering with the future proposed solar array system? |
| e. | Should our design include an electrical panel for the solar system, i.e., a place to feed the solar into the power distribution system for the parking garage? |
| a 9’ so there can be parking on the roof |
b cantilevered is preferred but not required c Yes d yes e yes
– VA COR
| 12 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Is a machine room less (MRL) elevator acceptable? |
| No, please follow VA Specification. – VA COR |
| 13 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Are the elevators (qty. 2) required to be on emergency power? |
| No, but safety egress of the elevator for VA specification will require battery system to allow elevator to allow passengers to egress or lower elevator for egress. – VA COR |
| 14 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Is the “Garage Full Signage” just a basic car counter system? |
| No, includes all signage for way finding, egress and other required signage. Car counter not required. – VA COR |
| 15 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Are we required to provide separate closets for the telephone and data infrastructure per VA Design Manuals? |
| Data can be co-located with electrical room in telecom enclosure security cabinet. Cooling will be required. – VA COR |
| 16 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Are we to design the data room/(s) and telephone closets based on the minimal room sizes noted in the VA Design Manuals (ISTS Standards)? |
| No, plan for OI&T lockable cabinet. This application would be applied as telecom enclosure. – VA COR |
| 17 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Our experience with Level 2 EV chargers for Government Projects has noted that there is a problem with finding 7.2KW chargers which meet the Buy American Act and the current Federal Register outlines the concerns EV chargers that meet the Buy American Act. Please advise if the VA has a make and model of an EV charger that would be acceptable for use in the project? If not, can this scope of work receive a waiver for meeting the BAA? |
| Level 2 is not required |
Additional chargers could be substituted Please adhere to the BAA – VA COR
| 18 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Please clarify the number of site visits required by the DB A/E and the specific Disciplines required for each of the visits based on the requirement for “periodic site visits”? |
| site visits are as needed to support the design and construction of the project. – VA COR |
| 19 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Please clarify the requirement for the A/E to “perform/witness” commissioning of the building systems. In general, we would recommend that the A/E review the commissioning documentation and provide a formal report. Please advise if this is an acceptable approach? |
| No requirement for commissioning except for the elevators. – VA COR |
| 20 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Reference the Schedule provided for the project. The schedule outlines the standard design and then construction approach. Is a Fast-Track Approach for the demolition, utility work, and foundation package would acceptable? |
| A fast track approach can be accomplished depending on the contractor’s team ability to support, schedule and coordinate. – VA COR |
| 21 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Please provide a copy of the VA Security/Background Information required for submission for all of our construction employees? |
| Security is standard PIV process in coordination with the COR. See attachments 0002 Attachment 3 & 0002 Attachment 4 |
· VA COR
| 22 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Please clarify if we are to provide any security guards for the construction site or if a locked temporary construction fence for the construction site is acceptable? |
| A locked and secured construction fence is acceptable. No security guards are required. – VA COR |
| 23 |
| 5/21/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Please clarify if the government will allow on-site parking and a staging area for construction materials and pre-cast structural elements? |
| Staging area and laydown area is limited based on the size of the facility and the contractor should plan deliveries with coordinated installation to reduce site storage concerns. Some parking is available across Muir Road but limited along with limited street parking. No contractor parking on site unless within the construction area. – VA COR |
| 24 |
| 5/22/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| We seek clarification regarding Factor 2: Technical Qualifications, which states that: |
“Resumes must demonstrate specialized experience and technical competence in construction or design of at least one (1) multi-story parking garage or similar multi-story design project in scope and complexity.”
This criteria is altered to the following:
The Offeror shall submit an organizational chart and indicate the prime responsible firm (or firms, if a J/V) and individuals, as well as the roles and responsibilities of individuals proposed as consultants and subcontractors. Provide a list of all consultants and all proposed major subcontractors, including telephone number, address, and name of contact.
The Offeror shall provide resumes that describes the design build team’s qualifications, to include education and/or certification(s), of the following personnel (page limitation, two (2) pages per requested resume):
| • | Design-Build Project Manager |
| • | Construction Project Manager/Site Superintendent |
| • | On-site Quality Control Specialist |
| • | Lead Architect |
| • | Lead Structural Engineer |
| • | Lead MEP Engineer |
| • | Lead Civil Engineer |
| • | Fire Protection Engineer |
*Dual hatting will not be allowed. There is no preprinted form for this submittal.
For each of these required key personnel, the offeror shall identify the available capacity and any current projects they are working along with the anticipated completion dates.
The Offeror shall describe its approach for managing performance under this solicitation, including techniques for management of work coordination with subcontractors and measures/corrective action that will be taken for substandard performance. The Offeror shall describe proposed Design-Build Peer Review techniques along with the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan.
Evaluation Methodology: Technical Qualifications will evaluate the relevant management, required technical personnel, and subcontractor capabilities and qualifications of the team to provide the required planning, implementation, and completion of the project. The VA will consider education and certifications, as well as relevant experience in an operational health care facility. The VA will also evaluate how the Offeror organized personnel for this project, and the lines of authority between the construction firm, design firm, and key subcontractors – VA CO
| 25 |
| 5/23/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Does Phase II take into account the evaluation of a firms Phase I submission? |
| Per solicitation: Upon receipt of Phase I proposals, the VA team will evaluate and determine the highest qualified Offerors based on their Phase I submissions. A maximum of five (5) Offerors will be selected to provide a proposal for Phase II. Offerors not selected to provide a Phase II proposal will be notified that they are no longer being considered for this project. |
Phase II proposals will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15, the two (2) Non-Price evaluation factors listed below, and Price for Phase II.
1. Technical Solution
1. Draft Project Schedule
Thus, Phase I evaluation is not a factor in the Phase II.
· VA CO
| 26 |
| 5/28/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Reference the RFP, Section 2.27 VAAR 852.223-70 Instruction to Offerors – Sustainable Acquisition Plan (Sep 2019) – Page 25 of 103, states that “Offerors shall include a Sustainable Acquisition Plan in their technical proposals.” |
0. Is this applicable to this proposal?
A sustainable acquisition plan is not applicable to this proposal.
-VA CO
| 27 |
| 5/28/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| 1. Reference the RFP, Section 2.7 Proposal Requirements, Part B., Factor 2 Technical Qualifications, Submission Criteria where it states “Note: The design-build contractor shall ensure that all drawings submitted for permits are stamped by a professional licensed engineer or architect, who must hold a valid license in the State of California. This requirement applies to all project phases and deliverables to ensure compliance with local building and federal regulations.” This statement raises a few questions. |
a. Concerning “submitted for permits” and “ensure compliance with local building and….regulations”, typically state and local agencies have no jurisdiction on federal government lands and their projects and the only ‘permit’ that has to be submitted for may be a NPDES storm water permit if the site is large enough to trigger. Questions:
i. Will the state and local government agencies have any jurisdiction on this campus and over this project?
ii. If so, what other permits might be required?
b. Concerning the AE having to be licensed in the State of California, this is not a typical requirement of the VA Design Standards, that the AE of record be licensed in the state where the project is located. The statement in the RFP specifies that drawings submitted for “permits” must meet this requirement. Referencing the statement above regarding permits, if there are no other permits required other than maybe a storm water permit, will the final “Issued for Construction” documents submitted to the VA for approval require stamps from a A/E holding a valid license in California, or would a neighboring state suffice?
Refer to question 4 for the revised criteria. Also detailed in amendment 0002 continuation page.
AE firms need to be licensed in any US state for this VA requirement. – VA CO
| 28 |
| 5/28/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Reference the RFP, Section 2.7 Proposal Requirements, Part B., Factor 2 Technical Qualifications, Design-Build Team Experience where it states “If submitting as a teaming arrangement the Offeror will provide the number of years and projects, they have completed together. A teaming arrangement must have not less than 1 project of similar scope and complexity.” Concerning the terminology of ‘submitting as a teaming arrangement’ used here, please confirm that only past experience examples from the Offeror, the name listed on Block 14 of the SF1442, will be accepted / evaluated and not those of a major subcontractor or firm other than the Offeror. |
Refer to question 4 for the revised criteria.
Only examples from the offeror listed in Block 14 of the SF1442 will be accepted and evaluated and not those of major subcontractors other than the offeror.
– VA CO
| 29 |
| 5/28/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| Reference the RFP, Section 2.7 Proposal Requirements, Part B., Factor 3 Past Performance, Submission Criteria where it states “The evaluation shall consider the specific experience (minimum of five years) and qualifications (i.e., education, training, registration, certifications, overall relevant experience, and longevity with the firm as full-time employees) of personnel proposed for assignment to the project, and their record of working together as a team when evaluating professional qualifications.” This statement seems out of place, not belonging in this Factor 3, as there is no other mention anywhere about listing personnel under this Factor. Can you please clarify the intent here, or what is required? |
| The following language is removed from the criteria in its entirety. Also detailed in amendment 0002 continuation page. |
“The evaluation shall consider the specific experience (minimum of five years) and qualifications (i.e., education, training, registration, certifications, overall relevant experience, and longevity with the firm as full-time employees) of personnel proposed for assignment to the project, and their record of working together as a team when evaluating professional qualifications.”
| 30 |
| 5/29/2025 |
| 5/29/2025 |
| Reference the RFP, Section 2.7 Proposal Requirements, Part B., Factor 2 Technical Qualifications, Submission Criteria where it states “The Offeror shall also provide a resume ….. for each of the following key construction personnel: Project Manager, Site Superintendent, and any known major subcontractors.” Our design firm will technically be one of our ‘major subcontractors’. Are they to be listed here, or will the SF-330s provided previously in this section suffice? |
Refer to question 4 for the revised criteria.
– VA CO
| 31 |
| 5/29/2025 |
| 5/29/2025 |
| Reference the Attachment 1 Statement of Work for Design Build Services document, section 3.13.3 concerning anti-suicide system. Will fencing or screening for this purpose be required on the ground level? |
Not required for the ground floor.
– VA COR
| 32 |
| 5/29/2025 |
| 6/2/2025 |
| The VA Physical Security & Resiliency Design Manual, paragraph 3.7.2.2 states that we are to "include in the design the ability to completely shut down vehicular and pedestrian access to the parking facility when closed." This means that we will have to provide a door or gate for every entrance in the new garage and also security fencing on the ground level. |
Will this be applicable to this garage or will it receive a waiver?
The facility already has gated security system at the main entrances thus not making this a requirement for this structure.
– VA COR
Reference the RFP, Section 2.7 Proposal Requirements, Part B., Phase 1 Proposal Format and Evaluation where it states “…..shall not exceed a total of THIRTY-FIVE (35) pages.” With the inclusion of CPAR and PPQs for our 5 past performance projects in Factor 3, the requirement of a 35-page limitation cannot be met. Please modify the page limitation to allow for the inclusion of CPAR and PPQ documents in Factor 3.
The page limit is increased to 50 pages. PPQ and CPARS will not count towards the 50 page page limitation for submission of phase I proposals.
-VA CO
| 34 |
| 6/4/2025 |
| 6/4/2025 |
| Reference Amendment 0002, Item 2 on the Continuation Page: This item revises Factor 2 Technical Qualifications and the last paragraph before ‘Evaluation Methodology’ states, “The Offeror shall describe its approach for managing performance under this solicitation, including techniques for management of work coordination with subcontractors and measures/corrective action that will be taken for substandard performance. The Offeror shall describe proposed Design-Build Peer Review techniques along with the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan.” This entire paragraph seems to align more with Factor 1, which requires a technical approach narrative including a description of quality control processes. It should also be noted the evaluation methodology described for Factor 2 does not include anything about this paragraph. Please confirm this information should be included under Factor 1, and not Factor 2. |
| The below information is correctly placed in factor 2: |
“The Offeror shall describe its approach for managing performance under this solicitation, including techniques for management of work coordination with subcontractors and measures/corrective action that will be taken for substandard performance. The Offeror shall describe proposed Design-Build Peer Review techniques along with the Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan.”
This part of technical qualification is evaluated via methodology language below:
“The VA will also evaluate how the Offeror organized personnel for this project, and the lines of authority between the construction firm, design firm, and key subcontractors.”
| 35 | |
| 6/4/2025 | |
| 6/5/2025 | |
| Reference Amendment 0002, Item 2 on the Continuation Page: This item revises Factor 2 Technical Qualifications and requires resumes for the identified personnel which includes a Design-Build Project Manager and a ‘Construction Project Manager/Site Superintendent’. | |
| a. | Our standard practice normally includes one project manager to be the “Design-Build Project Manager” and the “Construction Project Manager”, and a separate individual is the Site Superintendent. Is this acceptable? |
| b. | As this section states that dual hatting will not be allowed, please confirm that if we do provide a resume for a ‘Construction Project Manager/Site Superintendent’ this won’t be considered dual hatting. |
| a. Yes. This is acceptable. |
b. Yes, allowable. If providing a “Construction Project Manager/Site Superintendent” resume this will not be considered dual hatting.
| 36 |
| 6/4/2025 |
| 6/5/2025 |
| Reference Amendment 0002 revision to Factor 2: The Government identifies key personnel that we are to provide resumes for and includes “Lead MEP Engineer”. Mechanical/Plumbing, and Electrical are separate disciplines that are typically covered by separate individuals. Shall we provide resumes for both the Lead Mechanical Engineer, and Lead Electrical Engineer? |
| Yes. Providing separate resumes for each discipline is allowable for coverage of Lead MEP Engineer. |
| 37 |
| 6/04/2025 |
| 6/5/2025 |
| RFP instructions for Phase II indicates completed Representations and Certifications will be included in Volume III Administrative. Please confirm Representations and Certifications should not be included with Phase I proposals. |
| Reps and Certs should be included in Phase II Volume III. |
| 38 |
| 6/09/2025 |
| 6/12/2025 |
| The SOW and stated budget indicate a 350 stall structure, however, the RFI response indicates 450 stalls. We request confirmation that the VA intends to increase the stated Scope/basis of design from 350 to 450 stall requirement with the RFI 2 response, as this changes the entirety of the design approach given the stated budget; we feel 350 is feasible, but that 450 is likely not without removing other major scope elements/requirements, which we do not think would be tenable for VA. Also |
| Please see answer #2. – VA COR. This has been corrected. |
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .