S02A - RFQ 3677626Q0240 Amendment P01 Consolidated QAs- Attachment E.pdf

Final Consolidated Questions & Answers

RFQ 36C77626Q0240 – VHA Fire Protection and Life Safety Services BPA

1. BPA ordering

a. Will the resulting instrument be a BPA under FAR 13.303 or an IDIQ under FAR Subpart 16.5?

Answer: BPAs and task orders will be awarded using RFO FAR Part 12 procedures. Task Orders will be competed.

b. If a BPA, do orders fall under FAR Part 13 simplified acquisition procedures / FAR 13.500?

Answer: Orders will not be placed under FAR Part 13. The stated $100,000,000 BPA ceiling is no longer required per the RFO and will be removed from the solicitation.

c. Is the $350,000 "per Order" figure a ceiling or a planning estimate?

Answer: $350,000 is the order limit.

2. Minimum guarantee.

a. Is there a guaranteed minimum at the BPA or order level?

Answer: The agreements do not have a guaranteed minimum.

3. Competition process.

a. How many BPAs will be awarded?

Answer: The Government intends to award multiple BPAs.

b. Will every BPA holder compete for every order?

Answer: The Government intends to provide fair opportunity for every task order for all BPA holders.

c. Does the price list serve as a ceiling or ordering-level fixed price?

Answer: The BPA-level price list will be used only to determine price fair and reasonableness for the BPA award.

d. What evaluation basis applies at the order level?

Answer: RFO FAR Part 12 procedures.

e. How much response time will offerors get at the order level?

Answer: A response time will be set for each order giving offerors a reasonable opportunity to respond.

4. Declining an order.

a. May a BPA holder decline to quote without penalty to BPA status or past performance?

Answer: Yes — BPA holders are not required to provide a quote for every opportunity.

b. Does declining an order due to travel economics affect performance record/future eligibility?

Answer: No.

c. May a BPA holder decline to quote because of location, schedule, staffing capacity, jurisdictional licensure, or conflict of interest without adversely affecting BPA status or past-performance evaluations?

Answer : Yes, BPA holders are not required to provide a quote for every opportunity

5. Estimated volume.

a. Estimated Design Review task orders/year?

Answer: The Government estimates 870 design reviews per fiscal year.

b. Estimated SOC update task orders/year, typical GSF?

Answer: The Government estimates 58 SOC updates per fiscal year. No average GSF estimate can be provided due to site variability.

c. New requirement or follow-on?

Answer: New requirement.

d. Will historical/projected award data be released?

Answer: Historical data is not available.

6. Evaluated price formula.

a. Will SOC Updates and Design Reviews totals be summed into one evaluated price?

Answer: The Government will use the methodology in FAR 52.212-2; if the sum of all line items is needed to produce a Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the

Government may evaluate offerors on that basis to ensure price fair-and-reasonableness and balanced pricing across transaction types.

b. Will each of the 24 design-review prices count once in the total?

Answer: See answer above (TEP methodology).

c. Will each SOC $/GSF rate be multiplied by a fixed GSF quantity?

Answer: Attachment B has been revised to remove the 10,000-GSF quantity; exact quantities will be determined at the task-order level.

d. Will all six BPA years receive equal evaluation weight?

Answer: See answer above (TEP methodology).

e. Are weights/estimated quantities assigned to the four design sizes, occupancy types, infection-control levels, or the two task-order families?

Answer: No. The Government will use the methodology in FAR 52.212-2, See updated attachment B: Price List.

f. Are the 10,000-GSF quantities evaluation-only or a minimum order size?

Answer: Same as above — the 10,000-GSF quantity has been removed from Attachment B; exact quantities will be provided at the task-order level.

7. Factor III - Price

a. What test determines unbalanced pricing, and the consequence?

Answer: A comparative ratio test. The Government intends to request clarification for further analysis if concerns arise, but reserves the right to make a determination without such clarification/discussion.

b. Will the "Total Review Cost" formula (which omits the Very Large cell) be corrected?

Answer: Yes — Attachment B has been corrected.

c. Will price realism be evaluated in addition to price reasonableness?

Answer: No.

d. Comment resolution review/certification following each submittal, including repeated cycles.

Answer: Included in the fixed unit price; if the design A/E is not being responsive, the Government will address with the A/E to prevent the LsA having their efforts wasted.

e. Follow-up technical support "as needed" with no stated limit.

Answer: Included in the fixed unit price; as needed to answer questions if the LsA’s initial comment(s) require further clarification.

f. Meeting attendance/minutes with no stated meeting count.

Answer: Included in the fixed unit price; if the LsA is the lead firm for the work generating the meeting, they are responsible for minutes. The SOC update site visit is the only expected source of meetings under this BPA.

g. RFI responses within three calendar days, with no stated RFI quantity. e. Task order modification request preparation within seven calendar days.

Answer: Included in the fixed unit price; as needed to answer questions if the LsA’s initial comment(s) require further clarification.

h. Coordination with HEFP, VISN Capital Asset Management, Commissioning Agent, and other VA offices.

Answer: Included in the fixed unit price. LsAs review findings depending on the project will be acted/commented on by the design A/E and the Commissioning Agent (if applicable), so the LsA will be responsible for concurring with those responses. Depending on the project, other VA program offices will be responsible for providing review comments on the design. If those comments result in changes to the fire and life safety elements to the design, the LsA will be asked to review changes prepared by the design A/E in a subsequent submittal/resubmittal review.

i. Rework when the Task Order COR is solely responsible for a defect (may result in a change order per QASP Para 4).

Answer: If there is a change order, the costs will be captured in the task order modification.

j. Rework/resubmission after rejection for a spelling, grammatical, or formatting error.

Answer: Included in the fixed unit price; frequency depends on the LsA’s quality control process.

k. Support to Joint Commission accreditation readiness tasks, not reflected in either pricing tab.

Answer: This references that VA has adopted Joint Commission accreditation requirements as being one of several sources for design and operations standards, most notably having current Statement of Conditions drawings.

l. Verification of VA-furnished drawings and correction of floor plans where existing conditions differ.

Answer: Included in the fixed unit price; impossible to estimate at the BPA-level.

8. SDVOSB/VOSB evaluation factors.

a. Will any evaluation preference be given for SDVOSB/VOSB status?

Answer: The solicitation has been updated to incorporate evaluation preference as identified in VAAR 852.215-70 & 71.

9. Attachment B "Requirements Summary" blank fields.

a. Complete at BPA level or leave blank for order level?

Answer: This information will be provided by the Government at the task-order level; the BPA pricing document is a modified version of the Government's task-order estimating template.

b. Geographic Area — nationwide price or regional lists?

Answer: This information will be provided by the Government at the task-order level; the BPA pricing document is a modified version of the Government's task-order estimating template.

c. Permitted values for "Market Type"/"Facility Complexity Designation"; does complexity level affect pricing?

Answer: This information will be provided by the Government at the task-order level; the BPA pricing document is a modified version of the Government's task-order estimating template.

d. What is "Assigned VA Personnel and Visitors," and its bearing on price?

Answer: This information will be provided by the Government at the task-order level; the BPA pricing document is a modified version of the Government's task-order estimating template

10. Size/phase pairing and per-phase pricing.

a. Is the size-to-phase pairing (Small–SD, Medium–DD, Large/Very Large–CD) intentional?

Answer: See revised Attachment B: Price List which no longer includes this information.

b–e. (Very Large at SD; Small at CD; will Attachment B be revised; both Large and Very Large at CD)

Answer (all): See revised Attachment B: Price List which no longer includes this information.

11. Sheet-count basis for sizing.

a. Is sheet count per-submittal or fixed for the whole project?

Answer: Sheet count is a simplified way to estimate FPLS design-review effort. During task-order evaluation, the sheet count for each submittal will be estimated and each review priced individually; the count is finalized against the actual submittal from the design firm.

b. Are all discipline sheets counted, or only fire/life-safety-relevant sheets?

Answer: Total drawing-set sheet count, inclusive of all disciplines.

c. How are specs, narratives, calculations, and RFI responses (no sheet count) accounted for?

Answer: Only drawing-set sheet counts are used for pricing, to simplify and accelerate task-order awards.

d. If actual sheet count exceeds the priced tier, is the order modified?

Answer: If the estimate is substantially different from the actual submittal tier (e.g., estimated Medium but submittal is Large), the LsA may request a task-order modification.

e. How is sheet count established before the submittal is received?

Answer: Same as (a) — estimated based on the project, finalized in actual submittal.

12. Labor rates and Section B.11.

a. Are labor categories/hourly rates required with the quote?

Answer: No — not required.

b. Do Attachment B prices serve as ceiling, mandatory, or evaluation-only prices?

Answer: Evaluation only. The BPA-level price list will be used only to determine price fair and reasonableness for the purpose of award.

c. Must offerors use Attachment B for future task-order pricing?

Answer: No — task-order pricing will be competed separately.

d. Will a labor-rate template be provided?

Answer: Not applicable — labor categories and rates are not required.

e. If no labor rates are submitted, how will PWS Para 8.a (project management rate restriction) be enforced?

Answer: Rates are not enforceable. Unit rates will be established at the task order level.

f. How will out-of-scope work, change orders, or equitable adjustments be priced absent a labor schedule?

Answer: Work outside the BPA scope is not authorized.

13. Economic Price Adjustment / six-year firm pricing.

a. Will the Government consider an EPA clause given the six-year term and FAR 52.222-44?

N/A - Attachment B will be used to determine price fair and reasonable only; each task order will be competed.

14. Attachment B "Jan-50" formatting error.

Answer: Corrected — an updated Attachment B has been issued.

15. SOC minimum billable amount/mobilization.

a. Will SOC task orders include a minimum billable square footage or separate mobilization amount for travel, badging, site access, inspection equipment, mobile dust-containment equipment, signing/sealing, and native CAD/BIM deliverables? If one order covers multiple buildings/campuses, will price be calculated solely by total GSF?

Answer: No minimum billable amount and no separate line items for mobilization, travel, badging, equipment, etc. A SOC task order will specify the work location and all included buildings within the stated GSF in the SOW.

16. Travel cost recovery.

a. How are airfare, lodging, per diem, mileage, etc. recovered under the pricing methodology? Will be included in unit pricing at the task order level.

b. How does a single nationwide SOC $/GSF rate absorb travel-cost differences (e.g., Alaska/Hawaii/Puerto Rico)?

Answer given: Will be included in unit pricing at the task order level.

c. Will separate price lists by region/VISN/travel zone be accepted?

Answer: No — separate price lists are not required.

d. Will a separate travel line item (NTE, GSA rate) be established at the order level?

Answer: No - Will be included in unit pricing at the task order level.

e. Will an offeror be found unbalanced for reflecting worst-case travel in a nationwide rate?

Answer: Attachment B is used at the BPA level only to determine price fair-and-reasonableness

g. How should offerors treat travel-cost escalation (Years 2–6)?

Answer: Will be included in unit pricing at the task order level.

17. Design review — on-site meetings (100% remote expectation).

a. If VA requests an on-site meeting, is the order modified for travel cost?

Answer: In-person visits are expected to be exceedingly rare; virtual means must be attempted first. Any travel costs would be addressed in the specific order request and cannot be defined at this time.

b. How many on-site trips should offerors assume when pricing design review tiers?

Answer: Offerors should not assume any on-site requirements for design reviews; details (and any additional pricing needed) will be provided at the order-request stage.

c. If the LsA requests an on-site visit and VA concurs, who bears the cost?

Answer: Handled at the task-order Contracting Officer level.

d. Will the Government confirm in writing that no travel is required unless separately funded?

Answer: Travel will be included in unit pricing at the task order level.

18. On-site inspection scope.

a. Are additional site visits beyond the minimum compensated by modification?

Answer: Additional visits are expected only when LsA performance is unacceptable and revisions are required; handled at the task-order level.

b. What daily inspection production rate does the Government assume?

Answer: None assumed — production rate varies by firm staffing/approach (a firm means-and-methods determination).

c. Is standby/re-travel compensated if VA-provided access/documentation is unavailable?

Answer: The Government will not schedule LsA site visits if VA staff/documentation/access are not arranged in advance.

d. How is travel priced across multiple campuses/cities under one order?

Answer: Will be included in unit pricing at the task order level.

e. Will the task order identify all building addresses and required site days?

Answer: Each SOC SOW will identify all buildings, GSF by occupancy type, and infection-control requirements; the number of site days is a firm means-and-methods determination.

f. Are after-hours/weekend inspections required, and is premium labor priced separately?

Answer: Due to site variability, no blanket statement can be made; how to account for variable work hours in pricing is a firm means-and-methods determination. Will be included in unit pricing at the task order level.

19. Mobile dust containment cart.

a. Must the LsA bring/purchase their own cart, or may they use a VA-provided unit?

Answer: The requirement is a note in the SOC SOW template for VAHCS staff to adjust per local infection-control practice. Not all sites require a cart; the LsA may request approval to use an equivalent alternative method. Either way, compliance costs are part of the firm's overhead (a firm means-and-methods determination).

b. What specifications are required if the LsA must purchase a unit (HEPA, size, etc.)?

Answer: VA does not specify cart type — per the VHA Infection Control Risk Assessment (ICRA) form, Level II protocol requires "active means to control airborne dust... (e.g., Mobile Dust Containment Cart or some other system)."

c. Will VA provide secure storage for an LsA-owned unit?

Answer: This can be requested from the VAHCS during the SOC task-order solicitation.

d. Is a particular manufacturer/model/ICRA classification required, or may Government-owned equipment be used?

Answer: Availability of Government-owned equipment should not be relied upon but can be asked about during the SOC task-order solicitation.

20. Other SOC site-access/safety obligations.

a. Who bears the cost of OSHA/local confined-space training, and how much notice will VA give?

Answer: Will be included in unit pricing at the task order level.; notice of local requirements will be provided during task-order solicitation.

b. Will VA furnish escorts, and what is the LsA's remedy if unavailable?

Answer: LsA site visits should not occur if VAHCS staff are unavailable to provide required escorts.

c. Are health requirements (fit testing, immunization, TB screening) imposed, and are costs included in the unit price?

Answer: No known VAHCS requirements of this type exist as a condition of site visits. VHA Directive 1192.01 specifically excludes non-VA-affiliated surveyors/inspectors from the influenza vaccination program. No contractual health requirements apply.

d. Will VA provide the confined-space list, restricted-access list, ICRA form, SOC drawings, and BBI documents at solicitation or only after award?

Answer: The SOC SOW template already includes current SOC drawings, BBI documents, and the ICRA form at solicitation. The template will be updated to add a confined-space list and VA-escort-required list; the LsA may also request this information during the task-order solicitation.

e. Is lift equipment/scaffolding VA-furnished or LsA-furnished?

Answer: Task-order specific due to facility variability; VA will furnish this equipment to the greatest extent possible.

21. Infection control classification examples / ICRA form.

Answer: The latest VHA ICRA form will be uploaded to the solicitation. For LsA inspection purposes:

• Level One: Perform work without creating dust; immediately replace ceiling tiles/close access panels upon completion; materials/equipment must be free of contaminants.

• Level Two: All Level One measures, plus active dust control (e.g., mobile containment cart or water mist), clean worker clothing before leaving the area, and sealed/cleaned containers for equipment removed from the work area.

22. 90-day SOC submittal period / 14-day initiation.

a. Does the 90-day period include scheduling, badging, and background checks?

Answer: The 90-day period is notional and may be adjusted by the ordering VAHCS based on site complexity; it is inclusive of the site visit and administrative tasks. A valid, unexpired VA badge from any site is valid at all VA sites — no per-site re-badging is required.

b. If badging/background investigation delays access, is the period extended without penalty?

Answer: VA policy allows work to begin while badging is being completed in many cases; extension requests are handled case-by-case.

c. Does "initiated" mean the site visit must start within 14 days, or only that startup activities begin?

Answer: The task-order SOW's stated period of performance controls (as "otherwise specified"). Using the notional 90-day SOC template period, the LsA has 90 days total to complete required tasks and determines, in consultation with the VAHCS, when to begin.

d. Will SOC orders routinely specify a different period, and what should offerors assume?

Answer: Same as (c) above.

e. If a facility restricts site visits during a Joint Commission survey window or construction shutdown, will the schedule be adjusted?

Answer: SOC updates must be completed before a facility's Joint Commission survey window — a SOC order will not be awarded with a period of performance extending into or past that window. It is unclear what is meant by "construction shutdown" in this context.

23. SOC $/GSF pricing basis.

a. How should ten small buildings vs. one large building of equal total GSF be priced?

Answer: SOC pricing is a unit price per square foot by occupancy/infection-control type; how the LsA calculates its unit price is a firm means-and-methods determination.

b. Is GSF measured by all stories or building footprint?

Answer: Per VA Standards Alert 003C2B-SA-002A (Apr 1, 2012), GSF is the sum of each building's enclosed area measured from the exterior face of walls, broken down by occupancy/infection-control level. A given occupancy/level may have zero GSF at a site.

c. Is square footage allocated by field-verified area or the SOW table?

Answer: The table furnished in the SOC SOW governs.

d. If field-verified allocation differs materially from the table, is the order modified?

Answer: In rare cases, the LsA should bring findings to the task-order Contracting Officer for resolution.

e. Does $/GSF pricing include areas excluded from inspection (e.g., permit-required confined spaces)?

Answer: No — excluded confined-space square footage will not be included in the SOC SOW table; unit pricing should not account for it.

f. Is Level II the highest precaution level, confirming no Level III/IV work?

Answer: Level III/IV are not anticipated, but because SOC work involves inspection only (no construction), the applicable control measures are identical across Levels II, III, and IV per the current VHA ICRA form (v1.3).

24. Drawings, Floor Plans & Native File Format

a. Should floor plan updates be digitally measured against existing conditions, and what if measurements don't match?

Answer: No expectation that record drawings will be field-verified/measured. If the LsA identifies a significant discrepancy, it should be raised with the task-order COR for resolution.

b. Is there a limit to as-built correction effort in the $/GSF price?

Answer: No hard limit, but because SOC updates recur every three years, the volume of changes to incorporate is inherently bounded by the amount of construction/renovation that can occur within a three-year cycle.

c. If VA has no native CAD/Revit file (only scans/paper), is drawing from scratch included at the same rate?

Answer: This scenario is considered extremely unlikely, since VA has required AutoCAD for capital projects since the mid-1990s and facilities are inspected by the Joint Commission every three years — record drawings should already exist in usable native format.

d. Will VA state the percentage of inventory in usable native format, and the date of the last SOC update?

Answer: Only the date of the last SOC update will be provided.

e. Does "update the floor plan" extend to non-fire/life-safety corrections (room reconfiguration, numbering, furniture)?

Answer: Corrections needed to show required egress pathways and fixed/large equipment layouts may be required; furniture and room-numbering corrections are not expected to be included.

f. Will laser scanning/other measurement technology be required or accepted?

Answer: This is a firm’s means-and-methods determination.

25. Required file formats (AutoCAD or Revit)

a. Does the VA anticipate that some facilities will have AutoCAD files and others will have Revit files? Please confirm whether the VA intends to have two formats for Life Safety Plans, given format inconsistency concerns.

Answer: Each SOC task-order SOW will specify a single required file format.

VHA is transitioning to Revit as its standard, but some VAHCSs still use AutoCAD, the required format will vary site to site.

26. Smoke Damper

a. Will the VA require smoke damper functionality testing?

Answer: Yes — smoke dampers are to be tested.

27. Photographic documentation of deficiencies.

a. Is a photo required for every deficiency?

Answer: Yes, per SOC SOW Template Para 2.a.v — all deficiencies must be photographed; photo resolution/compression may be adjusted to manage file size.

b. Site-visit report timing — is 14 days acceptable in lieu of 7?

Answer: The Para 6.c "site visit report" is distinct from the Para 7 submittal documents. A separate site-visit report (if required or voluntarily prepared for something outside the standard SOC drawings/BBI/deficiency report — e.g., an on-site emergency) is due within 7 days. Otherwise, the standard initial submittal documents follow the period of performance in the task-order

SOW.

28. PG-18 reference applicability to SOC drawings.

a. These specification references (PG-18 series) go beyond what Joint Commission wants to see in SOC Life Safety Plans and are intended for design projects; the required line types may cause confusion for JC surveyors distinguishing fire barriers from smoke barriers. Is the VA certain these references should be followed for SOC Life Safety Plans?

Answer: Yes — all elements listed in SOC SOW Template Para 2.b (SOC Drawings Update) are to be included in SOC drawings for VHA facilities.

29. PE stamp / jurisdiction of licensure.

a. Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Section II.2.b, engineers may not sign/seal documents not prepared under their direction and control. Given that SOC Life Safety Plans document existing conditions that cannot be fully verified without destructive testing, and given that VA facilities change regularly and take advantage of code edition changes not directed by a PE, is the VA requesting that a PE contradict the Code of Ethics and jeopardize licensure by stamping these plans?

Answer: As a federal agency, VA generally is not subject to state/local licensing jurisdiction requirements. Jurisdiction-specific licenses are not required to sign and seal SOC drawings under this BPA — a qualifying PE license from any U.S. state, territory, or DC satisfies the requirement.

b. Does the BPA require a PE stamp on the SOC life-safety drawings (per Attachment A2's reference to "signed and sealed drawings")? If so, must the signing/sealing FPE be licensed in the jurisdiction where the VA facility is located, or will a qualifying PE license from any U.S. state/territory/DC satisfy the requirement? If jurisdiction-specific licensure is required, may it be obtained after task-order notice and before final certification?

Answer: VA as a Federal agency establishes its own codes and standards to follow and is generally not subject to state or local jurisdiction laws, regulations, ordinances or requirements. Jurisdiction-specific licenses are not required in order to sign and seal drawings for work performed under this BPA. A qualifying PE license from any U.S. state, territory or the District of Columbia satisfies the SOW requirement.

30. NSPE Code of Ethics conflict from question 29a above:

“Is the VA requesting that a PE contradict the Code of Ethics and jeopardize licensure by stamping these plans?”

Answer: A private organization's code of ethics (e.g., NSPE) does not govern or override the federal and state/territory/DC licensing laws under which this BPA operates; "plan stamping" prohibitions are established at the state/territory/DC level, not by NSPE. Verifying existing conditions and reflecting them on updated drawings (1) does not require destructive testing, and (2) does not constitute impermissible "plan stamping" as long as the FPE is present and supervising the inspection — which this BPA requires.

31. W-2 employees in teaming arrangements.

a. PWS Section 8 requires minimum personnel disciplines to be W-2 employees. For an offer with a formal teaming partner/subcontractor, may required personnel be W- 2 employees of either team member, or must every required individual be a W-2 employee of the prime? If employees of a teaming partner may qualify, must the parties form a joint venture, or is a prime/subcontractor arrangement acceptable?

Answer: Required personnel must be W-2 employees of the prime. The prime may supplement its minimum four-person team with consultant/joint-venture staff, provided FPE and Drafter/BIM/CAD Technician qualifications are met.

32. Collective FPE qualification / on-site substitutes.

a. May the two required FPEs collectively satisfy qualifications, or must each independently meet every requirement?”

Answer: Each FPE must independently meet every qualification requirement

— there is no collective/combined satisfaction of requirements.

b. May additional/substitute personnel (e.g., ABET ETAC-degree holders) be on site in place of, or alongside, the qualifying FPE?

Answer: A fire protection engineer meeting the BPA qualification requirements must be on-site during SOC work — remote/virtual participation during the site inspection is not acceptable. Whether additional personnel are needed, and their qualifications, is a firm means-and-methods determination, provided their work is performed under the on-site FPE's supervision.

c. If multiple personnel are necessary to perform the site visit and not all are required to hold the same qualifications as the FPE, may the additional personnel have bachelor's degrees from an ABET ETAC Fire Protection Engineering Technology program?

Answer: It is firm's means and methods to determine if more than one person is required to be on-site to perform the work. The qualification requirements of the additional people is up to the firm so long as their work is performed under the supervision of the on-site fire protection engineer.

33. FPE degree/ABET equivalency questions.

a. May a 14-year-experience holder with an ABET ETAC (not EAC) degree and no PE license serve as an FPE?

Answer: See PWS Paragraph 8

b. Will the Government consider revising Section 8 for an experience-based equivalent?

Answer: See PWS Paragraph 8

c. A separate vendor's equivalency request (PE licensure in 9 states, relevant VA experience, no FPE-specific degree).

Answer: See PWS Paragraph 8

d. Must the degree itself be titled "ABET-accredited," or just come from an ABET-accredited program?

Answer: See PWS Paragraph 8

e. Are both ABET EAC and ABET ETAC degree programs acceptable?

Answer: See PWS Paragraph 8

34. Evidence of PWS Section 8 compliance.

a. What evidence must be submitted to establish compliance with PWS Section 8 (resumes, transcripts, diploma copies, PE-license records, exam verification, project lists, or signed employee certifications)? May licenses/certificates be placed in Volume I or an appendix outside the 20-page limit?

Answer: VA does not need copies of PE licenses, transcripts, diplomas, or ABET documentation — license numbers and the degree-granting institution's name (for verification) are sufficient. The 20-page limit for Volumes II & III remains unchanged.

35. What counts toward the 20-page limit.

a. Are cover pages, TOCs, and cross-reference matrices excluded?

Answer: Volume I has no stated page limit and may include this type of supporting information; it is not counted toward the 20-page limit that applies to Volumes II & III combined.

b. Are resumes, PE license copies, ABET documentation, and org charts counted within the 20 pages?

Answer: Volumes II & III combined may not exceed 20 pages — no exclusions apply. PE licenses/ABET documentation are not required if license numbers and degree-granting institutions are provided for verification (see

FAR 52.212-1).

36. Teaming partner references — general.

a. If an offeror has 3+ teaming partners, does the 3-reference cap still apply?

Answer: Solicitation has been updated to clarify.

b. Is a subcontractor/teaming reference weighted the same as a prime reference?

Answer: Past Performance (Factor II) will be evaluated per FAR 52.212-2.

c. Will references for a predecessor firm or work by named key personnel at a prior employer be accepted?

Answer: Offerors shall submit up to three (3) recent and relevant contracts completed within three years prior to August 30, 2026.

37. Teaming partner's own past performance:

a. May a teaming partner cite work performed as a subcontractor?

Answer: Offerors shall submit up to three (3) recent and relevant contracts completed within three years prior to August 30, 2026.

b. Does the "one reference per partner" rule apply to all subcontractors, or only formal JV/CTA members?

Answer: Only proposed partners in a teaming arrangement must provide one past-performance submission each — solicitation language has been updated to clarify this.

38. Ongoing vs. completed contracts / date window.

a. Will an ongoing contract with 1+ year of performance be accepted, and does "within three years" mean completed between Aug 30, 2023–Aug 30, 2026?

Answer: Offerors shall submit up to three (3) recent and relevant contracts completed within three years prior to August 30, 2026.

39. Subcontracting plan requirements.

a. Is a narrative sufficient, or is a formal FAR 52.219-9 plan required?

Answer: A narrative approach describing the subcontracting arrangement and the extent of subcontractor use is sufficient; a formal FAR 52.219-9 plan is not required.

b. Is the 50% limitation measured at the BPA level, per order, or cumulatively?

Answer: FAR 52.219-14 applies at the task order level.

c. Are similarly situated entities excluded from the calculation?

Answer: See FAR 52.219-14(e)(1).

40. Progress payment structure.

“PWS Para 3.a states typical VA projects require two FPLS reviews (SD/35%, CD/95%), while Attachment A1, Para 2 lists three submittals (SD/35%, DD/65%, CD/95%), and Para 8 sets progress payments of 30%/65%/100%.”

a. Which assumption should the offerors price for, two reviews or three?

Answer: Design review pricing is a unit price based on project size (Small/Medium/Large/Very Large) — the number of reviews a given project needs does not affect the per-review unit price.

b. Are the percentages cumulative?

Answer (by example): Payment is made per completed/accepted review at that review's unit price (per task order) — e.g., a $50 order with an SD review priced at $15 (small) and a CD review priced at $35 (large) results in two separate payments of $15 and $35 upon acceptance of each.

c. If an order includes only SD and CD, how are payments allocated?

Answer: Same logic as (b) — payment is made per completed, VA-accepted review.

d. Is each phase billable on delivery, or only after certification?

Answer: Payable upon VA acceptance of the LsA's work; not all comments must be fully resolved if resolution depends on design A/E work in a later phase.

e. Does the phase price include both the review and comment resolution / certification?

Answer: Yes — pricing includes the review, comment resolution, and LsA certification.

41. Comment resolution cycle limits.

a. Is there a cap on resolution cycles in the fixed price?

Answer: No formal cap, but more than one resolution cycle is not expected for most task orders.

b. What is the LsA's remedy if the A/E fails to adequately resolve comments?

Answer: Elevate to the task-order COR/CO — failure to resolve will prevent the project from proceeding to the next design phase.

c. How is a disagreement between the LsA and VA PM over comment resolution handled, and may the LsA decline to certify?

Answer: The LsA elevates through the task-order CO to the BPA CO and the VA Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) for resolution. The LsA may not refuse to certify on a point the VA AHJ has already ruled on.

d. If the LsA declines to certify over an unresolved mandatory code deficiency, is the milestone still payable?

Answer: Payability depends on the circumstances (e.g., A/E refusal to correct vs. a code-interpretation disagreement with the AHJ) and will be determined at the task-order level by the Administrative Contracting Officer, informed by the COR and VA AHJ.

42. LsA confirmation of A/E's FPE and Attachment A3 template.

a. What documentation is required, and what if the A/E declines to provide it?

Answer: The A/E cannot refuse — this documentation would already have been required during the design-services solicitation. The LsA may request a copy of the design firm's FPE resume if more detail is needed.

b. Does the Para 9 error/omission allocation apply to all task orders?

Answer: No — it applies only to design review task orders; SOC updates are governed by the SOC SOW template.

c. May the LsA modify the Attachment A3 template (add rows/columns)?

Answer: The format must stay consistent with historic VA forms. Additional rows (for more than 30 comments) are permitted; additional columns are not. Photos may be embedded in the Comments column, and LsA status notes may be added near the VA/A/E resolution notes.

43. Delay/termination compensation.

a. If the A/E's schedule slips past the 63-day period, is the order extended or modified?

Answer: The 63-day period is notional (for a 3-review project) and may be adjusted by the ordering VAHCS. The period of performance is not continuous — each unit of work (14 days for LsA review, 7 days for LsA review of A/E comments) runs independently, with no running clock between units or between reviews.

b. If a project is cancelled/stopped before a payment milestone, how is work in progress compensated?

Answer: FAR 52.212-4 (terminations) applies and will be handled at the task-order level.

44. Performance-period delays from VA/A/E/third parties.

a. Will periods awaiting VA, A/E, or third-party responses be excluded from the contractor's performance-period calculation? Will schedules be adjusted when incomplete submissions, missing record drawings, access delays, escort limitations, or delayed comment resolutions prevent timely performance?

Answer: For design reviews, the period of performance is not continuous (see #43a explanation). For SOC updates, the task-order Contracting Officer will determine whether additional time is warranted if VA is the cause of delay.

45. Ordinary comments vs. Government-caused rework.

a. Please confirm that correction of ordinary review comments is included in the task-order price, while rework caused by revised Government requirements, materially changed design submissions, or inaccurate Government-furnished information will be addressed through a modification.

Answer: Confirmed as understood — ordinary comment correction is included in task-order pricing; rework from revised Government requirements, materially changed submissions, or inaccurate Government-furnished information is handled via task-order modification request.

46. Contract-level administrative costs:

“The following contract-level administrative obligations are not attributable to any single task order, continue when no orders are active, and have no Attachment B line item.”

(training, background investigations/PIV, facility onboarding, security assessments, code/standard subscriptions, unawarded proposal costs, professional liability insurance)

a. Please state whether the Government expects these to be amortized into unit prices and, if so, over what assumed annual order volume:

Answer (applies to all): Included in the firm's overhead expenses; how these costs are accounted for in the firm's overall operating budget is a firm’s means-and-methods determination.

b. Must the same four key personnel be maintained for the full six-year term?

Answer: No — there is no requirement to retain the same four individuals;

personnel may be substituted as long as replacements meet the BPA's qualification requirements.

47. A/E firm restrictions and OCI mitigation.

a. How will OCIs be identified/evaluated, e.g., where a BPA holder has also done design/construction work at the same facility?

Answer: VHA Directive 7712 (Fire Protection Code Reviews of Delegated Construction Projects, dated May 19, 2022) establishes the independent third-party reviewer requirement. The Government will not knowingly award a design-review task order to the same firm that designed the project under review. A firm may perform both design and FPLS work at the same facility, just not the same project.

b. Does an SOC update at a facility preclude design reviews there, or vice versa?

Answer: No.

c. Should an OCI mitigation plan be submitted with the quote?

Answer: No — not unless specifically required by a particular task order.

(whether a firm awarded this BPA is barred from other VA A/E work entirely — is answered above: there is no blanket prohibition; VHA Directive 7712, Para 4, is the controlling restriction, and it only prevents the same firm from both designing and independently reviewing the same project.)

48. Surveyor interaction with patients.

a. What is the VA's stance on the interaction of surveyors with patients, specifically in locations where patients are occupying areas that need to be inspected?

Answer: Incidental interaction is permissible to communicate the need for space access, unless the patient cannot understand the communication.

Best practice is to coordinate with VA staff before entering occupied patient spaces. Veterans, patients, caregivers, and family members must never appear in inspection photographs. Site-specific requirements should be clarified with the task-order COR before work begins.

49. VA Configuration Guidelines reference.

a. The solicitation states "VA Configuration Guidelines are available upon request."

Could the VA provide the VA Configuration Guidelines referenced?

Answer: VA Handbook 6500.11 (VA Firewall Configuration) provides relevant guideline information; more specific questions should be routed to the VA Office of Information Technology. (Link: va.gov/vapubs, Pub ID 882.)