0002 Attachment 1 - RFI Tracker - Milwaukee - 5-18-26.pdf

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS AND SOLICITATION #: 36C77626R0024

RESPONSES TRACKING SHEET PROJECT TITLE: Milwaukee Construct Chiller – Design Build

# RECEIVED ANSWERED CONTRACTOR QUESTION VA RESPONSE

1 04/30/2026 04/30/2026 Please confirm or advise that the Phase I proposal should only include a completed SF 1442 and the Phase I factors of Technical Approach, Technical Qualifications, and Past Performance and NOT to include “A.3 Price/Cost Schedule” or any other pricing referenced outside of the later Phase II requirements section.

Confirmed.

2 04/30/2026 04/30/2026 What is the anticipated timeline from Phase I proposal submission to receiving notification of proceeding to Phase II and date Phase II would be due? Requesting in order to more accurately plan proposed key personnel.

This time frame is not entirely known now. For planning purposes, an estimate of within 3 weeks.

3 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Technical Question 1 – Factor 2: Technical Qualifications, Identify a List of Team Qualifications, Solicitation page 11:

In Factor 2, both “Lead MEP Engineer” and “Lead Electrical Engineer” are identified. “Lead MEP Engineer” covers multiple unique engineering disciplines, including mechanical and electrical. Please confirm that the intent for "Lead MEP Engineer" is “Lead Mechanical Engineer”, and electrical will be covered under “Lead Electrical Engineer”.

Phase I, Factor 2 Technical qualifications is revised to the following: “

• Design-Build Project Manager

• Construction Project Manager/Site Superintendent

• Onsite Quality Control Specialist

• Lead Architect

• Lead Civil Engineer

• Lead Structural Engineer

• Lead MEP Engineer/ Mechanical Engineer

• Lead Electrical Engineer

• Lead Controls Engineer

• Lead Startup Testing & Commissioning Engineer

• Fire Protection Engineer”

This change allows for either a mechanical engineer or a MEP engineer to be submitted for the criteria.

4 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Technical Question 2 – Factor 2: Technical Qualifications, Identify a List of Team Qualifications, Solicitation page 11:

Factor 2: Technical Qualifications call for a “Lead MEP Engineer” and “Lead Controls Engineer” and note that dual hatting will not be allowed. The control design typically falls under the mechanical engineer’s scope.

Will it be acceptable for the Lead MEP engineer to fill the role as Lead Controls Engineer?

No. The Technical qualifications call for the following.

• Design-Build Project Manager

• Construction Project Manager/Site Superintendent

• Onsite Quality Control Specialist

• Lead Architect

• Lead Civil Engineer

• Lead Structural Engineer

• Lead MEP Engineer/ Mechanical Engineer

• Lead Electrical Engineer

• Lead Controls Engineer

• Lead Startup Testing & Commissioning Engineer

• Fire Protection Engineer”

5 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Technical Question 3 – Factor 2 Technical Qualifications, Solicitation page 11:

In Factor 2, two (2) pages are allowed for each requested team member resume. Given the size of the Design Build Teams including members of the Designer of Record's Team and the Construction Team, two pages per resume will take up a significant amount of the overall thirty-five

(35) pages limit, which is potentially approximately twenty-two (22) pages. Please confirm if the resumes pages count toward the overall page limit.

Yes, resume pages will count toward the overall page count of thirty-five (35) pages.

6 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Technical Question 4 – Factor 3 Past Performance / Design-Build Team Experience, Solicitation pages 12-13:

Factor 3 requires offerors to provide at least two and no more than three recent projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to Project 695-24-101. The criteria also state that, for offerors lacking relevant past performance history, information may be submitted regarding predecessor companies, subcontractors, and/or key personnel who have performed on other contracts.

Because this is a design-build procurement, successful performance depends on both the construction prime’s ability to execute the work and the Designer of Record’s ability to design a fully functional, constructible, maintainable chiller plant that can be procured, phased, commissioned, and turned over within the required performance period.

Please confirm that the Government will allow an offeror to submit one of the required two to three Factor 3 past performance projects based on the experience of its proposed Designer of Record or major design subcontractor, provided that:

1. The Designer of Record is committed to the offeror’s proposed design-build team for this procurement;

2. The project involved design of a fully functional chiller plant or central utility plant similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude to Project 695-24-101;

3. The submitted narrative clearly explains the Designer of Record’s role, responsibility, scope, and contribution to successful project performance;

4. The offeror still submits at least one project completed by the Prime, as required by Factor 3; and

5. The offeror provides CPARS, PPQ, or other owner/customer past performance documentation to the extent available for the submitted project.

The solicitation allows offerors who lack relevant past performance history to supplement their submission with information from predecessor companies, subcontractors, and/or key personnel who performed on other contracts.

As of the publication of Amendment 0001 This allowance is not limited solely to construction subcontractors and therefore includes design professionals when their experience is relevant to the requirements of this procurement.

Accordingly, an offeror may submit one of the required two to three past performance projects based on the experience of its proposed AE designer or major design subcontractor, provided that:

1. The AE designer is formally committed to the offeror’s proposed design-build team for this project.

2. The submitted project involved design of a fully functional chiller plant or central utility plant, and is similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to Project 695-24-101.

3. The past performance narrative clearly identifies the AE designer specific role, responsibilities, scope, challenges addressed, and contribution to overall project success.

4. At least one submitted project was completed by the Prime Contractor, consistent with Factor 3 requirements.

5. Applicable CPARS, PPQs, or other owner past performance documentation for the DOR’s project is provided to the extent available.

This clarification will help offerors present the Government with the most relevant design-build team experience for this procurement, rather than limiting the assessment to construction-only references where the solicitation’s successful performance requirements include both design and construction of the new chiller plant.

7 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Technical Question 5 – Factor 3 Past Performance Magnitude Threshold for Chiller Plant Projects, Solicitation page 12:

Factor 3 states that submitted past performance projects must demonstrate construction of a fully functional chiller plant similar in size, scope, complexity, and magnitude to Milwaukee VAMC Project 695-24-101, with each submitted project having a total value exceeding $20 million.

Please clarify whether the Government will consider recent VHA or Federal healthcare chiller plant projects with an original contract value below $20 million to be relevant where the offeror demonstrates that the project is otherwise highly similar in scope and complexity to Project 695-24-101.

Many recent VHA chiller plant projects involve smaller plant tonnage than large commercial district-energy systems and were awarded before the significant post- 2020 escalation in mechanical equipment, electrical gear, materials, and labor. As a result, the historical awarded value of a recent VHA chiller plant project may materially understate the present-day replacement value of the same scope. A project below $20 million may still demonstrate directly relevant experience in constructing a fully functional chiller plant, including chilled water generation, cooling towers, pumping systems, hydronic piping, electrical infrastructure, controls integration, site development, demolition, utility tie-ins, phasing, commissioning, and work within an active healthcare campus.

Accordingly, please confirm whether the Government will accept and evaluate chiller plant projects with original contract values of $10 million or greater, provided the offeror’s narrative demonstrates that the project is similar in plant type, delivery method, system capacity, technical

Factor 3 specifies that each submitted past performance project must have a total value exceeding $20 million and must demonstrate construction of a fully functional chiller plant similar in size, scope, and complexity to Milwaukee

VAMC Project 695-24-101.

Projects under the $20 million threshold will still be evaluated, but it may be a weakness due to the magnitude requirement.

Offerors without relevant past performance or for whom past performance information is not available cannot be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for this Factor.

complexity, phasing requirements, active-facility constraints, and present-day replacement value.

This clarification would allow offerors to submit the most technically relevant VHA and Federal healthcare chiller plant experience, rather than substituting less relevant projects that exceed $20 million primarily due to broader scope, unrelated building work, or non-healthcare market conditions

8 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Factor 2: Technical Qualifications (Technical) – what are the expectations of the Lead Startup Testing & Commissioning Engineer if the Va is hiring a 3rd party CxA? Is there overlap with these roles?

VA will contract an independent 3rd party commissioning agent (Cx Agent), which is granted full collaborative access with the AE & Construction Contractor, their Startup Testing Cx Agent, and full access to all project documentation.

The VA 3rd Cx Agent review will be allowed (in real-time and post-occurrence) to work in collaboration with the Contractor, AE, and Startup Test Cx personnel.

Offerors are advised to search the combined project specifications for a significant number of ‘Commissioning’ and ‘Cx’ references.

9 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Factor 2: Technical Qualifications (Technical) – of the list of individuals described as the design-build team; which positions will be required to be present, on-site full time while work is being performed?

See question 16

10 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Specification section 01 00 00 shows the same list of individuals referenced in the question above including the note “dual hatting will not be allowed” but 1.4.D.3. says the GC’s Project Manager may be designated the QCM (Quality Control Manager) if the necessary qualifications are proven. Is this the only position that is allowed to wear a “dual hat” and is the position expected to be full time on site when any work is being performed?

As of amendment XX ‘Dual hatting’ may only be allowed by a Team Member when qualifications for a second discipline is also deemed expert, based the SME resumes as evaluated/scored and approved by VA.

11 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Statement of Work (page 2 of 11), 1.1 Project Purpose and Intent says “Bldg. 109 is expected to be empty/vacated with access for demolition approximately October 1, 2026” which suggests that Oct. 1, 2026 is the anticipated NTP date, please confirm. Section 6.2 (page 7 of 11) Construction says “Start Mobilization Process & Demolition of Bldg. 109 and Preparation of Construction Site after 65% submittal turn-in” which is 175 days after NTP (page 6 of 11). If the NTP is 10/1/26, this would suggest that mobilization, sitework and demolition cannot occur until March 25, 2027, which statement is correct?

The following language is removed from the statement of work: “Bldg. 109 is expected to be empty/vacated with access for demolition approximately October 1, 2026”.

A revised statement of work reflecting this change will be issued to contractors participating in Phase II.

12 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Statement of Work (page 4 of 11), 4.1 says “A third-party review will be required at 65%”, is the expectation that the Design-Build team pay for and contract a 3rd party review firm? If so, what are the required qualifications and expectations of this 3rd party reviewer? Also, the schedule for Design Build 6.1 does not account for the time it will take for a 3rd party reviewer, will time be added to the contract for this requirement?

VA will contract an independent 3rd party commissioning agent (Cx Agent), that will be granted access and collaborate with the AE, Construction Contractor your Startup Testing Cx Agent and given full access to all project documentation.

The VA 3rd Cx Agent review will be allowed to happen in real-time and post-occurrence in collaboration with the contractor, AE, and your startup test Cx personnel.

Feedback by this VA ‘over the shoulder’ 3rd Party Cx Agent will occur either through or with VA oversight and approval.

Offerors are advised to ‘search’ project specifications for a significant number of ‘Commissioning’ and ‘Cx’ references and addressing how Offeror’s and VA Cx Agents shall collaborate together.

13 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Is the changeover from the old chiller system to the new chiller system expected to happen during “off-season”, i.e between November and March etc.? If so, the schedule shown in the statement of work does not seem to reflect that.

To be reflected in the Schedule, it is expected that during the first “off-season” of the Project (when the existing Chiller Plant is shut-down and isolated from the Mian Hospital) a new three-way (flanged/capped) valve will be installed at a predetermined/confirmed location in the existing supply & return piping of the existing Chiller Plant.

During the “off-season” the installation of a new three-way valve is expected to have no impact on critical path schedule, taking a few days to install and test.

No matter the time of the year, the newly started & tested Chiller Plant can then be tied into the Main Hospital at this three-way (flanged/capped) valve having no expected impact on schedule. Final Cx to occur only after full integration and functionality with the hospital is installed fully tested and documented.

Upon demolition of the old Chillers, the three-way (flanged/capped) valve remains available as back-up for potential future use by temporary Chillers. The old Chillers and any above grade footings are to be demo’d.

14 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 How long does the VA expect to be without Chilled water during the outage/changeover from the old Chiller Plant to the new Chiller Plant?

The new fully tested and commissioned Chiller Plant will have installed (in advance) three-way valves in the existing glycol supply & return lines. By use of these valves, the actual changeover can then occur when best determined by the schedule anytime throughout the year.

Final startup, testing, & Cx of the integrated chilled water system and Plant to occur during the appropriate time of year and under loaded conditions.

15 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Specification 01 00 00 – 11, section 1.6.O. Pre- Construction Submittal Requirements – Schedule Consultant Qualification Proposal – is a 3rd Party Scheduling Consultant required on this project? If so, what are the expectations? Will the 3rd Party Scheduling Consultant have to provide the Draft Project Schedule in Phase II or are they only required after the Award is made?

01 32 16.17 1.3: “To fulfill all requirements of this specification section, the Contractor shall engage an independent CPM consultant who is skilled in the time and cost application of scheduling using (PDM) network techniques for similar sized construction projects.”

An Offerors Phase II submission will be scored based on the methodology identified in the RFP. Qualifications of the Consultant are further defined in this spec section.

16 05/05/2026 05/13/2026 Specification 01 00 00 – 11, section 1.6.O – Project Management Team Memo (PM, Supt., QCM/CPM, SSHO, Etc.), please confirm if all four of these positions are expected to be full time on-site during all work activities and if there are any other full time on-site positions expected.

01 00 00 – 3, 1.4.

B.2 PM shall be dedicated to this project alone – which dictates being onsite.

C.4 Superintendent(s) shall be dedicated to this project alone -which dictates being on site.

D.4 QCM/CPM shall be onsite when work is being performed.

E.2 SSHO shall be dedicated to this project alone – which dictates being onsite.

It is expected that all other members of the Project Management Team Memo are to be available onsite (so as not to affect schedule) when technically specific work is being performed or relevant questions arise related to that

SME.

The Offeror will submit for VA review/approval a Management Team Memo and Project Schedule to ensure that the appropriate SME Team Member will be onsite for a particular SME tasking.

17 05/18/2026 05/18/2026 Will the government pay for materials stored per VAAR 852.232-70 and FAR 52.232-5? We have experienced PCAC Contracting Officers refusal to pay for materials stored on site during these periods of material shortages and the need to expedite procurement of materials when available to meet schedule obligations and prevent project delays. This is an important factor in preparing Price proposals.

In accordance with contract terms and conditions, Contractors should not submit an offer assuming the Government will approve monthly progress payments for material and/or equipment procured by the Contractor and stored on the construction site, as space is available, or at a local approved location off the site. Payment of stored materials and/or equipment is at the Contracting Officer’s discretion and will be handled on a case-by-case basis during the contract and under such terms and conditions as the Contracting Officer approves.

18 05/18/2026 05/18/2026 Please confirm that any designers or consultants who provided professional services for the construction documents, including reports, are precluded from pursuing this project as a Prime contractor, Mentor- Protégé partner, or subcontractor.

Any member of the design team of this project is not permitted to be part of the construction team.

19 05/18/2026 05/18/2026 Will the Government provide detailed written requirements for contractor badging? Please clarify the process for obtaining PIV badges, including required documentation, background checks, and estimated processing timeframes.

Regardless of affiliation, everyone working within VA facilities or requiring access to VA information systems requires a VA PIV Card. PIV badging requirements can be found at https://www.osp.va.gov/How_To_Get_A_VA_ID_Badge.asp

Immediately after the bonds are provided to the Government, the contractor shall immediately start working with the identified COR at the site to commence the VA PIV process for all known contractor personnel that will be working the project. All contractors must have a PIV Card in order to work on site.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.osp.va.gov%2FHow_To_Get_A_VA_ID_Badge.asp&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ca161741650ed4b22218208de6008203d%7Ce95f1b23abaf45ee821db7ab251ab3bf%7C0%7C0%7C639053785169652282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bOyRo4yD6UcMOZ261M7rEERPQ4zyMuZo1ibLTo%2BidoM%3D&reserved=0

20 05/18/2026 05/18/2026 Will the VA allow deviations to Buy American Act if the noted products are not available?

The process of requesting exceptions to the Buy American Act is detailed in the provision at FAR 52.225-12, Notice of Buy American Requirement—Construction Materials Under Trade Agreements, and the clause at FAR 52.225-11 Buy American—Construction Materials under Trade Agreements, in the solicitation. Any items not compliant must be specifically listed in the offer.

21 05/18/2026 05/18/2026 Due to current potentially significant tariffs being placed on the importation of building materials such as wood or steel by the current Presidential Executive Branch, if a tariff is placed after bid time and before award will the government consider a price escalation on a contract value for products such as steel or wood should the executive branch levee tariffs effecting such materials?

Most of these materials would still have been Buy American compliant as the tariffs would increase pricing on all steel or wood materials, regardless of origin.

This will be awarded as a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract and all escalation should be factored in your FFP.

Additionally, FAR 52.216-4 “Economic Price Adjustment – Labor and Material” is not included in the solicitation and will not be added.

22 05/18/2026 05/18/2026 What format should Mentor Protégé and Joint Ventures submit required SBA documentation, if they are submitting in Phase I?

Notice to SDVOSB Joint Venture/Mentor Protegee submitting for PHASE I:

Any offeror submitting an offer as a joint venture must provide a copy of the joint venture agreement signed by an authorized official of each partner to the joint venture, stating that the parties to the joint venture (1) have entered into a joint venture agreement that fully complies with paragraph (c) of 13 CFR § 128.402 and (2) will perform the contract in compliance with the joint venture agreement.

Additionally, the certification from the certified SDVOSB partner must be submitted. Failure to submit the agreement and certification with the offeror’s proposal will render the offeror ineligible for award. This Documentation may be included with the single PDF document sent to the government and will not count towards the page limitation. Joint Venture/Mentor Protegee documentation may also be included as a separate PDF from the criteria response for Phase I in a single email to the government.

23 05/18/2026 05/18/2026 I’m assuming we should submit the one page certification similar to the attached from a previous submission AND our 30 Page JV Operating Agreement, correct?

Correct

24 05/18/2026 05/18/2026 In addition to those two documents, we will also submit our SBA Mentor Protégé letter and our SDVOSB approval letter, is that correct?

Correct