HVAC_III_MACC_-_Q_ _A_-_5_March_2014.pdf

SOLICITATION NO: N62473-14-R-0003

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT (MACC) SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, AND

RENOVATION OF HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) SYSTEMS AND

ASSOCIATED WORK AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN THE NAVFAC SOUTHWEST AREA OF

RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, NEVADA,

COLORADO, UTAH, AND NEW MEXICO

Questions & Answers

February 7, 2014

Question 1: RFP states: If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, at least one relevant project shall be submitted for each Joint Venture partner. If no shared project experience is demonstrated, proposals that fail to submit at least one relevant project for each partner in the Joint Venture will be rated Unacceptable. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

We presume similar rules as in Joint Venture apply for companies in Teaming Agreement?

Please clarify.

Answer: As stated the RFP (Basis of Evaluation for Factor 1, Experience): "The basis of evaluation will be the Offeror's demonstrated experience in performing five (5) relevant construction projects as defined in the proposal submission requirements above. The assessment of the Offeror's relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP."

Offeror is defined in the RFP as "the Contractor submitting the proposal as Offeror, including joint ventures, whose name appears in Block 14 of Standard Form (SF) 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award). In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between the Offeror's name cited on the SF 1442 and any other part of the proposal, the SF 1442 is the conclusive document in determining the Offeror who is submitting the proposal."

The requirements for Joint Venture Offerors are only applicable to Joint Venture Offerors.

They do not apply to companies in Teaming Agreements. As stated in the RFP, a Joint Venture is defined as "A legal business entity formed between two or more companies (parties) to undertake the performance activities of a contract together."

Question 2: If two companies are in Teaming Agreement with a formal Teaming Agreement signed and submitted as part of the proposal, will past performance projects submitted (total five projects combined for both the members of the Team in the Teaming Agreement) be evaluated? Though SF 1442 will have only one company as Prime. Please clarify.

Answer: As stated in the RFP, (Basis of Evaluation for Factor 2 – Past Performance), “This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources.” Again, Offeror is defined in the RFP as "the Contractor submitting the proposal as Offeror, including joint ventures, whose name appears in Block 14 of Standard Form (SF) 1442 (Solicitation, Offer and Award). In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between the Offeror's name cited on the SF 1442 and any other part of the proposal, the SF 1442 is the conclusive document in determining the Offeror who is submitting the proposal."

Question 3: How do we determine if we are a Small Business for this procurement?

Answer: The SBA establishes Small Business Size Standards based on North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) codes for various industries. As stated in the RFP for this procurement, the NAICS code is 238220, which has a size standard of $14 million.

More information on size standards and how to calculate small business size can be found on the SBA's website at the following link: http://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards.

Question 4: RFP Section 00210 paragraph 3.b.a states:

“For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects are further defined as new construction, repair, and/or renovation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and associated work, by design-build or design-bid-build, within the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000.”

Please confirm if 100% complete HVAC projects with a construction cost in excess of $5,000,000 will be considered relevant.

Answer: The referenced RFP section (Factor 1: Experience, a. Proposal Submission Requirements) explicitly defines projects that will be considered relevant under this procurement.

Further, Factor 1: Experience, b. Basis of Evaluation, states:

“Any project submitted which is (1) in excess of the five (5) required projects, (2) combined projects (see definition), (3) not 100% complete within the five-year period specified (see definition), (4) outside the scope of work of this solicitation, or (5) outside the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000, will not be evaluated.”

(Emphasis added)

Question 5: PTO 0001 RFP Section 05 50 13 Mentions 07 54 00 Ketone Ethylene Ester Modified

Polyvinyl Chloride Single Ply Membrane Roofing System. We are unable to locate this specification section or any roof specification section. Please provide a roofing specification to be used for the roof patching.

Answer: See Amendment 0001 which incorporates Section 07 54 00 into the PTO 0001 RFP.

February 11, 2014

Question 6: The one line electrical diagrams do not clearly indicate the names of the Main Distribution

Boards or Secondary Distribution Boards. Will the government be able to provide the contractors with amended one line diagrams clearly indicating the titles of all electrical equipment?

Answer: The government will not be providing an amended one line diagram.

Question 7: The electrical panel schedule doesn’t clearly indicate which electrical panel are existing and which panels are to be installed new. Will the government be able to provide the contractor’s with amended one line diagrams clearly indicating which panels are existing and which are to be installed new?

Answer: All electrical panels shown on the drawings are existing.

Question 8: The current one line diagram doesn’t clearly delineate the limits of new work versus existing work. Can the government provide the contractors with a more detailed one line diagram clearly indicating the limits of new work?

Answer: The electrical scope of work is to provide power to the new HVAC equipment from the existing electrical panels shown on the drawings. No additional drawings will be provided.

Question 9: Will the selected bidders be required to bid on every task order procured through this contract?

Answer: No. As stated in the Basic Contract RFP in Section 00803 (Task Order Issuance

Procedures), paragraph 1. f.: “Each Contractor is required to submit a reasonable number of good faith proposals for PTOs. Contractors are not obligated to propose on all Task Orders; however, they are required to contact the Contracting Officer within two days of notification if they cannot participate in the walk through or submit an offer. Failure to provide this notification may impact future consideration for PTOs and exercise of an option.”

Question 10: The solicitation states to provide (3) previous complete calendar years (2010, 2011, and

2012) EMR. 2014 EMR should be available to all companies now, should we be providing 2012, 2013, and 2014?

Answer: No. Offerors shall provide EMRs for the three (3) previous complete calendar years [2010, 2011, and 2012], as stated in the RFP.

Question 11: The solicitation allows the use of experience information form affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies. Is experience of key employees gained under previous employment acceptable as well?

Answer: No.

Question 12: We are a Small Business formed as a result of break-off from a large Mechanical Contractor. Can we use our experience and projects performed under their name in addition to our own projects?

Answer: No.

Question 13: The solicitation states a DART rate of 3.00 or higher is considered high risk and may be considered Unacceptable. OSHA has a Site Specific Targeting (SST) program targeting what they consider high DART rates, for non-manufacturing industries that is a rate of

15.0 or higher.

Is the 3.00 rate listed accurate or is it a typo?

Answer: As stated in the RFP, “A DART Rate of 3.00 or higher is considered high risk and may be considered Unacceptable; however, the Government may take into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates.”

The DART rate stated in the sentence above is accurate and is not a typo.

Question 14: Specification 01 35 26/1.6.2.2 states that a Certified Industrial Hygienists it to “be on-site at least weekly whenever work or testing is being performed.” Does the CIH need to be on-site full time in addition to the SSHO or can the CIH be on-site weekly to perform project safety and health inspections?

Answer: The CIH can be on-site weekly to perform project safety and health inspections.

Question 15: Under additional submission requirements RFP calls:

Submit at least 2 projects with construction cost of $1,500,000 or above

Is it a construction cost referencing the total project value, or just our scope?

Answer: For a project to be considered relevant, it must meet the definition of a relevant project, as defined in the RFP. As stated in the RFP, “For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects are further defined as new construction, repair, and/or renovation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and associated work, by design-build or design-bid-build, within the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000.”

Question 16: Under additional submission requirements RFP calls:

Submit at least 1 project to demonstrate self-performed construction experience with boiler/chiller plants

Is this project should be dedicated boiler/chiller plant project or chiller/boiler plant can be a part of larger project?

Answer: A project submitted to demonstrate self-performed construction experience with boiler/chiller plants replacement and modernization may be part of a larger relevant project. The submitted project must still meet the definition of a relevant project in order to be considered for evaluation. As stated in the RFP, “For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects are further defined as new construction, repair, and/or renovation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and associated work, by design-build or design-bid-build, within the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000.”

Question 17: Can the same project be submitted to satisfy several requirements?

Answer: A single project may satisfy several of the “additional minimum submission requirements;”

however Offerors are still required to submit five (5) 100% complete construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrate your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to projects that may be ordered under this contract. As stated in the RFP: “Proposals which submit fewer than five (5) relevant construction projects or fail to demonstrate experience as required above will be rated Unacceptable.”

February 19, 2014

Question 18: Exhibit C Safety Form states on page 2, question #7, that the contractor shall not exceed

2 pages when providing its safety narrative. Question #7 is already on the 2nd page does this mean that the Government wants the contractor to express our subcontractor risk mitigation within the little rectangle(s) given. Can the Government clarify when the 2 pages begin and end for the Safety Narrative section?

Answer: As stated in the RFP, “The safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) pages.” The technical approach for safety narrative (block 7 of Exhibit C) is the only part of the Safety factor subject to the 2-page limitation. The safety data/rates provided in blocks 1 – 6 of Exhibit C are not part of the narrative and do not count towards the page limitation. As stated on Exhibit C, the form may be expanded, so you are not limited by the size of the rectangles shown on Exhibit C. Again, only the safety narrative (block 7 on Exhibit C) is subject to the 2-page limit.

Question 19: When submitting exhibits A and B (experience/past performance) examples, is it permissible to have more than one example of DDC/EMCS work provided by a subcontractor?

Document states:

- Submit at least two (2) projects with a construction cost of $1,500,000 or above.

- Submit at least one (1) project demonstrating self-performed construction experience with boiler/chiller plants replacement and modernization.

- Submit at least one (1) project demonstrating construction experience with installation of Digital Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems.

- At least one (1) of the self-performed projects shall demonstrate experience with design-build.

…Experience of a subcontractor submitted to demonstrate construction experience other than the installation of Digital Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems will not be considered.

Are we to infer that only one DDC/EMCS project is allowed to be highlighted? Or multiple examples are allowed due to the wording “submit at least one”?

Also, please confirm that the DDC/EMCS project(s) can be one of the two experience/performance examples that are required to be larger than $1.5M.

Answer: See Amendment 0002, which changes the additional minimum submission requirements for Factor 1 (Experience) to require the submission of one (1) (and only 1) project demonstrating construction experience with installation of Digital Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems. The DDC/EMCS project can be one of the two projects that are required to have a construction cost of $1,500,000 or above.

Question 20: Detail C3/A503 shows an adjustable aluminum pre-manufactured mechanical equipment support system. Unfortunately, we have been unable to locate any additional information for the support system in this project’s plans and specs. Can the government provide the contractors with 3 manufacturers that produce this product?

Answer: The mechanical equipment support shall be furnished by the mechanical equipment manufacturer and be as close to detail C3/A503 as possible.

Question 21: We do not see Task Order 001 scope for Pricing, although it is an evaluation factor. When will Task Order 001 for this RFP be released? Or, if we are misunderstanding the RFP directions, regarding PRICING, can you explain?

Answer: The Planned Task Order (PTO) 0001 RFP is posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website at the following link:

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DON/NAVFAC/N68711AC/N6247314R0003/listing.html

The PTO 0001 RFP file (along with all of the other solicitation files and amendment files) is located on the right side of the screen under the heading “ALL FILES.”

February 21, 2014

Question 22: The Government provided LEED checklist is titled "LEED 2009 for Core and Shell

Development". This project appears to be the retrofit of an existing building. Is this the correct LEED category of building and checklist (year)?

Answer: The included LEED checklist is correct and is applicable to the Proposed Task Order (PTO)

0001 project referenced in the RFP. As stated in the amended Basic Contract RFP (Factor 4, Technical Approach), "The Offeror shall submit a completed Exhibit "D" (LEED Checklist) (under Tab "Exhibit D") specifying the remaining LEED points to be achieved for PTO 0001, and include a description of the proposed method of achieving each credit." As stated in the PTO 0001 RFP (Description of Work), PTO 0001 is for the installation of a new HVAC system in an existing building, complete and usable in accordance with the design in the set of drawings and specifications included in this RFP.

February 26, 2014

Question 23: {Regarding a proposed Joint Venture (JV) between 2 firms}

We are both Small Business by federal definition. However, [our firm] qualifies as a Small Business Prime Contract wherein the business size standard is different than the business size standard for a specialty contractor. We want to confirm our participation in this JV partnership will not preclude our HVAC partner from qualifying under the small business size of $14 million for this proposal?

Answer: Per 13 CFR 121.103 (h)(2), the members of a joint venture are considered to be affiliated for size purposes.

– The size of each team member contributes to the total size of the joint venture.

– The joint venture is small only if the combined annual receipts or employees of all the firms in the JV meet the size standard for the procurement.

Per 13 CFR 121.103(h)(3), there is an exception to the normal rules of affiliation for joint ventures on procurements that meet certain requirements:

1) A bundled procurement of any dollar value; or

2) For a procurement having a receipts based size standard, the dollar value of the procurement exceeds ½ the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract; or

3) For a procurement having an employee based size standard, the dollar value of the procurement exceeds $10 million.

For these procurements, a joint venture may submit an offer as a small business for a Federal procurement without regard to affiliation so long as each concern is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract.

In the case of the HVAC MACC (N6247314R0003), which is a small business set-aside with a small business size standard of $14 million, exception #2 noted above applies;

therefore, for this procurement, the JV may submit an offer as a small business without regard to affiliation so long as each concern is small under the $14 million size standard assigned to this procurement.

Please review 13 CFR 121 at the following link for the full description of regulations pertaining to small business size standards.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp&SID=7528966d1b7a86b5bf5f3b5952fcca63&r=PART&n=13y1.0.1.1.

17.

Question 24: LEED Reference Manual v2009 does not require that the following systems to be commissioned: fire protection, fire alarm, fire sprinkler, or lightning protection. However, these systems are briefly mentioned in the context of Commissioned Systems on specification line item 01 78 00-1.6.1-b. Are fire protection, fire alarm, fire sprinkler, or lightning protection systems to be commissioned by the LEED Commissioning Agent?

Answer: Fire protection, fire alarm, fire sprinkler, or lightning protection systems ARE NOT to be commissioned by the LEED Commissioning Agent for PTO 0001.

Question 25: This project's Basic Contract mentions air barrier testing multiple times; is any sort of

Building Envelope Commissioning required to be performed by the LEED Commissioning Agent?

Answer: Building Envelope Commissioning IS NOT required to be performed by the LEED

Commissioning Agent for PTO 0001.

Question 26: If any new Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Renewable Energy sources are being installed, LEED v2009 requires that they be Commissioned by the Commissioning Agent. In reviewing the electrical single lines on drawing sheet E601, there appears to be a PV system either being installed or existing. Is a PV system being installed and/or should it be in the project's Commissioning Plan to Commission the PV System?

Answer: PV system is existing and shall NOT be in the project's commissioning plan for PTO 0001.

Question 27: The Commissioning Agent is only required to perform seasonal testing and/or follow up visits during the post construction warranty period if the LEED EA Credit #3-"Enhanced Commissioning" is being pursued (this project is not pursuing this credit per the specifications). However, specification section 01 78 00-1.6.1-d notes that attendance by the Contractor will be required during post construction warranty inspections conducted by the Government. Will the Commissioning Agent be required to attend the post construction warranty inspections?

Answer: The Commissioning Agent WILL NOT be required to attend the post construction warranty inspections for PTO 0001.

March 4, 2014

Question 28: The drawings provided in the RFP for PTO 0001 state, “Final Design Submittal”. None of the drawings have final signed and stamped approval from an architect or engineers. Will the Government please confirm that PTO 0001 is a design-bid-build project (100% designed and prime contractor’s only responsibilities include constructing in accordance with those final drawings)?

Answer: Confirmed. PTO 0001 is a design-bid-build project (100% designed). The prime contractor is responsible for constructing the project in accordance with the final drawings included in the RFP.

Question 29: Has this project been submitted to the USGBC?

Answer: No, this project has not been submitted to USGBC.

Question 30: If awarded, are we required for full submission to the USGBC?

Answer: No, this project will not be submitted to USGBC.

Question 31: Enhanced Commissioning requires a CxA to be involved in the design of the project. Will the government please confirm that a CxA was involved in the initial planning and design and that this credit is achievable?

Answer: Enhanced commissioning is not part of this project’s scope.

Question 32: Amendment 0002, Factor 1: Experience submission requirements states to provide five

(5) projects, specifically: Submit at least two (2) projects with a construction cost of $1.5M or above; Submit at least one (1) project demonstrating self-performed construction experience with boiler/chiller plants replacement and modernization; Submit one (1) (and only 1) project demonstrating construction experience with installation of Digital Direct Controls or Energy Management Control Systems; At least one (1) of the self-performed projects shall demonstrate experience with design-build. QUESTION:

Please confirm that the project demonstrating experience with design-build can be a separate HVAC-relevant project, and therefore does not have to be one of the two projects valued at $1.5M or the one project demonstrating experience with boiler/chiller plants replacement and modernization or the one (and only one) project demonstrating construction experience with DDC or EMCS.

Answer: As stated in the answer to Question #15 above, for a project to be considered relevant, it must meet the definition of a relevant project, as defined in the RFP. As stated in the RFP, “For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects are further defined as new construction, repair, and/or renovation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and associated work, by design-build or design-bid-build, within the construction cost range of $50,000 to $5,000,000.”

Further, as stated in the RFP’s “Additional minimum submission requirements” for Factor 1 (Experience): “At least one (1) of the self-performed projects shall demonstrate experience with design-build.” The project submitted to satisfy this particular minimum submission requirement does not have to be one of the two (2) projects with a construction cost of $1,500,000 or above; or the one (1) project demonstrating self-performed construction experience with boiler/chiller plants replacement and modernization; or the one (1) (and only 1) project demonstrating construction experience with installation of DDC or EMCS; however, it must still be a relevant project, as defined in the RFP.

Question 33: Will the ACT ceiling system be in place prior to contractor mobilization for this project? If so, who will be responsible for the removal and replacement of the ceiling?

Answer: ACT ceiling system has not been installed and is shown on the drawing for coordination purposes only. ACT ceiling system is not the responsibility of the contractor.

Question 34: The electrical sheets for this project show the contractor providing power for all of the new HVAC equipment. The drawings also illustrate the circuiting for the building’s power circuits. The notes on the plan sheet annotate that a vast majority of the receptacles, switches, and various electrical devices are existing. Will the contractor be responsible for the demolition and re-circuiting of the building’s existing power circuit or will the contractor only be responsible for providing circuiting to the new HVAC equipment?

Please advise.

Answer: The contractor is only responsible for providing circuiting to the new HVAC equipment.

Question 35: Is it possible to get the proposal due date extended to March 28th? We have a couple of projects that will be completed 100% in the next two weeks and they have the past performance needed to assist us in being technically acceptable for this contract.

Answer: Due to the urgent need of this procurement, the date and time for receipt of proposals remains unchanged at this time.

Question 36: Please confirm if the contract work will require working over existing work cubicles? Do we have to relocate and/or protect the existing furniture? Will the building be occupied or not, and if so, what are the restrictions for contractor work hours and construction phasing?

Answer: This building is not occupied. No furniture has been installed.

Question 37: The mechanical and plumbing drawings are missing the compressed air system schematics. Please provide.

Answer: Compressed air system is not part of this project.

Question 38: Sheet P001 includes three items on the Plumbing Equipment Schedule that are shown as existing construction on Sheet P601 “Domestic Water Isometric”: GM-1 “Gas Meter”; PR-1 “Gas Pressure Regulator”; and EV-1 “Excess Check Flow Valve”. Will these items remain or be replaced?

Also, Sheet P101 includes three items not on the Plumbing Equipment Schedule: RH-1 (???); EC-1 “Evap Cooler?”; WH-1 “Water Heater?”; B-1(?); B-2(?)

Sheet P601 includes three items not on the Plumbing Equipment Schedule: WHA-‘A’ (Water Hammer Arrestor?); WHA-‘B’; RH1 thru RH4 (??).

Answer: GM-1 “Gas Meter”; PR-1 “Gas Pressure Regulator”; and EV-1 “Excess Check Flow Valve” are to remain.

RH-1, EC-1, WH-1, B-1 and B-2 are on the mechanical sheets since they are mechanical equipment.

RH-1 thru RH-4 are on the mechanical sheets. WHA-A and WHA-B are existing.

Question 39: Does the offeror need to get the PPQ filled from the Client and include as part of the proposal?

Answer: Yes. As stated in the RFP under Factor 2 (Past Performance) Proposal Submission

Requirements:

“Submit evaluations under Tab “Exhibits A & B” immediately following each of the projects shown on Exhibit “A” to which they pertain. For each project submitted in Factor 1, use one of the following formats to demonstrate past performance:

- For commercial projects, submit a past performance questionnaire (PPQ) (Exhibit

“B”). Ensure correct/current phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Offerors are required to provide PPQs with their proposal.

- For Government projects, submit a copy of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) performance evaluation, for construction. If no CCASS evaluation exists, the Offeror may submit a PPQ;

however, the government will not consider any PPQ submitted for a project if an official CCASS evaluation exists in the government database.”

March 5, 2014

Question 40: I wanted to get some clarification on the LEED requirements for this project. It is noted that the project is intended to be LEED Silver (50-59 pts). The LEED checklist that has been provided outlines only 21 points. Because it much of the building is already constructed it is possible that the remaining 29-38 points have been obtained previously.

Is this the case? If not, will we be provided with direction on which line items should be used to obtain the needed points, or is this up to our discretion?

Answer: See Amendment 0003, which changes Evaluation Factor 4 (Technical Approach) and the corresponding Exhibit “D” (LEED Checklist) to correct the number of LEED points that are already included (increased from 21 points to 40 points) and to draw attention to the allowable credits by highlighting them in yellow on the exhibit.

Question 41: Specification 23 35 00.00 10 discusses Overhead Vehicle Tailpipe Exhaust Removal

Systems but I do not see an Overhead Vehicle Tailpipe Exhaust Removal System indicated on the plans set nor do I see a maintenance bay on the plans that could possible use this type of system. Please advise.

Answer: See Amendment 0003, which removes Section 23 35 00.00 10 from the RFP. The

Overhead Vehicle Tailpipe Exhaust Removal System is not part of this project.

Question 42: Based on the SOW and drawings there is no mention or specification of demolition of existing conditions. Will NAVFAC provide a summary of what demo work is required?

Answer: There is no demo required.

Question 43: Are the HVAC diffusers and ductwork existing?

Answer: No.

Question 44: If the ceiling grid is not part of this RFP, how will the HVAC diffusers be installed?

Answer: Ceiling will be installed by others.

Question 45: Additionally, if the ceiling grid is not part of this RFP, how will the building get balanced?

Answer: Ceiling will be installed (by others) for balancing.

Question 46: The architectural scope of work is incidental to the HVAC scope of work. The architectural drawings show the location of ceiling registers for coordination with existing lighting, roof HVAC location for coordination and penetration/flashing details.

Based on the RFP there is no specification for acoustical ceilings. Will NAVFAC provide a specification?

Answer: No, ceiling will be installed by others.

Question 47: Drawing A102 has a key note that shows acoustical ceiling is existing. It also states lights are existing. Please clarify if lights and ceiling grid is existing or required by this RFP?

Answer: Lights and ceiling grid are not existing, only shown for coordination.

Question 48: Regarding Drawing A102, do the walls exist that are shown on the drawing? If so, what are the wall heights and how do we determine if fire calking/dampers are required?

Answer: See Amendment 0003, which adds additional drawings A101 and A505.