VA248-17-R-1383-001.pdf

FedBizOpps

Sources Sought Notice

CLASSIFICATION CODE

SUBJECT

CONTRACTING OFFICE'S

ZIP-CODE

SOLICITATION NUMBER

RESPONSE DATE (MM-DD-YYYY)

ARCHIVE DAYS AFTER THE RESPONSE DATE

RECOVERY ACT FUNDS

SET-ASIDE

NAICS CODE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

ADDRESS

POINT OF CONTACT

(POC Information Automatically Filled from

User Profile Unless Entered)

DESCRIPTION See Attachment

AGENCY'S URL

URL DESCRIPTION

AGENCY CONTACT'S EMAIL

ADDRESS

EMAIL DESCRIPTION

ADDRESS

POSTAL CODE

COUNTRY

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

GENERAL INFORMATION

PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

* = Required Field FedBizOpps Sources Sought Notice

Rev. March 2010

C

Architect-Engineering (A-E) Services

Replace Air Handling Unit (AHU) 3

32601

-3460

VA248-17-R-1383

05-07-2018

N

541330

Department of Veterans Affairs

Network Contracting Activity 8

Malcom Randall VA Medical Center

1601 SW Archer Road, Room E508-1

Gainesville FL 32608

William Clark

Contracting Officer

352-376-1611 X 4581

Department of Veterans Affairs

Malcom Randall VA Medical Center

1601 SW Archer Road

Gainesville, FL

32608

United States

William.Clark1@va.gov

See the following Notice and Statement of Work, along with the attached Feasibility Study.

This Notice is Not a Request for Proposal. Vendors Should Not Submit Formal Proposals Until the

Request for Proposal (RFP) is Posted to this Website.

This is a 100% Service-Disabled, Veteran Owned, Small Business (SDVOSB) set-aside. Prospective

Contractors are cautioned that proposal submitted in response to this solicitation must meet the criteria identified by 38CFR, Part 74. The SDVOSB concern agrees that in the performance of the contract, the concern will comply with the limitation on subcontracting requirements in 13 CFR §125.6. Proposals will only be considered from SDVOSB concerns that are verified in Vetbiz at the time of submission of proposal and prior to date of award in accordance with Public Law 109-461. Any person, persons, or business entity suspected of misrepresenting itself for the purpose of securing a Government contract may be criminally investigated and prosecuted for fraud against the United States of America. Parties found misrepresenting their status also risk debarment from further Government contracts.

For a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) to be considered as a prospective contractor, the firm must be verified and registered in the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Office of

Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) Vendor Information Pages (VIP), VETBIZ

(www.vip.vetbiz.gov), and registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database

(www.sam.gov) at time of submission of their qualifications. Failure of a prospective SDVOSB to be verified by the Center for Veterans Enterprise (CVE) at the time the SF 330 is submitted shall result in elimination from consideration. All Joint Ventures must be CVE verified at time of submission and submit agreements that comply with 13CFR §125.15 prior to contract award.

PROJECT NO./TITLE: 573-18-603, Architect and Engineering (A/E) Services – Replace Air

Handling Unit (AHU) 3

A-E services include the development of a complete set of construction documents to bid the replacement of Air Handling Unit No. 3, and all necessary support equipment at the Medical

Center in Gainesville, Florida. Complete construction documents will include, but not be limited to construction drawings, technical specifications, reports, and construction cost estimates. In addition, the A/E will perform Construction Period Services. Also, the A/E will be given written information and expected to participate in project planning, pre-bid and preconstruction meetings as needed. Design is for the complete replacement of AHU 3.

Work Location: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, FL

Estimated/Target Completion Period: 237 calendar days after Notice to Proceed (NTP).

SF 330 Date of Receipt/Due Date: Interested firms having the capabilities to perform this work must submit one (1) electronic SF 330 and attachments (if any) no later than (NLT) May 7, 2018 at

1:00PM_EST. Email capacity is limited to five (5) to seven (7) megabyte (Megs).

In order to assure compliance with FAR Clauses 52.219-27 Notice of Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned

Small Business Set-Aside, 52.219-14(b) (1) Limitations on Subcontracting and VAAR 852.219-10, VA

Notice of Total Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside, all firms submitting a SF

330 for this Sources Sought Notice are required to indicate what percentage of the cost of contract performance will be expended on the concerns employees and in which discipline(s) and percentage of cost of contract performance to be expended (and in what disciplines) by any other consultant/subcontractor or otherwise used small or large business entity(s). Any consultant/subcontractor or otherwise business entity(s) used must be identified by name, office location and size/type of business (i.e. SDVOSB, VOSB, 8(a), small, large, etc.). Failure to provide this information will deem the firm’s SF 330 submittal as nonresponsive and preclude further evaluation.

At the time of proposal submission, contractors must have current registration/certification in System for

Award Management (SAM) at www.gov and VetBiz at www.vetbiz.gov. Proposals of Contractors not registered/certified in both databases will not be considered for award.

Magnitude of this construction project is $5 MIL to $10 MIL. NAICS: 541330 – Engineering Services.

Size Standard is $15.0 Million.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36.6 (Brooks Act) selection procedures apply. The A-E

Services listed herein is being procured in accordance with the Brooks Act (Public Law 92-582) as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 36.6 and VAAR 836.6. All submissions will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in para 1 below. Firms deemed to be the most highly qualified, after initial source selection, will be chosen for interviews. Firms will be selected based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work as submitted. Firms that design or prepare specifications in conjunction with this contract are prohibited from participating on any future construction contracts based on those documents. Pursuant to FAR, the firm responding to this requirement must be permitted, by law, to practice the profession of architecture or engineering and meet all required qualifications. State of Florida requires a State license for all firms performing design.

Point of Contact: William Clark, Contracting Officer; PH: (352) 376-1611 ext. 4581; Email:

William.clark1@va.gov

STATEMENT OF TASKS: See attached Statement of Work.

Firms responding to this announcement by submitting a qualifying SF 330, before the closing date and time, will be considered for initial selection evaluation. Following initial evaluation of the SF330s received, firms that are considered the most highly qualified to provide the type of services required will be selected for interviews/discussions/negotiations. Selected firms will be notified by telephone or email of selection and provided further instructions. Selection and evaluation of firms shall be made based on

SF 330 submissions and direct responses to the selection criteria identified herein. Failure to address all selection criteria will result in a decreased rating. SF 330s will be evaluated to determine the most highly qualified firm based on the criteria responses. Evaluating past performance and experience may include information provided by the firm, customer inquiries, Government databases, and Contracting Officer knowledge of current project performance. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being removed from consideration. All projects identified on the SF330 must be completed by the office/branch/individual team member performing the work under this contract.

Selection and Submission Criteria/Requirements: SF 330s will be evaluated to determine the most highly qualified firm based upon responses to the selection criteria identified above. Evaluation of past performance and experience may include, but is not limited to, information provided by the firm, customer inquiries, Government databases, and publicly available sources. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being considered less qualified.

a. The SF 330 is limited to 100 single‐ sided pages and five (5) to seven (7) megabyte (Megs).

b. Selection will be based on the following criteria which are numbered in descending order of importance:

http://www.gov/ http://www.vetbiz.gov/ mailto:William.clark1@va.gov

(1) Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required service and working together as a team (firm personnel and consultant(s)). Copy of current A/E

Florida License. All firms desiring to perform and/or submit proposals in the State of

Florida (FL) require a FL A/E license regardless of whether the procurement is with the local, state municipality or federal government. Additionally, if you offer architectural services in a branch office then you must have a FL licensed architect in the branch office with supervisory control. Provide your information on the SF 330 clearly marked with a copy of the firms FL A/E license.

(2) Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, including, where appropriate, LEED certification, as well as experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials. Discuss site Investigation on this project, the potential multi-phasing necessary, and the fact that documents submitted (drawings) will need to be extremely detailed, due to potential hindrances in executing the work. Past performance in phasing the construction to prevent interruption and displacement of services and staff. Demonstrated ability to engineer work arounds to prevent interruption and displacement of services and staff.

(3) Capacity to accomplish work in the required time.

(4) Past performance similar in nature to the work required for this project on contract with

Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules. A/E shall provide documentation which substantiates similar experience on a minimum of three (3) projects and not more than five (5). Direct experience with AHU design is preferred. Also, experience working in

VA medical facilities is preferred, however, previous work on other Governmental, as well as private sector projects, will be considered. Information provided shall include project name and location, general description of work, identification of whether your firm was the lead on the project or the subconsultant, the estimated (or awarded) construction project amount as well as the customer phone number(s) and email addresses. All information should be included with the SF 330 submittal.

(5) Location in general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project, provided that application of the criterion leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project. (NOTE: It is expected that your

SF 330 submittal will show your knowledge of the locality of the project and that your proximity to the general geographical area enables you to respond within 24 hours as required by the Contracting Officer).

(6) Reputation and standing of the firm and its principal officials with respect to professional performance, general management, and cooperativeness.

(7) Record of significant claims against the firm because of improper or incomplete architectural and engineering services.

c. Additionally, the submission must include an insert detailing the following information:

(1) Copy of current A/E Florida License

(2) A copy of the firms VetBiz Registry

(3) Cage Code

(4) Dun & Bradstreet Number

(5) Tax ID Number

(6) The E‐ mail address and Phone number of the Primary Point of Contact.

All SF330 submittals and questions must be sent electronically to the attention of William Clark, Contracting Officer at William.Clark1@va.gov. When submitting SF330s, if more than one email is sent, please number emails in Subjects as “1 of n”. Submittals received after the date and time identified on page one (1) will not be considered. Firms not providing the required information may be negatively evaluated. Facsimile submittals will not be accepted. All information must be included in the SF330.

Site Visits: Site visits will not be arranged during this period.

Additional Information: It is the offeror’s responsibility to check the Federal Business Opportunities

(FedBizOpps) website at: www.fbo.gov for any revisions to this announcement before submission of your

SF 330’s.

mailto:William.Clark1@va.gov http://www.fbo.gov/

STATEMENT OF WORK

Architect-Engineering Services - “Replace Air Handling Unit No. 3”

Malcom Randall VA Medical Center

Gainesville, FL

1.1 Scope

The following Statement of Work is an overview of the Veterans Affairs, North Florida/ South

Georgia Veterans Health System, Malcom Randall VA Medical Center Project No. 573-18-603, “Replace Air Handling Unit No. 3”.

An Architectural Engineering (A/E) contract for the development of a complete set of construction documents to bid the replacement of Air Handling Unit No. 3, and all necessary support equipment at the Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida. The Complete Construction

Documents will include, but not be limited to Construction Drawings, Technical Specifications, Reports, and Independent Government Estimates. In addition, the A/E shall provide bidding

Assistance and Construction Period Services. The following overview highlights the key aspects of the project:

1.1.1 Design a replacement AHU, ducting, required mixing boxes, coils, etc. The strategy for design will use the results of Project 573-15-100, Conduct Feasibility Study for the Replacement of Air Handling Units 2 and 3.

1.1.2 The equipment will be designed in accordance with VA HVAC Design Manual.

1.1.3 The Construction Drawings will address necessary disciplines including but not limited to; Site, Landscaping, Structural, Civil, Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing, Life Safety, Signage, Electrical, Communication, Security, and Demolition.

1.1.4 Due to a portion of the project being the removal of existing material, the Design will include Asbestos/ Lead Testing and Reports. The Construction Documents will include a

Remediation Plan should one be required. The A/E will retain the services of a Certified

Industrial Hygienist (CIH) to provide expertise in all aspects of identifying, assessing, and making recommendations concerning the management of asbestos and/or lead.

1.1.5 A/E will be permitted to research the existing VA drawing files, but shall field verify all information gathered from the existing drawings. In addition, A/E will perform adequate utility verification to determine the horizontal and vertical location of existing utilities within the construction area.

1.1.6 A/E shall provide a Certified Independent Third Party (CITP) Safety Professional or

Professional Credentialed to provide the necessary design reviews for compliance with national and local codes, standards, and federal and state regulations; including Life Safety issues.

1.1.7 Design package will include multiple phasing plans to minimize the impact of the project on the regular operation of the medical facility including impacts by utility shut downs, and interference with pedestrian, passenger vehicle, and delivery truck circulation. The design will need to consider no displacement of staff or the interruption of services during the construction phase. In areas where this is impractical, the A/E will survey the hospital campus to determine potential swing space to relocate staff or services or develop a phasing plan which maintains services. In the event staff and/or services need to be relocated, the relocation effort will be done by the construction contractor or by its agent.

1.1.8 Submissions shall be in accordance with the A/E Submission Instructions for Project No.

573-18-602.

1.2 Construction Period Services:

1.2.1 Review of Submittals: A/E shall review all material submittals, shop drawings and test reports that are required, etc. A/E shall maintain submittals utilizing an electronic submittal service similar to “Submittal Exchange” or “Procore”. Reviews shall be completed and submittals returned to Engineering Service within 5 working days. The A/E shall maintain a submittal register as work progresses; design omissions are subject to a 72-hour turnaround from omission notification.

1.2.2 Review Analysis of Change Orders and Costs: A/E shall provide prompt response when contacted by the Contracting Officers Representative (COR) to review and provide detailed analysis of Change Orders and Costs. Written response will be received by the VA within 5 working days of the request. Analysis will include as a minimum a determination if Change

Order is legitimate and necessary, if any additional costs should be borne by the government and independent estimate of the costs.

1.2.3 Site Visits: A/E shall provide site visits including the pre-bid conference, preconstruction conference, and final inspection when requested by Engineering Service. Include price for additional site visits during site investigation process by discipline limited to a maximum of 10 including all disciplines. The A/E will also provide conference minutes and make written inspection report within two (2) workdays after each meeting and/or site inspection including the final inspection punch list.

1.2.4 Construction Administration: A/E shall provide approximately 2080 hours of onsite construction administration services which include but not limited to performing surveillance & inspection of assigned construction projects; reviewing plans & specifications, shop drawings & requests for changes to determine site compatibility, applicability of terrain, soils, feasibility of structure to anticipate problems; performing inspections of construction, deviations from schedules, substitution of materials and resolution of disputes; monitors contractor’s quality control measure and safety practices.

1.2.5 Record Drawing Requirements: A/E shall provide three (3) complete finished set of AS-

BUILT drawing reflecting all changes incorporated during the actual construction. These AS-

Built are to be drawn and provided in a REVIT and exported and provided in AutoCAD, with all changes highlighted. The complete set will all be dated the same with “RECORD AS-BUILT

DRAWINGS” on each page’s title block. The A/E shall include a requirement note for the contractor to provide marked up prints directed to the A/E showing actual construction and any changes, which occurred during construction; these shall be verified by the A/E. A/E shall also provide a complete updated set of record as-built drawing files as produced on (CAD) system compatible with REVIT and AutoCAD on CD-ROM. A/E shall update drawings such that they shall meet the complete approval of the Engineering Service.

1.3 Certified Independent Third- Party Design Reviews (CITP)

1.3.1 The design Architect/ Engineering (A/E) will hire a Certified Independent Third-Party

(CITP) Safety Professional or Professional Credential to provide the necessary design reviews for compliance with national and local codes, standards, and federal and state regulations included but not limited to:

► OSHA Standards

► JCAHO Standards

► Handicap Accessibility Standards

► NFPA Codes

► National and Local Building Codes

► EPA Regulations

► Emergency Preparedness infrastructure vulnerabilities

► Security infrastructure vulnerabilities

► Others as applicable

Requirement for acquiring and incorporating a Certified Independent Third-Party (CITP) Safety

Professional or Professional Credential review of design documents.

1.3.2 VA must comply with national and local codes, standards and regulatory requirements in order to comply with Public Law 100-678, Public Buildings Amendment Act of 1988 and Public

Law 102-522, Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992. Like other federal agencies with real property and construction authority, VA acts as its own building and code enforcing official or as the

“Authority Having Jurisdiction” (AHJ) for meeting code requirements. As such, the VA has overall responsibility of ensuring compliance with codes.

1.3.3 The design A/E will hire a CITP consultant(s) as necessary for the review of design documents for compliance with applicable national and local codes, standards, federal and state regulations. The Design A/E will take into consideration and incorporate all third-party consultant comments/recommendations into the design documents prior to advertising for a construction contract award.

1.3.4 Certified Independent Third-Party Professional or Professional Credential Review and

Approval.

1.3.5 Project plans must have a signature block or a letter on third-party Company’s letterhead, a third party certified safety professional or professional credentials as applicable to the nature of review certifying and verifying the plans and specifications have been reviewed for compliance with applicable codes, standards and regulatory requirements. At the time of review, the CITP should identify all corrections necessary for the A/E to bring the design into compliance. The

A/E is required to incorporate and make necessary corrections to the design to bring the design into compliance prior to the final design documents being issued for a construction contract award.

1.4 Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH)

1.4.1 The A/E shall retain the services of a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) to provide expertise in all aspects of identifying, assessing, and making recommendations concerning the management of asbestos and/or lead. Recommendations will be based on, but not limited to;

field investigations, sampling, monitoring, laboratory analysis, review of specifications, drawings, etc. The CIH shall be a current member of the American Industrial Hygiene

Association and maintain current certification on comprehensive practice. In addition, the CIH shall possess current licensure as asbestos / lead consultant as stipulated in Chapter 469 of

Florida Statutes. Results obtained from these findings will be used by the A/E and CIH to finalize / complete drawings, phasing schedules and specifications which will specify the location and proper procedures for the removal, storage, transportation, disposal, and/or safety precautions to be used when working with asbestos / lead substances. The CIH will coordinate his/her work with the A/E. The CIH’s professional judgment and expertise will provide for a complete, thorough and safe construction contract.

1.4.2 This project has the potential to impact asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or lead. The area covered by the CIH investigation shall cover the affected area per the project description, as defined in section I of this A/E Statement of Tasks.

1.4.3 Furnish all necessary equipment, material and labor to obtain the services of a

Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) to review A/E construction drawings and specifications for the subject project, to become familiar with specific work to be accomplished by contractor personnel and the locations of the work that may require asbestos / lead removal and disposal, etc. In reviewing these documents, the CIH will look closely at work which involves the removal or disturbance of asbestos and/or lead. Methods of identification of these materials shall consist of visual inspections of all areas, verifying all existing drawings and original construction specification and taking air and bulk samples of suspected asbestos and lead containing materials.

1.4.4 The A/E and CIH shall visit the project site to verify all information shown on plans and specifications prepared by the A/E and any other construction planning documents, which may form a part of a construction project. Those requirements indicated in the A/E Submission

Instructions form a part of the A/E’s and CIH’s responsibilities. For the purpose of this task, an

Industrial Hygienist is an individual meeting the requirements of a professional Hygienist as defined by the American Industrial Hygienist Association, certified by the AIHA and has demonstrated three years of successfully working on monitoring asbestos /lead removal projects and writing and/or revising contracts dealing with asbestos /lead abatement. Also, the CIH should be a member of a professional organization, such as the National Asbestos Council, and have recently attended a short course in asbestos /lead contract work. The CIH’s investigation of field conditions shall be determined with the aid of existing drawings, if necessary, with follow up and verification information with a survey.

1.4.5 The CIH will conduct investigate work to determine if asbestos / lead materials are present in the affected areas. Work shall be coordinated at least 7 days in advance, with the VA

Industrial Hygienist.

Task 1: Visually inspect areas impacted by the project in order to identify ACM, PCB and/or lead. This will include the sampling of suspected ACM, PCB and/or lead in accordance with

AHERA protocols for sampling and number of samples. Conduct interviews with station personnel and review building records available (Drawings and Specification) to assist in identifying of asbestos / lead containing material.

Task 2: Based on the results of Task 1, Develop a sampling strategy to:

Sample suspect ACM / lead using AHERA sampling protocols (i.e., develop homogeneous areas) and analyze for potential ACM by approved identification methods at a laboratory participating in the EPA Asbestos Bulk Sample Quality Assurance Program. Although asbestos fibers can be recognized through optical microscopy, precise identification of the type asbestos

(e.g. –crocidolite, amosite and chrysotile) requires three additional methods of asbestos fiber identification, namely:

▪ Polarized Light Microscopy, as performed by a laboratory of recognized competence.

▪ X-ray Diffraction, if necessary, as a supplement to the polarized light microscopy.

▪ Electron Microscopy, if doubt persists following analysis by polarized light microscopy and x-ray diffraction.

A complete, written, signed and dated report of the results must be provided by the laboratory.

The laboratory must report the following information for each sample submitted.

▪ Facility Identification

▪ Sample Identification

▪ Percentage of Asbestos Present

▪ Type of Asbestos Present

▪ Methods used to analyze the Sample

▪ Type of Other Fibrous Materials Present in the Sample

Analysis of samples will follow the AHERA requirements for analyzing samples of ACM / Lead from the same homogeneous area.

Task 3: After reviewing the sampling test analyses for asbestos / lead determine the most appropriate approach (removal, transportation or disposal) for managing ACM / PCB / Lead identified. If available data is not adequate, perform more sampling and testing and then proceed as above. The CIH will be required to provide professional judgment as to the number of additional samples required if any and this should be contained in the CIH’s proposal.

Task 4: Prepare an exposure report reflecting the results of Tasks 1, 2, and 3. Detail in a report which areas are deemed “hazardous” requiring full protective measures during abatement. For each location include information of specific abatement action, cost of abatement and schedule for completion. Submit this document certified, signed and dated with a cover statement that reflects your findings and recommendations on the project and is in accordance with VA policy and best abatement practice of asbestos abatement is required.

Concurrently with the completion of Task 4 the A/E shall submit a CIH furnished detailed cost proposal to do Tasks 5 through 10 below.

Task 5: Design and specify appropriate techniques and approaches for the execution of work.

This submission shall be thorough enough to provide a contractor clear and specific instructions for locations, removing, transporting, disposing, phasing of work, work area preparation and insure maximum protection measures for himself/herself, visitors, patients, employees, or other personnel in or around the work site during the construction phase.

Determine for each typical case how the abatement will be accomplished including entry and exit facilities if required, toilet facilities and other measures that may be required. The CIH will insure that the Federal Register, OSHA, EPA, State of Florida and VA Standards are complied with in the removal, storage, transportation and disposal of asbestos and that the strictest requirements take precedence. The VA will provide the CIH with existing VA Circulars and specifications on asbestos removal. The CIH shall use his/her professional judgment in applying that appropriate warnings and the asbestos locations are identified for A/E inclusion drawings and develop the necessary specifications and certify both.

Task 6: Assist VA to evaluate qualifications of asbestos abatement contractor and personnel by establishing minimum qualifications requirements for specialized experience, key personnel, standard operating procedures, etc.

Task 7: Based upon professional judgment monitor continuously performance of contractor during abatement work to insure adherence to abatement design. Monitor air quality in and around workspace, worker exposure, operating procedures, respiratory protection systems, the abatement process and the packing, transportation and disposal of asbestos debris. Secure the services of a qualified analytical laboratory, to turn over sample results within 24 hours.

Task 8: At the end of abatement and after final cleaning, inspect the workspace and perform the required testing to establish decontamination level achieved.

Task 9: Provide a certificate to the Contracting Officer certifying that the abatement process was performed in accordance with the best practice; the maximum feasible protection of people and the environment has been achieved during the abatement process; and that the impacted space has achieved the VA required decontamination levels. The CIH shall be responsible for coordinating and reviewing all work with the local facility employee union through Engineering

Service. Engineering Service will be responsible for arranging the time.

Task 10: The CIH is responsible for the preparation of all notification requests for the

Department of Veterans Affairs by preparing same for the VA to submit officially e.g. 40 CFR part 61 sections 61.140, 61.141, 61.145, 61.146, 61.147 and 61.152. In addition, no later than 30 days prior to the beginning of asbestos / PCB / lead abatement, in the form titled “Notice of

Asbestos / Lead Renovation or Demolition” shall be completed by the CIH or an agent working under his/her direction. The completed form shall be mailed to:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Attn: Asbestos / Lead Contact

7825 Bay Meadows Way, Suite B-200

Jacksonville, FL 32256-7590

The notification form shall be completed and submitted in accordance with the provisions of

Rule 62-257, Florida Administrative Court.

The scope of work for the A/E as related to the Asbestos Abatement work consists of the following:

▪ Review abatement design Certified Industrial Hygienist.

▪ Prepare contract documents (plans and specifications) in conjunction with the

Asbestos Abatement work developed by the CIH. These documents shall be prepared for inclusion into the construction contract.

▪ Ensure that the phasing of this project is coordinated with the CIH for asbestos and lead removal. Any conflicts and modifications from the planned phasing must be properly identified.

The schedule of completion or work for the Certified Industrial Hygienist Consultant is as follows:

Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 4 at the 30% Design Development submittal plus the CIH’s detailed cost proposal for Tasks 5 through 10.

Task 5 at the 95% Construction Documents Submittal plus detailed cost estimates for contractor asbestos removal.

Task 6, 7, 8, and 9 during construction.

Task 10 before construction.

1.5 Estimated Construction Cost: $5 MIL to $10 MIL

1.6 Schedule (Calendar Days):

1.6.1 Schematic Design (30%) 60 days

1.6.2 VA 30% Review 14 days

1.6.3 Design Development (65%) 60 days

1.6.4 VA 65% Review 14 days

1.6.5 Construction Documents (95%) 45 days

1.6.6 VA 95% Review 14 days

1.6.7 Bid Documents (FOR CONSTRUCTION) 30 days

1.6.8 Total Design Time 237 days

See attached document: Feasibility Study.

VA Project 573-15-100 Page | 1

1.0 Executive Summary

The scope of the project is to complete a detailed feasibility study for the replacement of AC-2 and AC-3 and their associated systems. The assessment portion of the project found AC-2 and AC-3 in extremely poor condition with replacement over 30 years overdue and failure imminent.

The first product of this study was a set of signed and sealed construction documents for the expedient replacement of the AC-2 supply fan with an array of direct drive fans. This product was added to the scope because the original scope item to provide a schematic design for the installation of temporary cooling for AC-2 was determined to be too impractical and because the failure of the AC-2 supply fan is inevitable. The design documents were delivered in January 2016.

After a presentation of project alternatives by the AE the VA Medical Center Engineering Staff and the project COR elected to pursue a phased plan for system replacements using several roof-top air handling units. The plan presented in this report in schematic design form has some flexible both in terms of individual project size and order of projects, the specific plan the AE believes is optimal is as follows:

1. Install AC-3 East and connect to existing air distribution: $1,200,000 and 6 months.

2. Install AC-3 West and connect to existing air distribution: $1,300,000 and 6 months.

3. Install AC-3 heating system and convert 5th floor to VAV: $1,730,000 8 months.

4. Additional projects to convert systems served by AC-3 East and West to VAV can continue in almost any order and schedule. The estimated total cost is $6,728,000.

5. Install new ICU AHU, its heating water system, and convert ICU to VAV: $623,000 and 5 to 6 months.

6. Install AC-2 North and install VAV in waiting room area: $1,135,000 and 6 to 8 months.

7. Install AC-2 South and install VAV in first floor south east area about 10,000SF: $1,400,000 and

12 months.

8. Additional projects to convert systems served by AC-2 South and North to VAV can continue in specific order from furthers to closest to existing AC-2. The estimated cost is $3,765,000.

9. After all other AC-2 related work, demolish AC-2 and install system for auditorium. The estimated cost is $560,000 and 10 months.

The total cost of the above projects in today’s economy is $20,811,000.

Lastly, the AE recommends the VA Medical Center Gainesville Florida implement a project to install a water side cooling economizer on their chiller plant thereby eliminating the energy code need to provide air side economizers on their new air handling units. This will result in smaller, lighter, and more reliable air handling units. It will also provide real energy savings and reduce the cost of the air handling units by about 30% each.

VA Project 573-15-100 Page | 2

2.0 Scope of Work

The scope of this project calls for a thorough, detailed feasibility study containing the following three main elements:

A. Conduct a feasibility study which contains the following requirements:

1) Review existing HVAC Feasibly Study entitled Malcom Randall VA Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida VA Project Number 573-05-115

2) Calculate generalized heating, cooling and ventilating loads for the building spaces served by

AC-2 and AC-3.

3) Conduct pre-design test and balance (TAB) on air side and water side of both units to determine current operating parameters.

4) Examine the condition of both systems.

5) Identify and evaluate alternatives for the replacement of both systems.

B. Complete a schematic level design for feasible alternatives. The schematic design shall contain the following minimum requirements:

1) Complete architectural demolition reflected ceiling plans.

2) Complete HVAC demolition plans.

3) Complete electrical demolition plans.

4) Structural calculations.

5) Schematic design for all applicable disciplines.

6) Phasing plan for the replacement work.

7) Cost estimates for all disciplines.

8) List of specifications.

C. Provide complete schematic level design for interim HVAC services for the areas served by AC-2 to be used to implement temporary heating, cooling and ventilation in the event that AC-2 fails prior to its replacement. This requirement was later changed to providing contract documents for the repair of the supply fan for AC-2. Those documents were provided to the VA under separate cover on January 8, 2016. At the time of this report the replacement of the supply fan has not taken place.

VA Project 573-15-100 Page | 3

3.0 Methodology

To accomplish the scope of work the A/E and their consultants will complete the following tasks:

A. Review the 2005 facility wide HVAC feasibility study completed by Moses & Associates, Inc.

Evaluate the findings of that report and compare them to the current situation on campus.

B. Complete space field survey to include updating of the floor plan, completion of reflected ceiling plan, verification of existing HVAC and electrical system components and verification of space conditions with respect to HVAC load calculations.

C. Complete space load calculations using the Trane Trace HVAC software package.

D. Complete pre-test and balance of AC-2 and AC-3 to establish a bench mark for the current system operating conditions and to establish the condition of the respective duct and piping systems.

E. Complete VA Table 2-1 load and air flow calculations for both systems.

F. Complete preliminary recommendations of possible solutions to the replacement of AC-2 and

AC-3 complete with preliminary total life cycle analysis, and description of the required work including the option for temporary HVAC for emergency coverage of AC-2

G. Review the possible alternatives with the Government and select alternatives for further development.

H. Complete schematic level design of selected alternatives complete with demolition drawings, phasing plans, list of specifications, cost estimates and revised life cycle cost analysis.

I. Complete contract documents for the repair of AC-2. Initially this line read: “Complete schematic level design for temporary HVAC for AC-2.” However, by the 50% submittal it was determined that there did not exist any good options for the provision of temporary HVAC for spaces served by AC-2, but that a good option existed for repairing the supply fan. At that point the VA elected to proceed with design documents for that work and those documents were provided to the VA for procurement on January 8, 2016. At the time of this report the fan replacement had not been completed.

VA Project 573-15-100 Page | 4

4.0 Review of Previous Study and Documents

4.1 General

The feasibility report document being reviewed is a comprehensive facility wide HVAC systems feasibility study completed by Moses &Associates Inc.(M&A) in 2005 with the assistance of W. W. Gay

Test and Balance. The title of that report is. HVAC Feasibility Study, Malcom Randall VA Medical Center

Gainesville, Florida, VA Project Number 573-05-115.

Due to scope of this project and the age of the M&A. report our review of the document focuses almost exclusively on the recommendations that deal with AC-2 and AC-3 - obviously the remainder of the systems are not in the current scope, and since our scope includes a condition assessment, the 2005 assessment by M&A in for the most part irrelevant. The exception to this is the test and balance data reported in the earlier study which we can compare to the data gathered during our investigation. This comparison can indicate the current state of the equipment versus the state in 2005. Furthermore, the quantity of testing completed in that report exceeds what is being done in this project so the additional data is useful for the purpose of condition assessment and are noted in condition assessment sections of this report (5.0 Condition Assessment AC-2 and 6.0 Condition Assessment AC-3).

4.2 AC-2 Report

The M&A report identify AC-2 as AHU 1-2. This dual duct unit was installed in 1964 and in 2005 it tested at 82,025 CFM compared to its original design flow of 91,750 CFM. The two recommendations in the

M&A report are to (1) replace the unit in kind and (2) install the new unit at an alternate location and duct the replacement unit to the existing ductwork for the current unit. The first option will require that a temporary unit be connected to the supply ductwork to cool and heat the spaces while the existing unit is being replaced – otherwise the spaces served by the unit would not be useable while the unit was being replaced. The second option requires a new permanent location for the new unit and will also require a shutdown period to connect the new unit to the existing ductwork. The M&A report has option 1 priced at $875,200 and option 2 at $1,902,000, however when we reviewed the cost estimates we noted that the cost estimate for option 1 and option 2 both include $25,000 for temporary air conditioning. In our opinion that number is too low and would not be the same for both options. In option 1 temporary cooling is needed for about a month and in option 2 for about a week or may not be needed at all depending on the phasing.

In the M&A report the only location suggested for the replacement unit is the current location for building 8 with their recommendation being removal of building 8. This is location has potential, however, there are several other options which should be considered including the roof of building 8 and the second floor roof of the main building.

VA Project 573-15-100 Page | 5

Photo 4-1: Aerial photograph showing location where 2005 Moses & Associates HVAC Feasibility

Report proposed locating a new replacement AC-2 air handling unit.

There are two other significant issues the M&A report donot address, first it does not look at the outside air requirements of the spaces being served, do the spaces really require 100% outside air or can the system be converted to a system with a mixture of outside and return air? Second the report does not consider or discus converting the dual duct system to a variable air volume system. We shall consider these issues in the current report.

4.3 AC-3 Report

The M&A report identify AC-3 as AHU 1-3. This 100% outdoor air ventilation unit was installed in 1964 and was originally intended to serve for ventilation only with the spaces being heated and cooled by radiant ceiling panels. The original CFM for this unit was 53,750 CFM and according to the M&A report the unit CFM was increased to around 75,700 CFM so that the unit could serve as a cooling unit since the radiant ceiling panels did not operate correctly. In 2005 the unit tested at 75,700 CFM. The two recommendations in the M&A report are to (1) replace the unit and (2) replace the radiant cooling panels. The M&A report offer several recommendations for correcting the problems associated with

AC-3 systems. These are:

1 Multiple air handling units in the court yards, with new mechanical towers (chases) in the court yards.

2 Renovate the radiant cooling panels.

3 Fan coil units through floors 2 through 5.

4 VAV air handling units to serve the first floor.

VA Project 573-15-100 Page | 6

The M&A report dismissed options 2 and 3 due to reliability and space issues leaving options 1 and 2 and a combination of them to be considered in four different schemes. The schemes vary in number of air handling units and location of units and the associated costs are as follow:

Option AHU 1-3.A: Eighteen new air handling units and associated VAV distribution system. Cost

$20,550,000

Option AHU 1-3.B: Five new air handling units and associated VAV distribution system. Cost

$20,170,000

Option AHU 1-3.C: Two new air handling units and reusing existing distribution ductwork. Cost

$12,210,000

Option AHU 1-3.D: New AC-3 and new fan coil unit system. Cost $6,598,000

In our opinion option D is not allowed by the VA HVAC Design Manual and option C does not provide adequate control of space temperature and does not address the issue of 100% outside air being used in the building where it is not required.

VA Project 573-15-100 Page | 7

5.0 Condition Assessment AC-2

5.1 Physical Condition of AC-2:

The referenced 2005 M&A report covers the details of the physical condition of this unit in good detail and it does not appear that much has been repaired since that report was completed so that report is still accurate. This unit was installed in 1964 which makes it at this time a 51 year old unit. Table 5-1 below makes a comparison between the age of this unit and the median service life of the components.

The median service life, published in chapter 37 of the ASHRAE 2015 Handbook of HVAC Applications is the median economic service life beyond which it is no longer financially advantageous to repair the system rather than replace it. This service life takes into consideration not only the maintenance cost of the system versus replacement cost, but also the cost of energy waste associated with the substandard performance of a worn out system.

Table 5-1 – Median Service Life of AC-2 Air Handling Unit and System Components.

Component

Median Service Life

(years)

Diffusers, grills, and registers. 27

Ductwork 30

Centrifugal fans 25

Steam coils 20

Chilled water coils 20

Dual duct terminals 20

Dampers 20

Comparing Table 5-1 data to the 50 plus years AC-2 has been in service shows that the unit and system are both 20 to 30 years past their normal replacement age. Appendix A contains the result of water and air side test conducted by Thomas Balancing Service, Inc for this project and also indicates the poor condition of the unit. Table 5-2 below compares the air and water side performance of this system to original design conditions and to the test conducted for the 2005 M&A report.

VA Project 573-15-100 Page | 8

Table 5-2 – Air and Chilled Water Flow Performance of AC-2

Quantity Design Value Value Reported in 2005 M&A Study Current Value

Supply Air CFM 91,750 CFM 82,025 CFM 72,445 CFM

Supply ESP About 4 in WC 2.02 2.17 in. WC

Chilled Water Flow 1,160 GPM Not measured 730 GPM

5.2 Operational Condition of AC-2:

While the physical condition, age, and performance of AC-2 are bad, it is the operational condition issues which make it imperative for this system to be replaced. First and foremost for some unknown reason the original building was designed entirely as a 100% outdoor air single pass system. All of the air that is distributed in the building is outside air and it is then exhausted to the outside. This is not only unnecessary, but energy wasteful.

Second this system is a dual duct system. A dual duct system as the name implies has two supply ducts.

One is carrying cold air the outer warm air. By closing one or the other supply duct at each temperature control zone the system can supply cooling to some spaces and heating to others all at the same time.

Per VA Master Specifications found in the TIL dual duct systems are prohibited in new and renovation work. Also ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 provisions also disallow the use of dual duct systems.

The third operational issue is filtration and the internal condition of AC-2. As can be noted both by the report at Appendix A and the 2005 M&A report the unit has considerable issues with internal cleanliness and mold growth, the unit also does not have final filters as is required by current health care HVAC standards (both VA and private sector), therefore, mold spores and other pathogens in the air handling unit are not filtered from the air stream before it leaves the unit.

Lastly this unit is too large and conditions too large a percentage of the medical center’s floor space. If this unit were to fail the impact on the mission would be catastrophic. Note that current VA criteria calls for units no larger than 50,000 CFM.

The above issues are not subjective, they can all be quantified in different ways, the impact of the first and second items noted are excessive and needless energy use. Appendix C contains energy and water use simulations comparing a generalized version of AC-2 in its current 100% outside air dual duct configuration to a generalized version of AC-2 with the allowable air recirculation in a variable air volume system. The results are summarized in Table 5-3 below:

VA Project 573-15-100 Page | 9

Table 5-3 Estimated AC-2 Energy and Water Savings After Complete System Replacement.

System Electric Cost

$/year Gas Cost $/year Cooling Tower

Water Use $/year

AC-2 as is $270,504 $37,668 $62,652

AC-2 VAV with recirculation of air $76,369 $15,890 $22,939

Annual Savings $194,135 $21,778 $39,713

Percent Reduction 72% 58% 63%

The energy and water cost data used for Table 5-3 were provided by the Task 1 Baseline and

Benchmarking Report Gainesville VA Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida Task Order VA701-14-F-

0148report by RetroComX Energy Strategies, December 17, 2014. The values used are $0.136 per KWH electrical, $0.66 per therm natural gas, and $10.61 per kilo gallon water. It is also interesting that although ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 requires new systems in Gainesville, Florida to be equipment with outside air economizers, our simulation yielded zero benefit for using that option.

Table 5-4 below summarizes the problems and impacts of the problems with AC-2:

Table 5-4 Summary of AC-2 System Problems

Condition Impact Violates

100% outdoor air system Contributes to needless energy and water use.

ASHRAE 90.1-2010 and VA HVAC Design Manual

Dual duct system Contributes to needless energy and water use.

ASHRAE 90.1-2010 and VA HVAC…