RFIs.pdf

ANIMAL CARCASS INCINERATOR AMES IOWA (12505B19R0005) – QUESTIONS

A. GENERAL CONDITIONS:

1. Question: In spec book volume one it list electrical drawings but I see there not posted in solicitation 12505B19R0005 Animal Carcass Incinerator.

Answer: Electrical drawings are with the civil drawings (“Drawings – Civil and Electrical”).

2. Question: Section 2.1c. fifth line, “Specified water stream”. Do you mean waste stream?

Answer: Yes, should be waste stream.

3. Question: Section 2.2.1a, to submit proof of such conformance; AGA, ANSI, IBR, and ABMA is not all related to this project.

Answer: This section is saying that he manufacturer and contractor need to check if they agencies/publications/etc. apply as every manufacturer builds their equipment differently and some incinerators may or may not fall into certain regulations. This piece of equipment is a gas-fired incinerator so American Gas Association (AGA) requirements do apply to this project.

4. Question: Section 2.2.1b, “Submit certificates…at least three jobs or similar design and capacity…that in a commercially operating industrial plant…continuously and without interruption for a period of not less than 100 consecutive hours. Certify this document by an independent organization…” Again, such specificity is unheard off in an open-bid specification, and only gives the impression that this requirement is written only around a particular incinerator company.

Answer: This is a quality check. It really shouldn’t be tough for a qualified incinerator manufacturer to come up with three projects of similar size and style. I don’t believe any manufacturer is called out as design basis on this project. This will be required of any winning manufacturer.

5. Question: Please post to FBO, the list of firms/individuals that attended the Site Visits on July 9th and July 11th.

Answer: Included as an attachment on FBO.

6. Question: Please provide (if not yourself) the Technical Engineering POC for the Solicitation.

Answer: Mike Kuennen is the Contracting Officer’s Representative; all questions must be vetted through the Contracting Officer (Josh Dobereiner).

7. Question: Please provide the Small Business POC for USDA Midwest Region.

Answer: USDA is divided up into many sub-agencies. Please request more specific information.

Are you requesting the SBA point of contact information relating to this solicitation? If so, please see the information below (if not, clarify and resubmit the question):

Iowa District Office 210 Walnut St Room 749 Des Moines, IA Phone: 515-284-4422

8. Question: Please post to FBO any questions (this inquiry included) and answers you have received.

Answer: Done.

9. Question: Will you extend the bid date for at least 2 weeks?

Answer: Proposals will be due 2 weeks after the responses to RFIs are posted on FBO.

10. Question: FAR 52.219-14 requires that for General Construction the SDVOSB Concern will perform at least 15 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees. Will labor performed by SDVOSB subcontractors be counted towards the minimum 15 percent?

Answer: No, the labor must be performed by the prime contractor’s own employees.

11. Question: Please clarify section 2.2.1d. This requirement is a subjective criteria and does not describe the conditions and/or limitations of “equipment supporting service organization” reasonably convenient to the plant site.

Answer: This is with reference to the incinerator controls platform. Our last set of incinerator controls were installed by a company and then no one was available to service the system after it was in operation. This note was added in order to try and ensure that any controls platform installed by the awarded manufacturer at least had and could identify capable companies and service technicians within a reasonable distance (that could respond quickly) in the event of an issue.

12. Question: The specifications for this project include divisions 028213.00, 028233.13 and 028313.00 but the plans don’t seem to identify any abatement locations and/or quantities. Is there abatement anticipated for this project?

Answer: Yes, hazardous material abatement is required. See attached drawing H-100 for areas of abatement.

13. Question: Has an asbestos survey been done for the building in the last year?

Answer: A hazardous material survey was conducted on February 1, 2018.

B. INCINERATOR EQUIPMENT:

14. Question: Section 2.2.1 standard products, “duplicate equipment has been in use for at least 5 years prior to bid”. Since you have indicated “duplicate equipment”, it strongly implies that this is written around a specific incinerator company.

Answer: The winning manufacturer has to be able to prove that they’ve been in business for a certain period of time as a check on quality of equipment. I can see how the word “duplicate” would lead to that thought; however, we do not want to get rid of the verbiage noting the 5 year requirement as that allows us to have some sort of quality control on the equipment that we get with this as it is an extremely unique piece of equipment and very critical to our operations so we want to try and ensure that we’re receiving a certain level of quality with this.

15. Question: Section 2.2.1c, all the emission requirements are indicated in sections 1.4.1, 1.4.1.1, and

1.4.1.2 and every manufacturer must comply with these requirements during the stack test performed by an independent emission test company. IIA type is defunct, no longer exists, and its requirements are dated – about 50 years old. Indicating this requirement again gives the impression of a very specific incinerator company.

Answer: Emission requirements as stated in 1.4.1, 1.4.1.1, 1.4.1.2 are standard for our location DNR permitting with need to be met by the winning manufacturer or else our campus air emissions permit will be rejected, and we won’t be able to operate the incinerator (and potentially our other boilers/incinerators on campus). These requirements are non-negotiable for them to meet.

16. Question: Section 2.5.10, It is detrimental to have brick on the incinerator floor because of constant abrasion. This is based on our 40+ years’ experience as an incinerator designer and manufacturer. It should be castable instead.

Answer: We had two incinerators onsite that were built with brick floors and one that was modified to a castable floor. The brick floor is easier for us to fix in the future as the castable floor, if (when) it cracks, we have to replace the entire floor instead of just one or two bricks and it becomes a much larger/drawn out process.

17. Question: Please indicate the incinerator Manufacturers who can fully comply with the sections 2.2.1, 2.2.1a, 2.2.1b, and 2.2.1c. It appears no incinerator manufacturers can comply with these requirements.

Answer: 2.2.1 – This is subjective and is only noting that manufacturers use equipment, controls, products that are standard to their everyday installations and that they have adequate experience in the design and installation industry. 2.2.1.A – These ratings are only necessary if the manufacturer needs them for their design/installation. These are natural gas fired incinerators, so the AGA could (should) apply, ANSI has requirements for metal fabrications/welding etc. (which we would assume applies). 2.2.1B – this is a quality check. It really shouldn’t be tough for a qualified incinerator manufacturer to come up with three projects of similar size and style. I don’t believe any manufacturer is called out as design basis on this project and would expect we require this of any winning manufacturer. 2.2.1C – Emission requirements as stated in 1.4.1, 1.4.1.1, 1.4.1.2 are standard for our location DNR permitting which need to be met by the winning manufacturer or else our campus air emissions permit will be rejected, and we won’t be able to operate the incinerator (and potentially our other boilers/incinerators on campus). These requirements are non-negotiable.

18. Question: There is a concern that incinerator spec 118220, as written, requires a specific manufacturer. If the incinerator meets the performance requirements of the spec, will any exceptions be acceptable for cosmetic items such as indicator light colors, clock type, etc.?

Answer: Yes, as long as performance requirements are met, then cosmetic (ie: unit color, light color, light locations (as long as they meet functional needs), clock type, etc.) items are acceptable;

however, these items will need to be clearly called out in any shop drawings for review by Owner so as to verify the overall function is met.

19. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 1.4.1 - Pathological Incinerators processing Type 4 wastes are exempt from US-EPA regulations as long as no more than 10% by weight of the processed weight would meet the definition of hospital, medical infectious wastes. Please verify that the waste type will be Type 4.

Answer: The incinerator is designed for type 4 waste.

20. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 1.4.1.1 - The emissions listed for NOX and CO are achievable in a well-designed incinerator without the addition of auxiliary pollution control equipment. The emissions listed for SO2 are achievable when processing typical Type 4 pathological wastes without the addition of auxiliary pollution control equipment if the waste does not include wastes with unusual amounts of sulfur derivatives. Please advise if any of the waste content is expected to have abnormal levels of sulfur derivatives not typically found in pathological wastes.

Answer: We do not expect there to be abnormal amounts of sulfur derivatives present as the waste is largely pathological waste.

21. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 1.4.1.2 - Iowa Administrative Code (IAC) 5671AC Title II (Chapters 23-24) specifies that incinerators of this size are limited to particulate emissions of 0.35 Gr/DSCF adjusted to 12% CO2 which is reasonable and achievable without the addition of auxiliary pollution control equipment. However, specification 11 82 20 also adds that correction to 12% CO2 is “without the contribution of CO2 from auxiliary fuel”. This limitation has in the past been a requirement for incinerators burning other waste types that are self-sustaining in heat release. As pathological waste typically contains 85% moisture with a heating value of only 1,000 BTU/LB, most of the mass flow is generated from the auxiliary fuel. Reducing the volume of mass flow by the contribution of auxiliary fuel is not appropriate for Type 4 pathological wastes. Please verify that the requirements of Iowa Administrative Code (IAC) 5671AC Title II (Chapters 23-24) will be the standard.

Answer: IAC chapters 23-24 will be the standard.

22. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 1.4.5 - Application for a permit to install and operate an incinerator must be submitted by the owner. We can assist the owner in the application and provide the incinerator specific information needed for the permit application. Please confirm that the owner will make the application with all needed information and support by the incinerator manufacturer.

Answer: The owner will file the permit application with assistance from the incinerator system manufacturer. This is normally the procedure and will be so here too.

23. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.1.d - Please confirm that the reference to a “water quench system” refers to a misting water spray at the exit, not a full water bath quench as would be provided by a wet ash conveyor.

Answer: It should be a misting water spray at the chamber exit.

24. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.2.1.a - Please verify that UL listing or approval of the incinerator is not required. Note: we typically utilize UL listed/labeled components where applicable.

Answer: Recognizing the incinerator is custom fabricated and will not be on a UL listing, the incinerator itself will not be UL labeled, however, as stated above, all associated/supporting components listed in the UL listing are required to be UL labeled.

25. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.2.1.b - We believe this requirement to be a generic carry over from other projects that required larger, continuous 24/7 operating systems. We have many such systems operating, However, the small pathological unit specified for this project is specified to operate 8-16 hours per day, 4 days per week. I am not aware of any commercial facility which operates on a continuous 24/7 basis processing on pathological wastes. Please confirm that this requirement can be met with references from a larger, municipal or medical waste facility or waived.

Answer: Add “… three jobs of medical waste, MSW, or a combination of each …of similar design

26. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.2.1.e - We understand that final, approved diagrams and instructions are to be placed in frames for mounting at the facility. Please confirm that the information to sent for approval is either in electronic form or hard copy drawings without framing.

Answer: Information will be sent in either electronic form or in hard copy form without framing.

27. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.5.1 - Please confirm that the waste type is Type 4, not Type 1 and 2 as stated in this paragraph.

Answer: Add “and 2 waste and type 4 waste, and class … “

28. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.5.10.c - This states that the casing for the furnace roof is to be not thinner than 3/8". However, Para 2.5.15 states that the exterior shell wall of the furnace will be at least 1/4" thick, Para 2.5.16 requires the primary combustion chamber casing to be no less than 12 GA and Para 2.5.17 states that the secondary combustion chamber is to have a casing at least 3/16" thick. Please confirm that a dual chambered incinerator is acceptable with a primary chamber shell thickness of 1/4" and a secondary chamber shell thickness of 3/16".

Answer: A dual chambered incinerator is acceptable with a primary chamber shell thickness of ¼” and a secondary chamber shell thickness of 3/16”.

29. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.5.20 - This paragraph requires inspection and clean out doors to be a minimum of 3/8" thick. We believe this requirement to refer to unlined cast iron or steel “furnace” type doors. Typically, the inspection and clean out doors on an incinerator are the same thickness as the shell to which they are attached. These doors are lined with insulation and refractory. Please confirm that doors can be the same plate thickness as the incinerator shell with insulation and refractory installed.

Answer: The doors should be a minimum of 3/8 inch thick. Delete “temperatures of door handles … devices.”

30. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.5.23 - Please confirm that any platforms necessary for stack testing will be provided as part of the building design.

Answer: Any platform necessary for stack testing and an associated ladder for access will be provided.

31. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.6.1.d - This paragraph states that the charger should be placed on the end of the incinerator. Further, Para 2.6.1.2 calls for the charging ram to continuously push the waste toward the clean out area. However, Drawing G-002 Sheet 2 of 5 and G-003 Sheet 3 seem to indicate that the loader (charger) introduces the waste into the side of the primary chamber at the approximate center of the chamber which is not common. In this design, the charger will push the waste toward the opposite side of the primary chamber and not toward the ash clean out end.

Additionally, this arrangement essentially reduces the usable volume of the primary chamber by approximately 1/3. Please advise if the loader can be mounted to the front of the lower chamber as is typical which may require a modification of the room size. Or an alternate approach would be to intersect the primary chamber as close to the right end as possible and install a separate waste transfer ram mounted at the front of the primary chamber to motivate the waste and ash toward the ash removal area. This would not allow the 6' maintenance clearance in that area. Please advise if this alternate approach would be acceptable.

Answer: Yes, it is acceptable to place the charger at the end of the incinerator.

The incinerator illustration shown on the drawings is conceptual in nature, provided by a incinerator consultant during design. It is acceptable for the incinerator geometry and orientation to be changed to meet the project incinerator performance requirements as described in specification 11 82 20. If a different configuration is chosen, which requires adjustment to related building components, the contractor will be responsible to provide coordination documents to the government for approval.

32. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.6.1.2 - States that the charging ram is to continuously push the burning waste toward the clean out. Again, as above, the drawings indicate that the charging ram introduces the waste into the approximate center of the side of the primary chamber.

Please advise if one or both of the recommendations above would be considered.

Answer: Yes – see response to question #31.

33. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.6.2 - This paragraph seems to indicate that auxiliary burners are to be packaged UL approved burner assemblies. Para 2.7.5.2 requires modulation of fuel and air in the secondary chamber burner. Packaged burners have a limited turndown ratio. Para 2.7.12.1.e seems to allow other than packaged burner assemblies. We would prefer to make up our own burner fuel trains using UL and FM approved components where available to provide full modulation of the secondary chamber burner. Please confirm that packaged type burners are not required.

Answer: Packaged type supplemental fuel burners are not necessarily required.

34. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.6.2.d - This paragraph requires burners that are easily removed from firing position. Burner housings are bolted to mounting flanges on the chamber wall.

Please confirm that bolted on burners are acceptable.

Answer: Change from “ … easily moved out … “ to “ … can be moved out… “

35. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.6.4 (a,b,c & d) - The description calls for a free standing stack to be mounted on a concrete foundation which would imply a standalone stack. It also specifies that the stack should be self-supported and not require guy wires. The drawings indicate that the stack is supported by the secondary chamber and utilizes guy wires affixed to the roof structure.

Please confirm that the stack is mounted directly to the secondary chamber with design and installation of guy wires provided by others.

Answer: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.6.4.d is incorrect where is states;

“provide freestanding stack that support themselves without guy wires.”

Guy wires are required as indicated on the contract drawings.

36. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.7.1 - This paragraph requires the GE control system on the new system to provide data logging for some parameters of the existing unit in Building 5. Please confirm the number and type of data to be logged and that the signal wires from the existing unit to the new control system will be installed by others. Para 2.7.1 states “Also provide and install all remote instrumentation, controls, and their connection points as specified, as well as an automatic combustion-control system for each incinerator in accordance with the incinerator manufacturer's recommendation”. We believe this statement is a carryover from another project specification.

Please confirm that the control system on the new incinerator is not required to control or monitor any functions of the existing incinerator in Building 5 beyond minimum data logging which is yet to be defined.

Answer: The controls system for the new incinerator is to integrate with the controls of incinerator

5. As it stands currently the GE controller for the existing incinerator 4 (which is going away in this project) is the master controller for the GE controller for incinerator 5 (which is the slave controller).

The controls for the new incinerator must take up the master responsibilities of the controls for the existing incinerator 4 in order to operate incinerator 5.

37. Question: Regarding Specification 11 82 20 Para 2.7.1, can the site provide more info on the scope of the data to be logged?

Answer: Note the existing standard PLC controls in both Incinerator #4 & Incinerator #5 are GE/Emerson Versamax. The new PLC control should be GE/Emerson Versamax to match the existing. GE originally did the PLCs and recently sold that division to Emerson and is a very active product. The new controls are to correctly communicate to the existing equipment in Building #5, offsite servers, Boiler Room & supervisor's reporting computers.

-Note the existing Supervisory Control in Building #4 is "GE Cimplicity. There is an HMI located at the control panel in front of the incinerator where the operators do the loading. Provide a touchscreen monitor (NEMA-4X industrial rated) with a thin-client located inside of the operator workstation for the new incinerator.

-Building #5 has existing Operator Interfaces (They use Machine Edition in building #5, not Cimplicity, however the new incinerator is not to use a Machine Edition) with interfaces located in:

• The Control Room separated from the loading area so that the operators are not near the scale/loading area when loading. Loading can only be done from this interface.

• The Loading Room for entering setpoints, mostly the scale weight.

• The incinerator lower-level for manually operating functions for testing.

-The new incinerator is to be provided with control interfaces in both the Control Room and the Charging (or Loading) Room. However unlike Building #5 there is not a request for a control interface in the new incinerator room itself.

-Note there is an existing Supervisory Control existing in the Boiler Plant control room. This is for both Building #4 and Building #5. This is a combination of GE Cimplicity & GE Historian. The server itself is housed off-site however there is client access in this control as the incinerators are monitored 24/7.

-Note there is also Historian access for reporting in the Boiler Plant control room and other locations throughout USDA utilizing the "Excel Add-in" feature of GE Historian. This is very important for the USDA as these reports are turned over once a month for the EPA.

-The Historian/Cimplicity software will be upgraded as part of this package. Since there will be new Cimplicity software installed out at the building, the software on the server is also to be updated so there are no compatibility issues.

-There are approximately 150 points being brought back via Ethernet that are logged per incinerator. The systems currently log temperatures, weight (very complicated programming on this), location source of each weight per load, loading times, runtimes of the burners/incinerators, etc.

- The existing control panels are Stainless-Steel NEMA-4X, provide the new control panels in Stainless-Steel NEMA-4X instead of the NEMA-4 only mentioned in 2.7.12.

-The existing control panels require UPS power for backup. Provide UPS power for backup of all new control panels.

-As noted in 2.6.1.c the controls must allow for entering the weights or logging the weights and location of the material source, which is very important to their operations and regulatory requirements.

-Provide a 15” minimum touchscreen for the Operator Interface Terminal running GE Cimplicity for the operators to use.

38. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.7.2 - This paragraph requires indicating and recording instruments for pressure and flow of air and liquids. This seems to be referring to the combustion and burner system. This is a very unusual requirement and will add unnecessary capital costs to the project. The burner train will include locally mounted pressure switches to prove air flow and gas pressure to allow firing of the burners. Please confirm that panel mounted indicating and recording instruments for pressure and flow of air and liquids is not required.

Answer: Do not concur. Panel mounted indicating and recording instruments for pressure and flow of air and liquids is required.

39. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.7.5.2 - Our system provides for burner control to be controlled by digital PID controllers to maintain required temperatures in both chambers. On-Off burners as specified for the primary chamber burner(s) have fixed air/fuel ratios. The modulating burner on the secondary chamber utilizes a proportioning ratiotrol on the combustion air which regulates the fuel flow. Please advise this design is acceptable without the need for other remote measurement.

Answer: Do not concur. Remote measurement is required.

40. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.7.6 - This paragraph requires remote panel indication of fuel / air drive units. Please clarify as this is an unusual requirement.

Answer: Not uncommon … is fairly common to indicate/verify that fuel and combustion air supplies are functioning.`

41. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.7.11 - This paragraph specifies that the incinerator shut down if “furnace” temperature reaches 2800F. If temperature in the secondary chamber reaches 100F above setpoint, our control system will prevent further loading, turn off the primary chamber burners and turn on a misting spray in the lower chamber until temperature decreases to setpoint. We do not recommend allowing the secondary chamber to reach 2800F. The paragraph also references a temperature of 750F at the induced draft fan. Please note that this system would not include an induced draft fan. Please confirm our temperature control scheme is satisfactory and that no induced draft fan is required.

Answer: Change from 2,800 degrees F to 2,600 degrees F. Delete ”750 degrees F at the induced draft fan,”

42. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.7.12.1.f - This paragraph references an annunciator panel.

Please confirm that indicating lights as specified elsewhere in the specification are acceptable in lieu of an annunciator panel.

Answer: An annunciator panel should be provided. It is safer and more convenient to see all overage parameters in one place than having an operator search a number of different locations to determine status of the equipment.

43. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.7.13 - The table shows an indicating light for high temperature at the induced draft fan. Please confirm that the system does include an induced draft fan.

Answer: The system does not include an induced draft fan.

44. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.7.17 - Please confirm that the water meter is to be designed and installed by others, not the incinerator manufacturer.

Answer: The water meter is to be designed and install not by the incinerator manufacturer but by others.

45. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.7.18 - Please confirm than push to test panel lights as specified elsewhere can be used in lieu of an annunciator panel.

Answer: An annunciator panel is preferable to push-to-test lights.

46. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 2.10 - This paragraph specifies a factory test for capacity and performance. A capacity test would require actual burning of waste which would require permitting the unit which is not practical. Also, the burning of actual waste would require refractory curing prior to introducing wastes. Units are shipped with the refractory in the “green state” which provides some flexibility for over the road shipment. Please confirm t0068at factory tests for capacity is not required.

Answer: Factory test for capacity is not required.

47. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 3.5.7.1 - This paragraph requires a 72-hour test of 3 days of continuous 24-hour operation. We believe this requirement is a carryover in the generic spec. The system is specified to process 500 lb/hr for 8-16 hours only. It is not not designed for continuous 24 hr/day operation. We have systems that are designed for continuous 24/7 operation, but that is not the requirement of the project. Please confirm that this requirement is not applicable to the project.

Answer: Change from 72 hours to 16 hours for the initial waste feed charge.

48. Question: Specification 11 82 20 – Para 3.5.8 - This paragraph indicates testing for HCL which is not one of the emissions required. Please confirm that emission testing is limited to: particulate, Nox, SO2 and CO as specified in paragraph 1.4.1.1 and 1.4.1.2. Also, please confirm who is to arrange and pay the costs for the emission testing.

Answer: Eliminate the requirement for HCL testing.

49. Question: Section 2.2.1 The phrase “duplicate equipment” should be replaced. Your reasoning is that you have put 5 years in “satisfactory use” of “Duplicate equipment” for the quality control. We agree with you about 5 years in satisfactory operation. However, at the minimum the word “duplicate” equipment should be replaced with your own verbiage that you have used below in section 2.2.1b stating “similar size and style”.

Answer: Concur. The test data must be for the similar size and style of equipment.

50. Question: Section 2.2.1C, I think there is a misunderstanding. We fully comply with the emission requirements. However, we ask that the phrase “Test data must be for the model proposed” to be replaced with “The test data must be for the similar size and style equipment”. The verbiage of the phrase “similar size and type” that you have used in section 2.2.1b.

Answer: Concur. The test data must be for the similar size and style of equipment.

51. Question: Please provide the manufacturer/installer of the existing unit.

Answer: There are two existing incinerators current in operation. Building 4’s incinerator will be demolished under this contract and Building 5 will be decommissioned after the new incinerator is commissioned. No information is available for either of these incinerators at this time.

52. Question: What is the basis of design for the incinerator?

Answer: There is no separate ‘basis of design’. The contract documents, plus relevant regulatory requirements, describe the incinerator prescriptive and performance requirements.

C. ARCHITECTURAL:

53. Question: Can a specification for the metal siding be provided?

Answer: Provide products complying with the following:

Part 1 General Ribbed profile, factory formed and finished, exposed fastener, lap-seam metal wall panels, trims and closures to form a weathertight installation.

Part 2 Products

2.1 Basis of Design Manufacturer / Product: MBCI PBR Panel, 36” wide, with ribs spaced at 12” on center, rib height 1 ¼”.

2.2 Panel Material: 26-gauge metallic coated steel. Zinc coating (galvanized) steel sheet complying with ASTM 653, G90 coating designation.

2.3 Panel Finish: 70% PVDF two coat system, color to be selected from manufacturers standard range.

2.4 Panel Finish Warranty: 30 Years

2.5 Accessory Materials: Provide color matching trims, closures, and flashings as required for a complete enclosure assembly.

Part 3 – Execution

3.1 Protect materials from damage during transit and at project site and in strict accordance with manufacturers written instructions.

3.2 Install products in accordance with manufacturers standard details for a weather tight enclosure.

54. Question: On AD-101 note D5 states “Remove plaster ceiling and related framing,” but this note cannot be found anywhere on the floorplan. What is the scope of the plaster ceiling/framing removal in this area?

Answer: Note D5 shall apply to the following spaces: VEST, LAB, PREP LAB, VEST, PHOTO LAB and JC. This scope coordinates with new ceiling work shown on sheet A-103.

55. Question: On A-102, the roof plan shows a walkway surface mounted to the standing seam metal roof. Can more info be provided on the type of material, size of material, connection details, and load capacities?

Answer: Please refer to specification 07 61 14.00 20, 2.6 Walkway System and 2.6.1 Roof Guardrail System.

56. Question: Aluminum Window Spec Section 085113 states the Finish Color to be selected from Standard Colors. What type of finish is required, Anodized Finish, or a Painted Finish?

Answer: Clear Anodized.

57. Question: Door 104A is listed on the Door Schedule as a Type ‘A’ door with 1/4" Tempered glass (non-Fire-Rated). Does that door need to be fire-rated?….it’s just down the hall from Door 105A that is fire-rated.

Answer: Please refer to sheet G-002 for walls that require fire ratings. Door 104A is not in a wall that is fire rated, thus it is not required to be fire rated.

58. Question: Glazing Spec Section 088100, paragraph 2.1.5 states the Fire-Rated glass MUST be laminated and 120 Minute. However, Door Schedule lists only 1/4" Wire, 90 Minute-Rated for the Fire-Rated doors 100A, 104B, 105A.

Answer: The fire rated glass indicated in the specification is required for the borrowed lite assemblies in Office 107 and Control 104 due to the size of the glass panels. The doors may utilize 90-minute rated wire glass provided the size of the lites do not exceed 100 square inches of area.

59. Question: Sheet A6.01 shows Interior Window Type W2 with a note stating, “Fire-Rated Glazing” but no other information. Although Fire-Rated Doors can be rated less than the wall they are in, the W2 windows are required by code to be rated the same as the wall. Therefore, you can have a 90 minute rated door in a 120 minute rated wall, but all other glass in that wall must be 120 minute fire rated. Please confirm this is what is wanted.

Answer: Please refer to the response above.

60. Question: If glass @ Door Type ‘F’ is 90 Minute Fire-Rated, the wire glass must be Laminated, please verify this is what should be included in the bid.

Answer: Yes

61. Question: If glass @ Window Type ‘W2’ is 120 Minute, the glass will need to be similar to TGP’s Pilkington Pyrostop….which is about 2” thick….please verify this is what is wanted. Alternatively, if glass @ Window Type ‘W2” is 90 Minute, code allows glass similar to TGP’s FireLiteNT, which is only 3/16” thick…..

Answer: The W2 window assembly must be 120 minutes as indicated by the code information on G-002. The contractor is required to provide a frame and glazing that meets these requirements.

D. MECHANICAL:

62. Question: Specification 230700 page 12 items 2.4.2.1 & 2 Acoustical duct lining. Paragraph 2.1 calls for supply, ventilation & exhaust systems to be internally lined. Paragraph 2.2 says its supposed to be elastomeric duct liner. No thickness is specified. What thickness is required? Does the duct need to increase in size to allow for the duct liner?

Answer: 230700 2.4.2.1 states that “ductwork indicated or specified in Section 230000.. to be acoustically lined, provide external insulation… in addition to the acoustical duct lining.” The drawings, specification 230000, and specification 230700 never indicate any location that currently requires acoustical duct lining. Should acoustical duct lining be required due to other changes note that both acoustical duct ling and external insulation will be required. The thickness of the duct liner would need to be determined for the application. The duct size would need to increase to allow for the duct liner. There is currently no acoustical duct lining in the scope of this project.

63. Question: Paragraph 2.1 Also says to provide external insulation on the duct. The schedule for this is shown on pages 27 & 28 sections 3.3.1 & 3.3.2. so according to the specifications supply, ventilation & exhaust systems are to be both lined & receive exterior duct wrap or board. Do you want to both line & wrap the ductwork on this project?

Answer: See response to previous question. There is currently no acoustical duct lining in the scope of this project.

64. Question: I don’t seem to be finding any specifications on ductwork, fabrication & installation or accessories, fire or fire/smoke dampers, manual or motorized dampers, electric duct heaters, louvers, CUH’s, heating coils, air handling units, evaporative coolers, refrigeration, & louvered penthouses.

Can you provide specifications & direction as to what you want provided & installed for all these items?

Answer: Duct Systems are specified in section 230000 2.7 including ductwork, fabrication & installation, duct accessories such as fire dampers, manual dampers, & louvered penthouses.

Note louvers are to be provided per sections 230000 2.7.7 and 089100.

There are currently no fire/smoke dampers in the scope of this project.

There are currently no electric duct heaters in the scope of this project. There are hot water coils as specified in 230000. There is also electric heat trace required for snow melting as detailed on detail 10 on sheet M-502.

Motorized dampers are specified in section 230913.

CUH’s are specified in section 238223.0040.

Heating coils and air handling units as specified in section 230000.

Evaporative coolers and refrigeration are specified in section 236300.0010 and are to be coordinated with section 132126.

65. Question: Will alternative solutions be considered to prevent snow from clogging filters and blowing into spaces in the building through the intake louvers and outdoor air intake hood other than the detailed snow melting system?

Answer: Yes, alternative solutions could be proposed for consideration. Variations in location, size, and wattage would be allowed but any impacts to other disciplines due to alternate solutions must be included in the contractors bid. Note that any solution must include regular maintenance or cleaning to be accessible from inside the building.

E. ELECTRICAL:

66. Question: Is exit signage AC-only or self-powered type? The current specification number is for AC only.

Answer: The Lighting Fixture Schedule on Drawing E-001 calls out Exit Signage as Type ‘X’. Exit Signs shall be the “self-powered” type and include battery pack. The revised Model number for specified fixture is Kenall METDU-MW-R-DT-EL.