337-23 Addendum #3 Questions and Answers.pdf

ADDENDUM #3 ODFW Tracking #: 835-337-23 Klamath Hatchery New Hatchery Building OregonBuys ITB # S-63500-00010819

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ADDENDUM # 3

ITB #S-63500-00010819

Engineering Project No.: 20-026

Klamath Hatchery New Hatchery Building

August 14, 2024

This addendum modifies the Invitation to Bid (ITB) document(s) for work only to the extent indicated herein. All other areas not specifically mentioned or affected by this addendum shall remain in full force. This addendum shall be added as a part of the original ITB document(s) and shall become part of the work required.

ADDENDUM

1. Changes to the Invitation to Bid document.

a. NONE.

2. Changes to Attachment A, Bid Package Forms.

a. NONE

3. Changes to the Attachment B Technical Specifications

a. NONE

4. Changes to the Attachment C Plans and Drawings

a. Attachment C1 (Lumber) and Attachment C2 (Mitigated); Sheet A9, Detail 3/A9, add note under Window 1 and 2 that reads “Casement” and add note under Window 3 “Fixed”. Add General Note 3 that reads “Provide egress hardware for window in living quarters bedroom.”

b. Attachment C1 Drawings (Lumber) Sheet C2, delete note at exterior northwest corner of building that reads “EXISTING SEPTIC TANK, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION AND INTEGRITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION” and replace with note reading “EXISTING

SEPTIC TANK TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED.”

c. Attachment C1 Drawings (Lumber) Sheet C2, modify note at interior northeast corner of building to read ”INSTALL 4” SEPTIC LINE TO NEW SEPTIC TANK. SEE SHEETS P1-P3

FOR CONTINUATION.

The prospective Bidders have until 2:00 PM on August 21, 2024, to submit written questions or protests regarding this Addendum.

This addendum constitutes a MATERIAL CHANGE to the bid. Offeror is to acknowledged receipt per Attachment A-1 BIDDER INFORMATION AND CERTIFICATIONS FORM - Signature Of Bidder’s Duly Authorized Representative Line 12 of the ITB.

Addendum prepared by:

Jake Howard OBPC, Contract Specialist Daniel Cook, P.E., S.E., Owner’s Authorized Representative

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q1. With regards to Section 077123-2.1-A states aluminum sheet (gutter coil). First, can this be

24GA steel? The roof is steel, why can’t the gutter be steel? Second, if the gutter is steel, the color will match the roof. If the gutter is aluminum there will be a difference in color between the roof and gutter unless you want a different shade. Further, the gutter will fade differently then the roofing as two different paint systems; they will not fade the same. Lastly, there are minimums for purchasing aluminum coil which drives cost (and lead times) up let alone aluminum will be more expensive than steel to begin with. 24GA steel will roll form better through the seamless gutter machine then aluminum. It will have a better appearance and be less wavy.

A1. We are staying with aluminum gutters.

Q2. The specs call out Aplen ZR-10 Fiberglass windows, but the manufacturer does not make a single-hung or slider in that series. The other Aplen series that have single-hung, and sliders do not meet the Thermal Performance requirements. Please clarify.

A2. Windows are intended to be casement or fixed (restrooms).

Q3. Can we also get a spec for the fire sprinklers. I just seen a note on the drawings about needing fire sprinklers in the living quarters.

A3. Sprinkler system for living quarters to be NFPA13D, design by contractor. See Sheet A1, General Floor Plan Note 11.

Q4. The project drawings, please see S8-S15, seem to show the pile caps and grade beam work as being part of this building construction scope, even though we know some of that work is under separate drawings and scope. Would you please help clarify where this scope starts and ends so it’s clear to our concrete subs who are trying to bid the project?

A4. Lower pile cap/grade beams under the Rearing Room trenches will be constructed under a separate contract and noted on Detail 2/S2. All other pile cap/grade beams are included in this contract.

Q5. We request that the procurement team consider eliminating the 3 pages of line items on the bid form, there should be only one line item for ‘total bid’ and the alternate line items to fill out on bid day. The successful bidder would then provide a full schedule of values prior to first month’s invoice. It’s nearly impossible to expect the contractors to accurately fill out and balance those 200 line items in the competitive bid process at the last minute. This is normal for all hard bid projects, thank you for considering.

A5. Please bid using pricing submittal form provided. This project requires consultation with Insurance companies and FEMA for disaster relief funds. The listed line items are required for use by Insurance and FEMA for project funding.

Q6. Please reference Sheet C2, note says for contractor to verify location and integrity of existing septic tank. Not sure how that’s a reasonable expectation of the contractor during the bid process, we would have to hire an independent inspector, have it pumped and a camera used at our cost. Shouldn’t that be the responsibility of the owner? and if we discover that in our opinion it has failed or needs replacement, who provides the specs for replacement and why would we share that information with other bidding contractors? If replacement is required is the additional cost covered by owner?

A6. The existing septic tank is to be removed and replaced. See Addendum #1.

Q7. Please reference Sheet G5 Detail 4. Insulation details show two layers of Rockwool at the underside of plywood deck. There are two problems with this; one Rockwool has nearly a year long lead time, if it can be found at all in the correct size. More importantly there is no viable method for supporting this material against the deck, since the bottom of insulation would be lower than the bottom of the truss top chord and there are truss chords in the way of any continuous material. Detail calls for 12” of insulation attached to a 5-1/2” thick rafter. This detail should probably be revised to spray foam or another method?

A7. Our research shows availability of Rockwool Comfortbatt. Contractor to support batt insulation using standard methods to support insulation suspended from a structure.

This situation is similar to insulation that is placed between floor joists in a crawl space. Some additional blocking may be required from the roof support structure to allow for the use of netting, strings, or other similar products to secure the insulation in place.

Q8. Also, same sheet G5 Details 1-4 show 1-3/4” insulation ‘attached’ to wood framing on the wall. Then a layer of gyp on top of this. Is the board insulation intended to go in the stud bay between the studs? If so how would it be attached?

A8. If it’s supposed to go on the surface of the stud, how will we attach the sheetrock to the wall? please revise this detail to something that is constructible? The 1-3/4” insulation is not placed between the studs but on the surface of the framing. Basis of design is RMAX TSX-8510, therefore, refer to manufacturer’s fastening guide for installation. Gypsum fasteners will need to be long enough to extend through rigid insulation and into wall framing/blocking.

Q9. Also same sheet G5 Detail 3 shows gyp over 1-3/4” rigid insulation at the underside of the rafters but allows no method for attaching the drywall to the insulation. Please revise to a constructible assembly?

A9. See previous response.

Q10. Also, 1-3/4” Rigid insulation is not a real product that’s available, please confirm either 1-1/2” or 2” would be acceptable at all locations where shown?

A10. Basis of design is RMAX TSX-8510 and can be custom manufactured in the 1-3/4” thickness. Approximate lead time is 3 to 4 weeks according to the manufacturer.

Contact RMAX Northwest Regional Sales manager Tracy Bennett at 503-551-4959.

END OF QUESTIONS & ANSWERS