20210121 A-E Response Document for Moisture Integrity construction RFI-003.pdf

Architecture, Interior Design, Engineering, Consulting, and Testing Services www.RaymondLLC.com

1601 Summit Ave.

Richmond, VA 23230 804-726-9540 www.RaymondLLC.com

DUNS #: 84-048-8324

SDVOSB – 8a & SWaM

RFI Response #003

1) (The request ask about the use of swing stages on the project): Besides the brick work scope the other major cost driver is the access. Question 16 may have huge cost implications. Based on our walk of the site and roof we felt although it might be challenging there was a way to access most of the exterior work from swing stages. This is far and away the most cost-effective means of access. To scaffold the entire project would add a lot of money. We need to know definitively if we can or cannot use swing stages on this project?

R: The existing parapet walls/structures are solid masonry, non-reinforced, gravity structures with a horizontal cold joint where roof flashings are embedded in the structure. As such we believe these to have zero structural capacity when discussing supporting the loads and moments introduced by swing stage apparatus. Additionally, the horizontal roof structures were not designed to support the additional loads which would be superimposed by structure and counterweights necessary to support and cantilever swing staging. Finally, since a swing stage is also supported against the wall on which work is being performed, the swing stage would tend to preclude installation of a monolithic and uniform waterproofing membrane.

Scaffolding the entire project at once is not intended. The design intent is to scaffold the project in phases as indicated by 1/G-102, permitting, for example, Phase 2 to be erected while Phase 1 is performed, then work moving to Phase 2 and the scaffolding from Phase 1 leapfrogging Phase 2 and being erected for Phase 3, and so forth and so on, the intent being to only have scaffolding for two phases on site at any given time.

2) Additionally, please see the attached information from Mr. Lattimer regarding the Moisture Integrity Project. I do not know if there is a question about the product but please review and evaluate for usage of the item. The attached is the completed CSI Substitution Request Form, side-by-side product comparison, reference list, product data sheets, 15-year sample warranty, testing results, and sustainability information for PROSOCO’s Cat 5 fluid-applied, vapor permeable STP membrane air barrier system

R: The product proposed for substitution does not cure to a clear color, but rather cures to a light brown color as indicated in the submitted side by side comparison. The ability to cure to a clear color and minimally affect the appearance of the building was part of the justification presented to the SHPO in support of the specified product, and part of the SHPO’s basis for approval. Substitution of a product which does not cure clear would be cause for re-evaluation by the SHPO, with the very distinct potential for rejection and delay caused by that review process.

Z:\RVA\RVA1033 Dept of VA - VISN 6\001 VAMC Hampton Bldg 110 & 110A - Moisture Integrity Repair\RFI's\20210121 A-E Response Document for Moisture Integrity construction RFI- 003.docx