516-23-604 Const Sol RFI Responses.xlsx

DIRECTIONS

TAILORED COMMENT MATRIX

THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED IN A MICROSOFT EXCEL FILE FORMAT. DO NOT RETURN YOUR RESPONSES IN ANY DIFFERENT FILE FORMAT.

The sheet labeled "DIRECTIONS" explains this document, and provides directions for its use.

The sheet labeled "MATRIX" contains a table with all labeled and numbered elements from the RFP. This table is where potential offerors may respond to the Government with feedback, comments, or ask questions.

Column B: Contains the section number that each element is labeled, within their respective documents. The section number relates directly to the item's location in the RFP.

Column C: Contains the written title for the corresponding item/section number.

Column E: Contains recieved date of offerors' comments/questions/responses.

Column F: Contains space for potential offerors' comments/questions/responses.

Column G: Contains space for VHA comments/questions/responses.

Column H: Contains response date for VHA comments/questions/responses.

Column I: Contains VHA Section/ POC shop comments/questions/response

Column J: Contains Contractor Name requesting /questions/responses.

THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RETURNED IN A MICROSOFT EXCEL FILE FORMAT. DO NOT RETURN YOUR RESPONSES IN ANY DIFFERENT FILE FORMAT.

MATRIX

Response From

516-23-604 Temp Shoring Project (Structural Repairs) - Construction RFIs

&P of &N

Sheet1

Appendix A JS Held Final

Assessment Report Correct Structural System for

Building 1, Dated 10/14/2022

(Project No. 516-22-120)

FINAL ASSESSMENT

REPORT

PREPARED FOR:

Department of Veterans Affairs Bay Pines VA Healthcare System 10000 Bay Pines Boulevard Bay Pines, FL 33744

Project No. 516-22-120 Correct Structural System for Building 1

J.S. Held, LLC No: 22050462

Bay Pines VA Healthcare System – Building 1 [22050462]

October 14, 2022

2002 North Lois Avenue Suite 505 | Tampa FL 33609 | 800-971-7252 | Find your expert at jsheld.com Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

CCONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SCOPE

EXISTING BUILDING INFORMATION

SITE INSPECTION

SITE INVESTIGATION AND OBSERVATIONS

Basement and Crawlspace

Building Envelope

Infrared Roof Survey

Historical Assessment

CONCLUSIONS

CLOSING

APPENDIX A: REPRESENTATIVE CONDITIONS – BASEMENT AND CRAWLSPACE

APPENDIX B: SHORING OF BASEMENT AND CRAWLSPACE CRITICAL AREAS

APPENDIX C: MATERIAL ANALYSIS

APPENDIX D: VCS CORROSION POTENTIAL SURVEY REPORT

APPENDIX E: AAR CONCRETE CORE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH REPORT

APPENDIX F: REPRESENTATIVE CONDITIONS – BUILDING ENVELOPE

APPENDIX G: TERMITE INSPECTION REPORTS

APPENDIX H: REPRESENTATIVE CONDITIONS – HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX I: COST AND SCHEDULE ANALYSIS

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

IINTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

This report summarizes a condition assessment of Building 1 of the Bay Pines VA Medical Campus in Bay Pines, Florida (Figure 1). Originally constructed circa 1933, Building 1 served as the main hospital on the Bay Pines VA Medical Campus until a larger replacement hospital was constructed in 1983, at which time Building 1 underwent its first restoration and was subsequently transitioned to housing the campus canteen services as well as providing for behavioral health services and space for administration and support. The five-story building encompasses approximately 94,000 square feet and is one of the buildings within the Bay Pines Administration and Hospital Historic District. The district was added to the National Register of Historic Places in June 2012.

In 2021, a renovation of floors two through five for the purpose of providing outpatient services began.

As only the second major renovation in its nearly 90-year history, there are concerns regarding the integrity of the building’s structural elements as well as the condition of the building envelope components.

This assessment report is intended to address the general conditions of the structural elements and building envelope components of Building 1 and provide an opinion of the building’s structural stability for the purpose of immediate occupancy. The findings presented in this assessment report are based on visual observations as well as intrusive and non-destructive testing. Included in this report are repair recommendations and associated cost/schedule analyses.

Figure 1: Aerial image showing Building 1 and connecting buildings

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

EEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This condition assessment comprised Building 1 of the Bay Pines VA Medical Campus located in Bay Pines, Florida. The areas evaluated in this assessment included the building’s roofs, attic, envelope, the first story, basement, and crawlspace. Evaluation of stories two through five was limited to the historic lobby or the second story and an interior assessment of the building envelope along the exterior walls.

The Bay Pines VA Healthcare System (BPVAHS) commissioned this condition assessment in support of a building renovation and consideration for future repairs. The goal of this study was to evaluate the general condition of Building 1 within the defined areas and identify deficiencies that may affect continued use. The evaluation considered the overall condition of the building, with a focus on identifying existing structural deficiencies and conditions that may develop into future deficiencies, including general recommendations for repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or a combination thereof.

Building Condition

Our assessment revealed the primary structure (slabs, beams, columns, bearing walls, etc.) of Building 1 be in poor-to-fair condition. There were no apparent signs indicative of global instability or impending structural failure. However, the following localized structural deficiencies and conditions (listed in descending order of urgency) should be addressed or are expected to need repair in the estimated timeframes outlined in this report:

Significant spalling or similar displacement of concrete from beams and columns was observed throughout the crawlspace and basement. These conditions were determined to be critical below the kitchen of the cantina and below the mechanical room at the northwest portion of the west building extension and temporary shoring of these areas is recommended prior to the conclusion of the ongoing renovation and return to full building occupancy.

Surface corrosion along steel beams and the underside of the metal floor deck underside was observed from the basement.

Water intrusion through the roof membrane, flashing, and roof framing has allowed water to enter the roof framing system causing deterioration of roof rafters and roof decking within the attic space.

A crack exists along the inside face of the east gable end masonry wall within the attic.

Non-structural elements of Building 1 (roof coverings, façade, interior finishes, etc.) appeared to be in fair-to-good condition and included the following typical conditions.

Exterior: Broken roof tiles, missing gutters and flashings, deterioration of exterior masonry, and failure of sealant joints. Multiple cracks in stucco exterior wall coverings. Ponding water on the loading dock roof.

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

Interior: Moisture intrusion at the attic and crawlspace levels, delamination of interior wall, floor, and ceiling finishes, and broken floor tiles

Despite the deficiencies and conditions noted above, it is the opinion of J.S. Held that continued occupancy of the first story of Building 1 is safe and that construction as part of the ongoing renovation need not be limited.

Cost and Schedule Analysis

The construction renovation summary is based on JS Held site inspections and clarification to scopes reviewed in meetings with VA representatives. Quantities are based on elevations from Architectural plans I-29, I-30, & I-31 dated 02/08/1983 and photos/videos documented by JS Held during site inspections and summarized in this final assessment report.

The majority of renovation costs include structural upgrades to the basement and crawl space, including the repair of exposed/corroded rebar, spalling, and cracking in concrete columns, joists, walls, and soffits in the crawlspaces. Remaining costs include upgrades to the Building Facade including, but not limited to;

replacement/fixing decorative terra-cotta, repair to any stucco cracks, repair to wood on the roof overhang, remove/replace sealant at exterior windows and doors, demo/replace tile roof identified on the fifth story, demo/replace built-up roof above the elevator penthouse, new ladder from lower to upper roof, remove/replace copper gutter identified above the fifth-story windows and elevator penthouse, painting the entire exterior building, termite services to the attic, temporary scaffolding to the exterior of the building, and temporary overhead pedestrian walkway for safe entrance/exit to the main entrance of the building.

*The J.S. Held renovation estimate is subject to change based on 100% CD plans and details.

Virtual Walkthrough

As part of the investigation, J.S. Held conducted a HoloBuilder survey to create a virtual walkthrough of Building 1 as is existed at the time of inspection. These conditions are representative of those presented in this assessment report and can be viewed utilizing the following link:

https://app.holobuilder.com/app/?p=c55a059a-c0cf-41e3-a443-be962ac79cee

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

SSCOPE

J.S. Held was engaged by the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System (BPVAHS) to conduct a condition assessment of the building’s roofs, attic, envelope, first story, basement, and crawlspace for:

Determining the conditions of the building components in the aforementioned areas.

Determining the urgency of retrofitting compromised building components in the aforementioned areas.

Determining requirements and providing recommendations to make identified areas in question permanently safe and structurally sound.

Providing temporary solutions to make such areas safer until permanent repairs can be made.

Estimating costs and schedule for the remedial actions proposed in the assessment.

The scope of our investigation was limited to the building’s exterior, first-story, crawlspace, and basement, though portions of stories two through five were also evaluated for historic and building envelope purposes. Our investigation focused on readily visible elements without removing finishes, cladding, coverings, or other obstructions to expose concealed conditions; however, our investigation was supported by the use of infrared drone photography and concrete testing within the basement and crawlspace.

The following items were outside the scope of our assessment and are not included in this report:

Structural building conditions within stories two through five

Hazardous materials sampling, testing, and inspection

Review of existing conditions for building or energy code conformance

Review of existing MEP systems, equipment, or utility services

In general, structural and other building elements assessed for this report were rated using the following qualitative scale:

Good: First signs of light deterioration may be visible but the overall performance of the element is not affected. Repairs are not expected for at least 10-15+ years.

Fair: Average wear for building age. Moderate signs of deterioration. Repairs expected within 10 years.

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

Poor: Signs of advanced deterioration. At or near the end of the expected lifecycle.

In addition to the definitions above, some elements may be referred to as:

Unknown: Structural element covered by finishes or otherwise not visible.

Critical: Signs of severe deterioration. Temporary shoring is recommended to be installed in critical areas for the near term and prior to the implementation of permanent repairs, though shoring is not required for continued occupancy of the first-story building or continued work as part of the ongoing construction.

It should be noted that any items identified as Critical have been reported to BPVAHS personnel prior to the issuance of this report as a matter of structural urgency. These included:

Areas of the first-story concrete floor structure are deemed to be in critical condition and for which temporary shoring is recommended.

A roof ladder from a low slope roof to a higher low roof area that has become detached could present a life safety issue where a user to be unaware of its existence.

EEXISTING BUILDING INFORMATION

As part of the investigation, J.S. Held was provided with original construction drawings dated 1931 and renovation drawings dated 1983. The building is generally constructed of exterior masonry bearing walls atop a concrete foundation, interior concrete floor slabs and columns, and wood-framed roofs. The exterior is clad with stucco and the roof covering consists of clay tiles. As part of the 1980’s renovation, structural deficiencies were identified throughout the building and repairs included the jacketing/encasement of multiple concrete structural elements within the crawlspace and basement (e.g.

pile caps, columns, beams, and joists). To the best extent possible, efforts have been made to refer to structural elements in this report with the same nomenclature used in the 1983 renovation drawings.

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

SSITE INSPECTION

J.S. Held was provided access to Building 1 between June 21, 2022, and July 5, 2022. Building conditions were evaluated by the following J.S. Held employees at varying times throughout the inspection period:

Mr. Andrew Lovenstein, P.E.

Mr. Brandon Davis, P.E.

Mr. Gibson M. Jones Jr., R.A.

Mr. Osvaldo Arevalo, P.E.

Mr. Matt Staffeld, P.E.

Mr. Ilan Caballero, P.E.

Mr. Scott Hollingsworth, P.G.

Mr. Andrew Feliciano, E.I.

Mr. Wes Kendrick, E.I.

Mr. Scott Jones, E.I.

In addition, J.S. Held subcontracted All About Pest to conduct a termite inspection for the entirety of Building 1 and VCS, Inc. for conducting a corrosion potential survey within the basement and crawlspace.

All subcontracted work was completed within the inspection period above.

Mr. Lovenstein and Mr. Jones returned to Building 1 on August 11, 2022, to make additional observations regarding moisture intrusion.

SITE INVESTIGATION AND OBSERVATIONS

Basement and Crawlspace J.S. Held inspected the basement and crawlspace areas from June 21-23, 2022. Personnel conducting the basement and crawlspace inspection include Mr. Matthew Staffeld, PE, Mr. Osvaldo Arevalo, PE, Mr.

Wesley Kendrick, EI, and Mr. Scott Jones, EI. Additionally, concrete cores were taken by Mr. Scott Hollingsworth, PG, and Mr. Wesley Kendrick, EI on July 5, 2022, while representatives of VCS, Inc. performed half-cell potential testing.

For this report, “Crawlspace A” will refer to the crawlspace located beneath the five stories located along the east side of Building 1. “Crawlspace B” will refer to the crawlspace located beneath the two stories located on the west end of Building 1, and “Basement” will refer to the below-grade room interconnecting the two crawlspaces.

Concrete elements within the crawlspaces included columns, beams, and floor joists constructed of cast-in-place concrete. The overhead steel beams, girders, and pan deck of the composite metal deck in the basement were constructed on-site and supported by cast-in-place concrete columns. J.S. Held evaluated

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration and categorized these members into ‘good’, ‘fair’, or ‘poor’ conditions. Representative photos of ‘good’, ‘fair’, and ‘poor’ members may be found in Appendix A: Representative Conditions – Basement and Crawlspace attached to this report.

Generally, ‘Good’ condition concrete members evidenced no concrete spalling, exposed rebar, or significant (non-shrinkage) cracks. ‘Fair’ concrete members generally evidenced limited concrete spalling, exposed rebar, or cracks. ‘Poor’ concrete members exhibited significant concrete spalling, exposed and corroded rebar, or cracks. It should be noted that the first-story floor overlying several ‘poor’ members was inspected and no significant distress was observed. An approximate count of ‘fair’ and ‘poor’ concrete members by crawlspace can be found in Tables 1 and 2 below, which are intended to provide an overview of the crawlspace conditions. Please note that the table does not include all structural elements evaluated as many were considered to be in ‘good’ condition. Color-coded maps identifying ‘Good’, ‘Fair’, and ‘Poor’ conditions can be found in Appendix A following the representative conditions photographs.

Crawlspace A

Total number of structural members in fair or poor condition Condition Column Beam/Joist Underside of Slabs within Bays Wall Section within Bays

Fair 22 55 43 14

Poor 33 45 20 12 Table 1: Approximate count of ‘fair’ and ‘poor’ members within Crawlspace A

Crawlspace B

Total number of structural members in fair or poor condition Condition Column Beam/Joist Underside of Slabs within Bays Wall Section within Bays

Fair 9 13 10 7 Poor 9 18 8 0

Table 2: Approximate count of ‘fair’ and ‘poor’ members within Crawlspace B

While the majority of the cast-in-place concrete columns, beams, and floor joists were in fair to poor condition, there were three (3) ‘Critical’ areas identified where temporary shoring should be installed until permanent repairs can be implemented. These areas were identified at the following locations and are shown in the floor plan diagram of Appendix B: Shoring of Basement and Crawlspace Critical Areas.

The floor joists and slab area bound between columns 29-30-50-53-73-91-87-29 below the kitchen (Crawlspace A) are in critical condition. Approximately 30 floor joists exhibited significant concrete cracking and spalling and the rebar was exposed. The steel reinforcement exhibited advanced corrosion and section loss which has resulted in a significant reduction in load capacity in the floor joists.

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

Critical Floor Framing Critical Floor Framing

Critical Floor Framing Critical Floor Framing

Figure 1: Critical area bound by columns 29-30-50-53-73-91-87-29 in Crawlspace A

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

Columns 169 and 173A (Crawlspace B) are spalling at the corners of areas with previous structural modification where loads were transferred from the steel beams through the bolted connections to the concrete columns. The failed repair resulted in a critical condition. This area is below the equipment room at the northwest corner of the west building extension

Column 169 Column 169

Column 173A Column 173A

Figure 2: Critical columns 169 and 173A in Crawlspace B

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

Three floor joists between columns 167-180-181-172-172A-168-167 (Crawlspace B) are in critical condition. The floor joists exhibited significant concrete cracking and spalling and the rebar was exposed. The steel reinforcement exhibited advanced corrosion and section loss which has resulted in a significant reduction in load capacity in the floor joists.

Critical Joist Critical Joists

Critical Joists Critical Joists

Figure 3: Critical joists bound by columns 167-180-181-172-172A-168-167 in Crawlspace B

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

Within the basement, approximately ten (10) locations of surface corrosion of the composite metal deck underside were brushed with the use of a steel brush and the claw of a welder’s hammer. The scratched (brushed) surfaces were inspected for pitting or flaking. No instances of pitting or flaking, indicative of potential loss of structural load-bearing capacity were observed during our inspection. The tested areas were thus rated ‘Fair’.

Evidence of prior repairs to the reinforced concrete elements was observed in both Crawlspaces A and B.

The repairs varied in extent and type but were typically limited to epoxy injection within concrete cracks, surface applications of cementitious mortar to cover chipped or spalled concrete, or concrete jackets to the columns, pile caps, and beams. In many cases, the repairs appeared to have been consistent with repairs detailed in the 1983 Renovation and Demolition plans. While most of the repairs were intact and appeared to be functioning as intended, there were several instances where the repairs had failed. Of note, the concrete jacket around column 173 A in Crawlspace B was separated from the original column and was supporting loads imposed by the addition of steel beams and mechanical equipment racks. The locations of failed repairs were accounted for during our assessment of the crawlspace and basement areas.

Ponding water was reported on the surface of the terrace outside the west entrance above Crawlspace B, particularly during periods of heavy rainfall. The finished floor of the terrace was back-pitched toward the doorstep when checked with a hand level. No visible evidence of deformation or vertical displacement was observed on the steel framing joists or concrete slab substrate under the west terrace within Crawlspace B. A slope check of the wide flange (W) steel joists with a hand level indicated that these floor framing components were back-pitched toward the interior, which caused site storm runoff to accumulate near the doorstep. This condition is attributable to the initial improper installation. (See Figure 4 on the next page).

[SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

Back-pitched west terrace (1/8-inch per foot)

Back-pitched west terrace (1/8-inch per foot)

Floor framing under west terrace

Floor framing under west terrace

Level check of floor framing under west terrace

Level check of steel beam under west terrace

(1/8-inch per foot back pitched) Figure 4: West terrace and corresponding area of Crawlspace B below

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS

Steel Deck

Recommended repairs/maintenance methods include non-abrasive cleaning to remove the surface corrosion and then application of intumescent paint to prevent exposure to the humid environment of the basement as well as restoration of the fireproofing that has been reportedly removed.

West Terrace

It is recommended that the back pitching be corrected by providing a new suitable tapered topping to a new finish flooring that would allow site storm runoff to drain away promptly.

Concrete

J.S. Held recommends that repairs of the observed distressed reinforced concrete elements consist of epoxy injection or partial-depth repairs. Epoxy injection should be utilized for cracks within concrete members that have not induced corrosion of the reinforcement or spalling of the concrete. This type of distress was typically found in members classified as ‘Good’ or ‘Fair’ condition. Epoxy injection restores the integrity of the concrete member when epoxy adhesives are injected within the crack through drilled port holes, filling in the voids between the fractured portions of the concrete. The epoxy also acts as a sealant and prevents moisture penetration along the crack.

For concrete members that exhibit spalled concrete and exposed rebar, a partial-depth repair is required.

A partial-depth repair involves the removal of the corroded steel reinforcement and the surrounding concrete past the affected area until sound steel reinforcement and concrete are identified. Minimally, if corroded reinforcement in the repair is exposed and found to have loose oxidation products or is not bonded to the surrounding concrete, it is recommended that the concrete be removed from around the bar. The clear space behind the reinforcing steel should be not less than ¼ inch plus the dimension of the maximum size aggregate in the repair material (typically a total of three inches or more). In addition, concrete removal along the reinforcing bar shall continue until the bar is essentially free from corrosion products. In some cases of advanced corrosion, it may be appropriate to replace the affected reinforcement and concrete along the entire length of the member. Once the affected concrete and rebar are removed, new reinforcement steel should be spliced with the existing steel by doweling into the existing concrete adjacent to the existing steel. Appropriate epoxy adhesives and bonding agents should be used to complete a proper partial-depth repair.

The repairs should be performed in accordance with the ICRI, “Guide for Surface Preparation for the Repair of Deteriorated Concrete Resulting from Reinforcing Steel Corrosion (ICRI 310.1R-2008) [formerly No. 03730],” International Concrete Repair Institute, Rosemont, IL, 2008

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

Estimated quantities of concrete repairs used for the development of a cost estimate and schedule are included in Tables 3 through 5. These tables include estimated quantities for all concrete members recommended for any type of repair (i.e. epoxy injection and partial-depth repairs) but does not distinguish between the type of repair.

Crawlspace A

Member

Columns Joists Slab Walls Beams # Members 49 134 32 27 15

Quantity 570 877 317 157 43 Dimensions Square Feet Linear Feet Square Feet Square Feet Linear Feet

Table 3: Estimated quantities of repairs in Crawlspace A

Crawlspace B

Columns Joists Slab Walls Beams # Members 15 17 12 5 8

Quantity 100 98 131 20 22 Dimensions Square Feet Linear Feet Square Feet Square Feet Linear Feet

Table 4: Estimated quantity of repairs in Crawlspace B

Basement

Concrete Columns Steel Beams Steel Deck # Members 3 21 N/A

Quantity 3 600 3100 Dimensions Square Feet Linear Feet Square Feet

Table 5: Estimated quantity of repairs in Basement

Information regarding concrete materials testing performed as part of this investigation and considered for the recommendations made herein can be found in Appendix C: Materials Analysis, Appendix D: VCS Corrosion Potential Survey Report, and Appendix E: AAR Concrete Core Compressive Strength Report.

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

Building Envelope J.S. Held conducted a building envelope survey of the exterior facades, roof surfaces, and interior windows for stories one through five on June 28-29, 2022. Personnel attending the building envelope survey included Mr. Andrew Lovenstein, PE, Mr. Gibson Jones, RA, Mr. Ilan Caballero, PE, and Mr. Andrew Feliciano, EI. The building envelope survey included walking the flat roofs, the exterior, and the interiors of all floors and attic, and conducting both traditional and drone photography. J.S. Held categorized these observations into ‘Good’, ‘Fair’, or ‘Poor’ conditions. Representative photos of ‘good’, ‘fair’, and ‘poor’ members may be found in Appendix F: Representative Conditions – Building Envelope attached to this report.

1. Low-Sloped Membrane Roofs

a. Good—the general condition of the low-sloped membrane roofs was free from tears/gouges, uplifted/displaced sections, and openings that were not for plumbing or drainage. Alligator cracking was observed at the curbed portions near metal flashing, and roof patches were observed sporadically.

b. Fair—some instances of ponding water and raised membrane seams were observed.

These conditions could potentially result in long-term deterioration of the roofing system if they are unaddressed.

c. Poor – a heavily corroded and deteriorated fixed ladder located between two adjacent roofs was observed. This fixed ladder evidenced multiple loose connections and it was found to be in an unsafe condition to use.

2. Sloped Tile Roof

a. Good—the general condition of the tile roofing system was serviceable and capable of performing as intended for several more years despite sporadic cracked and broken tiles.

Previous repair activity was observed in the form of a sealant to try and re-bond the cracked and broken tiles.

b. Fair—one slipped hip cap was observed at the southwestern most turret. Sporadic cracked tiles, most of them which had been repaired in the past, were observed.

3. Attic

a. Good—generally speaking, the typical condition of the attic space above the fifth story of Building 1 was consistent with wooden rafters and the wooden plank decking being free from discoloration or deterioration. A history of repair activity indicated general upkeep of the attic space including instances of plywood decking replacement and sistering of rafters. There was one instance of a replaced rafter along the north end of the attic space.

Construction | Environmental, Health & Safety | Equipment | Forensic Accounting | Forensic Architecture & Engineering | Water & Fire Restoration

b. Fair—some instances of wear were observed within the attic space. Specifically, 1/4-inch stairstep cracks were observed in the masonry wall situated on the central east wall of the attic. Approximately 28 square feet of stained plank decking was observed throughout the attic space. Three instances of a missing bolt from an L-bracket were observed along the south end of the attic space.

c. Poor—approximately 50 square feet of deteriorated plank decking was observed throughout the attic space. One deteriorated rafter tail was observed near the northeast side of the attic. We recommend removing and replacing the approximate 50 square feet of deteriorated plank decking and spraying the repaired areas with a borate solution to prevent any wood rot from termites and other insects.