50-49500-25-01990_50-49500-25-01990 Replace of the Roof of the Gateway to Space Building 82125 R002.pdf.PDF

STATE PURCHASING DIVISION

OF THE

GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

AND

NEW MEXICO SPACEPORT AUTHORITY

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

Replacement of the Roof of the Gateway to Space Building

Project# 24-M16

RFP #50-49500-25-01990

Amendment No. Two

RFP Release Date: August 19, 2025

Proposal Due Date: September 18, 2025

ELECTRONIC-ONLY PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

This Amendment is issued to reflect the following:

Section G. Procurement Library

Removing the following:

Original Roof Drawings and detailed Scope of Work from ARMKO Industries.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/25c95fqvdit6attswcxgx/ANOO16XzrgO9QYmaL7_AwDM?r lkey=xfbi69qr2jwfzvndx6tp4xnf4&st=dj8xowvt&dl=0

Original MKA Drawings https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/nbe5sxaz175ssmtdhkqg8/ACQKATNYG-n_7QjMDaNuoBU?rlkey=m3h3l45bepotvos8xoqyq51dm&st=iw4bjmox&dl=0

Replacing with:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/ygzybtfoj027wgj5mvvv7/AHV7AXtPnCuymnCAnT3y9RI?rlkey=od3ylkhnl

92usol0oc0r17a43&st=9dm252bj&dl=0

And:

Addition of Documents, (Master Report) Roof Report Spaceport America: NMSA

Contract No. 23-495-p770-23023: MKA 22.3484 and 24-1309-49 Spaceport America-New

Mexico https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dropbox.com%2Fscl%2Ffo%2F25c95fqvdit6attswcxgx%2FANOO16XzrgO9QYmaL7_AwDM%3Frlkey%3Dxfbi69qr2jwfzvndx6tp4xnf4%26st%3Ddj8xowvt%26dl%3D0&data=05%7C02%7CBecky.Dean%40spaceportamerica.com%7C6ab3e182ebb54570572808dd73917d6a%7C04aa6bf4d436426fbfa404b7a70e60ff%7C0%7C0%7C638793790887139658%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zenSW8mos4OBqghprphAVN9Gq2Q28mHNXaEVZ95%2BQw8%3D&reserved=0 https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dropbox.com%2Fscl%2Ffo%2F25c95fqvdit6attswcxgx%2FANOO16XzrgO9QYmaL7_AwDM%3Frlkey%3Dxfbi69qr2jwfzvndx6tp4xnf4%26st%3Ddj8xowvt%26dl%3D0&data=05%7C02%7CBecky.Dean%40spaceportamerica.com%7C6ab3e182ebb54570572808dd73917d6a%7C04aa6bf4d436426fbfa404b7a70e60ff%7C0%7C0%7C638793790887139658%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zenSW8mos4OBqghprphAVN9Gq2Q28mHNXaEVZ95%2BQw8%3D&reserved=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/nbe5sxaz175ssmtdhkqg8/ACQKATNYG-n_7QjMDaNuoBU?rlkey=m3h3l45bepotvos8xoqyq51dm&st=iw4bjmox&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/nbe5sxaz175ssmtdhkqg8/ACQKATNYG-n_7QjMDaNuoBU?rlkey=m3h3l45bepotvos8xoqyq51dm&st=iw4bjmox&dl=0 https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dropbox.com%2Fscl%2Ffo%2Fygzybtfoj027wgj5mvvv7%2FAHV7AXtPnCuymnCAnT3y9RI%3Frlkey%3Dod3ylkhnl92usol0oc0r17a43%26st%3D9dm252bj%26dl%3D0&data=05%7C02%7Cjohnny.desha%40gsd.nm.gov%7C838e6e77fa114e7b637a08dde00cec18%7C04aa6bf4d436426fbfa404b7a70e60ff%7C0%7C0%7C638913068495651403%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xELiax4Nv%2FhbQDVXqPKJ5ZK4vUXAfmXebKScMxTJl6c%3D&reserved=0 https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dropbox.com%2Fscl%2Ffo%2Fygzybtfoj027wgj5mvvv7%2FAHV7AXtPnCuymnCAnT3y9RI%3Frlkey%3Dod3ylkhnl92usol0oc0r17a43%26st%3D9dm252bj%26dl%3D0&data=05%7C02%7Cjohnny.desha%40gsd.nm.gov%7C838e6e77fa114e7b637a08dde00cec18%7C04aa6bf4d436426fbfa404b7a70e60ff%7C0%7C0%7C638913068495651403%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xELiax4Nv%2FhbQDVXqPKJ5ZK4vUXAfmXebKScMxTJl6c%3D&reserved=0

SPACEPORT AMERICA

COUNTY ROAD A021

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES, SIERRA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

ROOFING SYSTEM CONDITION EVALUATION &

REROOF / REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS

NMSA Contract No.: 23-495-P770-23023 MKA Project No.: 2022.3484

May 9, 2023

Prepared For:

MR. JAY JOHNSON

NEW MEXICO SPACEPORT AUTHORITY (NMSA)

4605 Research Park Circle, Suite A Las Cruces, NM 88001

Prepared By:

MR. JAY B. JENNINGS, AIA, RRC, RRO, LEED AP AND

MR. STEVEN C. FRAASCH, CPE

MKA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

15995 N. Barkers Landing Road, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77079

(713) 526-1920 www.mkainc.com

Copyright 2023. Unauthorized reproduction of this report is prohibited.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. MASTER REPORT, DATED MAY 9, 2023

II. EXHIBITS

A. INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS

B. UAV DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

C. UAV DRONE INFRARED PHOTOGRAPHS

D. ROOF PHOTOGRAPHS

E. OPTION NO. 1 (SPF) ROM ESTIMATE DETAILS

F. OPTION NO. 2 (LIKE KIND) ROM ESTIMATE DETAILS

G. OPTION NO. 3 (RECOAT) ROM ESTIMATE DETAILS

MKA International, Inc.

Spaceport America

I. MASTER REPORT,

DATED MAY 9, 2023

Sent via email to: jay.johnson@spaceportamerica.com

NEW MEXICO SPACEPORT AUTHORITY (NMSA)

4605 Research Park Circle, Suite A Las Cruces, NM 88001

RE: SPACEPORT AMERICA | COUNTY ROAD A021, TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES, NM

NMSA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT # 23-495-P770-23023

MKA PROJECT NO.: 2022.3484

ROOFING SYSTEM CONDITION EVALUATION & REROOF / REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Pursuant to your request, on March 13-14, 2023, MKA International, Inc. (MKA) conducted a site visit at Spaceport America, located at County Road A021 in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. The purpose of the site visit was to evaluate the existing conditions of the roofing system and related components. Based on our previous discussions and correspondence, our specific tasks post-site visit were to:

• Provide opinions as to:

o The existing conditions of the roofing system and related components.

o The projected reasonable remaining service life of the roofing system.

o Whether the roofing system is reparable, and if so, recommended corrective action steps.

• Recommend three (3) options for roofing system repair / replacement.

• Provide rough order of magnitude (ROM) pricing for recommended repair and/or replacement options.

The scope of our on-site inspection and condition assessment included the performance of the following:

• Visual examination of all accessible exterior roof surfaces, components, penetrations and flashing systems.

• Photographic documentation of all visible surfaces and components of the roof.

• Thermographic (infrared) surveys of the roof surfaces.

NMSA | SPACEPORT AMERICA

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

• Observation and photographic documentation of interior accessible areas of the building; subject to permission by Tenant.

• Discussion with yourself and associated staff of Spaceport America and Virgin Galactic (tenant), regarding awareness of existing deficiencies, ongoing issues and their respective locations at the interior of the buildings.

The statements and opinions provided in this report are based upon the following:

• Observations made and measurements taken during our March 13-14, 2023 site visit to the subject building.

• Analysis of documentation provided by NMSA and Virgin Galactic, including the following:

o Roof plans and associated details.

o Reflected ceiling plans.

o Roof coating submittals.

• Analysis of various construction progress photographs available via spaceportamericaconstruction.blogspot.com.

• Analysis of historical satellite imagery.

• Analysis of an article1

• Discussions with NMSA and Virgin Galactic personnel made during the site visit, including (and primarily) locations of previously experienced and/or ongoing roof leaks.

written of the roofing system in Roofing Contractor Magazine by Mr. Shawn Holiday (contributing editor to Roofing Contractor Magazine) and Mr. Brian Day (regional sales representative for United Coatings (now GAF)).

• Discussions with various roofing system materials and component manufacturers.

MKA is pleased to present the following report that outlines our observations and opinions with respect to the existing conditions of your roofing system, and recommendations with respect to reparability and replacement. Please review this report in its entirety, and do not hesitate to contact us for any questions or concerns.

1 “Innovative Roof System Tops Spaceport America”. Feb. 1, 2012. www.roofingcontractor.com/articles/88531-innovative-roof-system-tops-spaceport-america.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

Limitations This report is limited in scope and the recommendations made herein are based upon accessible areas of the subject property, and discussions with the client. MKA reserves the right to change or modify our opinion should further information become available subsequent to the issuance of this report. The information provided herein is not intended to provide detailed design or specifications for construction; rather it is to be considered ‘high level’, and for the purposes of planning toward repairs or replacement of the roofing system at the subject property. This report has been prepared for New Mexico Spaceport Authority. It has been tendered for their use and distribution as they deem fit. Reliance upon this documentation for information, observations, or opinions contained herein should not be made by any party except the intended recipients. The opinions and recommendations contained herein, as well as all associated drawings, diagrams or other illustrations are to be considered preliminary and for discussion purposes only. Further, all associated cost exercises and estimates contained herein or attached hereto are considered preliminary and for discussion purposes only. This document provides opinions only and is NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION.

No warranty is expressed or implied.

Sincerely, Jay B. Jennings, AIA*, RRC, RRO, LEED®AP MKA Resource Lead – Roof Consulting Registered Roof Consultant No. 0729 Registered Roof Observer No. 1053

* Licensed to practice architecture in CO, OK, TX

Steven C. Fraasch, Certified Professional Estimator (CPE) MKA Resource Lead - Estimating

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

II. INTRODUCTION | PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

Spaceport America is located approximately forty-eight miles (48 mi) north of Las Cruces, NM, and approximately twenty (20) mi west of the San Andres Mountains and White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), in the New Mexico desert. The building is three stories in height and semi-circular in plan. The roof structure forms a complex convex shape along the centerline of the “U” that rises relative to the centroid of the overall plan shape (refer to Figure 1 below).

The building houses Virgin Galactic as its only tenant. The majority of the space is dedicated to hangar area for the aircraft and spacecraft, which is full-height at the interior and which has hangar doors that open generally to the north and south. A large clerestory is located at the centroid of the shape, beneath which is the ‘astronaut walk’ bridge that connects the western entrance to a flight observation / lobby area for Virgin Galactic at the eastern edge of the

Figure No. 1: Spaceport America satellite image

MKA Project No. 2022.3484 building. The building is surrounded at all but the west with concrete paving that connects to the runway at the east. Construction of the building was complete circa 2011.

The building is constructed of structural steel framing, with metal “B Deck” as the structural roof decking for the roofing assembly. The roofing assembly is just shy of seven-and-one-half inches (7-1/2”) thick, and is comprised of the following materials, from the bottom of the assembly up:

• Polyethylene vapor barrier.

• 1/2” fiberglass faced gypsum underlayment sheathing board.

• First layer of two inch (2”) mechanically-attached polyisocyanurate (polyiso) insulation board.

• Second layer of 2” mechanically-attached polyiso insulation board.

• Third layer of 2” mechanically-attached polyiso insulation board.

• One-half inch (1/2”) ISOGuard™ HD cover board2

• Firestone® 60 mil adhered ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) roofing membrane.

• Multi-layered approach coating, comprised of2:

o Roof Mate™ Coating (elastomeric).

o Kymax® base coating.

o Three (3) colored ‘mottled’ Kymax® top coating.

The upper “U” shaped roof drains to a custom fabricated steel gutter and fascia composite design, while the lower central roof drains to two (2) primary and overflow area drains. The roofing assembly is penetrated by plumbing vents, structural anchors for rooftop worker fall protection cable lifelines, and forty (40) five feet diameter acrylic dome skylights. Lightning protection components, including cabling and air terminals are installed between approximately twenty-five and thirty feet (25’-30’) apart, and follow the U shape of the upper roof. No lightning protection is installed on the lower roof. The total roof area is approximately 90,000 square feet.

The ceilings of the portions of the interior spaces of the building which we were permitted to observe were exposed underside-of-roof, showcasing the structural steel and apparently trowel-grade cementitious fireproofing2, all painted a white color. In viewing the underside of the roof structure in the areas we were permitted to access, we did not observe components affixed directly to the cementitious fireproofing which is applied directly to the metal roof decking;

rather, fire protection system piping, conduit, cabling, HVAC and electrical components and equipment were all hung from the bottom of the structural steel framing.

2 Discovered through 3rd party information.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484 May 9, 2023

III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based on our observations and review of relevant materials, the existing roofing assembly has some wear and tear conditions that need to be addressed (lap seam failures, coating re-integration at skylights and miscellaneous repairs) but can generally be expected to last another five (5) years without requiring major repairs in response to leaks. Unfortunately, the thermal stress-related movement of the ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM rubber) is dissimilar to the coating and is resulting in delamination over insulation board joints, and the unusual shape of the roof appears to be putting additional stress at lap seams as the membrane shrinks.

It appears that the reported leaks were primarily related to the skylights, based on discussions with personnel, and thermal imaging of the roof; we do expect these leaks to discontinue or become far less prevalent as the roof coating is restored around the repaired skylights and lap seam failures are corrected. Additionally, a couple of the leak instances were not from the roof at all, but sprinkler line leaks (refer to photos).

With respect to planning for major roof repair / rejuvenation or roof replacement, we have provided three (3) options. The options, and associated costs and expected construction durations are listed as follows, in the order of our recommendation:

1. Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF). Approximately $2.87M. Expected construction duration at approximately 10-14 weeks.

2. New and Improved Installation of Like Kind Materials. Between approximately $2.87M and $3.4M, representing a thicker fleece-back EPDM membrane or fleece-back polyvinyl chloride (PVC)/ ketone ethylene ester (KEE) membrane, respectively.

Expected construction duration at approximately 14-18 weeks.

3. Repair and Recoat. Approximately $800K. Expected construction duration at approximately 6-8 weeks.

Option 1 | We recommend the liquid-applied SPF roofing system for this building, based primarily on the desert climate, shape of the roof, and sensitivity of the building occupants toward roof leaks. In addition, it will eliminate the current issues of lap seam failure, and dissimilar thermal movement that has resulted in delamination of the specially designed mottled coating. Additional pros and some cons to this roofing system are listed in Section VII of this report.

Option 2 | This can also be very successful with some tweaking of the methodology of the installation and some more robust materials. We would choose another EPDM membrane second to the more dimensionally stable PVC/KEE membrane (referred to as Option 2A), knowing that the coating will still be very much required to prevent premature aging of either membrane from the harsh UV. Ultimately, we expect better performance out of the PVC/KEE

MKA Project No. 2022.3484 membrane than the EPDM, but with the addition of fleece backing in both cases, the system will experience far better and more complete adhesion, and a thicker EPDM membrane will perform better than the existing bare backed, thinner EPDM membrane. Of note, the delamination of the coating over insulation board joints is still likely to occur at some point in the life span of the roof with the use of EPDM, as the dimensional change in EPDM is clearly not accommodated by the coating; conversely, we expect that this (coating delamination) will not occur if a reinforced PVC/KEE membrane is used in lieu of the EPDM. The cost difference between installing EPDM and PVC/KEE is expected to be approximately 15%-20%, where the PVC/KEE membrane is the more expensive installation.

Option 3 | This is somewhat less desirable, given that the existing EPDM roof has been experiencing issues with lap seams, and (reportedly) this has been ongoing since shortly after its installation (5 years or so). Whether this is a result solely of installation quality or has some component of contribution from manufacturing and distribution of materials and components, the current system is headed toward failure sooner rather than later, and a new coating will ultimately not prevent further lap seam failures in the EPDM membrane itself. Therefore, even though it is possible to correct the lap seam failures (as the EPDM membrane itself is still in good condition) and properly address issues with the coating to prepare for a new coating application, this is heavily dependent and predicated upon the ability of the contractor to identify all of the existing deficiencies.

Please review the following sections of this report for more detail on our observations and investigation, and relevant details about the recommended options, along with pros and cons associated with each of them. Please also refer to the attachments for photographs and rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimates of cost for each of the options.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

IV. SITE PARAMETERS | CODE & ORDINANCE

C L I M A T E The subject building is located in Truth or Consequences, Sierra County, NM, and has a typical desert climate with little precipitation and full sun most of the time; the general climate is dry and hot, with average high temperatures often exceeding 90°F throughout the summer (June – August), and the average low temperatures reaching the mid 60°F range. Rainfall averages approximately 10-12 inches annually, and snowfall averages 5 inches annually. The UV index averages 11 in the summer, which ranks as ‘extreme’ by the National Weather Service.

According to the amended version of the adopted 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), Sierra County, NM is in Climate Zone 3B3

C O D E A N D O R D I N A N C E The location of Spaceport America dictates that it is in the incorporated county of Serra County, NM, and is regulated by the Construction Industries division of the New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department (NMRLD). The NMRLD has adopted and subsequently amended the original versions of the 2015 & 2018 body of International Code Council (ICC) building codes; of specific interest to the matter at hand are the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), 2015 International Existing Building Code (IEBC), and 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), which have been renamed the New Mexico Commercial Building Code, New Mexico Existing Building Code, and the New Mexico Commercial Energy Conservation Code, respectively. These amended ICC codes govern the reroofing of commercial low-slope roofing systems in unincorporated Sierra County, New Mexico.

General Reroofing Considerations Since the in-situ roof covering on the building is the original roof covering, there will generally be no additional requirements from the building code other than the code-compliant and manufacturer-compliant installation of approved materials.

Insulation Considerations On a building that contains conditioned space4

3 Though the original version of the 2018 IECC states that the climate zone of the property is “4B”, New Mexico officials at the New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department have amended that to “3B”.

, if the insulation layer above the roof decking becomes exposed, that insulation layer must be replaced to current standards for new construction. In the case of the subject building, the insulation must be compliant, compatible, and achieve the R-Value rating that is imposed on continuously insulated (ci) commercial low-

4 Section C202 “General Definitions” of the 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).

MKA Project No. 2022.3484 slope roofing systems on new construction: R-25ci5

. This requirement is relevant and yet irrelevant, as the design and construction of the existing roof assembly exceeds that of the prescriptive IECC requirement by approximately R-14ci as is currently constructed; i.e., no additional insulation value will be required in the roofing system, should the owner decide to replace the roof covering, and in turn expose the building insulation beneath in the process.

Fire Rating Considerations Given that the building is constructed of NC (non-combustible) structural framing and roof decking (as well as a substantial fireproofing installation on the underside of the roof), there are no special characteristics of roofing installations that need to be considered, outside the selection of an assembly that incorporates materials that have the typical approval ratings that roofing material manufacturers have to achieve for Class A, B and C fire ratings.

5 Per Table C402.1.3 “Opaque Thermal Envelope Insulation Component Minimum Requirements, R-Value Method” in section C402 “Building Envelope Requirements” of the 2018 IECC.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

V. OBSERVATIONS | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Interiors MKA performed a general walkthrough of the selected areas of the third floor (top floor) and of the hangar (ground floor) of the building with a representative from NMSA. The NMSA representative was able to discuss various locations of leaks along with maintenance staff of Virgin Galactic. Based on verbal reports from NMSA and Virgin Galactic staff, and our observations of the conditions in these areas, the following approximate locations at the building interior have experienced moisture intrusion through the roof (refer to Figure No. 2 for a reflected ceiling plan layout with noted areas and Exhibit A for interior photographs):

Figure No. 2: Interior leak locations

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

• In general, the areas at which leaks were reported were in the hangar portion of the building, on the north half of the building (see Figure 2 above for observed locations).

Typical observations included the following:

o Discoloration and staining of structural roof members.

o Some apparent efflorescence on structural members, from moisture entering over time through the cementitious fireproofing.

o Some discoloration of cementitious fireproofing at the underside of the roof.

o Some rust-colored staining at structural connections, indicative of corrosion of steel.

o Staining, efflorescence, and removal of floor finish from concrete slab in the hangar area.

In addition to leaks, we were informed that the skylights had been repaired recently, and we observed the addition of sheet metal flashing at the interior perimeter of the skylight opening, with sheet metal pan head fasteners. We observed this in the 3rd floor NMSA area and the Virgin Galactic administration / office area

Roofing As aforementioned, the skylights at the roof had been modified prior to our site observations;

we were told that they had been raised, and that the leaks had largely ceased post-completion of the skylight repairs. Our observations of the skylights revealed that fresh flashing membrane and base coating is around the skylights and the previously coated metal counterflashing at the skylights had been disconnected from the original flashing integration. In cross-referencing the skylight details provided by NMSA, the skylight details showed a two inches (2”) minimum elevation increase of the skylight frame / flashing and the roof surface, which was tapered up to the skylights. It is unclear if this detail was ever actually constructed in that manner (with a 2” elevation difference), but it does appear that the skylights have been raised from their previous respective elevations, given the repairs to flashings and addition of sheet metal at the interior.

On the roof we also noted localized areas of coating delamination throughout. The delamination typically coincided with insulation / cover board joints beneath the membrane, resulting often in clear rectilinear presentations of the delamination; this is the result of fatigue due to thermal movement. Further, areas of entrapped air (bubbles) from failure to relax the membrane completely prior to adhesion, and selective repairs were observed sporadically throughout. A few instances of repairs were performed without having removed the coating from the existing membrane prior to adhesion, and therefore adhesion has failed to varying degrees in these areas. Some yet unrepaired lap seam failures were observed as well, but this was generally not widespread. A few small areas of ponding exist, but this is a small matter in the desert climate, as evidence indicates the moisture is evaporating without incident. Of note, it

MKA Project No. 2022.3484 was reported to us by Virgin Galactic staff that a gutter / downspout on the north elevation had been clogged and subsequently cleared, which had presented as a leak for a time (refer to Exhibit D for roof photos and Figure No. 3 for a roof plan layout with noted conditions).

Figure No. 3: Roof repairs and test cut locations

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

Five (5) test cuts were performed on the roofing membrane, and associated core cuts made into the roofing assembly, by Progressive Roofing, the original installation contractor. Observations of the roofing materials and installation in these areas were as follows (refer to Figure No. 3 above for locations):

• The test cuts confirmed that the linear delamination at apparent board joints is in fact occurring at board joints. Further, we noted a few instances of actual thermal-induced shearing of insulation boards beneath the topmost cover board that bridged the separation due to the staggered installation.

• Test cuts confirmed that the polyiso insulation boards are mechanically-attached.

• At one (1) instance, the coating peeled fairly easily from the surface of the EPDM membrane by hand. We noted that the mineral dust present on EPDM membranes during manufacturing had not been completely removed prior to the application of the coating in this area.

• No elevated moisture content (MC) was observed within the roofing assembly when checked with a pin-type moisture meter instrument.

Unmanned Aerial Drone Both regular photographic and infrared images were captured of the roofing system by drone on the first afternoon and into the early evening. Thermal anomalies were not present except at penetrations (skylights, cable supports, vents, etc.), metal terminations, board joints, lap joints, and repairs in the membrane. No evidence of entrapped moisture was noted during the exercise (refer to Exhibits B and C for aerial drone photographic and infrared images, respectively).

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

VI. EXISTING CONDITIONS / REMAINING LIFE EXPECTANCY

As part of our assignment, NMSA requested that we provide our opinion as to the approximate remaining life expectancy of the roof covering, if the roofing system were to continue in its current condition, unmodified. In order to do this, we have to consider the following general characteristics of the roofing materials (EPDM membrane, polyiso, coatings), the local climate, conditions we observed on-site at the subject property, and discussions we had with various personnel on-site during our site visit, at a minimum:

• EPDM membranes have a generally accepted maximum service lifespan of up to 35-40 years. We generally do not see life spans of this length for EPDM roofing, as this assumes the following, at a minimum:

o The product itself and the various adhesives, etc. have no flaws from the factory;

o The workmanship is flawless, with specific attention being paid to cleaning and priming the membrane at lap seams, restraining the membrane from shrinkage by design, either by complete and properly developed adhesion to the substrate, or mechanical restraint;

o The climate does not prematurely age the membrane; i.e., UV and thermal cycling is problematic for unprotected / unballasted membranes.

• Roof coatings typically extend the lifespan of a roof membrane, assuming that following:

o The membrane is properly and completely cleaned and primed prior to application;

o The application of the coating itself is performed within specification parameters recommended by the manufacturer.

• The current age of the EPDM roof membrane is approximately 12-13 years old, based on the construction information available.

• The local climate does not generally produce precipitation often, and is generally arid, though it is quite windy, has large diurnal temperature swings, and has ‘Very High’ to ‘Extreme’ UV Index scores. So, though atmospheric moisture is not a large concern, thermal stress and radiation is a large factor at the subject property.

o It appears that moisture that enters the assembly from the external environment will evaporate back to the external environment. This appears to be the result of likely ‘long’ elapsed times between precipitation events, windy conditions, and the low relative humidity that persists in the desert climate.

o The climate in the New Mexico desert is extreme with respect to temperature fluctuation (between 50°F and 75°F difference from daytime to nighttime) and UV index (12-13 in the summer months).

• It is more likely than not that, at this point in its age, that the materials within the roofing assembly have shrunk and have found the extents to which they will move in response to thermal stresses. This does not mean, however, that movement has stopped;

MKA Project No. 2022.3484 rather it will continue within the confines of what has been established – it simply means that there should be no surprises with respect to movement extremes anymore.

• The roof coating exhibits evidence of its inability to stretch / flex to the same extent as the EPDM roofing membrane to which it had been applied. The resulting condition is that of partial delamination of the coating where the EPDM membrane spans the cover board joints beneath the membrane (due to lack of adhesion from the EPDM to the boards at those joints and hence more movement by the EPDM). The failure is the result of fatigue of the coating caused by the repetitive thermal-induced movement over time.

• Numerous repairs have been performed, and reportedly have been an ongoing process since approximately five (5) years post-completion. There is almost no area on the roof that does not have repairs.

o These repairs appear to be predominantly related to lap seam failures, which will only increase with age.

o Other repair areas appear to be associated with coating delamination. This too, will increase in incidence with age.

• Skylights appear to have been the primary source of leaks, given that few thermal anomalies were discovered through infrared drone flyover, and reports of the interior leak instances had all but discontinued from the tenant post-repairs. The skylights have been raised in elevation, and work is in progress to re-integrate the mottled coating at the repairs back into the existing coating.

• Due to the nature of the work in which the tenant engages, and the apparent sensitivity to the interior environment required for such, the tenant is reportedly not especially tolerant of leaks.

o Leak tolerance is important because leaks that originate at an EPDM roof membrane tend to be progressive once they begin.

In consideration of the above, the existing coated EPDM roof covering can be expected to last another 5 years without leaks if it is properly maintained post-completion of the coating reintegration at the skylights and the correction of all known lap seam failures, whether previously attempted repairs or yet to be repaired. By ‘properly maintained’, we mean that the roof covering should be thoroughly walked and observed on a quarterly basis with seasonal changes in order to discover and address lap seam issues, coating failures that have progressed to the point of entrapping moisture, and any other abnormal or unexpected conditions. It is possible for the roof to make it to 8 years; however, due to leak intolerance by the tenant, we believe 5 years is better for planning purposes. We have not been provided with the costs associated with the skylights, but we project that approximately $150K could see the lap seams addressed and repaired, with coating reintegrated locally over the repair areas. What follows in the next section of this report are the various options for repair and replacement of the various roofing materials, and their associated costs.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

VII. OPTIONS FOR REPAIR & REPLACEMENT

Option No. 1: Spray Polyurethane Refer to Exhibit E for ROM Estimate Details

Foam (SPF)

The first option is approximately $2.87M. SPF roofs have an average life expectancy of over 30 years, but this is heavily dependent upon the lifespan of the protective coatings that are applied to them; typically, this is between 12-15 years because building owners try to maximize cost savings (value engineering) when it comes to the coatings, sacrificing thickness and formulation quality in the process. In this case, however, we are recommending a durable 60 mil urethane elastomeric coating and then the finish coating (similar to original specifications (Kymax)) can be applied over top. We expect that this coating combination, installed correctly, will last a minimum of 25 years, before requiring a recoating. Of note, SPF roofs are thought to be ‘infinitely’ renewable so long as they are maintained, as renewal of the waterproof coating can occur prior to the need for SPF replacement. If needed, scarification (removal of a thickness of foam) and re-application of new SPF can occur again and again as long as any serious moisture or delamination issues are caught early and not left in place to worsen.

The following general scope of work is associated with this option:

• Remove existing EPDM membrane, 1/2” polyiso cover board, and two (2) layers of staggered 2” polyiso down to the first layer of polyiso | 90,000 SF.

• Using blowers and brooms, sweep clean the roof of debris | 90,000 SF.

• Install high density (30-40 PSI) closed cell spray polyurethane foam (SPF) | 90,000 SF.

o Apply in multiple lifts to achieve overall 5” thickness.

o Shave / sculpt SPF after first lift to remove rectilinear telegraphing of below polyiso board joints.

o Ensure positive slope all directions (shape additionally as required) to preclude ponding water.

• Spray-apply elastomeric coating Layer No. 1 - 20 mils thickness | 90,000 SF.

• Spray-apply elastomeric coating Layer No. 2 - 20 mils thickness | 90,000 SF.

• Spray-apply elastomeric coating Layer No. 3 - 20 mils thickness | 90,000 SF.

• Apply variegated / mottled coating to the elastomeric coating, in keeping with the original design intent and construction manner, as follows:

o Apply base coat of “Kymax” coating via airless sprayers | 90,000 SF.

o Apply variegated, ‘three-colored’ top coat “Kymax” coatings to create the mottled appearance |90,000 SF.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

This option has the following ‘positives’ associated with its selection, as follows:

• It is perfectly suited to the roof shape. SPF is a sprayed in-place, monolithic product, which will conform to any shape, and can be further shaped as desired to completely eliminate ponding water.

• It is ideal for the climate. It is ideal for dry climates and provides substantial R-value insulation and air barrier properties.

• It is self-flashing. SPF is self-sealing when sprayed around existing penetrations through the roof, precluding moisture intrusion through voids and areas at which other systems must rely upon flashings and sealants.

• Leaks in SPF roofs are rare. Done properly, little to no direct paths for moisture intrusion to the interior of a structure exist, as SPF expands from a liquid to provide 100% coverage, and is self-flashing at penetrations, bonding directly to the materials and components against which it is applied. Leaks all the way through a quality-applied SPF roofing system are uncommon.

• No fasteners need to be utilized. No mechanical attachment of any new materials is required; this will prevent additional holes in the vapor barrier and preclude the possibility of damaging the cementitious fireproofing at the underside of the metal roof decking.

• Potentially infinitely renewable. If installed and maintained correctly, the building owners may never have to completely replace the roof during their lifetime.

• Installation is fast and efficient. Even considering the climate application parameters, application of spray-applied foam roofing and coating is more labor efficient than manual “cut and fit” methods.

Conversely, this option has the following ‘negatives’ associated with its selection, as follows:

• This is a specialty system, that not all contractors are familiar with or skilled at. This negative is mitigated by the property’s location, as more SPF contractors are available in the desert climates than other areas. Repairs and maintenance, too, should only be performed by contractors that are skilled in SPF.

• It opens the roofing assembly to the external environment. Though the roof will be replaced in sections, eventually 100% of the roofing assembly will have been exposed to the external environment during the process, leading to weather vulnerability.

• The weather conditions must be ideal for installation. Ice, frost, and surface moisture will preclude the ability of the SPF to adhere and expand properly.

• Windy conditions can complicate the installation of SPF. Since it is a spray-applied material, wind heavily influences waste and can blow the material into undesirable areas.

Precautions should be taken to ensure that vehicles and other sensitive equipment are not unprotected near the roof during the process.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

• Fumes can be unpleasant during application and curing. HVAC air-handler components should be reviewed for whether or not to be operational during the application process.

If required, extensions to air intake ducts can be installed so that specific HVAC units can remain operational.

• SPF is less resistant to punctures than other roofing materials. If a severe weather event comes through with large hail or windborne debris, a thorough evaluation of the roofing system for associated damage will be needed by a qualified contractor.

Option No. 2: New and Improved Installation of Like Kind System – EPDM Refer to Exhibit F for ROM Estimate Details

The second option is comparable to the first option in terms of cost (approximately $2.87M).

This system is similar to the existing (current) system that is in-place, but is improved in terms of thickness of the membrane and durability; we expect an approximately 20-25 years life span.

This option includes the removal and replacement of the EPDM membrane, the cover board, and the first layer of polyiso insulation. The original variegated coating (PVDF) with associated membrane cleaning and priming will then be applied. The differences between this installation and the existing installation are as follows:

• The new EPDM membrane we have priced is a thicker (145 mil) fleece-back membrane, which is significantly tougher than a standard 60 mil EPDM membrane and allows the development of a significantly stronger adhesive bond to its substrate. The thicker membrane will last longer and be more durable in general.

• We have also priced the cutting of the polyiso insulation and cover boards into 2’ x 2’ panels, so as to better conform to the complex shape of the roof (curved, convex, concave). This will reduce the instances of incomplete adhesion between insulation materials and the cover board as well as achieve a more solid and monolithic assembly overall, with less tendency to ‘pop’ out from a curved edge and impact membrane adhesion. Further, we have included to adhere the boards with complete coverage spray adhesive (in lieu of ‘ribbon’ application) to ensure a complete bond with the smaller format boards is achieved.

• Remove existing EPDM membrane, 1/2” polyiso cover board and first layer of 2” thick polyiso insulation board | 90,000 SF.

• Adhere new 2” thick polyiso insulation to remaining polyiso | 90,000 SF.

o Cut boards into 2’ x 2’ pieces.

o Walk-in boards and ensure complete adhesion.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484 o Shave boards at rectilinear edges to create convex shape | allowance.

• Adhere new 1/2” thick polyiso cover board to below layer of polyiso | 90,000 SF.

o Cut boards into 2’ x 2’ pieces.

o Walk-in boards and ensure complete adhesion.

• Adhere new 145 mil fleece-back EPDM in rolled-on adhesive.

• Apply variegated / mottled coating to EPDM, in keeping with the original design intent and construction manner, as follows:

o Power wash with cleaning product | 90,000 SF.

o Apply rinse based primer and then pressure wash to remove | 90,000 SF.

o Apply elastomeric coating | 90,000 SF.

o Apply base coat of ‘architectural’ coating via airless sprayers | 90,000 SF.

• Apply variegated, ‘three-colored’ top coat architectural coatings to create the mottled appearance | 90,000 SF.

This option has the following ‘positives’ associated with its selection, as follows:

• It leaves the vapor barrier and most of the existing polyiso insulation in place, even though the membrane is being replaced. The method requires the removal of only the first layer of polyiso insulation, since the cover board was adhered to it and will damage it in the removal process; the remaining 2 bottom layers of polyiso insulation can remain, as can the existing vapor barrier.

• No fasteners need to be utilized. No mechanical attachment of the polyiso or cover board or membrane is necessary; this will prevent additional holes in the vapor barrier and preclude the possibility of damaging the cementitious fireproofing at the underside of the metal roof decking.

• It is much more resilient than the existing assembly. A thicker fleece-back membrane is to be used, and will provide greater adhesion and durability.

• Most roofing contractors are familiar with this system. No specialized contractors will be required for this system.

• Good longevity to be expected. If performed properly, even in the harsh desert climate this system should last at least 20-25 years before necessitating replacement.

• It will still eventually fail at the lap seams (EPDM). It will require periodic maintenance and checking of lap seams after 8-10 years.

• Coating failure at board joints still likely to reoccur. Because coatings have a different elasticity than EPDM, it is likely that even with a thicker, fleece-back EPDM membrane the delamination of a coating at cover board joints will reoccur.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

• It opens the roofing assembly to the external environment. Though the roof will be replaced in sections, eventually 100% of the roofing assembly will have been exposed to the external environment during the process, leading to weather vulnerability.

Option No. 2A: New and Improved Installation of Like Kind System – PVC/KEE This option is an ‘alternate’ to Option 2, and involves the installation of a fleece-back reinforced PVC / KEE membrane in lieu of the EPDM membrane. This PVC/KEE membrane, such as that made by FiberTite, has welded (not glued) seams and is generally stronger, with enhanced durability and longevity. It would be a bit more expensive, potentially on the order of about 15% to 20% more cost than Option 2 (EPDM), but it would all but eliminate the potential for delamination of the coating from the membrane over the cover board joints, as it is reinforced with an internal scrim that enhances its dimensional stability.

In addition to that mentioned above under Option 2, this alternate membrane installation carries with it the following ‘positives’ associated with its selection, as follows:

• ‘Reinforced’ means little to no chance for dissimilar movement between membrane and coating.

The reinforced PVC/KEE membrane does not stretch like EPDM, and would all but eliminate the potential for delamination of the coating from the membrane.

• More resilient than EPDM. The PVC/KEE membrane formulation is more resilient and has a better longevity / life span than EPDM.

• Welded Seams. Unlike EPDM, which requires adhesive to perform lap seams at sheet edges, PVC/KEE is a thermoplastic material; i.e., membrane sheets are welded together by heat. No lap seam failures are anticipated and should not be expected.

Conversely, this alternate to Option 2 has the following ‘negatives’ associated with its selection, as follows:

• It still opens the roofing assembly to the external environment. Though the roof will be replaced in sections, eventually 100% of the roofing assembly will have been exposed to the external environment during the process, leading to weather vulnerability.

• Less flexible membrane means more difficult install on the complex shaped roof. Unlike EPDM, which can stretch to accommodate complex shapes, PVC/KEE will not allow such. More complex cutting of sheets will be required to fit the stiffer product to the convex and concave shapes of the roof.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

Option No. 3: Repair Existing Membrane & Recoat with Original Coating Refer to Exhibit G for ROM Estimate Details

The third option is the least expensive (approximately $798K) and shortest lifespan (8-10 years).

This option includes the repair of an allowance of twenty-five percent (25%) of the lap seams in the EPDM membrane, repair of the seams around the ‘cul-de-sac’ at the upper roof (where a significant amount of movement and previous repairs were observed), cleaning of the entire roof with pressure washing and mild detergent, and a 100% coverage of a new coating (same as original).

• Repair seams in field of upper EPDM roof roofing with tape | Allowance of 25% of seams | 4,000 LF.

o Scrape to remove top coating at seams.

o Remove any debris between the membrane overlap.

o Clean with mild soap and bristle brush.

o Apply seam tape primer to affected length of seam with brush.

o Apply seam tape and roll thoroughly with a hand roller to ensure complete adhesion.

o Apply lap edge sealant to the lap edges of the new tape material.

• Repair seams around ‘cul-de-sac’ at intersection of lower roof to upper roof. Same process as above | 150 LF.

• Scrape failing areas of coating from insulation board joints | 50% allowance of LF after subtraction of repaired seams | 25,600 LF.

• Clean entire roof area with pressure washing and mild detergent | 90,000 SF.

• Apply base coat of “Kymax” coating via airless sprayers | 90,000 SF.

• Apply variegated, ‘three-colored’ top coat “Kymax” coatings to recreate the mottled appearance | 90,000 SF.

This option has the following ‘positives’ associated with its selection, as follows:

• It is the least expensive. This option is approximately $2M less than the next most expensive option.

• It is the least invasive. At no point will any large areas of the roofing membrane be open, limiting the potential for weather event-related issues or internal air temperature or pressurization issues.

• It requires the least amount of construction time to complete. No large-scale replacement of materials means that there is a fairly simple and straight-forward critical path to completion.

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

• It provides the least additional lifespan. This option provides only up to approximately half of the lifespan that can be had by stepping up to actual replacement of the membrane.

Ultimately, the existing remaining lifespan of the EPDM will only be extended by approximately 8-10 years, as opposed to 20-30 years or more with the other options.

• Additional leaks will continue to develop. Given the track record thus far, the EPDM roofing installation is expected to continue to develop leaks, despite repair of all known lap seam failures prior to recoating (which is a difficult task, dependent wholly upon the reliability and care of the crew assigned to the project).

E N D O F R E PO R T

II. EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT A

INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS

MKA Project No. 2022.3484

Photo No. 1 - Underside of roof deck, showing typical construction with skylight.

Photo No. 2 - Underside of roof deck, showing typical construction with

Photo No. 3 - Underside of roof deck, showing typical construction with

Photo No. 4 - Underside of roof deck, showing typical construction with skylights.

Photo No. 5 - Reported location of a roof leak, in the northwest portion of the hangar.

Photo No. 6 - Apparent source of the above leak - a fire sprinkler line.

Photo No. 7 - Staining on structural roof members, typical.

Photo No. 8 - Staining on structural roof members, typical.

Photo No. 9 - Staining on structural roof members, typical. Note color of staining and efflorescence.

Photo No. 10 - Staining on structural roof members, typical. Note color of staining and efflorescence.

Photo No. 11 - Erosion of finish on concrete floor from roof leak, typical.

Located in the NE portion of the hangar.

Photo No. 12 - Erosion of finish on concrete floor from roof leak, typical.

Photo No. 13 - Erosion of finish on concrete floor from roof leak, typical.

Photo No. 14 - Erosion of finish on concrete floor from roof leak, typical.

Photo No. 15 - View of skylight repair with metal trim ring at interior, as viewed from the NMSA lobby area on the 3rd floor.

Photo No. 16 - Closer view of the skylight in photo 15.

EXHIBIT B

UAV DRONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

SPACEPORT AMERICA | MKA 2022.3484 | EXHIBIT B - UAV DRONE AERIAL…