Addendum #3 - BAAF - 47430 Hangar 1 - Roof and Envelope Project.pdf

Department of Military and Veterans Affairs

FMO Design and Construction 57024 Roosevelt Rd

PO Box 5169

JBER, AK 99505

Email: scott.higbee@alaska.gov

Issue Date: September 24, 2026

ATTN: Vendors

RE: Project Name: BAAF – 47430 Hangar 1 – Roof and Envelope Project Project Number: 02A7026003 Project Location: JBER, Alaska

Addendum # Three (3)

This addendum forms a part of the contract documents and modifies the original drawings and/or specifications for the subject work. In case of conflicts between this addendum and previously issued documents, this addendum shall take precedence.

The following questions have been received, answered, and changes below are required:

1. Question: What is the Standoff Distance (ft) for the blast doors and frames?

Answer: There are no longer any blast rating requirements for the windows/doors per Addendum #2.

2. Question: What is the Explosive Weight (ft) for the blast doors and frames?

3. Question: Do you want blast resistant inboards for IGU’s at exterior?

4. Question: Do you want a blast rated opening or just blast rated glass?

5. Question: Will the new exterior windows and doors be field finished or to be painted by manufacture?

Answer: As long as the Scope of Work (SOW) requirements and color scheme (show on Attachment 5) requirements are met, either will be acceptable. It is up to the Contractor to determine which means/methods they would like to use to accomplish the required end result. The project manager will review submittals sent by the contractor and approve color prior to purchase and installation.

6. Can you please provide more info and details for the doors and hardware?

Answer: Unfortunately, I do not have any additional information to provide on the doors and hardware apart from what is on the ITB SOW and attachments. The update from leadership on Addendum #2 provides a table from UFC 4-010- 01 and contains information regarding standards.

7. Question: Which doors should be blast rated and what is the blast rating required?

8. Question: The ITB directs written inquiries to mvafmocontracts@alaska.gov but states no question or RFI cutoff date or time anywhere in the document. What is the cutoff date for questions?

Answer: I’d prefer the questions that questions be submitted 48 hours prior to the bid due date to allow adequate time for them to be answered and Contractors to make the necessary adjustments on their end as well.

9. Question: Section 01 paragraph 1.08.A states that all work must be complete by September 15, 2026, which is before any possible Notice to Proceed. The ITB face and paragraph 1.05.C both state substantial completion 09/30/2027.

What is the correct date?

Answer: Apologies, the September 15, 2026 date in Section 01 paragraph 1.08.A is incorrect. The ITB face and paragraph 1.05.C are both correct with the substantial completion date of 9/30/2027.This is the date that will govern and Section 01 Paragraph 1.08.A is hereby corrected to 9/30/2027.

10. Question: Paragraph 1.08.A imposes liquidated damages pursuant to RA 9184 and its Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations at one tenth of one percent per day capped at ten percent. Republic Act 9184 is the Government Procurement Reform Act of the Republic of the Philippines. SC-11.8.1 and .2 state $150 per day for substantial completion and $50 per day for final, cumulative. Form 25D-10A leaves the amount blank. Please confirm which provision governs.

Answer: Section 1.08.A changed to read, “liquidated damages of $150/day for failure to meet Substantial Completion and $50/day for failure to meet Final Completion.” Form 25D-10A will be filled out with “…the Department shall have the right to recover $150 dollars per day for each calendar day…” when the time comes. This form does not need to be filled out until a contractor has won the bid and is awarded the contract, so there is no need to edit or fill in the blank lines until much further down the road (past the solicitation period and into the project award period).

11. Question: The ITB face reads ‘All work shall be completed in ___ Calendar Days’ with the day count blank, and the same blank appears twice on Bid Form 25D-9, while the liquidated damages clauses refers to expiration of the Contract Time.

Answer: Again, like the question above, the fixed date of 9/30/2027 is the sole completion obligation. No need to look into that any further. Also, the face sheet calls out “All work shall be completed in ____ Calendar Days, or by 9/30/2027.”

12. Question: Both alternates direct bidders to the photo attachments to note the three different door types and window styles as well as the number and locations. No door schedule, window schedule, count, size or location list appears anywhere in the ITB.

Answer: Attachment #4 has photos of all four sides of the building which show all the doors and windows (for count and location purposes). I do not have the specific door/window size available or else I would have included that in the solicitation document. The contractor will be responsible for correctly counting the number of the doors and windows, providing the correct number and type, matching what exists (equal or better), etc. as noted in the ITB. All of these items will be approved by the project manager via submittal prior to installation and purchase.

13. Question: A Blast rated door and window manufacturer requires four inputs to produce a quotation: standoff distance, explosive weight, peak reflected pressure and impulse. Our supplier reports that its manufacturer furnishes the last two as standard values and that the first two are project-specific and must come from the Government. The supplier has advised that it cannot provide a proposal without them. What is the blast rating, and can the Department confirm its position on blast rating being limited to the windows and doors only?

14. Question: Bid Alternate 1 cites UFC 4-022-01, which is Entry Control Facilities and not a door standard, and UFC 4-

01-01, which does not exist. Bid Alternate 2 cites UFC 4-022-0, which is truncated. Please confirm the correct references and the governing editions.

Answer: Apologies for the typo UFC 4-010-01 dated 7/4/2026.

15. Question: The scope requires a minimum of 75-90mil EPDM with 90 mil preferred. A minimum expressed as a range is not a specification, and 75 mil and 90 mil are materially different price points. Please state a single required thickness.

Answer: Scope of work requirement is amended to “90 mil EPDM is required” so there is no ambiguity.

16. Question: Insulation shall achieve the minimum R-value required for the climate zone, but neither the climate zone nor the R-value is stated, and the existing assembly is not described.

Answer: Please disregard that statement and focus on the requirement before that states, “The contractor shall replace any damaged or improperly installed roof decking and insulation.” The contractor shall analyze the exiting roof assembly (as already noted in the SOW) and make the determination on what is needed.

17. Question: Paragraph 1.02.01B places a review of the structure by a licensed structural engineer in the base bid. The paragraph does not state what the review must produce, who bears the cost if the review identifies a deficiency, or what happens to the completion date while any deficiency is resolved. Attachment 6, Sheet 10 states the original design loads for this building as “Wind Load 30 P.S.F., Zone 3 Seismic, and Roof Live Load 40 P.S.F”. Please confirm (a) The deliverable – whether the required output is a letter of opinion or a sealed calculation package, what loads and code edition the review is to be performed against, and what elements are within its scope; (b) Cost responsibility - if the engineer of record determines the existing structure will not carry the loads the review is performed against, whether remediation is base-bid scope or is handled as a change to the contract; and (c) Schedule- whether the contractor is entitled to an extension of the 09/30/2027 substantial completion date for the time taken to resolve a deficiency identified by a review the contract itself requires.

Answer: Section 1.02.01 (Analysis of Existing Roof) subsection B has been deleted from the scope of work and is no longer a requirement.

18. Question: Paragraph 1.02.02H requires painting the existing white window frames and red doors Mansard Brown if window and door replacement is not financially feasible, while Bid Alternate 1 and 2 each also require painting window and door frames Mansard Brown. Please confirm what the base bid must carry when the alternates are not awarded, and confirm the paint scope is not duplicated when they are awarded.

Answer: The intention of this language in the base scope is to cover our bases and have the correct color scheme on the windows and doors in the event that funding is not available to continue with the Bid Alternates. It would be prudent to calculate the cost of the painting on the doors and windows and include that in the base bid price. Of course, if the existing windows/doors are removed then painting will not be required (since they will no longer be there anyway). The new window/doors will have to match the color requirements displayed in Attachement 5 but again we will not know if any of the Bid Alts are awarded until after the bid opening.

19. Question: Bid Alternates 3, 4, 5, and 6 are titled N/A with blank scopes, yet each carries a priced line on the Bid

Schedule. Please confirm how bidders are to complete those lines.

Answer: There are no Bid Alternates for 3,4,5, and 6 so there is no need to enter anything there. The Contractors bidding on this project will not be penalized for either leaving it blank, entering “$0.00”, or entering “N/A”. All of those would be acceptable options and still considered a responsive bid.

20. Question: Please confirm the alternates will be taken strictly in numerical order and whether the budgeted amount will be announced at bid opening.

Answer: Correct, the alternates will be taken strictly in numerical order. The budgeted amount will not be announced at bid opening.

21. Question: Paragraph 1.02.06 states there will be a mandatory walkthrough on 9/03/2026, while paragraph 1.05A states a pre-bid walkthrough may be mandatory. Please confirm attendance was mandatory and whether non-attendance renders a bid nonresponsive.

Answer: Paragraph 1.05A states “A pre-bid walkthrough may be mandatory. See the Scope Of Work For Details.” It is then laid out in the Scope Of Work Section 1.02.06 (Titled “Mandatory Pre-Bid Walkthrough”) that there “will be a mandatory walkthrough…”. This information is also listed on the OPN notice in bold lettering. Confirmed that attendance was mandatory and non-attendance will render a bid nonresponsive.

22. Question: Please confirm the warranty structure and how years two and three of contractor responsibility are to be secured.

Answer: As stated in the Notice to Bidders under Other Information subsection Warranty Requirements, “Any new roof on a permanent construction facility shall be designed and specified with a warranty that meets the following requirements: UFC 3-110-03. Warranty shall: have “no dollar limit”, cover full system water-tightness, have a minimum duration of 20 years manufacturers warranty, and the Contractor will be responsible for workmanship issues for the first three (3) years following project completion and acceptance.” This is a Scope of Work requirement (and now mentioned again in this addendum), so it will take precedence over any other stated requirements. The three-year period will only include “warranty work” if any deficiencies arise in that timeframe with any of the new construction that was completed during this specific roof project.

23. Question: General Conditions 5.4.2.b requires the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to be named as Additional Insured, and the Supplementary Conditions do not correct it. Please confirm the correct additional insured is the State of Alaska, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.

Answer: Confirmed that the correct entity to be named as Additional Insured on the Contractor’s liability policies is the

State of Alaska, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs and should be corrected on the Supplementary Conditions as well.

24. Question: Please confirm no builder’s risk is required and identify who carries risk of loss to installed and stored materials.

Answer: Confirmed no builder’s risk insurance is required, and the contractor will carry the risk of loss to installed and stored materials.

25. Question: Section 01 Part 3 requires compliance with OSHA safety standards while Section 00760 paragraph 809 requires USACE EM 385-1-1. These carry materially different cost and staffing. Please confirm which governs.

Answer: The OSHA safety standard will govern on this project. Please disregard the USACE EM 385-1-1.

26. Question: Please identify the specific federal wage decision number and modification and the Alaska Pamphlet 600 edition that will be incorporated and confirm the higher of state or federal governs by classification.

Answer: This is a Davis-Bacon wage project.

27. Question: Please state the DBE contract goal or confirm no goal has been assigned. Please also provide Form 25A-

324 if it applies.

Answer: No goal has been assigned.

28. Question: The Buy American forms in the package are Federal-Aid Airport Contracts instruments running on 49

U.S.C. 50101, while SC-6.5 and Section 00760 paragraph 810 invoke the Buy American Act at 41 U.S.C. 10a, recodified at 41 U.S.C. 8301. These are different statutes with different content thresholds and waiver mechanics.

Please confirm which applies and which certificate forms are required at bid and at award.

Answer: Section 00706 Paragraph 810 that invokes the Buy American Act at 41 U.S.C. 10a, recodified at 41 U.S.C.

8301 applies. Any area of the ITB that references 49 U.S.C. 50101 is hereby amended to “41 U.S.C. 10a, recodified at 41 U.S.C. 8301”. Contractors are encouraged to look at the Required Documents (Form 25D-4A, on page 16 ITB) to see what documents are required at bid, required after notice of apparent low bidder, and required for award.

29. Question: The ITB face offers the Department's approved online bidding service, which is not named or linked.

Paragraph 00100.08 states emailed bids are preferred but gives no bid submission email address;

mvafmocontracts@alaska.gov is designated for questions and for amendments and withdrawals. Please confirm the exact method and address for bid submission.

Answer: Please submit bids to mvafmocontracts@alaska.gov and you are encouraged to CC my email address too (scott.higbee@alaska.gov).

30. Question: The ITB states a bid bond equal to 5 percent of the amount bid and then refers, in the next sentence, to determining the 100 percent value of the bid guaranty including base bid plus alternates. Please confirm the bid bond is 5 percent of the base bid plus all additive alternates.

Answer: The bid bond is 5% of the base bid only.

31. Question: The scope states hours of operation will be determined by the Project Manager and can change with no notice due to mission requirements at no cost to the State. Please state the baseline allowable working hours, any weekend or holiday restrictions, the maximum anticipated no-notice stand-down, and how this provision reconciles with GC 14.1 and GC 11.5.

Answer: This will ultimately be determined by the building end users’ schedule and will be ironed out at the preconstruction meeting and planning stages with the successful contractor. I cannot accurately anticipate all of their future needs; however, I can say that that weekend and holiday work is possible since those will either be no staff or low staffing days. I can also note that if the work is suspended without cause the contractor shall be allowed an extension of the contract time respectively but not the contract price. Please see the following drill calendar on the next page for a tentative schedule for 2027. The red days on the calendar indicate a Federal Holiday. The green days on the calendar indicate an IDT (drill weekend with more staff than usual at Hangar 1). The blue days on the calendar indicate a day off for those participating in the AWS (alternative work schedule). The grey days on the calendar indicate a weekend. The white days (9 hour day) and purple days (8 hour day) are generally accurate but again can change in moment’s notice due to mission need, so should be taken with a grain of salt. I have requested that the building occupants provide as much notice as possible if there are any changes to this schedule and of course will work with the successful contractor to ensure that any delays are minimal and work can continue without interruption.

mailto:mvafmocontracts@alaska.gov mailto:scott.higbee@alaska.gov

32. Question: The number 1.02.04 is used twice, once for Concrete Foundation Patching and Painting and once for Paint

All Hangar Doors and Exterior Ladders. Please renumber by addendum so submittals and correspondence can cite the scope unambiguously.

Answer: Apologies on the typo. The Concrete Foundation Patching & Painting section will remain the 1.02.04 number. The Paint All Hangar Doors & Exterior Ladders section will be renumbered to 1.02.05. The As-Built Drawings section will be renumbered to 1.02.06. The Mandatory Pre-Bid Walkthrough section will be renumbered to 1.02.07.

33. Question: The base bid requires analyzing all exposed concrete, repairing all cracks and missing mortar, bringing the concrete back to a like new condition, pressure washing, patching and applying two coats of exterior latex in Mansard Brown. No area, no linear feet of crack repair and no condition survey is provided. Please provide quantities or a condition assessment, or confirm a not-to-exceed allowance, and confirm whether patching in lieu of replacement is acceptable where the existing panel is otherwise sound. We measured approximately 2,400 square feet of exposed band at the 3 September walk and observed through-cracking, spalling and delamination at the base of the tilt-up panels.

Answer: Confirmed that patching in lieu of replacement is acceptable. The contractor will be responsible for analyzing all the exposed concrete, determining the total square feet needed for patch work, and meeting all the requirements stated above and in the base bid SOW. Unfortunately, I do not have a quantity or conditions assessment available or else I would have included that in the solicitation documents.

34. Question: The base bid requires painting all exterior hangar doors and exterior ladders Rock Tan with one coat of corrosion-inhibiting primer and two finish coats, applied to manufacturer mil thickness, with the doors retaining full function. No door leaf count, leaf dimensions or ladder count is provided. Attachment 6, Sheet 6, Hangar Door Details, shows six leaves per opening at approximately 16 feet 4-3/4 inches wide, in a 98 foot opening, and Sheet 1 shows four door pockets. On that basis we have carried twelve leaves across two openings, approximately 4,900 square feet of coated surface including the exterior ladders. Please confirm the number of hangar door leaves and exterior ladders within the scope, confirm whether both faces of each leaf are to be coated or the exterior face only, and confirm whether the door pocket interiors are included.

Answer: Unfortunately, I do not have the number of hangar door leaves readily available. All I have are the included attachments from the ITB and it will be up to the contractor to meet the base bid SOW requirements with that information. We are only coating all the exterior faces of the hangar doors per the requirements (nothing on the inside of the building). Attachment 4 and 5 include pictures of the hangar doors and ladders for reference. From those attachments, as well as the walkthrough, you can see that there are only 2 exterior ladders total.

35. Question: Please confirm: (a) whether the Department holds asbestos or lead survey reports, prior abatement records, or a hazardous materials assessment for Building 47430 that will be made available to bidders; (b) whether a pre-construction hazardous materials survey is required of the contractor and, if so, its scope; (c) how responsibility and cost are allocated if asbestos-containing or lead-containing material is encountered during roof or siding demolition. We note that EPA NESHAP notification obligations attach to the demolition and renovation regardless of survey result. We further note that the Detailed Scope of Work project description states that the original roof was a low-sloped hot mopped product consisting of bitumen and felt material, that the building has been re-roofed, and that the hot-mopped material is no longer present. Attachment 6, Sheet 5, identifies the flashing in that original assembly as asbestos felt. Please confirm on what basis the Department has determined the hot-mopped material is no longer present, whether that determination is supported by records of the re-roofing, and whether it extends to the Type A and Type B flashings at parapets, curbs, roof drains and roof edges, which are not always removed when a membrane is replaced

Answer: I have not been provided with any asbestos or lead survey reports, prior abatement records, or a hazardous materials assessment for Building 47430. Additionally, I have gone through the past records searching for those specific documents with no success. Our environmental department does a review of every project prior to the project being posted and all their comments are compiled into Part 4 – Environmental Requirements Section of the ITB. They have only noted “presumed asbestos containing material (ACM) in the interior white window glazing and fire doors.”

and did not note anything else or anything definitive. If asbestos-containing or lead-containing material is encountered during the roof or siding demolition (and is not encapsulated and is friable), then the contractor may submit a proposal for abatement that will be reviewed and possibly approved (depending on funding) via a change order by the project manager. As you saw during the walkthrough and photos, the roof is clearly EPDM now. It is presumed by our environmental department that the hot mopped material is no longer present since we clearly have a new roofing system now. Unfortunately, there are no recent as-builts or project records of the re-roofing in our files.

36. Question: The base bid requires analyzing the substrate for adhesion, degreasing, and applying a corrosion-inhibiting primer and two finish coats to all exterior hangar doors and ladders and requires removal of all exterior metal siding.

The existing exterior coating is heavily alligatored and delaminating, and the structure dates from 1957. No lead-based paint survey requirement appears anywhere in the ITB. Please confirm whether a lead determination is required before surface preparation and demolition, who performs it, and how any resulting containment, worker protection and waste handling obligations are priced.

Answer: Correct, there are no lead-based paint survey requirements in the ITB. Confirmed that a lead determination is not required before surface preparation and demolition.

37. Question: Please state the area of each of the six roof areas named on Attachment 3 and confirm the governing total, or confirm that 17,494 square feet is the total the contractor is to carry and that any variance from it will be handled as a change.

Answer: There are actually eight roof areas named on Attachment 3. The eight roof areas were simply named to correspond with the photos on Attachment 4 so the contractor could better understand exactly what areas of the roof they were looking at when going through the photos (since it was not clear otherwise). Note that the title of Attachment 2 and the language in the ITB SOW simply call out “approximate” square feet with no clearly defined totals. To be clear, it will be the contractor’s responsibility to accurately measure out the actual square feet required and then remove and replace all existing EPDM roofing.

38. Question: Please (a) confirm the extent and location of each deck type, and (b) add unit price pay items or a contingent sum for deck repair, stated separately for metal deck and for concrete slab.

Answer: Contractor will be required to replace any damaged or improperly installed roof decking.

Damaged/improperly installed roof decking will be handled by an approved quote and change order.

39. Question: Please confirm (a) whether the existing lightning protection system is to be removed and reinstalled under this contract, (b) whether it is to be upgraded to UFC 3-575-01, (c) whether testing and certification of the reinstated system is required, and (d) whether the new insulated metal wall panel is to be bonded into the system.

Answer: The existing lighting protection system is to be removed and reinstalled per UFC 3-575-01 and match the existing bonding.

40. Question: Please confirm (a) the count and location of building-mounted antennas and masts and whether their removal, temporary support and reinstatement are contractor scope, (b) whether antennas must remain functional throughout construction, (c) whether FAA obstruction lighting must remain in service throughout construction and, if so, whether temporary obstruction lighting is contractor-furnished, and (d) who is responsible for any re-certification.

Answer: The contractor will be responsible for counting, removing (if necessary), protecting, and reinstating all roof-mounted communications equipment, guyed masts, and obstruction mounting. The antennas must remain functional, the FAA obstruction lighting must remain in service throughout construction, and this will all be the contractor’s responsibility. The contractor will also be responsible for any necessary re-certification and temporary obstruction lighting (if necessary).

41. Question: A steel structure of approximately 12 feet square, with its own access ladder and guardrail and in visibly corroded condition, sits on the north lower roof. It is not identified in the ITB, on Attachment 2 or on Attachment 3.

Please identify this structure and confirm whether it remains in place and is to be worked around and reflashed, whether it is to be removed and reinstalled by the contractor, or whether it is to be removed by others before construction.

Answer: There is no steel structure on the north lower roof or any areas of the roof. I’m assuming that this is from a different roofing project and not applicable to the BAAF – 47430 Hangar 1 – Roof & Envelope Project.

42. Question: Please state the field-applied product and color formulation that will be accepted as matching 437R645

(Sherwin-Williams Fluropon SR Mansard Brown) for concrete and for previously coated metal or confirm that a manufacturer's matched air-dry equivalent is acceptable and identify who approves the match.

Answer: The contractor will be responsible for matching the Mansard Brown color. This color will be approved by the Project manager prior to purchase and application.

43. Question: Please confirm that the hangar door leaf skins are to be PAINTED and are NOT included in the metal siding replacement scope and confirm that no modification to the door assemblies is authorized.

Answer: Confirmed, per the scope, the Hangar doors are only to be painted and not included in the metal siding replacement. Also confirmed that no modification to the door assemblies is authorized.

44. Question: Please make available any records in the Department's or the Construction Facility Management Office's possession for Building 47430, including prior re-roofing project records and closeout documents, existing roof warranty files, leak and repair logs, and any roof condition assessments

Answer: Apologies, there are no records to be found for the re-roofing of Building 47430. I assure you that I would have included that information in the ITB if anything was available. Unfortunately, all the information included in the attachments is all we have in our records at this time.

45. Question: Please state the number and location of roof drains, overflow drains, scuppers, gutters and downspouts, confirm whether drain bodies and clamping rings are replaced or reused with new flashing, and confirm whether leaders and interior storm piping are within the contract scope.

Answer: The contractor will be responsible for accurately counting the number and location of roof drains, overflow drains, scuppers, gutters, and downspouts. All the items listed above will be reused if in serviceable condition and resealed. The contractor will be responsible for replacing the items listed above (with equal or better components) if they are deficient and need to be amended to ensure proper drainage. Leaders and interior storm piping are not within the contract scope.

46. Question: Please confirm which requirement governs on this project: (a) that the new siding is to match the existing single-skin corrugated assembly in material type, consistent with the one for one replacement language; or (b) that the new siding is to be an insulated metal wall panel regardless of the existing material, as the following sentence states. If (b) governs, please state the required panel thickness and thermal performance.

Answer: Apologies, the existing siding should be a single-skin corrugated panel and not an insulated metal wall panel. Confirmed that the new siding is to match the existing corrugated assembly in material type, consistent with the one for one replacement language in the ITB. The new siding color must be the Rock Tan (Smooth) as stated in the ITB and shown in Attachment 5 (as well as in-person at the walkthrough).

47. Question: Please confirm which of the following the Department intends, or state an alternative: (a) REMOVE THE

EXTERIOR SKIN ONLY, leaving the wood furring, insulation and inner metal skin in place, and fasten the new panel through the remaining assembly; (b) REMOVE THE EXTERIOR SKIN AND THE WOOD FURRING, leaving the steel girts, insulation and inner metal skin, and fasten the new panel to the girts or to new subgirts; or (c) REMOVE THE FULL ASSEMBLY to the steel girts, including insulation and the inner metal skin, and fasten the new panel to the girts or to new subgirts. If the inner metal skin is to remain under option (a) or (b), please confirm the Department's direction on the resulting condition, in which insulation would sit between a vapor-tight metal layer on the interior face and an insulated metal panel on the exterior face. Please also confirm whether the Contractor is to furnish subgirts where the existing girt spacing does not meet the panel manufacturer's span requirements.

Answer: The Department intends to remove the exterior skin and keep the rest of the existing assembly the same unless there is compromised sheathing and damaged insulation that will need replacement to be functional. The contractor is to furnish subgrits where the existing grit spacing does not meet the panel manufacturer’s span requirements.

48. Question: Please confirm (a) the required panel orientation, as 1.02.03.C states both horizontal and vertical; (b) whether the Department requires panels to run full height without a horizontal joint at the wing walls and at the hangar gable walls, or will accept a horizontal joint, and if a joint is accepted, at what elevation and with what detail; (c) whether the horizontal lap appearance of the existing wall is part of the requirement in 1.02.03.D that the new work match existing building design; and (d) whether the trim accessories named in 1.02.03.D are a general description, or whether the Department requires those specific profiles.

Answer: All existing building panel design should be matched in regard to orientation. The existing siding is installed with the corrugations running vertically (see attachments 4 & 5 for photos). The trim accessories named in 1.02.03.D are a general description only applicable if they are required to match existing design.

49. Question: Paragraph 1.02.02.H requires that if window and door replacement is not financially feasible, the contractor paint all the current white window frames and all the red doors Mansard Brown. Please confirm (a) that this painting obligation is base-bid scope, contingent only on the alternates not being awarded; (b) the frame material of the existing windows, because if the frames are vinyl, application of a dark color raises heat distortion and coating adhesion issues that require a specific primer and coating system; and (c) how this scope is measured and paid if the award of the alternates is not known until bid opening.

Answer: Confirmed that the painting obligation is a base-bid scope requirement. All the potential contractors should account for the cost of painting all the window frames and doors and include that in the price of the base bid. That way you should be covered in the event that funding is not available to award any of the bid alts. Inversely, if the bid alts are awarded, then painting the old exterior windows and doors is not required since they will be removed anyway.

In that case, you will still have to ensure that the new exterior windows and doors are the right color but that should be included in the separate bid alt prices anyway. The contractor will be required to determine the frame material of the existing windows and may be required to use a specific primer and coating system if it is necessary to accomplish the base-bid window painting requirement.

50. Question: Please confirm whether the scope is limited to concrete presently exposed to view, or whether it extends to concrete that becomes exposed once the metal siding is removed, and identify the upper exposed concrete areas intended.

Answer: Confirmed that the scope is limited to all concrete presently exposed to view that is not covered by metal siding.

51. Question: Please confirm whether existing signage is to be removed, stored and reinstalled by the contractor on the new panel, whether new signage is to be furnished, and whether the Department will relocate it.

Answer: The existing signage is to be removed and reinstalled by the contractor on the new panel in the same location where it was previously attached.

52. Question: The contract places all design and an engineered drawing set on the contractor. Please confirm (a) whether a design set sealed by an Alaska-registered professional engineer is acceptable, or whether an architect's seal is also required, and (b) the Department's review and approval turnaround for the design submittal, which governs the release date for long-lead material procurement.

Answer: An Alaska-registered professional engineer is acceptable. Turnaround time for submittals will be reviewed and approved/denied within of week of receiving the submittal email.

53. Question: Please provide the existing door hardware schedule or confirm the basis on which bidders are to price matching hardware, including keyway and whether the openings are to be keyed into an existing system.

Answer: The door hardware must accept SFIC cores per Attachment 7. Our maintenance department will key them to our existing system. All exterior swinging man doors will be replaced. The contractor will be responsible for properly counting, removing, and replacing those doors with equal or better as existing per the Bid Alt #1 scope language. The red doors that are on the hangar doors themselves (on East and West side of building) do not need to be replaced, only painted mansard brown as shown in Attachment 5.

54. Question: Please confirm whether a higher-resolution or native-format set is available, or issue door and window schedules in text form.

Answer: Attachment 4 contains the necessary photographs for contractors to accurately count the doors and windows. The photo at the top of page 8 (Front Of Building - North Side 2nd photo) and the photo at the top of page 9 (Back of Building – South Side 2nd photo) should be utilized.

55. Question: Please confirm how door operation and coating work are to be coordinated: specifically, (a) whether the doors will be opened on an unscheduled basis during the working day while coatings are being applied and cured, or whether operation during that period will be limited to emergency use only; (b) whether the Department will make the doors available in specified positions for defined periods so that all leaf faces, including faces that are concealed when a leaf is parked in its pocket, can be prepared and coated; and (c) the notice the contractor will receive before a door is operated.

Answer: The hangar must have a minimum of 50% usability at all times. Thankfully there are 2 large hangar doors (1 each on the East & West side), so there should be no operational issues on as long as the contractor can work in sections. The current plan is to focus on one large hangar door at a time and coat the entire thing while not touching the other side. This will ensure the occupants still have access to the hangar for operational purposes and contractor will not have the doors they are coating open at any time. Once that coating work is complete in its entirety and the hangar door is fully functional again, then the contractor will be able to move to the next large hangar door and continue the same process.

56. Question: Please confirm whether the replacement windows are to be furnished with a factory-applied finish in the specified color, or whether they are to be field painted after installation. If a factory finish is required, please state the finish system and whether a manufacturer's standard color match to 437R645 Fluropon SR Mansard Brown is acceptable.

Answer: See question #5.

57. Question: Please confirm (a) whether the alternate is doors only with the existing frames retained, or doors and frames complete; (b) if existing frames are retained, whether they have been verified as capable of accepting a blast-rated leaf and of developing the required anchorage; and (c) whether the new doors and frames are to be furnished with a factory-applied finish in the specified color or field painted after installation.

Answer: If there are deficiencies with the door frames and they cannot be retained, then the contractor must furnish and install new door frames as well. Those frames must meet SOW requirements and color scheme (show on Attachment 5) requirements. Again, it is up to the Contractor to determine which means/methods they would like to use to accomplish the required end result in. That new language above is now added to Bid Alt #1 SOW. Additionally, the contractor will now be required to paint the door frames the same Mansard Brown color (added to the base bid SOW). There are no longer any blast rating requirements for the windows/doors per Addendum #2.

58. Question: ITB lists a requirement to paint the decking per UFC 3-110-03. Upon our review of the UFC, it appears that this requirement is connected to the use of phenolic foam and its corrosive action when wet. It seems unlikely that there has been phenolic foam installed on this roof. Can you please verify if phenolic foam has been installed on this roof? If it has not been installed, can this requirement be removed?

Answer: It is currently not known if phenolic foam was used in the construction of this roof. UFC 3-110-03 published on July 2, 2026 and changed on July 17, 2026 has the latest information regarding current requirements. Additionally, only roof decking that needs to be replaced (due to damage or improper installation) will have to be painted (assuming that phenolic foam board is used in the replacement).

59. Question: Please confirm: (a) the staging and laydown area the Department will make available to the Contractor at no cost, its approximate size and surface, and whether it can be identified on a plan issued by addendum; (b) any crane, boom or lift height restriction and any airspace or airfield coordination required in connection with Bryant Army Airfield, together with the procedure and the lead time for obtaining approval; and (c) whether the hangar remains occupied and operational throughout the construction period.

Answer: These questions will be addressed with the successful contractor during the pre-construction meeting. We are not expecting site work to start immediately following award, so there will be plenty of months leading up to on-site work in which we will coordinate with the contractor, building occupants, airfield manager, etc. to come up with a schedule and plan that works for everybody. No known restrictions at this time but subject to change due to mission requirements. The current plan is to have the hangar remain operational and occupied during this project. Again, we cannot predict the future, so we anticipate several planning stages leading up to execution.

60. Question: Please confirm, for this project: (a) the installation access and badging procedure for Contractor and subcontractor personnel, including who submits the request, what is required of each individual, and the lead time the Department expects between submission and access being granted; (b) whether a limit applies to the number of personnel or passes at any one time, and if so what that limit is; (c) escort requirements and who furnishes escorts for personnel without independent installation access; (d) whether the risk of delay caused by an inability to obtain access rests with the Contractor on this project as it does on 02A7026004; and (e) any restriction on photography or recording within the hangar or on the airfield, which bears directly on the Contractor's ability to document existing conditions before demolition.

Answer: The Contractor will supply the Project Manager with the required information (last name, first name, middle initial, sex, DOB, driver’s license or state ID #, start date, end date, and hours of access needed to be on the jobsite) to obtain a DBIDs (Defense Biometric Identification System) card. Individuals must have a REAL ID and pass a background check for approval. No sponsor privileges will be granted and all additional requests for base access should go through the Project Manager. There is the possibility of using simple base passes too if individuals only need access for a portion of the project and not its entirety. Short term passes through the base office are limited to 9 individuals at a time. Simple bass passes can be processed fairly quickly (typically the same day) while DBIDs cards may take several days to get approved. I do not anticipate any substantial delays that would cause any issues. All of the access will be ironed out well before the onsite work begins. The restrictions on photography or recording will be the same as stated during the walkthrough. Exterior building photos and recording are fine since they directly relate to the work being done. There shall be no pictures of personnel, building interior, equipment, etc.

61. Question: Can the bid due date be extended due to the complexity of the project and other hangar roof and envelope project’s (Hangar 6 & Hangar 4) bid due dates being so close to one another?

Answer: Yes, the bid due date for this project will be extended another week to give potential contractors adequate time to get all their questions in, questions to be answered to the best of our ability, associated changes to the contract be made, etc. New deadline for receipt of bids is 1:00pm Alaska time on October 13th, 2026.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Respectfully, Scott M. Higbee Building Management Specialist 907-428-7175 scott.higbee@alaska.gov

End of Addendum mailto:scott.higbee@alaska.gov