Clarifying Questions 4 - Log and answers~1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-C01010-00007195
- Issued by
- Clackamas County, Canyonville City, Oregon
About this file
This document is a compilation of clarifying questions and answers related to Bid #2023-54 for the Clackamas County Fairgrounds Multiuse Building Project. The project is being solicited by Clackamas County, located in Oregon. The bid opportunity is for the construction of a multiuse building at the Clackamas County Fairgrounds. The bid closing date is July 13, 2023 at 2:00 PM Pacific Time, and there will be no pre-bid meeting. The bid package includes technical specifications, drawings, and other supporting documents. The clarifying questions cover various aspects of the project, including discrepancies in the technical specifications, confirmation of no pre-bid meeting, submission requirements, phasing, and other design-related inquiries. The responses provided by the County and the design team aim to address and resolve these clarifying questions.
Regarding pricing, the document indicates that the County has revised the minimum PV module efficiency requirement in the technical specifications. The document also addresses various requests for clarification on PEMB framing and wall panel specifications, as well as the availability of CAD files. The responses suggest that the County is working to provide addenda to address the clarifying questions and ensure the bid documents are clear and comprehensive for the prospective bidders.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| INVITATION TO BID #2023-54 |
| Clackamas County Fair Grounds Multiuse Building (“BID”) |
| RESPONSE TO CLARIFYING QUESTIONS |
| Number | Date received | Question | Answer | Answer date | Answered by | Addendum Number | Date published |
| 1 | 22-Jun-23 | The technical specs are missing Section 002110, and section numbers are mismatched to the table of contents (Sections 017410, 085650, 230700, 321216, 321313, 321373). | a. Strike 002110 and use the County’s standard contract language. |
b. TOC mismatches will be addressed by a forthcoming addendum.
| c. A020 issuance can be clarified by drawing list (TOC) edit. A020 is not issued and will be removed from drawing index with forthcoming addndum. Noted information can be found on other drawings. | 27-Jun-23 | LRS | ADD 01 | 28-Jun-23 | ||||
| 2 | 22-Jun-23 | I didn’t see any mention of a pre-bid meeting or site walk prior to the bid date of July 13. Am I correct that there is no mandatory or voluntary pre-bid meeting? | Correct. There will not be a pre-bid meeting for this project. | 27-Jun-23 | CCP | ADD 01 | 28-Jun-23 | |
| 3 | 22-Jun-23 | Does the ITB eligibility documentation need to be submitted prior to bidding the project? Any information is appreciated. | The previous experience documentation should be submitted at the time of the bid due date. | 27-Jun-23 | CCFM | ADD 01 | 28-Jun-23 | |
| 4 | 22-Jun-23 | I am interested in bidding the Solar PV on the Clackamas County Fairgrounds RFP. When is Phase 2 bidding? | Phasing only refers to site construction, the project will have a single bid that covers all work over both phases. | 27-Jun-23 | CCFM | ADD 01 | 28-Jun-23 | |
| 5 | 26-Jun-23 | Paragraph 2.2.C.2 of section 263100 specifies a minimum PV module efficiency of 21.6%. The PV module basis of design (Hanwha 480W) has a published module efficiency of only 20.7%. The 21.6% figure may have come from a note on the front page of the data sheet (attached) describing the entire line of modules, but it does not line up with the efficiency for the 480W version listed on the second page. Please clarify how this discrepancy should be addressed. | Minimum model efficiency has been revised to 21.2% in Section 26 3100. Revised Section 26 3100 will be issued with Addendum 1. | LRS/IEI | ADD 01 | |||
| 6 | 27-Jun-23 | Are CAD files available for this project? | Not for the bidding process. | 27-Jun-23 | CCFM | ADD 01 | 28-Jun-23 | |
| 7 | 28-Jun-23 | There is a steel decking specification but I was unable to see where that occurs. I assume it would be at the mezzanine but it is not currently shown. Hoping the design team can provide a little further detail on the deck and the slab at the mezzanine if that is, in fact, where it occurs. | Mezzanine floor confirmed. See Floor Type F2 on sheet A140, and F2 located on drawing 3/A610. | 28-Jun-23 | LRS | ADD 01 | 29-Jun-23 | |
| 8 | 29-Jun-23 | 1/A950 indicates girts at 24" maximum on center. May we use PEMB manufacturer's preferred girt & purlin spacing as designed based on the relevant design criteria and serviceability requirements? | Girts are shown at 24" o.c. to support plywood panels for masonry veneer and electrical and other programming components on the interior. Girt spacing to remain at 24" o.c. per Construction Documents. | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 9 | 29-Jun-23 | 9/A950 states "Metal outrigger@ 2'-0" O.C. by PEMB". May we use PEMB manufacturer's preferred structural framing method for the roof extensions? | Correct detail is 9/A930. PEMB manufacturer's preferred recommend framing is acceptable, but must meet the dimensional profile and asethetics of the detail shown in Drawings. | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 10 | 29-Jun-23 | Please provide skylight nominal size. I was unable to find it on the drawings. | Skylights are removed from scope. Please delete spec section 08 6200 and all references to it in other sections. | (7/5/2023) | ADD 01 | |||
| 11 | 29-Jun-23 | A140 shows R-30 + R-11 banded liner system at roof while A103 Table 5.5-4 states R-19 + R-11 or R-25 + R-8 liner system; please clarify roof insulation requirement. | A103, Energy Code Compliance Table criteria for metal building roofs will be modified to match roof type detail on A140. | (7/5/2023) | ADD 01 | |||
| 12 | 29-Jun-23 | 07 6200.2.3.G states "Fabricate corners from one piece with minimum 18-inch long legs". Is manufacturer's standard corner trim profile acceptable in lieu? Otherwise please clarify with a sketch. | PEMB manufacturer's standard corner trim profile is acceptable. Corner trim profile to be referenced to Section 13 3419 - Metal Building Systems. Section 07 6200 reissued with Addedum 1 with revised language for paragraph 2.3G. | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 13 | 29-Jun-23 | 13 3419.2.2.D indicates uniform depth rafters. Is a tapered rafter member acceptable? | Tapered rafter acceptable for design. Section 13 3419 reissued with Addendum 1 with revised language. | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 14 | 29-Jun-23 | 13 3419.2.2.G.1 states minimum 2 ½"-wide flanges on purlins. Does this 2 ½" refer to the actual or nominal dimension? | The 2 -1/2 inch dimension is the flange size, not including the lip. | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 15 | 29-Jun-23 | 13 3419.2 .2.G.5 states minimum 1 by 1 by 1/8 inch sag bracing member. Is the PEMB manufacturer's standard sag angle member size acceptable instead? | PEMB manufacturer's standard sag angle angle member is acceptable. Section 13 3419 - Metal Building Systems reissued with Addedum 1 with revised language for subparagraph 2.3G. 5 | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 16 | 29-Jun-23 | 13 3419.2.2.G.8: states "Secondary End-Wall Framing" & indicates min. 14ga. galvanized. Please clarify what framing members this refers to as it contradicts earlier sections 2.2.F.3 & 2.2.G.2. | End wall framing, including steel thickness, is covered in Paragraphs 2.2 F, Primary Framing and 2.2G Secondary Framing. Subparagraph 2.2G.8 is deleted. Section 13 3419- Metal Building Systems reissued with Addendum 1 with language for subparagraph 2.2G.5 deleted. | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 17 | 29-Jun-23 | 13 3419.2.4.G states " Primer: SSPC-Paint 20, zinc rich "; please confirm primer as SSPC-Paint 20 is not a standard metal building primer & would likely require a 3rd party painter | Primer specification revised to PEMB standard SSPC -15. Finish coat as specified in Section 09 9123. Section 13 3419- Metal Building Systems reissued with Addendum 1 with revised language for paragraph 2.4G | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 18 | 29-Jun-23 | 13 3419.2.5.A.2: Is a 16"-module vertical rib standing seam panel acceptable in lieu of 17 ½" indicated here? | 16 inch module is acceptable. Section 13 3419- Metal Building Systems reissued with Addendum 1 with revised language for subparagraph 2.6A.2 | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 19 | 29-Jun-23 | 13 3419.2.7.C states ASTM C920 100% silicone sealant. Are industry-standard non-skinning butyl and/or urethane sealant (dependent on application) acceptable? | PEMB standard sealant is acceptable. Section 13 3419- Metal Building Systems reissued with Addendum 1 with revised language for paragraphs 2.6E and 2.7C. | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 20 | 29-Jun-23 | 13 3419.2.7.A: Please clarify wall panel type as 2.7.A.l & 2.7.A.2. contain numerous contradictions. | Wall panel to be a PBR style, vertical ribbed panel as indicated in Drawings. Section 13 3419- Metal Building Systems reissued with Addendum 1 with revised language for Article 2.7 Metal Wall Panels. | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 21 | 29-Jun-23 | 13 3419.2.9.B.2 states that panel color is to be selected "from manufacturer's full line". Are we to price standa rd stocked 70% PVDF colors, or shall the bid include an allowance for special colors, minimum order quantity colors, custom or metallic colors, etc.? | Finish color for exterior metal cladding, roof panels, trim and accessories to be selected from manufacturer's standard color charts. Section 13 3419- Metal Building Systems reissued with Addendum 1 with revised language for paragragh 2.9B. | (7/5/2023) | LRS | ADD 01 | ||
| 22 | 29-Jun-23 | Sewer - sheet C500 show SSMH 02 start point, however on sheet C503 sewer profile shows SSMH 01 connection point an additional 42.8 lf of sewer pipe? Is this correct? | The 42.8’ of pipe is existing pipe and is not meant to be replaced. See updated sheet C502 which reflects this change. | LRS / 3J | (ADD 01) | |||
| 23 | 29-Jun-23 | On sheet C101; note 5 - do we know the size of valve? Do we cap the existing line? Size of pipe note 10 - do we know the size of pipe? Depth? Note 13 - do we know pipe size? Fill CO to MH? MH to MH? | Note 5: Size of the valve is unknown. Cap existing line per updated sheet C101. Note 10: See updated sheet C100 for storm and sewer structure information from the survey. Note 13: See updated sheet C101 which clarifies with demo lines which pipes and strutures should be abandoned with CDF per keynote 13. | LRS / 3J | (ADD 01) | |||
| 24 | 29-Jun-23 | Spec section 31 1373, concrete paving joint sealants, does not appear to be in the specs. I can't find it. Please advise. | Correct Section number is 32 1373 and is in the Specifications. TOC has been updated and will be issued with Addendum 1 | LRS | ||||
| 25 | 6-Jul-23 | I noticed in the “Response to Clarifying Questions # 1,” item 1.c. – drawing sheet A020 will not be issued. I refer you to Detail 7/S301, which shows a CMU wall detail at the Maintenance Building. I cannot find any other pertinent information about this wall throughout the rest of the drawings. I was hoping Sheet A020 would provide that information. Please clarify how we are to proceed with regards to this CMU wall. | All scope related to the Maintenance Building, southwest of the proposed building, will be implemented directly by CCF and are not to be included in Contractors’ bids. | LRS | ||||
| 26 | 6-Jul-23 | The trench drain located down the middle of the Multi-purpose Room # 118 refers to detail 2/A920. This detail differs substantially from the detail given on the structural plans, detail 3/S301. Please clarify, including reinforcing steel and final dimensions. Also, we cannot locate the specification for the slip-resistant/traffic-rated cover plate. Please provide a specification/manufacturer. Please provide spot elevations of the trench drain invert or slope gradients for us to determine the volume of concrete and the formwork necessary to price this work accurately. The floor drains need to be coordinated between the plumbing engineer and the width of the drain invert…depending upon the width of the trench drain, there may be a potential conflict with the trench drain walls. | Provide bid per current documents. Structural and plumbing documents will be updated per architectural. | LRS / IMEG / IEI | ADD 01 | |||
| 27 | 6-Jul-23 | Structural details 1 & 6 / S301 depict the typical PEMB column to footing connections. These details do not show a typical 1-1/2” grout-packed space above the floor slab to the bottom of the column baseplates. Please confirm the column baseplates are to be supported directly on the floor slab without a grout-packed space. | Per structural, grout pad is not required. However, PEMB mfr may choose to configure the connections to include a grout pad. GC to coordinate. | LRS / IMEG | ||||
| 28 | 6-Jul-23 | SS 01 2300 - Alternates lists the Alternate # 1 as deleting [Conc-2]: Honed and sealed concrete floors for Lobby & Galleries… However, the description for Conc – 2 given on Sheet A800 is “Brushed.” Please clarify. | 1. Alternate to be revised to apply to CONC-1. 2. CONC-2 to be modified to "BROOMED" | LRS | ||||
| 29 | 6-Jul-23 | On E201, at two different locations, ( grids A4 & A6 ), the electrical engineer notates to “drop column footings to avoid underfloor conflict to enter bottom of panelboards.” The structural engineer makes no mention of any special accommodations at these locations on his foundation plan. Please address any changes to these footing’s elevations or additional work necessary to provide a plinth or to extend the PEMB column to a lower footing elevation. This is a design issue, and we are not engineers. | Dropped footing heights to be coordinated with PEMB during permit documents process. Detail will be similar to other dropped footings. GC to coordinate with PEMB mfr. | LRS / IMEG / PEMB | ||||
| 30 | 6-Jul-23 | Detail 9/E802 depicts the typical ADA door operator bollard. We’ve noted 11 locations per this detail – 4 exterior & 7 interior. None of these locations appear to be subject to traffic impact, yet the footing callout for this bollard is 4’ deep? Also, the 7 interior locations are in the Conc-1 finish areas. They are 2’ x 2’ in area and will not match the adjacent floor very well, given that they will be poured at a different time than the surrounding slab areas. The manufacturers for the bollard are listed on the detail and it calls for “outdoor, weather-resistive” bollards, even though only 4 are exterior and under the building’s canopies. Perhaps a surface-mounted bollard would be better suited for the 7 interior locations? (maybe even all 11 locations?) | Contractor to provide bid for current documents; modifications deferred to future Addendum. | LRS / IEI | ||||
| 31 | 6-Jul-23 | Pages A020 and C900 are listed on the cover page of the drawings but are missing. Will they be released in an addendum? | All scope related to the Maintenance Building, southwest of the proposed Building, will be implemented directly by CCF and are not to be included in Contractors’ bids. |
Sheet C900 to be removed from Drawing List.
| Also answered in previous posting. | 6-Jul-23 | LRS | |||
| 32 | 6-Jul-23 | Adding to the confusion around the P-V system per your response to clarifying questions # 1 – Item 4, is the General Note given on Sheet E301 which states the P-V system shown is for planning for future P-V system only and is not a part of this contract. | (see Question no. 4 above) | ||
| 33 | 6-Jul-23 | On Sheet C400, the specified Dura Trench Slotted Drain , or Pipe Trench Drain, both indicate on their website that their installation requires a concrete collar. The present layout on Sheet C400 indicates these drains are to be installed into A.C. paving. Please provide a detail for the concrete collar, including any reinforcing steel required. Please provide specifications for both options (slotted or pipe) as the manufacturer has several models to choose from. We shouldn’t be responsible for choosing the model that this application is designed around. | LRS / 3J | ||
| 34 | 6-Jul-23 | There are 37 locations shown on the electrical floor plan ( Sheet E201 & E202 ) for FSR floor boxes ( detail 3/E801 ) with the electrical engineer’s CONCEPTUAL idea of the design of the floor slab at these boxes; however, he states to refer to the Structural Drawings. The Structural Drawings do not identify these locations, nor do they provide a detail of how the slab design changes at these locations. Please provide a detail by the structural engineer for the change in the slab design at these locations, including dimensions & added reinforcing steel. | LRS / IMEG | ||
| 35 | 6-Jul-23 | Please clarify the o.c. spacing, vertically, of the PEMB girts for the exterior walls. PEMB manufacturer’s rarely furnish their girts to support gypsum wallboard finishes on the interior side of exterior walls. | PEMB/GC to provide framing as necessary to support noted interior finishes. | LRS | |
| 36 | |||||
| 37 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .