Bldg_500_Questions_-_7-22-14.doc

REPAIR ENTRANCE, BLDG 500, WING HQ

FA4626-14-R-0027

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

23 JUL 14

Q1. Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices. Is the NET AMT number to be the same as the ESTIMATED TOTAL PROPOSAL number indicated on the last page of the SCHEDULE B CONTINUATION SHEET?

A1: Yes.

Q2. The 088717 safety and security glazing film specification identifies Butacite G 300 Series film. The Butacite G 300 Series is typically an automobile window interlayer, but section 2.2 of the 088717 spec requires a surface applied film. Is the glazing film intended to be an interlayer or surface applied film on the new HQ?

A2: While the Butacite 300 is typically an automobile interlayer, it was used as the basis of design because this was the material used in the testing of the blast resistance rating glazing we developed our design around. Other products for the laminating are more than acceptable as long as they meet the 6 psi blast rating requirements. Also it intended for the film to be interlayer of the 1/2" fully tempered laminated glass (otherwise 1/4" glass, film, 1/4" glass). See section 088000. We would also recommend coordinating with the glazing and film manufacturers.

Q3. SCHEDULE B CONTINUATION SHEET, LINE ITEM 0001 AB - Unknown Utility Crossings. Not sure how to price this item (1 Lot?). Are you looking for an allowance or contingency number here as the extent of this work is currently unknown?

A3: Should be bid on a quantity of 2 each unknown utility crossings.

Q4. What is the preferred Line Item for allocation of demolition (existing sidewalk, existing glazing, etc.) costs?

A4: Exterior Improvements Q5. What concrete costs are to be allocated to LINE ITEM(S) 0001AD – Concrete and 0001AL - Exterior Improvements?

A5: AD - Foundation, pile caps, etc. AL - sidewalks Q6. No reinforcing is indicated (or specified) for the slabs on grade (w/ the exception of a structural note re: reinforcing at re-entrant corners in slabs). The specifications state that welded wire fabric (wwf) is not permitted. Please clarify whether or not reinforcing is required at slabs and sidewalks.

A6: Reinforcing in slabs and sidewalks must replace the existing condition. Assume a single mat of #4 bar, 12" O.C.E.W.

Q7. The documents provide for spacing dimensions of installed helix piers. The design manual for piers states that pier "spacing should be no closer than five times the diameter of the largest plate at the bearing depth." This assumes plumb installation of piers and does not pertain to piers installed at a "suitable outward batter." With the largest helix at 14" dia. the center to center spacing of the piers should not be less than 70". (It may be that this has been addressed in the design)?

A7: The piers will be installed with some outward batter, but, yes, the reduction in capacity for close spacing was addressed in the design.

Q8. What would be considered acceptable "demonstrated experience" for this project?

A8: Documentation of projects indicating years of experienced specified in the focus areas.

Q9. Please clarify the section below the slabs on grade. We are assuming it is 6" of aggregate base on compacted subgrade, with any over-excavation only as directed by the COR.

A9: Assumption is correct.

Q10. Is this project tax exempt or subject to Montana GRT?

A10: The project is subject to 1% tax.

Q11. Please verify the following:

- FOCUS AREA 1 refers to general contractor experience

- FOCUS AREA 2 refers to general contractor experience

- FOCUS AREA 3 refers to film manufacturer experience (rather than general contractor)

A11: Correct.

Q12. In accordance with the documents we would like to request a copy of any available and pertinent soils report.

A12: I have attached .pdf files of the soils documentation referenced in the design.

Q13. The Specifications state the pier load test is to be performed in accordance with ASTM D-1143 which is a compression test. The assembly associated with a compression test requires a "pit" with dimensions of app. 16'-0" X 16'-0" at the site of the pier to be tested. Given the area of the entire project this may be problematic. ASTM D-3689 provides for a tension test. The test apparatus set up would be more conducive given space constraints. Would this test method be considered an acceptable alternate?

A13: Spec Section 056000 para1.2E - either test method is acceptable to verify compliance.