17_IFB DOCS Description and Analysis of Work.pdf

4 0 6 . 7 6 1 . 3 0 1 0 t d h e n g i n e e r i n g . c o m

1 8 0 0 R i v e r D r i v e No r t h

G re a t F a l l s , MT 5 9 4 0 1

JOB NO. 24-035

MONTANA | WASHINGTON | IDAHO | NORTH DAKOTA | PENNSYLVANIA

OCTOBER 2025

CLIENT ENGINEER

341 CONS/LGCA

7015 Goddard Dr ive, Rm 125 Malmstrom AFB, MT 59402

TD&H Engineer ing 1800 River Dr ive North Great Fa l ls , MT 59401 Engineer : Rodney Blake, PE

REPAIR BLDG ROOF 1840 - NZAS 23-0059

Basis of Design – Cost Estimates – Bid Schedule – Specifications - Drawings

TYPE B – IFB

Repair Bldg 1840 Roof – NZAS 21-0059 – IFB Type B Submittal Table of Contents 24-035 Page i October 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.0 STRUCTURAL GOVERNING CODES

3.0 INSPECTION AND EVALUATION

3.1 OBSERVATIONS

3.2 DISCUSSION

4.0 COURSE OF ACTION (COA)

4.1 COA

5.0 MEP EXISTING CONDITIONS

6.0 MEP RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

7.0 MEP SITE PHOTOS

Appendix

A. Scope of Work B. Meeting Minutes C. Not Used D. Layout and Location E. Photos F. Contract Documents (Form 1354, Submittal Schedule, System Checklist, Review

Comments, Construction Schedule)

COST ESTIMATE

BID SCHEDULE

SPECIFICATIONS

DRAWINGS

Repair Bldg 1840 Roof – NZAS 23-0059 – 100% Type B Submittal Executive Summary 24-035 August 2025

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This Type B 75% Design Report presents the results of a preliminary investigation of Building 1840 at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, MT, NAZS-21-0059. The purpose of this report is to summarize the selected Course of Action (COA) to focus on repairs of the three roof levels above the maintenance bays and ensure a usable life of 10 years. In addition to the COA, this report will furnish an estimate of probable construction costs for the selected option.

1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The structure has approximately 29,000 square feet of roof area and consists of the original 1961 building as well as several additions ranging from the mid 1960’s to the late 1990’s. There are several roof levels found throughout the building. In the “Information Paper on Building 1840 Facility Sustainment & Way Ahead” provided to TD&H Engineering, the roof system has created a substantial burden on the occupants over the past few years. In order to lessen the burden created by moisture infiltration during and after rain events, work was conducted in the summer of 2022 to modify roof exhausts and intakes to eliminate moisture infiltration during high-wind rain events. This work has had varying levels of success in mitigating water infiltration through the roof top equipment. The Information Paper also makes note of additional sealant work conducted at other roof penetrations, areas of roof membrane, and ductwork joints as well as deficiencies in the gutter system, and spalling and cracking in areas of the Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) and Cast-In-Place (CIP) concrete walls. The design team members on site for the initial March 28, 2024 evaluation were Mr. Drew Reed, EIT (TD&H Engineering); Mr. L. James Wyatt, PE (GPD Engineering, PC); Mr. Josh Redd (AT Klemens), and Mr. Adam Newman (Dayspring Restoration). An additional site visit was performed on April 15, 2024 by surveyors at TD&H measuring the roof elevations and Mr. Rodney Blake, PE (TD&H) who performed a follow up visual roof evaluation. For the Type B submittal, a site visit was conducted on May 29, 2025 by Mr. Drew Reed, EIT (TD&H), Mr. Rodney Blake, PE (TD&H), Mr. L. James Wyatt, PE (GPD, PC), and Mr.

Brad Kauffman, PE (GPD, PC).

Repair Bldg 1840 Roof – NZAS 23-0059 – 100% Type B Submittal Structural Governing Codes

August 2025

2.0 STRUCTURAL GOVERNING CODES

Codes and Criteria in effect at the 35% design stage for this project included the following:

1. International Building Code (IBC) 2021

2. International Existing Building Code (IEBC) 2021

3. American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) 7-16

4. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 15th Edition, Manual of Steel construction

360-16

5. United Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-200-01 DoD Building Code, With Change 3 (General

Building Requirements), 09-01-2022

6. UFC 3-301-01 Structural Engineering, With Change 1, 04-11-2023

7. UFC 4-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, With Change 2, 12-

12-2018

Repair Bldg 1840 Roof – NZAS 23-0059 – 100% Type B Submittal Inspection and Evaluation

August 2025 3

3.0 INSPECTION AND EVALUATION

3.1 OBSERVATIONS

3.1.1 Interior

Locations referenced are graphically represented in Appendix D Figure 1. Room titles are based on the 2014 “Repair Building 1840 WSA & New Flammable Storage” plans, project number NZAS-09-1004.

During the field investigation performed on March 28, 2024, dripping was heard in corridor 2 near the louver in the northeast corner of bay 3. There were some faint signs of possible water staining, but no active moisture infiltration was observed at that location. Thermal imaging of the roof/wall interface in the immediate vicinity of where the dripping was heard showed areas where the roof deck was cooler near the wall indicating the possible migration of water through the roof assembly (Appendix E, Figure 1). Thermal imaging a few feet to the south of that location shows a more uniform temperature distribution (Appendix E, Figure 2).

In Bay 3, there was a small puddle observed in the northwest corner, and water stains were observed on the blades of the louver in the southeast corner of Bay 3. The thermal imager showed areas that were cooler than the surrounding walls in that area (Appendix E, Figures 3-5). Those cooler areas may indicate the presence of water inside the cold joints in the concrete walls. Additionally, two areas located beneath the east roof top unit (RTU) had been subject to water infiltration in the past. The leaks in one of those areas may be due to the exterior ducting, while the other area appears to be leaking through a conduit penetration near that area. Thermal imaging of the roof in Bay 3 showed areas that may have additional water migration through the membrane and insulation, allowing water to pond on top of the roof structure (Appendix E, Figures 6,7).

There were 3 areas where leaks had been noted in Bay 5. Two of those leaks are directly below the RTU penetrations, and during the inspection, we were informed that one of those areas had been recently leaking. Thermal imaging of the duct penetration shows cool regions adjacent to the penetration (Appendix E, Figures 8,9) which may indicate that water has migrated through the membrane near that location The third area is a smaller area directly below fire suppression piping. In conversation with a Serviceman, he indicated that there has been no water observed in that area for several months and he suspected that it may be condensation dripping from the pipe rather than a roof leak. Thermal imaging showed cool areas in the southwest wall intersection (Appendix E, Figures 10,11).

In the Ready Issues Spares room, a leak was reported to be coming from one of the suspended air handling units (Appendix E, Figure 12). It was reported to be producing a large volume of water dripping from the steel roof deck during heavy rain events or lighter, multi-day events.

In the P.T. Airlock room, there are cracks in the north and south concrete walls in the west end. These cracks had been partially sealed (Appendix E, Figure 13). An additional leak below an abandoned RTU curb was also reported. There was no insulation in the curb, and the intermittent dripping may be caused by condensation rather than moisture infiltration.

August 2025 4

3.1.2 Roof/Exterior

Locations referenced are graphically represented in Appendix D Figures 2.

The roof appears to be a single ply EPDM membrane system. It has had an additional white elastomeric coating applied in the past. Historical satellite imaging shows the application of the coating happening between December 2005 and August 2006. Every roof level showed varying signs of wear and algae (Appendix E, Figure 14) growth on the surfaces.

A light rain began shortly after accessing the roof. Leaking was observed in several of the gutter lap seams and many downspout connections. A few downspouts were observed to be discharging more water through the connection to the gutters than through the downspout. Downspouts on the east face of the building discharge into a French drain system (based on observations during our site visit), while the remainder of the downspouts discharge onto concrete splash blocks or directly onto the pavement.

Additionally, it was reported that problems with ice damming of the gutters, and icicles occur in the winter.

The roof above corridor 2 has surface mounted counter flashing attaching the roof to the concrete and masonry walls to the west. Some areas of the flashing show signs of sealant degradation to varying degrees. The downspouts from the roof above drain onto splash pans flashed into the roof. The splash-pans show signs of failure (Appendix E, Figure 15). Water was observed running down the cold joint in the upper wall between Bays 3 and 4 (Appendix E, Figures 16,17). The failed flashing at the splash-pans and water exposure from water leaks in the upper roof gutters near the cold joints is likely a contributing factor in the leaks detected in Corridor 2, and the puddle forming in the southeast corner of Bay 3.

The leaks found under the RTU penetrations in Bays 3 and 5 may be due to the ductwork mounted on the roof. It appears existing ductwork was utilized to tie into the newer HVAC units. The sealing of those ducts shows signs of degradation and may provide areas for water ingress. The metal cap of the ductwork does not slope away from the duct, the corners of the ductwork appear to have been patched several times, and the membrane flashing shows signs of degradation (Appendix E, Figure 18). The areas under the equipment support racks have an EPDM strip over the elastomeric coated roof at the pipe sleeves for the racks (Appendix E, Figure 19). Some of those sleeves were filled with spray foam that is deteriorating while some have a combination of spray foam and caulking. Similar conditions exist for all 3 of those types of RTU’s on the upper roof. Patches were observed in several locations, most notably, there is a large patch at the drip edge and gutter near the location of the leak in the southeast corner of Bay 3. No holes were observed in the membrane surrounding the square air vents that were modified in 2022. A small puncture was noted in the vicinity of the leak at the conduit penetration (Appendix E, Figure 19).

Numerous punctures were noted on the roof level above the Ready Issue Spares room.

Two of those punctures are in the immediate vicinity of the leak under the suspended air handler. There were several seams that are delaminating and cracking (Appendix E, Figures 20, 21). There are several areas showing rust on the membrane, it is likely that water is migrating to the fasteners causing them to rust (Appendix E, Figure 22). It was also noted that the roof edge details on the west side are failing in areas.

August 2025 5

The roof level above the P.T. Airlock has multiple areas where subsequent elastomeric coats have been applied (Appendix E, Figure 23). Additional tears and punctures were also observed similar to the roof above the Ready Issue Spares room. The flashing details on the west wall and south wall of the P.T. Airlock are also failing.

Other noted roof items include separating seams on the roof above the breakroom, failure of the membrane and coating at the connection points from the removed lightning protection system, and large quantities of organic debris in the narrow roof section above the interstitial space between the Support Section and Bay 3. There are areas of peeling paint on the concrete and CMU walls. There are also indications of spalling in the faces of small areas of the CMU.

Exterior items of concern were identified in the walls and the slab-on-grade at the southwest corner of the building. The slab slopes toward the building in that area and the discharge through the downspout flows into the expansion joint between the slab and the building (Appendix E, Figure 24). There are cracks in the CMU infill on the east wall of Bay 2, the roof in that area drains to the south and the chances of water intrusion through these cracks is likely negligible. There is a caulking patch applied to the lower section of the cold joint on the northwest corner of Bay 3 (Appendix E, Figure 25).

3.2 DISCUSSION

It is possible that some of the leaks near the penetrations may still be due to water infiltration from wind driven precipitation. However, is more likely that the failing sealants, outdated curbs, and insufficient insulation in the abandoned duct penetrations are more likely to allow more water infiltration in the areas.

Using the infrared scanner, the locations showing cool spots (blue) underneath the roof membrane may have several causes. It is possible that the insulation is inadequate or more degraded than the surrounding areas. It is likely that those cool spots are caused by water saturation of the insulation or pooling on the roof structure below the insulation.

After the water migrates through the insulation and begins to pool, leaks are likely to form where low areas of the structure are located. It is likely that there is a constant presence of water in areas where the membrane is compromised due to the exposure to open air conditions which may greatly hinder any evaporation. The possible constant presence of moisture below the membrane may be causing additional degradation of the insulation during freeze-thaw cycles. Moisture may be infiltrating through the seams in the insulation and may travel through microcracks in the insulation. As water expands during freezing, it is possible that the expansion causes cracks or voids in the insulation to expand resulting in material less resistance to the migration of moisture to the roof structure.

In general, the entire roof appeared to have reached the end of its useful lifespan. The past application of the elastomeric sealants may have bought some additional life to the roof, but that coating is showing signs of wear and failure as well. The application of those sealants may reduce the effectiveness of any additional patches. The effectiveness of any additional flashing and patches is limited by the substrate upon which they are attached; the worn condition of the elastomeric sealant and unknown level of degradation in the underlying membrane will decrease the effectiveness and useable life of any new patches, and any patches will likely not be warrantied. It is likely that there are other areas of damage that were not yet severe enough to be observed at the time of evaluation.

Repair Bldg 1840 Roof – NZAS 21-0059 – 100% Type B Submittal Course of Action (COA)

August 2025

4.0 COURSE OF ACTION (COA)

4.1 COA

In the Type A submittal, three COA’s were presented. COA 1 was selected by the Government and is the bare minimum to address the water infiltration as described in this section. COA 2 was removing and replacing the membrane roofs in the three problem roof areas. COA 3 was removal and replacement of the membrane roof on all roof levels.

As stated above, the first course of action was presented as a bare minimum baseline to address the current leaks and help prevent short term future leaks from the three roof areas that are currently leaking. The following efforts are to be made to address the previous noted deficiencies (Refer to 75% submittal plans).

The membranes should be cleaned, and the algae should be removed.

Where required during construction, remove and dispose of lead containing paint coating pipes or other items in accordance with OSHA and EPA regulations.

All existing pipe and penetration boots on the roof levels to be coated with the elastomeric silicone coating should be visually inspected and boots showing signs of excessive wear, deterioration, or other damage removed, replaced, and resealed.

Replace and reseal existing curbs for RTU’s and other equipment as required by mechanical.

Remove and replace the mesh vibration dampener where IH sample T3.1 was taken (see “Revised Pre-renovation Asbestos and Lead-in-paint Roof Inspection” report). This will require abatement performed by a Montana-accredited abatement contractor.

Remove the existing surface mounted reglet and counterflashing and replace with new cut-in reglet and counterflashing.

Where peeling up, re-adhere the existing walkway pads prior to resealing the roof.

Clean and prepare the roof for application of a silicone roof covering over the entirety of the three roof levels above the maintenance bays. The product used must be compatible with the existing conditions found in the field. The covering shall be applied around the edges of the walkway pads to ensure protection from leaks but shall not be applied to the center of the walkway pads.

Seal annular gaps in pipe sleeves on upper roof, remove spray foam in open pipe and install a pourable filler.

Seal all gutter lap splices and downspout connections.

Install heat cables at the gutters.

Add downspout extensions where water is discharged from upper roofs onto lower roofs to more effectively direct drainage into the lower gutters.

Seal cracks in cold joints in the concrete walls with an injection epoxy.

Note that since the Government did not state in the SOW to perform required repairs on spalling mortar and removing and recoating areas of the wall where paint was peeling, we have excluded these items on the plans.

Repair Bldg 1840 Roof – NZAS 21-0059 – 100% Type B Submittal Course of Action (COA)

August 2025

This is the least costly option with the least amount of time required for completion. This will address the current leaks and will aid in the prevention of future leaks in the roofs on which this is applied. Coating the roof with a liquid applied coating qualifies as encapsulation of the asbestos sealant below the EPDM found on the roof area as noted in the Industrial Hygiene (IH) section. Although some mechanical penetration work will be taking place on the roof level with asbestos containing materials, abatement of those areas is not anticipated. Although manufacturers offer warranties of 10+ years for properly applied silicone roof coatings, the existing condition of the membrane, previously applied coatings, and patches may decrease the effective life of any applied roof coatings and not be warrantied by the manufacturer.

A silicone roof coating system was chosen for several reasons. Silicone systems may be applied over wide varieties of roofing materials and other coatings; they offer a considerable amount of UV protection which can lead to a reduction in cooling costs in the summer months; they are a moisture-cured substance and as a result, cured silicone coatings will not absorb water leading to excellent resistance to the damage caused by ponding water; they are a highly flexible, monolithic impermeable membrane that can withstand wind-driven sand, extreme temperatures, and can endure thermal expansion and contraction, most modern silicone coating formulations have a high-solids content which allows for the desired mil thickness to be applied with less coating material; and most modern high-solids silicone systems have minimal solvent content and contain extremely low concentrations of volatile organic compounds.

There are some drawbacks to a silicone system. They can attract dirt and other airborne dust particles which can increase the solar gain on the roof, this may be addressed by pressure washing the roof 6-12 months after application which will likely prevent future particle accumulation on the roof. Also, cured silicone roof coatings can be slippery when wet which may hinder maintenance of mechanical units if the roof is wet. If this is a concern this may be addressed by installation of additional walk pads prior to application of the coating, also, many silicone roof coating manufacturers produce liquid applied walk pads with granular broadcast agents that integrate with the coating system. Other short term and long-term limitations of performing this less expensive course of action to repair the roof are noted in the Type A report.

Repair Bldg 1840 Roof – NZAS 21-0059 – 100% Type B Submittal MEP Existing Conditions

August 2025 8

5.0 MEP EXISTING CONDITIONS

Inspection of the current conditions of Building 1840’s rooftop mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems is a portion of the overall scope of work for the Project No. NZAS 23-0059 Repair Bldg 1840 Roof. The Government’s original intent was to assess the possibility of repairing the existing roofing system to extend the building life-cycle another ten years, with the hope that a full re-roofing is not required. On March 28, 2024 GPD provided on-site services within the Weapons Storage Area on top of, insides, and around Building 1840 to help in determining both causes of current and past leaks, as well as review possible future repair actions with restoration and roofing contractors. Generally, the existing membrane and roof sealing systems were far past their usable life and in extremely poor condition, with mold and growth on the surface of the membrane itself, and poorly sealed penetrations across all surfaces inspected. After reviewing the Type A Investigative Services findings, the Government elected to move forward pursing repairs focused over portions of the roof immediately over the weapons bays. An additional site visit was conducted on May 29, 2025 to capture specific repairs required and help develop construction documents for this project’s defined scope.

Specific MEP focused observations from the original field investigation efforts include following, with subsequent clarifications based on the Type B scope included as sub-points

1. Primary leaks were traced to the emergency exhaust vents. Those ducts are poorly sealed where they exit the building, and when installed, old ductwork was reused to connect new HEPA filter racks and exhaust fans to. These duct connections very likely leak and accumulate water inside, which can come out the grates. This would likely not be an extreme volume (gallons per hour) but is another path that needs to be eliminated.

a. The focus of repairs is on the emergency exhaust fans ducts passing through the roofline on the highest portion of Building 1840.

2. The vast majority of rooftop curbs for mechanical equipment are extremely dated. There are many failed membrane points, some of which are quite close to curbs.

a. Roof curbs with associated leaks are isolated to a pair of gravity ventilators as well as an existing exhaust fan. Based on the original construction, the curbs can be re-built in place as the majority of their shape is actually formed into the concrete, with wood nailers on top. The repairs indicated in plans are limited to specific instances identified in the subsequent field walk to narrow done construction scope.

3. Power wiring to fans that penetrate deck/roof are not well sealed and certainly are a leak path for water to get under the membrane level.

a. Field review of this identified very few specific locations where we feel it is worth ripping boots out and replacing them – reattachment to the existing membrane will prove problematic. Electrical plans address specific instances we feel like are worth repairing for power penetrations.

4. There is no heat tape installed within the building gutter system, which is icing and backing up water significantly. Some gutters are spilling onto lower roof sections rather than being carried to grade, which should be modified.

a. New heat tape system is included in Plans and Specifications.

5. Boiler vents in the south mech room were not even sealed at the exterior wall; daylight could be seen around them.

a. This is not within the Type B scope of work but could be addressed by the shops at anytime.

Repair Bldg 1840 Roof – NZAS 21-0059 – 100% Type B Submittal MEP Existing Conditions

August 2025 8

6. Old lightening protection system air terminal locations (these were removed when the catenary system was installed) were damaged at the membrane in some places at the edge of the existing roof.

a. The spray coating to extend the roof life will address these.

7. Pipes used for equipment stands down to structure are not capped, and they are filled with expanding spray foam. All of these end up holding water in the pipes located under the angle steel used to support mech equipment.

a. This is addressed in structural repair plans.

8. Existing rooftop ventilation intakes were field-modified with sheet metal to prevent blown-in moisture accumulation during a recent retrofit attempt.

a. Two of these instances will be replaced with new gravity ventilator hoods selected to eliminate water penetration.

Repair Bldg 1840 Roof – NZAS 21-0059 – 100% Type B Submittal MEP Related Recommendations

August 2025 9

6.0 MEP RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS

The existing roof curbs and penetration sealing (boots around piping, plumbing vents, electrical power penetrations, conduits) are all beyond their useful life and in poor condition, with sealing generally in a failed state. Much of this will be repaired with spray sealant, refer to Structural for details on this repair approach. While we recommended all pipe and power penetration boots should be removed, replaced and re-sealed at a minimum, this whole-sale approach is beyond the Government’s desired scope for Type B. Roof curbs for duct penetrations, fans, gravity ventilators and penthouses all are sources for leaks and should be removed and replaced – these were narrowed significantly through Type B field work. Although some repairs including further flashing and silicone sealing have been performed, the curbs themselves are sealed up to a failing roof membrane, offering a location for water ingress.

Recently constructed filtered emergency exhaust vents serving the Bays of Building 1840 are all contributing towards leaking issues. Duct sealing at the material transitions from new to old ductwork is an issue, as is the rooftop ductwork shaping, which do not shed water, but rather allow it to pool on top of the ducts. The ductwork needs to be rebuilt from the interior out through a new roof curb to exterior, with sloped duct tops, and new duct sealing. The duct itself would benefit from a waterproof jacketing system due to breakdown of exposed joint sealing over time due to weather and outside conditions.

Although a roofing replacement is likely required to be able to achieve another ten years of useful life, the minimum repairs required to support a more targeted patching repair option include the following:

1. Replacement and resealing of pipe, conduits, and roof penetrations to include new boots and sealant where specific leak events have been traced – see Plans for specific locations where Type B field work narrowed the repair scope.

2. Patching of the existing membrane where lightening protection system air terminals damaged the surface at the outer edges of the roof. This will be accomplished using the system described in the Structural section of this report.

3. Replacement and resealing of existing roof curbs for equipment, duct penetrations, and gravity ventilators where specific leak instances align with the Government’s desired repair areas. Patching and resealing of roof membrane to new rebuilt curb assemblies is planned

– refer to rooftop equipment on mechanical plans and existing curb modifications on Structural plans.

4. Repairs of the existing emergency exhaust duct connections and transitions from older to newer ductwork are required. Replacing the older ductwork that passes through the roof and reconfiguring the duct fittings to prevent ponding on the top of elbows is advisable.

Sloping the duct tops and jacketing the ductwork with a membrane such as EPDM roofing is a typical approach to protecting exterior ductwork such as this.

a. Currently, this is planned for every occurrence on the building on the high roof area and excluding the lower roof areas.

5. All gutters should be heat traced and carry to grade, rather than spilling onto lower roof sections, due to significant ponding observed. The heat tracing will help prevent icing, blockages and overflows.

Repair Bldg 1840 Roof – NZAS 21-0059 – 100% Type B Submittal MEP Site Photos

August 2025 10

7.0 MEP SITE PHOTOS

Figure MEP.1: interior of existing hood showring sheet metal obstruction to further restrict water intrusion. Note that confirmation and re-selection of inlet velocity on hoods to reduce intrusion is likely to yield greater success.

August 2025 11

Figure MEP.2: additional sheet metal flashing added to existing curbing to boost sealing against leakage.

August 2025 12

Figure MEP.3: interior of rooftop hood showing condensation buildup and corrosion on underside, which is likely dripping inside of the building ductwork and openings.

August 2025 13

Figure MEP.4: roof edge showing previous air terminal locations. Note in many areas the membrane was compromised where previous air terminals were mounted.

August 2025 14

Figure MEP.5: multiple modified rooftop hoods showing new sheet metal knockdown covers over louvered intakes.

August 2025 15

Figure MEP.6: emergency exhaust assembly above bay on rooftop. Note the older curb and ductwork penetration where a new transition was attached to update this system recently.

August 2025 16

Figure MEP.7: rooftop support fabricated from piping and attached to roof deck. Note the pipe is uncapped and the annular space is unfilled, therefore water just pools in each one of these.

August 2025 17

Figure MEP.8: zoomed out view of rooftop equipment support frame with uncapped pipe supports. Note this poor construction provides a place for water pooling at roofing membrane penetrations, which occurs everywhere there are new emergency exhaust fans placed.

August 2025 18

Figure MEP.9: existing gutter spill onto lower roof on east side, where hallway leaking is experienced frequently.