Questions and Answers to ITB 62900-00012281.pdf

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY

Building D Roof Rehabilitation Project

ITB #62900-000122821

Questions and Answers

Question: Removal of down spouts?

Answer: Downspouts located within adjacent wall assemblies are to remain in place.

Contractor to detach from gutter, cut or remove connection, abandon in place, and cap assembly at both the top and bottom of the intra-wall pipe. At the base of wall, contractor to disconnect from existing site store-sewer tie-in and field fabricate a new pipe connection for the revised gutter and exterior mounted downspout. The configuration of the connection may vary from location to location based on existing conditions.

Question: Access to new hatch and ladder assemblies

Answer: Contractor shall locate the new access hatch and ladder assemblies per the design documents. Existing roofing materials shall be cut and removed as required to install an opening in the existing roof deck. Connection of the roof access hatch, ladder, and cage shall be per the Manufacturer’s current and most stringent installation instructions. The location must be coordinated with the existing conditions and take into consideration items such as component clearances, existing interior and exterior wall framing, existing roof framing, existing electrical provisions, and integration into existing components.

Question: Micro growth remediation?

Answer: If micro-growth is encountered an industrial hygienist would need to be involved.

Question: Is there I mechanical systems?

There are no units on the roof within the limits of the proposed work.

Question: Who is responsible for permits and Inspections?

Answer: Contractor is responsible for obtaining permits and inspections. Forensic would advise the Contractor utilizing a third-party permit management service, and would recommend using Faster Permits.

Question: Will there be need for a cage on ladder?

Answer: Yes, the design documents are detailed with a ladder cage as well.

Question: Is roofing currently Taylor metal?

Answer: Yes, it was presumed based on the original permit and product documentation that

Tayor Metal was specified and installed. However, this was an assumption as there was no destructive investigation or testing done prior to design.

Question: Are ladders a buy out Answer: Yes, It would be assumed that this would be the most cost-effective to include the ladders along with all other purchased materials and specified products.

Question: Will the interior ladders require a cage?

Answer: Yes, likely as per code requirements. The design documents are detailed with a ladder cage as well.

Question: Is the new product installed a standing seam?

Answer: Yes, going back with a flat seam is not the basis of design.

Question: Do the new down spouts get connected to the current storm system?

Answer: Yes, refer to the removal of downspout question for descriptive answer.

Question: Does the gutter spout run both levels?

Answer: Yes. Any mid-run downspouts over a lower roof assembly would daylight onto the roof below. Where the water would be captured via the lower roof gutters and downspouts.

Question: Does the scope include siding?

Answer: Yes, there will be work at adjacent walls where the existing integral gutter is abandoned and infilled. Also, there may be siding/closure panel work where the new exterior mounted roof access ladder is attached.

Question: Does the roof-to-roof access require 36” fall protection grab bars?

Answer: Extendable safety posts will be required at the roof access hatch location. At the roof-to-roof ladder, the lower roof flat surface shall be provided with a clear and unobstructed area having a minimum dimension of 30” x 30” centered in front of the ladder. It is expected that the existing lower roof condition will accommodate this requirement and not require further protection. Return grab bars shall be provided at the top of ladder to transition to the adjacent roof per the provided design detail, selected model, and product manufacture.

Question: The specs show a MS150 panel under laying the existing Taylor metals versa span panel. A Versa span panel has only a 3/8" top leg and the MS 150 panel has a 5/8" top leg. Is forensic requiring the MS150 panel to have a 180-degree seamed leg? This may work but would create a lot of buildup.

could the same Versa Span panel with a butyl injected leg be a suitable substitute to allow for a better lap condition? Can forensic issue a better detail showing what they would like to see at existing panel roof tie into new roof condition.

Answer: A full replacement of the metal pane roof system appears to be the preferred rehabilitation method; this issue would be eliminated. Match existing panel profile where integrating with existing.

Question: In specification section 011000, paragraph 1.03 references work on both buildings C and D. The project description on the drawings also references work on both buildings. The drawings include roof plans for both buildings as well. Please verify the scope of the project is limited to only building D.

Answer: Correct; For the purposes of Work under this scope, work is limited to only Building D. Prior to Permit Submittal, Forensic may elect to produce a set of documents for only Building D, as it would not be reasonable to expect the contractor to pay for permits for work at both buildings. Client may need to be consulted as it would be additional time and cost from Forensic to break out Building D from the full set.

Question: Specification section 012100 has a contingency allowances schedule. Included in the schedule are the following items.

a. Sheathing Replacement at Wall: 2%.

The scope of work at walls is minimal. Are we to include a contingency allowance to replace up to 2% of wall sheathing across the entire building? 2% of affected wall.

b. Sheathing Replacement at Roof: 10%.

The base bid only includes removing lapped metal panel roofing and targeted amounts of standing seam roofing. Are we to include 10% of the entire roofs sheathing as contingency, or 10% of the area that will be exposed. 10% of the sheathing exposed.

c. Framing Replacement at Wall: 2%.

Same question as 2a. 2% of the exposed walls

f. General Contingency: 10% of the cost of the project base scope of work.

To verify, are we to include these contingencies in our base bid and they are owner-controlled items?

Answer: Contractor to carry contingency allowances. Contractors are to issue deductive change order at the end of project for the remaining allowance totals in order to rectify the budget.

Question: In specification section 076000 for metal roofing, paragraph 1.09B.3 calls for a 20-year manufacturers’ watertight warranty for all roof areas. If we are to modify the existing standing seam roofing, the original warranty would be voided, and a new warranty will most likely not be able to be provided.

Please advise as to the warranty needed for the base bid scope of work.

Answer: Correct, this would presumably void the existing warranty, also, there would presumably not be a warranty for integration of a new roof into the existing. If a full replacement of the metal pane roof system occurs, and this appears to be the preferred rehabilitation method; the issue with a warranted system would be eliminated.

All submittals must be received no later than 2:00 P.M. on April 3 2025.