Amendment 3 - Questions and Answers Round 2.pdf

TO ALL BIDDERS Amendment No. 3 - Q&A Round 2

Date: 07/20/20

Project: Construct Munitions Inspection Assembly Facility

Project No.: FXSB162207

The following changes, additions, and/or clarifications shall be made to the drawings/specifications for the work of the above project.

This addendum forms a part of the contract documents and in case of a conflict between drawings, specifications, and this addendum, the addendum shall govern.

Bid Questions, received 7/20/20 via emails from Capt. Conner Van Fossen

Question 1:

In the note regarding the 200A meter base states. “See ELM S‐1 for meter socket details”, we do not find the detail labeled “ELM S‐1” in the solicitation documents. Please provide ELM S‐1 detail

Jacobs’ Response: Refer to attached Service Standard ELM S‐1.

Question 2:

Jacobs’ Response: : The design intent is to provide an addressable fire alarm system only. A mass notification system is not required.

Question 3:

In the Project Drawings‐ Sht# E‐503 “DETAILS”, specifically detail 3.

In the note regarding the 200A meter base states. “See ELM S‐1 for meter socket details”.

We do not find the detail labeled “ELM S‐1” in the solicitation documents. Please provide ELM S‐1 detail

Jacobs’ Response: Refer to attached Service Standard ELM S‐1.

Question 4:

Please confirm a Contractor Quality Control personnel is not required to be on site full time?

Jacobs’ Response: A dedicated Quality Control person is not required to be on site full time.

Question 5:

Please Confirm a SSHO is not required on site full time? If he/she is required to be on site full time, can they be allowed the position of both superintendent and SSHO?

Jacobs’ Response: A dedicated SSHO person is not required to be on site full time.

Question 6:

Detail 5/A600 indicates standing seam metal roof over 5” of rigid insulation over metal deck. We believe the insulation need to be separated from the metal deck by a thermal barrier (Dens‐

Deck) to be a UL compliant roof assembly. There would also need to be an ice/water membrane installed over the thermal barrier. Additionally, to have a fastening substrate for the standing seam roof panels, the insulation would need to be a SIPS panel with at least ½” plywood/OSB or possibly thicker based on the required fastener pull out strength. This is an engineering issue.

We believe it would be far more cost effective to install 5” thick insulated metal panels with a standing seam profile that would be directly applied to the PEMB purlins. Would this be acceptable? This should also make the metal deck unnecessary. An issue for the engineer.

Jacobs’ Response: Concur, a 5” thick insulated metal panel, attached to the PEMB purlins is acceptable. It is up to the PEMB manufacturer if they want the metal deck. They can probably use rod bracing to act as a diaphragm. So as long as the PEMB’s Engineer is ok with it our Engineering is okay with removing the metal deck.

Question 7:

Detail 9/A400 indicates .358” metal stud framing at the bldg. perimeter walls with 5/8” GWB on the interior, batt insulation, and exterior grade plywood sheathing. Will the plywood need to be pressure treated and what is the required thickness? Also, will vapor barrier be required beneath the GWB? We believe it would be far more cost effective to install 5” thick insulated metal panels directly to the PEMB purlins in lieu of the aforementioned wall assembly. Would this be acceptable?

Jacobs’ Response: Concur, a 5” thick insulated metal panel, attached to the PEMB girts is acceptable.