QA_34-50_W50S97-20-B-0001.pdf

Question and Answers 34-50 10 July 2020

W50S97-20-B-0001 Convert B740

34. The room finish scheduled on Sht. A8.1 shows “P/SR for the wall finish in rooms 101 & 102 .

What does P/SR stand for?

a. Response: Paint/Scuff Resistant as in Benjamin Moore – Ultra Spec SCUFF-X. See spec section 09900 Paints and Coatings

35. The spec mentions that the manufacturer will be Monaco Enterprises for the Fire Alarm. RFI:

Since the spec states Monaco as the preferred vendor, Will the government consider an approved equal?

a. Response: The system has to be a non-proprietary fire alarm and has to report each individual alarm and trouble to the Monaco central fire alarm station and any software or hardware required for any additions, moves, or changes has to be provided to the base.

36. Return grilles in the Gym & Assembly do not have a detail of how these are to be mounted/installed or at what height?

a. Response: Refer to revised sheets M1.1 and M3.1 with previously posted amendment.

37. The Finish Schedule States CPT. However, only CPT-1 Carpet Tile is the only designation present.

Can the government provide a designation for CPT or should the contractor assume it is the same as CPT-1.

a. Response: Yes

38. Should RM112 be MR ACT instead of ACT as listed?

a. Response: Yes

39. The Finish Schedule calls out for ACT in RM101 Gym. However, A6.1 RCP Notes Exposed

Structure Paint. RFI: Should RM101 Gym Ceiling Receive Paint or ACT?

a. Response: Paint

40. The project appears to be a LEED Certified Project. RFI: Can the government confirm the project is a LEED Certified Action and if so, what level is the goal?

a. Response: See response to question #32 on previously posted amendment. The project will not be registered with USGBC but the contractor shall follow the LEED requirements in the specifications as much as practical.

41. The Ceramic Tile Size specified for the floor 14x14 has been discontinued. RFI: What tile size do they want to use now, 12x12, 12x24, or 24x24?

a. Response: 12x12

42. Return grilles in the Gym & Assembly do not have a detail of how these are to be mounted/installed or at what height?

W50S97-20-B-0001 Convert B740

a. Response: See response to question #36 above and refer to revised sheets M1.1 and

M3.1 previously posted with previously posted amendment.

43. The project is for Building 740, I believe but the report in the specs indicates that it is for

Building 736. RFI: Can the Government confirm that the report is for building 740?

a. Response: The report included in Appendix A is for building 740. All references to

Building 736 should be ignored.

44. Will the government accept a Honeywell Farenhyt Addressable Fire Alarm System with a

Monaco Communicator?

a. Response: See response to question #35.

45. It appears there is a sheet missing for the fire suppression system. RFI: Can the Government provide a riser drawing with head location for the fire suppression system?

a. Response: Refer to sheet FP2.1 Fire Riser Detail and Spec Section 15500 Fire Protection and Sprinkler

46. It appears that the Addictive Bid Item #1 includes Bleachers. However, the plans designate them as (NIC) Not in Contract. RFI: Should the bleachers be considered an additive alternate?

a. Response: Bleachers are an ABI

47. Under spec section 13030, the customer is requiring a Notifier DVC-EM series (or approved equal) Mass Notification System for the building. It is our belief that that this system is an integrated system and that would require an intermediary FACP (Fire Alarm Control Panel) to be installed to be able to communicate with the Monaco FACP called for in spec section 16062 for the fire alarm system. We would like to confirm that this is the customer’s intent.

a. Response: Mass notification functionality may be integrated into the Monaco Fire alarm system, However the system must meet or exceed:

UL 2572 and UL 864 listings that meet requirements for voice evacuation for fire and Mass Notification System Applications.

Unified Facilities Criteria compliant to meet Department of Defense applications/requirements

8 Channel Digital Audio with preset recordings.

Local and remote audio address capability.

48. Referencing Drawings S5.1 and S5.3, there are numerous details that indicate a bent plate edge angle to be installed at the metal deck perimeter. The bent plate is shown with the long leg vertical (upwards) with a thru-bolt fastener. With the installation as indicated, the existing deck would have to be cut to install the bent plate, and the exterior fluted block veneer would have to be removed and replaced to install the thru-bolts. Can these details be revised to reflect the long leg downward, thereby allowing the existing deck to remain in place, and the thru-bolts changed to expansion type anchors, so as to avoid having to remove the veneer? This change

W50S97-20-B-0001 Convert B740 would reduce the cost of the angle installation, along with avoiding impacting the exterior masonry veneer. Below is a depiction of this requested revision:

a. Response:

The requirements for installation of the detail as shown on the bid documents have been generally summarized in the question. As indicated in the question there are various locations and different existing conditions where the new bent plate is required for wall anchorage and load transfer of the anchorage forces into the roof deck and framing. Accessibility to install the new bent plate below the existing roof deck will likely not be feasible in some of the locations where the detail is required. The loads due to the AT/FP blast requirements are significant. Anchorage types other than through bolts were considered during the design phase. Due to the assumed locations and extent of existing grouted masonry based upon the available existing building drawings, the other anchor types were either not adequate or required significant new grouting of sections of the existing masonry walls. The existing conditions are unknown at this time and any alternate details have not been verified or developed.

49. The notes indicate that the TPO will be removed from the roof but there is no mention of the insulation being removed, this poses issues in a few areas:

A. The new purlin beams are to be screwed from the top of the existing deck into the top of the new beams. See 8/S5.2. This will not be possible with insulation installed.

B. The new Bent plate around the perimeter of the roof is shown to connect to the existing structure with a 3/4" through bolt 1 1/2" up from the bottom of the plate. See 1-11/S5.3. This is not possible with the insulation in the way.

a. Response: Remove and replace the insulation. R30 continuous polyisocyanurate.

50. The existing deck is not called out to be removed, this poses additional issues:

W50S97-20-B-0001 Convert B740 A. Installing the new purlin beams will be very difficult to access from underneath the existing deck. If the deck is removed prior to installing the new roof steel, it will make access much better and will allow for a flat weld down to the top of the existing rigid frame beam.

B. The deck will also interfere with the bent plate installation in multiple locations. See 7/S5.3, 12/S5.2, 4/S5.3

We propose the insulation and existing deck be removed prior to installing the new steel. When we reinstall the new deck we can shoot with Hilti powder actuated shots that will give a stronger, more consistent deck attachment.

a. Response:

Significant deck removal and replacement is not in the scope of the project. Limited localized removal of portions of the existing roof deck to facilitate installation of new structural components is a means and methods decision by the Contractor. Any deck removed will have to be replaced and fastened to the existing and new framing as approved by the Contracting Officer and be equivalent to the existing deck installation.

Deck replaced shall also include any new deck anchorage required by the Contract

Documents in the area where the existing deck was removed.