20170830_-_RFIs_VCC_HE-00001-5J.pdf

RFI Response ‐ BES Design/Build

8‐21‐2017

Terry Ward ‐ PM

RFI: W911S2‐17‐B‐0001 Construct Visitor Control center, 1100 Area, HE‐00001‐5J

August 8, 2017

Questions:

1. Narrative, Appendices, Geotech Report, 4.0; Please provide location and elevation of Infiltration test I‐1? Please provide detailed testing logs of infiltration testing notes including soils conditions encountered, groundwater conditions, start of presoak, number of tests run, incremental results, etc in accordance with the NYS DEC Storm water Management Design

Manual, Appendix D, Infiltration Testing Requirements?

PW Engineering Response: The information requested has no bearing on the ability of contractor’s to prepare a price proposal for construction of the project. This RFI pertains specifically to engineering elements of the government’s provided design that was prepared by a licensed professional engineer.

A/E Response: Infiltration Test location added to CG 301

Atlantic Testing Labs Response: ATL provided borings and infiltration tests at locations and depths selected by our client, BES Design/Build, LLC, per our contractual agreement. The depths of the SMP devices were not provided to ATL at the time of the investigation. The location of

Infiltration Test I‐1 is indicated on the boring location plan contained in Appendix B of the

Geotechnical Report (ATL Report No. CD4053E‐01‐07‐16 Rev. 1, dated July 26, 2016). The infiltration test location was pre‐soaked on June 14, 2016 at 8 AM. The infiltration testing occurred on June 15, 2016, approximately 24 hours after pre‐soaking, as required by NYS DEC guidelines.

2. Please confirm infiltration testing result of 16 in/hr., as this result is not consistent with the Clay and Silt soils classifications of the borings logs and lab reports provided with the geotechnical report?

PW Engineering Response: Infiltration testing as completed by Atlantic Testing Laboratories.

The geotechnical report contained in the Design Narrative states that the infiltration test results of 16 in/hr. were obtained.

A/E Response: The design is consistent with the results obtained from the Geo‐Tech report.

Atlantic Testing Labs Response: The infiltration pipe was set at a depth of 9.5 feet below grade, as directed by our client, BES Design/Build, LLC, and in conformance with our contractual agreement. The depths of the SMP devices were not provided to ATL at the time of the investigation. A boring was not requested at the infiltration test location; however, adjacent borings B‐2 and B‐4 encountered a sandy gravel layer at depths of 6 feet and 4 feet, respectively, above boring refusal depths and below the silt/clay layers.

3. Please provide the required infiltration test results and test pit/boring results that correspond to the locations of the stormwater management practices (SMP) on the plans?

specifically to elements of the government’s provided design that was prepared by a licensed professional engineer.

A/E Response: Infiltration Test location added to CG 301

Atlantic Testing Labs Response: ATL was contracted to perform one (1) infiltration test at the location and depth directed by BES Design/Build, LLC. The depths of the SMP devices were not provided to ATL at the time of the investigation. The results of the infiltration test are contained within section 4.0 of the Geotechnical Report (ATL Report No. CD4053E‐01‐07‐16 Rev. 1, dated

July 26, 2017).

4. Please provide USCS soil classifications those missing from the particle size distribution report lab results of B‐1, S‐2 and B‐3, S‐1?

A/E Response: Missing soil data has been provided by Atlantic.

Atlantic Testing Labs Response: The USCS classification for B‐1, S‐2 is CL, and for B‐3, S‐1 is CL.

5. Specifications, 31 00 00, 1.5.1, and Geotech report, please confirm that the “satisfactory” fill soils include the specified CL soils noted by the geotechnical report which encompass the majority of the site?

PW Engineering Response: SM, SW‐SM, SC, SW‐SC, SP‐SM, SP‐SC, CL, ML, CL‐ML, CH, MH classified soils may be uses for general site backfill and grading but not for structural fill under roads, buildings, or other structures, or around underground utilities.

A/E Response: Refer to NYDOT SPECS section 203

Atlantic Testing Labs Response: Per Geotechnical Report section 7.1.2 and 8.5.1, the on‐site soils may be utilized as general site fill and exterior foundation backfill in landscaped areas, provided all deleterious organic and oversize materials (particles larger than 4‐inches in diameter) are removed and the material is properly moisture conditioned. Granular Fill should be utilized if the on‐site soils cannot be properly moisture conditioned. Backfill utilized beneath paved areas and inside structure footprints should consist of Granular Fill.

6. Specifications, 31 23 00.00 20, 2.1.1, and Geotech report, please confirm that the “satisfactory” fill soils include the specified CL soils noted by the geotechnical report which encompass the majority of the site?

PW Engineering Response: SM, SW‐SM, SC, SW‐SC, SP‐SM, SP‐SC, CL, ML, CL‐ML, CH, MH classified soils may be uses for general site backfill and grading but not for structural fill under roads, buildings, or other structures, or around underground utilities.

A/E Response: Refer to NYDOT SPECS section 203

Atlantic Testing Labs Response: Per Geotechnical Report section 7.1.2 and 8.5.1, the on‐site soils may be utilized as general site fill and exterior foundation backfill in landscaped areas, provided all deleterious organic and oversize materials (particles larger than 4‐inches in diameter) are removed and the material is properly moisture conditioned. Granular Fill should be utilized if the on‐site soils cannot be properly moisture conditioned. Backfill utilized beneath paved areas and inside structure footprints should consist of Granular Fill.

7. SWPPP; Has the Notice of Intent (NOI) included within the provided SWPPP been submitted to the NYS DEC for permitting in accordance with the GP‐0‐015‐002 permit requirements?

PW Engineering Response: The NOI has not yet been submitted to the NYSDEC. The

Government will be submitting the NOI to the NYSDEC on or around the time of award.

8. The NOI SWPPP preparer certification is dated 11/2/2016, however the SWPPP is dated 9 May

2016. Is this the current NOI?

PW Response: Dates on the NOI will be corrected.

A/E Response: Dates on the NOI will be corrected.

9. Required components of the NOI appear to be inaccurate and/or incomplete. Please provide clarification and correction to NOI; #6 hydrologic soil group as it appears it should be “D” not

“B”, #7 dates, #24 date, #28 water quality volume required, #29 standard SMP’s with RRV capacity and Standard SMP’s, #30 RRv provided, #36 CPv required, #36a (SWPPP didn’t include calcs), #37 incomplete and SWPPP didn’t include calculations, #37a blank, #38 provide O&M plan, #39 blank?

PW Engineering Response: The NOI will be corrected prior to submitting to the NYSDEC. Errors, if any, in the NOI does not affect the contractor’s ability to prepare a price proposal.

A/E Response: #6 ‐ The infiltration pipe was set at a depth of 9.5 feet below grade, as directed by our client, BES Design/Build, LLC, and in conformance with our contractual agreement. The depths of the SMP devices were not provided to ATL at the time of the investigation. A boring was not requested at the infiltration test location; however, adjacent borings B‐2 and B‐4 encountered a sandy gravel layer at depths of 6 feet and 4 feet, respectively, above boring refusal depths and below the silt/clay layers. The design is consistent with the results obtained from the Geo‐Tech report.

#7 – See P/W response.

#24 – Date not required.

#28 ‐ Water quality volume has been checked and 0.037 ac‐ft from calculations, the value is correct.

#29 ‐ Total contributing area equal 2.4 ac., total impervious area equals 0.56 ac. The infiltration trench capacity is greater than that provided by the .56 ac. impervious.

#30 ‐ Revised the value in the application to 0.05 ac‐ft. provided ‐ exceeds required of 0.037 ac‐ ft.

#36 – Waiver.

#36A—Correct as is.

#37—N/A

#37A – The response has been updated in the SWPPP to reflect the top choice - 5th order stream.

#38—O & M plan discussed chapter 6

#39—Not Required

10. SWPPP, chapter 2, Site Soil Descriptions, site soils are described as Hudson silt loam, being further classified as hydrologic soil group “HSG B”. This is inconsistent with the soils logs and

NRCS reference documents provided which list a HSG of C/D. Please clarify, revise effected calculations, SWPPP and NOI?

contractors to prepare a price proposal for construction of the project. This RFI pertains

A/E Response: The infiltration pipe was set at a depth of 9.5 feet below grade, as directed by our client, BES Design/Build, LLC, and in conformance with our contractual agreement. The depths of the SMP devices were not provided to ATL at the time of the investigation. A boring was not requested at the infiltration test location; however, adjacent borings B‐2 and B‐4 encountered a sandy gravel layer at depths of 6 feet and 4 feet, respectively, above boring refusal depths and below the silt/clay layers. The design is consistent with the results obtained from the Geo‐Tech report.

11. SWPPP, Chapter 5, refers to the project being classified as “redevelopment”. The plans appear to indicate only new construction and resurfacing of an existing parking lot. Please confirm the project drainage area, disturbance area, areas of existing impervious, area of new impervious, area of reconstructed impervious that meets the GP‐0‐015‐002 criteria of “disturbed and redeveloped impervious”, and sub areas to each SMP?

A/E Response: This is a redevelopment (includes re‐development and new construction criteria) project as this is an existing disturbed site. This project would be new if this were a new site.

We are adding to parking and building. Re checked areas. We are providing 100% runoff reduction for all new impervious areas and 25% for existing impervious area. The total drainage area remains the same. The total drainage basin did not change. Total disturbed area is 62,398 sf (1.4 ac) Existing impervious area is 10,426 sf, new impervious area 19,988 sf, reconstructed impervious area 0 sf.

12. SWPPP, please clarify and revise the calculations as the areas, formulas and results of the calculations appear inaccurate and inconstant with the values reported in the NOI?

specifically to elements of the government’s provided design that was prepared by a licensed professional engineer. Errors, if any, in the NOI will be corrected prior to submitting the NOI to the NYSDEC.

A/E Response: The NOI numbers were updated to match calculations.

13. SWPPP, Please provide sizing and calculations in accordance with GP‐0‐015‐002, NYS DEC

Stormwater Management Design Manual, Unified Stormwater Sizing Criteria for WQv, RRv, CPv, Qp, and Qf? It appears the values within the SWPPP for WQv and RRv require correction, and

CPv, Qp and Qf calculations are missing in their entirety.

A/E Response: The values shown in the NOI were revised to match calculations if needed.

14. SWPPP and Plans CG103A, based upon the grading approximately 1/3 of the project site runoff

(west of the passenger vehicle search canopy) drains west untreated. Please clarify how this stormwater management design meets the GP‐0‐015‐002 permit criteria if 1/3 of the developed impervious area is untreated?

A/E Response: Approximately 0.10 acres of new impervious area bypasses any infiltration trenches. It was inadvertently missed. See revised sheet. We need to add an additional 110 feet of trench. The trench will extend from the end of the parking lot to the beginning of the other trench to capture this runoff from impervious area.

15. SWPPP and Plans CG103A & CG501, CG103A calls for a “2’ wide infiltration trench (this side only)” along the west edge of the proposed parking lot. This “parking lot stone infiltration trench” detail on CG501 doesn’t meet the “Required Elements” of an infiltration trench as required by the NYS DEC Stormwater Management Design Manual. Please provide a revised detail correctly depicting required length, pretreatment, depth, separation from bedrock, separation from seasonal groundwater, etc.?

A/E Response: Eliminate the trench and add typical infiltration trench as detail CG 501—see attached revised drawings.

16. SWPPP and Plans CG103A & CG501, calls for an “infiltration trench” along a south portion of access road B. This “infiltration trench” detail on CG501 doesn’t meet the “Required Elements” of an infiltration trench as required by the NYS DEC Stormwater Management Design Manual.

Please provide a revised detail correctly depicting required size, length, pretreatment, depth, separation from bedrock, separation from seasonal groundwater, placement within allowable existing slopes, etc.?

A/E Response: Designed in accordance with section 6.3.4 page 6‐36 and 6‐37 Manual. Added 3 foot depth dimension to groundwater/bedrock.

17. Per the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual, a required element for infiltration practices is to be located within soils of a clay content of less than 20% and a silt/clay content of less than 40%. The lab results within the Geotech report indicate a clay/silt contents of 98%, 97%, 98%, 82%, all of which well over the requirement. Please provide a suitable SMP practice based upon the site soils?

A/E Response: See response no 2 from Geo‐Tech report. We have revised the detail for infiltration trench to match standards.

18. SWPPP and Plans CG103A & CG501, calls for a “bioretention bed” along a north and east portion of access road B. Based upon the grading plans, little to no runoff from impervious surfaces, other than a very small segment of sidewalk and possibly the search shelter, drain to this location. Please confirm the bioretention bed is required and provide the required design sizing? Please provide the “Required Elements” of a bioretention area as required by the NYS

DEC Stormwater Management Design Manual? Please provide a revised detail correctly depicting required size, length, pretreatment, depth, separation from bedrock, separation from seasonal groundwater, landscaping/planting, etc.?

A/E Response: The bio‐retention bed is there to slow down the flow of concentrated water and not for reduction necessarily. It is intended to provide channel protection. The shape and geometry of the pond is shown on the grading plan and details.

19. What is the anticipated start date for construction, duration, and completion date?

PW Engineering Response: The start date for construction is anticipated to fall within the specified period that the solicitation requires the contractor’s price proposal to remain valid.

The duration (i.e., performance period) is 365 from Notice to proceed/contract award.

20. There are multiple specifications included in the specification book that appear to not be applicable to this project. Is it reasonable to assume if a product cannot be quantified on the drawings that we should not include the cost of it merely if it is shown in the specs? Following are excerpts from specification sections 7 and 9 and are examples of some of the items we can’t quantify on the drawings. If you read specification section 07 11 13 Bituminuous damproofing it could be construed you want this product used on the face of the new block walls but it isn’t clear if this is the case. There are other specifications listed below we can find no possible use for based upon these plans.

07 05 23 PRESSURE TESTING AN AIR BARRIER SYSTEM FOR AIR TIGHTNESS

07 11 13 BITUMINOUS DAMPPROOFING

07 16 19 METALLIC OXIDE WATERPROOFING

07 17 00 BENTONITE WATERPROOFING

07 19 00 WATER REPELLENTS

07 22 00 ROOF AND DECK INSULATION

07 24 00 EXTERIOR INSULATION AND FINISH SYSTEMS

07 27 10.00 10 BUILDING AIR BARRIER SYSTEM

09 22 36 LATH

09 23 00 GYPSUM PLASTERING

09 23 82 FIREPROOF GYPSUM PLASTERING

09 24 23 CEMENT STUCCO

09 26 00 VENEER PLASTER

09 62 38 STATIC‐CONTROL FLOORING

09 66 13 PORTLAND CEMENT TERRAZZO FLOORING

09 66 16 TERRAZZO FLOOR TILE

09 67 23.13 STANDARD RESINOUS FLOORING

09 67 23.14 CHEMICAL RESISTIVE RESINOUS FLOORING

09 67 23.15 FUEL RESISTIVE RESINOUS FLOORING, 3‐COAT SYSTEM

09 67 23.16 FUEL RESISTIVE RESINOUS FLOORING, 5‐COAT SYSTEM

09 68 00 CARPETING

09 69 13 RIGID GRID ACCESS FLOORING

09 83 13 ACOUSTICAL WALL COATING

09 96 59 HIGH‐BUILD GLAZE COATINGS

09 97 13.00 40 STEEL COATINGS

09 97 13.27 EXTERIOR COATING OF STEEL STRUCTURES

09 97 23 METALLIC TYPE CONDUCTIVE/SPARK RESISTANT CONCRETE FLOOR

09 97 23.16 LINSEED OIL PROTECTION OF CONCRETE SURFACES

PW Engineering Response: Specifications with no corresponding construction element can be disregarded. UFGS often reference other specifications. When this is the case, the referenced specification is included to ensure a complete specification package is provided. For example, under specifications for concrete, the concrete specification will reference concrete reinforcement. The specification for concrete reinforcement will address both epoxy coated and non‐epoxy coated reinforcement. If the plans call for epoxy coated reinforcement then the non‐epoxy coated specifications are not applicable. Specifications that are not referenced in an applicable specification or related to specified elements of construction may be disregarded.

A/E Response: Revised SPECS are being issued with this Addendum.

21. Refer to drawing AE‐ 601 there is no hardware scheduled for doors 100, 102, 110, 111 please provide.

PW Engineering Response: Drawing AE‐601 will be updated with the hardware schedule

A/E Response: Drawing AE‐601 will be updated with the hardware schedule at a later date. See provided schedule below:

Door 100 – VCC Exterior double door entrance – These doors will be an insulated blast resistant double steel door. The hardware for this double entry door has to be included by the blast door manufacturer as part of the entire door assembly and tested for blast resistance. The steel frame is to be the seated option.

Door 101‐ Revised to be Heading 1.00A (DOOR 3’‐0” X 7’‐0” X 1‐3/4”)

QTY QTY DESCRIPTION

ACT INACT FINISH

3 3 4‐1/2” STD WT (.134) HINGE TA2314 4‐1/2” x 1‐1/2” NRP

32D MCKINNEY 100A

1 0 RYM CYLINDER 20‐021 626

SCHLAGE 301A

1 3 PUSH PAD, RIM 98L X 996L (#06) X 299 X 3’‐0” US26D/US28

VONDUPRIN 300A

1 1 CLOSER 404XP X CUSH X SRT AL LCN 500A

1 0 WEATHERSTRIPPING 303AV(72”W X 84”) A PEMKO 800B

1 1 SWEEP 315CN (36W) C PEMKO 801A

1 0 THRESHOLD 171A(72”) A PEMKO 802B

1 0 MULLION KR4954 PRIMED VONDUPRIN 300A

Door 102 – VCC Exterior single door ‐will be insulated blast resistant steel door. The hardware for this door has to be included by the blast door manufacturer as part of the entire door assembly and tested for blast resistance. The steel frame is to be the seated option.

Door 104 – Mechanical and electrical room ‐ is an insulated blast resistant steel double door.

Blast resistant hardware to be provided by blast resistant door manufacturer. The steel frame is to be the seated option.

Refer to Blast resistant specifications for doors and glazing. New sets of specifications are being issued with this addendum. Refer to Blast resistant design Criteria. Maximum level of protection, standoff distance is not available.

POV Canopy Door – this door identified as 110 and 113, correspond to the same door. Door to be hollow metal insulated steel with laminated glazing. Not Blast resistant.

Hardware Set #03A.00:

QTY QTY DESCRIPTION

ACT INACT FINISH

1 3 4‐1/2” ST WT (.134) HINGE TA2314 4‐1/2” x 1‐1/2” NRP 26D MCKINNEY

100A

1 0 MORTISE LOCKSET L9080GDX06AX10‐072 626 SCHLAGE

302A

1 0 CLOSER 404XP X CUSH X SRT AL LCN 500A

1 0 WEATHERSTRIPPING 303AV (36W X 72”) A PEMKO 800B

1 0 SWEEP 315CN (36W) C PEMKO 801A

1 0 THRESHOLD 171A(36”) A PEMKO 802B

Waiting Shelter – The door identified as 111 and 112, correspond to the same door. This door is to be hollow metal insulated steel single door with laminated glazing. Not Blast resistant.

Hardware Set # 01.00

22. Drawing MH – 101 shows (2) 6 inch diameter exhaust ducts terminated with a bird screen and a hooded wall cap. Drawing AE‐200 Shows 8x8 louvers which is desired? If a square penetration is desired will a lintel need to be cut into the existing block and brick walls for added support?

PW Engineering Response: Drawing will be review and de‐conflicted between the HM and AE drawings. Revised drawing as applicable will be provided.

A/E Response: The (2) 6 inches diameter exhaust ducts shall be terminated with a bird screen and a hooded wall cap. As per mechanical dwg MH101.

23. Drawing AE‐300 section “C” shows wall lockers not in contract please clarify if they are ours to provide as there is a specification for them.

PW Engineering Response: Wall lockers are not a contractor requirement. The wall lockers will be procured and installed as a furnishing under a separate contract by the government.

A/E Response: No response required

24. Drawing AE‐101 rooms 107, and 109. Is it the intent to have existing brick on the west wall exposed in these two rooms? I don't see a detail called out to fur that wall and install drywall.

Please confirm

PW Engineering: It is the government’s intent that the interior walls of rooms 107 and 109 have painted gypsum board installed, to include the existing exterior wall that will become and interior wall when the addition is constructed. Review of the drawings will be completed and revised drawings issues as necessary.

A/E Response: All interior and existing exterior walls,that will become interior walls will be furred out with 5/8” gypsum wall board, with 2.5” metal furring @ 24” on center maximum distance. Attached revised dwg AE401 – Partition details.

25. Please confirm new flooring is to be LVT per the plans, the narrative talks about staining the floors but the plans are showing LVT.

PE Engineering: Provide flooring as specified in the plans and specification. LVT, porcelain tile, and sealed concrete are required.

A/E Response: The new flooring for the office spaces will be LVT, Porcelain tile for toilet and janitor room, and exterior concrete slabs will receive treatment for the protection against salt and the environment. The floors will be not stained.

26. I am reaching out today in regards to the “Construct Visitor Control Center, Fort Drum, NY” that is out for bid and I am hoping you can clarify a few things for me or point me to someone that can assist. The spec is a bit confusing in regards to the barriers that are called for. The spec mentions both active and passive barriers and electromechanical. I know Fort Drum has a few of our StrongArm M30 barrier arms that are hydraulic and I am wondering if you can help clarify what is needed in regards to the barriers.

PW Engineering Response: There are no active barrier systems proposed in the contract plans.

A/E Response: Non required

27. The Division 10 Specifications for this project are Generic and selections for sizes, materials, capacities, etc. have not been made. All options from the presumed Template for these

Specifications are shown, providing no direction as materials to provide for this project. It is not possible to provide a bid for the Division 10 products (and Div. 12 Entrance Mats), with these documents in their current state.

PW Engineering Response: Specification will be revised and reissued.

28. Reference paragraph 6 of the Statement of Work regarding bids. It is not clear to me that MICC

Fort Drum will accept hand carried bids on the date of the bid proposal date and time is due.

MICC Response: Hand carried Bids are acceptable on the date of the bid proposal suspense date if submitted by the time listed on the IFB.

29. The project table of contents call out the following specifications under division 07 – 07 11 13 Bituminous Dampproofing, 07 16 19 Metallic Oxide Waterproofing, 07 17 00 Bentonite

Waterproofing, and 07 19 00 Water Repellants. These items are not referenced on the design drawings. Please provide locations for these products to be installed.

PW Engineering Response: Specifications with no corresponding construction element can be disregarded. UFGS often reference other specifications. When this is the case, the referenced specification is included to ensure a complete specification package is provided. For example, under specifications for concrete, the concrete specification will reference concrete reinforcement. The specification for concrete reinforcement will address both epoxy coated and non‐epoxy coated reinforcement. If the plans call for epoxy coated reinforcement then the non‐epoxy coated specifications are not applicable. Specifications that are not referenced in an applicable specification or related to specified elements of construction may be disregarded

A/E Response: A new set of specifications will be sent with this Addendum. Specifications sections: 07‐911113 Bituminous Damproofing, 07‐16‐19 Metal Oxide Waterproofing, 07‐17‐00

Bentonite Water proofing were deleted from the set.

30. There are multiple specification sections in the table contents that are not depicted on the design drawings and we are not sure if there is a requirement for these items. Please review and remove all non‐applicable specification sections from the design documents.

PW Engineering Response: Specifications with no corresponding construction element can be disregarded. UFGS often reference other specifications. When this is the case, the referenced specification is included to ensure a complete specification package is provided. For example, under specifications for concrete, the concrete specification will reference concrete reinforcement. The specification for concrete reinforcement will address both epoxy coated and non‐epoxy coated reinforcement. If the plans call for epoxy coated reinforcement then the non‐epoxy coated specifications are not applicable. Specifications that are not referenced in an applicable specification or related to specified elements of construction may be disregarded.

31. Please validate that the anchorage of the door frame, windows, and louvers are what is blast‐ resistant. Please provide appropriate data needed to provide blast resistant door frame, windows, and louvers.

PW Engineering Response: Review of blast‐resistant elements will be completed and revised drawings, if necessary, will be issued.

A/E Response: Level of Projection selected was high, since there is no available standoff distance for this building. See specifications for additional glass and glazing requirements. Drawing

AE601‐ left corner below the shedules the notes indicate the type of glass and glazing to be used for the blast resistant glazing for doors and windows project. TLI = Insulating glass and blast resistant glazing 6‐mm (1/4”) HS (2.54mm Saflex HP PVB) 6mm (1/4”) HS.All exterior doors, windows and louvers shall have blast resistant framing securely anchored to the wall. The doors and window details reflect a seated door position. Please refer to the Blast resistant specifications.

Attached please, find the documentation used for this decision: Viracon doc‐ Laminated Glass for Blast Mitigation. Attached Insulgard Security products brochure and SDI‐133‐16, Guideline for Specifying Steel Doors and Frames for Blast Resistance.

32. We would like to hand carry the required bid proposal documents on the due date prior to the accepted submission cut off time. Is this acceptable?

MICC Response: Hand carried Bids are acceptable on the date of the bid proposal suspense date if submitted by the time listed on the IFB

33. There is no “set‐aside” listed in the Solicitation document, therefore is this project open for all contractors to bid? Please advise.

MICC Response: This requirement is open to 100% percent Small Business.

34. I'm looking at the specs for the vehicle inspection building the specs are for sectional doors and the plans are calling for rolling steel please provide a spec. on the coiling doors if that is what is desired.

PW Engineering Response: Specifications will be reviewed, amended accordingly, and revised.

A/E Response: The specification for the roll‐up door is included with this Addendum. Specialty

Doors. Basis of Design: Wynd Star Doors ‐ Ryte Door – Car Wash doors. Included in this addendum are the Basis of Design WyndStar MT ‐ Brochure, installation and owner’s manual, and the specification section 0830000. This is a “Car Wash Door” Type. Provide shop drawings and sample color charts for approval.

Statement to be revised at the Narrative

All the existing floor wall and ceiling finishes will be demolished. The existing slab and walls will be cleaned, leveled and prepared to receive the new floor and wall finishes. New floor finishes will be solid vinyl tile for the office areas, porcelain tile for the toilet room and the janitor's closet. All walls will be furred with gypsum board. The existing building and the new addition will receive new acoustical ceiling system.