MSEC- Building 606 - Amendment 7 - RFIs - 21 Oct 25.pdf

PROJECT TITLE: REPAIR BLDG. 606, GENERAL INSTRUCTION BUILDING,

MATH AND SYSTEM ENGINEERING CENTER (MSEC)

PROJECT LOCATION: WEST POINT, NEW YORK

W912DS25RA002

AMENDMENT 0007 FOR REPAIR BLDG. 606, GENERAL INSTRUCTION BUILDING,

MATH AND SYSTEM ENGINEERING CENTER (MSEC)

TO OFFERORS:

OFFERS ARE DUE ON 07 Nov 2025 @ 1400. The RFIs period has expired.

The following changes shall be made to the drawings and specifications.

DRAWINGS:

1. The following DRAWINGS have been REVISED and REISSUED:

Electrical:

E-512_AM 7

Response to RFI #11.

E-601_AM 7

Response to RFI #11.

E-611_AM 7

Response to RFI #11.

Mechanical:

MP-101_AM 7

Response to RFI #9.

M-707_AM 7

Response to RFI #8.

SPECIFICATIONS:

1. The following SPECIFICATION SECTIONS have been ADDED and are provided in their entirety herein:

a. None

2. The following SPECIFICATIONS SECTIONS have been DELETED in their entirety:

3. The following SPECIFICATIONS SECTIONS have been REVISED and REISSUED:

a. 08 71 00_AM 7 Added Door #313A to Hardware Set#028 per RFI.

4. The following SPECIFICATIONS have been REVISED but NOT REISSUED:

PROPOSER’S QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT REPLY:

Questions that may be of general interest to all Offerors and/or Government and that are not readily answered by the proceeding changes will appear below. These questions may have been paraphrased or altered to represent several questions regarding the same subject and/or simply revised the solicitation, plans or specifications. All responses to questions are for informational purposes only.

1. Please confirm that when submitting a Teaming Agreement for a subcontractor to be included in our Team’s experience, that the subcontractor can be used on multiple teams and is not exclusive to one team.

Answer: Confirmed. The same subcontractor can submit with multiple prime contractors.

2. Please provide photos of interior doors (both sides if possible) Ref. A-601, Door Schedule.

3. Will the owner provide allowances for undefined repairs to doors, hardware, and/or plaster to be determined after survey?

Answer: No allowance will be provided. We require the following: Existing wood doors that are to remain are to be removed, cleaned and refinished. Hardware is to be removed, replaced, reinstalled per the hardware schedule. Schedule indicates additional minor repair/fill per location. The scope of the plaster work is to clean, stabilize and paint the plaster ceiling the color referenced in the Building Conservation Associates Report.

4. Is GC required to have on its team a historic preservation professional to perform conditions assessments, provide treatment recommendations, review submittals and mockups and provide QA/QC during construction?

Answer: No.

5. Please confirm types, quantities and locations of Environmentally Regulated Building Materials (ABC

Chemical Fire Extinguishers, Exit Signs, Mercury Thermostats, Smoke Detectors, Light Bulbs, Ballasts).

Answer: Smoke Detectors are Photoelectric Type. (presumed not to be Environmentally Regulated)

6. Should the contractor include in their bid the cost to hire an independent commissioning firm to perform all commissioning? The spec leads you to believe the government is also providing a commissioning specialist. Appendix V states all MEP system and building envelope commissioning shall be provided by a qualified 3rd party engaged by the owner.

Answer: The Government will hire a 3rd party commissioning agent to oversee the commissioning process. The Contractor is responsible for hiring and commissioning the systems listed in the specifications.

7. In response to RFI #95, we propose using the BACnet open protocol instead of LonWorks (LonWorks is being phased out by DDC controller manufacturers due to the discontinuation of essential Echelon components, which are critical to all LON products.)

• Section 25 05 11.23, Page 12 (Cybersecurity for Building Automation Systems) does not permit the use of LonWorks. Accordingly, we request approval to use the specified BACnet protocol. One of our BMS sub-contractors has installed BACnet MSTP on others Army Corp of Engineers projects.

Please reconsider the use of Lon works.

Answer: Lon Works is the west point standard and will be utilized.

8. Detail C1 on M-707 indicates each chilled beam should have a condensation senser. Chilled beams are clustered together in zones where one control valve serves multiple chilled beams. Is the intent to have a condensation senser per chilled beam, or a condensation senser per zone?

Answer: Provide a condensation detector for each chilled beam zone. If one chilled beam zone serves multiple rooms, provide one detector per room. Refer to M-707.

9. Should the Chilled Beams in Classroom 116 be piped such that all 4 chilled beams are controlled from a single valve? If not, in this room only is it acceptable for a single condensation senser be interlocked to all four control valves serving that room?

Answer: All chilled beams in Classroom 116 shall be piped to be controlled from a single valve.

Refer to MP-101.

10. On drawing M-701 it requires the BMS to tie into the existing Niagara (N4) Supervisor in Building

B2101. How is this to take place? Is a new data line required between Building 606 and 2101? If so, please show this scope on the drawings. Is there a similar requirement for the UMCS? Please show scope on the drawings.

Answer: The UMCS communicates over the government IP network. The BMS field point of connection is from the JACE to a building data drop within Mech B16 that sits on the government IP network.

11. Addendum 3 updated E-512 shows conduits 3&4 for recep branch circuit, this is not shown on the plans nor one line riser diagram. Please advise what these feeders are for and what size wire we need to include for this.

Answer: Provide 20A, 120V GFI duplex and 50A/208V receptacle integral to tap box circuit to Panel AP-EB-1. Refer to E-512, E-601, E-611 issued with AM #7.

12. Please provide prints to include finish plans for "Roof" to includes 600's rooms.

Answer: The information needed is provided in the finish schedule. No finish plan is required for these spaces.

13. TOPIC: ¼’’ Thick SSM SHOWER SURROUND PANELS:

The ¼” thick material specified for the shower surrounds on Sheet I-100.1 is available only in 98” lengths. However, it appears that the ceiling height in these areas is approximately 9’-0”. Please confirm if this is correct, as we have not found specific information indicating otherwise.

Additionally, 144” long panels are available, but only in ½” thickness. Please advise how to proceed regarding the required material thickness and height.

Answer: Seaming the material at 98” is acceptable.

14. Please confirm the bid percentage / Amount not to exceed for this project.

Answer: The RFI is not clear. There is no bid percentage or a total amount not to exceed for this project.

15. Please confirm and specify the hardware set required for Door #313A and Door #266, as it is not clearly indicated in the door hardware schedule or specifications.

Answer: Use Hardware Set #028 for Door #313A. Door #266 is not in the project. Refer to revised spec 08 71 00.

16. Must a union have an apprenticeship program to be party to a PLA?

Answer: The proposed awardee must be able to reach PLA agreement with the applicable unions on this project. If able to do this firm would be qualified. See FAR 22.504 General requirements for project labor agreements.

17. Please confirm the Bid Bond Guarantee amount to provide on the SF24 is 20% or $3,000,000, whichever is less. The FAR Clause 52.228-1 does not specify this information.

Answer: Please see amendment 6 clause 52.228-1 Bid Guarantee.

18. Please confirm the warranty period is 1 year.

Answer: Confirmed as per the specifications

19. Please confirm that a project includes renovations and addition will be considered renovations from the comparable experience projects list.

Answer: Relevant project experience may include new construction and or renovations as per section 00 22 10 – SELECTION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD states “Similar scope is defined as the construction of or renovation of a facility to include academic buildings, administrative buildings, municipal buildings, and other buildings with similar usage/occupancy greater than 120,000 square feet in size.”

20. 04 03 00 1.9.2 The lab being requested to test the candidate Indiana limestone under ASTM C568 as an independent quality control measure, or is the client accepting supplier submittals as satisfaction of this item?

Answer: Supplier submittals will be acceptable.

21. 04 03 00 2.2.2.1 For light-colored limestone and marble of the early twentieth century, we expect the use of a nonstaining binder and the presence of distinct bedding and pointing mortars with different design and performance characteristics. Is there interest in analyzing both mortars at limestone locations?

Answer: A mortar analysis report, with pointing recipes, will be made available by the Design Team to the contractor. Mortar analysis will not be required.

22. For Guastavino tile vaults, we expect up to three distinct mortars in the design. These can include the setting bed mortar that holds the structural tile together along the horizontal plane, the joint mortar that lies vertically between the contacts of the finish tile, and the pointing mortar that is used for decorative effect. It is often important to identify whether Guastavino used any gypsum as a fast-setting mortar additive as this can result in the production of deleterious sulfates within the system.

Is the laboratory being asked to analyze all three potential mortar types?

Answer: The Guastavino tiles on the ceiling are mostly in stable condition but will require pointing.

Any loose tile will be reset with epoxy. One mortar analysis will be required for the raised joints and head joints.

23. Please confirm that the quantity of mortar/stucco analyses expected for this specification item is sixteen (16) as counted out in the following: East wing: granite (1), exterior (2) and interior limestone

(2) and interior marble (2); and west wing: exterior stone (1), tan (1) and red brick (1) masonry, Guastavino tile vaults (3), grout at quarry tile (1) and travertine pavers (1), and stucco bulkheads (1).

24. ASTM C1713 is quoted for the existing mortars. This standard is typically used to test new repair mixes for their compatibility with the properties of existing mortar and masonry units. This line does not call out specific tests or properties that should be performed on the existing mortar. Please clarify what testing is necessary, with the caveat that it is not always possible to test existing mortar for certain properties (e.g., compressive strength).

25. For the replacement mortar and stucco (compressive strength and water vapor transmission), is it anticipated that the contractor would prepare and cast these repair materials using their methods so that the laboratory has samples that model the actual field conditions? If so, note that this may not match descriptions of sample preparation in ASTM C1713. Assuming at least 3 cast mortar cylinders for strength and 3 cast mortar cylinders for water vapor transmission testing, how many groups of replacement mortar and stucco should be anticipated at any one time?

26. Is there a desire to test all masonry units for compressive strength (ASTM C170) and water vapor transmission (ASTM E96)? If so, please specify the quantity of different masonry unit types. Be aware that 20 core specimens (2 orientations, 2 saturation conditions) are technically required for compressive strength testing. At least 6 core specimens are required for vapor transmission testing.

Can the laboratory be provided with 3 to 5 sawn prims of about 8" x 8" x 4" of each masonry type from which they can drill the requisite core samples?

27. The specification calls for vapor transmission testing on wafers as thin as 1/2". The laboratory can do this but will the specifier accept the deviation? Specifically, ASTM E96 indicates that permeability cannot be accurately determined from specimens as thin as 1/2". This has also been the laboratory's experience.

28. Will the laboratory be provided with sawn plates of intact bedding mortar at least 4" on a side and at least 1/2" of continuous thickness from which to drill the water vapor transmission specimens? If so, how many mortar beds should be budgeted for?

29. Is any of this meant to be determined through standard laboratory testing for either the existing or the replacement brick? If so, under which standard(s)?

Answer: Supplier submittal will be acceptable.

30. ASTM C67 contains many test methods. Should we assume the more standard request to include compressive strength, cold-water absorption, boiling-water absorption, saturation coefficient, and freeze-thaw resistance (Method B)? Or are there other tests within ASTM C67 required than those just listed? Since the specification requires these to be compared, is this testing required on both existing and replacement brick?

Answer: No, Supplier submittal will be acceptable.

31. Is the lab being requested to test the replacement brick for compliance with ASTM C216 including efflorescence under ASTM C67 as an independent quality control measure, or is the client accepting supplier submittals as satisfaction of this item?

Answer: Supplier submittal will be acceptable.

32. This was asked in relation to 2.2.2.2, is there a desire to test all type of existing and replacement stone for compressive strength (ASTM C170)? If so, please specify the quantity of different stone types for both existing and replacement. Be aware that 20 specimens (2 orientations, 2 saturation conditions) are technically required for compressive strength testing (4 specimens from each of 5 individual blocks). We will request the supplier provide the typical cube specimens for the replacement stone. For the existing stone, can the laboratory be provided with 5 sawn prims of about 8" x 8" x 4" of each stone type from which they can drill the requisite core specimens? If not, how would the client prefer to modify the standard?

Answer: Supplier submittal will be acceptable.

33. The specification calls for the replacement limestone to be tested and compared to ASTM C616, the standard specification for quartz-based dimension stone. Should this instead be compared to ASTM C568, the standard specification for limestone?

Answer: Supplier submittal will be acceptable.

34. ASTM C34 is written for structural clay tile, not architectural terra cotta. Is this line item for the former or the latter? If the former, please indicate whether this will be end tile or side tile. If the latter, can the client indicate what type of test modification they are expecting?

Answer: Supplier submittal will be acceptable.