WWYK263009_65 Design Analysis_Part4.pdf

Design Overview

Design Overview

Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity Overview

• DOD Cybersecurity Overview

• Coordinate with disciplines to determine systems that will be installed.

− Fire Alarm Control Systems

− Building Automation Systems

− HVAC Control Systems

− Lighting Control Systems

− Meter Control Systems

• Design criteria will incorporate requirements outlined in applicable documents, standards and frameworks.

− UFC 4-010-06 Cybersecurity of Facility-Related Control Systems

− DAFGM2021-32-01

Cost Estimating Overview

• MCACES [MII] v4.4.3

• 2022 MII Cost Book

• 2022 Region 6 Equipment Library

• Davis-Bacon General Decision Number OK20230049

• FY26 MILCON

• Assuming a 42-Month Construction Duration

• Design-Bid-Build Approach

• Project Direct Markups

– Productivity – 87.5%

– Sales Tax – 8.63%

– Historical Escalation: Materials & Equipment (TBD)

• Prime Markups

– JOOH – 15% (Will be itemized at Class 3 Estimate)

– HOOH – 8%

– Prime profit – TBD (Weighted Profit Calculator)

– Bond – 1.5%

– Design Contingency – 25%

• Sub-contractor Markups

– JOOH - 10%

– HOOH - 5%

– Profit – 10%

• Owner Markups

– Future Market Escalation calculated to mid-point of Construction – TBD

– Government Contingency – 5%

– Government Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (SIOH) – 6.5%

Risk Register

Risk Register

Action Items

Action Items

Project Schedule

Project Schedule

Duration

Contract Award and Kickoff 9/22/2023

Design Charrette 10/10/2023

35% Submittal 12/21/2023

35% Review Meeting 1/23/2024

VE Study 2/13/2024

65% Submittal 4/29/2024

65% Review Meeting 5/29/2024

95% Submittal 8/12/2024

95% Review Meeting 9/11/2024

100% Submittal 10/28/2024

Complete BCOES Backchecks 11/11/2024

RTA Submittal 11/25/2024

TAFB BACH

Design Schedule

Recap and Hot Wash

Adjourn for the Day

Reconvene at 1000 tomorrow for Formal Out-Brief Presentation

Thank you!!

U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Tulsa District

Design Charrette

Out-Brief

Bomber Agile Common Hangar (BACH) B-52/B-21 Tinker AFB

Mason & Hanger + Mead & Hunt

Joint Venture

October 10-13, 2023

U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Tulsa District

Attachment 2: Charrette Out-Brief PowerPoint Slides 19 Pages Total

TAFB BACH Charrette/Kick-Off Meeting Minutes

Tinker AFB BACH - Charrette Objectives

• Capture User Input

• Convey Conceptual Solutions

• Gain Sense of Cost Impacts

• Obtain Direction/Make Decisions

Mason & Hanger \ Mead & Hunt JV Charrette Team

Darin Hensley, PE, PLS, PMP – Project Manager, Mason & Hanger

Scott Nall, PE – Deputy Project Manager, Mason & Hanger

David Dickey, PE – Structural Engineer, Mason & Hanger

Tim Craddock, PE – Electrical Engineer, Mason & Hanger

Dann Layou, PE – Fire Protection \ Life Safety, Mason & Hanger

Jared Lock, PE, LEED AP BD+C – Civil Engineer, Mason & Hanger

Miroslav Kurka, PE, PMP – Program Manager, Mead & Hunt

Patrick Buhler, PE – Civil Engineer, Mead & Hunt

Christine Fernandez – Interior Design, Mead & Hunt

Eric Gangstad, RCDD, CTS – Technology Systems, Mead & Hunt

Bruce Preston – Architect, Program Manager, Larson Design Group

Randall Carter, PE – Mechanical Engineer, Larson Design Group

Christopher Clark, RA – Architect PM, Larson Design Group

Rick Siler, AIA, DBIA – Architect, Larson Design Group

BACH Scope and Budget – DD1391

BACH Design Schedule

BACH – Architectural Space Program

BACH – Conceptual Plan – Aircraft Configuration

Existing Site

BACH Site Plan

Site Plan – Overall

BACH – Conceptual First Floor Plan

BACH – Conceptual Second Floor Plan

BACH – Enlarged Floor Plan

BACH – Enlarged Second Floor Plan

BACH – Enlarged Second Floor Plan

Design Charrette

Out-Brief

Bomber Agile Common Hangar (BACH) B-52/B-21 Tinker AFB

Mason & Hanger + Mead & Hunt

Joint Venture

October 10-13, 2023

Impact /

Severity

Probability /

Likelihood Risk Score

Risk

Evaluation

Impact /

Severity

Probability /

Likelihood

Risk

Score

Risk

Evaluation

1 Supply Chain Issues Critical Very Likely 25 High Risk PDT Critical Very Likely 25 High Risk Project team will look at material procurement and delivery alternatives.

2 Long Lead Items - identify early Critical Very Likely 25 High Risk PDT Critical Very Likely 25 High Risk

Unknown results of Geotechnical

Investigation Minor Very Unlikely 4

Very Low

Risk PDT Minor Very Unlikely 4

Very Low

Risk

Unforeseen and developing requirements for B-52\B-21 program Minor Likely 8 Low Risk PDT Minor Likely 8 Low Risk

Stormwater/Erosion Control Permits.

Flood plain concerns.

Major Likely 16

Moderate

Risk PDT Major Likely 16

Moderate

Risk

6 Funding Limitations - DD 1391 Major Likely 16 Moderate

Risk PDT Major Likely 16

Moderate

Risk

7 Cost Estimating errors with assumptions Major Possible 12 Moderate

Risk PDT Major Possible 12

Moderate

Risk

Consider similar regional/national projects.

8 Government shutdown impacts Minor Very Unlikely 4 Very Low

Risk PDT Minor Very Unlikely 4

Very Low

Risk

9 Low performing AE design team Minor Very Unlikely 4 Very Low

Risk Minor Very Unlikely 4

Very Low

Risk A\E commits to project delivery.

10 Operational or Mission changes Minor Very Unlikely 4 Very Low

Risk Minor Very Unlikely 4

Very Low

Risk

Deterimining an appropriate construction duration / period of performance Minor Possible 6

Very Low

Risk Minor Possible 6

Very Low

Risk A\E to investigate Admin

NTP

12 Other Unknown outside influences Negligible Unforeseeable 1 No Risk Negligible Unforeseeable 1 No Risk

13 Negligible Unforeseeable 1 No Risk Negligible Unforeseeable 1 No Risk

Catastrophic 6 12 18 24 29 30

Critical 5 10 15 20 25 26

Major 4 8 12 16 20 24

Moderate 3 6 9 12 15 17

Minor 2 4 6 8 7 12

Negligible 1 2 3 4 5 6

Unforeseeable Very Unlikely Possible Likely Very Likely Almost Certain

Probability / Likelihood

Very High Risk 26 30

High Risk 17 25

Moderate Risk 10 16

Low Risk 7 9

Very Low Risk 3 6

No Risk 0 2

Catastrophic – Immediate impact to Cost/Scope/Schedule.

Loss of ability to accomplish the project.

Critical – Critical path risk to the cost/scope/schedule.

Significantly degrades capabilities to accomplish the project.

Major – Delay would have an impact to the cost/scope/schedule. Degrades project accomplishment

Almost Certain – 100% Probability/Likelihood of the risk occurring. Activity or event will occur.

Very Likely – 90% Probability/Likelihood of the risk occurring.

Occurs often or is continually experienced.

Likely – 60% Probability/Likelihood of the risk occurring.

Occurs several times over the duration of the project.

Negligible – No impact to the project.

Generators/transformers/automatic transfer switches are expected to be one year or more. The team is investigating providing an Admin NTP ahead of a construction NTP in order to get the generators and H\VAC on order.

Risk

Item IDT Additonal Comments

Very Unlikely – 10% Probability/Likelihood of the risk occurring. Unlikely, but could occur at some time.

RESIDUAL RISK LEVEL

Risk

Responsible PDT

Member Risk Mitigation Strategy / Response Actions

These are unforseen risks due to market changes that were not anticipated for items that become long lead times that are usually not long lead time items.

INITIAL RISK LEVEL

Moderate – Impact to the project would be limited.

Minor – Little or no impact on project accomplishment.

Im p ac t

Se ve ri ty

Impact / Severity

Need sufficient structural support for the foundation. Geotechnical instability could result in the need for design changes/increased construction costs. Will accept the risk until the geotechnical investigation is complete.

Design team will research and provide data to the KTR

Unforeseeable – 0% Probability/Likelihood of the risk occurring. Can assume it will not occur.

Probability / Likelihood

Example: Covid impact on construction costs, or other errors in determining an adequate cost estimate

Risk of multiple design firms failing to coordinate appropriately.

Possible – 40% Probability/Likelihood of the risk occurring.

Occurs sporadically.

Attachment 3: Risk Register

Project No:

Project: Bomber Agile Common Hangar Maintained By:

Location: Tinker AFB, OK PM:

RFI NO.

DATE

ISSUED

SPEC SECTION FROM DATE DUE REVIEWED BY RFI CLASSIFICATION

DATE

RETURNED

BUSINESS

DAYS IN

REVIEW

DATE

RETURNED

AFTER

REVISIONS

RFI 0001 9/28/2023 RFP, Appendix H Chris Clark - LDG 10/12/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Internal Team Production 09/28/23 1

RFI 0002 10/17/2023 LSFP 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/18/23 1

RFI 0003 10/17/2023 LSFP 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/23/23 4

RFI 0004 10/17/2023 LSFP 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic

RFI 0005 10/17/2023 LSFP 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic

RFI 0006 10/17/2023 LSFP 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic

RFI 0007 10/17/2023 LSFP 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/18/23 1

RFI 0008 10/17/2023 Structural 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/23/23 4

RFI 0009 10/17/2023 Structural 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic

RFI 0010 10/17/2023 Structural 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/23/23 4

RFI 0011 10/17/2023 Structural 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/23/23 4

RFI 0012 10/17/2023 Civil Site 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/23/23 4

RFI 0013 10/17/2023 Civil Site 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/24/23 5

RFI 0014 10/17/2023 Civil AirSide 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/23/23 4

RFI 0015 10/17/2023 Civil AirSide 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/23/23 4

RFI 0016 10/17/2023 Civil AirSide 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic

RFI 0017 10/17/2023 Width of the two sliding gates for the existing towaway crossing Douglas? Civil AirSide 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/23/23 4

RFI 0018 10/17/2023 Civil AirSide 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/18/23 1

RFI 0019 10/17/2023 Comms 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic

RFI 0020 10/17/2023 Plumbing 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic

RFI 0021 10/17/2023 Plumbing 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/18/23 1

RFI 0022 10/17/2023 Interiors 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic

RFI 0023 10/17/2023 Electrical 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic

RFI 0024 10/17/2023 Electrical 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic

RFI 0025 10/17/2023 Electrical 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/23/23 4

RFI 0026 10/17/2023 Electrical 10/24/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Critical Path Topic 10/23/23 4

RFI 0027 10/19/2023 Scott Nall 10/26/23 Clint Rogers - USACE Internal Team Production 10/23/23 2

RFI 0028

RFI 0029

RFI 0030

RFI 0031

RFI 0032

RFI 0033

RFI 0034

RFI 0035

RFI 0036

RFI 0037

RFI 0038

RFI 0039

RFI 0040

RFI 0041

RFI 0042

RFI 0043

RFI 0044

RFI 0045

RFI 0046

RFI 0047

RFI 0048

RFI 0049

RFI 0050

RFI 0051

RFI 0052

RFI 0053

RFI 0054

RFI 0055

RFI 0056

RFI 0057

RFI 0058

RFI 0059

RFI 0060

RFI 0061

RFI 0062

Giant Voice wide area mass notification system

Confirmation on security requirements for construction?

no connection to Tinker industrial waste line required?

Aircraft service points required

What shop equipment have special structural requirements?

Please confirm crane coverage

Shops require monorails or bridge cranes?

Design basis threat (DBT)?

Fire suppression system?

Need equipment from user and food services

Static pressure, residual pressure, and flow rate?

Confirm requirements for impacting the floodplain.

What is the aircraft stand space requirements for B-52?

Water quality report?

Temporary primary electrical service

Permanent primary electrical service

CADD/BIM: Request for JV team to use BIM360 for project development & discipline coordination, for internal use/coordination only for the production of drawings.

Battery powered support equipment

Plan sheet size: Request to use ARCH F 30x42 instead of ARCH D 24x36

WWYK263009

A. Gumm

D. Hensley

DESCRIPTION

Any copper service needs?

Confirm whether LID analysis and strategies will be required for this project?

Consider the aircraft as fueled or unfueled?

Fire protection engineer point of contact

Tier 2 hangar question

Aircraft Ground Equipment (AGE) parking area requirements?

Electric motor-driven fire pumps

RFI and Clarification Log

Date Printed: 10/24/2023 1 of 4

Attachment 4: RFI Log as of 24OCT2023

DEPARTMENTS

HANGAR BAY

HANGAR BAY DOCK

BACKSHOPS AND SHOP

SUPPORT

ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE AND

SUPPORT

FOM

RESTROOMS/LOCKERS

BUILDING SUPPORT

CIRCULATION

COMMON

8" Fa c e to

F ac e o f C o lu mn

1'

- 0

0"

386' MAX

382' - 0"

3'

- 0

0"

5'

- 0

6"

6"

5'

- 0

0" 3'

- 0

181' - 0"181' - 0"

191' - 0" 191' - 0"

362' - 0"

15' - 0"153' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 0"153' - 0"15' - 0"

7'

- 0

HAZ STOR

Actual: 763 SF Program: 756 SF

HAZ WSTE

102A

Actual: 377 SF Program: 286 SF

BRK

RM/TORNADO

SHELTER

Actual: 1171 SF Program: 1049 SF

AMT

Actual: 312 SF Program: 310 SF

LO STOR

Actual: 2788 SF Program: 3000 SF

PMD

Actual: 1931 SF Program: 2000 SF

382' - 0"

OH COILING

STORM SHUTTER

CHILLER

SERVER

128A

Actual: 206 SF Program: 200 SF

CHECKOUT

128B

Actual: 101 SF Program: 100 SF

MT

128D

Actual: 119 SF Program: 100 SF

LANDING

GEAR SHOP

Actual: 1728 SF

Program: 1723 SF

ENGINE SHOP

Actual: 1165 SF Program: 1452 SF

TIRE (OPEN)

SHOP

Actual: 1052 SF Program: 1408 SF

SHEET METAL

Actual: 1445 SF Program: 1792 SF

DOCK OFFICE

Actual: 419 SF Program: 392 SF

CORRIDOR

Actual: 1412 SF

BRK

RM/STORM

SHELTER

Actual: 1355 SF

Program: 1049 SF

DLA/IPV

Actual: 1306 SF Program: 1168 SF

COMPOSITE

Actual: 564 SF Program: 537 SF

MENS

WOMENS

JAN

VEST.

MENS

JAN

WOMENS

ELEC

Actual: 438 SF Program: 379 SF

FIRE

Actual: 412 SF Program: 292 SF

COMM

Actual: 121 SF Program: 122 SF

MECH

Actual: 907 SF Program: 974 SF

AIR

Actual: 138 SF Program: 239 SF

TOOL CRIB

Actual: 1920 SF Program: 1661 SF

COMPOSITE

Actual: 594 SF Program: 537 SF

KITTING

Actual: 460 SF Program: 461 SF

TOOL

CHECKOUT

TO

O

L

VE

ST

FOM STORAGE

Actual: 1564 SF Program: 1875 SF

DOCK OFFICE

Actual: 391 SF Program: 392 SF

PSC

Actual: 994 SF Program: 1546 SF

OH COILING

STORM SHUTTER

AIR

Actual: 212 SF Program: 239 SF

ELEC

Actual: 367 SF Program: 379 SF

MECH

Actual: 766 SF Program: 974 SF

DOCK OFFICE

Actual: 607 SF Program: 392 SF

FIRE

Actual: 252 SF Program: 292 SF

COMM

Actual: 120 SF Program: 122 SF

DOCK OFFICE

Actual: 394 SF Program: 392 SF

WELL

Actual: 101 SF Program: 54 SF

ELEV

MACH RM

WOMENS

JAN

MENS

M W

STAIR CORRIDOR

VEST.

VEST.

CORRIDOR

NDI

Actual: 97 SF Program: 93 SF

WELL

Actual: 78 SF Program: 54 SF

WM

AN

R P

M

E L

I

I R Y

N G

E S I

D

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

SCALE:

US Army Corps of Engineers

SHEET OF

SHEET ID

U S

AR

M

Y C

O R

PS

O

F

EN

G

IN

EE

R

S

D R

AW

N

B Y:

D

ES

IG

N

ED

B

Y:

SU

BM

IT

TE

D B

Y:

SI

ZE

C H

EC

KE

D B

Y:

" X

2"

IS

SU

E D

AT

E:

C O

N

TR

AC

T

N O

SO

LI

C

IT

AT

IO

N N

O

M

AR

K D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N

D

AT

E D

AT

E

M

AR

K D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

J

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3817 NW EXPRESSWAY

SUITE 840

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73112

(405) 722-7270

Larson Design Group

120" 240" 480"

1" = 240"

PROP-801

AN

AL

YS

IS

P

LA

N S

-D

EP

T N

O T

FO

R

C O

N

ST

R U

C

TI

O N

TI

N

KE

R

A

IR

F O

R C

E

BA

SE

, O

K

TU

LS

A

D

IS

TR

IC

T

E

. 8 1S

T

ST

R

EE

T

TU

LS

A, O K

7-

EN

G

IN

EE

R

IN

G

C O

N

ST

R U

C

TI

O N

D

IV

IS

IO

N

EN

G

IN

EE

R

IN

G

B R

AN

C

H

D es ig ne r

Au th or

C he ck er

D

EC

EM

BE

R

0, W

2B V-

-D

-0

W

2B V-

-D

-0

O

PT

IO

N

AL

F

IE

LD

FI

R

ST

T

IT

LE

SE

C

O N

D T

IT

LE

D

ES

IG

N

BO

M

BE

R

A G

IL

E

C O

M M

O N

H

AN

G

AR

W W

YK

O

PT

IO

N

AL

F

IE

LD

1" = 20'-0"1 Department Plan

TR

U

E N

O R

TH

Attachment 5: Post-Charrette Finalized Floorplan

Description of changes since Charrette:

•To meet life safety codes, we had to add a third stair at AMXS in order to maintain the common path of travel distance. AMXS small and medium conference rooms were mirrored to accommodate these stairs.

•Restrooms/breakroom on Northwest portion of building was rotated to correct proportions of the breakroom and prevent a dead-end corridor.

•The Northern utility spine was mirrored to allow access to the second Dock Office from the large, centrally located corridor.

•Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Storage were swapped with PSC/Dock Office per Government request to consolidate all of the tool crib attendants, their admin, and functions.

•Door was added for egress out of Hazardous Waste/Storage.

•Fire pump room door was relocated for exterior access.

•Rather than one large electrical room upstairs, the electrical engineer requested three smaller rooms centrally located across the floor.

*Please note, this is the finalized plan going forward to 35%.

DEPARTMENTS

HANGAR BAY

HANGAR BAY DOCK

BACKSHOPS AND

SHOP SUPPORT

ADMINISTRATIVE

SPACE AND SUPPORT

ADMINISTRATION

FOM

RESTROOMS/LOCKERS

BUILDING SUPPORT

CIRCULATION

ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE

COMMON

3990 SF

AMXS

MECH

Actual: 537 SF Program: 974 SF

679 SF

BRK

SFTWR

Actual: 208 SF Program: 298 SF

1093 SF

CORRIDOR

OFFICE

207C

Actual: 122 SF Program: 120 SF219 SF

CONF

COMM

Actual: 122 SF Program: 122 SF

SCHED OFF

Actual: 1420 SF Program: 1152 SF

ELEC

Actual: 128 SF Program: 379 SF

W M

ELEC

202L

Actual: 98 SF Program: 0 SF

OFFICE

202D

Actual: 121 SF Program: 120 SF

OPEN OFFICE

Actual: 2111 SF Program: 2112 SF

CONF

202G

Actual: 328 SF Program: 192 SF

OFFICE

202H

Actual: 121 SF Program: 120 SF

OFFICE

202I

Actual: 122 SF Program: 120 SF

OFFICE

202J

Actual: 122 SF Program: 120 SF

OFFICE

207D

Actual: 124 SF Program: 120 SF

42201 SF

HANGAR BAY

SF

O

FF

IC

E

SF

O

FF

IC

E

SF

O

FF

IC

E

SF

O

FF

IC

E

SF

O

FF

IC

E

SF

O

FF

IC

E

390 SF

CONF

M

EN

S

JA

N

W O

M

EN

S

CTR TRNG

Actual: 820 SF Program: 772 SF

STOR

Actual: 178 SF Program: 122 SF

655 SF

LG CONF

COPY

11' - 4" 205' - 6" 61' - 5"

ELEV

OPEN

STAIR

COPY/FILE

SF

O

FF

IC

E

8"

8"

7 3 /8"

STAIR

OFFICE

129B

Actual: 120 SF Program: 120 SF

OFFICE

129C

Actual: 120 SF Program: 120 SF

OFFICE

129D

Actual: 120 SF Program: 120 SF

OFFICE

129E

Actual: 121 SF Program: 120 SF

EL

EC

STAIR

AN

R P

M

E L

I

I R Y

N G

E S I

D

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

SCALE:

US Army Corps of Engineers

SHEET OF

SHEET ID

U S

AR

M

Y C

O R

PS

O

F

EN

G

IN

EE

R

S

D R

AW

N

B Y:

D

ES

IG

N

ED

B

Y:

SU

BM

IT

TE

D B

Y:

SI

ZE

C H

EC

KE

D B

Y:

" X

2"

IS

SU

E D

AT

E:

C O

N

TR

AC

T

N O

SO

LI

C

IT

AT

IO

N N

O

M

AR

K D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N

D

AT

E D

AT

E

M

AR

K D

ES

C

R

IP

TI

O

N

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

J

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3817 NW EXPRESSWAY

SUITE 840

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73112

(405) 722-7270

Larson Design Group

120" 240" 480"

1" = 240"

PROP-802

AN

AL

YS

IS

P

LA

N S

-D

EP

T N

O T

FO

R

C O

N

ST

R U

C

TI

O N

TI

N

KE

R

A

IR

F O

R C

E

BA

SE

, O

K

TU

LS

A

D

IS

TR

IC

T

E

. 8 1S

T

ST

R

EE

T

TU

LS

A, O K

7-

EN

G

IN

EE

R

IN

G

C O

N

ST

R U

C

TI

O N

D

IV

IS

IO

N

EN

G

IN

EE

R

IN

G

B R

AN

C

H

D es ig ne r

Au th or

C he ck er

D

EC

EM

BE

R

0, W

2B V-

-D

-0

W

2B V-

-D

-0

O

PT

IO

N

AL

F

IE

LD

FI

R

ST

T

IT

LE

SE

C

O N

D T

IT

LE

D

ES

IG

N

BO

M

BE

R

A G

IL

E

C O

M M

O N

H

AN

G

AR

W W

YK

O

PT

IO

N

AL

F

IE

LD

TR

U

E N

O R

TH

1" = 20'-0"1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN

Attachment 5: Post-Charrette Finalized Floorplan

Attachment 6: Charrette Finalized Site Plan

Attachment 6: Charrette Finalized Site Plan

Attachment 7: Charrette On-site Sign-in Sheets

MH+MH Joint Venture 1616 East 5th Street, Tulsa, OK 74120 The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

Mead & Hunt Inc. 2440 Deming Way Madison, WI 53562 t 608.273.6380 f 608.273.6391 meadhunt.com

MEETING MINUTES

PROJECT:

Bomber Agile Common Hanger

(BACH)

PROJECT #:

WWYK263009

PREPARED BY:

Julie Edwards

DATE PREPARED:

November 5, 2023

MEETING DATE:

October 26, 2023

MEETING LOCATION:

Teams Call

SUBJECT:

Bomber Agile Common Hanger (BACH) – LCCA Kick-off Meeting

PARTICIPANTS:

Listed Below

CC:

Attendees

Randall Carter

Terry Helms

This confirms and records our understanding of the discussions which occurred, and the decisions reached during this meeting. Unless notified in writing within seven days of the date prepared, we will assume that the following documentation is complete and accurate.

Agenda:

• Confirm Schedule, Meeting Dates

• Budget Impacts

• Review Alternatives Scope

• Process/Deliverables

• Questions

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

Schedule:

• Overall concern about schedule being too tight

• John has tried to tighten the modeling/LCCA analysis as much as possible

• Not enough time to incorporate results between 12/11 and 12/21, Scott mentioned may have a slight bit of flexibility for this group due to LCCA delay,1/15/24 is drop deadline to submit the 35% set

• Will prioritize mechanical results first

• Plumbing meeting is set up for Monday 10/30

• Energy Kick-Off date TBD (by 11/3)

• Who is the appropriate owner representative to attend? - John to send bullets on specific items needed, scheduling with short notice may be difficult

• Will distribute the information spreadsheet to participants ahead of meeting

Budget:

• If LCCE options increase cost, need to request funds prior to budget lock

• Touch base with this team on budget timeline Monday morning 10/30 - include Randall Carter and Darin Hensley

• Need budget lock date, may impact LCCA schedule

LCCA Alternatives:

• Proposed Alternatives – o HVAC – minimum 3 options o Electrical – minimum 3 options o Envelope – minimum 3 options o Onsite Renewable Energy o Water Systems

▪ Domestic hot water

▪ Solar DHW

▪ Alternative Water Sources

• Agreed list of LCCA alternatives shared is the path forward for analysis

• LCCE alternatives that provide 30% energy savings - clarified that we believe this is for whole building, not individual items

• DHW options mentioned- electric resistance or electric heat pumps - meeting Monday

• Envelope options mentioned - insulated concrete tilt-up, ICF, insulated CMU

• Current HVAC Alternatives – o Baseline – Electric o Option 1 – Electric

▪ Office/workspace: Variable air volume (VAV) system with chilled water, electric reheat and energy recovery ventilator (ERV);

▪ Hangar: Makeup air unit (MAU) with electric resistance heat o Option 2 – Electric

▪ Office/workspace: Packaged rooftop unit (RTU) direct expansion cooling, heat pump heating, dedicated outdoor air unit (DOAS) with heat pump preheat and energy recovery;

▪ Hangar: Makeup air unit (MAU) with heat pump heating and electric resistance backup heat o Option 3 – Electric

▪ Office/workspace: Variable refrigerant flow (VRF) with energy recovery ventilator

(ERV);

▪ Hangar: Makeup air unit (MAU) heat pump with electric resistance backup o Option 4 – Natural Gas

▪ Office/workspace: Air cooled chiller, condensing boiler, hydronic VAV;

▪ Hangar: Natural gas overhead infrared heaters (IR), makeup air unit (MAU) natural gas fired

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

Deliverables:

• Follow the “Energy Optimization and LCCA Process Flowchart”

• Select the most LCCE alternative that provides 30% energy savings

• Narratives from Lead Project Architect, Lead Project Mechanical Engineer, and Lead Project Electrical Engineer

• Include full process, decisions, calculations, recommendations and alternatives

• Document all alternatives considered, even those not selected

Scott Nall John Kramer Julie Edwards Rebekah Ulm Timothy Craddock Bob Mutsch Darin Hensley

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

October 30, 2023

Bomber Agile Common Hanger (BACH) – LCCA Plumbing Meeting

This confirms and records our understanding of the discussions which occurred, and the decisions reached during this meeting. Unless notified in writing within seven days of the date prepared, we will assume that the

Domestic Hot Water:

• Have preliminary load calcs - in folder Bob shared

• 270 gal/hr, emergency showers - deliver 150%, ESEW requires 210 gal hot water storage

• Energy model inputs for domestic water heaters:

o tank size (gallons) o capacity (kW) o efficiency (%, COP) o flow rate (GPM) o temperatures (F supply and return)

• Alternatives o Electric resistance - baseline, o Heat pump (air vs water),

▪ A.O. Smith - air source heat pump - temp 40-110 degrees, would need to be indoors

▪ \\corp.meadhunt.com\sharedfolders\entp\3167300\232112.01\TECH\disc\plumb\05

RMM\

▪ Shorter life? Would factor into LCCA

▪ Look at air & water options? Dependent on chilled water for HVAC decision

▪ Bob will send us cut sheets of options looking at o 30% solar hot water requirement

▪ Taking off buildings on current base - don't maintain properly, maintenance costs high o Tankless? (not great option) – don’t recommend including

• DOE tool for solar - LCCA etc. Domestic Solar Water Heating Calculator, downloadable spreadsheet

• \\corp.meadhunt.com\sharedfolders\entp\3167300\232112.01\TECH\disc\plumb\01 Calculations\ file://///corp.meadhunt.com/sharedfolders/entp/3167300/232112.01/TECH/disc/plumb/05%20RMM/ file://///corp.meadhunt.com/sharedfolders/entp/3167300/232112.01/TECH/disc/plumb/05%20RMM/ file://///corp.meadhunt.com/sharedfolders/entp/3167300/232112.01/TECH/disc/plumb/01%20Calculations/

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

LCCA Modeling:

• Cost estimator to help with LCCA? Ask Scott for contact

Alternative Water Sources:

• Planning on underground storage tank for stormwater – confirm if storing both water from rooftop and pavement?

o Rainwater generally clean/can filter, pavement drainage not very clean o Separate tank would be expensive, if already have a tank we could use for rainwater collection it would reduce cost

• Rainwater better for plumbing - flushing for 35 toilets/8 urinal, Occupancy 190,

• Process water? no landscape or aircraft wash, no current process water from HVAC o Cooling tower - if have, could use non-potable water

• Need flow test data - might need booster pump, plus separate rainwater pump, cost dependent on required booster pumps

• Bob can provide list of added items for non-potable water system for cost analysi

• Larger tank + day tank – temperature of water in storage doesn't affect

Bob Mutsch Mitch Hodson John Kramer

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

November 3, 2023

Bomber Agile Common Hanger (BACH) – Energy Model Kick Off Meeting

This confirms and records our understanding of the discussions which occurred, and the decisions reached during this meeting. Unless notified in writing within seven days of the date prepared, we will assume that the

LCCA Model Inputs Reviewed:

• See LCCA Model Inputs spreadsheet for details

• General – general building information, occupancy, schedule

• Utility Rates

• Architectural/Envelope

• Electrical

• Mechanical

• Plumbing – see notes from meeting 10/30

• Renewable Energy System - Will review 2018 IgCC requirements

• Team will follow up with missing information by EOD Tuesday 11/7 – shown in red for all categories on spreadsheet

Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs)

• Increased Roof Insulation

• Increased Wall Insulation

• Increased Window Performance

• Overhead door insulation

• Reduced Lighting Power

• Service Hot Water Air Source Heat Pump

• Service Hot Water Water Source Heat Pump

• 30% Solar Hot Water

• "Option 1 - Chilled water, electric reheat, VAV (ERV); MAU w/ electric resistance heat "

• "Option 2 - Packaged RTU heatpump, w/ DOAS heat pump, electric resistance reheat (ERV); MAU w/ heat pump heating (electric resistance backup)"

• "Option 3 - VRF heat recovery and w/ ERV; MAU heat pump (Daikin Aurora) (electric resistance backup)"

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

• "Option 4 - chiller and condensing boiler, hydronic VAVs; natural gas IR overhead, MAU gas fired"

Scott Nall John Kramer Julie Edwards Rebekah Ulm Rick Siler Randall Carter Timothy Craddock Bob Mutsch Matthew Detoy Joey Hunter Carmie Ashley Marc Owen William Rodgers

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

Christine Fernandez, Ashley

Gumm CAPM

November 14, 2023

11-09-2023

Microsoft Teams

Bomber Agile Common Hanger (BACH) – Graphics Meeting

This confirms and records our understanding of the discussions which occurred, and the decisions reached during this meeting. Unless notified in writing within seven days of the date prepared, we will assume that the

Meeting Notes

Graphic Ideas – Kristin Kraft

• Historical wall at the entrance has been approved.

• Base has a Historical Officer. Would be point of contact for photo requests.

o Team would like to see a history of bomber maintenance.

• Will not be moving forward with the silhouette image in the training room, due to concerns of graphic longevity and resiliency.

o They have had to manually scrub them in the past; preference is for the training rooms to be blank.

• Mural in break room has been approved.

o Oklahoma feature graphic: commenter thinks we should tie the history with Oklahoma.

• Insignia logos will be most likely located in a break room but will ultimately be up to the users.

o Does not want it to be wallpaper or paint, should be something easily changeable.

• Way-finding ideas were declined due to the small number of visitors.

Issues and Items to Consider

• B-21 and future user groups o When the B-21 comes along, users may want to personalize spaces due to pride of working on the aircraft.

Should give the B-21 space to personalize.

Common areas are where we can focus the graphics.

• Durability o Vinyl wallpaper tends to not hold up very well, leaning towards 3form or paint.

• Maintenance o This year will be around for 50 plus years and needs to stand the test of time.

• Location of Graphics o Break rooms, hallways, and larger entrances are where they should be focused.

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

• Exterior Color Palette o Have more freedom to choose new palettes as this is a new building on a new campus, so it does not need to match any existing palette.

o Preference is gray scale.

• 35% Submittal o Will outline the type and location of each graphic.

o There will be a separate graphic schedule.

• 65% Submittal o Rendering can occur at this point or show wall elevations.

Future Graphics Meeting Scheduling

• Looking at February or March 2024.

Decisions

Topic Decided by Decision

Historical wall at entrance Approved

Silhouette image in training room Declined

Mural in break room Approved

Way-finding ideas Declined

• Scott Nall

• Travis Smith

• Mark Hill

• Franklin Smith

• Matthew DeToy

• Rebekah Ulm

• Kristin Kraft

• Kasey Denis

• Christine Fernandez

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

Bomber Agile Common Hangar

November 16, 2023

November 15, 2023

Teams call

Bomber Agile Common Hangar (BACH) – OCWUT Meeting

This confirms and records our understanding of the discussions which occurred, and the decisions reached during this meeting. Unless notified in writing within seven days of the date prepared, we will assume that the following documentation is complete and accurate.

Meeting began with introductions of attendees.

Discussion started with the review of RFIs 20 and 31. RFIs request information on the domestic water supply.

After the group agreed that fire flow was a separate topic, the conversation focused on the 12” domestic water supply.

OCWUT representatives stated that existing flow data does not exist. Additionally, with the proposed project improvements to the campus, any existing flow data would not be accurate for design purposes.

For design purposes, OCWUT representatives stated that OCWUT is required to provide 50-70 psi operating service pressure for domestic water.

Given the above information, the plumbing designer, Bob Mutsch, stated that he could use this information to progress with the design.

With the concurrence of the group with respect to information for design purposes, the meeting was adjourned.

William Rogers, USACE Travis Smith, USACE Mark Hill, Tinker Air Force Base, 72nd ABW, Base Civil Engineering, mechanical engineer Rachael Pierce, OCWUT Trey Perdue, OCWUT Paul Ryckbost, OCWUT Scott Nall, Mason & Hanger Bob Mutsch, Mead & Hunt

Gumm, Ashley E

From: Rodgers, William C CIV USARMY CESWT (USA) <William.C.Rodgers@usace.army.mil> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 12:05 PM To: Nall, Scott; GONZALEZ, RAFAEL GS-13 USAF AFMC AFCEC/CFMA; Rosebrook, Ron Q CIV

USARMY CESWT (USA); SMITH, TRAVIS J CIV USAF AFMC 72 ABW/CENMP;

matthew.detoy@us.af.mil; mark.hill.4@us.af.mil; Murphree, Terry E CIV USARMY CESWT

(USA)

Cc: Patrick Buhler; Hensley, Darin; Gumm, Ashley E Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: TAFB BACH - WWYK263009 - Airfield pavements, deltas from the

DD1391 and other

Categories: Red Category

All, We had a call with Ron Rosebrook, Rafael Gonzalez, Patrick Buhler, and I this morning at 10:00 am to discuss the addi onal airfield pavement ques ons below.

Regarding ques on 1: The AE is to proceed with the addi onal paving beyond what was documented in the 1391. It does not need to be priced as a separate line item and should be included in the total pavement es mate for the 35% review. It is understood this addi onal pavement is necessary for a successful design and mission.

Regarding ques on 2: Replacement of the exis ng towway pavement between Douglas Blvd and the new BACH pavement is not being considered currently. It is understood that this pavement is likely to degrade more quickly from the adjacent new pavement. This could require a shutdown of the towway and hanger in the future. No RFI is necessary.

Please let me know if there are any ques ons or concerns with these responses.

Thanks, William (Clint) Rodgers, RA, NCARB

Design Manager, Design Management Section Engineering and Construction Division SWT - US Army Corps of Engineers 2488 E. 81st St. Tulsa, OK 74137 O: (918) 669-7498 M: (918) 899-8291 E: william.c.rodgers@usace.army.mil

CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

From: Nall, Scott <Scott.Nall@masonandhanger.com> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 6:44 AM To: Rodgers, William C CIV USARMY CESWT (USA) <William.C.Rodgers@usace.army.mil> Cc: Patrick Buhler <Patrick.Buhler@meadhunt.com>; Hensley, Darin <Darin.Hensley@masonandhanger.com>; Gumm, Ashley E <Ashley.Gumm@masonandhanger.com> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] TAFB BACH - WWYK263009 - Airfield pavements, deltas from the DD1391 and other

Clint, BLUF: Two topics\issues. 1)The airfield pavement areas in the project currently under design differ from the areas listed in the DD1391. Below in 1) is a narra ve describing and detailing this difference.

2)An RFI is proposed in 2) to replace the exis ng towway pavement sec on with a thicker sec on per the designed PCC pavement sec on. This would result in an increase in the project scope and cost.

Below from Patrick Buhler -

1) Upon generating the airfield paving geometric layout, it is apparent that the quantities listed on 1391 and the Final Bomber Planning Document did not account for the need to include 50’ wide paved shoulders on each side of the existing towway, which is also being widened to 75’ PCC. In addition, during the charrette there was a project requirement generated to provide additional PCC to the southeast of the proposed hangar for a B-52 parking spot, which will be used to store the B-52 aircraft stands during maintenance operations. The additional airfield pavement required for the 50’ wide shoulders and the B-52 parking spot equate to approximately 9,200 SM of additional area that is not currently included in the 1391 quantities. Therefore, should the construction cost for these two items be shown separately from the rest of the project scope items in the cost estimate for the 35% deliverable? ***Scott’s note – The areas and subsequent quantities above were discussed during the design charrette and included in the out-brief presentation. I do not believe these should be separated out as requested but certainly discussed in the upcoming 35% review as it pertains to the revision of the DD1391.***

2) Also, it is strongly recommended that it be considered to add to the project the replacement of the existing towway, which was planned to remain in the 1391 and the Final Bomber Planning Document. The concern is that the existing PCC on the center of the towway is 16” thick. The proposed pavement section included in this project is approximately 22.5” PCC, on 5” Drainage Layer, on 4” Aggregate Base Course separation layer, placed on a 12” Lime Stabilized Subgrade. Not including replacement of the center section of the towway will result in full strength pavement only being located along the edges. This is the opposite of what should occur as the existing slabs to remain are also the more critical slabs as they will see the majority of the aircraft main gear load. Therefore, the actual loading from the aircraft will be carried by the existing 16” thick PCC section to remain. *** To note *** if the existing towway pavement were to remain in place, any repair or replacement required to the existing towway pavement in the future would pose a construction phasing challenge as the towway would be the only access pathway to the new BACH location and would\will be located in the middle of the towway. Therefore, any future repair project will require access to the BACH be restricted during the entirety of the project. Please advise if the replacement of the existing towway should be included in the design of the project as a separate scope item with the cost also being included as a separate item in the 35% deliverable.

If you concur that an RFI is in order for 2), we will generate and issue one immediately.

Thank you, Scott Nall PE

Senior Project Manager | Mason & Hanger A Day & Zimmermann Company

O 859.788.0263 | M 859.788.0263 300 West Vine Street Suite 1500 | Lexington, KY 40507 masonandhanger.com

Building a More Secure World ®

CAUTION - THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents may contain information belonging to the sender, which may be proprietary, confidential, and/or otherwise subject to restrictions on disclosure beyond the intended recipient. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this electronic mail transmission was sent as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please call 1-703-955-5702 and delete this transmission. Thank you.

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

John Kramer

December 15, 2023

December 15, 2023

Bomber Agile Common Hangar (BACH) – LCCA Results Meeting

This confirms and records our understanding of the discussions which occurred, and the decisions reached during this meeting. Unless notified in writing within seven days of the date prepared, we will assume that the

Life Cycle Cost Analysis Results presentation of the Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) by Mead and Hunt. Overview of process and requirements by Federal Guiding Principles, UFC, and Executive Order for electrification. This included whole building energy modeling for different all electric design alternative energy efficiency measures (EEMs) to demonstrate a 30% energy cost savings over an ASHRAE 90.1-2019 Appendix G baseline, as well as life cycle cost effectiveness (LCCE) compared to the base case over a 40 year period. Each option was analyzed for both energy cost savings and a 40 year net present value for LCCE.

To meet the above project requirements, it is recommended to implement ALL of the following all electric design options (broken out by discipline). These options bundled together meet the 30% energy cost savings and are LCCE.

• Architectural o Roof Admin Alternate 2 (RA-IEAD-A2) –

IEAD of 6 inches polyiso above deck (max U-0.025, min R-40 c.i.)

o Roof Hangar Alternate 1 (RH-SSMR-A1) –

SSMR w/ of 6 inches polyiso (max U-0.025, min R-38 c.i.)

o Wall Admin Alternate 1 (WA-TU-A1) –

Tilt Up 3.5 inches rigid insulation (max U-0.061, min R-20) o Wall Hangar Alternate 1 (WH-IMP-A1) –

IMP w/ 1 inch rigid insulation (max U-0.044, min R-25 + R-6 c.i.)

o Window Option 1 (FA-AS-A1) –

Aluminum storefront 1 inch, tinted/tempered, low-e, double pane (max U-0.25, SHGC-

0.25, VT-0.275)

o Overhead Door Alternate 1 (OD-IS-A1) – R-9 Alpine IMB-V9, 1 inch polyurethane (max U-0.11)

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

• Electrical o Interior Lighting Power Alternate 1 (LT-LD-A1) –

0.54 W/sf Admin, 0.64 W/sf Hangar

o Solar PV Option (PV-A1) –

Hangar roof south PV array, approximately 420 kW-DC array Structural concerns were discussed. Possibly mitigated with light weight racking or panel options Cost of additional structural not included in LCCA due to uncertainty of panel and racking weights and manufacturers Glint and glare issues discussed. Could have a glint and glare study conducted. FAA no longer requires studies due to panel coatings limiting glare and glint being unavoidable from other sources such as bodies of water and glass.

Potential for other PV array types such as carport or ground-mounted arrays which would have higher first costs.

Hail concerns addressed. PV panel warranties include hail and are designed to withstand hail and wind.

Timing of roof and PV panel replacement important cost consideration. PV panel expected life between 20-25 years while roof may be much longer.

Net metering in Oklahoma limited to 300 kW included in simple payback. Electric utility rates would be commercial retail unless excess generation above net metering would then switch to avoidance rate that is lower than retail and closer to wholesale rates.

• Plumbing o Service Hot Water Alternate 2 (SW-WS-A1) –

Water source heat pump

Would use HVAC Option 1 chilled water return

• Mechanical o HVAC Option 1 – Air cooled chiller, VAV w/electric reheat, DOAS (Admin), MAU w/ electric resistance, ERV (Hangar) o Demonstrated energy cost savings of 2.6% compared to ASHRAE baseline o Flexible for future changes

Additionally, some options were considered but not determined to be LCCE and not recommended including:

30% solar hot water o 30% of service hot water load provided by solar hot water, with full sized base case electric resistance tanked service hot water system.

o Small amount of annual energy cost savings.

o Not LCCE due to larger savings from water source heat pump. Could possibly be implemented in conjunction with water source heat pump system.

Rainwater harvesting o 30,000 gallon underground storage tank, with (3x) variable speed pumps, treatment skid, transfer pumps, primary and secondary filtration, UV sterilization, 300 gallon day tank.

o Not LCCE due to low water cost savings and inexpensive water utility rates compared to high first cost and maintenance costs.

o Discussion on location of storage tank above ground. Would require additional structural and be at risk of accidental damage, but could be cheaper to maintain than underground.

HVAC Option 2 – o Packaged RTU heatpump, w/ DOAS heat pump, electric resistance reheat, ERV (admin).

o MAU w/ heat pump heating, electric resistance backup (hangar).

o Demonstrated 11.2% energy cost savings compared to ASHRAE baseline.

o Not LCCE compared to base case due to maintenance and replacement costs associated with multiple RTUs and limited size of heat pumps.

o Heat pumps operable down to zero Fahrenheit and would require electric backup for temps below zero.

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

HVAC Option 3 – o VRF heat recovery and w/ ERV (admin).

o MAU heat pump (Daikin Aurora or equivalent), electric resistance backup (hangar).

o Demonstrated 15.6% energy cost savings compared to ASHRAE baseline.

o Not LCCE compared to base case due to higher first cost, maintenance, and replacement costs.

o UFC 3-410-01 c8 has special requirements for VRF systems indicating concerns associated with proprietary hardware and software in conflict with 10 USC 2867, risk of leaks from high amount of refrigerants in VRF systems, and uncertain life-cycle costs compared to traditional HVAC systems.

Scott Nall – Mason & Hanger John Kramer – Mead & Hunt Julie Edwards – Mead & Hunt Rick Siler – Larson Design Group Randall Carter – Larson Design Group Matt DeToy – Tinker AFB Travis Smith – Tinker AFB Marc Owen – Tinker AFB Aruna Bhayagoonawardhana – Tinker AFB William ‘Clint” Rodgers – USACE Michael Hoover – USACE Eric Slater - USACE

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

Ashley Gumm, CAPM

February 21, 2024

February 13-14, 2024

Tinker Air Force Base

Bomber Agile Common Hangar (BACH) – 35% Design Review Meeting

This confirms and records our understanding of the discussions which occurred, and the decisions reached during this meeting. Unless notified in writing within seven days of the date prepared, we will assume that the

Day 1 Project Team Introductions & Opening Remarks

• D. Hensley opened the meeting with a greeting to those attending and then proceeded with introductions.

35% Design Review Goals & Objectives (DD1391)

• S. Nall gave a brief overview of the purpose of the meeting; review goals and objectives of the 35% design. The disciplines would provide a brief review of their deign intent and direction followed by a review of the cost estimate, construction schedule and sustainability and guiding principles review on Day 1. Day 2 would primarily be a discussion of the Dr Checks items other than ‘Concur’ that were in the system.

Project Review – Civil/Site

• Patrick Buhler reviewed the applicable geometric design requirements of UFC 3-260-01

• Site accommodates up to 200-ft wingspan aircraft which locates the towway clearance line 125-feet each side from centerline.

• It was noted that towway full-strength pavement is 75-feet wide. This will provide flexibility to perform repairs on half of the towway while using the other half to still tow aircraft.

• Matt Detoy noted that the utility corridor and other utility locations will need to be installed at elevations under this project that will mesh with the future bomber campus. Grading will be coordinated for all utilities, so they are set at appropriate elevations with the future bomber campus being considered.

• Carmie Ashley suggested checking grades on eastern edge of towway to ensure we aren’t creating problem spots for future campus construction.

• Patrick Buhler reviewed grading concept and storm sewer infrastructure plan. It was noted that storm pipes and inlets are sized for 10-year storm events and account for the future bomber campus plan development to the south.

• Detention basin is only being sized for this project.

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

• Patrick Buhler reviewed the PCASE pavement design inputs and proposed pavement section. It was stated that the Geotech results are still pending, and the data used for the 35% was utilized from KC- 36A campus.

• It was noted that survey results are pending and existing topography shown was from public LIDAR data and existing site linework provided was from Tinker GIS data.

• Representative from OCWUT stated that if a utility crossing is required at 59th Street, the City of OKC may require that it be bored.

• A second gate from the POV parking lot was discussed. Second gate to be a man gate as opposed to the existing vehicle gate.

• It was noted that the base is not under City of Oklahoma City requirements.

• It was noted by Tinker representatives that there is a surge in POV parking. Shift changes drive more available parking spaces.

• Tinker representatives noted that the utility corridor may need to be wider than the proposed 20-foot.

Manholes along the corridor should be sized (height) for the ultimate condition not a temporary solution. Final campus earthwork contours.

Project Review – Architecture

• R. Siler provided a review of the architectural design standards, UFC and other criteria.

Project Review – Interior Design

• C. Fernandez provided a review of the interior design standards, UFC and other criteria.

Project Review – Mechanical/Plumbing

• R. Carter provided a review of the mechanical design standards, UFC and other criteria.

• Floor drains at eyewash stations: UFC doesn’t require. Base representatives directed to not install.

o Portals in hangar door: 16” square. Will likely require man-bars for SAPWA.

Project Review – Electrical/Communications Electrical:

• Project scope includes demolition of existing power stands on the project site. The team was reminded that documentation of the existing work will be required to provide the construction contractor information sufficient to include the demolition scope in his proposal. It was noted during the meeting that a related RFI would be submitted.

• Project scope includes modification(extension) of existing parking lot lighting system on the project site.

The team was reminded that documentation of the existing work will be required to provide the construction contractor information sufficient to include the extension of the parking lot lighting to light the expanded parking lot in his proposal. It was noted during the meeting that a related RFI would be submitted.

• Project scope includes modification(extension) of existing fence line lighting system on the project site.

The team was reminded that documentation of the existing work will be required to provide the construction contractor information sufficient to include the modification(extension) of the fence line lighting in his proposal. It was noted during the meeting that a related RFI would be submitted.

• Site lighting fixtures mounted above 30 feet high were discussed. A RFI will be submitted to clarify the special review noted in the Tinker Electrical Standard.

• Building obstruction lighting was discussed and it was noted that the proposed hangar is outside the base BRL line(s). An RFI will be submitted to clarify the requirement for obstruction lighting at the Bomber Agile Common Hangar.

• Routing of power cabling from hangar bay power stations to the hangar bay floor. Subsequent design submittal will propose a solution. A RFI will be submitted to determine the overhead clearance requirements.

Communications:

• There will be IP TV with network cable distribution for the TV system.

• Show TV riser diagrams.

• Room 119 is potential vault storage.

The Mason & Hanger Group Inc. 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1500 Lexington, KY 40507 t 859.252.9980 f 859.253.0781 masonandhanger.com

• SCADA controls for lift station.

• Telecom needs to be changed from “11” to “07” in DA.

• Coordinate comms on utility plan.

Security:

• Show PTZ at 4 hangar pocket doors.

• Show CCTV riser diagrams.

• Add personnel gate by…