| Question 1: Per Pre-Proposal Conference held on October 21, 2009, please post the attendance list. |
|
Answer 1: See File attached above: RFP #1666 Pre-Proposal Conference Sign In |
| Question 2: Is there any type of security in this project, I.e. telephone entry, access control, CCTV? |
Answer 2: Yes, there will be security and building access systems. However, this work is not included as part of RFP #1666. |
| Question 3: I am contacting you regarding Hampden Lane Apartments. I would like to submit a substitution request for section 7141 Cold Applied Waterproofing and section 7260 Liquid Applied Air And Vapor Barrier. I could not find information in the specifications on how to submit the request. Would you prefer the requests faxed to your office or emailed to you? If you could please respond at your earliest convenience I would greatly appreciate it. |
Answer 3: Please follow the procedure outlined in Section 01600 and the use the Substitution Request Form 01600A. |
| Question 4: The field tile for the lobby. The first floor finish plan (sheet A8.2) shows the field tile as FT3 which is defined on the finish schedule as Stonred 1.0” - 4”x32”. It also shows the “short accent” tile as FT1 which is defined on the finish schedule as Stonbeige 2.0” - 16”x32”. Can we assume that these labels are reversed and that the field tile is Stonbeige 2.0 and all accent tiles are Stonred 1.0? Please refer to attached RFI 01 and advise. |
Answer 4: Correct, the labels that are highlighted on your sketch are reversed. The field tile is Stonbeige 2.0 and 4" the accent tiles are Stonred 1.0. |
| Question 5: What is the actual depth of the elevator pit? The structural drawing (Sheet S2.0) shows a depth of 4’ (SOG El. 321.83’ and Elevator El. 317.83’), while the architectural drawings (A4.2 – detail 3) show a depth of 6’-9”. What is the correct depth? Please refer to attached RFI 02 and advise. |
Answer 5: Updated 10/27/09: Please see the Drawing RFI#2a&b (attached above) for response to Questions #5 & 6. |
| Question 6: In the structural drawings (S2.0), the wall footers next to the elevator pit step down and connect to the elevator foundation. However, detail 3/S1.1 does not show any wall footer stepping down to the elevator foundation; it just shows a footing, two walls, and the SOG above. If S2.0 is correct, is the wall footer going from 321.16’ and stepping down to 317.83’ and connecting into the elevator foundation in 3 locations? Please refer to attached RFI 02 and advise. |
Answer 6: Updated 10/27/09: Please see the Drawing RFI#2a&b (attached above) for response to Questions #5 & 6. |
| Question 7: Clarification: |
Answer 7: The 10 foot temporary construction easement shown on the east side of the proposed building is incorrect (Sheets C1 and C2). It is anticipated that the temporary easement will be 5 foot in this area. |
| Question 8:
Can we bid a conventional meter stack system or do we need to bid the
E-MON D-MON MMU Meter Stack on the plans? (Sheet E3.0) |
Answer 8: No, bid the EMON DMON as specified. Please see the document 1000TechSpec (attached above) for further details.
|
| Question 9: The configurations of the window openings show multiple products in each opening. This configuration appears to lend itself to a pre-engineered aluminum window system with a sub-sill (gutter) than it does for individual fixed and casement windows. In addition, the casement windows appear to be approximately 3’ x 5’, which is quite large for a wood or vinyl product. Please confirm that the current bid documents are correct in requiring residential grade vinyl clad wood windows. (Please refer to sheet A7.1.) |
Answer 9: The window as specified will not be changed.
|
| Question 10: If vinyl clad wood windows are in fact the preferred product, are we limited to the Andersen Window Company, or may we meet the performance criteria stipulated with another brand that is equal? |
Answer 10: You may provide an alternate manufacturer, provided the performance as well as the visual criteria are met. |
| Question 11: The main panel is showing 3-pole breakers and would require 3-phase feeds to the apartment panels. The apartment panels show single-phase breakers which would require different feeds. Is the intent to have the main panel service the apartments with a single-phase or a 3-phase? (Please refer to sheet E4.0.) |
Answer 11: The tenant panels are 208V, 1PH. The Main Distribution Panel (208V, 3 PH) incorrectly shows 3 pole breakers feeding the tenant panels. The tenant panels should be fed from a 2 pole breaker in the MDP. |
| Question 12: Per the code summary (full automatic sprinkler system) on the cover sheet A0.0, the sprinkler system design is to be in accordance with NFPA #13, yet the basic design codes on the same sheet list NFPA #13R. Based on the building size, height, and occupancy, it appears the system should be able to be designed in accordance with NFPA #13R, eliminating the protection in the combustible concealed spaces located above the ceilings. Will an NFPA #13R system be acceptable or do we need to provide a system in accordance with NFPA #13? |
Answer 12:
No. The sprinkler system will be per NFPA 13 (not 13R) as indicated on the Sprinkler section of the code summary. |
| |
