LU17-260 Athletics Center ArchitecturalAddendum #1

Scope Clarification from Site Visit

The University is looking to provide the typical student an enhanced athletic experience. Almost 10 years ago the students voted by referendum to pay increased athletic fees to fund an expanded facility by way of “The Hangar”.

Current facilities are heavily booked by Varsity sports limiting general student access. The students have indicated strong interest in new facilities that they can access during regular hours as well as after hours. Athletics fee increases have been proposed, and a referendum will be held in March to vote on a conceptual design based on input from Athletics.

The timelines are tight and the proposal has been structured in two parts, Fee A (conceptualization/feasibility study) and Fee B (design development through to construction completion). Should the concept design pass the referendum, Board of Governors approval and receipt of funding, the University would proceed with Fee B to complete the design, contract documents, tendering and construction administration.

It is anticipated that the successful proponent would have basic concept drawings complete with renderings by the February 12th deadline. The University and proponent would work together on revisions for the 23rd of February with a final submission to the University for February 28th suitable for the March 9th referendum.

Dissemination of the concept/renderings through social media will be an important part of the period between the 28th of February and March 9th.

Questions and Answers from Site Visit

1) What is the delivery method for this project?

The University anticipates a Stipulated Sum Bid Spec delivery method. Sequential tendering or Fast Tracking is not required. The urgency is that students being charged the levy will get to enjoy the facility prior to graduation.

2) Has a Needs Assessment been done?

No formal surveying of the students has been completed. Athletic facilities staff including the Director will provide programmatic information. Proponents should anticipate an intense period of interaction with identified staff to create concept for February 12th deadline.

3) Is there a Master Plan for the University?

No formal Master Plan exists.

4) Existing Information regarding the Building and Site?

Building Layout and Infrastructure drawings will be made available. See attached pdfs Appendix “A”.

5) Implications on Existing Parking

It is anticipated that the new facility will impact parking in two ways. First the addition(s) layout will likely require redevelopment of access routes and parking. Secondly the facility may create increased demand for parking. Both aspects require consideration as part of this RFP.

6) Any Outdoor Programming as part of the Proposal?

The University does not require outside programming as a first priority, however, should opportunities present themselves during the process, the University is open to the idea.

7) Budget vs Square Footage- which is the priority?

The University would like to maximize to footprint of the new facility, however, the budget as described is not to be exceeded.

8) LEED Gold-is this a requirement- is registration and certificationrequired?

The University has reviewed the LEED requirement with other schools that have built Athletic Facilities to similar levels of certification. Proponents to carry the cost of registration in Fee “B”.

The following items are necessary to include as a minimum:

1) Durable Building,2) Enhanced Commissioning,3) Advanced Energy Metering,4) Demand Response,5) Outdoor Water Use Reduction,6) Indoor Water Use Reduction,

7) Water Metering.

9) How will fees be evaluated?

Fee A (plus anticipated travel/disb) + Fee B (plus anticipated travel/disb) = Total Fee. Firm with lowest Total fee will get full points. Others will be assigned points on a percentage basis.

10) Geotechnical/Testing/Topo Survey-how will these items be managed inthe RFP process?

Proponents are to carry a Cash Allowance of $50,000.

11) Designated Substances

The Fieldhouse was built at a time where the use of Asbestos containing materials was common. The typical uses were in vinyl tile and adhesive, plaster, drywall joint compound, and in mechanical pipe insulation and parging. Various locations within the Fieldhouse also have lead containing paint, however this is not detailed in the attached report. The Hangar is not anticipated to contain Asbestos containing materials or lead paint.

Please see the attached report for the Fieldhouse as Appendix “B”.

12) LU Maintenance and Operational Specifics

Please see attached document Appendix “C”.

13) Site Visit Attendees

Please see attached document Appendix “D”.

Appendix "A" 9 pages

Apeendix "B" 1 page

Fire Alarm system Chubb/Edwards EST3 system only-no exceptions

Building Automation System Johnson Controls Metasys Extended Architecture system only no exceptions -not Facility Explorer -Consultants to include meetings to discuss graphics interface and operational items with Physical Plant prior to finalizing design and/or construction documents. Online demonstration of BAS interface required as part of consultant services.

Telecommunication Services Centre (TSC) -discussions required to determine and record extent of TSC services. Typically TSC supplies and install equipment only. Base bid contract documents require cabling as a minimum. Consultants will be required to confirm scope and communicate through contract documents the extent of TSC work vs work in base contract. Terminations and cabling install to Belkin 25yr warranty standards.

Hardware Hardware configuration to be reviewed with LU prior to design finalization. Schlage Original grade 1 Lock hardware only Keyway will be in consultation with LU locksmiths ND70PD RHO 626 Classroom lock (outside lever locked and unlocked by key, inside lever always unlocked) ND 82 PD -RHO 626 Double Sided lock(Key on both sides) Grade 1 ND 53 PD -RHO 626 Entrance Office(key on one side) Grade 1 ND80 PD- RHO 626 finish Grade 1 Store Room Lock(locked all the time, entry by key only) Von Duprin 98 or 99 Rim Panics Closers to be LCN 4040/4041 All Hardware to Domestic original, no offshore accepted. Construction cores to be provided by contractor, final cores to be supplied under contract and given to LU for pinning and install unless noted otherwise. Construction cores will be returned to contractor. Consultant to provide Physical Plant locksmiths with copies of Hardware Schedule to allow review prior to final acceptance.

Fire Separation Labelling- Walls above ceiling line FRR to be marked on all walls both sides, max distance between 4’. FRR to be indicated in red paint with letters min1” high Fire Seals and FRR to be indicated and listed on a spreadsheet and drawing including products/systems/ratings used. Consultant to confirm presence of all necessary FRR and fire sealing accuracy of information provided by contractor.

Apendix "C" 3 pages

Fire Dampers The University is required by law to inspect and test all fire dampers on an annual basis. The University requires fire and smoke dampers be accessible such that confirmation of operation is physically possible (i.e., within easy reach) and a drawing showing the physical location and type of each damper used. Consultant drawings must show the intended locations and the contractor to provide confirmation of location and accessibility to ensure ability to inspect. The consultant and the contractor shall conduct a special building tour to demonstrate the location of each damper to the Physical Plant. A separate CAD drawing updated to show location and type of dampers shall also be provided.

Access to Installed Components Where Mechanical or Electrical devices are installed above ceilings or within walls, provision for easy access must be provided to facilitate maintenance and repair. This also includes isolation valves, bleeders and cleanouts.

Standardized Equipment In our attempts to standardize electrical and mechanical equipment on the campuses, specific manufacturers may be required, these must be approved prior to entering the tender process. Examples are plumbing fixtures, electrical panel boards and VFDs. Consultant to conduct specific meeting with Physical Plant to discuss equipment selection, service life, etc.

Room Numbering Architectural consultants will be required to work with LU staff to provide room numbering consistent with campus standards. It is the intent of this scheme to determine the final room numbering that would appear on the door of the spaces once built. This numbering scheme will be used to assist door keying, signage and BAS graphics development

● A standard 4 digit convention is used; modified for clarity when required.● When modification is required, use doors with locks as a guide. Keys are assigned a

room number.● Buildings with main corridor are numbered alternating odd-even, continuing clockwise, if

the corridor bends. If building layouts do not have central spine; apply ‘wayfinding’ logicas guide.

● Rooms within rooms, (suites), have the same number, and a suffix beginning with ‘A’; ie.1009A.

● Sub-rooms, that have rooms, have an additional suffix; “1013AA”.● Circulation spaces, such as corridors, vestibules, stairs, elevators, begin with the prefix

‘X’; ie. X1001.● Larger rooms containing individual work areas, such as cubicles, remain just one

number. The work stations/cubicles are not given their own number, or suffix.**Please see attached floor plan for reference

Permit Procedures at Lakehead University- Hot Work and Access to Keys Hot Work- Contractor to secure permits daily from Main campus as necessary. This may involve pick up and/or drop-off of permits to Main Campus regardless of location of subject work. Access- Contractor to access keys daily from Main campus as necessary. This may involve pick up and/or drop-off of permits to Main Campus regardless of location of subject work.

Consultants to review procedures with Physical Plant for inclusion into contract documents.

Roof Systems The University has been moving to EPDM roofing membrane systems over the last number of years. Consultants to review with Physical Plant prior to specifying any roof membrane system especially given limited access locally to trained installers. The University does not want a roof system that cannot be supported locally for warranty work should it arise.

● Firestone is an approved product, warrantied by all major LOCAL roofing contractors● IKO is approved for asphalt tie-ins.● All roofing contractors must be registered members of OIRCA, (Ontario Industrial

Roofing Contractors Association).●

Appendix "D" 5 pages