Loading...
1993-224N0. q=3"~ AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CHANCE ORDER TO A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND _ : PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRA PMEMT~fit G AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on ocroh r ~ , the City awarded a contract for the construction of certain improvements to Steele-Freeman Inc.- in the amount of $ 2.347.000.00 ; an WHEREAS, the City Manager having recommended to the Council being with change harder contract that a change order be a rice `and tsa said amend respect to the scope and price compliance with the requirements of Chapter 252 of the Local Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON: SECTION I. That the change order to the contract between the City and Steele-Freeman Ina.) a copy of which is attached ereto, m e amount of f s ei ht hundred ° ars ere y approve an the expenditure of funds t ere or s ereby authorized. SECTION II. That this ordinance shall become effective immediate y upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 76A day of iwrirn 1 1993. CASTLEBERRY, MP. ATTEST: ~ /Le~rY NNI /J WALTERS,~i"CRET t APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY - BY : ~l G~ At DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1993 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the'City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: PURCHASE ORDER # 40402 - STEELE-FREEMAN CHANGE ORDER #1 RECOMMENDATION: We recommend change order number one in the amount of $242,800.00 for reroofing sections of the Denton Municipal Center be approved and the contract with Steele-Freeman Inc. be revised. SUMMARY: This change order is for the reroofing of specific sections of the DMC currently under renovation. In a very unusual and cooperative approach to a change order Steele-Freeman has supplied us with three competitive price quotations solicited by his staff and offered several options previously submitted to Council for review. Normally sub contractor prices are not an issue and our only option is to accept or reject the price quoted by the prime contractor. In this instance Steele-Freeman has made every attempt to acquire the best price for this project. At our request he has solicited additional pricing from the three comparable roofing manufacturers. Cost of labor and incidentals would not change so only material cost differences were solicited. The change order price submitted by Steele-Freeman includes all labor, material, bonding and insurance required by the City of Denton as well as full compliance with our current minimum specifications for flat roof application. BACKGROUND: Memorandum from Bruce Henington, price comparison for materials Exhibit I, Change Order Request from Steele-Freeman Inc. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: City of Denton Building FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this change order are available from fund balance for DMC Renovation. Respectfully submitted: Lloyd V. Harrell City Manager Approved: Name: Tom D. Shaw,C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent 438.agenda CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 % TELEPHONE (817) 566.81C M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and Members of the Council FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager DATE: December 2, 1993 SUBJECT: Denton Municipal Complex Roof Change Order We are pleased to report that the renovation of the Denton Municipal Complex (DMC) _s progressing. City Council reviewed the attached change order at the last council meeting, November 21, 1993, and gave staff direction. It is very important to remember that staff's assignment was not to bid this roof renovation through the City's bid process but instead work through the contractor using the quote system. City Council directed staff to have the contractor, Steele-Freeman, Inc., gather additional quotes utilizing other comparable materials. Steele-Freeman, Inc., gathered additional quotes from three different distributors who provide materials comparable to those in established City specifications. (Garland Company, Inc., Research Roofing Systems and Hyload, Inc., see attached Exhibit I) Again, the driving issue for this change order is that the existing rubber roof has lost it's integrity. It is essential that we proceed with the new roof installation now in order to keep the DMC renovation project moving ahead. The new roof quote was $242,800. If this is not the approach taken then we will still need to do emergency temporary repairs (at a cost of approximately $30,000) and then come back at the end of the renovation project to tear off the temporary repair work and install a permanent roof that will meet the length of our debt obligation. In summary, Steele-Freeman estimated the lowest overall quote of $242,800 would install a new roof (see attached Corgan letter/change order dated November 17, 1993). Steele-Freeman will oversee the roofing company and assume liability for the roof. The Page Two Roof Change Order December 2, 1993 City roofing specialist will oversee the project to ensure quality materials are used and the roof is constructed to meet our minimum standards. Staff recommends that the City issue a change order to Steele- Freeman for $242,800 using the most competitive quote of materials. The lowest quote of materials is from Hyload, Inc., distributed through Armko Industries, Inc. Respectfully submitted: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager Prepared by: Bruce Henington, Facilities Manager Attachments 1635. FM EXHIBIT I Manufacturers of coal-tar elastomeric membranes: A. The Garland Company, Brand Name Pitch Ply 1.5 sq/roll Inc., in Ohio $ 217.50/roll B. Research Roofing Systems in Illinois Brand Name Elastic Pitch $ 192.00/roll 1.28 sq/roll C. Hyload, Inc., in Pennsylvania Brand Name Hyload 150E $ 168.00/roll 1.5 sq/roll JrlllA NGE M 1 V OWNER ARCHITECT C7ADEA CONTRACTOR FIELD AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Denton Municipal complex (name, address) TO CONTRACTOR: Steele-Freeman, Inc. (name, address) 1301 Lawson Road Fort Worth, TX 76131 One \ CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: DATE: 9~'Y6713 10 - ` 'o _ > ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 92029.00 CONTRACT DATE: CONTRACT FOR: Renovations The Contract is changed as follows: Provide reroofing as per MIXIM and Mike Barton specifications and drawings and as per Steele-Freeman Proposal #3 Revised 11 dated,11/16/93. Add $242,800.00 Not valid until signed by the owner, Architect and Contractor. - - 00 s 2,347,000-00 was . . . . The original (Contract Sum) (r----~--- thorized change orders • . . . • • . . 2,347,000.00 s Net change by previously au ❑rprior to this Change order was . . . ' The (Contract Sum) ( will be (increased) 800-00 242 The (Conrad sum) th e amO j in ecy by this Change Order h e Order will be "a Chan , S 9 ,800.00 2,58 g + ~ W= g g cluding this ) day's. The new (Contract Sum) ( 0 dcra AQ (unchanged) by The Contract Time will be (iacw~) (tS of the date of this Change Order therefore is August 19 1994 , The date of Substantial Completion as r Guaran teed >lasimum Price which have been wthorized h)' ' does not renect changes in the Contract Sum. Contract Time o mm a NOTE: This su Construction Change Directive. City of Denton n Corgan Associates Architects Steele-Fr ma OR OWSER CONTRACT 215E McKinnev ARCHITECT 1301 wso D 01 Elm Street Suite 500 address t Addrus 5 na rG ~r 7h7n Address BY BY I ` RY - 3 DATE / DATE DATE - rinteti in red. ~AIA~ THE CHANGE ORDER • 1987 EDITION AIA° • ©1)fl' AIA DOCUMENT G701 NEW YORK AVE., N.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. M06 Ab1ERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 ht laws and is subject to legal prosecution. WARNING: Unlicensed photoco ing violates U.S. copydg CAUTION: You should sign an original AIA document which has t cau 0- V An original assures that changes will not be obscured as may occur whenhdocuments are reproduced. Glol-1987 REQUEST FOR CHANGE ORDER proposed Change # 3 REVISED, II Date: November 16, 1993 Job Name: DENTON MUNICIPAL COMPLEX Job Number: 2615-1 Description of change: Add tof re-roof Dent n Moore Building noted asoproject i specifications for roofing at City number 31931101. Scope of work to include demolition of existing roof, requir repairs per unit prices and replacement of roof per plans and specifications. WORK ITEMS QTY UNIT RATE LABOR MAT'L EQUI SUB , . LLVl11• 1. Roofing Subcontractor (RHS Company) ; *Unit Cost Proposal Attached 220711.0 TOTALS $220,711.( SUB-TOTAL A, B, C, D 0.( (E) LABOR BURDEN 40% OF A ($1065.48) 0.! (F) TAX ON MATERIALS 006 $220,711. 0. Contractors fee 10% of A,B,C,E,F 22,071. Contractors fee 10% of D $242,782. SUB-TOTAL 2,791' BOND, INSURANCE & AGC 1.150 $245,574. SUB-TOTAL 2,774. STEELE-FREEMAN, INC. (NEGOTIATION CREDIT) $242,800. TOTAL CHANGE TO CONTRACT (ADD) .-ITY of DENTON, TEXAS PURCHASING DIVISION / 901-B TEXAS STREET l DENTON, TEXAS 76201 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager DATE: December 2, 1993 SUBJECT: ROOFING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES In mid 1989 during the early stages of the budget process Bruce Henington brought it to our attention that we had several roofing problems both present and potential. To enable us to prepare for these pending expenditures through the Capital Improvements Projects and budget process our office solicited proposals for a roof study. The intent was to identify problems and recommend solutions. Three roof specialist responded and Mike Barton was selected to prepare the study. The study was completed in October of 1989. It consisted of review of more than 218,000 square feet of roof over 16 buildings. The roof inspection included: A. Interior and exterior examination of all roof-related sheet metal, parapets, copings, flashings, roof mat, deck system, and all penetrations and/or projections through the roof system. B. Cross-section analysis of core samples of the roof membrane. C. Analysis of insulation and topside of deck system. D. Moisture meter readings of insulation and/or membrane as required. E. Bitumen chemical analysis. F. Establish roof priorities as applicable. The completed roof report includes: A. Building and/or roof designation on shop drawing as required. B . Existing Conditions C. Recommendations based upon existing conditions. D. Project Cost Estimate E. Photographs Since it appeared the major problems with our roofs were age and design, we began a process to establish a program to extend the life expectancy of our roofs and to deal with the predominate flat roof design. A fifteen (15) year warranty was chosen with the intent to give longevity to roof projects somewhere equal to the debt pay off time period. Cost feasibility studies indicate 15 year life is optimal based upon cost vs life expectancy. Also playing a part in the decision was that we do not have roof maintenance crews, building maintenance funds are held to a minimum during the budget process, water damage is expensive and roof repair projects inconvenience the citizens and staff. The 15 year warranty needed to be without exclusions for ponding water, foot traffic, greases, chemicals, oils and debris. These are all contributors to our roof failures. 8171566-6311 D/FW METRO 267.0042 ROOFING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES PAGE 2 OF 2 Fully realizing that total cost was a major factor, we looked at several roofing systems designed to compensate for flat roof design. We needed a system that would not single source or jeopardize the bid process. After reviewing specifications utilized by other cities, counties, school districts and the State of Texas we choose the "Hyload" system as a minimum specification. It meets all of our required criteria. A. Fifteen (15) year non exclusion warranty B. Available to all bondable insurable roofers C. Comparable materials manufactured by other companies ie Garland Co. Pitch Ply, Research Roofing Elasto-Pitch D. Utilized by other political subdivisions of the State (Exhibit A) E. Designed for flat roof application Obviously warranties are of little value if companies are not around to perform the repairs fifteen years later. To help off set this concern we have chosen to incorporate into our specifications the requirement for a roof systems specialist to supervise the application of roof. This person may or may not represent the material manufacturer but must be independent of the roofing contractor. The roofing systems specialist also serves as an unofficial representative of the City in place of a roofing inspector. Building codes do not require formal inspection of roofing application specifically nor is there a required certification f appearing blike e there is t the most for plumbing, electrical and mechanical. Roofs common failure and often most expensive. We have been utilizing the "Hyload" systems and materials as a minimum specification ave been since the roofing study was completed. To date all roofing projects competitively bid with multiple responses and all projects completed are performing satisfactorily. The Senior Center Expansion, MLK Recreation Center and Fire Station #6, all designed by the architect not utilizing the Hyload roofing criteria, currently have or have had major problems. Because of these roof problems we have insisted that the new Library specification be drawn up using the Hyload style roofing criteria. ofing It is our recommendation that the City track ton not lower their current current record and feel that our requirements. We have a very good procedure is advantageous to the Citizens of Denton. rrrell, City Manager 1 Prepared by: L F Tom D. Shaw,C.P.M. Purchasing Agent l` F r r restern Laboratories Attachments: Indeg 1674.DOC _ FROM 12. 2.1993 10:20 EXHIBIT "A" PUBLIC ENTITY REFERENCES P. 2 O D 3003 LBJ FRWY., SUITE 237 DALLAS, TEXAS 75234 214/243.5441 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Austin, Texas (approximately 200 projects since 1972) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Austin, Texas (approximately 500 projects since 1972) TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY BOARD, Austin, Texas (approximately 900,000 square feet) STATE PURCHASING AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMISSION. Austin, Texas (approximately 100 projects since 1972) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Austin, Texas (approximately 300,000 square feat) TEXAS EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Austin, Texas (approximately 100,000 square feet) TEXAS SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, Austin, Texas (approximately 150,000 square feet) BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, Waco, Texas (approximately 760,000 square feet) DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (approximately 500,000 square feet) EVERMAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (approximately 250,000 square feet) SCHERTZ-CIBOLO-UNIVERSAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (approximately $00,000 square feet) CITY OF DENTON CITY OF IRVING CORPORATE OFFICE! 3003 LBJ FRWY. • SUITE 237 • DALLAS, TX 75234 • 214/243-5441 • FAX 2`141241-8921 214 241 8921 PAGE.002 DEC 2 '93 10125 12. 2.1993 10121 P. 3 FROM PUBLIC ENTITY REFERENCES FOR ARMKO INDUSTRIES, INC. PAGE 2 DALLAS COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH & MENTAL RETARDATION CENTERS WESTERN TEXAS COLLEGE, Snyder, Texas WIMBERLEY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT KERRVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ENNIS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT LAKE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CEDAR HILL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT JASPER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT GREENVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT DE SOTO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT HUSTON•TILLOTSON COLLEGE PONDER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT SOUTHWEST TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY, San Marcos, Texas ST. EDWARDS UNIVERSITY, Austin, Texas WILLIS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT TERRELL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT KILGORE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT HUMBLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT KAUFMAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT STEPHENVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT RED OAK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT HONEY GROVE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT - 214 241 8921 PAGE.003 DEC 2 193 10:25 P. 4 12. 2.1993 10:21 FROM PUBLIC ENTITY REFERENCES FOR ARMKO INDUSTRIES, INC. PAGE 3 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS CHEST HOSPITAL, San Antonio, Texas DRIPPING SPRINGS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT HOPKINS COUNTY HOSPITAL CITY OF GREENVILLE AMBASSADOR COLLEGE, Big Sandy, Texas UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ZAVALA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT HUNTINGTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT KRUM INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT TARRANT COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH & MENTAL RETARDATION CENTERS HARDIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 214 241 6921 PRGE.004 DEC 2 '93 10:26 Sad SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES Materials, environmental and geotechnical engineering, nondestructive, metallurgical and analytical services Texas 782 2435 Boardwalk • P.O. Box 17965. San Antonio, 1 7 512/822-21 1 6 January 7, 1990 Re: Review of Proposed Roofing Systems Schertz-Cibolo-Universal Citv Independent School District SwL File No. 9-7742-04 SwL Report No. 14809 P.O. No. 12292 Mr. Herbert H. Rebmann Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD 1060 Elbel Road Schertz, Texas 78154 the c, As requested by Mr. Herbert H. RehmanWe ofhave Sreerzw-cibwoo-Universal Cems Independent School District (SCUC), proposed for use on existing structures in the school district. This report includes the following: Exposure and inservice conditions that the roofs in question will experience (as provided by Rehmann). Two proposed roofing systems as described by Mr. Rehmann and Mr. Michael Hamilton with Armko Industries, Inc. (a roofing consultant hired by the SCUC). Our evaluation of each system with regard to exposure conditions, inservice conditions, and warranty considerations. Recommendation of the more suitable roof system. Exposure and Inservice Conditions Primarily, the roof surfaces will be e posed (asa animal fats in science (as in lunchroom areas), chemical laboratory areas), ultraviolet light from the sun and natural precipitation. • Maintenance personnel will periodically walk on the roof while working on roof equipment and fixtures such as roof vents and air conditioning units. v • ALEI"OD IA E ~PLVEST CN CC•L'NTy ANCE VPL..- _CUSTpN 0 CAL'?S ~,AUSTN BEPUMONT CGNFC Jr • -cL>FK?NG -_E=M AN SOUTHWrSTERN LABORATORIES schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD SwL File No. 9-7742-04 SwL Report No. 14809 Page 2 of 6 Presently, the buildings have experienced some differential movements resulting in low areas primarily at the building perimeter. Reroofing plans include the installation of tapered insulation in these areas to promote drainage towards the interior roof drains. However, some low areas (where water will pond) are expected to remain in the other areas of the roof even after reroofing has been completed. Proposed Roofine Systems The proposed roofing systems submitted for review are as follows: System 1 (As specified) Vented base sheet mechanically fastened to the existing lightweight concrete insulating roof fill. ■ Two plys of Type IV fiberglass sheets hot mopped to base sheet with steep asphalt and with intetply steep asphalt. Coal tar modified elastomeric membrane reinforced with dispersed polyester fiber (Hyload 150E). This membrane is hotmopped to the top fiberglass ply wiz- steep asphalt. ■ Flood coat (roofing asphalt) and river gravel surfacing. 15-year warranty. Svsr_em 2 (Proposed alternate) Perma Ply R fiberglass sheet mechanically fastened to existing lightweight insulating roof '-fill. 3/4-inch thick Owens Corning Fiberglass Insulation (as stated by Mr. Michael Hamilton, i^.sulation added only so that the system qualifies for a 15-year warranty; insula- tion is not needed to supplement existing insulation). Three plys of Perma Ply mopped to insulation with roofing asphalt R fiberglass roofing felts hot roofing asphalt and with interply Flood coat (roofing asphalt) and river gravel surfacing. 15-year warranty. s OUTHWESTERN LAO0RATORIES Schertt-Cibolo-Universal City ISD SwL File No. 9-7742-04 SwL Report No. 14809 Page 3 of 6 Evaluation of Roof Systems The technical information discussed in this system is taken from the following sources: Manufacturers literature for the Hyload 150E Roofing (supplied to us by Mr. Hamilton). ■ Roofing Materials Guide, Volume 17, August 1990, published by the National Roofing Contractors Association. osu_ ronditions The Hvload membrane (in System 1) is reportedly "resistant to a range of thata`he chemicals including mineral oils, greases and many solvents, as well and alkaline chemicals". Manufacturer's literature alssaaconven.tional "Hvload 150E has 16 times the crack bridging capability of 3-ply built up roof". This membrane has recently been used on several roofs in the school district. We understand that to membraneSas performed well to date. No comparable information was reported concrning stem . Membrane Streneth Reported values are as follows: System 1 Puncture Elastomeric Resistance Prs- Tensile Streneth Fiberglass P1vs 48 psi/ply 330 psi Elongatio^. - 1707, Hvload 150E 1500 psi Memory - 100% Sys_ tffm-2 Puncture Elastomeric Resistance Pro erties Tensil_ e_ S-~ None Reported None Reported Fiberglass Plys 67 psi/ply SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES Sr'ertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD SwL File No. 9-7742-04 SwL Report No. 14809 Page 4 of 6 The information on the previous page indicates that the strength of the f`'oerglass plys is slightly greater in System 2. However, the Hyload membrane in System 1 provides the additional highly desirable properties of high tensile strength, puncture resistance and the ability to significantly o the membrane to permanent deformation rbridge ) without expand and/or contract (elastomeric properties f the membrane. These properties help cracks in the roof caused by building movements and thermal cycling. The help to puncture resistance of the Hyload m toolsldr pped by workmen foots traffic 0.; puncture type mechanisms (that is, , on the roof and windblown debris). War-ran f-y Considerations n general, System 2 has seve ral additional "specific exclusions from re , ineff coverage" and "specific conditions to make warranty ineffective or null and and when compared to those of System I. Based on the reported expo ecificalld inservice conditions, these ondittDetailedcinformationdislgiven sin Tables 1 apply to the roofs in q and 2 and is discussed below. The significant specific exclusions found within system 2 but not found in System 1 are as follows: 8. Change in building use. signed that changes will school district expands. It is conceivable to the under- occur in building use as the 11. Ponding water. It is known that water will pond on some areas of the roof after repairs have been completed. 13. Exposures to chemicals etc. It is known that some of the roofs will be exposed to animal fats and chemical vapors. 17. Faultv design/construction of buildinF.. addi The absence of tional safety this exclusion for System 1 P construction problems factor against design and/or c associated with the existing structures. The specific conditions to make the warranty ineffective or null and void (as 'listed in Table 2) are addressed on the following page. SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD SwL File No. 9-7742-04 SwL Report No. 14809 Page 5 of 6 System 1 R. Apply materials accordin to manufacturer's specifications or instructions. The warranty for System 1 requires tha o t the roofing applicator be "approved, authorized or licensed" by the roofing manufacturer and that Hyload will make on-site inspections (at no charge) prior, during, and after application prior to issuance of guarantee. These require- ments should help to assure that the roofing materials are applied in a manner satisfactory to the manufacturer. System 2 C. Payment by owner - Aside from items which do not meet project specifications or contractural agreements (`"nice should also be of concern to the manufacturer), undersigned foresees no other technical item that should preclude payment by the owner. N. Repair work by una proved contractor/or use of unapproved material - The roofing applicator usually warranties his workmanship for a period of two years and would make all necessary repairs during that time period. After that time, repairs could be performed by the same or an alternate approved roofing applicator using approved materials. Recommendation of Roof System Based on the information discussed in this letter and on our experience with similar projects, it is our opinion that System 1 is more suitable for the roofs in question. Its material properties and warranty appear ring the significantly superior to that d of system 2 water, chemical1afumeshandccrackebridging issues of building use, ponde capability. Regardless of the roofing system that is ultimately chosen, we recommend that the performance history and stability of the manufacturer, roof membrane and roofing applicator be thoroughly researched. SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD SwL File No. 9-7742-04 SwL Report No. 14809 Page 6 of 6 We hope this fulfills your needs at this time. Please contact us if you have any questions. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. Very truly yours, SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES, INC. Chuck A. Gregory, P.E. Project Manager Materials Engineering Division Garland L. Burch, P.E. Manager San Antonio Office CAG/GLB/jlc Attachments SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD SwL File No. 9-7742-04 SwL Report No. 14809 Attachm@nt - Page 1 of 4 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF "SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE" FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSED ROOFING SYSTEMS System 1 1. Natural disasters and acts of God (lightning, tornados, earthquakes). 2. Hail. 3. Acts of negligence, abuse or misuse, accidents, vandalism, civil disobedience, war. 4. Damage by structural failure, settlement, movement, distortion, warpage, displacement of structure. 5. Failure of material and/or metal work not supplied by manufact- urer issuing guarantee or warranty; movement of metal work. 6. Repairs or alterations of roof or installation of structures, fixtures, or utilities on or through roof without prior approval of manufacturer. 9. Traffic or storage of materials on roof. 10. Moisture entering roof systems through walls, copings, or any part of building structure, including from adjacent buildings. 22. Infiltration or condensation of moisture in or through underlying area; vapor condensation beneath the roof. System 2 1. Natural disasters and acts of God (lightning, tornados, earthquakes). 2. Hail. 3. Acts of negligence, abuse or misuse, accidents, vandalism, civil disobedience, war. 4. Damage by structural failure, settlement, movement, distortion, warpage, displacement of structure. SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD SwL File No. 9-7742-04 SwL Report No. 14809 Attachment - Page 2 of 4 TABLE 1 (Continued System 2 (Continued 5. Failure of material and/or metal work not supplied by manufact- urer issuing guarantee or warranty; movement of metal work. 6. Repairs or alterations of roof or installation of structures, fixtures, or utilities on or through roof without prior approval of manufacturer. 7, Defects in, failure or improper application of, roof insulation., roof deck or any other underlying surface or material used as a base over which the roof is applied. 8. Change in usage of building without prior written approval of manufacturer. 9. Traffic or storage of materials on roof. 10. Moisture entering roof svstems through walls, copings, or any part of building structure, including from adjacent buildings. 11. Damage resulting from lack of positive, proper, or adequate drainage; ponding on roof. 13. Environmental fallout, chemical attack or use within building of commercial of industrial solvents, acids, caustic fluids, oils, waxes, greases, absorbents clays, or plasticizers. 16. Fire. 17. Faulty construction of design of building, including parapet walls, copings, chimneys, skylights, vents, or of roof deck. 18. Contaminations that have not first been approved or accepted by manufacturer; exposure to or contact with damaging substances on deteriorating substances or agents. 22. Infiltration or condensation of moisture in or through underlying area; vapor condensation beneath the roof. 23. Damages caused by falling objects. ,,UTHWESTERN LABORATORIES Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD SwL File No. 9-7742-04 SwL Report No. 14809 Attachment - Page 3 of 4 TABLE 1 (Continued REFERENCES Roofing Materials Guide, Volume 17, August 1990 published by the National Roofing Contractors Association. System 1 - "Hyload, Inc. 10-Year Guarantee High Performance Roofings"; December, 1986. System 2 - "Owens-Corning Fiberglass Publication PNoma 15yRW-Roofing System Guaranty"; February 1988; (Specimen copy has designation publication No. 15-RW-10492-5). 50UTHWESTERN LABORATORIES Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City ISD SwL File No. 9-7742-04 SwL Report No. 14809 Attachment - Page 4 of 4 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF "SPECIFIC CONDITIONS TO FOR EEAC~HRA~ INEFFECTIVE OR NULL AND VOID' OF THE PROPOSED ROOFING SYSTEMS Svs_ t~l R. Membrane or materials supplied by manufacturer are not applied according to manufacturer's specifications or instructions. System 2 C. Failure of owner to pay all bills for roof installation and materials. N. Repair work by any contractor other than approved contractor or use of unapproved material. REFERENCES de , Volume 17, August 1990 published by the Roofing Materials Gui National Roofing Contractors Association. S stem 1 - "Hyload, Inc. 10-Year Guarantee High Performance Y Roofings"; December, 1986. System 2 - "Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation Perma Ply R Roofing System Guaranty"; February 1988; Publication No. 15-RW-10545-G (Specimen copy has designation Publication No. 15-RW-10492-J).