ADDENDUM NO. 1 OPERATIONS CENTER SUFFOLK PUBLIC … · the origin for concave shaped curves. Subsequently, the CBR values were selected at 0.1-inch penetration using the corrected

ADDENDUM NO. 1

OPERATIONS CENTER

SUFFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS IFB # 1658-B

RRMM Project No. 17246.00

September 11, 2018

This Addendum forms a part of the Construction Documents and modifies the original bidding documents dated August 19, 2018. The information in this Addendum supersedes any contradictory information or omission set forth in the Contract Documents. Where any component of the Contract Documents is modified or deleted by this Addendum, the unaltered components of that Section, Article, or Drawing shall remain in effect. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum by inserting its number and date in the Proposal Form. Failure to do so may subject Bidder to disqualification. This Addendum consists of two (2) pages, one (1) Geotechnical Report, four (4) pre-bid question responses, and the pre-bid conference sign-in sheets.

NEW BID DATE: The Bid Date shall be postponed until September 25, 2018. All bids shall be received in the Purchasing Office, on or before 2:00 p.m., September 25, 2018 and delivered to: Anthony Hinds, MBA Department of Purchasing Suffolk Public Schools 100 North Main St. Suffolk, VA 23434

CLARIFICATIONS

1.1 Bidders shall include all building permit fees within their base bid price. The owner will pay for any

fees associated with Virginia Dominion Power, Public Utilities and Public Works.

1.2 With Notice To Proceed anticipated to be on or before Oct 12, 2018, the contract schedule includes 231

calendar days to reach Substantial Completion, and 28 calendar days to reach Final Completion.

2

PERTAINING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS

1.3 BID FORM: Page BF-1, REVISE the title of the project to read “New Operations Center for Suffolk

Public Schools.”

1.4 ATTACHMENT 2 – GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: ADD the attached Geotechnical Report prepared by

GET Solutions, Inc., included for informational purposes only.

1.5 SECTION 042000 – UNIT MASONRY: Page 5, subparagraph 2.2.D.4, DELETE “b. Provide beveled

top edge for the top course.” in its entirety.

PERTAINING TO THE DRAWINGS

NONE

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORT OFSUBSURFACEEXPLORATIONANDGEOTECHNICALENGINEERINGSERVICES

Suffolk Public Schools MaintenanceOperations Center

Suffolk, Virginia

G E T Project No: VB18-132G

March 15, 2018

PREPARED FOR:

204 Grayson Road · Virginia Beach, VA 23462Phone: (757)-518-1703

www.getsolutionsinc.com

March 15, 2018 TO: RRMM Architects

1317 Executive Blvd., Suite 200 Chesapeake, VA 23320

Attn: Mr. Jeff Harris

RE: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services

Suffolk Public Schools Maintenance Operations Center Suffolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB18-132G

Dear Mr. Harris: In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Geotechnical Engineering Services for the referenced project. The results of this study, together with our recommendations, are presented in this report. Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise concerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to continue its role as Geotechnical Engineer during the project implementation. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. We trust that the information contained herein meets your immediate need, and should you have any questions or if we could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully Submitted, G E T Solutions, Inc.

Edward Setnicky. Project Geologist Bruce R. Spiro, P.E. Principal Engineer VA Lic. # 015791 Copies: (1) Client

204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Phone: (757)-518-1703 Fax: (757)-518-1704

[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................................................................................11.1 Project Authorization ............................................................................................11.2 Project and Site Description .................................................................................11.3 Purpose and Scope of Services............................................................................1

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES .........................................................................22.1 Field Exploration ...................................................................................................22.2 Laboratory Testing ...............................................................................................32.2.1 Soil Classification and Index Testing ....................................................................32.2.2 Bulk Soil Sample Testing ......................................................................................3

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..............................................................................43.1 Site Geology .........................................................................................................43.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions ...................................................................................43.3 Groundwater Information ......................................................................................6

4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................64.1 Clearing and Grading ...........................................................................................64.2 Subgrade Preparation ..........................................................................................64.3 Structural Fill and Placement ................................................................................84.4 Suitability of On-site Soils .....................................................................................84.5 Foundation Design Recommendations .................................................................94.6 Settlements ..........................................................................................................94.7 Foundation Excavations .......................................................................................94.8 Slab-on-Grade Design ........................................................................................ 104.9 Parking Lot Pavement Design ............................................................................ 114.10 Seismic Evaluation ............................................................................................. 12

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 125.1 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns ................................................................. 125.2 Excavations ........................................................................................................ 135.3 Dewatering ......................................................................................................... 145.4 Site Utility Installation ......................................................................................... 15

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 15

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION PLANAPPENDIX II SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMAPPENDIX III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION RESULTSAPPENDIX IV BORING LOGSAPPENDIX V SOIL PROFILEAPPENDIX VI CBR TEST RESULTS

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services March 15, 2018Suffolk Public Schools Maintenance Operations CenterSuffolk, VirginiaG E T Project No: VB18-132G

1

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Project Authorization

G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our subsurface exploration and geotechnicalengineering services for the proposed Suffolk Public Schools Maintenance OperationsCenter project, located in Suffolk, Virginia. The geotechnical engineering services wereconducted in general accordance with G E T Proposal No. PVB17-624G. Authorization toproceed with our services was obtained from Mr. Jeffrey Harris with RRMM Architects inthe form of electronic mail dated February 14, 2018.

1.2 Project and Site Description

The project site is located on Pruden Boulevard at the former Mount Zion ElementarySchool site in the City of Suffolk, Virginia. The proposed construction will consist ofdemolishing the existing building and constructing a new, one-story pre-engineered metalfacility in its place. The new building will be approximately 26,500 square feet in plan area.The maximum wall and column loads are not expected to exceed 2 klf and 100 kips,respectively. The floor loads are expected to be less than approximately150 psf. The finishgrades are expected to coincide with current grades, thus cuts and fills are not expected toexceed 1 to 2 feet. New parking areas, a BMP pond, and associated infrastructure will beconstructed as well.

If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform G E T Solutions,Inc. so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate.

1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services

The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditionsat the proposed project site. The subsurface conditions encountered were then evaluatedwith respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineeringassessments for the following items were formulated:

1. General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at the proposeddevelopment.

2. General location and description of potentially deleterious material encountered inthe borings that may interfere with construction progress or structure performance,including existing fills or surficial/subsurface organics.

3. Construction considerations for foundation excavations.

4. Evaluation of the on-site soils for re-use as structural fill.


2

5. Feasibility of utilizing a slab-on-grade with turned-down edges for support of theproposed structure. Design parameters required for the foundation system,including foundation sizes, allowable bearing pressures, foundation levels andexpected total and differential settlements.

6. Pavement design recommendations (new roadways) based on the field explorationactivities (3 borings and associated CBR tests) and our experience with similar soilconditions.

7. Seismic Site Class definition in accordance with the IBC 2012 requirements,available soil data, and our local experience.

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining thepresence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock,surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site.

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

2.1 Field Exploration

In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associatedconstruction design parameters, the following field exploration program was performed atthe site:

· Four (4) 25-foot deep SPT borings (designated as B1-A through B-4) were drilledwithin the footprint of the proposed structure.

· One (1) hand auger boring was drilled within the courtyard of the existing Mt. ZionElementary School to further explore soils within the footprint of the proposedstructure. A hand auger was requested to be performed by the client due to accessrestrictions limiting drill rig soil exploration methods.

· Three (3) 10-foot deep SPT borings (designated as CBR-1 through CBR-3) weredrilled within the proposed pavement areas.

The SPT borings were performed with the use of rotary wash “mud” and hollow stemauger drilling procedures in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The tests wereperformed continuously from the existing ground surface to depths of 12-feet, and at 5-footintervals thereafter. The soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4” I.D., 2” O.D., 30”long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling30 inches, using an automatic hammer. The number of blows required to drive the samplereach 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. Thesum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value(uncorrected for automatic hammer and overburden pressure). A representative portion ofeach disturbed split-spoon sample was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar,sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review.


3

The SPT boring locations were established by the client and staked in the field by arepresentative of G E T Solutions, Inc. The approximate boring locations are shown onthe attached “Boring Location Plan” (Appendix I)

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Soil testing provided by G E T Solutions, Inc. was performed in accordance with AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. All soils and materials tests wereperformed in our AASHTO re:source (formally AMRL) and US Army Corps of Engineerscertified Virginia Beach laboratory.

2.2.1 Soil Classification and Index Testing

Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling operations werelabeled, preserved and transferred to our laboratory in accordance with ASTM D4220 forclassification and analysis. Soil descriptions on the boring logs are provided using visual-manual methods in general accordance with ASTM D2488 using the Unified SoilClassification System (USCS). Soil samples that were selected for index testing wereclassified in general accordance with ASTM D2487. It should be noted that some variationcan be expected between samples classified using the visual-manual procedure (ASTMD2488) and the USCS (ASTM D2487). A summary of the soil classification system isprovided in Appendix II.

Representative bulk and split-spoon soil samples were selected and subjected to naturalmoisture, #200 sieve wash, and Atterberg Limits testing in order to corroborate the visualclassification. These test results are presented in Appendix III and on the soil test boringlogs provided in Appendix IV. Generalized subsurface soil profiles are provided inAppendix V.

2.2.2 Bulk Soil Sample Testing

The three (3) bulk soil samples were returned to our AASHTO re:source certified VirginiaBeach laboratory and subjected to Standard Proctor and CBR testing in accordance withASTM D698 and ASTM D1883, respectively. The stress-strain curve was plotted for eachspecimen. If necessary, the stress-strain curves were corrected by adjusting the location ofthe origin for concave shaped curves. Subsequently, the CBR values were selected at 0.1-inch penetration using the corrected load values. A summary of the CBR test results ispresented in Table I on the following page and the Proctor curves, Particle SizeDistribution Reports, and the CBR curves are provided in Appendix VI.


4

Table I – CBR Test Results

BoringID

DepthBelow

Grade (ft)USCS wN(1)

(%)

Passing#200Sieve(%)

AtterbergLimits

(LL/PL/PI)

Max.Dry

Density(pcf)

OptimumMoisture

(%)

CBRValue

Swell(%)

CBR-1 1-2 SC 16 28.5 20/11/9 116.5 12.2 11.5 0.2

CBR-2 1-2 CL-SC 24 50.2 21/10/11 112.4 13.8 6.4 0.2

CBR-3 1-2 SC 16 26.9 18/10/8 116.6 12.1 13.7 0.2Note(s): (1) wN – Natural Moisture Content

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

The project site lies within a major physiographic province called the Atlantic Coastal Plain.Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine,lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, andgenerally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts and clays.Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the geologic stratigraphyencountered in our subsurface explorations generally consisted of marine deposited sandsand clays.

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

The results of our soil test borings are summarized below in Table II and on the followingpages in Table III and Table IV.

Table II-Summary of Soil Test Borings

AVERAGEDEPTH (Feet) STRATUM DESCRIPTION

RANGES OFUNCORRECTEDSPT(1) N-VALUES

B-1 through B-40to

0.21 - 0.42Topsoil Ø 2.5 to 5 inches of topsoil -

0.21 - 0.42to6

IØ CLAY (CL)

Ø SAND (SC, SC-SM,SM)

Cohesive2 – 4

Non-Cohesive2 - 9

6to25

II Ø SAND (SC, SM, SP, SP-SM) withvarying fines 4 - 21

Notes: (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, Uncorrected N-Values in Blows-per-foot.


5

Table III-Summary of Soil Test Borings


RANGES OFUNCORRECTEDSPT(1) N-VALUES

CBR-1 through CBR-30to

0.33Topsoil Ø 4 inches of topsoil -

0.33to10

IØ SAND (SC, SM, SP) with varying

fines *small deposit of Lean CLAY at0.3 to 4 ft in CBR-2*

11 - 12

Notes: (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, Uncorrected N-Values in Blows-per-foot.

Table IV-Summary of Soil Test Borings


HA-1

0to3

I

No Ground Cover

Ø SAND (SP, SM) *Hand auger boringcould not progress beyond 3 ft due toexcess water – possibly due toperched conditions*

The subsurface descriptions are of a generalized nature provided to highlight the majorsoil strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included on the“Boring Log” sheets (Appendix III) and in the “Generalized Soil Profile” (Appendix IV),which should be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. Thestratifications shown on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditionsonly at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected betweenboring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary betweensubsurface materials and the transition may be gradual or occur between sample intervals.

It is noted that the “Topsoil” designation references the presence of surficial organic ladensoil, and does not represent any particular quality specification. It is recommended thatthis material be tested for approval prior to use as topsoil.


6

3.3 Groundwater Information

The groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through therelative wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initialgroundwater table was generally determined to occur at an approximate depth rangingfrom 6 to 8 feet below current grades at the boring locations at the time of our sitereconnaissance. The boreholes were backfilled upon completion for safety considerations.As such, the reported groundwater level may not be indicative of the static groundwaterlevel.

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions,such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences,such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (pavedparking lots, side walks, etc.). In the project’s area, seasonal groundwater fluctuations of ±2 feet are common; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. We recommendthat the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the constructionto determine groundwater impact on the construction procedures, if necessary.

The majority of the shallow subsurface soils near the groundwater elevations arepredominately granular in nature and is considered relatively ‘clean’. As such, waterseepage at varying elevations should be expected within the side walls of open cut areas.It is important to note that even small quantities of persistent seepage may complicateconstruction operations when excavations extend near or below areas of saturated soil.Construction difficulties resulting from near surface groundwater or excess soil moisturewill be much less likely if work is conducted during the dry season.

4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, ourinterpretation of the soil test borings, our laboratory testing and our observations duringour site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what wasdescribed, we request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make anynecessary changes.

4.1 Clearing and Grading

The proposed construction areas should be cleared by means of removing the topsoilmaterial and any other unsuitable materials. It is estimated that a cut of up to 2.5 to 5inches in depth will be required to remove the topsoil material. This cut is expected toextend deeper in isolated areas to remove deeper deposits of organic soils, or unsuitablesoils, which become evident during the clearing. It is recommended that the clearingoperations extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposedconstruction area.


7

The results of our field exploration program indicated that the soils below the surficialmaterials were generally comprised of CLAY (CL) and SAND (SC). Accordingly,combinations of excess surface moisture from precipitation ponding on the site and theconstruction traffic, including heavy compaction equipment, may create pumping andgeneral deterioration of the bearing capabilities of the surface soils. Therefore,undercutting to remove very soft/loose soils should be anticipated. The extent of theundercut will be determined in the field during construction based on the outcome of thefield testing procedures (subgrade proofroll).

To reduce the potential for subgrade improvements (undercutting due to saturated soils inconjunction with heavy construction traffic), it is recommended that the grading operationsbe performed during the drier months of the year (historically April through November asindicated by the NCDC Climate Atlas of the United States). This should minimize thesepotential problems, although they may not be eliminated. If grading is attempted during thewinter months, stabilization of wet soils should be anticipated. Methods to address wetsoils may include excavation-substitution (undercutting and backfilling with structural fill) orthe introduction of chemical additives (cement, lime, etc.). However, during the driermonths of the year, wet soils could be dried by discing or implementing other dryingprocedures (stockpiling or spreading in thin lifts) to achieve moisture contents necessary toachieve adequate degrees of compaction. The project’s budget should include anallowance for subgrade improvements as described above.

The site should be graded to enhance surface water runoff to reduce the ponding of water.Ponding of water often results in softening of the near-surface soils. In the event of heavyrainfall within areas to receive fill, we recommend that the grading operations cease untilthe site has had a chance to dry. If the subgrade becomes deteriorated due to the above-mentioned or other reasons, difficulty maneuvering construction equipment and machineryis likely.

The undercut and backfill should be performed under the observation of a representativeof G E T Solutions, Inc. who will evaluate the composition of the recovered soils.Recommendations concerning the subgrade improvements (as necessary) will be providedin the field following the testing procedures.

4.2 Subgrade Preparation

Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with alarge static drum roller. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should beevaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the subgrade soils should beproof rolled to check for pockets of loose material hidden beneath a crust of better soil.Several passes should be made by a large rubber-tired roller, loaded dump truck or otherheavy equipment over the construction areas. The number of passes will be determined inthe field by the Geotechnical Engineer depending on the soils conditions. Any pumping orunstable areas observed during proof rolling (beyond the initial cut) should be undercutand/or stabilized at the directions of the Geotechnical Engineer.


8

During the subgrade testing (proofrolling), isolated areas of unstable subgrade soils arelikely, thus requiring ground improvements. Soil instabilities may be noted during theproofroll due to high soil moisture contents. In this case, drying the subgrade soils (towithin +/- 2% of the optimum moisture) should be attempted prior to ground improvements.If drying the soils is not a feasible option the subgrade improvements can be performed bymeans of lime stabilization (cohesive soils) and/or cement stabilization (granular soils) ofthe shallow unstable soils.

4.3 Structural Fill and Placement

Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by the Geotechnical Engineer, theplacement of the fill required to establish the design grades may begin. Any material to beused for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by G E T Solutions, Inc. prior toplacement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fillmaterial should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 20% by weight of fines (SP,SM, SW, GP, GW), having a liquid limit less than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, andshould be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable material.

All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 98% of the StandardProctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) unless specified differently in this report. Ingeneral, the compaction should be accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inchloose lifts and mechanically compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum drydensity. A representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests oneach lift as necessary to assure that adequate compaction is achieved.

Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of structuralfill (as described above), and should be compacted to at least 98% of ASTM D 698. Thisfill should be placed in 4 to 6 inch loose lifts when hand compaction equipment is used.

Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoidtransmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. Inthis regard, it is recommended that the vibratory roller remain at least 25 feet away fromexisting structures; these areas should be compacted with small, hand-operatedcompaction equipment.

4.4 Suitability of On-site Soils

Based on the laboratory testing program, the shallow subsurface CLAY (CL) and SAND(SC) soils encountered at the boring locations do not appear to meet the criteriarecommended in this report for reuse as structural fill; however, may be used as fill ingreen areas.


9

Further classification testing (natural moisture content, gradation analysis, and Proctortesting) should be performed in the field during construction to evaluate the suitability ofexcavated soils for reuse as structural fill. The project’s budget should include anallowance for imported structural fill.

4.5 Foundation Design Recommendations

Provided that the construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed structurecan be supported by a shallow foundation system consisting of a grade level slab withturned down edges bearing upon firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill material.The turn-downs can be designed using a net allowable soil pressure of 2,000 pounds persquare foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the footings and backfill over thefootings, including the weight of the floor slab, need not be considered. Hence, only loadsapplied at or above the finished floor need to be used for dimensioning the footings.

In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot(psf), the base of the turn-down should have an embedment of at least 18 inches beneathfinished grades and wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. In addition,isolated square column footings are recommended to be a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet inarea for bearing capacity considerations. The recommended 18-inch footing embedment isconsidered sufficient to provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearingsoils.

4.6 Settlements

It is estimated that, with proper site preparation, the maximum resulting post-constructiontotal settlement of the foundations should be up to 1 inch. The maximum differentialsettlement magnitude is expected to be less than ½-inch between adjacent footings (wallfootings and column footings of widely varying loading conditions). The settlements wereestimated on the basis of the results of the field penetration tests. Careful field control willcontribute substantially towards minimizing the settlements.

4.7 Foundation Excavations

In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend intofirm natural soil or well compacted structural fill. All foundation excavations should beobserved by a representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. At that time, the GeotechnicalEngineer should also explore the extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitablematerial within the exposed excavations. Also, at the time of the footing observations, theGeotechnical Engineer will advance hand auger borings in the bases of the foundationexcavations to verify that the bearing soils are consistent with those documented in thisreport. The necessary depth of penetration will be established during the subgradeobservations.


10

When pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footingexcavations, the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means ofbackfilling with “flowable fill” or a suitable structural fill material compacted to a dry densityof at least 98 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698), asdescribed in Section 4.3 of this report, prior to concrete placement. This constructionprocedure will provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.

Immediately prior to foundation concrete placement, it is suggested that the bearingsurfaces of all foundations be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers. In thismanner, any localized areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, shouldbe adequately re-compacted.

The compaction testing in the base of the foundation may be waived by the GeotechnicalEngineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the foundation inspections. Soilsexposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protectedagainst any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain orfrost. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not beallowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed the same day theexcavation is made. If this is not possible, the footing excavations should be adequatelyprotected.

4.8 Slab-on-Grade Design

The floor slabs may be constructed as slab-on-grade members provided the previouslyrecommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It isrecommended that all ground floor slabs be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer ofrelatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5%passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as acapillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab.

It is recommended that all ground floor slabs be "floating". That is, generally groundsupported and not rigidly connected to walls or foundations. This is to minimize thepossibility of cracking and displacement of the floor slabs because of differentialmovements between the slab and the foundation.

It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier orretarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect theperformance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vaporresistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions or otherconsiderations require greater vapor resistance protection; consideration should be givento using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by thearchitect based on project requirements.


11

4.9 Pavement Design Recommendations

Based on the results of the laboratory test program, the collected bulk soil samples in thefootprint of the proposed new pavement have an average soaked CBR value of 10.5. Theaverage soaked CBR value was multiplied by a factor of two-thirds to determine apavement design CBR value. The two-thirds factor provides the necessary safety marginssince the specified time for soaking may not be long enough to give the minimum CBRstrength of some soils, to compensate for any non-uniformity of the soil, and to account forany low test results not considered when computing the average. Therefore, a CBR valueof 7.02 was calculated. The comprehensive test results are provided in Appendix VI.

The minimum pavement design recommendations for the proposed roadways arepresented in Table V below.

Table V – Typical Minimum Pavement Sections (Roadway)

Section Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete(1) AggregateBase(2)

StructuralFill(3) Subgrade

Light Duty Flexible(Parking Bays) 2” - - 8” 12”

Stable,lined withMirafiHP270(4)

Heavy Duty Flexible(Drive Aisles) 2” 3” - 8” 12”


Heavy Duty Rigid(Drive Aisles/Parking

Bays)- - 8” 4” 12”


Note(s): (1) Minimum flexural strength of 650 psi at 28 days.(2) VDOT Type 21-A or 21-B, compacted to a dry density of at least 100% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density(ASTM D 698).(3) The structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 98 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum drydensity (ASTM D 698) and posess a minimum CBR value of 20.(4) Or equivalent

Pavement section thicknesses and design criteria should be reviewed by the design civilengineer to determine the adequacy of the pavement section for its intended purpose. Allpavement material and construction procedures should conform to Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDOT) requirements.

In preparation for a stable subgrade support for the pavement sections, the followingconstruction steps are recommended:


12

1. Following pavement rough grading operations, the exposed subgrade should beobserved under proofrolling. This proofrolling should be accomplished with a fullyloaded dump truck or 7 to 10 ton drum roller to check for pockets of soft materialhidden beneath a thin crust of better soil. Any unsuitable materials thus exposedshould be removed and replaced with a well-compacted material. The inspection ofthese phases should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer or hisrepresentative.

2. Where excessively unstable subgrade soils are observed during proofrolling and/orfill placement, it is expected that these weak areas can be stabilized by means ofadding geosynthetics, thickening the subbase course layer by 6 to 12 inches,and/or by chemical stabilization. These alternates are to be addressed by theGeotechnical Engineer during construction, if necessary, who will recommend themost economical approach at the time.

4.10 Seismic Evaluation

Based on the information obtained at the boring locations and our experience within thevicinity of the project site, the upper 25 feet of the recovered soils (maximum exploreddepth) are indicative of a Site Class “D” in accordance with Table 1613.5.2 of the 2012International Building Code; however, the seismic evaluation requires soils informationassociated with the upper 100 feet. If the site classification is critical to the structuraldesign it will be necessary to perform a 100-foot deep CPT boring with shear wave velocitytesting to substantiate the site classification.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Anticipated Excavation Characteristics

Based on the results of this exploration, varying soil conditions and compositions areexpected to be encountered throughout the project limits. Open-cut excavations will extendthrough natural soils that are considered to be relatively “clean” (i.e. soil that is relativelyfree of deleterious debris that may hinder excavation or installation). Debris typicallyconsidered unsuitable consist of wood, glass, organics, plastics, coal, brick or any othermaterial larger than 2 inches in diameter. Based on these characteristics it is anticipatedthat some of the shallow subsurface materials encountered within the project alignmentmay be reusable as backfill. Soils containing appreciable amounts of deleterious debrisshould be discarded; however, an effort should be made during excavation to segregatepotentially suitable in-situ soils for reuse. Information pertaining to backfill criteria wasprovided previously in Section 4.3.


13

5.2 Excavation Stability

The shallow subsurface within the project limits is comprised of clayey and granular soils;however, the Contractor should anticipate these soils to have relatively little cohesion andhave a high potential for caving. Additionally, water seepage at varying elevations shouldbe expected within the side walls of the open cut areas, increasing the potential for caving.Based on these mentioned characteristics, it is recommended that all subsurface soils beconsidered Type C in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA) criteria.

Temporary Slopes

In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States Department ofLabor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its “ConstructionStandards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P”. This document was issued tobetter ensure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated bythis federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basementexcavations, or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new (OSHA)guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and ifthey are not closely followed, the owner and the Contractor could be liable for substantialpenalties.

Temporary slopes may not be a feasible option. The Contractor is solely responsible fordesigning and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, orbench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavationsides and bottom. The Contractor’s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926,should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the Contractor’s safetyprocedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth,including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federalsafety regulations.

Where temporary slopes are not feasible, shoring by means of sheeting and/or trenchshields may be appropriate. Where the stability of adjoining structures, pavements, orother improvements is endangered by excavation operations, support systems such asshoring, bracing, or underpinning may be required to provide structural stability. Shoring,bracing, or underpinning required for this project (if required) should be designed by aprofessional engineer.


14

Shoring

Shoring design and installation should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Shoringsystems required for this project should be designed by a professional engineer. Shoringsystems should be designed to provide positive restraint of trench walls in an effort toprotect against lateral deformation that may result in ground cracks, settlement, and/orother ground movements that may affect adjacent underground utilities and pavements aswell as surface improvements. The Contractor should be made aware of this potentialcondition in order that preventative measures can be implemented or repair measuresprovided for.

Depending on the shoring system used, the removal process may create voids along thewalls of the excavations. If these voids are left in place and are significant, backfill and/orthe retained soil may shift laterally resulting in settlement of overlyingstructures/pavements. As such, care should be taken to remove the shoring systems andbackfill the trenches in a manner as to not create these voids.

In all cases, the Contractor should select an excavation and/or shoring scheme that willprotect adjacent and overlying improvements, including below grade utilities.

We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions, Inc. isnot assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor’s activities; suchresponsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

5.3 Dewatering

It is expected that dewatering will be required for excavations that extend near or below theexisting groundwater table (approximate depth of 6 to 8 feet or shallower). Dewateringabove the groundwater level could probably be accomplished by pumping from sumps.Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level will require well pointing and possiblyshoring. Since temporary dewatering will impact construction and be dependent onconstruction methods and scheduling, we recommend the Contractor be solely responsiblefor the design, installation, maintenance, and performance of all temporary dewateringsystems. Where shoring is employed, the dewatering system should be compatible withthe type of shoring to be used. We recommend the Contractor verify groundwaterconditions and evaluate dewatering requirements prior to construction.

Lowering the groundwater table during dewatering activities will result in an increase ineffective stresses and may induce settlements of the soils underlying adjacentstructures/pavements. Additionally, hydraulic compaction of predominately granular soils(e.g. SP, SP-SM, SM soils) should be anticipated as a result of lowering the groundwatertable. We recommend that the dewatering be performed such that the groundwater level islowered no more than approximately 5 feet below the proposed excavation depth. It maybe advantageous to install settlement monuments in areas where dewatering by means ofwell pointing is required.


15

5.4 Site Utility Installation

The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to thepipe placement to verify the suitability of the bearing soils. It is expected that the utilitieswill be located above or near the groundwater level (at the time of this reporting 6 to 8 feetbelow current grades), bearing in moist to wet granular soils. In these instances, thebearing soils may require some stabilization to provide suitable bedding. This stabilizationis commonly accomplished by adding 12 inches or more of bedding stone (Type VDOT No.57). The resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill, as described inSection 4.3 of this report. As mentioned previously, some of the shallow subsurfacematerials encountered within the project site may be suitable for reuse as backfill. Soilscontaining appreciable amounts of fines or deleterious debris should be discarded.Imported fill should be included in the construction budget for backfilling the utilityexcavations within the construction areas.

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained byG E T Solutions, Inc. and the information supplied by the client, and their consultants forthe proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviationsfrom the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction,G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified immediately to determine if changes in thefoundation recommendations are required. If G E T Solutions, Inc. is not retained toperform these functions, G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be responsible for the impact ofthose conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.

The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications orprofessional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generallyaccepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No otherwarranties are implied or expressed.

After the plans and specifications are more complete the Geotechnical Engineer should beprovided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to assure ourengineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the designdocuments, in order that the earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properlyinterpreted and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementaryrecommendations. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client andtheir designated agents for the specific application to the Suffolk Public SchoolsMaintenance Operations Center project in Suffolk, Virginia.

APPENDICES

I. BORING LOCATION PLAN

II. SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

III. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION RESULTS

IV. BORING LOGS

V. GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

VI. CBR TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX I

BORING LOCATION PLAN

Boring Location Plan

PROJECT: Suffolk Public Schools Maintenance Operations CenterPROJECT LOCATION: Suffolk, VirginiaPROJECT NO: VB18-132GCLIENT: RRMM ArchitectsDATE: 02/26/2018PLOT BY: E.Setnicky

APPENDIX II

SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Very Loose 4 blows/ft. or less Very Soft 2 blows/ft. or lessLoose 5 to 10 blows/ft. Soft 3 to 4 blows/ft.Medium Dense 11 to 30 blows/ft. Medium Stiff 5 to 8 blows/ft.Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft. Stiff 9 to 15 blows/ft.Very Dense 51 blows/ft. or more Very Stiff 16 to 30 blows/ft.

Hard 31 blows/ft. or more

Boulders 8 inch diameter or moreCobbles 3 to 8 inch diameterGravel Coarse 1 to 3 inch diameter

Medium 1/2 to 1 inch diameterFine 1/4 to 1/2 inch diameter

Sand Coarse 2.00 mm to 1/4 inch(diameter of pencil lead)

Medium 0.42 to 2.00 mm(diameter of broom straw)

Fine 0.074 to 0.42 mm(diameter of human hair)

Silt 0.002 to 0.074 mm(cannot see particles)

GW - Well-graded Gravel CL - Lean ClayGP - Poorly graded Gravel CL-ML - Silty ClayGW-GM - Well-graded Gravel w/Silt ML - SiltGW-GC - Well-graded Gravel w/Clay OL - Organic Clay/SiltGP-GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW,SPGP-GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay CH - Fat Clay More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SCGM - Silty Gravel MH - Elastic Silt 5 to 12 percentGC - Clayey Gravel OH - Organic Clay/SiltGC-GM - Silty, Clayey GravelSW - Well-graded SandSP - Poorly graded Sand PT - PeatSW-SM - Well-graded Sand w/SiltSW-SC - Well-graded Sand w/ClaySP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/SiltSP-SC - Poorly graded Sand w/ClaySM - Silty SandSC - Clayey SandSC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand

Particle Size Identification

Consistency

Page 1 of 1

GET Revision 9/25/2008

Coarse Grained Soils Fine-Grained Soils

Highly Organic Soils

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Liquid Limit 50% or greater

Trace

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

Standard Penetration Test (SPT), N-value

Relative Density

NON COHESIVE SOILS(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil samples were obtained witha standard 1.4” I.D., 2” O.D., 30” long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. Thenumber of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and isshown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.

(252) 335-9765

Williamsburg1592 Penniman Rd. Suite EWilliamsburg, Virginia 23185

0-55-10

Virginia Beach204 Grayson Road

Virginia Beach, VA 23462(757) 518-1703 (757) 564-6452

Elizabeth City504 East Elizabeth St. Suite 2

Elizabeth City, NC 27909

COHESIVE SOILS(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)

Relative ProportionsDescriptive Term Percent

15-2530-45

FewLittleSomeMostly 50-100

Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No.200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified asfollows:

Borderline cases requiring dualsymbols

Plasticity Chart

Strata ChangesIn the column “Description” on the boring log, the horizontallines represent approximate strata changes.

Groundwater Readings

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmentalvariations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequencyand magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as tidalinfluences and man-made influences, such as existingswales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of coveredsoil (paved parking lots, side walks, etc.).

APPENDIX III

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION RESULTS

B-1 1.0 18 11 7 0.075 21 SC-SM 13.6B-1 24.0 27 18 9 0.075 34 SC 29.8B-2 3.0 30 17 13 0.075 40 SC 24.6B-2 7.0 NP NP NP 4.75 8 SP-SM 23.5B-2 11.0 NP NP NP 0.075 19 SM 19.3B-3 1.0 37 17 20 0.075 49 SC 19.5B-3 3.0 24 14 10 0.075 51 CL 16.6B-3 5.0 19 11 8 0.075 42 SC 12.5B-3 7.0 0.075 15 19.3B-3 9.0 0.075 10 21.6B-4 1.0 NP NP NP 0.075 18 SM 19.2B-4 3.0 0.075 32 16.6B-4 5.0 26 12 14 0.075 53 CL 18.6B-4 7.0 0.075 27 15.9B-4 9.0 0.075 16 21.6

CBR-2 3.0 20 11 9 0.075 52 CL 16.7

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTSPAGE 1 OF 1

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

MaximumSize(mm)

%<#200Sieve

LiquidLimit

Satur-ation(%)

VoidRatio

Class-ification

WaterContent

(%)

DryDensity

(pcf)DepthBorehole

PROJECT NUMBER VB18-132G

CLIENT RRMM Architects

PROJECT LOCATION Suffolk, Virginia

PROJECT NAME Suffolk Public Schools Maintenance Operations Center

(1)G

ET

-LA

BO

RA

TOR

YTE

ST

SU

MM

AR

Y-G

ET_

STA

ND

AR

D_D

ATA

TEM

PLA

TE(0

3-17

-14)

.GD

T-3

/6/1

815

:12

-G:\G

INT\

PR

OJE

CTS

\VB

18\V

B18

-132

GS

UFF

OLK

PU

BLI

CS

CH

OO

LSM

AIN

TEN

AN

CE

OP

ER

ATI

ON

SC

EN

TER

.GP

J

GET Solutions, Inc.

APPENDIX IV

BORING LOGS

4-in. TopsoilTan, moist, Silty Clayey fine SAND (SC-SM), very loose

Tan, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC), very loose to loose

Tan-Mottled Orange, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM),medium dense

Tan-Mottled Orange, moist to wet, Poorly Graded fine to mediumSAND (SP), loose to medium dense

Change to Gray at 13 to 15 ft below grade.

Dark Gray, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC), very loose

Boring terminated at 25 feet below existing grade.

21

34

14

20

23.5

24

24

24

24

14

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1-1-3-2(4)

1-1-1-2(2)

2-2-3-3(5)

3-7-7-7(14)

4-4-4-6(8)

6-6-7-3(13)

7-1-5-4(6)

3-4-5-6(9)

3-2-2-5(4)

0.3

2.0

6.0

8.0

21.5

25.0

INITIAL (ft) : 8.25 CAVE-IN (ft) :

Notes:

BORING LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan

AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<#

200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y(in

.)

GROUNDWATER*:

PROJECT LOCATION: Suffolk, VirginiaCLIENT: RRMM ArchitectsPROJECT NAME: Suffolk Public Schools Maintenance Operations Center

DATE COMPLETED: 2/23/2018

SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (ft):

Dep

th(ft

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit


Virginia Beach, VA 23642757-518-1703

Elev

atio

n(ft

)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

25

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

ID

Stra

taLe

gend

The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level.

This

info

rmat

ion

perta

ins

only

toth

isbo

ring

and

shou

ldno

tbe

inte

rpre

ted

asbe

ing

indi

citiv

eof

the

site

.

DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc.

DATE STARTED: 2/23/2018LOGGED BY: E.Setnicky

PROJECT NUMBER: VB18-132G

Williamsburg1592-E Penniman RoadWilliamsburg, VA 23185

757-564-6452

Elizabeth City106 Capital Trace Unit EElizabeth City, NC 27909

252-335-9765

Jacksonville415-A Western Blvd

Jacksonville, NC 28546910-478-9915

TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon

DRILLING METHOD(S): Rotary wash "mud"

Plastic Limit x x

Blow

Cou

nts

(N-V

alue

s)

RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONBORING ID

B-1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

3-in. TopsoilTan, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), very loose

Tan, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC), very loose

Tan, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), loose

Gray, moist to wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND with Silt(SP-SM), loose

Tan, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose

Tan-Mottled Orange, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), traceclay, loose to medium dense

Tan-Mottled Orange, wet, Poorly Graded fine SAND with Silt(SP-SM), very loose to medium dense

Change to Dark Gray at 23 to 25 ft below grade.


40

8

19

24

169

23

23

24

24

24

23

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1-1-1-1(2)

1-1-1-1(2)

2-3-6-5(9)

4-5-5-5(10)

5-5-5-6(10)

3-4-6-11(10)

10-9-11-16(20)

3-1-2-3(3)

4-7-8-10(15)

0.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

16.5

25.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<#

200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y(in

.)

GROUNDWATER*:




Dep

th(ft

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Elev

atio

n(ft

)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

25

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

ID

Stra

taLe

gend


This

info

rmat

ion

perta

ins

only

toth

isbo

ring

and

shou

ldno

tbe

inte

rpre

ted

asbe

ing

indi

citiv

eof

the

site

.





757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon


Plastic Limit x x

Blow

Cou

nts

(N-V

alue

s)


B-2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

5-in. TopsoilTan, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC), very loose to loose

Gray, moist, Lean CLAY (CL), very soft

Gray, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC), loose

Gray, moist to wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), medium dense

Gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM), mediumdense

Gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP), mediumdense

Tan, wet, Poorly Graded fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM) mediumdense

Tan, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), trace clay, loose

Gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose


49

51

42

15

10

18

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1-2-2-1(4)

1-1-1-1(2)

1-2-4-5(6)

3-7-9-10(16)

3-7-8-5(15)

6-11-10-5(21)

8-6-9-6(15)

1-2-3-2(5)

3-3-4-2(7)

0.4

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.5

16.5

21.5

25.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<#

200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y(in

.)

GROUNDWATER*:




Dep

th(ft

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Elev

atio

n(ft

)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

25

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

ID

Stra

taLe

gend


This

info

rmat

ion

perta

ins

only

toth

isbo

ring

and

shou

ldno

tbe

inte

rpre

ted

asbe

ing

indi

citiv

eof

the

site

.





757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon


Plastic Limit x x

Blow

Cou

nts

(N-V

alue

s)


B-3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

2.5-in. TopsoilTan, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), trace clay, very loose

Tan, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC), loose

Gray, moist, Lean CLAY (CL), soft

Gray, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC), loose

Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), trace clay, loose to medium dense

Gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND with Silt (SP-SM),medium dense

Gray, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC), loose

Gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM), loose


18

32

53

27

16

23

20

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1-1-1-2(2)

2-3-3-2(6)

1-2-2-2(4)

1-2-3-4(5)

3-3-3-3(6)

12-9-8-7(17)

7-9-11-11(20)

3-2-3-2(5)

2-3-3-3(6)

0.2

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

12.5

16.5

21.5

25.0

INITIAL (ft) : 8 CAVE-IN (ft) :

Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<#

200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y(in

.)

GROUNDWATER*:




Dep

th(ft

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Elev

atio

n(ft

)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

25

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

ID

Stra

taLe

gend


This

info

rmat

ion

perta

ins

only

toth

isbo

ring

and

shou

ldno

tbe

inte

rpre

ted

asbe

ing

indi

citiv

eof

the

site

.





757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon


Plastic Limit x x

Blow

Cou

nts

(N-V

alue

s)


B-4

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

4-in. TopsoilBrown, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC), very loose to loose

Change to Tan-Gray at 2 to 4 ft below grade.

Tan, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), loose

Tan, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP), medium dense


20

24

23

24

24

1

2

3

4

5

1-1-2-4(3)

3-2-3-3(5)

3-4-6-5(10)

5-3-6-7(9)

4-6-8-5(14)

0.3

6.0

8.0

10.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<#

200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y(in

.)

GROUNDWATER*:




Dep

th(ft

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Elev

atio

n(ft

)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

ID

Stra

taLe

gend


This

info

rmat

ion

perta

ins

only

toth

isbo

ring

and

shou

ldno

tbe

inte

rpre

ted

asbe

ing

indi

citiv

eof

the

site

.





757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon


Plastic Limit x x

Blow

Cou

nts

(N-V

alue

s)


CBR-1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

4-in. TopsoilBrown, moist, Lean CLAY (CL), soft

Change to Tan-Gray at 2 to 4 ft below grade.

Gray, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose

Gray, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC), loose

Tan-Gray, wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP), mediumdense


52

23

18

24

24

24

1

2

3

4

5

1-2-2-4(4)

1-2-2-3(4)

3-4-6-10(10)

6-5-5-5(10)

7-10-10-10(20)

0.3

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<#

200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y(in

.)

GROUNDWATER*:




Dep

th(ft

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Elev

atio

n(ft

)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

ID

Stra

taLe

gend


This

info

rmat

ion

perta

ins

only

toth

isbo

ring

and

shou

ldno

tbe

inte

rpre

ted

asbe

ing

indi

citiv

eof

the

site

.





757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon


Plastic Limit x x

Blow

Cou

nts

(N-V

alue

s)


CBR-2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

4-in. TopsoilBrown, moist, Clayey fine SAND (SC), very loose

Tan, moist, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose

Tan, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC), loose

Tan, moist to wet, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose

Tan-Orange, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), medium dense


21

20

20

22

24

1

2

3

4

5

1-1-2-3(3)

4-2-2-1(4)

1-2-6-5(8)

4-4-6-6(10)

6-7-8-9(15)

0.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<#

200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y(in

.)

GROUNDWATER*:




Dep

th(ft

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Elev

atio

n(ft

)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

Sam

ple

Type

Sam

ple

ID

Stra

taLe

gend


This

info

rmat

ion

perta

ins

only

toth

isbo

ring

and

shou

ldno

tbe

inte

rpre

ted

asbe

ing

indi

citiv

eof

the

site

.





757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon


Plastic Limit x x

Blow

Cou

nts

(N-V

alue

s)


CBR-3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

No Ground Cover

Tan, moist, Poorly Graded fine to medium SAND (SP), trace Clay

Tan, moist to wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM)


2.0

3.0

GROUNDWATER*:




Dep

th(ft

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Elev

atio

n(ft

)

PAGE 1 OF 1


This

info

rmat

ion

perta

ins

only

toth

isbo

ring

and

shou

ldno

tbe

inte

rpre

ted

asbe

ing

indi

citiv

eof

the

site

.




AFTER

Sam

ple

Type

HOURS (ft) :INITIAL (ft) : 3 CAVE-IN (ft) :

Notes:

HAND AUGERBORING ID

HA-1


1

2

3

STRATA DESCRIPTION


757-564-6452


252-335-9765



Sam

ple

ID

Stra

taLe

gend TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

DRILLING METHOD(S): Hand Auger

Plastic Limit x x

RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

%<#

200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y(in

.)

APPENDIX V

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

(4)

(2)

(5)

(14)

(8)

(13)

(6)

(9)

(4)

(2)

(2)

(9)

(10)

(10)

(10)

(20)

(3)

(15)

(4)

(2)

(6)

(16)

(15)

(21)

(15)

(5)

(7)

(2)

(6)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(17)

(20)

(5)

(6)

(3)

(5)

(10)

(9)

(14)

(4)

(4)

(10)

(10)

(20)

(3)

(4)

(8)

(10)

(15)

PROJECT NAME: Suffolk Public Schools Maintenance Operations Center

PROJECT LOCATION: Suffolk, Virginia

(Numerical Value) = Sample N-Value

Topsoil

USCS Clayey Sand

USCS Clayey Sand

USCS Silty Sand

USCS Poorly-gradedSand

USCS Poorly-gradedSand with Silt

USCS Low PlasticityClay

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

CLIENT: RRMM ArchitectsPROJECT NUMBER: VB18-132G

LEGEND

Dep

thB

elow

Gro

und

Surf

ace

(ft)

B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 CBR-1 CBR-2 CBR-3 HA-1

APPENDIX VI

CBR TEST RESULTS

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE)D

ryde

nsity

,pcf

108

110

112

114

116

118

Water content, %

5 7 9 11 13 15 17

12.2%, 116.5 pcf

ZAV forSp.G. =2.70

Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard

4-24 in. SC A-2-4(0) 16 20 9 0.1 28.5

Brown, Clayey SAND

VB18-132G RRMM ArchitectsSample Obtained 2/23/18CBR-1

1

Elev/ Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI

% > % <Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:Project:

Location: CBR-1 Sample Number: CBR-1

GET SOLUTIONS, INC. Figure

Maximum dry density = 116.5 pcf

Optimum moisture = 12.2 %

Suffolk Public Schools Maintenance Operations Center

GETSOLUTIONS, INC.

2/23/18

1A

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Brown, Clayey SAND.375#4#10#40#80

#100#200

100.099.999.692.651.743.128.5

11 20 9

0.3945 0.3481 0.21080.1739 0.0857

SC A-2-4(0)

Sample Obtained 2/23/18CBR-1

RRMM ArchitectsSuffolk Public Schools Maintenance Operations Center

VB18-132G

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: CBR-1Sample Number: CBR-1 Depth: 4-24 in. Date:

Client:Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

RC

EN

TFI

NE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% GravelFine Coarse Medium

% SandFine Silt

% FinesClay

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 7.0 64.1 28.5

6in

.

3in

.

2in

.1½

in.

1in

.¾

in.

½in

.3/

8in

.

#4 #10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200

Particle Size Distribution Report

BEARING RATIO TEST REPORTVTM-008 (2005)

BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT

GET SOLUTIONS, INC.

Project No: VB18-132GProject: Suffolk Public Schools Maintenance Operations CenterLocation: CBR-1Sample Number: CBR-1 Depth: 4-24 in.Date: 2/23/18

Brown, Clayey SAND

Test Description/Remarks:

CBR-1Resiliency Factor = 3.0

Figure 1B

116.5 12.2 20 9SC

Material Description USCSMax.Dens.(pcf)

OptimumMoisture

(%)LL PI

MoldedDensity

(pcf)Percent ofMax. Dens.

Moisture(%)

SoakedDensity


Moisture(%)

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

LinearityCorrection

(in.)

Surcharge(lbs.)

Max.Swell

(%)

1 116.5 100 12.2 116.3 99.8 13.5 11.5 14.9 0.018 10 0.2

2

3

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

)

0

70

140

210

280

350

Penetration Depth (in.)0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5


ryde

nsity

,pcf

102.5

105

107.5

110

112.5

115

Water content, %

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

13.8%, 112.4 pcf

ZAV forSp.G. =2.70


4-24 in. CL A-6(2) 24 21 11 0.0 50.2

Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY


2










GETSOLUTIONS, INC.

2/23/18

2A


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY#4#10#40#80

#100#200

100.099.995.770.864.450.2

10 21 11

0.3280 0.2744 0.1287

CL A-6(2)



VB18-132G


Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:Project:

Project No: Figure


PE

RC

EN

TFI

NE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse


% SandFine Silt

% FinesClay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.2 45.5 50.2

6in

.

3in

.

2in

.1½

in.

1in

.¾

in.

½in

.3/

8in

.

#4 #10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200




GET SOLUTIONS, INC.


Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY



Figure 2B

112.4 13.8 21 11CL


OptimumMoisture

(%)LL PI

MoldedDensity


Moisture(%)

SoakedDensity


Moisture(%)

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

LinearityCorrection

(in.)

Surcharge(lbs.)

Max.Swell

(%)

1 112.4 100 13.8 112.1 99.8 15.2 6.4 8.5 0.017 10 0.2

2

3

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

)

0

40

80

120

160

200



ryde

nsity

,pcf

109

111

113

115

117

119

Water content, %

6 8 10 12 14 16 18

12.1%, 116.6 pcf

ZAV forSp.G. =2.70


4-24 in. SC A-2-4(0) 16 18 8 0.0 26.9

Brown, Clayey SAND


3










GETSOLUTIONS, INC.

2/23/18

3A


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Brown, Clayey SAND#4#10#40#80

#100#200

100.099.888.246.239.026.9

10 18 8

0.4940 0.3917 0.23750.1951 0.1006

SC A-2-4(0)



VB18-132G


Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:Project:

Project No: Figure


PE

RC

EN

TFI

NE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse


% SandFine Silt

% FinesClay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 11.6 61.3 26.9

6in

.

3in

.

2in

.1½

in.

1in

.¾

in.

½in

.3/

8in

.

#4 #10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200




GET SOLUTIONS, INC.


Brown, Clayey SAND



Figure 3B

116.6 12.1 18 8SC


OptimumMoisture

(%)LL PI

MoldedDensity


Moisture(%)

SoakedDensity


Moisture(%)

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

LinearityCorrection

(in.)

Surcharge(lbs.)

Max.Swell

(%)

1 116.6 100 12.1 116.5 99.9 13.3 13.7 18.1 0.012 10 0.1

2

3

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

)

0

100

200

300

400

500


OPERATIONS CENTER

SUFFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS RRMM PROJECT NO. 17246.00

PRE-BID QUESTION FORM

To: Mr. Anthony Hinds, Purchasing Manager anthonyhinds@$pskl2.net

CC: Mr. Jeff Harris, Project Architect, RRMM Architects [email protected]

Re: Operations Center

Date Submitted:

Relevant Drawings and Specifications;

Clarification Requested:

(Company Name) (Sender's Name)

(Fax No.) (Signature)

Reply:


9/10/2018

1. Per our pre-bid meeting on 8/30/18, we discussed whom is responsible for the permanent utility connection and tap fees. The owner/architects response was that an addenda was going to be issued to probablyadd an allowance to cover the cost in our bid. Please advise.

2. Bid Form BF-1, BASE BID, does not indicate any cost associated with SECTION 012200 - UNIT PRICES.Is your intent to include the four Unit Costs in the Base Bid? If so, wouldn't you want these costs separated on the Bid Form? Please advise.

3. Please review the spelling on the bid form for Suffolk Public Schools.

The Miller Group Companies, Inc. Ken Piche

757-498-8336

mailto:[email protected]

jharris

Text Box

Response 1. Please see Addendum #1 for clarifications on fees. Response 2. The Unit Prices specification provides a cost x qty and is required to be included in the base bid. All GC's shall carry the same number. The line items shall be broken out on the schedule of values. No need to itemize them on the bid form. Response 3. Title corrected by Addendum #1.

jharris

Text Box

Jeff Harris RRMM Proj. Mgr., 9.10.18

jharris

Text Box


jharris

Text Box

Roller shades will not be necessary at SF-4 side windows.

1

Jeff Harris

From: Melissa Heintz <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 4:18 PM

To: Jeff Harris; [email protected]

Cc: Melanie Weatherford

Subject: RE: Bid RFI Question #1 - 1658-B New Operations Center for Suffolk Public Schools

Thank you, I will inform the subcontractor.

Melissa Heintz P.G. Harris Construction Co.

1501 Technology Drive, Suite 101

Chesapeake, VA 23320

Ph. 757-410-1353

Fax 757-410-4674

From: Jeff Harris <[email protected]>


To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Cc: Melanie Weatherford <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Bid RFI Question #1 - 1658-B New Operations Center for Suffolk Public Schools

Melissa,

We don’t consider the Dorma products to be equal in quality to the acceptable manufacturers currently listed in the

specifications.

Unfortunately, we cannot recommend approval of the substitution request to the client.

Thanks,

Jeff

From: Melissa Heintz [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Jeff Harris <[email protected]>; [email protected]

Subject: Bid RFI Question #1 - 1658-B New Operations Center for Suffolk Public Schools

Bid RFI Question #1

Subcontractor Question: Hardware:

Could you put in an RFI for the above. I would like to bid on this, but the hardware is written in Sargent with

substitutions by Corbin/Russwin or Schlage. I would like to bid Dorma Architectural Hardware. I don’t have access to any

of the spec’d items.

Melissa Heintz P.G. Harris Construction Co.

1501 Technology Drive, Suite 101

OPERATIONS CENTER

SUFFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOLS RRMM PROJECT NO. 17246.00


To: Mr. Anthony Hinds, Purchasing Manager anthonyhinds@$pskl2.net

CC: Mr. Jeff Harris, Project Architect, RRMM Architects [email protected]

Re: Operations Center

Date Submitted:

Relevant Drawings and Specifications;

Clarification Requested:

(Company Name) (Sender's Name)

(Fax No.) (Signature)

Reply:


9/10/2018

1. Due to the anticipated upcoming weather, we would like to pose a recommendation of extending the bid to Thursday, 9/20.

The Miller Group Companies, Inc. Ken Piche

757-498-8336

mailto:[email protected]

jharris

Text Box

Bid Opening is postponed until Sept 25, 2018 @ 2:00PM. All other bidding information remains unchanged.

jharris

Text Box
