Sol_140P2021R0076_Amd_0003.pdf

(x)

140P2021R0076 x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

PDS

Denver CO 80225-0287 P.O. Box 25287 12795 W. Alameda Pkwy NPS, DSC Contracting Services Div

VIIS 24462305/23/20220003

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

04/14/2022

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

VIIS 244623 - Repairs to Cruz Bay Visitors Center, Docks and Surrounding Grounds

Amendment 0003 is issued to do the following:

1. Incorporate the questions and answers into the solicitation.

2. To attach the Preproposal Site Tour Agenda and Site Tour Sign-In Sheet.

4. To attach the Geotechnical Engineering Report for the HVAC Platform and the Geotechnical

Engineering Report for the Replacement Pier.

5. The proposal due date of May 31, 2022 is extended to June 08, 2022 at 1600 MD.

Legacy Doc #: NPS

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Bai Perney

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

140P2021R0076 Amendment 0003

Questions and Answers

1. Question: Architectural and structural plan drawings do not contain dimensions. We would like to request a dimension plan or adding dimensions to a selection of the existing sheets.

Answer: Dimensions for new elements are provided on drawings. Existing dimensions will need to be field verified by the selected GC once the project is awarded. For the purposes of pricing, bidder may scale off plans. Graphical scales on drawings on each drawing sheet are correct.

NPS SOLICITATION 140P2021R0076 VIIS 244623 REPAIRS TO CRUZ BAY VISITORS CENTER, DOCKS

AND SURROUNDING GROUNDS PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE AGENDA MAY 18, 2022

Location: Cruz Bay Visitor Center, Virgin Islands National Park

Meeting time: 10:00 am local time

Welcome: Welcome everyone and introduce yourself and make sure everyone is there for the Pre-proposal meeting.

Agenda for the meeting: Housekeeping, park welcome, contractual requirements, then technical, natural and cultural, visitors, other park/project specific requirements, then walk the site.

Housekeeping: Restroom locations.

Sign in sheet: Make sure you sign in. It will be posted in the next amendment.

Superintendent/Park: Speak to the importance of the project.

Introductions: Have everyone introduce themselves and say what company they are with, what their company provides and if they are a subcontractor or prime.

Solicitation Issued: April 14, 2022 and can be found at www.SAM.gov by searching under the solicitation number 140P2021R0076.

Amendments: Two amendments have been issued to the RFP. Amendment P00001 was issued on April 21, 2022 and Amendment P00002 was issued on April 5, 2022. Offerors are required to fill out and sign the acknowledgment of amendments received (SF1442 Section 19) and include this when submitting their offer on the Form 1442.

Proposal Due Date: Remains May 31, 2022 at 16:00 Mountain Time. Proposals shall be submitted via e-mail only to the following:

• CS_DSC_Proposal_Submission@nps.gov

• matthrew_carpenter@nps.gov

• carlos_garcia@contractor.nps.gov

Proposal Questions Due Date: Tuesday May 24, 2022. The Government will try to answer all the questions and post the questions and answers as an amendment.

Please do not wait until then to submit your questions, submit them as soon as you can so that the Government has the time to research and answer in order to help you prepare your proposals. Any questions received after that date/time there is no http://www.sam.gov/ mailto:CS_DSC_Proposal_Submission@nps.gov mailto:matthrew_carpenter@nps.gov mailto:carlos_garcia@contractor.nps.gov guarantee an answer will be provided. This information will be incorporated into the amendment with the sign in sheet for this meeting.

Proposal Question Process: CO requests that all questions be submitted in writing via email to both the CO, Matthew Carpenter, and the CS, Carlos Garcia, as follows:

• matthew_carpenter@nps.gov

• carlos_garcia@contractor.nps.gov

Wage Determinations: Make sure all of your subcontractors incorporate the wage determinations into their proposals.

Proposal Submission Requirements: The submission requirements begin on page 45 and end on page 56 of the solicitation and are part of Section L.

Proposal Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria begins on page 57 and end on page 60 of the solicitation and are part of Section M. The Government will conduct a source selection using the Best Value Continuum Tradeoff Process defined at FAR Part 15.1. Technical Proposal: Factors 1 – 3 are listed in descending order of importance. Subfactors are of equal importance. Factor 4, Past Performance is less important than Factors 1 – 3 when combined. Overall: All evaluation factors other than price, when combined are approximately equally important to price

Period of Performance: 365 days after Notice to Proceed.

Technical:

1. Site Access

a. Contractor shall have full use of the site for construction operations during the construction period with a couple exceptions. Contractor’s use of the building/site must account for partial occupancy associated with the phasing plan, PH101, to keep the Law Enforcement area and Visitors Contact area open throughout as much of construction as possible.

b. A. On-Site Work Hours: Work shall be generally performed during normal business working hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

i. Weekend Hours: Only as permitted by the Contracting Officer.

mailto:matthew_carpenter@nps.gov mailto:carlos_garcia@contractor.nps.gov

ii. Early Morning Hours: Only as permitted by the Contracting Officer.

2. Staging and Parking

a. Defined on drawing AS101.

3. Natural Resources

a. The waterside work associated with Little Cruz Bay is not expected to have any major impact on Natural Resources provided drawings and specifications are adhered to.

4. Cultural Resources

a. The Visitor’s Center and surrounding grounds are not historic. There are no major cultural resources elements to this project.

5. Visitors

a. The comfort stations, Visitor’s Center parking lot, and grounds walkways shall remain open as much as possible to visitors. If portions of the grounds cannot be kept open for safety reasons during construction, Contractor shall provide safety barriers to separate work areas from Visitor access areas.

6. Park Specific expectations

a. This area is prone to hurricanes and severe weather. The contractor is responsible for taking appropriate precautions and meeting all OSHA and Park safety standards with regards to inclement weather. The Park will provide a severe weather protocol and evacuation procedure to the contractor prior to work beginning. Hurricane season is considered June 1st through November 30th with the peak months being August, September, and October.

7. Project Specific Requirements (walkthrough)

a. Repairs for the facilities above include landscaping, and repair or replacement of the following: roofs, electrical distribution equipment, electrical devices, light fixtures, air conditioning systems, plumbing piping, water heaters, pumps, windows, doors, walls, ceilings, interior finishes, exterior finishes, fire protection equipment, and flooring.

Additionally, dredging, repairs to the Little Cruz Bay bulkhead and replacement of an existing pier with a new like-in-kind fixed pier is included in this work. The overall purpose of the work is to address hurricane Damage, upgrade of the Park facilities for resiliency, modernization of systems, and bringing site/building components up to current code standards.

b. This project includes mold remediation in addition to the scope indicated on drawings. The scope for this mold remediation work is outlined in a report titled '4305-20-134 NPS Cruz Bay Mold Assessment_Final' which is provided with this design package.

Contractor shall cover all mold remediation recommendations outlined in this report as a part of this contract.

DISCLAIMER:

Any information obtained from today’s meeting shall not be interpreted as additional contract requirements or changes to the contract requirements. All terms and conditions are documented within the solicitation and its amendments. All proposals shall be based upon those documents.

GEOCONSULT

Geotechnical engineers providing geotechnical engineering solutions .... Patricia A. Crumley, MECEE Tirso A. Alvarez, PhD Alan R. Crumley, MSCE

P.O. BOX 362040, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00936-2040 • TEL (787) 783-3585 • FAX (787) 793-0410 Founded 1981 – Peer Reviewed by ASFE www.geoconsult.us

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

HVAC PLATFORM

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE VISITORS’ CENTER

Cruz Bay, Saint John, United States Virgin Islands

April 28, 2021

INTRODUCTION

This report presents foundation recommendations for an elevated electrical and mechanical equipment platform next to the existing National Park Service

Visitors’ Center. The platform is needed to surpass flood levels. Work presented in this report was performed following our proposal to Croft and Associates dated

February 17, 2021. Croft informs that the total platform loads are about 30 kips, with likely lateral loads of 20 kips. The platform will cover an area of 10 by 15 feet, approximately. The building is located behind a bulkhead at Cruz Bay in Saint

John, as indicated on Figure 1.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

A previous subsurface investigation was received from Croft, showing work performed by Caribbean Drilling Services. The investigation report is dated March

Geotechnical Engineers

HVAC Platform, NPS, Saint John, USVI Geotechnical Engineering Report

30, 1998. At the time, four borings were taken to depths of 25 to 30 feet. Those borings indicate soft and loose soils to depths of 15 to 20 feet with some organic content, followed by a thin layer of residual soils, then weathered rock to the depths explored. The existing structure was then designed with a steel pipe pile foundation. However, the As-Built drawings that we also received indicate that H-piles were used; pile driving logs apparently exist but were not available.

For this present geotechnical engineering report, one boring was drilled as indicated on Figure 2 after conducting a localized search for underground utilities using Ground Penetrating Radar. The boring was labeled NPS-1. The drill rig was a

CME-55 equipped with an automatic SPT (Standard Penetration Test) hammer.

Drilling was conducted using hollow stem augers and NW core drill equipment.

The site investigation was performed by Jaca & Sierra Testing Laboratories, working under my supervision. Laboratory testing was also performed by them, following my testing requests. It is noted that they are certified by AMRL and

AASHTO to perform these tests. Appendix AA includes the boring log with photographs. Appendix BB includes additional results, namely Proctor tests, CBR tests, corrosion series, and soil classification tests.

We drilled boring NPS-1 near the location of the proposed structure about one foot from survey point BM-3, shown on sheet 4/60 of the current advance

HVAC Platform, NPS, Saint John, USVI drawings (Survey), included within Figure 2. The platform will lie near the existing bulkhead and water; we have no details on the bulkhead or depths of water near this area.

The boring drilled confirms general expectations regarding the subsurface profile. It revealed fill overlying loose sands, then residual soil from andesite, followed by weathered andesite rock. Fill includes numerous gravel and coral fragments. The loose sands showed coral and pebble-size fragments (1/4”to 3/8”), which could indicate dredged material. Peat and organic clay lenses were noted in boring NPS-1, and also in the older borings. A thin residual layer was noted below a depth of 18 feet at this location. This layer is followed by the underlying volcanic rock, andesite that is likely from the Louisenhoj Formation that is referred in geologic reports 1 . Since the previous borings had stopped with SPT refusal values, we felt a need to review the quality of rock. Thus, boring NPS-1 included five feet of

NW core drilling at depths from 25 to 30 feet. Rock as retrieved was fragmented, with 72% core recovery and 62% RQD (Rock Quality Designation). The recovery and RQD values are indicative of competent rock for these loads. Photographs of

1 Geology of St. John, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1631, by Douglas W. Rankin, 2002. Also see

T.W. Donnelly, Geology of St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, Caribbean Geological Investigations, Geol. Soc. Of America Memoirs 98, 1966.

HVAC Platform, NPS, Saint John, USVI this core run are included in Appendix AA. An approximate subsurface profile is shown on Figure 3.

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

Lacking information on compaction, we will not rely on the fill layer for foundation support. The underlying loose sands with N-values of 2 to 3 are clearly liquefiable under an acceleration that will exceed 0.40g under a Magnitude 7.5 earthquake. Clearly, a deep foundation system should be used as foundation support for this raised platform, bypassing the upper layers. Steel pipe piles were recommended in 1998 and were used for design of the existing building (plan sheet

S-1 dated July 24, 1998). Those piles were to be ten inches in diameter for 40 tons working load. Instead, the As-Builts indicate that H-piles were used. The bid estimate was 30 feet per pile, but we do not know the final pile depths. For this

HVAC project driven piles could be used, driven open ended with tip protection, or using H-piles, also with tip protection. Augercast piles drilled with continuous flight augers are also a possibility. However, a micropile foundation is preferable because of lower vibrations during installation, relative ease of installation in constricted space, and lower cost of mobilization on the basis of smaller equipment being used. While micropiles can be designed for exceptionally high loads, the fact

HVAC Platform, NPS, Saint John, USVI is that they are also suited for the low loads that are here expected. In this case, any support from the fill or the loose sands will be disregarded. The piles must withstand the imposed loads by penetration into the lower layers, the bottom rock shown on the boring log, between 25 and 30 feet.

Lateral capacity of the micropiles, so near the bulkhead and in loose fill, is very low but can be increased by the use of outer steel casing. Using program

LPile, assuming an outer casing with outer diameter 9.625 inches and 0.5 inches of wall thickness, deflections of 0.2 inches were determined for a lateral load of 3.2 kips per pile, as informed by the structural engineer. For the seismic condition, liquefaction is likely at depths of 10 to 18 feet. Using the seismic load of 1.2 kips per pile that was submitted, deflections are less than 0.1 inches. Since we have no details on the platform where the piles will be tied-in, a free head condition was assumed for both cases. Lateral load behavior was modeled as shown on Figure 4.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Boring NPS-1 indicated fill overlying loose silty sands to 18 feet, approximately. Dense sands with shell and rock fragments follow the loose sands.

Upon refusal, rock was cored for the following five feet, showing relatively sound

HVAC Platform, NPS, Saint John, USVI rock between 25 and 30 feet. Our recommendations are summarized below.

Nonetheless, the reader is warned that no conclusions may be made without reading the entire report.

1. Micropiles are recommended for foundation support of the platform. These piles could be cased or uncased. Considering lateral load requirements and possible use of inclined piles, micropiles can be designed using steel casing and interior reinforcement, with an outside diameter (for example) 9-5/8”.

Steel casing should be taken to a minimum depth of 30 feet, including penetration of 5.0 feet into the weathered rock, where cutting tools are likely to be necessary. If pulled back for grouting, the casing should be left at a depth corresponding to a minimum casing embedment of 3.0 feet into the rock, with pressure grout. Micropiles can also be uncased, taken to the outer diameter that will allow an interior bundle of reinforcing steel, depending on design requirements. The usual outer diameter of a micropile is less than 12 inches. PVC spacers should be located at approximately 10-foot spacings to provide for proper bar alignment. In any event, the use of temporary or permanent casing or liners is intrinsic to the contractor’s work method. The contractor must review the boring log and all available information to

HVAC Platform, NPS, Saint John, USVI determine construction methods. Work methods are entirely the contractor’s responsibility.

2. Micropiles taken to a minimum depth of 30 feet can be safely loaded to 10 kips of support, considering penetration into the underlying rock formation.

Additional capacity from layers above is disregarded in this pile design because of potential liquefaction. Other micropile diameters, as well as other types of deep foundations, can be analyzed upon request. The compressive capacity must be determined. At least one pull-out test is recommended to confirm the tensile capacity of the micropiles, disregarding the toe resistance;

this is a static axial tensile load test, following ASTM D3689. The required minimum tensile load is 85 kips, considering that approximately 60 kips will be temporarily available in tension during the load test, from the fill and loose sand. This assumed tensile capacity, 60 kips, is discounted from the measured load and only the near-tip capacity will be used. A factor of safety of 2.5 is recommended, calculated by taking the ultimate capacity shown by the load test, at least 85 kips, discounting 60 kips; the remainder should be at least 25 kips, for a factor of safety of 2.5 (25 kips available divided by 10 kips structural load).

HVAC Platform, NPS, Saint John, USVI

3. There are many ways to install micropiles, and various techniques are available. The selected contractor should submit a shop drawing with his or her proposed drilling and installation method. An experienced geotechnical engineer, or a technician under said engineer, must supervise and record the installation of production piles. The production micropile installation record should include at least the following data:

• Bars and cement specifications;

• Drilling dates, times and drilled depths;

• Description of materials drilled (in this specific case, the contractor must assure the stipulated penetration into rock);

• Batch ingredients, quantities and characteristics;

• Grout mix quality control and assurance data (grout cubes for compressive strength tests);

• Volume of injected grout mix (normally greater than 1.1 times the theoretical volume).

4. Given the low N-values to approximately 18 feet depth, then rock starting at about 25 feet, the Site Classification was determined to be Site Class D based on the N-value weighted average.

FINAL COMMENTS

Since the information from borings is discrete, some level of interpolation was required to cover areas of interest. These data interpolations were based on

HVAC Platform, NPS, Saint John, USVI Geotechnical Engineering Report engineering judgment, supported by site visits, boring logs, results of laboratory tests and the site geologic map. However, some differences between the assumed subsoil profiles and the actual site conditions might occur because local ground conditions might change over short distances.

This report was based on design concepts, parameters and constraints that have been made known to us by the completion of this document. Any subsequent design changes would require a revision of the geotechnical recommendations herein presented to confirm that they would be suited for the new design. The reader is referred to Appendix CC for additional information regarding this report.

Alan R. Crumley, PE April 28, 2021 Puerto Rico License 5828 San Juan, Puerto Rico Georgia License PE041919 File No. 3079-21

G

EO

CO

N

SULT

G eotechnical Engineers

P.O . B ox 362040, San Juan P.R . 00936

Tel. (787) 783-3585 / w w w .geoconsult.us

Project R eference Sheet N o.

C ode N o.

Project N o.

D escription

Scale: If show n

D ate: 3A pr21 By: A

R C

R evised: A

R C

H

VAC

Platform N

PS Building, Saint John U

SVI

Location

Figure

A

3079-21

Figure 1.

Location

CO

N

SULT

G eotechnical Engineers

P.O . B ox 362040, San Juan P.R . 00936

Tel. (787) 783-3585 / w w w .geoconsult.us

Project R eference Sheet N o.

C ode N o.

Project N o.

D escription

Scale: If show n

D ate: 3A pr21 By: A

R C

R evised: A

R C

Location Plan Figure

A

Figure 2.

boring N

PS-1

H

VAC

Platform N

PS Building, Saint John U

SVI

Plan N orth

Plan N orth

Plan N orth

Survey point

N ew boring N

PS-1

E

O C

O N

S U

LT

G e o te c h n ic a l E n g in e e rs

S a n J u a n

P u e rt o R ic o

W e a th e re d r o ck

D is ta n ce fe e t

Depth [feet]

F ig u re g h p ro fi le

N

P S

H V

A C

P la tf o rm C ru z

B a y, S a in t J o h n

R o u

5 2

7 3 222 3

1 5

/4 ” C o re d ri lle d

-3 f e e t

R E

C

R

Q D

3%

B o ri n g

N -1

P S

6 11 0 2 1

B o ri n g

B -2 B o ri n g e n d e d f e e t

F ill

S ilt y sa n d

P e a t n o te d

T ra ce o rg a n ic s

L in e N

P S

-1 t o B

-2 is p e rp e n d ic u la r to

B -2

B

-1

A lig n m e n t

2 7 2 1

B o ri n g B

-1

B o ri n g e n d e d fe e t

8 4

F ill

F ill

W e a th e re d r o ck

B o ri n g e n d e d f e e t f e e t fe e t

A p ri l 4

N o te s:

V a lu e s sh o w n f o r e a ch d e p th a re

N b lo w s p e r fo o t)

F o r p re ci se d e sc ri p tio n s re fe r to b o ri n g lo g s.

P ro fil e s a n d a n y lin e s a re c o n ce p tu a l.

A ct u a l c o n d iti o n s b e tw e e n b o ri n g s ca n d iff e r si g n ifi ca n tl y.

B -1 a n d B

-2 w e re d ri lle d in th o se

N -v a lu e s w e re e st im a te d f ro m g ra p h s.

N P

S -1 is c u rr e n t b o ri n g

S ilt y sa n d w ith s h e lls a n d c o ra l f ra g m e n ts

S ilt y sa n d w ith r o ck fr a g m e n ts lik e ly r e si d u a l

C la ye y sa n d a n d g ra ve l

B o ri n g

N -1

P S

Geotechnical Engineers – San Juan, P.R.

P.O. Box 362040, San Juan P.R. 00936 Tel. (787) 782-3554 / Fax (787) 793-0410 w w w . g e o c o n s u l t . u s

Reference

Scale: -

Date: 13Apr21

By: ARC

Revised: ARC

A

3079-21

DescriptionProject

Lateral pile loads

Sheet No.Code No.

Project No.

HVAC Platform

NPS Building, Saint John

USVI

Figure

Wind and floods, P lateral = 3.2 kips, pile free-headed, casing 9.625in OD t=0.5in

Seismic, P lateral = 2.0 kips, pile free-headed, casing 9.625in OD t=0.5in, liquefied 10-18 feet

APPENDIX AA

Boring NPS-1 (HVAC platform)

Photographs

Boring RP-1 (NPS Replacement Pier) is a boring drilled at the same time but over 150 feet from the HVAC location. It was not used for the HVAC analysis.

ASPHALT LAYER

0.33

FILL: Gravelly sand, some silt, medium, gray, brownish gray

3.33

FILL: Gravel, coral fragments with silty sand, medium to dense, dark gray, brownish gray

9.33

SILTY SAND with shells and coral fragments, very loose, light to dark gray

LL=NV, PL=NP, PI=NP

LL=NV, PL=NP, PI=NP

Peat lenses, organic clay lenses

SILTY SAND with shells and rock fragments, dense, dark gray

LL=NV, PL=NP, PI=NP

WH

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG

BORING NUMBER: NPS-1

DRILLING LOG PROJECT

Cruz Bay

JOB

SHEET 1

OF

LOCATION St. John, USVI DRILLER/DRILL RIG S. Perez / CME-55 COORDINATES Not determined DATE Started 3/18/2021 Completed 3/19/2021

DESCRIPTION Manuel Candelario TOP ELEVATION (FT) N/D GROUNDWATER (FT) Initial 4.5 Final 3.5 ENGINEER Manuel Candelario DRILLING METHOD Casing-Advancer ID 3.00" FINAL DEPTH (FT) 30

N W Qu

"SPT N" - Number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon a distance of 12 inches with a 140 lbs hammer falling 30 inches.

"W" - Natural moisture content in percentage of dry weight. Initial groundwater level depth.

"Qu" - Unconfined compressive strength in tons per square foot. Final groundwater level depth.

"Rc" - Core recovery in percent for each successive run. "RQD" - Rock quality designation.

"WH" - Sample was recovered by advancing the sampler with the weight of the hammer.

"P" - A P in the unconfined compressive strength test indicates the use of the pocket penetrometer.

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Description

Le ge nd

Sa m pl e

Bl ow s SPT N W Qu RC% RQD%

20 40 60 80

1 2 3 4 Qu

N-W

24.33

ROCK FRAGMENTS with clayey sand, dense, dark gray, brownish gray

ANDESITE VOLCANIC ROCK,

medium strong, moderately to highly weathered, intensely fractured, bluish gray, brownish yellow

50/4"

50/ 4"

72 53

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG

BORING NUMBER: NPS-1

DRILLING LOG (CONT. SHEET) PROJECT

Cruz Bay

JOB

OF

N W Qu

"SPT N" - Number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon a distance of 12 inches with a 140 lbs hammer falling 30 inches.

"W" - Natural moisture content in percentage of dry weight. Initial groundwater level depth.

"Qu" - Unconfined compressive strength in tons per square foot. Final groundwater level depth.

"Rc" - Core recovery in percent for each successive run. "RQD" - Rock quality designation.

"WH" - Sample was recovered by advancing the sampler with the weight of the hammer.

"P" - A P in the unconfined compressive strength test indicates the use of the pocket penetrometer.

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Description

Le ge nd

Sa m pl e

Bl ow s SPT N W Qu RC% RQD%

20 40 60 80

1 2 3 4 Qu

N-WN/D

FILL: Sand some silt and gravel medium to dense, yellowish brown, gray

4.5

SILTY SAND with shells and coral fragments, some gravel

LL=NV, PL=NP, PI=NP

10.5

CLAYEY SAND with rock fragments, soft to medium, reddish yellow, yellowish brown, gray

LL=25, PL=14, PI=11

Boulders and cobbles

WH

WH

WH

WH

50/5"

WH

50/ 5"

29 0

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG

BORING NUMBER: RP-1

DRILLING LOG PROJECT

Cruz Bay

JOB

SHEET 1

OF

LOCATION St. John, USVI DRILLER/DRILL RIG S. Perez / CME-55 COORDINATES Not determined DATE Started 3/19/2021 Completed 3/20/2021

DESCRIPTION Manuel Candelario TOP ELEVATION (FT) N/D GROUNDWATER (FT) Initial 7.5 Final 7 ENGINEER Manuel Candelario DRILLING METHOD Casing-Advancer ID 3.00" FINAL DEPTH (FT) 52

N W Qu

"SPT N" - Number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon a distance of 12 inches with a 140 lbs hammer falling 30 inches.

"W" - Natural moisture content in percentage of dry weight. Initial groundwater level depth.

"Qu" - Unconfined compressive strength in tons per square foot. Final groundwater level depth.

"Rc" - Core recovery in percent for each successive run. "RQD" - Rock quality designation.

"WH" - Sample was recovered by advancing the sampler with the weight of the hammer.

"P" - A P in the unconfined compressive strength test indicates the use of the pocket penetrometer.

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Description

Le ge nd

Sa m pl e

Bl ow s SPT N W Qu RC% RQD%

20 40 60 80

1 2 3 4 Qu

SANDY CLAY, some silt, hard, light yellowish brown, olive brown

CLAYEY SAND, trace gravel, very dense, light yellowish brown

LL=31, PL=19, PI=12

.05 0

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG

BORING NUMBER: RP-1

DRILLING LOG (CONT. SHEET) PROJECT

Cruz Bay

JOB

OF

N W Qu

"SPT N" - Number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon a distance of 12 inches with a 140 lbs hammer falling 30 inches.

"W" - Natural moisture content in percentage of dry weight. Initial groundwater level depth.

"Qu" - Unconfined compressive strength in tons per square foot. Final groundwater level depth.

"Rc" - Core recovery in percent for each successive run. "RQD" - Rock quality designation.

"WH" - Sample was recovered by advancing the sampler with the weight of the hammer.

"P" - A P in the unconfined compressive strength test indicates the use of the pocket penetrometer.

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Description

Le ge nd

Sa m pl e

Bl ow s SPT N W Qu RC% RQD%

20 40 60 80

1 2 3 4 Qu

WEATHERED ROCK

(No Recovery)

50/4"

50/2"

50/ 4"

50/ 2"

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG

BORING NUMBER: RP-1

DRILLING LOG (CONT. SHEET) PROJECT

Cruz Bay

JOB

OF

N W Qu

"SPT N" - Number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon a distance of 12 inches with a 140 lbs hammer falling 30 inches.

"W" - Natural moisture content in percentage of dry weight. Initial groundwater level depth.

"Qu" - Unconfined compressive strength in tons per square foot. Final groundwater level depth.

"Rc" - Core recovery in percent for each successive run. "RQD" - Rock quality designation.

"WH" - Sample was recovered by advancing the sampler with the weight of the hammer.

"P" - A P in the unconfined compressive strength test indicates the use of the pocket penetrometer.

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Description

Le ge nd

Sa m pl e

Bl ow s SPT N W Qu RC% RQD%

20 40 60 80

1 2 3 4 Qu

Geotechnical engineers

NPS-1, 25 feet depth on left to 30 feet depth on right

Photos boring NPS-1

NPS-1, from 30-ft end of core

NPS-1, from 25-ft start of core

RP-1, 16 to 21 feet

APPENDIX BB

Test results:

Memorandum from Jaca & Sierra dated 27 April 2021 CBR tests, Proctor tests, corrosion series, and soil classifications

P O B o x 3 6 3 1 1 6 , S a n J u a n , P R 0 0 9 3 6 - 3 1 1 6

R o a d 8 5 0 K m 0 . 2 L a s C u e v a s W a r d , T r u j i l l o A l t o , P R 0 0 9 7 6

� 7 8 7 - 7 6 1 - 2 5 7 0 � 7 8 7 - 7 4 8 - 6 9 7 0 � w w w . j a c a s i e r r a . c o m

Addendum no.1 - Report no. 8206 Red Hook Administrative Facility, St. Thomas, USVI

TO: Croft and Associates

FROM: Manuel E. Candelario Cosme, MSCE, PE

DATE: April 27, 2021

RE: Corrosivity Potential of Native Soils and Additional Laboratory Tests

This addendum presents the results for general laboratory testing and corrosion-series tests performed on in-situ soils obtained during the exploratory program. The general laboratory test consisted of california bearing ratio tests and proctor compaction tests. Table 1 below presents a summary of the results.

Table 1: CBR and Proctor Compaction Test in Red Hook

Boring no.

California Bearing Ratio Test (CBR)

Proctor Compaction Test

95% 100% Maximum Dry Density (lb/ft3)

Optimum Moisture Content (%)

1 14 22 110.8 14.2

3 9 50 129.1 9.7

Corrosion series tests consisting of sulfate, chloride, pH, and electrical resistivity tests were performed on selected soil samples. Table 2 below provides the obtained results.

Table 2: Corrosivity Tests on Native Soils in Red Hook

Boring no.

Sulfate Content (ppm)

Chloride Content (ppm) pH CaCl2 pH Water

Resistivity (ohm*cm)

1 1090 2061 7.5 7.6 18.9

3 1853 2224 7.7 7.8 11.7

Page 2 of 2 – Addendum No. 1

Red Hook Administration Building, St. Thomas, USVI April 27, 2021

J a c a & S i e r r a T e s t i n g L a b o r a t o r i e s

� 7 8 7 - 7 6 1 - 2 5 7 0 � 7 8 7 - 7 4 8 - 6 9 7 0 � w w w . j a c a s i e r r a . c o m

We wish to thank you again for the opportunity of submitting this evaluation.

Respectfully submitted, JACA & SIERRA ENGINEERING, PSC

Manuel E. Candelario Cosme, MSCE, PE

Tanayshalí Meléndez Santana, BSCE

Enclosures

Appendix A: California Bearing Ratio Report Appendix B: Proctor Compaction Test Report Appendix C: pH of Soils Appendix D: Standard Method of Test for Determining Minimum Laboratory Soil Resistivity Appendix E: Soil Classifications

� ( 78 7) 7 61 - 25 7 0 � ( 787 ) 74 8 - 69 7 0 � w w w . j a c a s ie r r a. co m

Appendix A California Bearing Ratio Report

Job No: 8206 Date: 4/20/2021

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT (ASTM D 1883)

Date : - Client :

Project :

Source of Sample : Bo. 1 Sample Description :

USCS Class. : - AASHTO Class. : - Liquid Limit : - :

Plastic Limit : - Plasticity Index : - :

Percent retained on the 3/4 in. sieve : 0 Method used for compaction of specimen : ASTM 1557 Condition of sample : Soaked

10 blows 25 blows 56 blows Dry Density of sample before soaking, pcf 102.2 115.3 119.1 Dry Density of sample after soaking, pcf N.D. N.D. N.D. RESULTS Moisture Content: CBR at 95% 14

Average before testing, % 15.2 15.4 16.3 CBR at 100% 22 Average after testing, % 25.6 19.5 18.2

Swell, % 0.24 0.02 0.06 CBR at 0.1-in. penetration 10.2 28.6 34.8 CBR at 0.2-in. penetartion 11.1 36.5 50.4 Surchage amount, lbs. 10.0 10.0 10.0

Checked by:

Javier E. Osorio, MECE, PE

Croft and Associates Red Hook

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT (ASTM D 1883)

JACA & SIERRA ENGINEERING, PSC

Max. Dry Density (lb/ft3) Optimum Moisture Content (%)

110.8

14.2

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

S tr e s s o n P is to n p s i

Penetration in inches

Load-Penetration Curves

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

100 110 120 130

C o rr e c te d C

B R

Dry Density, pcf

Dry Density versus CBR

Report No: 8206

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT (ASTM D 1883)

Date : - Client :

Project :

Source of Sample : Bo. 3 Sample Description :

USCS Class. : - AASHTO Class. : - Liquid Limit : - :

Plastic Limit : - Plasticity Index : - :

Percent retained on the 3/4 in. sieve : 0 Method used for compaction of specimen : ASTM 1557 Condition of sample : Soaked

10 blows 25 blows 56 blows Dry Density of sample before soaking, pcf 115.4 120.0 121.3 Dry Density of sample after soaking, pcf N.D. N.D. N.D. RESULTS Moisture Content: CBR at 95% 9

Average before testing, % 12.7 12.2 12.3 CBR at 100% 50 Average after testing, % 17.0 15.6 16.0

Swell, % 0.60 0.94 0.42 CBR at 0.1-in. penetration 7.6 8.5 14.6 CBR at 0.2-in. penetartion 7.5 8.3 16.1 Surchage amount, lbs. 10.0 10.0 10.0

Checked by:

Javier E. Osorio, MECE, PE

Croft and Associates Red Hook

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT (ASTM D 1883)

JACA & SIERRA ENGINEERING, PSC

Max. Dry Density (lb/ft3) Optimum Moisture Content (%)

129.1

9.7

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

St re ss o n Pi st on

, p si

Penetration in inches

Load-Penetration Curves

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

114 116 118 120 122

C or re ct ed C

B R

Appendix B Proctor Compaction Test Report

Tested By: M. Reyes Checked By: Manuel Candelario, MSCE, PE

COMPACTION TEST REPORT

D ry d en si ty , p cf

Water content, %

3 8 13 18 23 28 33

14.2%, 110.8 pcf

Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method A Modified

8206 GeoConsult

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: Project Site Sample Number: Bo. 1

Figure

Maximum dry density = 110.8 pcf

Optimum moisture = 14.2 %

Red Hook-St. Thomas, USVI

D ry d en si ty , p cf

Water content, %

6 8 10 12 14 16 18

9.7%, 129.1 pcf

Test specification: ASTM D 1557-00 Method B Modified

8206 GeoConsult

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/8 in. No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: Project Site Sample Number: Bo. 3

Figure

Maximum dry density = 129.1 pcf

Optimum moisture = 9.7 %

Red Hook-St. Thomas, USVI

Appendix C pH of Soils

Job No.: 8206 Date of Report: April 27, 2021

Page 1/1

Respectfully Submitted, JACA & SIERRA ENGINEERING, PSC

Manuel Candelario Cosme, MSCE, PE Engineer

LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES

Location:

St. Thomas, USVI

Date of Testing:

Date of Sample Receipt:

Standard Test Methods:

ASTM D 4972

Client:

GeoConsult

Source of Samples:

Project Site-St. Thomas, USVI-

Provided by Client

Transported by:

J&S

7.6PH in water, %

Project:

Red Hook

RESULTS

Sample Description Bo. 1

PH of soils (ASTM D 4972)

PH in CaCl₂ solution, % 7.5

Jaca Sierra Engineering, PSCRoad 850 Km 0.2 Las Cuevas Ward, Trujillo Alto, PR 00976T: 787-761-2570 F: 787-748-6970 W: www.jacasierra.com

Page 1/1

Respectfully Submitted, JACA & SIERRA ENGINEERING, PSC

Manuel Candelario Cosme, MSCE, PE Engineer

PH in CaCl₂ solution, % 7.7

7.8PH in at , %

Project:

Red Hook

RESULTS

a l s i tion Bo. 3

PH o soils

LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES

Location:

St. Thomas, USVI

Date of Testing:

Date of Sample Receipt:

Standard Test Methods:

ASTM D 4972

Client:

GeoConsult

Source of Samples:

Project Site-St. Thomas, USVI-

Provided by Client

Transported by:

J&S

Jaca Sierra Engineering, PSCRoad 850 Km 0.2 Las Cuevas Ward, Trujillo Alto, PR 00976T: 787-761-2570 F: 787-748-6970 W: www.jacasierra.com

Appendix D Soil Resistivity

Page 1/1

Respectfully Submitted, JACA & SIERRA ENGINEERING, PSC

Manuel Candelario Cosme, MSCE, PE Engineer

LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES

Location:

St. Thomas, USVI

Date of Testing:

Date of Sample Receipt:

Standard Test Methods:

AASHTO T 288

Client:

GeoConsult

Source of Samples:

Project Site-St. Thomas, USVI-

Provided by Client

Transported by:

J&S

2.6 x 7.28 cmMinimum Soil Resistivity

Project:

Red Hook

RESULTS

Sample Description Bo. 1

Standard Method of Test for Determining Minimum Laboratory Soil Resistivity

18.9 ohm x cm*

Jaca Sierra Engineering, PSCRoad 850 Km 0.2 Las Cuevas Ward, Trujillo Alto, PR 00976T: 787-761-2570 F: 787-748-6970 W: www.jacasierra.com

Page 1/1

Respectfully Submitted, JACA & SIERRA ENGINEERING, PSC

Manuel Candelario Cosme, MSCE, PE Engineer

11.7 ohm x cm*

1.6 x 7.28 cmMinimum Soil Resistivity

Project:

Red Hook

RESULTS

Sample Description Bo. 3

Standard Method of Test for Determining Minimum Laboratory Soil Resistivity

LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES

Location:

St. Thomas, USVI

Date of Testing:

Date of Sample Receipt:

Standard Test Methods:

AASHTO T 288

Client:

GeoConsult

Source of Samples:

Project Site-St. Thomas, USVI-

Provided by Client

Transported by:

Jaca Sierra Engineering, PSCRoad 850 Km 0.2 Las Cuevas Ward, Trujillo Alto, PR 00976T: 787-761-2570 F: 787-748-6970 W: www.jacasierra.com

Appendix E Soil Classifications

Tested By: Y. Reyes Checked By: Manuel Candelario, MSCE, PE

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

Silty sand

.5

.375

#4

#10

#40

#100

#200

100.0

99.4

98.1

95.7

72.6

34.3

13.3

NP NV NP

0.9807 0.7083 0.2955

0.2280 0.1321 0.0797

SM A-2-4(0)

GeoConsult

Red Hook-St. Thomas, USVI

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Project Site Depth: 3-4.5'

Sample Number: Bo. 1 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 1.9 2.4 23.1 59.3 13.3 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

Particle Size Distribution Report

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

Sandy silt .375 #4 #10 #40

#100 #200

100.0 99.8 99.1 89.8 62.2 52.6

NP NV NP

0.4358 0.3477 0.1337

ML A-4(0)

GeoConsult Red Hook-St. Thomas, USVI

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Project Site Depth: 4-6.5' Sample Number: Bo. 1 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 9.3 37.2 52.6 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

Silty sand

.5

.375

#4

#10

#40

#100

#200

100.0

99.1

94.5

87.4

64.1

35.3

24.8

NP NV NP

2.7094 1.5438 0.3653

0.2597 0.1116

SM A-2-4(0)

GeoConsult

Red Hook-St. Thomas, USVI

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Project Site Depth: 6-7.5'

Sample Number: Bo. 1 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 5.5 7.1 23.3 39.3 24.8 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

Silty sand with gravel

.75 .5

.375 #4 #10 #40

#100 #200

100.0 90.0 88.2 85.7 79.9 75.1 62.0 51.1 41.8

NP NV NP

18.9597 8.8827 0.3445 0.1372

SM A-4(0)

GeoConsult

Red Hook-St. Thomas, USVI

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Project Site Depth: 1.5-3' Sample Number: Bo. 3 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

Clay

0.0 10.0 10.1 4.8 13.1 20.2 41.8 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

Clayey sand with gravel .5

.375 #4 #10 #40

#100 #200

100.0 92.5 84.0 73.9 57.1 47.3 41.4

18 32 14

8.3732 5.3546 0.5682 0.2023

SC A-6(2)

GeoConsult Red Hook-St. Thomas, USVI

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Project Site Depth: 3-4.5' Sample Number: Bo. 3 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 16.0 10.1 16.8 15.7 41.4 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

Silty sand with gravel

.75 .5

.375 #4 #10 #40

#100 #200

100.0 96.5 90.4 85.1 68.5 50.0 27.5 20.0 16.5

NP NV NP

12.3922 9.4636 3.2784

1.9975 0.5379

SM A-1-b

GeoConsult

Red Hook-St. Thomas, USVI

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: Project Site Depth: 6-7.5' Sample Number: Bo. 3 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse % Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium % Sand

Fine Silt % Fines

Clay

0.0 3.5 28.0 18.5 22.5 11.0 16.5 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

APPENDIX CC

Important Information About This Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the speci!c needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a di"erent civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. !ose who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a di"erent client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without !rst conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

– not even you – should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-speci!c factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the con!rmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include:

• the client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk-management preferences;

• the general nature of the structure involved, its size, con!guration, and performance criteria;

• the structure’s location and orientation on the site; and

• other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that a"ect:

• the site’s size or shape;

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an o#ce building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, con!guration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

• the composition of the design team; or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. !e geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

This Report May Not Be Reliable Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:

• for a di"erent client;

• for a di"erent project;

• for a di"erent site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or

• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like $oods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater $uctuations.

Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been a"ected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modi!ed codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.

Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those speci#c locations where sampling and testing were performed. %e data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may di"er – maybe signi!cantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project !nish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent %e recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are con!rmation-dependent. In other words, they are not #nal, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can !nalize the recommendations only a$er observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer con!rms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. !e geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for con#rmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to:

• confer with other design-team members,

• help develop speci!cations,

• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and speci!cations, and

• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You…