36C10F19R0010-0004083.pdf

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Topsoil [12"]

(CL/ML) SANDY SILTY CLAY, trace gravel, brown, moist, very stiff to hard

(SP) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL,

trace silt, brown, wet, loose

(CL/ML) SANDY SILTY CLAY, trace gravel, gray, moist, very stiff

(SP) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, trace gravel, trace silt, gray, wet, medium dense

(CL/ML) SANDY SILTY CLAY, trace gravel, gray, moist, very stiff

END OF BORING @ 30'

8 19 3.5

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

9 15 3.25

3.5

2.0

2.75

CLIENT

Gordon

Job #:

16:12282

BORING #

S-9

SHEET

PROJECT NAME

Great Lakes National Cemetery

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER

Gordon

SITE LOCATION

4200 Belford Road, Holly, Oakland County, MI

NORTHING EASTING STATION

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

WL 12' WS WD BORING STARTED 06/20/18 CAVE IN DEPTH @ 13.2'

WL(SHW) WL(ACR) BORING COMPLETED 06/20/18 HAMMER TYPE Auto

WL RIG CME-55 FOREMAN Al G. DRILLING METHOD HSADRILLING METHOD HSA

D E

P T

H

F T

S A

M P

L E

N O

S A

M P

L E

T Y

P E

S A

M P

L E

D

IS

T

(I N

R E

C O

V E

R Y

IN

SURFACE ELEVATION

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L S

E L E

V A

T

IO

N

F T

B L O

W S

/6

10 20 30 40 50+

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 2 3 4 5+

ENGLISH UNITS

BOTTOM OF CASING LOSS OF CIRCULATION

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TONS/FT2

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION & RECOVERY

RQD% REC.%

STANDARD PENETRATION

BLOWS/FT+924 (+/-)

S-4

END OF BORING

@ 20'

CL/ML

D-6

END OF BORING

@ 10'

CL/ML

S-5

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

ML/CL

SP

ML/CL

CL/ML

S-6

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL

CL/ML

ML/CL

SP

CL/ML

S-7

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

CL

SP

CL

S-8

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

SP

CL/ML

S-9

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

SP

CL/ML

SP

CL/ML

B-5

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

SM

CL/ML

SM/GM

CL/ML

B-6

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

E le v a t io n in F e e t

E le v a t ion in F e e t

75 150 225 300 375 450 525 600 675 750 825 900 975 1050 1125 1200 1275 1350 1425 1500 1575 1650 1725 1800 1875 1950 2025 2100 2175 2250

Great Lakes National Cemetery Subsurface Soil Section R-R'

NOTES:

1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).

4200 Belford Road, Holly, Oakland County, MI Gordon

PROJECT NO.: 12282 DATE: 7/31/2018 VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=5'

B-1

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

SP-SM

CL

CL/ML

B-2

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

SP

ML/CL

SP

CL

ML

CL/ML

B-3

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

SM

CL/ML

B-4

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

B-5

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

SM

CL/ML

SM/GM

CL/ML

B-6

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML

B-7

END OF BORING

@ 30'

CL/ML FILL

CL/ML

E le v a t io n in F e e t

E le v a t ion in F e e t

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900

Great Lakes National Cemetery Subsurface Soil Section R-R'

NOTES:

1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).

PROJECT NO.: 12282 DATE: 7/31/2018 VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=5'

R-1

END OF BORING

@ 5'

CL/ML

R-5

END OF BORING

@ 5'

SP FILL

CL FILL

CL/ML

R-2

END OF BORING

@ 5'

SP FILL

CL/ML

R-6

22 8

END OF BORING

@ 5'

SP FILL

CL/ML FILL

SP FILL

R-3

END OF BORING

@ 5'

CL/ML

R-4

END OF BORING

@ 5'

SP FILL

CL/ML FILL

SP FILL

R-7

END OF BORING

@ 5'

SP FILL

CL/ML

R-8

END OF BORING

@ 5'

SP FILL

CL/ML

R-9

END OF BORING

@ 5'

SP FILL

CL/ML FILL

SP FILL

E le v a t io n in F e e t

E le v a t ion in F e e t

0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100 2250 2400 2550 2700 2850 3000 3150 3300 3450 3600 3750 3900 4050 4200 4350 4500

Great Lakes National Cemetery Subsurface Soil Section R-R'

NOTES:

1 SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

2 PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT (ASTM D1586).

PROJECT NO.: 12282 DATE: 7/31/2018 VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=2'

Pavement Core Summary and Photographs Great Lakes National Cemetery Phase II Development

Holly, Oakland County, Michigan ECS Project No.: 16:12282

Boring Number

Bituminous Core Total Thickness (inches)

Granular Subbase Thickness and Composition Subgrade Type

R‐1 3⅜ 12 inches crushed gravel Sandy silty clay with gravel, brown, very stiff

R‐2 3½ 10 inches crushed gravel Fine to medium sand with gravel (22½ inches +/‐) brown, moist, loose; overlying sandy silty clay, brown, very stiff

R‐3 2¾ 10 inches crushed gravel Sandy silty clay with gravel, brown, hard

R‐4 2¼ 21 inches crushed gravel Fine to medium sand with gravel (10 inches +/‐) brown, moist, medium dense; overlying sandy silty clay fill, brown, hard

R‐5 4⅜ 10 inches crushed gravel Fine to medium sand with gravel (14 inches +/‐) brown, moist, medium dense; overlying sandy lean clay with gravel fill, brown, very stiff

R‐6 2⅜ 6 inches crushed gravel Medium to coarse sand with gravel (15 inches +/‐) brown, moist, loose; overlying sandy silty clay with gravel, brown, firm

R‐7 4¼ 6 inches crushed gravel Fine to medium sand (14 inches +/‐) brown, moist, loose;

overlying sandy silty clay, brown, stiff to very stiff

R‐8 4¼ 7 inches crushed gravel Medium to coarse sand with gravel (13 inches +/‐) brown, moist, loose; overlying sandy silty clay, brown, stiff to hard

R‐9 2¾ 6 inches crushed gravel Medium to coarse sand with gravel (29 inches +/‐) brown, moist, medium dense; overlying sandy silty clay fill, brown, very stiff

R‐1 R‐2

R‐3 R‐4

R‐5 R‐6

R‐7 R‐8

R‐9

APPENDIX C – Laboratory Testing

Plasticity Charts

Grain Size Analyses

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Reports

Modified Proctor Charts

Tested By: JK Checked By: DA

Brown Sandy Silty Clay 25 14 11

12282 Gordon

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Figure

Source of Sample: D1 & D2 Depth: 1' - 5' Sample Number: D4S-3

P L A

S T

IC

IT

Y I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

Bulk sample from Borings D-1 & D-2

Great Lakes National Cemetery

Brown Sandy Lean Clay 23 14 9

12282 Gordon

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Figure

Source of Sample: D3 & D4 Depth: 1' - 5' Sample Number: D4S-2

P L A

S T

IC

IT

Y I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

Bulk sample from Borings D-3 & D-4

Tested By: DA Checked By: DA

Brown Sandy Silty Clay 21 14 7 88.0 53.9 CL-ML

12282 Gordon

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Figure

Location: S-2 Depth: 1' - 5'

P L A

S T

IC

IT

Y I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

Brown Sandy Lean Clay 22 15 7 87.0 68.2 CL-ML

12282 Gordon

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Figure

Location: S-9 Depth: 6' - 10'

P L A

S T

IC

IT

Y I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

07/10/2018

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

Brown Sandy Silty Clay 3/8 #4 #8

#10 #16 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200

0.0311 mm.

0.0201 mm.

0.0119 mm.

0.0086 mm.

0.0061 mm.

0.0031 mm.

0.0013 mm.

100.0 99.1 97.0 96.2 94.2 91.1 88.0 82.0 64.9 53.9 46.0 40.2 34.5 28.7 24.9 18.8 14.9

14 21 7

0.5183 0.3491 0.1177

0.0475 0.0092 0.0013

CL-ML A-4(1)

Gordon

Great Lakes National Cemetery

12282

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: S-2 Depth: 1' - 5' 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

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.9 2.9 8.2 34.1 31.0 22.9 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

Particle Size Distribution Report

07/10/2018

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

Brown Sandy Silty Clay 3/4 1/2 #4 #8

#10 #16 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200

0.0295 mm.

0.0194 mm.

0.0118 mm.

0.0085 mm.

0.0061 mm.

0.0031 mm.

0.0013 mm.

100.0 96.7 94.2 92.3 91.8 90.4 88.6 87.0 84.1 75.7 68.2 55.5 46.5 34.0 28.6 25.1 17.5 14.0

15 22 7

0.9784 0.3288 0.0388

0.0225 0.0094 0.0020

CL-ML A-4(2)

Gordon

Great Lakes National Cemetery

12282

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: S-9 Depth: 6' - 10' 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

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 5.8 2.4 4.8 18.8 45.4 22.8 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

Particle Size Distribution Report

BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT

ASTM D1883-16

Project No: 12282

Project: Great Lakes National Cemetery

Source of Sample: D1 & D2 Depth: 1' - 5'

Sample Number: D4S-6

Date:

Brown Sandy Lean Clay

Test Description/Remarks:

Modified Proctor

(ASTM D1557)

Figure 7

130.0 9.7 25 11

Material Description

USCS

Max.

Dens.

(pcf)

Optimum Moisture

LL PI

Molded

Density (pcf)

Percent of Max. Dens.

Moisture

Soaked

Density (pcf)

Percent of Max. Dens.

Moisture

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

Linearity Correction

(in.)

Surcharge (lbs.)

Max.

Swell

1 128.9 99.2 9.6 126.9 97.6 11.4 8.5 10.0 0.000 10 1.5

2 125.3 96.4 10.1 123.0 94.6 12.4 6.4 7.2 0.000 10 1.8

3 118.9 91.5 9.6 115.9 89.2 14.6 1.8 1.7 0.000 10 2.5

P e n e tr a ti o n R e s is ta n c e p s i)

Penetration Depth (in.)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

S w e ll

Elapsed Time (hrs) 0 24 48 72 96

C B

R

Molded Density (pcf) 118 121 124 127 130 133

56 blows

35 blows

20 blows

CBR at 95% Max. Density = 5.2% for 0.10 in. Penetration

Project No: 12282

Project: Great Lakes National Cemetery

Source of Sample: D4 & D3 Depth: 1' - 5'

Sample Number: D4S-7

Date:

Brown Sandy Lean Clay

Test Description/Remarks:

Modified Proctor

(ASTM D1557)

Figure 8

129.8 9.2 23 9

Material Description

USCS

Max.

Dens.

(pcf)

Optimum Moisture

LL PI

Molded

Density (pcf)

Percent of Max. Dens.

Moisture

Soaked

Density (pcf)

Percent of Max. Dens.

Moisture

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

Linearity Correction

(in.)

Surcharge (lbs.)

Max.

Swell

1 131.3 101.2 8.8 129.3 99.6 10.9 8.5 10.5 0.000 10 1.5

2 127.6 98.3 9.4 125.6 96.8 11.9 4.3 4.8 0.000 10 1.6

3 122.1 94.1 9.7 120.0 92.5 13.3 1.6 1.8 0.000 10 1.7

P e n e tr a ti o n R e s is ta n c e p s i)

Penetration Depth (in.)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

S w e ll

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Elapsed Time (hrs) 0 24 48 72 96

C B

R

2.5

7.5

Molded Density (pcf) 119 122 125 128 131 134

56 blows

35 blows

20 blows

CBR at 95% Max. Density = 2.0%

Project No: 12282

Project: Great Lakes National Cemetery

Source of Sample: D8, D6 & D5 Depth: 1' - 5'

Sample Number: D4S-8

Date:

Brown Clayey Silt with Sand

Test Description/Remarks:

Modified Proctor

(ASTM D1557)

Figure 9

130.6 8.9

Material Description

USCS

Max.

Dens.

(pcf)

Optimum Moisture

LL PI

Molded

Density (pcf)

Percent of Max. Dens.

Moisture

Soaked

Density (pcf)

Percent of Max. Dens.

Moisture

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

Linearity Correction

(in.)

Surcharge (lbs.)

Max.

Swell

1 131.3 100.5 9.2 130.7 100.1 9.9 29.7 36.3 0.000 10 0.4

2 127.8 97.9 9.1 127.2 97.4 10.6 26.8 24.4 0.000 10 0.4

3 121.2 92.8 9.4 120.4 92.2 12.5 8.5 8.6 0.000 10 0.7

P e n e tr a ti o n R e s is ta n c e p s i)

Penetration Depth (in.)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

S w e ll

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Elapsed Time (hrs) 0 24 48 72 96

C B

R

Molded Density (pcf) 116 120 124 128 132 136

56 blows 35 blows

20 blows

CBR at 95% Max. Density = 18.0%

D ry d e n si ty p cf

Water content, %

5 7 9 11 13 15 17

9.7%, 130.0 pcf

ZAV for Sp.G. = 2.70

Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified

1' - 5' CL 25 11

Brown Sandy Lean Clay

12282 Gordon

06/27/2018

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Date:

Source of Sample: D1 & D2 Sample Number: D4S-1

Figure

Maximum dry density = 130.0 pcf

Optimum moisture = 9.7 % ry d e n si ty p cf

Water content, %

4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5

9.2%, 129.8 pcf

ZAV for Sp.G. = 2.65

Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified

1' - 5' CL 23 9

Brown Sandy Lean Clay

12282 Gordon

06/29/2018

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Date:

Source of Sample: D4 & D3 Sample Number: D4S-5

Figure

Maximum dry density = 129.8 pcf

Optimum moisture = 9.2 % ry d e n si ty p cf

122.5

127.5

132.5

Water content, %

4 5.5 7 8.5 10 11.5 13

8.9%, 130.6 pcf

ZAV for Sp.G. = 2.65

Test specification: ASTM D 1557-12 Method A Modified

1' - 5' ML

Brown Clayey Silt with Sand

12282 Gordon

06/29/2018

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Date:

Source of Sample: (D8, D6, & D5) & D6 Sample Number: D4S-4

Figure

Maximum dry density = 130.6 pcf

Optimum moisture = 8.9 %

APPENDIX D

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 specific 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 different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first 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-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-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, configuration, 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 affect:

• the site’s size or shape;

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

• the elevation, configuration, 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. The 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 different client;

• for a different project;

• for a different 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 floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified 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 specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The 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 differ – maybe significantly – 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 finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-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 specifications,

• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications, and

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

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.

Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.

Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer’s services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org

COMMISSIONING PLAN

PROJECT NO. 923-004

PHASE II DEVELOPMENT

Prepared for:

United States Department of Veteran Affairs

April 30, 2018

Prepared by:

National Cemetery Administration

Great Lakes National Cemetery Phase II

Oakland County, MI

Contents

Commissioning Plan

I. Introduction

II. Commissioning Goals

III. Project Description

IV. Commissioning Scope

V. Systems to Be Commissioned

VI. Commissioning Team

VII. Commissioning Communications and Document Distribution

VIII. Pre-Design Phase Commissioning

IX. Design Phase Commissioning

X. Construction and Acceptance Phase Commissioning

XI. Warranty Phase Commissioning

XII. Team Member Roles and Responsibilities

XIII. Commissioning Schedule

XIV. Appendix A – Preliminary Log of Required Documentation

XV. Appendix B – Pre-Functional Checklists

XVI. Appendix C – Functional Performance Tests

Version Tracking

Version Date Submitted Reason

0 4/30/2018 Draft at DD-1 submission

April 30, 2018 Page 2 Commissioning Plan

I. Introduction

A. The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is committed to commissioning new facilities and systems required for the reliable, safe, and secure operation of the Great

Lakes National Cemetery in Oakland County, MI. This process will verify that systems are complete and functioning properly upon project completion, and that each facility’s maintenance staff has the appropriate system documentation and training.

B. Commissioning consists of systematically documenting that specified components and systems have been installed and started up properly, functionally tested to verify that systems are complete and functioning properly upon project completion, and that the

NCA FMD staff has the appropriate system documentation and training. In addition, Owner-personnel training will be verified and final project O&M documents will be reviewed for completeness.

C. This document is intended to be a roadmap for the parties involved in the commissioning process. The document will explain the systems to be commissioned, the process activities, the procedures to follow throughout the commissioning process, and the roles and responsibilities for each party involved. The commissioning activities will begin during the design phase of the project and proceed through the warranty period.

D. The team members for this project are committed to commissioning this facility and systems required for the reliable, safe, and secure operation of the facility. This process is intended to verify that systems are properly installed, configured and operating in accordance with the requirements of the project, and that operating personnel are adequately prepared to successfully operate the facility at project turnover.

E. The Commissioning Agent will be provided by the United States Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) for the Great Lakes National Cemetery Phase II Development Project.

F. In this structure, all communications on contractual issues are strictly limited to communications between the Contract Officer/Contract Officer’s Representative

(CO/COR) and the AE Team and Prime Contractor. It is the practice of the NCA to require that communication between other parties to the contractors (i.e. AE

Subconsultants, Subcontractors and Vendors) be routed through these two prime contractors and the CO/COR

April 30, 2018 Page 3 Commissioning Plan

G. Commissioning is a process that relies upon high levels of communication and collaboration between all parties to the construction process. By its nature, the levels of communication and cooperation between the Commissioning Agent and all other parties to the construction process (Design and the Contractor Team) is essential to the success of the commissioning effort. In the absence of the relationships, cooperation and support created by this communication, the commissioning process will likely fail to achieve its ends.

H. With this fundamental conflict in mind, this Commissioning Plan has been developed to recognize that, in the execution of the commissioning process, the Commissioning Agent must develop effective methods to communicate with every member of the NCA, A/E team, and Contractor Team involved in delivering commissioned systems while simultaneously respecting the exclusive contract authority of the Contracting Officer.

Thus, all procedures outlined in this manual must be executed within the following limitations:

1. The Commissioning Agent may maintain a continuous open communication with the Cx Team, including Design Team, the Contractor Team, installing

Subcontractors and the Owner’s Team to facilitate a collaborative commissioning process subject to the specific limitations outlined below.

2. All communications shall be copied to the Project Manager (Design Phase) and

Resident Engineer (Construction Phase).

3. All Communications shall include specific reference to these contract limitations

(e.g., “All issues identified in this Commissioning Issues Log are subject to

Paragraph 2.5: Contractual Relationships in the NCA Commissioning Process

Manual.”

4. All information from the Commissioning Agent to any party involved in the project must be transmitted with the following clear limitations:

a. No communications (verbal or written) will be deemed to constitute direction that modifies the terms of any contract between the NCA and any party to the construction project.

b. Commissioning issues communicated in writing to the General Contractor and copied to the CPM/SRE are provided to all parties to the contract to expedite communication. All issues must be understood as the professional

April 30, 2018 Page 4 Commissioning Plan opinion of the Commissioning Agent and suggestions for issue resolution only until expressly approved as direction by the CPM or Site Resident Engineer.

c. In the event that any commissioning issue and suggested resolution are deemed to require either an official interpretation of the construction documents or are determined to require a modification of the contract documents, the Contracting Officer will issue an official directive to this effect.

d. All parties to the commissioning process shall be individually responsible for alerting the CO of any issues that they deem to constitute a potential contract change prior to acting on these issues.

e. Authority for design and construction issues resolution rests solely with the

Contracting Officer and his/her designated representative with appropriate technical guidance from the Design Team and/or Commissioning Agent.

I. Abbreviations

1. Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

2. Contract Officer or Contract Officer’s Representative (CO/COR)

3. Project Manager and/or Site Resident Engineer (PM/SRE)

4. NCA Facilities Management Department Staff (FMD)

5. Design Professionals (D)

6. Architect and Engineer Team (AE Team)

7. Engineer of Record (EOR)

8. Construction Project Manager (CPM)

9. Installation Contractors (CONTR)

10. Global Positioning System (GPS)

11. Testing, Adjusting & Balancing Contractor (TAB)

12. Commissioning Agent (CxA)

13. Request for Information (RFI)

14. Architect’s Supplemental Instructions (ASI)

15. Design Development Documents (DD)

April 30, 2018 Page 5 Commissioning Plan

16. Construction Documents (CD)

17. Commissioning (Cx)

18. Functional Performance Test (FPT)

19. Pre-Functional Checklist (PFC)

20. Corrective Action Notice (CAR)

21. Quality Control (QC)

II. Commissioning Goals

A. The Commissioning Agent has developed specific commissioning goals to emphasize the role commissioning will play in the design and construction processes:

Meet or exceed NCA Project Requirements

Optimize Systems Operations

System Operation and Performance Verification

• Functional Performance Test results

• Pre-Functional Checklists

• Equipment startup

Documentation and Training for FMD Staff

• Operating instructions and documentation

• Operator equipment training

• Operator systems training

Integrate Testing Schedules into Construction Schedule

• Coordination of trades

• Coordination of DDC vendor tasks as they relate to the commissioned systems.

Early Identification and Resolution of Issues

Clear and Open Communications

April 30, 2018 Page 6 Commissioning Plan

III. Project Description

A. It is our understanding that the Project will provide the second phase of development by providing an additional ten (10) years of continued burial services to a Veteran population who has been served by this National Cemetery since it opened in 2006.

Without this project, NCA is projecting gravesite depletion of casketed gravesites by

Fiscal Year (FY) 2043. Although NCA statistical data indicates casketed gravesites are available until January 2043, the cemetery is reporting the casketed pre-placed crypt depletion will occur in October 2024. This project will provide an additional 10-year inventory of the more efficient, casketed, double-depth, pre-placed crypts before depletion of the current inventory also in FY 2024.

B. This project will include the development of approximately 30 acres of the remaining 469 undeveloped acres at Great Lakes National Cemetery to provide approximately 28,400 gravesites, including both casket and cremation sites in new burial sections. In addition to the new gravesites, irrigation will be extended into new burial sections compatible with the existing system, along with anticipated upgrades to existing security systems. GPS will be integrated into the site and a cemetery-wide electrical evaluation will be performed with upgrades to the electrical distribution system and installing emergency generators.

C. Scoping documents provided for determination of pricing include the RFP AE Scope of

Work, Commissioning Scope of Work, project schedule, master plan, an overlay mark-up of the Master Plan, and responses to requests for information issued by the Owner.

Additionally, the NCA Commissioning Process Manual was used to determine the deliverables for each phase of design and construction, as well as the requirements for crypt commissioning.

April 30, 2018 Page 7 Commissioning Plan

IV. Commissioning Scope

A. McDonough Bolyard Peck, Inc. (d/b/a MBP) will provide commissioning services to support the Great Lakes National Cemetery project. Commissioning activities will include the tasks and deliverables outlined below.

Commissioning Scope

Project Phase Task Description Deliverable

Design Review Schematic design

Review Schematic Design for familiarization, general conformance with Owner’s Project Requirements, Basis of Design and NCA Design Criteria.

Review comment log.

Design Review Design Development design

Review Design Development for familiarization, general conformance with Owner’s Project Requirements, Basis of Design and NCA Design Criteria.

Review comment log.

Design Commissioning Specifications

Prepare Commissioning Specification “Section 01 91 13 – General Commissioning Requirements” to be included in project manual.

Commissioning Specification

Prepare Commissioning Specification for Division 03 – Pre-Cast Burial Crypts, Division 11 – Equipment, Division 28 – Electronic Safety and Security, Division 32 – Irrigation, and to provide detailed commissioning, O&M and training requirements for individual technical specification sections.

Commissioning Specifications

Design Preliminary Commissioning Plan

Prepare preliminary Commissioning Plan that describes the commissioning process and provides the Commissioning Team with specific roles and responsibilities. The Commissioning Plan will include a description of systems to be commissioned.

Preliminary Commissioning Plan

Design Focused Design Document Review

Perform a focused review of Design Document DD-1, DD-2, CD-1 and CD-2 (final submission).

Commissioning Design Review Log

April 30, 2018 Page 8 Commissioning Plan

Project Phase Task Description Deliverable

Design Focused Construction Document Review

Perform a focused review of the final Construction Document submission.

This review will include a back-check of commissioning comments provided during previous reviews.

Commissioning Design Review Log

Design Design Phase Meetings

Participate in selected Design Phase Owner/Architect meetings.

Meeting Notes

Design Focused Design Review Meetings

Attend selected meetings with Owner and AE Team to review the project design and specific commissioning design review comments. It is assumed this meeting will be scheduled in conjunction with scheduled Owner/Architect meetings.

Meeting Notes

Construction Final Commissioning Plan

Based on the final construction documents, update the preliminary Commissioning Plan to identify specific systems to be commissioned. The Final Commissioning Plan will also include specific individual roles and responsibilities and preliminary Pre- Functional Checklists and Functional Test Plans for systems to be commissioned.

Final Commissioning Plan

Construction Construction Commissioning Kick- Off Meeting

Conduct an initial commissioning meeting with all contractors and commissioning team members. The purpose of the meeting will be to establish the purpose and proposed process for commissioning this facility in the construction, acceptance and warranties phases of the project.

Review the individual roles and responsibilities of each participating commissioning team member as specified in the Construction Documents. Meeting will be scheduled for each construction package with a commissioning scope.

Meeting Notes

April 30, 2018 Page 9 Commissioning Plan

Construction Duration Schedule for Commissioning Activities

Based on the final Commissioning Plan, prepare a schedule to show the duration, predecessors and successors for commissioning activities. This schedule will be provided to the Construction Project Manager for inclusion of commissioning activities into the project construction schedule.

This allows commissioning activities to be smoothly integrated into the overall construction process.

Duration schedule with commissioning activities, predecessors, successors and key milestones.

Construction Submittal and Shop Drawing Review Request

Based on final construction documents, prepare a list of selected submittals and shop drawings for review by the Commissioning Agent.

Submittal Request Checklist

Construction Submittal and Shop Drawing Review

Review selected submittals and shop drawings to support the commissioning process. Review will be for the purpose of developing appropriate Pre- Functional Checklists and Functional Performance Test Plans. Reviews will focus on the ability to commission the systems, maintainability and general conformance to owner’s requirements.

Commissioning review of submittals and shop drawings does not replace the responsibility of the Design Team for approval.

Commissioning Submittal Review Log

April 30, 2018 Page 10 Commissioning Plan

Construction Pre-Functional Checklists

Prepare Pre-Functional Checklists for systems, components and/or equipment to be commissioned. These Pre- Functional Checklists will be used to document completion of system, component and/or equipment installation, and to determine system readiness for functional performance testing.

Pre-Functional Checklists should be completed by the installing contractors to document the installation process.

The Contractor shall provide 15 days’ notice to CxA and SRE regarding the completion schedule for the checklists.

Completed Pre-Functional Checklists will be spot checked by the Commissioning Agent to verify systems are ready for testing.

Draft Pre-Functional Checklists for owner and contractor review.

Final Pre-Functional Checklists for use by contractors and/or CxA.

Construction Review Contractor Equipment Startup Checklists

Commissioning Agent will review selected equipment startup reports prepared by installing contractor.

Commissioning Agent will witness selected equipment startup procedures.

Seven days’ prior notice is required to schedule the Commissioning Authority witnessing the startup.

Contractor Equipment Startup Checklist (this checklist is part of the Submittal and Shop Drawing Review Checklist).

Issues Log

April 30, 2018 Page 11 Commissioning Plan

Construction Prepare Functional Test Plans

Based on final construction documents (including applicable changes), and approved submittals, prepare Functional Test Plans for systems to be commissioned. Draft Functional Test Plans will be issued for review by Owner, installing contractors and DDC Vendor.

Final Functional Test Plans will be prepared incorporating review comments received from owner, contractors or DDC Vendor.

Draft Functional Test Plans

Final Functional Test Plans for use in systems testing.

Construction Review O&M Manuals

Review Operations and Maintenance Manuals submitted by contractors for general conformance with specifications and Owner’s requirements.

Commissioning Review Log

Construction Prepare Systems Manuals

Prepare detailed systems manuals for commissioned systems. The manuals will provide operating staff the information needed to understand and optimally operate the commissioned systems. The manuals will describe system design, components, capacity and sequences of operations. Manuals will include descriptions of interactions with other systems and common systems failure modes and responses.

Systems Manuals – one hardcopy plus two electronic copies on thumb drive

Construction Review Training Plans

Review contractor and manufacturer training plans and agendas for general conformance with specifications and Owner’s requirements. Observe selected training for quality and general conformance with the training plan and agenda.

Commissioning Review Log

Construction Warranty Review Review contractor’s and manufacturer’s warranties for general conformance with specifications and Owner’s requirements.

Review Log

April 30, 2018 Page 12 Commissioning Plan

Construction Systems Functional Testing

Direct functional testing for systems to be commissioned. Testing will be conducted as detailed on the specific Functional Test Plan for each system to be commissioned.

Functional testing will require support from the Owner, plumbing contractor, GPS contractor, DDC Vendor (if irrigation system ties into EMS), and specialty-systems installing contractors.

Installing contractors must be available to respond to issues and problems identified during testing.

Executed Functional Test Plans

Construction Construction Observation

Conduct visits to the construction site to observe construction activities. Specific attention will be given to installation of electronic safety and irrigation systems for general conformance with specifications and manufacturer’s installation requirements. Specific attention will also be given to installation of site utilities and site improvements for general conformance with plans, specifications and manufacturer’s installation requirements.

Field Observation Reports

April 30, 2018 Page 13 Commissioning Plan

Construction Final Commissioning Report

Compile a comprehensive commissioning report documenting all commissioning activities, including but not limited to:

• Commissioning scope

• Test methods and results

• Outstanding commissioning issues

• Issues log

• Commissioning plan

• Status reports

• Submittal and O&M manual reviews

• Training record

• Pre-Functional Checklists

• Design Review Comments

Scope includes one submission of a preliminary report for Owner review.

Scope includes one submission of the Final Commissioning Report that incorporates Owner’s review comments.

Preliminary Commissioning Report – one hardcopy for owner review.

Final

Report – one hardcopy plus two electronic submissions on thumb drive

Construction Owner, Architect and Construction Manager Meetings (Construction Phase)

Attend selected Owner/Architect/Contractor meetings.

CxA will attend meetings to discuss commissioning issues, review the Commissioning Issues Log and to maintain awareness of general construction schedule and issues.

Meeting Notes (it is assumed the Construction Manager will provide the official minutes).

April 30, 2018 Page 14 Commissioning Plan

Construction Commissioning Progress Meetings

Conduct Commissioning Progress Meetings to review system installation progress, system readiness, and preparation for functional performance testing. These meetings will also review status of unresolved commissioning issues and progress towards resolution of the issues. The Construction Manager, Construction Commissioning Manager, Construction Quality Control Manager, and commissioning representatives from the Mechanical/Electrical Design Team, plumbing contractor, electrical contractor, and specialty-systems installing contractors will attend these meetings.

Meeting minutes

Construction Status Reports Provide periodic status reports detailing activities, significant unresolved issues, and upcoming commissioning activities.

Prepare report outlining status of deliverables for the project. Status reports are submitted with invoices for professional services.

Monthly Narrative Status Report

Monthly Percent Complete Report

Construction Master Issues Log Maintain a Commissioning Issues Log to document commissioning issues identified during construction and functional testing. The Commissioning Issues Log will include recommended responsible party and recommendations for resolution of the issue. The Commissioning Issues Log will also be used to document progress toward resolution and the final resolution

Commissioning Issues Log

Construction Review Change Orders, ASI, and RFI

Review change orders, architect’s supplemental instructions and requests for information (with AE team response) for issues that affect commissioning.

Review is for information only and does not constitute technical or contractual approval or disapproval.

Commissioning Requests for Information

April 30, 2018 Page 15 Commissioning Plan

Warranty Deferred and/or Seasonal Testing

Direct testing that was deferred due to lack of system readiness or for seasonal requirements. Testing will be conducted in accordance with Functional Test Plans. Testing support will be required from the DDC Vendor and Owner. We have assumed this testing will be performed during a two-day site visit approximately 10 months after substantial completion.

Executed

Plans

Warranty Post-Occupancy Warranty Checkup

Return to the project approximately 10 months into the 12-month warranty period to review the building operation with the facility staff and discuss outstanding issues related to commissioning and outstanding warranty issues. Provide suggestions for improvements. Assist facility staff in developing reports, documents and requests for service to remedy outstanding problems. We have assumed this will be performed during a two-day site visit approximately 10 months after substantial completion

Field Observation Report

Warranty Final Commissioning Report Amendment

Amend Final Commissioning Report to document the Warranty Phase commissioning activities.

Amendment to Final

Report.

B. Design phase commissioning services will be provided by the Fairfax, VA office of MBP.

C. Construction phase commissioning services will be provided at the construction site for the Great Lakes National Cemetery by staff from the Fairfax, VA office.

April 30, 2018 Page 16 Commissioning Plan

V. Systems to Be Commissioned

A. The systems and equipment to be commissioned are outlined in the table below.

Systems to Be Commissioned

System Pre-

Functional Checklists

Equipment Startup

Functional Testing

Sample Size

Remarks

Div 3 – Pre-Cast Burial Crypts

Burial Crypts Yes No Yes 1% Cx consists of sampling of required specification tests and test reports, observation of ‘mockup’ crypts, review of bedding and drainage prior to placement, final crypt numbering, installation, and lid removal tests with the

RE.

Div 11 - Equipment

Global Positioning System

(GPS)

Yes No Yes 1% Final Acceptance testing by

CO/COR,

witnessed by the CxA.

Geographical Information System

Yes No Yes 1% Final Acceptance testing by

CO/COR,

witnessed by the CxA.

Div 26 - Electrical

Underground Electrical Utility Replacement

TBD TBD TBD TBD Scope to be determined during design

April 30, 2018 Page 17 Commissioning Plan

System Pre-

Functional Checklists

Equipment Startup

Functional Testing

Sample Size

Remarks

Div 28 – Electronic Safety and Security

Intrusion Detection System

(IDS)

Yes Yes Yes 100%

(new)

Final Acceptance testing by

CO/COR,

witnessed by the CxA.

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System

Yes Yes Yes 50% (new cameras only)

Final Acceptance testing by

CO/COR,

witnessed by the CxA.

Physical Access Control System (PACS)

Yes Yes Yes 50%

(new)

Final Acceptance testing by

CO/COR,

witnessed by the CxA.

Div 32 –Irrigation

Irrigation System (New and Existing)

Yes Yes Yes 100%

(new)

Installed by contractors, commissioned by RFP AE Irrigation Consultant.

Forms provided by CxA.

Witnessed by the Engineer of Record.

April 30, 2018 Page 18 Commissioning Plan

VI. Commissioning Team

A. The Commissioning Team shall consist of representatives from the following parties involved in the design and construction of this facility. The time at which individual members join the team and the level of their participation during the different phases of the project will vary from member to member.

Commissioning Team

Item Team Member Description Contact Information

AE

Team

Architect and Engineering Team

Representatives from the Architect and Engineering Team

Mark Dyck and Jason Gerhart

Gordon

Address

City, State Zip

Phone:

Email:

SRE Site Resident Engineer On-site technical representative of the Contracting Officer.

Name

Organization

Address

City, State Zip

Phone:

Email:

PM NCA Project Manager Representative of the National Cemetery Administration

Name

VA

Address

City, State Zip

Phone:

Email:

MEP Mechanical, Electrical…