472 26319.SMD Handlon Addendum No 1.pdf

261 East Kalamazoo Avenue Suite 101 Kalamazoo MI 49007 Abonmarche.com

BID CONSTRUCTION ADDENDUM NO. 1

DATE: September 10, 2026

TO: All Plan Holders

FROM: Paul Warnick Abonmarche Consultants, Inc.

RE: DTMB Project No. 472/26319.SMD Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility Unit B Conversion

OWNER: State of Michigan Department of Corrections

Item #1 Pre-Bid Meeting Minutes

Item#2 Geotechnical Report Addition of Soil Boring logs and geotechnical report not available at Bid issue date for bidder information.

Item #3 Specification Section 323300 Site Furnishings Addition of specification section to the Project Manual and contract documents.

Item#4 Sheet A110 – Revised Clarifications on door specifications.

Item#5 Contractor Questions

1. Can you confirm that Poligon and/or Icon Shelter Systems are the manufacture for all site accessories. (picnic tables, shelter, basketball pole)?

Answer: Poligon and Icon are the specified manufacturers for the Shelter only. A specification section was missing from the Manual 323300 ‘ Site Furnishings. This section will be provided in Addendum 1 to cover the other items.

2. Will we be allowed to use concrete blankets inside?

Answer: No. The building is expected to be occupied by inmates and blankets could be used to scale the razor wire outside.

3. Are winter conditions to be assumed on October 15th notice to proceed?

Answer: Yes

4. How many escorts will be provided for the work?

Answer: The number of escorts will be determined on a daily basis, based on their staff scheduling, which is not consistent.

5. Does all flatwork concrete need to be ADA compliant and meet minimum slope requirements of .5%?

Answer : ADA compliance was discussed with the warden. This building and, most likely the others, in general are considered not to be ADA compliant due to its age Individuals with specific needs are sent to other facilities.

As shown on the grade plan concrete slopes are to be 2% or less.

6. Would there be a door schedule provided to make sure the type and sizes are correct. Could you provide that?

Answer: See Sheet A110 as part of this Addendum for clarifications.

DTMB# 472/26319.SMD

Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility

Unit B Conversion Bid Construction Addendum No. 1

September 10, 2026

Attachments:

1. Pre-Bid Meeting Minutes

2. Geotechnical Report

3. Specification Section 323300 Site Furnishings

4. Sheet A110 www.abonmarche.com

State of Michigan Dept. of Corrections

Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility Unit B Conversion DTMB Project No 472/26319.SMD

Pre-Bid Meeting Minutes September 03, 2026

MEETING DATE: September 02, 2026 9:00 AM

LOCATION: Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility Warden’s Conference Room

PROJECT#: 26-0968

CLIENT: State of Michigan Dept. of Technology, Management and Budget

ATTENDEES:

See attached Attendance record

A. Scott DeKorte described the Project Schedule as outlined in the Project Manual

1) Bids Due September 16 2:00pm

2) All questions to be submitted in writing to Paul Warnick by September 9 1:00 PM Email: pwarnick@abonmarche.com

3) Addendum 1 to be issued September 10.

4) Construction completion date is 90 days from Notice to Proceed. Notice to Proceed is expected to be issued by October 15.

5) A Contingency Allowance of $50,000 is included in the Bid Form.

6) Site work is to start first and be mostly completed before moving to building work.

B. Paul Warnick provide a summary of the scope of site work.

1) Exercise equipment to be provide by MDOC and installed by the Contractor. As of this date no spec sheets for this equipment is available.

Weight machines will be expected to be surface mounted with anchor bolts.

2) All fencing and gates will be by others. Contractor is to coordinate with fencing contractor for scheduling and establishing finished grades.

3) Lead times for the Shelters are expected to be 3 to 4 months for delivery to site.

Scott DeKorte stated the completion date can be accommodated for this lead time.

4) Addendum 1 will include the Geotechnical Report.

5) Site contractor is responsible for GPR and marking of all existing utilities, plus all site layout and grade staking.

C. Stan Skopek provided a summary of scope of building renovations.

472/26319.SMD

Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility Unit B Conversion

Michigan Dept of Corrections Pre-Bid Meeting Minutes

September 03, 2026

O:\Projects\2026\26-0968 Handlon CF Housing Unit B Conversion\80 BIDDING\82 PREBID\472 26319.SMD Handlon Unit B Pre-Bid Meeting Minutes.docx

D. General

1) Existing Bathroom facilities can be used by contractor employees where approved by Handlon Facilities.

2) Construction trailer can be located outside of the perimeter fence where approved by Handlon Facilities.

3) Plan Review by LARA is pending. Plans were submitted September 3.

E. Questions

1. Question: Will the building be cleared of inmates during work hours.?

Answer: The contractor should plan for inmates to be present in the building.

2. Question: Can concrete forms be left in place overnight?

Answer: Yes.

3. Question: Can grade stakes be left in place and for how long.?

Answer: Grade stakes can be left in place for 2 to 4 days, but should be removed as soon as possible.

4. Question: Will a Hydrovac be required for all earthwork?

Using a Hydovac for general grading work would be time consuming and 3 to 4 times the cost.

Answer: The Hydrovac is required for all trenching and excavations for footings, piers, and Trenching for conduit, where potential conflicts with existing utilities are present, or similar work. No open excavations are permitted.

The Hydrovac is not required for work such as stripping and spreading topsoil, cutting for establishing grades and general earth moving.

5. Question: Will there be an allowance for Utility Repairs?

Answer: No.

6. Question: How many escorts will be provided.?

Answer: Escorts will be provided daily. Number to be determined.

7. Question: How many housing cells are being renovated?

Answer: A total of 10 cells are to be renovated, plus a shower room on the 2nd level converted to storage.

8. Question: Are doors to be detention grade?

Answer: No.

472/26319.SMD

Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility Unit B Conversion

Michigan Dept of Corrections Pre-Bid Meeting Minutes

September 03, 2026

O:\Projects\2026\26-0968 Handlon CF Housing Unit B Conversion\80 BIDDING\82 PREBID\472 26319.SMD Handlon Unit B Pre-Bid Meeting Minutes.docx

9. Question: Are we responsible for restoration for work done by others?

Answer: Yes all site restoration to be by the site contractor.

10. Question: Is fiber optic located in the project area?

Answer: Location of any fiber optic is unknown.

11. Question: Can cold weather curing blankets be used for concrete flatwork?

Answer: No, blankets could be used to climb over the razor wire.

12330 James Street, Suite H80 Holland, Michigan 49424 Ph. (616) 396-0255 Fax (616) 396-0100 www.driesenga.com

Holland Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Lansing Ypsilanti

August 21, 2026 via electronic mail

Mr. Paul Warnick, PLA

ABONMARCHE

940 Monroe Avenue NW, Suite G-157 Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Re: Geotechnical Report Handlon Correctional Facility Shelter Structures 1728 Bluewater Highway, Ionia, Michigan Driesenga & Associates, Inc. Project No 2630757.3A

Dear Mr. Warnick:

Driesenga & Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit the attached report of subsurface exploration performed for the above-referenced project. The report presents the exploration procedures, subsurface conditions encountered, and our recommendations for development of the site with respect to proposed earthwork, foundation construction, and pavement design. As the project nears construction you can contact Bill Aamoth at 269-377-6079 in our local office to provide a quote for construction materials testing and survey needs.

Proper execution of our recommendations will affect the design, construction and performance of the structure and related facilities, and the potential associated risks involved. Therefore, the issues and recommendations presented in this report should be discussed with the project team, including Driesenga & Associates, Inc. This will increase the likelihood that the issues are understood and our recommendations are applied in a manner consistent with the project budget, tolerance of risk, and expectations for performance and maintenance.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can be of further service as design and construction progresses, please contact our office.

Sincerely, DRIESENGA & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Michael Stork Musana Nabil Senior Project Geologist Senior Project Engineer

Randy Pail, P.E Director of Geotechnical Engineering

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

SITE:

HANDLON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

SHELTER STRUCTURES

1728 BLUEWATER HIGHWAY, IONIA, MICHIGAN

AUGUST 21, 2026

PROJECT NO. 2630757.3A

PREPARED FOR:

ABONMARCHE

940 MONROE AVENUE NW, SUITE G-157

GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503

Prepared by:

Driesenga & Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 LOCATION

1.2 PURPOSE

1.3 SCOPE

1.4 DESIGN INFORMATION

2.0 SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 GENERAL

2.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE SOILS

2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

2.5 SEISMIC SITE CLASS

2.6 LIMITATIONS

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 SITE PREPARATION

3.2 FOUNDATIONS

3.3 FLOORS

3.4 PAVEMENTS

3.5 GROUNDWATER CONTROL

3.6 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY

4.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Figure 1 – Site Location Figure 2 – Boring Locations APPENDIX B Soil Boring Logs APPENDIX C Field and Laboratory Procedures

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 LOCATION

This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation completed for the proposed

Handlon Correctional Facility Shelter Structures. The site is located at 1728 Bluewater Highway in

Ionia, Michigan as shown on Figure 1 – Site Location (Appendix A).

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the subsurface profile, the engineering characteristics of the subsurface soils, and to provide recommendations in regard to the proposed design and construction based on our interpretation of the test results. This report was prepared in general accordance with our proposal dated August 4, 2026, as authorized by Mr. Paul Warnick of

Abonmarche on August 4, 2026.

1.3 SCOPE

The field exploration to estimate engineering characteristics of the site soils included performing a site reconnaissance, advancing the soil borings, performing standard penetration tests, and recovering split-spoon samples. Soil boring locations were determined in the field by measuring from existing site features. Existing ground surface elevations were not provided and obtaining them was beyond the scope of this investigation.

Two (2) soil borings, designated SB-1 and SB-2, were advanced in the vicinity of the proposed shelters on August 14, 2026, at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2 - Boring Locations

(Appendix A). The soil borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers to a depth of ten (10) feet below the ground surface. During drilling, soil samples were collected from split-spoon sampling via standard penetration testing (ASTM method D 1586) at intervals of 2.5 feet to a depth of 10 feet. The soil boring logs are contained in Appendix B. The field and laboratory procedures are described in Appendix C. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) was performed in the area of the borings to identify private utilities in the area.

1.4 DESIGN INFORMATION

We understand the project will include the addition of two (2) shelters and associated pavement and fencing. It is understood the proposed structures will be one-story with poured concrete footings. Structural load information was not available as of the time of this report however it should be provided to Driesenga & Associates, Inc. for review in light of the recommendations contained herein as soon as available. For calculation purposes, maximum loads of 1,500 pounds per lineal foot of wall and 15 kips per column (if any) were assumed. Assuming that the new construction will not include any basement areas, exterior footing depths are assumed to be a minimum of 3.5 feet below the final ground surface elevation.

We have assumed maximum tolerable settlements of 1 inch total and ½ inch differential. We anticipate cuts or fills on the order 1 foot or less will be required to establish site grades. Any significant deviation from these assumptions should be brought to the attention of Driesenga &

Associates, Inc. as soon as possible.

2.0 SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 GENERAL

The stratification of the soils, as shown on the soil boring logs in Appendix B, represents the soil conditions at the actual soil boring locations. Variations may occur away from or between the soil borings. Stratigraphic lines shown on the soil boring logs represent the approximate boundary between the soil types, but the transition may be gradual. They are not intended to show exact depths of change from one soil type to another. In addition, changes in soil type may occur between the sample intervals that are consequently not observed by the driller.

The soil boring logs in Appendix B include the drilling method, materials encountered, penetration resistances, and pertinent field observations made during the drilling operations along with the results of the laboratory testing.

2.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS

The proposed new shelters are located within the maintained lawn area southwest of Unit B. The proposed construction area is relatively flat. The existing facility is surrounded by similar structures, maintained lawn areas, asphalt-paved parking areas, and driveways associated with the correctional facility.

2.3 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE SOILS

Surface materials encountered at the site generally consist of 5 inches to 7 inches of topsoil underlain by 3 feet of clayey sand fill soils. The native soils consisted of medium dense to very dense, brown, clayey sand.

The estimated group symbol, according to the USCS, is shown in the USCS column just before the textural description of the various strata on the soil boring logs in Appendix B.

2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the soil borings during or after completion of drilling operations. Hydrostatic groundwater levels and the elevations and volumes of groundwater should be expected to fluctuate throughout the year, based on variations in precipitation, evaporation, run-off, and other factors. The groundwater levels (or lack thereof) indicated by the soil borings and presented in this section represent conditions at the time the readings were taken. The actual groundwater levels at the time of construction may vary.

Groundwater measurements were collected during drilling and attempted shortly after completion of the drilling operations. After drilling and collection of groundwater readings, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings and the surface was repaired approximating previous conditions. Since the boreholes were backfilled shortly after drilling, long-term groundwater level information is not available from the soil borings. To obtain long-term groundwater levels, groundwater observation wells would be required.

2.5 SEISMIC SITE CLASS

The proposed building’s seismic class was determined for use in the structural design of the proposed project. Soils information was obtained from the soil borings completed on-site, as well as information obtained from the “Soil Survey of Ionia County” by the United States Department of Agriculture, the “Quaternary Geology of Michigan” completed by W.R. Farrand, the USGS

Topographic Quadrangle and the Hydrogeologic Atlas of Michigan. It is assumed that the proposed structure falls under Building Class II according to the 2015 Michigan Building Code

(MBC) Table 1604.5. Based on this information it is our determination that seismic site class D be used according to the ASCE 7 – Table 20.3-1 for structural calculations.

2.6 LIMITATIONS

Soil and groundwater conditions have been observed and interpreted at the soil boring locations only. This information has been used as the basis for our analyses and the recommendations that follow. Although we have allowed for minor variations in subsurface conditions in the development of our recommendations, conditions can vary away from and between soil boring locations. Should this become evident during construction, we should be contacted to review our recommendations. This geotechnical evaluation and report were prepared for geotechnical purposes only. We did not perform environmental related borings or analytical tests.

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 SITE PREPARATION

To increase the likelihood that the recommended allowable soil bearing capacities are achieved and tolerable settlements are not exceeded, the recommendations contained herein should be followed.

Within the building footprint and any areas to receive fill, all existing building material, topsoil, old fill, organic-containing material, frozen soil and other unsuitable material should be removed. The clearing should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the limits of proposed building and pavement areas and areas to receive structural fill.

It is strongly recommended that the building pad and pavement subgrade areas be evaluated by

Driesenga & Associates, Inc. after the area has been cleared and stripped. This evaluation may be performed by proofrolling with a loaded tandem axle dump truck or another method selected by the geotechnical engineer to identify any areas of soft subgrade soil. Where soft subgrade soils are encountered, remedial actions as recommended by the geotechnical engineer will be required.

Any existing foundations, floor slabs, utilities, and other below-grade structures from previous construction should be completely removed from the footprint of the proposed building. In proposed pavement areas, existing utilities and other below-grade structures should be removed to at least 2.5 feet below the final subgrade level. Alternatively, utilities can be left in place below pavement areas if the void space of the utility is completely grouted. Depressions or excavations from the demolition and removal operations should be backfilled with granular structural fill meeting the requirements of MDOT Class II sand compacted in accordance with the recommendations below.

Existing fill was encountered in the soil borings and extended about 3 feet below the existing ground surface. Without documentation of the placement of the fill, we consider it to be

“uncontrolled fill.” If documentation of the existing fill is available, we would be pleased to review it to determine its suitability of slab, pavement, and/or structural fill support.

Deeper and/or looser uncontrolled fill may be encountered at the site, particularly adjacent to existing or former structures, or in the vicinity of existing utilities. The existing fill may be suitable for support of slabs, pavements, and/or structural fill after additional evaluation and special preparation and only where it is not underlain by buried topsoil or other organic, deleterious or otherwise unsuitable soils and the owner accepts the risks in doing so. Existing fill with excessive organics (over 4%), voids or debris should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Test pits should be performed to identify unsuitable fill. The test pits could be performed prior to construction. However, suitability of the existing fill will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis during construction. The remaining fill, after removing unsuitable fill, is anticipated to be suitable to support floor slabs, pavements and structural fill, provided an increased risk of unsatisfactory performance is acceptable. We believe the risk of unsatisfactory performance such as cracking and settlement associated with the construction of slabs-on-grade and pavements on or above the existing fill is relatively low after preparation.

Ultimately, if the risk of poor slab and/or pavement performance is not acceptable, complete removal of the existing fill and replacement with structural fill should be performed. Based on the soil borings, the existing fill could extend 3 feet or more below the existing ground surface. If performed, the removal of the existing fill should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond the edges of the proposed building, or laterally on a two vertical to one horizontal slope from the bottom outside edge of the foundation, whichever is greater. This action should reduce the amount and depth of undercutting during foundation construction since the unsuitable fill and any unsuitable soils directly beneath fill would be removed. For this case, the test pit evaluation would not be necessary. However, a test pit evaluation could be performed to provide a better estimate of the nature, depth and extent of the existing fill.

In all general fill areas, the exposed granular soil surface should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95% of Modified Proctor maximum dry density (MDD) per

ASTM D 1557 method, or 98% of MDD as determined by the Michigan Cone Method. In any areas of backfill below the groundwater elevations, the use of a clean (less than 7% passing the No.

200 sieve), 1-inch to 3-inch open-graded crushed aggregate is recommended. Sand soils were encountered at or near the final subgrade level in some of the soil borings in the proposed building area. Within the proposed building area the sand should be proof-compacted by at least six (6) passes of a 10-ton vibratory roller.

It is recommended that any fill materials be placed in or near horizontal maximum 8-inch-thick loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95% of Modified Proctor MDD, or 98% of Michigan

Cone MDD. If a vibratory roller is used for compaction, the loose lift thickness may be increased to 12 inches. Soils used for structural fill should consist of clean sand meeting SW or SP classification in accordance with USCS criteria.

3.2 FOUNDATIONS

Considering the subsurface conditions on this site, the assumed proposed construction and the recommended site preparation activities, it is acceptable for the proposed facility to be supported on conventional spread footings. Footings bearing on newly placed structural fill placed over suitable native soils or directly on the native sand may be designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic or wind loads. The footings should not be placed on the existing fill material.

At some locations, the native sand soils may be in relatively loose condition and not suitable for support of foundations at the recommended design soil bearing pressure. In addition, these soils may become loosened below the bottom of footing level from the excavation activities or from construction traffic, especially if allowed to dry out. Therefore, the excavated footing bearing surfaces should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of Modified Proctor MDD, or 98% of MDD as determined by the Michigan Cone Method, just prior to concrete placement. A hand-operated plate compactor may be used for loose or disturbed soil that is less than 6 inches in thickness. For deeper compaction, we recommend using a hoe-pac mounted on a backhoe. Water may need to be added to achieve the desired compaction for the allowable bearing capacity.

If it is not possible to improve the sands by densification, the unsuitable soils may need to be removed and the foundations placed on suitable native soils encountered at lower levels.

Alternatively, the undercut may be backfilled with crushed aggregate to the bottom of footing level. In addition, wet or easily disturbed foundation bearing soils could be encountered at some locations. If wet soils are encountered, we recommend a layer of crushed aggregate be placed on the subgrade. The thickness of this layer will depend on the conditions encountered at the time of construction. In areas where undercutting is required, the undercut should extend laterally on a two vertical to one horizontal slope from the edge of the footing.

All perimeter footings and footings in unheated areas should bear at least 42 inches below finished grade for protection from frost action. To reduce the likelihood of frost heave, trench footings should be formed vertically and should not be allowed to widen near the top. If interior footings are to bear on compacted fill, the fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations of

Section 3.1. Interior foundations can be constructed on suitable natural soils or on structural fill overlying suitable natural subgrade just below the floor slab. However, the footings and proposed bearing soils should be protected from freezing during construction if work is conducted in the cold winter months. Due to the sands encountered at the site, construction of trench footings is probably not feasible. Therefore, we anticipate footing excavations will need to be sloped back and the foundations formed. The placement of footing concrete should be done as soon as footing excavations have been completed and approved to reduce the potential for disturbance or freezing of the footing subgrade.

Prior to concrete placement, the bearing surface should be free of loose soil and standing water.

The contractor should avoid stockpiling excavated materials immediately adjacent to the excavation walls. It is recommended that stockpiled materials be kept back from the excavation a minimum distance equal to half the excavation depth to prevent surcharging the excavation walls.

Total and differential settlement of foundations properly designed and constructed based on our recommendations are not expected to exceed 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively.

3.3 FLOORS

The soil below the floor slab should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations in

Section 3.1. A noncohesive soils mat such as MDOT Class II sand should be provided directly below the floor slabs. The mat should be a minimum of 8 inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95% of Modified Proctor MDD.

The floor slab should be suitably reinforced and proper joints should be provided at the junctions of the slab and foundation system so that a small amount of independent movement can occur without causing damage. A minimum of 6 inches of structural fill should be provided between the bottom of the slab and the top of the shallow spread footing below. Otherwise, other arrangements should be made to allow for potential relative settlements, such as grade beams, thickened slabs with appropriate reinforcing steel or other appropriate details. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 175 pci should be used in the design of slabs-on-grade.

3.4 PAVEMENTS

Specific traffic information was not available in developing these pavement recommendations. For design purposes, we have assumed that passenger vehicles and light trucks will traffic all light/medium duty pavement areas. Heavy duty pavement areas will include entrances, service drives and bus parking areas, and will be trafficked by semi-tractor trailers, buses, refuse trucks, and fire engines.

The following Design Inputs were used in our evaluation:

• Estimated Native Subgrade CBR = 2 to 4 percent

• Design Subgrade Resilient Modulus (MR) =3,100 to 5,000 psi

• Reliability = 85% flexible

• Standard Deviation = 0.49 flexible

• Initial Serviceability Index = 4.2

• Terminal Serviceability Index = 2.0

• New HMA Layer Coefficient = 0.42

• New Aggregate Base Layer Coefficient = 0.14

The following pavement sections are provided based on subgrade soil conditions and the design inputs noted above. The ESAL design values noted below should be confirmed by the design engineers and, if different, D&A should be consulted to revise the provided pavement section accordingly.

Light to Medium Duty (60,000 ESAL's)

Layer Material Thickness (inches)

Structural Layer Coefficient

Drainage Coefficient

Structural Number

Surface Course

MDOT 13A/4EML

or Similar 1.5 0.42 1 0.63

Leveling Course

MDOT 13A/4EML

or Similar 1.5 0.42 1 0.63

Aggregate Base

MDOT 21AA

(Limestone) 6 0.14 0.75 0.63

Granular Base Class II 12 0.08 0.75 0.72

Total Structural Number (SN) 2.61

Heavy Duty (250,000 ESAL's)

Layer Material Thickness (inches)

Structural Layer Coefficient

Drainage Coefficient

Structural Number

Surface Course

MDOT 13A/4EML

or Similar 2 0.42 1 0.84

Leveling Course

MDOT 13A/4EML

or Similar 2 0.42 1 0.84

Aggregate Base

MDOT 21AA

(Limestone) 8 0.14 0.75 0.84

Granular Base MDOT Class II 12 0.08 0.75 0.72

Total Structural Number (SN) 3.24

Compaction of asphalt courses should range between 92% and 96% of the Theoretical Maximum

Density (TMD).

The pavement subgrade should be prepared as described in Section 3.1. Above the subgrade, the sand subbase should be constructed in accordance with the tables above using Michigan

Department of Transportation (MDOT) Class II Fine Aggregate fill (MDOT Division 3, Section

301 “2012 Standard Specifications for Construction”, April 1, 2011) compacted to a minimum of

95% of the material’s MDD as determined by Modified Proctor.

Due to the clayey soils encountered at the site, site grading and stormwater controls will be important to protect paved drives and parking areas. To further protect new paved areas, perimeter underdrains should be placed beneath pavement edges within the bottom portion of the pavement sand subbase. Four (4) inch-diameter sock-tube backfilled with at least 6 inches of peastone cover should be used. The drains should flow via gravity to a common low point and into the off-site storm sewer system.

The aggregate base for pavement areas should follow MDOT Dense-Graded Aggregate Base

Course Materials – Division 3, Section 302 and Division 9, Section 902, using a 21AA (Grading

Requirements per MDOT Table 902-1) Limestone Dense-Graded Aggregate material in accordance with the tables above. This gravel base may be placed in one (1) lift and should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the material’s MDD as determined by Modified Proctor.

Construction traffic should be minimized on the new pavement. If excessive construction traffic is anticipated on the pavement structure, the initial asphalt lift thickness could be increased and placement of the final lift could be delayed until the majority of the construction activities have been completed. This action will allow repair of localized failure, if any does occur, as well as reduce load damage on the pavement system.

A bond coat of emulsion should be used between the base course and wearing course when more than 48 hours have elapsed between placement of the courses, or the surface of the base course has been contaminated by soil or dust. Performance grade asphalt cement should be used in the production of all bituminous mixtures. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) may be permitted in percentages in accordance with MDOT guidelines and specifications for use in the surface course mix design. We recommend following MDOT Tier 1 or Tier 2 criteria.

After the pavement is complete, we recommend instituting a regular maintenance program that includes sealing of cracks and patching of distressed areas. This should reduce the effect of water infiltration and associated frost action.

In areas where the durability of Portland cement concrete (PCC) is desired over bituminous pavement (i.e., loading areas, dumpster pads) a rigid pavement is recommended. Concrete pavement should be constructed on a base layer of at least 6 inches of Michigan Department of

Transportation (MDOT) Class II sand subbase (Division 9, Section 902, Grading Requirements per

Table 902-3). The concrete slab should consist of a minimum of 6 inches of 4,000 psi, air entrained concrete (MDOT Division 6, Section 601 – PCC Pavement and Division 9, Section 901 – Cement and Lime); however, actual design of the slab including reinforcement type and spacing should be performed by the Project Structural Engineer.

These recommendations assume typical conditions during the June through September construction season. Any substitution of materials or deviation from these stated assumptions should be reviewed to assess potential impact on the recommended design.

3.5 GROUNDWATER CONTROL

Groundwater problems are not anticipated to be a significant issue during construction. However, because the native clayey sand foundation materials generally tend to soften when exposed to free water, every effort should be made to keep the excavations dry if perched water is encountered or if rainfall occurs while the footing excavations are open. Ideally, the footings should be excavated, formed, and poured on the same day to reduce the potential for rainwater to affect footing subsoils.

Any water which enters the footing excavation can likely be controlled by a gravity drain system, sump pump, or other minor dewatering procedure. Concrete should not be placed in footing excavations containing water. Upon removal of any trapped water, the soils should be reviewed by a soils engineer and any soft areas replaced with structural fill per Section 3.1, as necessary.

Perimeter foundation drains should be installed along foundations. In addition, all roof drains should be diverted to downspouts which carry water away from foundations and supporting walls.

3.6 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY

If excavations are anticipated for the proposed structure and/or utilities, shoring and bracing or flattening (laying back) of the slopes may be required to obtain a safe working environment.

Excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state and federal regulations, including OSHA (CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. We recommend that all excavated soils be placed away from the edges of the excavation at a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation. In addition, surface runoff water should be diverted away from the crest of the excavated slopes to prevent erosion and sloughing.

Localized areas of soft or unsuitable soils not detected by our borings or in unexplored areas may be encountered once construction begins. Vertical cuts in these soils may be unstable and may present a significant hazard because they can fail without warning. Therefore, temporary construction slopes greater than 5 feet high should not be steeper than one horizontal to one vertical

(1H: 1V) and excavated material should not be placed within 10 feet of the crest of any excavated slope.

Unbraced excavations may experience some minor localized instability (i.e., sloughing). To reduce potential sloughing, excavated slopes should be covered with plastic for protection from rainfall and moisture changes. It should be emphasized that continuous observations by personnel from our office are important during trenching or excavation operations at the site.

4.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

If significant changes are made in the plans and specifications, the location of the proposed shelters, or the loading conditions outlined in Section 1.4 are exceeded, a consultation should be arranged to review such changes with respect to the prevailing soil conditions. It may then be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations. If deviations from the noted subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, they should also be brought to the attention of

Driesenga & Associates, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to review the project design drawings and specifications to verify the factors affecting subgrade and foundation performance comply with our recommendations.

It is recommended that the services of Driesenga & Associates, Inc. be engaged to observe excavation for the footings and to test and evaluate the soils in the footing excavations prior to placement of foundations in order to determine that the soils have the required bearing capacities.

Monitoring and testing should also be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for controlled fills and that they are properly placed and compacted.

This report and any future reports or addenda performed for this site should be supplied to potential bidders prior to them submitting their proposals. We also recommend the construction contract include provisions for dealing with differing conditions. Contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and foundation construction.

This report was for geotechnical purposes only. We did not sample for environmental purposes or perform any analytical testing. However, the contractor should be prepared to handle environmental conditions encountered at this site that may affect the excavation, removal, or disposal of soil; dewatering of excavations; and health and safety of workers. Any Environmental

Assessment reports prepared for this property should be made available for review by bidders and the successful contractor.

This report has been prepared solely for the use of the client for the project specifically described in this report. This report cannot be relied upon by other parties not involved in this project, unless written permission is granted by Driesenga & Associates, Inc. If this report or any of its contents are utilized by parties other than our original client and the project team members, Driesenga &

Associates, Inc. can not be held responsible for the suitability of the field exploration, scope of services, or recommendations made for the new project. Driesenga & Associates, Inc. also is not responsible for the interpretation of our soil boring logs and the recommendations provided herein by other parties.

Driesenga & Associates, Inc. will evaluate this report for other parties and developments at this site, provided our original Client agrees to release this information in writing. However, before this report can be relied upon by other parties. Driesenga & Associates, Inc. must review the proposed development since the new project will likely require additional field exploration, laboratory tests, analysis, and modifications to our recommendations to adequately address the needs of the new project.

APPENDIX A

·FIGURE NUMBER 1 – SITE LOCATION·

·FIGURE NUMBER 2 – BORING LOCATIONS·

Figure Number: 1 Site Location

Project Name Handlon Correctional Facility

Shelter Structures

Project Number 2630757.3A

Project Location 1728 Bluewater Highway, Ionia, Michigan

Figure Number: 2 Boring Location

Project Name Handlon Correctional Facility

Shelter Structures

Project Number 2630757.3A

Project Location 1728 Bluewater Highway, Ionia, Michigan

SB-1

SB-2

RED BORINGS @ 10′

APPENDIX B

·SOIL BORING LOGS·

Project No. 2630757.3A

Client: Abonmarche Consultants, Inc.

Ionia, Michigan 1728 Bluewater Highway

Project:Handlon Correctional Facility Shelter

SB-1

Date Started : August 14, 2026

Date Completed : August 14, 2026

Hole Diameter : 8-inches

Drilling Method : Hollow-Stem Auger

Sampling Method : Split-Spoon Sampler

Drilling Company : Midwest Envirotech

Field Sampling : J. Spaans

Reviewed By : A.Abdelmeged

GW Encountered : N/A

GW Completed : N/A

D ep th in

F ee t

Elev.

U S

C S

SC/Fill

SC

G R

A P

H

IC

DESCRIPTION

Water Levels

During Drilling

After Completion

Auto-Hammer Used for SPT

TOPSOIL - 5.0 inches

Fill - Clayey SAND, very dense, brown, fine to medium grained, trace gravel, moist.

Clayey SAND, medium dense to very dense, brown, fine to medium grained, trace gravel, moist.

E.O.B@10'

S am pl es

B lo w C ou nt

16/22/30

4/5/5

2/3/9

14/31/50+

N V al ue

81+

P oc ke t P en ts f)

W at er L ev el

M oi st ur e C on te nt

Project No. 2630757.3A

Client: Abonmarche Consultants, Inc.

Ionia, Michigan 1728 Bluewater Highway

Project:Handlon Correctional Facility Shelter

SB-2

Date Started : August 14, 2026

Date Completed : August 14, 2026

Hole Diameter : 8-inches

Drilling Method : Hollow-Stem Auger

Sampling Method : Split-Spoon Sampler

Drilling Company : Midwest Envirotech

Field Sampling : J. Spaans

Reviewed By : A.Abdelmeged

GW Encountered : N/A

GW Completed : N/A

D ep th in

F ee t

Elev.

U S

C S

SC/Fill

SC

G R

A P

H

IC

DESCRIPTION

Water Levels

During Drilling

After Completion

Auto-Hammer Used for SPT

TOPSOIL - 7.0 inches

Fill - Clayey SAND, very dense, brown, fine to medium grained, trace gravel, moist.

Clayey SAND, medium dense to very dense, brown, fine to medium grained, trace gravel, moist.

E.O.B@10'

S am pl es

B lo w C ou nt

14/21/26

3/5/6

18/26/33

13/26/40

N V al ue

P oc ke t P en ts f)

W at er L ev el

M oi st ur e C on te nt

APPENDIX C

·FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES·

FIELD PROCEDURES

The soil borings were performed using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with an auto-hammer.

Split-barrel samples were obtained in the soil below the bottom of the augers in general accordance with the Standard Method for Penetration and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. Samples were collected at 2.5 feet intervals to 10 feet below grade, and every 5 feet thereafter. After recovery, the samples were removed from the split-spoon sampler, visually reviewed and classified, placed in glass jars and transported to our laboratory for additional review.

Soil samples stored for extended periods are susceptible to moisture loss and are no longer indicative of the conditions originally encountered in the soil borings. Therefore, soil samples are usually stored in our laboratory for a period of 60 days, unless instructed otherwise.

Soil boring logs were prepared based on field notes and visual classification of the samples in the laboratory. Indicated on each soil boring log is the description of each stratum observed, the approximate depth and/or elevation of each stratum change observed, Standard Penetration Test resistance values, and the observed groundwater levels. The soil boring logs are presented in

Appendix B.

LABORATORY PROCEDURES

The laboratory testing program included supplementary visual classification of the samples in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The following two pages describe the soils classification procedure.

CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

Per ASTM D 2487—00 (Based on Unified Soil Classification System)

Soil Description: Secondary Soil Type BASIC SOIL TYPE, Consistency/Relative Density, Color, Supplemental Soil Type, Moisture, Miscellaneous comments.

Ex. Silty SAND, loose, brown, fine to medium, trace gravel, moist.

Secondary Soil Type – adjective for the BASIC SOIL TYPE describing material making up greater than 12% but less than 50% of the primary soil type by weight. For sands this also includes a description of grain size (fine, medium or coarse).

BASIC SOIL TYPE – primary constituent of sample; material making up greater than 50% of the sample by weight. Material is classified by grain size and material properties.

Consistency/Relative Density – a measurement of in-situ consistency or density of cohesive or cohesionless soils, respectively, based upon Standard Penetration Testing blow counts (N) per ASTM D 1586.

Color – visual inspection of soil appearance.

Supplementary Soil Type – a description of any other material that may be mixed with the BASIC SOIL TYPE. Qualifying terms are based on the percentage of the supplementary soil type in the sample by weight.

Moisture – description of the in-situ moisture content of the sample (dry, moist or wet).

Miscellaneous Comments – anything observed in the sample or in the field that does not fit into the above categories but should be noted (odor, etc.).

CALIBRATED AUTO HAMMER CONSISTENCY/RELATIVE DENSITY

COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS

SPT

N-VALUES

IN-SITU

RELATIVE DENSITY

SPT

N-

VALUES

SHEAR

STRENGTH

(PSF)

IN-SITU

CONSISTENCY

0-3 VERY LOOSE 0-1 BELOW 250 VERY SOFT

4-8 LOOSE 2-3 250 - 500 SOFT

9-23 MEDIUM DENSE 4-6 500 - 1,000 MEDIUM STIFF

24-38 DENSE 7-12 1,000 - 2,000 STIFF

>38 VERY DENSE 13-25 2,000 - 4,000 VERY STIFF

>26 OVER 4,000 HARD

SUPPLEMENTAL TEXTURE

QUALIFYING TERMS

DESCRIPTOR

PERCENTAGE

BY WEIGHT

TRACE 1-10%

LITTLE 10-20%

SOME 20-35%

AND 35-50%

STANDARD HAMMER CONSISTENCY/RELATIVE DENSITY

COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS

SPT

N-VALUES

IN-SITU

RELATIVE DENSITY

SPT

N-VALUES

SHEAR

STRENGTH

(PSF)

IN-SITU

CONSISTENCY

0-4 VERY LOOSE 0-2 BELOW 250 VERY SOFT

5-10 LOOSE 3-4 250 - 500 SOFT

11-30 MEDIUM DENSE 5-8 500 - 1,000 MEDIUM STIFF

31-50 DENSE 9-16 1,000 - 2,000 STIFF

>50 VERY DENSE 17-32 2,000 - 4,000 VERY STIFF

>32 OVER 4,000 HARD

For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQU ID LIM IT ( LL)

' A ' - LIN E

' U ' - LIN E

C L- M L

C L or OL

C H o r OH

M H o r OH xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SIEVE ANALYSIS

0.1110100

PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

P

A S

S

IN

G D60 = 15 mm

D30 = 2.5 mm

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART (Per ASTM D2487)

Criteria for Assigning Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification

Group Symbol

Group Name

COHESIONLESS SOILS Gravels Clean Gravels Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E GW Well-graded gravelF More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 Sieve

Less than 5% finesC Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E GP Poorly graded gravelF

Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF,G,H

More than 12% finesC

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF,G,H

Sands Clean Sands Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E SW Well-graded sandF

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 Sieve

Less than 5% finesD Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E SP Poorly graded sandF

Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG,H,I

More than 12% finesD Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG,H,I

COHESIVE SOILS Silts and Clays Inorganic Pl ≥ 7 and plots on or above 'A' lineJ CL Lean clayK,L,M 50% or more passes the No.

200 Sieve

Liquid limit less than 50 Pl < 4 or plots below 'A' lineJ ML SiltK,L,M

Organic Liquid limit - oven dried < 0.75

OL

Organic clayK,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried < 0.75 Organic siltK,L,M,0

Silts and Clays Inorganic Pl plots on or above 'A' line CH Fat clayK,L,M

Liquid limit 50 or more

Pl plots below 'A' line MH Elastic SiltK,L,M

Organic Liquid limit - oven dried < 0.75

OH

Organic ClayK,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried < 0.75 Organic siltK,L,M,0

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-in. sieve

B

If field sample contained cobbles or builders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders or both" to group name

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc = (D30)2/(D10*D60)

F If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM

H If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name.

I If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel" whichever is predominant

L If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name.

M If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No.

200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name

N Pl ≥ 4 and plots on or above 'A' line.

O Pl < 4 or plots below 'A' line.

P Pl plots on or above 'A' line.

Q Pl plots below 'A' line.

DTMB File #492/23961.SMD

Unit B Conversion

Abonmarche #26-0968 Site Furnishings 323300 - 1

9/10/2026

SECTION 323300

SITE FURNISHINGS

PART 1 GENERAL

1.01 SECTION INCLUDES

A. Tables

B. Basketball pole, backboard and goal

1.02 REFERENCE STANDARDS

A. AAMA 611 - Voluntary Specification for Anodized Architectural Aluminum; 2020.

B. ADA Standards - 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design; 2010.

C. ASTM A36/A36M - Standard Specification for Carbon Structural Steel; 2019.

D. ASTM A53/A53M - Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless; 2022.

E. ASTM A500/A500M - Standard Specification for Cold-Formed Welded and Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing in Rounds and Shapes; 2023.

F. ASTM A536 - Standard Specification for Ductile Iron Castings; 1984, with Editorial Revision (2019).

G. ASTM A666 - Standard Specification for Annealed or Cold-Worked Austenitic Stainless Steel Sheet, Strip, Plate, and Flat Bar; 2023.

H. ASTM A999/A999M - Standard Specification for General Requirements for Alloy and Stainless Steel Pipe; 2018.

I. ASTM B221M - Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum-Alloy Extruded Bars, Rods, Wire, Profiles, and Tubes (Metric); 2021.

J. ASTM B221 - Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum-Alloy Extruded Bars, Rods, Wire, Profiles, and Tubes; 2021.

K. ASTM B26/B26M - Standard Specification for Aluminum-Alloy Sand Castings; 2018, with Editorial Revision.

L. ASTM B211/B211M - Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum-Alloy Rolled or Cold Finished Bar, Rod, and Wire; 2019.

1.03 SUBMITTALS

A. Product Data: Provide manufacturer's specifications and descriptive literature, installation instructions, and maintenance information.

B. Shop Drawings: Indicate plans for each unit or group of units, elevations with model number, overall dimensions, construction, and anchorage details.

1.04 WARRANTY

A. Provide manufacturer’s specified warranty against defects in materials or workmanship commencing form the Date of Substantial Completion.

DTMB File #492/23961.SMD

Unit B Conversion

Abonmarche #26-0968 Site Furnishings 323300 - 2

9/10/2026

PART 2 PRODUCTS

2.01 FURNISHINGS

A. Tables: Metal frame, metal seat and table

1. Frame: Powder coated steel.

2. Seat: Perforated Steel, Thermoplastic coating, 4 seats, 12”W x 38”L

3. Table Top : Perforated Steel, Thermoplastic coating, 46” square

4. Length: 80 inches

5. Width: 80 inches

6. Height: 31 inches

7. Mounting: In ground mount

8. Post: 4” square minimum

9. Capacity: 4 person, 1200 lbs. total, 300 lbs. each seat.

10. Products:

a) ULINE Inground Mount Picnic Table, 46” Square Ph 1-800-295-5510 www.uline.com

1) Model Number H-7951

b) Or approved equal.

11. Colors chosen by Owner from manufacturer’s standard colors.

12. Submit product data sheets to the PSC for approval.

B. Basketball Pole: Rigid, fixed, In Ground Pole Basketball System

1. Pole: 6-5/8” dia Schedule 40 galvanized steel, 72” post to backboard, 48” bury depth

2. Backboard: Steel, 36” x 54”, white

3. Goal: Fixed, directly mounted to the backboard, unbreakable with Lifetime Unconditional Warranty.

4.…