Amendment 3 - 47PH0824R0004.pdf

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

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

Ysleta Land Port of Entry Pavement Replacement Repairs Project

See following pages for description of Amendment

Acquisition Management Division Acquisition Program Support Branch 819 Taylor Street: RM 11A09

Same as Box 6

03/47PH0824R0004

1 50

04/05/2024

04/05/2024

Solicitation 47PH0824R0004 Amendment 3 Ysleta Pavement Repairs Replacement Project, El Paso, TX

Amendment No. 3 Ysleta Pavement replacement Repairs Project, El Paso, Texas

This amendment is issued to provide the following:

1) The running list of questions and answers. Questions 1 through 19 that have been answered. Currently there are no pending questions to answer.

2) As a reminder all questions are to be submitted to Jason Gerloff at Jason.gerloff@gsa.gov. The last day to submit a question is May 1, 2024.

3) The Customs Soil Resource Report has bee attached (45 pages) to answer question number 15.

REMINDER: Proposal Due date remains the same, May 16, 2024, at 12:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time (CDT). Only electronic submissions are allowed, and all submissions are to be emailed to Jason Gerloff at: Jason.gerloff@gsa.gov.

mailto:Jason.gerloff@gsa.gov

Ysleta Land Port of Entry Pavement Replacement Repairs Project, Request for Information

1) Can a company use a final CPARs evaluation instead of the past performance questionnaire?

Answer: Yes, for Factor 1 (Company), No, for Factor 2 (Key Individuals)

2) When is the proposal due?

Answer: May 16, 2024, at 12:00 P.M. Central Time

3) When is the last date a contractor can submit a question to be answered in an Amendment?

Answer: May 1, 2024, at 12:00 P.M. Central Time.

4) Which form do we fill out for Factor 4?

Answer: Fill out page 4 and 5 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and fill out the Excel spreadsheet

(attachment 4) titled Excel spreadsheet titled Factor 4 LEC Material IRA Sustainability Factor

Table). Both the PDF and Excel spreadsheet are required with the proposal.

5) Is GSA aware of any suppliers who have an EPD that meets the GSA minimum requirements per Factor 4 in the geographical area of Ysleta?

Answer: No, GSA is unaware of any concrete suppliers in the area of Ysleta/ El Paso that currently have EPDs. A free, public Building Transparency EPD map (https://www.buildingtransparency.org/resources/maps/) is updated weekly for everyone’s information.

6) If any LEC materials are from Mexico, are we to submit all of the information required

Under FAR 52.225-11 with our proposal?

Answer: Yes. Both FAR 52.225-10 and 52.225-11 are applicable and contain necessary information you need when considering LEC materials from Mexico for this procurement. You should comply with both of these clauses and submit all necessary information with your proposal. Any information provided for the Buy American Act will not be counted in the technical 40 page limit.

7) Do I need a GACA account? (Attachment 1)

Answer: No, a GACA account is only required when GSA is unable to attached all of the attachments on SAM.Gov. GSA was successful in attaching the RFP, 14 attachments and two reference documents to SAM.gov.

8) How do we submit the proposal to GSA?

Answer: The proposal is to be sent to Jason Gerloff at Jason.gerloff@gsa.gov. This is the only vehicle for submitting a proposal.

First eight questions were answered in Amendment 1.

https://www.buildingtransparency.org/resources/maps/ https://www.buildingtransparency.org/resources/maps/ https://www.buildingtransparency.org/resources/maps/ mailto:Jason.gerloff@gsa.gov

9) As per TXDOT air entrainment in concrete for class P concrete is no longer required in the El Paso District. Will GSA accept the TXDOT Class P Concrete approved design for El Paso District without requiring air entrainment?

Answer: If air entrainment is omitted, contractor shall lower the w/c ratio to a maximum of 0.4 in order to increase the strength and ultimately the durability of the concrete.

10) Section 32 12 16 Asphalt Concrete Paving 3.3 Asphalt Surface Course calls out for Item 340 however does not specify Type or PG grade oil to be used for pavement details for HMAC underneath concrete pavement shown on plan sheet C 400. TXDOT typically specifies for this application Item 340 TXDOT Type D With PG 64-22 to serve as a bond breaker between concrete pavement and base course. Will GSA require TXDOT Item 340 Type D With PG 64-22 oil for this application?

Answer: Contractor shall use Type B with PG 64-22 or greater for the asphalt 4-inch base course.

11) Will GSA post the pre-bid attendee list?

Answer: Yes, the attendee list from the pre-proposal meeting will be included in Amendment 2.

12) Is there an interested vendors list that will be posted on the on Sam.Gov website?

Answer: As of the pre-proposal meeting (Thursday, March 21, 2024) the only interested party list is the attendees from the meeting. The sign-in sheet with their information is included in Amendment 2. All amendments are posted on SAM.Gov.

13) Are subcontractors required to be small businesses in order to collaborate with the primary contractor that has been awarded?

Answer: NO. Only the prime contractor who is awarded the contract from the Government has to be a small business. Sub-contractors can be small or large business concerns.

14) Will GSA allow the use of TXDOT Type D 1993 Recycled Concrete Crushed Base

Course (See Attached) for Flex Base as shown on Plan Sheet C400.

Answer: Yes. Refer to SECTION 32 12 16 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING Paragraph

2.3 BASE MATERIAL, Paragraph B. TXDOT Item 247.

15) Is there a Geotech Report available to view.

Answer: Yes, attached to Amendment 3 is the USDA Custom Soil Resource Report (45 pages).

16) Within the drawings, starting from sheet T500, there are call-outs recommending the use of concrete barricades to safeguard the worksite.

Could water barriers serve as a viable alternative for protecting the worksite?

Answer: Water barriers can be used as an alternative only on POV areas.

17) Per the solicitation, the purpose of this project is to address approximately 725,000 sf of pavement. After conducting an in-house quantity assessment, the contractor identified disparities between the quantities measured and those presented in the solicitation. Could you please clarify whether this square foot quantity pertains solely to the concrete pavement or if it also encompasses the asphaltic layer and the flex base layer?

Answer: Total square footage of pavement replacement is approximately 252,000 sf which translates to 8,500 CY of concrete considering the different thicknesses specified on the plans and 3,500 CY of asphalt.

18) Would it be acceptable for a representative end-user or Contracting Officer /

Contracting Officer Representative, who no longer holds the same role as during the referenced project, to fill out the "Past Experience and Performance of the Company" evaluation report questionnaire?

Answer: Yes, as long as it is explained what their role was during the project.

19) If you were a subcontractor and did not have direct contact with the end user representative of a similar project, can a representative of the general contractor serve as the person to fill out the "Past Experience and Performance of the Company" evaluation report questionnaire?

Answer: NO, the Past Experience and Pat Performance MUST come from the Contractor who was the Prime Contractor.

Questions 1 through 19 have all been answered in Amendments 1 through 3.

There are currently no pending questions and the last day to submit a question is May 1, 2024.

APPENDIX A

USDA SOILS REPORT

Ysleta LPOE Pavement Replacement Repairs Project 47PH0824R0004: Amendment 3 (pages 1-45)

United States Department of Agriculture

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for El Paso County, Texas (Main Part)Natural

Resources Conservation Service

April 5, 2022

Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?

cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map

373200 373300 373400 373500 373600 373700 373800 373900 374000

373200 373300 373400 373500 373600 373700 373800 373900 374000

31° 40' 34'' N

6°

0'

7' ' W

31° 40' 34'' N

6°

9'

2'

' W

31° 39' 55'' N

6°

0'

7'

' W

31° 39' 55'' N

6°

9'

2'

' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 250 500 1000 1500

Feet 0 50 100 200 300

Meters Map Scale: 1:5,960 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:31,700.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: El Paso County, Texas (Main Part) Survey Area Data: Version 20, Sep 10, 2021

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 13, 2011—Aug 1, The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

Gs Glendale silty clay 20.8 21.5%

Ha Harkey loam 14.2 14.7%

Hk Harkey silty clay loam 47.0 48.6%

Sa Saneli silty clay loam 12.9 13.3%

Vn Vinton fine sandy loam 1.7 1.8%

Totals for Area of Interest 96.6 100.0%

Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Table—Gypsum

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (percent) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

Gs Glendale silty clay 1 20.8 21.5%

Ha Harkey loam 0 14.2 14.7%

Hk Harkey silty clay loam 0 47.0 48.6%

Sa Saneli silty clay loam 0 12.9 13.3%

Vn Vinton fine sandy loam 0 1.7 1.8%

Totals for Area of Interest 96.6 100.0%

Rating Options—Gypsum

Units of Measure: percent

Aggregation Method: Dominant Component

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Interpret Nulls as Zero: Yes

Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average)

Top Depth: 0

Bottom Depth: 120

Units of Measure: Inches

Soil Physical Properties

Soil Physical Properties are measured or inferred from direct observations in the field or laboratory. Examples of soil physical properties include percent clay, organic matter, saturated hydraulic conductivity, available water capacity, and bulk density.

Liquid Limit

Liquid limit (LL) is one of the standard Atterberg limits used to indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. It is the water content, on a percent by weight basis, of the soil (passing #40 sieve) at which the soil changes from a plastic to a liquid state.

Generally, the amount of clay- and silt-size particles, the organic matter content, and the type of minerals determine the liquid limit. Soils that have a high liquid limit have the capacity to hold a lot of water while maintaining a plastic or semisolid state.

Liquid limit is used in classifying soils in the Unified and AASHTO classification systems.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.

Table—Liquid Limit

Gs Glendale silty clay 31.0 20.8 21.5%

Ha Harkey loam 23.0 14.2 14.7%

Hk Harkey silty clay loam 25.0 47.0 48.6%

Sa Saneli silty clay loam 43.5 12.9 13.3%

Vn Vinton fine sandy loam 10.6 1.7 1.8%

Totals for Area of Interest 96.6 100.0%

Rating Options—Liquid Limit

Units of Measure: percent

Aggregation Method: Dominant Component

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Interpret Nulls as Zero: No

Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average)

Top Depth: 0

Bottom Depth: 120

Units of Measure: Inches

Plasticity Index

Plasticity index (PI) is one of the standard Atterberg limits used to indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. It is defined as the numerical difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit of the soil. It is the range of water content in which a soil exhibits the characteristics of a plastic solid.

The plastic limit is the water content that corresponds to an arbitrary limit between the plastic and semisolid states of a soil. The liquid limit is the water content, on a percent by weight basis, of the soil (passing #40 sieve) at which the soil changes from a plastic to a liquid state.

Soils that have a high plasticity index have a wide range of moisture content in which the soil performs as a plastic material. Highly and moderately plastic clays have large PI values. Plasticity index is used in classifying soils in the Unified and AASHTO classification systems.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.

Table—Plasticity Index

Gs Glendale silty clay 17.8 20.8 21.5%

Ha Harkey loam 3.0 14.2 14.7%

Hk Harkey silty clay loam 5.0 47.0 48.6%

Sa Saneli silty clay loam 23.6 12.9 13.3%

Vn Vinton fine sandy loam 0.5 1.7 1.8%

Totals for Area of Interest 96.6 100.0%

Rating Options—Plasticity Index

Units of Measure: percent

Aggregation Method: Dominant Component

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Interpret Nulls as Zero: No

Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average)

Top Depth: 0

Bottom Depth: 120

Units of Measure: Inches

Soil Qualities and Features

Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil.

Unified Soil Classification (Surface)

The Unified soil classification system classifies mineral and organic mineral soils for engineering purposes on the basis of particle-size characteristics, liquid limit, and plasticity index. It identifies three major soil divisions: (i) coarse-grained soils having less than 50 percent, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter; (ii) fine-grained soils having 50 percent or more, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter; and (iii) highly organic soils that demonstrate certain organic characteristics. These divisions are further subdivided into a total of 15 basic soil groups. The major soil divisions and basic soil groups are determined on the basis of estimated or measured values for grain-size distribution and Atterberg limits.

ASTM D 2487 shows the criteria chart used for classifying soil in the Unified system and the 15 basic soil groups of the system and the plasticity chart for the Unified system.

The various groupings of this classification correlate in a general way with the engineering behavior of soils. This correlation provides a useful first step in any field or laboratory investigation for engineering purposes. It can serve to make some general interpretations relating to probable performance of the soil for engineering uses.

For each soil horizon in the database one or more Unified soil classifications may be listed. One is marked as the representative or most commonly occurring. The representative classification is shown here for the surface layer of the soil.

Table—Unified Soil Classification (Surface)

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

Gs Glendale silty clay CH 20.8 21.5%

Ha Harkey loam 14.2 14.7%

Hk Harkey silty clay loam CL 47.0 48.6%

Sa Saneli silty clay loam CH 12.9 13.3%

Vn Vinton fine sandy loam 1.7 1.8%

Totals for Area of Interest 96.6 100.0%

Rating Options—Unified Soil Classification (Surface)

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Lower

Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Surface Layer (Not applicable)

Chemical Soil Properties–El Paso County, Texas (Main Part)

Map symbol and soil name Depth Cation-exchange capacity

Effective cation-exchange capacity

Soil reaction Calcium carbonate

Gypsum Salinity Sodium adsorption ratio

In meq/100g meq/100g pH Pct Pct mmhos/cm

Gs—Glendale silty clay

Glendale 0-18 25-32 — 7.9-8.4 2-10 0-2 2.0-4.0 1-3

18-35 16-23 — 7.9-8.4 2-10 0-2 2.0-4.0 1-3

35-60 11-18 — 7.9-8.4 2-10 0-2 2.0-4.0 1-3

Ha—Harkey loam

Harkey 0-12 8.0-20 — 7.4-8.4 2-10 0 0.0-4.0 0-4

12-60 6.0-15 — 7.4-8.4 2-10 0 0.0-4.0 0-4

Hk—Harkey silty clay loam

Harkey 0-12 15-25 — 7.4-8.4 2-10 0 0.0-4.0 0-4

12-60 6.0-15 — 7.4-8.4 2-10 0 0.0-4.0 0-4

Sa—Saneli silty clay loam

Saneli 0-32 15-20 — 7.9-8.4 0-10 0 2.0-8.0 0-10

32-60 2.0-6.0 — 7.9-8.4 0-5 0 2.0-8.0 0-10

Vn—Vinton fine sandy loam

Vinton 0-12 3.9-14 — 7.4-8.4 2-10 0 0.0-2.0 1-3

12-60 1.0-8.6 — 7.4-8.4 2-10 0 0.0-2.0 1-3

Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The asterisk '*' denotes the representative texture; other possible textures follow the dash. The criteria for determining the hydrologic soil group for individual soil components is found in the National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7 issued May 2007(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17757.wba). Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L), Representative Value (R), and High (H).

Engineering Properties–El Paso County, Texas (Main Part)

Map unit symbol and soil name

Pct. of map unit

Hydrolo gic group

Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit

Plasticit y index

Unified AASHTO >10 inches

3-10 inches

4 10 40 200

In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H

Gs—Glendale silty clay

Glendale 90 C 0-18 Silty clay CH A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

95-98-1

80-88-

55-60 -65

35-40-4

18-35 Silt loam, clay loam, silty clay loam

CL A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100

-100

100-100 -100

95-98-1

75-83-

30-35 -40

15-20-2

35-60 Stratified fine sand to silty clay loam

SM A-2 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100

-100

100-100 -100

70-75-

15-20-

0-7 -14 NP

Ha—Harkey loam

Harkey 90 B 0-12 Loam CL-ML, ML

A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

95-98-1

65-78-

20-25 -30

NP-5

-10

12-60 Very fine sandy loam, loam, silt loam

ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100

-100

100-100 -100

95-98-1

75-83-

20-23 -25

NP-3 -5

Hk—Harkey silty clay loam

Harkey 90 C 0-12 Silty clay loam CL A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

95-98-1

75-85-

30-35 -40

10-15-2

12-60 Very fine sandy loam, loam, silt loam

ML A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100

-100

100-100 -100

95-98-1

75-83-

20-23 -25

NP-3 -5

Engineering Properties–El Paso County, Texas (Main Part)

Map unit symbol and soil name

Pct. of map unit

Hydrolo gic group

Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit

Plasticit y index

Unified AASHTO >10 inches

3-10 inches

4 10 40 200

In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H

Sa—Saneli silty clay loam

Saneli 90 D 0-32 Silty clay loam CH A-7 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

95-98-1

90-93-

55-65 -75

35-43-5

32-60 Fine sand, loamy fine sand

SM, SP-

SM

A-2-4, A-3 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

60-70-

5-10- 15 16-19 -22

NP-2 -4

Vn—Vinton fine sandy loam

Vinton 90 A 0-12 Fine sandy loam ML, SM A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

70-78-

40-48-

20-25 -30

NP-3 -5

12-60 Loamy sand, loamy fine sand, fine sand

SM A-2 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1

90-95-1

55-68-

15-23-

0-7 -14 NP

APPENDIX B

SOILS DATA

CORE SITE/PVT TYPE CLASS TTC Mr, ksi

YSLETA

C1 AC CL 4.3 8.5

C2 PCC CH 5.1

C3 PCC CH 5.1

SANTA TERESA

C1 PCC CL 4.3

C2 PCC CL 4.3

BROWNSVILLE & MATAMOROS

PCC OR AC NO CORES CL 4.3 8.5

PCC OR AC NO CORES SC-SM 3.4 18.0

BRIDGE OF THE AMERICAS

C1 AC

C2 AC

C3 PCC

C4 PCC

C5 PCC

C6 PCC

C7 PCC

C8 PCC

C9 PCC

C10 PCC

C11 PCC

C12 PCC

C13 PCC

C14 PCC

Symbol Unit Name % of AOI USCS Soil Type Class TTC Appx. MR

Gs Glendale silty clay 22% CH, CL, SM CH 5.1 4.4 ksi

Ha Harkey loam 15% CL-ML, ML CL 4.3 8.5 ksi

Hk Harkey silty clay loam 49% CL, ML ML-CL 4.2 9.5 ksi

Sa Saneli silty clay loam 13% CH, SM, SP-SM ML* 4.1 10 ksi

Vn Vinton fine sandy loam 2% ML, SM SC 3.6 15 ksi

SM-SC 3.4 18 ksi

Symbol Unit Name % of AOI USCS Soil Type SP-SM 3.1 21 ksi

Pb Pajarito-Pintura complex 97% SP-SM, CL-ML, SM, CL, SP SM 3.1 21 ksi

GC 3.0 23 ksi

Symbol Unit Name % of AOI USCS Soil Type

RU Rio-Grande-Urban land complex 100% CL, CL-ML, ML

ZA Zalla loamy fine sand 0% SC-SM, SM, SP-SM

Symbol Unit Name % of AOI USCS Soil Type

Mg Made land, gila soil material 100% ML, SM

*No county in Laredo district had ML soil type. This value is from San Antonio's Frio county

4.4

8.5

SANTA TERESA

BROWNSVILLE & MATAMOROS

BRIDGE OF THE AMERICAS

YSLETA

ML 10 ksi4.1

APPENDIX C

CORING AND LAB

ANALYSIS

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

General Services Administration Land Port of Entries PH5 Project

Ysleta Land Port of Entry El Paso County, Texas

SUBMITTED TO

CUSHING TERRELL

316 W. 12TH STREET, SUITE 300

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701

BY

HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC.

HOUSTON, TEXAS

April 6, 2022

REPORT NO. AP2110322 - B

April 6, 2022

Mr. Jeff Key, PE Cushing Terrell 316 W. 12th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Geotechnical Study General Services Administration Land Port of Entries (GSA LPOE) PH5 Project Ysleta Land Port of Entry Owner: General Services Administration HVJ Report No. AP2110322 - B

Dear Mr. Key:

Submitted herein is the data report of our field investigation for the above referenced project. The study was performed in accordance with HVJ Proposal No. AP2110322 dated September 23, 2021 and subject to the limitations presented in this report. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Please notify us if there are questions or if we may be of further assistance.

Sincerely, HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC.

Texas Firm Registration No. F-000646

Anil K. Raavi, PE Professional Services Manager

Copies submitted: 1 electronic

The seal appearing on this document was authorized by Anil K. Raavi, PE 122152 on April 6, 2022. Alteration of a sealed document without proper notification to the responsible engineer is an offense under the Texas Engineering

Practice Act.

The following lists the pages which complete this report:

• Main Text – 7 pages • Appendix A – 2 pages • Appendix B – 3 pages • Appendix C – 6 pages

• Appendix D – 4 pages

4/6/2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Scope of Work

2 FIELD INVESTIGATION

2.1 General

2.2 Core / Bore Layer Analysis

3 LABORATORY TESTS

4 LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

Appendix

CORE LOCATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... A

CORE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... B

LAB RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. C

DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER DATA....................................................................................... D

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

HVJ Associates, Inc. was retained by Cushing Terrell to evaluate the existing pavement thickness and subgrade properties at the Ysleta Land Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas. The geotechnical scope of work involves evaluation of concrete/asphalt core and base thicknesses, field testing, and laboratory testing to aid in the GSA LPOE PH5 project improvements. To provide the appropriate level of subsurface information for the proposed improvements, a total of three (3) pavement cores have been performed at this site. Individual core and sample locations are shown in Appendix A.

1.2 Scope of Work

The objective of this study was to investigate subsurface conditions at the site. The objective was accomplished through the following operations:

• Coring at 3 locations as identified by Cushing Terrell. The pavement cores were obtained to evaluate the existing pavement thickness;

• Performing Dynamic Cone Penetration test on the layers below the concrete or asphalt;

• Soil sampling at the core locations to identify the soil type underneath the pavement structure;

• Performing laboratory tests to determine physical characteristics of the underlying soils.

Subsequent sections of this report contain descriptions of the field exploration, laboratory testing program, and general subsurface conditions.

2 FIELD INVESTIGATION

2.1 General

The main objective was to collect layer thickness data, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) data and samples of the base and subgrade. Cushing Terrell provided the specific location of each test and sample site. HVJ utilized this information to ensure that the locations were correctly identified. The locations were adjusted slightly based on the site conditions.

The field crew obtained the GSA badges to access the coring locations prior to the field work. The field investigation was performed on February 24th, 2022. The following describes the activities performed during the field investigation. The DCP test data is presented in Appendix D. We note that refusal was encountered at core, C-1Y at about 7.9 inches below the pavement surface. We augered to a depth of 13 inches and resumed the DCP testing.

• Attended kick-off meeting and coordinated with LPOE Manager regarding the site access and traffic control setup;

• Mobilized the core rig, generator and gasoline-driven auger, and performed pavement coring;

• Performed Dynamic Cone Penetration test on layers under pavement in the core hole to a depth of 30 inches below the pavement surface or to refusal;

• Sampled the material underneath the asphalt/concrete in same core hole using gasoline-driven auger;

• Secured cores, samples and stored for transport to laboratory;

• Backfilled core holes with early strength non-shrink grout to the existing paved surface elevation.

2.2 Core / Bore Layer Analysis

At each core location, attempts were made to obtain the soil samples to a depth of thirty inches below the pavement surface using a gasoline powered auger. At locations where the subgrade was hard to retrieve the material, we terminated the auger borings shallow after obtaining adequate sample for testing. Base or stabilized subgrade was not encountered underneath the asphalt or concrete layers. Table 2-1 shows the GPS coordinates of the core location and pavement thickness.

Further details including core photos are available in Appendix B.

Table 2-1 – Core Locations and Existing Pavement Information

Core Latitude Longitude Starting Depth, Inches

Ending Depth, Inches

Layer Thickness, Inches Material

C-1Y 31.67344 106.33612 0 3 3 Asphalt

3 33 30 Silty sand

C-2Y 31.66912 106.33248 0 8 8 Concrete

8 33 25 Clayey sand

C-3Y 31.66753 106.33424 0 11.5 11.5 Concrete

11.5 32 20.5 Fat clay

3 LABORATORY TESTS

Laboratory tests were performed on subgrade samples as follows:

• Plasticity Index for subgrade soil.

• Moisture Content for subgrade soil.

• Particle Size Analysis of subgrade soil.

• Laboratory Classification of subgrade soil.

The summarized lab results for subgrade are shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 – Lab Results for Subgrade

Core Moisture Content Plasticity Index Passing #200 (%) USCS Class

C-1Y 4.8 NP 24.3 Silty Sand (SM)

C-2Y 15.0 15 48.9 Clayey Sand (SC)

C-3Y 11.4 27 93.1 Fat Clay (CH)

All lab results, including full sieve analyses and Atterberg limits, are available in Appendix C.

4 LIMITATIONS

This study was performed for the exclusive use of Cushing Terrell and General Services Administration General Services for the Land Port of Entries PH5 Project at Ysleta in El Paso County, Texas. HVJ Associates Inc. has endeavored to comply with generally accepted engineering practice common in the local area. HVJ Associates, Inc. makes no warranty, express or implied.

The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on data obtained from subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, the project information provided to us, and our experience with similar soils and site conditions.

APPENDIX A

CORE LOCATIONS

| ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

REVISION

11/9/2021 10:03 AM | L:\GSAIDIQ_CentralTX\GSAR7_21LPOEEVAL\BIMCAD\Civil\BaseFile\Task 3 Work Plan Map Titleblock.dwg

CHECKED BY

SHEET NO.

SHEET NAME

AUSTIN, TX

p512.804.1210 f 512.804.1163

DRAWN BY

CORING

C-02

K. VONGRIES

J. KAMINSKI

11.15.2021

GSAR7_LPOEEVAL

2021 PROJECTED CONDITIONS

PROPOSED CORING LOCATION

RECONSTRUCTION OF

SECTION PROPOSED

IN 2022 PROJECT

C-1

C-2

C-3

C-1

C-1

C-2

C-3

C-2

C-3

CORE SECTION MATERIAL

C-1 ADMINRD1 ASPH

C-2 CIBRD5 CONC

C-3 CIBRD5 CONC

12.06.2021

APPENDIX B

CORE ANALYSIS

HVJ Associates, Inc.

6120 South Dairy Ashford Road, Houston, Texas, 77072

Location: Ysleta Core Location: 31.673448°, 106.336127°

County: El Paso Logger: Edgar

Project: Assessment of Existing Pavements at Various LPOE, Phase V GSA

Sampled From: Core at C-1Y Location Date Sampled: 2/24/2022

Report Date: 3/21/2022

SURFACE IDENTIFICATION

Starting Depth

(in.)

Ending Depth (in.)

Layer Thickness

(in.)

Material Type Comments

0 3 3 Asphalt

BASE/SUBGRADE IDENTIFICATION

Starting Depth Ending Depth Layer Thickness Material Type Comments

3 33 30 Silty Sand

CORE PHOTO

PLATE B-1

1/1

Location: Ysleta Core Location: 31.669153°, 106.332462°

County: El Paso Logger: Edgar

Project: Assessment of Existing Pavements at Various LPOE, Phase V GSA

Sampled From: Core at C-2Y Location Date Sampled: 2/24/2022

Report Date: 3/21/2022

SURFACE IDENTIFICATION

Starting Depth

(in.)

Ending Depth (in.)

Layer Thickness

(in.)

Material Type Comments

0 8 8 Concrete

BASE/SUBGRADE IDENTIFICATION

Starting Depth Ending Depth Layer Thickness Material Type Comments

8 33 25 Br Clayey Sand

CORE PHOTO

PLATE B-2

Location: Ysleta Core Location: 31.667537°, 106.334221°

County: El Paso Logger: Edgar

Project: Assessment of Existing Pavements at Various LPOE, Phase V GSA

Sampled From: Core at C-3Y Location Date Sampled: 2/24/2022

Report Date: 3/21/2022

SURFACE IDENTIFICATION

Starting Depth

(in.)

Ending Depth (in.)

Layer Thickness

(in.)

Material Type Comments

0 11.5 11.5 Concrete

BASE/SUBGRADE IDENTIFICATION

Starting Depth Ending Depth Layer Thickness Material Type Comments

11.5 32 20.5 Br Clay

CORE PHOTO

PLATE B-3

APPENDIX C

LAB RESULTS

2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/23/8 1/4 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 140 200

0.0010.010.1110100

P er ce n t F in er

B y

W ei gh t

P ercen t C o arser B y W eigh t

Grain Size in Millimeters

HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO:

AP2110322

Sample Location

C-1Y, 3"-33"

Classification

Brown Silty Sand (SM)

U.S. Standard Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CURVE

ASTM D6913

PLATE C-1

0.0010.010.1110100

P er ce n t F in er

B y

W ei gh t

P ercen t C o arser B y W eigh t

Grain Size in Millimeters

HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO:

AP2110322

Sample Location

C-2Y, 8"-33"

Classification

Brown

Clayey Sand (SC)

U.S. Standard Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CURVE

PLATE C-2

0.0010.010.1110100

P er ce n t F in er

B y

W ei gh t

P ercen t C o arser B y W eigh t

Grain Size in Millimeters

HVJ ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO:

AP2110322

Sample Location

C-3Y, 11.5"-32"

Classification

Brown

Fat Clay (CH)

U.S. Standard Sieve Openings in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CURVE

PLATE C-3

Job Name LPOE phase V GSA, Ysleta Job No. AP2110322 - B

Standards serial numbers

B o ri n g

N o

S a m p le

N

D e p th

(f t.

E st

C o h e s.

P R

/T V

Description of Material

T a re

N o

T a re

W e t

S o il

T a

D ry

S il

T a

W

C-1Y 3"-33" brown silty sand A17 176.76 169.04 8.29 4.8

C-2Y 8"-33" brown clayey sand 5 160.87 140.86 7.13 15.0

C-3Y 11.5"-32" brown clay 10 204.72 184.50 7.09 11.4

Tested by: ____KC______________ Date: _______4/4/2022_____________ Revised 11/14/12

Computed by: _______________ Date: _______4/4/2022_____________KC

Checked by: ______AR__________ Date: ______4/6/2022______________

Laboratory Water Content Determination (ASTM D-2216)

Revised 3/27/13

Preparation Method: Wet _ _ Dry ________ Liquid Limit Device: Manual ________ Mechanical

Plastic Limit Method: Hand Roller ________ Grooving Tool: Plastic Metal __________

Test Set Up By/Date: KC 4/1/22 Standards Serial Numbers:

Computed By/Date: KC 4/5/22 Scale Oven

Checked By/Date: LL Device

Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)

Can No. 1 113A 58 113

Wet Wt + Tare 18.56 20.90 23.41 23.01

Dry Wt + Tare 16.11 17.65 21.64 21.37

Tare Wt 11.26 11.27 15.67 15.73

Moisture Content (%) 50.5 50.9 29.6 29.1

No. of Blows 27 25 27 29

Liquid Limit (LL) 51.0 50.9 29.9 29.6

Average (LL)

SR 4/2/22

Can No. 8 97 117 88

Wet Wt + Tare 22.58 22.60 22.47 22.40

Dry Wt + Tare 21.24 21.22 21.51 21.49

Tare Wt 15.75 15.23 15.24 15.66

Plastic Limit (PL) 24.4 23.0 15.3 15.6

Average PL

Plasticity Index (PI)

Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit & Plasticity Index ASTM D-4318 (Single Point Method B)

Project Name LPOE Phase V GSA (Ysleta) Project No. AP2110322

C-3Y C-1Y C-2Y

LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION

11.5"-32" 8-33" 8-33"

Material Description brown clay rown sand and gravel NP brown clayey sand

51 30

Tested By: SR 4/4/22

Tested By: KC 4/4/22 KC 4/4/22

PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION

24 15

PLASTICITY INDEX DETERMINATION

27 15

APPENDIX D

DYNAMIC CONE

PENETROMETER

DATA

DCP Data

Location: Ysleta LPOE Page:

Core No.: C-1Y Date: 2/24/2022

Roadway: Operator: Edgardo Eusebio

Latitude:_____________________31.67344 Latitude:_____________________

Longitude:____________________106.33612 Longitude:____________________

Location Ysleta Location

Measurement (Inch) Blows Comments Measurement (Inch) Blows Comments

4.2 0 0

5.4 3

6 12

7.1 23

7.9 35 refusal auger to 13"

13 0

14.2 7

15.4 6

16.1 10

17.2 10

18 10

19 13

20 11

21 11

22.1 12

23 9

24 10

25.1 10

26.1 7

27 7

28 7

29.2 6

30.2 5

Core No.: C-2Y Date: 2/24/2022

Roadway: Operator: Edgar

Latitude:_____________________31.66912 Latitude:_____________________

Longitude:____________________106.33248 Longitude:____________________

Location Ysleta Location

Measurement (Inch) Blows Comments Measurement (Inch) Blows Comments

8.8 0 0

10.5 1

11.9 2

12.8 3

14.2 4

16 2

17.6 1

18.9 1

20 1

21.2 1

22.3 1

23.7 2

24.5 1

25.9 2

27 2

28.3 2

29.7 2

30.5 1

Core No.: C-3Y Date: 2/24/2022

Roadway: Operator: Edgar

Latitude:_____________________31.66753 Latitude:_____________________

Longitude:____________________106.33424 Longitude:____________________

Location Ysleta Location

Measurement (Inch) Blows Comments Measurement (Inch) Blows Comments

12.7 0 0

13.7 1

14 5

15.1 8

16 6

17.1 7

18 4

19 4

20.3 5

21.2 4

22.1 3

23.2 4

24 3

25 3

26 3

27.2 3

28.1 2

29 2

30.5 3