Addendum 1 22100.pdf

DTMB-0414 (Rev 12/17)

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

State Facilities Administration Design and Construction Division

CONSTRUCTION BID ADDENDUM NO. 1

This form identifies an Addendum to Bidding Documents, and incorporates interpretations or clarifications, modifications, acceptance of proposed “or equal” materials, and other information into the Bidding Documents. Addenda will be numbered by the Professional and distributed through www.michigan.gov/SIGMAVSS as an attachment.

TO:

ALL BIDDERS

DATE ISSUED

1/12/2023

PROJECT NAME

Carson City Correctional Facility Pavement Improvements

FILE NUMBER

472/22100.TYC

PROFESSIONAL

NFE Engineers

PROJECT DIRECTOR

Todd Cordill

BID OPENING DATE:

2/8/2023

ADDENDUM ITEMS: (attach additional sheets and drawings if required)

1. Technical specifications, including Division 1 and geotechnical report data, was inadvertently omitted from original bid posting. The attached documents shall be added to the overall project specifications.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This Addendum must be acknowledged by the Bidder in the space provided in the Bid Summary and Bid Form. Failing to acknowledge Addenda may be cause for the Bid to be rejected. Addenda will become part of the Contract Documents.

Steve Sutton

PROFESSIONAL: DATE: 1/11/2023

APPROVED BY:

PROJECT DIRECTOR: Todd Cordill DATE: 1/11/2023

NFE Engineers Carson City Corrections

Pavement Improvements

472/22100.TYC

00 3132 - 1 Copyright © 2022 by the American Institute of Engineers. Warning: This AIA MasterSpec-based document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties.

It was created by "Nowak & Fraus Enginneers" for "Carson City Corrections Paving Improvements". A valid, current MasterSpec license is required for editing and use of this document for any other project.(21315)

DOCUMENT 00 3132 - GEOTECHNICAL DATA

1.1 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

A. This Document with its referenced attachments is part of the Procurement and Contracting

Requirements for Project. They provide Owner's information for Bidders' convenience and are intended to supplement rather than serve in lieu of Bidders' own investigations. They are made available for Bidders' convenience and information. This Document and its attachments are not part of the Contract Documents.

B. Because subsurface conditions indicated by the soil borings are a sampling in relation to the entire construction area, and for other reasons, the Owner, the Engineer, the Engineer's consultants, and the firm reporting the subsurface conditions do not warranty the conditions below the depths of the borings or that the strata logged from the borings are necessarily typical of the entire site. Any party using the information described in the soil borings and geotechnical report shall accept full responsibility for its use.

C. Soil-boring data for Project, is available for viewing as appended to this Document.

D. A geotechnical investigation report for Project, prepared by, is available for viewing as appended to this Document.

1. The opinions expressed in this report are those of a geotechnical engineer and represent interpretations of subsoil conditions, tests, and results of analyses conducted by a geotechnical engineer. Owner is not responsible for interpretations or conclusions drawn from the data.

2. Any party using information described in the geotechnical report shall make additional test borings and conduct other exploratory operations that may be required to determine the character of subsurface materials that may be encountered.

END OF DOCUMENT 00 3132

REPORT OF

PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION

FOR

CARSON CITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

CARSON CITY

MONTCALM COUNTY

MICHIGAN

SEPTEMBER 2, 2022

Nowak & Fraus Engineers 46777 Woodward Avenue

Pontiac, Michigan 48342

Project No. 2022.1267

September 2, 2022

Nowak & Fraus Engineers 46777 Woodward Avenue Pontiac, Michigan 48342

Attention: Mr. Steve Sutton, P.E.

Regarding: Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

Carson City, Montcalm County, Michigan Project No. 2022.1267

Dear Mr. Sutton:

Soils & Structures is pleased to present this pavement investigation report for the Carson City Correctional Facility project in Carson City, Montcalm County, Michigan.

The investigation included ten (10) test borings extended to a depth of approximately 4.0 feet.

The test borings were conducted in accordance with industry standard practice methods for soil sampling.

The report, test boring location plan, and test boring logs are enclosed. The report provides recommendations for pavement cross section designs, thicknesses, material properties and the anticipated service life of the proposed systems. Construction notes and drainage considerations have also been included.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide engineering services to Nowak & Fraus Engineers. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office.

Sincerely, Soils & Structures, Inc. Reviewed by:

Trevor J. Brandt, E.I.T. Don R. Dunkin, P.E.

Contents Location of Pavement Investigation Purpose of Investigation Design Information Tests Performed Description of Existing Pavement Profile and Subgrade Description of Groundwater Conditions Analysis and Recommendations I. Full Reconstruction (20 Years) with Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Sections II. Full-Depth Reclamation (15 to 20 Years) with Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Sections III. Crush and Shape (12 Years) with Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Sections General Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Recommendations Drainage Considerations for Pavement Areas Quality Control Testing General Conditions & Reliance

Appendix

Test Boring Location Diagram

USACE DCP Logs (B-1 through B-10) Laboratory Tests

Page 1 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

Project No. 2022.1267 – September 2, 2022

Ann Arbor • Muskegon • Traverse City

(800) 933-3959

Location of Pavement Investigation

The investigation was conducted at the Carson City Correctional Facility located at 10599 East Boyer Road in Carson City, Montcalm County, Michigan.

Purpose of Investigation

The purpose of this investigation is to provide rehabilitation recommendations for the facility’s pavements.

Design Information

A reconstruction of the associated access drives and perimeter road has been proposed for the Carson City Correctional Facility. The access drives and perimeter road segments proposed for rehabilitation have a length of approximately 1.4 miles.

The perimeter road on the north side of the facility (between the sally-port and the eastern visitor parking lot) and the interior access drives are assumed to be subjected to both passenger vehicle traffic and commercial truck traffic. The expected commercial truck traffic will be loaded and unloaded box trucks. An estimate of 500,000 lifetime Equivalent Single-Axle Loads (ESALs) was assumed for the recommended 15-to-20-year hot mix asphalt sections. An estimate of 250,000 lifetime Equivalent Single-Axle Loads (ESALs) was assumed for the recommended 12-year hot mix asphalt sections.

The pavements in the remainder of the perimeter road are assumed to be subjected to primarily passenger vehicle traffic and occasional commercial truck traffic (mainly snow removal equipment). An estimate of 250,000 lifetime Equivalent Single-Axle Loads (ESALs) was assumed for the recommended 15-to-20-year hot mix asphalt sections. An estimate of 125,000 lifetime Equivalent Single-Axle Loads (ESALs) was assumed for the recommended 12-year hot mix asphalt sections.

If traffic volume counts are known or collected and are significantly greater than anticipated, then Soils & Structures should be contacted so that the pavement recommendations included in this report may be reviewed and revised if necessary.

Tests Performed

The investigation for the access drives, parking areas, and perimeter road included ten (10) test borings extended to a depth of approximately 4.0 feet. The test borings are designated as Test Boring B-1 through Test Boring B-10. The test borings were conducted in accordance with industry sampling standards. The locations were determined by Nowak & Fraus Engineers and Soils & Structures. A Geoprobe® was used to obtain the samples.

Page 2 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

Prior to performing the test borings, the soil strength was evaluated in-situ using the United States Army Corps of Engineers Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (USACE DCP) to a depth of 3.0 feet. The DCP is a steel rod 5/8-inch in diameter with a pointed cone end that is driven into the subgrade using a sliding hammer. The weight of the hammer can be adjusted from 17.6 pounds to 10.1 pounds if weaker soils are encountered. This rate of penetration is used to estimate a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value for the soil, which is used to interpret support conditions of the aggregate base and subgrade. Discussion of results will follow in further sections. Results of the DCP tests are included in the Appendix along with soil boring information. DCP testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D 6951.

Soil samples were classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. This method is a standardized system for classifying soil according to its engineering properties. Please refer to the appendix of this report for the Unified Classification System Chart. The classification is shown in the “Material Description” column of the test boring logs.

Laboratory testing consisted of natural moisture content, Atterberg tests, and sieve (particle size) analysis. The tests were performed on representative soil samples. The tests were performed in accordance with applicable ASTM standards. The sieve test determines the particle distribution which is used to classify the soil and estimate its properties. The water content documents the presence of groundwater in a soil. The Atterberg tests determines the liquid and plastic limits of cohesive soils.

Description of Existing Pavement Profile and Subgrade

The pavement profile consists of 1.25 to 4.75 inches of asphalt with an average thickness of

3.0 inches over 4.25 to 12.75 inches of aggregate base. The average thickness of the aggregate base is 9.2 inches. The aggregate base consists of fine-to-coarse sand with natural gravel and silt. The aggregate base did not meet the MDOT 22A dense-graded gradation criteria due to having a higher fines content, but is closely approximated by the 22A gradation.

DCP results for the aggregate base showed CBR values ranging from 14.3 to 59.2 percent with an average value of 34.0 percent, indicating generally poor support conditions for aggregate base. A thin layer of asphalt millings is present between the aggregate base and the existing HMA in the areas of borings B-2 through B-4.

Sand is present beneath the aggregate base at seven of the ten test boring locations. The thickness of the sand layer ranges from of 5.0 to 10.5 inches with an average thickness of 8.5 inches, The sand in all areas except at boring B-2 and B-3 was found to be clayey with a fines content in excess of 40.0 percent in some areas. The majority of the sand did not meet any MDOT granular material gradation requirements because of the high fines content. Only in the area of B-2 and B-3 did the sand subbase meet MDOT Class II gradation requirements. . Sand is absent at borings B-1, B-5, and B-10 and the aggregate base bears directly on the clay subgrade. DCP results for the sand showed CBR values ranging from 6.4 to 31.5 percent with an average value of 17.3 percent, indicating generally good support conditions for sand layer.

Page 3 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

Beneath the sand subbase is a lean clay subgrade. The clay has a liquid limit of 29 and a plastic limit of 15. The moisture content of the clay ranges from 9.5 to 15.0 percent with an average value of 11.8 percent which is lower than the plastic limit. DCP results for the subgrade showed average CBR values ranging from 3.0 to 28.9 percent with incremental values as low as 1.7 percent. The clay subgrade exhibits generally good support conditions however the low incremental values in the area of B-4, B-7 b-9 and B-10 indicate that localized instabilities are possible.

Description of Groundwater Conditions

Perched groundwater was encountered at boring B-3 at a depth of 46.0 inches. Long term groundwater monitoring was not performed as part of this investigation.

Analysis and Recommendations

Based on visual observations, in-situ testing and laboratory testing the pavements are nearing the end of their design life. The asphalt pavements exhibit severe distresses that have resulted from a combination of age, deterioration due to climatic influences, moisture infiltration and inadequate section thicknesses.

The in-situ testing and laboratory testing indicated that the existing pavement layers are providing minimal support and lack sufficient thickness in many areas. For these reasons, a surface treatment such as a partial depth or full depth mill and overlay is not recommended. The existing clayey sand and clay subgrade is not well-drained which will result in constructability issue for surface treatment options.

A partial depth mill and overlay would require substantial contingencies for base repairs making it an uneconomical option. Additionally, even with base repairs, reflective cracking in the new asphalt surface would appear within 1-2 years of resurfacing. A partial depth mill would also limit the opportunity to re-grade the aggregate base and subgrade soils to provide positive drainage.

For a full depth mill and overlay option, the need to maintain current grades adjacent to existing concrete hardscapes in the northern portion of the facility would render the aggregate base too thin in many areas. Milling the existing asphalt to a depth that would allow for placement of an adequate HMA section is not feasible. Moreover, the support characteristics of the aggregate base are relatively poor. The high sand and fines content will result in higher maintenance costs than a rehabilitation option that entailed aggregate base improvements.

Page 4 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

The following reconstruction options are recommended:

1. FULL RECONSTRUCTION UTILIZING HMA PAVEMENTS, (20-year design life)

This option would require complete removal of existing pavements, aggregate base, and existing sand subbase. The site would then be regraded and proof-rolled prior to placement of the new sand subbase, aggregate base, and HMA overlay. Areas of soft or yielding soil would be either removed and replaced (undercutting) or mechanically stabilized using geo-grids. This option is the most reliable HMA pavement option with respect to long term serviceability and the most flexible with regards to establishing new grades, however it will be the most expensive.

2. FULL-DEPTH RECLAMATION (15 to 20-year design life)

Full depth reclamation (FDR) is often used as a method to recycle and improve the quality of existing pavement materials prior to resurfacing. The process has been proven to decrease construction costs on unstable sites or sites with inadequate existing pavement cross sections, as well as decreasing construction time and reducing contingencies associated with conventional full reconstruction. This process consists of milling off an engineered depth of the asphalt and pulverizing the remaining asphalt, existing aggregate base, and an engineered portion of the subgrade soils. The material would then be regraded back into the road at a level to accommodate the proposed new HMA pavement.

The salvaged base would be chemically stabilized using Portland cement. After fine grading the stabilized base to provide positive drainage, the resulting stabilized base course (SBC) would then be directly resurfaced with new HMA pavements. This option would be least intrusive with regards to maintaining access to the facility as excavation would be minimal. Additionally, this process could be held as a contingency in lieu of base repairs if base repair requirements become excessive.

Due to the high structural support contribution of the SBC, the required HMA overlay thickness could likely be slightly reduced, further adding to cost savings. If this option is selected, the generation of a site-specific laboratory mix design is recommended to fully assess the materials for appropriate additive types and application rates. For estimating and bidding purposes, an application rate of fifty-five (55) pounds per square yard using Type I Portland cement may be assumed.

Page 5 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

3. CRUSH-AND-SHAPE (12-year design life)

This process would involve pulverizing the existing HMA pavements and aggregate base to generate a homogenous mixture of materials. The pulverizing process should extend to the bottom of the existing aggregate base. The inclusion of asphalt millings in the base will help offset potential support issues caused by the high sand content of the existing aggregate.

Excess pulverized material could be used to increase the section thickness of the aggregate base where it is currently deficient. Throughout the perimeter road, the excess material could be used to raise grades and supplement the currently insufficient aggregate base.

Remaining excess material would then be hauled off and the site would then be regraded to accommodate the proposed new HMA pavement. The salvaged base would then be compacted and thoroughly proof-rolled prior to resurfacing with new HMA pavement. This option would be less expensive than full reconstruction with respect to base cost as it would not require material to be imported and stockpiled material could be used to perform undercuts. However, in order to meet existing grading requirements in the northern portion of the site where adjacent concrete hardscapes are present, a significant amount of the pulverized asphalt would be hauled off site. Additionally, this option will limit the opportunity to regrade subgrade soils to provide positive drainage. Localized heaving may occur in areas where water ponds in the wetter months as is. Up to 40% of the pavement area may require undercutting to address areas where the support conditions of the aggregate base are deficient. Efforts should be made during construction to minimize repetitive loading and overloading of the exposed pulverized section with construction traffic.

Three recommended pavement cross-sections are presented in this section of the report:

1. A full reconstruction option utilizing HMA pavements;

2. A full-depth reclamation option utilizing HMA pavements;

3. A crush and shape option utilizing HMA pavements.

These recommendations were developed based on the discussions and assumptions included in this REPORT and the design procedures outlined in the “AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures - 1993.” The subgrade should be prepared as described in the “Site & Pavement Subgrade Preparation” section of this report. The final pavement section should be designed based on actual traffic volumes and the owner specific performance requirements. The recommended pavement section materials listed in Tables One through Three refer to and should comply with the standard material designations included in applicable MDOT specifications and guidelines, including the 2012 MDOT “Standard Specifications for Construction.”

The HMA pavement recommended cross sections are based off of a minimum subgrade CBR value of 5.0 percent. Although in some areas, the subgrade CBR is higher than 5.0

Page 6 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements percent, it is widely understood that correlations between subgrade reaction moduli and CBR are not reliable at higher CBR ranges. Therefore, a CBR of 5.0 percent, which correlates to a subgrade resilient modulus of 6,000 psi, was assumed for the existing subgrade.

For the perimeter road full reconstruction and full depth reclamation options a service life loading of 250,000 ESALs was assumed for the standard duty pavement section. Forthe northern section of the perimeter road (between the sallyport and the eastern visitor parking lot), access drives (including the pavements in the interior of the facility), and parking areas, a service life loading of 500,000 ESALs was assumed for the heavy-duty pavement section. Based on these values, a minimum-required structural number (SN) of

2.91 and 3.23 will be necessary to support the design traffic loading for these areas, respectively.

For the crush and shape option a service life loading of 125,000 and 250.000 ESALs were assumed for the standard-duty and heavy-duty pavement sections, respectively. Based on these values a minimum required SN of 2.61 will be required for the standard-duty pavements and SN of 2.91 will be required for the heavy-duty pavements.

Recommended cross-sections meet the minimum-required design structural numbers.

Cross-sections have been designed to withstand the assumed traffic loads mentioned above, as well as environmental stresses experienced due to Michigan’s wet freeze/thaw cycles. A 90% Reliability was assumed for all pavement sections. Initial and terminal serviceability values are 4.5 and 2.25, respectively.

Positive drainage should be maintained in exposed soils to avoid accumulation of precipitation. The subgrade should be thoroughly proof-rolled prior to the placement of subsequent pavement layers.

For the full reconstruction and crush and shape options contingencies should be held for undercutting of soft or yielding soils. Areas of soft or yielding soil should either be removed and replaced or mechanically stabilized using geo-grid. The recommended geogrid product is a triaxial product such as Tensar TX-140. Use of geogrid in lieu of undercutting would require new angular (crushed) aggregate as aggregate interlock is required to take full advantage of the grids. Triaxial geogrid will limit the required depth of excavations. The minimum thickness of aggregate over the geogrid should be 10.0 inches for HMA pavements.

Page 7 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

I. Full Reconstruction (20 Years) with Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Sections

Cross-section recommendations for are listed in Table One. The design life also assumes that incremental maintenance repairs such as joint sealing, localized patching, and/or sealcoating is performed as required throughout the life of the pavement.

Table 1: Recommended Pavement Sections – Full Reconstruction

Pavement Cross Section

Materials

Northern Perimeter Road, Access Drives, and Parking

Areas Perimeter Road

Material Thickness

(in) Material

Thickness (in)

HMA Wearing Course

4E1 2.5 4E1 2.0

HMA Leveling Course

4E1 2.5 4E1 2.0

Aggregate Base1

21AA 10.0 21AA 8.0

Sand Subbase Class II 12.0 Class II 12.0

Note 1: The recommended aggregate base material for HMA pavements is MDOT 21AA crushed limestone. Natural gravel meeting MDOT 22A specifications or a 21AA Modified crushed concrete product may also be used, but the aggregate base thickness should be increased by 20.0 percent to accommodate lower-quality material properties.

Page 8 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

II. Full-Depth Reclamation (15 to 20 Years) with Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Sections

Cross-section recommendations are listed in Table Two. The design life also assumes that incremental maintenance repairs such as joint sealing, localized patching, and/or

Table 2: Recommended Pavement Sections – Full Depth Reclamation

Pavement Cross Section Materials

Northern Perimeter Road, Access Drives, and Parking

Areas Perimeter Road

Material Thickness (in) Material Thickness (in)

HMA Wearing Course 4E1 2.0 4E1 1.5

HMA Leveling Course 4E1 2.5 4E1 2.0

Aggregate Base Stabilized Base

Course (Per Mix Design)

12.0 Stabilized Base

Course (Per Mix Design)

12.0

III. Crush and Shape (12 Years) with Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavement Sections

Cross-section recommendations are listed in Table Three. The design life also assumes that incremental maintenance repairs such as joint sealing, localized patching, and/or

Table 3: Recommended Pavement Sections – Crush and Shape

Pavement Cross Section

Materials

Northern Perimeter Road, Access Drives, and Parking Areas

Perimeter Road

Material Thickness (in) Material Thickness (in)

HMA

Wearing Course

4E1 2.5 4E1 2.0

HMA Leveling Course

4E1 2.5 4E1 2.0

Aggregate Base Salvaged 8.0 - MIN Salvaged 8.0 - MIN

Page 9 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

General Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Recommendations

The paving contractor should submit the proposed mix design and any associated backup data to the owner and engineer-of-record for approval prior to placement.

MDOT Tier I Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) specifications should be utilized for both the wearing and leveling courses with performance grade PG 64-28 asphalt binder. MDOT Tier II RAP specifications may be applied to the leveling course and/or the wearing course of the light-duty pavement but should utilize asphalt binder performance grade PG-58-28.

Target void content of the wearing courses and the leveling course of the standard-duty pavement should be 3.5 percent. Targe void content of the leveling courses should be 3.0 percent. The asphalt pavement should be compacted to 94 to 97 percent of the theoretical maximum density (determined via the Superpave “Rice” Method). Additionally, a tack coat of SS-1h emulsion should be applied between each laid asphalt layer at a rate of

0.1 gallon/square yard.

The pavement section should be constructed in accordance with the Michigan Department of Transportation “2012 Standard Specifications for Construction” as well as applicable state and local requirements. Support conditions and compaction should be assessed during construction in accordance with the “Quality Control and Testing” section of this report. This assessment should occur prior to installation of individual pavement layers (i.e.

prior to placement of aggregate base and prior to placement of pavements).

Drainage Considerations for Pavement Areas

The pavement areas should be properly drained to minimize the effects of frost heaving and the loss of subgrade support due to water infiltration. The parking lots should be sloped at a minimum of 1.5 percent toward regional low points with catch basins, or toward drainage swales or curb inlets.

Underdrain will be a critical component to extending the life of the pavement, especially due to the higher fines content of subgrade soils at this site. Underdrain should be installed as cutoff drains adjacent to green scape sloping towards the pavement to prevent seepage under the pavement. Ring wraps should be installed adjacent to stormwater structures where they form low points in the pavement and finger drains should be extended at hardscape features as necessary to mitigate infiltration and frost heave. Soils and Structures can review proposed drain tile layouts and details on request.

Underdrains should consist of a 6-inch diameter perforated pipe. The underdrain trench should extend at least 18.0 inches below the aggregate base. The trench should be lined in a non-woven geotextile fabric with proper overlap. The wrapped portion of the drain tile

Page 10 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements should be backfilled with MDOT 34R peastone with the top portion of the trench backfilled with MDOT 21AA aggregate. This detail is an expanded drain tile recommendation and is probably more expensive than typical pavement drainage specifications, which typically call for a 4-inch perforated pipe. However, these specifications will provide a longer service life for the drain system.

Soils & Structures can review and augment the above recommendations upon request if provided a completed storm water management plan for the access drive, parking lots, and perimeter road.

Quality Control Testing

Pavement subgrade, subbase and/or aggregate base should be proof rolled using a fully-loaded tri-axle dump truck prior to aggregate base and pavement placement.

Compaction tests (ASTM D 6938) are recommended to confirm that backfill and subgrade/aggregate base OR stabilized base course in pavement or drainage installation areas are compacted to the specified density. When utility excavation backfill, material is being placed, compaction tests should be performed at the rate of one test per 400 cubic yards of fill and throughout the depth of the fill with a minimum of five tests at each 1.0-foot elevation interval. The recommended testing frequency in the pavement subgrade and aggregate base OR stabilized base course is one test per 2,500 square feet. Tests should also be performed in the backfill over utilities. The maximum density should be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 or ASTM D 4253 procedures.

A dynamic cone should not be substituted for compaction tests for evaluating backfill.

Compaction Testing should be performed by technicians supervised by a registered geotechnical engineer. Proof rolling and stabilization should be performed by a senior technician or field engineer under the supervision of a registered geotechnical engineer.

Page 11 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

Asphalt quality control testing should adhere to the 2012 MDOT Standards for Construction.

Asphalt temperatures during placement should be at least 275 degrees Fahrenheit; material that arrives at temperatures below 250 degrees Fahrenheit shall be rejected. Asphalt density testing should be performed with a nuclear density gauge at a minimum rate of one test per 500 square feet of pavement. At least five total verification cores in each course should be taken to assess relative compaction, calibrate the nuclear density gauge, and evaluate thickness. A minimum of two loose mix samples per mix per day should be taken at the plant and delivered to the quality-assurance firm’s laboratory for vacuum extraction-gradations. The asphalt contractor should provide a minimum of two (2) theoretical maximum density verifications per day. Additionally, areas that display poor workmanship, which may include (but are not limited to) segregation, “cold screed scrapes”, wearing courses not flush with curbs or rims, roller marks, shoving, smearing or tearing of the mat, flushing, or excessive cold joints should be repaired or replaced by the contractor immediately.

Once a rehabilitation option has been selected, please contact Soils & Structures and we will prepare a set of project specific Construction notes to be included in the bid documents if desired.

General Conditions & Reliance

The report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted practices of the geotechnical engineering profession. The scope of work consisted of performing twenty test borings providing soil related recommendations for the design and construction of site pavements. The scope of work did not include an environmental study or wetland determination.

The report and the associated test borings were prepared specifically for the previously described project and site. Soils & Structures should be consulted if a significant change in the scope of the project is made, or if a specific design criterion (such as traffic counts) is known or changed.

The test borings represent point information and may not have encountered all of the soil types and materials present on this site. This report does not constitute a guarantee of the soil or groundwater conditions or that the test boring is an exact representation of the soil or groundwater conditions at all points on this site.

The descriptions and recommendations contained in this report are based on an interpretation of the test borings and laboratory tests. The test borings should not be used independently of the report. If soil conditions are encountered which are significantly different from the test borings, Soils & Structures should be consulted for additional recommendations.

Page 12 – Carson City Correctional Facility – Pavement Improvements

The report and test borings may be relied upon by Nowak & Fraus Engineers. for the design, construction, permitting, and financing associated with the construction of new pavement at the Carson City Correctional Facility located in Carson City, Montcalm County, Michigan. The use of the report and test borings by third parties not associated with this project or for other sites has not been agreed upon by Soils & Structures. Soils & Structures does not recommend or consent to third party use or reliance of the report or test borings unless allowed to review the proposed use of these materials. Unless obtained in writing, consent to third party use should not be assumed. Third parties using the report or test boring logs do so at their own risk and are offered no guarantee or promise of indemnity.

Appendix

Test Boring Location Diagram

USACE DCP Logs (B-1 through B-10)

Laboratory Tests

Project Name

Project Number Date Client

Boring ID Boring Type 3 Location

# of Blows Cumulative Penetration

(mm)

Hammer Type

Soil Type CBR %

0 240 1 SP-SM

10 290 1 SP-SM 48.1

10 340 1 SP-SM 48.1

11 390 1 SP-SM 53.6

8 440 1 SP-SM 37.5

6 510 1 CL 18.6

3 595 1 CL 6.9

2 675 1 CL 4.7

2 750 1 CL 5.0

2 815 1 CL 5.9

2 865 1 CL 7.9

2 900 1 CL 11.8

2 925 1 CL 17.3

3 980 1 SP 11.2

3 1015 1 SP 18.6

From To Thickness Classification 0 0.75 0.75

0.75 3 2.25

3 12 9 SP-SM

12 30.5 18.5 CL

30.5 50 19.5 SP

Comments: No groundwater encountered.

Lean CLAY, brown Fine-to-Medium SAND, brown-red

B-1 Geoprobe®

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Silt, brown

Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements

2022.1267 8/11/2022 Nowak & Fraus Engineers

DCP Starting Depth (in) See BLD

Description ASPHALT WEARING COURSE - Intact ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE - Intact

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th (i n)

CBR (%)

CBR VS DEPTH

Date Client

Boring ID Boring Type

1.75 Location

# of Blows Cumulative Penetration

(mm)

Hammer Type

Soil Type CBR %

0 225 1 GP

10 285 1 SP-SM 39.3

8 310 1 SP-SM 81.5

10 355 1 SP-SM 54.2

10 395 1 SP-SM 61.8

8 445 1 SP 37.5

5 495 1 SP 22.2

5 555 1 SP 18.1

5 610 1 CL 19.9

5 650 1 CL 28.4

4 695 1 CL 19.4

5 745 1 CL 22.2

5 775 1 CL 39.3

5 810 1 CL 33.0

6 860 1 CL 27.2

6 905 1 CL 30.6

4 955 1 CL 17.3

5 1015 1 CL 18.1

From To Thickness Classification 0 1 1 1 1.75 0.75

1.75 4 2.25 GP

4 10 6 SP-SM

10 15 5 SP

15 50 35 CL

Comments: No groundwater encountered.

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Silt, brown Fine-to-Medium SAND, brown Lean CLAY with trace Gravel, brown

B-2 Geoprobe®

AGGREGATE BASE - Asphalt millings, black

Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements

2022.1267 8/11/2022 Nowak & Fraus Engineers

DCP Starting Depth (in) See BLD

Description ASPHALT WEARING COURSE - Intact ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE - Intact

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th (i n)

Date Client

Boring ID Boring Type

1.25 Location

# of Blows Cumulative Penetration

(mm)

Hammer Type

Soil Type CBR %

0 190 1 GP

8 250 1 GP 30.6

10 285 1 SP-SM 71.8

10 330 1 SP-SM 54.2

12 385 1 SP-SM 53.1

12 440 1 SP-SM 53.1

10 490 1 SP-SM 48.1

12 550 1 SP 48.1

7 605 1 SP 29.0

6 655 1 SP 27.2

5 700 1 SP 24.9

5 740 1 SP 28.4

6 800 1 CL 22.2

4 860 1 CL 14.1

2 900 1 CL 8.6

2 950 1 CL 5.5

2 990 1 CL 8.6

1 1005 1 CL 14.1

From To Thickness Classification 0 1.25 1.25

1.25 4 2.75 AGGREGATE BASE - Asphalt millings, black GP

4 14 10 SP-SM

14 24 10 SP

24 50 26 CL

Comments: Perched groundwater encountered at 46 inches.

Lean CLAY, brown

Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements

2022.1267 8/11/2022 Nowak & Fraus Engineers

B-3 Geoprobe®

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Silt, brown Fine-to-Medium SAND, light brown

DCP Starting Depth (in) See BLD

Description ASPHALT WEARING COURSE - Intact

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th (i n)

Date Client

Boring ID Boring Type

4.75 Location

# of Blows Cumulative Penetration

(mm)

Hammer Type

Soil Type CBR %

0 265 1 GP

10 365 1 SP-SM 22.2

5 425 1 SC 18.1

4 485 1 SC 14.1

3 545 1 SC 10.2

2 595 1 SC 7.9

2 680 1 CL 1.9

1 720 1 CL 2.2

2 795 1 CL 2.5

1 840 1 CL 1.7

1 880 1 CL 2.2

1 905 1 CL 5.5

2 965 1 CL 3.8

2 1020 1 CL 4.6

From To Thickness Classification 0 1.75 1.75

1.75 4.75 3

4.75 6.5 1.75 GP

6.5 9 2.5 SP-SM

9 18 9 SC

18 50 32 CL

Comments: 2-inch lense of saturated sand at 40 inches.

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Silt, brown Fine-to-Medium Clayey SAND with trace Natural Gravel, light brown Lean CLAY, brown

B-4 Geoprobe®

AGGREGATE BASE - Asphalt millings, black

Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements

2022.1267 8/11/2022 Nowak & Fraus Engineers

DCP Starting Depth (in) See BLD

Description ASPHALT WEARING COURSE - Intact ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE - Intact

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th (i n)

Date Client

Boring ID Boring Type 3 Location

# of Blows Cumulative Penetration

(mm)

Hammer Type

Soil Type CBR %

0 220 1 SP-SM

10 280 1 SP-SM 39.3

8 335 1 SP-SM 33.7

6 390 1 SP-SM 24.4

6 440 1 SP-SM 27.2

7 500 1 CL 26.3

6 570 1 CL 18.6

4 640 1 CL 11.8

5 665 1 CL 48.1

6 700 1 CL 40.5

6 745 1 CL 30.6

5 790 1 CL 24.9

6 830 1 CL 34.9

8 875 1 CL 42.2

6 930 1 CL 24.4

6 990 1 CL 22.2

5 1040 1 CL 22.2

From To Thickness Classification 0 1.5 1.5

1.5 3 1.5

3 13 10 SP-SM

13 50 37 CL

Comments: 1-inch of deteriorated asphalt below pavement. No groundwater encountered.

Lean CLAY with trace Natural Gravel and lens of Sand, brown

B-5 Geoprobe®

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Silt, brown

Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements

2022.1267 8/11/2022 Nowak & Fraus Engineers

DCP Starting Depth (in) See BLD

Description ASPHALT WEARING COURSE - Delaminated ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE - Delaminated

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th (i n)

Date Client

Boring ID Boring Type

2.75 Location

# of Blows Cumulative Penetration

(mm)

Hammer Type

Soil Type CBR %

0 240 1 SP-SM

4 315 1 SP-SM 11.0

4 360 1 SP-SM 19.4

4 410 1 SP-SM 17.3

4 470 1 SC 14.1

4 520 1 SC 17.3

3 570 1 SC 12.5

3 630 1 SC 10.2

3 685 1 SC 11.2

2 735 1 CL 5.5

2 780 1 CL 6.8

2 815 1 CL 11.8

4 850 1 CL 25.7

4 900 1 CL 17.3

3 945 1 CL 14.1

3 1000 1 CL 11.2

From To Thickness Classification 0 1.25 1.25

1.25 2.75 1.5

2.75 10.5 7.75 SP-SM

10.5 21 10.5 SC

21 50 29 CL

Comments: Soil saturated at 11 inches.

Fine-to-Medium Clayey SAND with trace Natural Gravel, brown Lean CLAY, brown

B-6 Geoprobe®

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Silt, brown

Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements

2022.1267 8/11/2022 Nowak & Fraus Engineers

DCP Starting Depth (in) See BLD

Description ASPHALT WEARING COURSE - Delaminated ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE - Delaminated

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th (i n)

Date Client

Boring ID Boring Type

3.25 Location

# of Blows Cumulative Penetration

(mm)

Hammer Type

Soil Type CBR %

0 310 1 SP-SM

7 335 1 SP-SM 70.2

8 415 1 SP-SM 22.2

3 475 1 SP-SM 10.2

1 530 1 SP-SM 3.3

1 590 1 SP-SM 3.0

1 645 1 SC 3.3

2 715 1 SC 5.4

2 780 1 SC 5.9

2 835 1 SC 7.1

2 875 1 SC 10.2

3 920 1 CL 14.1

3 960 1 CL 16.0

3 1005 1 CL 14.1

From To Thickness Classification 0 2 2 2 3.25 1.25

3.25 16 12.75 SP-SM

16 26 10 SC

26 50 24 CL

Comments: Soil saturated at 17 inches.

Fine-to-Medium Clayey SAND with trace Natural Gravel, brown Lean CLAY, brown

B-7 Geoprobe®

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Silt, brown

Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements

2022.1267 8/11/2022 Nowak & Fraus Engineers

DCP Starting Depth (in) See BLD

Description ASPHALT WEARING COURSE - Intact ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE - Intact

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th (i n)

Date Client

Boring ID Boring Type

4.25 Location

# of Blows Cumulative Penetration

(mm)

Hammer Type

Soil Type CBR %

0 260 1 SP-SM

5 320 1 SP-SM 18.1

6 365 1 SP-SM 30.6

7 405 1 SP-SM 41.5

8 450 1 SP-SM 42.2

8 520 1 SP-SM 25.7

6 565 1 SP-SM 30.6

7 610 1 SP-SM 36.3

8 650 1 SP-SM 48.1

10 700 1 SP-SM 48.1

10 740 1 SP-SM 61.8

8 800 1 SP-SM 30.6

8 840 1 SP-SM 48.1

7 880 1 SP-SM 41.5

10 940 1 SP-SM 39.3

7 985 1 SP-SM 36.3

4 1020 1 SP-SM 25.7

From To Thickness Classification 0 1.25 1.25

1.25 4.25 3

4.25 50 45.75 SP-SM

Comments: 2-inch lense of clay at 15 inches. No groundwater encountered.

B-8 Geoprobe®

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Silt, brown

Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements

2022.1267 8/11/2022 Nowak & Fraus Engineers

DCP Starting Depth (in) See BLD

Description ASPHALT WEARING COURSE - Delaminated ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE - Delaminated/Deteriorated

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th (i n)

Date Client

Boring ID Boring Type 2 Location

# of Blows Cumulative Penetration

(mm)

Hammer Type

Soil Type CBR %

0 205 1 SP-SM

10 350 1 SP-SM 14.6

4 410 1 SP-SM 14.1

3 455 1 SC 14.1

3 485 1 SC 22.2

2 520 1 SC 11.8

2 560 1 SC 10.2

3 635 1 CL 5.5

2 710 1 CL 2.5

2 805 1 SP 3.9

2 865 1 SP 6.5

2 920 1 SP 7.1

2 945 1 CL 17.3

4 985 1 CL 22.2

3 1005 1 CL 34.9

From To Thickness Classification 0 1.5 1.5

1.5 2 0.5

2 11 9 SP-SM

11 17.5 6.5 SC

17.5 25 7.5 CL

25 31 6 SP

31 50 19 CL

Comments: Soil saturated at 10 inches.

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Silt, brown Fine-to-Medium Clayey SAND with trace Natural Gravel, brown Lean CLAY, gray Fine-to-Coarse SAND, gray Lean CLAY, gray

DCP Starting Depth (in) See BLD

Description ASPHALT WEARING COURSE - Intact ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE - Intact

B-9 Geoprobe®

Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements

2022.1267 8/11/2022 Nowak & Fraus Engineers

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th (i n)

Date Client

Boring ID Boring Type

4.25 Location

# of Blows Cumulative Penetration

(mm)

Hammer Type

Soil Type CBR %

0 240 1 SP-SM

10 290 1 SP-SM 48.1

8 345 1 SP-SM 33.7

8 390 1 SP-SM 42.2

8 450 1 SP-SM 30.6

6 505 1 CL 24.4

4 590 1 CL 7.6

2 655 1 CL 3.3

2 705 1 CL 5.5

1 735 1 CL 3.8

2 790 1 CL 4.6

2 830 1 CL 8.6

2 880 1 CL 5.5

2 930 1 CL 5.5

2 970 1 CL 8.6

2 1000 1 CL 14.1

From To Thickness Classification 0 1.5 1.5

1.5 4.25 2.75

4.25 13 8.75 SP-SM

13 50 37 CL

Comments: No groundwater encountered.

Lean CLAY, gray-brown

B-10 Geoprobe®

AGGREGATE BASE - Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Natural Gravel and Silt, brown

Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements

2022.1267 8/11/2022 Nowak & Fraus Engineers

DCP Starting Depth (in) See BLD

Description ASPHALT WEARING COURSE - Delaminated ASPHALT LEVELING COURSE - Delaminated/Deteriorated

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

D ep th (i n)

Sample Location

Sample Depth (ft)

Sample ID

Fine Medium Fine Silt

0.0% 38.6% 20.0% 14.5% 0.0%

D85 D50 D15 D10

15.0307 3.3739 0.2183 0.1064

Sieve % Passing Particle Size

(mm) % Passing

3 in. 100%

1 in. 95%

3/4 in. 95%

1/2 in. 79%

3/8 in. 71%

No. 4 56%

No. 8 46%

No. 16 37%

No. 30 29%

No. 50 19% Technician

No. 100 12% Checked

No. 200 8.6% Approved

B-1 Project Number 2022.1267

Particle Size Distribution Report

Project Name

Carson City Correctional Facility -

Pavement Improvements

Aggregate Base MSK_2022081113 Date 8/16/2022

Client Nowak & Fraus Engineers

% +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines

Coarse Coarse Clay

5.5% 12.8% 0.0%

D60 D30 Loss By Wash

5.9977 0.6542 8.4%

Particle Size Hydrometer Material Description

Fine-to-Coarse SAND with Gravel and Silt (SP-SM)

Remarks mvanweelden mvanweelden

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

GRAVEL

SAND

Coarse Medium Fine

SILT CLAY

Material is closely approximated by MDOT 22A dense-graded aggregate requirements

Sample ID

Fine Medium Fine Silt

0.0% 7.9% 11.9% 31.9% 0.0%

D85 D50 D15 D10

2.1355 0.1313 0.0276 0.0184

Sieve % Passing Particle Size

(mm) % Passing

3 in. 100%

1 in. 100%

3/4 in. 98%

1/2 in. 96%

3/8 in. 95%

No. 4 90%

No. 8 86%

No. 16 82%

No. 30 78%

No. 50 69% Technician

No. 100 53% Checked

No. 200 40.7% Approved

B-6,7,9 Project Number 2022.1267

Particle Size Distribution Report

Project Name

Carson City Correctional Facility -

Pavement Improvements

Sand Subbase MSK_2022081116 Date 8/16/2022

Client Nowak & Fraus Engineers

% +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines

Coarse Coarse Clay

2.1% 5.4% 0.0%

D60 D30 Loss By Wash

0.2155 0.0553 40.3%

Particle Size Hydrometer Material Description

Fine-to-Medium Clayey SAND with trace Gravel (SC)

Remarks mvanweelden mvanweelden

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

GRAVEL

SAND

Coarse Medium Fine

SILT CLAY

Material does not meet any MDOT granular material gradation requirements

0.8 to 2.2

Sample ID

Fine Medium Fine Silt

0.0% 2.2% 28.7% 63.7% 0.0%

D85 D50 D15 D10

0.5356 0.3054 0.1598 0.1258

Sieve % Passing Particle Size

(mm) % Passing

3 in. 100%

1 in. 100%

3/4 in. 100%

1/2 in. 98%

3/8 in. 98%

No. 4 98%

No. 8 97%

No. 16 96%

No. 30 95%

No. 50 49% Technician

No. 100 13% Checked

No. 200 4.5% Approved

B-1,2,3 Project Number 2022.1267

Particle Size Distribution Report

Project Name

Carson City Correctional Facility -

Pavement Improvements

MSK_2022081115 Date 8/16/2022

2 Client Nowak & Fraus Engineers

% +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines

Coarse Coarse Clay

0.0% 0.9% 0.0%

D60 D30 Loss By Wash

0.3712 0.2213 4.4%

Particle Size Hydrometer Material Description

Fine-to-Medium SAND (SP)

Remarks mvanweelden mvanweelden

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

GRAVEL

SAND

Coarse Medium Fine

SILT CLAY

Material meets MDOT Class II requirements

0.8 to 4.1

Liquid Limit Plastic Limit

Mass of container g

Mass of wet soil and container g

Mass of dry soil and container g

Water Content %

No. of blows, N

Remarks

LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY

INDEX

( ASTM D4318-10, Multipoint test )

Job Ref 2022.1267

Borehole/Pit No. B-3

Sample No. D

Site Name Carson City Correctional Facility - Pavement Improvements Depth ft 4

Sample Type Geoprobe

Sample Description KeyLAB ID MSK_2022081114

Date 8/16/2022

16.91 16.63

11.34 11.20 11.31 11.60 11.45

14.48

Average PL

39.12 43.96 36.59 17.69 17.38

33.22 36.80 30.63

28 19

26.97 27.97 30.85 14.69

Checked mvanweelden PLASTIC LIMIT 15

25 - 35 20 - 30 15 - 25 15

Approved mvanweelden PLASTICITY INDEX 14

Tested LIQUID LIMIT 29

0 20 40 60 80 100

P la st ic it y

In d ex

P I)

Liquid Limit (LL)

Plasticity Chart

B-3 @ 4

MH or OH

CL-ML ML or OL

472/22100.TYC

01 2100 - 1

Copyright © 2022 by the American Institute of Engineers. Warning: This AIA MasterSpec-based document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties.

It was created by "Nowak & Fraus Enginneers" for "Carson City Corrections Paving Improvements". A valid, current MasterSpec license is required for editing and use of this document for any other project.(21315)

SECTION 01 2100 - ALLOWANCES

PART 1 - GENERAL

1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS

A. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary

Conditions and other Division 01 Specification Sections, apply to this Section.

1.2 SUMMARY

A. Section includes administrative and procedural requirements governing allowances.

B. Types of allowances include the following:

1. Unit-cost allowances.

2. Contingency allowances.

C. Related Requirements:

1. Section 01 2200 "Unit Prices" for procedures for using unit prices, including adjustment of quantity allowances when applicable.

2. Section 01 2600 "Contract Modification Procedures" for procedures for submitting and handling Change Orders.

1.3 DEFINITIONS

A. Allowance: A quantity of work or dollar amount included in the Contract, established in lieu of additional requirements, used to defer selection of actual materials and equipment to a later date when direction will be provided to Contractor. If necessary, additional requirements will be issued by Change Order.

1.4 SELECTION AND PURCHASE

A. At the earliest practical date after award of the Contract, advise Engineer of the date when final selection, or purchase and delivery, of each product or system described by an allowance must be completed by the Owner to avoid delaying the Work.

B. At Engineer's request, obtain proposals for each allowance for use in making final selections.

Include recommendations that are relevant to performing the Work.

C. Purchase products and systems selected by Engineer from the designated supplier.

01 2100 - 2

Copyright © 2022 by the American Institute of Engineers. Warning: This AIA MasterSpec-based document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties.

It was created by "Nowak & Fraus Enginneers" for "Carson City Corrections Paving Improvements". A valid, current MasterSpec license is required for editing and use of this document for any other project.(21315)

1.5 ACTION SUBMITTALS

A. Submit proposals for purchase of products or systems included in allowances in the form specified for Change Orders.

1.6 INFORMATIONAL SUBMITTALS

A. Submit invoices or delivery slips to show actual quantities of materials delivered to the site for use in fulfillment of each allowance.

B. Submit time sheets and other documentation to show labor time and cost for installation of allowance items that include installation as part of the allowance.

C. Coordinate and process submittals for allowance items in same manner as for other portions of the Work.

1.7 UNIT-COST ALLOWANCES

A. Allowance shall include cost to Contractor of specific products and materials ordered by Owner or selected by Engineer under allowance and shall include taxes, freight and delivery to Project site.

B. Unless otherwise indicated, Contractor's costs for receiving and handling at Project site, labor, installation, overhead and profit, and similar costs related to products and materials ordered by

Owner or selected by Engineer under allowance shall be included as part of the Contract Sum and not part of the allowance.

C. Unused Materials: Return unused materials purchased under an allowance to manufacturer or supplier for credit to Owner, after installation has been completed and accepted.

1. If requested by Engineer, retain and prepare unused material for storage by Owner. Deliver unused material to Owner's storage space as directed.

1.8 CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCES

A. Use the contingency allowance only as directed by Engineer for Owner's purposes and only by

Change Orders that indicate amounts to be charged to the allowance.

B. Contractor's overhead, profit, and related costs for products and equipment ordered by Owner under the contingency allowance are included in the allowance and are not part of the Contract

Sum. These costs include delivery, installation , taxes, insurance, equipment rental, and similar costs.

C. Change Orders authorizing use of funds from the contingency allowance will include Contractor's related costs and reasonable overhead and profit.

D. At Project closeout, credit unused amounts remaining in the contingency…