Addendum 2 19239.pdf

ADDENDUM

757 S. WISCONSIN AVENUE ▪ GAYLORD MI 49735

p h o n e 989.705.8400 ▪ f a x 989.705.8403

‐1‐

Addendum Number: 2

Date: 3.26.21

Project Name: DNR Multi-Division Storage Facility

SG Project Number: 519251 DTMB File No.: 751/19239RWG

Bid Date: 3.31.21

This Addendum is being issued for the purpose of clarifying and/or modifying the original Bidding Documents and shall take precedence over them. Each Bidder’s proposal shall include the Work described herein. All requirements contained in the Contract Documents shall apply to this Addendum. All incidental work necessary to complete the Work shall be included in the Contractor’s quotation even though not particularly mentioned. Parts of the Specifications and Drawings referred to herein supersede previously issued data and form a part of this Addendum.

CLARIFICATIONS:

1. Refer to attached RFI Log

ATTACHMENTS:

The following documents are a part of this Addendum:

1. RFI Log

2. DTMB Attendance Record, 3.18.21 On-Line Meeting

3. Bidder’s Sign-In Sheet, 3.22.21 On-Site Meeting

4. Prein & Newhof Geotechnical Report

RFI # Description Contractor

Affected Date

Received Date

Returned Cost Issue

Department Responsible

Answered By

Comments

1 Does Davis-Bacon Wage Rates apply? gc 3.9.21 3.9.21 yes Arch RL/RG No.

1A Construction start date? all 3.9.21 3.9.21 yes Arch RL/RG Contract award date is 4/27/21

2 Schedule? all 3.9.21 3.9.21 yes Arch RL/RG Contract award date is 4/27/21

2A Budget all 3.9.21 3.9.21 yes Arch RL/RG Owner does not wish to disclose

2B Completion Date? all 3.9.21 3.9.21 yes Arch RL Reply: Per “Bid Summary” & Section 00100, “Instructions to Bidders”- Part 23; Contract Time: 182 calendar days from Notice to Proceed.

2C Liquidated damages? all 3.9.21 3.9.21 yes Arch RL Reply: Per Section 00100, “Instructions to Bidders”- Part 23; Liquidated Damages: $400.00/day.

Would it be possible to have Butler Manufacturing added as an approved pre-engineered metal building supplier for this project?

gc/pemb 3.11.21 3.17.21 no Arch RL Butler Manf. Is an acceptable supplier.

Regarding NO/CO2 sensors, is power required for them and who is to provide, Mechanical Contractor or Electrical contractor.

mech/elec 3.15.21 3.17.21 no Elec TM These are mechanical controls for the exhaust fans & shall be wired per electrical spec & manufacturer's instructions. Refer to drawings for locations and activation requirements.

Is there a breakout for the Electrical portion of the bid? Or is it included in the lump sum bid?

elec 3.15.21 3.17.21 no Arch TM Lump sum bid

6 Overhead door operator location? elec 3.15.21 3.17.21 no Arch TM Refer to specification for type & mounting specs

7 Overhead door power requirements? elec 3.15.21 3.17.21 no Arch TM Refer to elec. drawings & panel schedules

8 Is there an electrical spec? elec 3.15.21 3.17.21 no Arch RL Electrical spec released as Bid Addenda 1

9 Do prevailing wage requirements apply? all 3.18.21 3.18.21 yes DTMB RG No

How firm is the 6 month construction schedule due to uncertain delivery time for pemb?

all 3.18.21 3.18.21 yes DTMB RG The State understands the uncertainty of material availability and will adjust the schedule as required.

11 Who is responsible for testing costs? all 3.18.21 3.18.21 yes DTMB RG

The Owner. The State clarified at the 3.18.21 Pre-bid Meeting that a State agency would be responsible for testing. It is still the conractor's responsibility to maintain quality control and adhere to the standards set by the plans and specifications.

Spec called for a .03" steel panel -that is very close to 22ga. Is that what you are wanting quoted?

gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL 22 ga is the basis of design: alternate- 24 ga for the exterior panels and 26 ga for interior wall panels.

13 There isnt a finish warranty called out for the paint. gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Provide manufacturer's standard warranty.

DNR Gaylord District Headquarters- Multi-Division Storage Facility- Gaylord, MI Job No.:519251 / DTMB File No.: 751/19239RWG

3/26/2021 2:00 PM 1 of 14

Affected Date

Received Date

Returned Cost Issue

Department Responsible

Answered By

Comments

DNR Gaylord District Headquarters- Multi-Division Storage Facility- Gaylord, MI Job No.:519251 / DTMB File No.: 751/19239RWG

ASHRAE Standard for Michigan 2017 is called out but there isn't an R value called out for the roof or walls.

gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL

Per ASHRAE:Insulation of the roof in the enclosed bays (Col Line 2 to 17) shall be Min. R-19.0 and the walls of the heated bays (Col Line A & E between Col Line 14 & 17 and the walls at Col Lines 14 & 17) shall be Min.

R-16.

Collateral Load: We originally proposed 3 psf but don’t see a collateral load called out on the drawings or specs.

gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL 3 psf is acceptable.

For the rigid frames, looks like they are drawn as straight columns. Making sure you want it to be straight. If so, did you have a max depth in mind?

gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL No preference of max size. Provide the most economical confifuiration and size.

17 Purlin & girt depth: Not sure 8" purlins and girts will work. gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL 12" purlins are acceptable. Provide 8" or 9.5 " girts so as to provide the most economical construction.

The partion firewalls: The cmu wall by others scales 10'-0" tall is that correct? You want the standard (metal) sheeting attached by others?

gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL The cmu walls are 8'-0" tall at the separation walls and are topped (up to the roof panels) with a UL419 design drywall and metal stud partition. Metal panels are attached to both sides of the partition.

19 Gutters & downspouts: there arent any drawn, but would you want them? gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL There are to be no gutters or downspouts.

The mezzanine starts 14'-0" away from the plan north wall, but does it go all the way to the plan south wall? The X for the mezzanine doesn’t appear to go all the way to that wall.

gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL The "X" designates the area of the mezzanine with a 7'-0"+ headroom height. The mezzanie extends to Col. Line E (see Bldg Section 1/A301)

Would it be possible to have Nucor or Star Buildings added as an approved pre-engineered metal building supplier?

gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL Nucor and Star Buildings are acceptable suppliers

For the exposed portion of the building, would you want a ceiling liner panel and cavity fill insulation so birds don’t end up making a new neighborhood up there.

gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL The framinig will remain exposed.

I am checking to see if Chief Buildings can be added as an approved pre-engineered metal building supplier?

gc/pemb 3.19.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL Chief Buildings is an acceptable supplier.

Please add CWPA 800 to the addendum as an equivilent admixture for use in the concrete for waterproofing.

concrete 3.22.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL CWPA is an acceptable waterproofing admixture.

We are requesting Chief Buildings be considered as an equal manufacturer for the pre-engineered metal building. gc/pemb 3.22.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL See RFI #23.

Please confirm: the DNR will remove the fencing that surrounds the existing storage yard on the construction site.

gc/excavator 3.22.21 3.25.21 yes DNR DF The DNR will be responsible for the removal of the fence.

3/26/2021 2:00 PM 2 of 14

Affected Date

Received Date

Returned Cost Issue

Department Responsible

Answered By

Comments

DNR Gaylord District Headquarters- Multi-Division Storage Facility- Gaylord, MI Job No.:519251 / DTMB File No.: 751/19239RWG

27 Please confirm: The DNR will grub and rough grade the site. gc/excavator 3.22.21 3.25.21 yes DNR SM

"With regards to clearing and prepping the site, I believe we’ve done about all we’re able too. We got all the stumps removed as far as I know and they’ve been piled along the back property line. I don’t think we’ve got the ability to grub it out or do any of the other site prep work." The site is as it will be for the construction start. All grubbing, back-filling, compaction and rough and final grading are the responsibility of the Contractor.

28 American is specified. Will they allow Nucor and Star as a substitute. gc/pemb 3.22.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL See RFI #21.

Is it ok if there are endwall columns on the left end wall at the open bay?

Something needs to support the girts and sheeting from 14' up.

gc/pemb 3.22.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL Yes endwall columns are acceptable.

30 Can you confirm that the columns need to be 8" below finish floor. gc/pemb 3.22.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL The detail is the engineer's preference and eliminates piers.

31 No wall or ceiling panel, correct? gc/pemb 3.22.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL There are no interior metal panels on the exterior walls or roof. The interior separation walls above the cmu are covered with metal panels.

Who is providing and installing the wall sheeting above the cmu on the interior demising wall?

gc 3.22.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL The partitions are supplied and installed by the GC.

It doesn’t look like the mezzanine is part of the PEMB package, can you confirm?

gc/pemb 3.22.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL The mezzanine is designed as part of the pemb as noted on the wall sections on Sheet A-401.

Project specs say basis of design is model 432, but calls for polyurethane insulation; model 432 is only available in polystyrene.

gc 3.23.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Correction: the OH door insulation should be expanded polystyrene

Section 2.02, A -1 describes performance. Does this project require wind code doors? 20 psf or 30 psf? Please clarify gc 3.23.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Per spec: At 115 mph wind speed, the load on the door would be 30psf+/-.

The pre-engineering metal building supplier specified is not willing to provide a schedule with their bid due to issues in the supply chain and the nature of pre-engineered systems. They will lock in a schedule after approved engineered drawings. Will the Owner consider the schedule required with the bid as preliminary until approved drawings at which point we can provide a more firm project schedule?

gc/pemb 3.23.21 3.25.21 yes Arch/DNR RL

The Owner understands the difficulty in obtaining materials through the supply chain at this time. The schedule as indicated on the bid documents is a basis from which adjustments can be made due to material/component availability. They are willing to adjust the schedule as required and will discuss the adjustment needed with the Contractor prior to entering into the contract.

Multiple pre-engineered metal building suppliers that are looking at this job are not willing to hold their price until after approved shop drawings due to market conditions. Would the owner be willing to pay the actual costs of escalation until the material can be released, after approved shop drawings.

gc/pemb 3.23.21 3.25.21 yes Arch/DNR RL

The Owner’s budget is not unlimited but they do understand that adjustments may be required due continuing changes from the material suppliers. Bids should be submitted with a contingency to cover anticipated increases in costs.

3/26/2021 2:00 PM 3 of 14

Affected Date

Received Date

Returned Cost Issue

Department Responsible

Answered By

Comments

DNR Gaylord District Headquarters- Multi-Division Storage Facility- Gaylord, MI Job No.:519251 / DTMB File No.: 751/19239RWG

It was discussed at the site walk that the owner would bring the building pad up to grade. What elevation will the site be turned over to the contractor?

gc/excavator 3.23.21 3.25.21 yes DNR See RFI #27: All grubbing, back-filling, compaction and rough and final grading is the responsibility of the Contractor.

The exterior and interior painting specifications specifically mentioned misc.

metals to be painted. Please confirm the masonry walls are unfinished.

Please confirm to what extent the gypsum assemblies are painted (primed only, 2 coats of finish, etc.).

gc 3.23.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL Surfaces exposed to view are to be painted. The cmu walls are unfinished.

The only exposed gysum board is at the mezzanine and should be primed w/ 2 coats of finish, white in color.

The drawings call for the concrete floors to be sealed. Is this just a cure and seal product? If more is required than a single layer of cure and seal please provide direction.

gc 3.23.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL The specified waterproofing admixture does not require additional sealer.

Per the pre-bid discussion, any buildings within the new work footprint will be removed by the owner. Please confirm.

gc/excavator 3.23.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL The site consists of open field and the "bullpen" of which the vehicles, trailers, & misc. equipment, and the fence are to be relocated by the DNR.

42 Please provide a list of pre-bid attendees. all 3.23.21 3.25.21 no Arch/DTMB RL/RG See attached.

The General Civil Notes reference a Geotechnical Report prepared by Prein & Newhof in 2019. Could you please provide a copy?

gc/excavator 3.23.21 3.25.21 no Civil JM See attached Prein & Newhof report.

Is there information or data identifying the depth of the existing aggregate that may be salvaged for reuse?

gc/excavator 3.23.21 3.25.21 no Civil JM Refer to Prein & Newhof report

During the pre-bid it was stated that the DNR would prepare the grade prior to the project. The proposed FFE is several feet higher than existing contour data shows, will this grade be raised by prior to the site work, or should costs include importing fill material to achieve grade?

gc/excavator 3.23.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL See RFI #27: All grubbing, back-filling, compaction and rough and final grading is the responsibility of the Contractor.

During the pre-bid it was stated that the Owner will contract a third party firm for materials testing, the plan notes state this in the Contractor’s responsibility. Please clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Owner and Contractor in regards to third party material testing.

all 3.23.21 3.25.21 yes DTMB RB Refer to RFI #11

47 What are the weights of the exhaust fans? gc/pemb 3.23.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL The weight of the exhaust fans is listed in the schedule on Sheet M-701.

Pipe Bollard Size Discrepancy: Detail 9/C-501: Calls out the pipe size to be 6” Dia. Sch 40. Detail 5/S-802: Calls out the pipe size to be 6” Dia. Sch 80 (Extra Strong). Which is correct?

gc 3.24.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL Schedule 40 pipe is correct.

3/26/2021 2:00 PM 4 of 14

Affected Date

Received Date

Returned Cost Issue

Department Responsible

Answered By

Comments

DNR Gaylord District Headquarters- Multi-Division Storage Facility- Gaylord, MI Job No.:519251 / DTMB File No.: 751/19239RWG

Handrail Pipe Grade: The General Notes call out for the Handrail Pipe to be Grade A-53. This is pressure treated pipe and it typically is not used in Handrail applications. The Pipe also has an oil finish. Solvent is required to remove all of the oil prior to any paint being applied. If the Railing is to be Hot Dipped Galvanized, the railing must go thru a pickling process before it can be dipped. Typically, A500 GR. B Sch. 40 is what is normally used for Handrail / Guardrail. Besides the additional steps for applying any coatings for the A-53 Pipe, the cost of the Pipe is 3 times the cost of the A500.

gc 3.24.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL The reference to A53 pipe should be deleted in this section as it applies to plumbing usage. Reference Part 2.04.B - Steel Tubing, ASTM A500 for stair components.

There is no R-value or thickness specified for the roof insulation. Do we want to meet energy codes in the heated areas and 4” insulation as a condensation/vapor barrier in the unheated portion?

gc/pemb 3.24.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL Refer to RFI #14

The roof and wall sheeting is specified as .0300 thickness, this puts us providing a 22 GA panel, which is a long lead time, higher cost, custom item. Can we provide 24 GA roof panels and 26 GA wall panels which are standard and will meet loading requirements?

gc/pemb 3.24.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL Refer to RFI #12

Will the copy of the Mandatory Teleconference sign in sheet be sent out any time soon?

all 3.24.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL See attached.

Who is responsible for testing? The specs say it is the contractors responsibility and the drawings are very clear that the Owner is doing all of the testing.

all 3.24.21 3.25.21 yes DTMB RB Refer to RFI#11.

What is the thickness of the 20’ approach slabs to the building? Is there any reinforcement in it?

gc 3.24.21 3.25.21 yes Arch RL Per Detail 7/S-801: 8" slab on grade w/ 4lbs/cu.yd. of Tuf-Strand SF fiber.

Spec Section 03 3006 – Waterproofing admixture for cast-in-place concrete has been issued. I don’t see that this admixture is being used in any of the concrete mixes. Is this correct?

gc 3.24.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL The waterproofing admixture is to be used in all interior and exterior cast in place concrete.

Spec Section 03 3511 – Concrete Floor Finishes has products for hardeners and densifiers, dry shake hardeners, high gloss clear coating, low gloss clear coating, and penetrating sealers. The finish schedule on drawing A- 701 only calls for a sealer. What material is to be used?

gc 3.24.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL The specified waterproofing admixture does not require additional sealer.

Spec Section 321313 Concrete Paving calls for 4000 psi concrete.

Structural Drawing S-000 calls for 4500 psi for exterior exposed concrete.

Which is correct?

gc 3.24.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Provide 4500 psi for exterior exposed concrete.

3/26/2021 2:00 PM 5 of 14

Affected Date

Received Date

Returned Cost Issue

Department Responsible

Answered By

Comments

DNR Gaylord District Headquarters- Multi-Division Storage Facility- Gaylord, MI Job No.:519251 / DTMB File No.: 751/19239RWG

Addendum #1 says the award date is 04/27 and that we have 182 days from the notice to proceed to complete work. When will the NTP be issued? Is the Owner willing to pay for Liquidated Damages as we do not believe this is enough time to get the metal building delivered, erected and then time for the remainder of the trades to complete their work. As such we will be including dollars for damages in our bid unless additional time is added to the completion. We would suggest at least 4 months.

gc 3.24.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL The notice to proceed is to be determined. Refer to RFI #36.

Instructions to Bidders 00100 Bulletin #9 mentions permits as the contractors responsibility. Please confirm if the Contractor is to include the building permit in their bid.

gc 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Permits are the contractor's responsibility.

Information to Bidders 00200 5.2 states the Owner will perform all testing.

Quality Control 01400 states that the testing is paid for by the Contractor.

Please confirm if materials testing costs are to be included in our bid.

gc 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Refer to RFI #11.

Good Afternoon, The electrical specs for the above referenced project talk about a ground ring around the building, but there is no detail or mention of a ground ring on the drawings. Is this just a generic spec from other projects that do have a ground ring or does this project actually require one?

elec 3.25.21 3.25.21 yes Elec DS A ground ring is not required.

Structural drawings specifically call for Tuf-Strand fiber. This brand of fiber may not be available from local ready-mix suppliers. Will an equal fiber be acceptable if this material is unavailable to source from suppliers?

gc 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Alternates will have to be submitted for approval.

Bid documents call for a 15mil vapor barrier and Waterproofing Admixture in the slab. Are both required? If waterproofing admixture is required, Specification 03 3006 calls for Vapor Lock as the product. This product may not be available from local suppliers and reduces the field of qualified concrete contractors drastically. Is Xypex an acceptable substitute?

gc 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Vapor barrier and admixture are both required. The Xypex products are not equals

If Waterproofing admixture is required, this product essentially densifies and hardens the concrete surface. Will additional densifier / hardener be needed or will a standard cure and seal suffice?

gc 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL The specified waterproofing admixture does not require additional sealer.

3/26/2021 2:00 PM 6 of 14

Affected Date

Received Date

Returned Cost Issue

Department Responsible

Answered By

Comments

DNR Gaylord District Headquarters- Multi-Division Storage Facility- Gaylord, MI Job No.:519251 / DTMB File No.: 751/19239RWG

Spec 03 3000 2.05 States that use of single ply polyethylene is prohibited. If that is true, the Stego 15 mil does not meet this. It will have to be 20mil or two layers of 10 mil. Please confirm 15 mil Stego is acceptable.

gc 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL The single-ply statement is not correct. The single 15 mil vapor barrier is acceptable.

The typical entry slab detail on S801 shows a 4” void under the slab. Will 2 layers of 2” foam be acceptable?

gc 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Yes, the foam is acceptable.

The spec on the site concrete is indicated 3 different ways (see below).

Please advise which is required. a. Per S000: Exterior concrete to be 4500 psi. / b. Per Division 32: 4000 psi, max fly ash, 25%, or slag cement, 15%..

max combined 30% (20%Fly Ash10%Slag), W/C max 45% by weight, max slump 4"(+/-1"). Can use water reducer, admixtures, etc.. / c. Per C100:

4000 psi min .45 W/C.

gc 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Provide 4500 psi for exterior exposed concrete.

Would I be able to get the architectural prints? Looking to confirm ceiling heights / types, etc.

all 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL Plans are available from SIGMA.

69 Where would I find the lighting controller diagram that E-201 references? elec 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL There is no lighting diagram.

The transformer shows as existing, yet this is a new construction to my understanding. Where is this existing transformer physically going to be located (distance from panels)? All the electrical contractor has to do is feed the panel from where it is set in place by others/utility?

elec 3.25.21 3.25.21 no Arch RL A new transformer is to be located on the east side of the building at 18 feet +/- from the panels. Coordinate location and installation w/ the utility provider.

3/26/2021 2:00 PM 7 of 14

DTMB-0441 (R 19.02)

MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

State Facilities Administration Design and Construction Division

PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION MDNR Garylord Disctrict Headquarters - Multi-Division Storage Facility

DATE

2021-03-18

TIME

10:00 a.m.

FILE NUMBER

751-19239.RWG

CONTRACT NUMBER

MEETING PLACE

TEAMS Meeting On-Line

PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME

FIRM YOU REPRESENT

EMAIL ADDRESS

TELEPHONE NUMBER

Rob Gruesbeck

DTMB

gruesbeckr@michigan.gov

517.243.2947

Rod Lawrence

Sidock Group rlawrence@sidockgroup.com

989.705.8400

Matt Spisak

Cross Construction matt@crossconstructiongroup.com

734.331.5061

Mike Boland

Rickman Enteprise Group mboland@rickmanenterprise.com

248.285.0741

Fran Swick

Lasalle Construction fswick@lasalleinc.com

313-510-7090

Dave Folwer

Campbell & Shaw Steel, Inc.

dfowler@campbellshawsteel.com

586.536.1778

Craig Rinkel

Haggard's Plumbing & Heating

Craig@haggardspulumbing.com

231.547.4046

Terry Grodon

Gordon-Miller, Inc terry@gcservices-inc.com

231.758.2591

Ian DeRosia

North Country Contracting, LLC

Northcountrycontractingllc@gmail.

232.463.9343

Michael Evangelista

E2 Enterprises mike@e2enterprisesllc.com

248.795.3000

Stephen Barlow

Ideal Contracting sbarlow@idealcontracting.com

248.640.6842

Dan Edick

Glees Constructors edick@gleesonconstructors.com

248.765.3389

Emir Gardel

Angels General Construction e.gardel@angelsgc.com

313-768-8907

Courtney Gary

MKC Group cgary@mkcmi.com

989.439.1767

Eric Josef

Cadence Construction estimating.cadence@outlook.com

810.824.8462

Michael Gaffke

QDV Construction qdvconstruction@gmail.com

989.414.0274

Ellis Raatz

South Arm Construction eraatz.sac@gmail.com

231.536.5001

Matt Krawczak

Katterman Trucking mattkrawczak@gmail.com

989.255.6030

DTMB-0441 (R 19.02)

MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

State Facilities Administration Design and Construction Division

PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION MDNR Garylord Disctrict Headquarters - Multi-Division Storage Facility

DATE

2021-03-18

TIME

10:00 a.m.

FILE NUMBER

751-19239.RWG

CONTRACT NUMBER

MEETING PLACE

TEAMS Meeting On-Line

PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME

FIRM YOU REPRESENT

EMAIL ADDRESS

TELEPHONE NUMBER

Tim Heine

Ripman Construction tim_ripkecc@live.com

989.240.1531

Emilo Jaurez

Angels General Contracting e.juarez@angelsgc.com

313.467.6083

Zane Beydoun

Power Construction Group zane@powerconstructiongroup.net

231.409.8835

Jacob Bohnstedt

American Building Company

Jacob.bohnstedt@americanbuildings

517.581.2714

Greg Saxton

Tamarack Builders gsaxton@tamarackbuilder.com

989.287.6300

Josh Vandermuss

Tri County Excavating

231.330.2154

Shawna McManus

Power Construction Group shawna@powerconstructiongroup.ne t

231.268.3809

David Findley

Larsen Construction Group dfindleyjr@lcgservice.com

231.384.1672

Geotechnical Investigation Report

Proposed DNR Storage Building

Gaylord, Michigan

Prepared for

Sidock Group, Inc.

757 S. Wisconsin Ave

Gaylord, MI 49735

June 18, 2019

2190389 i

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3 SITE CONDITIONS

4 FIELD INVESTIGATION

5 LABORATORY TESTING

6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

7 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

8 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Site Preparation, Earthwork and Backfill ......................................................................... 3 8.1

Foundation Support Recommendations .......................................................................... 4 8.2

Groundwater Control ....................................................................................................... 5 8.3

Seismic Considerations .................................................................................................... 5 8.4

Support of Floor Slabs ...................................................................................................... 5 8.5

Proposed Pavements ....................................................................................................... 5 8.6

Underground Utility Construction ................................................................................... 6 8.7

Groundwater Detention Area .......................................................................................... 6 8.8

Closing Remarks and Limitations ..................................................................................... 6 8.9

Appendix

Boring Location Plan

Boring Logs

Soil Nomenclature, General

Sieve Analysis

1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation performed in connection with the proposed construction of a new storage building at the Michigan DNR facility in Gaylord, Michigan.

The purpose of this investigation is to determine and evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to provide recommendations relative to the support of building foundations, floor slabs, underground utilities, pavements and other related site preparation activities. The data obtained during the course of this investigation, along with our evaluations and recommendations are presented in subsequent sections of this report.

2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Based on the information provided, we understand that the project consists of constructing a single-story storage building with approximate proposed dimensions of 75 feet (ft) by 300 ft at the approximate location indicated on the Soil Boring Location Plan in the Appendix. We understand that most of the building will be unheated and used for equipment storage. However, a portion of the building will be dedicated to heated storage.

Current plans call for the building to be a conventional clear-span prefabricated metal building with no interior columns. Structural loads will be supported on columns and along the perimeter foundation walls. Based on information provided, we understand that column loads for the proposed building will be on the order of 70 kips per column.

No detailed information has been provided relative to site grading or finished floor elevations for the proposed building. However, given the relatively level nature of the site, and the proximity of other buildings on the site, we understand that the plan is for the floor elevation of the proposed building to match the floor elevation of the existing buildings.

We anticipate that alignment modifications will be made to the existing gravel parking area and associated driveways in the vicinity of proposed building. We also understand that the existing depressed area in the vicinity of SB-4 is being considered for use as a storm water infiltration basin.

3 SITE CONDITIONS

The project site is located within the MDNR Gaylord Office property in Gaylord, Michigan. The proposed building site is located directly east of an existing fenced gravel parking area, approximately as indicated on the Soil Boring Location Plan in the Appendix. Most of the project area is heavily wooded. Based on a topographic survey of the site provided by Sidock, the existing ground surface within the proposed building area is relatively flat with a mild slope toward the south and southwest. Ground surface elevations range from about 1336 feet at the northwest corner of the proposed building to about 1321.5 feet at the southwest corner.

4 FIELD INVESTIGATION

We explored subsurface conditions at the proposed building site by drilling four soil borings as shown on the Boring Location Plan in the Appendix. Boring locations were determined in the field by measuring from existing site features and are considered approximate.

The soil borings were drilled by Pearson Drilling Company under the observation of a geotechnical engineer from our firm. A truck-mounted Acker Renegade drill rig equipped with 4¼-inch ID continuous-flight, hollow-stem augers was used in the drilling operations. Each boring was extended to a depth of 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Within each boring, soil samples were taken at regular depth intervals of 2.5 ft in the upper 10 feet, and at 5 ft intervals below that depth. Soil samples were obtained using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method, ASTM D1586, whereby a 2-inch outside diameter split-spoon sampler is driven three successive 6-inch increments, with the number of blows for each increment being recorded. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches is defined as the Standard Penetration Resistance (N). These values provide a useful estimate of the relative density of granular soil deposits, and therefore provide a basis for estimating the strength of the soil. The results of the SPT tests are presented in the Logs of Soil Borings in the Appendix.

The soil samples obtained at the site were visually classified in the field, then sealed in containers and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and testing. We will retain the soil samples for a period of 60 days after the date of this report, at which time we will dispose of the samples unless we are otherwise instructed.

Upon the completion of soil drilling and sampling operations, the test borings were backfilled with auger cuttings.

5 LABORATORY TESTING

All samples were visually examined in the laboratory to verify field classification. In addition, representative samples were selected for additional laboratory testing was performed to determine applicable engineering properties. Laboratory testing for this project consisted of grain-size analysis of selected granular soil samples. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the Grain-Size Distribution sheet in the Appendix.

6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the borings are shown on the Logs of Soil Boring in the Appendix. The soil descriptions and terms used in the boring logs are defined on the Soil Nomenclature and Terminology sheets, also included in the Appendix. The stratification shown on the log represents the soil conditions encountered at each respective boring location. Variations in subsoil conditions may occur between boring locations and between samples within each boring.

Additionally, the stratigraphic lines represent our interpretation of the approximate boundaries between the soil types; the transition may be more gradual than shown.

As indicated above, most of the proposed building area is heavily wooded. A thin layer of topsoil was encountered at the boring locations in undeveloped areas. Topsoil thickness at these locations varies from 1 to 3 inches. Boring SB-1, drilled within an existing gravel-surface parking area, encountered 6 inches of aggregate at the surface.

The soils encountered below the topsoil generally consist of various layers of sand that extend to the full depth explored. At the location of SB-2, the material encountered directly below the topsoil and extending to a depth of about 3 ft consists of loose dark brown sand mixed with topsoil and appears to be fill or disturbed material.

The soils directly below these near-surface materials are distinguishable primarily by color and relative density. In general, the upper soils, extending to depths ranging from 12 to 14 ft below the surface, consist of loose to very loose reddish brown to brown sand with variable amounts of coarse sand, silt and gravel. SPT N-values of these upper layers range from 3 to 10, with a mean value of 5.

The loose soils are underlain by medium dense well-graded sand with trace to little gravel, trace silt and occasional gravelly seams. These materials extend to the full depth explored. SPT N-values of this lower layer range from 10 to 28, with a mean value of 12.

7 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Water level observations were made during drilling and following the completion of drilling operations. No free groundwater was encountered in any of the borings. At completion of drilling, all borings were dry. These groundwater observations represent conditions at the time of drilling.

However, groundwater levels may fluctuate as a result of seasonal variations in temperature, precipitation and snowmelt. Groundwater conditions at the time of construction may differ from those encountered in the borings

8 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Site Preparation, Earthwork and Backfill 8.1

No grading plan was available at the time this report was written. However, we understand that the intent is for the proposed building to have a finished floor elevation matching that of the existing storage building to the east, which has a reported finished floor elevation of 1324.73 feet. Based on the existing topography of the site, we anticipate that a minor amount of grading and earthwork will be required to achieve finished grades. In general, site preparation activities are expected to include tree and stump removal, stripping of topsoil and removal of localized deposits of existing fill that is mixed with topsoil.

We anticipate that the resulting subgrade will consist primarily of sand. Prior to placing any additional fill required to achieve the proposed subgrade elevation, the exposed surface should be visually checked and proof-rolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck or front end loader. Any unstable or otherwise unsuitable soils should be removed prior to placement of any additional fill that may be required.

Material for backfill or engineered fill required to achieve design grades within the building and pavement areas should preferably consist of clean natural soils free of organic matter, debris or other detrimental materials. The majority of the on-site soils are considered suitable for use in engineered fills. In the unlikely case that imported fill is required to achieve design grades, the material should consist of MDOT Class II sand.

The fill should be placed in uniform horizontal layers that are not more than 12 inches in loose thickness (8 inches in confined areas requiring lightweight compaction equipment). Each layer should be compacted to achieve a density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D 1557). All fill material should be placed and compacted at or near the optimum moisture content. Frozen material should not be used as fill, nor should fill be placed on a frozen subgrade.

Foundation Support Recommendations 8.2

In general, soil conditions encountered at this site are considered adequate for the direct support of foundations for the proposed building. Based on an overall evaluation of the subsurface data, we recommend that the proposed building addition be supported on conventional spread and/or strip footings bearing on the undisturbed native sand. However, due to the loose nature of the on-site sandy soils, it will be necessary to compact the soils at the base of footing excavations to improve their load-supporting capacity. The bearing soils should be compacted to achieve a density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by the Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D1557) in the upper 2 feet below bottom of footing. This compaction operation will also serve to provide more uniform bearing conditions for the footings.

Exterior footings should extend to a minimum depth of 3.5 feet below the exposed finished grade for protection against frost penetration. Interior footings not exposed to freezing temperatures during or after construction can be established at shallower depths, provided that suitable bearing soils are present consistent with the criteria indicated above. If foundations are to be constructed during periods of freezing temperatures, they should be extended below the frost penetration depth or insulated for protection against freezing temperatures. Furthermore, the foundations should not be constructed on frozen soil.

Foundations for the proposed building may be designed on the basis of a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. All strip footings should be at least 18 inches in width and isolated spread footings should be at least 24 inches in their smallest plan dimension even if this results in a bearing pressure that is less than the allowable value indicated above. We recommend that foundation excavations be checked and tested in the field by a qualified professional to verify that adequate soil bearing conditions are achieved, compatible with the recommendations outlined in this report.

If adjacent footings are founded at different levels, they should be designed and constructed so that the least lateral distance between them is equal to or greater than the difference in their bearing elevation. To achieve a change in the elevation of a strip footing, the footing should be gradually stepped at a grade not steeper than two units horizontal to one unit vertical.

Provided that the recommendations outlined in this report are followed, total and differential settlements for the completed structure should be within the normal range of one inch and one-half inch, respectively.

Groundwater Control 8.3

As previously indicated, no groundwater was encountered in the borings drilled as part of this investigation. However, groundwater levels may exhibit seasonal fluctuations. In general, we do not anticipate significant problems related to groundwater seepage on this project, but care should be exercised during construction to maintain site grading so as to provide a positive slope away from work areas and to divert surface runoff away from open excavations toward on-site retention areas or other collection points.

If work is performed during wet weather, some water inflow from surface runoff or subsurface seepage may infiltrate into foundation excavations. We anticipate that such water inflow will generally percolate readily into the subgrade. If water accumulation persists in excavations, we expect that it can be controlled with conventional field pumping from prepared sumps. Any resulting discharge from these operations and any other surface runoff should be diverted away from excavations, toward on-site detention areas or existing storm sewers.

Seismic Considerations 8.4

Site-specific seismic design criteria were calculated using USGS Seismic Hazard Curve software, using criteria from the 2016 ASCE 7 Standard and the 2018 International Building Code. In the absence of deep borings and based on the conditions encountered in the borings, we recommend that this site be classified as Class D. Included in the Site Class D category are clay soil profiles with su > 1,000 psf and granular soil profiles with average field SPT values between 15 and 50 within the upper 100 feet. Table 1 provides a summary of the seismic coefficients for the project site.

Table 1

Seismic Site Coefficient* Period Maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration SMS 0.078 0.2 second SM1 0.072 1 second

* Multiply coefficient by gravitational acceleration (g)

Support of Floor Slabs 8.5

The subgrade resulting from the proper completion of site preparation operations outlined in a preceding section of this report is considered suitable for the direct support of concrete floor slabs. It is recommended that concrete floor slabs be suitably reinforced to control shrinkage cracking and to accommodate normal settlement. We further recommend that floor slabs be supported on, but not rigidly tied to, the footings to allow for independent movement. A minimum of 6 inches of select granular fill should be placed under floor slabs. For purposes of designing floor slabs, we recommend using modulus of subgrade reaction (k) if 170 pounds per square inch per inch.

Proposed Pavements 8.6

We understand that any pavement areas that are to be modified as part of this project will be constructed as aggregate-surfaced pavements similar to those that currently exist in the immediate area of the proposed new building. We recommend that the subgrade for any new or modified pavement areas be thoroughly proof-rolled as described in the section on Site

Preparation, Earthwork and Backfill, above. Pavements in areas prepared in this manner may be designed on the basis of Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (Mr) of 9,000 pounds per square, or a CBR value of 10.

Underground Utility Construction 8.7

Excavations for utility trenches are expected to extend through predominantly granular materials.

The soils encountered in the borings are considered to be adequate for support of the proposed underground utilities. Based on the conditions encountered in the soil borings drilled during this investigation, we do not anticipate significant problems relative to groundwater during utility construction.

However, the soils encountered in the borings have relatively low silt content and will tend to slough into excavations after a short period of time unless the sides of the trenches and other excavations are properly sloped or braced. In accordance with OSHA and MIOSHA regulations, excavations extending more than four feet below grade will need to be braced or sloped for worker safety. Based on the soil conditions encountered in the borings, we recommend that temporary unsupported banks be cut to an angle of 34 degrees or shallower (1.5H: 1V), if space permits. Alternately, the sides of the excavations may be supported by portable trench boxes, a sliding trench shield or sheeting. In all cases, excavation support systems should comply with applicable current OSHA and MIOSHA requirements. Reference to OSHA and MIOSHA requirements should be included in the job specifications. At no time should the excavation spoil material be placed directly adjacent to the excavation.

Groundwater Detention Area 8.8

We understand that a storm water infiltration pond is planned for the area in the vicinity of boring SB-4. Soils encountered in that boring consist of relatively clean sand with variable amounts of gravel and trace of silt. The results of laboratory sieve analysis on soils from SB-4 are presented in the Appendix. In general, these tests indicate that the soils consist of sand with a trace of silt and variable amounts of gravel. These soils are considered favorable for the proposed use as an infiltration basin and are expected to have relatively high infiltration rates. Should more precise information be required for design of the infiltration basin, we recommend that field tests be performed using a double-ring infiltrometer to confirm design infiltration rates.

Closing Remarks and Limitations 8.9

The exploration program and analysis of the foundation conditions reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for design of the proposed storage building and associated site work. The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information and data regarding the proposed construction provided by the client, plus any assumptions stated herein. Any revisions in the plans for the proposed site improvements should be brought to our attention for review and evaluation.

Experience indicates that soil conditions at a site could vary from those generalized on the basis of soil borings made at specific locations. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified professional be retained to provide construction monitoring and testing services during the earthwork and foundation installation phases of the proposed project. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations. Also, field monitoring allows design changes to be made in a timely manner in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.

This geotechnical study has been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. The findings, recommendations, and opinions contained herein have been developed in accordance with generally accepted practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soils mechanics, and engineering geology. No other representations, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report.

The scope or purpose of this geotechnical evaluation does not specifically or by implication provide an environmental assessment of the proposed site.

Respectfully Submitted, Prein&Newhof

Fernando Souto, P.E. Christopher J. Cruickshank, P.E.

Enclosures

Appendix A

Boring Location Plan

Boring Logs

Soil Nomenclature, General

Sieve Analysis

DATE: SHEET

0'

HORZ. (FT)

PROJECT NO.: 2190389

SOIL BORING LOCATION PLAN

F.M.M.

CHECKED:F.S.

DRAWN:

60'

6/17/19

6/17/19

6/17/19

PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY

GAYLORD DNR OFFICE, GAYLORD MI

N

LEGEND

SB-4

SB-2

SB-1

SB-3

SB-#

OBSERVATION OF PREIN & NEWHOF.

DRILLING CO. ON 6/7/19 UNDER THE

-SOIL BORING LOCATION BY PEARSON

BUILDING

STORAGE

PROPOSED

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

0.5'

3.0'

14.0'

20.0'

AGGREGATE (6")

Loose reddish brown FINE to MEDIUM SAND, trace silt (dry)

Loose brown FINE to MEDIUM SAND, trace silt (moist)

Medium dense gray to brown FINE to COARSE SAND, little gravel, trace silt (moist)

END OF BORING

LOG OF SB-1

DESCRIPTION : DNR Gaylord Storage Facility

LOCATION : Gaylord, MI

WATER ENCOUNTERED AT : None PROJECT NO. : 2190389 INSPECTOR : Fernando Souto, P.E.

WATER AFTER COMPLETION : Dry DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Pearson Drilling DRILLER : Will Pearson

START DATE : 6-7-19 CHECKED BY : Fernando Souto, P.E. BORING METHOD : SPT

SURFACE ELEVATION : 1322.5' TOTAL DEPTH : 20.0'

NOTES : Boring backfilled with drill cuttings.

SA

M

PL

E

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N (B

LO

W

S/ 6"

ST

D

. P

EN

N

-V

AL

U E

M O

IS

TU

R E

D R

Y D

EN

SI

TY

(P

C F)

U N

C O

N F.

C O

M P.

ST

R

EN

G

TH

(P

SF

PI

D

R

EA

D

IN

G (P

PM

D

EP

TH

(F

T.

SY

M

BO

L

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T.

SHEET 1 OF 1

DRILL RIG :Acker Renegade ATV w/ 4 1/4" ID HSA

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

0.3'

3.0'

12.0'

20.0'

TOPSOIL (3")

Loose dark brown FINE SAND mixed with topsoil (possible fill) (moist)

Loose to very loose reddish brown FINE to MEDIUM SAND, trace silt, and occasional seams of fine to coarse sand (moist)

Medium dense gray to brown FINE to COARSE SAND, trace gravel with occasional seams of gravelly sand (moist)

END OF BORING

LOG OF SB-2

DESCRIPTION : DNR Gaylord Storage Facility

LOCATION : Gaylord, MI

WATER ENCOUNTERED AT : - PROJECT NO. : 2190389 INSPECTOR : Fernando Souto, P.E.

WATER AFTER COMPLETION : - DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Pearson Drilling DRILLER : Will Pearson

START DATE : 6-7-19 CHECKED BY : Fernando Souto, P.E. BORING METHOD : SPT

SURFACE ELEVATION : 1323' TOTAL DEPTH : 20.0'

NOTES : Boring backfilled with drill cuttings.

SA

M

PL

E

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N (B

LO

W

S/ 6"

ST

D

. P

EN

N

-V

AL

U E

M O

IS

TU

R E

D R

Y D

EN

SI

TY

(P

C F)

U N

C O

N F.

C O

M P.

ST

R

EN

G

TH

(P

SF

PI

D

R

EA

D

IN

G (P

PM

D

EP

TH

(F

T.

SY

M

BO

L

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T.

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-5A

SS-6

0.1'

3.0'

12.0'

20.0'

TOPSOIL (1")

Loose reddish brown FINE SAND, trace silt (moist)

Loose brown FINE SAND, trace silt (moist)

Medium dense light brown FINE to MEDIUM SAND, trace silt with seams of gravelly sand (moist)

END OF BORING

LOG OF SB-3

DESCRIPTION : DNR Gaylord Storage Facility

LOCATION : Gaylord, MI

WATER ENCOUNTERED AT : None PROJECT NO. : 2190389 INSPECTOR : Fernando Souto, P.E.

WATER AFTER COMPLETION : Dry DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Pearson Drilling DRILLER : Will Pearson

START DATE : 6-7-19 CHECKED BY : Fernando Souto, P.E. BORING METHOD : SPT

SURFACE ELEVATION : 1325.5' TOTAL DEPTH : 20.0'

NOTES : Boring backfilled with drill cuttings.

SA

M

PL

E

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N (B

LO

W

S/ 6"

ST

D

. P

EN

N

-V

AL

U E

M O

IS

TU

R E

D R

Y D

EN

SI

TY

(P

C F)

U N

C O

N F.

C O

M P.

ST

R

EN

G

TH

(P

SF

PI

D

R

EA

D

IN

G (P

PM

D

EP

TH

(F

T.

SY

M

BO

L

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T.

SHEET 1 OF 1

[No Recovery]

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

0.1'

7.4'

13.5'

20.0'

TOPSOIL (1")

Loose brown FINE to MEDIUM SAND, trace fine gravel (moist)

Loose brown FINE to COARSE SAND, trace gravel, trace silt (moist)

Medium dense FINE to COARSE SAND, little gravel, trace silt (moist)

END OF BORING

LOG OF SB-4

DESCRIPTION : DNR Gaylord Storage Facility

LOCATION : Gaylord, MI

WATER ENCOUNTERED AT : None PROJECT NO. : 2190389 INSPECTOR : Fernando Souto, P.E.

WATER AFTER COMPLETION : Dry DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Pearson Drilling DRILLER : Will Pearson

START DATE : 6-7-19 CHECKED BY : Fernando Souto, P.E. BORING METHOD : SPT

SURFACE ELEVATION : 1323' TOTAL DEPTH : 20.0'

NOTES : Boring backfilled with drill cuttings.

SA

M

PL

E

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N (B

LO

W

S/ 6"

ST

D

. P

EN

N

-V

AL

U E

M O

IS

TU

R E

D R

Y D

EN

SI

TY

(P

C F)

U N

C O

N F.

C O

M P.

ST

R

EN

G

TH

(P

SF

PI

D

R

EA

D

IN

G (P

PM

D

EP

TH

(F

T.

SY

M

BO

L

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T.

r:\cadillac\teams\geotech\p&n soil nomenclature and terminology.doc

SOIL…