Addendum 4.pdf

Addendum

Addendum No.: 004 Date: 11/07/2024

Project: NMSU NMDA Office Building Project No.: 22-0227.001

From: Dekker

To: All Prospective Bidders and Plan Holders

This Addendum forms a part of the Bid Documents and modifies the Bid Documents issued by Dekker and dated October 9,2024. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum on the Bid Form.

Failure to do so may subject the Bidder to disqualification. All other provisions of the Bid Documents shall remain unchanged. This Addendum contains a total of (84) 8 ½”x11” pages for the Geotechnical Investigation Report and (5) 8 ½”x11” pages for the specifications and no 30” x 42” sheets.

1. GENERAL:

1.1. Added Geotechnical investigation Report

2. BIDDER QUESTIONS:

2.1. The project manual table of contents shows a listing for section 32 3300 Site Furnishings. This section is not in the project manual. Please provide this section of the specifications.

2.1.1. Response: Delete Table of Contents reference to Section 32 3300-Site Furnishings in its entirety. 32 3300-Site Furnishings is not included in the project manual.

2.2. Please provide the Geotechnical Investigation Report for this project.

2.2.1. Response: Geotechnical Investigation Report is available as a separate document attached to this addendum.

2.3. Will NMSU include all contract terms and provisions, including agreement and general/supplementary conditions, for bidder review?

2.3.1. Response: Responded in Addendum 002.

2.4. Submitting for New Mexico steel Fabricators NM Steel Fabricators is a non AISC steel fabricator. We have fabricated more complicated projects with conditions that periodic welding inspections be done by a certified welding inspector. Would New Mexico Steel Fabricators still be allowed to participate on this project with these conditions.

2.4.1. Response: Per Structural Steel 05 1200, section 1.6.C AISC Certification is required.

3. SPECIFICATIONS:

3.1. 00 3100-Available Project Information

3.1.1. Revise paragraph and subparagraphs 1.1.B.1 through 1.1.B.4. in entirety.

3.2. 01 2500–Substituion Procedures

3.2.1. Remove subparagraph 1.2.A. in its entirety.

All other provisions of the Contract Documents shall remain unchanged. This addendum is hereby made a part of the Contract Documents to the same extent as those provisions contained in the original documents and all itemized listings thereof.

End of Addendum

IanT Snapshot

NMSU NMDA Office Las Cruces, NM

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

00 3100 - 1

SECTION 00 3100 - AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

A. Certain information relating to existing surface and subsurface conditions and structures is available to bidders but will not be part of Contract Documents, as follows:

*ADD-003/DELTA 01>

B. Geotechnical Report: Entitled NMSU NMDA Building 330 Replacement Geotechnical Investigation Report, Report # 9332582, by Souder, Miller & Associates, dated July 2, 2024.

1. Pdf copy of Geotechnical Investigation dated July 2, 2024 available as separate cover.

2. This report identifies properties of below grade conditions and offers recommendations for the design of foundations, prepared primarily for the use of Architect.

3. The recommendations described shall not be construed as a requirement of this Contract, unless specifically referenced in Contract Documents.

4. This report, by its nature, cannot reveal all conditions that exist on the site. Should subsurface conditions be found to vary substantially from this report, changes in the design and construction of foundations will be made, with resulting credits or expenditures to the Contract Sum accruing to Owner.

<ADD-003/DELTA 01*

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

END OF SECTION

SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES

01 2500 - 1

SECTION 01 2500 - SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SECTION INCLUDES

A. Procedural requirements for proposed substitutions.

1.2 RELATED REQUIREMENTS

*ADD-003/DELTA 01>

A. [TEXT DELETED].

<ADD-003/DELTA 01*

B. Section 00 6325 - Substitution Request Form - During Construction: Required form for substitution requests made after award of contract (During construction).

C. Section 01 2300 - Alternates, for product alternatives affecting this section.

D. Section 01 3000 - Administrative Requirements: Submittal procedures, coordination.

E. Section 01 6000 - Product Requirements: Fundamental product requirements, product options, delivery, storage, and handling.

1.3 DEFINITIONS

A. Substitutions: Changes from Contract Documents requirements proposed by Contractor to materials, products, assemblies, and equipment.

1. Substitutions for Cause: Proposed due to changed Project circumstances beyond Contractor's control.

a. Unavailability.

b. Regulatory changes.

2. Substitutions for Convenience: Proposed due to possibility of offering substantial advantage to the Project.

a. Substitution requests offering advantages solely to the Contractor will not be considered.

1.4 REFERENCE STANDARDS

A. CSI/CSC Form 1.5C - Substitution Request (During the Bidding/Negotiating Stage).

SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES

01 2500 - 2

B. CSI/CSC Form 13.1A - Substitution Request (After the Bidding/Negotiating Phase).

PART 2 PRODUCTS - NOT USED

PART 3 EXECUTION

3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

A. A Substitution Request for products, assemblies, materials, and equipment constitutes a representation that the submitter:

1. Has investigated proposed product and determined that it meets or exceeds the quality level of the specified product, equipment, assembly, or system.

2. Agrees to provide the same warranty for the substitution as for the specified product.

3. Agrees to provide same or equivalent maintenance service and source of replacement parts, as applicable.

4. Agrees to coordinate installation and make changes to other work that may be required for the work to be complete, with no additional cost to Owner.

5. Waives claims for additional costs or time extension that may subsequently become apparent.

B. Document each request with complete data substantiating compliance of proposed substitution with Contract Documents. Burden of proof is on proposer.

1. Note explicitly any non-compliant characteristics.

C. Content: Include information necessary for tracking the status of each Substitution Request, and information necessary to provide an actionable response.

1. Forms indicated and included in the Project Manual are adequate for this purpose, and must be used.

2. Contractor's Substitution Request documentation must include the following:

a. Project Information:

b. Substitution Request Information:

1) Discrete and consecutive Substitution Request number, and descriptive subject/title.

2) Indication of whether the substitution is for cause or convenience.

3) Issue date.

4) Reference to particular Contract Document(s) specification section number, title, and article/paragraph(s).

5) Description of Substitution.

6) Reason why the specified item cannot be provided.

7) Differences between proposed substitution and specified item.

8) Description of how proposed substitution affects other parts of work.

SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES

01 2500 - 3

c. Attached Comparative Data: Provide point-by-point, side-by-side comparison addressing essential attributes specified, as appropriate and relevant for the item:

1) Physical characteristics.

2) In-service performance.

3) Expected durability.

4) Visual effect.

5) Sustainable design features.

6) Warranties.

7) Other salient features and requirements.

8) Include, as appropriate or requested, the following types of documentation:

(a) Product Data:

(b) Samples.

(c) Certificates, test, reports or similar qualification data.

(d) Drawings, when required to show impact on adjacent construction elements.

(e) Local service representative.

d. Impact of Substitution:

1) Savings to Owner for accepting substitution.

2) Change to Contract Time due to accepting substitution.

D. Limit each request to a single proposed substitution item.

1. Submit an electronic document, combining the request form with supporting data into single document.

3.2 SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES DURING PROCUREMENT

A. Submittal Form (before award of contract):

1. Bidding contractor shall submit substitution requests by completing CSI/CSC Form 1.5C

- Substitution Request (During the Bidding/Negotiating Stage). See this form for additional information and instructions. Use only this form; other forms of submission are unacceptable.

B. Owner will consider requests for substitutions only if submitted by the deadline provided by New Mexico State University. 7

C. Owner will consider requests for substitution from bidding contractors only. Requests for substitution from manufacturers, suppliers, or subcontractors will not be considered.

3.3 SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES DURING CONSTRUCTION

A. Submittal Form (after award of contract):

1. Submit substitution requests by completing CSI/CSC Form 13.1A - Substitution Request.

See this form for additional information and instructions. Use only this form; other forms of submission are unacceptable.

SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES

01 2500 - 4

B. Submit request for Substitution for Cause within 14 days of discovery of need for substitution, but not later than 14 days prior to time required for review and approval by Architect, in order to stay on approved project schedule.

C. Submit request for Substitution for Convenience immediately upon discovery of its potential advantage to the project, but not later than 14 days prior to time required for review and approval by Architect, in order to stay on approved project schedule.

1. In addition to meeting general documentation requirements, document how the requested substitution benefits the Owner through cost savings, time savings, greater energy conservation, or in other specific ways.

2. Document means of coordinating of substitution item with other portions of the work, including work by affected subcontractors.

3. Bear the costs engendered by proposed substitution of:

a. Owner's compensation to the Architect for any required redesign, time spent processing and evaluating the request.

b. Other unanticipated project considerations.

D. Substitutions will not be considered under one or more of the following circumstances:

1. When they are indicated or implied on shop drawing or product data submittals, without having received prior approval.

2. Without a separate written request.

3.4 RESOLUTION

A. Architect may request additional information and documentation prior to rendering a decision.

Provide this data in an expeditious manner.

B. Architect will notify Contractor in writing of decision to accept or reject request.

1. Architect's decision following review of proposed substitution will be noted on the submitted form.

3.5 ACCEPTANCE

A. Accepted substitutions change the work of the Project. They will be documented and incorporated into work of the project by Change Order, Construction Change Directive, Architectural Supplementary Instructions, or similar instruments provided for in the Conditions of the Contract.

www.dpsdesign.org

PROJECT

MANUAL

NMSU NMDA New Office Building

DPS Project Number: 22-0227.001

Volume 1 of 1

Date: 11/01/2024

THE DOCUMENTS BOUND WITHIN THE FRONT

AND BACK COVERS OF THIS REFERENCE MANUAL

WERE PREPARED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE

AUTHORS, NOT BY DEKKER, AND ARE PROVIDED

FOR CONTRACTOR REFERENCE AND

CONVENIENCE ONLY

HayleyJ Text Box

*ADD-003/DELTA 01>

TABLE OF CONTENTS

00 0110 - 1

SECTION 00 0110 - TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1 of 1

PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

DIVISION 00 -- PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

Geotechnical Investigation

NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

BUILDING 330 REPLACEMENT

Geotechnical Investigation Report

Las Cruces, New Mexico July 2, 2024

#9332582 July 2, 2024

Ms. Ashley Burkholder, AIA Project Manager Facilities and Services: Project Development & Engineering New Mexico State University P.O. Box 30001 Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003

(575) 646-1927 Jasper7@nmsu.edu

RE: NMSU NMDA Building 330 Replacement Geotechnical Investigation Report

Dear Ms. Burkholder, Souder, Miller and Associates is pleased to present the enclosed Geotechnical Investigation Report for the above-referenced project. The report analyzes the existing subgrade soils within the proposed project site located at the previous address of 3190 S. Espina Street (Demolished Building 330) and the new address of 977 Agriculture Way (Proposed Building 678) on the New Mexico State University campus in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The report provides recommendations for earthwork, foundation design, and pavement design for the proposed educational facility.

Should you have any questions, require any further information, or if any portion of the report requires modification to meet your specific needs, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Sincerely, MILLER ENGINEERS, INC. D/B/A

SOUDER, MILLER & ASSOCIATES

Jenn Howell, P.E. Paul J. Pompeo, P.E.

Project Engineer Vice President/Civil Technical Sector Director jennifer.howell@soudermiller.com paul.pompeo@soudermiller.com

Enc: NMSU NMDA Building 330 Replacement Geotechnical Investigation Report mailto:jennifer.howell@soudermiller.com

Souder, Miller & Associates Engineering ♦ Environmental ♦ Geomatics

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BUILDING 330 REPLACEMENT

LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO

Prepared for

New Mexico State University Facilities and Services: Project Development & Engineering

P.O. Box 30001 Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003

July 2, 2024

This document was prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned whose seal as a Professional Engineer, licensed to practice as such in the State of New Mexico, is affixed below.

Paul J. Pompeo, P.E.

11490 07/02/2024 NMPE Number Date

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Scope of Work

3.0 Site Description

4.0 Investigation Procedures

5.0 Subsurface Conditions

5.1 Soil and Rock Conditions

5.2 Groundwater

5.3 Soil Chemistry

5.4 Previous Site Geotechnical Investigation Reports

6.0 Discussion and Recommendations

6.1 General Project Criteria

6.2 General Earthwork Recommendations

6.3 Foundation System Recommendations

6.4 Soil Modulus Spring Constant

6.5 Uplift/Tension Loads

6.6 Lateral Loads & Retaining Structures

6.7 Seismic Loads

6.8 Site Drainage

6.9 Settlement Evaluation

6.10 Pavement Structure Design Methodology

7.0 Recommended Earthwork Specifications – Small Projects

7.1 General

7.2 Products

7.3 Execution

8.0 Limitations

List of Appendices

G.R.1 Project Vicinity Map and Bore Location Map G.R.2 Soil Boring Logs G.R.3 Laboratory Analysis G.R.4 USCS Soil Classification System G.R.5 Correlation of Penetration Resistance with Relative Density and Consistency G.R.6 Industry Design Guide G.R.7 Shear Wave Velocity Report

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BUILDING 330 REPLACEMENT

LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO

JULY 2, 2024

1.0 Introduction

Souder, Miller and Associates (SMA) was retained by Ms. Ashley Burkholder of the Project Development and Engineering Department of New Mexico State University to conduct a subsurface investigation and prepare the following geotechnical report. From the site’s subsurface investigation through performance of soil test borings and a shear wave velocity test, the nature of the substrata soils will be determined, and its characteristics ascertained. The information outlined within this report may then be used for building foundation design for the proposed educational facility as well as for pavement design for pavement located adjacent to the building. A project location map and boring location map are included in Appendix G.R.1.

2.0 Scope of Work

The intent of the investigation is to provide recommendations for earthwork, foundation system design, and pavement design for the proposed educational facility. The extent of this subsurface study included the performance of a shear wave velocity test, the drilling of three soil test borings, and the laboratory testing of the soil samples collected from the site. In addition, a review of two geotechnical investigation reports prepared by Souder, Miller & Associates in 2020 for Buildings 330 and 643 was performed. These reports are NMSU’s New Mexico Department of Agriculture Building 643 Geotechnical Investigation dated June 16, 2020 and NMSU’s New Mexico Department of Agriculture Laboratory Geotechnical Investigation dated April 17, 2020. Shear wave velocity testing was performed by Geolines LLC. All other testing and drilling were completed by technicians from the drilling and soils testing subcontractor, Southwest Engineering, Inc. Further discussion of the findings is in Section 6.0. Also included are:

• A review of test procedures

• An evaluation of site and subsurface conditions

• Boring logs and laboratory test results

• Earthwork recommendations

• Foundation design recommendations

• Pavement design recommendations

3.0 Site Description

A review of the project site was made by SMA personnel and the Client prior to drilling operations to document the current site conditions and characteristics. The project site is located at 3190 S. Espina Street at the northwest corner of Gregg Street and South Espina Street on the New Mexico State University campus in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The previous NMSU NMDA Building 330 was demolished and the site backfilled prior to this subsurface investigation. The replacement building will be numbered Building 678, and the address of the new building will be 977 Agriculture Way (formerly Gregg Street). The project site and adjacent properties have previously been developed into an institutional campus that encompasses single and multistory facilities with landscaping.

Development of the area has been graded to drain to the west and southwest direction of the property with no drainage concerns identified.

4.0 Investigation Procedures

The general field procedures employed by SMA are summarized in ASTM Specification D420 entitled "Standard Guide for Site Characterization for Engineering Design and Construction Purposes." This recommended practice lists recognized methods for determining soil and rock distribution and groundwater conditions. These methods include geophysical and in situ methods as well as borings.

A CME-85 Drilling Rig, mounted on a Kenworth T800, equipped with hollow-flight augers, penetration and soil sampling equipment was used on this project. Borings are drilled to obtain subsurface samples using one of three alternate techniques depending upon the subsurface conditions.

These techniques are continuous 2¼ or 8¼ inch I.D. hollow stem augers, wash borings using roller cone or drag bits (mud or water) or continuous flight augers (ASTM D1452). These drilling methods are not capable of penetrating through material designated as "refusal materials." Refusal, thus indicated, may result from hard cemented soil, soft weathered rock, coarse gravel or boulders, thin rock seams, or the upper surface of sound continuous rock. Core drilling procedures are required to determine the character and continuity of refusal materials.

The subsurface conditions encountered during drilling are reported on a field test boring record by the SEI Chief Driller. The record contains information concerning the boring method, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as coarse gravel, cobbles, etc., and observation of groundwater. It also contains the driller's interpretation of the soil conditions between samples. Therefore, these boring records contain both factual and interpretive information.

The soil and rock samples plus the field boring records are reviewed by the engineering staff at SMA.

The staff classifies the soils in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM Specification D2488 and prepares the final boring records which are the basis for all evaluations and recommendations. The final test boring records represent our interpretation of the contents of the field records based on the results of the engineering examination and test of the field samples. These records depict subsurface conditions at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled.

Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at these boring locations. The lines designating the interface between soil or refusal materials on the records and on profiles represent approximate boundaries. The actual transition between materials may be gradual. The boring records are included in Appendix G.R.2.

The borings were drilled using hollow-stem augers. Penetration testing and split barrel sampling were conducted in the borings at regular intervals.

The standard penetration test (SPT) provides an indication of the soil strength and compressibility.

The SPT resistances and split barrel sampling are conducted simultaneously according to ASTM Specification D1586. At regular intervals, the drilling tools are removed, and soil samples obtained with a standard split tube sampler. The sampler is first seated six inches, to penetrate any loose cuttings, then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling thirty inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot is recorded and is designated the "penetration resistance".

5.0 Subsurface Conditions

The subsurface condition of the project area was determined from three soil test borings and one shear wave velocity test. The boring locations were selected by SMA after a review of the project site. Three soil test borings were drilled within the proposed building footprint, one to a depth of 20 feet below existing grade, one to 50 feet below existing grade where auger refusal was observed, and one to 60 feet below existing grade. The boring locations are shown on the Bore Location Map in Appendix G.R.1.

Standard Penetration Tests were conducted in the borings at intervals in general accordance with ASTM D1586. Disturbed samples were obtained during this test and were used to classify the soils.

The standard penetration resistances obtained provide a general indication of soil strength and compressibility.

The subsurface conditions encountered are shown in the boring logs in Appendix G.R.2. These records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on field logs, visual examination of field samples, and laboratory testing of representative field samples. The lines designating the interface between various strata on the boring logs represent the approximate interface location. In reality, the transition between strata may actually be gradual.

5.1 SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS

Soil and rock conditions based on boring logs and laboratory results are presented in this section.

The soil profile of the test holes shows the following:

5.1 Soil and Rock Conditions (continued)

Boring B1

Depth (feet) Soil Description Soil Classification

0.0–2.5 Dark Brown Silty Sand with Gravel SM

2.5–5.0 Dark Brown Silty Sand SM

5.0–7.5 Dark Brown Silty Sand with Gravel SM

7.5–10.0 Dark Brown Silty Sand with Gravel SM

10.0–15.0 Dark Brown Silty Sand with Gravel SM

15.0–20.0 Brown Silty Sand SM

20.0–25.0 Brown Silty Sand SM

25.0–30.0 Brown Silty Sand SM

30.0–35.0 Brown Clayey Sand SC

35.0–40.0 Brown Silty, Clayey Sand SC-SM

40.0–45.0 Brown Fat Clay with Sand CH

45.0–50.0 Dark Brown Sandy Lean Clay CL

50.0–51.0 Brown Clayey Gravel with Sand - REFUSAL GC

Boring B2

(feet) Soil Description Soil Classification

0.0–2.5 Brown Sandy Silty Clay CL-ML

2.5–5.0 Brown Silty Clay with Sand CL-ML

5.0–7.5 Brown Silt with Sand ML

7.5–10.0 Brown Silty Sand SM

10.0–15.0 Brown Silty Sand with Gravel SM

15.0–20.0 Brown Silty Sand SM

20.0–21.5 Brown Silty Sand SM

Boring B3

(feet) Soil Description Soil Classification

0.0–2.5 Brown Silty Sand SM

2.5–5.0 Brown Silty Sand SM

5.0–7.5 Brown Silty Sand SM

7.5–10.0 Dark Brown Silty Sand SM

10.0–15.0 Dark Brown Silty Sand with Gravel SM

15.0–20.0 Dark Brown Silty Sand SM

20.0–25.0 Brown Silty Sand SM

25.0–30.0 Brown Silty Sand SM

30.0–35.0 Brown Sandy Silty Clay CL-ML

35.0–40.0 Brown Silty Sand SM

40.0–45.0 Brown Fat Clay with Sand CH

45.0–50.0 Brown Fat Clay with Sand CH

50.0–55.0 Brown Clayey Sand with Gravel SC

55.0–60.0 Brown Clayey Gravel GC

60.0–61.5 Brown Clayey Gravel with Sand GC

Auger refusal was encountered at a depth of 50 feet below existing grade within Boring B1 during the field exploration on this project site. As mentioned in Section 4.0, auger refusal may result from hard cemented soil, soft weathered rock, coarse gravel or boulders, thin rock seams, or the upper surface of sound continuous rock. In addition, very dense materials were found in Boring B1 at a depth of 35 feet below existing grade and in Boring B3 at depths of 50 feet and 60 feet below existing grade.

5.2 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was NOT encountered within the borings during the field exploration on this project site.

5.3 SOIL CHEMISTRY

No laboratory tests were performed to determine the chemical properties of the surface soils within the project area, although record data was reviewed to determine the general soil properties. Soil properties were determined from soil survey information accessed on-line via the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. The soil(s) found within the project location are as follows:

Soil Chemistry Summary

Soil Type Soil Name

Hydrologic Soil

Classification pH

Salinity (mmhos/cm)

Risk of Corrosion Untreated

Steel

Risk of Corrosion Concrete

Pa Pajarito Fine Sandy Loam A 7.4 to 8.4 0 to 2.0 Moderate Low

In accordance with ASTM C150 and C150M as well as a review of soil types, Type I or Type IA cement can be used for most concrete foundations. If drainage structures are anticipated to have moderate to high sulfate concentrations, Type II cement should be used.

5.4 PREVIOUS SITE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS

Two geotechnical investigation reports, prepared previously by Souder, Miller & Associates, were reviewed in the preparation of this report. These reports are NMSU’s New Mexico Department of Agriculture Building 643 Geotechnical Investigation dated June 16, 2020 and NMSU’s New Mexico Department of Agriculture Laboratory Geotechnical Investigation dated April 17, 2020.

The geotechnical investigation for NMSU’s New Mexico Department of Agriculture Laboratory was undertaken to review the in-situ soils located beneath and within the vicinity of the then-existing New Mexico Department of Agriculture Building 330 on the New Mexico State University Campus and to provide recommendations for the stabilization and mitigation of reoccurring differential settlement. Soils were generally identified as very loose to firm clayey sands and silty sands, and very soft to stiff sandy and silty clays. Helical pier foundation repair systems were recommended as a cost-effective remediation option based on ease of installation as well as successful long-term documented performance in soil strata such as those found within the project site.

The geotechnical investigation for NMSU’s New Mexico Department of Agriculture Building 643 was conducted to review the in-situ soils located beneath and within the vicinity of the existing New Mexico Department of Agriculture Building 643 on the New Mexico State University Campus and to provide recommendations for earthwork, foundation system, slab support, and parking infrastructure for the proposed facility as well as the expansion of the existing building.

Site soils were generally identified as very loose silty sands and silty sands with clay in the upper regions of all three soil samples and densified sands with gravel found at depths in excess of 40 feet below existing site grade within Boring B2. Due to low SPT values and lower moisture contents, soils within the project area are prone to hydro-consolidation.

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

The use of helical piers was recommended for the existing Building 643 to avoid settlement between the existing Building 643 and the expansion. Auger Cast-in-place piles were recommended for the foundation system of the building expansion. These were recommended for this site due to ease of installation and limited vibration during the installation process. The minimum recommended depth of piles was 42 feet below existing site grade.

6.0 Discussion and Recommendations

6.1 GENERAL PROJECT CRITERIA

The primary objective of this report was to review the in-situ soils located beneath and within the vicinity of the project site and provide recommendations for earthwork, foundation design, and pavement design for the proposed educational facility. While the building footprints are not the same, the site for the proposed Building 330 Replacement is at the site of the previous Building

330. The proposed building will be approximately 25,000 square feet in size and be a single-story, steel-framed office building. The exterior finishes for the building are anticipated to consist of stucco, metal panel, and/or stone veneer, as well as curtainwall and storefront glazing.

6.2 GENERAL EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

Results from the subsurface investigation of the project site found that soils are predominately classified as very loose to very dense silty or clayey sands with moderate moisture contents as well as silty clays and silts with firm to very stiff consistencies and moderate moisture contents. In addition, lean and fat clays with moderate moisture contents and stiff to very hard consistencies were found between approximately 40 feet and 50 feet +/- below existing site grade. Boring B3 extended to 60 feet and indicated that the clays were underlain by firm to very dense clayey sands and clayey gravels. Due to low SPT values below the surface layer, the site soils require modification prior to constructing structures upon them.

Existing site soils, with the exception of the silt and clay in the top layers in the vicinity of Boring B2, appear to meet the requirements for Fill as detailed in Section 7.2.1.B and can be used as Fill.

The silt and clay in the top layers in the vicinity of Boring B2 are not suitable for use under foundations or slabs but can be blended and used in other areas of the site that are a minimum of 10 feet beyond the foundation footprint and preparatory envelope of the structure. Fill shall meet the requirements of Section 7.2.1.B. Engineered Fill shall meet the requirements of Section 7.2.1.C. If onsite soils are used for Engineered Fill, the Contractor shall verify that the soils meet the requirements for Engineered Fill during construction.

SMA anticipates that an additional 1 foot to 2 feet of imported Engineered Fill will be installed in order to achieve design finished grade elevations. As such, it is recommended that earthwork improvements be completed in an effort that generates a 5-feet deep prism of densified soils beneath all slabs and foundations. The 5-feet deep prism of densified soils can be achieved by moisture treating and compacting mitigated existing soils combined with imported Engineered Fill materials as described in the following paragraphs.

In the vicinity of Borings B1 and B3, it is recommended that the existing top 1.0 foot of native material under proposed foundations and slabs be overexcavated, moisture-treated and recompacted to appropriate soil densities and in accordance with this section and Section 7.0.

Additional Engineered Fill on top of the recompacted native soil shall be installed to raise the site to the appropriate grade and to compact it to appropriate soil densities and in accordance with this section and Section 7.0.

In the vicinity of Boring B2, it is recommended that the top 2.0 feet of native clay based material under proposed foundations and slabs be excavated and removed. This soil can be disposed of in an area of the site that is a minimum of 10 feet beyond the foundation footprint and preparatory envelope of the structure. Upon completion of excavation, install Engineered Fill within the excavation area in accordance with this section and Section 7.0. Additional Engineered Fill on top of the compacted excavation fill shall be installed to raise the site to the appropriate grade and to compact it to appropriate soil densities and in accordance with this section and Section 7.0.

It is recommended that all perimeter footings, column footings, and wall footings have 1.0 foot of properly compacted Engineered Fill below the bottom of these foundations. It is further recommended that all building slabs have 1.0 foot of properly compacted Engineered Fill below the bottom of the structural slabs. Compaction requirements are detailed in this section and Section 7.0.

In all areas, the fill zone must extend a minimum of 5.0 feet beyond building foundation systems.

Once the subgrade materials have been installed to the above requirements, the proposed structure can bear directly on these materials.

Fill and/or backfill materials if required and as a minimum, shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 7.0 and shall be placed in compacted layers not to exceed 6 inches in thickness. All fill materials shall be moisture treated to a level of +/- 2 percent of optimum and compacted to 95 percent of ASTM D1557. The top layer of native material below any excavated area shall be scarified, moisture treated to a level of +/- 2 percent of optimum and compacted to 95 percent of

ASTM D1557.

6.3 FOUNDATION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS

Foundation selection must satisfy two basic, independent criteria. First, the bearing pressure that is transmitted to the foundation soils, which includes the surcharge loads that are a result of the placement of existing and proposed fill materials, should not exceed an allowable bearing pressure.

This allowable bearing pressure applies an adequate factor of safety that is applied to the soil shear strength. Secondly, the settlement due to consolidation of the underlying soils during the operating life of the structure must be within tolerable limits.

Based upon review of the geotechnical borings and preliminary foundation loadings provided by the project Structural Engineer, SMA has prepared recommendations for foundation design for the proposed one-story building. The Structural Engineer provided maximum column loads of 120 kips and maximum continuous footing loads of 1.5 kips per linear foot.

Loose and very loose materials found within the upper 25 feet of the project area are insufficient to support the anticipated loadings. Historically collected data obtained within the southwestern portion of NMSU’s campus and within the vicinity of the proposed project area has revealed loose materials extending to depths ranging from 40 feet to 50 feet below existing grade surfaces at which point densified sand and sandy gravel materials are present. At this location, the densified sand and sandy gravel materials appear to be present at depths of 50 to 55 feet. As such, these existing site materials, without proper mitigation, have resulted in significant differential settlement issues and were taken into consideration when providing recommendations for the proposed Building 330 Replacement.

As part of this evaluation, allowable foundation loadings will be provided to complete recommendations. The Structural Engineer will utilize the allowable foundation loadings and shall be responsible for the final design of the building’s foundation systems.

6.3.1 PROPOSED BUILDING 330 REPLACEMENT

6.3.1.a Deep Foundation System For the proposed foundation system associated with the proposed one-story building, SMA recommends the installation of auger cast-in-place (ACIP) piles for this site due to ease of installation and limited vibration during the installation process which will minimize disturbance to the adjacent Building 643. The anticipated piles shall be installed extending to a minimum depth of 50 feet below existing site grade. Piles shall be 2-feet nominal diameter with the installation of an upper rebar cage installed during placement. Due to relatively “loose” soil layers in this area, SMA recommends that approach slabs and porch structures located at primary building entrance points also be designed to be supported on the pile system to prevent long term differential settlement between the structures.

For structural considerations, these piles are considered to have an allowable capacity of 40 tons when acting as a single pile. Piles shall have a minimum spacing of 8 feet, center of pile to center of pile to prevent a “pile group effect”. As the auger cast piles are generally reinforced in only the top 10 feet of depth, the lateral capacity of the piles shall be limited to the capacity for this zone.

As such, each pile shall be considered to have a lateral capacity of 6,000 pounds. An industry design guide for auger cast-in-place piles is included in Appendix G.R.6.

6.3.1.b Interior Slab Foundation System Interior slabs, not exceeding total loads of 1,000 psf, for standard loaded office slabs constructed within the building footprint are recommended to be reinforced concrete slabs structurally tied to the primary foundation system. The concrete slabs should be installed independent of the structural frame and foundation systems.

6.4 SOIL MODULUS SPRING CONSTANT

Under the premise that granular materials have been utilized and installed as per the earthwork recommendations provided in Sections 6.2 and 7.0, SMA recommends utilizing a soil modulus spring constant of 150 lb/in3.

6.5 UPLIFT/TENSION LOADS

Uplift loads will be resisted only by the weight of structure and corresponding foundation design.

Tension loads are not anticipated for this project.

6.6 LATERAL LOADS & RETAINING STRUCTURES

The fill and/or backfill soils to be used on this project shall be cohesionless and follow the requirements of Section 7.0. Granular Engineered Fill shall be used behind any retaining structures. In areas that require drainage material adjacent to retaining structures and foundation systems, refer to the gradation requirement under Drainage Material specifications in Section 7.0.

The following values will be used for the design of retaining structures within the project area, as applicable.

Retaining Structure Design Parameters

Allowable Bearing Capacity 1,500 psf

Soil Unit Weight(1) 118 pcf

Cohesion 0 psf

Soil Angle of Internal Friction (2),(4) 30o

Coefficient of Friction (Soil to Concrete) (3) 0.25

Active Earth Pressure (level backfill) (5) 40 pcf

Passive Earth Pressure (level backfill) (5) 354 pcf

At Rest Earth Pressure (level backfill) (5) 59 pcf

Active Earth Pressure (sloped backfill) (5),(6) 44 pcf

(1) – From historical Proctor information of the surrounding area.

(2) – From “Foundation Analysis and Design” by Bowles

(3) – From the International Building Code (2015), Table 1806.2

(4) – Friction factor may not be combined with passive pressure.

(5) – Since backfill is granular material, values for drained and undrained conditions are considered equivalent.

(6) – Sloped backfill is assumed to be at 4:1 slope.

6.7 SEISMIC LOADS

Seismic design considerations follow the requirements of the 2015 NEHRP Provisions. Design values are obtained from the website, “Seismic Design Maps” (https://seismicmaps.org/), developed by SEAOC and OSHPD based on United States Geologic Survey seismic design data.

Site Location Information

Risk Category(1) III

Site Soil Classification (2) D

Location Latitude Longitude

32.277480° -106.755249°

Seismic Design Parameters (g)

SS SMS SDS

0.279 0.44 0.293

S1 SM1 SD1

0.093 0.222 0.148

(1) – From the International Building Code (2015), Table 1604.5

(2) – Based on Shear Wave Velocity Test performed onsite on May 14, 2024.

The above site soil classification was determined by a site-specific seismic shear wave velocity test that was completed by Geolines, LLC on May 14, 2024. The surface wave profile extended to a depth of 100 feet. Surface waves were measured utilizing standard p-wave geophones to complete a geophone array. The calculated average shear wave velocity was 1,026 feet per second.

As such the Site Soil Classification is D as presented in the 2018/2021 IBC. The final report prepared by Geolines, LLC which details the procedures and results is included in Appendix G.R.7.

6.8 SITE DRAINAGE

The final site drainage patterns are generally to the west in a mild form. Final site development shall be such that water from storm events will not be allowed to saturate soils under or adjacent to foundation systems. Positive surface drainage shall be maintained at all times away from the structures with a minimum slope of 0.5 percent for concrete, 1.0 percent for asphalt pavement areas, and 2.0 percent for earthen ground cover areas.

https://seismicmaps.org/

6.9 SETTLEMENT EVALUATION

Based on the soil properties found within the project site and the anticipated foundation loads, the following settlement values have been estimated for site development options using conventional foundation systems.

Estimated Settlement Values Estimated Total Settlement 1.5 ± inches Estimated Differential Settlement 0.75 ± inches

These values assume that all earthwork construction within the project site meets the minimum specifications outlined in Section 7.0. As with most soils, any intrusion of water into the subgrade below foundations will cause a reduction in bearing capacity. The actual rate of decrease varies widely depending on the type of soil. This loss of bearing capacity can lead to differential settlement of the structure and could ultimately lead to failure. For these reasons, the final site areas shall be developed to account for proper drainage as outlined in Section 6.8.

6.10 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE DESIGN METHODOLOGY

This pavement design follows the procedures outlined in the latest edition of the NMDOT Design Manual, Section 620 “Surfacing Materials and Pavement Design”, “Guidelines for Design of Pavement Structures” by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the latest edition of the “Structural Design Guide for Flexible Pavements”, Bulletin 102 by the New Mexico Department of Transportation.

6.10.1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

Pavement Design Material Testing Data

Location Depth

(inches) Description ASTM AASHTO “R” Value

B1 0 to 30 Silty Sand with Gravel SM A-1-b 69 30 to 60 Silty Sand SM A-4 46

B2 0 to 30 Sandy Silty Clay CL-ML A-4 31 30 to 60 Silty Clay with Sand CL-ML A-4 28

B3 0 to 30 Silty Sand SM A-2-4 55 30 to 60 Silty Sand SM A-2-4 55

6.10.2 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PAVEMENT LOADINGS

A review of the proposed site development documents shows the parking lot area that is subjected to vehicular traffic loadings can be broken down into three distinct areas. Pavement Area 1 is limited to parking lots for passenger cars and light duty trucks. The ESAL value used for pavement design in these areas is assumed to be 5. Pavement Area 2 is limited to site access points, primary delivery routes and trash collection areas used by heavy trucks. The ESAL value used for pavement design in these areas is assumed to be 50.

6.10.3 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE DESIGN SUMMARY

The following outlined values will be used in the design of each proposed pavement section. These are as follows:

Soil Design Parameters

Subgrade Resistance Value (R-Value) (1) 47

Soil Support Value (S)R = 47 6.4 (1 )– The average R-value for the soils in the surface layers was used.

Pavement Design Parameters

Pavement Design Life, years 20 Initial Serviceability Index, Pi 4.2 Terminal Serviceability Index, Pt 2.5 Area Subgrade Drainage Coefficient 1.0 Pavement Reliability, % (NMDOT Exhibit 620-4) 95 Base Course Resistance Value (R-Value) 78 Base Course Layer Coefficient (NMDOT Exhibit 620-14) 0.11 HMAC Layer Coefficient (NMDOT Exhibit 620-14) 0.44 PCCP Layer Coefficient 0.50

Pavement Design Traffic and Structural Number Parameters

Pavement Area 1: Light Duty HMAC Pavement

ESAL 5

Calculated Required Structural Number (SNR) 1.25

Pavement Area 2: Heavy Duty HMAC Pavement

ESAL 20

Calculated Required Structural Number (SNR) 1.62

Pavement Area 3: Concrete Pavement

ESAL 50

Calculated Required Structural Number (SNR) 1.78

6.10.3 Pavement Structure Design Summary (continued)

Pavement Design Recommendations The following recommendation lists options for the minimum pavement design thicknesses for new structures in the project area.

HMAC Pavement Options

Pavement Area

HMAC

Surfacing (inches)

Base Course (inches)

Granular Engineered

Fill (inches)

In-situ Subgrade

Preparation (inches)

Required Structural Number

SN(R)

Provided Structural Number

SN(P)

1 2.0 6.0 0.0 12.0 1.25 1.54

2 3.0 6.0 0.0 12.0 1.62 1.98

PCCP Pavement Options

Pavement Area

PCCP

Surfacing (inches)

Base Course (inches)

Granular Engineered

Fill (inches)

In-situ Subgrade

Preparation (inches)

Required Structural Number

SN(R)

Provided Structural Number

SN(P)

3 5.0 6.0 0.0 12.0 1.78 3.16

Pavement Section Design Notes:

(1) For projects of this type, SMA does not recommend the design of pavement structures with base course layers less than 6 inches in thickness or HMAC layers less than 2 inches in thickness.

(2) Concrete pavements shall be used exclusively in areas of trash enclosures, loading docks and areas of frequent turning movements of large trucks.

(3) All HMAC pavements, concrete pavements and base coarse materials used within the project site shall meet the applicable requirements on the New Mexico Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway & Bridge Construction, latest edition.

7.0 Recommended Earthwork Specifications – Small Projects

7.1 GENERAL

7.1.1 Description of Work

A. This section specifies the requirements for furnishing all equipment, materials, labor, tools, and techniques for general earthwork construction including, but not limited to, the following:

1. Site preparation.

2. Excavation.

3. Underpinning.

4. Filling and backfilling.

5. Grading.

6. Soil Disposal.

7. Clean Up

7.1.2 Definitions

A. Unsuitable Materials:

1. Fills: Topsoil; frozen materials; construction materials and materials subject to decomposition; clods of clay and stones larger than 3 inches; organic material, including silts, which are unstable; and inorganic materials, including silts, too wet to be stable and any material with a liquid limit exceeding 35 and a plasticity index exceeding 15. Unsatisfactory soils also include satisfactory soils not maintained within 2 percent of optimum moisture content at time of compaction, as defined by

ASTM D1557.

2. Existing Subgrade (Except Footing Subgrade): Same materials as 7.1.2.A.1, that are not capable of direct support of slabs, pavement, and similar items with possible exception of improvement by compaction, proof-rolling, or similar methods.

3. Existing Subgrade (Footings Only): Same as 7.1.2.A.1, but no fill or backfill. If materials differ from design requirements, excavate to acceptable strata subject to the Geotechnical Engineer’s approval.

B. Building Earthwork: Earthwork operations required in area enclosed by a line located 5 feet outside of principal building perimeter. It also includes earthwork required for auxiliary structures and buildings.

C. Trench Earthwork: Trench work required for utility lines.

D. Site Earthwork: Earthwork operations required in area outside of a line located 5 feet outside of principal building perimeter and within new construction area with exceptions noted above.

E. Degree of compaction: Degree of compaction is expressed as a percentage of maximum density obtained by laboratory test procedure. This percentage of maximum density is obtained through use of data provided from results of field test procedures presented in ASTM D1557, ASTM D2167, and ASTM D6938.

F. Fill: Satisfactory soil materials used to raise existing grades. In the project construction documents and drawings, the term “fill” means fill or backfill as appropriate.

G. Backfill: Soil materials or controlled low strength material used to fill an excavation.

H. Unauthorized excavation: Removal of materials beyond indicated sub-grade elevations or indicated lines and dimensions without written authorization by the Project Engineer.

I. Subgrade: The undisturbed earth or the compacted soil layer immediately below granular fill.

J. Structure: Buildings, foundations, slabs, curbs, mechanical and electrical appurtenances, or other man-made stationary features constructed above or below the ground surface.

K. Borrow: Satisfactory soil imported from off-site for use as fill or backfill.

L. Utilities include on-site underground pipes, conduits, ducts, and cables as well as underground services within buildings.

7.1.3 Applicable Publications

A. The latest edition of the publications listed below form a part of this specification to extent referenced. Publications are referenced in text by basic designation only.

B. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

D1557 ................... Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2700 kN m/m3))

D2167 ................... Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Rubber Balloon Method

D2487 ................... Standard Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)

D6938 ................... Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth)

7.2 PRODUCTS

7.2.1 Materials

A. General: Provide borrow soil material when sufficient satisfactory soil materials are not available from excavations.

B. Fills: Material that is free of rock or gravel larger than 2 inches in any dimension, debris, waste, frozen materials, vegetation, and other deleterious matter, has a minimum dry density of 110 pcf, a maximum Plasticity Index of 15, and a maximum Liquid Limit of

35. In addition, this material can be from on site or off-site sources and complies with ASTM D2487 Soil Classification Groups GW, GP, GM, SW, SP, SM, and SC, or any combination of these groups and/or meets the following gradation criteria:

Sieve Size Percentage Passing 2” 100 No. 200 0 – 49

C. Engineered Fill: Naturally or artificially graded mixture of soil in compliance with ASTM

D2487 Soil Classification Groups GW, GP, GM, SW,…