Addendum No. 2.pdf

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

DEPARTMENT FOR FACILITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES

DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

INVITATION TO BID NO: RFB-45-26

FOR: Lake Barkley Lodge Repairs and Renovations Volume A - Structural Repairs Guest Wing Buildings & Walkways Volume B - Demo and Construct New Pool Volume C - Accomodations and Hospitality Upgrades Volume D - Lodge - Main Building Roof Replacement

DATE: August 25, 2025

RFB-785-2600000071

ADDENDUM NO. Two (2)

BIDDER SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING CHANGES AS SAME SHALL BECOME BINDING

UPON THE CONTRACT TO BE ISSUED IN RESPONSE TO THIS INVITATION TO BID.

Item 1: See attached revised page 2A and 2B of the official bid document. These pages may be used in lieu of previously issued. Page 2A provide the contractor the option to price Volume A as a combined price. Page 2B will be due within 24 hours of bid opening and is the breakdown of Volume A into the Structural Repairs and Other Repairs and Renovations.

Item 2: See attached revised pages 10A-1 and 10A-2 – Subcontractors List; the list has been condensed for bidding purposes only. The originally issued Subcontractors List will be due completely filled out from the apparent low bidder within 24 hours of bid opening.

CONTINUED

Invitation to Bid No. RFB-45-26 For: Lake Barkley Lodge Repairs and Renovations Volume A - Structural Repairs Guest Wing Buildings & Walkways Volume B - Demo and Construct New Pool Volume C - Accomodations and Hospitality Upgrades Volume D - Lodge - Main Building Roof Replacement

Kristi Sharp, Statewide Procurement Manager Division of Engineering and Contract Administration

Addendum No. 2

Item 3: See attached revised page 9 of 15 – Unit Prices; use for bidding in lieu of previously issued. A unit price for Shotcrete was added.

Item 4: See attached addendum information attached for Volume A.

Item 5: The original drawings are available upon request to Curtis Thrush, KNBA. cthrush@knbarch.com

Item 6: See attached addendum information attached for Volume C.

mailto:cthrush@knbarch.com

REVISED RFB-45-26

ADDENDUM NO. 2 Page 2-A

OFFICIAL BID DOCUMENT

FOR

LAKE BARKLEY LODGE REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS

VOLUME A - STRUCTURAL REPAIRS - GUEST WING BUILDINGS & WALKWAYS

VOLUME B - DEMO AND CONSTRUCT NEW POOL

VOLUME C - ACCOMODATIONS AND HOSPITALITY UPGRADES

VOLUME D - LODGE - MAIN BUILDING ROOF REPLACEMENT

ALL BLANKS IN THE BID DOCUMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED AND ALL REQUIRED SUPPORT DATA SHALL BE FURNISHED. IF INDICATED IN THE BIDDING DOCUMENTS, SUMS SHALL BE EXPRESSED IN BOTH WORDS AND FIGURES. IN THE CASE OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TWO, THE AMOUNT IN WORDS SHALL

PREVAIL.

BID AMOUNT:

The Bidder agrees to furnish all labor, materials, supplies and services required to complete this project defined as Lake Barkley Lodge Repairs and Renovations for Facilities and Support Services, Commonwealth of Kentucky, in accordance with the Drawings, Specifications, and Contract Documents, and any duly issued Addenda for the BID AMOUNTS set forth below:

Volume A $_____________________________

GUEST WING BUILDINGS & WALKWAYS

(670-CB4B & CBRA)

Volume B $_____________________________

DEMO/CONSTRUCT NEW POOL

(670-CBD8)

Volume C $_____________________________

ACCOMODATIONS & HOSPITALITY UPGRADES

(670-CBEA)

Volume D $_____________________________

LODGE – MAIN BLDG ROOF REPLACEMENT

(670-C9LK)

TOTAL SUM OF ALL VOLUMES $______________________________

The above bid breakdown is for accounting purposes only. All Packages, Volume A, B, C and D must be completely filled out when the bid is submitted. Page 2-B shall be filled out by the apparent low bidder within 24 hours of bid opening. You shall price all packages, and one contract will be awarded for the total of all packages.

NOTE: THE AUTHENTICATION OF BID AND STATEMENT OF NON-COLLUSION AND NON-CONFLICT OF

INTEREST PAGE MUST BE PROPERLY EXECUTED FOR THE BID TO BE VALID.

ADDENDUM NO. 2 Page 2-B

LAKE BARKLEY LODGE REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS

VOLUME A - STRUCTURAL REPAIRS - GUEST WING BUILDINGS & WALKWAYS

VOLUME B - DEMO AND CONSTRUCT NEW POOL

The following must be provided by the apparent low bidder within 24 hours of the bid opening. This is being provided for contract and accounting purposes only.

Bid Breakdown of Volume A:

Volume A $_____________________________

STRUCTURAL REPAIRS –

GUEST WING BUILDINGS & WALKWAYS

(670-CB4B)

Volume A $_____________________________

OTHER REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS –

GUEST WING BUILDINGS & WALKWAYS

(670-CBRA)

Addendum No. 2 Page 9 of 15

LAKE BARKLEY LODGE REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS

VOLUME A - STRUCTURAL REPAIRS - GUEST WING BUILDINGS & WALKWAYS

VOLUME B - DEMO AND CONSTRUCT NEW POOL

LIST OF UNIT PRICES: (ALL BLANKS MUST BE FILLED IN)

Unit prices shall include the furnishing of all labor, materials, suppliers, services and shall include all items of cost, overhead and profit for the Contractor and any Subcontractor involved, and shall be used uniformly without modification for either additions or deductions. The Unit Prices as established shall be used to determine the equitable adjustment of the Contract Price in connection with changes or extra work performed under the Contract. Failure to completely fill out all unit prices requested may result in bid rejection.

VOLUME A

DESCRIPTION OF WORK

UNIT PRICE

UNIT OF

MEASURE

1. Siding Replacement

(Replacement of 10,000 square feet of siding is to be included in the bid as an allowance.) $ SQ FT

2. Wood Decking (walkway)

(Replacement of 5,000 square feet of walkway decking at each Guest Wing Bldg. is to be included in the bid as an allowance.) $ SQ FT

3. Roofing

(Replacement of 250 square feet (total) of 2x tongue + groove wood decking at each Guest Wing Bldg. is to be included in bid as an allowance.) This is based on 10 separate areas of 25 sq.ft. (creating a total area of 250 sq.ft.) $ SQ FT

4. Shotcrete

Shotcrete: Minimum 2 ½” thickness by 10,000 sf SQ FT

VOLUME D

5. OSB Deck Replacement SQ FT

6. 1.5” Isocyanurate Insulation Replacement SQ FT

7. 3”x6” wood decking & stain to match exist. SQ FT

8. Re-Point Stone Masonry SQ FT

ADDENDUM NO. 2 Page 10A-1

LAKE BARKLEY LODGE REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS

VOLUME A - STRUCTURAL REPAIRS - GUEST WING BUILDINGS & WALKWAYS

VOLUME B - DEMO AND CONSTRUCT NEW POOL

LIST OF PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS:

(Must be submitted with Bid)

The following list of proposed subcontractors is required by the owner to be executed, completed, and submitted with the Bidder’s Proposal. All subcontractors are subject to approval by the Division of Engineering and Contract Administration, Department of Facilities and Support Services, Frankfort, Kentucky. Failure to submit this list, completely filled out, may result in bid rejection.

If certain branches of work are to be done by the Prime Contractor, so state. This means that the Prime WILL BE performing the work, and it WILL NOT be subcontracted without approval by DECA. Review/evaluation of subcontractors will occur on the bid opening day. If the Commonwealth requests replacement of a subcontractor, on bid opening day, then the apparent low bidder will provide a replacement subcontractor prior to close of the Commonwealth’s business day on that day. Failure of the apparent low bidder to comply with the preceding sentence may result in bid rejection. If subcontractor review/evaluation is not completed on the bid opening day, then procedures for any replacement will be issued based on the uniqueness of each situation. The responsibility for selection, offering of qualified, competent subcontractors to accomplish the work intended is solely the responsibility of the bidder to the Commonwealth.

ALL BLANKS MUST BE FILLED IN. IF PERFORMED BY THE BIDDER, STATE PRIME/GENERAL

CONTRACTOR.

Volume A

BRANCH OF WORK NAME OF SUBCONTRACTOR

1. Concrete

2. Timber

Volume B

3. Pool

4. Mechanical

Volume C

5. Electrical

6. Tile

ADDENDUM NO. 2 Page 10A-2

LIST OF PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTORS: (cont.)

(Must be submitted with Bid)

Volume D

7. Roof

8. Civil

_Addendum 2- written summary kbna

INVITATION TO BID NO: RFB-45-26

FOR: Lake Barkley Lodge Repairs + Renovations Volume A – Structural Repair Guest Wing Buildings + Walkways Volume B – Demo + Construct New Pool Volume C – Accommodations + Hospitality Upgrades Volume D – Lodge – Main Building Roof Replacement RFB-785-2600000071

ADDENDUM NO. 2

This Addendum is incorporated into the Proposal Documents and will become part of the Contract Documents for the successful bidder(s).

1. See the attached Pre-bid agenda and sign in sheet. Note the date adjustments for bid questions and bid opening date as issued in Addendum #1.

2. See the attached Reduced Scope Plan.

3. See the attached written summary for Structural updates.

4. See the attached, following documentation provided for reference:

a. Geotechnical Exploration Report

END OF ADDENDUM

1 Prebid mtg agenda_Dwayne edits.docx

PRE-BID MEETING AGENDA

DATE: August 13, 2025

RE: Lake Barkley Lodge

Structural Repairs + Renovations, Phase 3

Volume A

1. Owner + Team Introductions:

a. Project Manager- Dwayne Brown, DECA

b. Resort Park Manager- Ashley Joiner, State Parks

c. Civil Engineer- Evan McDaniel, Element Design

d. Structural Engineer- Dan Kubican, Spencer Price, Brown-Kubican

e. Electrical Engineer- Bill Sharp, CMTA

f. Architects- Tim Doelling, Curtis Thrush, KNBA

2. Bid Dates:

a. Aug. 29th -Last Bid questions: noon (EST)

b. Sept. 2nd -Issue Addendum

c. Sept. 9th -Bids Due

3. DECA standards and protocols- addressed earlier by Kristi Sharp. The following addresses

Volume A work only.

4. Single GC to coordinate work between all Volumes: A, B, C + D as shown on Cover Sheet

a. Transition between area A + B: North face of Lodge Bldg. (Volume A) along new Pool

Plaza (Volume B)

5. Scope Overview: discussed in more detail during the meeting. The basic components are:

a. Guest Wing Bldgs: (See the Reduced Scope Plan for change in this scope)

b. Semi-Circular Walkways

c. Bridges (connecting walkway to Guest Lodge)

d. Sitework

e. Electrical

6. Structural Repair work occurs throughout the project. Unit Prices specify replacement amount to be included in the bid and require a Unit Price for additional replacement. This was discussed in more detail during the meeting. See updated Unit Cost Allowance spec +

Aids to Advertising in Addendum 1.

7. Tricky Areas / Pay close attention to:

a. New bridge roofs connect to existing Lodge roof

b. New bridge spans over new retaining/planter wall

1 Prebid mtg agenda_Dwayne edits.docx

c. New concrete stair landings interact with existing HT bridge framing

d. Removal of existing sloped stone and concrete pavers will require the need to support and maintain:

• Existing concrete walkway and existing walkway column footings

• Existing bridge footings

e. Items to be removed, salvaged + returned to owner: HT columns, stone and concrete pavers, etc. All items to be palletized.

f. Drainage is a high priority. Civil drawings address removal and replacement of upper and lower walkway drain lines. All gutters and downspouts (copper) connect to lower drain line.

CurtisThrush Text Box

VOLUME A- REDUCED SCOPE PLAN

EXTENT OF VOLUME A SCOPE TO BE REDUCED AS FOLLOWS:

1. OMIT ALL WORK ALONG THE LAKESIDE FACADE AT BOTH GUEST WING BLDGS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:

- STRUCTURAL REPAIRS

- RAILING REPLACEMENT

- SCREEN DOOR REPLACEMENT

- REPAINTING

2. OMIT RE-ROOFING WORK THROUGHOUT ENTIRE GUEST WING BLDGS.

2B. PATCH AND REPAIR EXISTNIG ROOFING AS REQUIRED BY NEW WORK, I.E. NEW BRIDGE ROOFS CONNECTING TO THE GUEST WING ROOF

2C. NOTE THAT EXSITING GUTTERS ALONG THE INSIDE FACE OF GUEST WING BLDGS (NON LAKE SIDE) ARE TO REMAIN, EXISTING DOWNSPOUTS ALONG EXISTING BRIDGE ROOFS TO BE REMOVED. ADDITIONAL DETAILS TO FOLLOW IN SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUM.

3. OMIT ALL PAINTING OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION. PAINT SCOPE IS LIMITED TO NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY

4. OMIT NEW RIP-RAP ALONG THE LAKESIDE FACADE OF THE WEST GUEST WING BLDG.

CurtisThrush PolyLine

CurtisThrush Callout

CurtisThrush PolyLine

CurtisThrush Callout

CurtisThrush Callout

CurtisThrush Callout

CurtisThrush Polygon

CurtisThrush Callout 2B

CurtisThrush Polygon

CurtisThrush Callout 2B

CurtisThrush PolyLine

CurtisThrush Ellipse

CurtisThrush Callout 2C

CurtisThrush Ellipse

CurtisThrush Text Box

EXISTING GUTTERS TO REMAIN

CurtisThrush Callout 2C

CurtisThrush Text Box

EXISTING DOWNSPOUTS TO BE REMOVED

CurtisThrush Text Box

'LAKESIDE' OF GUEST WING BLDGS

CurtisThrush Text Box

'NON LAKESIDE' OF GUEST WING BLDGS

CurtisThrush Callout

CurtisThrush Text Box

WEST GUEST WING ONLY

www.brownkubican.com Page 1 | 2

LEXINGTON

546 E. Main Street, Ste 100

Lexington, KY 40508

(859) 543-0933 www.brownkubican.com

August 11, 2025

Project Manager Name Architect address

Re: Addendum 001 Lake Barkley Lodge – Structural Repairs Phase 3

Curtis, Please issue the following changes and clarifications to the structural drawings and specifications as part of Addendum No. 001. The addendum includes the following written descriptions

1. Add requirement that Shop Drawings for Guardrails and Handrails shall be required. Contractor shall field measure existing dimensions, including locations of newly placed concrete (hence shop drawings will need to locate existing bridges in order to located new concrete walls and posts). Prepare shop drawings showing connection details, steel and metal fastenings, pickets and attachments, and elevations of every rail showing timber and steel materials. Rail elevations shall be fully dimensioned and show dimensions of intermediate posts.

2. Clarify that new guard and handrails are shown on a combination of architectural and structural drawings. Construction details are as found on the structural details. Locations and arrangements are shown on architectural and structural drawings. Wherever shown, they shall be provided.

3. Clarify that the demolition and replacement of the existing t-spline roof decking above the guest wings shall be done on the basis of allowance. This shall include interior protection, sealing, and staining & painting to match existing.

4. Sheets A-S2.9A, B, & C: Change the elevations of the lower retaining walls adjacent to each Area’s lower concrete stair run ((6) total walls between areas A, B, and C), currently shown with top of wall at (-5’-9”), to have each of the walls with top of wall elevations at (-5’-5”).

5. Sheets A-SD1.3 & A-SD1.4:

o Add an additional bay of concrete slab demolition at the upper level for the mechanical conduit routing from the housekeeping pads to the pathways along the upper walkway, at each wing.

Demolition extents shall be between existing slab joints similar to adjacent areas of demolition, with overall limits being between existing grids 22.5-23.5.

o Add an additional bay to the Area B extents of slab demolition. This is to show the demolition extents only, the new slab on grade was accurately reflected in the new construction plans.

o On A-SD1.4, Area B slab on grade demolition extents at the upper level are to be shifted one bay to the plan north. To match the extents of new slab on grade shown in the new construction plan.

o On A-SD1.3, at the upper level plan, the ‘7d’ tag notes referencing Areas A & C need to have their supplemental texts swapped to accurately reference each area. The quantities noted therein are correctly noted, see A-SD1.4 for reference.

www.brownkubican.com Page 2 | 2

LEXINGTON

546 E. Main Street, Ste 100

Lexington, KY 40508

(859) 543-0933 www.brownkubican.com

6. Sheets A-S2.1 & A-S2.2:

o The reference in tag note ‘1r’ shall reference both sheets A-SD1.1 & A-SD1.2.

o On A-S2.2 tag note 27r shall be referenced as to apply at each bridge (typical) and along the upper and lower level balconies, similar to sheet A-S2.1.

o Tag note 26r shall be referenced at the upper level plan along the diagonal reference of notes 11r, 14r, 16r. Similar to the same occurrence on sheet A-S2.1.

7. Sheet A-S2.10A: The site stair construction shown between grids W33.5 & W34.4 is to be shown as existing stairs to remain (Tag note 1 removed), with the installation of two side cheek walls and spread footings, similar to that shown in plan B/A-S2.10A.

o New walls shown adjacent to site stair in A/A-S2.10A shall be clarified to match similar construction (i.e. reinforcement) to that shown at the east wing in B/A-S2.10A.

8. Sheet A-S2.10B: Clarify that section C/A-S3.3 SIM is to be cut through the upper run of the stairs in Area

B.

9. Sheets A-S2.10A & A-S2.10B: As noted in item 5, the additional areas of slab on grade demolition, and subsequent new slab on grade, for the mechanical conduit routing shall be shown in views B/A-S2.10A & B/A-S2.10B.

10. Sheet A-S2.10C: Clarify that the sections D/A-S3.2 & E/A-S3.2 apply at the Area C stair similar to the conditions in which they are applied to Areas A & B.

11. Clarify that all sections cut on sheets A-S3.2 through A-S3.4 showing angles per detail Q/A-S3.1, are to show (3) bolts instead of (2) per the aforementioned detail. (Detail Q has not changed).

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely, Spencer E. Price

BFW Ref. #24353

Submitted to:

Mr. Dwayne Brown

Finance & Administration Cabinet

Bush Building, 403 Wapping Street

Frankfort, KY 40601

Submittal Date:

April 17, 2025

Geotechnical Exploration Report

Lake Barkley Lodge – Phase 3 Cadiz, KY

4/28/2025

Exp. 6/30/2026

521 W. Main Street, Belleville, IL 62220 / BFWengineers.com / 618-771-5774

April 28, 2025

Mr. Dwayne Brown Finance & Administration Cabinet Department for Facilities & Support Services Division of Engineering & Contract Administration Bush Building, 403 Wapping Street Frankfort, KY 40601

RE: Geotechnical Exploration Report Lake Barkley Lodge – Phase 3 Cadiz, KY BFW Project No: 24535

Dear Mr. Brown:

Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc. (BFW), is pleased to present the attached Geotechnical Exploration Report for the referenced site.

The geotechnical exploration was conducted in accordance with applicable ASTM and UFC Standards. The attached report includes a review of the pertinent project information provided to us, descriptions of site and subsurface conditions encountered, and our general recommendations for foundations, site preparation and construction phase concerns. The appendices contain a boring location plan, site plan, and results of all field and laboratory tests conducted for the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve you and look forward to future association with you on this and other projects. If you have questions concerning this report, please call our office.

Sincerely, Shelby N. Livingstone, E.I.T. Christopher L. Mathews, P.E.

Staff Engineer Geotechnical Engineer/Branch Manager

Attachment: Geotechnical Exploration Report iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PROJECT INFORMATION AND OBJECTIVE

1.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATORY METHOD

2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

2.2 SITE-SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.3 GROUNDWATER

3. LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 ATTERBERG LIMITS

3.2 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

4. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

4.2 UPPER SILTY ZONES

4.3 EXPANSIVE SOILS

4.4 SOFT SOILS

4.5 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.6 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

4.7 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND BELOW GRADE WALLS

4.8 CONCRETE SLABS

4.9 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION/CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.9.1 Clearing / Grubbing / Stripping

4.9.2 Subgrade Preparation

4.9.3 Engineered Fill Placement

4.9.4 Shallow Foundation Excavations

4.9.5 Surface Water Control

4.10 OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

4.10.1 Project Specifications

4.10.2 Construction Monitoring

5. QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

iv

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Aerial Photograph & Site Plan Appendix B – Subsurface Boring Logs Appendix C – Soil Laboratory Data

FIGURES

Figure 1.1 – Site Location

TABLES

Table 2.1 – Auger Refusals Table 3.1 – Atterberg Limits Table 3.2 – Grain Size Distribution Table 4.1 – Seismic Design Parameters Table 4.2 – Lateral Earth Pressures v

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

amsl above mean sea level ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BFW Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc.

bgs below ground surface

DGA densely graded aggregate ksf kips per square foot

LL Liquid Limit

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service pcf pounds per cubic foot PI Plasticity Index PL Plastic Limit psf pounds per square foot psi pounds per square inch

SPT standard penetration test

USCS Unified Soil Classification System USGS United States Geologic Survey

Geotechnical Report Lake Barkley Lodge – Phase 3 Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535

1. PROJECT INFORMATION AND OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this geotechnical study is to explore the subsurface conditions present at the site, pertinent engineering properties of the materials encountered and provide recommendations for foundation and earthwork related portions of the project. Our services were provided in general accordance with our proposal dated October 21, 2024.

Based on the Instruction to Geotechnical Engineers prepared by Brown and Kubican Structural Engineering, the project will consist of new reconstruction of stairs, walks, terraced concrete retaining walls, and timber-framed walkways at the east and west housing lodges.

The existing conditions are shown on the Aerial Photograph and Site Plan in Appendix A.

Is anticipated that the structures will be lightly loaded with column loads on the order of 15 kips and wall loads of less than 2 kips per lineal foot. If these loads are to be exceeded, then BFW should be contacted to review the scope outlined herein. The site location and existing conditions are shown below in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 – Site Location

1.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATORY METHOD

The procedures used by Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc. (BFW) for field and laboratory sampling and testing are in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures and established engineering

Project Location

Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535 practice. A total of twelve (12) borings and eight (8) hand augers were advanced in connection with this exploration, extending 5 to 21.5 feet below ground surface (bgs).

The boring locations were located in the field by BFW personnel using a handheld GPS unit. Elevations at the boring and hand auger locations were interpolated from topography data from BFW surveyors and should be considered approximate. See the Aerial Photograph, Site Plan and Subsurface Boring Logs in Appendices A and B, respectively, for more detail.

A CME-45 track-mounted rotary-drilling rig was used to advance the soil test borings and to obtain soil samples for laboratory evaluation. The test borings were advanced in accordance with geotechnical investigative procedures outlined in ASTM D-1452.

Borings were backfilled with native soil cuttings at the completion of the subsurface investigation.

Disturbed samples were retrieved during Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) [ASTM D- 1586] using an automatic hammer assembly at various depths in the underlying stratum.

The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel sampler (split-spoon) into the soil with a 140-pound weight falling freely through 30 inches. The sampler was driven in three (3) successive 6-inch increments, with the number of blows per increment being recorded. The number of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 inches.

Drilling operations and visual classification of soil samples were performed in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D-2488 guidelines. Shear vane testing was performed on the samples collected from the hand auger locations. Records of the conditions encountered and visual soil classification were prepared and incorporated in the Subsurface Boring Logs included in Appendix B.

The Subsurface Boring Logs represent BFW’s interpretation of the conditions encountered within the soil test borings and hand augers. It should be noted that strata changes may vary from those encountered within the soil test borings, transitions may be gradual or abrupt, and conditions may vary significantly at other locations. The groundwater information listed represents conditions at the time of drilling activities.

2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) online web soil database, the subject site is underlain by the Hammack-Baxter complex with 12 to 20 percent slopes.

These soils are well drained and belong to Hydrologic Soil Group B. The parent materials are described as thin fine-silty noncalcareous loess over clayey residuum weathered from cherty limestone.

2.2 SITE-SPECIFIC SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The surface of borings B-1 through B-5 and B-7 through B-12 consisted of 3 to 6 inches of topsoil. Concrete ranging in depth of 4 to 6 inches, was encountered at the surface of the hand augured locations. Lean clay (CL) and silt (ML) with varying amounts of sand and gravel predominated in the borings. These materials generally exhibited moisture contents of 11 to 49 percent with SPT “N” values (blow counts) of 3 to over 50 blows per foot (bpf), indicating a soft to hard consistency.

Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535

As an exception, layers of elastic silt (MH) and fat clay (CH) were encountered in borings B-1 and B-10 at a depth of about 9.5 and 2 feet below ground surface (bgs), respectively. Moisture contents of these materials were 24 to 34 percent with blow counts of 3 and 7 bpf, indicating a soft to firm consistency. Additionally, a layer of clayey gravel with sand (GC) was encountered in boring B-11 from about 5 to 13 feet bgs. The moisture content of the gravel was 17 to 27 percent with a blow count of 27 bpf, indicating a very firm density.

Auger refusal was encountered between 5.8 and 17.7 in various borings, likely due to limestone bedrock. The hand augured locations did not encounter refusal up to a depth of 5 feet bgs. Table 2.1 summarizes the auger refusal depths and approximate elevations encountered.

Table 2.1 – Auger Refusals

Boring Depth of Auger Refusal (ft)

Elevation of Auger Refusal

B-1 13.8 383.2 B-2 12.0 385.0 B-3 17.7 379.3 B-4 -- -- B-5 8.5 389.5 B-6 -- -- B-7 15.8 389.2 B-8 16.0 388.0 B-9 5.8 396.2 B-10 6.7 393.3 B-11 16.7 384.3 B-12 11.8 386.2

2.3 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered at the time of drilling. It should be noted that the ground water levels are dependent upon seasonal and climatic variations and may be present at different depths in the future. We do not anticipate groundwater will influence the proposed construction.

3. LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory soil tests were conducted in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards. Natural moisture contents were determined for all samples collected. Atterberg Limits and grain size analyses were conducted for select soil samples to verify field classification of the soils. In addition, these tests evaluate the potential for volumetric changes in the soil. Complete laboratory test results are included in Appendix C.

Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535

3.1 ATTERBERG LIMITS

Atterberg Limit tests were performed on representative samples. Table 3.1 provides the results of the Atterberg Limits testing.

Table 3.1 – Atterberg Limits

Boring Depth (ft) LL PL PI Classification

B-1 2.0 34 18 16 CL

B-1 10.0 50 30 20 MH

B-2 7.5 48 29 19 ML

B-3 4.0 35 22 13 CL

B-7 5.0 32 20 12 CL

B-10 2.5 51 26 25 CH

B-11 6.0 38 19 19 CL

B-12 7.5 50 26 24 CL

HB-1 0.0 44 27 17 ML

HB-6 2.0 44 21 23 CL

3.2 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Grain size distributions were performed on representative samples. Table 3.2 provides the results of the grain size testing.

Table 3.2 – Grain Size Distribution

Boring Depth

(ft) D100 D50 D30 D10 Gravel

Sand

Silt

Clay

B-1 2.0 25 - - - 12.0 12.1 68.0 B-4 20.0 0.075 - - - - - 54.1 B-5 5.0 0.075 - - - - - 76.94 B-8 10.0 0.075 - - - - - 67.7 B-11 6.0 25 2.157 - - 33.8 23.2 36.2

4. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the subsurface exploration, current site conditions observe, and laboratory results, items of geotechnical interest and considerations are discussed in the following sections.

4.1 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on data from this exploration and the stated project information. In our evaluations, we have utilized both subsurface data from this exploration and our experience with similar structures and subsurface conditions. If the structural information is incorrect or changed after our reporting, if the site or building

Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535 components have been changed, or if the subsurface conditions encountered during the construction vary from those reported, our recommendations should be reviewed based on the changed conditions.

Experience indicates that the actual subsoil conditions at a site could vary from those generalized based on soil test borings made at specific locations. Therefore, it is essential that a geotechnical engineer be retained to provide soil-engineering services during the site preparation, excavation, and foundation construction phases of the proposed project. The geotechnical engineer should observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.

4.2 UPPER SILTY ZONES

Based on the subsurface data encountered, the in-situ shallow soils often consisted of soils with relatively high silt contents. It should be noted that silty soils can be very susceptible to degrading into unsuitable soils in the presence of excess moisture and construction traffic. In addition, silty soils are typically difficult to properly compact when significantly wet of the optimum moisture content as determined by a Standard Proctor test. It is anticipated that extra care will be needed to properly provide and maintain a suitable subgrade.

It is recommended that heavy construction equipment be detoured around any areas where a decrease in stability is found to be developing. Depending upon grading requirements and specific site conditions, solutions to a persistent decrease in stability may include removal and replacement or soil modification by means of cement stabilization.

4.3 EXPANSIVE SOILS

Layers of potentially expansive fat clay and elastic silt were encountered in borings B-1 and B-10 at a depth of about 9.5 and 2 feet below ground surface (bgs), respectively. It is recommended that if these soils are found to be present at the base of foundation excavations, they should be undercut a minimum of 2 feet and replaced with structural backfill in accordance with the recommended procedures as described in later sections of this report.

If the expansive soils are reused as structural fill, the soils with a lesser amount of sand or gravel should not be placed as fill within two feet of the foundation bearing elevation or three feet of the floor slab bearing elevation. Soils with more than approximately 50 percent gravel or chert fragments typically would be suitable as structural fill.

4.4 SOFT SOILS

Isolated layers of soft soils, indicated by a blow count of 4 bpf or less, were encountered near or at the surface of borings B-9, B-10, and B-11. Additionally, soft soils were encountered at depths greater than 10 feet bgs in borings B-1 and B-11.

It is recommended that proof-rolling techniques be used to identify near surface soft soil zones prior to any engineered fill placement. Typically, the quickest method of remediation is undercut and replacement with properly compacted engineered fill material. However, if large areas are determined to be soft or unsuitable, then additional ground improvement techniques such as lime stabilization should be considered. If soft

Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535 soils are encountered during foundation excavation, they should be removed and replaced with properly compacted structural fill. BFW should be retained during construction to observe the footing excavations and the proof rolls to check for any areas of soft, unsuitable soils.

4.5 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the anticipated structural loadings, it is recommended that shallow foundations be used for structural support of the structures proposed for the site.

Shallow foundations should be seated in the existing in-situ soils or properly compacted engineered fill and bear at a minimum depth of 24-inches below ground surface for frost protection. A net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square feet (psf) should be used for both continuous and spread foundations. Any continuous and isolated footings should have a minimum width of at least 24 inches and 36 inches, respectively. These values assume a Factor of Safety of 3. An increase of one-third may be permitted for transient loadings, including wind and earthquake loads.

All foundation bearing soils should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer prior to steel and concrete placement. We anticipate areas of inadequate bearing materials will be encountered during construction; therefore, we recommend that an allowance be made in the construction budget for selected footing overexcavations. For footings designed and constructed in accordance with our recommendations, total settlement should be less than 1 inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings should be less than ¾ inch.

The base of foundation overexcavations should exceed footing dimensions 6 inches along each side for every foot of overdig. Replacement materials may consist of crushed rock or recycled concrete between ¼ and 3 inches in size. This material should be placed in lifts with each lift compacted into place using vibratory compaction equipment.

Alternatively, foundation overexcavations may be backfilled with lean concrete. If lean concrete is utilized, overexcavations should extend a minimum of 6 inches on each side.

4.6 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

According to the 2018 Kentucky Building Code, which references the International Building Code (IBC 2015) structures are required to be designed for seismic accelerations. A Seismic Site Class is used to classify a site according to specific site soil conditions. The Site Class accounts for the effect of local soil conditions on the ground motion and shall be based on the types of soils present and their engineering properties. The Seismic Site Class is designated by letters A through E. These letter designations are based on specific in-situ soil properties within the upper 100 feet of the soil stratum and can be chosen based on one of the following methods including: a direct measurement of the soil shear wave velocity or correlation based on weighted averages of the Standard Penetration Data and/or Soil Undrained Shear Strength values. For the subject site, the Seismic Site Class was evaluated by SPT N-values.

Seismic Design Parameters are determined based on the Seismic Site Class, the structure Risk Category and the Earthquake accelerations to an earthquake with a 2 percent Probability of Exceedance (PE) over a 50-year exposure period (i.e., a 2,475-year design earthquake). The 2,475-year design earthquake has a Moment Magnitude (Mw) of 7.6 and a Modified Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) of 0.41g as determined from data provided by IBC 2015 and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project.

Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535

Based on the procedures outlined in IBC 2015 and the results of our subsurface exploration, Site Class C should be used for foundation design. Seismic design parameters, as determined from IBC 2015, are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 – Seismic Design Parameters

Site Class C

FA 1.25

FV 1.50

FPGA 1.20

SS 0.62

S1 0.23

PGA 0.35

PGAM 0.41

SDS 0.52

SD1 0.23

4.7 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND BELOW GRADE WALLS

Static lateral earth pressures are dependent on the relative rigidity and allowable movement of the retaining structure as well as the strength properties of the backfill soil and drainage conditions behind the retaining structure. The lateral earth pressure is significantly dependent on the lateral deformations which occur in the soil. A restrained retaining structure (at-rest conditions) will experience higher lateral earth pressures than a retaining structure that accommodates some movement (active condition).

The applied bearing pressure of the retaining wall footings should not exceed the allowable bearing pressure previously given in Section 4.5. Retaining walls should be designed to withstand lateral earth pressures caused by slopes behind the walls or any adjacent surcharge loads, such as building foundations. Table 4.2 provides lateral earth pressures for in-situ cohesive soils and granular backfill. Values for granular should only be used if the granular backfill area behind the wall that extends from the bottom of the wall footing at 1:1 or flatter upward until reaching the ground surface behind the wall. It is recommended that proper drainage be included in the design to remove water from behind the foundation wall. The drainage system should include a minimum 4-inch perforated drainpipe at foundation level and granular drainage material. A filter fabric should encapsulate the pipe and granular drainage material. The pipe should drain by gravity or through weepholes. Weepholes could also be used to directly provide drainage, given that they are designed such that granular material cannot pass through the weepholes.

Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535

Table 4.2 – Lateral Earth Pressures

Material Type

Soil Moisture

Assumption

Earth Pressure Condition

Earth Pressure

Coefficient

Equivalent Fluid Pressure

(psf)

Cohesive Soils

Saturated Active (Pa) 0.39 53

At-Rest (P0) 0.56 73

Submerged Active (Pa) 0.39 91

At-Rest (P0) 0.56 103

Granular Limestone

Backfill

Saturated Active (Pa) 0.29 40

At-Rest (P0) 0.46 61

Submerged Active (Pa) 0.29 84

At-Rest (P0) 0.46 95

A passive soil resistance modeled by an equivalent fluid unit weight of 250 pcf may be used for natural soil against the face of the exterior base or a key below the base of the wall. The upper 2 feet of soil backfilled against the exterior face of the walls and uncontrolled backfill soils should be ignored when calculating the lateral resistance.

Lower passive pressure should be used if the ground surface slopes downward away from the face of the wall.

4.8 CONCRETE SLABS

If subgrade soils are properly compacted as described in this report, then a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for floor slab design if the subgrade is properly compacted throughout to at least 98 percent of Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) and within 2 percent of optimum moisture content.

If the subgrade has been properly compacted and inspected, a minimum of 4-inch-thick layer of free-draining compacted granular aggregate should be placed beneath the proposed floor slab. The compacted aggregate will provide a better load distribution from the floor slab to the soil, and it will provide additional protection against the migration of moisture upward through the floor slab.

4.9 GENERAL SITE PREPARATION/CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

4.9.1 Clearing / Grubbing / Stripping

The subject site should be cleared, stripped, and grubbed of topsoil/organics, deleterious materials, and soft/unsuitable soils. Any extensive soft soil deposits encountered should be evaluated by extensive proof rolling and/or shallow excavations to determine the amount of undercutting required. Under no circumstances should the stripped material (i.e., old fill, trees, topsoil) be used as fill for any excavations, low-lying areas, or for any subsurface structural element.

Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535

4.9.2 Subgrade Preparation

After stripping and clearing, the areas intended to support floor slabs, new fill, and pavements should be carefully inspected by qualified geotechnical personnel. Any soft or unsuitable soils should be undercut and replaced with properly compacted engineered fill. Competent geotechnical personnel should be present during any undercutting activities to determine when adequate subgrade bearing has been achieved.

The site subgrade should be proof rolled in the presence of competent geotechnical personnel. Proof-rolling activities should occur after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading the subgrade. Proof-rolling should be performed by making repeated passes over the subgrade with a 20 to 30-ton loaded truck or other pneumatic-tired vehicle of similar size and weight. The vehicle should make enough passes in each of two perpendicular directions covering the proposed development area.

Any areas judged to deflect excessively during proof rolling should be undercut and rerolled. This process should be repeated until all soft soils are removed or the geotechnical engineer recommends an alternate stabilization method such as lime or cement stabilization. If removal of soft soils is impractical due to their excessive depth, “bridging” of the soft soils can often be accomplished by working 6- to 8-inch clean crushed rock into the softer soils and then placing a geofabric, such as Mirafi 600X or equivalent, prior to placing additional fill.

Any proof rolling activities should occur immediately before fill placement. If fill material is not immediately placed and subgrade can stand unprotected, then additional proof-rolling activities will be required in the same area to verify subgrade stability.

It is important to note that at the end of each day or prior to any rainfall events that the site subgrade be smoothed and rolled to minimize any surface water infiltration. The site grading should always provide for positive site drainage away from the project site even during construction activities. Surface water / storm water should not be allowed to pond on the surface or in tire ruts.

Extremely large tire loadings are typically present on construction sites from dump trucks, concrete trucks, masonry block, and brick/masonry block forklifts (Pettybone). The tire loadings from these vehicles are usually the most significant concentrated loadings that the soil subgrades will most likely encounter. In many cases these tire loadings will exceed the overall shear strength of the in-situ soils or recently placed engineered fill and rutting and pumping will occur as a result. This is especially true during repeated heavy tire loadings that occur when the soil subgrade wet or is above its optimum moisture content. It is important that the site subgrade be properly maintained by the contractor for the extent of the entire project. The site should not be allowed to become rutted, or water allowed to pond.

4.9.3 Engineered Fill Placement

Prior to any fill activities taking place, we recommend that representative samples of the proposed fill material be collected (minimum 5-gallon container of material) and tested to determine the laboratory compaction characteristics, plasticity, and natural moisture contents. The tests should be conducted to determine the suitability of the proposed fill material. Based on the subsurface

Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535 data obtained, the in-situ soils should be acceptable for use as engineered fill material once stripped of topsoil / organics.

Proposed fill materials should be free of organics, deleterious debris, or rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter. Suitable fill soil should have a liquid limits less than 45 and plasticity index (PI) of less than 25. They should also have a maximum dry density according to the standard Proctor compaction test of at least 100 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). All fill soils and fill pads should be properly compacted and tested.

The fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil maximum dry density (ASTM D-698 “Standard Proctor”) under structures and building slabs and to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density for aggregate base course. Fill materials in lawn area should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density. The moisture contents of the fill materials should be maintained to within ± 2 percent of the soil’s optimum moisture.

The soil should be placed in lifts of 8 inches or less for materials compacted by heavy equipment and not more than 4 inches loose depth for hand compaction equipment. Each lift should be compacted and tested by nuclear density gauge methods prior to placing additional lifts every 2,500 square feet. All fill pads should extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the building before sloping down.

In-place density testing should be conducted for each lift placed to check the compaction achieved.

Positive surface drainage should be maintained to prevent water from ponding on the surface during all earthwork operations. After each day’s work or prior to any anticipated rainfall, the subgrade should be rolled with a rubber-tired or steel-drummed roller to improve surface runoff. The geotechnical engineer should be notified if the subgrade soils become excessively wet, dry, or frozen.

4.9.4 Shallow Foundation Excavations

BFW should observe all footing and floor slab excavations for areas of soft soils or unsuitable existing fill. If the footings excavation becomes overly disturbed, remediation will be required. Overexcavation and replacement with structural fill should be performed where inadequate bearing materials are present in footing excavations.

The base of all excavations should be clean, free of loose soil or uncompacted fill, relatively dry, and maintained near their optimum moisture content.

Excavations should be protected from extreme temperatures, precipitation, and construction disturbances. To reduce the possibility of desiccation or saturation of the foundation soils, we recommend that the concrete be placed as soon as possible after excavations are made.

During construction, existing footings must not be undercut, i.e., no excavation should encroach within an area extending 45 degrees downward and outward from the outside edge of the existing foundations. If this is required, then BFW should be retained to provide specific recommendations to maintain support of the existing foundations and lateral support of the excavations.

4.9.5 Surface Water Control

Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the building subgrade surfaces.

This is especially true during construction activities. Proper erosion and

Cadiz, KY Project No.: 24535 sedimentation control plans must be developed as per the City and State requirements.

4.10 OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

4.10.1 Project Specifications

Specifications for this project should meet local building codes and OSHA guidelines. The observations, recommendations, and considerations presented in this report should be fully read and understood by the owner, project designer(s), and contractor(s) prior to final submittal of project plans and specifications.

4.10.2 Construction Monitoring

The implementation of a soil and concrete quality testing program aids in assuring that the product is that which was designed. Thorough testing also allows opportunity for correction before major problems develop. For these reasons, Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc. (BFW), recommends the retainage of a qualified testing laboratory (by the Owner) to conduct quality tests on structural fill, aggregate base course, and concrete placement.

5. QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Our evaluation of foundation and pavement design and construction conditions has been based on our understanding of the site and on conditions encountered at the time of investigation. The general subsurface conditions used were based on our interpolation of the subsurface data between the borings. Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface investigation, there is the possibility that conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical engineers should observe earthwork and foundation construction to confirm that the conditions anticipated in design are noted. Otherwise, BFW assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations.

The design recommendations in this report have been developed based on the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions. If project criteria or locations change, a qualified geotechnical engineer should be permitted to determine whether the recommendations must be modified. The findings of such a review will be presented in a supplemental report.

The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until the course of construction. If such variations are encountered, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report after on-site observations of the conditions.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings derived, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. BFW is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on this data.

Appendix A Aerial Photograph & Site Plan

Appendix B Subsurface Boring Logs

BORING LOG / LABORATORY PROCEDURE GUIDE

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

Bacon Farmer Workman Engineering & Testing, Inc., conducts soil test borings, field sampling and laboratory analysis in general accordance with methods of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and generally accepted engineering practices. Soil test borings were advanced with truck or track mounted rotary-type drilling rig equipment. Hollow stem or solid flight augers were used to advance soil test borings (ASTM D 1452). A series of soil samples are typically obtained for visual inspection and laboratory analysis during drilling activities. The samples collected may include disturbed, undisturbed or auger cutting samples.

BORING LOCATIONS / ELEVATIONS

Boring Locations are either selected by our project manager or have been selected by the client. The borings are typically located in the field by estimating right angles and measuring distances from site landmarks. Because of the locating methods used, the boring locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan (In Appendix) are approximate unless specifically noted.