ESBD_File_341474_17-21389r-addendum1.pdf

ADDENDUM NO: 1 - issued by the

LOCATION: 2591 N. EARL RUDDER FWY.

CITY/ST: BRYAN, TEXAS 77803

SITE NO.: 179043

BLDG NO.: 178006

ESTIMATED COST:

BID GUARANTY or BID BOND:

PRE-BID DATE, TIME: NOVEMBER 20, 2023 @ 1:00 PM CT

BID DATE, TIME: JANUARY 2, 2024 @ 1:00 PM CT

BIDS MUST BE RECEIVED BY: NOON (12:00 PM) FOR 1:00 PM READING

Project by the: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION (SSD), FACILITIES PLANNING & MANAGEMENT

6230 EAST STASSNEY LANE, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744

ADDENDUM NO. 1 IS ATTACHED WITH THIS NOTIFICATION.

Available to download from: Electronic State Business Daily (ESBD) Use Agency 601 for Requisition Number:

TxDOT Plans Online https://www.txdot.gov/business/letting‐bids/plans‐online.html

TxDOT Facilities Letting https://www.txdot.gov/business/suppliers‐vendors/facilities‐projects‐letting.html

NOTE:

NOTICE TO BIDDERS:

ADDENDUM NO. 1

This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents and provides requested Geotechnical Reports and Drawings.

No changes to COST or TIME.

Also included are responses to questions identified during the RFI period.

Total pages to this Addendum including cover pages: 134

OFFICIAL DATE OF ADDENDUM:

FOUNDATION REPAIR, BRYAN DHQ

FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF AN ADDENDUM WILL RESULT IN THE BID NOT BEING READ.

by this Addendum shall remain in effect as a part of the Contract Documents.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

$1,650,000.00 $33,000.00

17-380421389-REBID

http://www.txsmartbuy.com/sp

17-380421389-REBID

THIS ADDENDUM SHALL BECOME AN OFFICIAL PART OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND BIDDERS SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE

Contract Documents, this Addendum shall govern and take precedence. Work not specifically deleted, modified, changed or altered at the same time and incorporated therewith. Where provisions of the following supplementary data differ from those of the original This Addendum shall be considered as part of the Contract Documents for the above mentioned project as though it had been issued

Bidders are hereby notified that they shall make any necessary adjustment(s) in their estimates based on this Addendum. It will be

December 8, 2023

BRAZOS

BRYAN

PROJECT ID #:

COUNTY:

DISTRICT:

USE THE BID BOND FORM IN THE PROPOSAL. NO OTHER BID BOND FORM IS ACCEPTABLE. OBTAIN SIGNATURES, SEALS AND construed that each bidder’s proposal is submitted with full knowledge of all modifications and supplemental data specified herein.

INCOMPLETE PROPOSAL PACKAGE 1 (CONTRACT DOCUMENTS) WILL BE REJECTED

AFTER SIGNATURES – INCLUDE THE COMPLETED BOND IN THE PROPOSAL.

RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM IN PROPOSAL PACKAGE 1 (CONTRACT DOCUMENTS), "ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGMENT" SHEET

THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SURETY – WITH AN IMPRESSED SEAL.

LOCATION: BRYAN, TEXAS 77803 PROJECT ID #:

CITY/ST: 2591 N. EARL RUDDER FWY. COUNTY:

SITE NO.: 179043 DISTRICT:

BLDG NO.: 178006

1 Q:

A:

2 Q:

A:

3 Q:

A:

4 Q:

A:

5 Q:

A:

6 Q:

A:

7 Q:

A:

Total Pages: 1

Being such a small construction area, and an active campus; would it be acceptable to substitute the Lime Stabilization with Cement Stabilized Sand (Type I Portland Cement)? This would cut out the messy lime slurry or dry lime application and mixing activities.

BRYAN

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DESCRIPTION OF WORK, LOCATION

17-380421389-REBID

BRAZOS

Sheet C6.01 references Lime Stabilization in each concrete pavement detail. Has an optimum lime content of the subgrade been determined by a Geotechnical Report or Testing Laboratory?

Optimum lime content has not been determined.

Anticipated notice to proceed is around 25 Feb 2024. Start of construction is dependent on Contractor.

Can you please provide the Geotechnical Report (CSC February 19, 2010) referenced in the Civil Drawings C0.00 through C6.01, and the Geotechnical Report (Terracon Report Number 94215390, Date 03.29.22) referenced in the drawing S0.01?

Report provided

Can you provide the As-Built Drawings for this building?

yes. We will provide as- builts for the foundation and PEMB shop drawings for the superstructure. These files will be provided after the Pre-bid meeting along with answers to any questions raised during the Pre-Bid meeting

The 'Contract Description' in Section 01 10 00, Part 1.2, and the 'scope of work' on the Project Plans Cover Sheet, states that the existing window system is to be removed and reinstalled. We were able to locate one note on sheet S1.02 for an existing window system on the south side of the building. Are there any other window systems that need to be removed and replaced? Also, can you please provide more information and specifications regarding the glazing system and associated sealant and flashing?

We have no additional information regarding the original glazing system. There are no other locations expected for the removal and replacement of glazing. See specifications for sealant information.

What is the anticipated dates for the Notice to Proceed and Start of Construction Activities?

Has a cause of the settlement been determined?

The cause of settlement has not been determined.

Bid the plans. Substitution requests may be submitted after successful bid.

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 8901 Carpenter Freeway, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75247 Registration No. F -3272

P [214] 630 1010 F [214] 630 7070 terracon.com

March 29, 2022

Freese & Nichols, Inc.

801 Cherry Street, Suite 2800

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Attn: Mr. Van Cashen, P.E.

P: (817) 735 7526

E: vmc@freese.com

Re: Geotechnical Services

TxDOT Bryan District Administration Building Distress

2591 N Earl Rudder Freeway

Bryan, TX

Terracon Project No. 94215390

Dear Mr. Cashen:

Terracon was retained to perform geotechnical services to assist the Freese & Nichols team to investigate some floor slab and walls distress that was noted within the subject TxDOT building.

The project was designed in 2010 and constructed in 2011.

The administration building is a single-story building with a slab-on-grade foundation, shallow grade beams, and brick and stone exterior walls. The administration building has been experiencing foundation movement. There is cracking of some of the exterior and interior partition walls. The drop ceiling is also experiencing movement.

CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) issued an original geotechnical report, CSC Project No. 9154 dated February 19, 2010. Construction plans were issued by Texas

Department of Transportation (TxDOT) on February 22, 2010 with red balloon revision dated

October 2, 2012. Fugro USA Land, Inc. (Fugro) performed a distress study and issued a report on August 28, 2019.

The following is a summary of the pertinent information contained in the CSC’s report:

• Drilled 2 borings within the Administration Building;

• Did not encounter water in the borings;

• Recommended a grade beam stiffened slab on select fill;

• Minimum slab thickness 6”;

• Minimum grade beam depth 3’;

• Minimum grade beam width 16”;

• Recommended Select Fill depth of 4’, resulting PVR <1.1”;

http://terranet.terracon.com/dept/marketing/PublishingImages/ServicesBar13Update.jpg

Geotechnical Services

TxDOT Bryan District Administration Building Distress ■ Bryan, TX

March 29, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 94215390

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

• Select fill should be a clayey sand or sandy clay with Liquid Limit (LL)< 36, 10< Plasticity Index (PI) <18;

• Select fill should be compacted to a dry density equivalent or higher than 95% of the standard proctor density at a moisture content between 0% and +4%.

The following is a summary of the pertinent geotechnical information contained in the TxDOT’s construction plans:

• Grade beams depth and width in accordance with CSC report;

• Earthwork specifications in general accordance with CSC;

• Select fill thickness in accordance with CSC;

• Select fill requirements: LL<40, 7< PI< 15.

The following is a summary of the pertinent information contained in Fugro’s report:

• 4 interior borings and 4 exterior borings

• Interior borings:

o Floor slab 5.5” to 6.5” thick;

o Select fill thickness met plans;

o Select fill met LL requirement but not PI (17 to 26);

o -200 sieve less than 50%;

o Dry density between 108 and 114 pcf;

o Moisture content between 14% and 17%;

o Unconfined compressive strength tests between 2 and 2.4 tsf;

o Encountered water at 8’ in one boring only (B-8 on south side of building).

As part of our scope of services we have visited the building on December 23, 2021 and observed the distressed areas inside and outside the building. We selected 5 locations to dig test pits around the perimeter of the building. The test pits were dug with a rented backhoe on January

27, 2022. A Terracon engineer was present to observe the excavation, record the grade beams dimension, and obtain disturbed samples for further laboratory testing. The subgrade soils were sampled at one-foot intervals. In the laboratory, moisture content, percent passing a #200 sieve, and Atterberg limits tests were tested. The approximate test pit locations are provided on the attached Test Pit Location Plan.

The following is a summary of the test pits observations and test results:

Test Pit: TP-1 Location: See Test Pit Location Plan

DEPTH

(Feet)

Moisture

Content (%)

Atterberg Limits % Passing

#200 Sieve LL PL PI

0.0 to 1.5 11.6 39 17 22 32.4

1.5 to 2.5 13.0 Non-Plastic 33.4

2.5 to 3.5 20.1 Non-Plastic 40.3

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Test Pit: TP-1 Location: See Test Pit Location Plan

DEPTH

(Feet)

Moisture

Content (%)

Atterberg Limits % Passing

#200 Sieve LL PL PI

During the excavation process, material got wetter with depth. Upon excavating to the depth of the grade beam, water started seeping out from behind the grade beam and the material below the beam was excessively wet. The grade beam depth was measured to be 36”.

Test Pit: TP-2 Location: See Test Pit Location Plan

DEPTH

(Feet)

Moisture

Content (%)

Atterberg Limits % Passing

#200 Sieve LL PL PI

0.0 to 1.0 18.5 40 14 26 36.9

1.0 to 2.0 19.8 38 17 21 36.9

2.0 to 3.5 21.0 35 17 18 34.5

During the excavation process, material seemed to be relatively stiff and was not excessively wet.

The grade beam depth was measured to be 31”.

Test Pit: TP-3 Location: See Test Pit Location Plan

(Feet)

Moisture

Content (%)

Atterberg Limits % Passing

#200 Sieve LL PL PI

0.0 to 1.0 11.8 42 14 28 39.2

1.0 to 2.0 11.3 39 17 22 35.7

2.0 to 3.5 11.4 45 16 29 36.0

During the excavation process, encountered material was found to be relatively hard. The material was not excessively wet. At 2’ from existing grade, a red stone material was encountered with a plastic layer on top of it. The grade beam depth was measured to be 36”.

Test Pit: TP-4 Location: See Test Pit Location Plan

(Feet)

Moisture

Content (%)

Atterberg Limits % Passing

#200 Sieve LL PL PI

0.0 to 1.0 22.2 35 13 22 44.4

1.0 to 2.0 21.9 25 20 5 32.3

2.0 to 3.5 38.1 59 22 37 57.4

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

Test Pit: TP-4 Location: See Test Pit Location Plan

DEPTH

(Feet)

Moisture

Content (%)

Atterberg Limits % Passing

#200 Sieve LL PL PI

During the excavation process, the material was found to be wet and appeared to be relatively soft.

The material encountered below the grade beam was very wet and extremely soft. Grade beam depth was measured to be 36”.

Test Pit: TP-5 Location: See Test Pit Location Plan

(Feet)

Moisture

Content (%)

Atterberg Limits % Passing

#200 Sieve LL PL PI

0.0 to 1.0 21.8 43 14 29 58.8

1.0 to 2.0 15.5 35 17 18 33.6

2.0 to 3.0 19.9 38 16 22 34.8

3.0 to 4.0 15.0 41 18 23 44.1

Encountered material seemed to be stiff and was not excessively wet. The material underneath the beam did not appear to have excess moisture. The grade beam depth was measured to be 36”. The grade beam width was also approximated to be 14”.

Summary of Terracon’s findings:

• 5 test pits were dug outside the administration building;

• Grade beam depth was 36” at 4 locations and 31” at TP-2 (SE side of building);

• Grade beam width measured at 14” at TP-5 (NW corner of building);

• At TP-1 water started seeping from under the grade beam;

• TP-4 was excessively moist, and material appeared to be soft;

• Material encountered was mostly clayey sand;

• Most of PI’s were between 18 and 37 and do not meet select fill specifications;

• The roof drains, in several areas, were discharging rain water close to the building or in a flower bed that is trapping excess moisture close to the building slab on grade foundation;

• The ground surface surrounding the building does not provide adequate positive drainage away from the building. Our December site visit was performed a couple of days after a significant rain event. Standing water was noted at several locations close to the building.

REMEDIAL MEASURES:

We recommend that the following measures be taken:

• Perform plumbing tests to ensure that the underground utilities are not leaking;

• Improve the surface grading so that positive drainage away from the building is provided;

• Fix the roof drainage so that roof water is not discharged next to the building;,

• Implement the following repairs:

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 o Excavate along perimeter of building;

o Possibly install new micropiles or other deep foundations to support the exterior grade beams;

o Provide a French drain along the building perimeter at least 12” deeper than the grade beam and create seepage pathway to drain under the floor;

o Excavate the top 36” to 48” of the existing soils within 5’ from the building and replace with compacted fat clays to restrict the inflow of water under the building;

o Perform an elevation survey at least 3 months after the completion of the repairs and evaluate if movement is still occurring;

o Relevel the slab using Uretek or similar material.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this document, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Brittany Hanly, M.E. Saad M. Hineidi, P.E.

Project Manager Senior Principal

Enclosure: Test Pit Exploration Plan

Selected Photographs

TEST PIT EXPLORATION PLAN

TxDOT Building Distress Investigation ■ Bryan, TX

March 29, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 94215390

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY

MICROSOFT BING MAPS

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT

INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

PHOTOGRAPHS

March 29, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 94215390

Page | 1

Figure 1: Building Exterior Cracking Figure 2: Building Exterior Cracking

Figure 3: Building Exterior Separation Figure 4: Building Exterior Cracking

March 29, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 94215390

Page | 2

Figure 5: Building Exterior Cracking Figure 6: Building Exterior Separation

Figure 7: Building Exterior Cracking Figure 8: Building Exterior Separation

March 29, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 94215390

Page | 3

Figure 9: Exterior Flatwork Cracking Figure 10: Building Exterior Separation

Figure 11: Exterior Flatwork Separation Figure 12: Building Exterior Cracking

March 29, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 94215390

Page | 4

Figure 13: Building Exterior Cracking Repairs Figure 14: Building Exterior Cracking Repairs

March 29, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 94215390

Page | 5

Figure 15: Building Interior Repairs Figure 16: Building Interior Repairs

Figure 17: Roof Drainage Figure 18: Landscaping

Figure 19: Roof Drainage Figure 20: Roof Drainage

March 29, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 94215390

Page | 6

Figure 21: Test Pit 1 Figure 22: Test Pit 1

Figure 23: Test Pit 2 Figure 24: Test Pit 2

March 29, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 94215390

Page | 7

Figure 25: Test Pit 3 Figure 26: Test Pit 3

Figure 27: Test Pit 4 Figure 28: Test Pit 4

March 29, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. 94215390

Page | 8

Figure 29: Test Pit 5 Figure 30: Test Pit 5