3 GLEN 17-1702_Design Analysis

TOC - 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 - CRITERIA .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Codes and Standards ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Other Documents .................................................................................................................. 1-1 SECTION 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Phasing & Scheduling............................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Basis of Selection ................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.4 Maintainability of Selection ................................................................................................... 2-2

2.5 Recovered Materials ............................................................................................................. 2-2 SECTION 3 - QUALITY CONTROL ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Minimize Errors and Omissions ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Discipline and Consultant Coordination ................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 Team Members ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 SECTION 4 - ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Record Drawing, Existing Pole and LED Fixture Product Data Review ............................... 4-4

4.4 Structural Analysis and Calculations .................................................................................... 4-6 SECTION 5 - DESIGN APPROACH ............................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Parking Lot Light Pole Design............................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Structural Design .................................................................................................................. 5-3 SECTION 6 - COST ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 6-1 SECTION 7 - APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 7-1 APPENDIX A – PROJECT DOCUMENTS .......................................................................................... A APPENDIX B – STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS .............................................................................. B APPENDIX C – PRODUCT DATA SHEETS ...................................................................................... C APPENDIX D – PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING CALCULATIONS ......................................................... D

1-1

SECTION 1 - CRITERIA

1.1 Codes and Standards

A. Schriever Air Force Base (SAFB) Standards

1. SAFB Engineering Design Guide

2. SAFB Installation Development Plan

3. SAFB Environment Engineering Design Guide

4. SAFB Facilities Excellence Plan

B. Department of Defense and Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)

1. UFC 1-200-01, General Building Requirements

2. UFC 1-1301-01, Structural Engineering

3. UFC 3-501-01, Electrical Engineering

4. UFC 3-520-01, Interior Electrical Systems

5. UFC 3-530-01, Interior and Exterior Lighting

6. UFC 3-550-01, Exterior Power Distribution

C. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Compliance with all NFPA documents is required; the following list is not all inclusive.

1. NFPA 1, Chapter 29 – Safeguards During Building Construction, Alteration and Demolition Operations

2. NFPA 70, National Electric Code

3. NFPA 70E, National Electrical Safety Code

D. International Codes and other Guidelines

1. Illuminating Engineering Society (IES)

2. International Dark-Sky Association

3. International Building Codes

4. ASCE 7, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings

1.2 Other Documents

A. Statement of Work dated 1 September 2017

B. AFI 32-1064, AF Electrical Safety Requirements

C. AFMAN 32 -1024 Civil Engineering Standard Facility Requirements

D. AFMAN 32-1084 Civil Engineering Facility Requirements

E. SAFB Engineering Design Guide, 2016 version

2-1

SECTION 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 Scope of Work

A. The main purpose of this project is to replace all of the remaining 30-foot and 38 to 40-foot nominal aluminum light poles and replace (29) failed light poles in the parking lots outside the Restricted Area as shown on project documents.

B. The new parking lot light poles will be engineered round tapered steel poles equipped with factory installed canister vibration damping systems. The heights and base diameters of the poles were selected to match the existing poles and pole heights as closely as possible, and in order to accommodate the existing pole bases and bolt circles, so a one per one replacement is possible.

C. The existing LED luminaires on the parking lot poles will be removed for the pole replacement, and then reinstalled on the new poles, as they were only installed 5 years ago in an Air Force wide project to replace aging HID fixtures with energy efficient and low maintenance LEDs.

D. Luminaires required for the 29 down poles being replaced will be provided by contractor. These fixtures will match the existing fixture styles in each parking lot as close as possible.

E. Photometric point-to-point Lighting Calculations using the existing and new Philips cobra-head luminaire types are required as part of the scope of work to verify that the existing parking lot pole and luminaire configuration, after the project is completed, will comply with IES and UFC requirements for parking lot illumination.

a. The photometric calculations show that the parking lots generally meet or exceed IES and UFC lighting level requirements for low activity (0.2 FC min., 0.8 FC average) to medium activity parking lots (0.6 FC min., 2.4 FC average).

b. In the instances where parking lot lighting levels drop below 0.2 FC, it is along the outer edges of the parking lots. In many cases, there is street lighting in the vicinity that has not been taken into account in our calculations. The street lighting contributes additional illumination to the outer edges of these parking lots.

c. The existing and new LED luminaires are full cutoff fixtures that meet Dark

Sky guidelines.

2.2 Project Phasing & Scheduling

A. The project must be phased so that the parking lot lighting is operational during the hours of where illumination is required to provide security for personnel, contractors, visitors and their vehicles (in most cases from dusk to dawn). This means that any of the existing circuits, power panels and controls that are de-energized for contractor work during a particular day, must be re-energized and tested prior to dusk, or temporary power panels and controls must be provided. Weekend work by the contractor is also anticipated to be required.

2-2

2.3 Basis of Selection

A. The manufacturers of the support materials associated with this project are for the most part completely open. The majority of the equipment will be manufactured in the United States and comply with the Buy America Act.

B. The following products and manufacturers were used as the basis of design for the project:

1. New Engineered Steel Light Poles – manufactured by Valmont

2. Existing LED Luminaires – Rebel Series (RX2) cobra head style fixtures manufactured by Philips-Hadco

3. New LED Luminaires – Rebel Series Generation 2 (RX2-G2) cobra head style fixtures manufactured by Philips-Lumec

4. Repair to Reinforced Concrete Pole Bases – per Structural details

2.4 Maintainability of Selection

A. The basis of design for proposed equipment associated with this project was selected based on the requirement for high reliability and low maintenance.

B. Materials selection for the primary components of the project was essentially predetermined by the User’s requirements and for their durability, function and reliability. In addition to budget, the materials have to meet the standards set forth in the SAFB Design Guidelines, Specifications, Building Codes as well as any SAFB requirements to match existing conditions. Consideration was given to the long term maintenance and reliability of the equipment. It is intended that the materials will meet or exceed existing levels of quality.

2.5 Recovered Materials

A. The majority of the demolition effort consists of removing the existing aluminum parking lot light poles, and portions of reinforced concrete pole bases.

B. The contractor will recycle the aluminum poles, concrete, rebar and other material deemed applicable. The contractor shall dispose of all materials not deemed recyclable off of the government’s property.

3-1

SECTION 3 - QUALITY CONTROL

3.1 Minimize Errors and Omissions

A. A quality control check will be completed prior to each submittal to the SAFB. At the design completion of the 95% Unreviewed Design Submittal, the entire package will be reviewed by personnel in the Colorado Springs office of Farris Engineering.

Farris Engineering will use an independent qualified individual not directly associated with the design of the project to provide this quality control check.

3.2 Discipline and Consultant Coordination

A. Farris Engineering Inc. is the prime consultant to SAFB and is performing the Electrical and associated design work. MGA Structural Engineers Inc. is the structural engineering sub-consultant that is evaluating existing concrete pole bases, designing new bases as required, and evaluating the new poles selected for new and existing pole base recommendations.

3.3 Team Members

A. SAFB Civil Engineering Squadron Project Manager

B. SAFB Contract Specialist

C. SAFB Contracting Officer

D. Project Manager, FEI Principal

Lyle W. Hubl, PE Farris Engineering Inc.

719-635-0900 lhubl@farris-usa.com

E. Electrical Engineer

Steven R. Peake, PE Farris Engineering Inc.

719-635-0900 speake@farris-usa.com

3-2

F. Structural Engineer

Jon Dietrich, PE MGA Structural Engineers Inc.

719-635-4473 jon.dietrich@mgaegrs.com

G. Electrical Designer/CAD Technician

Kevin D. Porter Farris Engineering Inc.

719-635-0900 kporter@farris-usa.com

4-1

SECTION 4 - ANALYSIS

4.1 Background

A. Schriever AFB has multiple employee, contractor and personnel surface parking lots located outside of the Base Restricted Area. These lots serve the north (main entry) portal, the west (contractor) entry portal, the SAFB Operations Support Facility, the Base Credit Union, Health Clinic, Fitness Center, Event Center, Child Development Center (CDC), Pass & ID and Buildings 24, 26 and 780, and have a reported total of 181 aluminum parking lot light poles that are original, and at over 32 years old are at the end of their useful life.

B. The existing light poles were all retrofitted with new LED luminaires in 2012 - 2013 as a part of an Air Force-wide project to replace aging exterior HID luminaires with more energy efficient LEDs that require less maintenance. The Philips-Hadco LED fixtures installed are much lighter than the original HID fixtures with magnetic ballasts, and have a more modern, slim profile.

C. During the past year or so, a total of twenty-nine (29) of the existing aluminum light poles have sustained stress fractures due to wind induced force and oscillation, and have failed catastrophically and fallen.

D. Schriever AFB, located where it is on the high plains, close to the front range of the Rockies and Pikes Peak, can have winds that are pretty consistent at low to moderate speeds (5-15 mph), and also can see peak wind gusts of up to 100 mph.

E. The failure of the poles is assumed to be due to wind induced vibration and oscillation and stress on the spun aluminum material over time. The replacement of the HID pole luminaire heads with LED luminaires most likely has unexpectantly caused the poles to become more unstable, as it appears there is increased movement and vibration of the poles caused by the wind.

F. Although the LED heads weigh less than the original HID lamp and ballast ‘shoeboxes’, they have a lower profile, flat shape that may catch the wind more easily, transferring this force to the pole. We observed that this causes the pole tops to move and sway susceptibly to the eye, even when only moderate winds are present. We suspect this may transfer a greater force to the base of the poles than before the LEDs were installed, and hence the poles, five years later, are starting to fail from fatigue and show stress fractures caused by the increased pole movement.

G. Vibration damping systems are available as a retrofit for both aluminum and steel poles, but they were not installed when the new LED luminaires were installed five years ago. These damping systems may have kept the poles from failing.

4.2 Site Investigation

A. Prior to and during the site investigative work, the existing parking lot and site lighting record drawings were reviewed in detail, including the original record drawings, projects that added to or modified the base parking lots, and the documents that outline the full-scale replacement of the pole luminaires with the Hadco-Philips LED heads.

4-2

B. Each of the parking lots outside of the restricted area were surveyed during a two-day site survey, and two follow-up partial day site surveys. Each parking lot pole assembly was observed and visually inspected, including the relative luminaire size (large LED head or small), luminaire configuration, pole type and condition, concrete base condition and pole base.

C. The parking lot light pole locations, layout, luminaire configuration and number of poles in each parking lot was noted on drawings and compared with the record drawings provided to us.

D. During the survey, each failed pole location was noted on the plans. Pictures were taken, and it was noted that most of the (29) failed aluminum poles fractured at the midpoint of the wiring handhole, approximately 12” up from the base, from aluminum fatigue and brittleness. The remaining failed poles broke off at the pole anchor base plate, indicating a failure of the welded connection between the anchor base plate and the pole.

E. We observed a number of the parking lot concrete pole bases in the main entry portal northwest parking lot and at the Fitness Center are ‘spalling’ (i.e. the surface layer of the concrete is deteriorated, exposing the aggregate in a honeycomb pattern). The pole base design detail and pictures of each of these concrete bases were sent to our structural engineer for evaluation.

1. The pole base design for these lots called for the concrete to be sawcut at a 45-degree angle to taper the top of the concrete base in to the pole base plate, bolt circle and base cover. We believe the contractor that installed these bases did not vibrate the portion of the concrete above grade well enough in all the pole bases, leading to the spalling and honeycombing observed.

2. We observed a total of four (7) concrete pole bases in the parking lots serving the RA main entry portal at B.200, and (5) concrete pole bases in the front parking area of the Fitness Center B.120, whose sloped tops are badly spalled and deteriorated.

3. All of the concrete base designs for the parking light poles installed later have a nearly flat, slightly tapered top. Spalling of the concrete was not observed with the newer base designs.

F. During the site survey, we observed, as stated in the scope of work, that a total of twenty-nine (29) of the existing aluminum light poles have sustained stress fractures at the wiring handhole or at the anchor base plate welds, and have fallen.

1. The poles that failed are all 38 to 40-foot tall round tapered spun aluminum poles located in the parking lots serving B.30, B.120, B.200, B.210 and B.780, except for two 30-foot square aluminum poles that failed in the Building 60 (CDC) parking lot.

2. The light poles that failed were located in the main entry portal northeast and northwest lots, in the Building 210 parking lot, in the Fitness Center parking lots (front and back parking lots), in the B.60 parking lot, in the B.780 parking lot, and in the West parking lot outside of the B.30 west entry portal.

4-3

3. The number of failed poles for each of these parking lots that we observed is:

(1) in the NE main portal lot, (3) in the NW main portal lot, (3) at Support Facility B.210, (2) at the Fitness Center, (9) in the Fitness Center back parking lot (all of the poles have failed except 1), (2) at the CDC B.60, (3) at B.780, and (5) in the West Portal B.30 parking lot.

G. During our site investigative work, we observed that some of the pole tops start oscillating noticeably at fairly low wind speeds (around 10-15 mph). Besides the noticeable oscillating movement and vibration of some of the poles, there is also a distinct repetitive noise which we assume is the rattling of the wire harnesses inside the poles.

H. We count a total of 176 existing parking lighting pole locations (pole bases) in the outside surface lots. In the original count of 181 parking lot pole locations on Attachment C, ‘Existing Pole Locations’, the West Gate street lighting (12 poles) was included, as well as one street light at Building 20, and the street lighting poles are not being replaced under this project. Also, there is five poles shown in the Building 780 parking lot, when there is only four, but the Building 26 parking lot poles (8 total) were not included in the original count, and one additional pole was found in the B.30 parking lot that was not shown on the record drawings. Therefore, the number of poles being replaced under this project should be = 181 - 12 - 1 - 1 + 8 + 1 = 176.

1. About half of these pole locations (83 total) are located in the three large main parking areas, two located in front of the main entry portal (Building 200) and referred to as the northeast and northwest main entry parking lots, and one located in front of the west entry portal (Building 30) and referred to as the west lot.

2. These parking areas were either original when the base opened in 1984, or part of parking lot additions that occurred within the first 10 years, so these poles are all 24-34 years old.

3. From the record drawings provided to us, the poles in these lots are 38-feet tall, mounted on 30” high reinforced concrete bases, nominally, for a mounting height of +/- 40 feet six inches. From record drawings details and shop drawings, these poles are all round, tapered spun aluminum poles with 10” and 12” outside diameter bases and 4.5” diameter tops.

4. Most of the light poles located in the smaller parking areas and lots are also 38 to 40-foot tall, round tapered aluminum, mounted on 30” high concrete bases.

There are (7) of these pole locations in the Building 101 (Credit Union) parking lot, (16) in the Building 210 parking lots, (6) in the B220 Clinic parking lot, (5) in front of Fitness Center B120, (11) in the lot behind the Fitness Center near the outdoor track and ballfield, (2) in the B20 Event Center parking lot, (4) in the Pass & ID B15 parking lot, and (5) in the B780 parking lot.

5. There are three parking lots with different poles. The Building 24 and 26 parking lots have (28) 30-foot tall tapered round aluminum poles, and the CDC Building 60 has (11) 30-foot square aluminum poles mounted on 30” concrete bases.

4-4

4.3 Record Drawing, Existing Pole and LED Fixture Product Data Review

A. There are only two different nominal heights of parking lot light poles in the outside SAFB parking lots surveyed and they are 30 and 40-feet, nominal.

B. The bolt circle observed and measured for the majority of the parking lot light poles is 11.5” diameter (bolts 8” O.C.). This is the standard bolt circle in the parking lots for Buildings 15, 20, 24, 26, 30, 101, 200, 220 and 780.

C. The pole bases/diameters and bolt circles are substantially larger in the Building 60, Building 120 and Building 210 parking lots. The bolt circles are approximately 12.5” diameter with bolts 9” O.C. for the square straight poles at B.60, 14” diameter with bolts 10” O.C. at B.120, and 14 - 15” diameter with bolts 10 – 11” O.C. at B.210.

D. Existing details of the concrete bases and bolt patterns show that the original 38 to 40-foot poles have 11-1/2” diameter bolt circles with approximately 12” spacing between each bolt on the square, as we observed and measured. Details of the other bolt patterns were not found in the record drawing files. See Appendix A for the pole base detail for the 38-foot poles.

E. The existing pole bases are all reinforced concrete piers, and are either 24” diameter or 30” diameter as observed in the field, and are nominally 30” above grade to the top.

1. Per the concrete base details, the depth of the piers supporting the taller 38-40 foot poles is 10 feet below grade. The depth of the piers supporting the 30-foot poles is generally 7-8 feet. Only building 210 has 30” diameter pole bases that were installed in a later parking lot reconfiguration project.

2. All of the concrete bases observed and researched were designed to structurally support 30 to 40-foot poles. Even the concrete bases that have above grade spalling and honeycombing of the surface layer of concrete are structurally able to support the poles they were designed for. See the Structural Findings and Recommendations below for recommended repairs on these pole bases.

F. From the SAFB Parking and Roadway pole lighting maps and schedules provided with the scope of work (see Appendixes A), and discussions with the 50 CES Electric Shop, we determined that for the outside parking lots, there are eight (8) different types of light pole standard configurations 2A through 2G and 2I, which include single head, back-to-back twin heads, and triple-head pole lights.

1. There are three different types of LED fixture packages (64, 128 and 160 LED arrays), and two types of IES optics used (Types III and IV), so there are six unique LED fixture heads. The 64-LED fixture is considered a small cobra head fixture equivalent to the 150W high pressure sodium fixtures it replaced, and the 128 LED and 160 LED are medium cobra heads used as replacement for 250W and 400W high pressure sodium parking lot lights. The parking pole light style by parking lot is as follows:

a. In the North Portal (B.200) east parking lot, the parking lot lighting consists of SAFB Types 2E and 2F light pole styles on 38-foot (nominal 40-foot height) round aluminum poles. The style 2E parking lot light has a single head, 128 LED light engine medium cobra-head with IES Type IV optics.

4-5

The style 2F parking lot light has the same 128 LED Type IV fixture, with two mounted back-to-back.

b. In the North Portal (B.200) west parking lot, and the B.101 (Credit Union) lot, the lighting consists of SAFB Types 2A and 2B light pole styles on 38-foot (nominal 40-foot height) round aluminum poles. The style 2A parking lot light has a single head, 160 LED light engine medium cobra-head with IES Type III optics. The style 2B parking lot light has a 160 LED with IES Type IV optics, two mounted back-to-back.

c. In the Command Support Center (B.210) and Base Clinic (B.220) Parking Lots, the lighting consists of SAFB Types 2D and 2G light pole styles on 38-foot (nominal 40-foot height) round aluminum poles. The style 2D parking lot light has a single head, 64 LED light engine small cobra-head with IES Type III optics. The style 2G parking lot light has a 64 LEDs with IES Type IV optics, two mounted back-to-back.

d. In the Fitness Center (B.120) Front and Back Parking Lots, the pole lighting also consists of SAFB types 2D and 2G light pole styles on 38-foot (nominal 40-foot height) round aluminum poles. The style 2D parking lot light has a single head, 64 LED light engine small cobra-head with IES Type III optics. The style 2G parking lot light has a 64 LEDs with IES Type IV optics, two mounted back-to-back.

e. In the Child Development Center (B.60) Driveway and Parking Lot, the lighting consists of SAFB Type 2C light pole style on 30-foot (32.5-foot mounting height) square straight aluminum poles. The style 2C parking lot light has a single head, 128 LED light engine medium cobra-head with IES Type III optics.

f. In the Schriever Event Center (B.20) Parking Lot, the lighting consists of (2)

SAFB Type 2G light pole styles on 38-foot (nominal 40-foot height) round aluminum poles. The style 2G parking light pole has twin back-to-back heads, each with the 64 LED small cobra-head with IES Type IV optics.

g. In the Pass & ID (B.15) Parking Lot, the lighting consists of (4) SAFB Type

2E light pole styles on 38-foot (nominal 40-foot height) round aluminum poles. The style 2E parking light pole has a single head 128 LED light engine with IES Type III optics.

h. In the West Portal (B.30) Parking Lot, the lighting consists of SAFB Style

2G light pole standards on 38-foot (nominal 40-foot height) round aluminum poles. The style 2G parking light pole has twin back-to-back heads, each with the 64 LED light engines with IES Type IV optics.

i. In the B.780 Parking Lot and Dock area, the lighting consists of SAFB type

2D light pole styles on 38-foot (nominal 40-foot height) round aluminum poles. The style 2D parking lot light has a single 64 LED light engine small cobra-head with IES Type III optics.

j. In the B.24 Parking Lot, the pole lighting also consists of SAFB types 2D and 2G light pole standards, but are mounted on 30-foot round aluminum poles with 30” concrete bases (32.5-foot mounting height). As stated

4-6 above, the style 2D parking lot light has is a small single head, 64 LED with IES Type III optics. The style 2G parking lot light has 64 LEDs with IES Type IV optics, two small heads mounted back-to-back.

k. In the B.26 Parking Lot, the pole lighting consists of SAFB types 2D, 2G and 2I light pole standards, mounted on 30-foot round aluminum poles with 30” concrete bases (32.5-foot mounting height). The style 2D and 2G pole standards are small 64 LED cobra-heads the same as the adjacent B.24 parking lot. There are also (2) Type I style pole standards in this lot, which are triple 64 LED heads with Type IV optics, with two back-to-back and one at 90 degrees.

4.4 Structural Analysis and Calculations

A. Design Criteria:

Snow Loads:

Ground Snow Load, Pg = 30 p.s.f.

Min. Frost Depth, 38 inches Min. Depth to Bottom of Foundation (Unheated, Fig. B-1), 34 inches

Seismic Loads:

Importance Factor, IE 1.0 Mapped Spectral Response Accelerations SS = 0.162g Site Class D Spectral Response Coefficients:

SDS = 0.173g Seismic Design Category B Ap = 2.5 (cantilever structure braced below its center of mass) Rp = 2.5

Analysis Procedure: Seismic Demand on Nonstructural Components

Wind Loads:

Ultimate Wind Speed, V ult = 115 m.p.h.

Wind Exposure C

Geotechnical Information:

Allowable Bearing Pressure: 2.0 ksf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Passive: 150 (Type 4 material per IBC Table 1806.2. Consistent with other Geotechnical infor-mation from Schriever AFB for clayey sands in the upper strata of the subgrade.)

Load combinations used in design are per ASCE 7, Chapter 2.

B. The structural capacity of the existing light pole bases was checked for the new proposed 30 and 35-foot light poles. The light poles used in our analysis were Valmont round, tapered steel light duty. The Philips Hadco luminaire fixtures were used in our analysis in both one-sided and two-sided applications. Anchor bolts

4-7 were assumed to be 1” diameter, ASTM F1554, Gr. 55 material embedded a minim of 36”. Our findings show the existing light poles have adequate capacity to support the new poles and luminaries. The new light pole bases will need to be checked to verify they match against the existing ones for the bolt size, pattern and diameter.

C. Several of the light pole concrete bases show indications of damage (Building 120 Fitness Center parking lot) and construction defects (Building 200 northeast and northwest parking lots). The damaged concrete bases at Building 200 are spalled at the tops just under the light pole bases. Some remediation attempts have been made in the past but don’t appear to be successful as concrete scaling, cracking and spalling has developed in the repaired areas also. The damaged areas reduce the base’s capacity to support the light pole against wind and gravity loads and could ultimately fail under the right loading conditions.

D. The concrete bases with construction defects, have honeycomb surfaces in one to several spots. Honeycombing is a result of poor concrete consolidation during placement. The recess depth in some areas varies and appears to be as deep as 1” at the extreme condition. The reduced concrete area will reduce the capacity of the base to support the light pole against wind and gravity loads and could ultimately fail under the right loading conditions.

5-1

SECTION 5 - DESIGN APPROACH

5.1 Parking Lot Light Pole Design

A. Based on the existing pole base bolt patterns, as well as selecting an engineered steel pole that can withstand the winds of 100 mph and wind gusts up to 130 mph, a round tapered steel 35-foot pole was selected to replace the round aluminum 38-40 foot poles, and the a 30-foot round tapered steel pole was selected to replace the 30-foot square aluminum poles at the CDC B.60 and the 30-foot round aluminum poles at B.24 and B.26.

B. Refer to the Philips Hadco Product Data Sheets in Appendix A for the medium cobra-head EPA rating, and the Valmont DS-210 round tapered steel pole data sheet in Appendix B for the basis for the following pole recommendations:

1. Replace 38-40’ Round Tapered Aluminum Poles, maximum number of heads = 2

a. LED head EPA rating = 0.82 ft2, max. 3 heads, EPA = 0.82 x 2 = 1.64 ft2

b. 35-foot Pole with 100 mph design and 1.3 Gust Factor, max. EPA = 12.2ft2

(1) 8.5” OD base, 3.6” OD top, 11-gauge wall thickness, weight = 315 lbs.

(2) Standard Base Plate with 11.5” Dia. +/- 0.5” Bolt circle for Buildings 15, 20, 101, 200, 220 and 780.

(3) Custom Base Plate for larger bolt circles (14” to 15” Dia.) at Buildings

120 and 210.

(4) All bolt circles shall be confirmed by contractor.

2. Replace 30’ Tapered Aluminum Poles, maximum number of heads = 2

a. LED head EPA rating = 0.82 ft2, max. 3 heads, EPA = 0.82 x 3 = 2.46 ft2

b. 30-foot Pole with 100 mph design and 1.3 Gust Factor, max. EPA = 12.0ft2

(1) 8.5” OD base, OD top TBD, 11-gauge wall thickness, weight TBD.

(2) Standard Base Plate with 11.5” Dia. +/- 0.5” Bolt circle for B.24 and

B.26.

(3) Custom base plate for larger bolt circles (12.5” Dia.) at Building 60.

(4) All bolt circles shall be confirmed by contractor.

C. In addition to the 11-gauge round tapered steel poles rated for 100 mph winds with up to 130 mph gusts, we are recommending a factory installed canister vibration damper be included with each pole to make sure that excessive pole vibration and oscillation will no longer be a problem. See product data sheet in Appendix C.

5.2 Photometric Calculations

A. Photometric Calculations were performed using the Philips IES Files obtained by us between the 35% and 95% Submittals for existing Pole luminaire/standard styles 2A through 2G product data sheets provided to us by 50 CES, and the equivalent new Philips Lumec “Generation 2” RX2 medium LED cobra heads for the new luminaires required for the down poles.

B. The new mounting height of 37.5 feet for the existing 38 and 40-foot pole assemblies was used. The 30-foot pole mounting height of 32.5 feet for Buildings 24, 26 and 60 was maintained with the 30-foot steel pole selected.

5-2

C. See Photometric Plans PH-101 through PH-112 in Appendix D for point by point illumination levels and calculation summaries.

D. The statistical summary of resulting illumination levels for the Photometric Calculations plans (PH-101 through PH-112) that were performed for each parking lot are as follows:

1. PH-101, Building 200 Portal Parking Lots

a. East Lot: 1.37 FC avg., 6.1 max., 0.2 min.

b. West Lot: 2.08 FC avg., 6.7 max., 0.8 min.

2. PH-102, Building 101 Credit Union: 2.22 FC avg., 6.7 max., 0.5 min.

3. PH-103, Building 210, Command Support Facility

a. Main (east) Lots: 1.72 FC avg., 3.9 max., 0.4 min.

b. Voyager Street: 0.88 FC avg., 2.1 max., 0.1 min (min. was calculated at intersection of Falcon Parkway without taking into account street lighting).

c. West Lots: 0.82 FC avg., 2.0 max., 0.3 min.

4. PH-104, Building 220 Clinic Parking: 1.04 FC avg., 2.8 max., 0.3 min.

5. PH-105, Building 120, Fitness Center

a. South Parking: 0.65 FC avg., 2.1 max., 0.1 min.

b. S. Entry Drive: 1.18 FC avg., 3.0 max., 0.4 min.

c. North Parking Lot: 2.67 FC avg., 4.3 max., 0.5 min.

6. PH-106, Building 60, CDC

a. Parking Lot: 2.19 FC avg., 4.5 max., 0.6 min.

b. Hahn Avenue: 1.16 FC avg., 2.9 max., 0.2 min.

7. PH-107, Building 20, SEC Parking: 0.72 FC avg., 2.6 max., 0.1 min (note: this calculation does not include the street light centered at the back of the lot).

8. PH-108, Building 15, Pass & ID: 1.41 FC avg., 3.5 max., 0.4 min. Note, the existing LED single luminaire poles (Type 2A) were replaced with generation 2 fixtures of 160 LED (Type 2B1), and the pole height was raised from 30 to 35-feet. This will correct the illumination in the middle of this lot that was deficient (less than 0.2 FC previously).

9. PH-109, Buildings 24 and 26

a. Bldg. 24 Lot: 0.77 FC avg., 3.6 max., 0.0 min.

b. Bldg. 26 Lot: 1.06 FC avg., 3.8 max., 0.3 min.

c. Talon Way: 0.89 FC avg., 3.6 max., 0.0 min.

10. PH-110 and PH-111, Building 30 West Portal Parking: 0.92 FC avg., 3.8 max.,

0.0 min. (note: NW and SW corners of the parking lot calc zero, but street lights along Enoch Road not modeled do contribute to the illumination of these parts of the lot).

11. PH-112, Building 780 Lot and Driveway: 0.58 FC, 2.1 max., 0.0 min. (note: 0.0 min. values due to definition of driveway area, lot does not go to zero. Also, building mounted lighting at the loading dock was not modeled).

5-3

E. Although some of the resulting photometric calculations show low or zero minimums, they are generally located on the outside edges of the parking lots or in driveway or a street, and they are sometimes due to street lights in the area that are not included in the calculation. In addition, although we have lowered the 40-foot nominal poles to 37.5 feet mounting height, it doesn’t appear to have created too many “holes” between poles where there are low illumination values.

F. If we specified a taller steel pole (the next pole height is 39 feet for Valmont), the pole base diameter of 9”, and standard anchor base plate for a 11-guage steel pole are too large in diameter for most of the existing bolt circles (the majority of the existing pole bolt circles are 11-1/2” diameter, and the 39-foot pole has an anchor base that accommodates either a 12” to 13”, or a 12.5” to 13” diameter bolt circle. It is not recommended to provide a modified anchor base plate with a smaller diameter bolt circle/template than the standard, as it reduces the EPA rating and stability of the pole.

G. Therefore, we conclude that replacing the 38-40 foot round tapered aluminum poles with 35-foot steel poles as we recommend above should not have adverse effect on the parking lot illumination.

5.2 Structural Design

A. Building 120 Fitness Center parking lot bases

1. We suggest the damaged light pole bases noted in this parking lot can be repaired and do not require replacement. Once the existing light poles are removed, we suggest the top of the bases be demolished down to competent concrete beyond the spalled areas. This demolition should be done carefully to avoid damaging the existing vertical reinforcing and anchor bolts. New hoop reinforcing identical in size and location, can be added to replace the existing hoops. The existing concrete should be left rough with a minimum aggregate amplitude of ¼” and coating with a concrete bonding agent. A tubular form of matching diameter should be added, and new concrete poured up to the desired elevation. Tool the top surface to slope away from the pole base in all directions.

Concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,500 psi and have a minimum water/cement ratio of 0.45. The concrete in the base should achieve a minimum compressive strength of 3,500 psi prior to the new light pole being installed.

B. Building 200 northeast and northwest parking lot bases

1. We suggest the damaged light pole bases noted in these parking lots can be repaired and do not require replacement. Once the existing light poles are removed, we suggest the top of the bases be demolished down to competent concrete beyond the honeycombing areas. This demolition should be done carefully to avoid damaging the existing vertical reinforcing and anchor bolts.

New hoop reinforcing identical in size and location, can be added to replace the existing hoops. The existing concrete should be left rough with a minimum aggregate amplitude of ¼” and coating with a concrete bonding agent. A tubular form of matching diameter should be added, and new concrete poured up to the desired elevation. Tool the top surface to slope away from the pole base in all directions. Concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of

5-4

4,500 psi and have a minimum water/cement ratio of 0.45. The concrete in the base should achieve a minimum compressive strength of 3,500 psi prior to the new light pole being installed.

6-1

SECTION 6 - COST ANALYSIS

6.1 General

A.

B.

C.

7-1

SECTION 7 - APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – PROJECT DOCUMENTS

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

50TH SPACE WING (AFSPC)

MASTER OF SPACE

14 Feb 2018

MEMORANDUM FOR: Farris Engineering 650 First St Colorado Springs, CO 80907

FROM: 50 CONS/PKA

SUBJECT: FA7000-16-D-0002, Request for Proposal (RFP) for GLEN 17-1702 Design to Replace 181 Parking Lot Light Poles

1. The 50th Contracting Squadron/PKA requests a proposal for the project identified in the attached Statement of Work (SOW) and List of Required Actions (LORA) as soon as possible but NLT 1200L 28 February 2018.

2. IAW DFARS 236.606-70 Statutory Fee Limitation, the fee for architect-engineer services for the preparation of designs, plans, drawings, and specifications related to a construction project is limited to a maximum of six percent (6%) of that project’s estimated construction cost. The Government’s estimated construction cost for this project is

3. Please ensure the proposal cover letter includes a total proposed cost rounded to the nearest dollar for this project, the names of the primary engineers who will be working on this project and their firm (if a sub consultant). The proposal price is required to be valid until 28 May 2018.

4. Your proposal should break out design services, non-design services, material, labor classifications, rates and hours. Profit and G&A are already included in the negotiated price lists.

5. If you elect not to prepare this proposal for any reason, please notify the contracting office in writing immediately with the reason(s) your company has decided to not submit a proposal.

6. Your proposal should include any assumptions made in creation of your proposal, based on site visits, references to drawings, etc.

7. Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this request until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this request. In the event the Government cancels this request, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.

Statement of Work

Project Number: GLEN17-1702

AE Design To

Replace Parking Lot Light Poles, Multiple Locations

Schriever AFB, Colorado

26 Jan 2018

Revision 1 dated 12 Mar 2018

GLEN 17-1702 Page 2

SOW Table of Contents

Section Page Number

1 Background 3 2 Scope of Works 3 3 Design Document Requirements 5 4 Work Requirements 5 5 Performance Period 7 6 Meetings 7 7 Contract Completion 7 8 Contract Administration/Points of Contacts 7

Appendix 1 Deliverables 9 Appendix 2 Outage Request Instructions 10 Appendix 3 AF Form 103 Work Clearance Process 10 Appendix 4 SAFB Security Requirements 11 Appendix 5 Restricted Area Process 12 Appendix 6 Security Badging Process 13 Attachments List of Attachments 15

GLEN 17-1702 Page 3

1. BACKGROUND

This design project is to contract a qualified Architecture Engineer (AE) to replace the existing 181 each 38-foot high aluminum parking lot light poles which are 32 years old and are at the end of useful life. Twenty Eight of a total of 181 light poles have failed and fallen during this past year due to wind induced vibration oscillation pole stress fractures. It is critical to replace these old existing poles as soon as possible to prevent potential safety hazard caused by falling of the fractured poles and lack of illumination in the parking lots.

2. SCOPE OF WORK

The Contractor shall provide all labor, materials, equipment, and supervision to perform the following tasks in accordance with the contract documents. All work to be conducted under this contract shall be performed under the general conditions of the US AF Academy A/E IDIQ contract and specific provisions of this Statement of Work (SOW) contained herein and all applicable attachments.

2.1 Design Requirements

2.1.1 Design for replacing the existing old parking lot light poles with new poles which is stable in various windy conditions using the government provided lighting fixtures at the same height of the existing poles and long lasting.

2.1.2 Utilize the existing concrete bases, mounting bolts, electrical circuits, and lighting fixtures furnished by the Government.

2.1.3 Survey the existing light pole concrete bases and recommend which bases are usable and which are needed to be replaced. Provide specifications and design for excavation, backfill, concrete reinforcing steel, and concrete bases.

2.1.4 Perform structural studies on the existing light pole concrete bases and soils in the vicinity of the light poles and verify that the weight of the new proposed poles and the existing lighting fixtures shall be adequately supported and anchored by the existing bases. If any existing concrete bases are found inadequate to support the new weight, provide specifications and design for new light pole concrete bases.

2.1.5 Perform Site Surveys and Engineering Studies to ensure that there will be no wind induced vibration causing pole stress fractures, to assess the conditions of existing electrical equipment, to provide recommendations for improvement of the lighting system, and to ensure that the parking lots are illuminated in accordance with the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) recommendations.

2.1.6 The design shall demonstrate and verify that the proposed light poles will provide stability in various windy conditions and levels of illumination required by IES HB-10 Lighting Handbook and ETL 12-15 LED Fixture Design and Installation Criteria for Interior, exterior Lighting Application, and other applicable lighting codes.

GLEN 17-1702 Page 4

2.1.7 The design shall show all defective or outdated components of the existing parking lot lighting system need to be replaced.

2.1.8 The design shall provide modern automated lighting control system for the entire parking lot lighting system.

2.1.9 Provide a construction package for a construction contractor to bid the replacement of 181 parking lot light poles specified in the location drawing provided as Attachment C with this SOW. The construction package shall include as follows:

A. Scope of Works

B. Current E4Clicks construction cost estimation

C. Construction Project Specifications

D. Specification data sheets on proposed replacement new light poles

E. Design drawings

F. Results of Engineering Studies

G. Pole warranty on the recommended replacement poles

2.2 Site Survey

The Contractor shall conduct site surveys needed to ascertain the existing conditions affecting the project within fifteen (15) calendar days from the Date of Award. The Contractor will be given the existing SAFB AutoCAD file(s) that documents the existing parking lot lighting system layout conditions upon the Contractor’s request. This AutoCAD file shall be the basis for all AutoCAD drawing files developed by the Contractor. Any building, system or other related changes to the AutoCAD file provided shall be organized in accordance with the A/E/C CAD Standards 6.0 as part of the contract requirements. The Existing drawings shall be considered as reference only and must be field verified by the Contractor.

2.3 35% Finding and Recommendations (F&R) Report Following the completion of the Site Surveys, the Contractor shall provide the F&R report elaborating on any significant aspects or parts of the report and their findings and recommendations. The Contractor shall provide a paper copy and an electronic copy to PM and CO. This submittal shall include the results of site surveys, existing available documents review, collected data review, pole stability study report (See 2.1.5), photometric study results (See 2.1.5), and recommendations for correcting existing safety hazards, functional deficiencies, and improvement of the parking lot lighting system.

2.4 35% Finding and Recommendations (F&R) Report Review Meeting The Contractor shall coordinate a F&R report review meeting with Government representatives to be held at Schriever AFB at the earliest agreeable time to discuss and answer questions on the

GLEN 17-1702 Page 5 findings of the site surveys and the proper course of action, based on the Contractor’s recommendations. The deliverables to be discussed are the F&R Report, photometric study, construction package for a construction contractor (See 2.1.9), pole stability study, design drawings, specifications, and design analysis. The Contractor shall submit meeting minutes to the Base Project Manager (PM) and the Contracting Officer (CO). Minutes maybe sent via email to all participants in the meeting.

2.5 95% Design Report The 95% Design Report shall include revisions incorporating all comments from the 35% F&R Report review, all minutes capturing discussions, F&R report (See 2.3), pole stability study report, photometric study results, preliminary construction project package, and 95% design documents.

2.6 95% Design Report Review It is not anticipated that an on-site review of the 95% unchecked final design will be required.

However, Government shall still be allowed 7 calendar days to review the submittal and provide comments to the Contractor, as per the LORA.

2.7 100% Final Design Report The 100% Final Design Report shall include revisions incorporating all comments from the 95% submittal review, all minutes capturing discussions, pole stability study report, photometric study results, preliminary construction project package, and 100% final design documents. The 100% Final Design Documents shall be certified with PE stamp.

2.9.1 Distribution

The number of electronic copies of each submittal shall be per the following:

Submittals Number of Copies

50 CONS 50 CES

Transmittal Letters 1 1 Meeting Minutes and MFRs 1 1 F&R Report 1 1 95% Design Report 1 1 100% Final Design Report with PE Stamp 1 1

3. DESIGN DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS

Provide two 11” x 17” paper copies of 100% final design drawings. Provide electronic copies for all reports and design documents. The electronic copies of 100% final design drawings shall be provided in one combined PDF file and AutoCAD files in accordance with Appendix 1.

4. WORK REQUIREMENTS

4.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

4.1.1 The Contractor shall supply all labor, materials, transportation, equipment, and supervision to provide a complete, finished, functional product meeting the SAFB Specifications.

GLEN 17-1702 Page 6

4.1.2 All work must conform to the Project Statement of Work, military/non-military building codes, SAFB Engineering Design Guide provided in Attachment D unless specific instructions contained herein exceed the requirements of the Guide.

4.1.3 Before project closeout, ensure that all deliverables have been submitted and approved by CO and PM.

4.2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

4.2.1 The Contractor shall coordinate with PM prior to commencing the site surveys.

4.2.2 Mission Impact

The Contractor shall limit impact to the mission to an absolute minimum. Any impacts shall be coordinated through PM.

4.2.3 Building Systems Outages

Work shall be phased such that building systems outage to an absolute minimum. Outage shall be requested to CO or PM at least 15 business days in advance. Any electrical outages cannot result in the running of the emergency generators located on Schriever AFB. If backup power is needed during power outages, contractor is responsible for supplying portable generators.

4.2.4 Site Access

Access to the mechanical and electrical rooms shall be coordinated through PM and the building Facility Manager.

4.2.5 Schriever AFB Access

The Contractor’s primary project employees shall apply for and be credentialed to access SAFB in order to perform site surveys and other works required for this project.

4.2.6 Damage to Existing Building

Contractor shall be responsible for the repair of any building damages resulting from work performed as part of this project.

4.2.7 Provide contact information of the contractor’s points of contact such as email addresses and phone numbers.

4.2.8 Project Schedules and Updates.

Provide a legible project schedule in printed and PDF format indicating all critical milestones leading to a final completion date.

4.2.9 Quality Assurance

All completed submittals and project schedules shall be…