Fort Hamilton_ISN_Specs_100PCNT_RTA -01-27-2022.pdf

Information Systems Network Facility

PN 061484

Fort Hamilton, New York

100% SPECIFICATIONS - RTA

27 January 2022

UNCLASSIFIED / FOUO

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PROJECT #061484 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS NETWORK FACILITY HAMILTONISN

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

DI VI SI ON 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTI NG REQUI REMENTS

00 00 01 COVER SHEET

00 00 02 CHECKLIST FOR BIDDERS

00 10 00 SF 1442 AND BIDDING SCHEDULE

00 21 16 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO BIDDERS

00 22 10 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL DESIGN -BID-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

00 24 00 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

00 31 32 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

00 45 00 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

00 72 00 CONTRACT CLAUSES

00 90 00 WAGE RATES

DI VI SI ON 01 - GENERAL REQUI REMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS

01 22 00.00 10 PRICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 29 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING

01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

01 45 00.00 10 QUALITY CONTROL

01 45 00.15 10 RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTOR MODE (RMS CM)

01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 58 00 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 78 24.00 10 FACILITY DATA REQUIREMENTS

01 91 00.15 18 TOTAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING (FORT HAMILTON ISN)

DI VI SI ON 02 - EXI STI NG CONDI TI ONS

02 41 00 DEMOLITION

02 61 13 EXCAVATION AND HANDLING OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL

DI VI SI ON 03 - CONCRETE

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

03 30 53 MISCELLANEOUS CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

DI VI SI ON 04 - MASONRY

04 20 00 UNIT MASONRY

DI VI SI ON 05 - METALS

05 05 23.16 STRUCTURAL WELDING

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL

05 21 00 STEEL JOIST FRAMING

05 30 00 STEEL DECKS

05 40 00 COLD-FORMED METAL FRAMING

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Friday October 15, 2021

05 50 13 MISCELLANEOUS METAL FABRICATIONS

05 51 33 METAL LADDERS

05 52 00 METAL RAILINGS

DI VI SI ON 06 - WOOD, PLASTI CS, AND COMPOSI TES

06 10 00 ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 41 16.00 10 PLASTIC-LAMINATE-CLAD ARCHITECTURAL CABINETS

06 61 16 SOLID SURFACING FABRICATIONS

DI VI SI ON 07 - THERMAL AND MOI STURE PROTECTI ON

07 05 23 PRESSURE TESTING AN AIR BARRIER SYSTEM FOR AIR TIGHTNESS

07 11 13 BITUMINOUS DAMPPROOFING

07 21 13 BOARD AND BLOCK INSULATION

07 22 00 ROOF AND DECK INSULATION

07 27 10.00 10 BUILDING AIR BARRIER SYSTEM

07 27 36 SPRAY FOAM AIR BARRIERS

07 53 23 ETHYLENE-PROPYLENE-DIENE-MONOMER ROOFING

07 60 00 FLASHING AND SHEET METAL

07 84 00 FIRESTOPPING

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS

DI VI SI ON 08 - OPENI NGS

08 11 13 STEEL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 11 16 ALUMINUM DOORS AND FRAMES

08 14 00 WOOD DOORS

08 16 13 FIBERGLASS DOORS

08 31 00 ACCESS DOORS AND PANELS

08 34 73 SOUND CONTROL DOOR ASSEMBLIES

08 36 13 SECTIONAL OVERHEAD DOORS

08 41 13 ALUMINUM-FRAMED ENTRANCES AND STOREFRONTS

08 51 13 ALUMINUM WINDOWS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

08 81 00 GLAZING

08 91 00 METAL WALL AND DOOR LOUVERS

DI VI SI ON 09 - FI NI SHES

09 22 00 SUPPORTS FOR PLASTER AND GYPSUM BOARD

09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD

09 30 10 CERAMIC, QUARRY, AND GLASS TILING

09 51 00 ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS

09 62 38 STATIC-CONTROL FLOORING

09 65 00 RESILIENT FLOORING

09 66 16 TERRAZZO FLOOR TILE

09 67 23.13 STANDARD RESINOUS FLOORING

09 68 00 CARPETING

09 90 00 PAINTS AND COATINGS

DI VI SI ON 10 - SPECI ALTI ES

10 11 00 VISUAL DISPLAY UNITS

10 14 00.10 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 14 00.20 INTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 21 13 TOILET COMPARTMENTS

10 26 00 WALL AND DOOR PROTECTION

10 28 13 TOILET ACCESSORIES

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2

10 44 16 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

10 51 13 METAL LOCKERS

10 73 16.13 METAL CANOPIES

DI VI SI ON 12 - FURNI SHI NGS

12 21 00 WINDOW BLINDS

12 48 13 ENTRANCE FLOOR MATS AND FRAMES

DI VI SI ON 13 - SPECI AL CONSTRUCTI ON

13 48 73 SEISMIC CONTROL FOR MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT

DI VI SI ON 21 - FI RE SUPPRESSI ON

21 13 13 WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, FIRE PROTECTION

21 13 18 PREACTION SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, FIRE PROTECTION

DI VI SI ON 22 - PLUMBI NG

22 00 00 PLUMBING, GENERAL PURPOSE

22 05 48.00 20 MECHANICAL SOUND AND VIBRATION CONTROL

DI VI SI ON 23 - HEATI NG, VENTI LATI NG, AND AI R CONDI TI ONI NG ( HVAC)

23 05 15 COMMON PIPING FOR HVAC

23 05 48.19 SEISMIC BRACING FOR HVAC

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

23 07 00 THERMAL INSULATION FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

23 09 00 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL FOR HVAC

23 09 13 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL DEVICES FOR HVAC

23 09 23.02 BACNET DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL FOR HVAC AND OTHER BUILDING

CONTROL SYSTEMS

23 09 93 SEQUENCES OF OPERATION FOR HVAC CONTROL

23 11 13 FUEL OIL PUMPING SYSTEM AND CONTROLS FOR STAND-BY POWER

23 11 20 FACILITY GAS PIPING

23 23 00 REFRIGERANT PIPING

23 25 00 CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF WATER FOR MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

23 30 00 HVAC AIR DISTRIBUTION

23 52 00 HEATING BOILERS

23 81 00 DECENTRALIZED UNITARY HVAC EQUIPMENT

23 81 23.00 20 COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONING UNITS

DI VI SI ON 25 - I NTEGRATED AUTOMATI ON

25 05 11.01 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS - HVAC

BUILDING LEVEL CONTROLS ONLY

25 05 11.02 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS – FIRE

ALARM

25 05 11.03 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS –

ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS

25 05 11.04 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS –

POWER MONITORING SYSTEM

25 08 10 UTILITY MONITORING AND CONTROL SYSTEM TESTING

25 10 10 UTILITY MONITORING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (UMCS) FRONT END

AND INTEGRATION

DI VI SI ON 26 - ELECTRI CAL

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3

26 05 48.00 10 SEISMIC PROTECTION FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

26 08 00 APPARATUS INSPECTION AND TESTING

26 09 13 ELECTRICAL POWER MONITORING

26 09 23.00 40 LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICES

26 12 19.10 THREE-PHASE, LIQUID-FILLED PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS

26 20 00 INTERIOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

26 24 13 SWITCHBOARDS

26 24 13.33 GENERATOR PARALLELING SWITCHBOARD AND CONTROLS

26 27 13.10 30 ELECTRIC METERS AND MONITORING SYSTEM

26 28 01.00 10 COORDINATED POWER SYSTEM PROTECTION AND ARC FLASH RISK

ANALYSIS

26 29 23 ADJUSTABLE SPEED DRIVE (ASD) SYSTEMS UNDER 600 VOLTS

26 32 15.00 ENGINE-GENERATOR SET STATIONARY 15-2500 KW, WITH

AUXILIARIES

26 33 53 STATIC UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY (UPS)

26 36 23 AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCHES AND BY-PASS/ISOLATION SWITCH

26 41 00 LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEM

26 51 00 INTERIOR LIGHTING

26 56 00 EXTERIOR LIGHTING

DI VI SI ON 27 - COMMUNI CATI ONS

27 05 13.43 TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

27 05 28.36 40 CABLE TRAYS FOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS

27 10 00 BUILDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLING SYSTEM

DI VI SI ON 28 - ELECTRONI C SAFETY AND SECURI TY

28 08 10 ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEM ACCEPTANCE TESTING

28 10 05 ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS (ESS)

28 31 76 INTERIOR FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEM,

ADDRESSABLE

DI VI SI ON 31 - EARTHWORK

31 00 00 EARTHWORK

31 05 19 GEOTEXTILE

31 60 00 FOUNDATION PREPARATION

DI VI SI ON 32 - EXTERI OR I MPROVEMENTS

32 11 13.16 BITUMINOUS-STABILIZED SUBGRADE

32 11 23 AGGREGATE BASE COURSES

32 11 26.19 BITUMINOUS-STABILIZED BASE AND SUBBASE COURSES

32 12 13 BITUMINOUS TACK AND PRIME COATS

32 12 16 HOT-MIX ASPHALT (HMA) FOR ROADS

32 16 19 CONCRETE CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS

32 17 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS

32 31 13.53 HIGH-SECURITY FENCES AND GATES

32 32 23.13 SEGMENTAL CONCRETE BLOCK RETAINING WALL

32 92 19 SEEDING

DI VI SI ON 33 - UTI LI TI ES

33 11 00 WATER UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PIPING

33 30 00 SANITARY SEWERAGE

33 40 00 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES

33 71 02 UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION

33 82 00 TELECOMMUNICATIONS OUTSIDE PLANT (OSP)

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4

DI VI SI ON 40 - PROCESS I NTERCONNECTI ONS

40 77 23 VIBRATION MONITORING OF STRUCTURES

-- End of Project Table of Contents --

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5

PROCUREMENT AND

CONTRACTING

REQUIREMENTS

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 6

SECTION 00 00 01

COVER SHEET

01/18

PART 1 GENERAL

NEW YORK DISTRICT

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10278-0090

INVITATION FOR BIDS

FOR

Fort Hamilton Information Systems Facility

Fort Hamilton, New York

1. Attached is INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. W912DS- 22- R-00 01

2. BIDS MUST BE SET FORTH full, accurate, and complete information as required by this Invitation for Bids, including attachments. The penalty for making false statements in bids is prescribed under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.

3. SUBMISSION OF BIDS: Complete details concerning proper submission of bids are contained in the INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS (Section 00 21 16 ).

4. Note the REQUIREMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION of the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY clause as it applies to the contract resulting from this solicitation. (See paragraph NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO ENSURE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY in Section 00 21 16 of this IFB).

5. REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS - SECTION 00 45 00 Bidders and Offerors are required to complete the REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS and submit them with their bids.

Within Section 00 45 00 , note in particular the PROHIBITION SEGREGATED FACILITIES. Failure of a bidder or offeror to agree to the certification will render his bid or offer non-responsive to the terms of solicitations involving awards of contracts exceeding $10,000 which are not exempt from the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Clause

(1984 APR).

6. THIS PROJECT IS A MILITARY PROGRAM PROCUREMENT AND IS FUNDED BY THE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. BUY AMERICAN ACT - CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (MAY

1993) IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 52.225-5 DOES NOT APPLY.

7. Please review all bonds and accompanying documents required to be submitted. Bonds, Powers of Attorney, statements of authenticity and continuing validity, and all related documents MUST NOT bear computer printer-generated signatures and/or seals. Documents bearing signatures and/or seals generated as part of a document, as opposed to being affixed to the document after its generation, will not be accepted. Submission of such documents may render the bid or offer

DOCUMENT 00 00 01 Page 1 non-responsive and ineligible for award.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 00 01 Page 2

SECTION 00 00 02

CHECKLIST FOR BIDDERS

01/18

PART 1 GENERAL

ATTACHED IS IFB NO. W912DS-22-R-0001

Fort Hamilton Information Systems Facility Fort Hamilton, New York

ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THIS SOLICITATION MUST BE

FURNISHED. MISTAKES OR OMISSIONS MAY RENDER YOUR OFFER INELIGIBLE FOR

AWARD. IMPORTANT ITEMS FOR YOU TO CHECK ARE INCLUDED IN BUT NOT LIMITED

TO THOSE LISTED BELOW. THIS INFORMATION IS FURNISHED ONLY TO ASSIST YOU

IN SUBMITTING A PROPER BID

____HAVE YOU ACKNOWLEDGED ALL AMENDMENTS?

____HAVE YOU COMPLETED THE "REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS" (SECTION

00 45 00) PORTION OF THE SOLICITATION?

____IS YOUR DUNS NUMBER LISTED ON THE STANDARD FORM 1442?

____IS YOUR BID GUARANTEE PROPERLY SIGNED BY BOTH THE BIDDER AND SURETY

AND ARE ALL SEALS AFFIXED?

____DO THE BID BOND AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS BEAR SIGNATURES AND SEALS

AFFIXED AFTER THE DOCUMENT WAS GENERATED, AS OPPOSED TO COMPUTER

PRINTER-GENERATED SIGNATURES AND/OR SEALS?

____HAVE YOU ENSURED THAT YOU HAVE NOT RESTRICTED YOUR OFFER BY ALTERING

THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOLICITATION?

____WHEN REQUIRED, HAVE YOU ENTERED A UNIT PRICE FOR EACH PRICE ITEM?

(THE SOLICITATION SPECIFICALLY STATES WHEN THIS IS NECESSARY.)

____ARE DECIMALS IN YOUR PRICES IN THE PROPER PLACE? ARE YOUR FIGURES

LEGIBLE?

____IF YOU HAVE MADE ERASURES OR CORRECTIONS ON YOUR BID, ARE THEY

INITIALED BY THE PERSON SIGNING THE BID?

____DOES THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING YOUR BID PROPERLY IDENTIFY THAT IT ISA

SEALED BID AND DOES IT CONTAIN THE CORRECT SOLICITATION NUMBER AND BID

OPENING TIME?

____WILL YOUR OFFER ARRIVE ON TIME? (SEE PARAGRAPH ENTITLED "LATE

SUBMISSIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND WITHDRAWALS OF BIDS" IN THE

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS, SECTION 00 21 16 OF

THE SOLICITATION.)

____WILL YOUR OFFER ARRIVE ON TIME? (SEE PARAGRAPH ENTITLED "LATE

SUBMISSIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND WITHDRAWALS OF BIDS" IN THE

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS, SECTION 00 21 16 OF

THE SOLICITATION.)

DOCUMENT 00 00 02 Page 1

NOTE: THERE ARE INCREASED SECURITY MEASURES AT JACOB K. JAVITS

FEDERAL BUILDING, 26 FEDERAL PLAZA THAT MAY AFFECT THE TIME IT TAKES

TO ENTER THE BUILDING. BIDDERS IS RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT ITS BID

IS SUBMITTED TIMELY.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 00 02 Page 2

SECTION 00 10 00

SF 1442 AND BIDDING SCHEDULE

03/18

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SF 1442 SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD

To be provided by Contracting Division.

1.2 BID SCHEDULE

To be provided by Contracting Division.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 10 00 Page 1

LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

DOCUMENT 00 10 00 Page 2

SECTION 00 21 16

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO BIDDERS

09/16

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 NOTE:

To be provided by Contracting Division.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 21 16 Page 1

DOCUMENT 00 21 16 Page 2

SECTION 00 22 10

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL DESIGN -BID-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

09/17

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 NOTE:

To be provided by Contracting Division.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 22 10 Page 1

DOCUMENT 00 22 10 Page 2

SECTION 00 24 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

06/17

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 NOTE:

To be provided by Contracting Division.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 24 00 Page 1

DOCUMENT 00 24 00 Page 2

SECTION 00 31 32

GEOTECHNICAL DATA

06/21

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 DESCRIPTION

A geotechnical report and geophysical investigation results were commissioned as part of this project's basis of design. These documents are attached "For Information Only." Refer to Section 01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS. The SOURCE DRAWING FILES article, and the Terms and Conditions subparagraph, applies to the data provided in these reports.

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT - February 2020 Prepared by O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., Geophysical Investigation Results - December 2019 Prepared by Subsurface Environmental Technologies, LLC (SET)

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 31 32 Page 1

DOCUMENT 00 31 32 Page 2

Subsurface Environmental Technologies, LLC 230 U.S. Route 130

Bordentown, New Jersey 08505 Phone: (609) 730-0005

Fax: (609) 730-1222

December 13, 2019 Ref No.: 19-328G

Wesley Lane ACT Engineers, Inc.

1 Washington Boulevard, Suite 3 Robbinsville, NJ 08691

Subject: Geophysical Investigation Results

Fort Hamilton 118 Sterling Drive Brooklyn, NY 11209

Dear Wesley Lane, Subsurface Environmental Technologies, LLC (SET) has prepared this report for ACT Engineers, Inc. (ACT) detailing the methods and results of a geophysical investigation conducted at the Fort Hamilton site in Brooklyn, New York. The site is an active installation of the Army National Guard and the United States Army Reserve. The survey area for this investigation was in the interior of the property along White Avenue and totaled approximately 2.25 acres. The field activities for this project were completed by SET personnel on December 12, 2019.

Objectives

The objective of this geophysical investigation was to identify possible subsurface utilities that may be present within the survey area. To meet this objective, SET used a Geonics EM31 electromagnetic (EM) conductivity instrument coupled with a Trimble ProXRS Global Positioning System (GPS), a GSSI SIR 3000 System (GPR) with a 400-Megahertz (MHz) ground-penetrating radar antenna, and an RD7000 radio frequency (RF) device by Radiodection, Inc.

Instrumentation

Geonics EM31 Ground Conductivity Method

The electromagnetic (EM) method uses the principle of electromagnetic induction to measure the variability of electrical conductivity of subsurface materials and the presence of buried metal objects. Significant contrasts in the electrical properties between non-indigenous materials and surrounding soil enable accurate delineation of buried waste materials, fill, and air spaces. The large EM response to metal makes this technique particularly well suited for identifying buried metal objects such as buried drums, pipelines, reinforced building foundations, or other metal components of buried structures. This instrument is equally sensitive to metal objects on the ground surface, and it is important to take diligent field notes that indicate the position of surface metal to avoid misinterpretation. The EM-31 is a one-man, portable system that induces a sinusoidal, 9.8 kilohertz (kHz) signal into the ground. The transmitted signal induces eddy

Wesley Lane ACT Engineers, Inc.

SET 19-328G

currents into the subsurface materials, which, in turn, generate a secondary magnetic field that is measured by the receiver coil. Two measurements are recorded at each station point; the in-phase response, which is measured in parts per thousand (ppt), and the quadrature response, which is measured in milliSeimens per meter (mS/m). For the interpretation of non-metallic, high-conductivity targets such as buried wastes, the quadrature response is more discriminative.

Metal objects are better indicated with the in-phase response. The EM data can be viewed in contour or profile format, or the data can be acquired in a scan mode.

GSSI Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is a near surface geophysical method based on the transmission of repetitive, high-frequency electromagnetic (EM) pulses emitted from a transmitting antenna to probe the Earth. The EM pulses emitted from the transmitting antenna propagate through the subsurface at a velocity that is directly related to the electrical properties of the subsurface.

When an EM wave contacts an interface of differing electrical properties (e.g. dielectric constant), part of that energy is returned to surface in the form of a reflected signal. The reflected signal is detected by a receiving transducer, displayed on the control unit screen, and recorded on an internal hard drive. The control unit records a continuous cross-section of the subsurface by plotting the two-way travel time of the EM pulse, relative to the distance traveled by the GPR antenna along to ground surface. To determine depth, two-way travel time values are converted using known soil velocity functions. GPR field procedures include: system calibration, test run completion, and profile collection and interpretation. GPR Data collected in the field can be analyzed both in the field and in the office, should further analysis be required.

Radio-Frequency Method (RF)

This instrument consists of a receiver/tracer and a remote transmitter, which operates at frequencies between 8 kilohertz (kHz) and 200 kHz. The unit provides audio and visual feedback to the operator when a utility that is coupled with the transmitted signal is crossed. The transmitter produces a radio-frequency signal in the utility to be traced by either induction coupling or direct hookup. The receiver output provides measured field strength of the received signal and varies an audible pitch that is dependent upon the distance to the utility. By carefully adjusting the gain of the receiver, it is possible to determine the location of the utility and to separate it from possible adjacent utilities. In addition, the receiver can be used in 60 kHz passive mode to identify active electrical lines or lines that possess an induced current.

Results and Discussion

Buried Utilities

SET identified numerous subsurface utilities within the survey area including water, electric, natural gas, storm sewer, communication and unknown lines. SET used the EM31 instrument within the former pool portion of the survey area. Slightly lower conductivity values were observed within the former pool footprint. All detected utility lines and relevant site features were marked in the field and annotated on Figure 1 and Figure 2 (attached) following the American Public Works Association (APWA) uniform color code standards for utility mark-outs.

See Table 1 below for APWA color code standards.

Table 1. APWA Uniform Color Code Standards for Utility Mark-out’s

Color Designation

Red Electric lines, cables, conduit, and lighting lines

Orange Telecommunication, alarm, or signal lines

Green Drains and Sanitary or Storm Sewer Lines

Yellow Gas, oil, steam, petroleum, or gaseous materials

Blue Potable Water Lines

White Proposed intrusive work (excavation/drilling)

Pink Temporary Survey Marking/Geophysical Anomaly

Purple Reclaimed Water, Irrigation, and Slurry Lines

Data Quality and Closing

The EM and RF data quality for this project was variable. Due to the nature of the subsurface within the survey area, the GPR signals penetrated to an approximate depth of 1.5 to 7.0 feet bgs. The interpretations in this report are based on observed geophysical responses and visual observations made in the field. The geophysical data collection and interpretation methods used in this investigation are consistent with standard practices applied to similar geophysical investigations. The correlation of geophysical responses is based on the past results of similar surveys, although it is possible that some variation could exist at this site. Due to the nature of geophysical data, no guarantees have been made or inferred regarding the presence or absence of additional objects or targets beyond those identified or beyond the detection limits of the instrumentation used in this investigation.

It was a pleasure working with you on this project, and we look forward to conducting geophysical investigations for you in the future.

Sincerely, Subsurface Environmental Technologies, LLC.

Geophysics Group

Glenn Brennan | Staff Geophysicist

Peter T. Miller PhD, P.G. | Senior Geophysicist

Attachments:

Figure 1: Annotated Georeferenced Orthophoto Showing EM31 Response Contour Map, Buried Utilities, and Site Features

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CEMS Engineering, Inc.

Brooklyn, New York

February 2020

Fort Hamilton Information Systems Facility

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

FORT HAMILTON INFORMATION SYSTEMS FACILITY │GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

O B G , P A R T O F R A M B O L L | F E B R U A R Y 2 0 2 0

F I N A L | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Project Information

2. Subsurface Conditions

2.1. Site Geology

2.2. Subsurface Explorations

2.3. General Soil Profile

2.4. Laboratory Testing Summary

2.5. Groundwater Conditions

3. Geotechnical Recommendations

3.1. Design Soil Parameters

3.2. Foundations

3.3. Lateral Earth Pressures

3.4. Seismic analyisis recommendations

3.4.1. Site Class

3.4.2. MCE Hazard Response Spectrum

3.4.3. Seismic Design Category

3.5. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation

3.6. Floor Slab Design Parameters

3.7. Pavement Design

4. Construction Considerations

4.1. Site Preparation

4.1.1. Control of Water

4.1.2. Site Clearing

4.1.3. Subgrade Preparation

4.1.4. Existing Fill

4.2. Excavation Conditions

4.3. Fill Placement

4.3.1. Structural Fill Material Criteria

4.3.2. Compaction Criteria

4.4. Corrosion Potential of Underground Elements

5. Limitations of Analysis and Recommendations

F I N A L | i i

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Location Plan Figure 2 – Geotechnical Boring Location Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Boring Logs Appendix B – Geotechnical Laboratory Test Data

F I N A L | 1

1. PROJECT INFORMATION

The proposed Information Systems Facility (ISF) is located in Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, New York. The general site location is shown in Figure 1. The project site is a gravel-covered lot, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of White Avenue and Roosevelt Avenue. The site is bordered by White Avenue to the west, an open grass area and paved access lots to the north, an occupied multi-story structure to the east, and Roosevelt Avenue to the south. The property formerly included multiple inground pools with accompanying facilities. The pools were demolished, and the area was backfilled at a date prior to this subsurface exploration. The pool depths ranged from about 3 feet to 9 feet, based on the as-built drawings of the Swimming Pool Rehabilitation, dated 5-6- 1982, provided by CEMS. Currently, the site is used as an overflow parking area. The existing grade of the site ranges from about EL 36 to EL 43 (NGVD 88), and gradually slopes down from southwest to northeast.

O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., Part of Ramboll (OBG), retained by CEMS Engineering Inc. (CEMS), has prepared this Geotechnical Report for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) concerning the proposed construction of a new ISF Facility in Fort Hamilton. The proposed structure will be a one-story building with an approximately 8-foot high cable vault at the northeast of the proposed structure. Additional details regarding the proposed construction, including structural loads, have not been provided at this time.

The purpose of this report is to present the findings of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical analysis regarding the design and construction of the new ISF Facility. This geotechnical evaluation provides specific design and construction recommendations for earthwork, foundations, floor slabs, lateral earth pressures, and pavements for the new facility.

F I N A L | 2

2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1. SITE GEOLOGY

Fort Hamilton is situated in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The province includes the terminal moraines of glaciers that once covered the region and the associated outwash aprons beyond the moraine.

According to the Geologic Map New York, Lower Hudson Sheet, published by the New York State Museum and Science Service in 1995, the geology of the project site is characterized as glacial and alluvial deposits. The underlying bedrock geology is unknown. The coastal plain deposits boundary is located just to the south and east of the site.

2.2. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

The subsurface conditions of the proposed ISF Facility were evaluated based on a subsurface exploration program conducted from December 9 to December 12, 2019. The subsurface exploration consisted of test borings drilled by Summit Drilling, Inc (Summit), under subcontract to OBG, at the seven locations shown on Figure 2. The boring locations were shown on a figure included in the USACE Scope of Work and the borings were laid out by OBG personnel prior to mobilization to prevent conflicts with existing underground utilities based on the ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey conducted by others. An OBG geotechnical engineer was present during the subsurface exploration to oversee drilling activities. Fort Hamilton provided access to the site and a base sponsor, Roberto Coman.

The boreholes were drilled with a Diedrich 120 truck-mounted drill rig using 4.25-inch I.D. hollow stem augers.

The mud rotary wash method was used below 35 feet at Boring B-3 to prevent intrusion of sands into the borehole.

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was conducted at 2-foot depth intervals in the upper 10 feet and each 5 feet thereafter in each boring. SPT consists of driving a 1 ⅜-inch I.D., 2-inch O.D., split-spoon sampler with a 140-pound hammer, free falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler 2 feet was recorded in intervals of 6 inches. The total number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler from 6 to 18 inches represents the standard penetration test “N-value”. The split-spoon sampling was conducted in accordance with ASTM 1586 “Standard Method for Penetration Test and Spilt Barrel Sampling of Soils.” Soil samples recovered from split spoon sampling and standard penetration testing were visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D-2488, “Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure).” All the borings, except B-3, were backfilled with the auger cuttings after completion. Boring B-3 was backfilled with grout at deeper depths and auger cuttings near the surface.

2.3. GENERAL SOIL PROFILE

The subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix A. The boring logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field logs, visual soil classification of the samples by an engineer, and laboratory tests of the selected samples.

The following general soil strata were encountered in the boreholes drilled at the project site:

FILL: Below the ground cover, consisting of about 2 to 3 inches of clean gravel, each of the borings encountered fill soils from about 7 to 8 feet below the ground surface. The fill depth likely approaches 10 feet at the north end of old swimming pool footprint; based on the provided as-built drawings of the swimming pool rehabilitation. Approximately 2 to 3 feet of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) was encountered in the upper zone of the fill. The RCA was generally classified as POORLY-GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM).

Soil fill, containing some RCA and brick fragments, was encountered below the RCA layer. The soil fill primarily classifies as SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM) and SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM). Relative density of the fill generally ranged from medium dense to dense with N-values ranging from 9 blows per foot (bpf) to greater than 50 blows per 3 inches with an average N-value of approximately 35 bpf. A moderate petroleum odor was detected in one of the spilt spoon samples in Boring B-6 (6 to 8 feet).

F I N A L | 3

GLACIAL & ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS: Encountered below the fill to the boring termination depths, ranging from 15 to 68.4 feet. The glacial and alluvial deposits primarily classified as medium dense to dense SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM) and very stiff to hard SANDY SILT with GRAVEL (ML). A layer (<5 feet thick) of medium stiff LEAN CLAY (CL) was encountered in borings B-4 and B-5. Intermittent light to heavy auger grinding was encountered in most of the borings during advancement. Significant lenses of gravel and possible cobbles are likely within the glacial and alluvial deposits. N-values range from 7 bpf to greater than 50 blows per 4 inches with a weighted average N-value of approximately 31 bpf.

2.4. LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY

Selected soil samples were obtained from the borings to be tested for grain-size analysis (ASTM D422/D6913), Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318), and natural moisture contents (ASTM D2216). The grain-size analysis and Atterberg Limits testing were performed to determine the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) designation for the soil. The USCS classification provides information regarding soil behavior, such as shear strength parameters, useful in design of foundation systems. The USCS classification can also provide information for evaluation of the suitability of materials for structural fill.

In addition, a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test (ASTM D1883) and modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557) were conducted on a bulk sample collected from the auger cuttings at boreholes B-4 and B-5. The CBR test is useful to obtain an indication of the strength of the subgrade soil for application in the empirical pavement design. Soil resistivity and pH tests were also completed on the bulk sample mentioned above.

The index test summaries are provided in Table 2.1. The CBR and Proctor results are provided in Table 2.2, and the soil resistivity and pH tests are summarized in Table 2.3. The laboratory data sheets for each specific test performed are provided in Appendix B.

Table 2.1. Index Test Summary

Sample Stratum USCS Classif.

Moist.

Content

Gravel

Sand

Silt/Clay

LL PI

B-4/5 Bulk Sample from 0 to 4’

Fill SC-SM 8.9 11.2 58.0 30.8 27 7

B-1 (4’ – 6’) Fill SM 11.8 5.8 51.7 42.5 NP NP

B-3 (2’ – 4’) Fill --- 10.7 --- --- --- --- ---

B-3 (6’ – 8’) Fill --- 7.2 --- --- --- --- ---

B-5 (4’ – 6’) Fill SC-SM 10.8 12.9 41.6 45.5 21 5

B-7 (4’ – 6’) Fill --- 12.3 --- --- --- --- ---

B-2 (13’ – 15’) Glacial/Alluvial SC-SM 14.9 5.0 65.0 30.0 20 4

B-3 (13’ – 15’) Glacial/Alluvial CL-ML 19.6 0.4 27.3 72.3 23 4

B-3 (28’ – 30’) Glacial/Alluvial --- 12.6 --- --- --- --- ---

B-3 (38’ – 40’) Glacial/Alluvial --- 12.4 --- --- --- --- ---

B-3 (48’ – 50’) Glacial/Alluvial --- 11.0 --- --- --- --- ---

B-4 (18’ – 20’) Glacial/Alluvial CL 22.7 0.6 4.9 94.5 26 8

B-4 (23’ – 25’) Glacial/Alluvial CL-ML 15.6 5.2 28.4 66.4 20 4

B-5 (13’ – 15’) Glacial/Alluvial CL 23.4 0.0 5.5 94.5 33 13

B-5 (18’ – 20’) Glacial/Alluvial SM 9.6 6.4 43.8 49.8 18 3

B-6 (8’ – 10’) Glacial/Alluvial --- 17.3 --- --- --- --- ---

F I N A L | 4

Table 2.2. Moisture-Density (Proctor) and CBR Test Results

Sample Stratum USCS Classif.

Moist.

Content

Max. Dry Density

(pcf)

Opt. Moist.

Content

CBR1

(@0.1 in)

B-4/5 Bulk Sample from 0 to 4’ Fill SC-SM 8.9 132.4 9.1 100

1 – dry density = 125.8 pcf (95% compaction)

Table 2.3. Soil Resistivity and pH Test Results

Sample Stratum pH Chloride (ppm)

Sulfate (mg/Kg)

Resistivity (ohms-cm)

B-4/5 Bulk Sample from 0 to 4’ Fill 10 88 6160 2600

2.5. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings during drilling. Boring B-2 was left open for 24 hours upon completion. The borehole was caved-in at approximately 17 feet below the ground surface, and no groundwater was observed to that depth. Groundwater was not observed in the deeper boring (B-3), but the use of drilling fluids may have obscured obvious indicators of groundwater. Static equilibrium of the groundwater in cased boreholes would likely take several days due to the density and consistency of the natural soils.

Groundwater is likely at or near EL 20 (NGVD 88), based on the mottled soils observed and cave-in depth at B-2.

F I N A L | 5

3. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The following geotechnical design parameters are recommended for analysis of structural stability and evaluation of foundation capacities. The parameters selected for design are based on the subsurface exploration and laboratory data.

3.1. DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS

Various methods are available for estimating strength parameters, including laboratory test results, in-situ testing, prior experience, and published information on similar soil types. The soils were generally assigned strength parameters based on published correlations with lower bound SPT N-values (relative density/consistency) and soil grain-size. The design soil parameters in Table 3.1 are recommended for the project.

Table 3.1. Design Soil Parameters

Stratum Unit Weight (pcf)

Effective Stress Strength Parameters ɸ’ (°) c' (psf)

Existing Fill (SM) 125 34 0

Glacial & Alluvial Deposits (SM) 130 34 0

Glacial & Alluvial Deposits (ML/CL) 130 28 250

Structural Backfill (SM) 125 33 0

3.2. FOUNDATIONS

The exploration findings indicate that the proposed ISF can be supported by shallow foundations bearing on existing fill or newly-compacted structural fill placed in accordance with the recommendations herein. This recommendation assumes that the existing fill encountered during this investigation is consistent throughout the site. Any remnants of the old pool or other deleterious materials must be excavated, if encountered, and replaced with compacted structural fill. We recommend use of a maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf to size column and strip footings supported by these materials. This bearing pressure provides a factor of safety of at least 3.0 against general shear failure. Where design loads include combinations of transient wind and/or earthquake loads that result in a non-uniform soil bearing stress distribution beneath the footing, the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure may be taken as 1.33 times the net allowable soil bearing pressure given above.

Even though computed footing dimensions may be less, column footings should be at least 30 inches wide and strip footings should be at least 24 inches wide. These dimensions facilitate densification and hand cleaning of footing subgrades disturbed by the excavation process. They also reduce the potential for localized punching shear failure. All exterior footing bottoms should be at least 4 feet below the lowest adjacent exterior grade for protection against frost penetration and as a bearing capacity requirement.

Structural loads have not been provided to date, but settlement of approximately one inch in total with ½ inch of differential settlement between adjacent column footings can be anticipated on the basis of the assumed structural loads typical for a one-story steel-framed building.

Soil forces may be used to resist both uplift and sliding of the footings. The weight of the compacted soil mass above the footing may be used to resist uplift forces. We recommend using a unit weight of 125 pcf to compute the soil weight. Use of this unit weight assumes that backfill will consist of previously excavated soil compacted to at least 95 percent of its modified Proctor maximum dry density. The volume of the soil mass may be calculated by assuming that it extends 15 degrees from vertical from the top perimeter edge of the footing to the ground surface.

F I N A L | 6

Passive earth pressure of soil adjacent to the footing as well as soil friction at the footing base may be used to resist shear. An ultimate friction coefficient between the concrete and soil can be assumed to be 0.5. To compute the soil weight, we recommend that a unit weight of 125 pcf be used above the water table. For computations, the ultimate passive soil resistance may be assumed to act as a fluid with an equivalent unit weight of 375 pcf.

We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used to establish the allowable passive resistance and allowable friction of the soil, because no strength tests were performed on the soil and simplified earth pressure theory (Rankine) was used to estimate the passive resistance of the soil.

The geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative should evaluate the subgrade upon completion of footing excavation by visually observing the subgrade materials, probing the subgrade materials using a hand auger and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP), and comparison with the test boring data. If the footing subgrade evaluations indicate inadequate bearing soils, the footing should be undercut to satisfactory materials as directed in the field by the geotechnical engineer. If required, the undercut subgrade can be replaced to design elevation with compacted AASHTO No. 57 stone, compacted structural fill, or concrete.

Footing excavation often produces a thin veneer of disturbed soil at the footing subgrade. We recommend that this disturbed soil be compacted in-place, or hand cleaned if wet, prior to placing reinforcing steel. Furthermore, loose soil should be removed from the footing bottom prior to placing reinforcing steel or concrete.

The strength properties of soil exposed at the footing subgrade will change if exposed to wetting, drying, or freezing. Every effort should be made to place concrete on the same day that the excavation is completed. If subgrades are to be left open for more than one day, they should be covered with polyethylene sheeting. If inclement weather is expected, a lean (1,000 psi) concrete veneer about one to two inches thick, or four inches of crushed stone, should be placed on the exposed subgrade after the subgrade has been evaluated. Excavation of disturbed soil may be required if these protective measures are not implemented.

3.3. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

The project may include retaining walls depending on the final grading plan and building layout. Additionally, there may be loading dock walls and basement walls that will be required for portions of the project. Walls that are restrained from rotation at the top, such as basement or loading dock walls, should be designed using the "at-rest" earth pressure condition. Walls that are unbraced at the top should be designed for the active earth pressure condition.

Soils behind the retaining walls are assumed to exert a triangular stress distribution which can be modeled in terms of an "equivalent fluid" for both the active and at-rest cases. If a uniform area surcharge is applied behind the wall, a portion of the surcharge is transferred to the wall in the form of a uniform or rectangular lateral stress distribution. The magnitude of the lateral stress transferred to the wall is a function of the soil strength and the permissible degree of deflection or rotation, and is computed by multiplying the earth pressure coefficient by the magnitude of the surcharge. Table 3.2 contains values of recommended earth pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid unit weights for design of retaining walls, assuming on-site granular or the specified structural fill is used as wall backfill.

Table 3.2. Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients

Stratum Active, Ka Passive, Kp 1 At-Rest, Ko

Existing Fill (SM) 0.28 3.5 0.44

Glacial & Alluvial Deposits (SM) 0.28 3.5 0.44

Structural Backfill (SM) 0.29 3.4 0.46 1 – A factor of safety of 1.5 should be applied to passive earth pressure values shown above to account for the significant movement needed to mobilize full passive earth pressures.

O B G , P A R T O F R A M B O L L | F E B R U A R Y 2 0 2 0 F I N A L | 7

The lateral earth pressure coefficients shown in the table assume of level ground surfaces on both sides of the walls. These values must be adjusted for sloping ground surfaces. The recommended equivalent fluid pressure also assumes that constantly functioning drainage systems are installed between the walls and soil backfill to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures and lateral stresses in excess of those calculated for drained conditions.

3.4. SEISMIC ANALYISIS RECOMMENDATIONS

3.4.1. Site Class

Based on the soil borings, the site classifies as Site Class D – Stiff Soil in accordance with Table 1613.5.5 of the 2014 edition of the NYC Building Code. This Site Class designation was used to determine the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations, as required in the International Building Code.

3.4.2. MCE Hazard Response Spectrum

The ground motions for the short-period (0.2 second) and 1-second spectral period are 0.2719g and 0.0476g, respectively, based on the USGS Seismic Hazard Maps. The MCE spectral response accelerations have a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.

3.4.3. Seismic Design Category

The seismic design category for the site assumes a structural risk category of II in accordance with Table 1604.5 of the 2014 edition of the NYC Building Code. The seismic design category for the site is B, based on the short-period response accelerations in Table 1613.5.6(1).

3.5. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION

The potential for liquefaction of the site is considered low given the soil types (% of fines), relative density of the soils, and the regional seismicity. The seismic history of New York indicates that no earthquakes greater than Magnitude 4.5 have occurred since 1973. Ground motion in excess of 0.2g and earthquake magnitudes greater than 5.5 are typically required to induce liquefaction. The site soils consist primarily of dense silty sand and stiff sandy silt. These types of soils are typically considered to be non-liquefiable and/or of sufficient strength to resist cyclical softening with only limited post- earthquake strength reduction, if any. In addition, the groundwater table is at least below 15 feet. Unsaturated soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. The low seismicity of the region and primarily unsaturated dense soils make the potential for liquefaction low.

3.6. FLOOR SLAB DESIGN PARAMETERS

The modulus of subgrade reaction, as evaluated from a 12-inch diameter plate load test, can be correlated to the soil type and typical soaked California Bearing Ratio (CBR). Assuming that the subgrade supporting the slab will consist of well-compacted, granular, low-plasticity soil fill, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction value of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci). It should be noted that this value represents the local subgrade response within a depth of influence of approximately 5 feet below the slab.

For heavily loaded mat foundations, the subgrade response to long-term loading can produce variable deflections and moments throughout the mat, due to the inherent variability of the soil profile and variable slab load distribution. A parametric analysis can be performed to evaluate the effect of varying modulus of subgrade reaction values on the mat design. A suggested range of modulus values to evaluate would be 50 pci to 300 pci.

The value that produces the worst-case condition in terms of required thickness and reinforcement should be the basis of the final design value.

The floor slab should be structurally separate from the foundations, or transitions from foundation-supported building elements to soil-supported floors should be reinforced, to reduce the possibility of slab cracking due to minor differential settlement.

We recommend that the concrete floor slabs to be supported on grade be founded on a 12-inch (minimum) thick subbase of dense-graded aggregate compacted to at least 95 percent of its modified Proctor maximum dry density.

F I N A L | 8

The need for a vapor retarder below the slab should be evaluated by the architect and structural engineer. In general, we recommend a vapor retarder only where moisture-sensitive floor coverings, equipment, or product will be in direct contact with the concrete floor.

It has been our experience that floor slab subgrades are often disturbed by weather, footing and utility line installation, and other construction activities between completion of grading and slab construction. For this reason, the subgrade should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer immediately prior to constructing the slab.

During this evaluation, areas judged by the geotechnical engineer to be unacceptable should be undercut and replaced with compacted crushed stone or structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of its modified Proctor maximum dry density.

3.7. PAVEMENT DESIGN

We assume traffic will be limited to automobile, including parking, and light small truck traffic for deliveries.

Several feet of new structural fill is proposed for the parking area in the northern section of the site. Therefore, a CBR value of 8 was used to represent the subgrade soil support; albeit the laboratory CBR test on the bulk sample of the near surface soils was significantly higher.

We recommend that the top 12 inches of pavement subgrade and the dense-graded aggregate base course be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density according to ASTM D1557, Modified Proctor. Prior to placement of base course materials, the pavement subgrade should be proof-rolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck under the observation of a geotechnical engineer to evaluate stability. Should soft or loose soils be encountered, recommendations for remedial measures should be provided by the geotechnical engineer during construction, based on the field conditions.

The flexible pavement sections provided herein were designed in accordance with the AASHTO Design Guide, assuming a terminal serviceability value of 2.0 and a 20-year design life. The light-duty pavement section, which is intended for use in car parking areas without tractor-trailer traffic, assumed an 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) of 20,000.

We recommend the following Superpave Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavement sections for placement on properly compacted subgrades:

Light-Duty Pavement, No Heavy Trucks (ESAL = 20,000)

Asphaltic Concrete Surface Course (9.5 mm Superpave HMA) = 1½ inches Asphaltic Concrete Base Course (19 mm Superpave HMA) = 3 inches Dense-Graded Aggregate Base Course = 6 inches

F I N A L | 9

4. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The following recommendations and considerations for site preparation have been provided to aid designers with incorporation of constructability in the design documents.

4.1. SITE PREPARATION

Several preliminary activities will be necessary to prepare the site for construction. The cuts and fills across the project site are anticipated to be minor (less than about 4 feet), based on assumed finished grade of about EL 40.

Although the contractor will dictate the majority of the site preparation means, methods, and sequencing, the following sections provide discussion of the general site preparation measures envisioned for this project and the geotechnical issues associated with each.

4.1.1. Control of Water

Limited control of water measures, primarily for surface runoff, should be sufficient considering the anticipated minimal excavation and lack of groundwater encountered during the subsurface investigation. However, the contractor should have sump pumps readily available for precautionary purposes, especially during storm events and for excavation of the cable vault.

4.1.2. Site Clearing

All trees, stumps, large root systems, and other vegetation within the limits of construction should be cleared and grubbed. Based on observations at the boring locations, surface vegetation should be limited to nonexistent. If demolished concrete is encountered within 4 feet of final grades, we recommend that they be removed prior to fill placement to avoid conflicts with future excavations during construction.

After the geotechnical engineer or representative has observed the subgrade, proof-rolling and placement of structural fill may commence, if necessary. It is important that the geotechnical engineer or representative observe site stripping. Previously unexplored or unknown conditions could become evident during these operations, which will provide an opportunity to judge whether the recommendations in this report should be modified in view of the conditions encountered.

Existing underground utility lines are shown on the following drawing provided by CEMS: Utility Site Map, US Army Garrison Fort Hamilton, date October 11, 2019. An underground electric line is shown along the eastern property boundary and a storm sewer line is shown near the center of the site (extending east to west). Several water lines are shown traversing the property; some are likely associated with the underground pool that was previously demolished. The existing storm sewer and water lines appear to be abandoned or inactive, according to the utility map. All active underground utility lines within the proposed building footprint will need to be abandoned and rerouted to avoid conflicts with the proposed structure.

4.1.3. Subgrade Preparation

At-grade areas and areas…