Greenville_Texas_Flag_RFP.pdf

CITY OF

GREENVILLE

2821 Washington St.

Greenville, TX 75403

903-457-3100

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES

FOR

FLAGPOLE PROJECT

State of Texas Addition

SUBMITTALS due 3:00 PM CST,May 26, 2026 To Purchasing Department

City of Greenville 2821 Washington Street

Greenville, TX 75401 or https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/greenvilletx

CITY OF GREENVILLE

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

(RFP)

DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES

Public Notice

The City of Greenville invites the submittal of responses to this RFP from qualified firms interested in providing design-build services in connection with the install of a Flagpole located at the southwestern intersection of IH 30 and Wesley Street (Highway 34), in Greenville, Texas. Responses are solicited for this service in accordance with the terms, conditions and instructions set forth in the RFP guidelines.

Bid responses can be submitted through https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/ greenvilletx or by mail to PO Box 1049, Greenville, TX 75401. Bid responses may be delivered to the City of Greenville Purchasing Department, 2821 Washington Street, Greenville, TX 75401. All bids must be received in the Finance Office by the time and date mentioned above and clearly marked. Late bids will not be accepted.

Bid, Performance and Payment Bonds, liability and statutory worker's compensation insurances are required for this project.

Receipt of responses does not bind the City to any contract for said services, nor does it guarantee that a contract for the Project will be awarded. For additional information, contact City Manager Summer Spurlock.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES

I. PURPOSE OF RFP

The City of Greenville, Texas (City) invites the submittal of responses to this Request for Proposal (RFP) from qualified firms interested in providing design-build construction services for a new flagpole located at the intersection of southwestern intersection of IH 30 and Wesley Street (Highway 34).

II. OBJECTIVES

The City proposes to retain a highly qualified, capable firm to act as the Respondent during the design and construction of the Project for a fixed price. The firm who participates in this RFP process may be referred to as "Respondent". The City will give prime consideration to the Respondent with significant, current experience in the development, design, and construction of similar projects. The City reserves the right to negotiate with one or more parties and is not obligated to enter into any contract with any Respondent on any terms or conditions.

III. SCOPE OF WORK

General Project Synopsis

This project is for the design, build and installation of all-inclusive 190-foot flagpole, including foundation, borings, electrical, lighting and flags. This process is an all or none proposal and a best value to the City of Greenville.

Exhibit "A" includes:

1) Site Location

2) Site Survey

3) Site Geotechnical Engineering Report.

Required Specifications

One each - 190' Ground Set Diminishing Section Steel Flagpole with Electric Winch

• Material: Carbon Steel A-36

• Exposed Height: 190.0'

• Overall Height: 210.0'

• Butt Diameter: 42.0"

• Top Diameter: 8.625"

• Wall Thickness: 0.375

• Pole Weight (Appx.): 28,000 Lbs.

• Color: Optional

• Wind Load 130MPH Unflagged & 90MPH w/50X80 Nylon Flag

• Fittings & Hardware: 24" Heavy Duty Truck Ball Assembly, 1.25" SS Spindle, 420' 1/4" 7x19 Braided SS Aircraft

• Cable, Beaded Retainer Rings, 2" SS Snap hooks, SS Quik-Links, Electric Winch

• SS Swivel, Locking Access Door, Steel Corrugated Ground Sleeve W/ Lightning Spike

• Flag (2) 50X80 Texas State Flag Nylon

• Flag Service, Repair and Rotation as needed; Re-hem & Repair Flag

• 3' Light Pedestals Powder Coated Color of the Flagpole

• Flagpole design is to be performed using a finite element method structural analysis program that accounts for the secondary P-Delta effects on the structure

• Flagpole foundation design is to be based on the soil parameters and conditions as noted in the supplied geotechnical report

• LUX-400 LED lights

IV. SELECTION PROCESS

The City will review and evaluate the duly submitted proposals, Respondent's qualifications and price proposal, and may invite Respondents to be interviewed before making a final selection of a contractor for this project. If the City desires to interview a Respondent, that Respondent will receive notification of the date and time of the interview.

The selected Respondent then may negotiate with the City on fee and contract conditions. If a reasonable fee cannot be achieved with the Respondent of choice, in the opinion of the City, negotiations will proceed with the second choice Respondent until a mutually agreed contract can be negotiated.

Responses to this Request for Proposals will be scored as follows:

Executive Summary (10 points)

Respondent is to provide an executive summary of your firm's response to this RFP. The Respondent should prepare a narrative description of your experience and how you would accomplish the design and recommended construction of the project. This summary should identify the primary benefits to the City of retaining your firm and your firm's commitment to the City to complete the project on time and within budget.

Bid Price (25 points) Respondent is to provide a total bid price by virtue of the Cost Proposal Document described in Paragraph VIII (D) below.

Experience on Similar Projects (40 points) Respondent is to provide a list of similar projects your firm has completed for other entities/customers. Be specific and provide examples of projects that closely match in size and scope, the projects for which you are proposing. Provide contact information for these references. Identify any major design or construction issues associated with the project.

Qualifications of Project Manager and Key Personnel (15 points) Provide the names, qualifications and a list of similar projects for the Project Manager and key personnel. Provide an organizational chart showing all personnel and subcontractors.

Proposed Timeline (10 points) Provide a schedule for each phase of the project including surveying, preliminary design, final design, construction and project completion.

V. EVALUATION

City Staff will evaluate the submittals and make a recommendation to the City Council for formal selection of the Respondent with which contract negotiations may be initiated.

VI. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS, NOTIFICATIONS AND INFORMATION

A. No Gratuities - Respondents will not offer any gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value to any official or employee of the City for the purpose of influencing this selection.

Any attempt by a Respondent to influence the selection process by any means, other than disclosure of Proposal and credentials through the proper channels, will be grounds for exclusion from the selection process. Accordingly, contacts with those involved in the selection process should not be initiated.

B. All Information True - By submitting a response, Respondents represent and warrant to the City that all information provided in the response submitted shall be true, correct and complete. Respondents who provide false, misleading or incomplete information, whether intentional or not, in any of the documents presented to the City of Greenville for consideration in the selection process may be excluded.

C. Interviews - After the initial evaluation of the Response to this Proposal, Respondents may be interviewed to discuss the Respondent's program approach and design professionals who would be directly involved in the Project.

D. Inquiries - Do not contact the City to make inquiries about the progress of this selection process. Respondents will be contacted when it is appropriate to do so. Process inquiries should be directed to the Office of the City Manager, 2821 Washington St, Greenville, TX 75401 or Summer Spurlock, (903) 457-3100.

E. Cost of Responses - The City will not be responsible for the costs incurred by anyone in the submittal of responses.

F. Contract Negotiations -This RFP is not to be construed as a contract or as a commitment of any kind. If this RFP results in a contract offer by the City, the specific scope of work, associated fees, and other contractual matters will be determined during contract negotiations. To ensure that the appropriate staff is assigned to the Project, the City intends to make the inclusion of a "key persons" clause a part of the contract negotiations.

G. No Obligation - The City reserves the right to: (1) evaluate the responses submitted;

(2) waive any irregularities therein; (3) select candidates for the submittal of more detailed or alternate Proposal; (4) accept any submittal or portion of submittal; (5) reject any or all Respondents submitting responses; or (6) cancel the entire process.

H. Non-Discrimination - The Respondent shall not deny employment to any person on the basis of race, creed or religion and will ensure that all Federal and State laws pertaining to salaries, wages and operating requirements are met or exceeded.

I. Bonds and Insurance - The Respondent shall provide bid, performance and payment bonds for this project. Liability and statutory worker's compensation insurances are required, adding the City of Greenville as an additional insured on the liability policy.

VII. SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

Sealed submittals are required Bid responses can be submitted through https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/greenvilletx or by mail to PO Box 1049, Greenville, TX 75401. Bid responses may be delivered to the City of Greenville Purchasing Department, 2821 Washington Street, Greenville, TX 75401. All bids must be received in the Finance Office by the time and date mentioned above and clearly marked. Late bids will not be accepted.

To enable the City to efficiently evaluate the responses, it is important that Respondents follow the required format in preparing their responses. RESPONSES THAT DO NOT CONFORM

TO THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT MAY NOT BE EVALUATED.

VIII. CONTENT OF SUBMITTAL

Each response shall be submitted as outlined in this section. The first page shall be a letter transmitting the response to the City and stating that the Proposal set forth in it remains effective for a period of 60 calendar days. At least one copy of the transmittal letter shall contain the original signature of a partner, principal, or officer of the Respondent.

A. General Company Information

1. General Information

Firm name, address, and telephone number;

Names of principles in the firm;

Primary contact name, phone and email.

2. History and Experience

How many years has your organization been in business?

Please describe the last five flagpole construction projects of a similar scope that your organization has recently completed, giving the name and location of project, name of the entity, and date of completion.

B. References

Please provide references for at least three (3) similar projects completed within the last five (5) years.

C. Design

Provide proposed design documents with submittal based on Item III Scope of Work.

This document does not have to be engineer signed and sealed at the time of submittal.

Warranties - Include in the submittal all available contractor and manufacturer's warranties (with cost) for labor, materials and supplies.

D. Cost Proposal

Provide cost proposal document with submittal based on Item III Scope of Work. City of Greenville required permit fees for the project are waived. Chosen Contractor will be responsible for contacting, acquiring related permits and paying all fees required by other entities i.e., Federal (FAA), State and Local.

Cost Proposals will require an estimated schedule allowing for material lead times, permits, start dates and length of construction.

E. Contractor Insurance Requirements for this Project

Requirements

Contractors performing work on City property or public right-of-way for the City of Greenville shall provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing the coverages and coverage provisions identified herein. Contractors shall provide the City evidence that all subcontractors performing work on the project have the same types and amounts of coverages as required herein or that the subcontractors are included under the contractor's policy. The City, at its own discretion, may require a certified copy of the policy.

All insurance companies and coverages must be authorized by the Texas Department of

Insurance to transact business in the State of Texas and must be acceptable to the City of

Greenville.

Listed below are the types and amounts of insurance required. The City reserves the right to amend or require additional types and amounts of coverages or provisions depending on the nature of the work.

Type of Insurance Amount of Insurance Provisions

1. Commercial General (Public) Liability to include coverage for:

a) Premises/Operations

b) Products/Complet ed Operations

c) Independent Contractors

d) Personal Injury

e) Contractual Liability

$1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate;

Or

$2,000,000 combined single limits

City to be listed as additional insured and provided 30-day notice of cancellation or material change in coverage.

City prefers that insurer be rated B+VI or higher by A M. Best or A or higher by Standard & Poors.

1. Business Auto Liability As required by State of Texas Workers’ Compensation &

Employers' Liability Statutory Limits $100,000 each accident

City to be provided a waiver of subrogation.

Questions regarding this insurance should be directed to the City of Greenville

City Manager, Summer Spurlock, at (903) 457-3100.

Contractor shall add the City of Greenville as an additional insured on all required insurance policies, except worker's compensation, employer's liability and errors and omissions insurance. The Commercial General Liability Policy and Umbrella Liability Policy shall be of an "occurrence" type policy.

EXHIBIT(s)

A

1) Site Location

2) Site Survey

3) Site Geotechnical Engineering Report k k k kj

APPROX. 110'

APPROX. 87'

APPROX. 116'

80' FLAG OVERHANG

§̈¦30

§̈¦30

ST

AT

E

HW

Y 3 4 (

WE

SL

EY

ST

LIGHTS ILLUMINATING

FLAG

33° 5'48.37"N 96° 6'36.75"W

NG = APPROX. 547'

EP APPROX. 551.5'

SE

RV

ICE

ROAD

W INTERSTATE 30 FRONTAGE RD

EP APPROX. 341'

PROP FLAG POLE LOCATION

33° 5'48.86"N 96° 6'37.30"W

NG = APPROX. 351'

LIGHTS ILLUMINATING

FLAG

33° 5'49.53"N 96° 6'37.28"W

NG = APPROX. 554'

LIGHTS ILLUMINATING

FLAG

33° 5'48.39"N 96° 6'37.88"W

NG = APPROX. 548'

EP APPROX. 565.5

E INTERSTATE 30 FRONTAGE RD

Flag Specifications:

Material: Carbon Steel A-36

Exposed height: 190' 0" Base Diameter: 42.0" Top Diameter: 8.625"

Flag: 50'x80' Texas Nylon

LEGEND

kj Mast Light k Flag Lights

!( Pole Location

80 FT Overhang 80' Flag Overhang k Flag Light

!( Proposed Flag Pole Location

Bridge Cross Street Frontage Main Lanes Parcels

IH 30 @ WESLEY ST - TEXAS FLAG POLE SITE

(50' X 80' FLAG SIZE) (MARCH, 2026)0 80 16040 FeetI

Sheet No.File No.Dwg. DateChecked ByDrawn By Project No.

02/10/2026256251PRJB

LIGHT POLE1/2 STEEL ROD

"MTG CONTROL"

REINFORCED

CONCRETE PIPECREPE MYRTLE

TREE

IRRIGATION

CONTROL VALVE

RCP

STORM DRAIN

AutoCAD SHX Text

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY # 30

AutoCAD SHX Text

ACCESS ROAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

STATE HIGHWAY 34

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WESLEY STREET)

AutoCAD SHX Text

ACCESS ROAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

BM # 2 N:7090316.94 E:2700088.96 Z:547.86'

AutoCAD SHX Text

UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC VAULT

AutoCAD SHX Text

18" RCP F.L. ELEV. = 550.22'

AutoCAD SHX Text

30" RCP F.L. ELEV. = 536.49'

AutoCAD SHX Text

6" BURR OAK

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

BM # 1 N:7090212.40 E:2700178.04 Z:546.59'

AutoCAD SHX Text

BM # 3 N:7090190.27 E:2700000.52 Z:544.30'

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONCRETE PLANTER (TYP.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONCRETE DRAIN

AutoCAD SHX Text

RETAINING WALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONCRETE PLANTER (TYP.)

AutoCAD SHX Text Bench Mark

AutoCAD SHX Text Northing

AutoCAD SHX Text Easting

AutoCAD SHX Text Description

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 7090212.40

AutoCAD SHX Text 2700178.04

AutoCAD SHX Text

1/2IRS/MTG/BM

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 7090316.94

AutoCAD SHX Text 2700088.96

AutoCAD SHX Text

1/2IRS/MTG/BM

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 7090190.27

AutoCAD SHX Text 2700000.52

AutoCAD SHX Text

1/2IRS/MTG/BM

AutoCAD SHX Text Elevation

AutoCAD SHX Text 546.59'

AutoCAD SHX Text 547.86'

AutoCAD SHX Text 544.30'

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED FLAG POLE LOCATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

18" RCP F.L. ELEV. = 549.28'

AutoCAD SHX Text

UNDERGROUND UTILITY VAULT

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOPO EXHIBIT

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 30'

AutoCAD SHX Text NOTES: 1) BEARINGS BASED UPON THE TEXAS STATE PLAIN COORDINATE SYSTEM, TEXAS NORTH BEARINGS BASED UPON THE TEXAS STATE PLAIN COORDINATE SYSTEM, TEXAS NORTH CENTRAL ZONE 4202, (NAD83) 2) ELEVATIONS BASED UPON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88)ELEVATIONS BASED UPON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88)

AutoCAD SHX Text

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

TEXAS FLAGPOLE - LOCATION "C" FOR: CITY OF GREENVILLE

IH 30 AND WESLEY ST FLAGPOLE

GREENVILLE, TEXAS

DECEMBER 18, 2023

14805 Trinity Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76155

Geotechnical 817.952.3598 • Corporate 903.420.0014 www.geotex-engineering.com

Texas Engineering Firm Registration # F-12796

December 18, 2023

MTG Stovall Engineers and Surveyors 6417 Wesley Street, Greenville, Texas 75402 Attn: Kayla Wood, P.E.

Email: kwood@mtgengineers.com Phone: 903-293-2924

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

GEOTEX ENGINEERING #G23-2339

IH 30 AND WESLEY ST FLAGPOLE

GREENVILLE, TEXAS

Ms. Wood, As requested, Geotex Engineering Labs has completed the Geotechnical Investigation for the above referenced project. This investigation was conducted in accordance with Proposal No. GP23-2339 dated

October 25, 2023. Authorization to proceed was received on November 08, 2023.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide professional geotechnical engineering services to you. We are available to discuss any questions which may arise regarding this report. Please do not hesitate to call when we can provide any additional services.

Sincerely, Geotex Engineering Labs

Shruti Singh, Ph.D., P.E. Saurav Sinha, P.E.

Geotechnical Project Manager Director of Transportation http://www.dsenglabs.com/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

3.1 General

3.2 Laboratory Testing

3.2.1 Unconfined Compression Tests

3.2.2 Soluble Sulfates

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 Stratigraphy

4.2 Groundwater

5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Straight-sided Drilled Shafts

5.1.1 Lateral Load Parameters

5.1.2 Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations

6.0 OTHER CONSTRUCTION

6.1 Utility and Service Lines

6.2 Exterior Flatwork

6.3 Surface Drainage

6.4 Landscaping

6.5 Site Grading

6.6 Excavations and Excavation Difficulties

7.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

8.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A – BORING LOGS AND SUPPORTING DATA

APPENDIX B – GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

IH 30 AND WESLEY ST FLAGPOLE

GREENVILLE, TEXAS

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation conducted for the proposed construction of flagpole located 120 feet north-west of intersection of IH 30 and Wesley Street in Greenville, Texas.

The project site was covered with short, maintained grass at the time of the field investigation.

Based on visual site observations and topographic maps provided by NCTCOG

(dfwmaps.com), the site appears to be relatively flat across the proposed development. Final grading plans were not available at the time of this report; therefore, we anticipate finished grades will be at or near existing grades.

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this investigation was to:

• Identify the subsurface stratigraphy and groundwater conditions present at the site.

• Evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soil and bedrock strata for use in geotechnical analyses.

• Provide geotechnical recommendations for use in the design and construction of the proposed flagpole and related site work.

The scope of this investigation consisted of:

• Drilling and sampling of one (1) soil boring within the footprint of the proposed flagpole to a depth of about 40 feet.

• Laboratory testing of selected soil and bedrock samples obtained during field investigation.

• Preparation of a Geotechnical Report that includes:

o Recommendations for the design and construction of the foundations.

3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

3.1 General

The borings were advanced utilizing truck-mounted drilling equipment outfitted with continuous flight augers. Undisturbed samples of cohesive soils strata were obtained using 3-inch diameter tube samplers, which were advanced into the soils in 1-to 2-foot increments by the continuous thrust of a hydraulic ram located on the drilling equipment.

IH 30 AND WESLEY ST FLAGPOLE #G23-2339

GREENVILLE, TX

GEOTEX ENGINEERING PAGE 2

After sample extrusion, a hand penetrometer measurement was performed on each cohesive soil to provide an estimate of soil stiffness.

All samples obtained were extruded in the field, placed in plastic bags to minimize changes in the natural moisture condition, labeled according to the appropriate boring number and depth, and placed in protective cardboard boxes for transportation to the laboratory. The approximate locations of the borings performed at the site are shown on the boring location map that is included in Appendix A. The specific depths, thicknesses, and descriptions of the strata encountered are presented on the individual Boring Log illustrations, which are also included in Appendix A. Strata boundaries shown on the boring logs are approximate.

3.2 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory tests were performed to identify the relevant engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered and to provide data for developing engineering design parameters. The subsurface materials recovered during the field exploration were initially logged in the field by the drill crew and were later described by a Staff Engineer after the samples arrived in the laboratory. These descriptions were later refined by a Geotechnical

Engineer based on results of the laboratory tests performed. All recovered soil samples were classified and described in part using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and other accepted procedures.

In order to determine soil characteristics and to aid in classifying the soils, classification testing was performed on selected samples as requested by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Classification testing was performed in general accordance with the following ASTM testing standards:

• Moisture Content ASTM D2216

• Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318

• Percent of Particles Finer than No 200 Sieve ASTM D1140

Additional tests were performed to aid in evaluating strength and chemical characteristics, which consisted of the following:

• Unconfined Compressive Strength of Soil Samples ASTM D2166

• Soluble Sulfates TEX-145-E

The results of these tests are presented at the corresponding sample depths on the appropriate Boring Log illustrations. The classification tests are described in more detail in Appendix B (General Description of Procedures).

GEOTEX ENGINEERING PAGE 3

3.2.1 Unconfined Compression Tests

Unconfined compressive strength testing was performed on selected sample of clays. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2166 for the clays. During each test, a cylindrical specimen is subjected to an axial load that is applied at a constant rate of strain until either failure or a large strain (i.e., greater than 15 percent) occurs. Once the test is completed, the unit weight of the sample is determined based on the moisture content.

3.2.2 Soluble Sulfates

Soluble sulfate tests were performed on representative samples obtained. These results are provided in Appendix A (Boring Logs and Supporting Data). Subgrade materials in some areas of Texas have experienced sulfate-induced heave treatment with calcium-based additives such as lime. In general, a sulfate level less than 3,000 ppm is considered to have an acceptably low potential for sulfate induced heaving. The results of the sulfate tests performed on representative near-surface soil samples from test boring in this study indicate value of 5,520 ppm, and thus should be considered to pose a high risk of sulfate-induced heaving after lime treatment. However, additional sulfate testing is recommended to be performed prior to construction.

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 Stratigraphy

Based upon a review of the recovered samples, as well as the Geologic Atlas of Texas, this site is in an area characterized by soil and bedrock strata associated with Neylandville

Marl formation. The Neylandville Marl formation generally consists of residual to high plasticity clay soils overlying shale (locally referred to as marl) bedrock strata.

Fat Clay was encountered ranging from the depth of 0 to 34 feet below the existing ground surface. The clay soils were generally stiff to very stiff in soil consistency, various shades of brown and dark gray in color, contained varying amounts of ferrous nodules, ferrous stains, and trace gypsum.

Shale bedrock was encountered underneath the overburden clays. The shale bedrock strata were generally soft in rock hardness, completely to highly weathered, brown in color, contained varying amounts of ferrous stains, and gypsum crystals. The weathered shale extended to at least the maximum depth explored of about 40 feet below existing grades within the boring explored.

4.2 Groundwater

Groundwater seepage was encountered during drilling at a depth of about 15 feet. No groundwater was encountered upon the completion of drilling. Groundwater is often contained within the joints, fractures and other rock mass defects present in bedrock

GEOTEX ENGINEERING PAGE 4

strata. When intercepted, these defects can produce appreciable amounts of water for a period of time, especially if those defects are extensive and well inter-connected.

Groundwater levels should be anticipated to fluctuate with seasonal and annual variations in rainfall and may vary as a result of development and landscape irrigation.

5.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that drilled shaft foundation system is appropriate for the proposed flagpole construction based on the encountered geotechnical conditions.

We have assumed that structural loads will be typical for the type and size of the proposed flagpole. Final determination of the foundation type to be utilized for this project should be made by the Structural Engineer based on loading, economic factors, and risk tolerance.

5.1 Straight-sided Drilled Shafts

The flagpole may be supported on auger-excavated, straight-sided, reinforced concrete drilled shafts founded in either native fat clay or weathered shale bedrock strata encountered at depths of about 20 feet below existing grades. We recommend that straight-sided drilled piers for structural loads be a minimum of 18 inches in diameter and penetrate a minimum of 3 feet into the native fat clay or weathered shale bearing stratum to utilize the full amount of end bearing.

Straight-sided drilled shafts may be designed to transfer imposed loads into the bearing strata using a combination of end-bearing and skin friction as outlined in Table 1 below.

The allowable side frictions noted in Table 1 may be taken from a minimum depth of

10 feet below existing or finished grades, or from the bottom of any temporary casing used, whichever is deeper, to resist both axial loading and uplift. The drilled piers should have adequate embedment depth to develop the required axial and uplift/lateral resistance.

Table 1. Recommended Drilled Shaft Design Parameters

Material

Depth Encountered

Below Existing Grades

(ft)

Allowable

Side Friction

(psf)

Allowable

End Bearing

(psf)

Fat Clay 10 to 20 800 N/A

Fat Clay 20 to 34 1,000 8,000

Weathered Shale >34 1,600 15,000

The shafts should be provided with sufficient steel reinforcement throughout their length to resist potential uplift pressures that will be exerted. For the near surface soils, we recommend using an uplift pressure of 1,000 psf over an average depth of about 10 feet.

Typically, one-half (½) of a percent of steel by cross-sectional area is sufficient for this

GEOTEX ENGINEERING PAGE 5

purpose (ACI 318). However, the final amount of reinforcement required should be determined based on the information provided herein, and should be the greater of that determination, or ACI 318. Uplift forces acting on individual shafts will be resisted by the dead weight of the structure, plus the concrete-to-bearing stratum adhesion acting on that portion of the shaft that is in intimate contact with the bearing stratum from a depth of

10 feet below current or finished grades, or from the bottom of any temporary casing used, whichever is deeper.

There is no reduction in allowable capacities for shafts in proximity to each other. However, for a two-shaft system, there is an 18 percent reduction in the available perimeter area for side friction capacity for shafts in contact (tangent). The area reduction can be extrapolated linearly to zero at one shaft diameter clear spacing. Please contact this office if other close proximity geometries need to be considered.

We anticipate that a straight-sided drilled pier foundation system designed and constructed in accordance with the information provided in this report will have a factor of safety in excess of 2.5 against shear failure and may experience potential settlements on the order of ¾-inch or less.

5.1.1 Lateral Load Parameters

The following soil and rock geo-parameters are provided for lateral analysis of drilled shafts for use in LPILE® or other lateral load software. These values are based on the stratigraphy and laboratory data developed as well as on experience.

The recommended model layers are “Stiff Clay w/o Free Water”, and “Weak Rock”.

The depth ranges are based on the data derived from the borings drilled. We recommend that the lateral resistance parameters be neglected for the uppermost

3 feet of soil materials to account for potential seasonal and annual cyclic variations in soil desiccation and contraction and a lack of confining pressure.

These parameters were selected to approximate the subsurface conditions across the site.

Table 2. Subsurface Soil and Bedrock Materials

Stratum

Depth Encountered

Below Existing Grades

(ft)

Software Material

Designation

Unit Weight

(pcf)

Fat Clay 3 - 34 Stiff Clay w/o Water 120

Weathered Shale >34 Weak Rock 130

GEOTEX ENGINEERING PAGE 6

Table 3. Recommended Geotechnical Parameters for Soil and Bedrock Strata

Stratum

Undrained

Cohesion

(psf)

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength – Rock

(psi)

Modulus

(psi)

RQD

Strain

Factor ε50

Fat Clay 1,000 NA NA NA 0.02

Weathered Shale NA 100 10,000 60 0.0005

5.1.2 Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations

Groundwater seepage was encountered at 15 feet during drilling and was dry upon the completion of drilling operations. Groundwater is often contained within the joints, fractures and other rock mass defects present in bedrock strata. When intercepted, these defects can produce appreciable amounts of water for a period of time, especially if those defects are extensive and well inter-connected.

Groundwater levels should be anticipated to fluctuate with seasonal and annual variations in rainfall and may vary as a result of development and landscape irrigation.

Temporary casing should be locally available in the event that excessive groundwater seepage is encountered that cannot be controlled with conventional pumps, sumps, or other means, or in the event that excessive sidewall sloughing occurs. Ideally, concrete should be onsite during drilling operations, so it can be placed immediately after drilling of each shaft is complete.

The installation of all drilled piers should be observed by experienced geotechnical personnel during construction to verify compliance with design assumptions including: 1) verticality of the shaft excavation, 2) identification of the bearing stratum, 3) minimum pier diameter and depth, 4) correct amount of reinforcement,

5) proper removal of loose material, and 6) that groundwater seepage, if present, is properly controlled. Geotex would be pleased to provide these services in support of this project.

During construction of the drilled shafts, care should be taken to avoid creating an oversized cap ("mushroom") near the ground surface that is larger than the shaft diameter. These “mushrooms” provide a resistance surface that near-surface soils can heave against. If near-surface soils are prone to sloughing, a condition which can result in “mushrooming”, the tops of the shafts should be formed in the sloughing soils using cardboard or other circular forms equal to the diameter of the shaft.

Concrete used for the shafts should have a slump of 8 inches ± 1 inch. Individual shafts should be excavated in continuous operation and concrete should be placed as soon as after completion of the drilling as is practical. All pier holes should be filled with concrete within 8 hours after completion of drilling. In the event of

GEOTEX ENGINEERING PAGE 7

equipment breakdown, any uncompleted open shaft should be backfilled with soil to be redrilled at a later date. This office should be contacted when shafts have reached the target depth but cannot be completed.

6.0 OTHER CONSTRUCTION

6.1 Utility and Service Lines

Backfill for utility lines should consist of on-site material and should be placed in accordance with the following recommendations. The on-site fill soil should be placed in maximum 6-inch compacted lifts, compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor), and be placed at a moisture content that is within two (2) percentage points (± 2%) of optimum moisture content, as determined by that same test. It is not uncommon to realize some settlement along the trench backfill. We also recommend that the utility trenches be visually inspected during the excavation process to ensure that undesirable fill that was not detected by the test borings does not exist at the site. This office should be notified immediately if any such fill is detected.

Utility lines connected to the structure may experience differential movement in response to changing moisture conditions in expansive soil. These movements may result in damage to the lines, especially at connections. Flexible connections or oversized penetration sleeves are recommended to account for potential differential movement between the structure and utilities.

Utility excavations should be sloped so that water within excavations will flow to a low point away from the active construction where it can be removed before backfilling.

Compaction of bedding material should not be water jetted. Compacted backfill above the utilities should be on-site clays to limit the percolation of surface water. Utility trenches extending under structures should include fat clay or concrete cut-off collars at the perimeter/edge to prevent the transmission of water along trench lines.

6.2 Exterior Flatwork

Concrete flatwork should include high tensile steel reinforcement to reduce the formation and size of cracks. Flatwork should also include frequent and regularly spaced expansion/control joints and dowels to limit vertical offsets between neighboring flatwork slabs. Structure entrances should either be part of the structure or designed to tolerate vertical movement without inhibiting access. The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained up to the time of concrete placement. If subgrade soils are allowed to dry below the levels recommended herein, additional moisture conditioning of the soils may be required. These recommendations are intended to reduce possible distress to exterior flatwork but will not prevent movement and/or vertical offsets between slabs.

GEOTEX ENGINEERING PAGE 8

6.3 Surface Drainage

Proper drainage is critical to the performance and condition of the structure foundation and flatwork. Positive surface drainage should be provided that directs surface water away from the structure and flatwork. Where possible, we recommend that the exterior grades slope away from foundations at the rate of five (5) percent in the first five (5) feet, and preferably ten (10) feet away. The slopes should direct water away from the structure, and these grades should be maintained throughout construction and the life of the structure.

The location of gutter downspouts, and other features, should be designed such that these items will not create moisture concentrations at or beneath the structure or flatwork.

Downspouts should discharge well away from the structure and should not be allowed to erode surface soil.

The potential for moisture-induced structure distress can be positively addressed by constructing continuous exterior flatwork that extends to the structure line. Where this occurs, the joints created at the interface of the flatwork and structure line should be sealed with a flexible joint sealer to prevent the infiltration of water. Open cracks that may develop in the flatwork should also be sealed. The joint and any cracks that develop should be resealed as they become apparent and should be part of a periodic inspection and maintenance program.

However, we understand that sidewalks are not always practical or desired around the full perimeters of some facilities. Where landscaping will be present adjacent to structure perimeters, diligent post-construction maintenance should be employed to prevent excessive wetting or drying of those adjacent soils.

6.4 Landscaping

Landscaping against and around the exterior of the structure can adversely affect subgrade moisture resulting in localized differential movements if not properly maintained.

If used, landscaping should be kept as far away from the foundation as possible, and positive drainage away from the structure should be designed, constructed, and maintained. Landscaping elements (such as edging) should not prohibit or slow the drainage of water that could result in water ponding next to foundations or edges of flatwork. When feasible, irrigation lines and heads should not be placed in close proximity to the foundation to prevent the collection of water near the foundation or flatwork, particularly in the event of leaking lines or sprinkler heads.

Trees (if planned) should not be placed in proximity to the structure or movement sensitive flatwork, as trees are known to cause in localized soil shrinkage due to desiccation of the soil by the root system, possibly leading to differential movements of the structure. The desiccation zone varies by a tree, but trees should not be planted closer to structures than the mature tree height. To the extent practical, it is recommended that trees scheduled for removal (where required) in the vicinity of the proposed structure and pavements be removed as far in advance of slab construction as possible, ideally by several months or

GEOTEX ENGINEERING PAGE 9

longer. This will tend to restore a more favorable soil moisture equilibrium which will, in turn, tend to minimize the potential for greater than anticipated post-construction ground movements. A moist but not overly wet soil condition should be maintained at all times in all landscaped areas near the structure after construction to minimize soil volume changes caused by changing soil moisture conditions.

6.5 Site Grading

Expansive clay cut and fill slopes should be gentle and preferably should not exceed

4 horizontals to 1 vertical (4H: 1V).

6.6 Excavations and Excavation Difficulties

The weathered shale present at the site below the overburden soils can be hard. Difficult drilling and excavation should be anticipated within and through the weathered shale.

Appropriate hard rock excavation equipment will be required to excavate the shale strata, such as heavy, tracked single-tooth ripper, wheel trencher, hoe-ram, or possibly chain cutter. Such heavy equipment should be sufficient size and weight to excavate through the hard layers to reach the desired bearing elevations.

Excavations greater than 5 feet in height/depth should be in accordance with OSHA

29CFR 1926, Subpart P. Temporary construction slopes should incorporate excavation protection systems or should be sloped back. Where the excavation does not extend close to proposed structure lines, these areas may be laid back. Where space allows, temporary slopes should be sloped at 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V) or flatter.

Excavations in weathered shale can often be excavated as steep as ½ to ¾ H:1V .

Where excavation slopes greater than five (5) feet in height cannot be laid back, these areas will require installation of a temporary retention system or shoring to protect the existing construction, restrain the subsurface soils and maintain the integrity of the excavation. We recommend that monitoring points be established around the retention system and that these locations be monitored during and after the excavation activities to confirm the integrity of the retention system.

The slopes and temporary retention system should be verified by and designed by the contractor's engineer and should not be surcharged by traffic, construction equipment, or permanent structures. The slopes and temporary retention system should be adequately maintained and periodically inspected to ensure the safety of the excavation and surrounding property.

7.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The seismic site classification is based on the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) and is a classification of the site based on the type of soils encountered at the site and their engineering properties. Based on the general geologic information gathered in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10, we recommend that Soil Site Class “C” be used at this site.

GEOTEX ENGINEERING PAGE 10

8.0 LIMITATIONS

The professional geotechnical engineering services performed for this project, the findings obtained, and the recommendations prepared were accomplished in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices.

Variations in the subsurface conditions are noted at the specific boring locations for this study.

As such, all users of this report should be aware that differences in depths and thicknesses of strata encountered can vary around the boring location. Statements in the report as to subsurface conditions across the site are extrapolated from the data obtained at the specific boring location. The number and spacing of the exploration borings were chosen to obtain geotechnical information for the design and construction of a lightly loaded flagpole structure.

If there are any conditions differing significantly from those described herein, Geotex should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report.

Recommendations contained herein are not considered applicable for an indefinite period of time. Our office must be contacted to re-evaluate the contents of this report if construction does not begin within a one-year period after completion of this report.

The scope of services provided herein does not include an environmental assessment of the site or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous materials in the soil, surface water, or groundwater.

All contractors referring to this geotechnical report should draw their own conclusions regarding excavations, construction, etc. for bidding purposes. Geotex is not responsible for conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on these data. The report is intended to guide preparation of project specifications and should not be used as a substitute for the project specifications.

Recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of information provided by the Client to us regarding the scope of work for this project. If the Client notes any differences, our office should be contacted immediately since this may materially alter the recommendations.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific applications to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made.

Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others.

In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Geotex reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A - BORING LOGS AND SUPPORTING DATA

**BORING LOCATIONS ARE INTENDED FOR GRAPHICAL REFERENCE ONLY**

N.T.S.

Greenville TEXAS

SHEET NO.

DATE DRILLED

December 06, 2023

PLAN OF BORINGS

IH 30 AND WESLEY ST FLAGPOLE G1

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND TERMS

CONSISTENCY: FINE GRAINED SOILS

CONDITION OF SOILS

SECONDARY COMPONENTS

WEATHERING OF ROCK MASS

TCP (values)

< 8 8 - 20

20 - 80

80 - 5 in./100 0 in. - 5 in./100

Relative Density (%)

0 - 15 15 - 35

35 - 65 65 - 85

85 - 100

SPT (blowcounts)

0 - 2 3 - 4

5 - 8 9 - 15

16 - 30

> 30

PP (tsf) < 0.25

0.25 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

2.0 - 4.0

> 4.0

CONSISTENCY OF SOILSLITHOLOGIC SYMBOLS

CONDITION: COARSE GRAINED SOILS

QUANTITY DESCRIPTORS

RELATIVE HARDNESS OF ROCK MASS

SPT (blowcounts)

0 - 4 5 - 10

11 - 30 31 - 50

> 50

Description No visible sign of weathering Penetrative weathering on open discontinuity surfaces, but only slight weathering of rock material Weathering extends throughout rock mass, but the rock material is not friable Weathering extends throughout rock mass, and the rock material is partly friable Rock is wholly decomposed and in a friable condition but the rock texture and structure are preserved A soil material with the original texture, structure, and mineralogy of the rock completely destroyed

Designation Fresh Slightly weathered

Moderately weathered

Highly weathered

Completely weathered

Residual Soil

Description Can be carved with a knife. Can be excavated readily with point of pick. Pieces 1" or more in thickness can be broken by finger pressure. Readily scratched with fingernail.

Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point.

Can be excavated in chips to pieces several inches in size by moderate blows with the pick point. Small, thin pieces can be broken by finger pressure.

Can be grooved or gouged 1/4" deep by firm pressure on knife or pick point. Can be excavated in small chips to pieces about 1" maximum size by hard blows with the point of a pick.

Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves 1/4" deep can be excavated by hard blow of the point of a pick.

Hand specimens can be detached by a moderate blow.

Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty.

Hard blow of hammer required to detach a hand specimen.

Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Breaking of hand specimens requires several hard blows from a hammer or pick.

Trace Few Little Some With

Designation Very Soft

Soft

Medium Hard

Moderately Hard

Hard

Very Hard

< 5% of sample 5% to 10% 10% to 25% 25% to 35% > 35%

Condition

Very Loose Loose

Medium Dense Dense

Very Dense

Consistency

Very Soft Soft

Medium Stiff Stiff

Very Stiff

HardA R

T

IF

IC

IA

L

Asphalt

Aggregate Base

Concrete

Fill

S O

IL

R

O C

K

Limestone

Mudstone

Shale

Sandstone

Weathered Limestone

Weathered Shale

Weathered Sandstone

CH: High Plasticity Clay

CL: Low Plasticity Clay

GP: Poorly-graded Gravel

GW: Well-graded Gravel

SC: Clayey Sand

SP: Poorly-graded Sand

SW: Well-graded Sand

65 25 40

4.5

4.25

1.75

1.75

3.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5+

508.0 ft

502.0 ft

92.6

88.0

15.5

22.5

26.8

30.1

29.6

27.1

29.9

32.1

34.0 ft

40.0 ft

FAT CLAY (CH); stiff to very stiff;

brown, dark brown, dark gray; ferrous nodules, ferrous stains, trace gypsum

-gypsum crystals below 20 feet

SHALE; completely to highly weathered; soft; brown, ferrous stains, gypsum crystal, with dark gray shale layer

End of boring at 40.0'

Notes:

- seepage at 15 feet during drilling

- dry upon completion

S

S

S

S

S

AU

S

AU

S

AU

S

AU

S

AU

S

AU

S

5.3

5.6

Swell

(%)LL

PL

(%) PI

Total Suction

(pF)

Hand Pen. (tsf) or

SPT

or

TCP

BORING LOG

Graphic Log

DUW

(pcf)

Depth (ft)

Atterberg Limits

Clay

MC

Legend:

S-Shelby Tube N-Standard Penetration T-Texas Cone Penetration C-Core B-Bag Sample

- Water Encountered

REC

RQD

Sample Type

Hand Pen. (tsf) or

SPT

or

TCP

B1

Passing #200 Sieve

Unconf.

Compr.

Str (ksf)

CLIENT: MTG Stovall Engineers and Surveyors

LOCATION: Greenville, TXPROJECT: IH 30 and Wesley St Flagpole

DRILLED BY: Markevian Smith (Geotex)

START DATE: 12/6/2023 DRILL METHOD: Cont. Flight Auger/Cont. Push

LOGGED BY: Shruti Singh (Geotex)

FINISH DATE: 12/6/2023

GROUND ELEVATION: Approx. 542 feet

GPS COORDINATES: N33.095000°, W96.110556°

PROJECT NUMBER: G23-2339

0 2 4 6 8 10

S T

R E

S S ps i)

STRAIN, %

29.9 92.6

(pcf) Compressive Strength (psi)

37.1

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

CLIENT: MTG Stovall Engineers and SurveyorsPROJECT: IH 30 and Wesley St Flagpole

PROJECT NUMBER: G23-2339 LOCATION: Greenville, TX

Borehole Depth

19.0

Description MC%

FAT CLAY (CH); stiff to very stiff; brown, dark brown, dark grayB1

0 2 4 6 8 10

S T

R E

S S ps i)

STRAIN, %

32.1 88.0

(pcf) Compressive Strength (psi)

38.7

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

CLIENT: MTG Stovall Engineers and SurveyorsPROJECT: IH 30 and Wesley St Flagpole

PROJECT NUMBER: G23-2339 LOCATION: Greenville, TX

Borehole Depth

29.0

Description MC%

FAT CLAY (CH); stiff to very stiff; brown, dark brown, dark grayB1

B1 14-15 FAT CLAY (CH); stiff to very stiff; brown, dark brown, dark gray 5520

Boring…