H.08.04 Building 62- IH B62 RTA Specs Volume 1 2022-01-25.pdf

Work Order No.: 1610011

SPECIFICATIONS – Vol. 1 (RTA Submittal)

Building 62 Renovation & Addition

At

NSF Indian Head, Maryland

PREPARED BY:

JACOBS

1100 N. Glebe Road

Suite 500 Arlington, Virginia 22201

(A/E Contract N40080-17-D-0018)

SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED BY:

Architectural Mechanical/Plumbing/Controls Civil Electrical/Telecom Structural Fire Protection

Robert Franklin, Project Manager 9 October 2019 Submitted By Signature Date

Design Manager Signature Date

Anthony Liverman RFP Accepted by CI4 Signature Date Design Production Director

KJELLAND.JAMES.L.

1229264679

Digitally signed by

KJELLAND.JAMES.L.1229264679

Date: 2021.11.17 15:13:51 -05'00'

LIVERMAN.ANTHONY.G.12292427

Digitally signed by

LIVERMAN.ANTHONY.G.1229242756

Date: 2021.11.18 10:07:54 -05'00'

INDIAN HEAD BUILDING 62 RENOVATION 25 JANUARY 2022

NSF INDIAN HEAD READY TO ADVERTISE (RTA) SUBMITTAL

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

00 01 07 SEALS PAGE

DI VI SI ON 01 - GENERAL REQUI REMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS

01 20 00 PRICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 31 23.13 20 ELECTRONIC CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITY SUPPORT CONTRACT

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

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 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 78 24.00 20 FACILITY ELECTRONIC OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SUPPORT

INFORMATION (eOMSI)

01 78 30.00 23 CADD DATA FOR GIS DELIVERABLES

01 81 23 BLAST RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTS

01 91 00.15 10 TOTAL BUILDING COMMISSIONING

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

02 41 00 DEMOLITION

02 81 00 TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

02 82 00 ASBESTOS REMEDIATION

02 83 00 LEAD REMEDIATION

02 84 16 HANDLING OF LIGHTING BALLASTS AND LAMPS CONTAINING PCBs

AND MERCURY

DI VI SI ON 03 - CONCRETE

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

DI VI SI ON 04 - MASONRY

04 20 00 UNIT MASONRY

DI VI SI ON 05 - METALS

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL

05 30 00 STEEL DECKS

05 51 00 METAL STAIRS

05 51 33 METAL LADDERS

05 52 00 METAL RAILINGS

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

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

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 13 53 ELASTOMERIC SHEET WATERPROOFING

07 21 16 MINERAL FIBER BLANKET INSULATION

07 22 00 ROOF AND DECK INSULATION

07 27 10.00 10 BUILDING AIR BARRIER SYSTEM

07 27 19.01 SELF-ADHERING AIR BARRIERS

07 42 63 FABRICATED WALL PANEL ASSEMBLIES

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 41 13 ALUMINUM-FRAMED ENTRANCES AND STOREFRONTS

08 44 00 CURTAIN WALL AND GLAZED ASSEMBLIES

08 60 45 TRANSLUCENT PANELS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

08 81 00 GLAZING

08 91 00 METAL WALL LOUVERS

DI VI SI ON 09 - FI NI SHES

09 01 90.50 PREPARATION OF HISTORIC WOOD AND METAL SURFACES FOR

PAINTING

09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD

09 30 10 CERAMIC, QUARRY, AND GLASS TILING

09 51 00 ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS

09 65 00 RESILIENT FLOORING

09 68 00 CARPETING

09 90 00 PAINTS AND COATINGS

DI VI SI ON 10 - SPECI ALTI ES

10 14 00.20 INTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 22 39 FOLDING PANEL PARTITIONS

10 26 00 WALL AND DOOR PROTECTION

10 28 13 TOILET ACCESSORIES

DI VI SI ON 11 - EQUI PMENT

11 81 29 FACILITY FALL PROTECTION

DI VI SI ON 12 - FURNI SHI NGS

12 24 13 ROLLER WINDOW SHADES

12 48 13 ENTRANCE FLOOR MATS AND FRAMES

12 50 00.13 10 FURNITURE AND FURNITURE INSTALLATION

DI VI SI ON 14 - CONVEYI NG EQUI PMENT

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2

14 24 23 HYDRAULIC PASSENGER ELEVATORS

DI VI SI ON 21 - FI RE SUPPRESSI ON

21 13 13.00 20 WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, FIRE PROTECTION

DI VI SI ON 22 - PLUMBI NG

22 00 00 PLUMBING, GENERAL PURPOSE

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

23 00 00 AIR SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, VENTILATION, AND EXHAUST SYSTEMS

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 23 00 REFRIGERANT PIPING

23 81 00 DECENTRALIZED UNITARY HVAC EQUIPMENT

23 81 23.00 20 COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONING UNITS

23 82 46.00 40 ELECTRIC UNIT HEATERS

DI VI SI ON 25 - I NTEGRATED AUTOMATI ON

25 05 11 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY-RELATED CONTROL SYSTEMS

DI VI SI ON 26 - ELECTRI CAL

26 00 00.00 20 BASIC ELECTRICAL MATERIALS AND METHODS

26 20 00 INTERIOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

26 51 00 INTERIOR LIGHTING

DI VI SI ON 27 - COMMUNI CATI ONS

27 10 00 BUILDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLING SYSTEM

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

28 10 05 ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS (ESS)

28 31 76 INTERIOR FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

DI VI SI ON 31 - EARTHWORK

31 23 00.00 20 EXCAVATION AND FILL

DI VI SI ON 32 - EXTERI OR I MPROVEMENTS

32 01 16.71 COLD MILLING ASPHALT PAVING

32 11 20 BASE COURSE FOR RIGID AND SUBBASES FOR FLEXIBLE PAVING

32 11 23 DENSE GRADED AGGREGATE BASE COURSES

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

32 16 19 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS

32 92 19 SEEDING

DI VI SI ON 33 - UTI LI TI ES

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3

33 11 00 WATER UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PIPING

33 40 00 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES

DIVISION 40 - PROCESS INTERCONNECTIONS

40 17 30.00 40 WELDING GENERAL PIPING

-- End of Project Table of Contents --

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4

SECTION 00 01 07

SEALS PAGE

02/15

PART 1 SUMMARY

1.1 SEALS AND SIGNATURES

Professional Certification. I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Architect under the laws of the State of ______________________.

License No. _____________________.

Expiration Date: ____________________

Professional Certification. I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of ________________________.

License No. _____________________.

Expiration Date: ____________________

Professional Certification. I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of _______________________.

License No. _____________________.

Expiration Date: ____________________

DOCUMENT 00 01 07 Page 1

MARYLAND

19642

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PE8229

MARYLAND

45292

INDIAN HEAD BUILDING 62 RENOVATION

NSF INDIAN HEAD

25 JANUARY 2022

READY TO ADVERTISE (RTA) SUBMITTAL

Professional Certification. I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of __________________________.

License No. _____________________.

Expiration Date: ____________________

Professional Certification. I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of ___________________________.

License No. _____________________.

Expiration Date: ____________________

Professional Certification. I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of _______________________.

License No. _____________________.

Expiration Date: ____________________

DOCUMENT 00 01 07 Page 2

TEXAS

11851

NORTH CAROLINA

032600

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INDIAN HEAD BUILDING 62 RENOVATION

NSF INDIAN HEAD

25 JANUARY 2022

READY TO ADVERTISE (RTA) SUBMITTAL

Professional Certification. I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of __________________________.

License No. _____________________.

Expiration Date: ____________________

Professional Certification. I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of ___________________________.

License No. _____________________.

Expiration Date: ____________________

Professional Certification. I hereby certify that these documents were prepared or approved by me, and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of _______________________.

License No. _____________________.

Expiration Date: ____________________

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 01 07 Page 3

MARYLAND

41393

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DOCUMENT 00 01 07 Page 4

SECTION 01 11 00

SUMMARY OF WORK

08/15

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SUBMITTALS

Government approval is required for submittals with a "G" designation;

submittals not having a "G" designation are for Contractor Quality Control approval. Submittals with an "S" are for inclusion in the Sustainability eNotebook, in conformance with Section 01 33 29 SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING.

Submit the following in accordance with Section 01 33 00 SUBMITTAL

PROCEDURES:

SD-01 Preconstruction Submittals

Hazardous Materials Report; G

Hazardous Materials Remediation Plan; G

Salvage Plan; G

1.2 WORK COVERED BY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

1.2.1 Project Description

The work includes full exterior and interior renovation of the entire existing Building 62 (approximately 5,340 SF) at Naval Support Facility Indian Head in Indian Head, MD. The renovation of Building 62 will result in the creation of dry lab and office spaces to accommodate operational needs of the Detection Group, Early Warning Lab, Fleet Support, Integration Lab Test & Evaluation, and Test Range. In addition to core spaces, auxiliary areas such as Restrooms, Kitchen, and Storage will be provided. An addition to the building will upgrade the building to meet ADA Standards. Exterior work will include site upgrades within 15 feet of the building to address existing water infiltration, utility upgrades and ADA requirements. Work includes, but is not limited to, interior systems, floor, and roof demolition, floor and roof replacement, elevator installation, new exterior doors and windows, new interior partitions, ceilings systems, wall and floor finishes, new HVAC and plumbing systems, new plumbing fixtures, new lighting and electrical fixture replacement, and reconstruction of existing vestibule.

The Contractor shall assume the presence of hazardous materials for the purposes of bidding based on a limited hazardous material survey conducted at Building 62 attached at the end of this section. Prior to commencement of the work, the Contractor must engage a suitably licensed consulting firm to conduct a complete hazardous materials survey of all building areas. The firm must produce a Hazardous Materials Report of the conditions and findings of all hazardous materials and assist the Contractor in completing the appropriate UFGS Hazardous Material Specification Sections. The Contractor must then engage a Hazardous Materials Remediation Company to create a Hazardous Materials Remediation Plan for submission to the Owner and the Contractor's Consulting Firm for review and approval prior to starting the Remediation portion of the Work. The Remediation Work must be performed by the Remediation Company

SECTION 01 11 00 Page 1 in accordance with the specification sections produced by the Consulting Firm which will be engaged to monitor the project conditions and conduct a final survey to certify the project site free of hazardous materials prior to starting the remainder of the Work. Requirements shall be coordinated at the preconstruction meeting. The Contract Bid and Work will include the survey, report, plan, remediation of Lead Paint, Mold, suspected Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM), and any other hazardous material described in the new report.

ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC performed a geotechnical survey for the renovation of Building 62. The Geotechnical Engineering Report dated June 14, 2019 is attached to this section.

1.2.2 Location

The project site is located within the Naval Support Facility Indian Head (NSF Indian Head) campus in Indian Head, MD. Building 62 is bordered to the northeast of the intersection of Torrance Road and Dashiell Road, to the north by a parking lot, and to the west of a heavily forested area green space. The exact location will be shown by the Contracting Officer.

1.3 OCCUPANCY OF PREMISES

Building will not be occupied during performance of work under this Contract.

Before work is started, arrange with the Contracting Officer a sequence of procedure, means of access, space for storage of materials and equipment, and use of approaches, corridors, and stairways.

1.4 EXISTING WORK

In addition to FAR 52.236-9 Protection of Existing Vegetation, Structures, Equipment, Utilities, and Improvements:

a. Remove or alter existing work in such a manner as to prevent injury or damage to any portions of the existing work which remain.

b. Repair or replace portions of existing work which have been altered during construction operations to match existing or adjoining work, as approved by the Contracting Officer. At the completion of operations, existing work must be in a condition equal to or better than that which existed before new work started.

1.5 LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

Obtain digging permits prior to start of excavation, and comply with Installation requirements for locating and marking underground utilities.

Contact local utility locating service a minimum of 48 hours prior to excavating, to mark utilities, and within sufficient time required if work occurs on a Monday or after a Holiday. Verify existing utility locations indicated on contract drawings, within area of work.

Identify and mark all other utilities not managed and located by the local utility companies. Scan the construction site with Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), electromagnetic, or sonic equipment, and mark the surface of the ground or paved surface where existing underground utilities are discovered. Verify the elevations of existing piping, utilities,and any type of underground obstruction not indicated, or specified to be removed, SECTION 01 11 00 Page 2 that is indicated or discovered during scanning, in locations to be traversed by piping, ducts, and other work to be conducted or installed.

Verify elevations before installing new work closer than nearest manhole or other structure at which an adjustment in grade can be made.

1.5.1 Notification Prior to Excavation

Notify the Contracting Officer at least 15 days prior to starting excavation work.

1.6 NAVY AND MARINE CORPS (NMCI) COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS

1.6.1 NMCI Contractor Access

Allow the NMCI Contractor access to the facility towards the end of construction (finishes 90 percent complete, rough-in 100 percent complete, Inside Plant (ISP)/Outside Plant (OSP) infrastructure in place) to provide equipment in the telecommunications rooms and make final connections.

Coordinate efforts with the NMCI Contractor to facilitate joint use of building spaces during the final phases of construction. After the Contracting Officer has facilitated coordination meetings between the two contractors, within one week, incorporate the effort of additional coordination with the NMCI Contractor into the construction schedule to demonstrate a plan for maintaining the contract duration.

1.7 SALVAGE MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT

Items designated by the Contracting Officer to be salvaged remain the property of the Government. Segregate, itemize, deliver and off-load the salvaged property at a storage area site as directed by the Contracting Officer.

Provide a salvage plan, listing material and equipment to be salvaged, and their storage location. Maintain property control records for material or equipment designated as salvage. Use a system of property control that is approved by the Contracting Officer. Store and protect salvaged materials and equipment until disposition by the Contracting Officer.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not used.

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not used.

-- End of Section --

SECTION 01 11 00 Page 3

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SECTION 01 11 00 Page 4

ECS Mid Atlantic, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Report Building 62 Addition

Naval Support Facility Indian Head Indian Head, Charles County, Maryland

ECS Project Number 01:28923

June 14, 2019

June 14, 2019

Mr. Marc Alsalihi Jacobs 1100 North Glebe Road, Suite 500 Arlington, VA 22201

ECS Project No. 01:28923

Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report Building 62 Addition Naval Support Facility Indian Head Indian Head, Charles County, Maryland

Dear Mr. Alsalihi:

ECS Mid Atlantic, LLC (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with ECS Proposal Number 01:5879 GPR, dated February 15, 2019. This report presents our understanding of the geotechnical aspects of the project along with the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing conducted and our design and construction recommendations.

It has been our pleasure to be of service to Jacobs during the design phase of this project. We would appreciate the opportunity to remain involved during the continuation of the design phase, and we would like to provide our services during construction phase operations as well to verify the assumptions of subsurface conditions made for this report. Should you have any questions concerning the information contained in this report, or if we can be of further assistance to you, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted, ECS Mid Atlantic, LLC

Tyler L. Stephenson, E.I.T. Carol L. Hawk, P.E.

Paul D. Agutter, P.E.

[TLS/hmb I:\Geotechnical\{eProjects}\28900 28999\28923 Bldg 62 NSF\e Report Preparation\28923se.docx]

Building 62 Addition June 14, 2019 ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Scope of Services

1.3 Authorization

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Location and Current Site Use

2.2 Proposed Construction

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 Field Exploration Program

3.1.1 Test Boring

3.1.2 Test Coring

3.1.3 Test Pit

3.2 Regional/Site Geology

3.3 Subsurface Characterization

3.4 Groundwater Observations

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Building Design

5.1.1 Shallow Foundations Recommendations

5.1.2 Subgrade Verification and General Foundation Recommendations

5.1.3 Floor Slabs

5.1.4 Below Grade Walls for the Elevator Pit

5.1.5 Seismic Design Considerations

6.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Subgrade Preparation

6.1.1 Stripping

6.1.2 Demolition

6.1.3 Site Temporary Dewatering

6.2 Earthwork Operations

6.2.1 Structural Fill Materials

6.3 Utility Installations

6.4 Temporary and Permanent Slopes

6.5 Zone of Influence Requirements

6.6 General Construction Considerations

7.0 CLOSING

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page ii

APPENDICES

Appendix A Drawings & Reports Boring Location Diagram

Appendix B Field Operations Reference Notes for Boring Logs Boring Log B 1 and B 2 Test Pit Log TP 1 and TP 2

Appendix C Laboratory Testing Laboratory Test Results Summary Plasticity Chart Grain Size Analysis

Appendix D Supplemental Report Documents and Calculations Zone of Influence Diagram French Drain Diagram Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram Undrained

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are summarized. Information gleaned from the executive summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

As we understand it, the proposed development of the site includes construction of a new 2 story addition to the southwest side of Building 62 as well as interior renovations.

The surface material at the site consisted of up to 4 inches of top soil, and 6 feet of fill material.

Beneath the surface and fill materials, one soil strata was encountered within the borings. The subsurface conditions consisted of alluvial soils consistent with the local geology. The alluvial materials consisted of very dense CLAYEY SAND (SC), SAND WITH CLAY (SP SC), CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), and soft to very hard CLAYS (CL, CH) with varying amounts of sand.

Based on the subsurface conditions, we recommend that the proposed new shallow spread footings with an allowable bearing capacity on the order of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf).

Competent soils can be identified on the boring logs as those natural soils having a minimum Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N value of 6 blows per foot (bpf) or greater or properly compacted engineered fill material for the allowable bearing pressure range noted above.

The primary geotechnical consideration on this site is the presence of fill material within close proximity to the proposed bottom of the foundations. The fill materials were observed in Borehole B 1 up to a depth of 6 feet. These materials are not suitable for the direct support of new foundations and should be removed and replaced.

Based on a test pit excavation adjacent to the structure, the existing wall footing appears to be a continuous footing about 5 foot wide at the base and has a bottom of footing located approximately 3 feet below grade. Any additional footings should have the same bottom of footing depth or be located outside of the zone of influence.

Borehole B 2A was planned within the footprint of the addition. Refusal occurred at approximately 2 feet below grade. Damage to the auger bit was observed. The borehole was offset with 5 feet and hand dug the top two feet. A concrete structure was uncovered. The use or footprint of this structure is not known. Borehole B 2 was drilled outside of the footprint due to existing trees and site features making another location within the footprint inaccessible.

Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) was removed in three locations along the southwest wall and retaining wall approximately in each location. Two cores were taken from the two locations along the southwest wall of Building 62, designated C 1 through C 4, selected by ECS in order to assess the thickness and test for compressive strength. Cores were not taken from the third location at the retaining wall, since it was determined to be a segmental CMU construction.

The exterior walls have approximately of EIFS installed at the three locations uncovered.

During sampling the wall was determined to be constructed of a stone and grout binder. The material did not hold together during extraction. The personnel on site notified you and NAVFAC engineer of the material encounter. A total of one core barrel was drilled in each of the four locations. ECS understands that the wall is approximately thick.

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 2

ECS has also performed environmental sampling and laboratory testing. This will be released under separate cover.

Lastly, we recommend that if there are any changes to the project characteristics as outlined in this report, ECS is to be retained to review the plans and determine if modifications to the recommendations or if additional geotechnical recommendations are necessary for the proposed development.

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the new 2 story addition and renovation of the existing Building 62 located within the Naval Support Facility Indian Head (NSF Indian Head) campus. Based on a review of the provided documents, ECS understands the proposed construction would entail a new 2 story addition as well as interior renovations. We understand that a basement is not planned, but elevator shaft walls will extend 4 feet below the ground floor.

This report contains the results of our subsurface explorations and laboratory testing programs, site characterization, engineering analyses, and recommendations for the design and construction of planned development.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES

To obtain the necessary geotechnical information required for design of foundations, two soil test borings were performed on site. One of the borings was performed within the footprint of the proposed development and the other was performed outside of the footprint due to encountering an unforeseen buried concrete obstruction at the original proposed location. A laboratory testing program was also implemented to characterize the physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils.

Additionally, ECS excavated two test pits along the southwest wall of the building and retaining wall to document the dimensions of existing wall footings. ECS removed EIFS in three locations.

Two located at the southwest wall of Building 62 and one located at the retaining wall. Two cores were drilled at the two locations of the southwest wall of Building 62. Cores were not drilled at the retaining wall. After removal of EIFS it was revealed that the retaining is segmental concrete masonry (CMU) construction and not concrete. As discussed with Jacobs, ECS was unable to test the obtained core samples for compressive strength, because they were not concrete material.

ECS also retained a specialty contractor to patch repair the existing EIFS wall finish at the locations where coring was performed. The patch repair was performed on June 10th and 11th, 2019.

This report discusses our exploratory and testing procedures, presents our findings, and evaluations. The report includes the following:

A brief review and description of our field and laboratory test procedures and results of testing conducted.

A review of surface topographical features and site conditions.

A review of area and site geologic conditions.

A review of subsurface soil stratigraphy and soil properties.

Final copies of our soil exploration boring logs and results.

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 4

Recommendations for site preparation and construction of compacted fills, including an evaluation of on site soils for use as compacted fills and delineation of potentially unsuitable soils and/or soils exhibiting excessive moisture at the time of sampling.

Recommendations for shallow foundation and slab on grade.

Recommendations for below grade walls for an elevator shaft to include undrained lateral earth pressures.

Recommendations for seismic site classification in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC).

Dimensions of the existing exterior continuous wall footings for Building 62 and the retaining wall.

Demolish and repair up to three patches in the exterior wall of Building 62 and retaining wall to drill up to six concrete core samples from exterior wall.

1.3 AUTHORIZATION

Our services were provided in accordance with the Indefinite Delivery Subconsulting Agreement, dated May 15, 2019, as authorized by Paul D. Agutter (ECS Mid Atlantic, LLC) and Melinda Durden (Jacobs Government Services Company) and ECS Proposal No. 01:58786 GPR, revision dated February 15, 2019.

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 5

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND CURRENT SITE USE

The project site is located within the Naval Support Facility Indian Head (NSF Indian Head) campus in Indian Head, MD. Specifically, the subject site is bordered to the south by an unnamed drive running parallel with Torrence Road, to the west by grassy and wooded lots, and to the north and east by the Potomac River and an asphalt drive. The site is within 40 ft of the Potomac River.

Existing ground surface elevations range from EL +7 To EL +32.

The site is currently developed with the aforementioned two story building, retaining wall, asphalt paved parking areas, concrete walkways, and landscaped areas consisting of grass and a few trees. We understand that the current structure was originally built in 1904 as a one story building but has been modified several times. The Request for Proposal, prepared by Jacobs, states that a design drawing for the 1904 structure shows a pile foundation supporting internal steel columns and exterior masonry walls. The majority of the original roof (now the second floor) consisted of a concrete slab, between 21 and 26 inches thick, cast on steel rails supported by the walls and frequently spaced 15 inch high beams. The remainder of the roof, the area that is currently reception and stair, uses an arched concrete slab supported by steel beams integrally with the concrete. The original structure was converted into a two story structure in 1944. The Second Floor consists of a concrete slab cast over cinder fill over the original concrete roof. The Second Floor is approximately 60 inches thick. Concrete block bearing walls supported a reinforced concrete joist roof slab. In 1989, the facility was converted into a conference facility.

The structure supporting both the Second Floor and the Roof were modified to provide column free spaces. The current building has an approximately 2,400 square feet (SF) footprint.

Imagery ©2019 Google, Map data ©2019 Google Figure 2.1.1. Site Location

Site Location

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 6

2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Based on a review of the provided documents, ECS understands the proposed construction would entail the construction of a new 2 story addition on the southwest side of the existing building as well as interior renovations. The finished floor elevation of the addition will match the floor elevations in the existing building, approximately EL +9.5 ft. We understand that a basement is not planned, but elevator shaft walls will extend 4 feet below the ground floor. The building will be used for office and laboratory space. The conceptual design for the addition consists of load bearing masonry walls with composite steel and concrete floor slabs. We anticipate that the proposed addition will be relatively lightly loaded and is anticipated to be supported on shallow foundations. We anticipate maximum column loads of 200 kips and continuous wall loads of 8 kips per linear foot (klf).

We understand that the proposed grades are planned to be relatively similar to existing grades;

cuts and fills on the order of two to four feet are anticipated to establish the final site grades. If any of this information is not correct, please let us know so that we can revise our report accordingly.

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 7

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The field exploration was planned with the objective of characterizing the project site in general geotechnical and geological terms and to evaluate subsequent field and laboratory data to assist in the determination of geotechnical recommendations.

3.1.1 Test Boring

The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling a total of two soil test borings. The borehole designated B 1 was drilled in the proposed footprint for assessing foundation design recommendations. The borehole designated B 2A was proposed within the footprint, but was repositioned due to a buried concrete obstruction located approximately 2 feet below ground surface (fbgs). ECS attempted to offset the boring within five feet of the original location, but uncovered the underground concrete structure by hand digging. In consultation with Jacobs and Navy Facilities (NAVFAC), a second borehole B 2 was therefore drilled outside of the footprint, clear of the obstruction. The total extent of the buried structure is unknown.

The boreholes were extended to a final depth of twenty five fbgs as specified in the contract documents. During drilling of the two borings a UXO survey team took readings to check for presence of unexploded ordinance. The boreholes were drilled with an ATV drill rig. The subsurface explorations were completed under the general supervision of an ECS geotechnical engineer.

Boring locations were identified in the field by ECS personnel using pacing from existing features prior to mobilization of drilling equipment. The approximate as drilled boring locations are shown on the Site Location Diagram in Appendix A.

Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were conducted in the borings at regular intervals in general accordance with ASTM D1586. In this procedure, a 2 inch O.D., split barrel sampler is driven into the soil a distance of 18 inches or 24 inches by a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through a 12 inch interval is termed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) value and is indicated for each sample on the boring logs. This value can be used as a qualitative indication of the in place relative density of cohesionless soils. It also indicates the consistency of cohesive soils. Small representative samples were obtained during these tests and were used to classify the soils encountered.

Upon completion of soil drilling operations, the borings were backfilled by the spoils generated during the drilling process. A field log of the soils encountered in the borings was maintained by the drill crew. After recovery, each sample was removed from the sampler and visually classified.

Representative portions of each sample were then selected and brought to our laboratory for review and testing.

Final boring logs and a Boring Location Diagram are provided in the Appendices of this report.

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 8

3.1.2 Test Coring

EIFS was removed in three locations along the southwest wall and retaining wall, approximately in each location, to facilitate coring. The existing EIFS measured approximately thick.

Concrete coring was completed using an electric drill fitted with a diamond tipped core barrel.

Water was used during the coring operations. Two cores were taken from each of the two locations on the southwest wall of Building 62, designated C 1 through C 4, in order to assess wall thickness and test for compressive strength. A total of one core barrel was drilled in each of the four locations. During sampling the wall was determined to be constructed of a stone and grout binder. The material did not hold together during extraction. ECS personnel notified Jacobs and the NAVFAC engineer while on site of the encountered material and the inability to obtain an intact sample. Please see pictures below. ECS understands that the wall is approximately thick.

Cores were not taken from the retaining wall, since it was determined to be of segmental concrete masonry (CMU) construction.

Figure 3.1.2.1 Pictures of C 1 through C 3

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 9

The core holes were patched with a bag concrete mix and made flush with the existing wall with a rough trowel finish. Cores fragments were returned to our National Harbor office. EIFS patch repair was conducted by Bradleigh Applications on June 10th and 11th, 2019 using dryvitCARE EIFS Repair Procedures DS498.

3.1.3 Test Pit

Two test pits, designated TP 1 and TP 2, were excavated at the toe of the southwest wall and retaining wall order to document the visible exterior dimensions of the wall footings. The test pits were excavated approximately 4 fbgs with an approximate area of . The Building 62 continuous wall footing had a stepped down elevation as shown below in Figure 3.1.3.1. The retaining wall had a standard rectangular form. Please refer Figure 3.1.3.2 and Table 3.1.3.1 for the existing footings as measured in the field by ECS.

Figure 3.1.3.1 Observed Geometry

Existing Grade

W

D

A

L

B

T

Figure 3.1.3.2 Measured Dimensions *Please note that the above figure is for depiction purposes only (continuous footing)

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 10

Table 3.1.3.1 Observed Foundation Dimensions

Test Pit A (ft)

B (ft)

L (ft)

W (ft)

T (ft)

D (ft)

TP 1 Continuous 4.01 8.62 Continuous 0.8 2.93

TP 2 Continuous 1.01 5.02 Continuous 0.6 2.33 1 calculated assuming footing is symmetrical 2 calculated assuming footing is symmetrical 3 calculated to grade, not top of slab

Test Pit TP 1 located within the footprint of the addition has an existing grade elevation of +10.0.

ECS understands that the proposed addition will have the same finish floor elevation (FFE) as the existing structure at +9.5 feet. Therefore; the footing bears approximately 3.4 feet from the existing FFE of Building 62.

3.2 REGIONAL/SITE GEOLOGY

The proposed site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of Maryland. This Coastal Plain Province is characterized by a series of south easterly dipping layers of relatively consolidated sandy clay deposits, with lesser amounts of gravel. These Coastal Plain deposits are estimated to be approximately 250 feet thick and are underlain by the eastward continuation of the crystalline rock of the Piedmont Physiographic Province.

In general, the higher elevations of the site area have remnants of the Upper Paleocene Aquia Formation while lower elevations have Holocene Alluvium deposits, as seen during our exploration. The Alluvium deposits generally consist of interbedded, layers of sand, gravel, and silt clay layers and contain beds of varying sizes and lenses of silt clay soils and organic matter such as leaves, twigs, and logs, as well as rare peat beds. The Alluvium Deposits are typically underlain by the Potomac Group sediments of the older Cretaceous Age. The Cretaceous Age Potomac Group deposits, generally consist of interbedded, layers of sand, silt, clay and gravel layers. The sand layers generally consist of fine to medium sand with variable amounts of clay and silt. In isolated areas, gravel can also be encountered. An overview of the general site geology is illustrated in Figure 3.2.1 below:

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 11

Figure 3.2.1

Geologic map for Figure 3.2.1 obtained from the U.S. Geologic Service website, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/mapview/

3.3 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The subsurface conditions encountered were generally consistent with published geological mapping. Table 3.3.1 provides generalized characterizations of the soil strata encountered during our subsurface exploration. The surficial materials on site consisted of an inch and a half of topsoil. For detailed subsurface information at a specific location, refer to the attached draft boring logs in Appendix B.

Table 3.3.1 Subsurface Stratigraphy

Approximate Depth Range (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Stratum Description Ranges of SPT(1) N values (bpf)

Surficial Topsoil thickness of 2 to 4 inches was observed in Boreholes and Test Pits.

N/A

0.2 6.0 ft +10.7 to +3.5 FILL FILL consisting of very loose to medium dense CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC) and SANDWITH CLAY (SP), and soft SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL). Fill was observed in both Boreholes and Test Pits with an approximate thickness of up to 6 feet.

Minor amounts of brick fragments and roots, and other deleterious materials were observed.

3 to 11 bpf

0.3 25 ft +10.3 to 15.5 Alluvium Deposits

Interbedded layers of very loose to very dense CLAYEY

SAND (SC), SANDWITH CLAY (SP SC), CLAYEY GRAVEL

(GC), and soft to very hard CLAYS (CL, CH) with varying amounts of sand.

4 to 50/2 bpf

Notes: (1) Standard Penetration Test

Site Location

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 12

3.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater was observed in Borehole B 2 during drilling at a depth of 6 ft (EL. +4.5 ft).

Boreholes were dry immediately after pulling the augers. Groundwater readings were not available for Borehole B 1; however, it has been assumed that groundwater was encountered during drilling at a depth of 8 ft (EL+ 1.5 ft) due to the wet condition of the samples taken between 8 to 12 fbgs. In auger drilling operations, water is not introduced into the borings, and the groundwater position can often be determined by observing water flowing into or out of the borings. Furthermore, visual observation of the soil samples retrieved during the auger drilling exploration can often be used in evaluating the groundwater conditions.

The groundwater table may undergo seasonal variations in elevation on the order of 5± feet.

Generally, variations in the location of the water tables can occur as a result of changes in tide, precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, on site pumping, and other factors not immediately apparent at the time of this exploration. Perched water tables are also common at the interface of fill and natural soils or within granular deposits overlaying less permeable layers.

Cave in depth of 3 ft was observed in Borehole B 2. Cave in depth at Borehole B 1 is not available.

While less reliable than actual groundwater measurements, cave in depth can be an indicator of the presence of groundwater.

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 13

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Representative soil samples were selected and tested in our laboratory to verify the visual field classification and to determine pertinent engineering properties. The testing program included natural moisture content tests, gradation analysis, and Atterberg Limits. All data obtained from the laboratory testing program is included on respective boring logs in Appendix B and on separate laboratory sheets within Appendix C.

Each soil sample was visually classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D2488 (Description and Identification of Soils Visual/Manual Procedures). After laboratory testing, classifications were revised as necessary in accordance with ASTM D2487 (Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (USCS)). The group symbols for each soil type are indicated on the boring logs in parentheses preceding the soil descriptions. A brief explanation of the USCS is included in Appendix B. The samples were grouped by various soil types into the major zones noted on the boring logs. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the logs are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual, rather than distinct.

The soil samples obtained from this exploration will be retained at our laboratory for a period of 60 days. After 60 days from completion of field work, they will be discarded unless we receive other direction from you.

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 14

5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 BUILDING DESIGN

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated in the design and construction of the project to minimize possible soil and/or foundation related problems. The project site is generally suitable for the proposed development. The most critical item from a geotechnical perspective is the presence of up to 6 feet of existing fill material that was generally very loose to medium dense for non cohesive soil and soft for cohesive material and contained varying amounts of organic materials and brick fragments. This soil is not suitable for direct support of new foundations, slabs, or roadways. For slabs and roadways, we have provided an alternative subgrade support which includes geogrid and gravel or select backfill.

Refer to Section 5.1.3 for additional details.

Additionally, as described in Section 3.1.1, a buried concrete structure was encountered at the location of attempted boring B 2A, which is within the southern half of the proposed addition.

The origin and extent (in plan and depth) of the buried structure is unknown.

The following sections provide recommendations for foundation design, soil supported slabs, pavement subgrade preparation, below grade elevator shaft walls, and seismic design parameters, and recommendations for construction. We recommend that ECS review the final design and specifications to check that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications.

5.1.1 Shallow Foundations Recommendations

At the time this report was written, information was not available regarding foundation loads for the proposed addition. Therefore, we have assumed a maximum column load of 200 kips and a maximum 8 kips per linear foot (klf) for the proposed addition. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during the exploration, the proposed structures can be supported by conventional shallow foundations providing that subgrades and any structural fills are prepared as discussed herein. We have assumed the foundation system will consist of individual column footings and continuous wall footings. We recommend use of the following design parameters:

Table 5.1.1 Foundation Design Design Parameter Column Footing Wall Footing

Net Allowable Bearing Pressure1 3,000 psf 3,000 psf

Acceptable Bearing Soil Material Alluvium Deposits / Approved Engineered Fill

Alluvium Deposits / Approved Engineered Fill

MinimumWidth 5 feet 2.5 feet

Minimum Footing Embedment Depth (below slab or finished grade)

30 inches 30 inches

Estimated Total Settlement 1 inch 1 inch

Estimated Differential Settlement Less than 0.5 inches between columns

Less than 0.5 inches over 50 feet

Notes: 1 Net allowable bearing pressure is the applied pressure in excess of the surrounding overburden soils above the base of the foundation.

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 15

Based on the provided finished floor elevation of EL. +9.5 feet, we anticipate that shallow foundations will bear at an approximate elevation of EL. 7.0 feet. For new footings bearing in suitable natural soils, we recommend an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. Suitable natural soils able to support the 3,000 psf bearing capacity can be found on the boring logs as CLAYEY SAND (SC), SAND WITH CLAY (SP SC), CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), and stiff CLAY (CL) with a minimum Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N value of 6 bpf or higher. The maximum allowable soil bearing pressure refers to that pressure which may be transmitted to the foundation bearing soils in excess of a final minimum surrounding overburden pressure. The foundations can also bear upon controlled engineered fill soils observed and compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 698, Standard Proctor Method. Approved engineered fill materials are described in section 6.2.1.

It should be noted that 1.5 to 6 feet of existing fill containing organics and construction materials was observed within the footprint of the addition. Based on the anticipated bottom of footing elevation, undercuts up to six feet should be anticipated in foundation areas. We do not recommend the foundations bear on the existing fill. If encountered, the undocumented fill material should be removed in its entirety and replaced with compacted engineered material or lean concrete. It should be noted that based on our assessment of the existing fill soils, these soils cannot be reused as structural fill due to deleterious material found in the samples. A minimum embedment depth of 2.5 feet is required for foundations bearing on suitable natural materials or controlled engineered fill. Any additional footings should have the same bottom of footing depth as Building 62 or be located outside of the zone of influence. When fill materials are encountered the recommendations in the next paragraph should be followed.

If soft or unsuitable soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut in their entirety and removed (or re compacted in place if consisting of suitable granular soils free of organics). All areas proposed to receive engineered fills should be heavily proofrolled before fill placement occurs. Alternatively, undercuts may be backfilled with lean concrete 1,000 psi at 28 days) up to the original design bottom of footing elevation; the original footing shall be constructed on top of the hardened lean concrete. Please refer to Section 6 for additional details on subgrade preparation, suitable structural fill materials, and fill compaction.

It should be noted that the depth to the bottom of the buried concrete structure encountered at boring B 2A is not known. Based on the area uncovered during the subsurface exploration, the obstruction is at least 5 ft in diameter but may be larger. We recommend additional test pits be performed prior to full scale construction to locate the horizontal and vertical extents of the structure. We also recommend that historical documents, if available, be reviewed in an attempt to identify the origin and purpose of the structure.

5.1.2 Subgrade Verification and General Foundation Recommendations

We emphasize the need for verifying the suitability of footing subgrades during construction.

While no compressible soils (CH and MH) were encountered in boring B 1, FAT CLAY (CH) was encountered in boring B 2. The bearing pressure should be checked in the field by the geotechnical engineer of record. That is to say, engineered fill soils should be observed during placement and tested for proper compaction as detailed here, as well as testing natural soils using a DCP (Dynamic Cone Penetrometer) to confirm congruence with the soils encountered in the

ECS Project No. 01:28923 Page 16 geotechnical report. Footings should be excavated, tested, and poured the same day. In the event the footing cannot be poured the same day, we recommend that the bearing surface be covered with a 3 to 4 inch lean concrete mud mat.

A minimum embedment depth of 2.5 feet is required (measured from the finished floor elevation to the bottom of footing elevation). Adjacent shallow foundations at different elevations should be located outside of a 1H: 1V zone of influence to avoid overstressing. In order to reduce the possibility of foundation bearing failure and excessive settlement due to local shear or "punching" action, we recommend that all continuous footings have a minimum width of 2.5 feet and that all isolated column footings have a minimum lateral dimension of 5 feet.

ECS understands that the original Building 62 was built on a deep foundation with piles supporting interior columns and exterior walls. ECS assumes that the existing piles will be competent to bear any additional lateral pressure that may develop from new adjacent shallow foundations.

Settlement of a structure is a function of the bearing pressure…