24R6706_0001 w Attachments.pdf

ACQR6045620

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

N6274224R6706 D/B UFC Renovation of C2 Fusion Center, Basa Air Base Floridablanca, Pampanga, Philippines

Detail of Amendment 0001 begins on the follow ing page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 26-Jun-2024

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X N6274224R6706

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-May-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

25-Jun-2024

CODE

NAVFAC ROICC THAILAND (US EMBASSY)

7 SATHORN TAI ROAD

BANGKOK THAILAND 10120

N62742 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6274224R6706

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE (SF 30)

The following have been added by full text:

AMD 01 PPIS AND ANSWERS

The following changes will be considered part of this solicitation:

A. Proposal due date is changed from 24 June 2024 to 2 July 2024, no later than 11:00 a.m. Thailand time.

B. The following changes are hereby incorporated to Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6 under this solicitation.

AMENDMENT 0001

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

PART 1

PROPOSAL FORMS AND DOCUMENTS

1. Part 1, Page 6 Section 002100 Pre-proposal Sive Visit (PPSV), item 1.b. has been replaced as followed:

b. Pre-Proposal Site Visit (PPSV) attendance is required in order to be considered for award to ensure full understanding of the logistical challenges involved with this project and decrease risk of unsuccessful completion or financial hardship for contractors.

b. Pre-Proposal Site Visit (PPSV) attendance is highly encouraged to ensure full understanding of the logistical challenges involved with this project and decrease risk of unsuccessful completion or financial hardship for contractors.

2. Page 13, 52.236-27 SITE VISIT, below paragraph has been replaced:

Pre-Proposal Site Visit (PPSV) attendance is required in order to be considered for award to ensure full understanding of the logistical challenges involved with this project and decrease risk of unsuccessful completion or financial hardship for contractors.

Pre-Proposal Site Visit (PPSV) attendance is highly encouraged to ensure full understanding of the logistical challenges involved with this project and decrease risk of unsuccessful completion or financial hardship for contractors.

3. Page 16, item 2.3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, Volume 2, (2.1) Non-Cost Factor 1 - Offeror Experience, (a), items have been revised and item iii. has been added as follows:

(a) Submittal Requirements: Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) construction or renovation projects of the Offeror that best demonstrates Offeror experience on relevant projects that are similar size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant project is further defined as similar construction project with the following relevant characteristics:

i. At least one of the projects involved interior building renovation work with electrical work or complete building construction with interior finishing work.

ii. All the projects must have contract value of at least US $200,000.00 or its equivalent

Philippine currency.

i. Similar in Size: Construction projects between $250,000 and $1,000,000 (or its equivalent Philippine currency) in final construction cost. One project must be at least $250,000. Any project outside this range may not be considered.

ii. Similar in Scope: New construction, repair, or alteration based on Design Build or similar for infrastructure and facilities. At least one of the projects involved interior building renovation and finishing work with CCTV system.

iii. Similar in Complexity: Construction projects involving multiple trades performed in Southeast Asia, Nepal, Maldives, and Timor Leste.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. If submitting an ongoing construction project, the project should be at least 80% complete at the time of proposal submission. A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single contract.

The Offeror Experience Project Data Sheet in the form of Exhibit B is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on the form may be expanded; however, total length for each Offeror Experience Project Data Sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) claimed for past performance. Data sheets for each project should not exceed two (2) pages.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods).

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity or the Joint Venture partners. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract in order for the past performance information of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies to be considered. The proposal shall state specific commitments of technical resources (e.g. personnel, equipment) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies commit to the performance of this contract. In particular, the proposal will clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member that will be located at the worksites and company offices in the city/area of the project. The proposal shall also describe specific roles of the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent/LLC/LTD member companies in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation: The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing similar construction projects with the relevant characteristics defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for this non-cost factor above. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

The Government will only review five (5) projects. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Offeror experience will not be considered. The Government will not evaluate information exceeding the first two (2) pages for each Project Data Sheet.

i. Acceptable. The contractor has demonstrated construction experience in performing similar construction projects with the relevant characteristics defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for this non-cost factor.

ii. Unacceptable. The contractor did not submit Offeror Experience Project Data Sheets, or the submitted data sheets did not demonstrate relevant construction experience performing similar construction projects with the relevant characteristics defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for this non-cost factor, or the Offeror submitted less than three (3) relevant projects.

PART 2

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

4. Page 6, Section 5 DESIGN, paragraph “l. Design-Build Contract - Order of Precedence” is added:

l. Design-Build Contract - Order of Precedence

1. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between any of the below described portions of the conformed contract, precedence shall be given in the following order:

a. Any portions of the proposal or final design that exceed the requirements of the solicitation.

(1) Any portion of the proposal that exceeds the final design.

(2) Any portion of the final design that exceeds the proposal.

(3) Where portions within either the proposal or the final design conflict, the portion that most exceeds the requirements of the solicitation has precedence.

b. The requirements of the solicitation, in descending order of precedence:

(1) Standard Form 1442, Price Schedule.

(2) Part 1 - Contract Clauses.

(3) Part 2 - General Requirements.

(4) Part 3 - Project Program Requirements.

(5) Part 4 - Performance Specifications exclusive of prescriptive specifications.

(6) Part 5 - Not Applicable

(7) Part 6 - Attachments (Concept Drawings).

2. Government review or approval of any portion of the proposal or final design shall not relieve the contractor from responsibility for errors or omissions with respect thereto.

PART 3

STATEMENT OF WORK

5. Page 4, Section 3, 3.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, paragraph 2 has been revised to read:

The Basa Air Base C2 Fusion Center currently is exposed and does not have the required physical barriers, guard shack and sufficient security equipment that this small-scale construction case proposes to provide.

There is currently no CCTV system in place. The current situation of the C2 Fusion Center is suboptimal for the receipt of equipment and training to be provided under the FY23 Philippine Air Force 5th, 220th and 355 Wing program utilizing Section 333 grant-aid authority.

6. Page 4, Section 3, 3.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, paragraph 5 is inserted to read:

Part 6, Attachment 7 - Electrical As-Built_2019, reflects the electrical system condition as of February 2019. This document does not include subsequent improvements made to the C2 Fusion Center or modifications by others after that date. The existing electrical system can only support the current load of the C2 Fusion Center. Any additional load requirements for this contract will need to be incorporated into the design and scope of the upgraded facility. CAD files are not available.

7. Page 5, Section 4, PROJECT REQUIREMENTS, CLIN 0002: BASE BID ITEM 2:

CLIN 0002, 2nd bullet has been revised to read:

• Design and construction of approximately at least 260M 270M of perimeter security fencing with integrated lighting.

8. Page 11, Section 6, D503005, add sub-item c. and renumbering d. – h.:

a. System shall provide minimum of 7 days of continuous video recording on the Network Video Recorder (NVR). However, the system's storage capacity should be expandable to accommodate at least one month's worth of footage before overwriting begins.

b. Conduct a thorough site assessment to identify optimal camera placement locations. Develop a detailed installation plan, considering line of sight, coverage overlap, and potential obstacles.

c. Establish the necessary infrastructure for power and data connectivity.

d. Documentation: Create comprehensive documentation, including camera locations, specifications, and configuration details. Provide operation and maintenance manuals for future reference. Provide training on monitoring capabilities for designated personnel.

e. Testing and Commissioning: Conduct thorough testing of the entire PTZ camera system.

Address any issues identified during testing. Commission the system for full operational use.

f. Training: Train end-users and security personnel on the operation of PTZ cameras and associated systems.

9. Page 11, Section 6, CLIN 0001, Z General Requirements, sub-item k. is added to read:

k. Regular work hours are from 07:00 to 17:00 from Mondays to Saturdays. Work outside of these hours require prior approval from the base and the Contracting Officer.

10. Page 14, Section 6, CLIN 0002, B3010 Covering, sub-item c. has been updated to read:

c. Roof drainage system shall be gutters matching the roofing material. These gutters should be connected to an enclosed pipe downspout into a precast concrete splash block, that will efficiently channel rainwater away from the building and disperse it naturally over the surrounding ground.

tying seamlessly into the building's perimeter drain system.

11. Page 16, D5010 ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND DISTRIBUTION, sub-item c. has been updated to read:

c. Assess the available capacity of the existing electrical system to support the additional load from the additional new CCTV system, guard shack, perimeter lighting, and walkway.

12. Page 16, D5030 COMMUNICATIONS AND SECURITY, d. Has been updated to read:

d. Provide a CCTV system including equipment and supporting infrastructure complete, tested, and operational. CCTV system must be compatible with the facility’s central monitoring system and monitored from the Guard Shack and at the C2 Watch Floor. System shall provide minimum of 7 days of continuous video recording on the Network Video Recorder (NVR). However, the system's storage capacity should be expandable to accommodate at least one month's worth of footage before overwriting begins.

PART 6

ATTACHMENTS

13. Attachment 2 – Reference Visuals, Figure 1, Site Development Plan has been revised to increase the minimum fence dimensions from 48.6 m x 81.15 m to 50.85 m x 81.15m.

14. The following attachments are added to Part 6:

ATTACHMENT 3 – GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

ATTACHMENT 4 – HISTORICAL WEATHER DATA, CLARK

ATTACHMENT 5 – BASE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMENT 6 – AFP BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS_2024

ATTACHMENT 7 - C2 FUSION ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS_c2019

C. The following attachments are incorporated to the RFP.

- Attachment 1. PPIs and Answers

- Part 6 Amendment 0001

SECTION 00 10 00 - SOLICITATION

The required response date/time has changed from 24-Jun-2024 11:00 AM to 02-Jul-2024 11:00 AM.

(End of Summary of Changes)

N6274224R6706_0001 Attachment 1.

Ques tion No.

Reference (Sect/Para/Page) QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 PART 2 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

10. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND TIME

CONSTRAINT: Page 18 of 40

Are there any restrictions on site for contractor access for mobilization and construction?

Amendment 0001: Part 6, Attachment 5 - BASE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS has been added.

2 PART 2 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

10. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND TIME

CONSTRAINT: Page 18 of 40

Is the contractor allowed to work 24 hrs. on-site if needed?

No, 24-hr work is not allowed by the base. Part 3, Section 6, CLIN 0001, Z General Requirements has been updated to add:

k. Regular work hours are from 07:00 to 17:00 from Mondays to Saturdays. Work outside of these hours require prior approval from the base and the Contracting Officer.

3 PART 3 - STATEMENT OF WORK;

3.2 SOIL CONDITION

“A geotechnical investigation report was previously performed, and the report is included as Exhibit {X} in Part 6. The contractor shall verify this information by performing its own geotechnical investigation in accordance with succeeding sections in this RFP.”

Requesting copy of the geotechnical investigation report that was previously performed for reference.

Amendment 0001: Part 6, Attachment 3 - Geotechnical Investigation Report has been added.

4 PART 3 - STATEMENT OF WORK

5.3 Guard Shack

Is there a ballistic protection requirement for the reinforced concrete Guard Shack doors and windows?

Not required.

5 PART 3 - STATEMENT OF WORK

6. ENGINEERING SYSTEMS

REQUIREMENTS (ESR)

CLIN 0001 - BUILDING RESTORATION

AND SECURITY UPGRADE

D50 ELECTRICAL

D5010 ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND

DISTRIBUTION

“c. Assess the available capacity of the existing system to support the additional load from the additional CCTV system, guard house, perimeter lighting, and walkway.”

Do we need to integrate the new CCTV system into the existing system? Or do we need to propose a new system?

Any specific standard or details to be followed?

RFP Part 3, 3.1 para. 2 has been updated to add the statement:

"There is currently no CCTV system in place."

# SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

6 PART 3 - STATEMENT OF WORK

6. ENGINEERING SYSTEMS

REQUIREMENTS (ESR)

CLIN 0001 - BUILDING RESTORATION

AND SECURITY UPGRADE

D50 ELECTRICAL

D5010 ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND

DISTRIBUTION

How many days of recording required for the Network Video Recorder (NVR)?

Amendment 001:

Part 3, Section 6, CLIN 0001 D503005 SECURITY SYSTEMS, has been revised to include requirement. "c. The contract requires a minimum of 7 days of continuous video recording on the Network Video Recorder (NVR). However, the system's storage capacity should be expandable to accommodate at least one month's worth of footage before overwriting begins."

Part 3, Section 6, CLIN 0002 D503005 SECURITY SYSTEMS: Item d.

has been revised to read:

"d. Provide a CCTV system including equipment and supporting infrastructure complete, tested, and operational. CCTV system must be compatible with the facility’s central monitoring system and monitored from the Guard Shack and at the C2 Watch Floor.

System shall provide minimum of 7 days of continuous video recording on the Network Video Recorder (NVR). However, the system's storage capacity should be expandable to accommodate at least one month's worth of footage before overwriting begins."

7 PART 3 - STATEMENT OF WORK

6. ENGINEERING SYSTEMS

REQUIREMENTS (ESR)

CLIN 0002 - CONSTRUCTION OF

GUARD SHACK, SECURITY FENCE,

GATE, COVERED WALKWAY AND

EXTERIOR SECURITY UPGRADE

A10 GENERAL, Page 12 of 20

“GOVERNMENT PROVIDED GEOTECHNICAL

INFORMATION

Subsurface soil information, including a geotechnical report from projects immediately adjacent to the project site are included in other portions of this RFP.”

Requesting copy of the subsurface soil information/geotechnical report of the adjacent site for reference.

Refer to answer to #3

8 PART 3 - STATEMENT OF WORK

6. ENGINEERING SYSTEMS

REQUIREMENTS (ESR)

CLIN 0002 - CONSTRUCTION OF

GUARD SHACK, SECURITY FENCE,

GATE, COVERED WALKWAY AND

EXTERIOR SECURITY UPGRADE B30

ROOFING

“c. Roof drainage system shall be gutters matching the roofing material. These gutters should be connected to an enclosed pipe downspout, tying seamlessly into the building's perimeter drain system.”

Requesting location of the services tie in points around the site area.

Per Part 3, Section 6, CLIN 0002, B3010, sunlist item c. has been revised to read:

c. Roof drainage system shall be gutters matching the roofing material. These gutters should be connected to an enclosed pipe downspout into a precast concrete splash block, that will efficiently channel rainwater away from the building and disperse it naturally over the surrounding ground.

9 PART 3 - STATEMENT OF WORK

ATTACHMENT 2 – REFERENCE

VISUALS

Requesting to share the As-built drawings including the MEP/Utility drawings.

Requesting to share the drawings in CAD file.

Amendment 0001: Part 3, 3.1 has been revised to include an additional para. 5 which states:

"Part 6, Attachment 7 - Electrical As-Built_2019, reflects the electrical system condition as of February 2019. This document does not include subsequent improvements made to the C2 Fusion Center or modifications by others after that date. The existing electrical system can only support the current load of the C2 Fusion Center. Any additional load requirements for this contract will need to be incorporated into the design and scope of the upgraded facility. CAD files are not available. "

10 PART 3 - STATEMENT OF WORK

PART 4 MINIMUM MATERIALS,

ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION

REQUIREMENTS

D5010 ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND

DISTRIBUTION

“a. Transformers. Provide pole-mounted distribution transformers.”

We understand that the Fusion Center has already provided with electrical supply. If yes, do we still need to provide a transformer? And what is the load requirement?

Can we tap the electrical load from Fusion Center to Guard Shack?

Is there any spare load available?

Refer to answer to #9

11 PART 3 - STATEMENT OF WORK

ATTACHMENT 3 – GEOTECHNICAL

DATA

Requesting for an existing geotechnical data. Refer to answer to #3

12 PART 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

18. LICENSES/PERMITS:

Is it necessary to obtain the ‘Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board’ (PCAB) registration or license with classification and category that match this project?

Yes, a PCAB license is required. Any Category is acceptable. Per FAR Clause, 52.236-7 Permits and Responsibilities, Contractor Bear the responsibility for permitting and licensing and would be liable for any violation under the host nation laws.

14 SAM.gov The magnitude of the project in SAM states $1M to $5M.

Please refer to the RFP SF1442, the estimated Magnitude Range for this contract is between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

15 002100, para 1 The requirement for the PPSV to be considered for award was issued on 10 May 2024. However, the site visit request due date is on 19 April 2024.

How can the USG requires it after the request due date?

Per this amendment, the PPSV is highly encouraged.

16 Part 2 section 18 If the licenses and permits are required post-award, will the USG consider removing this requirement in pre-award?

The statement "Provide evidence of such permits and licenses to the Contracting Officer before work commences and at other times as requested by the Contracting Officer." suggests this is post-award.

17 Part 4 section 1 The order of precedence is missing. Is the USG will follow FAR 52.215-8 in any inconsistency in this solicitation or contract?

Amendment 0001: Part 2 has been updated. Part 2, Section 5, sublist i. is added to read:

k. Design-Build Contract - Order of Precedence

1. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between any of the below described portions of the conformed contract, precedence shall be given in the following order:

a)Any portions of the proposal or final design that exceed the requirements of the solicitation.

(1) Any portion of the proposal that exceeds the final design.

(2) Any portion of the final design that exceeds the proposal.

(3) Where portions within either the proposal or the final design conflict, the portion that most exceeds the requirements of the solicitation has precedence.

b) The requirements of the solicitation, in descending order of precedence:

(1) Standard Form 1442, Price Schedule.

(2) Part 1 - Contract Clauses.

(3) Part 2 - General Requirements.

(4) Part 3 - Project Program Requirements.

(5) Part 4 - Performance Specifications exclusive of prescriptive specifications.

(6) Part 5 - Not Applicable

(7) Part 6 - Attachments (Concept Drawings).

2. Government review or approval of any portion of the proposal or final design shall not relieve the contractor from responsibility for errors or omissions with respect thereto.

18 Exhibit D (BOQ) 1 of 2 to 2 of 2 Several suspected structural cracks were found in the building during the PPSV. Most specifically, column to masonry connectionand shear crack along door opening. Treatmentfor this is not found in the BOQ. Will this be needed to consider in costing?

The structural work not required in the exising building.

20 If later, during clearing and construction, and if found out that the structural needs more retrofitting. Will this be considered as a cost variation?

If such unforeseen conditions arise, and the Government determines that additional work beyond the scope of the contract is required, a contract modification may be negotiated to address additional work.

19 Part 3 Page No. 92, G204001, Part 6 Page No. 142, Figure 7

In clause G204001, only one personnel turnstile gate is mentioned as a requirement, while Part 6, page 142, Figure 7 depicts a single swing-type personnel gate. Could you please clarify the type and quantity of gates to be used as the personnel gate in the perimeter fence?

Per Part 3, Section 6, CLIN 0002, G204001, b. states: b. Provide one

(1) personnel turnstile (rotational) gates integrated with the fence.

Additionally, per Part 6,page 143, shows "Figure 8: Personnel Gate, Turnstile"

D/B UFC Renovation of C2 Fusion Center, Basa Air Base

Floridablanca, Pampanga, Philippines

N6274224R6706_0001

Part 6

PART 6

ATTACHMENTS

Table of Contents

ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 1: Location: Basa Air Base, Floridablanca, Pampanga, Philippines

Figure 2: C2 Fusion Center is in the vicinity of the airfield taxiway

Photo 1: Existing C2 Fusion Center

Photo 2: Right side of the building

Photo 3: Back and left side of the building

Photo 4: Water leaking from what appears to be drainpipe of an air-conditioning unit

Figure 3. Existing floor plan

Photo 5. Watch floor

Photo 6. Watch floor

Photo 7. Conference Room

Photos 8 & 9. Photos of existing damaged baseboards. Repair/re-attach damaged baseboards

Photo 10: Office 1 window covered with Manila paper. Provide roller blinds

Photo 11: Provide suitable sleeves and sealant in all wall penetrations for weather protection

Photos 12-13: West side of the building. Wire laid out and installed going through the ceiling and above the wall without wire sleeves. Incomplete cover. No weather protection. Provide suitable and durable wire sleeves and cover for weather protection

Photos 14-15: Open hole/trench requires suitable cover for weather protection

ATTACHMENT 2 – REFERENCE VISUALS

Figure 1: Site development plan

Figure 2: Conceptual layout of guard shack, fence, covered walkway and gates

Figure 3: Layout and location of 4-in high raised floor and ramp system

Figure 4: Interior CCTV plan

Figure 5: Exterior CCTV plan

Figure 6: Exterior perimeter lighting plan

Photo 1: Guard Shack concept

Figure 7: Personnel Gate, single swing type

Figure 8: Personnel Gate, Turnstile

Photo 2: Conceptual interior of the guard shack. Interior shall have stainless steel work counter, electrical outlets, climate control, and CCTV monitoring

Photo 3. Concept photo of guard shack and chain link perimeter fence and gates

Photo 4: Conceptual photo of desired sliding gate. Clear gate opening shall be minimum of 7 meters when fully opened

Photo 5: Raised floor system

Photo 6: Provide welded wire or expanded metal sheets to secure crawl space above exterior wall and ceiling

Photo 7: Acceptable welded wire steel mesh and expanded metal sheets for securing the space between top of the wall and the ceiling

ATTACHMENT 3 – GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

ATTACHMENT 4 – HISTORICAL WEATHER DATA, CLARK

ATTACHMENT 5 – BASE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMENT 6 – AFP BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS_2024

ATTACHMENT 7 - C2 FUSION ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS_c2019

Part 6

ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCATION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 1: Location: Basa Air Base, Floridablanca, Pampanga, Philippines

Figure 2: C2 Fusion Center is in the vicinity of the airfield taxiway.

GPS coordinates, 14°59'03"N 120°29'47"E

Photo 1: Existing C2 Fusion Center.

Photo 2: Right side of the building

Antenna Farm C2 Fusion Center

Male toilet

Female toilet

D/B UFC Renovation of C2 Fusion Center, Basa Air Base N6274224R6706

Floridablanca, Pampanga, Philippines Part 6

Photo 3: Back and left side of the building

Photo 4: Water leaking from what appears to be drainpipe of an air-conditioning unit.

Figure 3. Existing floor plan.

Photo 5. Watch floor.

Photo 6. Watch floor.

Photo 7. Conference Room

Photos 8 & 9. Photos of existing damaged baseboards. Repair/re-attach damaged baseboards.

Photo 10: Office 1 window covered with Manila paper. Provide roller blinds.

Photo 11: Provide suitable sleeves and sealant in all wall penetrations for weather protection.

Photos 12-13: West side of the building.

- Wire laid out and installed going through the ceiling and above the wall without wire sleeves. Incomplete cover. No weather protection. Provide suitable and durable wire sleeves and cover for weather protection.

10 11

12 13

Photos 14-15: Open hole/trench requires suitable cover for weather protection.

14 15

ATTACHMENT 2 – REFERENCE VISUALS

Figure 1: Site development plan

50850

Figure 2: Conceptual layout of guard shack, fence, covered walkway and gates.

Figure 3: Layout and location of 4-in high raised floor and ramp system.

RAILING RAMP

Figure 4: Interior CCTV plan

Figure 5: Exterior CCTV plan

Figure 6: Exterior perimeter lighting plan

Photo 1: Guard Shack concept

Figure 7: Personnel Gate, single swing type

Figure 8: Personnel Gate, Turnstile

Photo 2: Conceptual interior of the guard shack. Interior shall have stainless steel work counter, electrical outlets, climate control, and CCTV monitoring.

Photo 3. Concept photo of guard shack and chain link perimeter fence and gates.

Photo 4: Conceptual photo of desired sliding gate. Clear gate opening shall be minimum of 7 meters when fully opened.

Photo 5: Raised floor system.

Photo 6: Provide welded wire or expanded metal sheets to secure crawl space above exterior wall and ceiling.

Photo 7: Acceptable welded wire steel mesh and expanded metal sheets for securing the space between top of the wall and the ceiling.

ATTACHMENT 3 – GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

TERMS Concrete & Materials

Testing Laboratory Inc.

#19 L. Intalan St., Bagong Ilog, Pasig City.

Tel # 6559785 / 470-5412

FINAL REPORT

ON

" COMMAND AND CONTROL FACILITY

/ INTERAGENCY FUSION CENTER "

Basa Airbase Florida Blanca Pampanga

R.V. DAGALEA CONSTRUCTION

DPWH-BRS Accredited Laboratory

Cordon Isabela

Page

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. FIELD INVESTIGATION 2

III. LABORATORY TESTING 2-4

IV. RESULTS OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING 5

V. 5-7

A. Settlement 5

B. Liquefaction & Seismic Design Criteria 5

C. Shallow Foundation 6

LIMITATIONS 7

Figure 1.0

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

Appendices

Final Boring Log

Laboratory Test Results

Drilling Photos

Bussiness Permit and License

Geotechnical Engineer's P. T. R.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix E

ATTACHMENTS

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

FINAL REPORT

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

" CCOMMAND AND CONTROL FACILITY / INTERAGENCY FUSION CENTER "

Basa Airbase Florida Blanca Pampanga

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FOUNDATION SCHEME

Appendix D

Section

Evaluation of Geotechnical Conditions for the Proposed Command and Control Facility / Interagency Fusion Center Basa Airbase Florida Blanca Pampanga

EVALUATION OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

for the

Command & Control Facility / Interagency

Fusion Center

I. INTRODUCTION

This assessment of the geotechnical conditions in the above-mentioned project site is based on the findings gathered from the field and laboratory works conducted by Terms Concrete & Materials Testing Laboratory Inc.

It is understood that the subsurface exploration program is for a 2-storey building.

Included in this report are recommendations on the foundation scheme and allowable bearing capacity for the design criteria of foundation.

Two boreholes approximately 15m deep were drilled for the soil exploration program from February 21 to 23, 2018.

During drilling of soil-type material, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and soil sampling were undertaken at regular interval of 1.5m. Upon encountering rock-type formation, the coring procedure would then be employed to penetrate through the hard strata and extract samples.

The retrieved soil and/or rock samples were taken to the soil laboratory for various laboratory tests.

II. FIELD INVESTIGATION

The field investigation consisted of drilling boreholes with Standard Penetration Test for the boreholes. The boreholes were advanced by wash boring to the specified boring depths. The SPTs, conducted at every 1.5 meter interval, consisted of driving a standard split spoon sampler of 5.08 cm (2 inches O.D.) diameter in three successive segments of 15 cm (6 inches) using a freely falling drop hammer of 63.6 kg (140 lbs) weight from a height of

76.2 cm (30 inches).

The number of blows required to penetrate the three 15-cm layers are recorded. The blow counts of the last two layers are added to give the N-value of a particular 45cm stretch, a measure of density or consistency of the soil.

SPT procedures are conducted in accordance to ASTM D-1586.

Soil samples were retrieved using the spoon sampler. When very hard material including gravel and rock formation are encountered, coring procedure is employed.

For rock-type samples, Rock-Quality Designation (RQD) was applied in describing their properties. RQD is a measure of the degree of jointing or fracture in a rock mass that is measured as a percentage of the drill core in lengths of 10 cm or more. High-quality rock has an RQD of more than 75% while low quality of has less than 50%.

All the recovered soil samples and cored samples were brought to the soil laboratory for further testing.

III. LABORATORY TESTING

Retrieved soil or cored samples from every 1.5m depth were subjected to the following laboratory tests in conformance with the procedures given in the current ASTM standards as described below:

Grain Size Analysis as per ASTM D422 Sieve analyses were performed to determine the gradational characteristics of the soil in order to come up with soil classification information

Determination of Moisture Content as per ASTM D2216 The method determines the water (moisture) content of soil by weight.

Moisture content of soil is the ratio of the mass of pore water in a given soil mass to the mass of the solid material particles, given in percentage.

Atterberg Limit Test as per ASTM D4318 (for plastic material) Atterberg Limits test of fine grained (i.e., clayey or silty) material were performed to come up with soil classification data and to determine moisture content at which the behavior of soil changes.

Liquid Limit of Soils The liquid limit of soil is the water content (percentage in weight) of the oven-dried soil after reaching the condition between the liquid and plastic states.

Plastic Limit of Soils The plastic limit of soil is the water content (percentage in weight) of the oven-dried soil after reaching the condition between the plastic and semi-solid states.

Plasticity Index of Soils The plasticity index is defined as the difference between the liquid and plastic limits of the soil.

Soil Classification Tests as per ASTM D2487 The soil samples were classified based on the Unified Soils Classification System (ASTM 2487) which is a universal format in identifying and classifying soil materials. Based on laboratory determination of particle size characteristics, liquid limit and plasticity index, the standard classifies mineral and organo-mineral soils for engineering purposes.

Unconfined Compression Test ASTM D2938

Unconfined Compression Test (UCT) is a method in determining the mechanical properties of rocks and fine-grained soils. It gives a measure of the undrained strength and the stress-strain characteristics of the rock or soil.

It is customary to include the unconfined compression test in the laboratory test program of geotechnical investigation specially when dealing with rocks.

It should be noted that no UCTs were performed for rock samples which did not pass the requirement as test specimen, e.g. not intact sample to fulfill the specified dimensioning.

Further, rock properties are identified through the following measures:

Total core recovery (TCR)

TCR is the borehole core recovery percentage, defined as the quotient:

� 100% lsum of pieces = Sum of length of core pieces ltotal core run= Total length of core run

Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

RQD is an approximate measure of the degree of jointing or fracture in a rock mass, measured as a percentage of the drill core in lengths of 100 mm or more. High-quality rock has an RQD of more than 75% while low quality of less than 50%. Whereas rock quality designation could have several definitions, a popular definition was developed in 1964 by D. U. Deere wherein it is the borehole core recovery percentage incorporating only pieces of solid core that are longer than 100 mm in length measured along the centerline of the core.

As such, pieces of core that are not competent (hard and sound) should not be counted inspite of being 100 mm in length.

RQD is defined as the quotient:

� 100

� 100% lsum of pieces = Sum of length of core sticks longer than 100 mm measured along the center line of the core ltotal core run= Total length of core run

From the RQD index the rock mass can be classified as follows:

RQD Rock mass quality

<25% Very Poor

25-50% Poor

50-75% Fair

75-90% Good

90-100% Excellent

IV. RESULTS OF FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING

The result of the borehole is presented/summarized on the table below;

GWL -2.0m

Depth,m

USCS

Classification

Remarks

(Relative Condition / Consistency)

0.0-6.0 SM/SP

Medium Dense Silty Sand/Poorly graded SAND

6.0 – 15.0 SP Very Dense Poorly graded SAND

V. EVALUATION and RECOMMENDATION FOR

FOUNDATION SCHEME

A. Settlement

Settlement behavior is directly influenced by the compressibility of the soil material. Fine-grained soils like clays and silts have generally time-dependent deformation due to its low permeability. As such, dissipation of excess pore water in the voids of fine-grained soils takes a considerable time while and the corresponding settlement or consolidation is long-term.

On the other hand, granular materials like sand only exhibit immediate settlement which results to a very minimal vertical deformation to due to its high elastic properties.

As such, the site has no issue on settlement for large embedment depth with moderate loading.

B. Liquefaction& Seismic Design Criteria

The following are the ground condition criteria in considering the liquefaction potential:

• SPT N-value is less than 15

• Soil particle diameter at 50% passing is between 0.02mm and 2.0mm

• Saturated soil material

• Non-plastic (cohesionless)

• IL (Liquidity Index) > 0

As such, the site has issue on liquefaction during strong earthquake.

C. Shallow Foundation

In general, Meyerhof’s bearing capacity (local shear failure) theory was used in the computation of the qult (ultimate bearing capacity) given as

+ �0.5 ∗ #� ∗ $ ∗ �# ∗ �# ∗ �#� �%&��

Likewise, settlement analysis has been performed based on certain foundation and loading assumption.

Using isolated footing or mat slab foundation scheme with a minimum recommended embedment depth of 2.5m, the following values could be employed:

Embedment Depth Allowable Bearing Capacity

1.5m 95kPa

2.0m 125kPa

2.5m 145kPa

3.0m 200 kPa

The above values already incorporate a geotechnical factor of safety of at least3.0 against shear capacity failure and are governed by the limiting magnitude of around 25mm to 30mm.Further, the above values are directly applicable for footing size of not more than 4m.

Tie beams should be integrated in the foundation design to prevent differential settlement.

For further analyses, the following values of geotechnical parameters can be applied:

Sand materials Φ = 32.5-37.5degrees Poisson’s Ratio = 0.30 γ = 18-20kN/m3 Es = 10-30 MN/m2 c = 0kPa

Basa Airbase Florida Blanca Pampanga

LIMITATIONS

The foregoing assessment and recommendations are based on the prevailing exploration and laboratory results. Should there be significant differences in the soil stratification encountered during the construction stage, the undersigned should be informed immediately so that necessary supplemental recommendations can be made.

MIGUEL DIMADURA, M CivEng Consulting Geotechnical/Sub-Structural Engineer Soil Exploration & Geotechnical Consultancy PRC CE Reg. 59571

Coordinates

Borehole Northing Easting

BH-1 14° 59' 8.13" 120°29'48.94"

BH-2 14° 59' 4.46" 120°29'46.71"

LEGEND:

FIGURE 1.0

DRILLED BOREHOLE

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

DRAWN NOT TO SCALE

BH-1

BH-2

CONTROL NUMBER

DRILLED BY

DATE STARTED

DATE FINISHED

WEATHER

ENCODED BY

0.00

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 97.58 PL= NP

#40 84.25 PI= -

1.50 1.50 SPT 0.45 SS-1 - 11 10 9 19

#20

24.65

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 100.00 PL= 0.45

#40 85.74 PI= -

3.00 3.00 SPT 0.45 SS-2 - 7 9 10 19

#20

24.88

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 96.23 PL= NP

#40 53.52 PI= -

4.50 4.50 SPT 0.45 SS-3 - 6 8 9 17

#20

4.22

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 96.71 PL= NP

#40 58.48 PI= -

6.00 6.00 SPT 0.45 SS-4 - 10 12 11 23

#20

4.07

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 95.24 PL= NP

#40 52.82 PI= -

7.50 7.50 SPT 0.45 SS-5 - 18 19 31 50

#20

2.73

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 95.45 PL= NP

#40 51.60 PI= -

9.00 9.00 SPT 0.45 SS-6 - 22 25 27 52

#20

1.91

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 98.34 PL= NP

#40 52.85 PI= -

10.50 10.50 SPT 0.45 SS-7 - 26 31 32 63

#20

1.85

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 100.00 PL= NP

#40 55.88 PI= -

12.00 12.00 SPT 0.45 SS-8 - 33 35 37 72

#20

1.82

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 100.00 PL= NP

#40 53.16 PI= -

13.50 13.50 SPT 0.45 SS-9 - 26 26 28 54

#20

2.33

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 94.55 PL= NP

#40 52.40 PI= -

15.00 15.00 SPT 0.45 SS-10 - 42 43 47 90

#20

2.30

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

COHESIVE SOILS COHENSIONLESS SOILS

N - VALUES CONSISTENCY N - VALUES CONSISTENCY

CH-Silty CLAY MH-Clayey SILT 0 - 2 VERY SOFT 0 - 4 VERY LOOSE

ML-Sandy SILT SW-Well Graded SAND 2 - 4 SOFT 5 - 10 LOOSE

SM-Silty SAND 4 - 8 FIRM 11 - 30 MEDIUM DENSE

SP-Poorly Graded SAND 8 - 15 STIFF 31 -50 DENSE

SP-SM-Poorly Graded SAND with silt 15 - 30 VERY STIFF >50 VERY DENSE

SW-SM-Well Graded SAND with silt > 30 HARD

LEGENDS, SYMBOLS, AND

RANGE OF VALUES

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST

UNDISTURBED

SAMPLING

CORING

GRADING

% PASSING

Medium dense, dark gray silty SAND fine grained, non plastic.

Medium dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

Medium dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

Medium dense, dark gray silty SAND fine grained, non plastic.

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

SP

SP

SP

End of Borehole.

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

A. Legarte

21-Feb-18

22-Feb-18

SUNNY DAY

SP

SM

ATTERBERG

SM

SP

SP

TERMS Concrete & Materials

Testing Laboratory Inc.

#19L Intalan St., Bagong Ilog, Pasig City.

FINAL BORING LOG

K. Co

CLASSIFICATION

UNIFIED

SAMPLE

N0.

RQD

N - VALUE (GRAPHICAL)

GROUND WATER LEVEL

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

SP

SP

14.55

WASH

BORING

10.05

11.55

WASH

BORING

WASH

BORING

13.05

WASH

BORING

8.55

WASH

BORING

WASH

BORING

2.00m

15.00m

REC.

(m)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SPT BLOWS

PER 15 CM

SAMPLING

DEPTH

TYPE OF

SAMPLING

4.05

PROJECT LOCATION Basa Airbase Florida Blanca Pampanga

N.

VALUE

BOREHOLE NO.

FINAL DEPTH

DEPTH

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME

R.V. DAGALEA CONSTRUCTION

COMMAND AND CONTROL FACILITY / INTERAGENCY FUSION CENTER

7.05

WASH

BORING

5.55

WASH

BORING

BH-1

1.05

WASH

BORING

2.55

WASH

BORING

0 20 40 60 80 100

DPWH-BRS Accredited Laboratory

Encoded By:

K. CO

Laboratory Technician/Encoder

Certified By:

M. CUNAHAP

Laboratory Head

Encoded By:

BH-1

CONTROL NUMBER

DRILLED BY

DATE STARTED

DATE FINISHED

WEATHER

ENCODED BY

0.00

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 100.00 PL= NP

#40 85.62 PI= -

1.50 1.50 SPT 0.45 SS-1 - 10 9 8 17

#20

22.03

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 96.63 PL= 0.45

#40 81.22 PI= -

3.00 3.00 SPT 0.45 SS-2 - 6 7 9 16

#20

24.88

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 100.00 PL= NP

#40 58.62 PI= -

4.50 4.50 SPT 0.45 SS-3 - 8 7 9 16

#20

4.40

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 100.00 PL= NP

#40 61.89 PI= -

6.00 6.00 SPT 0.45 SS-4 - 10 12 11 23

#20

4.30

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 96.82 PL= NP

#40 55.21 PI= -

7.50 7.50 SPT 0.45 SS-5 - 17 19 21 40

#20

3.33

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 100.00 PL= NP

#40 55.95 PI= -

9.00 9.00 SPT 0.45 SS-6 - 24 24 27 51

#20

2.90

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 100.00 PL= NP

#40 56.88 PI= -

10.50 10.50 SPT 0.45 SS-7 - 25 31 32 63

#20

4.24

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 100.00 PL= NP

#40 59.08 PI= -

12.00 12.00 SPT 0.45 SS-8 - 32 35 37 72

#20

4.98

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 100.00 PL= NP

#40 54.70 PI= -

13.50 13.50 SPT 0.45 SS-9 - 34 40 43 83

#20

3.40

#4 100.00 LL= -

#10 94.23 PL= NP

#40 50.41 PI= -

15.00 15.00 SPT 0.45 SS-10 - 40 44 48 92

#20

1.74

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

COHESIVE SOILS COHENSIONLESS SOILS

N - VALUES CONSISTENCY N - VALUES CONSISTENCY

CH-Silty CLAY MH-Clayey SILT 0 - 2 VERY SOFT 0 - 4 VERY LOOSE

ML-Sandy SILT SW-Well Graded SAND 2 - 4 SOFT 5 - 10 LOOSE

SM-Silty SAND 4 - 8 FIRM 11 - 30 MEDIUM DENSE

SP-Poorly Graded SAND 8 - 15 STIFF 31 -50 DENSE

SP-SM-Poorly Graded SAND with silt 15 - 30 VERY STIFF >50 VERY DENSE

SW-SM-Well Graded SAND with silt > 30 HARD

7.05

WASH

BORING

13.05

WASH

BORING

WASH

BORING

1.05

WASH

BORING

2.55

4.05

5.55

WASH

BORING

BOREHOLE NO. BH-2

FINAL DEPTH

RQD

N - VALUE (GRAPHICAL)

GROUND WATER LEVEL

SAMPLE

N0.

CLIENT

PROJECT NAME

R.V. DAGALEA CONSTRUCTION

COMMAND AND CONTROL FACILITY / INTERAGENCY FUSION CENTER

PROJECT LOCATION Basa Airbase Florida Blanca Pampanga

DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION

SPT BLOWS

PER 15 CM

SAMPLING

DEPTH

TYPE OF

SAMPLING

N.

VALUE

2.00m

15.00m

REC.

(m)

8.55

WASH

BORING

WASH

BORING

10.05

11.55

WASH

BORING

WASH

BORING

SP

SP

TERMS Concrete & Materials

Testing Laboratory Inc.

#19L Intalan St., Bagong Ilog, Pasig City.

FINAL BORING LOG

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

14.55

WASH

BORING

K. Co

CLASSIFICATION

UNIFIED

SM

ATTERBERG

SM

SP

SP

Medium dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

End of Borehole.

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

A. Legarte

22-Feb-18

23-Feb-18

SUNNY DAY

SP

SP

SP

LEGENDS, SYMBOLS, AND

RANGE OF VALUES

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST

UNDISTURBED

SAMPLING

CORING

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

SP

GRADING

% PASSING

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

Very dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

Medium dense, dark gray silty SAND fine grained, non plastic.

Medium dense, gray poorly graded SAND fine to medium grained, non plastic.

Medium dense, dark gray silty SAND fine grained, non plastic.

0 20 40 60 80 100

DPWH-BRS Accredited Laboratory

Encoded By:

K. CO

Laboratory Technician/Encoder

Certified By:

M. CUNAHAP

Laboratory Head

Encoded By:

BH-2

2-21-18/2-22-18

DATE DRILLED

TCT 2/24/2018

OFFICE DATE RECEIVE

TCT 2-24-18/2-26-18

OFFICE DATE TEST

Original Wt., gms: 302.6

Oven Dry Wt., gms: 260.4

Wash O.D. Wt., gms: 196.6

INCH / NO. MM.

WT.

PASSING

gms

% PASSING% RETAINED

1-1/2" 37.5 0.0 260.40 100.00 0.00

1" 25 0.0 260.40 100.00 0.00

3/4" 19 0.0 260.40 100.00 0.00

1/2" 12.5 0.0 260.40 100.00 0.00

3/8" 9.5 0.0 260.40 100.00 0.00

#4 4.75 0.0 260.40 100.00 0.00

#10 2 6.3 254.10 97.58 2.42

#40 0.425 34.7 219.40 84.25 15.75

#200 0.075 155.2 64.20 24.65 75.35

0.4

63.8

260.4

CU=

CC=

1 2 3 1 2

Container + Wet Soil, g. - - - - -

Comtainer + Dry Soil, g. - - - - -

Moisture Loss, g. - - - - -

Container I.D. - - - - -

Container, g. - - - - -

Dry Soil, g. - - - - -

Moisture content, - - - - -

Number of Blows

- - - Average -

Liquid Limit: -

Plastic Limit: NP

Plasticity Index: -

Remarks:

TERMS Concrete & Materials Testing Laboratory Inc.

#19 L. Intalan St., Bagong Ilog, Pasig City.

TEST REPORT FOR SIEVE ANALYSIS

ASTM D - 422

Jobsite

Soil (BH-1 : SS-1)

COMMAND AND CONTROL FACILITY / INTERAGENCY FUSION CENTER Name of Project:

Kind of Sample:

Sampled at:

Tested by:

Sampled by: A. Legarte / Driller

J. Llona, N. Bacuetes & K. Co / Lab. Tech.

WASH LOSS

SIEVE SIZE

WEIGHT

RETAINED

gms

CUMULATIVE

PAN

This report is the result of test performed on the sample taken from site.

Soil Description:

Silty SAND

SMGroup Symbols:

DETERM. NO.

TEST REPORT FOR LIQUID LIMIT & PLASTIC LIMIT

ASTM D 4318 - 05

TOTAL

LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT

Spec's. Item No. :

Nat. Moisture Content, % : 16.21%

Fineness Modulus :

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.11101001000

US STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

DPWH-BRS Accredited Laboratory

10 100

M o is tu re C o n te n t

No. of Blows

Tested By:

KERWIN CO

Laboratory Technician

Certified By:

M. CUNAHAP

Soil Laboratory Head

TCT 2/24/2018

OFFICE DATE RECEIVE

TCT 2-24-18/2-26-18

OFFICE DATE TEST

Original Wt., gms: 297.4

Oven Dry Wt., gms: 250.4

Wash O.D. Wt., gms: 188.5

INCH / NO. MM.

WT.

PASSING

gms

% PASSING% RETAINED

1-1/2" 37.5 0.0 250.40 100.00 0.00

1" 25 0.0 250.40 100.00 0.00

3/4" 19 0.0 250.40 100.00 0.00

1/2" 12.5 0.0 250.40 100.00 0.00

3/8" 9.5 0.0 250.40 100.00 0.00

#4 4.75 0.0 250.40 100.00 0.00

#10 2 0.0 250.40 100.00 0.00

#40 0.425 35.7 214.70 85.74 14.26

#200 0.075 152.4 62.30 24.88 75.12

0.4

61.9

250.4

CU=

CC=

1 2 3 1 2

Container + Wet Soil, g. - - - - -

Comtainer + Dry Soil, g. - - - - -

Moisture Loss, g. - - - - -

Container I.D. - - - - -

Container, g. - - - - -

Dry Soil, g. - - - - -

Moisture content, - - - - -

Number of Blows

- - - Average -

Liquid Limit: -

Plastic Limit: NP

Plasticity Index: -

Remarks:

Spec's. Item No. :

Nat. Moisture Content, % : 18.77%

Fineness Modulus :

DETERM. NO.

TEST REPORT…