N6945022F0206_P_9837_DB_RFP_Vol_2_of_2.pdf

Date signed: February 14, 2024

P- 9837 Ambul at or y Car e Cent er and Dent al Cl i ni c Repl acement 21181PART2

THI S PAGE I NTENTI ONALLY LEFT BLANK

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2

P-9837 Ambulatory Care Center and Dental Clinic Replacement 1573902 NAVSTA Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

1.0 Table of Contents (RFP Parts 2-6)

VOLUME 1 OF 2

1. PART 2 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

00 73 01.00 25 GENERAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR GUANTANAMO BAY

PROJECTS

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 17.00 20 COST-LOADED NETWORK ANALYSIS SCHEDULES

(NAS)

01 33 00.05 20 CONSTRUCTION SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 10.05 20 DESIGN SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 29 SUSTAINABILITY REQUIREMENTS AND

REPORTING

01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 43 30 MOCKUPS

01 45 00.05 20 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL

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 91 00.15 BUILDING COMMISSIONING

01 91 19 BUILDING ENCLOSURE COMMISSIONING

2. PART 3 – PROJECT PROGRAM

CHAPTER 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CHAPTER 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

CHAPTER 3. SITE ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 4. BUILDING REQUIREMENTS

CHAPTER 5. ROOM REQUIREMENTS

CHAPTER 6. ENGINEERING SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS

3. PART 4 – PERFORMANCE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

A10 FOUNDATIONS

A20 BELOW GRADE CONSTRUCTION

B10 SUPERSTRUCTURE

B20 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE

B30 ROOFING

C10 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION

C20 STAIRS

C30 INTERIOR FINISHES

D10 CONVEYING

D20 PLUMBING

D30 HVAC

D40 FIRE PROTECTION

D50 ELECTRICAL

E10 EQUIPMENT

E20 FURNISHINGS

G10 SITE PREPARATION

G20 SITE IMPROVEMENTS

G30 SITE CIVIL/MECHANICAL UTILITIES

G40 SITE ELECTRICAL UTILITIES

Z10 GENERAL PERFORMANCE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION

4. PART 5 – PRESCRIPTIVE SPECIFICATIONS

07 84 00 FIRESTOPPING

21 13 13 WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, FIRE PROTECTION

22 00 70 PLUMBING FOR HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

22 60 70.00 GAS AND VACUUM SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

25 05 11.03 CYBERSECURITY FOR HVAC DIRECT DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEM

25 05 11.07 CYBERSECURITY FOR ELEVATOR CONTROL SYSTEM

25 05 11.10 CYBERSECURITY FOR ESS ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM

25 05 11.11 CYBERSECURITY FOR ESS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH STAFF ASSIST

ALARM

25 05 11.12 CYBERSECURITY FOR ESS DURESS ALARM

25 05 11.14 CYBERSECURITY FOR ESS INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEM

25 05 11.15 CYBERSECURITY FOR ESS VIDEO SURVEILLANCE

25 05 11.17 CYBERSECURITY FOR GENERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM

25 05 11.19 CYBERSECURITY FOR LIGHTING CONTROL SYSTEMS

25 05 11.23 CYBERSECURITY FOR PUBLIC ADDRESS AND PROGRAM

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

25 05 11.25 CYBERSECURITY FOR FACILITY SOLID WASTE HANDLING

EQUIPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM

25 05 11.26 CYBERSECURITY FOR UTILITY MONITORING AND CONTROL

SYSTEM

25 05 11.29 CYBERSECURITY FOR WATER CHILLER CONTROL SYSTEM

25 05 11.30 CYBERSECURITY FOR FUEL TANK LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM

25 05 11.31 CYBERSECURITY FOR HEATING BOILERS CONTROL SYSTEM

25 05 11.32 CYBERSECURITY FOR FIRE PUMP CONTROL SYSTEM

25 05 11.34 CYBERSECURITY INTRA-FACILITY RADIO REINFORCEMENT

SYSTEM (IRES)

25 05 11.40 CYBERSECURITY FOR IN-PATIENT CLINICAL RECORD

SYSTEM

25 05 11.47 CYBERSECURITY FOR RADIOLOGY EQUIPMENT SYSTEM

25 05 11.54 CYBERSECURITY BUILDING AUTOMATION SYSTEM

25 05 11.55 CYBERSECURITY FOR FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

25 05 11.56 CYBERSECURITY FUME HOOD ALARM SYSTEM

25 05 11.57 CYBERSECURITY GAS AND VACUUM SYSTEMS FOR

HEALTHCARE FACILITY

25 05 11.58 CYBERSECURITY FOR MASS NOTIFICATIONS

25 05 11.60 CYBERSECURITY FOR NURSE CALL AUDIO-VISUAL (NCAV)

SYSTEM AND TONE-VISUAL (NCTV) SYSTEM

25 08 11.00 20 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR FACILITY-RELATED

CONTROL SYSTEMS

28 31 76 INTERIOR FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEM,

ADDRESSABLE

VOLUME 2 OF 2

5. PART 6 – ATTACHMENTS

A. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

B. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY AND OFFSITE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA

C. FACILITY PLANNING FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM

D. PROJECT ROOM CONTENTS LIST (PRCL)

E. PROGRAM FOR DESIGN

F. INSTALLATION APPEARANCE PLANS - DRAFT

G. ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN TEMPLATE (QASP)

H. SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT

I. GENERAL SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

J. NAVY INSTALLATION SIGNAGE STANDARDS

K. GUANTANAMO BAY APPROVED PLANT LIST

L. WATER INFECTION CONTROL RISK ASSESSMENT (WICRA)

M. WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN OUTLINE

N. ARTWORK, REUSE EXISTING

O. NOT USED

P. OFFSITE UTILITIES POINTS OF CONNECTIONS

Q. HAUL ROUTES AND PROJECT LOCATION MAP

R. DHA SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING GUIDELINES

S. LEAD IN SOIL ABATEMENT

T. CONCEPT DESIGN GUIDELINES

U. NAVFAC SE REGIONAL GUIDANCE

V. SITE APPROVAL PLAN

W. WATER CHEMISTRY REPORT

X. POTENTIAL LAYDOWN AND MAN-CAMP LOCATIONS

Y. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN INFORMATION

P- 9837 Ambul at or y Car e Cent er and Dent al Cl i ni c Repl acement 21181PART2

THI S PAGE I NTENTI ONALLY LEFT BLANK

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2

PART SIX - ATTACHMENTS

A. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

B. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY AND OFFSITE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA

C. FACILITY PLANNING FUNCTIONAL PROGRAM

D. PROJECT ROOM CONTENTS LIST (PRCL)

E. PROGRAM FOR DESIGN

F. INSTALLATION APPEARANCE PLANS – DRAFT

G. ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN TEMPLATE (QASP)

H. SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT

I. GENERAL SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

J. NAVY INSTALLATION SIGNAGE STANDARDS

K. GUANTANAMO BAY APPROVED PLANT LIST

L. WATER INFECTION CONTROL RISK ASSESSMENT (WICRA)

M. WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN OUTLINE

N. ARTWORK, REUSE EXISTING

O. FRCS CONTROL SETS (SEPARATE DOCUMENTS)

P. OFFSITE UTILITIES POINTS OF CONNECTIONS

Q. HAUL ROUTES AND PROJECT LOCATION MAP

R. DHA SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING GUIDELINES

S. LEAD IN SOIL ABATEMENT

T. CONCEPT DESIGN GUIDELINES

U. NAVFAC SE REGIONAL GUIDANCE

V. SITE APPROVAL PLAN

W. WATER CHEMISTRY REPORT

X. POTENTIAL LAYDOWN AND MAN-CAMP LOCATIONS

Y. SUSTAINABLE DESIGN INFORMATION

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

A. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

GEOTECHNICAL/GEOPHYSICAL

ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL

LAB DATA REPORT

ACC & Dental Clinic Replacement FY24 MILCON Project, P-9837, N62470-19-D-5015 Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Schnabel Reference # 22190021.000

Revised August 23, 2023

SS&A Design Collective ACC & Dental Clinic Replacement, NSGB, Cuba

August 25, 2022 Page i Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2022 All Rights Reserved

GEOTECHNICAL/GEOPHYSICAL ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL LAB DATA REPORT

ACC & DENTAL CLINIC REPLACEMENT

FY24 MILCON PROJECT, P-9837, N62470-19-D-5015

NAVAL STATION GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

1.1 Site Description

1.2 Regional Geology

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND FIELD TESTING PROGRAM

2.1 Subsurface Exploration and Field Testing

2.2 Plate Load Testing

2.3 Soil Thermal Properties

2.4 Geophysical Survey

2.5 Lead in Soil Contamination Study

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Soils Testing

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Field Investigation Location Plan Figure 3: FDEM Survey with Soil Lead Results Figure 4: MASW and Soil Resistivity Survey Location Plan Figure 5: MASW Survey Preliminary Results

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Subsurface Exploration Data Appendix B: Soil Laboratory Test Data Appendix C: Environmental Analytical Testing

August 25, 2022 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

1.1 Site Description

Based on our review of available data and after our site visit, the project area for the proposed development consists of an open existing RQ Construction lay down yard and partially brush covered area along the western and southern sides of the site. The site also consists of a drainage swale and pond as well as several former borrow areas used for other projects across NSGB, Cuba. Several various storage containers are present on-site. There are also numerous existing below-grade and overhead utilities. The existing grade across a majority of the site ranges from about EL 35 to 55 feet with the southern side of the site sloping up to approximately EL 132 above mean sea level (NAVD88) with areas north of the site gradually increasing in grade.

1.2 Regional Geology

The soils encountered on the Leeward site of Guantanamo Bay are typically terrace deposits of Pleistocene geologic age. The underlying residual soils/rock consists of interbedded shale conglomerate and sandstone conglomerate. Below the conglomerate are sandy shales.

August 25, 2022 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND FIELD TESTING PROGRAM

We performed a subsurface exploration and field testing to identify the subsurface stratigraphy underlying the site and to evaluate the geotechnical and geophysical properties of the materials encountered. This program consisted of Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) test borings, test pits, soil resistivity testing, Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW), and a Frequency-Domain Electromagnetic (FDEM) survey. Exploration methods used are discussed below. The appendices to this report contain the results of our exploration.

2.1 Subsurface Exploration and Field Testing

2.1.1 Test Borings

We performed a total of 18 test borings (B-101 through B-119, excluding B-116) at the project site between April 16 and 27, 2022 by our subcontractor, Islands Mechanical Contractor of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed at selected depths in the borings. The final boring depths ranged from 6.0 to 35.2 feet below the existing ground surface grades.

Boring B-116 was eliminated during the field exploration due to the location being on an unstable slope to drill safely.

A Diedrich D-50 ATV rig was used to drill the borings. The borings were advanced by turning a continuous flight auger with a center opening of 3¼ inches. Cuttings were brought to the surface by the auger flights. Sampling was performed through the center opening in the hollow stem auger, by standard methods. No water was introduced into the boring using this procedure.

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed at selected depths in the borings. The SPT samples were obtained using a hydraulically driven automatic trip hammer (ATH). Most correlations with the SPT data are based on N-values collected with a safety hammer. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the ATH is about 33 percent greater than that applied using the safety hammer, resulting in lower N-values. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs and cross sections are uncorrected for the higher energy.

Appendix A includes specific observations, remarks, and logs for the borings; classification criteria; drilling methods; and sampling protocols. Figure 2, included at the end of this report, indicates the approximate test boring locations. We will retain soil samples up to 45 days beyond the issuance of our final geotechnical report, unless you request other disposition.

2.1.2 Test Pits

Our subcontractor, Islands Mechanical Contractor of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, excavated three test pits (TP-1 through TP-3) under our observation on April 21, 2022. The test pits were excavated to depths of

4.9 to 8.5 feet below the existing ground surface grades using a John Deere 310G backhoe. Appendix A includes specific observations, remarks, and logs for the test pits; classification criteria; excavation methods; and sampling protocols. Figure 2, included at the end of this report, indicates the approximate test pit locations. We will retain soil samples up to 45 days beyond the issuance of our final geotechnical report, unless you request other disposition.

August 25, 2022 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

2.1.3 Field Infiltration Testing

Schnabel representatives performed three field infiltration tests between April 21 and 23, 2022. The locations of INF-1 through INF-3 are shown on Figure 2.

Based on preliminary topographic site plans provided to us, infiltration tests were conducted at depths of 6, 12, and 15 feet below the existing ground surface grades. A borehole infiltration test procedure was performed. Schnabel’s subcontractor, Islands Mechanical Contractor of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba augered a hole to the prescribed testing depths, and then a 4-inch diameter PVC pipe was installed within to the bottom depth of the open borehole. The pipe at each location was installed with a 3 ft stick up above the ground surface. The pipe was then sealed by filling the annular space between the pipe and borehole sidewalls with bentonite. Then water was placed inside the pipe and left to pre-soak for one hour.

Following the pre-soak period, the pipe was refilled with water to 3 feet below the top of pipe (level with the ground surface). Readings were then taken for the next two consecutive hours recording each drop in water level. If the water level was found to have dropped below 3 feet from the top of pipe (below ground surface), water was then added to the pipe between each hour reading to maintain the constant head.

The average of the readings was reported as the infiltration rate for the test location.

The on-site soil type and infiltration rates obtained from our subsurface exploration are shown in the table below:

Table 4.1: Infiltration Rates

Test ID Boring

Location Infiltration Test

Depth (ft) Soil Type

Infiltration Rate (in/hr)

INF-1 B-111 6.0

Lean Clay with

Gravel (CL) 0.19

INF-2 B-115 15.0

Silty Gravel with

Sand (GM) 0.38

INF-3 B-118 12.0

PWR Sampled as Silty Gravel (GM)

0.01

Infiltration rates within the partially weathered rock material, INF-3, were near zero as water was unable to penetrate the PWR material below. PWR was encountered across the majority of the site and infiltration rates across the site are expected to be relatively low. Infiltration test data sheets are provided within Appendix A.

2.1.4 Soil Electrical Resistivity Survey

Schnabel personnel collected electrical resistivity grounding data at three locations on April 18, 2022. The locations were chosen based on where data could be collected within the planned building footprint and fit around building materials present at the time of data collection. The locations are shown on the MASW Resistivity Survey Location Plan included as Figure 4, with the tests taking place moving outward from the center of the cross in the north, south, east, and west directions. Resistivity data was collected in general accordance with IEEE Standard 81, IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of Ground Systems; and in general accordance with ASTM G57, Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity using the Wenner Four-Electrode Method.

August 25, 2022 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

We obtained the resistivity data using an AEMC Model 4620 resistivity meter (S/N 222106GJDV) which we connected using 18-gauge stranded copper wire to four stainless steel electrodes (metal stakes). We obtained the measurements at all the locations with “a” spacing’s of 3, 5, 10, 20, and 40 ft.

At all locations we collected measurements with linear arrays along two lines that were generally perpendicular to each other as space allowed. The two perpendicular lines shared the same central point except for notably location 2A and 2B, which were offset due to site restrictions. Measurements are generally obtained along perpendicular arrays to account for resistivity anisotropy in the subsurface.

Anisotropy is typically caused by differing soil types, soil grain orientation, moisture content variation, bedrock structure, and subsurface utilities or metallic debris, all of which may skew the results. For design purposes, the two orientation data points can be averaged together, or the higher value can be used for a more conservative result.

The field measurement data sheets and all tabulated data, including the average resistivity values for each “a” spacing at each location, are included in Appendix A.

2.2 Plate Load Testing

We conducted field plate load testing between April 18 and 21, 2022. The plate load testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D1196, utilizing a 50-ton capacity Enerpac hydraulic jack. A CAT 320C LU Excavator as the reaction. Plate sizes with a diameter of 24 inches, 18 inches, and 12 inches were used in the tests. The results of the plate load tests are included in Appendix A.

The plate load test locations are indicated within Figure 2, and the GPS coordinates are shown in the table below:

Table 2.2: Plate Load Testing Locations

PLATE LOAD TEST NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE

PL – 1 19.913382095 -75.135062215

PL – 2 19.913783921 -75.134269424

2.3 Soil Thermal Properties

Schnabel personnel collected measurements of various thermal properties of the soil at a total of 10 locations on April 20, 2022. General locations of each grouping of tests were selected by Schnabel representatives and are shown on Figure 2. The tests were performed near all the drilled borings except for the storm-water pond and helipad borings (B-111, B-115, B-118, and B-119). All thermal tests were performed at approximately four inches below existing ground surface grades. Thermal property data, consisting of thermal conductivity (K) and thermal resistivity (R), were collected in general accordance with IEEE 442-2017, IEEE Guide for Thermal Resistivity Measurements of Soils and Backfill Materials;

and in general accordance with ASTM D5334-14, Standard Test Method for Determination of Thermal Conductivity of Soils and Rock by Thermal Needle Probe Procedure.

2.3.1 Thermo-Resistivity Procedures

1) Dig an approximate 3 inch diameter hole in the soil to a depth of 4 inches.

2) Determine soil type and record.

3) Determine probe type to be used based on soil type encountered. We used the TR-3 probe for this application and soil type for all locations at the site.

August 25, 2022 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

4) Drill hole to 3 inches below the bottom of the existing 4-inch deep dug with a drill bit no larger than the same diameter of the probe to create a tight fit around probe.

5) Push probe into soil making sure it has solid contact with the soil you are testing.

6) Let the temperature reach equilibrium, determined by probe, on unit and then begin testing.

7) Allow the test to run for the required 10 minutes. The test procedure consists of heating the soil for the first 5 minutes and then cooling the soil for the remaining 5 minutes.

8) Record data (see table below).

Test ID Time Test

Temp. (°C) K

(W/mK) R

(°C*cm/W)

SYX Soil Type Location

AA-107 11:30 32.4 1.0070 99.3 0.0007 Silty Rock fragments (GM)

Building

AA-105 11:36 30 1.2810 78 0.0005 Sandy Silt (ML) Building AA-102 11:42 32.0 0.9968 100 0.0007 Lean Clay (CL) Building AA-101 11:48 31.0 0.08446 118 0.0013 Lean Clay (CL) Building BB-103 12:15 31.4 1.0580 94.5 0.0003 Sandy Silt (ML) Building BB-108 12:28 31.2 1.2474 78.5 0.0004 Silt (ML) Garage BB-110 12:43 31.4 1.046 95.6 0.0009 Silty Gravel

(GM)

CUP

BB-117 12:55 32.8 1.077 92.8 0.0483 Sandy Silt (ML) Driveway BB-104 14:11 32.2 0.6974 143 0.0004 Silty Rock fragments (GM) Building

BB-109 14:25 34.8 0.9423 106 0.0051 PWR CUP

2.4 Geophysical Survey

Schnabel personnel collected multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW) data at four locations on April 16, 2022. MASW data was collected at locations that were available within the proposed building footprint as shown on the MASW and Soil Resistivity Survey Location Plan included as Figure 4.

At each location, the MASW data was collected using an 18-channel linear geophone array with a geophone spacing of 15 feet, for a maximum total array length of 255 feet. Data was collected by measuring ambient seismic energy (“passive” source) in the subsurface, which is attributable to lower frequency sources such as wind and vehicular traffic. Multiple energy sources were present at the site, including nearby drilling and traffic. For Line 1 the primary source of energy was the drill rig that was located off the low end of the line. For Lines 2 and 3, a truck was driven up and down the line in order to supplement other traffic and construction activity induced vibrational energy. For Line 4, a 10-pound sledgehammer was impacted on the ground to add to the passive energy as it was not possible to have a truck drive near the line due to the terrain. All data was recorded using a Geometrics 24-channel Geode seismograph and stored digitally on a laptop computer for later analysis. The results of our MASW survey are discussed within section 6.3 of this report and a graph of shear wave velocity versus depth is included as Figure 5.

2.5 Lead in Soil Contamination Study

In order to evaluate potential lead soil contamination that could be present due to a possible abandoned small arms range at the site, a Frequency-domain Electromagnetic (FDEM) survey was conducted over the project area. This survey was completed using a CMD Mini Explorer 6L produced by GF Instruments.

August 25, 2022 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

The CMD Mini collects data simultaneously for transmitter-receiver spacings that have estimated depth ranges between 1 and 6 feet. For this survey, the shallowest spacing was the primary reading of interest due to the shallow depth of interest. Data was collected using a Geode sub-meter accuracy Geospatial Positioning System (GPS) to track the data locations. This was used to generate a plan-view map of the bulk conductivity consisting of the approximate top one foot of the subsurface. The results from the FDEM survey are shown in Figure 3. It is expected that areas with higher lead contamination will cause the bulk conductivity of the soil to increase. There is a zone of relative conductivity value greater than 75 mS/m that is located on either side of a cement wall with soil mounded against the northeast side. We believe this may have previously served as a backstop for the shooting range. This zone could be indictive of soil with elevated lead levels. Additionally, bullet fragments were found at multiple locations within this general area. Based on the results for the FDEM survey and the location of the wall, 67 soil samples were collected over the western portion of the site to be analyzed for lead levels. The location of each sample was taken using a Trimble GeoXH survey grade GPS unit. These locations are shown on Figure 3 overlaid on the FDEM results. For each testing location, soil was sampled within the upper 6 to 12 inches below the existing ground surface grades. Results of the soil lead testing are discussed in Section 5.1.4.

August 25, 2022 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Our laboratory performed tests on selected samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. The testing aided in the classification of materials encountered in the subsurface exploration and provided data for use in the development of recommendations for design of foundations, earthwork, and pavements. Moisture contents and index test results are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. The remainder of the test results is included in Appendix B.

3.1 Soils Testing

3.1.1 Index Testing

We performed natural moisture content, Atterberg Limit, and gradation tests on several samples of soil to provide soil classifications and to provide parameters for use with published correlations with soil properties. The results are presented in the Summary of Laboratory Tests in Appendix B.

3.1.2 Compaction and CBR Testing

We performed Modified Proctor compaction and CBR testing of soil samples representative of soils near the surface to evaluate compaction characteristics and to provide soil parameters for pavement design.

The test results are included in Appendix B. Two bulk samples were tested and classified as Clayey Sand (SC) and Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC). Based on this soil classification and our soil laboratory testing, these soils will exhibit a soaked CBR value of 6.8 and 10.9 when properly compacted.

3.1.3 Environmental Analytical Testing

Environmental test samples returned to our office with Schnabel personnel. We engaged an environmental analytical laboratory, Pace Analytical, to perform the analytical testing.

Samples were submitted to the laboratory for the following analytical tests on the soil and groundwater samples, as appropriate, obtained on-site from borings B-102 and B-105:

Std Method 5030 with Modified 8015-GRO Std Method 5030 & 3550 with Modified 8015 -DRO Std Method 9071 Oil & Grease with silica gel wash

RCRA TCLP

Analytical samples were also submitted for potable water samples obtained from the nearby RQ construction trailer and the nearby dining hall for the following analytical tests:

Turbidity Specific Conductance @ 25° C pH

TDS

Chloride Sulfate, Nitrate – N Nitrite – N Alkalinity @ pH 4.5 su, Bicarbonate Alkalinity Carbonate Alkalinity ICP-MS Metals +Sr Silica (calculation) Mercury

August 25, 2022 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

The laboratory has provided results for our review. No anomalous results have been noted. The results of the analytical laboratory testing are presented within Appendix C.

3.1.4 Lead in Soil Analytical Testing

Sixty-seven (67) soil samples were collected from a depth of approximately six (6) to twelve (12) inches over the FDEM survey area. Samples were field screened using a sieve with ¼ inch openings to eliminate gravel and larger bullet fragments present within the survey area in order to assess lead content of soils representing the more bioavailable size fractions. Two of the samples were found to be missing upon arrival at the Schnabel office in South Carolina. The remaining sixty-five samples were submitted to Pace Analytical Laboratories for analysis of total lead. The laboratory report is presented in Appendix C.

Sample locations are presented in Figure 3. A summary of the laboratory results are presented in Table 5.1.

Table 3.1: Soil Lead Results

Sample Lead

(mg/kg) Northing

(UTM 18N, ft) Easting

(UTM 18N, ft)

PB-1 23400 7223959 1593833

PB-2 1300 7223995 1593807

PB-3 958 7224017 1593809

PB-4 2100 7224038 1593787

PB-5 563 7224067 1593765

PB-6 2240 7224098 1593756

PB-7 1380 7224095 1593781

PB-8 1980 7224080 1593800

PB-9 471 7224067 1593818

PB-10 1320 7224049 1593824

PB-11 no analysis 7224024 1593842

PB-12 39800 7223982 1593870

PB-13 138 7224047 1593683

PB-14 5310 7224011 1593671

PB-15 127 7223988 1593667

PB-16 678 7223967 1593657

PB-17 77.5 7223938 1593631

PB-18 23.3 7223897 1593605

PB-19 782 7224077 1593694

PB-20 no analysis 7224087 1593688

PB-21 167 7224099 1593677

PB-22 83.7 7224110 1593664

PB-23 58.1 7224124 1593652

PB-24 62.6 7224012 1593639

PB-25 204 7224002 1593625

PB-26 83 7223982 1593612

August 25, 2022 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

Sample Lead

(mg/kg) Northing

(UTM 18N, ft) Easting

(UTM 18N, ft)

PB-27 13.1 7224091 1593605

PB-28 11.9 7224089 1593614

PB-29 30.7 7224086 1593624

PB-30 45.6 7224095 1593626

PB-31 34.8 7224100 1593617

PB-32 27.1 7224100 1593606

PB-33 24.1 7224109 1593608

PB-34 47.5 7224085 1593633

PB-35 48.8 7224092 1593635

PB-36 37.4 7224098 1593638

PB-37 46.5 7224102 1593627

PB-38 34.8 7224106 1593621

PB-39 6580 7224051 1593923

PB-40 4400 7224075 1593911

PB-41 55.3 7224101 1593883

PB-42 437 7224109 1593829

PB-43 15.9 7224139 1593817

PB-44 362 7224036 1593695

PB-45 258 7223976 1593693

PB-46 241 7223923 1593683

PB-47 163 7223878 1593738

PB-48 697 7223933 1593743

PB-49 1710 7223928 1593790

PB-50 6490 7223985 1593786

PB-51 1740 7223974 1593730

PB-52 473 7224036 1593750

PB-53 1090 7224008 1593871

PB-54 609 7224049 1593862

PB-55 878 7224037 1593656

PB-56 72.6 7223988 1593622

PB-57 31.2 7224041 1593566

PB-58 89 7224036 1593597

PB-59 49.8 7224155 1593701

PB-60 35.6 7224197 1593737

PB-61 141 7224159 1593740

PB-62 2110 7224156 1593781

PB-63 996 7224120 1593747

PB-64 103 7224007 1593905

August 25, 2022 Page 10 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

Sample Lead

(mg/kg) Northing

(UTM 18N, ft) Easting

(UTM 18N, ft)

PB-65 25.3 7224086 1593548

PB-66 27.3 7224125 1593563

PB-67 30.8 7224138 1593597

EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for lead in soil are 400 mg/kg for residential soils and 800 mg/kg for industrial soils. The residential soil RSL was exceeded on 27 of the 65 analyzed samples and the industrial soil RSL was exceeded on 19 samples.

Table 3.2: Frequency Distribution of Results for Lead in Soil

Based on the reported history of the survey area as a firing range, and the existence of relevant screening guidance, no rigorous statistical analysis was performed on the data. Based on the frequency distribution and spatial distribution, background levels of naturally occurring lead in soils is likely under fifty (50) mg/kg. Correlation of laboratory results with the FDEM survey results appears to be weak; this may be due to a difference in depths under evaluation by the two methods. Sample locations were selected to provide reasonable coverage of the survey area. Several locations within the survey area were selected for higher density sampling to assess lateral variability. These high-density sample areas indicated little lateral variability. Based on this we have confidence that the more widely spaced samples over the remaining area are reasonably representative.

Fr e q u e n cy

Lead (mg/kg)

August 25, 2022 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 22190021.000 ©2023 All Rights Reserved

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Field Investigation Location Plan Figure 3: FDEM Survey with Lead Soil Results Figure 4: MASW and Soil Resistivity Survey Location Plan Figure 5: MASW Survey Preliminary Results

³ 5/2

4/2

Th is Ma p w as

C rea ted In

Sc hn ab el

En gin ee rin gs Si te Vic ini ty

Ma p A pp lica tio n

NOT TO SCALE

arc gis

ACC & DENTAL CLINIC REPLACEMENT

FY 24 MILCON PROJECT, P-9837, N62470-19-D-5015

NAVAL STATION GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

PROJECT NO. 22190021.000

SITE VICINITY

MAP

FIGURE 1

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Projection: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

© Schnabel Engineering, 2022. All Rights Reserved.

6 7

2728 29 303132

363738

48 49

57 58

61 62

1593450 1593550 1593650 1593750 1593850 1593950 1594050 1594150 1594250 1594350

Easting (feet)

No rt hi ng

(f ee t)

50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Relative Bulk Conductivity (mS/m)

Metal debris at surface that will interfere with FDEM readings

Coordinates: UTM Zone 18N, feet 0 500

Horizontal Scale (feet)

FDEM Survey With Soil Lead Results

Figure 3

ACC & Dental Clinic Replacement FY24 MILCON Project, P-9837, N62470-19-D-5015

Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

SCHNABEL PROJECT NO. 22190021.000

Latitude Longitude Northing (ft) Easting (ft)

19.9130276 -75.1356713 7223959.05 1593832.97 23400

19.9131246 -75.1357471 7223994.27 1593806.95 1300

19.9131859 -75.1357406 7224016.53 1593809.21 958

19.9132455 -75.1358062 7224038.18 1593786.68 2100

19.9133235 -75.1358688 7224066.51 1593765.22 563

19.9134096 -75.1358969 7224097.77 1593755.61 2240

19.9134005 -75.1358221 7224094.46 1593781.29 1380

19.9133593 -75.1357674 7224079.48 1593800.04 1980

19.9133249 -75.1357159 7224066.99 1593817.73 471

19.9132752 -75.1356982 7224048.93 1593823.80 1320

19.9132046 -75.1356457 7224023.29 1593841.80 no analysis

19.9130888 -75.1355628 7223981.22 1593870.22 39800

19.9132684 -75.1361079 7224046.58 1593683.10 138

19.9131698 -75.1361430 7224010.78 1593671.04 5310

19.9131076 -75.1361561 7223988.20 1593666.52 127

19.9130491 -75.1361848 7223967.00 1593656.64 678

19.9129682 -75.1362585 7223937.65 1593631.30 77.5

19.9128557 -75.1363358 7223896.82 1593604.74 23.3

19.9133522 -75.1360761 7224077.01 1593694.06 782

19.9133796 -75.1360937 7224086.95 1593688.01 no analysis

19.9134133 -75.1361249 7224099.17 1593677.30 167

19.9134427 -75.1361627 7224109.86 1593664.32 83.7

19.9134803 -75.1361998 7224123.55 1593651.62 58.1

19.9131720 -75.1362380 7224011.63 1593638.40 62.6

19.9131438 -75.1362782 7224001.39 1593624.59 204

19.9130897 -75.1363156 7223981.76 1593611.73 83

19.9133907 -75.1363351 7224091.05 1593605.13 13.1

19.9133844 -75.1363093 7224088.73 1593613.96 11.9

19.9133770 -75.1362806 7224086.05 1593623.83 30.7

19.9134024 -75.1362753 7224095.30 1593625.66 45.6

19.9134134 -75.1363004 7224099.28 1593617.06 34.8

19.9134142 -75.1363323 7224099.57 1593606.09 27.1

19.9134391 -75.1363280 7224108.61 1593607.58 24.1

19.9133720 -75.1362554 7224084.23 1593632.49 47.5

19.9133919 -75.1362483 7224091.45 1593634.94 48.8

19.9134089 -75.1362402 7224097.63 1593637.71 37.4

19.9134198 -75.1362710 7224101.59 1593627.15 46.5

19.9134320 -75.1362897 7224106.04 1593620.73 34.8

19.9132799 -75.1354107 7224050.58 1593922.50 6580

19.9133463 -75.1354449 7224074.68 1593910.80 4400

19.9134182 -75.1355251 7224100.80 1593883.28 55.3

19.9134396 -75.1356827 7224108.61 1593829.15 437

19.9135228 -75.1357176 7224138.83 1593817.21 15.9

19.9132387 -75.1360732 7224035.80 1593694.99 362

19.9130726 -75.1360781 7223975.49 1593693.27 258

19.9129272 -75.1361078 7223922.72 1593683.05 241

19.9128019 -75.1359479 7223877.18 1593737.90 163

19.9129538 -75.1359343 7223932.31 1593742.62 697

19.9129427 -75.1357958 7223928.27 1593790.19 1710

19.9130989 -75.1358070 7223984.97 1593786.37 6490

19.9130674 -75.1359714 7223973.57 1593729.92 1740

19.9132391 -75.1359122 7224035.90 1593750.28 473

19.9131610 -75.1355600 7224007.44 1593871.23 1090

19.9132738 -75.1355884 7224048.40 1593861.49 609

19.9132418 -75.1361859 7224036.96 1593656.32 878

19.9131078 -75.1362858 7223988.31 1593621.98 72.6

19.9132517 -75.1364493 7224040.61 1593565.87 31.2

19.9132391 -75.1363598 7224036.02 1593596.59 89

19.9135658 -75.1360553 7224154.53 1593701.26 49.8

19.9136824 -75.1359514 7224196.83 1593736.98 35.6

19.9135788 -75.1359424 7224159.21 1593740.01 141

19.9135690 -75.1358236 7224155.65 1593780.82 2110

19.9134705 -75.1359219 7224119.89 1593747.04 996

19.9131591 -75.1354624 7224006.71 1593904.72 103

19.9133743 -75.1365020 7224085.14 1593547.81 25.3

19.9134820 -75.1364573 7224124.23 1593563.20 27.3

19.9135187 -75.1363603 7224137.52 1593596.51 30.8

Sample Geographic UTM Zone 18 N

Lead (mg/kg)

Lead Samples Lead Sample Key (numbers refer to sample number):

Background Lead Levels (<50 mg/kg) Elevated Lead levels (>50 mg/kg) Lead Exceeding Residential Soil RSL (>400 mg/kg) Lead Exceeding Industrial Soil RSL (>800 mg/kg) No Analysis

1593450 1593550 1593650 1593750 1593850 1593950 1594050 1594150 1594250 1594350

Easting (feet)

No rt hi ng

(f ee t)

Key:

MASW Lines

Resistivity Lines

Coordinates: UTM Zone 18N, feet

MASW Line 1

M

ASW

Line 2

M

ASW

Line 3

MASW Line 4

DC Site 2

DC Site 1

DC Site 3

0 500

Horizontal Scale (feet)

MASW and Soil Resistivity Survey Location Plan

Figure 4

ACC & Dental Clinic Replacement FY24 MILCON Project, P-9837, N62470-19-D-5015

Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

SCHNABEL PROJECT NO. 22190021.000

© Schnabel Engineering 2022 All Rights Reserved

MASW Survey Results Figure 5

ACC & Dental Clinic Replacement FY24 MILCON Project, P-9837, N62470-19-D-5015

Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

SCHNABEL PROJECT NO. 22190021.000

© Schnabel Engineering 2022 All Rights Reserved

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

De pt h (fe et

Shear-wave Velocity (ft/s)

MASW Results

MASW Line 1

MASW Line 2

MASW Line 3

MASW Line 4

Velocity (ft/s) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity (ft/s) Velocity (ft/s)

0.0 - 3.0 1842.7 0.0 - 5.4 2875.8 0.0 - 6.6 2152.5 0.0 - 4.4 1933.9

3.0 - 6.7 2010.4 5.4 - 12.2 1231.3 6.6 - 14.9 3129.5 4.4 - 9.9 1151.7

6.7 - 11.4 708.0 12.2 - 20.7 1598.8 14.9 - 25.2 1672.6 9.9 - 16.7 3611.7

11.4 - 17.3 1855.6 20.7 - 31.4 2831.0 25.2 - 38.1 4190.6 16.7 - 25.3 2346.5

17.3 - 24.6 2542.8 31.4 - 44.6 2658.0 38.1 - 54.3 4258.2 25.3 - 35.9 3282.7

24.6 - 33.7 2653.9 44.6 - 61.2 4029.3 54.3 - 74.5 4037.0 35.9 - 49.3 4527.9

33.7 - 45.1 2750.4 61.2 - 82.0 5234.5 74.5 - 99.7 5222.9 49.3 - 66.0 5133.1

45.1 - 59.4 3260.6 82.0 - 107.9 4786.1 99.7 - 131.3 6265.7 66.0 - 86.9 5927.3

59.4 - 77.3 4182.2 107.9 - 140.3 4788.4 131.3 - 170.7 6719.3 86.9 - 113.0 6940.4

77.3 - 96.6 7151.4 140.3 - 175.4 9628.9 170.7 - 213.4 9112.2 113.0 - 141.3 10413.1

Depth Range (ft) Line 1 - Vs100 = 2814 ft/s Line 2 - Vs100 = 3001 ft/s Line 3 - Vs100 = 3489 ft/s Line 4 - Vs100 = 3645 ft/s Depth Range (ft) Depth Range (ft) Depth Range (ft)

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION DATA

Subsurface Exploration Procedures General Notes for Subsurface Exploration Logs Identification of Soil Boring Logs, B-101 through B-119, excluding B-116 Test Pit Logs, TP-1 through TP-3 Field Infiltration Testing Results, INF-1 and INF-2 Field Electrical Resistivity Testing Results Plate Load Testing Results

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Test Borings – Hollow Stem Augers

The borings are advanced by turning an auger with a center opening of 2¼ or 3¼ inches. A plug device blocks off the center opening while augers are advanced. Cuttings are brought to the surface by the auger flights. Sampling is performed through the center opening in the hollow stem auger by standard methods after removal of the plug. Usually, no water is introduced into the boring using this procedure.

Standard Penetration Test Results

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is performed in the borings at regular depth intervals to collect soil samples. The numbers in the Sampling Data column of the boring logs represent SPT results. Each number represents the blows needed to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. split-spoon sampler 6 inches, using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler is typically driven a total of 18 or 24 inches.

The first 6 inches are considered a seating interval. The total of the number of blows for the second and third 6-inch intervals is the SPT “N-value.” The Standard Penetration Test is performed according to

ASTM D1586.

The SPT samples were obtained using a hydraulically driven automatic trip hammer (ATH). Most correlations with SPT data are based on N-values collected with a safety hammer. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the ATH is about 33 percent greater than that applied using the safety hammer, resulting in lower N-values. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy. However, we correct SPT N-values for the higher energy when using N-values in our analyses.

Soil Classification Criteria

The group symbols on the logs represent the Unified Soil Classification System Group Symbols (ASTM D2487) based on visual observation and limited laboratory testing of the samples. Criteria for visual identification of soil samples are included in this appendix. Some variation can be expected between samples visually classified and samples classified in the laboratory.

Partially weathered rock (PWR) is defined as residual material with SPT N-values between 100 blows per foot and refusal. Refusal is defined as an N-value of 50 blows for a penetration of one inch or less.

Boring Locations and Elevations

Boring locations were staked by Island Mechanical Contractor surveying personnel as shown on Figure 2.

Ground surface elevations were estimated from the topographic survey. The coordinates of the boring locations are indicated on the boring logs and were acquired from the survey completed by Island Mechanical Contractor. Locations and elevations should be considered no more accurate than the methods used to determine them.

GENERAL NOTES FOR

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS

1. Numbers in sampling data column next to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) symbols indicate blows required to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. sampling spoon 6 inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value is the number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, after a 6-inch seating interval. The Standard Penetration Test is performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586.

2. Visual classification of soil is in accordance with terminology set forth in “Identification of Soil.”

The ASTM D2487 group symbols (e.g., CL) shown in the classification column are based on visual observations.

3. Estimated water levels indicated on the logs are only estimates from available data and may vary with precipitation, porosity of the soil, site topography, and other factors.

4. Refusal at the surface of rock, boulder, or other obstruction is defined as an SPT resistance of 50 blows for 1 inch or less of penetration.

5. The logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled or excavated. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface soil and water level conditions at the subsurface exploration location.

6. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types as obtained from the subsurface exploration. Some variation may also be expected vertically between samples taken. The soil profile, water level observations and penetration resistances presented on these logs have been made with reasonable care and accuracy and must be considered only an approximate representation of subsurface conditions to be encountered at the particular location.

7. Key to symbols and abbreviations:

S-1, SPT Sample No., Standard Penetration Test 5+10+1+4 Number of blows in each 6-inch increment

LL Liquid Limit MC Moisture Content (percent) PL Plastic Limit %Passing#200 Percent by weight passing a No. 200 Sieve PWR Partially Weathered Rock

IDENTIFICATION OF SOIL

I. DEFINITION OF SOIL GROUP NAMES (ASTM D2487) SYMBOL GROUP NAME

Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels – More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Coarse, ¾” to 3” Fine, No. 4 to ¾”

Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines

GW WELL GRADED

GRAVEL

GP POORLY GRADED

GRAVEL

Gravels with fines More than 12% fines

GM SILTY GRAVEL

GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

Sands – 50% or more of coarse Fraction passes No. 4 sieve Coarse, No. 10 to No. 4 Medium, No. 40 to No. 10 Fine, No. 200 to No. 40

Clean Sands Less than 5% fines

SW WELL GRADED

SAND

SP POORLY GRADED

SAND

Sands with fines More than 12% fines

SM SILTY SAND

SC CLAYEY SAND

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit less than 50 Low to medium plasticity

Inorganic CL LEAN CLAY

ML SILT

Organic OL ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit 50 or more Medium to high plasticity

Inorganic CH FAT CLAY

MH ELASTIC SILT

Organic OH ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor PT PEAT

II. DEFINITION OF SOIL COMPONENT PROPORTIONS (ASTM D2487)

Examples

Adjective Form

GRAVELLY

SANDY

>30% to <50% coarse grained component in a fine-grained soil

GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY

CLAYEY

SILTY

>12% to <50% fine grained component in a coarse-grained soil

SILTY SAND

“With” WITH GRAVEL

WITH SAND

>15% to <30% coarse grained component in a fine-grained soil

FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL

WITH GRAVEL

WITH SAND

>15% to <50% coarse grained component in a coarse-grained soil

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND

WITH SILT

WITH CLAY

>5% to <12% fine grained component in a coarse-grained soil

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

III. GLOSSARY OF MISCELLANEOUS TERMS

SYMBOLS .......................... Unified Soil Classification Symbols are shown above as group symbols. A dual symbol “-” indicates the soil belongs to two groups. A borderline symbol “/” indicates the soil belongs to two possible groups.

FILL ........................................ Man-made deposit containing soil, rock and often foreign matter.

PROBABLE FILL ................... Soils that contain no visually detected foreign matter but which are suspect with regard to origin.

DISINTEGRATED ROCK

(DR)

Residual materials with a standard penetration resistance (SPT) between 60 blows per foot and refusal. Refusal is defined as an SPT of 100 blows for 2" or less penetration.

PARTIALLY WEATHERED

ROCK (PWR)

Residual materials with a standard penetration resistance (SPT) between 100 blows per foot and refusal. Refusal is defined as an SPT of 100 blows for 2" or less penetration.

BOULDERS & COBBLES ...... Boulders are considered rounded pieces of rock larger than 12 inches, while cobbles range from 3 to 12-inch size.

LENSES.................................. 0 to ½-inch seam within a material in a test pit.

LAYERS ................................. ½ to 12-inch seam within a material in a test pit.

POCKET ................................. Discontinuous body within a material in a test pit.

MOISTURE CONDITIONS ...... Wet, moist or dry to indicate visual appearance of specimen.

COLOR ................................... Overall color, with modifiers such as light to dark or variation in coloration.

F

B

FILL

PWR

PWR

PWR

38.0

37.0

35.0

7.8

3.0

4.0

6.0

33.2

LL = 33

PL = 18

MC = 10.3%

% Passing #200 = 26.8

LL = 26

PL = 18

MC = 5.7%

% Passing #200 = 30.1

PROBABLE FILL, sampled as clayey sand, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, brown

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK,

sampled as clayey sand, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, brown, trace gravel

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK,

sampled as silty sand, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, brown

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK,

sampled as silty gravel; moist, brown

Change: grayish brown

Bottom of Boring at 33.2 ft.

Boring terminated at auger refusal.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

S-01, SPT

2+3+2+7

REC=12", 50%

S-02, SPT

7+40+50/5"

REC=12", 71%

S-03, SPT

34+50/3"

REC=9", 100%

S-04, SPT

50/5"

REC=5", 100%

S-05, SPT

50/5"

REC=4", 80%

S-06, SPT

50/5"

REC=5", 100%

S-07, SPT

50/5"

REC=5", 100%

S-08, SPT

50/6"

REC=6", 100%

S-09, SPT

50/3"

REC=3", 100%

S-10, SPT

50/2"

REC=2", 100%

S-11, SPT

50/2"

REC=2", 100%

Encountered

After Drilling

4/19

4/19

Dry

Dry

11.8'

Schnabel Representative: M. Edwards

Total Depth: 33.2 ft

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (ATV)

Ground Surface Elevation: 41.0 (ft)

Contractor: Islands Mechanical Contractor Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Contractor Foreman: Omar Cunningham

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 4/19/22 Finished: 4/19/22

North: 1593914.159 ft East: 7224127.252 ft

Method: 3-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

ACC and Dental Clinic Replacement FY24 MILCON Proj. P-9837, N62470-19-D-5015 Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 22190021.000 Sheet: 1 of 1

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTSMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SAMPLING

DEPTH

REMARKS

B-101Boring Number:

DEPTH

(ft) DATA

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

T E

S T

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

/2

FILL

PWR

33.3

7.1

7.0

33.2

PROBABLE FILL, sampled as clayey sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, brown

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK,

sampled as silty gravel; moist, grayish brown

Bottom of Boring at 33.2 ft.

Boring terminated at auger refusal.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

S-01, SPT

5+10+12+10

REC=14", 58%

S-02, SPT

11+17+15+13

REC=17", 71%

S-03, SPT

10+9+9+9

REC=12", 50%

S-04, SPT

4+21+50/5"

REC=12", 71%

S-05, SPT

50/5"

REC=5", 100%

S-06, SPT

37+50/3"

REC=9", 100%

S-07, SPT

50/4"

REC=4", 100%

S-08, SPT

50/3"

REC=3", 100%

S-09, SPT

50/3"

REC=3", 100%

S-10, SPT

50/3"

REC=2", 67%

S-11, SPT

50/2"

REC=2", 100%

Encountered

After Drilling

4/20

4/20

Dry

Dry

10.0'

Schnabel Representative: M. Edwards

Total Depth: 33.2 ft

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (ATV)

Ground Surface Elevation: 40.3 (ft)

Contractor: Islands Mechanical Contractor Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Contractor Foreman: Omar Cunningham

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 4/20/22 Finished: 4/20/22

North: 1594068.942 ft East: 7224177.355 ft

Method: 3-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

ACC and Dental Clinic Replacement FY24 MILCON Proj. P-9837, N62470-19-D-5015 Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 22190021.000 Sheet: 1 of 1

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTSMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SAMPLING

DEPTH

REMARKS

B-102Boring Number:

DEPTH

(ft) DATA

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

T E

S T

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

/2

FILL

PWR

PWR

PWR

35.0

33.0

22.0

16.4

2.0

4.0

15.0

20.6

LL = 29

PL = 20

MC = 6.7%

% Passing #200 = 44.2

LL = 77

PL = 29

MC = 6.5%

% Passing #200 = 28.1

LL = 25

PL = 17

MC = 4.6%

% Passing #200 = 25.2

PROBABLE FILL, sampled as clayey sand, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, grayish brown, trace gravel

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK,

sampled as clayey sand, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, grayish brown, trace gravel

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK,

sampled as clayey sand, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, gray, trace gravel Change: grayish brown

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK,

sampled as clayey sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, grayish brown

Bottom of Boring at 20.6 ft.

Boring terminated at auger refusal.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

S-01, SPT

8+13+27+36

REC=13", 54%

S-02, SPT

8+30+37+50

REC=15", 63%

S-03, SPT

20+36+40+45

REC=13", 54%

S-04, SPT

19+41+50/5"

REC=12", 71%

S-05, SPT

20+50/5"

REC=8", 73%

S-06, SPT

17+28+36+35

REC=18", 75%

S-07, SPT

26+50/4"

REC=8", 80%

S-08, SPT

28+40+50/3"

REC=15", 100%

S-09, SPT

34+50/1"

REC=6", 86%

Encountered

After Drilling

4/16

4/16

Dry

Dry

11.0'

Schnabel Representative: M. Edwards

Total Depth: 20.6 ft

Equipment: Diedrich D-50 (ATV)

Ground Surface Elevation: 37.0 (ft)

Contractor: Islands Mechanical Contractor Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Contractor Foreman: Omar Cunningham

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 4/16/22 Finished: 4/17/22

North: 1594233.593 ft East: 7224232.379 ft

Method: 3-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

ACC and Dental Clinic Replacement FY24 MILCON Proj. P-9837, N62470-19-D-5015 Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 22190021.000 Sheet: 1 of 1

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTSMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SAMPLING

DEPTH

REMARKS

B-103Boring Number:

DEPTH

(ft) DATA

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

T E

S T

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

/2

FILL

PWR

36.0

5.9

3.0

33.1

PROBABLE FILL, sampled as clayey sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, brown

PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK,

sampled as silty gravel; moist, brown and gray

Change: wet

Bottom of Boring at 33.1 ft.

Boring terminated at auger refusal.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

S-01, SPT

2+2+9+17

REC=14", 58%

S-02, SPT

19+45+50/3"

REC=11", 73%

S-03, SPT

50/3"

REC=3", 100%

S-04, SPT

50/4"

REC=3", 75%

S-05, SPT

50/3"

REC=2",…