rfq2412angle00009rb.pdf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEXAS GULF COAST REGIONAL AIRPORT

TXDOT SOLICITATION NO.: RFQ-2412ANGLE-00009

Re-bid

1. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS SOLICITATION

2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO A SOLICITATION IN EGRANTS

4. PROJECT DIAGRAM

5. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN

6. TAXIWAY ALPHA PAVEMENT EVALUATION

TxDOT Solicitation No.: RFQ-2412ANGLE-00009 TxDOT CSJ/Project No.: 2412ANGLE

Texas Department of Transportation Aviation Division

(Re-bid) Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for

Professional Engineering Services

Brazoria County, through its agent, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), intends to engage a professional engineering firm for services pursuant to Chapter 2254, Subchapter A, of the Government Code. TxDOT Aviation Division will solicit and receive qualification statements for the current aviation project as described below.

Current Project: Brazoria County; TxDOT CSJ/Project No.: RFQ-2412ANGLE-00009.

The TxDOT Project Manager is Robert Johnson, P.E.

Scope: Provide engineering and design services, including construction administration, to

1. Reconstruct Parallel Taxiway A (from Runway 35 to Taxiway B).

2. Rehabilitate Parallel Taxiway A (from Taxiway B to Runway 17).

3. Rehabilitate Connector Taxiway B, E, G.

4. Realign Connector Taxiway C.

5. Install Runway 17-35 Medium Intensity Runway Lights.

6. Install Taxiway Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights.

7. Install Signs.

8. Install Precision Approach Path Indicators, Wind-Cone, Beacon, and Vault.

The Agent, in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat.

252, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all respondents that it will affirmatively ensure that for any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit in response to this solicitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.

The proposed contract is subject to 49 CFR Part 26 concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE).

The DBE goal for the design phase of the current project is 7.5%. The goal will be re-set for the construction phase.

Utilizing multiple engineering/design and construction grants over the course of the next five years, future scope of work items at the Texas Gulf Coast Regional Airport may include the following: Fuel farm improvements.

These potential future work items are provided for your information only. Brazoria County will determine whether to proceed with any of these items, which will require separate future procurement actions.

To assist in your qualification statement preparation, the criteria, project diagram, and most recent Airport Layout Plan are available online at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/avn/avninfo/notice/consult/index.html by selecting “Texas Gulf Coast Regional Airport.” The qualification statement should address a technical approach for the current scope only.

Response Procedure:

The successful firm will be selected on the basis of a Response. A prime provider may only submit one Response. If a prime provider submits more than one Response, that prime provider will be deemed non-responsive. The Response must contain the required information, and should address the recommended information, as listed below. Response submissions will be scored accordingly.

If the Response is non-compliant with any of the following requirements, the Response may be deemed non-responsive.

1. Qualifications Statement (QS) – The QS shall contain no more than nine 8.5x11-inch single-sided pages.

a. QS Format:

i. Readability – The submitter has latitude in formatting the QS for visual effectiveness. Graphics, tables, photos, and other visual aids are permitted within the nine allotted pages, except that Quick Response (QR) codes or other external link(s) are not permitted. There is no specific font, font size, color, or other formatting requirements, although a font size smaller than 10 is not recommended. Selection committee members may consider legibility and readability when scoring. Unreadable text will not be considered and may cause the QS to be deemed non-responsive. It is the submitter’s responsibility to provide a legible, readable document.

b. QS Content - It is recommended the QS include:

i. The RFQ number, airport name, name of firm, firm address, email address, telephone number and contact information for key personnel. The response shall also identify each proposed project team member, each proposed member’s time commitment to this project as a percentage of their total work week, and whether the proposed member is an employee of the responding firm or a sub-contractor to that firm.

c. QS Content – For scoring purposes, the QS must include:

i. Information showing the firm’s project understanding and technical approach, including similar project-related experience of the project manager and each task leader responsible for a major work category. For each project referenced, identify either the project manager’s or the task leader’s specific role(s) and work contributed. The project manager is required to be a Professional Engineer registered or licensed in Texas, by the submission deadline. If applicable http://www.dot.state.tx.us/avn/avninfo/notice/consult/index.htm to project, an Architect, is required to be registered or licensed in Texas, by the submission deadline. License number(s) must be included in the response submission.

ii. In addition to individual project-related experience of the project manager and task leaders required under (ii), list no more than ten relevant projects performed by the responding firm within the last 10 years. This shall include airport name, location, phone number, and airport contact person’s name, title, and phone number. It shall also include the original project completion time estimate vs. the actual completion time for the cited design project, as well as a brief narrative description of the project and whether or not your firm served as the prime or the sub on each project cited.

iii. Project Design Schedule: Indicate the number of weeks necessary to design the project in accordance with “Project Design Schedule Information” below.

The Response must be submitted in eGrants following the Submission Procedures at the end of this notice.

Project Design Schedule Information

Based on the published project scope and your technical approach, indicate the number of weeks necessary for each phase and total design time to design the project. Some of the basic responsibilities within each design phase are included for reference. Do not include TxDOT review time. Assume, however, that your work will require some revision after TxDOT review, and that the time required to address these comments should be included within your schedule. If time is required for specialized studies, indicate the additional time.

NOTE: This proposed schedule will set the basis for the contract deadlines in the professional services agreement if your firm is selected.

Preliminary Report Phase Attend pre-design conference Obtain and analyze necessary survey data Obtain and analyze necessary geotechnical data Prepare comprehensive report

Preliminary Design Phase Attend project meeting(s) Prepare project drawings (70%) Provide all technical specifications Provide project cost estimate

Final Design Phase Attend project meeting(s) Finalize drawings and contract documents (100%) Provide a revised opinion of probable total project costs Prepare a Construction Management Plan Update, if necessary, the Preliminary Report Prepare and submit airspace study to FAA

Evaluation Criteria for Architectural/Engineering Qualifications

1. Recent experience of the project team with comparable airport projects within the past ten years. (25 points)

Do the qualifications indicate that the project team has recent direct experience on other general aviation airports designing similar improvements to those proposed at this location?

2. Proposed technical approach (30 points)

Does the architect/engineer provide evidence of understanding of the project; and any unique architectural/engineering aspects associated with the proposed project and how to address them?

3. Project design schedule and ability to meet schedules and deadlines (25 points)

Does the proposed design team have sufficient time to work on this project? Has the firm demonstrated an ability to meet design schedules in the past? Reasonableness of proposed schedule.

4. Construction Management Experience (20 points)

The architect/engineer will oversee the airport construction. Therefore, it is critical that the architect/engineer be involved in the day-to-day construction activities through a full-time resident project representative and periodic site visits. What evidence do the qualifications provide as to the architect/engineer’s commitment to proactive and consistent representation during construction?

Submission Procedure:

The completed Response must be received in the TxDOT Aviation eGrants system no later than July 10, 2024, 2:00 p.m. (CST).

Firms that wish to submit a Response to this solicitation must be a user in the TxDOT Aviation eGrants system no later than one business day before the solicitation due date. To request access to eGrants, please complete the Contact Us web form located at http://txdot.gov/government/funding/egrants-2016/aviation.html

The consultant selection committee will be composed of local government representatives. The final selection by the committee will generally be made following the completion of review of Responses. The committee will review all Responses and rate and rank each. All firms will be notified, and the top-rated firm will be contacted to begin fee negotiations for the design and bidding phases. The selection committee does, however, reserve the right to conduct interviews for the top-rated firms if the committee deems it necessary. If interviews are conducted, selection will be made following interviews.

Please contact TxDOT Aviation for any technical or procedural questions at (800)-68-PILOT (74568). For procedural questions, please contact Sheri Quinlan, Contract Specialist. For technical questions, please contact Robert Johnson, P.E., Project Manager.

For questions regarding responding to this solicitation in eGrants, please contact the TxDOT Aviation help desk at 1-800-687-4568 or avn-egrantshelp@txdot.gov.

http://txdot.gov/government/funding/egrants-2016/aviation.html mailto:avn-egrantshelp@txdot.gov eGrants Workflow:

RFQ Response eGrants Role:

Subgrantee Administrator (SA) Subgrantee Staff (SS) eGrants link eGrants help:

https://apps2.dot.state.tx.us/apps/egrants2/logout2.aspx eGrants help desk Monday – Friday 8AM – 4PM CD/ST (excluding state/federal holidays) avn-egrantshelp@txdot.gov or 1-800-687-4568

STEP ROLE ACTIONS NOTES

01 SA

Go to View Opportunities.

a. Select Apply Now to the opportunity

b. The RFQ Response Menu is opened

Very important to click on the name of the document and not the organization name.

Make a note of the opportunity due date to ensure you respond in time

02 SA/SS

Click on View, Edit and Complete Forms

a. Select RFQ Applicant Form

b. Confirm Project information and address

c. Upload RFQ response

PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU

SELECT THE CORRECT PDF FILE

BEFORE CHANGING STATUS.*

d. Hit Save

You should print the proposal document to a PDF so that it becomes un-editable.

03 SA

When you are ready to submit your response, click on "Save and submit to CS review". YOU ARE

DONE

You will get an email saying the response was successfully submitted; the status must be changed to RFQ Response in CS Review by the due date and time posted in the solicitation.

04 SA/SS WAIT UNTIL A SELECTION

NOTIFICATION IS SENT TO YOU

Aviation Division https://apps2.dot.state.tx.us/apps/egrants2/logo

05 SS/SA

AFTER SELECTION NOTIFICATION IS

RECEIVED Log in to view status of response.

Once the scores are verified, TxDOT will move the response to an interview, selected or not selected status of which you can log in to see the status of your response.

The selection notification will refer users to eGrants to view the status of their response. User may also view the TxDOT website for selection information.

*If the responder posts the incorrect file.

• If status has been changed and the due date for the response has not expired, contact the help desk to ask for the status to be administratively changed back to Response in Process.

• If the incorrect submission was posted, the incorrect file may be deleted and the correct one posted as long as the status has not been changed to Response in CS Review. Respondent will need to check the “delete” box and hit save. The page refreshes. Then post the correct submission, save, and change the status.

If you are not set up in eGrants and wish to respond to a posted solicitation, you may contact the aviation help desk for assistance by using the webform available at eGrants Help Desk Form

Some organizations will have many user members. Each organization should determine which user member will submit the completed submission in eGrants. After the opportunity is selected for the organization, it will no longer appear on any other user’s home page unless the initiating user cancels the response.

https://form.jotform.com/62164883455160

T

This Graphic is For TxDOT Planning and Illustration Purposes Only (2024)

TWY ALPHATWY ALPHA

TWY BTWY CTWY ETWY G

RWY 17-35

WIND-CONE

PAPI-4

BEACON

VAULT

PAPI-4

MITLs

MIRLs

Signs

X

X X

X X

X X

X

X X

X

.9

.9

X

X

X

XXXXXXXX

X

X X X

X X

X X

X

X

XXXX

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

.3

X X

X

.9

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X

X X

X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

17 35

LJN D

LJN A

LBX F

LBX E

.3

.8

.0

.7

.0

P L P L

.3

.4

.4

PL

PL

P

X L

P L P L

P L P L

X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL

X P XL

X P XL

X P XL

X P XL

X P XL

X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL

X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL

X P XL

X P XL

X P XL

X P XL

X P XL

X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL X P XL

P L

PL

PL

PL

PL

PL

PL

PL PL PL

P L P L

P L

22 20

22 20

16 14

22 20

22 22

24 20

20 18

BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35'

PL

(U

PL

(U

PL(U)

PL

(U

PL(U)

R 18 L36

BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35' BRL 35'

L 18 R36

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

AS

R

PZ

RPZ

RPZ

RPZ

RPZ

RPZ

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS

(U

AS(U

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

RPZ

RPZ

RPZ

RPZ

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

OFA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

RSA

PO

FZ

PO

FZ

RSA(U)

RSA(U)

RSA(U)

RSA(U)

RSA(U)

RSA(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

OFZ(U)

OFZ(U)

OFZ(U)

OFZ(U)

OFZ(U)

OFZ(U)

OFZ(U)

OFZ(U)

OFA(U)

OFA(U)

OFA(U)

OFA(U)

OFA(U)

OFA(U)

PO

FZ

(U

)PO

FZ(U

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

AS(U)

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

O

FZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

OFZ

O

FZ

OCS(U)

OCS(U)

OCS(U)

O C

S(U

OCS(U)

OCS(U)

OCS(U)

TO

FA

TO

FA

TOFA TOFA TOFA TOFA TOFA

TOFA(U)

TOFA TOFA

TOFA(U)

TSA TSA TSA TSA TSA TSA TSA TSA TSA

TSA TSA TS

A

TSA

TSA TSA TSA TSA TSA TSA TSA

TOFA

TOFA TOFA

TS

A

TO

FA TOFA TOFA TOFA

TOFA

TOFA

TSA

TOFA

TOFA(U)

C oa le R oa d

Airport Way

Ex MALSR

EXISTING 17/FUTURE 18L

APPROACH RPZ

2500'X1000'X1750'

PARTIALLY OWNED

EL 34.7'

EXISTING/FUTURE

50:1/40:1 APPROACH SURFACE

1000'x16000'x50000'

VISIBILITY MINIMUM 1/2 MILE

Ex Localizer

EXISTING 17/FUTURE 18L

END EL 24.9'

29°07'05.76" N 95°27'43.59" W

Ex ASOSEx Glideslope Antenna

Ex Segmented Circle/Lighted Windcone

Ex PAPI-4

Twy A 50'

Tw y A

Tw y J

Tw y B

Tw y A

210'

Tw y D

Ex PAPI-4

Tw y G

1 2

3 6

1441'

Tw y H

Tw y E

Tw y F

400'

7 9 12

10 11

20 21

19 23

Tw y 4

0'

True Bearing 178.2°

Ex Windcone

Ex Windcone

Bastrop Bayou

Low Point

EL 23.4'

Rwy 35/Future 36R TDZ/High Point EL 24.8'

North Apron

Central Apron214'

South Apron

EXISTING RUNWAY 35

34:1 APPROACH SURFACE

1000'x4000'x10000'

VISIBILITY MINIMUM 3/4 MILE

SEE IPASD FOR OBSTACLE

CLEARANCE SURFACE PENETRATIONS:

EXISTING/FUTURE TYPE 5, 800'x3400'x10000' EXISTING/FUTURE TYPE 6, 300'x1520'x10000'

SEE DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING

FOR DEPARTURE SURFACE PENETRATIONS:

EXISTING/FUTURE TYPE 7, 1000'x7512'x12152'x6160'

SEE DEPARTURE SURFACE DRAWING

FOR DEPARTURE SURFACE PENETRATIONS:

EXISTING/FUTURE TYPE 7, 1000'x7512'x12152'x6160'

SEE IPASD FOR OBSTACLE

CLEARANCE SURFACE PENETRATIONS:

EXISTING TYPE 4, 400'x3400'x10000' EXISTING TYPE 6, 300'x1520'x10000' FUTURE TYPE 5, 800'x3400'x10000'

745'

745' Ex Glideslope Critical Area

Ex Localizer Critical Area 250' Typ

Ex Runway 17-35 7000' x 100'

Auto Parking

Ex ARP 29°06'31.13" N 95°27'43.54" W

152' 7.5' TESM

Auto Parking

305'Ex Rwy 17/Future 18L TDZ/High Point EL 25.7'

Auto Parking

EXISTING 35/FUTURE 36R

END EL 24.4'

29°05'56.47" N 95°27'43.49" W

EL 38.0'

EX RUNWAY 35

APPROACH RPZ

1700'X500'X1000'

PARTIALLY OWNED

50'

50'

451' 545' 260' 159'

126' 35'

262'

Ex 500' ASOS Critical Area

9000' x 800' OFA

9000' x 500' RSA

7400' x 400' OFZ 131'

79'

131'

79'

Tw y C

EL 33.0'

8' Fence

8' Fence

8' Fence

6' Fence 6' Fence

Future Turf Runway 18R-36L 3200' x 60' True Bearing 178.2°

FUTURE RUNWAY 18R

END/LOW POINT

EL 21.0'

29°06'28.15" N 95°27'46.98" W

FUTURE RUNWAY 36R

APPROACH RPZ

2500'X1000'X1750'

OWNED IN FEE

FUTURE RUNWAY 36L

APPROACH RPZ

1000'X250'X450'

OWNED IN FEE

FUTURE RUNWAY 18R

APPROACH RPZ

1000'X250'X450'

OWNED IN FEE

FUTURE RUNWAY 18R

20:1 APPROACH SURFACE

250'x1250'x5000'

VISUAL

102 103 104 105

110 111

Future Auto Parking 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

138 139

FUTURE RUNWAY 36L

END/TDZ/HIGH POINT

EL 23.0'

29°05'56.46" N 95°27'46.93" W

346'

131 132 133 134 135 136

140 141

1816'

FUTURE RUNWAY 36L

20:1 APPROACH SURFACE

250'X1250'X5000'

VISUAL

Rwy 36L TDZ EL 22.5' Relocated Windcone

Relocated Windcone

Future MALSR

FUTURE RUNWAY 36R

34:1 APPROACH SURFACE

1000'x4000'x10000'

VISIBILITY MINIMUM 1/2 MILE

SEE IPASD FOR OBSTACLE

CLEARANCE SURFACE PENETRATIONS:

FUTURE TYPE 2, 250'x700'x2250'x2750'

200'

115'

463' 657'

323' 951'

SEE TERMINAL AREA DRAWINGS FOR

CLOSE-IN DIMENSIONAL DETAILS

144'

Future 500' ASOS Critical Area

Relocated ASOS

128'

Future Compass Calibration Pad

FUTURE AERONAUTICAL USEFUTURE UAV/UAM AERONAUTICAL USE

Future Runway 18L-36R 7000' x 100'

Future Taxilane 35' Future Taxilane 35'

Future Taxilane 25'

Relocated Glideslope Antenna

Relocated Glideslope Critical Area

79' 131'

49' 89'

Future ARP 29°06'25.21" N 95°27'44.61" W

Tw y C

SEE IPASD FOR OBSTACLE

CLEARANCE SURFACE PENETRATIONS:

FUTURE TYPE 2, 250'x700'x2250'x2750'

8' Fence

3680' x 120' RSA 3680' x 250' ROFA

Aircraft Parking Position Markings

Future Dry Detention Basin Future Dry Detention Basin

Future Dry Detention Basin

Future Dry Detention Basin

Auto Parking

Auto Parking

Auto Parking

Auto Parking

Auto Parking

Auto Parking

Auto Parking

Auto Parking

145 147

Auto Parking

SEPTEMBER 2022E. PFEIFER

DATE

DATE

Aviation Division

DESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

PREPARED BY:

SHEET OF

Dan Harmon, DIRECTOR, AVIATION DIVISION SIGNATUREDATE DATE

TITLE, AIRPORT SPONSOR'S REPRESENTATIVE

CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED ON

THIS ALP IS APPROVED AND SUPPORTED BY AIRPORT

SPONSOR

SPONSOR ACKNOWLEDGES APPROVAL OF ALP BY

TXDOT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT TO

FUNDING.

ALP APPROVED ACCORDING TO FAA AC 150/5300-13A PLUS

THE REQUIREMENTS OF A FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENTAL

FINDING AND FAA NRA STUDY PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY

LAND ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION ON AIRPORT

PROPERTY.

COPYRIGHT 2017 TXDOT AVIATION DIVISION, ALL RIGHTS

RESERVED.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

AVIATION DIVISION AIRPORT SPONSOR

D. PRZYBYCIEN

REVISIONSNO. BY CHK'D DATE

TEXAS GULF COAST REGIONAL AIRPORT (LBX)

ANGLETON/LAKE JACKSON, TEXAS

12920 Metcalf Avenue Suite 200 Overland Park, KS 66213

(816) 524-3500, Fax (2575) Coffman Phoenix Office:

4835 E. Cactus Road Suite 235 Scottsdale, Az. 85254

(602) 993-6999, Fax (7196)

C of fm an

A ss oc ia te s

C :\U se rs

\D ia na P rz yb yc ie n\ C of fm an A ss oc ia te s In c\ C of fm an sp _C

AD

\M

P\

LB

X_

\A

LP

\0

LB

X

AL

D

.d w g P rin te d D at e:

0-

-2

0:

:0

AM

D ia na

P rz yb yc ie n

SEPTEMBER 2022

AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWING

SCALE IN FEET

0 400 800

Magnetic Declination 2° 19' East ± 0°21'

Annual Rate of Change 0° 7' West

(Source: NOAA, NCEI, July 15, 2020

NORTH

LEGEND

FENCE LINE

OBSTACLE FREE ZONE

RUNWAY SAFETY AREA

OBJECT FREE AREA

AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE

AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP)

AIRPORT BEACON

STRUCTURES ON AIRPORT

RUNWAY PAVEMENT

PAPI

HOLD MARKING

N/A

STRUCTURE OFF AIRPORT

X

TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS400 400

DESCRIPTIONULTIMATEEXISTING

RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE

ABANDON/REMOVEN/A

SECTION CORNERS433

DESIGNATION PACS AND SACS

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (35')

RPZ

RSA(U)RSA

OFA OFA(U)

OFZ(U)OFZ

BRL 35'

TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREATOFA

TAXIWAY/TAXILANE SAFETY AREATSA TSA(U)

TOFA(U)

ASOS

TAXIWAY PAVEMENT

APRON PAVEMENT

TREELINE

ASOS CRITICAL AREA

PRECISION OBSTACLE FREE ZONE

POFZ

POFZ

SAME

1. PLANIMETRIC DATA FROM GEODETIX, INC, SAN ANTONIO, TX DATED MAY 2009.

2. HORIZONTAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983 - NAD83;

VERTICAL DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1988 - NAVD88.

3. OTHER DATA SOURCES CONSULTED INCLUDE THE FAA DATA SHEET http://webdatasheet.faa.gov/, U.S.

TERMINAL PROCEDURES, AIRPORT MASTER RECORD FORM 5010, AND THE FAA AIRPORT FACILITY

DIRECTORY.

4. THE EXISTING AND FUTURE TAXIWAY EDGE SAFETY MARGIN (TESM) FOR EXISTING 17-35/FUTURE

18L-36R RUNWAY IS 7.5'.

5. NO ATCT LINE OF SIGHT/SHADOW STUDY (FAA ORDER 6480.4) WAS CONDUCTED FOR THIS ALP.

6. SEE INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE DRAWINGS FOR THRESHOLD SITING SURFACE

PENETRATIONS.

7. SEE TERMINAL AREA DRAWING FOR CLOSE-IN AND DIMENSIONAL DETAILS.

GENERAL NOTES:

POFZ

POFZ

SAME

PL

PL

PL(U)

PL(U)

X P XL

X P XL AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE AND FENCELINEN/A

DEVELOPMENT RESERVEN/A

MIRL/MITL

ILS CRITICAL AREAS

ROADS/PARKING PAVED

ROADS/PARKING UNPAVEDSAME

DocuSign Envelope ID: EBC120B2-FACA-4BB7-B7D7-48D0E77C29E9

10/17/2022 11/1/2022

Aviation Director

Address: 814 Thornwick Drive Houston, TX 77079 Phone: 281-630-1888 E-mail: tdodson@Civil-PEs.com TBPE Firm No.: F-18997

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – FINAL

Date: October 31, 2023 To: Robert Johnson, PE From: Thomas D Dodson, PE Proj.No.: 2212ANGLE| 4222AVNAFI Work Order 1

Re:

Texas Gulf Coast Regional Airport – Condition Assessment of Taxiway A and Connectors

Civil PEs Proj.No.: 2212ANGLE

Cc: File

In accordance with the scope of services proposed in the assessment of the pavement of Taxiway A and its connectors, below is a discussion of the criteria used and calculations resulting in a program-level project scale and cost estimate for capital improvement programming. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to identify the pavement’s structural capacity, provide a conceptual design for repairs, and estimate the construction cost of those designs. This discussion is arranged into topics listed below:

Executive Summary A key component to assessing the rehabilitation needs of pavement at Texas Gulf Coast Regional Airport is the current aircraft traffic, and what design requirements will be in place with the determination of traffic levels and types.

While a lengthy traffic history was available through the Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC), a new traffic data source from the airport’s VirTower system, collected since February of 2023, was also available. With a comparison of the two sources, a full year of expected traffic data was extrapolated. The derived traffic data showed that a Dual Wheel, 100,000 lb. aircraft cohort easily met the 500 annual operations limit to be deemed the design aircraft. This design aircraft, along with a similarly derived fleet of lesser-weight aircraft were compiled into a fleet mix of traffic for the pavement analysis and rehabilitation design.

The existing taxiway pavement at the airport consists of three pavement sections, based on when the pavements were constructed and/or repaired. Using the thicknesses measured from the cores and HWD, pavement section layer strengths were derived using the FAA’s “BAKFAA” software. These pavement sections, evaluated as both with standard pavement section materials, determined by back-calculation and statistically adjusted methods were found to have insufficient strength and require some level or rehabilitation to carry the existing traffic the airport currently experiences, much less the future.

-continued-

Urgent For review Please comment Please reply Please recycle

2212ANGLE - Assessment of Taxiway A and Connectors

P a g e | ii

Numerous pavement sections were evaluated for rehabilitation. The recommended sections are:

Section Number Pavement Section Weight Rating Comments

1 Remove 21”, Asphalt (4”) on Cement- Treated Base (5”) on Quality Base (12”) S-79, D-100, 2D-157 Full-depth Rehabilitation

2 Mill and Replace Asphalt (4”) S-93, D-139, 2D-209 Existing base and subbase are significant in thickness

3 Mill and Replace Asphalt (4”) S-111, D-169, 2D- 250, 2D/2D2-697

Existing base and subbase are significant

The recommended options in each Section will total approximately $7,223,000 to construct. Other services, along with escalation at 8% for two years, brings the total project cost to just under $10 million.

Description Cost Construction $7,223,000 RPR, CA Services, Material Testing 475,000 Contingency 770,000 2 yrs. Escalation 1,410,000 Grand Total $ 9,878,000

Contingency, professional services, and testing should be included for a programmed total cost of $9,900,000. These costs are based on FY 2025 escalated values.

The discussion below details the methodologies and calculations carried out with this analysis. There are also four

(4) attachments. They are:

Attachment 1 Pavement Evaluation Study (HWD Preliminary Results)

Attachment 2 Material Strength Calculations (Backcalculation Results)

Attachment 3 Geotechnical and Pavement Evaluation (Soils Report)

Attachment 4 FAARFIELD Pavement Designs rjohn12 Highlight rjohn12 Highlight rjohn12 Highlight rjohn12 Highlight

P a g e | 1

Project Development Criteria The following assessment follows published methods and procedures published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the assessment and design of pavement repairs. Design parameters utilize FAA pavement design software “FAARFIELD”, latest edition. The following specific Advisory Circulars apply:

Table 1 - Criteria for Analysis Document Title Notes Traffic Flow Management System Annual Data – using 12 months from July

2022 through June 2023 150/5320-6D Pavement Design FAARFIELD Version 2.18 150/5000-17 Critical Aircraft and Regular Use

Determination An operation is an arrival or a departure, but since the pavement design is based on departures only, we used departures only for convenience.

Traffic levels have been previously reported. For the conceptual design to follow, using all the reported aircraft models creates a computational issue as FAARFIELD models each aircraft as input. Instead, we use generic aircraft configured by FAARFIELD to fill 14 different aircraft configurations – both single- and dual-wheel aircraft. For the sake of design requirements for the pavement, the traffic is based on critical aircraft being a generic dual-wheel, 100,000 lb. aircraft. The traffic mix for pavement design based on aircraft weight groups listed in the FAARFIELD software is as follows, using annual departures:

Table 2 - Design Traffic Mix Aircraft Weight Group 12 Mos Departures

S-5 340 S-10 200

S-12.5 110 S-15 13 S-20 44 S-25 2 D-15 113 D-20 16 D-25 36 D-30 26 D-40 73 D-50 2 D-75 10

D-100 860

Taxiway Pavement Assessment A review of plans from previous projects, confirmed by the cores taken, shows that there are primarily three pavement sections along Taxiway A and its connectors.

For the sake of the discussion in this assessment, the Sections are:

P a g e | 2

Table 3 - Summary of Existing Pavement Sections Section Location Project(s)

Se cti on 1 Previously overlaid new construction pavement (About Sta 0+ to Sta 12+)

On the south end of the airfield (up to Connector Taxiway B)

Original Construction in AIP Project 3-48-0238-10-93 Overlaid in TxDOT CSJ

0212ANGLE

Se cti on 2 A reconstructed pavement

(About Sta 13+ to Sta 61+ and Sta 72+ to Sta 75+)

Taxiway A from TW B to past TW G, and again from south of TW J north and to the runway

Reconstructed to subgrade in TxDOT CSJ 0212ANGLE

All Connector Taxiways

Se cti on 3 A previously overlaid pavement reconstruction. (About Sta 62+ to Sta 71+)

Taxiway A from north of TW G to just south of TW J

Patch reconstructed to subgrade in AIP Project 3-48-0238-13-95

Overlaid in TxDOT CSJ

0212ANGLE

The Sections are located as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1 - Pavement Layout by Sections

Heavy Weight Deflectometer Analysis Heavy-weight Deflectometer (HWD) measures were taken on July 18, 2023, using a Dyna R-80 trailer-mounted deflectometer. Two drops were performed at each setup, with passes about 10 feet off the centerline of the taxiways on both sides. One set of drops was in the 30,000-pound range and another around 40,000 pounds. There is an additional evaluation of the HWD data, presented in Attachment 1 - Pavement Evaluation Study of Parallel Taxiway (Taxiway A) Texas Regional Gulf Coast Regional Airport (LBX), with our additional analysis discussed below.

Measured deflections in the 30,000-pound range were small and varied widely. The data was collected, but we only back-calculated pavement course strengths from the 40,000-pound drop data for this analysis. Backcalculation of the

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

P a g e | 3

HWD measures to determine the modulus of each pavement section was modeled through the FAA “BAKFAA” program. This program utilizes “seed” strength values for various parts of the pavement sections. For the discussion below, a comparison of the material measures versus the “seed” values is made to reference whether the material may be suitable for re-use in the new pavement design.

The complete tabulation of the backcalculated results are included in Attachment 2, organized by Section and Taxiway.

Backcalculation Results: TW A South of TW B (Section 1) Section 1 was cored during this site investigation in one location, near Station 6+00 of our measures along TW A.

The results effectively matched the pavement section as indicated in the overlay plans from Project 0212ANGLE:

2” Asphalt Overlay 4.5” Original Asphalt Surface

7” Quality Base (P-209) ~25” Lime Stabilized Soil

These measured section thicknesses were input as the pavement layers into BAKFAA.

Due to the relatively short length of this portion of the taxiway, only 12 and 13 drop locations were measured on the right and left sides, respectively.

Using the pavement sections listed above, we utilized the FAA’s backcalculation model BAKFAA, version 3.4.21. For Section 1, we conducted two backcalculations of the pavement. The first backcalculation allowed the program to determine the modulus value of the two asphalt layers and the two underlying layers.

The total reported values from each backcalculation were also averaged for the section, and a standard deviation was subtracted from the average to report as an “85th percentile” value. However, due to the high variability of the backcalculated values in the surface asphalt, underlying asphalt, and base, using one standard deviation would result in unrealistically low values. Instead, we limited the standard deviation deduction to no more than 50% of the average. The limitation on the reduction made the lowest reported value to be no less than half the calculated average and is reported as a “corrected percentile” instead. The subgrade in Section 1 did not vary as much, and the 85th percentile value was reported for it.

Additionally, because the subgrade measures were made via a dynamic (HWD) loading, listed subgrade strengths are reduced to 1/2 the backcalculated strength. This is a conservative value for the static-load strength of the clay material in the subgrade2. The results of the backcalculation of the section strengths are shown in Table 4:

Table 4 - Section 1: Full Backcalculation Results – Corrected or 85th Percentile Seed Value Left Backcalc Right Backcalc Average

Surface Asphalt 200,000 psi 106,211 psi 143,121 psi 124,666 psi Base Asphalt 400,000 psi 130,330 psi 203,822 psi 167,076 psi

1 https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Products/Airport-Safety-Papers-Publications/Airport-Safety- Detail/ArtMID/3682/ArticleID/11/BAKFAA-330 2 From NCHRP Report 372, as referenced in AC150/5320-6G, Appendix C, paragraph 3.14.7.

P a g e | 4

Seed Value Left Backcalc Right Backcalc Average

Base 75,000 psi 59,156 psi 64,990 psi 62,073 psi Subgrade* 9,000 psi 8,023 psi 8,516 psi 8,269 psi

* Value is reduced to ½ the back calculated value

A second backcalculation model was also run, holding the strength value of the asphalt surface material rather than letting the program back-calculate a value. This run did not yield useful results, so inclusion in this report was discarded.

Back-calculation Results: TW A North of TW B and All Connectors (Section 2) Most of the taxiway pavement at the airport is comprised of Section 2. Taxiway A alone had 56 and 60 drop locations to the right and left of the centerline, respectively. As noted above, this pavement section was part of a taxiway-wide reconstruction and widening project constructed before 2004. The pavement section consists of the following layers:

4.7” Asphalt 8” Quality Base (P-209)

15.2” Granular Base (P-154) ~25” Lime Stabilized Soil

There are several locations where this pavement section occurs on the taxiway system at the airport:

• Taxiway A from Taxiway B to approximately 1000 feet south of TW H

• Connector Taxiways B, C, D, E, G, and the north connector to RW17

• The northern connector Taxiway A to the runway.

The backcalculation results of the asphalt, base, and subbase varied widely, while the subgrade showed consistent results. As we did in Section 1, we applied a modified approach to using a standard deviation deduction that was no more than 50% of the average for the calculated results for all the drops. This 50% limitation is applied to the base and subbase. The subgrade had a low variability at around 25%. The strengths used for the design of Section 2 are listed in Table 5.

Table 5 - Section 2: Full Backcalculation Results – Corrected or 85th Percentile Sta 13+ to 61+ Seed Value Left Backcalc Right Backcalc Average Surface Asphalt 200,000 psi 217,747 psi 244,846 psi 231,297 psi Base 75,000 psi 73,547 psi 88,358 psi 80,952 psi Subbase 40,000 psi 15,422 psi 14,958 psi 15,190 psi Subgrade* 9,000 psi 10,638 psi 6,962 psi 8,800 psi

The results, when compared to Section 1, are similar and are near the “seed” value expected for the material.

Back-calculation Results: Taxiway A North of Taxiway G (Section 3) Section 3 pavement represents a reasonably small but still significant portion of Taxiway A that needs analysis to ensure this pavement is rehabilitated to function for the future as it represents a significant part of the operation (being along the route for the predominant departures at the airport) of the airfield pavement. This pavement was

P a g e | 5 reconstructed in a project funded in 1995 and was overlaid with the construction of CSJ 0212ANGLE. The pavement section is as follows:

2” Asphalt Overlay 4.5” Original Asphalt Surface 18.5” Quality Base (P-209) ~12” Lime Stabilized Soil

Section 3 had 22 and 18 drops on the left and right sides of the centerline, respectively. The values reported below in Table 6 show the section items’ corrected and 85th percentile values.

Table 6 - Section 3: Full Backcalculation Results – Corrected or 85th Percentile Seed Value Left Backcalc Right Backcalc Average

Surface Asphalt 200,000 psi 182,281 psi 184,526 psi 183,403 psi Base Asphalt 400,000 psi 228,561 psi 331,172 psi 279,867 psi Base 75,000 psi 61,528 psi 62,795 psi 62,161 psi Subgrade* 9,000 psi 9,991 psi 9,421 psi 9,706 psi

The surface, base asphalt, and base material varied enough that the standard deviation exceeded 50% of the average, so the results reported in Table 6 are corrected, while the subgrade did not, resulting in only about 17% of the average. The base material, run in the model as a P-209 material, yielded a backcalculated result of about 83% of the seed value as P-209 base. Nonetheless, it is a very thick base material section – over one-and-a-half feet thick.

Site Visit and Existing Condition On June 28 and 29, 2023, our geotechnical subconsultant cored pavements along Taxiways A and B to measure the pavement section and carry out Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing of the subgrade. Commentary and results of that fieldwork are discussed below and are included in Attachment 3 – Geotechnical and Pavement Evaluation Study of Parallel Taxiway.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Measures Each of the six core locations was tested at the subgrade level using a dynamic cone penetrometer.

P a g e | 6

Figure 2 - DCP Field Testing

The data was used to confirm the existing subgrade strength. The strength is discussed in Attachment 2, but we summarized the values from the DCP and compared them to the backcalculated values. The backcalculated modulus values are uncorrected since DCP, like HWD, are dynamic measures of soil strength.

Table 7 - DCP and Backcalculated Subgrade Measures

Location DCP Result

(Modulus in psi) Backcalculated Subgrade

(Modulus in psi) Bore 1B 13,000 21,900 Bore 2B 19,700 10,500 Bore 3B 19,400 19,300 Bore 4B 16,500 21,900 Bore 5B 16,900 27,000 Bore 6B 13,600 21,900

More study is needed to determine whether these two measures differ significantly. The reported backcalculated values above are specific to the drop location nearest the borehole, and the values do not include the 85th percentile reduction applied during the design process below.

FAARFIELD Design As discussed above, each section was used with the BAKFAA software to determine the strength of the existing pavement layers. The next step in the process is to design rehabilitation that could fit with the existing pavement and meet the traffic volume already determined. The FAARFIELD program also sets minimum layer thicknesses, most particularly asphalt at 4”, CTB at 5”, and P-220 as a stabilized base at 12”. Using minimum thicknesses can cause the pavement section to be much stronger than required. Since there is an existing pavement, most of the “design” is confirmation that the pavement section meets the design traffic and weights. Many of the following pavement sections utilize the FAARFIELD “Life” calculation. Any pavement life exceeding 20 years is considered sufficient to carry the design traffic. When new pavement sections (like concrete) are introduced, a design is run to determine the needed thickness of the parts of the new design section.

P a g e | 7

Since the design traffic has aircraft over 100,000 lbs, the design sections are required to include a stabilized base layer under the surface course3. We designed the pavements accounting for the backcalculated strength of the subgrade but made no assumptions that the lime-stabilized subgrade functioned as any part of the pavement section.

When the design only involves an overlay (like a rehabilitation), we did not consider the addition of a stabilized base.

Further investigation should be taken during design to determine if overlay design without a stabilized base beneath it constitutes a Modification of Standards (MOS). This analysis provides multiple options for pavement rehabilitation strategies through each of the three sections. All of the data output from the FAARFIELD design runs, including design reports, life calculations, PCR, and 5010 outputs are included in Attachment 4.

Section 1 As a first run, we conducted a life calculation using the subgrade, base, and original asphalt strengths from the backcalculated value listed above. Then, we used the FAARFIELD standard pavement layer for the asphalt overlay (current surface). The results were disappointing when using the traffic mix set for this analysis. The performance characteristics, consisting of the calculated pavement life, Pavement Classification Rating (PCR), and single, dual, and dual-tandem wheel weight limits (as 5010 data fields) are tabulated below:

Section 1: Existing Pavement Section Performance Section Asphalt (6.5”) on Base (7”) Life 0 years

PCR 152/F/D/X/T

5010 Data S-39, D-55

While the distress of the pavement in Section 1 is not readily apparent, significant materials are needed to strengthen the pavement section to carry the anticipated traffic. Below is a discussion on rehabilitation strategies, working with the existing pavement section when possible.

Option 1 – Remove all asphalt and some base to replace with P-304 Cement Treated Base and P-401 Asphalt The first option under Section 1 rehabilitation is to remove the existing asphalt surface and original surfacing, then add new material to meet the stabilized base requirement and strengthen the overall pavement. The minimum thickness for asphalt is four (4) inches, and for cement-treated base is five (5) inches. Using this pavement section leaves only 4 ½ inches of remaining existing base. Upon running the FAARFIELD design using part of this existing base, the result is that there is not enough base to follow this section. The result of this option would be a full reconstruction (probably being able to keep the existing lime-stabilized subgrade but removing the top 7 ½ inches) made up of quality base (P-209) at 12 inches, cement-treated base (P-304) at five (5) inches, and asphalt surface (P-

401) at four (4) inches. The performance characteristics of this section are:

Section 1: Rehabilitation Option 1 Section Asphalt (4”) on Cement-Treated Base (5”) on Quality Base (12”) Life 20 years

PCR 322/F/D/X/T

5010 Data S-79, D-100, 2D-157

3 FAA AC 150/5320-6G, paragraph 3.5.1.

P a g e | 8

This design section does not recycle any portion of the existing pavement.

Option 2 – Remove part or all the asphalt and overlay with asphalt.

The second option under Section 1 rehabilitation is strengthening the pavement with an asphalt overlay. The FAARFIELD design for asphalt overlay, when keeping some part of the original asphalt surface, requires two (2) inches as the minimum thickness of the remaining asphalt. For this design, we kept the bottommost two inches of the original asphalt and let the software design the required overlay to achieve the strength needed. The results are that 9 ½ inches of new asphalt are needed, resulting in a grade change of +5 inches. The performance characteristics of this section are as follows:

Section 1: Rehabilitation Option 2 Section Asphalt (9.5”) on milled existing pavement Life 20 years

PCR 327/F/D/X/T

5010 Data S-80, D-102, 2D-159

A grade change of five inches is significant, given the relatively flat nature of the airfield. Additional engineering analysis is needed to verify if such an overlay could be achieved.

Option 3 – Remove surface and recycle in-situ base with P-220 Cement Treated Soil Base Course and P- 501 Concrete Surface The last option under Section 1 involves the idea of milling much of the surface and mixing the bottommost 12 inches of pavement (consisting of seven (7) inches of base and five (5) inches of asphalt) to form a stabilized base under the concrete. While life-cycle cost analysis is not part of the scope of this memo, we conducted concrete pavement designs for each Section to determine the pavement thickness needed to switch from asphalt to concrete. Concrete would also bring the taxiway to the same surface material as the adjacent runway. The resulting design from FAARFIELD was a 10 ½ inch concrete pavement over the stabilized base.

Section 1: Rehabilitation Option 3 Section Concrete (10.5”) on Cement Treated Soil

Base (12”) via recycling of existing base Life 20 years

PCR 333/R/D/X/T

5010 Data S-87, D-105, 2D-172

This section adds 9 inches to the grade of the taxiway compared to the existing one. Such a rise in grade is probably not allowable. However, removing the pavement to lower the top of the subgrade (our field investigation found ~25 inches of lime-stabilized subgrade) to make room for the section could be a way to recycle this material to re-use it.

Section 2 For Section 2 pavement, we also conducted a life calculation using the subgrade strength and standard strengths for P-154 subbase, P-304 cement treated base, and P-401 asphalt at the layer thicknesses as found using the field investigation and listed in the backcalculation models discussed above. The result was surprising. At the traffic levels listed in the earlier technical memo, the Section 2 pavement has a life of over 50 years – which should not be treated

P a g e | 9 as a quantitative value – but indicates that the pavement section has sufficient strength to carry the current and anticipated traffic for the airport. We know the pavement’s surface is distressed and needs renewal, but it is encouraging to know that pavement reconstruction is not required for much of the taxiway pavement.

Section 2: Existing Pavement Section Performance Section Asphalt (4.7”) on Quality Base (8”) on

Subbase (15.2”) Life >>20 years

PCR 405/F/C/X/T

5010 Data S-100, D-153, 2D-225, 2D/2D2-644

Given the condition of the surface of the taxiway, some rehabilitation is warranted. The following discussion provides some options for each pavement section.

Option 1 – Remove surface and some base to replace with P-304 Cement Treated Base and P-401 Asphalt The first option under Section 2 rehabilitation is to remove enough of the existing pavement section to install a new layer of cement-treated base (as P-304 with a bond-breaker) under a new asphalt surface. Such a stabilized base was used in the runway pavement during its reconstruction. The results of the FAARFIELD design for this option yielded that a minimal layer of P-304 cement-treated base of five (5) inches was needed under a new four (4) inch asphalt surface.

Section 2: Rehabilitation Option 1 Section New Asphalt (4”) on Cement Treated Base

(5”) on the existing base Life >>20 years

PCR 431/F/C/X/T

5010 Data S-106, D-161, 2D-238, 2D/2D2-671

This pavement section typifies the over-design that can occur when minimum pavement sections are required.

Option 2 – Remove surface and recycle in-situ base with P-220 Cement Treated Soil Base Course and P- 401 Asphalt The second option under Section 2 rehabilitation is to remove enough of the existing pavement section to install a new layer of stabilized base under a new asphalt surface. This meets the requirements of the stabilized pavement section for aircraft weights but instead recycles the existing material. For this section design, we used a conservative assumption of the modulus value of the stabilized base, selecting half the CBR=100 value as outlined in the specification, using a modulus of 75,000 psi for the stabilized base (CBR=50). This value is already very close to the backcalculated value of the base material in its current section. The FAARFIELD results for this section are as follows:

Section 2: Rehabilitation Option 2 Section New Asphalt (4”), Cement Treated Soil Base

(12”) via recycling of existing base Life >>20 years

PCR 422/F/C/X/T

P a g e | 10

5010 Data S-104, D-158, 2D-233, 2D/2D2-662

Stabilizing the base with some cement (but not creating a rigid pavement structure) would be beneficial for the long-term performance of the pavement, reducing the chances that a rigid layer will reflectively crack through the asphalt surface. A constructability review of the possibilities of recycling the section should be undertaken. Since the taxiway alignment is not changing, windrowing to stabilize part of the section may pose a logistical challenge on an active airfield.

Option 3 – Remove surface and overlay with P-401 Asphalt The last option under Section 2 rehabilitation is to replace the existing pavement with an asphalt overlay that meets the design. Since this section relies on the existing pavement courses below the surfacing, we used the backcalculated values for the base, subbase, and subgrade and let FAARFIELD compute an asphalt thickness that gets over twenty (20) years on life calculation. We do this because the FAARFIELD program cannot design an overlay with the existing section removed (milled) but must leave at least two inches of the lowest asphalt. The results are much like the life calculation run on the existing pavement section. Because the course moduli values were not drastically different than the standard strength values provided by FAARFIELD on the sections for subbase and base, the overlay needed is the same as the existing pavement thickness of four (4) inches. The section is summarized below:

Section 2: Rehabilitation Option 3 Section Mill and Replace Asphalt (4”) Life >>20 years

PCR 373/F/C/X/T

5010 Data S-93, D-139, 2D-209

This rehabilitation method would likely be the fastest construction method, requiring only the existing surface to be milled and new pavement installed in its place to the same grade. Milling only three inches would result in a net one-inch gain in pavement elevation. However, confirmation that grades do not exceed the elevation of the adjacent part of the runway needs to be made to ensure airspace issues are not created with the pavement rehabilitation.

Option 4 – Remove surface and recycle in-situ base with P-220 Cement Treated Soil Base Course and P- 501 Concrete Surface The last option under Section 2 rehabilitation is to replace the existing pavement with a concrete pavement section.

Using the backcalculated values for subgrade and subbase, we designed a section using a stabilized soil-cement base. Using the stabilized base specified in P-220, we set the modulus to meet the CBR=100 full-strength value (150,000 psi). The resulting section has a ten (10) inch concrete surface with a twelve (12) inch P-220 stabilized base on the remaining subbase. The performance characteristics of the section are as follows:

Section 2: Rehabilitation Option 4

Section Concrete Pavement (10”) on Cement Treated Soil Base (12”) via recycling of existing base

Life 24 years

PCR 311/R/C/W/T

P a g e | 11

5010 Data S-84, D-102, 2D-178

Section 3 Much like Section 1, Section 3 was first run in FAARFIELD in a Life calculation using the measured subgrade, base, and original asphalt strength from the backcalculation measures above, along with standard values for the asphalt overlay.