MCRC_FIRE AND GATES_RTA SET_SPECIFICATIONS.pdf

SPECIFICATIONS

ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION

MCRC BROOKLYN

CIVIL AND FIRE SUPPRESSION PROJECTS

10 May 2021

US ARMY CORPS

OF ENGINEERS

CHARLESTON DISTRICT

This page was intentionally left blank for duplex printing.

Civil and Fire Suppression MAY 2021

MCRC BROOKLYN, NY 2018-117-10

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

00 00 01 COVER SHEET

00 00 02 CHECK LIST FOR BIDDERS

00 10 00 SF 1442 AND BIDDING SCHEDULE

00 21 16 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO BIDDERS

00 22 10 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL DESIGN -BID-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

00 24 00 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

00 31 00 AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

00 45 00 REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

00 72 00 CONTRACT CLAUSES

00 90 00 WAGE RATES

DI VI SI ON 01 - GENERAL REQUI REMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 14 00 WORK RESTRICTIONS

01 22 00.00 10 PRICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES

01 30 00 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

01 32 01.00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

01 45 00.00 10 QUALITY CONTROL

01 45 00.15 10 RESIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTOR MODE (RMS CM)

01 45 35 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 58 00 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

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

02 41 00 DEMOLITION

DI VI SI ON 09 - FI NI SHES

09 97 13.27 EXTERIOR COATING OF STEEL STRUCTURES

DI VI SI ON 10 - SPECI ALTI ES

10 14 00.10 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE

DI VI SI ON 13 - SPECI AL CONSTRUCTI ON

13 34 20 TURN-KEY METAL BUILDINGS

13 34 22 TURN-KEY GUARD BOOTH

DI VI SI ON 21 - FI RE SUPPRESSI ON

21 13 13.00 10 WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, FIRE PROTECTION

21 30 00 FIRE PUMPS

DI VI SI ON 26 - ELECTRI CAL

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

26 00 00.00 20 BASIC ELECTRICAL MATERIALS AND METHODS

26 20 00 INTERIOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

26 56 00 EXTERIOR LIGHTING

DI VI SI ON 27 - COMMUNI CATI ONS

27 10 00 BUILDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLING SYSTEM

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

28 31 76 INTERIOR FIRE ALARM AND MASS NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

DI VI SI ON 31 - EARTHWORK

31 00 00 EARTHWORK

31 11 00 CLEARING AND GRUBBING

DI VI SI ON 32 - EXTERI OR I MPROVEMENTS

32 01 17.61 SEALING CRACKS IN ASPHALT PAVING

32 05 33 LANDSCAPE ESTABLISHMENT

32 11 23 AGGREGATE BASE COURSES

32 12 13 BITUMINOUS TACK AND PRIME COATS

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

32 12 36.13 ASPHALTIC SEAL COATS

32 16 19 CONCRETE CURBS, GUTTERS AND SIDEWALKS

32 17 23 PAVEMENT MARKINGS

32 31 13.53 HIGH-SECURITY CHAIN LINK FENCES AND GATES

32 92 23 SODDING

DI VI SI ON 33 - UTI LI TI ES

33 11 00 WATER UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PIPING

33 16 15 WATER STORAGE STEEL TANKS

33 40 00 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITIES

33 71 02 UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION

33 82 00 TELECOMMUNICATIONS OUTSIDE PLANT (OSP)

DI VI SI ON 34 - TRANSPORTATI ON

34 71 13.19 ACTIVE VEHICLE BARRIERS

-- End of Project Table of Contents --

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 00 01

COVER SHEET

01/18

PART 1 GENERAL

PART 2 PRODUCTS

PART 3 EXECUTION

-- End of Section Table of Contents --

DOCUMENT 00 00 01 Page 1

SECTION 00 00 01

COVER SHEET

01/18

PART 1 GENERAL

NEW YORK DI STRI CT

CORPS OF ENGI NEERS

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10278- 0090

I NVI TATI ON FOR BI DS

FOR

CI VI L AND FI RE SUPPRESSI ON PROJECTS

MARI NE CORPS RESERVE CENTER ( MCRC)

FLOYD BENNETT FI ELD, BROOKLYN, NY

1. Attached is INVITATION FOR BIDS (IFB) NO. W912DS-18-_-00XX

2. BIDS MUST BE SET FORTH full, accurate, and complete information as required by this Invitation for Bids, including attachments. The penalty for making false statements in bids is prescribed under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.

3. SUBMISSION OF BIDS: Complete details concerning proper submission of bids are contained in the INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS (Section 00 21 16 ).

4. Note the REQUIREMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION of the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY clause as it applies to the contract resulting from this solicitation. (See paragraph NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO ENSURE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY in Section 00 21 16 of this IFB).

5. REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS - SECTION 00 45 00 Bidders and Offerors are required to complete the REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS and submit them with their bids.

Within Section 00 45 00 , note in particular the PROHIBITION SEGREGATED FACILITIES. Failure of a bidder or offeror to agree to the certification will render his bid or offer non-responsive to the terms of solicitations involving awards of contracts exceeding $10,000 which are not exempt from the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Clause

(1984 APR).

6. THIS PROJECT IS A MILTARY PROGRAM PROCUREMENT AND IS FUNDED BY THE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. BUY AMERICAN ACT - CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (MAY

1993) IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 52.225-5 DOES NOT APPLIES.

7. Please review all bonds and accompanying documents required to be submitted. Bonds, Powers of Attorney, statements of authenticity and continuing validity, and all related documents MUST NOT bear computer printer-generated signatures and/or seals. Documents bearing signatures and/or seals generated as part of a document, as opposed to

DOCUMENT 00 00 01 Page 2 being affixed to the document after its generation, will not be accepted. Submission of such documents may render the bid or offer non-responsive and ineligible for award.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

-- End of Section --

DOCUMENT 00 00 01 Page 3

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 00 02

CHECK LIST FOR BIDDERS

01/18

PART 1 GENERAL

PART 2 PRODUCTS

PART 3 EXECUTION

DOCUMENT 00 00 02 Page 1

SECTION 00 00 02

CHECK LIST FOR BIDDERS

01/18

PART 1 GENERAL

ATTACHED IS IFB NO. W912DS-___

CI VI L AND FI RE SUPPRESSI ON PROJECTS

MARI NE CORPS RESERVE CENTER ( MCRC)

FLOYD BENNETT FI ELD, BROOKLYN, NY

ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THIS SOLICITATION MUST BE

FURNISHED. MISTAKES OR OMISSIONS MAY RENDER YOUR OFFER INELIGIBLE FOR

AWARD. IMPORTANT ITEMS FOR YOU TO CHECK ARE INCLUDED IN BUT NOT LIMITED

TO THOSE LISTED BELOW. THIS INFORMATION IS FURNISHED ONLY TO ASSIST YOU

IN SUBMITTING A PROPER BID

____HAVE YOU ACKNOWLEDGED ALL AMENDMENTS?

____HAVE YOU COMPLETED THE "REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS" (SECTION

00 45 00) PORTION OF THE SOLICITATION?

____IS YOUR DUNS NUMBER LISTED ON THE STANDARD FORM 1442?

____IS YOUR BID GUARANTEE PROPERLY SIGNED BY BOTH THE BIDDER AND SURETY

AND ARE ALL SEALS AFFIXED?

____DO THE BID BOND AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS BEAR SIGNATURES AND SEALS

AFFIXED AFTER THE DOCUMENT WAS GENERATED, AS OPPOSED TO COMPUTER

PRINTER-GENERATED SIGNATURES AND/OR SEALS?

____HAVE YOU ENSURED THAT YOU HAVE NOT RESTRICTED YOUR OFFER BY ALTERING

THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOLICITATION?

____WHEN REQUIRED, HAVE YOU ENTERED A UNIT PRICE FOR EACH PRICE ITEM?

(THE SOLICITATION SPECIFICALLY STATES WHEN THIS IS NECESSARY.)

____ARE DECIMALS IN YOUR PRICES IN THE PROPER PLACE? ARE YOUR FIGURES

LEGIBLE?

____IF YOU HAVE MADE ERASURES OR CORRECTIONS ON YOUR BID, ARE THEY

INITIALED BY THE PERSON SIGNING THE BID?

____DOES THE ELECTRONIC FILE CONTAINING YOUR BID PROPERLY IDENTIFY THAT IT

IS A SEALED BID AND DOES IT CONTAIN THE CORRECT SOLICITATION NUMBER

AND BID OPENING TIME?

____WILL YOUR OFFER ARRIVE ON TIME? (SEE PARAGRAPH ENTITLED "LATE

SUBMISSIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND WITHDRAWALS OF BIDS" IN THE

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS, SECTION 00 21 16 OF

THE SOLICITATION.)

NOTE: DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC USACE NYD WILL BE

RECEIVING PROPOSALS ELECTRONICALLY. BIDDERS MUST FOLLOW THE

INSTRUCTIONS BELOW TO SUBMIT TO SUBMIT THEIR PROPOSALS TO THE

DOCUMENT 00 00 02 Page 2

FOLLOWING FILES TRANSFER SITE HTTPS://SAFE.APPS.MIL/ .

1. RECIPIENTS' NAMES AND ADDRESSES: AT THE SAFE WEBSITE, BIDDERS MUST

USE THE DROP OFF ICON. THE RECIPIENTS' NAMES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES

WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE SOLICITATION.

2. REQUEST FOR UPLOAD CODE: OFFERORS MUST EMAIL THE CONTRACT

SPECIALIST NO LATER THAN TWO (2) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE

PROPOSAL DUE DATE TO RECEIVE A REQUEST CODE WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR

FILE UPLOADS VIA THE SAFE SITE. CONTRACTORS THAT FAIL TO EMAIL

FOR REQUEST A CODE TWO (2) WORKING DAYS BEFORE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

DATE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RECEIVE A REQUEST CODE IN TIME TO UPLOAD

THEIR SUBMISSION.

3. WEBSITE ACCESS ISSUES: PROBLEMS ACCESSING THE DOD SAFE SITE BY

EXTERNAL (NON-CAC) USERS ARE TYPICALLY DUE TO SSL AND/OR CLIENT

CERTIFICATE ISSUES. IF THE USER RECEIVES A WARNING ABOUT A PROBLEM

WITH THE WEBSITE'S SECURITY CERTIFICATE, THIS IS BECAUSE THEIR

BROWSER IS NOT CONFIGURED TO TRUST THE DOD CERTIFICATE

AUTHORITIES. THE USER CAN EITHER IMPORT THE DOD CERTIFICATE

AUTHORITIES BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE DOD PKI PMO'S

GUIDE ON INSTALL ROOT OR THEY CAN ACCEPT THE RISK AND CLICK ON THE

OPTION TO CONTINUE TO THE WEBSITE. THE CURRENT GUIDE ON INSTALL

ROOT CAN BE FOUND PROBLEMS ACCESSING THE DOD SAFE SITE BY NON-CAC

USERS - HTTPS://SAFE.APPS.MIL/ABOUT.PHP

4. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS: IN AN EFFORT TO

REDUCE PAPERWORK AND COST, ALL BIDS SHALL BE SUBMITTED

ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE SAFE SITE. SUBMISSION SHALL BE IN

ADOBE PDF FORMAT. YOU ARE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MAXIMUM FILES PER

UPLOAD (TOTAL SIZE CANNOT EXCEED 2GB). IF YOU HAVE A LARGE NUMBER

OF FILES, RECOMMEND THAT YOU COMBINE OR ZIP YOUR FILES BEFORE

UPLOADING TO THE SAFE SITE. BIDDERS MAY USE COMPRESSION UTILITY

SOFTWARE SUCH AS WINZIP OR PKZIP TO REDUCE FILE SIZE AND

FACILITATE TRANSMISSION.

5. FILE DESCRIPTION: INCLUDE A “FILE DESCRIPTION” FOR EACH FILE(S)

YOU UPLOAD. THE “FILE DESCRIPTION” WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE EMAIL

NOTICE TO EACH OF THE RECIPIENTS YOU CHOOSE TO HAVE ACCESS YOUR

FILE(S). NOTE: DO NOT ENTER PRIVACY ACT DATA (PERSONAL

IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION (PII)) IN THE FILE DESCRIPTION.)

6. COST AND TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: PLEASE UPLOAD/SUBMIT YOUR COST AND

TECHNICAL PROPOSALS AS TWO SEPARATE PDF DOCUMENTS AND ENSURE THEY

ARE LABELED CORRECTLY.

INSTRUCTIONS TO FOLLOW ON THE SAFE WEBSITE

1. ONCE AT THE SAFE WEBSITE SELECT THE “DROP-OFF” ICON. THIS ALLOWS

USERS WITHOUT A CAC OR USERS WHOSE COMPUTER IS NOT CONFIGURED TO

READ A CAC THE OPTION TO ACCESS THE SAFE SITE AS A GUEST.

2. AFTER SELECTING THE “CLICK HERE” LINK YOU WILL BE PROMPTED TO ADD

YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION, FILE INFORMATION, RECIPIENT (GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE) INFORMATION AND EMAIL SETTINGS.

3. WHEN COMPLETING YOUR FILE INFORMATION FOR TRANSMITTAL VIA THE SAFE

WEBSITE, YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENTER THE EMAIL ADDRESS FOR ALL

RECIPIENTS. THE RECIPIENTS INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE

DOCUMENT 00 00 02 Page 3

SOLICITATION.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

DOCUMENT 00 00 02 Page 4

CERTIFICATIONS

00 01 05 - 1

SECTION 00 01 05

I hereby certify that the architectural portions of work included in these plans and specifications, except as otherwise indicated by other registered professionals, have been prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I have coordinated the architectural portions with those portions sealed by other registered professionals.

Jeannine M. Stephens, AIA Senior Architect

CROMWELL ARCHITECTS

ENGINEERS, INC.

Architects Engineers 1300 East 6 th Street

Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

10 May 2021 Date

I hereby certify that the civil portions of work included in these plans and specifications, except as otherwise indicated, have been prepared by me, or under my direct supervision.

John T. Peterson, PE Civil Engineer

CROMWELL ARCHITECTS

ENGINEERS, INC.

Architects Engineers 1300 East 6 th Street

Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

00 01 05 - 2

I hereby certify that fire protection portions of work included in these plans and specifications, except as

Brian M. Gerdwagen, FPE Fire Protection Engineer

CROMWELL ARCHITECTS

ENGINEERS, INC.

Architects Engineers 1300 East 6 th Street

Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

I hereby certify that the electrical portions of work included in these plans and specifications, except as

Pamela S. McElrath, PE Electrical Engineer

CROMWELL ARCHITECTS

ENGINEERS, INC.

Architects Engineers 1300 East 6 th Street

Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 10 00

SF 1442 AND BIDDING SCHEDULE

03/18

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SF 1442 SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD

1.2 NOTE:

PART 2 PRODUCTS

PART 3 EXECUTION

DOCUMENT 00 10 00 Page 1

SECTION 00 10 00

SF 1442 AND BIDDING SCHEDULE

03/18

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 SF 1442 SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD

To be provided by Contracting Division.

1.2 NOTE:

To be provided by Contracting Division.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

DOCUMENT 00 10 00 Page 2

LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

DOCUMENT 00 10 00 Page 3

00 10 00 - ATTACHMENT 1

PRICE SCHEDULE

SECTION 00 10 00

BASE BID

Item No. Description Est.

QTY

Unit Amount

CLIN Item No. 0001

The cost to build Fire Protection project as indicated on project drawings and specifications.

P811

$XXXX

CLIN Item No. 0002

The cost to build East Gate project as indicated on project drawings and specifications.

No. 0003

The cost to build West Gate project as indicated on project drawings and specifications excluding optional item listed below.

BASE BID TOTAL (CLINs 0001-0003)

OPTIONAL BID

Item No. Description Est.

QTY

Unit Amount

No. 0004

The cost to furnish portable crash barrier, associated remote controls, cable protectors, power cords, and installation as indicated on drawings. This scope is referred to as Option 1 in the drawings.

OPTIONAL TOTAL (CLIN 0004)

TOTAL BASE PLUS OPTIONAL

00 10 00 - ATTACHMENT 1

NOTES TO

OFFERORS:

(1) Total Offer shall include all costs associated with each item number including all bonding, overhead and profit.

(2) Offeror must submit a price for every CLIN. Failure to do so may result in Offer being unacceptable.

(3) Optional Items may be exercised at any time within 100 calendar days after contract award. The Contracting Officer may exercise the Optional Items by written notice to the Contractor, within the period specified above. The Government may exercise any, all or none of the listed Optional Items in any order. When any Optional Item is exercised, the contract completion date will not be adjusted.

(4) Offer Acceptance Period: Offers are to be valid for 180 calendar days.

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 21 16

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO BIDDERS

09/16

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 NOTE:

PART 2 PRODUCTS

PART 3 EXECUTION

DOCUMENT 00 21 16 Page 1

SECTION 00 21 16

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO BIDDERS

09/16

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 NOTE:

To be provided by Contracting Division.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

DOCUMENT 00 21 16 Page 2

DOCUMENT 00 21 16 Page 3

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 22 10

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL DESIGN -BID-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

09/17

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 NOTE:

PART 2 PRODUCTS

PART 3 EXECUTION

DOCUMENT 00 22 10 Page 1

SECTION 00 22 10

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL DESIGN -BID-BUILD SELECTION PROCEDURES

09/17

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 NOTE:

To be provided by Contracting Division.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

DOCUMENT 00 22 10 Page 2

DOCUMENT 00 22 10 Page 3

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 24 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

06/17

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 NOTE:

PART 2 PRODUCTS

PART 3 EXECUTION

DOCUMENT 00 24 00 Page 1

SECTION 00 24 00

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

06/17

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 NOTE:

To be provided by Contracting Division.

PART 2 PRODUCTS

Not Used

PART 3 EXECUTION

Not Used

DOCUMENT 00 24 00 Page 2

DOCUMENT 00 24 00 Page 3

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 00 31 00

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 Existing Conditions

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

DOCUMENT 00 31 00 Page 1

SECTION 00 31 00

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

PART 1 GENERAL

1.1 Existing Conditions

A. Certain information relating to existing surface and subsurface conditions and structures is available to bidders but will not be part of the Contract Documents.

1. Geotechnical Report: For convenience, a copy follows the end of this Section.

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

DOCUMENT 00 31 00 Page 2

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Marine Reserve Center Renovations Aviation Road Brooklyn, New York

Schnabel Reference 16C19001.03 February 21, 2019

February 21, 2019

Ms. Jeannine Stephens Cromwell Architects Engineers, Inc.

1300 East 6th Street Little Rock, AR 72202

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report, Marine Reserve Center Renovations, Aviation Road, Brooklyn, NY

Cromwell Ref 2015166 (Schnabel Ref 16C19001.03)

Dear Ms. Stephens:

SCHNABEL ENGINEERING, LLC (Schnabel) is pleased to submit our geotechnical engineering report for this project. This study was performed in accordance with our proposal dated November 5, 2018.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis for the planned renovations to the Marine Reserve Center, which includes new parking and a proposed firewater storage tank.

Based on the test boring data, the on-site soils predominantly consist of alluvial soils except in an area of the proposed firewater tank where about 7.5 foot of Existing Fill soils were encountered, underlain by a concrete slab/vault in the area of Boring B-1 and B-2 (which is the proposed firewater tank location). No records of the history of this concrete slab/vault are known to exist. Additionally, petroleum odor was observed in the SPT samples in adjacent Boring B-2A to a depth of about 32 feet.

The soils below the Existing Fill are natural alluvial deposits consisting of dense to very dense Silty Sands (SM) and Poorly Graded Sands (SP). Groundwater was encountered at about 7 to 10 feet below the existing grades.

The on-site Existing Fill and natural soils are generally suitable for firewater tank support, provided they are adequately prepared as described herein. However, due to the unknowns about the concrete slab/vault and the presence of petroleum contaminated soils, we recommend that an alternate location for the firewater tank be identified, possible north of Boring B-2A.

The firewater tank may be supported on-grade on firm density Existing Fill and natural Alluvial soils. The tank slab and ringwall foundations may be sized for their distributed contact loadings, estimated to be less

MCRC Renovations, Brooklyn, NY

February 21, 2019 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 16C19001.03 ©2019 All Rights Reserved than 3,000 psf. Total tank settlements due to structural loads are expected to be less than 1.5 inch and and differential settlement between edges and center of tank is expected to be about half the total settlement. Poorly Graded Sand (SP) is present at existing ground surface grade therefore, the footings grades may be set at nominal structural depths.

In-situ infiltration tests were conducted at a depth of the anticipated bottom of the infiltration trenches at several locations across the site to assess the ability of the site to absorb storm water flows. In-situ infiltration rates are provided within Appendix A.

Based on our review of the test borings and geologic data, the soils encountered at the site are representative of Site Class D, or a Stiff Soil Profile.

Test boring data indicates the on-site surficial soils are Silty Sands (SM) and Poorly Graded Sands (SP).

These soils exhibited a soaked CBR values of 11.5 and a subgrade modulus value of at least 200 pci when adequately compacted. A recommended rigid pavement section for the new POV parking area is provided herein.

We are providing this executive summary solely for purposes of overview. Any party that relies on this report must read the full report. This Executive Summary omits several details, any one of which could be very important to the proper application of the report.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

Our agreement dated November 5, 2019 defines the scope of services for this project. Our detailed scope of work is described below:

Subsurface exploration including:

o Test borings with Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in proposed parking areas and for firewater tank support

Field engineering services, including:

o Site (geologic) reconnaissance o Contacting public utility locating service and private locating service o Logging and inspection of the test borings o Determining the ground water levels at the site o Infiltration Testing

Laboratory testing of materials encountered in the subsurface exploration including:

o Moisture Contents, ASTM D2216 o Grain Size Distributions, ASTM D422 (and/or D1140), o Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, ASTM D4318 o Proctor and CBR, ASTM 1557 and ASTM D1883

Geotechnical Engineering Analyses and Report, including:

o Estimated subsurface conditions and groundwater levels within the areas explored based on data collected in the subsurface exploration, February 21, 2019 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering, LLC o Recommended Seismic Site Class (and Seismic Site Coefficients (Fa and Fv)) in accordance with UFC criteria for use in design based on data collected in the subsurface exploration, o Geotechnical recommendations associated with support of new foundation loadings, including recommended allowable foundation bearing pressures and estimated settlements of new foundations.

o Concrete pavement section recommendations for new POV parking.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Site Description and Proposed Construction

The existing Marine Corps Reserve Center is located off Aviation Road in Brooklyn, NY. A new 200,000 gallon on-grade firewater tank is planned in the northern portion of the site. We anticipate the firewater tank will be less than 40 feet in height, and 30 to 35 feet in diameter. New POV concrete paved parking is planned in the southwestern portion of the property.

Schnabel obtained the site information from the topographic site plan dated August 17, 2018 and through our site visits. A Site Vicinity Map along with boring locations and infiltration locations is included as Figure 1.

Regional Geology

The surficial geology of Brooklyn is governed by the effects of the latest glacial period. The terminal moraine crosses central Brooklyn in a roughly east-west orientation. The project site is located on the south side of the terminal moraine within an area of glacial outwash and alluvial Plain Sediments. The glacial soils are underlain by Cretaceous sands and clays. The depth of basement rock is estimated to be on the order of 700 feet below grade.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

We performed a subsurface exploration and field testing program to identify the subsurface stratigraphy underlying the site and to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the materials encountered. This program consisted of soil test borings. Exploration methods used are discussed below. The appendices contain the results of our exploration.

Subsurface Exploration Methods

Test Borings

Schnabel’s subcontractor, Tri-State Drilling, Garden City, NY drilled twelve (12) test borings under our observation between January 15 and 17, 2019. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed at selected depths in the borings.

Borings B-1 through B-11 were drilled with a 7822 DT Geoprobe. 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

February 21, 2019 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering, LLC 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.

During drilling we encountered a concrete slab slab/obstruction at a depth of about 7.5 feet in the area of Borings B-1 and B-2 (see Figure 2). After offsetting four (4) times with the same depths to top of concrete and coring partially into the concrete about three (3) feet, indicating the concrete encountered is thicker than three (3) feet. We moved further north to Boring B-2A, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, (between two storm sewer lines) and did not encounter any existing concrete. During drilling of B-2A we encountered contaminated soil (petroleum based odor) to a depth of 32 feet below surface grade.

Appendix A includes specific observations, remarks, and logs for the borings; classification criteria; drilling methods; and sampling protocols. Figures 1 and 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 this report, unless you request other disposition.

In-situ Infiltration Testing

In-situ infiltration tests were performed at the planned bottom of infiltration basin grades at six (6) additional locations across the site and adjacent to the test borings to assess the ability of site soil to absorb storm water flows. The Infiltration Test locations are shown on Figure 1.

The field infiltration tests were performed as follows: a 4-inch diameter PVC pipe was inserted into the augered hole to a depth of four feet below existing grades and was filled with two feet of water. The drop in water depth within the pipe over an hour of time was then recorded and continued to be recorded for a total of four (4) consecutive hour readings. Testing resulted in moderately high infiltration rates of 14.6 to

22.2 inches per hour. This infiltration rate is anticipated to be representative of the soils at the planned site.

In addition, samples of the material were collected at the infiltration test depths, and laboratory classification testing was conducted on the samples to aid in assessing the infiltration capabilities of the on-site soils.

Soil Laboratory Testing

Our laboratory performed tests on selected samples collected 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.

The results of the laboratory tests are included in Appendix B and are summarized in the Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions section of this report. Selected test results are also shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. The on-site soils consist predominantly of Poorly Graded Sands (SP), Poorly Graded Sands with Silt (SP-SM), and Silty Sands (SM).

Index Testing

We performed index testing on samples collected as part of the exploration to provide soil classifications and to provide parameters for use with published correlations with soil properties. Index testing included

February 21, 2019 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering, LLC performing natural moisture content, Atterberg Limit, and gradation tests on recovered Standard Penetration Test samples.

Compaction and CBR Testing

We performed Modified Proctor compaction and CBR testing on one bulk soil sample representing the anticipated pavement subgrade soils to evaluate compaction characteristics and to provide soil parameters for pavement design. The test results are included in Appendix B.

Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions

Site Geology

During our exploration, we encountered the following stratigraphy:

Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

We characterized the following generalized subsurface soil stratigraphy based on the exploration and laboratory test data included in the appendices.

Type Test Depth (ft) Description

STRATUM A

(FILL)

In Borings B-1 through B-10, below surface grade to a depth of

7.5 feet.

Silty Sand; (SPT N-value generally 4 to > 50 bpf)

STRATUM B

(ALLUVIUM)

From the ground surface or below Stratum A to maximum depths of penetration, 10 to 40 feet.

Poorly Graded Sand (SP); (SPT N-value generally 8 to > 50 bpf)

The Existing Fill soils of Stratum A are likely associated with previous grading for the now-existing development and/or with placement of new utilities. The underlying natural soils are alluvial deposits.

Groundwater

Groundwater was generally encountered at depths of approximately 7 to 10 feet below ground surface.

Since mud rotary drilling techniques were used to advance the deeper borings, no long-term groundwater level readings were obtained.

The groundwater levels on the logs indicate our estimate of the hydrostatic water table at the time of our subsurface exploration. The final design should anticipate the fluctuation of the hydrostatic water table depending on variations in precipitation, surface runoff, pumping, evaporation, leaking utilities, tidal action and similar factors.

Based on our groundwater observations, we do not expect groundwater levels to have a major impact on the proposed construction.

February 21, 2019 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Seismic Site Classification

Based on our review of the borings and geologic data, the soils encountered at the site are representative of Site Class D, or a Stiff Soil Profile. Based on UFC 3-301-01 (with 9-12-2016 changes) the seismic values of Ss = 0.27g and S1=0.07g are recommend for structural design.

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

We based our geotechnical engineering analysis on the information developed from our subsurface exploration and soil laboratory testing, along with the project development plans, site plans, and similar data furnished to our office. The following sections of the report provide our detailed recommendations.

Compacted Fill

The non-organic on-site soils are considered suitable for use as compacted structural fill and backfill, provided they can be adequately compacted. Compacted structural fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch thick horizontal, loose lifts. Fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). Soil moisture contents at the time of compaction should be within three (3) percent of the soils' optimum moisture content.

Backfill placed in excavations, trenches, and other areas that large compaction equipment cannot access should be placed in maximum 6-inch thick lifts. Backfill should meet the material, placement, and compaction requirements outlined above.

Shallow Footings

Based on our review and evaluation, we consider shallow foundations are suitable for support of the proposed firewater tank.

We assumed the tank could be as high as 40 feet. Considering that height, a 30 ft diameter would be needed to be able to contain 200,000 gallons. The 40 ft tank height would result in a contact pressure of about 2500 psf on a base slab. We typically consider loading on the ringwall foundation to be about 10% higher, or about 2,750 psf.

Tank slab and ringwall foundations may be sized for their distributed contact loadings and a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The ringwall would typically be at least 18” wide for shear considerations. Total tank settlements are estimated to be less than 1.5 inches, and differential settlement between edges and center of tank is expected to be about half the total settlement.

The on-site Existing Fill and natural soils are generally suitable for firewater tank support, provided they are adequately prepared as described herein. However, due to the unknowns about the concrete slab/vault and the presence of petroleum contaminated soils, we recommend that an alternate location for the firewater tank be identified, possibly north of Boring B-2A.

Based on UFC 3-301-01 (with 9-12-2016 changes), there is minimal frost depth in this area. However, we recommend exterior footing grades be set at least 16 inches below grade for bearing capacity/shear considerations as well as providing protective embedment.

February 21, 2019 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

Pavements

Based on the boring data, the pavement subgrade soils are expected to predominantly consist of Silty Sands and Poorly Graded Sands. Based on our evaluation of the laboratory classification data, the on-site soils exhibited a soaked CBR (California Bearing Ratio) values of 11.5 when properly compacted. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pci may be used for design of rigid slabs on-grade.

The Pavement section design was based in accordance with the Army Corps design criteria using the Pavement Design and Evaluation Software PCASE 2.09 and considering a 25-year design life.

Per our PCASE analysis, we recommend the following non-reinforced rigid pavement section:

Type Section Depth of Layer (inches)

POV Parking

4,000 psi Concrete, NYDOT 6.0

On-site Soils Compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D1557 6.0

The Contractor should prepare pavement subgrades and place compacted structural fill for pavement support as described in the Site Grading and Earthwork section of this report. Final pavement subgrades should be proofrolled under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer immediately prior to placing concrete to evaluate their suitability to support the pavement.

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Site Grading and Earthwork

Traffic on stripped or undercut subgrades should be limited to reduce disturbance of underlying soils.

Also, using lightweight, track-mounted dozer equipment for stripping will limit the disturbance of underlying soils, and may reduce the undercut volume needed. The Contractor should provide site drainage to maintain subgrades free of water and to avoid saturation and disturbance of the subgrade soils before placing compacted structural fill, pavement base course or moisture barrier material. This site drainage will be important during all phases of the construction work. The Contractor should be responsible for reworking of subgrades and compacted structural fill that were initially considered suitable but were later disturbed by equipment and/or weather.

Foundations

The Contractor should exercise care during excavation for spread and strip footings so that as little disturbance as possible occurs at the foundation level. The Contractor should carefully clean loose or soft soils from the bottom of the excavation before placing concrete. A Geotechnical Engineer should observe footing subgrades prior to concrete placement to evaluate whether subgrade soils are as anticipated in this report.

Footing excavations should be evaluated to determine that subsurface materials capable of supporting the recommended design bearing pressures are present at and immediately below the bearing level. We

February 21, 2019 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering, LLC recommend that the bearing strata at the bottom of and below the footing excavations in fill areas be checked with a dynamic cone penetrometer. Footing evaluations should be performed prior to reinforcement and concrete placement. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered, these soils will need to be recompacted in place, removed and replaced with properly compacted fill, or foundations deepened, to achieve suitable bearing.

Footing bearing surfaces should be free of debris, loose materials, protruding rocks and objects. Foundation bearing surface evaluations should be performed and concrete placed as quickly as possible after the footings are excavated.

Engineering Services During Construction

The engineering recommendations provided in this report are based on the information obtained from the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. However, conditions on the site may vary between the discrete locations observed at the time of our subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until during construction.

To account for this variability, we should provide professional observation and testing of subsurface conditions revealed during construction as an extension of our engineering services. These services will also help in evaluating the contractor's conformance with the plans and specifications in accordance with building code requirements. Because of our unique position to understand the intent of the geotechnical engineering recommendations, retaining Schnabel for these services will allow the owner to receive consistent service throughout the project construction.

General Specification Recommendations

An allowance should be established to account for possible additional costs that may be required to construct earthwork and foundations as recommended in this report. Additional costs may be incurred for a variety of reasons including variation of soil between borings, wet on-site soils, obstructions, etc.

The project specifications should indicate the Contractor's responsibility for providing adequate site drainage during construction. Inadequate drainage will most likely lead to disturbance of soils by construction traffic and increased volume of undercut.

This report may be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes. We recommend that the project specifications contain the following statement:

Schnabel Engineering, LLC, has prepared this geotechnical engineering report for this project.

This report is for informational purposes only and is not part of the contract documents. The opinions expressed represent the Geotechnical Engineer’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions, tests, and the results of analyses performed. Should the data contained in this report not be adequate for the Contractor's purposes, the Contractor may make, before bidding, independent exploration, tests and analyses. This report may be examined by bidders at the office of the Owner, or copies may be obtained from the Owner at nominal charge.

Additional data and reports prepared by others that could have an impact upon the Contractor's bid should also be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes.

February 21, 2019 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

LIMITATIONS

We based the analyses and recommendations submitted in this report on the information revealed by our exploration. We attempted to provide for normal contingencies, but the possibility remains that unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction.

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of this site and to assist in the design of the project.

It is intended for use concerning this specific project. We based our recommendations on information on the site and proposed construction as described in this report. Substantial changes in loads, locations, or grades should be brought to our attention so we can modify our recommendations as needed. We would appreciate an opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they pertain to the recommendations contained in this report, and to submit our comments to you based on this review.

We have endeavored to complete the services identified herein in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality and under similar conditions as this project. No other representation, express or implied, is included or intended, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report, or other instrument of service.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please call us if you have any questions regarding this report.

Sincerely, SCHNABEL ENGINEERING, LLC

Kevin R. Morgan Senior Staff Engineer

Richard H. Wargo, PE Principal

Figures 1 & 2: Test Boring Location Plans

Appendix A: Subsurface Exploration Data Appendix B: Soil Laboratory Test Data

February 21, 2019 Schnabel Engineering, LLC

FIGURES

Figure 1- Test Boring Location Plan Figure 2- Test Boring Location Plan- Firewater Tank Area

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION DATA

Subsurface Exploration Procedures General Notes for Subsurface Exploration Logs Identification of Soil Boring Logs, B-1 through B-11 Field Infiltration Test Data

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Test Borings – Mud Rotary

Drillers advanced the borings using mud rotary drilling techniques. The boring is advanced with a drill string consisting of a 3⅞-inch diameter tri-cone roller bit attached to A-sized drilled rods. Bentonite drilling fluid is pumped through the drill rods to flush cuttings to the surface. The borehole remains full of drilling fluid to maintain the sides of the borehole. At the designated depth, the drillers removed the drill string and performed the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Water level data is indicated on the logs.

Standard Penetration Test Results

The numbers in the Sampling Data column of the boring logs represent Standard Penetration Test (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 SPT 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.

Boring Locations and Elevations

Boring locations were staked by Schnabel Engineering using existing site features approximate boring locations are shown on Figures 1 and 2. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were provided by the site topographic plan and are indicated on the boring logs. 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 Number of blows in each 6-inch increment

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

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 which 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.

AFILL

2.47.5

S1, SS

14+16+9+9

S2, SS

9+7+6+8

S3, SS

5+7+4+4

S4, SS

12+14+43+100/0"

PROBABLE FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to medium grained sand; moist, blackish brown

Bottom of Boring at 7.5 ft.

Auger refusal at 7.5 ft.

Boring terminated at auger refusal.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

Auger refused on Concrete Slab at 7.5 ft.

Encountered

After Drilling

1/16

1/16

Dry

Dry

Schnabel Representative: M. Edwards

Total Depth: 7.5 ft

Equipment: 7822 DT

Ground Surface Elevation: 10± (ft)

Contractor: Tri-State Drilling Inc.

Garden City, New York

Contractor Foreman: Paul Recchia

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 1/16/19 Finished: 1/16/19

Latitude: 40.58232 Longitude: -73.88366

Method: 2-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Plunge: Bearing:

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

Marine Reserve Center Renovations Aviation Road Brooklyn, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 16C19001.00.03 Sheet: 1 of 1

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SAMPLING

DEPTH

REMARKS

B-1Boring Number:

DEPTH

(ft)

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S _0

.G

P J

T E

S T

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

2/

/1

A

C

FILL

2.4

-0.6

7.5

10.5

S1, SS

12+15+17+12

S2, SS

10+6+8+4

PROBABLE FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to medium grained sand; moist, blackish brown

Concrete

Bottom of Boring at 10.5 ft.

Auger refusal at 7.5 ft.

Boring terminated at auger refusal.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

Auger refused on Concrete Slab at 7.5 ft.

Cored 3-ft into concrete slab with vibratory core.

Encountered

After Drilling

1/16

1/16

Dry

Dry

Schnabel Representative: M. Edwards

Total Depth: 10.5 ft

Equipment: 7822 DT

Ground Surface Elevation: 10± (ft)

Contractor: Tri-State Drilling Inc.

Garden City, New York

Contractor Foreman: Paul Recchia

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 1/16/19 Finished: 1/16/19

Latitude: 40.58234 Longitude: -73.88358

Method: 2-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Plunge: Bearing:

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

Marine Reserve Center Renovations Aviation Road Brooklyn, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 16C19001.00.03 Sheet: 1 of 1

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SAMPLING

DEPTH

REMARKS

B-2Boring Number:

DEPTH

(ft)

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S _0

.G

P J

T E

S T

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

B

FILL

SP

3.96.0

S1, SS

6+5+4+5

S2, SS

6+5+5+5

S3, SS

6+7+6+7

S4, SS

14+16+19+17

S5, SS

15+17+21+19

PROBABLE FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to medium grained sand; moist, blackish brown

POORLY GRADED SAND, fine to medium grained sand; moist, gray, probable ALLUVIAL material

Change: wet, grayish brown

Change: contains shell hash

Petroleum odor in soil sample with oil sheen on the water to…