The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About430 N College Ave - Special Inspections/Engineering - 01/16/2014EEEC January 16, 2014 A EARTH ENGINEERING Colorado State University Research Foundation CONSULTANTS, LLC 601 South Howes Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Attn: Ms. Nancy K Hurt (Nancy.Hurt(@colostate.edu) Managing Director, Real Estate Re: Construction Observation and Testing— Final Compliance Summary Colorado State University (CSU) — Engines and Energy Conversion Lab tory (EECL c o X 5 0 430 North College Avenue A oV r o v Fort Collins, Colorado / EEC Project No. 1124114 1 Ms. Hurt: W el �'` i K q / 60( t K U As you are aware, during various construction phases for the Colorado State University (CSU) — Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory (EECL) expansion project located at 430 North College Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado, Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) personnel, provided observations and testing services of requested items on a part-time, as- needed/on-call basis. Reports concerning the services provided by EEC personnel were submitted to CSURF, (owners), The Neenan Company, (the general contractor), and to the project design team members' attention during the appropriate time periods as the test results became available. We have recently been asked by Mr. Travis Huppert, project superintendent with The Neenan Company, to provide a summary and/or compliance letter addressing the services performed by EEC personnel, primarily, but not limited to the following: foundation observations including caissons installation and foundation wall reinforcement observations, non-destructive testing (NDT) services for the metal frame decking prior to placement of floor slab concrete for the various levels/steel erection observations, testing of cast -in -place concrete, and earthwork related elements associated with the proposed site development. During the foundation construction phase for the referenced project, EEC personnel provided full-time site observations and testing services for the installation of the straight shaft drilled piers/caissons, as recommended in the project -specific subsurface exploration report, (please refer to EEC's "Subsurface Exploration Addendum Report" dated July 10, 2012, Project No. 1112015), and observation and testing services for the cast -in -place concrete foundation walls. EEC prepared bi-monthly "Summary of Caisson Observation" reports, detailing the installation of the straight shaft drilled piers for the project. EEC personnel provided site observations and 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 805507- (970) 08 FAX (970) 863-02 www.e www.earth•enoineerina.com f J y t Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1124114 — Final Compliance Report CSU-EECL — 430 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado January 16, 2014 Page 2 field density testing of either on -site or imported fill material placed and compacted as engineered fill material within the interior floor slab areas for the building and associated site - work, backfill of foundation walls, and within on -site utility trenches. EEC personnel provided reinforcement observations of the foundation system/drilled piers, foundation walls, and floor slab requirements, along with NDT observations for each of the floor slab's decking prior to placement of floor slab concrete. EEC personnel provided testing of cast -in -place concrete for the foundation system, the various floor levels, and associated exterior concrete flatwork including the cast -in -place concrete site retaining walls. Based on our review of the outlined testing, as directed by the general contractor and completed by EEC personnel on an as -needed basis, the final field density test results at the locations as described within each bi-monthly construction materials testing (CMT) / quality control (QC) reports for the project, met the project compaction requirements for fill materials placed and compacted to redevelop interior floor slab elevations, backfill placed adjacent to foundation walls and on -site utility installation trenches. Laboratory compressive strength tests completed on the cast -in -place concrete conformed to the project specified minimum 28-day compressive strengths. Observations of reinforcement within the foundation system for the project, (i.e., the drilled piers, concrete cast -in -place foundation walls), were completed by EEC personnel and bi- monthly CMT/QC reports were submitted to your attention during the appropriate periods as the results became available. Based on our review of the outlined observations, we believe the reinforcement within the foundation system for the project, and the structural related elements were placed, and constructed in general compliance with the project plans and specifications. Observations/*inspection for the structural steel erection, welding and bolt connections were completed by EEC's in-house certified ICC *inspector and reports were submitted to your attention during the appropriate periods as the results became available. Based on information received and previously reported, we believe the structural steel, weld, and bolted connections, as reported by EEC's in-house certified ICC certified *inspector, were in general compliance with the project plans and specifications. �, �� liU� Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC EEC Project No. 1124114 — Final Compliance Report CSU-EECL — 430 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado January 16, 2014 Page 3 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, nsultants, Inc. David A. Richer, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Inspection: The W.mal ohsai ation of construction to permit the Consultant (EEC), as an experienced and qualified professional, to determine that the Work, when completed by the Contractor, generally conforms to the Contract Documents. In making such inspections, the Consultant makes no guarantees for, and has no authority or control over, the Contractor's performance or failure to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. The Consultant has no responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures selected by the Contractor or for the Contractor's safety precautions and programs nor for failure by the Contractor to comply with any laws or regulations relating to the performance orfurnishing of the Work by the Contractor. cc: Jensen Consulting —Mr. Jeff Jensen (JeffQensenconsultin2.info) The Neenan Company - Mr. Sergio Ortiz (sergio.ortiz(a-,neenan.com) Mr. Travis Huppert (1ravis.huppertt7a neenan.com) Mr. Roy Schoen (Roy.Schoen(7a,neenan.com) Mr. Jason Doty (iason.doty&eenan.com) Ms. Vicky Hunt (Vicky.hunt(a,neenan.com) Mr. Jared Lambrecht(iaredlambrechtPneujahrgorman.com) February 7, 2014 Justin Tuck The;Neenan Company- 2607 Midpoint Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 sD0 Incorporated 333 west Hampden Avenue Suite 700 Englewood, CO 80110-2337 (303) 781-7070 Fax: 781-4286 Re: CSU Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory 430 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Original Building Concrete Roof Panel Repairs & Miscellaneous Items Dear. Justin: During the time frame in which the construction work was completed there were numerous, sometimes -daily, conversations with Noonan, staff`from,the site. Often•photographs of:particular' details were a part of the -.communications toimake sure the,work-was satisfactory in ar_eas•where there were changed conditions. Detailed sketches accompanied with photographs in .the RFI submittals made.parficular construction situations clear. Third party field observations and Inspection reports were accomplished :by EEC, Earth Engineering Consultants: Their field observations and inspections,addressed-the work which was specifledby SDa Incorporated. October 14, 2013: Construction .Observation -and Testing Report m Observations were performed on September 16, 2013 ".... were, of the bent -An& clip to the new C-channel connections .... at the roof elevation for the precast roof panels In the existing building, Visual observations, determined the, work In these areas appeared � to, be in general conformance with the project plans and, detell D on, Sheet 1. a October 29, 2013: Construction Observation and Testing Report : Construction Observations of September 23 through October 14, 2013 °..:.;the completed wwork' performed was in general conformance with the.plans and details outlined in RFI-085 dated September25, 2013 Also observed was the r t -opening infil! fn the'area of Qr1d11nes:E-E.'3 to &E`6 from gridllne E=1.6 to,E-1.9.' January'16, 2014:, Final Complianoo1etter "Based on Information received and previously reported, we believe the structural steel, weld, and bolted connections, as reported by EEC's in-house certified /CC certified 'Inspector, were In general compliance with the project, plans and specifications:' Considering these factors we can say the work appears to have been completed in general compliance with theArawings and,directives issued by SDO Incorporated. Yours,truly, ,�pN 4 W O, SDG IntyarpgrAi� Qs ' aEarsTaw•E� ' top AL. , MM. lF OF .CQ�Consulting Sbucturai Engineers CDN#2627A-321 January 16, 2014 Kevin Dorsey The Neenan Company 2607 Midpoint Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 Project Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory - Addition Fort Collins, CO To Whom It May Concern: <'; NEUJAHR AND GORMAN, INC. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 88 STEELE STREET SUITE 200 DENVER,COLORADO 80206-5719 (303)377-2732 (303) 377-4573 (Fax) www.neujahrgorman.com This letter shall serve as verification that a representative from our office made multiple site visits during the foundation, steel erection and metal stud phases of the referenced building construction. Based on our field observations it appears that the structural work was completed in conformance with the design drawings. Field observation trips were for the purpose of familiarizing us with the general progress and quality of the work and to determine, in general, if such work was proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. On the basis of these on -site observations, we attempted to guard the Owner against any obvious defects and deficiencies in the work by the Contractor. We did not supervise, direct or have control over Contractor's work and we were not responsible for the Contractor's means, methods, procedures, techniques or sequences of construction. In addition, we were not responsible for Contractor to carry out the work in accordance with the Contract Documents. Submitted by: qiaLambrecht, P.E. Neujahr and Gorman, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Reviewed By: 18707 Ito Michael Gorman, P.E. Neujahr and Gorman, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers