HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAIN LIBRARY COSBY EVERETT WRIGHT LLC
LUMP SUM AGREEMENT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
BETWEEN
Augusta, Georgia, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia
Acting by and through the
Augusta Richmond County Commission
Hereinafter Referred to as Owner
AND
Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC
Hereinafter Referred to as Environmental Consultant
SPLOST IV PROJECT:
Environmental Engineering & UST Closure Services for New Main Library
DATE: November 6, 2007
Augusta-Richmond County
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM MAN~GEMFiECE'VED
HEERY International, Inc. NOV
501 Greene Street, Suite 313, Augusta, Georgia 30901 2 0 2007
(706) 842-5543; FAX (706) 821-2484
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Letter of Transmittal
X For approval D For Your Files D Revise & Submit
D As requested D For Your Use D Furnish as requested
D For Your Information D As Discussed D For Reproduction & Distribution
DATE:
20 November 2007
TO:
Steve Shepard
Shepard, Plunkett, Hamilton, Boudreaux and Tisdale
FROM:
Jacques Ware
SUBJECT: Contract for Main Library Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
Q!y
4
Date
11/612007
Description of Item
Lump Sum Agreement (Contract) & Supporting Data
Comments:
Steve,
Attached you will find the Lump Sum Agreement for the New Main Library Environmental Engineering
Services for Underground Storage Tank Abatement. The documents are updated/corrected per the
instructions in your memorandum dated November 16,2007.
ok you, ~wJ
Ware
ITEM: as described above
~ Attached
o Under Separate Cover Via pickup from your courier
If Enclosures are not as noted kindly notify us at once.
cc: Bob Munger
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6
Article 7
Article 8
Article 9
Article 10
Article 11
Article 12
Article 13
Article 14
AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pag-e
Definitions.......................................................................................................... 1
Relationship of the Parties ................... .............................. ....................... ........ 3
Basic Services..................................................................................................... 5
Compensation.................. ........... ........ .....,.... ............. ...... ................. ......... .........9
Period of Services............... .................. ....... ...................... ........................ ....... 11
Owner's Responsibilities. ............................. ..................... ........................ ....... 11
Notices.............................................................................................................. 12
Insurance....... .................. .................... ...................... .............................. ......... 13
Indemnification ............. ..................... ...................... ........... ............................. 14
Termination of Agreement................. ...................... ............................... ......... 15
Dispute Resolution......... .................... .......... ........... ................. ................ ........ 17
Successors/Assignment/Third Parties ........................ .......................... ........... 17
Ownership of Documents/
Confidential Information .................. ........... ............... ............................. ........ 18
Additional Provisions...... ................. ............ ............. ............................... ........ 19
Attachment AFee Schedule
Attachment BProject Schedule
Attachment CContingencies and Qualifications
AGREEMENT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES
AGREEMENT made this 6th day of November, 2007, BETWEEN the Owner: AUE:!usta.
GeorE:!ia. a political subdivision of the State of Georcia. actinE:! bv and throuE:!h the AUE:!usta
Richmond County Commission and the Environmental Consultant: Cosby. Everett &
WriE:!ht. LLC. for Professional Services in connection with the Project known as:
Environmental EncineerinE:! and UST Closure Services For the New Main Library.
The Construction Program Manager for the Project is: Reery International, Inc.
The Owner and the Environmental Consultant agree as set forth below:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases where appearing in initial capitalization, shall for the
purposes of this Agreement have the following meanings:
1.1 PROJECT. The Project shall be all environmental services, as described herein,
to be conducted in conjunction with the planned demolition of the former gasoline
filling station located in downtown Augusta at the southeast corner of Ninth and
Green Streets and the adjacent, 2-story commercial building located at 412 Ninth
Street. Environmental services include assessment of hazardous materials such
as asbestos, lead-based paint and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), meetings and
abatement plan preparation. Services also include removal and closeout of four
closed-in-place underground storage tanks (USTs), in association with the former
gasoline filling station.
1.2 SERVICES. The Services to be performed by the Environmental Consultant
under this Agreement shall consist of the Basic Services and any Additional
Services both as defined herein.
1.3 BASIC SERVICES. Basic Services shall consist of environmental services as
described in Article 3, to be performed and provided by the Environmental
Consultant under this Agreement in connection with the Project.
1.4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES. Additional Services shall consist of the
environmental services agreed to be performed by the Environmental Consultant
in connection with the Project, but which are not specifically designated as Basic
Services in Article 3.
1.5 WORK. The Work shall consist of tasks identified in Paragraph 1.1 above.
1.6 PROJECT DOCUMENTS. The abatement and demolition phase of the Project
shall be completed in accordance with the Project Abatement Plan and
Specifications, which will be prepared by the Environmental Consultant and
approved by the Owner prior to the execution of the Agreement between the
demolition Contractor and the Owner:
1. 7 CONTRACTOR. The Contractor is the person or entity which enters into an
agreement with the Owner to perform the abatement and demolition on the
Project, including, without limitation, the providing of labor, materials, and
equipment necessary for the completion of the Project. The term "Contractor"
means the Contractor or its authorized representative, but excludes the
Construction Program Manager and the Environmental Consultant.
1.8 BASIC SERVICES COMPENSATION. Basic Services Compensation shall be fees
designated in Article 4 to be paid by the Owner to the Environmental Consultant
in connection with the performance of the Basic Services by the Environmental
Consultant.
1.9 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES. In connection with Additional Services,
Reimbursable Expenses are those actual expenditures made by the
Environmental Consultant, its employees, or its Professional Consultants in the
interest of the Project including but not limited to, County standard per diem
out-of-pocket expenses for travel and living expenses in connection with the
Project, long distance telephone, expressage, professional consultants (other than
those required for the performance of the Basic Services), and Owner-approved
document reproduction. Pre-approved document reproduction expenses include
expenses incurred for Bidding Documents, exclusive of addenda, and documents
issued for permitting and/or construction.
1.10 OWNER/CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM MANAGER CONTRACT. The
. Owner/Construction Program Manager Contract is the agreement between the
Owner and the Construction Program Manager dated May 6, 2004 for the
performance of construction program management services on the Project.
1.11 MASTER SCHEDULE. The Master Schedule is a graphic display of the major
activities, phases, sequences and timing of the major project activities for design,
construction procurement, construction and occupancy.
1.12 CHANGE ORDER. A Change Order is the form of documentation from the
Owner approving and authorizing a modification to the Master Schedule or
previously approved contract documents.
2
ARTICLE 2
RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES. The Environmental Consultant
shall provide professional environmental services for the Project in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Environmental
Consultant's performance of services shall be as professional consultant to the
Owner to carry out the activities of Project and to provide the technical
documents and supervision to achieve the Owner's Project objectives.
2.2 OWNER REPRESENTATION. The Construction Program Manager is under
separate contract with the Owner to provide construction program management
services. The Construction Program Manager has no environmental
responsibilities of any nature. None of the activities of the Construction Program
Manager supplant or conflict with the services and responsibilities customarily
furnished by the Environmental Consultant or subconsultants in accordance with
generally accepted environmental consulting practices, except as otherwise
modified by this Agreement. The Environmental Consultant understands and
agrees that the Construction Program Manager is the Owner's exclusive
representative to the Environmental Consultant and Contractor insofar as this
Agreement is concerned. All instructions by the Owner to the Environmental
Consultant relating to services performed by the Environmental Consultant will
be issued or made through the Construction Program Manager. All
communications and submittals of the Environmental Consultant to the Owner
and Contractor shall be issued or made through the Construction Program
Manager, unless the Construction Program Manager shall otherwise direct. The
Construction Program Manager shall have the authority to establish procedures,
consistent with this Agreement, to be followed by the Environmental Consultant
and Contractor and to call periodic conferences to be attended by the
Environmental Consultant, and subconsultants, throughout the term of this
Agreement.
2.3 Environmental Consultant understands and agrees that it is not a third party
beneficiary of any contract between the Owner and the Construction Program
Manager or of their performance there under. Environmental Consultant waives
any rights, claims or causes of action it may have as an alleged third party
beneficiary of any such contract or of the performance of the parties there under.
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT REPRESENTATION
2.4.1 The Environmental Consultant shall provide a list of all consultants which the
Environmental Consultant intends to utilize relating to the Project. The list shall
include such information on the qualifications of the consultants as may be
requested by the Owner. The Owner, through the Construction Program
Manager, reserves the right to review the consultants proposed, and the
3
Environmental Consultant shall not retain a consultant to which the Owner,
through the Construction Program Manager, has a reasonable objection.
2.4.2 The Environmental Consultant shall provide to the Owner, through the
Construction Program Manager, a list of the proposed key project personnel of the
Environmental Consultant and its consultants to be assigned to the Project. This
list shall include such information on the professional background of each of the
assigned personnel as may be requested by the Owner, through the Construction
Program Manager. Such key personnel and consultants shall be satisfactory to
the Owner and shall not be changed except with the consent of the Owner unless
said personnel cease to be in the Environmental Consultant's (or its consultants,
if applicable) employ.
2.5 DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES/SERVICES. The Environmental Consultant
understands and agrees that should the Construction Program Manager provide
the Environmental Consultant with any estimating assistance, cost or time
control recommendations or other consultation, recommendations or suggestions,
any or all such activities on the part of the Construction Program Manager or any
other representative of the Owner shall in no way relieve the Environmental
Consultant of the responsibility of fulfilling its obligations and responsibilities
under this Agreement.
4
ARTICLE 3
BASIC SERVICES
3.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Augusta Richmond County proposes to demolish the former gasoline filling station
at 848 Greene Street, in order to provide a building site for the proposed new
Main Library. The former gas station is known to have four underground storage
tanks (USTs) that were used to store gasoline and petroleum products. A recent
Phase I ESA indicates that these tanks consist of (3) 2000 gallon tanks and (1) 550
gallon tank, all reported by the previous owners to be closed-in-place in 1969,
whereupon they were emptied of petroleum products and filled with sand. There is
no closure report for these tanks filed with the Georgia EPD.
Augusta Richmond County also proposes to demolish the two-story masonry
commercial and residential building located on the adjacent property (412 9th
Street).
The scope of work will include HAZMAT surveying and testing of these structures,
preparation of a Abatement Plan and Specifications, air monitoring, abatement
compliance inspections, excavation, analysis, removal and closeout of UST's and
professional support of environmental issues that may arise during abatement
and demolition work.
Specific tasks included are:
1. Locate, sample and analyze suspected asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in the
structures identified herein, in accordance with Attachment A Fee Schedule.
2. Locate, sample and analyze suspected lead-containing materials (LCM) in the
structures identified herein, in accordance with Attachment A Fee Schedule.
3. Locate and analyze suspected Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) in the structures
identified herein, in accordance with Attachment A Fee Schedule.
4. Locate any other discovered suspected hazardous materials III the identified
structures or otherwise within the property boundaries.
5. Produce a HAZMAT Building Survey Report summarizing findings and
recommendations, with individual sections for ACM, LCM and PCB's. Include
type and extent of each hazardous material, an estimated cost for abatement, and
an estimated schedule for abatement.
6. Meet with Owner's Project Manager to discuss Survey Report, recommendations
and preparation of abatement specifications and plans.
7. Prepare bidding/contract documents for demolition contractor, including
5
specifications, drawings and/or photographs, work procedures, air sampling,
disposal requirements, etc., as required to provide a scope of work definition which
facilitates production of a fixed cost bid by a Georgia licensed abatement
contractor. Such contract documents shall require that all abatement work be
done in accordance with Federal, State and Local regulations.
8. Attend Demolition Pre-Proposal Conference and subsequent tour of buildings.
9. Assist in analysis of Bids or Proposals for abatement work.
10. Prepare and submit a Closure Activity Form (GUST-29) to the UST Management
Program of the Georgia EPD, prior to removal ofUST's.
11. Analyze existing surface and sub-surface site conditions including contacting the
Utilities Protection Center, prior to undertaking excavation for removal of UST's.
12. Submit a Work Plan to the Owner's Representative, including a Health and Safety
Plan, at least 1 week prior to commencing excavation for UST removal.
13. Excavate, open and analyze UST's, in accordance with Work Plan submitted to
Owner.
14. Treat and remove UST's and dispose of in accordance with EPA and EPD
regulations and Work Plan submitted to Owner.
15. Sample and analyze soil and groundwater surrounding the UST's for hydrocarbon
contamination, in accordance with Georgia EPD regulations, utilizing geoprobe
borings or other methods, in accordance with Attachment A Fee Schedule.
16. Remove and properly dispose of any contaminated soils found, and backfIll with
clean, engineered fill, compacted to 95% of the maximum density as determined by
ASTM D698.
17. Close out UST's with Georgia EPD, providing Owner's Representative with all
associated closeout documentation.
18. In association with building demolition, provide oversight of abatement and
remediation activities, including monitoring HAZMAT removal, compliance with
contract documents, air sampling and testing.
19. Conduct air sampling during pre-building demolition abatement work and
laboratory analysis of samples within 24 hours.
20. Provide daily site observation reports of abatement activities and a final inspection
report once all abatement work is completed.
21. Provide a closeout report, within 30 days of completion of abatement work,
6
including description of completed abatement work and certification that work has
complied with applicable Federal, State and Local laws and regulations.
22. Provide professional consulting on an "as needed" basis, for any Issue of
environmental concern that arises during building demolition, subsequent to
HAZMAT abatement.
23. Attachment C lists agreed contingencies, qualifications and assumptions as they
relate to the services to be performed under this Agreement.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT'S PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND STANDARD OF CARE
3.2.1 By execution of this Agreement, the Environmental Consultant warrants that (a)
it is an experienced environmental firm having the skill and the legal and
professional ability necessary to perform all the Services required of it under this
Agreement in connection with the Project contemplated herein; (b) it has the
capabilities and resources necessary to perform its obligations hereunder; and (c)
it is familiar with all current laws, rules and regulations which are applicable to
the Project (such laws, rules and regulations including, but not limited to, all
local ordinances, city, county, state and federal authorities which are applicable
to the Project, and all orders and interpretations by governing public authorities
of such ordinances, requirements, laws, rules and regulations in effect at the time
of commencement of services on the Project), and that all drawings, specifications
and other documents prepared by the Environmental Consultant shall be
prepared in accordance with and shall accurately reflect and incorporate all such
laws, rules and regulations.
3.2.2 The Environmental Consultant hereby represents and agrees that the drawings,
specifications and other documents prepared by it pursuant to this Agreement
shall be complete and functional for the purposes intended, except as to any
deficiencies which are due to causes beyond the control of the Environmental
Consultant.
3.2.3 The Environmental Consultant shall be responsible for any errors,
inconsistencies or omissions in the drawings, specifications, and other docl!ments.
while the Environmental Consultant cannot guarantee the various documents
required herein to be completely free of minor human errors and omissions, it
shall be the responsibility of the Environmental Consultant throughout the period
of performance under this Agreement to use due care with professional
competence. The Environmental Consultant will correct at no additional cost to
the Owner any and all errors and omissions in the drawings, specifications and
other documents prepared by the Environmental Consultant. The Environmental
Consultant further agrees, at no additional cost, to render assistance to the
Owner in resolving problems relating to the design or specified materials.
7
3.2.4 It is the responsibility of the Environmental Consultant to make certain that all
drawings, specifications and other documents are in accordance with applicable
laws, statutes, building codes and regulations and that appropriate approvals are
obtained from Federal, State and local governments.
3.3 PROJECT CONFERENCES
Throughout all phases of the Project, the Environmental Consultant and its
consultants shall meet periodically with the Owner and Construction Program
Manager when reasonably requested. Attendees shall be as jointly determined by
the Owner, Construction Program Manager and Environmental Consultant. As a
minimum, regularly scheduled meetings which the Environmental Consultant will
attend include:
1. Project Launch Meeting
2. Assessment Review/Pre-Abatement Plan Meeting
3. Abatement Plan Review Meeting
4. UST Work Plan Review Meeting
5. Demolition Contractor Pre-Abatement Meeting
8
ARTICLE 4
COMPENSATION
4.1 BASIC SERVICES COMPENSATION
4.1.1 The Owner shall compensate the Environmental Consultant in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including the following:
4.1.2 For the Basic Services of the Environmental Consultant, Basic Services
Compensation shall be in the not-to-exceed amount of EIGHTY-FIVE
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND SEVEN DOLLARS AND NINETY-TWO
CENTS ($ 85.607.92 ).
4.1.3 The Basic Services Compensation stated in Paragraph 4.1.1 includes all
compensation and other payments due the Environmental Consultant
(manpower, overhead, profit, expenses, direct costs, etc.) in the performance of
the Basic Services.
4.2 PAYMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT. Payments on
account of the Environmental Consultant shall be made as follows:
4.2.1 Payments for Basic Services shall be made upon completion of each of the
following line items:
Amount Due
Asbestos Assessment......................................................... ...... ...$1007.50
Lead-Based Paint Assessment............... ... ... ...... ... ............ ... ...... ... ...$643.50
PCB Assessment........................................................................ $760.50
Abatement Plan Preparation/Review/Approval... ............... ..................... $6,700.00
Abatement Oversight and Air Monitoring......... ....................... ...... ....$6,630.00
Open and Analyze UST's......................................................... ..$23,920.60
Treat, remove & Dispose of UST's........................... ................... ..$25,006.83
Sample & Analysis of Soil at UST's ........................... .......... ........ ..$2,223.00
Sample & Analysis of Groundwater at UST's.................................... ...$416.00
Closeout Documentation Preparation............................................... .$3360.00
As-Needed Consulting Services......................... ................................ ... ..$672.00
Expenses and other direct costs (not to exceed).................................$14,267.99
4.2.2 No deductions shall be made from the Environmental Consultant's Basic Services
Compensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages, retainage or other sums
withheld from payments to Contractor.
4.2.3 If the Project is suspended for more than six months or abandoned in whole or in
part by the Owner, the Environmental Consultant shall be paid compensation for
services performed prior to receipt of written notice from the Owner of such
suspension or abandonment, and all reasonable termination expenses resulting
9
from such suspension or abandonment. If the Project is resumed after being
suspended for more than six months, the Environmental Consultant's Basic
Services Compensation shall be equitably adjusted.
4.3 ADDITIONAL SERVICES COMPENSATION
4.3.1 With respect to any additional services performed by the Environmental
Consultant hereunder, the Environmental Consultant and Owner shall negotiate
an equitable adjustment to the Basic Services Compensation. However, if
negotiations are not successful prior to the time the additional services are
needed, the Owner may elect to contract with another entity to perform the
Additional Service(s); or the Owner may direct the Environmental Consultant to
proceed with the Additional Services on a time spent basis with Additional
Compensation Services to be computed as follows:
4.3.1.1 Should the Owner elect to contract with a separate entity to perform Additional
Services, as described under Paragraph 4.3.1, the Environmental Consultant
shall comply with reasonable requests from Owner, without additional
compensation, with regards to coordination of work with the respective separate
entity.
4.3.2 Payments for Additional Services of the Environmental Consultant shall be made
monthly upon presentation of the Environmental Consultant's statement of
services, fully supported by invoices, time cards, and other documentation as
requested by the Owner.
4.4 ACCOUNTING RECORDS
4.4.1 Records of the Environmental Consultant with respect to Additional Services and
payroll, consultant and other expenses (including Reimbursable Expenses)
pertaining to the Project, shall be kept on generally accepted accounting
principals and shall be available to the Owner or its authorized representative for
inspection and copying at mutually convenient times.
4.4.2 At the request of the Owner or its authorized representative the Environmental
Consultant will supply in a timely manner and certify as accurate, unaltered
copies of all time sheets, invoices, and other documents to substantiate and
document any and all Additional Services and Reimbursable Expenses.
10
ARTICLE 5
PERIOD OF SERVICE
5.1 Specific dates relating to the period of services will be set forth in the Schedule
"Attachment B.".
5.2 Unless earlier terminated as provided in Article 10 hereof, this Agreement shall
remain in force for a period which may reasonably be required for the Basic
Services and Additional Services hereunder. However, the provisions of the
Agreement relating to Professional Responsibility (Paragraph 3.2); Dispute
Resolution (Article 11); Professional Liability coverage (Article 8); Indemnification
(Article 9); and Ownership of Documents/Confidential Information (Article 13)
shall remain in effect after termination of the other provisions of the Agreement.
5.3 If the Project is delayed through no fault of the Owner or Environmental
Consultant, all specific dates noted in the Attachment B Schedule that are
affected by the delay will be adjusted by the number of calendar days of the delay.
This includes delays beyond the control of the Owner or Environmental
Consultant, and any unforeseen conditions.
5.4 If the Owner materially revises the Project, a reasonable time extension and/or
credit shall be negotiated between the Environmental Consultant and the Owner.
5.5 Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6
OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
6.1 The Owner shall provide full information regarding the requirements for the
Project.
6.2 The Owner shall examine documents submitted by the Environmental Consultant
and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable
delay in the progress of the Environmental Consultant's Services.
6.3 The Owner shall furnish information and approvals required of it expeditiously,
for orderly progress of the Work and shall endeavor to adhere as closely as
possible with the time conditions for such Owner activities as set forth in all
approved schedules for the Project.
11
ARTICLE 7
NOTICES
7.1 Any notice required by this Agreement or other communications to either party by
the other shall be in writing and deemed given when delivered personally or five
(5) days after deposit in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid certified
mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows, or to such other address as
shall be duly given by notice meeting the requirement of this Article.
To Owner:
Mr. Fred Russell
Administrator
Augusta Richmond County
530 Greene Street
Augusta, GA 30901
7.2 To Environmental Consultant:
Mr. John Wright
Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC
366 Augusta Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30315
7.3 With Copy to:.
Mr. Bob Munger
Construction Program Manager
Heery International, Inc.
501 Greene Street; Suite 313
Augusta, GA 30901
7.3.1
With Copy to:
Mr. Garrett Weiss, P.G.
Augusta Richmond County Environmental Engineer
1815 Marvin Griffin Road
Augusta, GA 30906
12
ARTICLE 8
INSURANCE
8.1 The Environmental Consultant shall purchase and maintain insurance for
protection from claims under worker's or workmen's compensation acts; claims
resulting from negligent acts or omissions for damages because of bodily injury,
including personal injury, sickness, disease or death of any of the Environmental
Consultant's employees or any other person; claims for damages because of injury
to or destruction of personal property including loss of use resulting there from;
and claims arising out of the performance of this Agreement and caused by
negligent acts or omissions for which the Environmental Consultant is legally
liable. Minimum limits of coverage shall be:
INSURANCE DESCRIPTION
a. Worker's Compensation
b. Public Liability
Bodily Injury: Each Person
Bodily Injury: Each Accident
Property Damage: Each Accident
c. Automobile Liability & Property Damage
Bodily Injury: Each Person
Bodily Injury: Each Accident
Property Damage: Each Accident
d. Professional Liability:
Minimum Required Coverage
Statutory
$1,000,000 Combined Limit
$100,000
$200,000
$100,000
$1,000,000 Combined Limit
$100,000
$200,000
$100,000
$1,000,000 per Loss/Claim
8.2 Evidence of such insurance shall be furnished to the Owner, and the Owner shall
receive thirty (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation, non-renewal or
reduction of coverage of any of the policies. Upon notice of such cancellation, non-
renewal or reduction, the Environmental Consultant shall procure substitute
insurance so as to assure the Owner that the minimum limits of coverage are
maintained continuously throughout the period of this Agreement.
8.3 The Environmental Consultant shall deliver to the Owner a certificate of
insurance for its Professional Liability coverage.
8.4 All insurance policies (with the exception of Professional Liability) required under
this Agreement shall name the Owner as an additional insured for the insurance
and shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the Owner.
13
ARTICLE 9
INDEMNIFICATION
9.1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Environmental
Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner, the Construction
Program Manager and their agents and employees from and against all claims,
damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, to the
extent arising out of or resulting from (i) the Environmental Consultant's
performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement and (ii)
any claim, damage, loss or expense attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease
or death, or to injury to or destruction of personal property including the loss of
use resulting there from and caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or
omission of the Environmental Consultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed
by the Environmental Consultant or anyone for whose acts the Environmental
Consultant may be liable. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate,
abridge or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity which
would otherwise exist as to any party or person described in this Article.
9.2 Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, the Environmental Consultant and
the Owner shall not be liable to each other for any delays in the performance of
their respective obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement which arise
from causes beyond their control and without their fault or negligence, including
but not limited to, any of the following events or occurrences: fire, flood,
earthquake, epidemic, atmospheric condition of unusual severity, war, state or_
local government acting in its sovereign capacity, and strikes. Owner shall not be
liable to the Environmental Consultant for acts or failures to act by Construction
Program Manager, the Contractor, or the Owner's consultants.
14
ARTICLE 10
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
10.1 If (1), the Owner abandons the Project or the Project is stopped for more than six
(6) months due to actions taken by the Owner, or under an order of any court or
other public authority having jurisdiction, or as a result of an act of government,
such as a declaration of a national emergency making materials unavailable
through no act or fault of the Environmental Consultant or its agents or
employees, or (2), the Owner has failed to substantially perform in accordance
with the provisions of this Agreement due to no fault of the Environmental
Consultant and such non-performance continues without cure for a period of thirty
(30) days after the Owner receives from the Environmental Consultant a written
notice of such nonperformance (including a detailed explanation of the actions of
the Owner required for cure), the Environmental Consultant may, upon fifteen
(15) day's additional written notice to the Owner, terminate this Agreement,
without prejudice to any right or remedy otherwise available to the Owner, and
recover from the Owner payment for all services performed to the date of the
notice terminating this Agreement.
10.2 Upon the appointment of a receiver for the Environmental Consultant, or if the
Environmental Consultant makes a general assignment for the benefit of
creditors, the Owner may terminate this Agreement, without prejudice to any
right or remedy otherwise available to the Owner, upon giving three (3) working
days written notice to the Environmental Consultant. If an order for relief is
entered under the bankruptcy code with respect to the Environmental Consultant,
the Owner may terminate this Agreement by giving three working days written
notice to the Environmental Consultant unless the Environmental Consultant or
the trustee: (1), promptly cures all breaches; (2), provides adequate assurances of
future performance; (3), compensates the Owner for actual pecuniary loss
resulting from such breaches; and (4), assumes the obligations of the
Environmental Consultant within the statutory time limits.
10.3 If the Environmental Consultant persistently or repeatedly refuses or fails, except
in cases for which extension of time is provided, to supply sufficient properly
skilled staff or proper materials, or persistently disregards laws, ordinances,
rules, regulations or orders of any public authority jurisdiction, or otherwise
substantially violates or breaches any term or provision of this Agreement, then
the Owner may, without prejudice to any right or remedy otherwise available to
the Owner, and after giving the Environmental Consultant written notice,
terminate this Agreement.
10.4 Upon termination of this Agreement by the Owner under Paragraph 10.2 or 10.3,
it shall be entitled to furnish or have furnished the Services to be performed
hereunder by the Environmental Consultant by whatever method the Owner may
deem expedient. Also, in such cases, the Environmental Consultant shall not be
entitled to receive any further payment until completion of the Work; and the total
compensation to the Environmental Consultant under this Agreement shall be the
amount which is equitable under the circumstances. If the Owner and the
15
Environmental Consultant are unable to agree on the amount to be paid under the
foregoing sentence, the Owner shall fix an amount, if any, which it deems
appropriate in consideration of all of the circumstances surrounding such
termination, and shall make payment accordingly.
10.5 The Owner may, upon thirty day's written notice to the Environmental
Consultant terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time for the
convenience of the Owner, without prejudice to any right or remedy otherwise
available to the Owner. Upon receipt of such notice, the Environmental
Consultant shall immediately discontinue all services affected unless such notice
directs otherwise. In the event of a termination for convenience of the Owner, the
Environmental Consultant's sole and exclusive right and remedy is to be paid for
all work performed and to receive equitable adjustment for all work performed
through the date of termination. The Environmental Consultant shall not be
entitled to be paid any amount as profit for unperformed services or consideration
for the termination of convenience by the Owner.
10.6 Should the Owner terminate the Environmental Consultant as provided for under
this Article, the Owner will acquire such documents, including the ownership and
use of all drawings, plans, specifications, documents and materials relating to the
Project prepared by or in the possession of the Environmental Consultant. The
Environmental Consultant will turn over to the Owner in a timely manner and in
good unaltered condition all such original documents and materials.
10.7 The payment of any sums by the Owner under this Article 10 shall not constitute a
waiver of any claims for damages by the Owner for any breach of the Agreement
by the Environmental Consultant.
16
ARTICLE 11
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
If a dispute arises out of or related to this Agreement, or its alleged breach, and if
that dispute has not been settled through direct discussions within a reasonable
period, the parties to this Agreement agree to first endeavor to settle the dispute
in an amicable manner by submitting the dispute to a mutually acceptable
mediator under the Construction Industry Mediation Rules, before having
recourse to a judicial forum. Each party further agrees that it will endeavor to
follow a similar dispute resolution procedure to resolve any disputes against any
third parties (including the Contractor and Construction Program Manager) which
arise out of or relate to work.
Should mediation of disputes prove unsuccessful, the parties to this Agreement
agree that the matter(s) in question will be decided in the Superior Court of
Richmond County, Georgia. By signing this Agreement, the Design Consultant
waives any right to contest the venue in the Superior Court of Richmond County,
Georgia.
ARTICLE 12
SUCCESSORS/ASSIGNMENT
12.1 This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on the heirs,
successors, assigns, trustees and personal representatives of the Owner, as well as
the permitted assigns and trustees of the Environmental Consultant.
12.2 The Environmental Consultant shall not assign, sublet or transfer its interest in
this Agreement without the written consent of the other, except that the
Environmental Consultant may assign accounts receivable to a commercial bank
or financial institution for securing loans, without prior approval of the Owner.
17
ARTICLE 13
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS/CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
13.1 The Environmental Consultant agrees to transmit a digital copy of all plan text
and drawings and closeout documents to Owner prior to project closeout. Said
electronic fIles and documents are not to be used by the Owner on projects at
separate facilities without a written agreement with the Environmental
Consultant, except as provided for under Paragraph 10.6.
13.2 In order for the Environmental Consultant to fulfill this Agreement effectively, it
may be necessary or desirable for the Owner to disclose to the Environmental
Consultant confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets pertaining
to the Owner's past, present and future activities. The Environmental Consultant
hereby agrees to treat any and all information gained by it as a result of the
Services performed hereunder as strictly confidential. The Environmental
Consultant further agrees that it will not disclose to anyone outside of the
authorized Project team (i) Owner's trade secrets during the period of this
Agreement or thereafter or (ii) Owner's confidential and proprietary information
during the period of this Agreement and thereafter for a period of 2 years.
18
ARTICLE 14
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
14.1 This Agreement and its Exhibits and Attachments represent the entire and
integrated agreement between the Owner and the Environmental Consultant and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or
oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both
Owner and Environmental Consultant.
14.2 This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of Georgia, U.S.A.
14.3 If anyone or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement, for any reason,
are held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity,
illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions thereof and this
Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision
had never been contained herein.
14.4 Except where specifically stated otherwise, all periods of time stated in terms of
days shall be considered periods calculated in calendar days.
14.5 The headings or captions within this Agreement shall be deemed set forth in the
manner presented for the purposes of reference only and shall not control or
otherwise affect the information set forth therein or interpretation thereof.
14.6 For the purpose of this Agreement unless the context clearly indicates otherwise,
the singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.
14.7 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, and the counterparts shall constitute one and the
same instrument, which shall be sufficient evidence by anyone thereof.
19
ATTACHMENT A. FEE SCHEDULE
Unit
Units Rate Cost
Task 1 - Asbestos Assessment
Asbestos Inspection 5 Hour5 $ S 84.50 $ $ 422.50
Sample Collection Hour5 $ $
Sample Analysis 30 Samples $ S 19.50 $ $ 585.00
Reporting Hours $ $
note: assume analysis of 30 samples required Subtotal $ $ 1,007.50
Task II - Lead -Based Paint Assessment
Lead Inspection 3 Hours $ S 84.50 $ $ 253.50
Sample Collection Hours $ $
Sample Analysis (XRF or 6010) 20 Samples $ $ 19.50 $ $ 390.00
Reporting Hours $ $
note: assume analysis of 20 samples required Subtotal $ $ 643.50
Task III - PCB Assessment
PCB Inspection 3 Hours $ S 84.50 $ $ 253.50
Sample Collection Hours $ $
Sample Analysis (8081) 6 Samples $ S 84.50 $ $ 507.00
Reporting Hours $ $
note: assume anlaysis 6 samples required Subtotal $ $ 760.50
Task IV - Abatement Plan & Specification Preparation
Note: Suitable for competitive bidding Lump Sum $ $ 6,700.00
Task V - Abatement Oversight and Air Monitoring
(assume 10 working days) 10 Days $ S 663.00 $ $ 6,630.00
Task VI - Open & Analyze USTs
Lump Sum $ $ 23,920.60
Task VII - Treat, Remove and Dipose of USTs
Lump Sum $ $ 25,006.83
Task VIII - Sample & Analysis of Soil @ USTs
assume 13 required for BTEX, TPH-GRO 13 Samples $ S 91.00 $ $ 1,183.00
assume 2 required for BTEX, TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO, PAH's
2 Samples $ S 520.00 $ $ 1,040.00
Subtotal $ $ 2,223.00
Task IX - Sample & Analysis of Groundwater @ UST's
assume 1 required for BTEX Sample $ S 104.00 $ $ 104.00
assume 1 required for BTEX, PAH's Sample $ S 312.00 $ $ 312.00
Task X - Over-excavation of Contaminated Soil & Backfill/compaction
Unit price only, with proper disposal, compaction as specified Cubic yards $ S 31.50
Task XI - Close Out Documeutation
Lump Sum $ S 3,360.00
Task XII - As-Needed Consulting Services
assume 8 hours 8 Hours $ S 84.00 $ S 672.00
FEE SUBTOTAL $ $ 71,339.93
EXPENSES, FEES & OTHER DIRECT COSTS $ $ 14,267.99
TOTAL (LUMP SUM) $ S 85.607.92
....
0
-
CO
-
-
0
-
Ui ::)
~ <(
C
'S
....,
.:::::::
W
..J
::::)
C
w
J:
(.)
U>
U>
UJ
(.)
~
w
U>
"
Z
[i:
UJ
UJ
Z
c;
Z
UJ
o auC
I::t:: g.!!l
:> N
Z
W
~
:E
~
J:
olS
~
U>
::::)
>-
I::t::
~
ID
:i
z
<
:E
<
....
U)
::::)
"
::::)
<
C
:::l
....,
: :~:::::
: ~:~:~:~
+r:;>
III
C
." .s
.:.c. CIl
." ~
{'!. :ij
(ij (ij ell
.5
E E '6
.s ~ '"
)( ~
W W
:5
.~
cO
"0'- -
CIl"-gi
:5 ~ 0.-
:2"'E~
.o:>'::)Q.
"- "t: - )(
CIl"'....Q)
5 c; 0... ..
GicGi'1l
.s:'S'e-.
_cu-gc..co
~C:.<:c8
'c.2 g ON
CIl:E: c'ii-.:-
-5~'-2~
. ".:: en CD i 1;) 0
.... Q) 't:l - C g
..:.:.:........... C::;:, '" 8
''''',' CIl c: .2
: ~ OIl -g ~.!:
. ..!i'-Il!'O
'-ca(l).oc
Q) .c <11 ._ '"
~ "';-~ e
3: C) 0'- Cl
0.5 <11~-'"
~;gi'iQ)~
:::J<1I,c'"
+
~
~ II)
E 01
ClI
CIl ~ :::J 0..
c <11 en
.s E tl
j E ell
:ij ::) 'e-
rn 0..
<(
Iii
:E
.cl
CIl
U.
:1;I
()
CD
Cl
I . . . I
U ..................~........... ......~.... .........~ ........ ... ...~.. ..........~...... ....... ........-. ....... ."
0
..... ..... ..... ..... b au au ..... ..... ..... au 00 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q ~ ~ Q 0
,c 1e iO en ~ co ~ N ~ ..... Ol en
rn ~ .... ~ .... ~ ~ ~ a;
c .... ..... .... N ....
... ... .... .....
Ir ... .... ... ... .....
..... ~ ..... ..... ..... ..... ao ..... ..... ..... ..... ao au
0 0 0 0 Q 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ Q ~
1e 1e iO 2s ... ~ in ~
1:: ~ ~ M ~ N ~ ~ S
.... .... .... N .... ....
.sg .... ... .... ... ....
rn ... ... ... ... ....
rn
III
~ - ~
~ ~ &:
m
~
z
w
:E
J:
~
~
~
'"
l5
+> c:
()
~ <11
"8 0:
c
c: Gl .2
<11 a. c: iii
0: E (1\ =g ~ ><
i!: (1\ 0: .8
0 rn g E
s: l5 olS CD "0 S
+> +> a:: E 0
- () rn '" c
'E '" c: '6 '0 III
0. 0 Cl CIl
.c E :Q CD ~ !
:::l ~ l'O E .;
en Cl 8 01 CIl "S;
olS 0 c - a:: ~ -
'"
E "" olS ~ ~ 0
l!! rn 01
l!! III CD
co l- E: :::J Z
Q. I- ~ .....
l!! rn '0
0.. :::I 0.. iii
....
..0
0....
CIl ".
.~s
.t~
rn
C
n. .2
I- 1i
Q) z
E a rc
l'O +>
z c: 0
W r::
~ .:.c. > Cl
II)
co c 0..
W I- W w
LLI Q
::z:
....
~
ATTACHMENT C - QUALIFICATIONS & CONTINGENCIES
The following assumptions/conditions govern this Agreement:
. The field work will be completed in four (4) 10-hour work days, which does not
include travel to and from the site, and entails the installation of approximately
10 to 15 geoprobes to a total depth of 12 ft-bgs, and the excavation and disposal
of the USTs.
. City of Augusta will provide CEW with a site map drawn to scale of the facility.
· All permits and application fees will be covered by CEW.
. Analytical services will be conducted following laboratory tw1taround time of
three (3) days and is based on the parameters described herein.
. Additional delineation activities for impacted soils that are above GA EPD action
levels that are beyond the scope of services are not included and, if required, will
be billed on a time and materials basis.
. CEW will provide schedule to include 30 day notification to the GA EPD.
· CEW will locate utilities prior to mobilization the site.
. Silt fencing to be installed on down gradient areas only NTE 200 ft.
. CEW assumes the tanks contents is sand (Not Concrete). If the tanks are filled
with concrete this could significantly affect the schedule and disposal costs.
· Dewatering of contaminated water is excluded.
. CEW will not claim generator status for contaminated materials however, CEW
will sign disposal documents as Agent for Generator.
This Agreement executed the day and year frrst written above.
OWNER
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
Augusta, Georgia, a political
Cosby, Everett. & Wrigbt, LLC
".
"'.::
Subdivision of the State of Georgia
Acting by and through the
PV,It~~ -
Richmond County Commission
K15
.' (#;,
~:.;~
G 'oJ e
l"{;
.... ;;
0.- .4#
d
By:
Title y~, ()etJ, { Ce-O
AlleS~" ~. j
Witnes~
eB '.aR., .' N1V"
~MY PUil.-C.. t,~W".8 ~\J ,1'':..
,'f'(1M,,~N E*'~ APRIl
.'i
,,.,~
20
~
{{1f'nJ(!{{lj((Jjnellt {j}}'r;xw-..tment
S11i' fj-eri (jJk111rJ, {j)fi;.eeto-I'
ADDENDUM
Faxed and Mailed
TO: All Bidders
FROI\1:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Geri A. Sams fIn'l tf)0 ~J71n"J .
May 11,2007
ADDENDUM #2
RFP Item #07-128 Phase II Environmental Engineering Services for the New
Main Library
New RFP Date: Tuesday, May 22,2007 @ 3:00 p.m.
This is to notify all potential vendors that the RFP opening date f01; RFP #07~128 Phase II
Environmental Engineering Services for the New Main Library has been changed:
From:
Friday, May 18,2007 @ 11:00 a.m.
To:
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 @ 3:00 p.m.
Please note the Fee Schedule. has been modified for RFP 07-128 and is attached.
Please acknowledge receipt of addendum in your RFP package.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at
(706) 821-2422.
cc:
Tameka Allen
Bob Munger.
Interim Deputy Administrator
Heery Int'l
Room 605 - 530 Greene Street, Augusta, Georgia 30911
(706) 821-2422 - Fax (706) 821-2811
www.augustal!a.l!ov
Register at www.demandstar.com/supplier for automatic bid notification
FEE SCHEDULE
ADDENDUM NO.2
Unit
Units Rate Cost
Task 1 . Asbestos Assessment
Asbestos Inspection Hours $ $
Sample Collection Hours $ $
Sample Analysis 30 Samples $ $
Reporting Hours $ $
note: assume analysis of 30 samples required Subtotal $
Task 11- Lead -Based Paint Assessment
Lead Inspection Hours $ $
Sample Collection Hours $ $
Sample Analysis (XRF or 6010) 20 Samples $ $
Reporting Hours $ $
note: assume analysis of 20 samples required Subtotal $
Task III - PCB Assessment
PCB Inspection Hours $ $
Sample Collection Hours $ $
Sample Analysis (8081) 6 Samples $ $
Reporting Hours $ $
note: assume anlaysis 6 samples required Subtotal $
Task IV - Abatement Plan & Specification Preparation
Note: Suitable for competitive bidding Lump Sum $
Task V - Abatement Oversight and Air Monitoring
(assume 10 working days) 10 Days $ $
Task VI - Open & Analyze USTs
Lump Sum $
Task VII - Treat, Remove and Dipose of USTs
Lump Sum $
Task VIII - Sample & Analysis of Soil @ USTs
assume 13 required for BTEX, TPH-GRO 13 Samples $ $
assume 2 required for BTEX, TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO, P AH's
2 Samples $ $
Subtotal $
Task IX " Sample & Analysis of Groundwater @ UST's
assume 1 required for BTEX Sample $ $
assume 1 required for BTEX, P AH's Sample $ $
Task X - Over-excavation of Contaminated Soil & BackfiIl/compaction
Unit price only, with proper disposal, compaction as specified Cubic yards $
Task XI - Close Out Documentation
Lump Sum $
Task XII - As-Needed Consulting Services
assume 8 hours 8 Hours $ $
FEE SUBTOTAL $
EXPENSES, FEES & OTHER DIRECT COSTS $
TOTAL (LUMP SUM) $
~
{fji51me{(;}t(7Jnent Ylf'~U712~
9i1i' fled' (j]/CMlltJ, {jJ)j'?'e.etCPJ'
ADDEIVDUM
Faxed and Mailed
TO:
All Bidders
11dJ,t? )
Geri A. S ams \6 n?:)"
May 10,2007
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
ADDENDUM #1
RFP Item #07-128 Phase II Environmental Engineering Services for the
New Main Library
RFP Due: Friday, May 18,2007 @ 11:00 a.m.
Please note the following change to your RFP package:
Survey Drawing which is attached
Please acknowle~ge receipt of addendum in your RFP package.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at
(706) 821-2422.
cc:
Tameka Allen.
Bob Munger
Interim Deputy Administrator
Reery Int'l
Room 605 - 530 Greene Street, Augusta, Georgia 30911
(706) 821-2422 - Fax (706) 821-2811
www.aUlmstaEa.lwv
Register at www.demandstar.com/suoplierfor automatic bid notification
, I BSMH ,I ,I ~V: ~~S4.43
T=135.35 , " I
~1~~'~173 " 9 ! i ~ ~~1~~1~~.90 GREEN E ST. R /W V A
I I I I " Y ~~~5 43 (A.K.A. GA. H~ 1/28)
... I I IE;"N=127,23 f:>'~~3 97
I STMH tt' I GPM , IEouT=127.02 IE-;-N=127'~3
T=135,47 T= ,46 1EouT=127,79
, , p-p-p-p-p-p-p
-~"" SSMH
WV -r-r-: ~;:----t-T=134'99_ w_
" ... IEIN=127.77 GT "-,, - w
1'\.1. )t 1 iEoUT=127, 44 T,=.13-1:.:N - - --~- - - - ~--------.{)=
=- == ~ y.. V 134.80 1%21 - 13IT3 '." ;~4.Oa - - - -:- - - '134.50
13'I'9~ I, I~" / 134,9~ II CONCRETE PAVING 13,1.57 V.
135-'0 I V II
::::: 134 9'" , I / II 0
~ " O::;::J I '&"1 WVI3~~1 TS CONCR~W PA\~M~9
[35:80 ~~ I 1 'III ~t:=:QI 567.58'40"E 62.95'
~129,Z6 ... 'III [.;;r-:~ m8 WV~ILLER CAP PH8N
_ ---, ..)-i... " I I 1 /I I~~:r~ 134'~'L;g~ ~ 0 BO TH L
I "-X- J+-I ;:;:.--< II :::> !!3-Nn.--< MW ~ MA OLE(2)
I \ F.:i.H ... "rJU'I'! ~~01~ LP5j(jJ:3.!.lw-_~~~ I I 136,11
~ F ~ ~ M$(2) I ~TANK LOCATION 135
I 0 CD L - -1-APPROXIMATE ~
NG I ~I "/ I ~II "I"~ ~~ MW MW(Z) , ~I
.1 ~... I~I! I ~~ ~ 3548 13 ;~I
I" ~ I I~II.." 134.5 ~
I I I~ ... ~i~11 II 135.77 f35.76 ~I
,,~ to I~" .. Vi '"
: i ! ~~ il~I..I!I! i '~1 ,,,. ~ ~~ ,,= -I
~ k" . _.135,43 I
~ : : (Uis r ov i OON"'" "~NO "" ~ I 1
~ I !"I~ ..".. ~ -CD
.. :Ui III
I .! -! rMi r- .
M 1'1 !~I:rb J
I .. 1 I I I ~Ii' 134.43
tr" ... ; I 0~
.. · ,JI"
11 ..
L~ .... III I
. II !Il ~ b ,~" .ifo~:L t;
lol ii i~r~n ,~~ J ~
"/"'1. 1,'./1,' "/1 ~ -- <I: p::!::[/ ~
"1/ ~ >;.~l-:;
~I j . i I !!ll I:f ,<."N6724'37'W
-j'" IL~~~II ;'::.:<r ~u~:~~~
/LP.. j IH~~i w .:~.;;lf'L-.
~ I B~J~ 1~1134.rr ~ - .::l~:.T
I.. ./1':.11" ~ ~ . .....
I II I, /" i<l N !'3~~+
~ . 134~4e- II.IH+~ 0 .'
134mB II I.. :'W\i.,,:'.:,
o 10' 0 .:,
II" " WM .....: GM T ---S.6.I4.~T
" ... I, I I I ::.~:. U, 64.26'
I I 'r I' ::'< L. ~ METAL CAGE
p
N/F
DONALD R.
, REYNOLDS
64.19'
56724'37" E
136.6S
13k 3b
00
N
.....
I
l:'--
o
~
~
z
o
~
E-I
<
E-I
rJJ
~
Z
~
~
o
rJJ
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
o ~
.....:i
~ cJ
~ I ~
r--
o
o
N
o'
-
;>,
c<:l
~
~
Request for Proposal
RFP Item #07-128
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
For the New Main Library
For
Augusta Main Library
RFP Due: Friday, May 18, 2007 @ 11:00 a.m.
Thanks for doing business with us . . .
Geri A. Sams, Procurement Director
530 Greene Street, Room 605
Augusta, Georgia 30911
'J;
Request for Proposal
RFP's will be received at this office until 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 18, 2007
RFP Item #07-128 Phase IT Environmental Engineering Services for the
New Main Library
RFP's will be received by Augusta, GA Commission hereinafter referred to as the OWNER at the offices of:
Geri A. Sams
Procurement Department
530 Greene Street - Room 605
Augusta, Georgia 30911
706-821-2422
RFP documents may be obtained at the office of the Augusta, GA Procurement Department, 530 Greene Street
- Room 605, Augusta, GA 30911. Documents may be examined during regular business hours at the offices of
Augusta, GA Procurement Department. .
A Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference will be held on Friday, April 27, 2007 @ 10:00 a.m. in Room 605
of the Procurement Department. All questions must be submitted in writing to the office of the
Procurement Department by fax at 706-821-2811 or by mail. The last day to submit questions is Friday,
May 4, 2007 by 4:00 p;m. No RFP will be accepted by fax, all must be received by mail or hand
delivered.
The local bidder preference program is applicable to this project. To be approved as a local bidder and .
receive bid preference on an eligible local project, the certification statement as a local bidder and all
supporting documents must be submitted to the Procurement Department with your bonafide RFP
package.
No RFP may be withdrawn for a period of 90 days after time has been called on the date of opening.
Bidders will please note that the number of copies requested; all supporting documents including financial
statements and references and such other attachments that may be required by the bid are material conditions of
the package. Any bid package found incomplete or submitted late shall be rejected by the Procurement Office.
Any bidder allegedly contending that he/she has been improperly disqualified from bidding due to an
incomplete bid submission shall have the right to. appeal to the appropriate committee of the Augusta
Commission. Please mark RFP number on the outside of the envelope.
Bidders are cautioned that sequestration of RFP documents through any source other than the office of the
Procurement Department is not advisable. Acquisition ofRFP documents from unauthorized sources places the
vendor at the risk of receiving incomplete or inaccurate information upon which to base his qualifications.
GERI A. SAMS, Procurement Director
Publish:
Augusta Chronicle
Augusta Focus
AprilS, 12, 19,26,2007
April 12, 2007
cc:
Tameka Allen
Bob Munger
Interim Deputy Administrator
Heery/Capital Improvements Manager
1.0 PROJECT AND OWNERSHIP OF DATA
The Project consists of professional HAZMA T surveys of two structures, production of abatement plans and
removal and closeout of four closed-in-place underground storage tanks (USTs), formerly used to store gasoline
and petroleum products.
All RFP responses will be retained as property of Augusta-Richmond County
2.0 RESPONSES
The responses to this RFP shall be submitted in sealed opaque envelopes no later than Friday, May 18, 2007 @
11 :00 a.m.
Ms. Geri A. Sams, Procurement Director
Augusta-Richmond County
530 Greene Street, Rm 605
Augusta, GA 30911
Submit one (1) original clipped and six (6) bound copies.
Include a second, sealed envelope inside the main envelope, with the proposed Fee Schedule (attached).
Label the inner envelope "Fee Proposal for RFP 07-128."
Clearly mark outside of outer envelope "RFP No. 07-128 Phase IT Environmental Engineering Services for the
New Main Library."
Augusta Richmond County assumes no responsibility for proposals received after the advertised deadline, or at
locations other than as specified herein. A mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference will beheld on Friday,
April 27, 2007 @ 10:00 a.m. in the conference room of the Procurement Department. There will be a site
visit following the Pre-Proposal Conference.
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
The Project includes professional HAZMA T surveys of two structures, production of abatement plans, oversight
of abatement work, and removal and closeout of four closed-in-place underground storage tanks (USTs), in
association with a former gasoline filling station. .
The buildings included are the former gasoline filling station (most recently used as a car wash) located in
downtown Augusta at the southeast comer of Ninth and Green Streets and the adjacent, 2-story commercial
building located at 412 Ninth Street. There are no dra\yings of the buildings available.
The four USTs were used to store gasoline and petroleum products for the former gas station. A recent Phase I
ESA indicates that these tanks consist of (3) 2000 gallon tanks and (1) 550 gallon tank, all reported by the
previous owners to be closed-in-place in 1969, whereupon they were emptied of petroleum products and filled
with sand. There is no closure report for these tanks filed with the Georgia EPD.
Proposals in response to thisRFP should include HAZMA T survey and testing of these structures, preparation
of a Remediation Action Plan, intermittent abatement compliance inspections and professional support of
environmental issues that may arise during abatement and demolition work.
2
Specific tasks included are:
1. Locate, sample and analyze all suspected asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in the structures
identified herein.
2. Locate, sample and analyze all suspected lead-containing materials (LCM) in the structures identified
herein.
3. Locate and analyze all suspected Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) in the structures identified herein.
4. Locate and analyze any other suspected hazardous materials in the identified structures or otherwise
within the property boundaries.
5. Produce a HAZMAT Building Survey Report summarizing findings and recommendations, with
individual sections for ACM, LCM and PCB's. Include type and extent of each hazardous material, an
estimated cost for abatement, and an estimated schedule for abatement.
6. Meet with Owner's Project Manager to discuss Survey Report, recommendations and preparation of
abatement specifications and plans.
7. Prepare bidding/contract documents for demolition contractor, including specifications, drawings
and/or photographs, work procedures, air sampling, disposal requirements, etc., as required to provide a
scope of work definition which facilitates production of a fixed cost bid by a Georgia licensed
abatement contractor. Such contract documents shall require that all abatement work be done in
accordance with Federal, State and Local regulations.
8. Open existing USTs and analyze contents for safety and environmental considerations associated with
their removal.
9. Treatment, removal and disposal of the tanks.
10. Sample and laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater surrounding UST's for hydrocarbon
contamination, in accordance with Georgia EPD regulations.
11. Removal and proper disposal of any contaminated soils found, and backfilling with clean, engineered
fill, compacted to 95% of the maximum densityas determined by ASTM D698.
12. Preparation and submission of a tank closure report to the Georgia EPD.
13. Attend Demolition Pre-Proposal Conference and subsequent tour of buildings.
14. Assist in analysis of Bids or Proposals for abatement work.
15. Provide periodic oversight of abatement and remediation activities for compliance with contract
documents.
16. Provide site observation reports of abatement activities and a final inspection report once all abatement
work is completed.
17. Provide professional consulting on an "as needed" basis, for any issue of environmental concern that
arises during building demolition, subsequent to HAZMA T abatement. .
4.0 DELIVERABLES
Two bound copies, and one unbound copy, of the HAZMA T Building Survey Report shall be submitted to the
OWNER's Project Manager.
Two bound sets of Contract Documents shall be submitted to the OWNER's Project Manager for review.
One final set of reproducible Contract Documents, following OWNER review, suitable for inclusion in a set of
demolition bid documents or an RFP, shall be submitted to the OWNER's Project Manager.
3
5.0 COMPENSATION
Submit proposed fees in accordance with Section 10.0. Please submit the proposed fee in a separate sealed
envelope labeled RFQ 07-128. The OWNER reserves the right to negotiate final terms of the Contract,
including fees, with the highest ranked technical proposals.
6.0 FORM AND CONTENTS OF SUBMITTAL
Submittal Form
Provide one (1) original and six (6) bound copies of your submittal.
Submittal shall utilize letter-size (8 Y2 x 11 inches) or, zee folded to that dimension from 11 x 17 inch stock.
Submittal should be clear and concise and follow the format described herein.
Submittal Contents
Cover Letter: Include a (one page maximum) cover transmittal letter which clearly states the single contact
(principal-in-charge) proposed for this project; the firm (or firms) mailing address ( es), telephone and facsiinile
numbers. Specifically designate the applicant's representative who will serve as lead contact in all
communications and who is authorized to negotiate on behalf of the firm or team. If a joint venture team is
proposed, indicate the approximate fee percentage of each organization. Do not indicate actual fee amounts,
only fee percentages.
Scope of Services: Describe how services will be provided, including a detailed listing and description of tasks
and deliverables.
Experience and Capacity: Describe background and experience of the firm demonstrating ability to provide .
required services.
References: List references with telephone numbers from enyironmental engineering work performed on other
relevant contracts.
Personnel: Identify all key professionals to be directly involved in work, with resumes and specific applicable
experience including subcontractors, if applicable.
RFP Submittal: Write the title of the RFP on front of the sealed envelope. Total proposal shall not exceed
thirty pages. Submit in accordance with Section 2.0
Experience Modification Rate:_ Submit a letter from your workers comp insurance company" on their company
letterhead, signed by a company official, stating your Experience Modification Rate (EMR) for the last three
available years
Fee Schedule: Complete the included Fee Schedule, filling in all requestedinformation. Fee Schedule should
be included in a separate sealed. envelope, contained within the main envelope, and labeled ''Fee Proposal
for RFP #07-128."
Proposals must be received by 11:00 a.m. on Friday, May 18,2007.
4
,
8.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA
Qualifications will be evaluated using the following factors and assigned values,
# Criteria A vailable Points
1 Quality and clarity of submission relative to the project requirements and 40
organizational approach of team
2 Qualifications and experience of key professionals, particularly related to 25
HAZMA T surveys and abatement plans, including references.
3 Fee amount 20
4 Participation of local organizations 15
Fee points will be scored as follows:
Fee Points
Lowest 20 .
Within 5 % of lowest 17.5
Within 10% of lowest 15
Within 20% of lowest 12.5
Within 30% of lowest 10
All Others 0
Local participation will be computed as follows:
Location Points
Within Augusta Richmond County 15
Within the CSRA 12
Within Georgia: 9
Within SE United States (includesAL, GA, TN, NC, SC, FL) 6
Within United States 2
All Others 0
For the purposes of this RFQ, the CSRA (Central Savannah RiverArea) consists of these Counties in GA and
SC:
Georgia: Richmond, Columbia, Burke
South Carolina: Aiken
In the event of a joint venture or similar agreement, with fIrms from different regions/point categories, the
teams' points will be calculated in accordance with the following example:
Team Member Location . Points Fee % Factored points
A Augusta 15 30% .3 x 15 = 4.5,
B Atlanta 9 55% .55 x 10 = 4:95
C New York 2 15% .15 x 2 = 0.3
Total Calculated Team Points: 9.75
5
-
9.0 SCHEDULE
Advertise Enviro Engr' g PH II
Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference
Proposals Due
Env Engr NTP
Produce Remediation Plan, Remove UST's
BidlNegotiate Demolition
Note: Schedule is preliminary and subject to change
AprilS, 12, 19,26,2007
April 27, 2007 @ 10:00 a.m.
May 18,2007 @ 11:00 a.m.
June 2007
June - August 2007
August 2007
6
10.0 FEE SCHEDULE
Unit
Units Rate Cost
Task 1 - Asbestos Assessment
Asbestos Inspection Hours $ $
Sample Collection Hours $ $
Sample Analysis 24 Samples $ $
Reporting Hours $ $
note: assume analysis of 30 samples required Subtotal $
Task II - Lead -Based Paint Assessment
Lead Inspection Hours $ $
Sample Collection Hours $ $
Sample Analysis (XRF or 6010) 16 Samples $ $
Reporting Hours $ $
note: assume analysis of 20 samples required Subtotal $
Task III ~ PCB Assessment
PCB Inspection Hours $ $
Sample Collection Hours $ $
Sample Analysis (8081) 5 Samples $ $
Reporting Hours $ $
note: assume anlaysis 6 samples required Subtotal $
Task IV - Abatement Plan & Specification Preparation
Note: Suitable for competitive bidding Lump Sum $
Task V - Abatement Observations (Periodic)
(assume 8 visits) 8 Trips $ $
Task VI - Open & Analyze USTs
Lump Sum $
Task VII - Treat, Remove and Dipose of USTs
Lump Sum $
Task VIII - Sample & Analysis of Soil @ USTs
assume 13 required for BTEX, TPH-GRO 13 Samples $ $
assume 2 required for BTEX, TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO, PAH's
2 Samples $ $
Subtotal $
Task IX - Sample & Analysis of Groundwater @ UST's
assume 1 required for BTEX Sample $ $
assume 1 required for BTEX, P AH's Sample $ $
Task X - Over-excavation of Contaminated Soil & Backfill/compaction.
Cubic yards $ $
Task XI - Close Out Documentation
Lump Sum $
Task XII - As-Needed (unforeseen) Consulting Services
assume 4 hours 4 Hours $ $
FEE SUBTOTAL $
EXPENSES, FEES & OTHER DIRECT COSTS $
TOTAL (LUMP SUM) $
7
.----:
11.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The City will be assisted by Heery International, Inc., Program Management consultants for Augusta Richmond
County Capital Improvements.
Project Communications prior to A ward shall be in writing, sent to:
Ms. Geri Sams
Procurement Director
Augusta Richmond County
530 Greene Street, Rm 605
Augusta, GA 30911
The last day to submit questions to the Procurement Department is Friday, May 4, 2007 @ 4:00 p.m.
8
~
A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
It shall be unethical for any City of Augusta business or participant directly or indirectly in a procurement
contract when the employee or official knows that:
(a) the employee or official or any member of the employee's or official's immediate family has a
substantial interest or financial interest pertaining to the procurement contract, except that the
purchase of goods and services from businesses which a member of the Commission or other City
of Augusta employee has a financial interest is authorized as per a.C.G.A. 36-1-14, or the
procurement contract is awarded pursuant to a. C. G .A. 45-10-22 and 45-10- 24, or the transaction
is excepted from said restrictions by a.c.G.A. 45-10-25;
(b) Any other person, business, or organization with whom the employee or official of any member of
an employee's or officials immediate family is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning
prospective employment is involved in the procurement contract.
Any employee or official or any member of an employee's or official immediate family who holds
a substantial interest or financial interest in a disclosed blind trust shall not be deemed to have a
conflict of interest with regard to matters pertaining to that substantial interest or financial
interest.
I, (vendor)
have read and understand the information
contained in the bid specifications.
Vendor Name:
Address:
City & State:
Phone #: (
Fax #
Signature:
Date:
RFP Item Number and Name:
TillS FROM MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH RFP PACKAGE. NO EXCEPTION(S) WILL BE GRANTED
9
~
A
Certification Statement
Local Vendor Preference
I certify that my company meets all of the following qualifications to be eligible for the local vendor preference:
(1) That my company has a fixed office or distribution point located in and having a street address within
Augusta for at least six (6) months immediately prior to the issuance of the request for competitive bids or
request for proposals by Augusta; and
(2) That my company holds any business license required by the Augusta Richmond County Code for at least 6
months
(3) That my company employs at least one (1) full time employee, or two (2) part time employees whose
primary residence is in Augusta, or if the business has no employees, the business shall be at least fifty percent
(50%) owned by one or more persons whose primary residence is in Augusta. .
(4) Attached is a copy of my Augusta Business License.
Company Name:
Address:
Business License Number:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
Owner's Name:
Signature:
Sworn to before me this
. day of
,20
Notary Public for the State of
My Commission Expires
Notary Public Signature
Printed Name:
II
VENDOR DO NOT COMPLETE
II
To be completed by Authorized City Representative from Business License & Inspection Department:
Vendor Certified:
Date:
Authorized Signature
This form MUST be submitted with RFP package. NO Exception ( s) will be granted
10
GUIDELINES
1. Augusta, Georgia will not be liable for any EXPENSES INCURRED by respondents in their preparation
of proposals. Augusta reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to make an award that is
determined to be in the best overall interests of Augusta, Georgia. Under no circumstance will any bid be
accepted by fax or email. All RFP' s must be labeled and received in the Purchasing office by the due date
and time. There will be no exceptions made for any late. lost by the post office or express camero or
misdirected submittals. All bidders must submit a copy of the comr,any's business licenses.
2. JOINT PROPOSALS will be accepted; however, Augusta, GA reserves the right to select the most
qualified underwriters.
3. Augusta reserves the right to make any INQUIRES regarding any proposals of any or all respondents and.
request additional information.
4. When submitting your proposal FEE STRUCTURE. Price information shall be separated from the
proposal in a sealed envelope and opened only after the proposals have been reviewed 'and ranked. The
names of the respondents will be identified at the proposal opening; however, no proposal will be handled
so as to permit disclosure of the detailed contents of the responses until after award of contract. A record of
all responses shall be prepared and maintained for the files and audit purposes. Please include the fee
structure in a separate sealed envelope.
5. PUBLIC INSPECTION. The responses will be open for public inspection only after contract award.
Proprietary or confidential information marked, as such in proposals will not be disclosed without written
consent of the offeror.
6. EV ALUA TION AND SELECTION. The Request for Proposals shall state the relative importance of
price and other evaluation factors that will be used in the context of proposal evaluation and contract award.
7. SELECTION COMMITTEE. A selection committee, minimally consisting of representatives of the
purchasing office, the using agency, and the'Administrator's office or their choice shall convene for the
purpose of evaluating the proposals.
8. PRELIMINARY NEGOTIATIONS. Discussions with the offerors and technical revisions to the
proposals may occur. Discussions maybe conducted with the responsible offerors who submit proposals
for the purpose of clarification and to assure full understanding of, and conformance to, the solicitation
requirements. Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for
discussions and revision of proposals and such revisions may be permitted after submission and prior to
award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. In conducting discussions, there shall be no
disclosure of information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors.
9. FINAL NEGOTIATIONS AND LETTING THE CONTRACT. The Committee shall rank the
technical proposals, submitted by each offeror, and request final and best offers from the top ranked three
firms if available. A ward shall be made or recommended for award through the Augusta Administrator, to
the responsible offeror whose proposals is determined to be the most advantageous to the Augusta, GA,
taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the Request for Proposals. Other
factors or criteria shall be used in the evaluation. The contract file shall contain a written report of the basis
on which the award is made/recommended. The contract shall be awarded or let in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Request for Proposals. Other factors or criteria shall be used in the evaluation.
The contract file shall contain a written report of the basis on which the award is made/recommended. The
contract shall be awarded or let in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Augusta, Georgia Code.
11
10. PROHIBITION AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES. It shall be unethical for a person to be retained, or to
retain a person, to solicit or secure the Augusta contract upon any agreement or understanding for a
commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, except for retention of bona fide employees or bona
fide established commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business.
11. RIGHT OF REJECTION. We reserve the right to accept or reject any or all responses to this RFP and to
enter into discussions and/or negotiations with one or more qualified vendors at the same time, if such
action is in the best interest of the Augusta Commission.
12. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. Proposals shall be handled in the same manner as the bid process as
described above for solicitation and awarding of contracts for goods or services with the following
exceptions:
(a) Only the names of the vendors making offers shall be disclosed at the opening.
.(b) Content of the proposals submitted by competing persons should not be disclosed during the process of
the negotiations.
(c) Proposals shall be open for public inspection after the award is made.
(d) Proprietary or confidential information, marked as such in each proposal package, shall not be disclosed
without the written consent of the offeror.
(e) Discussions may be conducted with responsible persons submitting proposals determined to have a
reasonable chance of being selected for the award. These discussions will only be for the purpose of
clarification to assure a full understanding of the solicitation requirement and responsiveness thereto.
(f) Nonmonetary revisions maybe permitted after submissions and prior to award for the purpose of
obtaining the best and final offers.
(g) In conducting discussions with the persons submit~ing the proposals, there shall be no disclosure of any
information derived from the other persons submitting proposals..
13. AUGUSTA, GA COMMISSION RIGHT TO INCORPORATE PROPOSALS INTO CONTRACT.
Upon acceptance of the vendor proposals by the Augusta Commission, the vendor shall enter into a contract
with Augusta to provide the services called out in this RFP. This RFP and the winning proposal shall be
incorporated for reference into the contract.
14. USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. It shall be unethical for any Augusta employee or official
knowingly to use confidential information for actual or anticipated personal gain, or for the actual or
anticipated personal gain of any other person.
15. PREFERENCE FOR LOCAL SUPPLIERS AND CONTRACTORS.
(a) Augusta encourages the use of local suppliers of goods, services and construction products whenever
possible. Augusta also vigorously supports the advantages of an open competitive market place. Nothing in this
Section shall be interpreted to mean that the City Administrator or Purchasing Director is restricted in any way
from seeking formal bids or proposals from outside the Augusta market area.
(b) When the quotation or informal bids selection method is used by the Purchasing Director or using
agency head to seek firms to quote on Augusta commodity, service and construction products, local firms should
be contacted, if possible, first. Then if the Purchasing Director or using agency head believes that there may not
be at least three qualified informal bidders, quotes shall be sought from outside the Augusta market area. .
(c) In the event of a tie of bid (see 1-10-43 (h)), when all other factors are equal, the City Administrator is
encouraged to select the bid from within the local market area. The City Administrator shall retain the
flexibility to make the award of contract to a bidder outside of the local market area if evidence supports
collusive bidding in favor of a locai source. .
12
(d) The local vendor preference policy shall be applied when the lowest local bidder is within 5 % or
$10,000, whichever is less, of the lowest non-local bidder. The lowest local bidder will be allowed to match the
bid of the lowest non-local bidder; if matched, the lowest local bidder will be awarded the contract.
. For purposes of this section, "local bidder" shall mean a business which:
1) Has had a fixed office or distribution point located in and having a street address within Augusta
for at least six (6) months immediately prior to the issuance of the request for competitive bids or'
request for proposals by Augusta; and
2) Holds any business license required by the Augusta~Richmond County Code and
3) Employs at least one (1) full time employee, or two (2) part time employees whose primary
residence is in Augusta, or if the business has no employees, the business shall be at least fifty percent
(50%) owned by one or more persons whose primary residence is in Augusta.
e) The Purchasing Director shall develop a program to routinely search out local firms that offer products
or services which Augusta may purchase and encourage such firms to place themselves on the bidder's list.
(f) The Purchasing Director shall work closely with Augusta's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program
(see Article 7) in an effort to place such qualified firms on the approved list and their products on the qualified
products list.
(g) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to mean that the City Administrator may abrogate the
provisions ofO.C.G.A. 36-10-1 through 36-10-5, Public Works Contracts. This provision of the State Code
requires that all County public works contracts of $20,000 or more as defined therein, be publicly advertised
before letting out the contract to the lowest bidder. Further, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to mean
the City Administrator may abrogate the provisions of the Augusta-Richmond County Code requiring public
advertising before letting certain contracts."
Section 2.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 3.
Section 4. If any section, provision, or clause of any part of this Ordinance be declared invalid or
unconstitutional, or if the provisions of any part of this Ordinance as applied to any particular situation or set of
circumstances be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity shall not be construed to affect portions of
this Ordinance not so held to be invalid, or the application of this Ordinance to other circumstances not so held
to be invalid. It is hereby declared as the intent that this Ordinance would have been adopted had such invalid
portion not be included herein.
This ordinance shall become effective May 16,2006.
13
May 22, 2007
ORIGINAL
n A Technica.l Sprv~es FirmP
MS.Geri A. Sams,
Procurement Director
530 Greene Street, Room 605
Augusta, GA 30911
Subject: Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal Item #07-128
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services for the New Main Library
Dear Ms. Sams
Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. (CEW) and our Team subcontractors (Metcalf & Eddy, CCI,
Thompson Demolition [Local Vendor] and Severn Trent Laboratory) have strategically aligned to
benefit the City of Augusta; we bring the resources, experience, and drive of highly reputable,
diverse, and stable individuals, each with a commitment to being a part of the Augusta business
community for the long haul.
)
We bring exactly the demonstrated success, technical accomplishment, and cooperative spirit the.
City needs to achieve a clean closure for the property slated to become part of the footprint for the
new Augusta Main Library. The CEW Team has the capability to implement all of the various
elements of the Scope of Services and to Pcomply with the schedule of the commencement and
completion of the services as required by the City." Our Team recognizes that Reery
International, Inc., is the Augusta-Richmond County, Program Management Consultant for
Capital Improvements, and the Project Manager for this RFP. Therefore, our technical approach
to this contract recognizes the City's programmatic requirements, and is sensitive to the specific
needs and processes of the City and the specific requirements of this individual project.
We have carefully reviewed and considered all aspects of the City's Request for Proposal (RFP)
and prepared a proposal and corresponding cost estimate that we believe is responsive in all
respects. CEW hereby states that we take no exceptions to the requirements of the contract
provided in the RFP.
Please forward questions concerning our proposal to our Project Manager, John Wright at (404)
933-2250 or at iwright@cewtechservices.com. We genuinely appreciate the opportunity to
submit this proposal to Augusta, Richmond County.
S~~
J~~:~f?'w!
Managing Partner
COSBY, EVERETT & WRIGHT, LLC
"A CONSULTING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES FIRM"
366 AUGUSTA AVENUE . ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30315. TELEPHONE: (404) 933-2250. FACSIMILE: (404) 627-2250
"A Technical S..vlc~. Firm"
Cosby, Everett & Wright,LLC.
}
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
J
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A SCOPE OF SERVICES................ ..... ........ ....... ............. ..........................1
Al PHASE 1 - HAZMATSURVEYS.......... .... ....... .......... ............. ..... ...2
Al.l Asbestos Containing Material (ACM). ...... ... ...... .............. ...... ...2
Al.2 . Lead Containing Material (LCM).. ... ........ ......... ...... ............ .....3
A.l.3 PCB Inspection......... .........................................................4
A.IA Other Suspected Hazardous Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
A2 PRODUCTION OF ABATEMENT PLANS. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ...4
A.3 PHASE II - UST REMOV AL...... .......... .......... ....... ...... ......... .........5
AA PHASE III - REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS........................................7
A5 PHASE IV - OVERSIGHT OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES.................... ...8
B. EXPERIENCE AND CAPACITY............................................................ ...8
)
B.l
B.2
EXPERIENCE........................................................................... 9
CAPACITY. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
C. REFERENCES........................................ ............................................ ..12
D. PERSONNEL........................,..............................,....................,...... ...18
E. FEE SCHEDULE..................................................................................30
APPENDICES
A CITY OF AUGUSTA ADDENDUMS
B CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM
C CERTIFICATION STATEMENT - LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE
D CONTINGENCES
ATTACHMENTS
A EXPERIENCE MODIFICATION RATE
I
t
@2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
A. SCOPE OF SERVICES
For this project, CEW has the resources needed to handle all aspects of the Phase II
Environmental Engineering Services for the New Main Library. Our environmental and
engineering staff while small is diverse, and strong and has been privileged to work with a wide
range of clients, including healthcare systems, institutions of higher learning, state agencies,
government entities, industrial entities, and many within the private sector.
BACKGROUND. This project specifically consists of conducting a professional hazardous
materials survey of two structures; the production of abatement plan; and the removal and
closeout of four (4) in-ground underground storage tanks (USTs) ( 3-2,000 G and 1-550
GUST) and the oversight of the subsequent removal action of a former gasoline filling
station (most recently used as a car wash) and an adjacent 2-story commercial building
(412 9th Street) both of which are located at the southeast comer of 9th and Greene streets.
The buildings because of their age are suspected to contain hazardous materials such as
asbestos lead, PCBs, mercury, waste oil, fuel, transmission fluid, and potentially
radioactive materials. The soils on the property could be impacted by all, none, or any
combination thereof of the suspected waste products. The USTs were abandoned in-
place in 1969 without a "Clean Closure" designation from the GA EPD.
CEW is proposing for this project four phases: Phase I (hazardous material surveys), Phase II
(UST Removal), Phase III (Development of Remedial Action Plans) and Phase IV (Oversight of
the Remedial Activities). This approach has been developed in response to the Augusta-
Richmond County Phase II Environmental Engineering Service for the New Mani Library RFP
and preliminary review of existing data.
The following sections of this proposal will describe:
. How the services outlined in the RFP will be provided, including a detailed listing and
description of tasks and deliverables
. Background and experience of our firm including our demonstrated ability to provide the
required services,
. List of complete references for work completed that is similar in scope and size to this
project
. Our key professionals that will be directly involved with this project, their resumes with
specific emphasis on their relevant experience,
. CEW's insurance coverage; Workers Compensation; General Liability; Pollution
Liability; and Professional Liability Insurances, and
. Our fee schedules in separate sealed envelope per the RFP's instructions.
.
-41'_.~"_,,,,,',,'"
<<)2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 1
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
A.I Phase 1- HAZMA T Surveys
The overall goal of Phase I activities is to provide supporting documentation for the production of
abatement work plans and to develop an approach for the oversight of the actual abatement work.
Prior to performing the hazardous material surveys a Health and Safety Plan will be prepared for
the two structures present on-site. The plan will identifY the level of protection needed to prevent
exposure to contaminants present at the site. Level D personal protection equipment is expected
to be used during the geotechnical investigation outside of the waste boundaries. Drilling or
excavating activities associated with the USTs may require Level C protection, because of the
potential of unknown hazards and established respiratory protection standards. The plan will also
identifY the chemical and physical hazards present at the site and an emergency evacuation route.
Special attention will also be given to areas of the facilities that are insufficiently lighted to allow
effective hazardous materials assessment.
The hazardous materials surveys will include suspected asbestos containing materials (ACM),
suspected lead-containing materials (LCM), suspected Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB), and
other suspected hazardous materials such as mercury, waste oil, fuel, transmission fluid,
radioactive materials, contaminated soil, etc. within the property boundaries. The methodologies
for these surveys will be conducted are presented in the following sections.
A.I.I Asbestos Containing Materials
}
.?
The purpose of the ACMs assessment is to establish the relative ability of various types of ACMs
to release fibers into the air should they be disturbed. An assessment was carried out by CEW
personnel as part of the site tour on April 27 2007, as it requires no knowledge about the building
. use etc. Our experienced, well-trained AHERA- Certified Asbestos Inspector, familiar with the
range of asbestos products, determined that some of the material present in the two buildings can
be 'presumed' to contain asbestos. However, this presumption can only be verified via testing by
laboratory analysis of representative samples of the materials. A low magnification stereo
microscope examination of the sample followed by polarized light microscopy (PLM) of selected
fibers is the most widely used and cost-effective method in current use. The suspect ACM
samples will be sent to Severn Trent laboratory, of Savannah, Georgia. .
CEW is experienced in conducting three types of ACM surveys. The three types are as follows:
,
)
TYPE 1: LOCATION AND ASSESSMENT SURVEY (PRESUMPTIVE SURVEY) The purpose of the
survey is to locate, as far as reasonably practicable, the presence and extent of any
suspect ACMs in the building and assess their condition. This survey essentially defers
the need to sample and analyze for asbestos (or the absence thereof) until a later time (eg
prior to demolition or major refurbishment). The owner bears potential additional costs of
management for some non-asbestos-containing materials. All areas should be accessed
and inspected as far as reasonably practicable (eg abqve false ceilings and inside risers,
service ducts, lift shafts, etc) or must be presumed to contain asbestos. Any material
which can reasonably be expected to contain asbestos must be presumed to contain
asbestos, and where it appears highly likely to contain asbestos, there should be a strong
presumption that it does. All materials which are presumed to contain asbestos must be
assessed.
@2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC+ Page 2
"AT,du.ll-alS."IrnFI,m"
'$
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
TYPE 2: STANDARD SAMPLING, IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT SURVEY (SAMPLING SURVEY)
The purpose and procedures used in this survey are the same as for Type 1, except that
representative samples are collected and analyzed for the presence of asbestos. Samples
from each type of suspect ACM found are collected and analyzed to confirm or refute the
surveyor's judgment. If the material sampled is found to contain asbestos, other similar
homogeneous materials used in the same way in the building can be strongly presumed to
contain asbestos. Less homogeneous materials will require a greater number of samples.
The number should be sufficient for the surveyor to make an assessment of whether
asbestos is or is not present. Sampling may take place simultaneously with the survey, or
as in the case of some larger surveys, can be carried out as a separate exercise, after the
Type 1 survey is complete.
TYPE 3: FULL ACCESS SAMPLING AND IDENTIFICATION SURVEY (PRE-DEMOLITION/MAJOR
REFURBISHMENT SURVEYS) This type of survey is and may involve destructive inspection,
as necessary, to gain access to all areas, including those that may be difficult to reach. A
full sampling program is undertaken to identify possible ACMs and estimates of the
volume and surface area of ACMs made. The survey is designed to be used as a basis for
tendering the removal of ACMs from the building prior to demolition or major
refurbishment so the survey does not assess the condition of the asbestos, other than to
note areas of damage or where additional asbestos debris may be expected to be present.
)
CEW has determined, based on the site walk through, that a Type 3 Survey will be implemented
to locate, describe, and sample as far as reasonably practicable; all ACMs in the building.
Approximately 30 samples will be taken to confirm the presence ACMs. The analytical results
will be summarized in a report and added to the overall abatement workplan.
A.1.2 Lead Containing Materials
CEW will conduct a limited. risk assessment that involves limited paint and dust sampling as
described in 40 CFR 745.227<<J). The on-site lead assessment investigation will be conducted to
specifically determine and report the existence, nature, severity and location of lead-based paint
hazards in the residential dwellings, including --(A) information gathering regarding the age and
history of the housing and occupancy by children under age 6; (B) visual inspection; (C) limited
wipe sampling or other environmental sampling techniques; (D) other activity as may be
appropriate; and (E) provision of a report explaining the results of the investigation. The suspect
lead-based paint samples will be sent to Severn Trent laboratory, of Savannah, Georgia for
analysis using the Inductively Coupled Plasma method.
The Risk Assessment report will include a summary that answers two basic questions: 1) Is there
lead-based paint hazard at the property? 2) If there is a lead-based paint hazard, where is it
located and what is its condition?
)
Lead in soil cleanup levels are based specifically on land use determinations. For residential land
use, the soil cleanup level isset at 400 mg/kg. For commercial or industrial land use, the cleanup
level is set at 1,000 mg/kg. An alternative cleanup level may be proposed through an approved
risk assessment. The lead screening level for soil is set at 40 mg/kg, one-tenth of the residential
cleanup level. The screening level for lead in groundwater is set at 0.0015 mg/L.
(92007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 3
.AT..,f...hIS....k-nftom"
f
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
Note: While the Lead Rules are only mandatory for specified lead-based paint activities in
target housing and child-occupied facilities, other building owners can make any or all of
them mandatory for their projects by placing them in their project specifications. This
voluntary use of the Lead Rules for circumstances in which they are not mandatory can
help control lead hazards and reduce legal liability,
In addition to the Lead Rules, which are limited to target housing and child occupied facilities,
there are three other sets ofEPD Rules that can be applied to all building and facility projects:
. HAZARDOUS SITE RESPONSE INVENTORY (HSRI) RULES, which require.a limited choice of
actions when soil is found to contain more than 400 PPM lead, and
. SOLID WASTE RULES, which require non-hazardous waste to be disposed of offsite at a
landfill permitted to receive such wastes, and
. HAZARDOUS WASTE RULES, which allows residential waste to be exempted from
Hazardous Waste determination, but requires lead-contaminated waste from other sources
to be tested by Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) to determine if it is
Hazardous Waste.
A.1.3 PCB Inspection
CEW will assess the buildings' fluorescent light fixtures, transformers, and other equipment for .
PCBs. PCB in soil cleanup levels are based on land use determinations as well. For residential
land use, the subsurface and surface soil cleanup levels are 10 mglkg and 1 mglkg, respectively.
For commercial or industrial land use, the cleanup level 4 for PCBs in surface soils is 10 mglkg
and for subsurface soil is 25 mglkg. A responsible person may also propose an alternative cleanup
level through an approved risk assessment. The PCB screening level is equal to 0.1 mg/kg, one-
tenth of the residential surface soil cleanup level. These values are for total PCBs and not the
individual congener or Aroclors. The screening level for PCBs in groundwater is set at 6.0005
mg/L. The suspect PCB samples will be sent to Severn Trent laboratory, of Savannah, Georgia.
A.1.4 Other Suspected Hazardous Materials
CEW will also identify and categorize all other suspected hazardous material associated with the
site and can include such waste as mercury, waste oil, fuel, transmission fluid, radioactive
materials, contaminated soil, etc. within the property boundaries.
A.2 Production of Abatement Plans
\
J
At the conclusion of the assessments a HAZMA T Building Survey Report with individual
sections for each type of hazardous material that is identified will be prepared. The sections will
describe the location, condition, and extent of the hazardous material, an estimated abatement
cost, and an estimated schedule for the subsequent abatement. The report will also contain a
summary of the findings and recommendations for remedial action. Two (2) bound copies and
one (1) unbound copy of the HAZMA T Building Survey Report will be delivered to the City
project manager
<<J2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 4
.AT..d"'i<.ISn.IrnFh....
~
;~
;
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
A.3
Phase II - UST Removal
The objective of this assessment is to confrrm whether the former underground storage tanks
(USTs) are present or absent at the site and to evaluate whether the subsurface soils and/or
groundwater (if encountered) have been impacted with chemicals of concerns (COCs) associated
with the USTs. Additionally, this assessment will be performed to delineate the horizontal and
vertical [maximum depth of 16 feet below ground surface (ft-bgs)] extent of subsurface impacts.
The analytical costs presented herein are based on the submittal of specific soil samples (total of
15 soil samples and 2 groundwater samples) to identify UST related COCs. Analytical costs
associated with a hazardous waste characterization profile are included within this cost estimate.
At least 30 days prior to closing the USTs, CEW will complete and submit an original signed
Closure Activity Form (GUST-29) to the Underground Storage Tank Management Program
(USTMP) at the GAEPD. The form is included in Appendix A.
CEW will also contact the local fire marshal and the Utilities Protection Center before beginning
an UST closure. The fire marshal and sometimes other local governmental agencies have
jurisdiction over USTs and may require their oversight during removal. State law requires you to
notify the Utilities Protection Center at 1-(800)-282-7411 at least 72 hours before you start to dig.
We will consult with City Project Manager about construction permit requirements.
Specific tasks associated with this assessment are discussed below.
TASK 1 - HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN A site-specific Health and Safety Plan will be developed to
include the proposed and potential anticipated field services to be implemented at the New Main
Library property. The purpose of this plan is to provide guidance procedures to ensure the
personal safety and protection of the CEW field personnel performing the assessment. This plan
will address the project-specific activities and supplement CEW's health and safety policies, rules
and regulations.
Also in this task, CEW will prepare the field equipment to be utilized and secure the materials to
be consumed during field activities. In addition, CEW will coordinate with City of Augusta
representatives on the location of site-specific utilities; subcontract a geoprobe subcontractor, and
an analytical laboratory which l;1as provided demonstrated Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QAlQC) programs acceptable to the City of Augusta, the U.S. EP A, GA EPD and CEW.
TASK 2 - GEOPROBE INVESTIGATION CEW proposes to attempt to advance a total of 10 to 15
geoprobe borings (based one day of probing activities) to a total depth of 12 ft-bgs at specific
locations throughout the facility. The location of the borings will be field-selected and will be
based on information provided by site representatives regarding the location of the former USTs.
Once, the USTs are identified and confirmed, a step-out approach will be used to delineate the
boundaries of the contamination. Screening criteria used to identify the boundary limits of the
contamination is discussed below.
Soil Sampling and Screening Procedures Geoprobe actlvItIes will consist of the
advancement of sample rods by hydraulically pushing or hammering the rods to the
designated sample collection depth. Soil samples will be collected by hydraulically
(f)2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 5
Augusta, Riclunond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
pushing or hammering a I V4-inch diameter piston-type sampler to the top of the desir~d
sample interval. The piston within the sampler will then be released and the pipe
advanced though the sample interval. The soil core will enter the sampler, which
contains a non-reactive plastic or stainless steel liner. After the sampler is retrieved, the
liner containing the soil column will be removed, and a portion of the soil sample will be
placed into a Ziploc baggie for field screening and laboratory analysis.
Soil probe sample collection rods will be decontaminated by steam cleanin.g prior to the
initiation of sample collection activities and between each sample location. Soil
sampling equipment will be decontaminated with a non-phosphate detergent (Alconox)
and distilled water wash, followed by a triple rinsing with distilled water between each
sample collection event.
Each soil probe will be continu6usly sampled on approximately four foot centers. Soil
samples will be examined in the field for the purpose of describing soil lithology and
assessing the potential presence of contamination. Soil samples will be visually
classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), equivalent
to ASTM D 2488. Sample depth, lithology, color, structure, staining, and hydrocarbon
observations (if any) will be described and recorded.
In order to minimize analytical costs, CEW proposes to assess the horizontal extent based
on visual and olfactory signs of impact to native soils due to chemical impacts (soil
staining). Additionally, to identify COCs associated with the historical operation of the
property, soil samples will be collected from areas of investigation exhibiting apparent
signs of oil and gas impacts and submitted for laboratory analysis.
Groundwater Sampling Procedures (If applicable) In the event shallow groundwater
is encountered, groundwater samples will be collected from four of the ten (10) geoprobe
locations for a general field water quality parameter evaluation. Collected groundwater
samples will be tested for pH, specific conductivity (Se), temperature (T), and oxidation
potential (REDOX). Additionally, it should be noted that two (2) groundwater samples
will be submitted for laboratory analysis. The purpose of this phase of the investigation
is to assess whether the shallow groundwater underlying the former gas station has been
impacted by oil and gas related COCs.
The groundwater collection process will involve hydraulically pushing a steel drop screen
to the prescribed depth, and when reaching the sample collection depth, the bottom of the
drop screen pipe will be opened, and groundwater will be allowed to enter the sample
pipe. The groundwater sample will be collected with a stainless steel check valve
connected to dedicated polyethylene tubing. The tubing will be lowered and raised until
sufficient groundwater has been collected to perform a general field water quality
evaluation.
\
J
Laboratory Analysis For proposal estimates, a maximum of five (15) soil samples and
. two (2) groundwater samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis. The soil samples
will be analyzed for pH (laboratory), BTEX, TPH-GRO, TPH-DRO and PAH's. The
analyses selected are based on the most probable COCs present at the site from the
operation at the former property. Samples will be sent to Severn Trent laboratory, of
Savannah, Georgia
<<;)2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 6
I;.,{
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
As previously mentioned and if applicable, groundwater samples will be collected from
the newly installed soil probes after purging sufficient volumes from each probe to ensure
that the SC, T and pH measurements of the purged water have stabilized. Laboratory
analysis for two (2) samples will be performed on the collected groundwater samples.
Samples for laboratory analysis will be placed in pre-cleaned glass jars and capped with
fluorocarbon-lined lids." Each sample jar label.will include the location, ID number,
depth, date, time, sampling personnel, and analyses required. This information will also
be entered on a Chain-of-Custody (Cae) form. Each sample will then be chilled to a
temperature of approximately 40 Celsius by placement in a cooling chest containing
. containerized ice or coolant for shipment to an approved laboratory for analysis. The
Chain-of-Custody form will also serve as documentation of sample collection,
description, location, and laboratory receipt.
Plug and Abandonment Procedures After completion of soil and groundwater
sampling, each probe location will be plugged and abandoned with a 5% bentonite-
cement slurry from the total depth of investigation to the ground surface. The soil probe
will be finished flush with the surrounding surface. All plugging and abandonment
procedures will be conducted in accordance with applicable state regulations.
TASK 3 - MANAGEMENT OF FIELD-DERIVED WASTE Soil cuttings, purged water, and
decontamination fluids generated during the field investigation will be placed into individual
drums, labeled, and sealed. A drum inventory will be prepared, and these drums will be relocated
on-site for temporary storage pending analytical laboratory results.
. If the laboratory results indicate cac impacts above action levels, the proper characterization and
disposal of the field-derived wastes will be handled according to applicable federal, state and
local regulations during any subsequent remedial activities, and is not included in the Scope of
Services for this investigation.
TASK 4 - REpORTING Upon completion of the field investigation, a letter report detailing the
findings of the investigation and. recommendations for any corrective action measures will be
prepared. The report will include, but will not be limited to, the following topics:
· Site-specific and regional geologic and hydrogeologic conditions;
· Discussion of field procedures and investigation activities;
· Evaluation of the soil and groundwater sampling analytical results and
comparison of the results to applicable remedial action goals; and,
· Conclusions and recommendations.
A.4 Phase III - Remedial Action Plans
)
The CEW project manager will meet with the City Project Manager to discuss the finding and
recommendations of the HAZMAT Building Survey Report prior to preparing the abatement
specifications and plans.
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 7
.AT..,hnl<.Is....i<oo.FI.....
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
CEW will then prepare and submit for review two (2) bound sets of Contract Documents to be
used by contractors to prepare fixed cost bids for the abatements and subsequent removal actions.
The Contract Document will include specifications, drawings, photographs, work procedures, air
sampling procedures, disposal requirements, and other work needed to define the scope of work
for Georgia-licensed abatement contractors. The Contract Documents will require that all
abatement work be done in accordance with Federal, Sate, and Local regulations, including but
not limited to:
40 CFR 61 Subpart M (NESHAP)
40 CFR 763 (AHERA)
29 CFR 1926.1101, AND
29 CFR 1910.134
After approval of the draft Contact Documents by the City project manager, one (1) final set of
reproducible Contract Documents, suitable for inclusion in the demolition bid documents or a
Request for Proposal (RFP), will be submitted to the City Project Manager.
A.S Phase IV - Oversight of Remedial Activities
CEW will work closely with the City Project Manager to coordinate Pre-Proposal Conference and
subsequent tour of buildings for the prospective demolition contractors. Once the bids are
submitted, CEW will assist in reviewing the bids or proposals. for the most respondent bidder to
conduct the remedial action.
CEW will also provide oversight of abatement and remedial activities including monitoring of
hazardous materials removal, compliance with contract documents, and compliance with air
sampling and testing procedures.
As part of the abatement and remedial action oversight CEW will specifically conduct air
monitoring; daily site observation reports; photographic documentation log, sample analytical
data package, copies of waste manifests and their respective disposal facilities, certificates of
destruction and lor final disposition of the various waste stream and all certification that work
complies with applicable Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations.
The report will be submitted to the City Project Manager within 30 days of completion of
abatement work. CEW will also provide additional professional consulting on an "as
needed" basis for issues of environmental concern that may arise after the completion of
the project, including correspondence with GA EPn through the City Project Manager to
ensure that any and all concerns with the Clean Closure report are addressed in timely
manner.
B. EXPERIENCE AND CAPACITY
}
This section describes the background and experience of the firm's ability to provide the services
outlined in the RFP. The experience is based on contracts awarded to, or conducted by, members
of CEW and our team.
~)2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 8
.~T.dl..i<.Is..,.Io.."b""
t
~-
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
B.1 Experience
CEW provides the specialized management consulting services that assist clients in identifying
industry-specific problems and defining appropriate solutions. We also provide the technical
services required to implement these solutions. We believe that we are Ii leader in this market and
understanding our Client's needs has and will distinguish CEW from our competitors.
Since our inception in 2006, the partners of CEW have previously provided innovative consulting
and engineering services to CERM, Montgomery Watson Harza and Tetra Tech, respectfully. For
these firms the partners were very successful in leveraging this foundation of scientific and
engineering capabilities into other areas, including infrastructure, operations and
communications. Our services are provided by a broad range of professionals including:
biologists, chemists, civil engineers, computer scientists, environmental engineers, environmental
scientists, geologists, hydro geologists, and mechanical engineers. Because of the experience that
we haye gained from thousands of completed projects, we maximize opportunities to apply
proven solutions to client problems without the time-consuming process of developing new
approaches.
Our clients have become subject to an increasing number of frequently overlapping Federal, state
and local laws concerned with the protection of the environment, as well as regulations
promulgated by administrative agencies pursuant to these laws. We provide services with respect
to Federal environmental laws and regulations including: the Clean Water Act; the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA); the National Environmental Policy Act; the Safe Drinking Water
Act; and other laws. Because of these Federal statutes environmental laws can impose extensive
liability on owners and operators of contaminated property, therefore Environmental Site
Assessments (ESA) have become a critical element of the majority of commercial and industrial
real estate transactions. CEW perform ESA's and environmental due diligence assessments for
both developed and undeveloped properties where we seek to identify actual or potential adverse
environmental conditions.
Through the use of sound remedial management methods, technical expertise and regulatory
awareness, CEW will be assisting CCI with the actual removal of the USTs, subsequent over-
excavation and backfilling of the site. CEW will conduct the sampling of the UST's,
groundwater if encountered, and backfill used to fill the excavation.
CCI has been providing a wide range of environmental services for over 15 years. CCI' s
personnel have been involved in projects varying widely in scope and level of protective
equipment. Whether in a controlled situation involving known materials or in an uncontrolled
environment, CCI can provide the environmental services and experienced personnel to evaluate,
plan and implement procedures to control any environmental problem you or your company may
encounter.
)
THOMPSON BUILDING WRECKING COMPANY, a local vendor, will provide roll-off trucks and
containers for the activities associated with the site, including handling of investigation derived
wastes. Thompson will serve as a backup contractor for the asbestos assessment and subsequent
abatement if needed. Thompson being located, in historic downtown Augusta, blocks away from
1Q2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 9
m
--,-
t.l!i.
\
;
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
the site and can provide unmatched response time with providing the roll-off waste containers.
Thompson also has a state approved inert landfill.
SEVERN TRENT LABORATORY -SAVANNAH was founded in 1975 and now occupies a 55,000 sq.
ft.custom designed facility located in Savannah, Georgia. With a staff of 120 environmental
professionals, STL Savannah has built a nationwide reputation for consistent quality performance
at competitive prices by specializing in custom project management services to meet client's
project~specific needs.
STL Savannah maintains that scientifically sound, legally defensible analytical data is one of the
most critical elements for the success of an environmental project. To ensure a project's data
quality objectives are met, STL Savannah provides a superior standard of service using the latest
technological advances and a strong commitment to quality, planning and customer service,
If!
III
fi!
1!ll
I
Ii!i I
lljj !
._._.1
~ I'~ !1iJ
B.2 Capacity
An added value that CEW brings to this project, and the City of Augusta, is a Mentor-Protege
agreement with Metcalf and Eddy (M&E). This agreement fosters the on-going growth and
subsequent new capabilities of CEW; and assistance in quality assurance and quality control
provided the M&E's commitment to Total Quality Management and Client Service QualityTM.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (M&E) is a major national and international environmental engineering
company, with a reputation for techniCal innovation and a strong client service orientation. M&E
and its subcontractors have a strong record of service to city, federal and state agencies and
private clients.
)
@2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 10
.A.T.d.......IS.......FI.....
'~
1\
,
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
Founded in 1907, the company first earned recognition in water supply issues and wastewater
treatment. Over the last thirty years the firm has also developed wide-ranging capabilities in
aviation environmental management, environmental compliance, environmental planning and
permitting, and hazardous waste remediation.
The firm prides itself on its leadership with regulatory compliance issues providing solutions not
just to the technical side of the environmental engineering challenges, but to the increasingly
complex regulatory, institutional, and public policy issues that surround them.
M&E's current employees total over 800 include civil, environmental, chemical, hydraulic
structural, structural, mechanical, electrical and soils engineers; certified industrial hygienist;
environmental scientist; resident representatives and construction managers; computer
applications specialist; architects and planners; and a variety of specialist in support fields such as
cost estimating and specification writing. The size and multi-disciplinary capabilities of this staff
provide the flexibility to meet the demands of intensive, long-term projects and respond to clients
short-term needs.
)
Our capacity to "comply with the schedule of the commencement and completion of the services
as required by the City" is demonstrated by the combined team resources that our Team brings to
this project. The workforce for this project includes 8 available staff in the Atlanta/ Augusta,
Richmond County area and over 800 additional staff, through our Mentor-Metcalf & Eddy, across
country. The proposed individuals chosen to lead these task areas are presented in the table
below.
II Program Management III Health and Safety
III Engineering & Environmental Services/Expertise
ill Environmental Services/ Expertise
Ill! Design Engineering Il Contract Administration
1lI Land Acquisition Service ll! Construction Services I
ill Quality Assurance ~ Geotechnical Services/Expertise !
_~...oJl.Jj_ JI,,,,_o<llP._ ...1
II Construction Services !
II Asbestos, Lead & Mold Abatement
l1! Asbestos Assessment and Abatement
ill Investigation Derived Waste Handling and storage
1II Analytical Services
I'
j
!
i
i
,___ _________.J
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC+Page 11
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
CEW's collective staffing approach for this contract is based upon the Project Manager's author-
ity to put the best resources on projects. The staffing approach will involve aggressive resource
management and planning to support the workload environment, and is patterned after other
similar type, size, and scope projects the Team firms have been awarded in the past. Project team
members have been selected based on their technical expertise, experience on projects of similar
scope and size, support systems and resources, and their availability to begin work immediately.
Asst. Project 20 BS Civil Engineer
Manager
Environmental 10 BS Senior Scientist
Scientist
Environmental 7 MS Junior Scientist
Scientist
Environmental 13 BS Senior Scientist
Scientist
Environmental 10 BS Scientist
Scientist
16 Field Service Supervisor
Once we determined the position and disciplinary requirements for. this contract, CEW then
surveyed all our team's resources to identify the best person to fill each key position. As a result,
we are confident we are offering the best available personnel our team has to offer. Our proposed
key personnel have an average of 13 years of relevant project experience.
CEW also has the necessary Health and Safety and Quality Assurance (Tina Houston, M&E)
personnel, programs, equipment, planning tools, and standard procedures to ensure that the
appropriate staff and resources are available and appropriately trained to support this program.
C. REFERENCES
Collectively, over the past 30 years the partners of CEW and Team firms (M&E, CCl, Severn
Trent Laboratory) have performed thousands of projects demonstrating our experience, expertise,
and capacity to provide the full range of resources called for in the scope of work for this
contract. This depth of experience and accomplishment will provide this closely watched contract
with constancy in policies, procedures, and performance. Our team firms also have numerous
references that demonstrate this fact.
This Section provides examples of actual, completed, or ongoing projects comparable in scope
and nature to the City's projects.
)
@2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC+Page 12
"\
\
.'Ii
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
~--1
i
I
I
i
!
j
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
John Wright, for his previous employer Tetra Tech, was i
tasked to:(1) prevent or substantially reduce potential j
c~xposure to total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and oil I
;~pd grease (0&0) and (2) reduce potential direct .1
'.~~posure to local tributaries, waterways, and ultimately,
j,.tJ.1~ Ocmulgee River. Mr. Wright instituted various
'[Ftnedial alternatives to mitigate off-site migration of
<S()t1tarninated surface water. Tetra Tech collected
:.hundreds of water samples during the project. Tetra
"~ech installed and maintained an oil-water separator
},.9!1site handle stOITn water runoff. At the conclusion of
.!~e removal action, over 900,000 gallons of water were
.treated and discharged.
I
I
~ I
~~CI removed seven USTs that ranged in size from 1,000 I'
c(,?~llon to 10,00.0 gallo.ns. The scope involved the I
;r~~()Val and re-mstallatIon of the tank systems. CCI i
~~,~p~talled a petroleum hydrocarbon venting transported to I
<;.lllocallandfill. Re-installation of the USTs included the I
~,t~i~~:;~~ons~:t~~~~leT~:II:~:I~erf~::il~~IU~;~sOf ~~:~"I
!~uipped with an inclon sentinel system capable of!
,'~~Ild~ng. a leak detection report to a central office for I
.:,~oll1tonng. I
I
I
j
r
i
I
I
i
;'Xl1is project involved the removal of 30 underground I
ist()fage tanks, CCI personnel backfilled and poured I
jiconcrete pads for ASTs and transferred fuel from old I
USTs to new ASTs. i
@2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC+Page 14
'ATKhnlo~Is,....,""flt""
:li.
.ii
'I
)
\
J
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
;
j
I
. I
'CCI personnel performed removal of an AST and two I
UST/ separators. The project also involved soil and I
'liquid disposal. I
j
!
....... . i
;,~CI removed one 3,000 gallon UST for International I
;,faper. The project scope included barricading the area i
(,~~d removing the dispensers, fuel island, and concrete I
'pad before extracting the UST. Once the UST was I
.:~einoved, CCI personnel sampled the bottom and side I
>Walls for possible contamination. No contamination was i
'detected and CCI filled the excavation and installed a i
~0 I
:Ilew concrete pad. I
. .. i
I
i
I
I
!
i
!
I
I
'JRver the span of this contract, Mr. Wright along with I
I
;~.endy Floyd managed UST Program Report backlogs !
j~~~ has performed over 2,300 Technical Reviews. I,
e!ncluded among these reviews is: 430 CAP Part A
rgeports, 215 CAP Part B Reports, and 1,655 Closure I
!;~lans. In addition, the team has implemented CAP B I'
',;R,emediation Systems at over 15 sites in the State of
"georgia. Tetra Tech has had many technical !
~accomplishments within this contract, Among th.em are: I
. Soil and groundwater sampling
. Technical reviews for compliance with Federal I
and State regulations and guidelines
. Remediation design and oversight
. Risk-based corrective actions
. Construction oversight for UST removal
I
,
!
i
I
i
I
I
.___..~.,._,__,__,.._.___.___..~_._..J
<<;:12007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 15
.AT..,hnloallHon.....Fln...
~'..
't.
t
)
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
-------.----..-.-..---.---.---.-~--.---.--.-1
,
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
!
i
I
!
i
i
I
I
I
i
.!
i
I
!
I
i
I
i
I
j
I
i
i
I
!
"", I
(The State of Georgia, Environmental Protection Division I
""" I
(yAEPD), Hazardous Sites Response Program has I
tasked Tetra Tech to provide all technical support to the i
,,(i7~igning and engineering at the Northside Drive
i';~llf1dfill in order to better reduce the amount of
""contaminants at the site.
The GAEPD, Hazardous Sites Response Program has
"tasked Tetra Tech to provide all technical support to the
designing and engineering at the Northside Drive
:Landfill in order to better reduce the amount of
'contaminants at the site.
10hn Wright, for his previous employer Tetra Tech,
co~ducted a methane gas soil survey at the Northside
>l)rive Landfill. Methane monitoring was performed to
a,ccess the potential for a explosive environment on the
',site. Tetra Tech conducted Geoprobe@ boring down to
4,Jeet bgs. Methane field screening was performed at
'a,c.cessible locations on an approximate 75- by 75-ft grid
,,~~heme. Weather conditions, including barometric
,',pressure, temperature, percent humidity and sky and
'W~nd conditions, were recorded prior to field activities
arid in the afternoons.
'1'1'v1r' Wright made the determination that no detectable
iFlevels of methane gas existed on the site.
{':\~:-:',:,
!(Jglm Wright, for his previous employer Tetra Tech, !
ggwided technical support to the GA EPD to design !
e~gineering controls to minimize off-site migration of !
sp~taminants at the Northside Drive Landfill (formally I
,!l,~.l11don Homes) Site. This is the first time the State of I
'(}~orgia opted to use their Type 5 cleanup criteria. Tetra I
~)'J:'ech used the information gathered durjng the site I
{wxestigation to design a soil-bentonite slurry trench i
j"9~!Offwall (slurry wall) in conjunction with an i
!,~#gineered low-permeability cap that will divert I
:"~o)ll1dwater flow around the landfill area and minimize I
,pff-site transport of contaminants by preventing contact I
'Bttween the landfill waste and groundwater. The site I
;in"estigation involved geotechnical, soil, surface water !
and groundwater investigations. Mr. Wright assisted the I
i
.'XAEPD with assessing the site for redevelopment or i
>!lOluse for a potential Brownfield's classification given !
,t~at the Georgia World Congress Center is anticipating !
;'ijsing the cap to serve as a potential parking lot. Tetra
"Tech continues to regularly participate, in collaboration
:,With GAEPD, in community projects associated with the
", Northside Drive Landfill.
<Gl2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 16
'ATKhn...1 s........ FInn"
\
~
!
)
)
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
------l
i
I
John Wright, for his previous employer Tetra Tech, was
retained to conduct clean closure remedial action at the
Manchester Tank and Equipment Company in
,Cedartown, Georgia. Manchester Tank facility was
>engaged in the manufacture of cylinders for containing
.' liquid compressed gases, and other related products.
'John Wright previously conducted a limited Phase II
YcESA involving a buried waste assessment (BW A) of a
;~uspected historical acid pit or impoundment at the site.
<}:lIe remedial action selected for this site included:
;.~xcavation of impacted soils; confirmatory sampling of
{fFx,cavation soils; hazardous waste characterization; on-
;;~i~e treatment of soil and off-site disposal of soil;
\Iegrading and backfilling with clean, compacted
tXJ.aterial; and onsite treatment of impacted stormwater.
..'~8il analysis indicated elevated concentrations ofVOCs
.;~~follows: 1, I-Dichloroetthane, cis-l,2-Dichloretene,
.,rthylbenzene, toluene, 1,1,1- Trichloroethane, TCE and
y,;xylenes. At the completion of the remedial action about
.'??3 tons of impacted soils were excavated and treated,
('~"I'ld transported as non-hazardous waste to the Subtitle
f'p,Three Comers Regional Landfill in Piedmont,
?~.t\labama. A total of about 38,000 gallons of storm
',(;"'(ater was also treated and discharged on-site.
!
i
!
;!2(;1 mobilized and began by disconnecting and I
\0~p:toving a 200-gallon propane tank. The crew utilized a I
!partner saw to scar and a backhoe to bust up the concrete I
"y, .... . I
';9?ver over the tank to gam access. The propane tank I
.;';"'(as carefully removed via a backhoe and sling. The I
',!YST contained No. 2 diesel fuel, which was removed 'I
"'i~tilizing a flammable liquid rated Pl,lIllP. The tank
',spntents were placed in 17-E DOT approved drums for I
;!'~~ipment to an approved disposal! recycle facil!ty. CCII
:;PFrsonnel also removed a 700-gallon UST. The tank i
{~xcavation was lined with a high-visibility orange I
;~arrier fencing as means of demarking the bottom of the I
;e((cavation prior to backfilling. This barrier aided in re- I
:excavation of contaminated soils pending results of!
sampling analysis. CCI filled the excavation to grade I
'With crush and run in one-foot lifts with compaction I
'being accomplished by bucket tamping the material with !
,the backhoe bucket. The propane tank was relocated and i
'connected to its original location. i
I
I
I
_.______,~_~_,.___..'_.,_~_.,___._...__. ._._._._..'...________.._ ._"'...~.._'___. ..... ~'...'_' _._,,__".~.__,.,,_".._'".._. .',." ,I
@2007Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 17
.ATK.....,.Is.-..i<'nl'lrm"
.~
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
D.
PERSONNEL
CEW has taken great care to ensure that we offer a team of professionals who will meet the City's
needs and exceed your expectations. Our key staff has been selected because of their expertise,
leadership, and reputation. The people assigned to Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the Main Library contract lend exceptional quality to the CEW Team. As a result, we are
confident we are offering the best available personnel our team has to offer.
The key to any successful project is a strong project manager able to provide a single point of
contact, make timely decisions, and provide recommendations based on practical experience
gained through management of similar tasks. As such, we propose John Wright as the project
manager for this assignment. John will be responsible for the management of all environmental,
planning, and engineering segments of the project. He will also be responsible for oversight,
scope definition, developing schedule and task budgets, managing the support team, monitoring
progress and taking action to ensure that perfomiance meets plan. John will report directly to the
City's Program Manager, Heery International, Inc.
\
)
CEW Support Stafflocated in Georgia
M&E, CEW, CCI, Thompson and Severn Trent Laboratory
11:>2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 18
.ATI'<""I<~IS...IoHFIt""
l
Education
BS, Biology, Southern University,
at Baton Rouge, 1992
Coursework, MA Public Policy, Georgia
Institute of Technology 1998
\
}
Registra tions/certifications
40-Hour OSHA Health and Safety
Training
Certified Lead Inspector
lO-Hour OSHA Construction Safety and
Health
8-Hour Annual OSHA Hazardous
Waste Operations Site Supervisor Health
and Safety
U.S, EPA Hazard Ranking System
U.S. EP A Contractor Standard
Operating Procedures and Overview
U.S. EPA Quality Assurance/Quality
Control
U.S. EP A Safety Program
Administration
U.S. EPA Hazardous Materials Handling
. and Shipping
U.S. EPA DOT Hazmat Shipping
Loss Management Safety and Health
Program Administration
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
John Wright
Project Manager
Mr. Wright has more than 17 years of years of diverse
technical and practical experience in the
envirolunenta1 industry, including extensive
experience in forming, coordinating, and managing
multidisciplinary program and project teams within the
government and private sectors. Mr. Wright
specialized on a range of topics including strategic
planning, institutional analysis, business process
reengineering, program development and evaluation,
engineering support and establishment of
environmental program goals and measurements. Mr,
Wright also has supported the design and delivery of
conferences, workshops, and training courses on
various environmental subjects and initiatives for
numerous federal agency clients.
Before starting Cosby, Everett and Wright, LLC, Mr.
Wright, was the Southeast Operations Manager, for
Dynamac Corporation and managed the operations of
the Southeast offices (Atlanta, GA, Research Triangle
Park, NC, and Cape Canaveral, FL) including all of
the contracts, and professional and clerical staff
assigned to those offices.
Professional Experience
PROGRAM MANAGER, STATE OF GEORGIA,
HAZARDOUS SITES RESPONSE ACT (HSRA) - Mr.
Wright, at Tetra Tech, served as program manager for
State of Georgia Hazardous Sites Response Act
(HSRA) contract - Site Investigation and Cleanup
Activities Services Contract under Authority of State
Superfund Law. As program manager, Mr. Wright was responsible for overall contractual and
technical management of the contracts, including communicating with federal agency ordering
officials; coordinating with each contract's financial manager, including the development of cost
proposals; supporting Tetra Tech staff development of technical proposals, work plans, staffing
plans, and schedules; tracking the financial progress of ongoing delivery orders, including
preparing revenue projections and profit analyses; and ensuring the overall quality and integrity
of contract deliverables. For these contracts, assigQillents included CERCLA investigation,
design, and cleanup; ReRA corrective action; geographic information systems and associated
databases; environmental assessments; integrated natural resource management plans; storm
water and wastewater management; EPCRA reports; statistical analysis and verification of and
reporting on innovative remediation technologies; groundwater monitoring, sampling, and
analysis; Superfund and other regulatory support activities, various regional initiatives, sensitive
public involvement issues, and coordination of challenges with numerous federal, state, and local
agencies and the private sector.
Professional associations
Society of American Military
Engineers (SAME) 2005-07
@2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC+Page 19
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main LibraI)'
FRP Item #07-128
PROJECT MANAGER, NORTHSIDE DRIVE LANDFILL, STATE OF GEORGIA, HAZARDOUS SITES
RESPONSE ACT (HSRA) Program and Project Manager for the $6.8 M design-build contract for
the installation and construction of the soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff wall (slurry wall) in
conjunction with an engineered low-permeability cap. Tetra Tech provided engineering design
services to minimize off-site migration of contaminants at the NorthsideDrive Landfill (formally
Herndon Homes) Site. It was the first time the State of Georgia utilized their Type 5 cleanup
criteria for a project. Mr. Wright used the information gathered during the site investigation to
manage the design of a soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff wall (slurry wall) in conjunction with
an engineered low-permeability cap that diverted groundwater flow around the landfill area and
minimize off-site transport of contaminants by preventing contact between the landfill waste and
groundwater. Mr. Wright also managed the prior site investigation that involved geotechnical,
soil, surface water and groundwater investigations, predesign activities and laboratory analysis to
establish performance criteria, verified implementability, and evaluated constructability and
prepared the final design of the slurry wall and engineered cap for the Landfill Site.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTION SUPPORT TO EP A REGION 4. For 5+ years, Mr. Wright has
served as an on-call first responder and site manager under the Region 4 TAT, START I and II
programs. During this time, he worked on more than 45 emergency responses and oil spills, over
30 removal actions, and several containment projects, as well as providing support to the
Regional Response Center. Mr. Wright's responsibilities included working with EPA OSCs,
state and local officials, performing multimedia sampling, performing HAZCA T analysis of
waste samples, and assisting the OSCs in community relations efforts and site documentation.
Emergency Responses have included spills of Vinyl Chloride, Ferrous Sulfate, Hydrofloric Acid,
Oil and Gas and petroleum based wastes, to name a few.
CERCLA ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES. Based on site conditions, information obtained during the
removal assessment, and the potential threats to human health and the environment, Mr. Wright
provided removal oversight, at sites throughout the southeast, which at minirilUm included but
were not limited to the following activities: assist in maintenance of Completion Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) paperwork; organize site files in
accordance with the American Record Guide document; Review site records; Conduct
multimedia sampling (air, water, soil, sediment, and waste); Provide cost tracking and reporting;
Document on-site activities (videotape, photographic, and written), releases, and site access;
Monitor contractor performance and site safety; Prepare reports and site sketch/map, and provide
Draft Removal Report to OSC; Public Relations; Support removal in accordance with OSC needs.
VARIOUS PRIVATE CLIENTS 1996-2003 - Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments of
more than 50 Sites. Managed and completed Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and
Regulatory Compliance Audits, and NEP A Compliance Evaluations for sites in Georgia, Florida,
Tennessee, Alabama, North and South Carolina, Virginia, Utah, and Texas. Clients include:
Fortune 500 Companies, real estate developers, financial institutions, investment firms, law firms,
utilities, telecommunications companies, and industrial and commercial entities. Facility types
assessed include: light and heavy manufacturing, rail yards, commercial developments,
automotive repair and salvage facilities, landfills and historic dumps, package and cargo
distribution facilities, and places of historical significance. .
11:)2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC+ Page 20
....T..""..aIS.nloo.fl.....
.~
.!f
Education
B,S, Civil Engineering,
Louisiana State University
B.S. (Zoology & Chemistry)
Louisiana State University
State of Georgia Board of
Registration License No: PE019519
State of Louisiana Board of
Registration
Professional Engineer (Civil
Engineering)
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
John Brunson, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Mr. Brunson has more than 20 years of diverse experience in civil
and environmental engineering and management, solid and
hazardous waste management, program management, and project
management He maintains professional technical competence while
understand the business and financial aspects that drive projects and
schedules. He is experienced in leading and in being a part of
multidisciplinary teams assembled to construct a large project with
excellent quality and timely completion. He has frequently been
chosen to make presentations of project information to public bodies
and to private business interests.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Site investigations and assessments
· Served as project manager for the assessment of contaminants associated with the
removal and closure of an Industrial building containing asbestos containing materials
and associated underground storage tanks at the Bolton Road Landfill site in Atlanta,
GA. .
,)
· Managed a Phase 1 site investigation of a pair of multistory commercial office
buildings to be acquired by DeKalb County Government.
· Performed numerous site investigations, and reports for a group of landfills in
Southern Louisiana identifying problems and participating in revisions to solve these
problems with local and senior management. Some of these issues involved permitting
and or government requirement issues but most also involved company performance
and quality standards that exceeded any requirements of the regulations.
· Managed quarterly evaluations and reporting for groundwater assessment a group of
landfills in Southern Louisiana.
· Managed numerous investigations and assessments of potential landfill acquisitions
throughout the Eastern US. The majority of these investigations were incomplete as
once a potential fatal flaw was identified, the project was concluded without a formal
report or presentation. Many of these investigations also included an economic
evaluation during which facts were presented to clients and to existing owners. Quite
frequently the investigation revealed potential political, economic, social or permitting
issues that caused potential purchasers to reduce the amounts they were willing to risk
and left the present owners looking for other purchasers who had not so carefully
evaluated the identified risks.
)
· Project manager for a cultural resources investigation for a site in Virginia once
thought to have been occupied by historically significant figures (G. Washington,
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 21
\-
:)
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
American Indians etc.) assessment at the site used forces from the nearby College of
William and Mary's History Department to evaluate the shell middens left by Indian
populations near the lowland creeks and to evaluate to assess the significance of
remains of 16Th century colonial structures.
. Project manager for development of a site that was near the habitat of an endangered
salamander. A study was conducted using PhD level biologists to manage sampling of
tadpole populations in summer and springtime ponds on the site that would become
inaccessible or disappear later in the year. Results showed the absence of the species in
question and the evidence, though the official report was never formally presented, it
was available to answer any challenge to the permit application based on that issue
that took place near October.
. Project Manager for a feasibility study for a South Pacific Island nation that sought to
use its otherwise disused highlands to grow trees for use as fuel. This project, funded
by the US Department of Trade and Development; revealed a potential for both
replacement for imported fuel oil and provision for significant jobs in the fuel
gathering and drying process. Political issues mainly the question of ownership of
these lands was a stumbling block to completing the project at that time.
Municipal water and wastewater
. Served as project manager for design and installation of a vacuum sewer system for
) parts of Sarasota County Florida.
. Construction manager for installation of a package sanitary sewage treatment plant for
installation on US Forest service property near a recreation facility.
. Design of a small water system for a town in South Georgia that was the first public
water supply for the town. Issues were cost of well treatment and the elevated water
tower as well as balancing the cost with installation of pipe suitable for future full fire
protection.
. Permitting for a new elevated water storage tank. This required historical structure
surveys for sensitive locations and dealing with the Federal Department ofFish and
Wildlife to ensure that endangered species were not adversely affected.
. Preparation of a grant / loan application to the US Department of Rural Development
for funding of a significant wastewater treatment plant expansion for a town in north
Georgia. This work required justification of the expansion based on future continued
growth of population and of commercial interests. Since Federal funds were involved,
the full agency review of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Federal
Department of Fish and Wildlife and compliance with endangered species
requirements were conducted. All these efforts were in addition to permitting for the
discharge of the facility into local streams.
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 22
'\
.~
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
American Indians etc.) assessment at the site used forces from the nearby College of
William and Mary's History Department to evaluate the shell middens left by Indian
populations near the lowland creeks and to evaluate to assess the significance of
remains of 16Th century colonial structures.
· Project manager for development of a site that was near the habitat of an endangered
salamander. A study was conducted using PhD level biologists to manage sampling of
tadpole populations in summer and springtime ponds on the site that would become
inaccessible or disappear later in the year. Results showed the absence ofthe species in
question and the evidence, though the official report was never formally presented, it
was available to answer any challenge to the permit application based on that issue
that took place near October.
· Project Manager for a feasibility study for a South Pacific Island nation that sought to
use its otherwise disused highlands to grow trees for use as fuel. This project, funded
by the US Department of Trade and Development, revealed a potential for both
replacement for imported fuel oil and provision for significant jobs in the fuel
gathering and drying process. Political issues mainly the question of ownership of
these lands was a stumbling block to completing the project at that time.
Municipal water and wastewater
· Served as project manager for design and installation of a vacuum sewer system for
parts. of Sarasota County Florida.
· Construction manager for installation of a package sanitary sewage treatment plant for
installation on US Forest service property near a recreation facility.
· Design of a small water system for a town in South Georgia that was the first public
water supply for the town. Issues were cost of well treatment and the elevated water
tower as well as balancing the cost with installation of pipe suitable for future full fire
protection.
· Permitting. for a new elevated water storage tank.. This required historical structure
surveys for sensitive locations and dealing with the Federal Department ofFish and
Wildlife to ensure that endangered species were not adversely affected.
· Preparation of a grant I loan application to the US Department of Rural Development
for funding of a significant wastewater treatment plant expansion for a town in north
Georgia. This work required justification of the expansion based on future continued
growth of population and of commercial interests. Since Federal funds were involved,
the full agency review of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Federal
Department of Fish and Wildlife and compliance with endangered species
requirements were conducted. All these efforts were in addition to permitting for the
discharge of the facility into local streams.
)
<<:>2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC+ Page 22
W
"$--
Education
BS, Western Kentucky University,
1982
Registrations! certifica tio ns
40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waste
Site Health and Safety (OSHA 29
CFR 1910.120)
to-Hour OSHA Construction Safety
and Health
8-Hour Annual OSHA Hazardous
Waste Operation Health and Safety
8-Hour Annual OSHA Hazardous
Waste Operations Site Supervisor
Health and Safety
U.S. EPA Hazard Ranking System
U.S. EPA Contractor Standard
Operating Procedures and Overview
U.S. EPA Quality Assurance/Quality
Control
U.S. EPA Safety Program
Administration
U.S. EPA Hazardous Materials
Handling and Shipping
U.S. EPA DOT Hazmat Shipping
Loss Management Safety and Health
Program Administration
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
Cindy L. Treadway
Environmental ScientistlWork Assignment Manager
Ms. Treadway has over 10 years of significant
environmental project management experience in the
environmental engineering industry. Her diverse
qualifications and experience include budget negotiation,
construction project management oversight, and staff
development. She specializes in industry specific reporting
on preliminary assessments, site inspection prioritizations,
site inspections, expanded site inspections, and hazard
ranking system documentation records.
Professional Experience
Project ManagementIWork Assignment Manager
. Served as the project manager on numerous
hazardous waste sites in U.S. EPA Region 4 in
negotiating and managing site-specific work
assignment budgets.
. Conducted construction project management
oversight at U.S. EP A remedial
i investigation/remedial assessment sites.
. Prepared monthly progress reports, variance
reports, cost reports, site-specific budgets, and task
order reports for the U.S. EP A Contracting Officer.
. Provided project management oversight to
subcontracted drilling companies responsible for
the installation of stainless steel and PVC cased permanent and temporary monitoring
wells.
Site investigations and assessments
· Served as field project manager for a remedial investigation at the ILCO Lead facility, in
Leeds, Alabama, which included a major soil remediation. Soil was sampled and treated for
removal and cleanup of site contaminants.
· Managed a groundwater remediation project at the Kerr-McGhee facility in Jacksonville,
Florida, to assess the extent of contamination of pesticides and impacts to off-site receptors.
. Managed a groundwater assessment at Pensacola Gas facility in Pensacola, Florida, to assess
the extent of contamination and impacts to off-site receptors. Also, conducted oversight for
installation of monitoring wells at the facility.
· Managed soil contamination assessment at St. Augustine Airport in St. Augustine, Florida, to
determine the extent of contamination and impact of off-site receptors which resulted in a
recommendation for further investigation."
I
1
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 23
)
,
)
)
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
.
Prepared HRS Documentation Records and generated scores for Superfund sites based on
Hazardous Ranking System for inclusion in NPL. Historical and analytical data was evaluated
and incorporated into the HRS Documentation Record to provide characterization of onsite
contaminant sources. Managed and reviewed numerous U.S. EPA Region 4 final and draft HRS
Documentation Records for NPL proposal. Notable HRS Documentation Records for NPL
proposal are as follows: LCP Chemicals, Eglin AFB, Escambia Wood, Normandy Park
Apartments, MRI, Stauffer Chemical Company, Fort Gillem, Weekly Lumber, and Pelham
Phosphate.
Authored numerous site assessment reports accompanied by a site-specific Hazard Ranking
System score and the final recommendation.
Prepared Field Study Plans and Work Plans determining the selection of sampling locations
and media to be sampled, thereby, characterizing potential hazardous contamination at the site.
Reviewed and approved Field Study Plans, Work Plans, Health and Safety Plans, and site
assessment reports.
Conducted field sampling in accordance with the U.S. EP A Standard Operating Procedures as
well as generating the site-specific Health and Safety Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
Prepared Site Inspection Prioritization numerous reports for submittal to the U.S. EP A.
· Acted as the Field Project Manager directly responsible for the supervision of scientific teams
conducting sampling and oversight.
· Conducted Hazard Ranking System review of pre-remedial site assessment reports.
· Acted as the Health and Safety Officer at numerous site investigations.
· Identified site-specific analytical data gaps that were presented and resolved during U.S. EP A
scoping meetings.
Site Manager; CERCLAlSARA Site Assessments; FDEP; Various Florida Sites
\
· Site Manager of the Site Inspection and Expanded Site Inspection reports prepared for FDEP.
Responsible for coordination of staff efforts for the field sampling investigations. Prepared
work plans and field study plans determining the sampling locations and media to be sampled
to accurately characterize the site. Identified data gaps, developed schedules, and generated
site-specific Health and Safety Plans. Trained personnel to prepare draft Site Inspection and
Expanded Site Inspections reports to be submitted to FDEP for approval and finalization,
Conducted HRS and technical reviews of Site Inspection and Expanded Site Inspection
reports prepared for FDEP. .
<<::'>2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC.Page 24
't
)
}
1
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
Satara Thomas
Environmental Scientist
Ms. Thomas brings over 7 years of experience in the
management of environmental programs for the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). For 4 years she
served as a Work Assignment Manager for private
consulting firms working on the USEP A Enforcement
Support Services (ESS) contract and over 2 years as a
researcher for Dynamac's Potentially Responsible Party
(PRP) Support contracts with the USACE. The technical
activities conducted by Ms. Thomas through these
contracts include all of the PRP Search, historical research,
environmental records management, and other technical '
elements. Detailed information regarding these
ProgramIProject Management and technical activities is presented below.
Professional Experience
Potentially Responsible Party Research
Education
BS, Molecular Biology, Florida
A&M University, 1996
MS, Environmental Science,
Florida A&M University, 1998
Emory University Paralegal
Program, Presently Attending
Registra tions/ certifications
40-Hour OSHA Health and Safety
Training
· Served as a Project Manager for the PRP Contracts for the USACE. Developed task orders
and cost proposals, and selected key staff for implementation of PRP support to the USACE.
Also responsible for the timely execution, implementation, and completion of all tasks to
ensure that each project is completed on time and within budget, quality assurance/quality
control reviews of deliverab1es, and the review and approvab1e of invoices corresponding to
the month end period.
Site investigations and assessments
· Conducted over 50 Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) to protect against
liability of environmental cleanup. The ESAs consisted of a regulatory database review,
aerial photograph and historic topographic review, interviews, and a noninvasive
reconnaissance ofthe site and adjacent properties.
· Conducted NEP A analyses for proposed telecommunication tower sites. Assessed designated
wilderness areas; designated wildlife areas; endangered species or critical habitats; national
register of historic places listed and eligible sites; Indian religious sites; 100-year flood
plains; wetlands, deforestation; high intensity white light in residential areas; and radio
frequency.
. Served as a client manager for hundreds of telecommunication tower sites. Management
responsibilities included data entry and tracking new work assignments, monitoring
completion schedules, and preparing weekly progress reports.
@2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 25
)
Education
B,S" Building Construction
Technology, 1986, Grambling State
University
Soil Identification and
Determination of High
Water Table Depth;
Southwest Florida Water
Management District, 2001
8 Hour Refresher OSHA
HAZWOPER, 2004
.
Radiation Safety and Use of
Nuclear Soil Gauge,
Humboldt Scientific
Soil Augering/Coring,
Ardaman
.
Piezometer and Monitoring
well installation, Ardaman
)
.'
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
Victor Nkwocha
Environmental Scientist
Mr. Nkwocha specializes in construction material testing,
and conducts investigations relating to new construction,
settlement of existing structures, roadway construction and
pavement analysis, and general land development issues.
Mr. Nkwocha's professional experience as an engineering
technician encompasses environmental engineering,
geotechnical engineering, hydrologic engineering, soil and
construction materials testing, and construction inspection.
He conducts safety audits and quality control inspections for
commercial and residential construction as it pertains to
compliance with construction specifications, including
structural and building systems. Mr. Nkwocha's other
responsibilities entail providing leadership to engineering
technicians and training in the area of construction material
testing.
Professional Experience:.,
CITY OF ATLANTA QUALITY OF LIFE PROGRAM
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR
Mr. Nkwocka is providing inspection services for the construction of new concrete sidewalks
throughout the City of Atlanta.
STOCKADE BASIN CSS PROJECT, ATLANTA, GA
MHJIT PROJECT, HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.
QC INSPECTOR
As part of CERM, Mr. Nkwocha specialized in construction material testing, and conducting
investigations relating to new construction, settlement of existing structures, roadway
construction and pavement analysis, and general land development issues.
GINARC CONSTRUCTION INC., ATLANTA, GA
PROJECT MANAGER
Mr. Nkwocha was responsible for the construction of concrete sidewalks. He provided overall
project supervision and technical oversight. Senior Engineering Technician, Ardaman &
Associates, mc, Sarasota, Florida. Mr. Nkwocha was responsible for various work activities as an
engineering technician. His work involved geotechnical engineering, environmental engineering,
hydrological engineering, construction inspection, and construction materials testing.
ATLANTIC STATION REDEVELOPMENT, ATLANTA, GA
SAFETY OFFICER
Mr. Nkwocha served as safety coordinator at this 138+ acre, mixed-use site. This project
consisted of horizontal construction of the infrastructure. He functioned as the Site Health and
\
/
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 26
\
,
)
)
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
Safety Officer implemented the project health and safety manual and sampling plan for the
hazardous site work. Field activities entailed site orientations, weekly and monthly meetings and
reports, daily logs, and performed personnel and environmental monitoring.
METRO ATLANTA RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MARTA)
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
Mr. Nkwocha functioned as an engineering technician in connection with construction ofa multi-
million dollar railcar switching yard development. His field activities entail construction materials
testing of soil and concrete in accordance with ASTM methods. He was responsible for quality
assurance on site.
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 27
l
Education
B.S. - Geology,
University of
Zimbabwe/Cambridge
M.S.- Earth Science
(Geographic Information
Systems concentration)
Currently GA. State University
Certified Environmental
Inspector
40 hr. Hazwoper
OSHA General Industry
Cisco certified network
Associate, 2002
Certified Asbestos Inspector
Certified Lead Inspector
Environmental Assessment
)
Performed and developed skills
on different projects
University Lab Assistant in
Physics, Science, and Geography
Ground-penetrating radar
Member of Atlanta Geologists
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
Aboulie O. Bojang
Environmental Scientist
Mr. Bojang comes with several years of experience in
environmental, water quality and habitat assessments. He has
hands on experience with building inspections for lead, testing
and cleanup of affected sites, land and property. He also has
software experience, such as Surpac and mapping.
Mr. Bojang Provides abatement services in environmental
services such as asbestos and lead abatement, survey, inspection,
hazmat and selective and interior demolition.
SACAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICIAN
Mr. Bojang supervised a crew that performed overhead cleaning,
pressure washing, ice blasting, high-pressure vacuuming and
other services required by the industry and the clients. He was
the lead in a crew performing lead and asbestos abatement for
several municipal clients.
INDEPENDENCE MINING ARCTURUS ZIMBABWE
GEOLOGIST
Mr. Bojang worked for a large mineral exploration company. His
duties involved underground and surface mapping (cross section
construction, correlating lithologic and geophysical logs etc)
logged about 10 OOOft of core, surveying, using ground-
penetrating radar, sample collection (soil, rock and water)
including stream sediment sampling and gold reserve calculation
using software such as Surpac. He was also responsible for all
report wntmg. Mr. Bojang was also a part of the team that performed air monitoring and stream
monitoring around mines. His duties included watershed surveys, habitat assessments, surface
and groundwater sampling assessing water quality.
MUSIW A ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSISTANT GEOLOGIST
Mr, Bojang worked with a team on Environmental Impact Assessment Projects for large mines.
His duties included sample collection (soil and rock using geoprobes and augers), sample analysis
using X-Ray diffraction, statistical analysis of data, data management and report writing.
)
'/l.T_hnko.1 5....10.. rlt....
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 28
~
f
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
Keith Frederick
Operator/Supervisor
Over fifteen (15) years experience in heavy equipment operations and project supervision on a
variety of environmental remediation projects. Mr. Frederic spent almost fourteen (14) years
with OHM Corporation/IT Corporation/Shaw E&I before joining CCl.
EXPERTISE
Project Supervisor responsible for managing work crews and delivering projects on schedule and
within budget.
Education
40-Hour OSHA Hazardous
Waste Certification (1910.120)
8-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waste
Certification Annual Renewal
(1910.120)
Competent Person/Trenching
and Shoring (as per 29 CFR
1926.650(b)
American Red Cross First
Aid/CPR Training
Function - Foreman
Key Projects:
Location - Anniston, Alabama
Client - Solutia, Inc.
Function - Project Supervisor
This Superfund Site project required the excavation and
restoration of local residents yards that had PCBs
contamination. The project also required the transportation
and disposal of the excavated soils.
Location - Memphis Tennessee
Client - DuPont
Function - Project Supervisor
The project required the installation and initial operations of a
storm water testing system within a major outfall area.
Location - Ft. Lee Virginia
Client - Shaw E&I
The project involved the construction of a capping system. Large amount of soils, backfill
material, liner material, rock, etc. were installed in accordance with a detailed project
specification.
· LCP Chemicals Superfund Site, Brunswick, Georgia - Equipment Operator and
Foreman. Worked on this site for almost three years while with IT Corporation/Shaw
E&l. The project involved mercury decontamination and remediation of wetlands.
Various levels of PPE were required and the project was high profile and under the on-
site authority of both the USEP A Region IV and the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division.
)
:t
<<;)2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 29
\
~
!
)
)
;/
E.
FEE SCHEDULE
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
The fee Schedule is enclosed in a separate sealed envelope along with this proposal.
(g2DD7 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC. Page 30
I
j
. )
J
)
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
APPENDIX A
CITY OF AUGUSTA ADDENDUMS
(3 pages)
<Gi2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC
~
rf?Jf'me{{/)Ce?nellt {5}f'tjxvJWwnt
S1:ti: @'e/'i- r;;:tCUJbJ, Q)JlfWtfYJ<
R G I A
ADDEl\TDUM
Faxed and Mailed
SUBJ:
All Bidders II
Geri A. Sams W
M~y 10,2007
ADDENDUM #1
RFP Item #07 -128 Phase II Environmental Engineering Services for the
. New Main Library .
RFP Due: Friday, May 18,2007 @ 11:00 a.m..
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Please note the following change to your RFP package:
Survey Drawing which is attached
Please acknowledge receipt of addendum in your RFP package.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at
) (706) 821-2422.
cc: ' Tameka Allen
Bob Munger
Interim Deputy Administrator
Heery Int'l
)
Room 605 - 530 Greene Street, Augusta, Georgia 30911
(706) 821-2422 - Fax (706) 821-2811
www.augustae:a.I!:Ov
Register at www.demandstar.com/supplierfor automatic bid notification
\
,
II ~ i " 134'8:;~i34'43
I BSMH II . WV I ~=
T=135,3\J I I SSMH
=132,\73 . 9 :.1 ~ !t:=c2~~i~), 90 G R E ENE 5T. R /W VA
I I I' ,: I · Y f~~5, 43 (A.K.A. GA. ~Wv #28)
" ... I I IEIN=127.23 r?~33 97
I S1MH tt I I GPM I IEO\JT=127.02 IE~N=127.=-t3
T=135,4-7 ~ T= .46 1EouT=127,79
I I p--p--p--P--P--P--P
-~w 'II SSMH
WV T:""I-: tr--+T=134'99- 'II -",
" ... ~IEIN=127'77 GT -"'-'11
H , 4,87 _I '\..t. :;J.? IEouT=127.44 T'=.1:a.;m - - --;~ = = = ===...,.--.().;
). =:- =:1....{ >( -.. 134.80 13421-134.l3 13408 '13-;:50
1~;;:~0 '....'..'., I . / 134.95. 1/ CONCRETE PAVING 134.5f W
" .. Ir", v~ 1/ 134, B
" 134 9 I I .::C.. / // c
~ ~ 0 .~:J 1........'.!~..........rt1... ~I WY... 13;7/ TS 135.00 CONC~~~5 PA~3~~9
r35~80;~ I 1)711 I ':)tz=-d 56758'40"E 62.95'
'129,26 ... 1,:\li I [:::;,..:~ ",8 wy~ILLER CAP PHON
_ .}.(... I /.' III Ili~u 134,~'0 ~"!...; . BOOTH L
I "-X-}+-- I';. ~~ II !:; !f5N"'~ t& t& MA HOLE(Z) ,
\ (.111 ~,!!.~~ LP :c~'jj' ~ 00 I I 136.11
I ~ .. IrWK11 I ~,!!.~~ ~ MW(2)1 ~TANK LOCATION 135"
FH VN I '....... 0 00 L_.J-APPROXIMATE l'j
NG I" - 1:~II.r :c~ MW MW(2) ~
I It.. I.f.':.~;:r ~II ~~:2 ~I
I ~ ~ I I~~j! ~- 13..5 ~ 13. I
I I I~ '" ~ t.J*JI II 135'77~~,:: 135.76
<0 ' I".CDII .-
ii r ~Ii 'j ~ "="'=
I ~. ~il .,
~ I ' t'. ~:! il " i
II i,1:lllij j
41 ~ I tl,s ij "
~ h:, ~.
. --.J LPI _ '" IJ:t I
~ II ,A"t
\0' .. ~~ ~~ ]'.~t; ~
o ~ II 'Jillll n '-J~.< a
. '" .'.....1,...,.'..,..-'.:.11 ~ I W 'I ~':.i;!;.:l,.::. NZ
II IIHJh I ~ :.' :.', .:.:-.:;,........1,..:.:
'1';1'1 ~ 1
~ ~ I.I"HI ~ -~ '[ '1) .
"011 .,'", ~11~ 11~~~,r ".,oN6T24'31'W
~ . '" !I!~II~:~I-I ','~<T: ~u~Z~~~
r', B~J :~.I!...:t..'~~l'~ . lr~ ~~~r~D~'
I I \ Ill, ~ to ,'l::~'..r'
~ 11'1,' ~ "'to '''.' ,'"
I 1'1" IHfI /- E ~ ..f'o~~,F
" 134-~4e- I z '. '. ''''':-: UILDING
134mB /1'.1 ~ : w:<.' .,', ORNER
" ,"/ . '.:' .'"
I d - WM1,. , . ", G T --S.6I4.c.3.8:.:.E T
i 11~1 ,I I /':J:. ~ 64.26'
CONCRETE ,PAVING :.:
<l:
)
)
64~ 1 9'
. 56724'37" E
w
'-'
t:i
"-
'"
3: 5
z
;;:
:c
'-'
p
dub
00
N
"'"'
I
t"-
o
~
~
z
o
~
Eo-<
<
Eo-<
rJJ.
~
Z
~
~
o
rJJ.
~
~
~
~
o
~
~
o
~
~
~
~
rJJ.
.r---
o
o
C":-l
o~
.....
;:..,
c<:S
:::E
~.
o--l
cJ
u:J
o
E-<
E-<
o
Z
~
~?'(J(!([l}((3jnent W'~JUf1l.t
S1;t;' ~e-j(f. (j2klJbJ, !:ifh--e.et&J<
ADDENDUM
Faxed and Mailed
TO: All Bidders
SUBJ:
Geri A. Sams ~ t~ Q/ffJ7tn~
May 11,2007
ADDE1\1J)UM #2
RFP Item #07-128 Phase II Environmental Engineering Services for the New
Main Library
New RFP Date: Tuesday, May 22,2007 @ 3:00 p.m.
FROM:
DATE:
This is to notify all potential vendors that the RFP opening date for RFP #07-128 Phase II
Environmental Engineering Services for. the New Main Library has been changed:
From:
Friday, May 18,2007 @ 11:00 a.m.
To:
Tuesday, May 22,2007 @ 3:00 p.m.
Please note the Fee Schedule has been modified for RFP 07-128 and is attached.
)
Please acknowledge receipt of addendum in your RFP package. .
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at
(706) 821-2422.
cc:
Tameka Allen
Bob Munger
Interim Deputy Administrator
Reery Int'I
Room 605 - 530 Greene Street, Augusta, Georgia 30911
(706) 821-2422 - Fax (706) 821-2811
www.aul!1lstae:a.~ov
Register at www.demandstar.com/sup~lier for automatic bid notification
)
)
J
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
APPENDIX B
CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM
(2 pages)
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC
.AT...hn....IS...o-I"~.Flr....
'"
,
~
A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
It shall be unethical for any City of Augusta bus:iness or participant direCtly or :indirectly in a procurement
contract when the employee or official knows that:
(a) the employee or official or any member of the employee's or official's immediate family has a
substantial interest or financial :interest pertmning to the procurement contract, except that the
purchase of goods and services from businesses which a member of the Commission or other City
of Augusta employee has a financial :interest is authorized as per O.C.G.A. 36-1-14, or the
procurement contract is awarded pursuant to O.C.G.A. 45-10-22and45-10~24, orthetrans.action
is excepted from said restrictions by O.C.G.A. 45-10-25;
(b) Any other person, business, or organization withwhom the employee or official of any member of
an employee's or officials immediate family is negotiating or has an arrangement concerrring
prospective employment is involved in the procurement contract
Any employee or' official or any member of an employee's or official immediate family who holds
a substantial interest or fiD.ancial interest in a disclosed blind trust shall. not be deemed to have a
conflict of interest with regard to matters pertaining to that substantial interest or financial
interest.
I, (vendor) C1)$~ I E\,iEllt:.if ~ WI2Ibij.~ t.u:::..aave read and understand the information
. contained in the bid specifications. . .
Vendo, N""" C~BJ{ I ~~n- ~ W~b"~ t.I...e.. (('~W)
Address: 3"~ ~ Pr\lf;Nttt-
City & State: A 11J1t!11r J bPr 3 03\5 - \11 ~
-- 'll-So Fax # (4) to2:/. 2Zt;6
Signature: Date: ~.
RFPltemNumberandName: ftt . :u: 8.)v\twNMeNrnt- ~Neetl.lN6 ~~Vt~
. . ~ n..\ p. ~et-J \...I a 4JWJt.J. ~ FP 01- lZ.~
THIS FROM MUST BE SUBMri'flffi WITH RFP P ACKAGE. "N~ EXCEPTION(S) WILL BE GRA1\l'fED
)
9
'),
.~
v
)
APPENDIX C
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
CERTIFICA nON STATEMENT - LOCAL VENDOR 'PREFERENCE
(One Sheet)
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC
)
)
)
~
A
Certification Statement
Local Vendor Preference
I certify that my company meets aU of the following qualifications to be eligible for the local vendor preference:
(1) That my company has a fixed office or distribution point located in and having a street address within
Augusta for at least six (6) months immediately prior to the issuance of the request for competitive bids or
request for proposals by Augusta; and
(2) That my company holds any business license required by the Augusta Richmond County Code for at least 6
months
(3) That my company employs at iell.st one (1) full time employee, or two (2) part time employees whose
primary residenceis.in Augusta, Qr if the business has no employ~s-, the business shall be at least fifty percent
(50%) owned by one or more persons whose primary residence is in Augusta.. .... ....
(4) Attached is a copy of my Augusta Business License. .
Company Name: ~
Address:
Business License Number:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
Owner' s. Name:
Signature:
Sworn to before me this
day of
,20
Notary Public for the State of
My Commission Expires
Notary Public Signature
Printed Name:
II
II
VENDOR DO NOT COMPLETE
To be completed by Authorized City Representative from Business License & Inspection Department:
Vendor Certified:
Date:
Authorized Signature
Thisfarm MUST be submitted with RFP package. NO Exception(s) will be granted
10
"
t
)
)
APPENDIX D
CONTINGENCIES
(2 pages)
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
(92007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC
CONTINGENCIES
This proposal is based on the following assumptions/conditions:
. The proposed field work will be completed in four (4) lO-hour work days, which
. does not include travel to and from the site, and entails the installation of
approximately 10 to 15 geoprobes to a total depth of 12 ft-bgs, and the
excavation and disposal of the USTs.
. City of Augusta will provide CEW with a site map drawn to scale of the facility.
. All permits and application fees are covered by the Client.
. The cost estimate in this proposal does not include costs to survey the site and
geoprobe locations.
. The costs for the drilling subcontractor is based on the subcontractors being on-
site a total of one day. Additional days will be billed on a time and materials
basis.
. The costs for disposal, transportation, and waste characterization of the drill
cuttings and purged water are not included in this proposal (if required). Costs
for these services will be provided upon review of analytical results.
. Analytical services will be conducted following standard laboratory turnaround
time (7 days) and is based on the parameters described herein.
. Labor hours estimated is dependent upon favorable weather conditions, site
accessibility, and optimum subcontractor performance.
. Additional delineation activities beyond the proposed scope of services are not
included in this proposal and, if required, will be billed on a time and materials
basis.
. All field activities will be performed under Level D safety conditions.
. CEW will provide schedule to include 30 day notification period for all agencies.
. Utility locate notification will be completed prior to CEW mobilization by client.
. Silt fencing to be installed on down gradient areas only NTE 200 ft.
. CEW's contractor CCI will mechanically compact the excavation with the
excavator to grade.
. CEW assumes the tanks contents is sand. (Not Concrete)
. . Imported fill estimated at 95 tons CEW will bill materials at cost plus 20%.
. CEW assumes the excavation can be backfilled directly after conformation
samples are collected. A daily rate of $2,405.00 will be applied if exceeds 3 days.
. Shoring is excluded from our estimate.
. . Dewatering is excluded in this estimate.
. CEW will expose and remove all tanks consecutively so that all samples can be
collected and shipped at the same time.
. CEW will expose and remove all 4 tanks at the same time to have only one mob
for the recycling company.
. All applicable permits will be obtained and kept valid as required by all
applicable regulatory agencies by CEW and the City.
. The contract will be contingent on mutually accepted Terms and Condition.
. CEW will not claim generator status for any such materials, however, CEW will
sign disposal documents as Agent for Generator.
. CEW's proposal will become by reference apart of any final services contract
and must be incorporated by reference into any contract document.
'\
l
)
)
.
This proposal is valid for 45 days from the date of submittal.
CEW will be responsible for the accuracy of all information supplied to the
disposal facility for disposal acceptance, generator information, etc. If any
discrepancies are found within this information the client will be responsible for
all costs associated with the correction of these discrepancies.
All surcharges not mentioned in this estimate will be billed as received at cost
plus 20%.
Acceptance of this proposal contingent upon CEW receiving written estimates
for all subcontracted items and lor vendor services.
Estimate for transportation and disposal of steel tanks based on the tanks
conditions being acceptable for over the road hauling (flat bed), meeting GA
DOT regulations. (Included letter of destruction from disposal facility)
.
.
.
.
CEW appreciates the opportunity to provide City of Augusta, with this estimate. If I can
be of any further assistance please feel free to call me at (404) 933-2250.
John Wright, Managing Partner
Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC
iwrightCZV,cewtechservices. com
REVISED CONTINGENCIES
This proposal is based on the following assumptions/conditions:
· The proposed field work will be completed in four (4) lO-hour work days, which
does not include travel to and from the site, and entails the installation of
approximately lO to 15 geoprobes to a total depth of 12 ft-bgs, and the
excavation and disposal of the USTs.
· City of Augusta will provide CEW with a site map drawn to scale of the facility.
. All permits and application fees will be covered by CEW.
. Analytical services will be conducted following laboratory turnaround time of
three (3) days and is based onthe parameters described herein.
. Additional delineation activities for impacted soils that are above GA EPD action
levels that are beyond the proposed scope of services are not included in this
proposal and, if required, will be billed on a time and materials basis.
CEW will provide schedule to include 30 day notification to the GA EPD.
CEW will locate utilities prior to mobilization the site.
Silt fencing to be installed on down gradient areas only NTE 200 ft.
CEW assumes the tanks contents is sand (Not Concrete). If the tanks are filled
with concrete this could significantly affect the schedule and disposal costs.
Dewatering of contaminated water is excluded in this estimate.
CEW will not claim generator status for contaminated materials however, CEW
will sign disposal documents as Agent for Generator.
CEW's proposal will become by reference a part of any final services contract
and must be incorporated by reference into any contract document.
CEW appreciates the opportunity to provide City of Augusta, with this estimate. If I can
be of any further assistance please feel free to call me at (404) 933-2250.
John Wright, Managing Partner
Cosby, Everett & Wright,LLC
jwright@ iwright -associates.com
)
.'!.
'~
l
)
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
ATTACHMENT A
EXPERIENCE MODIFICATION RATE
(2 Pages)
~2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC
,
.~
I
Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia
Request for Proposal
Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
for the New Main Library
FRP Item #07-128
Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC (CEW), IS a fully insured, technically
qualified firm with over fifty years of combined professional service
experience. CEW has been in existence for about one year, therefore, an
annual EMR rating has not been calculated by our Worker's Comp broker,
World Risk Management. However, to date, we have had no recorded
accidents within our firm. Attached for your additional review is a copy of
our Liability Insurance certificate reflecting all of the industry standard
requirements.
)
@2007 Cosby, Everett & Wright, LLC
11/19/2007 8:09 PM FROM: Fax TO: 678-526-2688 PAGE: 001 OF 001
,
UNITED STATES DISnuCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
. I
THOMPSON BUILDrnG WRECKING COMPANY,
INC~ PAULETTE TUCKER ENTERPRISES, INe.,
d/b/a TUCKER. GRADING AND HAULING,
RICHARn CALD\VELL, d/b/a CLASSIC ROCK
HAULrnG, SIDNEY CtJLrARS, d/b/a SIDNEY
CurJLARSTRUCI<ING,
Plaintiffs,
v.
I07CYOI9
AUG(USTA, GEORGIA,
I
: Defendant.
,
I ORDE~
I. ~TRODUCTION
rb this civil rights action, various plaintiffs
chalI~nge the City of ~ugusta, Georgia's
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises ("DBE'')
Program as unconstitutionahy discriminatory.
Doc. ~'1. They c1::iim that tbIe Program violates
the Equal Protection Claus9 of the Fourteenth
AmJ.dment to the United Stites Constitution, as
well I as various provisionJ. of the Georgia
Constitution. Id. BecaFe the Georgia
Constitution claims raise novel issues of Georgia
law -~ whether the AUgt!.sta prdinance violates
the Georgia Constitution -- this Court declines to
exercise any jurisdiction it m~y have over them.
I I
28 V'iS'C' ~ 1367(c)(1); see Parker v. Scrap
Metal P-rocessors, Inc., 468 Ff3d 733, 643 (11 th
Crr. ~006) ("Anyone of the section 1367(c)
factor~ is sufficient to give I the district court
discretion to dismiss a case's supplemental state
law clbs"). The only iss~e now before the
I I
Court,ithen, is whether Augusta'sDBEProgram
should be enjoined becauSeitrl. olates the United.
States IConstitution, I
I
I
,.
I MUc~ of plaintiff's complaint COkd also be read as a
Olull"'1' ~ tho PBE P"=" "",nod during bi_,
I
,
i
1="lLED
'tfS.-DfSTRICT C'OURT
S}W td'{M ~\i1 D IV.
Ziill MAR I q PH 3: 32
CLERK IkJ
SO. OJ5T. OF GA.
The plaintiffs allege that prime contract bids
containing DBE participation at the subcontract
level are' 'treated 'more favorably than bids
without DBE participation at the subcontract
level; in other words, the DBE Program
encourages prime contractors to discriminate
against subcontractors on the basis of. race,
gender, and relative economic advantage. Doc.
#1 at 14-15; see doc. # 5, exJ1. C at 1-66
(AUGUSTA CODE ~ 1-1 0-62(b )(9)); see also doc.
# 13 at 1 (the parties have stipulated that the
City currently adds up to "20 points" to a
propos'!l or bid th.lt utilizes DBBs). According
for a project to demolish the Caody Factory Buildings in
Augusta. See doc. # 1 at 5-8 (descnoing fuets surroundiIlg
the bidding for the Candy Factory Buildings demolition
contract). At a 2/13/07 hearing, however, the parties
. represented that the Candy F aetory Buildings contract was
being litigated in state court, so the issue is not before tltis
Coun. Doc. # 14. Thus, the plaintiffs here attlck the DBE
Program facially, rather than based on an individual past
application.
AdditionAlly, the plaintiffs' complain.t discusses alleged
violations of the DBE Program by the City. E.g. doc. # 1
at 15-16 (discussing businesses that Were given DBE
advantages despite nor meeting DBE criteria. and not
being registered with the City). This seans relevant only
. to what could be read as an irlvocation of the due process
"void for vagueness" doctrine. Id. at 19.
The challenge is that because the ordinance bcb
adequate objective criteria for awarding contracts, city
officials are acting arbitrarily and capriciously In violation
of due process. See generally Note, The Void-for.
Vagur::n.ess Docrrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U. P A.. L.
REv. 67 (1960); A.ndrew E. Goldsmith, The
Void-for-Vagur::ness Doarine in rhe Supreme Court,
Revisized. 30 AM. J. eRn.!. L. 279 (2003). Tne plaintiffs
ignore this argument in thcir TRO briefing,
,
to the plaintiffs, this ~laces them at a
COmpetitive disadvantage m bidding on Augusta
projects. Doc. # 1 at 15.
On 2/13/07, this Court heard arguments on
whether a temporary restraining order (TRO)
shoul~ ~ssue. The nex~ ~y~ it entered a 30-day
restrairung order requmng that any contracts
entered by the City of Augujsta be made vrithout
reference to the challenged DBE Program. Doc.
# 6. With bids before it, the/City of Augusta has
stopped awarding cont:ra.ctS rather than award
contracts without reference ~o the DBE Program.
Doc: # 12 at 3 ("nine contrabt awards have been
delayed since thee:ntry of the Court's Order').
Of course, nothing in the CdUIt's 2/14/07 Order
requires the City to stop d.tering contracts; it
simply requires that the Cit;\ treat all companies
the same, regardless of DBE status or DBE
partifipation iD a bid..
In any event, the parties have now briefed
the Court on whether tha~ Order should be
extended or dissolved. Doc. ## 8-9. Meanwhile,
I
the plaintiffs move for ~ contempt order,
claiming tliat the Cityhas violated the TRO, doc.
# 16, ibut the Court will Dot pkss on that until the
City responds.
II. ;B~CJ(GROUND
In 1994, concerned abou the present effects
of p~t discrimination in tugusta,' the City
commissioned. the "Richmon~ County Disparity
Study," (Study) -- Augusta being the county seat
of Ri~hmond County. Doc. 1# -5, exh. A. . The
Study, makes numerous ~ .findmgs,
including "compelling evidence of a large
disparity between the utilizatibn of minority and
women vendors and their dvailability in the
Richmond County market b... much of
[whien] is attributable to th~ past and present
effects of discrimination. " IIi. at vi.
The Study examines the disparity in
socioeconomic status among the various races. 2
Among the findings:
· The Richmond County popUlation
was 55.1% white, 42% black, .3%
Native American, 1.7% Asian, and 2%
Hispanic, id. at vii;
· "Black families in Richmond County
[in 1994 were] nearly ~our times more
likely to have incomes below the
. poverty level, [sic] than white families,"
id. at vi, 23;
· Black unemployment was more than
tvrice that of whites, id. at vi, 22;
· The white high school gradUation rate
was 76.8%; whereas the black high
school graduation rate was.61.2%, id.;
· The white college graduation rate was
21.7%, where& the b1ackcollege
graduation rate was 9.8%, id.;
· White median family income was
$35,181, while black median family
income was $21,'543; and Whites are
more likely to be employed in
management positions, id. at vi, 23.
These socioeconomic diffeIences, the Study
ccncludes, "have a significant impact on the
ability of blacks to start and grow businesses,
because they reduce the financial resources and
market size and strength." ld. at vi.
2 The study compared the SocioecoIlol1lic srstus of
whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, lllld Native Americans.
Doe. # 5, exh. A at 22-23, 24-35. The C()DclusioDS drawn
all refer only to the disparity between white. a.rui blacks.
Jd. at vi-viii.
2
,
...
The Study next compares black-o\Vned
businesses in Augusta to those owned in other .
regions and those O\VI'led by' other racial groups.
Jd. at vii, 43-45. Accord4.g to the Study, the
925 black-o\Vned busmessds had a mean annual
rev~. ~e ofS2:,787.1d. ~~. This,figure'was
statlstlcally disparate froH~ annual revenue of
black businesses in the rest of the state ($55,443)
and country ($46,593). Id./The 197 non-black
minority ii.rms had a mean annual revenue of
$86,603, and the 1,900 fem4re--owned!inns had
a mean annual revenue of $70,280. Id. The
mean annual revenue of all Georgia firms was
$159,859, and the mean annual revenue of all
U.S. firms was $145,654. {d. at 44-45. A key
datum, the mean. annual revenue of all
businesses in RichmondCohnty, is missing.
The Study then dise~ Georgia's racist
history as it relates to contracting, including
antebellum legislation zD..akmg it illegai to
r
contr,act with blacks "fat the erection of
buildings, or for the repair or buildings." Id. at
vii~viii, 49-61.
Nex~ the StudydesCIibes the County's
contracting outlays between ~992 and 1994. Id.
at viii~x; id. at xvi-xxviii (charts of data). In
1992, the County awarded dver $27 million in
. I
contracts, of whlch 1.25% (around $350,000)
went to minority and worn/en vendors. The
percentages in 1993 and 19:14 were 1.72% and
4.33% respectively. Id. at it. The Study also
noted, a disparity in the "ske,- in awards," 28 for
white- firms, 5 for minority. Id. Though
"skewness" is not explicitly ~efined, the Study
notes that the disparity means that
"disbursements to majority iiJns were five times
more concentrated among a few .firms than Were
disbursements to minority nrlns." Id.; see id. at
xxi~xxii (charts 3.5 and 3.11)[
I
I
The Study next discusses the City's record of
"purchase ,orders under $1,500.00" in 1993. Id.
at ix. The City fielded three telephone quotes
for each such order. ld. Only 8% oillie quotes
. were fielded from minority vendors in 1993, and
only 1 % of the dollar value went to minority _
vendors. !d.; see xxii~xxili (Charts 4.2 & 4.3).
Minorities and WOmen received 1. 7% of
contracts over $5,000 in1992 and 3.7% of such
contracts in 1993. Id.
The City had 1,608 vendors available. Id.
1v.l::inority and women firms constituted 12%
(187) of them. !d. at ix-x. Of those 187, there
were 88% black (85% male; 3% female); 8%
wbite women; 3 % Asian; and 1 % Hispanic_ Of
the minority firms, 81 % of those that responded
to a survey never received a contract from the
County, 47% believed white-male vendors were
favored, 23% agreed or strongly agreed that
their bus41ess had been discriminated, against,
48% agreed that they had faced discrimination
in seeking financing, and 36% agreed that they
had, encountered discrimination in pursuing
contracts vrith majority firms. Id. at xi;
Finally, the Study includes anecdotal
evidence. of diScrimination from 22. interviews
conducted with minority and women vendors.
Id.; see also id., app. VIII (separatelypagmated
section containing interview evidence). The
Study characterizes the three types of
discrimination encountered by the vendors as
"Discrimination denying market access to
competiti ve [ vendors]," "Discrimination
adversely affecting the ability of [vendors] to
compete," and "Discrimination adversely
affecting the availability of [vendors]." Id. at 1.
The Study draws the conclusion that "[tJhe
evidence documented herein points to the
existence of significant racial and. gender
disparity in Richmond County Contracting [sic)
and procurement." Id. at xiii-xiv. The Study
...
:>
makes seven recommendations to cure the
disparity:
(1) create a program t9 "mandate race
and gender conscio~ '" goals in
contracting and procurement,)1 including:
bid preferences, requfung white-male
firms subcontract with minority finns,
prime contracts '\Vith minority firms,
joint ventures between white-male and
minority firms;
(2) 21% utilization of minority- and
I .
femaIe-owned business7s - 16% black,
3% white women, 2% asian and
hi sp anic; I,
(3) waiver of goals inprLuct areas with
few available minoritY and Women
vendors;
(4) only use of local minority- and
female-owned businesses should count
toward the established gbals;' ,
. I
(~) the program should be fully staffed to
deal with certi1ication lof businesses,
contract monitoring, aIfd supervising
contract compliance in rurchasing and
procurennent; . , .
(6) solicit more quotes from minority-
and female-OW1led vendT on contracts
under S 1 ,500; ,
(7) create periodic reviews, graduation of
, I
businesses from the program, and a
sunset on the program.
Id. at xiii-x.iv.
Bas~ on the Study, the City of Augusta
enacted its DBE, Program. S'le doc. # 5,exh. C
(AUGUSTA CODE 99 1-10-58 to 1-10-62). The
challenged part of the Program requires the City
to
[i]nclude language in ail fonnal bid
documents requiring contractors to
utilize . [minority.O\VI1ed. female-
owned, and small businesses] to the
maximum extent possible and
economically feasible, as partners or
subcontractors for service delivery or
as suppliers of vario~s goods
required in the performance of the
contract.
AUGUSTA CODE g 1-lO-62(b)(9). PursU2Ilt to
this section, the City includes the fOllowing
language in its bid documents:
Augusta-Richmond . County
encourages minority participation
through subcontracting, joint
ventures, or other methods in
contracting for services, in order to
expedite the evaluation process, we
have attached the Checklist for Good
Faith Efforts, Proposed
Disadvantaged Business EnteIJlrise
Participation, and Letter of Intent to
Pexionn forms.. The bidder should
complete the Proposed DBE
Participation Form, indicating the
percentage of participation for this
proposal. The completed form must
accompany the proposal.
See doc. # 9 at 4 (Augusta's brief, quoting bid
materials provided to contractors). The parties
have stipulated that bids containing DBE
participation in their "Proposed DBE
Participation Fonn" are treated more favorably
than bids without DBE participation, Doc. # 13
. at 1.
4
.'
under similar circumstances. There the federal
gov,ernment entered, pri:xhe contracts with
'vendors that provided for dtra compensation if
subcontractors . were run I by "socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals." Id. at
205. Most minority' gtoups' received a
presumption of "SOCiallY! and economically
disadvantaged" status. Id. Adarand, a
subcontractor not entitled to the presumption,
sued. The Court held that Adarand had standing
to challenge prospective ap~lication of the race-
based presumption and to seek inj unctive relief.
Id. at 210-12.
The Court limited its analysis to the ''injury
in fact"standing requiremen,t, which it held was
met. Id. at 211. A plaintiff ~uffers injury in fact
by "an invasion of a lega1l~ protected interest
which is (a) concrete and pamcularized, and (b)
actual or irnminen~ n9t conjectural or
hyPothetical." Jd. (quoting Lujan v. Deferuiers of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (~992)). Preventing
a contractor from competing pn an equal footing
is a particularized injury, so Adarand met the
first portion of the "injury i~ fact" requirement.
Jd. (citing He. Fla. Chapter., Associated Gen.
Contractors of America v. [Jacks-onville, 508
U.S. 656, 667 (1993)). It met the second
portion of "injury in fact" because it showed
"that sometime in the relatiycly near future it
will bid on another Government contract that
offers financial incentives to f prime contractor
for hiring disadvantaged subcontractors." ld. at
211-12. .Th~: Ad~and hadrt<mding to seek a
prospective ID]llncbon. ,
In this. case, the plaintiffs are a prime
demolition contractor (Thorhpson) and three
hauling subcontractors (Tucker, Caldwell, and
Cullars). See doc. # 1 at 8-9. Among the
subcontractors, Tucker is a DBE on non-race
I
grounds and challenges the City's granting DBE
status based on race; Caldwell and Cullars are
I
non-DBE subcontractors. All the plaintiffs
regularly bid and work on Augusta projects. Id.
at 10.
Caldwell and Cullars have standing, under
Adarand, to prospectively challenge the City's
favoritism toward prime contract bids
containing DBE participation. Because the
'Program, 'like the program in Adarand,
encourages prime contractors to discriminate
between subcontractors, Caldwell and Cullars
suffer the particularized injury of not being able
to compete on equal footing with other
subcontractors. Adarand, 515 U.S. at 200.
Tn addition, the subcontractors allege that
they bid and work on City of Augusta projects,
and will continue to do so. Doc. # 1 at 9-10
(Caldwell and Cullars are hauling
subcontractors regUlarly working on Augusta
proj ects; "Plaintiffs have and continue to bid on
[Augusta's] projects, as contractors,
subcontractors and/or vendors''). Because
Augusta regularly enters contracts ("nine
contract awards [were] delayed [in the 10 day
period following] the entry of the Court's
[2I14/07J Order," doc. # 12 at 3), the future
injury to Caldwell and Cullars, like the future
injury in A darand, is imminent Therefore, the
Court rej ects the City's standing argument. 3
2. Substantial Likelihood of Success
The Court must next determine whether the
plaintiffs are SUbstantially likely to succeed in
showing that the racial preference in the DBE
Pro~ violates the Equal Protection Clause.
"[A]l1 racial classifications, imposed by
l Because Ccllars llIld Caldwell have standing, it is not
necessary, for purposes of this Order, to discuss whether
Thompson and Tucker also have standing. A:nyargument
on that score should be raised in a motion to dismiss,
6
i
I
/'
whatever federal, state, or I local. gov~enta1
actor, must be analyzed by a revie\Ving court
under strict scrutiny. In lother words, such .
classifications are constitutional only if they are
I .
narrowly tailored measures that further
compelling governmental iterests." Adarand,
515 U.S. at 227. I
The City first argues that "all that is required
.1 .
for vendors to comply Wlfh Augusta's DBE
Program is to make an ap~ropriate good faith
effort [to ensureDBE participation]." Doc. # 15
at 3. The implication is that requiring a good
faith,. effo~ to emplo~ DB~s is not a rac~al
cJas~.fication, even If som.e DBEs qualify
simply on the basis of racf. Yet Augusta's
bidding materials require contractors to submit
a "Proposed DBE Participation" form, see doc;
# 9 at 4 (Augusta's brief, qubting bid materials
. provided'. to contractors), I and the, parties
stipulate that bids containin~ DBE participation
. are treated more favorably Ithan bids without
such participation. Doc. # ~3 at 1. Because a
person's business can qualify for the favorable
treatment based on that person's race, while a
similarly situated person of kother race would
not qualify, the proiramr 'ontains a racial
classification.
This classification actually harms the
subcontractors in hvo ways. I First, when bids
are requested from prime contractors, the prime
contractors will discriminat~ based on DBE
I
status because their bid will be treated more
I
favorably with DBE particfation. ,Second,
when the City decides bernreen competing bids,
with bid "one" containing minority DBE
participation and bid "two" (!equal in all other
respects or even superior to I bid one in other
respects) containing a plaintiffs participation,
the City will favor bid one: IBecause bid one
would not be favored but for the plaintiff's
owners failure to be of an I Augusta-blessed
I
racial makeup, the City must show that the
discriminatory program is narrowly tailored to
meet a compelling interest
That brings the Court to Richmond v. lA.
Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989). In Croson, a
plurality of the Court noted that a city"'ha.s a
compelling interest in assuring that public
dollars, drawn from the tax contributions of all
citizens, do not serve to finance the evil of
private prejudice." Jd. at 492 (plurality).
"Thus, if the city could show it had
essentially'become a 'passive participant' in a
system of racial exclusion practiced by elements
of the local construction industry '" the city
could take affirmative steps to dismantle such a
system." Id. Though these statements Were
made in a three~jllStice plurality opinion, they
were endorsed in majority portions of the
opinion, see, e.g., id. at 504 (Opinion of the
Court) ("States and their subdivisions may take
remedial action when they possess evidence that
their own spending practices are exacerbating a
, pattern of prior discrimination, [but] theymust
identify that discrimination, public or private,
with some specificity before they may use race-
conscious relief'), and by the Eleventh Circuit,
Eng'g Assocs., 122 F.3d at 907 (quoting the
above, plurality portion of Croson).
The Eleventh Circuit has described a
method for government to prove the existence
of tbis compelling interest:
Public ~ployers may... justify
affumative action by demonstrating
"gross statistical disparities" between
the proportion -of minorities hired by
the public employer and the proportion
of minorities willing and able to do the
work. Anecdotal evidence may also be
used to document discrimination,
7
III. ,!,NAL YSIS
. This Court' s discretio~ to grant a IRO is
limited: I
The district court abus~s its discretion
when it grants a [TROU in spite of the
movant's failure to establish. (I) a
substa.."1tial .1ikeIihood that the movant
will ultimately prevail dn the merits; (2)
th.at the movant will sJirer irreparable
injury unless the injunction issues; (3)
that the threatened injm1y to the movant
outweighs whatever I damage the
proposed injunction may cause the
opposing party; and (4) that the
inj unction, if issued, would not be
adverse to the public interest. .
, I'
Wan:-en Publ'g, lne.v. Microdos Data Corp.,
115 F.3d 1509, 1516 (11th ICir. 1997) (quotes
and alterations omitted). "A preliminary
injunction is an. extraorcqn.ary and drastic
remedy not to be granted k.1ess the movan~
clearlyestablished.the burddn of persuasion as
. I
to each of the fourprerequisiies." Four Seasons
Hotels & Resorts, E. V. v. CofrsorcioEarr, S.A.,
320 F..3d 1205,1210 (11th eir. 2003).
Initially, the Court poLts out that the
plaintiffs fail to establish a ~elihood of SUccess
on the merits insofar as they attack the DBE
Program's discrimination baSed on gender and
. I
economIC status. See AUGUSFA CODE ~~ 1-10-
S 8( a)-(b) (minority person ~cludes "female";
DBEs inclUde businesses "')not dominant in
[theirJ field" and "regaxded 3;s small in size'').
That is because the plaintiffs! arguments focus
solely on the scheme's failure to meet strict
scrutiny. Doc. i#f. 2, 8. Bu~ under the Equal
Protection Clause, legislatiop discriminating
based on gender and economic status is subject
to lesser judicial. scrutiny. Se~ u.s. v. Virginia,
518 U.S. 515, 532-33 (1996) (intermediate
scrutiny for gender-based legislative
discrimination; "Sex classifications may be
used to compensate women for particular
economic disabilities they have suffered [and]
to promote equal employment opportunity"
(quotes, cite, and orig:in.a1 alterations omitted));
Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314, 331 (1981)
(rational-basis scrutiny for economic
legislation; "Social and economic legislation...
that does not employ suspect classifications or
impinge on fundamental rights must be upheld
against equal protection I attack when the
legislative means are rationally related. to a
legitimate governmental purpose"); see also
Eng'g Assocs. S. Fla., Inc. v. Metropolitan
Dade County, 122 F.3d 895,907-08 (11th eiI.
1997) (applying intermediate scrutiny to county
program favoring female contractors).
Therefore, the plaintiffs' TRO-extension
request can s'ucceed only insofar as it attacks th~
DBE Program's discrimination based on race.
1. Standing
The City primarily argues that plaintiffs are
unlikely to succeed on the merits because they
lack standing to challenge the DBE Program.
Doc. #.9 at 9-12; doc. # 15 at 1-3.
Article ill of the Constitution lim.itsthe
jurisdiction of federal courts to
"Cases" and "Controversies:' One
component of the case-or-controversy
requirement is standing) which requires
a plaintiff to demonstrate the
now-familiar elements ofinjuryin fact,
causation, and redressability.
Lance v. Coffman, 127 S.Ct. 1194,1196 (2007),
In Adarand Constructors, Inc. \.I. Pena, 515
U.S., 200 (1995), the Court discussed. standing
5
~ . .
especially if b~tt:ressed by releVant
statistical evidence.
Ensley Branch, N.A.A. c.P. v. Seibels, 31 F.3d
1548, 1565 (11th eir. 1~94). The above-
mentioned Study was Augusta's attempt to
make this showing in 1994.
. I
The Stuc;ly found that of the 1,608 vendors
available for cOntracting, riunority and women
firms constitute 12% (l87)~ Doc. # 5, exh. A at
ix-x. Fortheyears 1992, 1993, and 1994, these
firms received 1.25%, 11.72%, and 4.33%
respectively of overill City/contracting dollars.
[d. at viii~ix. In other wordS, while white males
' . I
ran only88% of the City's c0ntracting concerns,
I
they averaged around 98% of the annual
contracting dollars. These ktatistics buttressed
the Study's anecdotJl evidence of
I
discriminatio~ received from minority and
women contracto'rs. Doc. # 5, exh. A, app. vm
at 1-8. .
The Study, however, is not without flaws.
The discrimination the Ci'o/ is attempting to
justify operates between. suocontractors. Only
evidence Showing that sub~ontractors of race
"A" are discriminated againkt to the advantage
of subcontractors of rake "B" justifies
governmental action attem~ting to cure the
burden by favoring subcontractors of race A.
See Croson, 488 U.S. at 504;Icf id. at 499 ("It is
sheer specUlation how many minority firms
there would be in Richmond ~bsent past societal
discrimination.... Defining th~se sorts of inj uries
I
as 'identified discrirninationr would give local
governments license to cI"9te a patchwork of
racial preferences based on statistical
generalizations about any particular field of
endeavor"). For this reason, inuch of the Study
is irrelevant to whether jtbe City has a
compelling interest in discriminating behveen
subcontractors on the basis 9f race. E.g., Doc.
I
# 5, exh. A at vi~vii"(socioeconomic status of
racial groups in Augusta area).
Furthermore, the Citymustrelyonnarrowly .
tailored data to acbieve what precedent
requires: a narrowly tailored program.. The
Study's data lumps all minority and women
vendors into a single group and compares that
group to all ''majority'' vendors (i,e., whitemaIe
vendors). Jd. at viii-x. But to establish a
compelling interest thai justifies narrowly
tailored, race-based discrimination, better
evidence would. differentiate among. the
, minority races. Cf Croson. 488 U.S. at 506 ("If
a 30% s~t.aside was 'narrowly tailored' to
compensate black contractors for past
discrimination, one may legitimately ask why
they are forced to share this 'remedial relief
with an Aleut citizen who moves to Richmond
tomorrow? The gross overinclusiveness of
Richmond's racial preference strongly impugns
the city's claim of remedial motivation").
Too, it seems impossible to enact a
na..'TOwly tailored program by relying on
evidence lumping gender~ and race-based
. discrim:ination together, as the Study does. See
Eng'g Assocs., 122 F.3d at 919 n.4 (describing
"the statistical phenomenon known. as
'Simpson's Paradox,' which leads to illusory
disparities in improperly aggregated data that
disappear when the data are disaggregated''). .
Forpurposes of this motion, however, the Court
'Nill assume that the City m.u be able to show
!be existence of a compelling interest to enact
an af:finnative action plan in 1994.
The question then becomes whether the
Program crafted in 1994 is narrowly tailored.
Though it is possible that the substance of the
attacked portion of the Program is narrowly
8
t'
t.1ilored,4 the Court need go no further than point
out that the Program is still in place 13 years
after the Study was cO~piled without any
further investigation into tb.~ UIiderlying reasons
for creating a program., and with6ut)any sunset
or expiration provision. I Doc. # 13 at 1-2
(stipulations that the Program "does not have an
expiration or sunset provikion" and that the
1994 Study is "[t]he only I disparity study on
behalf of the Defendant"). /whether thiS defect
is framed as a failure to show that the City has a
compelling interest in 2007 ,/as opposed to 1994,
or a failure to prove that the Program adopted in
1994 Was narrowly tailored fempOra11y, the end
resuJtis that the plaintiffs are substantially likely
to succeed on the merits.
This case demoIlStra1:fS the need. for
unvarying vigilance ag~~ the arrogance of
error too long unexanuned.Government
favoritism. for one race over kother, long borne
of and too often perpetuated by evil motives, is
rightly prohibited by the Equal Protection
Clause. Equal protection simply prohibits
government from favoring one race OVer another
in contracting. A.ffirmative ketion is permitted
very sparingly, and only whdre the government
is convinced that not to tak:~ action would be
passively engaging in ~e very rac"ial
discrimination that equal pro/it ection condemns.
It would be impossible for Augusta to argue
that, 13 years after last studying the issue, racial
discrimination is so ramparit in the Augusta
contracting industry" that I the "City must
affinnatively act to avoid beingcomplicit
· Again, AugtlSl:i requires biddcrj to submit "Proposed
DBE Participation" vvilli. their bi1. See doc. # 9" at 4
(Augustl's brief, quoting bid materials provided to
contractors), Bids w:ith DEE participation are tr~ted
more favorably, Doc. # 13 at 1. I
3. Irreparable Harm
The plaintiffs are substabtially likely to
succeed in proving that, when the City requests
bids with minority DBEparticipation and in
fact favors bids with such, the plaintiffs will
suffer racial discrimination in violation of the
Equal Protection Clause. Minority DBEs
qualify for the Program based solely on the race
of their owners. At the same tirn.e, a losing
bidder's ability to prove the injury in each
instance would be next to impossible (whether
rejected by a prime contractor, or part of a bid
rejected by the City, was the rejection because
of the subcontractor's status as a no'n-DBE?).
On top of that, the measure of damages would
be speculative. Plaintiffs therefore face the
prospect of irreparable injury every time bids
. are solicited and considered under the current
" scheme.
4. Damage to the Movant versus Damage
to the Defendant
Augusta argues that it will be hanned by the
delay to public works projects if the Court
extends its injunction. Doc. # 9 at 13. As
disCussed above, nothing in the Court's 2/14/07
Order prevents . the City from entering into
public works contracts, it simply enjoins the
City from using the DEE Program to enter
con'l:raCts. Doc. # 6. Specific behavior
(discrimination based on race), rather than the
letting ofmunicip~ contracts, is the orily thing
being halted here.
5. Adverse to the Public Interest
The City argues that an injunction would be
adverse to the public's interest in remedying
9
,.
.
'~
- --,..~
.0 i O' d T\fJ,OJ,
!
past discrimination.s Dolc. # 9 at 13. The
plaintiffs argue that not issuing an injunction
would be adverse to the Ipublic's interest in
equal protection under the law. Doc. # 12 at 11
(citing Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough County, 723
I
F. Supp. 669, 678 (M.D.Fla.. 1989)).
I .
Both arguments seem to beg ultimate
questions at issue in the ~ase. For present
purposes it is sufficient to ote that the City's
reasoning would prevent TROs from ever
issuing on legislation. ~or any piece of
legislation 'With a rational brsis, no matter how
constitutionally odious, the argument c<m be
made that "the public has .in interest in [insert
the rational basis for frle legislation), so
enj oining the legislation proboting that interest
is adverse to the. public into/est." In short, the
Court draws a distinction between an injunction
that is adverse to the public mterest and an .
inj unction that merely lirrhts the ability of
government to promote a perceived public
interest.
IV_ .cONCLUSION
The City of Augusta is h9'eby ENJOINED,
for the pendency of this action, from favoring
contract bids that contain "ininority DBE" or
"minority business enterpri~e" (or any other
. I
entity that qualifies as aDBE pased on the racial
composition of its ovmership 1 participation over
other bids.
Furthermore, the City is ENJOINED, for
the pendency of this action, from distributing
bid solicitation material, or otlienvise publishing
information in any manner, that would lead a
~idder.to beli.eve ~at his bid ~o~d ~ene:fit ~om
mcluding "minonty DBE" or '~montybusmess
I
./ '
l The City also reiterates the positioD tmt an injunction
would harm the public's interest I in timely a-wm:di.ng
construction contracts, As discussedpnpa."'till(4), nothing
in a well-defIned injUIlction will delay any public project
'I
I
I
r
enterprise" (or any other entity that qualifies as
a DBE based on the racial composition of its
ownership) participation. The City shall, within
3 days of the date of this Order, post a copy of
the Order in portable document format (Pdf) on
the City's procurement department hbmepage
(http://www. augustaga.govl dep artments/
PUIchasinglbome_asp) via a reasonably visible
hyperlink entitled "Court Order Enjoining
Race-Based Portion ofDBE Program."
Finally, this injunction is binding upon the
City, its officers, agents, servants, employees
and attorneys, and upon those person in active
concert. or participation with it who receive
actual notice of this injunction by personal
service or othenvise. &e F.R.Civ.P. 65(d).
This ifday of March, 2007.
',j
.\
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY COMMISSION
"~
A
STEPHEN E. SHEPARD
County Attorney
Augusta Law Department
CillQUITA T. JOHNSON
Staff Attorney
Betty Beard
Marion Williams
Joe Bowles
Bernard Harper
Calvin Holland, Sr,
Andy Cheek
'Jerry Brigham
Jimmy Smith
1. R. Hatney
Don Grantham
DAVID S. COPENHAVER
Mayor
ANDREW G MACKENZIE
Staff Attorney
BETIY BEARD
Mayor Pro Tern
FROM:
Jacques Ware~
HEERY International,(nc.
Stephen E. Shepard Ii) L),
MEMORANDUM
Frederick L. Russell
Administrator
TO:
Please Reply to:
701 Greene Street, Suite 104
Augusta, Georgia 30901
DATE:
November 16, 2007
RE:
Review of Contract Documents between Augusta and Cosby, Everett, Wright, LLC
Environmental Engineering and UST Closure services for new main library
I have reviewed the attached Environmental Engineering Services agreement and would like to make the
following observations:
1) Final documents should be signed and executed by Cosby, Everett and Wright. /'
2) Cover page, add the word "Augusta" after Acting by and through the: Augusta Richmond V
County Commission.
3) Please add on the front cover which SPLOST fund is being used for this project, i.e. SPLOST V
IV, SPLOST V.
4) Gary Swint as Department Head and Bob Munger as HEERY Construction Program Manager are /'
required to initial the signature pages in the final contract documents.
5) Page 19, Additional Provisions: Please delete "Uuless otherwise specified". Start sentence with ~
"This agreement, etc.".
6) Page 20, signature page: Add the word "Augusta" before Richmond County Commission. /'
7) Scope of services, Page 1 of Cosby, Everett and Wright, LLC document, please correct word
"Green", should read "Greene" streets. . V-
8) An updated certificate of liability insurance is required as specified in Article 8, Insurance. y/
9) Add Notices to Owner: Fred Russell, Administrator, with a copy of the notices to Garrett Weis, ./'
City's Environmental Engineer.
Please make the above corrections and return to me the final documents for initialing and further
processing by the Mayor and Clerk of Commission.
I may be contacted at (706) 724-6597 ifthere are any questions on this matter.
SES/bc
Attachment (as stated)
Augusta Law Department
501 Greene Street, Suite 302, Augusta, Georgia 30901
(706) 842-5550 - Fax (706) 842-5556
County Attorney
701 Greene Street, Suite 104, Augusta, Georgia 30901
(706) 724-6597 - Fax (706) 722-4817
Tameka Allen, Interim Deputy Administrator
Robert Leverett, Interim Deputy Administrator
Room 801 . Municipal Building
5,0 Greene Stfee~. AUGUSTA, GA. 30~11
(706) 821-24<>0 - FAX (706) 821-2819
www.;lIIgustllga.gov
Office Of The Administrator
November 8, 2007
Mr. Gary Swint
Director - ARC Library
902 Greene Street
Augusta, GA 30901
Dear Gary:
The Augusta-Richmond County Commission, at their regular meeting held on Thursday,
November 8. 2007. approved a proposal from Cosby, Everett & Wright for Environmental Engineering
and Underground Storage Tank abatement services associated with recently acquired property for the
New Main Library.. .
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Yours truly, r h /
. (//-4
Frederick L. Russell
Administrator
. cc: Ms. Donna Williams
Ms. Geri Sams
Mr. Bob Munger
11-06-07: #32
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY COM~~JON
STEPHEN E. SHEPARD
County Attorney
Augusta Law Department
DAVID S. COPENHAVER
Mayor
CHIQUITA T. JOHNSON
Interim General Counsel
Betty Beard
Marion Williams
Joe Bowles
Bernard Harper
Calvin Holland, Sr.
Andy Cheek
Jerry Brigham
Jimmy Smith
J, R. Hatney
Don Grantham
BETTY BEARD
Mayor Pro Tern
ANDREW G MACKENZIE
Staff Attorney
Frederick L. Russell
Administrator
MEMORANDUM
Please Reply to:
70 I Greene Street, Suite 104
Augusta, Georgia 30901
TO:
DATE:
Mayor Deke S. Copenhaver
Steve Shepard ;J~
November 20, 2007
FROM:
RE:
Contract for Main Library Phase II Environmental Engineering Services
Attached please find four original copies of the contract between Augusta and Cosby, Everett, Wright,
LLC for Environmental Engineering and UST closure services for new main library for your signature
and further execution by the Clerk of Commission.
A Copy ofthe Commission approval letter dated November 8, 2007, item No. 32 is attached.
If! may answer any questions on the above matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(706) 724-6597.
Once executed, please return three sets directly to Mr. Jacques Ware at HEERY International, Inc.,
Program Managers for this project, 501 Greene Street, Suite 313, Augusta, GA 30901.
SES/bc
Enclosures (as stated)
cc: Gary Swint, Library Director
Jacques Ware, HEERY
Augusta Law Department
501 Greene Street, Suite 302, Augusta, Georgia 30901
(706) 842-5550 - Fax (706) 842-5556
County Attorney
701 Greene Street, Suite 104, Augusta, Georgia 30901
(706) 724-6597 - Fax (706) 722-4817