Miami-Dade County Public Schools
Procurement Management Services

Questions and Answers for bid: 046-HH12

Bid Number : 046-HH12  Opening Date : 02/05/2008
Bid Title : Underground Petroleum Storage Tank: Removal, Clean 
Buyer : Harry Eschbach 
Subject : Bid Number:046-HH12:Underground Petroleum Storage Tank: Removal, Clean up and Reporting  
Question : 1.As being M-DCPS contractor and involved with removal of over 50 underground storage tanks (USTs) at various school sites, I am familiar and know that many USTs have extremely thick and large concrete ballast over the UST. However, in the Bid contract there is no line item associated with removal and disposal of the concrete ballast. It should be noted that the concrete ballast will not be visible by a site visit, but only after the top of the UST is uncovered.

2.There is no line item associated with clean fill to bring to the site and replace the removed UST, concrete ballast, and/or contaminated soil.

3.In order to clean and pressure wash the interior of the tank from its residual, it is required to enter the tank (confined space entry) for clean out. However, if the tank is small it is possible to clean the tank without entering the tank. In the Bid package there is no line item concerning confined space entry for tank clean out.

4.There is a line item (#25) for the cost associated with soil boring. However, in the price request for tanks’ removal (different sizes) and associated product pipeline it has been stated that “assume one soil boring per site.” Please clarify if the price of one soil boring should be added to the price of the tank removal, or if the soil boring should be charged under line item #25.  
Answer : 1)This situation would be more appropriately accounted for on a site-specific basis, since all tank removals are done under the direct supervision of an M-DCPS RCD inspector. If such a situation is encountered the M-DCPS MAY OR MAY NOT agree to a potential cost allowance based on what was actually encountered and documented photographically in the field. If removal of any potential ballast only requires minimal additional excavation time and is then subsequently pushed back into the side of the excavation prior to backfilling, it would not be prudent for the M-DCPS to provide additional funding for such a small task.

2)Tank removal Line Items 8 through 10 are based upon the size of the tank being removed and generally correlate with the amount of back fill material that will be required. Cost for the clean fill material is to be included in this line item as inferred where it states task includes backfilling open excavation. Contaminated soil removal is not included in the tank removal packages and would be cost separately.

3)OSHA-defined confined space entries are not anticipated during the implementation of this contract. If the subcontractor anticipates the implementation of a confined space entry in order to clean and pressure wash the interior of the tank then the contractor should include this cost within the existing Line Items 8 through 13. These line items already include tank cutting and decontamination costs; therefore entry to the tank would be included in this line item costs.

4)Tank removal/abandonment fees for Line Items 8 through 13 all include the costs for one soil boring which is anticipated along the product piping run. If the product piping is longer than 20 feet additional soil borings would be required based on actual piping lengths and would be charged at the Line Item 25 rates. Soil borings for tank abandonment purposes would be included within existing Line Items 42 & 43.  
Date Posted : 1/30/2008 2:32:39 PM 
Attachment : 046-HH12 Q & A

Bid Number : 046-HH12  Opening Date : 02/05/2008
Bid Title : Underground Petrolium Storage Tank Removal; Clean- 
Buyer : H. Eschbach 
Subject : Questions 
Question : 1) My firm has completed a site assessment for a site in Fort Pierce for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Does this experience count towards the requirement that the firm has completed Site Assessment investigations including the submittal of regulatory-approved SAR? 2) Estimated budget for project? 3)I have a question for you on the Vendor Qualification Requirements. On page 4 of 14 of the bid package it indicates that both Dade and Broward regulatory approval letters for TCAR and Broward County would be acceptable. My question is on page 5 of 14. You are requesting SAR approval letters, can these also be from Counties outside of Dade County (ex. Broward County) or directly from FDEP in counties where FDEP reviews the reports themselves? 4) He completed Tank Excavation Assessment Reports (TEAR)s for sites in 1992 for the Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection. Does this experience satisfy the requirement to implement underground storage tank closure projects inclusive of submittal of TCARs?  
Answer : 1) Yes that’s fine; please enclose a copy with your proposal. 2) $700,000 3) Yes they can. 4)Yes, we will accept the TEARS.  
Date Posted : 2/1/2008 10:55:48 AM 
Attachment :

Bid Number : 046-HH12  Opening Date : February 5, 2008
Bid Title : Underground Petroleum Storage Tank: Removal, Clean 
Buyer : Harry Eschbach 
Subject : Attachment 
Question :
Answer :
Date Posted : 2/1/2008 12:07:23 PM 
Attachment : 046-hh12 underground petroleum storage tanks.pdf

Back to Top