Laserfiche WebLink
V <br /> NOW <br /> Ms . Mary Meays <br /> San Joaquin. County <br /> Public Health Service <br /> October 28 , 1992 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Seven environmental consulting firms were contacted to <br /> re-submit bids based on phases of work. Four consultants <br /> chose to bid of which three were non-responsive. Therefore <br /> Mrs . Ruiz accepted the sole bidder that met the <br /> requirements of the IFB, Delta Environmental Consultants <br /> ( "Delta" ) . <br /> Concurrent with acceptance of Phase I of the Delta bid, <br /> a payment plan for services was proposed. Delta subsequently <br /> rejected the payment pla.ti because full payi E-111t is reg1.:i reu <br /> within 90 days of performance of the work. The first phase <br /> of the bid cost $7 , 838 . 00 , including: <br /> Project Management $ 581 . 00 <br /> Design 1, 198 . 00 <br /> Well Permits/Work Plan 900 . 00 <br /> Soil Venting System Permitting 1 , 941 . 00 <br /> Remedial Action Plan 1 , 792 . 00 <br /> Bid Package Preparation 521 .00 <br /> Contracting 441 . 00 <br /> Meet Contractor on site 143 . 00 <br /> Travel Time 321 . 00 <br /> TOTAL $7 , 838 . 00 <br /> A bill for $7 , 838 . 00 (even if spread out over 4-5 <br /> months ) is prohibitive for the Ruizes . Consequently, we <br /> renegotiated further incrementalization. Delta suggested <br /> an Interim Remediation Plan wherein Delta will propose <br /> further characterization of the site for a Problem Assessment <br /> Report ( "PAR" ) simultaneous with commencing remedial action <br /> to conta4 n sand clean up tilt'?. source r=ef th 1:L.ilUltict'i i, �^. uur <br /> understanding from the July 30 , 1992 , meeting was that when <br /> the County requested a soil remediation plan and in your <br /> August 17 , 1992 , letter that the primary item to be addressed <br /> was controlling the source of contamination. <br /> We further understood, based upon the foregoing history, <br /> was that the county approved proceeding with an Interim <br /> Remedial Action Plan- Your recent demand to prepare a PAR is <br /> inconsistent with our pre-existinq agreement and. will <br /> jeopardize continued work at this site. We believe that we <br /> have worked hard with the consultants and with you to develop <br /> a course of action which will meet the three fundamental <br /> criteria for this site: ( 1 ) protection of the environment; <br /> (2 ) compliance with local agency directives to ensure <br /> continued eligibility :for the underground storage tank fund <br /> reimbursement; and ( 3 ) affordable to the Ruizes. As you <br />