Laserfiche WebLink
f/ r <br /> J- 1 - <br /> GILMARTIN 8c LE BERTHON LLP <br /> ATTORNEYS AT LAWi I z Vi <br /> 100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 1325 <br /> SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 9 0401-1 114 <br /> TELEPHONE 53101 305-7333 <br /> FACSIMILE 1310) 395-7573 <br /> FILE NO <br /> 134702 <br /> November 20, 1998 <br /> Douglas Roderick <br /> State Water Resources Control Board <br /> Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund <br /> P O Box 944212 <br /> Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 <br /> Re Claimant Montgomery Ward <br /> Site 5400 Pacific Highway, Stockton <br /> Claim No . 1760 <br />• Dear Mr Roderick <br /> On July 6, 1998, Environmental Audit, Inc ("EAI") submitted a Corrective Action Plan <br /> ("CAP") to the San Joaquin County Public Health Services Environmental Health Division <br /> (PHS/EHD) on behalf of Claimant Montgomery Ward On August 12, 1998, PHS/EHD <br /> approved the CAP Copies of the CAP and PHS/EHD approval letter have been previously <br /> provided to you <br /> In compliance with Fund regulations, Montgomery Ward solicited bids from qualified <br /> contractors to implement the CAP Enclosed are copies of bids received from EAI, Fluor Daniel <br /> GTI, SCS Engineers and Terra Vac <br /> In general, the scope of work in all cost proposals is consistent with the PHS/EHD <br /> approved CAP There are some discrepancies between the proposals, however (g-g , some <br /> include one year of monitoring and Others two years, m Daniel Flour an1Pl GTTinrlolded groun <br /> water monitoring in its costs, and Terra Vac specified a much larger oxidizer (600 cfiri) than the <br /> CAP required) <br /> In order to evaluate the proposals, the following assumptions were made two years of <br /> monitoring systems operation would be included, ground water monitoring was beyond the scope <br /> of this proposal, and at a minimum, all the equipment specified in the CAP should be included in <br />. the cost estimate A weighted set of criteria (Le , proposal completeness, cost, experience of the <br /> firm, knowledge of the site, and stability of the firm) were then used to evaluate each proposal <br /> Table 1 presents the results of the evaluation Flour Daniel GTI submitted the lowest bid and <br />