My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (250)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (250)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2020 10:50:10 AM
Creation date
6/20/2012 10:03:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP) 1984 Light Use Roads
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
121
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Thursday,July 20.1995 09:21:48 PM Greg Lewicki and Asociates Page 4 of 5 <br /> Reviser! Furrows <br /> 2.0 ft depth <br /> Width of bladc <br /> (7-10') <br /> Mild slope <br /> The prices listed in the bids for the installation of the furrows are extremely high, mostly <br /> due to the trapezoidal geometry desired. <br /> 5) Prior to the State notifying us in 1994 that they were going to complete the reclamation <br /> work, we spent considerable time evaluating the foundations at Mines #3 and #4 for <br /> reclamation. We brought experienced blasters out to both sites for detailed evaluation and <br /> bids (in good weather). Some of the foundations could be covered by filling, however, many <br /> need to be blasted due to the thickness of the slabs and the frequency and diameter of rebar <br /> used. The remnant buildings at Mine 93 were also significantly over-designed and are <br /> extremely difficult to remove. An experienced blaster is required with all required licenses <br /> and permits. Looking at the demolition costs in the bids received, I am not sure that the <br /> contractors have a full appreciation for these concrete structures. Also, no mention of any <br /> blasting equipment (drills or compressors) is made in any of the equipment mob/demob lists. <br /> Before allowing any contractor on the site, I believe that the DMG should investigate this <br /> part of the work and find out how the contractors propose to remove these structures. It <br /> appears that while there are many pages of contract specifications, bond requirements, legal <br /> protection alternatives for the Division etc., they are glossing over some crucial items that <br /> could lead to big problems. This is another task which should be considered for a separate <br /> contract. <br /> 6) Although the amount of highwall to be backfilled is similar to my estimates submitted in <br /> April of 1994, it is extremely difficult to mark a spot on the highwall and dictate that this <br /> level is obtained. My 1994 estimates were made on best information available but the <br /> actual volumes of"reasonably available fill" were still somewhat uncertain. I am sure that <br /> the contractors, who could not even really see the benches during the site visit due to the <br /> snow, were worried about attaining this specified level on the highwall without knowing <br /> exactly where and how this much material would be obtained from the site in a safe <br /> manner. This concern has also affected the bid prices for the work. There should be a way <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.