Opinion ID: 211050
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: For all projects submit:

Text: a. Names of Superintendent, Foremen, Project Manager and other key personnel, and their day time and emergency telephone and pager numbers. b. Detailed description of the method to be employed in order to control pollution, including negative air equipment calculations. c. Personal air monitoring procedures. d. Safety Plan in accordance with Contract Document requirements. (MATERIAL OMITTED) e. Location of Asbestos Work Areas. f. Layout and construction details of Decontamination Enclosure Systems. g. Project schedule including important milestones, critical paths and interface of trades involved in the Work. h. Security Plan including sketches necessary to clearly describe the plan. i. Emergency evacuation plan for injured workers, compressor failure, fire and other emergencies. j. Firewatch Plan including names, telephone and pager numbers, and qualifications of personnel, firewatch duties, sketches necessary to clearly describe the plan and, when applicable, specific requirements of local building/fire department regulations. k. A contingency plan, in the event of a major contamination incident caused by fire (on or off the floor being abated), a large breech in the Work area containment barrier, the opening of stairwell doors, 06-5007 6 breakage of the buildings[’] exterior windows or sabotage. Such a plan will focus on how to maintain safety and order when the building is occupied by building occupants, the public and other building users. Pursuant to this provision, HUD requested that TEG submit its work plan on April 21, 1997. On April 25, 1997, TEG submitted a first version of its work plan. In response to deficiencies pointed out by HUD and ATC Associates, Inc. (“ATC”), HUD’s asbestos engineer and technical advisor for the contract, TEG revised the work plan several times in late April and early May of 1997. Two weeks after the initial submittal of the work plan, TEG was awarded the contract. Disputes arose during contract performance as to whether the work plan or the contract specifications governed performance. TEG pointed out discrepancies between the two documents in a letter dated June 17, 1997. For example, TEG noted in the letter that it had not closed vertical pipe cavities, as required by the specifications, because the work plan required the cavities to remain open in order to complete the project. The discrepancies between the work plan and the contract specifications led to the issuance of a Stop Work Order. After over a month of disputes, HUD accepted a Value Engineering Change Proposal (“VECP”)3 from TEG that made changes to the contract specifications to bring it more in line with the work plan. Work then continued under the revised specifications. 3 A VECP is a contractor’s proposal to make a cost-reducing change to a government contract. See 48 C.F.R. §§ 48-201, 52.248-1–.248-3 (2006); see also John Cibinic, Jr., Ralph C. Nash, Jr. & James F. Nagle, Administration of Government Contracts 409 (4th ed. 2006). 06-5007 7