7.25.2022_Schmaltz_(Nova)_Expert_Report.pdf

P R O F E S S I O N A L | P R A C T I C A L | P R O V E N

4 5 2 4 O a k F a i r B o u l e v a r d , S u i t e 2 0 0 , T a m p a , F l o r i d a 3 3 6 1 0 t . 8 1 3 . 6 2 3 . 3 1 0 0 / f . 8 1 3 . 6 2 3 . 3 5 4 5 / u s a n o v a . c o m

July 25, 2022

Mr. Ryan Charleson

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.

9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400

Miami, Florida 33156

RE: Doral 10, LLC; Lizbeth Arencibia; and Rene Arencibia v. City of Doral; JVA Contractor, Inc; EE&G Environmental Services, LLC; BBC Engineering, Inc.

Claim No. KY19K2855017

Dear Mr. Charleson:

On behalf of NOVA Engineering and Environmental LLC, and as a registered professional engineer in Florida and licensed general contractor in the state of Florida, I have prepared my responses to the referenced claim and the subsequent reports prepared for the plaintiff.

Complaint:

Note: Italicized text is verbiage from the Complaint

Bold text is NOVA’s observation and findings

➢ Introduction: This lawsuit arises from the use and contamination of Plaintiff’s property during a City of Doral road construction project.

Based on the EE&G Phase I and II ESA report, the Doral 10 property was contaminated prior to JVA being awarded the contract for the project. Miami-Dade County

Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (DERM) recognized the existing contamination in their letters requiring further assessment dated February 8, 2019 and September 3, 2019 (specifically referring to the findings of the 2018 assessment reported by EE&G in a SAR dated May 1, 2019). Further, although referencing the larger parcel to the west, a DERM letter of July 8, 2013 included the following findings;

“An inspection conducted on April 3, 2013 by officials of this department at the subject property revealed that additional wetland areas (above the 4.37 acres permitted for impact) have been cleared and filled without a Class IV permit. In addition, solid waste has been improperly disposed of in wetlands at the subject property. A review of Department records reveals that said work was performed in violation of Chapter 24, Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. A Field Notice of Violation and Orders to Cease and Desist was posted on the subject property during the April inspection; however, follow-up inspections conducted by the department staff have revealed that the wetland violations have not been corrected and the department has

Doral 10 v. JVA Engineering Contractor, Inc., et. al.

not received a Class IV permit application.” This illegal activity coincides with the evidence of considerable truck traffic shown on historical aerial photographs, including transport across the eastern portion of the Doral 10 property.

➢ Introduction: …City contractors trespassed onto and used Doral’s land as a staging area, significantly injuring the property. The lawsuit seeks damages and a judgement requiring corrective action.

Based on the EE&G Phase I and II ESA report, and the reports discussed above, the

Doral 10 property was contaminated prior to JVA being awarded the contract for the project. Corrective Action was offered by JVA in the form of removal of all materials deposited on Doral 10’s property, but access has been denied. Had access been granted the material inadvertently placed on the Doral 10 site would have been removed in 2019.

➢ #21: At all times prior to the Roadway Project, the Property held significant value for

Doral 10 as a source of clean fill material, or as a site for future residential and commercial development.

This is patently false. This site has been contaminated for years as identified in the

EE&G reports, the DERM letters and the illegal filling of wetlands and disposal of solid waste by the property owner. The virgin soils in this area were sampled and analyzed by EE&G prior to the entry by JVA. The soils were found to have concentrations of arsenic in excess of residential soil cleanup target levels (SCTL) at numerous locations across the property, and in excess of commercial SCTL at one location (concentrations ranging from 2.3 mg/kg to 13.3 mg/kg). Additionally, existing soil piles of construction debris were on the Doral 10 property prior to the entry on the property by JVA. A

February 8, 2019 letter (pre-dating JVA’s site entry) from Miami-Dade Department of

Regulatory and Economic Resources (DERM) required additional sampling and information for the Doral 10 property noting the presence of site contamination. EE&G collected composite soil samples from the existing construction debris piles at the site.

In December 2018 EE&G had collected soil samples from the virgin soils at grade.

Both sampling events, and a groundwater sampling event revealed both soil and groundwater contamination prior to the entry on the property by JVA. Therefore, this site could not have been considered a “source for clean fill material” as stated in the complaint. With the arsenic exceedences the site could not have been used for residential use without engineering controls and deed restrictions.

Further, regarding the complaint’s claim that “the Property held significant value for

Doral 10 as a source of clean fill material,” the existing soils showed arsenic concentrations in excess of the SCTLs. Therefore, according to the DERM Guidance

Document; Soil Reuse Guidance for Miami-Dade County; “Soil that exceeds the residential soil criteria shall not be reused and may be subject to the reporting provisions set forth in Section 24-37 of the Code. Disposal of such soil in Miami-Dade

County is limited to a Class I landfill.” Therefore, the soils from the Doral 10 site had no value as clean fill, as defined by Miami-Dade County.

➢ #24: In late 2018, EE&G, with Doral 10 permission, conducted Phase I and Phase II

Environmental Site Assessment Reports (“SARs”) for the Property (“2018 SAR”) in connection with the City’s due diligence concerning the purchase of the property. The

2018 SAR revealed limited soil contamination on the Property, and recommended further testing.

The EE&G Phase I and Phase II, as well as the DERM letters dated February 8, 2019 and September 3, 2019 did in fact reveal existing property contamination in both soil and groundwater, long before the entry onto the property by JVA. Complaint #24 reveals that Doral 10 knew that their property did in fact have existing contamination and therefore did not have significant value as a source of clean fill material.

➢ #44: Throughout 2019, JVA and BCC, excavated the existing clean fill material on the

Property. The excavated fill material was mixed with material excavated from the

Roadway Project, which was contaminated with high concentrations of arsenic as identified in the 2019 Roadway Soil Report.

According to the deposition of JVA’s corporate representative, September 28, 2021, page 301; “No material from Doral 10’s property was used to build the project. The material that was used was brought from quarries off site or from the material stockpiled on the original surface of Doral 10’s property.” Further, the corporate representative stated, pages 302-303; “There was nothing taken from Doral 10’s property. What was done was during the excavation of the construction of the project some material that had been excavated and stockpiled temporarily at Doral 10’s facility was used for the construction of the project.”

There is no evidence of any excavation on the Doral 10 property. The survey completed by Royal Point Land Surveyors, Inc. for Doral 10 showed no depression areas on the subject site. The graphic provided by Doral 10 showing the area and volumes of debris piles with the colored 3-D figure, shows only one (1) disturbed area, and that area appears to coincide with the debris pile shown on the EE&G site plan in November

2018, prior to JVA’s entry on the site. Based on this claim, NOVA compared approximately 40 elevation data points, for the portion of property that JVA accessed, from Google Earth for the periods of December 2018 and January 2021. These data points were mostly identical between these years with a variance of only 1’ at a few locations. Google Earth uses Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) for most of its elevation determination in urban areas. LiDAR’s vertical accuracy is said to be between

5 cm and 25 cm, or approximately 2 inches to 10 inches.

In contrast to the claim of JVA removing clean existing fill from the Doral 10 property, Doral 10 has later claimed vis a vis the May 19, 2022 (revised 6/10/22) NELCO report that JVA actually brought 4’ – 5’ of fill onto the property. If JVA brought fill onto the property it was clean fill from the Roadway as evidenced by the Universal Engineering

Report dated March 6, 2019. This report clearly showed that only samples SB-11 and

SB-20 had levels of contamination above the residential SCTLs. These areas were subsequently excavated and those soils were disposed of by Waste Management

(Generator Profile 3/29/19). All other samples, where any alleged fill material would have come from, had analytical results below the residential SCTLs.

➢ #45: The clean fill removed from the Property, or otherwise degraded by mixing with contaminated material from the Roadway Project had significant value.

Regarding the complaint’s claim that “the Property held significant value for Doral 10 as a source of clean fill material,” with the soils showing arsenic concentrations in excess of the SCTLs those soils would have to be handled in accordance with the

DERM Guidance Document; Soil Reuse Guidance for Miami-Dade County; “Soil that exceeds the residential soil criteria shall not be reused and may be subject to the reporting provisions set forth in Section 24-37 of the Code. Disposal of such soil in

Miami-Dade County is limited to a Class I landfill.” Therefore, the soils from the Doral

10 site had little to no value as clean fill.

Regarding the allegation that clean fill from the site was removed or mixed, refer to the response for Complaint #44.

➢ #46c: JVA and BCC took clean fill from the Property to “dilute” the contaminated soil excavated as part of the Roadway Project. JVA, under the supervision and consent of

BCC, mixed the contaminated soil with Doral 10’s clean fill material and deposited some of the resulting contaminated material onto the Property.

As stated earlier, there is no evidence that JVA used any soils from the Doral 10

Property. Following is a graphical comparison of the soils at the Doral 10 property prior to JVA’s entry onto the property (EE&G sample results) and the concentrations of arsenic from NELCO’s (Doral 10’s consultant) sampling of the piles brought onto the site by JVA. The results clearly show that all the sample concentrations from the soil piles brought on site by JVA are significantly lower than the sample concentrations from the original Doral 10 soils, and significantly lower than the commercial SCTL for arsenic. The concentrations of the soils brought onto the Doral 10 property and stockpiled by JVA also show lower concentrations of arsenic than the 95% Upper

Confidence Limit (UCL) statistical average for soils in north Miami-Dade County from a

0 – 6” sampling interval of 4.8 mg/kg (Miami-Dade County Anthropogenic Background

Study).

One could reasonably conclude that IF JVA had used existing Doral 10 soils for mixing with the roadway soils, that the Doral 10 soils would have actually contaminated the roadway soils.

The NELCO sampling report did identify some low concentrations of benzo(a) pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene equivalents. The regulatory SCTLs for these compounds are very low and one (1) small piece of asphalt can cause an exceedance of the SCTLs. The identification of benzo(a) pyrene in the NELCO samples is indicative of asphalt, or residual concentrations in the underlying soils from the significant truck traffic that took place in 2014 during the illegal wetland filling and illegal dumping of solid waste.

The NELCO report identified one sample (out of seven total, S-7) to have a benzo(a) pyrene concentration exceeding the commercial SCTL at 0.72 mg/kg with a SCTL of

0.7 mg/kg. However, according to the FDEP Memorandum of November 17, 2011;

Rounding Analytical Data for Site Rehabilitation Completion; “The Division of Waste

Management will authorize rounding of analytical results to the same number of significant digits used to express the applicable CTL.” Therefore, NELCO should have reported the concentration of benzo(a)pyrene at S-7 as 0.7 mg/kg and therefore not in excess of the commercial SCTL.

➢ #46d: JVA, under the supervision and consent of BCC, converted Doral 10’s clean fill material to be used as embankment material and create embankments for the

Roadway Project.

Already stated that JVA did not utilize any existing Doral 10 soils. Both corporate representatives of JVA testified that no soils from the Doral 10 property was used for the roadway. Based on the contaminant concentrations of the existing soils on the

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

As Avg (EE&G) As High

(EE&G)

As Avg

(NELCO)

As High

(NELCO)

As Res As 95% UCL Bckgr

As Comm

Arsenic Comparisons

Doral 10 property prior to JVA’s entry, the Doral 10 soils would have contaminated the roadway soils. Further complaint #46d contradicts the Hydrologic Associates report of

June 16, 2022, and the NELCO report dated May 19, 2022 (revised June 10, 2022) in which they surmise that JVA actually brought in 4’ – 6’ of fill on the Doral 10 property.

If JVA was filling the site, it would have been impossible, and certainly unnecessary to take fill from the Doral 10 site for embankment material. Further, both corporate representatives of JVA testified that no filling was accomplished on the Doral 10 property. The filling of 4’ – 6’ would have been a monumental event and therefore would have been discussed in testimony by the two corporate representatives.

➢ #46e: JVA, under supervision and consent of BCC, caused a large stockpile of contaminated material that was present on a neighboring property to be moved onto the Property, resulting in further contamination of the Property.

JVA did not move a stockpile from a neighboring property to the Doral 10 property as testified in the deposition of Corporate Representative of JVA. Further, the plaintiff has produced no evidence that soil from a neighboring property had been moved.

➢ #46f: JVA, under supervision and consent of BCC partially filled an area along

Property’s southern extent, which had previously been excavated and improved, with contaminated material excavated as part of the Roadway Project.

No evidence of filling along the southern extent has been identified, and Doral 10 has admitted that the parcel in question was “unimproved.” This so called “filled” area is not shown or referenced on the May 29, 2019 survey prepared by Royal Point Land

Surveyors on behalf of Doral 10. Based on the figure it is obvious that this survey company was tasked with surveying disturbed areas where topographical change had occurred. No elevation markings are shown along the southern extent.

➢ #56: The City obtained substantial benefit by allowing JVA to use the Property as a staging area without compensating Doral 10 or obtaining Doral 10’s permission, including avoiding dump fees required at a Class I landfill and eliminating the cost of disposing of at least 17,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil excavated from the

Roadway Project.

JVA did not use the Doral 10 property as a way of avoiding dump fees required at a

Class I landfill as evidence by the Waste Management disposal receipts. All of the soils that exceeded residential SCTLs from the roadway were taken to a Dade County Class

I landfill, as testified by the JVA Corporate Representative.

The volume of 17,000 cubic yards is without any merit (HAI claims 18,400 cubic yards for 4 feet of fill, or 27,600 cubic yards for 6 feet of fill). NOVA measured the piles placed by JVA on the Doral 10 property and conservatively calculated approximately 2,500 cubic yards of material. ERC (Site Assessment Report Addendum, September 2019) estimated a mere 1,645 cubic yards of soil, concrete debris, tires, asphalt millings/soil and vegetated material/soil. JVA’s contract allowed for disposal of soils that did not meet residential SCTL standards, so it would have been in JVA’s financial interest to remove and dispose of all soils that required disposal, and not avoid dump fees as stated in the complaint.

Assuming that HAI’s claim of fill is correct, the following calculation shows the amount of time for that fill to be placed:

Typical Dump Truck capacity = 15 cy (source: JD Power)

18,400 cy of fill / 15 = 1,227 truck loads to place the fill

Backhoe (on the equipment list on BCC’s Daily Construction Report) used to load trucks. Backhoe loading capacity = 900 cy/day (source: Walker’s Building Estimator’s

Reference Book, the State of Florida’s General Contractor license required reference book).

Average distance of travel for dump trucks = 700 feet.

Trucks: 8 mph average travel speed on dirt construction roads

8 miles/hour x 5280 ft/mile x 1 hour/60 minutes = 704 feet/minute

Therefore 2 minutes of travel time + 3 minutes maneuvering and dump time = 5 minutes cycle time. Load Capacity = 900 cy/day (backhoe capacity) x 75% efficiency due to site conditions, multiple truck use, and short haul distance = 675 cy/day loading capacity. Load time: 675 cy/day = 84.38 cy/hour = 1.41 cy/minute. It takes

15/1.41 = 11 minutes to load each truck. Therefore: Total Truck time is 19 minutes total cycle time per truck. Each truck can make 25 trips per day or 379 cy/day. Two trucks would be used with only one backhoe.

At a capacity of 675 cy/day with one backhoe (only one backhoe is listed on the equipment list), it would take two trucks 18,400/675 = 28 calendar days, or 38 working days to move 18,400 cy onto the Doral 10 Property.

Using a mid-sized dozer to level the alleged 4’ of fill: Dozer capacity = 400 cy/hour

(source: Walker’s Building Estimator’s Reference Book (State of Florida’s General

Contractor license required reference book). Therefore; 18,400/400 = 46 hours or 6 days.

Total time to move and level 18,400 cy would be 38 + 6 = 44 working days. JVA was on site from 3/4/22 – 5/3/22. This is 60 calendar days or 43 working days (assuming

5 working days per work week). There were a few Saturday working days so if 6

Saturdays are added the total days on site would be 49 days.

Therefore, in order for JVA to place 18,400 cy on the Doral 10 property they would have had to do nothing but haul and level soils for 44 straight days or all but 5 days that they were present on the Doral 10 property. It is impossible for this amount of soil to be moved.

The site map included in the Hydrologic Associates (HAI) report of June 16, 2022 showed an area called “Extent of Impacted Soil.” Some of the impacted area shown on that map includes the construction debris piles already on site in 2018 as shown on the EE&G Phase I and II report November 2018. The annotated site map below shows the areas of former piles that existed prior to JVA’s entry onto the Doral 10 property. The HAI map shows that the entire area within the “Extent of Impacted Soil” line to be considered impacted. However, the basis of this map is the survey prepared by Royal Point Surveyors, Inc., dated 5/29/2019. The elevation points on that survey at the base of the piles are from 5.0’ – 6.5’ NGVD. This coincides with the pre-2019

Google Earth elevations and the earlier topographic maps. It also coincides with the

2014 Application for Class IV and ERP permits allowing demucking of the site. The application states; “The predevelopment stage of this application proposes to fill the

Subject Property to an elevation of 6.5’ NGVD with a dry retention area of 2.56 acres.”

Based on all of these facts, it is not possible that JVA added 4’ – 6’ of fill.

➢ #60: The City, JVA, BCC and EE&G have refused to remediate the contamination, or remove the neighbor’s contaminated stockpile from the Property.

Doral 10 has in fact not allowed JVA to enter the property to perform such removal of the stockpiles. JVA had offered to remove the piles inadvertently placed on Doral 10 property and to return the site to its original condition, but Doral 10 has refused to allow.

➢ #79: JVA’s trespass included contamination of the Property by mixing and depositing contaminated soil the Property, which has devalued the Property and requires significant cost to remediate.

Already addressed. NOVA has prepared a cost estimate to remove the soils and other materials brought onto the Doral 10 property by JVA, including removal of piles that may have been comingled with the original Doral 10 piles, and grading the site following removal of the piles. The cost estimate of $217,196 is included as Exhibit A herewith.

➢ #81: EE&G entered the property without authorization from Doral 10 to conduct its work in connection with the Roadway Project.

This directly contradicts Complaint #24 which states; “In late 2018, EE&G, with Doral

10 permission, conducted Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

Reports (“SARs”) for the Property (“2018 SAR”) in connection with the City’s due diligence concerning the purchase of the property.”

➢ JVA excavated the clean fill from the Property, thereby severing the clean fill from the

Property.

Already addressed.

➢ JVA, as the City’s contactor acting within the scope of its contract and with the City’s authorization or consent, used such clean fill to mix with and dilute the contaminated soil from the Roadway Project and for use as part of the Roadway Project.

Already addressed. Again based on the Royal Point survey, there is no evidence of any clean fill being removed from the Doral 10 property.

Plaintiff Doral 10’s Amended Answers to the Defendant, City of Doral’s First Set of

Interrogatories:

Question: Please describe the condition of the Property prior to it use “as a staging area for the Roadway Project,”…

Response: Prior to being used as a staging area, the Property was vacant land suitable for residential and commercial development. …

In addition, the previously clean fill has been removed and/or mixed with contaminated material on-site. The extent of the contamination of the Property by the illegally dumped and mixed material is still being determined.

With the existing soils showing arsenic concentrations in excess of the residential and commercial SCTLs, according to the DERM Guidance Document; Soil Reuse Guidance for Miami-Dade County; “Soil that exceeds the residential soil criteria shall not be reused and may be subject to the reporting provisions set forth in Section 24-37 of the

Code. Disposal of such soil in Miami-Dade County is limited to a Class I landfill.”

Therefore, the soils from the Doral 10 site had no value as clean fill.

According to the deposition of JVA’s Corporate Representative, September 28, 2021, page 301; “No material from Doral 10’s property was used to build the project. The material that was used was brought from quarries off site or from the material stockpiled on the original surface of Doral 10’s property.” Further, the Corporate

Representative stated, pages 302-303; “There was nothing taken from Doral 10’s property. What was done was during the excavation of the construction of the project some material that had been excavated and stockpiled temporarily at Doral 10’s facility was used for the construction of the project.”

Question: Please explain how the nature and amount of any damage or injury to the

Property was determined. In doing so, identify each person or company who was involved in the determination of any such damage or injury, the procedures, tests, evaluations or appraisals used by them to take such determination and the results thereof.

Response: The nature and amount of injuries has not been completely determined at this time, however the Defendant’s used and occupied the Property for over 3 months and continue to occupy the property as described below.

The Property has been damaged by the presence of approximately six (6) feet of material deposited on the Property during the Roadway Project. All or part of the material that was dumped on the Property was contaminated and mixed with non-contaminated clean fill that existed on the Property prior to the Roadway

Improvements. See Exhibit C. The Cost of removal and disposal of that material is not yet determined as it is not yet known the full extent of contamination that is present in the material. The depth of material was determined by NELCO.

“Non-contaminated clean fill” apparently did not exist fully across the Doral 10 property as pointed out with numerous examples previously stated, and the existing

Doral 10 soils were not used for mixing as also pointed out previously. Both Google

Maps and the Doral 10’s survey prepared by Royal Point Land Surveyors confirm that six (6) feet of material was not deposited on the site, but rather several stockpiles were placed on the property.

Once again, the Plaintiff has exaggerated the condition and use of the site. The Plaintiff is exaggerating the time that JVA occupied the Doral 10 property. According to testimony and field records JVA inadvertently occupied the site from March 4, 2019 to

May 3, 2019 or not quite 2 months. The remainer of the time that JVA has had material on the Doral 10 property is the sole responsibility of Doral 10 as they have forbidden to allow JVA to access the property to remove the materials placed by JVA, which JVA has offered to do. By denying JVA’s access to remove the materials, Doral 10 is purposely imposing additional time of site interruption.

Site Assessment Report Addendum Summary, dated June 16, 2022, Hydrologic Associates

U.S.A., Inc.

This report includes samples labeled SP-1 – SP-8. Based on the typical nomenclature, these samples would presumably be from the soil piles. However, the calculations of impacted soils include a very large area around the soil piles, some of which were on the subject property prior to JVA’s entry to the property. Further, the concentrations of the contaminants of concern are not included in the report and the identified contaminants of concern are identical to those identified in the pre-existing soil samples collected by EE&G in November 2018, prior to JVA’s entry to the site. There is no legitimate explanation for the excessive volumetric calculation of “disturbed” soils.

JVA has already agreed to remove the piles that they brought onto the property but have been disallowed by Doral 10.

Respectfully submitted, NOVA Engineering and Environmental LLC

Lawrence G. Schmaltz, PE, GC

Senior Vice President/Florida Environmental Services Manager

Attachment: Exhibit A

Digital Signer:Lawrence G. Schmaltz Date:2022.08.04 13:34:45 -06:00

EXHIBIT A

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR EXISTING PILES

Estimate based on material quanities estimated by ERC (September 2019)

The ERC quanties appear to accurately reflect the actual impact by JVA

The following materials will be used in this estimate (ERC Report):

Mixed Piles Description Quantity Units # of Samples

1 Possibly Contaminated Soils 1550 CY

5 VOC,

5 comp. other

2 Second Pile 167 CY

1 VOC,

1 comp. other

3 Third Pile 213 CY

3 VOC,

3 comp. other

A portion of the above piles were onsite prior to JVA's entry, but is difficult to discerne the quanity prior to entry.

JVA Piles Description Quantity Units # of Samples

1 Concrete Piles 40 CY N/A

2 Tires 60 CY N/A

3 Asphaltic Milling Material 39 CY

1 VOC,

1 comp. other

4 Embankment Material 67 CY

1 VOC,

1 comp. other

5 Shrubbery/branches/vegetation 444 CY N/A

Based on DERM Document; Soil Reuse Guidance for Miami-Dade County

Cost Analysis: Unit Price # Units Total Price

Sample Collection Sampling and Reporting (Lump Sum - LS) $1,500 1 $1,500

Lab Analysis:

VOC (8260) $68 11 $748

SVOC (8270) $90 11 $990

RCRA 8 Metals (6010) $80 11 $880

Aluminum (6010) $18 11 $198

Pesticides (8081) $85 11 $935

Herbicides (8151) $85 11 $935

TRPH (FLPRO) $80 11 $880

TCLP Volatiles $80 7 $560

TCLP Metals $85 7 $595

Reporting Report Preparation & Profiling (LS) $2,000 1 $2,000

Subtotal: $10,221

Mixed Piles Description Unit Price

# Units

Total Price

1 Possibly Contaminated Soils $40 2170 $86,800

2 Second Pile $40 233.8 $9,352

3 Third Pile $40 298.2 $11,928

Subtotal: $108,080

JVA Piles Description Unit Price

# Units

Total Price

1 Concrete Piles - Recycled $30.00 40 $1,200

2 Tires $5.00 60 $550

3 Asphaltic Milling Material $40.00 54.6 $2,434

4 Embankment Material $40.00 93.8 $4,002

5 Shrubbery/branches/vegetation $35.00 444 $15,790

Subtotal: $23,976

Includes transport & disposal, Cost per Dade County Class I Landfill.

Concrete is Transport Only

Tires include $250 transportation cost + unit cost. Vegetative waste includes transport and disposal at yard waste facility

Cubic yards have been converted to tons at a 1.4 multiplier, except concrete

Unit Price # Units Total Price

Loading Trucks: Front-End Loader Mobilize $750 1 $750

Loading (units are Bulk CY) $4 2580 $10,320

Grading (LS) - Means {75,000cy-100,000cy} $5,850 1 $5,850

Subtotal: $16,920

Project

Management Description Hourly Rate Hours Total

1 Foreman/Superintendent $58.13 16 $930

2 Traffic Controller $45.63 16 $980

3 Project Manager $62.50 12 $1,000

Subtotal: $2,910

Project Subtotal: $162,107

Overhead 15% $24,316

Profit 10% $18,642

Project Subtotal: Including Overhead & Profit $205,066

Unit Price # Units Total Price

Sample Collection Sampling and Reporting (LS) $6,000 1 $6,000

Lab Analysis: Confirmatory Sampling

VOC (8260) $68 5 $340

SVOC (8270) $90 5 $450

RCRA 8 Metals (6010) $80 5 $400

Aluminum (6010) $18 5 $90

Pesticides (8081) $85 5 $425

Herbicides (8151) $85 5 $425

Reporting Report Preparation & Profiling (LS) $4,000 1 $4,000

Subtotal: $12,130

TOTAL: $217,196

Sources: Gordian RS Means Heavy Construction Costs - 2022

Walker's Building Estimator's Reference Book; 28 th

Edition