CRDA Project 26-010 - Addendum No. 4 Final 11.05.25.pdf

November 5, 2025

Addendum #4

Abandonment/Removal of Dike Penetrations and Encroachments at the former MIRA Waste to Energy Facility

CRDA Project No. 26-010

This addendum dated November 5, 2025, forms a part of the Contract Documents and modifies the original bidding documents. Please acknowledge receipt of this Addendum below and submit with your bid. Failure to do so may subject the submitter to disqualification.

Questions & Responses:

1. Have hazardous building materials surveys been performed for all of the structures, equipment, piping and appurtenances that are included in the scope of the project requiring abandonment and removal?

Response:

A study-level Hazardous Buildings Materials Inspection (HBMI) for Asbestos-Containing Materials

(ACM), Lead-Based Paint (LBP), universal waste materials and Other Hazardous Materials (OHM) was conducted at the South Meadows site in the summer and fall of 2024. Sampling and analysis of PCBs was not conducted for the structures, piping and appurtenances within the dike easement. The finalized HBMI Report was issued on November 20, 2024. Pertinent to this RFP, the Coal Barge

Unloader, Screen House #1 and Screen House #3 were included in the HBMI; however, Screen House

#2 was not included in the HBMI because of safety concerns related to its structural integrity. The scope of the HBMI included a study-level inspection within the interiors and on the exteriors of the Site buildings. The HBMI did not include inaccessible areas of the buildings or inaccessible building materials that could not be readily identified or sampled without disassembling equipment, coring through slabs and foundations, entry into confined spaces, or other means of destructive testing to locate and identify materials for testing.

2. Are there any hazardous building material survey documents available that cover work proposed under this project?

Response:

Attachment 1 to this Addendum contains excerpts from the November 20, 2024 HBMI Report referenced above. The excerpts contain ACM, LBP, universal waste and OHM information specific to the Coal Barge Unloader, Screen House #1, and Screen House #3. It should be noted that the ACM excerpt includes summary tables of materials that either tested positive or were assumed to be ACM but could not be tested without disassembling equipment, such as pipe gaskets and valve packings.

A PDF copy of the entire November 20, 2024 HBMI Report is being made available to all potential proposers via the following internet link:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tslp8szs87h6pztngfv3m/Addendum-3-to-be-linked-Nov-2024-HBMI-

Report-Full.pdf?rlkey=bxksdauv5h27rabr96cpaxidc&st=hm6m7szd&dl=0

3. The scope of services has expanded considerably from the December 2024 request that MIRA made for the floodwall/dike project. As a follow up to the site walk on October 15, 2025, please confirm if the following items are included in the scope of services.

Response:

Item CRDA Response / Expectation

a) Cooling Water Discharge Canal

Sheet Piles The row of sheet piles located within the Connecticut River channel is earmarked for removal. The Consultant shall evaluate and make a recommendation regarding the removal of the H-pile bents supporting the sheet piles, in consultation with CRDA, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Greater Hartford Flood Commission (GHFC), and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP). The row of sheet piles located along the toe of the armor stone slope supporting the floodwall shall remain in place.

b) Dolphin Pile Groups (Screen House #1 and Adjacent Structures)

The Consultant shall evaluate and make a recommendation on the removal of Dolphin pile groups that protect Screen House #1 and adjacent structures, in consultation with CRDA, USACE, GHFC, and CT DEEP.

c) Barge Dock and Pier Structure (Including Pile Caps and Supports)

The Consultant shall evaluate and make a recommendation on the removal of the barge dock and pier structure, including all pile caps and supports, in consultation with CRDA, USACE, GHFC, and CT

DEEP.

d) Barge Unloading Crane and Supporting Structure

The steel superstructure of the barge unloading crane is earmarked for removal. The Consultant shall evaluate and make a recommendation regarding the removal of the supporting structure, including underwater piles, in consultation with CRDA, USACE, GHFC, and CT DEEP.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tslp8szs87h6pztngfv3m/Addendum-3-to-be-linked-Nov-2024-HBMI-Report-Full.pdf?rlkey=bxksdauv5h27rabr96cpaxidc&st=hm6m7szd&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tslp8szs87h6pztngfv3m/Addendum-3-to-be-linked-Nov-2024-HBMI-Report-Full.pdf?rlkey=bxksdauv5h27rabr96cpaxidc&st=hm6m7szd&dl=0

e) Overhead Coal Transfer Conveyor (Barge Crane to Transfer House)

The overhead coal transfer conveyor running from the barge unloading crane to the coal/RDF transfer house on the west side of the floodwall is earmarked for removal.

f) Coal/RDF Transfer House (West of Floodwall)

The coal/RDF transfer house located on the west side of the floodwall is not earmarked for removal.

g) Remnant Base/Foundation on Floodwall Slope Adjacent to Barge Crane

The Consultant shall evaluate and make a recommendation regarding the removal of the remnant base and foundation located on the floodwall slope adjacent to the barge unloading crane, in consultation with CRDA, USACE, GHFC, and CT DEEP.

h) Remnant Base/Foundation of Former Coal Tower (Between Barge Crane and Screen House #3)

The Consultant shall evaluate and make a recommendation regarding the removal of the remnant base and foundation of the former coal tower structure on the floodwall slope between the barge unloading crane and Screen House #3, in consultation with CRDA, USACE, GHFC, and CT DEEP.

i) Derelict Concrete/Wood Structure Base and Supports (North of Screen House #3)

The derelict concrete/wood structure base and supports located north of Screen House #3 are earmarked for removal.

j) Steel Stairway on Floodwall Slope (Between Screen Houses #1 and #2)

The steel stairway on the floodwall slope between Screen House #1 and Screen House #2 is earmarked for removal.

k) Remnants of Former Coal Transfer House (West of Floodwall)

Assuming this refers to the remaining concrete foundation structures of the former coal transfer house, these remnants are not currently anticipated for removal. However, the Consultant shall evaluate and make a recommendation regarding their removal in consultation with CRDA, USACE, GHFC, and CT DEEP.

l) Former Subsurface Coal Transfer Conveyor (West of Floodwall)

The Consultant shall evaluate and make a recommendation regarding removal or abandonment of the subsurface coal transfer conveyor structure on the west side of the floodwall, in consultation with CRDA, USACE, GHFC, and CT DEEP.

m) Remnants of Former Coal Crusher House (West of Floodwall)

The Consultant shall evaluate and make a recommendation regarding removal or abandonment of the remnants of the former coal crusher house on the west side of the floodwall, in consultation with CRDA, USACE, GHFC, and CT DEEP.

n) Beige Aboveground Storage Tanks

The two beige-colored aboveground storage tanks are earmarked for removal. One tank was used for demineralized water and the other for condensate from the power generation steam cycle. Both tanks were drained; no cleaning was performed as neither tank contained chemicals.

Clarifying Note for Proposers

The above list was developed by CRDA based on communications with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Greater Hartford Flood Commission, and CT DEEP. The final list of structures to be abandoned or removed will be determined collaboratively with these agencies following evaluation by the Consultant.

CRDA’s expectations are as follows:

• Superstructures of elements located within or on the river side of the dike easement shall generally be removed, except for the waste transfer building and RDF conveyors/ductwork associated with the former waste-to-energy operation.

• Facility-related foundations, piles, or other structural elements that support or protect the flood protection system may remain if their removal could compromise stability.

• Any protruding structures above the surface of the flood protection system or the river channel shall be removed unless determined by CRDA, USACE, or GHFC to be beneficial for protection, stability, or future use.

4. Has a survey of the site conforming to Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act been performed?

Response:

No Section 106 survey has been performed to date.

5. Have the structures involved in the project been inspected by an engineer? Are any of the structures deemed unsafe to enter or access?

Response:

MIRA Dissolution Authority, the former owner of the site, engaged HDR, Inc. to perform a structural evaluation of several of the structures included in the scope. The Technical Memorandum dated April

30, 2025, by HDR. Inc. is included here as Attachment 2 to this Addendum. Consultant is expected to make its own determination as to a given structure’s condition for entry.

6. Extension of the proposal deadline is requested until November 21, 2025. The varied project elements, disciplines required to provide the services included and the complexity of the project requires additional time to assemble the in-house and subcontracted resources to prepare a detailed scope of services and perform management/quality control review of the scope and pricing for the project.

Response:

As noted in Addendum 2 (issued October 27, 2025), CRDA has extended the proposal submission deadline to 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 18, 2025.

7. For scope item 2 (determining locations of subsurface utilities), what level of utility location will be required: visual confirmation of surface features (i.e., Quality Level [QL] C per ASCE 38, Standard Guideline for Investigating and Documenting Existing Utilities), electromagnetic and ground penetrating radar (QL-B), or physical excavation to confirm locations (QL-A)?

Response:

CRDA expects determination of subsurface utility locations will require QL-B per ASCE 38.

8. Comment 2.b in GHFC's 4/14/2025 states "The infrastructure still must be inspected and any observed issues addressed until the drainage tunnel is permanently abandoned. We anticipate that the inspections would involve a visual surface inspection of the area in the vicinity of the infrastructure as well as an inspection of the bulkheads." Please confirm that the Scope should include inspection of the intake/discharge tunnel bulkheads. This would seem to require a boat inspection of the outfall bulkhead and dewatering and confined RFP space entry of the tunnels from the PBF.

Response:

The RFP scope includes inspection of the intake/discharge tunnel bulkheads. However, the specific method of inspection (e.g., boat access, dewatering, or confined-space entry) will be determined collaboratively with CRDA and GHFC.” Consultant should outline its assumptions made in developing its proposed costs to perform the inspection of the intake/discharge tunnel bulkheads.

9. Will environmental sampling of soil, groundwater, and insides of the oil pipes be required, or can we assume that the construction contract will require this testing to be performed by the contractor?

Response:

The 5-year inspection or evaluation of interior penetration surfaces to be completed by the consultant may require draining, cleaning, waste characterization, and proper containerization of residual materials. CRDA will make arrangements for proper off site transportation and disposal of any containerized residual materials after they have been properly characterized by the Consultant.

Environmental sampling of soil or groundwater is not anticipated within this RFP’s scope.

10. Are all the utility penetrations readily accessible via a manhole or hatch for the 5-year video/physical inspection? If not, how will these utilities be accessed and should any work such as cutting of pipes be included in the proposed cost? Will permit-required confined space entry (per OSHA definition) be required for any of the underground spaces to be entered (manholes, tunnels, etc)? Should costs be included for cleaning of the pipes prior to inspection?

Response:

Some utility penetrations are accessible via manhole or hatch for the 5-year video inspection. For those that are not, Consultant is expected to evaluate and make a recommendation regarding access to

CRDA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Greater Hartford Flood Commission. Access to penetrations may include cutting pipes for access and repairing such cuts after inspections are complete. Permit required confined space entry may be required if alternative inspection techniques are not adequate. It is unknown if cleaning of pipes will be required prior to inspection. Consultant should outline its assumptions made in developing its proposed costs to perform the 5-year video/physical inspection.

11. Are the interiors of all the screenhouses accessible for human entry?

Response:

Screen House #1 and #3 are accessible for human entry. Screen House #2 is considered unsafe for entry due to structural concerns.

12. Please confirm that a CCTV inspection of the toe drain system is not required for this scope.

Response:

CCTV inspection of the toe drain system is not required for this scope.

13. Does CRDA have Division 0 contracting and procurement specifications that will be used on this project or will the selected consultant need to prepare these?

Response:

CRDA will provide the Consultant with its standard Division 00 Contract and Procurement template specifications for use on this project. The Consultant will be responsible for tailoring these documents to reflect project-specific details.

14. Will basis of design report/calculations for items beyond the seepage analysis need to be submitted for CRDA, GHFC, and USACE review and comment?

Response:

The Consultant should assume that additional design reports or calculations may be required by CRDA, USACE, GHFC, or CT DEEP.

Examples may include, but are not limited to:

i) evaluating soil settlement or stability from conduit grouting,

ii) assessing impacts of structure removal on floodwall or embankment stability

iii) drainage analysis for re-routing of the stormwater outfall

iv) geotechnical evaluations

v) structural evaluations

15. What are the requirements for the quarterly vs annual inspections? EM 1110-2-2902 does not appear to address quarterly and annual inspections.

Response:

The referenced inspection frequencies contained in the RFP scope are taken from Appendix A of the

May 10, 2022 letter from the Greater Hartford Flood Commission to Christopher Shepard, P.E., which letter is one of the “Documents Attached for Reference” to the RFP. This Appendix of the letter outlines the required inspection elements requested by the Greater Hartford Flood Commission and is the basis upon which CRDA has included the performance and documentation of one quarterly inspection and one annual inspection in the RFP.

Updated RFP Document:

Proposers shall note that the RFP Scope of Work has been modified to include Construction Quality

Assurance Services during the abandonment/removal phase of the project. The RFP document has also been updated to reflect changes to key dates within this RFP process. An updated RFP document highlighting these changes is included as Attachment 4 to this Addendum.

Please note CRDA will issue an addendum #5 for draft contract

Attached:

Attachment 1: Excerpts from November 20, 2024 HBMI Report

Attachment 2: Technical Memorandum dated April 30, 2025, by HDR. Inc.

Attachment 3: Updated RFP Document

Submitter:

Signature:

End of Addendum #4

Clarifying Note for Proposers