Subtask 1.2 – Design Review Sample Clauses

Subtask 1.2 – Design Review. Golder will review the County’s design plans, specifications, and CQA plan to determine if there are design alternatives that could be implemented to reduce construction costs, improve constructability, or reduce maintenance. In addition, we will confirm that the specifications are based on the most recent industry standards. Based on our preliminary review of the draft plans, Golder recommends revisiting the orientation of shredded tire/warning layer detail in the operations layer, which are depicted running diagonally along the slopes. We anticipate that these will be difficult to install and could increase the likelihood of damaging the underlying liner. We understand that the desire is to provide a visual warning as material is removed from the digester. However, it may be possible to orient the biogas pipes parallel to the dip of the slope, and use a separate brightly colored warning layer on top of the operations that could be inclined diagonally and secured to the biogas/shredded tire trenches. For a recent project in Las Vegas Nevada, we installed orange construction fencing in the middle of the 36-inch thick operations layer to provide a warning to the equipment operator when removing sludge from the pond. Solicitation PPWSRFPJK1704 – Engineering Design and CQA Services April 2017 20 P1777870 The County may also entertain the use of a linear low-density polyethylene geomembrane in lieu of a high-density polyethylene geomembrane. The linear low-density polyethylene is much more flexible and will respond better to the potential differential settlement of the underlying waste. The County may also consider modifying the grading plan for the cells to shed stormwater to the north and south instead of east and west. This will reduce the impact of stormwater on the operating surface between the cells and will provide flow along the cells without having to run around them. During the kick-off meeting, Golder would like to review the County’s plan for operating the digester cells and how material will be moved in and out of the cells. If the plan is to have equipment operate directly on the operations layer, Golder is concerned with the suitability of the wood chips and shredded tires to allow safe operation over the liner. In addition, we note that there is no anchor trench shown in the plans. An anchor trench design or runout length design should be completed prior to construction to verify the geomembrane will not be impacted by equipment. Other details ...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Subtask 1.2 – Design Review

  • Design Review At appropriate stages of design, documented reviews of the design results shall be planned and conducted. Participants at each Design Review shall include representatives of all functions concerned with the design stage being reviewed, as well as other specialist personnel, as required. Records of such reviews shall be maintained. Any computer software used to perform alternative calculations or verify clearances through the use of scale models or computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) techniques shall be validated before the use of the application, with validation documented in accordance with Section 2.2.15. In addition, at each submittal to IFA for review, Developer shall provide hand calculations that validate any calculations performed by computer software.

  • Schematic Design Phase Services § 3.2.1 The Architect shall review the program and other information furnished by the Owner, and shall review laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the Architect’s services.

  • 000 SCOPE OF WORK 5.100 The scope of this Agreement covers all work of a maintenance, repair and renovation nature, assigned by the Owner to the Company and performed by the employees of the Company covered by this Agreement, within the limits of the Owner's plant site.

  • Detailed Scope of Work The complete description of services to be provided by the Contractor under an individual Job Order. Developed by the Contractor, after the Joint Scope Meeting and submitted for approval to the County Project Manager.

  • Design Development Phase Services 3.3.1 Based on the Owner’s approval of the Schematic Design Documents, and on the Owner’s authorization of any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Design Development Documents for the Owner’s approval. The Design Development Documents shall illustrate and describe the development of the approved Schematic Design Documents and shall consist of drawings and other documents including plans, sections, elevations, typical construction details, and diagrammatic layouts of building systems to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, and other appropriate elements. The Design Development Documents shall also include outline specifications that identify major materials and systems and establish, in general, their quality levels.

  • General Scope of Work The Scope of Work and projected level of effort required for these SERVICES is described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this AGREEMENT. The General Scope of Work was developed utilizing performance based contracting methodologies.

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Work Plan Coordinate a work plan including a list of the proposed meetings and coordination activities, and related tasks to be performed, a schedule and an estimate. The work plan must satisfy the requirements of the project and must be approved by the State prior to commencing work.

  • Scope of Work The Contractor has overall responsibility for and shall provide and furnish all materials, equipment, tools and labor as necessary or reasonably inferable to complete the Work, or any phase of the Work, in accordance with the Owner’s requirements and the terms of the Contract Documents.

  • Development Plan document specifying the work program, schedule, and relevant investments required for the Development and the Production of a Discovery or set of Discoveries of Oil and Gas in the Contract Area, including its abandonment.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.