wemco® submersible pump specifications & performance · 2021. 3. 1. · wemco® submersible...

WEMCO® Submersible Pump Specifications & Performance

1600

80

100

0

0

20

200 400 600 1000 1200 1400

DIFFERENTIAL HEAD (FEET)

120

60

800

40

140

Flow GPM

31.50 51 8863320 101

45.40 91 182136450 227

107

273

12

24

38

6

18

31

17

35

53

9

26

43

Head

PSI

Head

M

114

318

126

363

45 65

000

Flow L/S

Flow M3/Hr

Head

Fee

t

Model CES Pump Performance

2 x11 CES 3 x11 CES

4 x11 CES 6 x11 CES

Hea

d Fe

et

0 400 800 1200

Flow GPM

Model ES Pump Performance

0

40

80

120

160

200

31.5Flow L/S

1000600200 1400

0 88.3 10710163.150.5 114

45.40 182 27322713690.9 318Flow M3/Hr

20

60

100

140

180

1600

126

363

0

12

24

37

49

61

6

18

31

43

55

0

17

35

52

69

87

9

26

43

61

78

Head

PSI

Head

M

1800 2000

220

2 x11 ES

3 x11 ES

6 x11 ES

139

409

145

454

6 x11 ES

67 96

Hea

d Fe

et

0 200 400 600 800Flow GPM

Model S PUMPPerformance

0

20

40

60

80

1006.3Flow L/S

500300100 700

0 25.2 37.9 50.531.518.912.6 44.2

220 91 136 1821136845 159Flow M3/Hr

10

30

50

70

90

0

6

12

18

24

30.5

3

9

15

21

27

0

9

17

26

35

43.4

4

13

22

30

39

Hea

d PS

I

Hea

d M

3 " Model 3S2

4 " Model 4S3

Model S• Bottom suction, vertical discharge • Recessed impeller• Cast Iron construction • 25 to 700 GPM • Heads to 80 ft. • Up to 40 HP

Model ES• Bottom suction, horizontal discharge • Recessed impeller• Cast Iron or Hi-Chrome construction • Heads to 200 ft. • Up to 75 HP• Available with feet, cast iron discharge elbow or fast-out assembly

Model CES• Bottom suction, horizontal discharge • Cupped, recessed impeller• Ni-Hard or Hi-Chrome construction • 50 to 1400 gpm • Heads to 100 ft. TDH • Up to 750 HP• Available with feet, cast iron discharge elbow or fast-out assembly • Options: Hi-Chrome discharge elbow, heavy-duty slurry discharge hose • Bracket for horizontal mounting

WEMCO® CES Submersible Pump Are Designed to Handle Grit!

Heavy-Duty Submersible Motor

• 650 Brinell abrasion-resistant Ni-Hard construction • Extended wear areas • Tandem mechanical seal • Optional severe-duty rubber discharge hose

The perfect choice for new installations or for replacing screw, chain or bucket type grit collection systems, or any other application where abrasion is a problem. The CES recessed impeller vortex pump features easy installation, low maintenance and a long service life. The rimmed impeller performance actually improves with age.

650 Brinnel Hi-Chrome Wearplate

Impeller Rim IntactFlow directed against extended wear suction which absorbs wear

Tandem Mechanical SealTungsten Carbide with Silicon Carbide faces.

Abrasion moves from suction area or the casing to the extended wear areas adjacent to the impeller tip

3/4 Inch Thick Hi-Chrome Extended Wear Area

Silica sand is the most common grit particle any pump must handle. It is also one of the hardest (570 Bhn), most abrasive minerals on earth. To resist this, the pump wear-parts must be of greater hardness than these silicas. With this in mind, the WEMCO Model CES wet-end parts, which are beefed-up to 1” thick at the wear areas, are Ni-Hard or Hi-Chrome iron – the industry’s most abrasion-resistant alloys, with hardness of 650 Brinell.

Weir Specialty Pumps

440 W. 800 South P.O. Box 209 (84110-0209)Salt Lake City, UT 84101 USA

Tel: 1 801 359 8731 Fax: 1 801 530 7531 email: weirsp.com www.weirsp.com

© 2012 Weir Specialty Pumps. All Rights reserved. Bulletin: P10-B78 - Wemco Submersible Pumps

Installation Options

All WEMCO submersible pumps are available with a Fast-Out discharge assembly to facilitate easy removal and re-installation for maintenance or inspection. Most models are available with a cast discharge elbow/pump stand for installations where removal is not an issue. The pump is bolted directly to the discharge piping. As an option, WEMCO has available cast discharge fittings in non-spark and Hi-Chrome abrasion resistant construction.

For temporary installations, or for installations re-quiring great flexibility, or for retrofit installations where the existing discharge piping is inconve-nient or inaccessible, WEMCO offers a rugged, heavy-duty flexible discharge hose, available for all models of WEMCO submersible pumps. In ad-dition to the discharge hose, the pump would be supplied complete with a rigid pump base, and a pump discharge elbow.

As an option, for very specialized installations, WEMCO can provide a horizontal mounting bracket to facilitate the mounting of a submersible pump into very shallow wet wells. The bracket can be bolted to the pit floor for permanent installations, or the entire assembly can be placed on the wet well floor without permanently attach-ing the unit, allowing great portability of the unit.

Excellent Engineering Solutions

Customer Access Selector

Customer Access Selector Quote No. 15 Oct 2018 5:36 PM

Pump Performance DatasheetCustomer : JacobsCustomer reference :Item number : DefaultService : Grit PumpingQuantity : 1

Quote number : Size : 4X15 Model ESStages : 1Based on curve number : 4x15ME_P10E-D66Date last saved : 15 Oct 2018 5:36 PM

Operating ConditionsFlow, rated : 180.0 m3/hDifferential head / pressure, rated (requested) : 31.00 mDifferential head / pressure, rated (actual) : 31.19 mSuction pressure, rated / max : 0.00 / 0.00 bar.gNPSH available, rated : AmpleFrequency : 60 Hz

PerformanceSpeed, rated : 1750 rpmImpeller diameter, rated : 279 mmImpeller diameter, maximum : 381 mmImpeller diameter, minimum : 279 mmEfficiency : 46.80 %NPSH required / margin required : - / 0.00 mnq (imp. eye flow) / S (imp. eye flow) : 18 / - Metric unitsMCSF : 4.52 m3/hHead, maximum, rated diameter : 39.37 mHead rise to shutoff : 26.99 %Flow, best eff. point : 220.2 m3/hFlow ratio, rated / BEP : 81.73 %Diameter ratio (rated / max) : 73.33 %Head ratio (rated dia / max dia) : 44.04 %Cq/Ch/Ce/Cn [ANSI/HI 9.6.7-2010] : 1.00 / 1.00 / 1.00 / 1.00Selection status : Acceptable

LiquidLiquid type : User definedAdditional liquid description :Solids diameter, max : 0.00 mmSolids concentration, by volume : 0.00 %Temperature, max : 20.00 deg CFluid density, rated / max : 0.999 / 0.999 kg/dm3Viscosity, rated : 1.00 cStVapor pressure, rated : 0.00 bar.a

MaterialMaterial selected : Standard

Pressure DataMaximum working pressure : 3.86 bar.gMaximum allowable working pressure : 6.89 bar.gMaximum allowable suction pressure : N/AHydrostatic test pressure : N/A

Driver & Power Data (@Max density)Driver sizing specification : Rated powerMargin over specification : 0.00 %Service factor : 1.15 (used)Power, hydraulic : 15.18 kWPower, rated : 32.43 kWPower, maximum, rated diameter : 34.09 kWMinimum recommended motor rating : 29.83 kW / 40.00 hp

0

10

20

30

40

Pow

er -

kW

Power

0

9

18

27

36

45

54

63

72

81

90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Hea

d - m

Effic

ienc

y - %

Flow - m3/h

279 mm

Efficiency

381 mm

MCSFPreferred operating region

Aug.28/18 BUDGET PRICE

Jacobs‐ 900 and 1800MT

Decast #: 2018-Budget Item No. Description

900dia MT 300 m of 914mm ID x 1156mm OD reinforced concrete microtunnelling pipe, to CSA A257.2

class 140D, in nominal length 2.4m.Total 299,160.00$


class 140D, in nominal length 3m.Total 1,779,811.00$

DECAST Ltd. includes:1. Prices are FOB GTA, nearest point accessible to the jobsite, full loads only;2. Supply of gasket is included;

DECAST Ltd. does not include:1. Joint packers;2. Intermediate jacking stations (interjack sets); and3. All applicable taxes.

Special Terms and Conditions:1. Budget price valid for 90 days;

2. Micro tunnel joints to CSA A257.2, concrete spigot with gasket and epoxy coated fixed steel

band (2 coats of epoxy);

3. Price based on the above mentioned pipe and standard specifications should these

change price would change accordingly;

4. Final price to adjusted based on actual design conditions;

5. Refer to Decast Ltd. terms and conditions attached and note:

• the particular "Payment" terms on section 4;

• Discount of 3% for prompt payment does not apply to above products;

• "Delivery" term, section 5.5, does not apply to the above products;

6. Delivery to be confirmed at the time of the order.

1

Sept.4/18

BUDGET PRICE

Jacobs ‐ 3000MT

Decast #: 2018- BudgetItem No. Description


class 140D, in nominal length 3m.Total 4,754,903.00$

DECAST Ltd. includes:1. Prices are FOB GTA, nearest point accessible to the jobsite, full loads only;2. Supply of gasket is included;

DECAST Ltd. does not include:1. Joint packers;2. Intermediate jacking stations (interjack sets); and3. All applicable taxes.

Special Terms and Conditions:1. Budget price valid for 90 days;

2. Micro tunnel joints to CSA A257.2, concrete spigot with gasket and epoxy coated fixed steel

band (2 coats of epoxy);

3. Price based on the above mentioned pipe and standard specifications should these


4. Final price to adjusted based on actual design conditions;

5. Refer to Decast Ltd. terms and conditions attached and note:




6. Delivery to be confirmed at the time of the order.

1

Nov.22/18

QUOTATION

Jacobs 1800 & 3000dia CPP

Decast #: 2018-1479Item No. Description

1800dia C301500 m of 1800mm dia. concrete pressure pipe, AWWA C301(E) CL-10 In standard length of 6.096m with

steel bell and spigot joints.Total 1,299,863.00$

3000dia C302 700 m of 3000mm ID x 3600mm OD AWWA C302 In standard length of 3m with

steel bell and concrete spigot joints.Total 7,325,393.00$

DECAST Ltd. includes:- Prices are FOB GTA, nearest point accessible to the jobsite, full loads only;- Supply of gasket is included;

DECAST Ltd. does not include:- All applicable taxes.- No field work included on this proposal, unless specified above;

Special Terms and Conditions:- Budget price valid for 90 days;

‐ Price based on the above mentioned pipe and standard specifications should these


- Above proposal is based on design information provided by Jacobs on Nov.7/2018 via email.

- Final price to adjusted based on actual design conditions;

- Refer to Decast Ltd. terms and conditions attached and note:




‐ Delivery to be confirmed at the time of the order.

1

BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASE 4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT APPENDIX G6 – PRELIMINARY DESIGN COST ESTIMATE ASSIGNMENT 17-15 & LARP

G-8 “THIS DOCUMENT IS ONLY VALID ON 9-JAN-19. ONCE PRINTED THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES NOT CONTROLLED.”

Appendix G6 – Preliminary Design Cost Estimate

The Preliminary Design Cost Estimate included in this Appendix is based on the BFPP4 Cost Estimating Tool (V3.0) and associated Rate Database and reflects the preliminary design drawings included in Appendix G1. This cost estimate includes both Basement Flooding scope of work as well as the cost of additional scope, assigned by other departments within the City.

BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASE 4

COST ESTIMATING TOOL AND GUIDELINES

COST ESTIMATING TOOL SUMMARY TABLE

Cost Estimating Tool Version 3.0 21-Dec-18

Assignment 17-15

Item Description Item Name

EA (Class 4 Cost Estimate)

PD (Class 3 Cost Estimate)

95% DD (Class 1 Cost

Estimate)

IFTPricing

(Class 1 CE)Lowest Bid Change

Orders

FinalContract

PriceComments

1. Basement Flooding Protection Program (BC)Part 1 - Sanitary Sewers B1 $0 $7,000 $0 $0 $0

Part 1.1 - Sanitary Sewers Included in CBH B1.1 $0 $7,000 $0 $0 $0

Part 1.2 - Sanitary Sewers Not Included in CBH B1.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 2 - Storm Sewers B2 $13,165,810 $29,898,285 $0 $0 $0

Part 3 - Laterals B3 $987,436 $3,692,373 $0 $0 $0

Part 3.1 - Laterals Included in CBH B3.1 $987,436 $3,692,373 $0 $0 $0

Part 3.2 - Laterals Not Included in CBH B3.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 4 - Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer B4 $0 $156,570 $0 $0 $0Part 4.1 - Sanitary Maintenance Holes Included in

CBHB4.1 $0 $156,570 $0 $0 $0

Part 4.2 - Sanitary Maintenance Holes Not Included

in CBHB4.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 5 - Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer B5 $3,949,743 $6,478,225 $0 $0 $0

Part 6 - Storage B6 $20,400,000 $32,455,000 $0 $0 $0

Part 6.1 - Subsurface Conduit B6.1 $20,400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 6.2 - Subsurface Tank B6.2 $0 $32,455,000 $0 $0 $0

Part 6.3 - Open Pond B6.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 7 - Watermain Replacement B7 $1,316,581 $98,100 $0 $0 $0

Part 8 - Watermain Service Connections B8 $658,291 $0 $0 $0 $0Part 8.1 - Watermain Service Connection Included

in CBHB8.1 $658,291 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 8.2 - Watermain Service Connection Not

Included in CBHB8.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 9 - Permanent Restoration B9 $5,266,324 $809,870 $0 $0 $0

Part 9.1 - Permanent Restoration Included in CBH B9.1 $5,266,324 $809,870 $0 $0 $0Part 9.2 - Permanent Restoration Not Included in

CBHB9.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 10 - Miscellaneous B10 $3,949,743 $8,971,586 $0 $0 $0

Part 10.1 - Miscellaneous Costs Included in CBH B10.1 $3,949,743 $8,971,586 $0 $0 $0Part 10.2 - Miscellaneous Costs Not Included in

CBHB11.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Part 11 - Allowances B11 $3,851,279 $6,398,943 $0 $0 $0

Part 11.1 - Allowances Included in CBH B11.1 $3,851,279 $6,398,943 $0 $0 $0

Part 11.2 - Allowances Not Included in CBH B11.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1A. Base Construction Cost $53,545,207 $88,965,952 $0 $0 $01B. Contingency $16,063,562 $22,241,488 $0 $0 $0

1C. Base Construction Total $69,608,769 $111,207,440 $0 $0 $02. Property Acquisition / Easement Cost (P)

Temporary Easements P1 $3,000,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 Upper & Lower limits (with input

from Real Property off)Temporary Easements Included in CBH P1.1 $3,000,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0

Temporary Easements Not Included in CBH P1.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Permanent Easements P2 $3,000,000 $8,400,000 $0 $0 $0 Upper & Lower limits (with input

from Real Property off)Permanent Easements Included in CBH P2.1 $3,000,000 $8,400,000 $0 $0 $0

Permanent Easements Not Included in CBH P2.2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2A. Base Cost $6,000,000 $8,700,000 $0 $0 $02B. Contingency $1,800,000 $2,175,000 $0 $0 $0

2C. Property Aquisition / Easement Total $7,800,000 $10,875,000 $0 $0 $0Basement Flooding Total (1C+2C) $77,408,769 $122,082,440 $0 $0 $03. Additional Scope - Construction Cost (AC)

Toronto Water

Sewer State of Good Repair AI1 $0 $1,565,203 $0 $0 $0

Watermain State of Good Repair AI2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Water Service Replacement AI3 $0 $407,285 $0 $0 $0

Permanent Restoration AI4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Water Quality Upgrade AI5 $0 $388,610 $0 $0 $0

3A. TW Subtotal AI $0 $2,361,098 $0 $0 $0Transportation

Maintenance Repairs AII1 $0 $2,029 $0 $0 $0

Utility Cuts AII2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

State of Good Repair AII3 $0 $297,071 $0 $0 $0

3B. TS Subtotal AII $0 $299,100 $0 $0 $0Other Additional Scope AIII $7,830,116 $12,299,305 $0 $0 $0

3C. Subtotal $7,830,116 $12,299,305 $0 $0 $03D. Base Construction Cost (Lines 3A+3B+3C) $7,830,116 $14,959,504 $0 $0 $03E. Contingency $2,349,035 $3,739,876 $0 $0 $0

3F. Additional Scope Total $10,179,150 $18,699,380 $0 $0 $04. Provisional Allowances (PA) N/A N/A $0 $0 $04A. Base Construction Cost4B. Contingency

4C. Provisional Allowances Total5. Base Construction Cost (Lines 1A+ 2A + 3D) $67,375,322 $112,625,456 $0 $0 $0Contingency By Phase % 30% 25% 5% 5% 0%

6. Total Assignment Cost (Net of Tax, Excluding Property Acquisition and Provisional Allowances) (Lines 1C+3F)*Value used to calculate percentage fee for engineering services for DDCA

$79,787,919 $129,906,820 $0 $0 $0

7. Total Assignment Cost (Net of Tax) (Lines 1C+2C+3F+4C) $87,587,919 $140,781,820 $0 $0 $0

8. Escalation (E) - Enter date of Estimate (1) Enter date Estimate was

prepared. (2) Escalation is

9. HST 13% (HST = 13% of (Lines 7+8)) $11,386,429 $18,301,637 $0 $0 $010. Total Cost With Tax (Total Cost = (Lines 7+8+9)) $98,974,348 $159,083,456 $0 $0 $011. Net Cost to City (Net Cost = 1.0176 * (Lines 7+8)) $89,129,466 $143,259,580 $0 $0 $0 The factor 1.76 represents the

component of HST not reimbursed

12. Total Benefitting Household CostExcludes Basement Flooding Sanitary Sewer and Maintenance Hole Improvements (unless relocated to accommodate other BF works), Additional Scope, Provisional Allowances

$70,562,547 $122,082,440 $0 $0 $0

13. Cost per Benefitting Household (CBH, See Comment) $137,738 $262,54314. Number of Benefitting Households 562 465

ESTIMATED ACTUALS



WORKSHEET FOR EA PHASE COST ESTIMATE

Item #Standard

Spec.

Standard

Drawing

Supp.

Spec.

Special

ProvisionSSP Items included in the Assignment

Location/

Street

Size/

Type

Depth/

Secondary DescriptionQuantity Dep. Unit

Database

RateAmount

1. BFPP - Base Construction Cost (BC) $ 53,545,206.67

Part 1 - Sanitary Sewers

Part 1 - Sanitary Sewers Base Construction Cost BF TOTAL = $0

Part 1.1 - Sanitary Sewers Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 1.1 - Sanitary Sewers Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 1.2 - Sanitary Sewers Not Included in CBH Base Construction CostPart 1.2 - Sanitary Sewers Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 2 - Storm Sewers

1 1.1TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP

Supply and install 525 mm reinforced concrete pipe, CL 100D including core

break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthDalemount Ave 525mm 6m 11 BF m $1,970 $21,670

2 1.2Supply and install 1050 mm reinforced concrete pipe, CL 140D including core

break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 6.0 m in depthDalemount Ave 1050mm >6m 103 BF m $4,000 $412,000





5 1.5TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthGlen Park Ave 825mm 6m 34 BF m $2,700 $91,800

6 1.6TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP

Supply and install 825 mm reinforced concrete pipe, CL 65D including core break

into and connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthGlencairn Ave 825mm 4m 78 BF m $2,500 $195,000


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthGlencairn Ave 900mm 6m 87 BF m $3,055 $265,785


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthGlencairn Ave 900mm 4.5m 70 BF m $2,700 $189,000

9 1.9 Tunnel 2400mm dia. concrete pipe, including all costs Hillhurst Blvd SP 1 528 BF m $14,700 $7,761,600

# 1.10TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


into and connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthHillhurst Blvd 600mm 3m 22 BF m $1,700 $37,400

# 1.11TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthHillmount Ave 675mm 5m 101 BF m $1,900 $191,900

# 1.12Supply and install 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe, CL 100D including core

break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthHillmount Ave 750mm 4.5m 104 BF m $2,150 $223,600

# 1.13TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


into and connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthHillmount Ave 450mm 3m 54 BF m $1,270 $68,580

# 1.14TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP



# 1.15TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP




break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 6.0 m in depthPrue Ave 1050mm >6m 234 BF m $4,000 $936,000

# 1.17TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthPrue Ave 450mm 4.5m 16 BF m $1,550 $24,800

# 1.18TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthPrue Ave 450mm 4.5m 75 BF m $1,550 $116,250

# 1.19TS 401

TS 410SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP

Supply and install 375 mm PVC sewer DR 35 including core break into and

connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthPrue Ave 375mm(PVC) 4.5m 140 BF m $1,650 $231,000

# 1.20Supply and install 3000mm (W) x 900mm (H) concrete box culvert - depth of 4.5

mViewmount Ave SP 4 200 BF m $4,600 $920,000

# 1.21TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthViewmount Ave 675mm 5m 91 BF m $1,900 $172,900


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthViewmount Ave 900mm 6m 7 BF m $3,055 $21,385

Part 2 - Storm Sewers Base Construction Cost TOTAL = $13,165,810

Part 3 - LateralsPart 3A - Laterals (BC)

(Default = 3% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 3% BF SUBTOTAL = $394,974

Part 3A Laterals Included in CBH Base Construction Cost SUBTOTAL = $394,974

Part 3A Laterals Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 3B - Inlet Control Devices (BC)

(Default = 1.5% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 2% BF SUBTOTAL = $197,487

Part 3C - CBs, Ditch Inlets, Subdrains (BC)

(Default = 3% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 3% BF SUBTOTAL = $394,974

Part 3 - Laterals Base Construction Cost TOTAL = $987,436

Part 3.1 - Laterals Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 3.1 - Laterals Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $987,436

Part 3.2 - Laterals Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 3.2 - Laterals Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 4 - Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer

Part 4 - Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer Base Construction Cost (Default = 30% of Part 1) 30% BF TOTAL = $0

Part 4.1 - Sanitary Maintenance Holes Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 4.1 - Sanitary Maintenance Holes Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 4.2 - Sanitary Maintenance Holes Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 4.2 - Sanitary Maintenance Holes Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 5 - Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer

Part 5 - Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer Base Construction Cost (Default = 30% of Part 2) 30% BF TOTAL = $3,949,743

Part 6 - Storage (BC)# 1.23 Supply and install underground tank Memorial Park Underground Tank 20400000 BF lump sum $1 $20,400,000

Part 6.1 - Subsurface Conduit Base Construction CostPart 6.1 - Subsurface Conduit Subsurface Conduit (Culverts Included in Parts 1 & 2) 100% TOTAL = $20,400,000

Part 6.2 - Subsurface Tank Base Construction CostPart 6.2 - Subsurface Tank Subsurface Tank 0% TOTAL = $0

Part 6.3 - Open Pond Base Construction CostPart 6.3 - Open Pond Open Pond 0% TOTAL = $0

Part 7 - Watermain Replacement

Part 7 - Watermain Replacement Base Construction Cost (Default = 10% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 10% BF TOTAL = $1,316,581

Part 7.1 - Watermain Replacement Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 7.1 - Watermain Replacement Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $1,316,581

Part 7.2 - Watermain Replacement Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 7.2 - Watermain Replacement Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 8 - Watermain Service Connections

Part 8 - Watermain Service Connections Base Construction Cost (Default = 5% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 5% BF TOTAL = $658,291

Part 8.1 - Watermain Service Connection Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 8.1 - Watermain Service Connection Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $658,291

Part 8.2 - Watermain Service Connection Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 8.2 - Watermain Service Connection Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 9 - Permanent Restoration

Part 9 - Permanent Restoration Base Construction Cost (Default = 40% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 40% BF TOTAL = $5,266,324

Part 9.1 - Permanent Restoration Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 9.1 - Permanent Restoration Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $5,266,324

Part 9.2 - Permanent Restoration Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 9.2 - Permanent Restoration Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 10 - Miscellaneous

Part 10 - Miscellaneous Base Construction Cost (Default = 30% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 30% BF TOTAL = $3,949,743

Part 10.1 - Miscellaneous Costs Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 10.1 - Miscellaneous Costs Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $3,949,743

Part 10.2 - Miscellaneous Costs Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 10.2 - Miscellaneous Costs Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 11 - Allowances# 1.24 Payment for Bonds $49,693,927 BF lump sum 1.00% $496,939

# 1.25 Payment for all insurance $49,693,927 BF lump sum 0.75% $372,704

# 1.26 Mobilization and demobilization $49,693,927 BF lump sum 4.00% $1,987,757

# 1.27 TS 1.10 Supply, install and maintain field office for the City staff BF each 120,000.00$ $0

# 1.28 TS 1.00 GN105SS GN102SPProvide traffic control for maintenance of traffic as per Ontario Traffic Manual

(OTM) Book 7 Temporary Conditions$49,693,927 BF lump sum 2.00% $993,879

# 1.29 GN101SPSupply, install and manage "Capital Improvement Project Construction Sign" as

per contract documentsBF each 860.00$ $0

# 1.30 GN116SPProvide pre-construction and post-construction structural and crack condition

survey of building / structure and submit condition survey reportsBF lump sum 60,000.00$ $0

# 1.31 Snow Removal and Disposal BF lump sum 1.00$ $0

# 1.32 TS 2.00 Clearing and grubbing BF m2 -$ $0

# 1.33 Barrier for Tree Protection BF m 30.00$ $0

# 1.34 Provision of as-constructed survey and as-built drawings BF lump sum 1.00$ $0

Part 11 - Allowances Base Construction Cost (Default = 20% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 20% TOTAL = $3,851,279

Part 11.1 - Allowances Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 11.1 - Allowances Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $3,851,279

Part 11.2 - Allowances Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 11.2 - Allowances Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

2. Property Acquisition / Easement Cost $ -

2.1 Temporary Easements Temporary Easements TOTAL = $3,000,000

Temporary Easements Included in CBH Lump Sum $3,000,000 SUBTOTAL = $3,000,000

Temporary Easements Not Included in CBH Lump Sum $0 SUBTOTAL = $0

2.2 Permanent Easements Permanent Easements (Default = 2% of Sum of Parts 1 through 10) TOTAL = $3,000,000

Permanent Easements Included in CBH Lump Sum $3,000,000 SUBTOTAL = $3,000,000

Permanent Easements Not Included in CBH Lump Sum $0 SUBTOTAL = $0

3. Additional Scope - Construction Cost (AC) $ 16,176,787.75



break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depth

Lawrence Ave W Allen X N

Ramp750mm 6m 85 Other m $2,390 $203,150


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthShermount Ave 750mm 6m 86 Other m $2,390 $205,540


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 6.0 m in depthShermount Ave 750mm >6m 94 Other m $2,750 $258,500


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 6.0 m in depthShermount Ave 750mm >6m 86 Other m $2,750 $236,500


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 6.0 m in depthMeadowbrook Rd 750mm >6m 86 Other m $2,750 $236,500





EA COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT 17-15Locked Input Locked





break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 6.0 m in depthEnglemount Ave 750mm >6m 101 Other m $2,750 $277,750










break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthGlen Park Ave 750mm 6m 57 Other m $2,390 $136,230


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthGlen Park Ave 750mm 6m 97 Other m $2,390 $231,830


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 6.0 m in depthGlen Park Ave 750mm >6m 101 Other m $2,750 $277,750


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 6.0 m in depthDalemount Ave 750mm >6m 102 Other m $2,750 $280,500


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthDalemount Ave 750mm 6m 102 Other m $2,390 $243,780


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthDalemount Ave 750mm 6m 102 Other m $2,390 $243,780

# 3.19 Tunnel 900 mm dia. concrete pipe, including all costs Dalemount Ave SP 3 91 Other m $6,300 $573,300

# 3.20 Tunnel 900 mm dia. concrete pipe, including all costs Dalemount Ave SP 3 105 Other m $6,300 $661,500

# 3.21 Tunnel 900 mm dia. concrete pipe, including all costs Hillhurst Blvd SP 3 76 Other m $6,300 $478,800



TOTAL = $6,813,610


% TOTAL = $0

Part 3 - LateralsPart 3A - Laterals (AC)

(Default = 3% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 3% % SUBTOTAL = $204,408

Part 3B - Inlet Control Devices (AC)

(Default = 1.5% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 2% % SUBTOTAL = $102,204

Part 3C - CBs, Ditch Inlets, Subdrains (AC)

(Default = 3% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 3% % SUBTOTAL = $204,408

TOTAL = $511,021


(Default = 30% of Part 1) 30% % TOTAL = $2,044,083


(Default = 30% of Part 2) 30% % TOTAL = $0

Part 6 - Storage

Subsurface Conduit (Culverts Included in Parts 1 & 2) 100% TOTAL = $0

Subsurface Tank 0% TOTAL = $0

Open Pond 0% TOTAL = $0


(Default = 10% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 10% % TOTAL = $681,361




(Default = 40% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 40% % TOTAL = $2,725,444


(Default = 30% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 30% % TOTAL = $2,044,083

Part 11 - Allowances# 3.24 Payment for Bonds $13,116,199 lump sum 1.00% $131,162

# 3.25 Payment for all insurance $13,116,199 lump sum 0.75% $98,372

# 3.26 Mobilization and demobilization $13,116,199 lump sum 4.00% $524,648

# 3.27 TS 1.10 Supply, install and maintain field office for the City staff each 120,000.00$ $0


(OTM) Book 7 Temporary Conditions$13,116,199 lump sum 2.00% $262,324


per contract documentseach 860.00$ $0


survey of building / structure and submit condition survey reportslump sum 60,000.00$ $0

# 3.31 Snow Removal and Disposal lump sum 1.00$ $0

# 3.32 TS 2.00 Clearing and grubbing m2 -$ $0

# 3.33 Barrier for Tree Protection m 30.00$ $0

# 3.34 Provision of as-constructed survey and as-built drawings lump sum 1.00$ $0

(Default = 20% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 20% TOTAL = $1,016,506

Toronto Water Sewer State of Good Repair SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Toronto Water Watermain State of Good Repair SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Toronto Water Water Service Replacement SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Toronto Water Permanent Restoration SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Toronto Water Water Quality Upgrade SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Transportation Services Maintenance Repairs SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Transportation Services Utility Cuts SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Transportation Services State of Good Repair SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Other Other Additional Scope SUBTOTAL = 6813610 TOTAL = $7,830,116

4. Provisional Allowances $ -

All Parts - Provisional Items Location Primary Description Secondary Description Quantity Part

TOTAL = $0

5. Contingency 30% $16,063,562

5.1 Contingency for Basement Flooding $16,063,562

5.2 Contingency for Property Acquisition / Easement Cost $0

5.3 Contingency for Toronto Water $0

5.4 Contingency for Transportation $0

5.5 Contingency for Other Additional Scope $0

5.6 Contingency for Provisional Allowances $0

TOTAL = $16,063,562




Item #Standard

Spec.

Standard

Drawing

Supp.

Spec.

Special

ProvisionSSP Items included in the Assignment

Location/

Street

Size/

Type

Depth/

Secondary DescriptionQuantity Dep. Unit

Database

RateAmount

1. BFPP - Base Construction Cost (BC) $ 88,965,952.02


1 1.1TS 401

TS 410SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthViewmount Ave 250mm 4.5m 4.75 BF - CBH m $1,400 $7,000

Part 1 - Sanitary Sewers Base Construction Cost TOTAL = $7,000

Part 1.1 - Sanitary Sewers Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 1.1 - Sanitary Sewers Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $7,000

Part 1.2 - Sanitary Sewers Not Included in CBH Base Construction CostPart 1.2 - Sanitary Sewers Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 2 - Storm Sewers2 1.2 Tunnel 3000mm dia. Concrete pipe, including all costs Chaplin Cres SP 5 670.25 BF m $24,000 $16,104,000

3 1.3 Tunnel 1800 mm dia. concrete pipe, including all costs Hillhurst Blvd SP 6 422.42 BF m $13,000 $5,499,000

4 1.4 Tunnel 1800 mm dia. concrete pipe, including all costs Dalemount Ave SP 6 154.63 BF m $13,000 $2,015,000

5 1.5 Supply and install 1800 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 6-7 m Dalemount Ave SP 9 144.08 BF m $5,830 $845,350




break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthGlen Park Ave 1200mm 6m 152.2 BF m $3,690 $564,570

9 1.9TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthGlen Park Ave 375mm(Conc) 6m 5.5 BF m $1,610 $9,660

# 1.10TS 401

TS 410SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthPrue Ave 300mm 4.5m 72.61 BF m $1,420 $103,660

# 1.11TS 401

TS 410SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthPrue Ave 375mm(PVC) 4.5m 70.01 BF m $1,650 $117,150

# 1.12TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthPrue Ave 450mm 4.5m 75.42 BF m $1,550 $117,800


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthViewmount Ave 1500mm 6m 95.5 BF m $3,900 $374,400



# 1.15TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP



# 1.16TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


into and connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthHillmount Ave 450mm 3m 88.13 BF m $1,270 $113,030

# 1.17 975 mm dia Reinforced concrete pipe. Depth to 4 m. Hillmount Ave SP 18 94.58 BF m $2,600 $247,000

# 1.18Supply and install 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe, CL 65D including core break


# 1.19TS 401

TS 411T-802.032-2 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthGlencairn Ave 450mm 6m 246.65 BF m $1,900 $469,300



# 1.21 975 mm dia Reinforced concrete pipe. Depth to 4 m. Glencairn Ave SP 18 88.09 BF m $2,600 $231,400

# 1.22 Install temporary 1350 mm diameter storm sewer, depth of 3-4.5 m Chaplin Cres SP 20 40 BF m $5,300 $212,000

# 1.23 Supply and install 2400 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 8-9 m Chaplin Cres SP 21 14.24 BF m $9,920 $148,800

# 1.24TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


into and connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthHillhurst Blvd 450mm 3m 4.5 BF m $1,270 $6,350

# 1.25TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthDalemount Ave 375mm(Conc) 6m 13 BF m $1,610 $20,930

# 1.26TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthGlen Park Ave 375mm(Conc) 4.5m 6 BF m $1,410 $8,460

# 1.27TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthPrue Ave 375mm(Conc) 6m 5 BF m $1,610 $8,050

# 1.28TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthPrue Ave 525mm 6m 4 BF m $1,970 $7,880

# 1.29TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthViewmount Ave 375mm(Conc) 6m 21.5 BF m $1,610 $35,420

# 1.30TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthViewmount Ave 450mm 4.5m 5 BF m $1,550 $7,750

# 1.31TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


into and connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthViewmount Ave 600mm 3m 20.14 BF m $1,700 $35,700

# 1.32TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP



# 1.33TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


into and connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthHillmount Ave 375mm(Conc) 3m 6.5 BF m $1,230 $8,610

# 1.34TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


into and connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthHillmount Ave 450mm 3m 6 BF m $1,270 $7,620



# 1.36TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthGlencairn Ave 375mm(Conc) 6m 26.5 BF m $1,610 $43,470

# 1.37TS 401

TS 411T-802.032-2 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP



# 1.38TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


into and connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthHillhurst Blvd 450mm 3m 1.7 BF m $1,270 $2,540


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 6.0 m in depthChaplin Cres 900mm >6m 3.5 BF m $3,250 $13,000

# 1.40TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthGlen Park Ave 600mm 6m 5.5 BF m $2,000 $12,000

# 1.41TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthGlen Park Ave 450mm 4.5m 5.5 BF m $1,550 $9,300

# 1.42TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP



# 1.43TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


break into and connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthPrue Ave 525mm 4.5m 15.21 BF m $1,750 $28,000

# 1.44TS 401

TS 410SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthHillhurst Blvd 300mm 4.5m 11.6 BF m $1,420 $17,040

# 1.45TS 401

TS 410SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthHillhurst Blvd 300mm 3m 77.1 BF m $1,250 $97,500

# 1.46TS 401

TS 410T-802.032-1 SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


into and connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthEnglemount Ave 600mm 3m 13.18 BF m $1,700 $23,800

Part 2 - Storm Sewers Base Construction Cost TOTAL = $29,898,285

Part 3 - LateralsPart 3A - Laterals (BC)

# 1.47

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP

Remove and replace existing sewer service 150 mm DR 28, complete - over 4.5

m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainDalemount Ave Lateral - 150mm 6m 90 BF - CBH m $945 $85,050

# 1.48

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainGlen Park Ave Lateral - 150mm 6m 75 BF - CBH m $945 $70,875

# 1.49

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainPrue Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 270 BF - CBH m $820 $221,400

# 1.50

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainPrue Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 140 BF - CBH m $820 $114,800

# 1.51

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainViewmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 6m 130 BF - CBH m $945 $122,850

# 1.52

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainViewmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 120 BF - CBH m $820 $98,400

# 1.53

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP

Remove and replace existing sewer service 150 mm DR 28, complete - up to 3.0

m in depth at the mainViewmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 3m 80 BF - CBH m $690 $55,200

# 1.54

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainViewmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 164.509 BF - CBH m $820 $135,300

# 1.55

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m in depth at the mainHillmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 3m 280 BF - CBH m $690 $193,200

# 1.56

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainHillmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 110 BF - CBH m $820 $90,200

# 1.57

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainHillmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 38.52 BF - CBH m $820 $31,980

# 1.58

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainHillmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 6m 105.93 BF - CBH m $945 $100,170

# 1.59

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainGlencairn Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 70 BF - CBH m $820 $57,400

# 1.60

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainGlencairn Ave Lateral - 150mm 6m 600 BF - CBH m $945 $567,000

# 1.61

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainGlencairn Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 337.505 BF - CBH m $820 $277,160

# 1.62

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainGlencairn Ave Lateral - 250mm 4.5m 10 BF - CBH m $1,200 $12,000

PD COST ESTIMATE OF ASSIGNMENT 17-15Locked Input Locked




# 1.63

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainGlen Park Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 159.375 BF - CBH m $820 $131,200

# 1.64

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m in depth at the mainHillmount Ave Lateral - 250mm 3m 10 BF - CBH m $1,060 $10,600

(Default = 3% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 3% SUBTOTAL = $2,374,785

Part 3A Laterals Included in CBH Base Construction Cost SUBTOTAL = $2,374,785

Part 3A Laterals Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 3B - Inlet Control Devices (BC)0.01

(Default = 1.5% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 2% SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 3C - CBs, Ditch Inlets, Subdrains (BC)

# 1.65

T-705.010

OPSD

400.070

Supply and install precast single catch basin chamber, including square frame

and circular flat grate, including connection to leadDalemount Ave CB Single + Sump 2 BF each $3,087 $6,174

# 1.66 TS 13.10SW301SP

SW305SP

Supply and install 250 mm diameter, PVC catch basin lead, DR 35, unshrinkable

fill backfill and restorationDalemount Ave CB Lead - 250mm 7.5 BF m $600 $4,800

# 1.67 T-705.020Supply and install precast double top catch basin chamber, including square

frame and circular flat grate, including connection to leadDalemount Ave CB Double - C Grate 1 BF each $4,000 $4,000

# 1.68 TS 13.10SW301SP

SW305SP


fill backfill and restorationDalemount Ave CB Lead - 300mm 1.5 BF m $800 $1,600

# 1.69 Supply and install High Capacity Ditch Inlet with Sump Glen Park Ave HCI Sump 12 BF each $18,000 $216,000

# 1.70

T-705.010

OPSD

400.070


and circular flat grate, including connection to leadPrue Ave CB Single + Sump 5 BF each $3,087 $15,434

# 1.71 TS 13.10SW301SP

SW305SP


fill backfill and restorationPrue Ave CB Lead - 250mm 33 BF m $600 $19,800

# 1.72 T-705.020Supply and install precast double top catch basin chamber, including square

frame and circular flat grate, including connection to leadPrue Ave CB Double - C Grate 1 BF each $4,000 $4,000

# 1.73 TS 13.10SW301SP

SW305SP


fill backfill and restorationPrue Ave CB Lead - 300mm 4.5 BF m $800 $4,000

# 1.74 TS 13.10SW301SP

SW305SP


fill backfill and restorationViewmount Ave CB Lead - 250mm 15.5 BF m $600 $9,600

# 1.75

T-705.010

OPSD

400.070


and circular flat grate, including connection to leadHillmount Ave CB Single + Sump 4 BF each $3,087 $12,347

# 1.76 TS 13.10SW301SP

SW305SP


fill backfill and restorationHillmount Ave CB Lead - 250mm 43 BF m $600 $25,800

# 1.77 Supply and install High Capacity Ditch Inlet with Sump Hillmount Ave HCI Sump 11 BF each $18,000 $198,000

# 1.78

T-705.010

OPSD

400.070


and circular flat grate, including connection to leadGlencairn Ave CB Single + Sump 3 BF each $3,087 $9,260

# 1.79 TS 13.10SW301SP

SW305SP


fill backfill and restorationGlencairn Ave CB Lead - 250mm 28 BF m $600 $16,800

# 1.80 Supply and install High Capacity Ditch Inlet with Sump Glencairn Ave HCI Sump 12 BF each $18,000 $216,000

# 1.81 Supply and install High Capacity Ditch Inlet with Sump Dalemount Ave HCI Sump 4 BF each $18,000 $72,000

# 1.82 Supply and install High Capacity Ditch Inlet with Sump Hillhurst Blvd HCI Sump 8 BF each $18,000 $144,000

# 1.83 Supply and install High Capacity Ditch Inlet with Sump Prue Ave HCI Sump 4 BF each $18,000 $72,000

# 1.84 Supply and install High Capacity Ditch Inlet with Sump Viewmount Ave HCI Sump 14 BF each $18,000 $252,000

# 1.85T-705.010

OPSD


and circular flat grate, including connection to leadHillhurst Blvd CB Single + Sump 2 BF each $3,087 $6,174

# 1.86 TS 13.10SW301SP

SW305SP


fill backfill and restorationHillhurst Blvd CB Lead - 250mm 13 BF m $600 $7,800


Part 3 - Laterals Base Construction Cost TOTAL = $3,692,373

Part 3.1 - Laterals Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 3.1 - Laterals Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $3,692,373

Part 3.2 - Laterals Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 3.2 - Laterals Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0


# 1.87

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP

Supply and install precast concrete maintenance hole including benching and

frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthHillmount Ave 1200mm 4.5m 1 BF - CBH each $15,900 $15,900

# 1.88

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthViewmount Ave 1200mm 4.5m 2 BF - CBH each $15,900 $31,800

# 1.89Supply and install precast concrete maintenance hole 1500 mm diameter - depth

of 7-9 mViewmount Ave SP 66 2 BF - CBH each $53,535 $107,070

# 1.90 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Viewmount Ave Drop pipe 2.8 BF - CBH m $600 $1,800

Part 4 - Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer Base Construction Cost (Default = 30% of Part 1) 30% TOTAL = $156,570

Part 4.1 - Sanitary Maintenance Holes Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 4.1 - Sanitary Maintenance Holes Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $156,570

Part 4.2 - Sanitary Maintenance Holes Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 4.2 - Sanitary Maintenance Holes Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0


# 1.91Supply and install precast concrete maintenance hole 3600x2400 mm box

maintenance hole - depth of 8-9 mChaplin Cres SP 85 1 BF each $260,000 $260,000


maintenance hole - depth to 14 mHillhurst Blvd SP 68 1 BF each $546,700 $546,700


to 9 mChaplin Cres SP 80 1 BF each $341,360 $341,360

# 1.94 Square tunnel shaft, 6mx6m, depth of 14 m Hillhurst Blvd SP 72 1 BF each $986,000 $986,000

# 1.95 Square tunnel shaft, 10mx10m, depth of 14 m Hillhurst Blvd SP 74 1 BF each $1,975,000 $1,975,000


to 22 mHillhurst Blvd SP 81 1 BF each $517,385 $517,385


to 13 mDalemount Ave SP 78 1 BF each $210,760 $210,760


maintenance hole - depth of 6-7 mDalemount Ave SP 70 1 BF each $160,100 $160,100


maintenance hole - depth of 5-7 mDalemount Ave SP 77 2 BF each $150,000 $300,000

# 1.100

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 2400 mm diameter - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthGlen Park Ave 2400mm 4.5m 1 BF each $35,600 $35,600

# 1.101

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthPrue Ave 1200mm 4.5m 3 BF each $15,900 $47,700

# 1.102

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthPrue Ave 1200mm 6m 1 BF each $17,800 $17,800


to 11 mPrue Ave SP 63 1 BF each $133,700 $133,700

# 1.104

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 2400 mm diameter - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthViewmount Ave 2400mm 6m 1 BF each $37,620 $37,620

# 1.105

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - up to 3.0 m in depthViewmount Ave 1200mm 3m 2 BF each $13,980 $27,960

# 1.106

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - up to 3.0 m in depthHillmount Ave 1200mm 3m 2 BF each $13,980 $27,960

# 1.107

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1800 mm diameter - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthHillmount Ave 1800mm 4.5m 1 BF each $24,900 $24,900

# 1.108

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP



# 1.109

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1500 mm diameter - up to 3.0 m in depthHillmount Ave 1500mm 3m 1 BF each $17,800 $17,800

# 1.110

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthGlencairn Ave 1200mm 4.5m 1 BF each $15,900 $15,900

# 1.111

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthGlencairn Ave 1200mm 6m 2 BF each $17,800 $35,600

# 1.112

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP



# 1.113Supply and install precast concrete maintenance hole including benching and

frame and cover - 3000 mm diameter - greater than 6.0 m in depthDalemount Ave 3000mm >6m 1 BF each $60,000 $60,000

# 1.114 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Dalemount Ave Drop pipe 20.4 BF m $600 $12,600

# 1.115 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Glencairn Ave Drop pipe 3.9 BF m $600 $2,400


to 12 mPrue Ave SP 83 1 BF each $205,100 $205,100


of 11 to 13.5 mChaplin Cres SP 75 1 BF each $116,200 $116,200


frame and cover - 3000 mm diameter - greater than 6.0 m in depthChaplin Cres 3000mm >6m 1 BF each $60,000 $60,000




# 1.119 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Chaplin Cres Drop pipe 6.4 BF m $600 $4,200

# 1.120

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 2400 mm diameter - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthGlen Park Ave 2400mm 6m 1 BF each $37,620 $37,620

# 1.121 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Glen Park Ave Drop pipe 4.2 BF m $600 $3,000

# 1.122

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 2400 mm diameter - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthViewmount Ave 2400mm 4.5m 1 BF each $35,600 $35,600

# 1.123 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Viewmount Ave Drop pipe 1.4 BF m $600 $1,200

# 1.124

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP



# 1.125 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Hillhurst Blvd Drop pipe 0.7 BF m $600 $600

# 1.126

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - up to 3.0 m in depthGlencairn Ave 1200mm 3m 1 BF each $13,980 $13,980

# 1.127

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP



# 1.128

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1800 mm diameter - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthGlencairn Ave 1800mm 4.5m 1 BF each $24,900 $24,900

# 1.129TS 401

TS 410

T-701.010

T-701.021SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthHillhurst Blvd 1200mm 4.5m 1 BF each $15,900 $15,900


frame and cover - 3000 mm diameter - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthHillhurst Blvd 3000mm 6m 1 BF each $45,000 $45,000

# 1.131TS 401

TS 410

T-701.010

T-701.021SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - up to 3.0 m in depthHillhurst Blvd 1200mm 3m 1 BF each $13,980 $13,980

Part 5 - Maintenance Holes Storm Sewer Base Construction Cost (Default = 30% of Part 2) 30% TOTAL = $6,478,225

Part 6 - Storage (BC)# 1.132 Supply and install underground tank Memorial Park Underground Tank 32455000 BF lump sum $1 $32,455,000

Part 6.1 - Subsurface Conduit Base Construction CostPart 6.1 - Subsurface Conduit Subsurface Conduit (Culverts Included in Parts 1 & 2) 0% TOTAL = $0

Part 6.2 - Subsurface Tank Base Construction CostPart 6.2 - Subsurface Tank Subsurface Tank 100% TOTAL = $32,455,000

Part 6.3 - Open Pond Base Construction CostPart 6.3 - Open Pond Open Pond 0% TOTAL = $0


# 1.133

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 7.70

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1103.01

T-1103.020

T-1103.020-

2

T-1104.03-3

T-1104.03-

04

T-1105.02-1

T-1105.02-2

T-1106.04

WM208SS

WM209SS

WM211SS

WM201SP Supply and install 150 mm PVC pressure pipe, CL 235, DR18, within boulevard Dalemount Ave PVC DR18 Boulevard - 150mm 108.5 BF - CBH m $900 $98,100

Part 7 - Watermain Replacement Base Construction Cost (Default = 10% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 10% TOTAL = $98,100

Part 7.1 - Watermain Replacement Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 7.1 - Watermain Replacement Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $98,100

Part 7.2 - Watermain Replacement Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 7.2 - Watermain Replacement Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 8 - Watermain Service Connections0.01

Part 8 - Watermain Service Connections Base Construction Cost (Default = 5% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 5% TOTAL = $0

Part 8.1 - Watermain Service Connection Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 8.1 - Watermain Service Connection Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 8.2 - Watermain Service Connection Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 8.2 - Watermain Service Connection Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 9 - Permanent Restoration# 1.134

TS 5.00

TS 5.10Supply and place 100 mm topsoil and No. 1 nursery sod, Staked Chaplin Cres Topsoil Staked 196.656 BF - CBH m2 $15 $2,955

# 1.135TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Chaplin Cres HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 134 BF - CBH m2 $110 $14,740

# 1.136TS 3.30

TS 1010T-310.050-8

Construct residential asphalt driveway with 80 mm HL 3F (FINE) PG 58-28

surface courseHillhurst Blvd Asphalt Driveway Residential 35.75 BF - CBH m2 $40 $1,440

# 1.137TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Hillhurst Blvd HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 512 BF - CBH m2 $110 $56,320

# 1.138TS 5.00

TS 5.10Supply and place 100 mm topsoil and No. 1 nursery sod, Staked Hillhurst Blvd Topsoil Staked 611.75 BF - CBH m2 $15 $9,180

# 1.139TS 3.50

TS 3.70

T-310.010-1

T-310.010-4GN106SS Construct monolithic concrete curb and sidewalk - 150 mm thick Hillhurst Blvd Concrete Sidewalk 150mm + Curb (M) 40.5 BF - CBH m2 $180 $7,380

# 1.140TS 3.17

TS 3.50T-600.05-1

GN106SS

RD407SSConstruct concrete curb and gutter Hillhurst Blvd Concrete Curb and Gutter 62 BF - CBH m $90 $5,580

# 1.141TS 5.00

TS 5.10Supply and place 100 mm topsoil and No. 1 nursery sod, Staked Dalemount Ave Topsoil Staked 660.717 BF - CBH m2 $15 $9,915

# 1.142TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Dalemount Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 504.6 BF - CBH m2 $110 $55,550

# 1.143TS 3.30

TS 1010T-310.050-8


surface courseDalemount Ave Asphalt Driveway Residential 75 BF - CBH m2 $40 $3,000

# 1.144

TS 3.17

TS 3.50

TS 1350

T-600.05-1GN106SS

RD407SSConstruct concrete curb and gutter Dalemount Ave Concrete Curb and Gutter 298 BF - CBH m $90 $26,820

# 1.145TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Glen Park Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 487.04 BF - CBH m2 $110 $53,680

# 1.146 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Glen Park Ave Cold Milling 40mm 326.71 BF - CBH m2 $20 $6,540

# 1.147TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Prue Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 518.05575 BF - CBH m2 $110 $57,090

# 1.148TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Viewmount Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 962.2915 BF - CBH m2 $110 $105,930

# 1.149 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Viewmount Ave Cold Milling 40mm 1605.7085 BF - CBH m2 $20 $32,120

# 1.150TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Hillmount Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 1071.24975 BF - CBH m2 $110 $117,920

# 1.151 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Hillmount Ave Cold Milling 40mm 2041.50025 BF - CBH m2 $20 $40,840

# 1.152TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Glencairn Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 1332.82475 BF - CBH m2 $110 $146,630

# 1.153 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Glencairn Ave Cold Milling 40mm 2811.17525 BF - CBH m2 $20 $56,240

Part 9 - Permanent Restoration Base Construction Cost (Default = 40% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 40% TOTAL = $809,870

Part 9.1 - Permanent Restoration Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 9.1 - Permanent Restoration Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $809,870

Part 9.2 - Permanent Restoration Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 9.2 - Permanent Restoration Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0


Part 10 - Miscellaneous Base Construction Cost (Default = 30% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 30% BF TOTAL = $8,971,586

Part 10.1 - Miscellaneous Costs Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 10.1 - Miscellaneous Costs Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $8,971,586

Part 10.2 - Miscellaneous Costs Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 10.2 - Miscellaneous Costs Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 11 - Allowances# 1.154 Payment for Bonds $82,567,009 BF lump sum 1.00% $825,670

# 1.155 Payment for all insurance $82,567,009 BF lump sum 0.75% $619,253

# 1.156 Mobilization and demobilization $82,567,009 BF lump sum 4.00% $3,302,680

# 1.157 TS 1.10 Supply, install and maintain field office for the City staff BF each 120,000.00$ $0


(OTM) Book 7 Temporary Conditions$82,567,009 BF lump sum 2.00% $1,651,340


per contract documentsBF each 860.00$ $0


survey of building / structure and submit condition survey reportsBF lump sum 60,000.00$ $0

# 1.161 Snow Removal and Disposal BF lump sum 1.00$ $0

# 1.162 TS 2.00 Clearing and grubbing BF m2 -$ $0

# 1.163 Barrier for Tree Protection BF m 30.00$ $0

# 1.164 Provision of as-constructed survey and as-built drawings BF lump sum 1.00$ $0

Part 11 - Allowances Base Construction Cost (Default = 20% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 20% TOTAL = $6,398,943

Part 11.1 - Allowances Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 11.1 - Allowances Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $6,398,943

Part 11.2 - Allowances Not Included in CBH Base Construction Cost Part 11.2 - Allowances Not Included in CBH SUBTOTAL = $0

2. Property Acquisition / Easement Cost $ -

2.1 Temporary Easements Temporary Easements TOTAL = $300,000

Temporary Easements Included in CBH Lump Sum $300,000 SUBTOTAL = $300,000

Temporary Easements Not Included in CBH Lump Sum $0 SUBTOTAL = $0

2.2 Permanent Easements Permanent Easements (Default = 2% of Sum of Parts 1 through 10) TOTAL = $8,400,000

Permanent Easements Included in CBH Lump Sum $8,400,000 SUBTOTAL = $8,400,000

Permanent Easements Not Included in CBH Lump Sum $0 SUBTOTAL = $0

3. Additional Scope - Construction Cost (AC) $ 15,672,229.67

Part 1 - Sanitary Sewers1 3.1 Tunnel 825 mm dia. Concrete pipe, including all costs Hillhurst Blvd SP 7 228.86 Other m $5,000 $1,145,000

2 3.2 Tunnel 825 mm dia. Concrete pipe, including all costs Dalemount Ave SP 7 160.1 Other m $5,000 $805,000

3 3.3 Supply and install 825 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 6-7 m Dalemount Ave SP 12 102.17 Other m $2,850 $293,550

4 3.4 Supply and install 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 7-8 m Dalemount Ave SP 15 203.36 Other m $3,115 $635,460

5 3.5 Supply and install 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 5-6 m Glen Park Ave SP 13 253.78 Other m $2,425 $615,950

6 3.6 Supply and install 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 5-6 m Englemount Ave SP 13 408.89 Other m $2,425 $991,825

7 3.7 Supply and install 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 7-8 m Meadowbrook Rd SP 15 164.99 Other m $3,115 $513,975

8 3.8 Supply and install 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 8-9 m Meadowbrook Rd SP 16 85.72 Other m $3,485 $299,710

9 3.9 Supply and install 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 8-9 m Shermount Ave SP 16 168.99 Other m $3,485 $588,965

# 3.10 Supply and install 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 6-7 m Shermount Ave SP 14 97.63 Other m $2,700 $264,600

# 3.11 Supply and install 750 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 6-7 m Lawrence Avenue West SP 14 85.74 Other m $2,700 $232,200

# 3.12TS 401

TS 410SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


connect to maintenance hole - up to 3.0 m in depthHillmount Ave 250mm 3m 331.82 TW Sewer SOGRm $1,200 $398,400

# 3.13TS 401

TS 410SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthHillmount Ave 250mm 4.5m 151.84 TW Sewer SOGRm $1,400 $212,800

# 3.14TS 401

TS 410SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthDalemount Ave 250mm 4.5m 5.5 Other m $1,400 $8,400

# 3.15 Supply and install 825 mm reinforced concrete pipe by open cut, depth of 7-8.5 m Dalemount Ave SP 19 32.26 Other m $3,425 $113,025

# 3.16TS 401

TS 410SW304SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


connect to maintenance hole - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthEnglemount Ave 250mm 4.5m 5.5 Other m $1,400 $8,400




TOTAL = $7,127,260


% TOTAL = $0

Part 3 - LateralsPart 3A - Laterals (AC)

# 3.17

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainDalemount Ave Lateral - 150mm 6m 100 Other m $945 $94,500

# 3.18

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m in depth at the mainGlen Park Ave Lateral - 150mm 3m 65.625 Other m $690 $45,540

# 3.19

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainGlen Park Ave Lateral - 150mm 6m 340 Other m $945 $321,300

# 3.20

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainEnglemount Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 2 Other m $820 $1,640

# 3.21

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainEnglemount Ave Lateral - 150mm 6m 10 Other m $945 $9,450

# 3.22

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m in depth at the mainMeadowbrook Rd Lateral - 150mm 3m 130 Other m $690 $89,700

# 3.23

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainMeadowbrook Rd Lateral - 150mm 6m 230 Other m $945 $217,350

# 3.24

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m in depth at the mainShermount Ave Lateral - 150mm 3m 4 Other m $690 $2,760

# 3.25

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainShermount Ave Lateral - 150mm 6m 30 Other m $945 $28,350

# 3.26

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainLawrence Avenue West Lateral - 250mm 6m 6 Other m $1,350 $8,100

# 3.27

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 6.0 m in depth at the mainLawrence Avenue West Lateral - 200mm 6m 70 Other m $1,125 $78,750

# 3.28

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m in depth at the mainHillmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 3m 400 TW Sewer SOGRm $690 $276,000

# 3.29

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m to 4.5 m in depth at the mainHillmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 4.5m 190 TW Sewer SOGRm $820 $155,800

# 3.30

TS 4.01

TS 401

TS 510

T-708.01SW304SS

SW306SS

SW301SP

SW305SP


m in depth at the mainHillmount Ave Lateral - 150mm 3m 210 TW Sewer SOGRm $690 $144,900


Part 3B - Inlet Control Devices (AC)0.01

(Default = 1.5% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 2% SUBTOTAL = $0

Part 3C - CBs, Ditch Inlets, Subdrains (AC)

0.01

(Default = 3% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 3% SUBTOTAL = $0

TOTAL = $1,474,140

Part 4 - Maintenance Holes Sanitary Sewer# 3.31 Square tunnel shaft, 10mx10m, depth of 14 m Hillhurst Blvd SP 74 1 Other each $1,975,000 $1,975,000


of 11 to 13.5 mHillhurst Blvd SP 75 1 Other each $116,200 $116,200

# 3.33

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1500 mm diameter - greater than 6.0 m in depthDalemount Ave 1500mm >6m 2 Other each $26,800 $53,600

# 3.34

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1800 mm diameter - greater than 6.0 m in depthDalemount Ave 1800mm >6m 1 Other each $31,900 $31,900


of 5-6 mGlen Park Ave SP 67 2 Other each $38,825 $77,650


of to 7-8 mGlen Park Ave SP 79 1 Other each $60,700 $60,700

# 3.37 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Glen Park Ave Drop pipe 6.1 Other m $600 $4,200


of 7-9 mEnglemount Ave SP 66 1 Other each $53,535 $53,535


of to 8-9 mEnglemount Ave SP 87 1 Other each $67,380 $67,380

# 3.40 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Englemount Ave Drop pipe 22.9 Other m $600 $13,800


of 7-9 mMeadowbrook Rd SP 66 2 Other each $53,535 $107,070

# 3.42 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Meadowbrook Rd Drop pipe 4.3 Other m $600 $3,000


of 9-10 mShermount Ave SP 64 1 Other each $74,060 $74,060


of 7-9 mShermount Ave SP 66 2 Other each $53,535 $107,070


of to 6-7 mLawrence Avenue West SP 88 2 Other each $52,000 $104,000

# 3.46

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1200 mm diameter - over 3.0 m to 4.5 m in depthHillmount Ave 1200mm 4.5m 6 TW Sewer SOGReach $15,900 $95,400


from 11-13 mDalemount Ave SP 76 1 Other each $83,125 $83,125

# 3.48

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1800 mm diameter - over 4.5 m to 6.0 m in depthEnglemount Ave 1800mm 6m 1 Other each $29,900 $29,900

# 3.49

TS 401

TS 410

OPSS 407

T-701.010

T-701.021

OPSD

401.010

SW304SSSW301SP

SW305SP


frame and cover - 1500 mm diameter - greater than 6.0 m in depthEnglemount Ave 1500mm >6m 1 Other each $26,800 $26,800


of to 7-8 mMeadowbrook Rd SP 79 1 Other each $60,700 $60,700


of 9-10 mHillhurst Blvd SP 86 1 Other each $193,780 $193,780

# 3.52 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Dalemount Ave Drop pipe 19 Other m $600 $11,400

# 3.53 T-1003.01 Supply and install external drop pipe and make connection to maintenance hole Shermount Ave Drop pipe 19.6 Other m $600 $12,000

(Default = 30% of Part 1) 30% TOTAL = $3,362,270


(Default = 30% of Part 2) 30% % TOTAL = $0

Part 6 - Storage

Subsurface Conduit (Culverts Included in Parts 1 & 2) 100% TOTAL = $0

Subsurface Tank 0% TOTAL = $0

Open Pond 0% TOTAL = $0




# 3.54

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1104-01

WM205SS

WM209SS

WM211SS

WM203SPSupply and install 19 mm diameter copper water service connections to the

property line, up to 8 m in length, completeDalemount Ave Copper Pipe - 19 <8m 3.8 TW Water Replaceeach $3,000 $12,000

# 3.55

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1104-01

WM205SS

WM209SS

WM211SS


property line, up to 8 m in length, completeGlen Park Ave Copper Pipe - 19 <8m 13.9094 TW Water Replaceeach $3,000 $42,000

# 3.56

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1104-01

WM205SS

WM209SS

WM211SS


property line, up to 8 m in length, completeMeadowbrook Rd Copper Pipe - 19 <8m 2 TW Water Replaceeach $3,000 $6,000

# 3.57

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1104-01

WM205SS

WM209SS

WM211SS


property line, up to 8 m in length, completeShermount Ave Copper Pipe - 19 <8m 1 TW Water Replaceeach $3,000 $3,000




# 3.58

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1104-01

WM205SS

WM209SS

WM211SS


property line, greater than 8 m in length, completeLawrence Avenue West Copper Pipe - 19 >8m 3 TW Water Replaceeach $3,500 $10,500

# 3.59

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1104-01

WM205SS

WM209SS

WM211SS


property line, up to 8 m in length, completePrue Ave Copper Pipe - 19 <8m 14 TW Water Replaceeach $3,000 $42,000

# 3.60

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1104-01

WM205SS

WM209SS

WM211SS


property line, up to 8 m in length, completeViewmount Ave Copper Pipe - 19 <8m 14.4823 TW Water Replaceeach $3,000 $45,000

# 3.61

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1104-01

WM205SS

WM209SS

WM211SS


property line, up to 8 m in length, completeHillmount Ave Copper Pipe - 19 <8m 43.0849 TW Water Replaceeach $3,000 $132,000

# 3.62

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1104-01

WM205SS

WM209SS

WM211SS


property line, up to 8 m in length, completeGlencairn Ave Copper Pipe - 19 <8m 27 TW Water Replaceeach $3,000 $81,000

# 3.63

TS 7.22

TS 7.30

TS 7.40

TS 401

TS 441

TS 518

T-1104-01

WM205SS

WM209SS

WM211SS


property line, up to 8 m in length, completeGlencairn Ave Copper Pipe - 25 <8m 1 TW Water Replaceeach $3,800 $3,800

(Default = 5% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 5% TOTAL = $377,300


# 3.64

TS 310

TS 3.10

TS 1003

TS 1101

RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Hillhurst Blvd HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 272 Other m2 $110 $29,920

# 3.65

TS 3.50

TS 3.70

TS 1350

T-310.010-1

T-310.010-4

T-310.010-5

T-310.010-6

T-310.010-7

GN106SS Construct monolithic concrete curb and sidewalk - 150 mm thick Hillhurst Blvd Concrete Sidewalk 150mm + Curb (M) 51 Other m2 $180 $9,180

# 3.66TS 5.00

TS 5.10Supply and place 100 mm topsoil and No. 1 nursery sod, Staked Hillhurst Blvd Topsoil Staked 322 Other m2 $15 $4,830

# 3.67

TS 3.17

TS 3.50

TS 1350

T-600.05-1GN106SS

RD407SSConstruct concrete curb and gutter Hillhurst Blvd Concrete Curb and Gutter 34 Other m $90 $3,060

# 3.68

TS 310

TS 3.10

TS 1003

TS 1101

RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Dalemount Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 939.00475 Other m2 $110 $103,400

# 3.69TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Glen Park Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 697.895 Other m2 $110 $76,780

# 3.70 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Glen Park Ave Cold Milling 40mm 640.355 Other m2 $20 $12,820

# 3.71TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Englemount Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 1124.4475 Other m2 $110 $123,750

# 3.72 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Englemount Ave Cold Milling 40mm 2203.5525 Other m2 $20 $44,080

# 3.73TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Meadowbrook Rd HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 689.4525 Other m2 $110 $75,900

# 3.74 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Meadowbrook Rd Cold Milling 40mm 1458.5475 Other m2 $20 $29,180

# 3.75TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Shermount Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 733.205 Other m2 $110 $80,740

# 3.76 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Shermount Ave Cold Milling 40mm 1570.795 Other m2 $20 $31,420

# 3.77TS 310

TS 3.10RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Arterial) Lawrence Avenue West HL Asphalt General Arterial 235.785 Other m2 $180 $42,480

# 3.78 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Lawrence Avenue West Cold Milling 40mm 2224.215 Other m2 $20 $44,500

# 3.79

TS 310

TS 3.10

TS 1003

TS 1101

RD416SS Supply and place Hot Laid Asphalt (Local/Collector) Hillmount Ave HL Asphalt General Local/Collector 1088.235 TW Sewer SOGRm2 $110 $119,790

# 3.80 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Hillmount Ave Cold Milling 40mm 2343.015 TW Sewer SOGRm2 $20 $46,880

# 3.81 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Briar Hill Avenue Cold Milling 40mm 760 TRANS. SOGR m2 $20 $15,200

# 3.82 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Dalemount Ave Cold Milling 40mm 5460.99525 TRANS. SOGR m2 $20 $109,220

# 3.83 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Prue Ave Cold Milling 40mm 209.94425 TRANS. SOGR m2 $20 $4,200

# 3.84 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Chaplin Cres Cold Milling 40mm 2603.344 TRANS. SOGR m2 $20 $52,080

# 3.85TS 3.70

TS 1350

T-310.010-1

T-310.010-2GN106SS Construct concrete sidewalk, including excavation and grading - 150 mm thick Shermount Ave Concrete Sidewalk 150mm 12 TRANS. Maint. m2 $150 $1,800

# 3.86 TS 3.15 Cold milling asphalt pavement up to 40 mm depth Shermount Ave Cold Milling 40mm 4 TRANS. Maint. m2 $20 $80

# 3.87TS 3.30

TS 1010T-310.050-8


surface courseHillhurst Blvd Asphalt Driveway Residential 35 Other m2 $40 $1,400

# 3.88TS 3.50

TS 3.70

T-310.010-1

T-310.010-4GN106SS Construct monolithic concrete curb and sidewalk - 150 mm thick Chaplin Cres Concrete Sidewalk 150mm + Curb (M) 525 TRANS. SOGR m2 $180 $94,500


Part 10 - Miscellaneous# 3.89 Bioretention unit Hillhurst Blvd SP 211 1 TW Quality Upgradeeach $30,000 $30,000

# 3.90 Bioretention unit Prue Ave SP 211 1 TW Quality Upgradeeach $30,000 $30,000

# 3.91 Bioretention unit Viewmount Ave SP 211 2 TW Quality Upgradeeach $30,000 $60,000

# 3.92 Bioretention unit Hillmount Ave SP 211 2 TW Quality Upgradeeach $30,000 $60,000

# 3.93 Bioretention unit Dalemount Ave SP 211 2 TW Quality Upgradeeach $30,000 $60,000

# 3.94 Bioretention unit Englemount Ave SP 211 4 TW Quality Upgradeeach $30,000 $120,000

(Default = 30% of Sum of Parts 1 & 2) 30% TOTAL = $360,000

Part 11 - Allowances# 3.95 Payment for Bonds $14,210,886 lump sum 1.00% $142,109

# 3.96 Payment for all insurance $14,210,886 lump sum 0.75% $106,582

# 3.97 Mobilization and demobilization $14,210,886 lump sum 4.00% $568,435

# 3.98 TS 1.10 Supply, install and maintain field office for the City staff each 120,000.00$ $0


(OTM) Book 7 Temporary Conditions$14,210,886 lump sum 2.00% $284,218


per contract documentseach 860.00$ $0


survey of building / structure and submit condition survey reportslump sum 60,000.00$ $0

# 3.102 Snow Removal and Disposal lump sum 1.00$ $0

# 3.103 TS 2.00 Clearing and grubbing m2 -$ $0

# 3.104 Barrier for Tree Protection m 30.00$ $0

# 3.105 Provision of as-constructed survey and as-built drawings lump sum 1.00$ $0


Toronto Water Sewer State of Good Repair SUBTOTAL = 1449970 TOTAL = $1,565,203

Toronto Water Watermain State of Good Repair SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Toronto Water Water Service Replacement SUBTOTAL = 377300 TOTAL = $407,285

Toronto Water Permanent Restoration SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Toronto Water Water Quality Upgrade SUBTOTAL = 360000 TOTAL = $388,610

Transportation Services Maintenance Repairs SUBTOTAL = 1880 TOTAL = $2,029

Transportation Services Utility Cuts SUBTOTAL = 0 TOTAL = $0

Transportation Services State of Good Repair SUBTOTAL = 275200 TOTAL = $297,071

Other Other Additional Scope SUBTOTAL = 11393810 TOTAL = $12,299,305

4. Provisional Allowances $ -

All Parts - Provisional Items Location Primary Description Secondary Description Quantity Part

TOTAL = $0

5. Contingency 25% $22,044,956

5.1 Contingency for Basement Flooding $21,379,907

5.2 Contingency for Property Acquisition / Easement Cost $0

5.3 Contingency for Toronto Water $590,274

5.4 Contingency for Transportation $74,775

5.5 Contingency for Other Additional Scope $0

5.6 Contingency for Provisional Allowances $0

TOTAL = $22,044,956

Item # Item Description Amount ($)1 Excavation 1,785,000 2 Dewatering 827,000 3 Shoring 3,175,000 4 Mud Mat and Granular 285,000 5 Reinforced Concrete 21,311,000 6 Backfill 821,000 7 Mechanical and Flushing Gates 700,000 8 Electrical and I&C 500,000 9 Building 2,000,000

10 Miscellaneous Metals 500,000 11 Sewers 520,000 12 Orifice Chamber 200,000 13 Roadway 34,000 14 Restoration and Planting 406,000

33,064,000

8,400,000

6,219,600

47,683,600

Assignment 17-15 - Memorial Park Tank and Wet Well Cost Estimate Breakdown

BFPP4 Construction Cost Total

Memorial Park Easement Agreement Allowance

Contigency (15%)

BFPP4 Memorial Park Tank and Wet Well Total Cost excluding HST

BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASE 4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT APPENDIX G7 – QUALITY REVIEW FORM ASSIGNMENT 17-15 & LARP


Appendix G7 – Quality Review Form

As part of the quality control requirements of the Basement Flooding Protection Program Phase 4 (BFPP4), a Quality Review Form (QRF) was used to document comments and responses on the PDR by the internal Quality Control and Quality Assurance Reviewers and the City’s Quality Control Reviewers. The complete QRF is included in this Appendix.

TORONTO BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASE 4

1

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN QUALITY REVIEW FORM

Assignment Number: 17-15 BF Storm Sewers/Storage Tank and LARP Sanitary Trunk Sewer

1 (H) Requires response and/or action before acceptance (cause of rejection until resolved)

Agree - will make suggested changes 1

Work Product: PDR and Drawings 2 (M) Requires response during next phase (accepted as noted) Agree - will provide alternate solution 2

WBS Number: 662629.PD.04.00.00.01 3 (L) Editorial Comment - does not require change Disagree - no action required 3

Date: 10-Sep-2018 Draft Linear only

16-Nov-2018 Draft Linear and Tank

Additional Information Required 4

Date of Review: Multiple reviews as dated below Agree – no action required 5

List of Reviewers AT = Andreas Tratnik, CQ = Camilo Quintero, DC=Dan Campeanu EW = Eric Wildschut, FA = Frank Absi, KM = Ken Mains, MP = Mario Parente, PDT = Preliminary Design Team, RG = Rosemarie Gumba, RV = Rayna Volden, RZ = Rugang Zeng, SF = Steven Fabbro, TD = Thomas Dole, TF = Tina Fernandes, WT = Wendell Thiessen

Insert rows as necessary in all sections of this form

Reviewer to fill in these columns Design Team Response Reviewer's Acceptance/ Rejection

Item No.

Page No

Rep Sec Dwg/ Figure/ Table No.

Review Comment Comment Type Code (1 to 3)

Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date

Response Type Code (1 to 5)

Response Comment

Reviewer originating the comment enters either: Accept: I accept the designer's response or Reject: I do not accept the designer's response (provide reason).

Open/Closed or Deferred (to detailed design)

Working Meetings on Development of Preliminary Design Layouts prior to Draft PDR

1 Make the tank drainage by gravity, avoid pumping as power outages can occur during storm events.

1 TD PSD 22Jun18 1 The proposed design is passive and will work in the event of a power outage. The upstream clearance from the sanitary trunk sewer on Hillhurst Boulevard results in a tank depth that requires pumping.

Comment added and closed by PSD as this was in emails and meetings with the City.

Closed

2 Reduce the length of the proposed tank so that the total perimeter of the tank is reduced and therefore the cost. Provide flushing system with minimum 1% slope.

1 MP PSD 15May18 5 The north-south orientation was chosen to permit maintenance access points to be located outside the athletic track and inner playing field as this is a TDSB requirement. The flushing system was provided after consultation with Grande Water Management Inc.

Accept Closed

3 A meeting was held with the reviewers to discuss a shallow alignment versus a deep alignment to resolve the conflict between the storm sewer and the sanitary trunk sewer at Hillhurst Boulevard. Risks associated with each option were addressed in terms of constructability of open cut (shallow alignment) versus tunnel construction (deep alignment).

1 MP, RV, SF, EW

PSD 9Jul18 1 Deep alignment chosen. Workshop held to review alignment options.

RM008 for further details. Closed


2


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



4 A meeting was held on September 5, 2018 to discuss a proposed split-level tank layout. The comments received at this meeting were: reduce the size of the deep tank, incorporate wet-well within the tunnel drive shaft, make sheeting/piling deeper to minimize dewatering, move the location of the tunnel shaft to the south end of Memorial Park to permit maximum volume to drain by gravity, prepare hydraulic profile and flow charts for modes of operation during storm events and for differing flow conditions.

1 KM, MP, AT, RZ

PSD 20Sep18 1 Most of the suggestions and review comments have been incorporated into the revised layout.

RM012 for further details. Closed

5 The tunnel alignment under the existing storage tank causes settlement risk as ground treatment will be difficult. Keep a minimum 200 m radius and provide a 30 m tail tunnel. Pressure pipe will be required for the tunnel structure due to the high HGL when the storage in the proposed tank is used during storm events.

1 CQ PSD 28Sep18 1 The tunnel alignment has been moved outside the existing tank footprint in order to permit ground treatment if needed. Physical and structural requirements have been added to the revised design.

Accept Closed

6 Controls should be included in a weatherproof steel cabinet or within a building. A building is recommended based on experience at Old Sheppard tank and the need to provide easy maintenance access.

1 AT PSD 28Sep18 1 A building outline has been added. The details of the building are to be worked out following negotiations with TDSB.

Accept Deferred to Detailed Design

7 Show trunk watermains on profile. 1 MP PSD 28Sep18 1 Only partial records exist of the trunk mains, these are shown in cross sections where the proposed works cross the watermain. Available as-builts will be provided to the DDCA consultant and SUE Level A is recommended for critical locations.


Draft Preliminary Design Report Linear 11-Sep-2018 - General Comments

8 All All Editorial comments throughout 1 MP PSD 2Nov18 1 The draft PDR for Linear work was revised to include the tank. The revised PDR was reissued for QC Review.

Accept Closed

9 xvi Executive Summary

Will the ECA for the tank be through direct review or transfer review? Sanitary and combined storage are direct but storm might be transfer.

1 MP PSD 2Nov18 1 For the purpose of the PDR, a transfer review is assumed. Due to the size and complexity of the PDR, the duration of

Accept Closed


3


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



review is assumed to be 4 months. This type of review needs to be confirmed with the MECP during pre-consultation.

10 1-6 1.4 Assignment 17-15

Figure 1-2 Show additional scope 1 MP PSD 2Nov18 1 Additional scope is being discussed by TW as a result of Area 40 EA that is underway concurrently with this work.

Transportation and State of Good Repair Additional Scope have been added to the figure.

Accept Closed

11 2-4 2.3 Drainage Area

Sanitary flows also discharge to Ashbridges Bay WWTP via the Coxwell trunk sewer

1 MP PSD 2Nov18 5 Agreed, this is from Area 17 EA file.

Accept Closed

12 2-5 and 2-6

2.5.2 Inlet Control Devices

Figure 2-1 The ICD curve from the BF Model Study Guidelines shows higher flows entering the minor system when the head is less than 25 cm and lower flows when the head is greater than 25 cm

1 MP PSD 2Nov18 1 Text revised to clarify. Accept Closed

13 4-7 4.4.2 Permitting Requirements

Table 4-4 Will the ECA for the tank be through direct review or transfer review? Sanitary and combined storage are direct but storm might be transfer.

1 MP PSD 2Nov18 1 For the purpose of the PDR, a transfer review is assumed. Due to the size and complexity of the PDR, the duration of review is assumed to be 4 months. This type of review needs to be confirmed with the MECP during pre-consultation.



Table 4-4 Length of time for transfer of review is 4-6 months

1 MP PSD 2Nov18 5 For purpose of schedule a 4-month duration will be assumed.

Accept Closed

15 5-2 5.1 Schedule Considerations/ Assumptions

Include tunneling installation progress rate 1 MP PSD 2Nov18 3 Tunneling progress will depend upon geotechnical conditions, construction methodology, number of working shifts and sequencing of construction.

Accept Closed


4


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



Draft Preliminary Design Report 2-Nov-2018 - General Comments

16 All Report Drawings Be consistent in labelling and nomenclature between report and drawings.

1 KM/MP PSD 23Nov18 1 Changed made to the report and drawings.

Accept Closed

17 i. Sign-off Sheet

Does anyone from the City signoff on the design approach? Without this the PDR is not complete. Is there one person to sign-off for each of the groups at the City involved e.g. ECS, TW, Transportation, Parks, Operations, LARP etc.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 5 The City does not have a person assigned for this purpose. The City should continue to pursue feedback from all stakeholders during detailed design.


18 1-1 to 1-8

The Executive Summary is too long. It should be condensed to a maximum of 2 pages long.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 1 The standard template was agreed upon with the City. However, the Executive Summary has been shortened to 2 pages and the City has been advised with RM014.

Accept Closed

19 1-8, 4-21 and 4-37

The Preliminary Design Team is concerned about the cost estimate and not meeting the CBH criteria. The contingency at preliminary design has been increased from the standard 15% to 25% due to the number of unknowns. Is this a reasonable approach?

1 PDT PSD 23Nov18 5 The 25% contingency has been confirmed and the City advised has been advised in RM014.

RV will explain to the City the difficulty in estimating.

Accept Closed

20 1-8 CBH is considerably higher than $32,000. Is Area 40 included in the benefitting homes since they benefit from the sewer on Chaplin and Memorial Park?

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 5 The CBH calculation does not permit double counting of benefitting properties. It is true that by reducing the flow to the downstream sewer network there is some benefit to the downstream properties. Area 40 homes upstream of the tank are included.

Accept Closed

21 4-20 and 4-36

Why did the cost increase? Explanation is required.

1 KM/RV PSD 23Nov18 1 The reason for the cost increase from EA to PD has been added to Section 4.7 Cost Estimate.

Accept Closed

22 General Cost estimate – bypass cost is significant. We need to provide RG more details on the bypass plan to account for the cost.

1 RG PSD 23Nov18 1 Bypass costs have not been estimated as that level of detail has to be resolved with the sequencing of work. The contingency has been

Accept. Consider that bypass pumping costs are sometimes more than 100% (even 200%) of the cost to rehabilitate a sewer.

Closed


5


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



increased to account for these unknowns.

23 Have other alternatives to the tank been investigated such as a large diameter storage tunnel down to the outlet of the storm sewer (south of Mount Pleasant Cemetery). This could service and benefit the downstream Area 40.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 5 These options would be investigated by the Area 40 EA consultant. Our understanding is that the Memorial Park storage tank was the preferred option from the Area 40 EA analysis of options.

Accept Closed

24 5-1 5.1 The Preliminary Design team is seeking input on the proposed schedule which is aggressive as there are concerns that it may be unrealistic to achieve.

The schedule includes many unknowns such as the time to procure a DDCA consultant, to secure funding, to secure easements, and to procure a contractor. Because of the size and complexity of the scope the City cannot provide timelines and therefore construction duration is difficult to estimate.

Feedback was provided on duration for restoration, the maintenance building, and commissioning.

1 RV/SF/KM/AT

PSD 23Nov18 1 The schedule was originally driven by the desire to meet GPA2 timelines. The schedule has been modified to be more realistic. The City has been advised of the schedule change in RM014.

RV provided estimated timelines for easement agreement acquisition and procurement of services. These estimates have been incorporated into the schedule.

The construction timelines were modified based on feedback from the reviewers.

Accept Closed

25 5-2 Sequencing of the work needs to be discussed such that everything is scheduled properly so that the tank is built before existing infrastructure is removed and flow is diverted to the new sewers.

1 SF PSD 23Nov18 1 Sequencing and assumptions discussed in Section 5.1.

Accept Closed

26 Table 4-4 ECA – City recommends a pre-submission consultation with the MECP who will advise on the level of review require (transfer or direct). This way even if the project is a transfer review, the MECP is aware of the project. Note LARP is for a new development by the TCHC and the recommendation is to package this as one contract due to tunnel section overlap on Hillhurst Boulevard and Dalemount Avenue.

2 MP PSD 23Nov18 1 During detailed design, DDCA consultant to carry out pre-consultation with MECP. Added to Table 4-4 and Section 4.4.4.


27 General Use a 600 mm diameter gravity pipe from the wet well to fill the flush bays rather than a

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 2 This alternative option added in Section 4.4.4.8. Should be considered in detailed design



6


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



forcemain? If a gravity pipe is used, a flap gate will be required.

with input from operations staff.

28 Operation of the tank: Elevations are written but flow rates are not provided, how often is the tank working (what design storm do the wet well and tanks fill)? Where is the majority of the flow coming from? Add to the Operations section.

1 RV PSD 23Nov18 1 The table provided in Section 4.6.1 has been updated to include these details.

Accept Closed

29 Add the risk register in the report. Add a risk section to the report and reference the register in an Appendix. Add all of the red risks to the Executive Summary.

1 RV PSD 23Nov18 1 Risk register added to PDR Section 4.8. Critical risks added to Executive Summary.

Accept Closed

30 General Sheet 14 Why is the wet well opening so large? Explain why the concrete platforms are so large?

1 RV PSD 23Nov18 1 The wet well is sized to accommodate the tunnel shaft and is used to house all the mechanical equipment. The opening and concrete platforms are large to permit equipment and skids to be lowered into the tank or the tunnel for maintenance access.

Accept Closed

31 General Are TBMs readily available for this project? There is concern that there is a shortage of TBMs which may delay the schedule.

2 KM PSD 23Nov18 5 During detailed design prequalification of contractors is recommended to solicit interest in the market based on when the work is scheduled with respect to other works in the GTA.

Accept Closed

32 LARP Sanitary sewer replacement – Is this an STS? Requirements for the bypass of a trunk are different.

1 SF PSD 23Nov18 5 TWAG identifies the sanitary trunk sewer as starting from #285 Hillhurst Boulevard (where the LARP sewer connects) going east. Thus, the sewers being replaced are not trunk sewers.

Accept Closed

33 Sheet 11 City Ops staff have indicated that the hydraulics on the flushing gates aren’t good and that they have become a maintenance issue because they get stuck.

Issue may be the hydraulic actuator on flushing gates: valves may not be in a good spot and they are failing?

3 AT PSD 23Nov18 4 Meeting requested with operations staff who maintain these facilities. We need more detailed feedback on these gates.

City issues need to be addressed with manufacturers and construction



7


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



Suggestion: bring the piping back to the building. Controls, valves in the building and control manually. Specs for the actuator and performance in less than favourable environment.

specifications should reflect requirements.

Piping route to be pursued during detailed design with City operations staff and manufacturer.

34 General We are diverting the flows into the tunnel rather than overflowing into the tunnel. Should we be leaving the low flow in the existing sewer?

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 5 Agreed and this is the preferred method to manage flows to reduce the pumping required at Memorial Park. However, the capacity of existing sewers or their elevations means that at some locations all flow needs to be captured into the tunnel.

Accept Closed

35 General Need to go into the existing Memorial Park tank and Old Sheppard Tank to discuss the issues with the vortex separator/OGS, flushing gates, and sedimentation. The solids assessment needs to be validated based on experience at other City facilities.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 2 Access has been requested from the City to ensure lessons learned from existing facilities are reflected in the design of this facility. The DDCA will also need access to the existing tank for detailed design, so access should continue to be pursued.


36 Don’t use the term Downstream Defender. This is the proprietary name– use OGS or vortex separator instead.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 1 Text revised. Accept Closed

37 How will the orifice control the flow rate to 1.48 m3/s as this will require a motorized gate type opening as it is a function of the upstream head?

Do we want a motorized gate?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 3 Preliminary design completed on the basis that real time control is not required (further to TW direction not to depend on electrical power during storms). The orifice is sized so that the peak flow does not exceed 1.48 m3/s for a 100 year storm event.

Accept Closed

38 Sheet 8 Control cabinet outside – freezing conditions outside combined with water pressure and electricity is problematic.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 4 See earlier comments on item 6. Can be re-visited during detailed design with City operations staff.


39 4-12 4.5.1.1 Fail to meet scour velocity on Prue Avenue as well as in several other sections – is this relevant? Why aren’t we meeting criteria?

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 5 As explained in the next section the flow is diverted from the existing sewer on

Accept Closed


8


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



Prue Avenue resulting in low flows in the sewer. Periodic flushing is recommended where scour velocities are not met.

40 Lighting inside tank should not be provided due to the atmosphere, frequency of usage etc.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 2 Lighting was provided in the Old Sheppard tank. Consultation is required with operations to determine frequency of usage and need. Lighting is carried in preliminary design for electrical load. This should be revisited by with Operations staff by the DDCA consultant as maintaining the lights will also be burdensome due to the atmosphere within the tank.


41 1-1 Executive Summary

What does it mean that revised BF guidelines and criteria were applied to the EA preferred solutions? T The preferred solution didn’t comply with BF criteria?

3 DC MDS 29Nov18 5 Correct, the EA solution does not comply with the criteria in the 2014 BF Model Studies Guidelines. Specific discrepancies and how they were resolved are listed in Section 2.

ACCEPTED CLOSED


Was this (topographic and SUE B survey) part of the PD? When?

3 DC MDS 29Nov18 5 Yes, topographic survey and SUE level B survey were performed prior to completing this PDR. The final survey for BF scope was received in March 2018.

CLEARLY IDENTIFY WHAT WORK WAS PERFORMED FOR THE TANK, THE TUNNEL OR BOTH AND WHAT IS OUTSTANDING, INCLUDING THE ELEMENTS FROM THE AREA 40 EA.

Jacobs Response, 12/20/2018:

The SUE Level B and Topographic survey information was completed and all information is included for the final preliminary design scope and alignment/location. No further SUE Level B or topographic survey is required for Assignment 17-15.

The Area 40 scope of work has not yet been finalized and provided to Jacobs. Once finalized, the survey extents will be determined and

Deferred to Detailed Design


9


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



either the BFPP4 Program Team or the DDCA consultant will obtain the survey depending on the schedule timing,


Timeline and time associated with investigative Viewmount Park?

3 DC MDS 29Nov18 5 This is documented in the TM submitted for the review entitled Assignment 17-15: Storage Tank Location Review, included in Appendix G.

ACCEPTED CLOSED


Where the 2 alternatives (Memorial Park and Viewmount Park) alternatives preferred in the EA? In PD? When?

3 DC MDS 29Nov18 5 Both alternatives were considered in the EA but Memorial Park was the EA preferred alternative. Following the review between EA and PD, Memorial Park was retained as the preferred alternative. The appropriate TMs are included in the PDR.

ACCEPTED CLOSED


When was the proposed vertical alignment of the BF storm sewers found to be in vertical conflict with the Hillhurst sanitary trunk sewer? EA?

3 DC MDS 29Nov18 5 This vertical conflict was not identified in the EA; it was identified while developing the preliminary design.

ACCEPTED, PENDING PDR REVISION TO INCLUDE DETAILS IN RESPONSE COMMENTS.

CLOSED


How and why was the solution modified based on the geotechnical information? Provide details

3 DC MDS 29Nov18 5 The details are provided in RM012 which is included in Appendix G.

ACCEPTED, PENDING PDR REVISION TO INCLUDE DETAILS IN RESPONSE COMMENTS.

CLOSED


Easements: all required details to initiate negotiations by RE

2 DC MDS 29Nov18 4 Initially identified in 2017 with some discussions with TDSB for Memorial Park. Easements identified in PDR. It is recommended that these be pursued during detailed design to reduce schedule impact.

ACCEPTED, PENDING PDR REVISION

CITY NEEDS ENOUGH FIELD BASED INFORMATION TO INITIATE THE REVIEW BY REAL ESTATE BEFORE APPROACHING OTHER PARTIES AS REQUIRED. PLEASE DEFINE WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR IDENTIFYING THE LOCATIONS AND THE SIZE OF THE EASEMENT ALONG WITH THE PARTY(IES) INVOLVED.

IT SEEMS THAT THE SCHEDULE IMPACT WOULD BE SAME IF THIS IS DONE NOW OR AS PART OF THE DETAILED DESIGN - PLEASE NOTE IN THE PDR THAT THE MORE INFORMATION WILL BE DEVELOPED THROUGH THE DETAILED DESIGN

CLOSED


10


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



PROCESS TO BEGIN EASEMENT NEGOTIATIONS. A PLAN/SCHEDULE FOR THE EASEMENT NEGOTIATION SHOULD ALSO BE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE PDR TEXT (ALREADY IN THE SCHEDULE).


A more detailed easement sketch was updated in the drawings and then copied to the PDR with the dimensions and offsets from the existing infrastructure. Text included in the PDR identifying negotiation with TDSB is required in detailed design.


Are there risks related to PF&R? 3 DC PSD 3Dec2018 5 PF&R comments received, and some of these will need to be addressed during detailed design. Risk related to PF&R are considered low and mitigate will be acheivable.


DOCUMENT THE PF&R COMMENTS IN THE QRF. ALSO CLARIFY IN THE REPORT FOR WHICH LOCATION HAVE WE RECEIVED COMMENTS (E.G., IN THE PARK). CONFIRM IF WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE IMPACT AND THEIR COMMENTS ALONG THE TUNNEL ALIGNMENT.


Drawings were sent to PF&R. Comments and responses are included in the final QRF. When the alignment of the tunnel and the tank is finalized in detailed design, the exact impacts to trees will be known. Throughout detailed design, further consultation and coordination with PF&R is required. Text is included in the PDR stating that consultation is required during detailed design by the DDCA consultant.



Are there risks related to traffic coordination and traffic control?

3 DC RV 3Dec2018 5 To mitigate the risks associated with Traffic control and coordination an analysis can be completed before proceeding to detailed design to further defined the risks.




11


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment




Jacobs identified preliminary traffic control measures on the preliminary design drawings, specifically at the shaft locations. A detailed traffic control plan will be developed in detailed design by the DDCA consultant. Should the City require it, a preliminary traffic control plan can be developed as part of the risk mitigation plan that will be provided to the DDCA consultant.


Who should perform the coordination of the tank and wet well, storm sewers, and LARP sanitary sewers?

3 DC MDS 29Nov18 5 Coordination will be needed with the DDCA, the ECS BF team, the PgMC team, and all relevant stakeholders.

ACCEPTED, PENDING PDR REVISIONS NOTED IN THE RESPONSE COMMENTS.

CLOSED

51 General Where changes to the document are required in the Executive Summary, ensure the associated changes are made to the main document and the Risk Register.

1 GT AM 20Dec2018

1 Agreed. Text is consistent throughout the PDR and risk register.

ACCEPTED

PLEASE CONFIRM WHEN THE SMD WILL BE UPDATED. THERE APPEARS TO BE OTHER CORRECTIONS REQUIRED TO THE SMD (E.G., SANITARY SOGR IS LABELLED AS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS).


Finalized SMD will be provided with the final submission of the PDR and a PCN will need to be processed to update TOInview.

CLOSED

52 General In the Executive Summary there are a few references to changes and “adjustments” made prior to or during to the PD, to the solution or other design details. The reasons and/or timing are not clear. Pointing to the details located somewhere else will be helpful.

1 DC PSD 3Dec2018 5 Earlier comments were that the Executive Summary is too long for the intended purpose. These changes and adjustments will be removed in the final PDR Executive Summary but the details will be in the main report. The changes can be identified in the SMD.

PLEASE NOTE IN THE PDR AND RISK REGISTER THAT A RISK MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED FOR ADDITIONAL GEOTECH WORK TO MATCH THE FINAL PDR LAYOUT AND THE PROPOSED TUNNEL LAYOUT.


Text referring to the risk mitigation plan has been added to the executive summary and Section 4.8 Risk Management.

CLOSED


12


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



53 General Layout changed in Memorial Park and existing geotechnical report does not seem to account for design change

1 DC PSD 3Dec2018 5 The geotechnical investigation was based on the initial layout. As further geotechnical investigation is needed for the tunnel alignment any design changes can be captured when this additional work is done.

PLEASE NOTE IN THE PDR AND RISK REGISTER THAT A RISK MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED FOR THE ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE “RISK MITIGATION PLAN” AND TRY TO GET THE INVESTIGATIONS STARTED ASAP.



CLOSED

54 General Additional investigation (soil, SUE…) should be completed including vicinities of tunnel and wet well

1 DC RV 3Dec2018 5 To address risks associated with the tunnel alignment supplementary geotechnical and SUE A investigations will be completed as part of the Risk Mitigation

PLEASE NOTE IN THE PDR AND RISK REGISTER THAT A RISK MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED FOR THE ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.




CLOSED

55 General A geotechnical investigation at 2525 Bathurst St from May 2018 by McClymont & Rak Engineers Inc. noted similar soil conditions with anticipated boulders and cobbles. Identify if there is similar risk of boulders and what impact this could have

1 DC RV 3Dec2018 2 A copy of this report will be requested and used in the supplementary geotechnical investigation to be completed to mitigate risks.

SEE ABOVE



CLOSED

56 General Provide more details of shoring, foundation types, and groundwater impacts for preliminary design. Based on past experience some of those elements may well become a serious obstacle in a very tight location.

1 DC RV 3Dec2018 3 Foundation structural design is completed in detailed design. Shoring details are typically submitted by the contractor based on his means and methods for construction. To

ACCEPTED

CLOSED


13


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



mitigate the concerns associated with past experience an analysis will be completed that will assess the impact of different options to ensure the tight location will not become issue during construction

57 General Why not complete SUE B and perform SUE Level A investigations where required. Consider tunnel shafts, conflicts with utilities, and shoring. Identify major conflicts.

1 DC PSD/RV 3Dec2018 2 SUE B investigation is completed as part of PD the and major conflicts have been identified that will require SUE Level A. To mitigate risks associated with conflicts SUE level A will be completed prior to detailed design.

PLEASE CLARIFY WHERE ADDITIONAL SUE B IS NEEDED AND NOTE IN THE PDR AND RISK REGISTER THAT A RISK MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED FOR THE ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.



No further SUE Level B is required for Assignment 17-15. SUE B will be required for the Area 40 scope as previously discussed. All SUE Level A investigations are included on the drawings. Exact locations and depths for the test pits will be included in the Risk Mitigation Plan. Text referring to the risk mitigation plan has been added to the executive summary and Section 4.8 Risk Management.


58 General Review traffic impacts related to construction such as areas around tunnel shafts

1 DC PSD/RV 3Dec2018 5 Traffic movements that need to be maintained are shown on drawings. This may change based on SUE Level A investigations. This risk will be further investigated prior to detailed design.

TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS NOT CLEAR ON DRAWINGS, ADDRESS AS PART OF “RISK MITIGATION PLAN”.


Text referring to traffic control in the risk mitigation plan has been added to the Section 4.4.1 where traffic control is discussed and Section 4.8 Risk Management.

CLOSED


14


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



60 General Easements – confirm locations of private property use, impacts to private property

1 DC PSD 3Dec2018 2 Potential temporary easements have been identified on drawings. Greatest impact will be access to driveways when work is in close proximity. Temporary parking arrangements will have to be made similar to previous BF works in streets.

LIST IN THE PDR AS MANY DETAILS AS WE CAN AND IDENTIFY THE NEED FOR A COMMUNICATION AND STAKEHOLDERS MANAGEMENT PLAN.


Text referring to a communication and stakeholders management plan has been added to the executive summary, Section 4.4.1, and Section 4.8 Risk Management.

START WORKING ON A PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION PLAN AND STAKEHOLDERS MANAGEMENT PLAN (NOT PART OF PDR FINALIZATION).

CLOSED

Drawing Comments

61 Sheet 5 Sluice gate – knife gate better? Should this not be motorized for automatic operation? Fail safe to closed position?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 Can be determined during detailed design with input from Operations staff on preference. Design presently does not recommend automatic operation based on comments from TW and ECS. The proposed design is flexible, and this can be added by programming and monitoring equipment if desired by TW with increased risk levels to the downstream system in the event of a failure.


62 Sheet 5 Was the existing tank able to take the pressure when surcharged to maximum HGL elevation?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 Will need access to tank to determine if existing tank can be surcharged, the impact of pressurizing the roof, expansion joints, as well as any potential vacuum or other risks as the tank drains.


63 Sheet 5 and 14

Tank venting system at wet well? Bypass the control room?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 Agreed, the maintenance building will be in two parts with the wet well venting in

Accept Closed


15


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



the hazardous area, and the control room to have a separate entrance thereby bypassing the hazardous area.

64 Sheet 5 and 16

Wet well and tunnel to provide storage or not, based on operation?

Tunnel is a pressure sewer needing a pressure pipe.

1 MP/CQ PSD 23Nov18 1 The preliminary design has been made flexible to permit both options, the tunnel as part of the storage or to remain full and not be part of the storage.

Tunnel pipe would be a pressure pipe as the design HGL is 166.0m.

Accept Closed

65 Sheet 9 Weather proof cabinet at north end of tank for hydraulic lines from flush gates?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 To be discussed with manufacturer of flush gates to see which option (separate cabinet or bringing lines back to control room) is more feasible from a cost and operations prospective. If a cabinet is required at the north end of the tank, this should be located behind the proposed bleachers which will need to be discussed with TDSB.


66 Sheet 9 Turf grass for vehicles tends to burn? 3 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 To be determined during detailed design based on access needs by operations and park usage by schools and the public.


67 Sheet 10 Permanent easement width outside the perimeter of the tank?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 1 A wider permanent easement is being sought to allow for any adjustments in dimensions during detailed design.

Accept Closed

68 Sheet 11 Expansion joints (east west direction due to length of tank)

2 RZ PSD 23Nov18 1 Drawings revised. Accept Closed

69 Sheet 11 Double column either side of expansion joints 3 RZ PSD

23Nov18 1 Drawings revised. Accept Closed

70 Sheet 14 Use potable water for hose bibs?

Could plug hose bibs with stormwater debris?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 1 Design changed as recommended.

Accept Closed


16


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



71 Sheet 14 What is the purpose of the submersible pump? 1 FA PSD 23Nov18 1 This was added as a high-pressure pump for the hose bibs. This has been removed after determining that potable water will be used for hose bibs.

Accept Closed

72 Sheet 15 Indicate the starter type for each of the Decant Pumps. If they are provided in a Vendor package, indicate as such.

2 WT PSD 23Nov18 4 To be determined during detailed design.


73 Sheet 30 and 31

Can tunnel clearance be shown to the existing tank and from edge of the ROW. Dwgs show 3000 mm inner diameter but outer diameter may be larger and clearances less?

1 EW PSD 23Nov18 2 Tunnel equipment and lining will determine outer diameter. Concern added to text and drawings in PDR.

Accept Closed

74 Sheet 30 and 34

Show layout areas for site compounds. 1 EW PSD 23Nov18 1 Shown but will need to be reviewed based on detailed design and construction methodology.


75 Sheet 30 to 40

Tunnel shown as RCP – could be precast segmental lining with a FRP lining. Put “Tunnel” not “Trenchless”.

1 CQ PSD 23Nov18 1 Tunnel lining and pipe to be determined during detailed design.


76 Sheet 31 Drop pipe during surcharge on 2400 mm diameter sewer diversion to new 3000 mm diameter tunnel sewer.

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 Likely during wet weather flow wet well is full and upstream pipe is surcharged and so drop structure is not required. Can be determined in more detail during detailed design.


77 Sheet 31 Chaplin Crescent existing storm chamber – needs to be on a plan.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 1 Drawings revised. Accept Closed

78 General Sheet 34 Tunneling changes in direction are difficult to achieve within ROW especially on turns. Subway tunnels are on long radius and not always within ROW, can we put a deep tunnel outside the ROW?

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 5 The alignment was chosen based on the EA and the EA did not consider a tunnel on Chaplin Crescent/Hillhurst Boulevard. RM015 was sent to the City to see if this is feasible as it impacts all EAs that propose tunnel work.

Accept Closed

79 Sheet 34 and 35

MH CC3: can it be circular? 2 CQ PSD 23Nov18 2 Could be circular but better overflow arrangements could be made in a rectangular chamber.

Accept Closed


17


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



80 Sheet 36 Intermediate shaft may be needed for 825 mm diameter sanitary sewer. Pipe would be RCJP.

2 CQ PSD 23Nov18 2 Drawings revised. Accept Close

81 Sheet 40 What is the transition from tunnel to open cut? Where will the shaft be?

1 SF PSD 23Nov18 1 Identified on drawings but left to contractor to determine based on construction equipment/methodology and sequence of work.

Accept Closed

82 Sheet 40 to 43

Several drop structures required throughout the Assignment. Ensure they are all constructible. Specifically, the drop structure required at the intersection of Dalemount Avenue and Glen Park Avenue might not be constructible as an external drop.

1 MP/SF PSD 23Nov18 1 Agreed and will be added. SUE Level A is recommended to locate pipes and if space is not available some adjustment in the alignment can be made during detailed design.


83 Sheet 44 to 54

Why is the LARP sanitary sewer so deep north of Glen Park Avenue all the way to Lawrence Avenue West? Why not match with the existing crowns?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 5 Profile is set by the connecting elevation at Lawrence Avenue West. In some sections, due to ground profiles, the sewer does get deep.

Accept Closed

84 Sheet 47 to 51

Sanitary sewer replacement is significantly deeper than existing. Confirm lateral connections are possible. Dropping them vertically down into the sewer is not possible. Reference TS standard for lateral install as there is a big difference in elevation.

1 SF PSD 23Nov18 2 The sanitary sewer is deep and replaces the shallow sanitary sewer. Laterals would not be typical standard detail and would involve a steep or vertical drop. The alternative is to place a shallow parallel sanitary sewer with less frequent connections. Our preference was to avoid parallel pipes as two pipes have to be maintained. Detail of connection will be needed during detailed design.


85 Sheet 56 and 57

Prue Ave – lateral connections when we drop the sewer.

1 SF PSD 23Nov18 2 Should be feasible to drop the laterals even though the new sewer is deeper.


86 Sheet 59 Hydro duct within existing sewer on Viewmount Ave– flag for SUE A

1 SF PSD 23Nov18 2 As-builts show conflicting information this needs to be verified with SUE Level A investigations during detailed design.



18


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



87 Sheet 67 to Sheet 70

Why is the storm sewer on Glencairn Ave so deep? Raise to invert of sanitary sewer if possible.

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 1 Drawings revised to raise the storm sewer.

Accept Closed

Risk Register Comments

88 High risks are weighted on City processes 1 DC RV 3Dec2018 1 Agreed, this weighting was based on the PD team’s perspective. The risks will be reassessed based on the perspective of both the City and the PD team.

ACCEPTED, PENDING RISK REGISTER REVISIONS/REVIEW.

CLOSED

89 n/a Risk Category Design

Revise the target construction date based on the recent TCHC meeting and adjust the response plan as required. Also add in the timing constraint associated with DMAF funding (construction start of Q4 2020) and include the appropriate Consequence and Response Plan details. Response plan may include splitting the detailed design and construction of the Assignment.

1 GT AM 20Dec2018

4 Comment noted. The schedule included in the PDR is accurate at this time. PDR text is updated to include the LARP target of 2022 and in detailed design TCHC needs to be contacted for updates. Schedule will be updated before the PDR is submitted to the DDCA consultant once all details with TCHC and DMAF funding are finalized.

Accept Closed

Parks, Forestry, and Recreation Comments

91 2-12 2.6.1 Table 2-2 There are some discrepancies between what is listed in the table and what is included in the drawings. Refer to notes in PDR.

1 TF MDS 28Nov18 3 This table is for the scope at the Environmental Assessment phase. Some revisions to this scope have been made during preliminary design.

Accept Closed

92 3-2 3.5 Any of the 5 trees with memorial plaques that are impacted by this construction should be identified as significant trees on the plans.

2 TF MDS 28Nov18 1 The preliminary design drawings have been revised to show these as significant trees.

Accept Closed

93 4-19 4.5.9 It should be noted that public pedestrian access to park facilities and vehicular access for parks maintenance must be maintained for the duration of construction.

2 TF

PSD 28Nov18 1 There will be no public access to parks areas identified as laydown areas for contractor. No maintenance will be needed in these areas.

Accept Closed

94 Sheet 8

We see that shoring system is detailed but confirm whether an open cut construction will be used to construct the entire tank.

1 TF PSD 28Nov18 5 Drawings show shoring is required. Construction methodology can be further refined in detailed design but



19


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



the assumption for preliminary design is that the tank will be constructed in open cut with some perimeter shoring, due to the depth, limited space or proximity of adjacent structures that need protection.

95 Sheet 8

Clarify impacts to the surface during construction of this tank? The trees along the north property limits are not identified as injuries or removals.

1 TF 28Nov18 1 The preliminary design drawings have been revised to identify these for injury or removal where appropriate.

Accept Closed

96 Sheet 8

Are there any efficiencies in aligning the proposed storage tank in Memorial Park with the existing? To reduce the length of the storm sewer and tree impacts?

1 TF PSD 3Dec2018 The TDSB would like to retain the athletic tack and the in-field without access covers and gratings which has led to the proposed layout.

Accept Closed

97 Sheet 8

Why does the 3000 mm storm extend almost to the existing arena building?

1 TF PSD 3Dec2018 5 This is the tail tunnel required for the TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine) which is larger than the shaft.

Accept Closed

98 Sheet 8

There is a Parks Capital project (construction 2018-19) that includes resurfacing the existing asphalt path along the west wall of the arena/maintenance building. A setback should be maintained from this path which connects to the cross-walk.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 Program Team to obtain resurfacing details such as as-built drawings so that the DDCA consultant can evaluate setback limits during detailed design.


99 Sheet 9

Is the location of the proposed building directly related to the alignment of the 3000 mm storm or as a result of the lack of space because of the proposed storage tank? Standard building setbacks should apply.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 The proposed building is for access to the wet well and the grit classifier. DDCA consultant to evaluate setback limits during detailed design.


100 Sheet 9

If the proposed storm tank is aligned with the existing tank, this would result in a major reduction in length (+/-50%) of required access road and reduction in tree impacts. Review and respond.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

1 The TDSB would like to retain the athletic tack and the in-field without access covers and gratings which has led to the proposed layout.

Accept Closed

101 What is the intended treatment of the apron around the proposed maintenance building?

3 TF AM 28Nov18 5 This will either be asphalt or turf, to be determined in detailed design



20


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



102 Sheet 9

There are apparent parking issues on this property when the ball diamonds are permitted. Recommend including access gates at both curb cuts for the maintenance access road around the proposed building or consider one entry point with a hammerhead matching the proposed north access road to avoid through-traffic and reduce paved surface.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 Access roads and issues will be coordinated and dealt with by the DDCA consultant during detailed design. The DDCA consultant will coordinate with PF&R throughout design.


103 There is a large garden, some memorial trees and a stone memorial structure along Chaplin Cres that appear to be impacted by the proposed works. These should be identified on the plans and further consultation is required.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 The alignment of the proposed works on Chaplin Crescent may be changed during detailed design. The DDCA consultant will coordinate and consult with PF&R on all memorial tree and stone memorial structure impacts throughout design.


104 Sheets 32-33

Arborist report and tree management plans should clarify the injuries to trees #1716-1709.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 Tree injuries will be modified and finalized during detailed design. Arborists Report will be updated based on injuries during detailed design.


105 Sheet 34

This drawing has been labelled Chaplin and should be changed to Hillhurst Blvd.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 This drawing is labelled Chaplin since it is a continuation of the Chaplin Storm Tunnel. The next drawing also with the same extents is labelled Hillhurst Boulevard.

Accept Closed

106 Sheet 34

Recommend labelling limits of BRIAR HILL - CHAPLIN PARK and CORTLEIGH PARKETTE

2 TF MDS 28Nov18 1 Drawings revised to include labelling of parks

Accept Closed

107 Sheet 34

Clarify the construction impacts to Trees 1661- 1668 at Cortleigh Parkette identified as potential injuries? Are they affected by shoring for the shaft?

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 Likely all trees at the shaft will be impacted in construction. During detailed design, the tree impacts will be finalized with consultation and coordination with PF&R.


108 Sheet 34

Clarify the construction impacts to Tree 1643 on Hillhurst Blvd at CC3 identified as potential injury?

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 During detailed design, the alignment of the proposed works will be finalized and construction impacts will be known. Consultation with



21


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



PF&R will be conducted by the DDCA consultant.

109 Sheet 35

Arborist report and tree management plans should clarify injuries to trees #2336-2338 and 1387-1389, since trenchless construction is proposed and in particular 1388-89 are private trees. Is it related to shoring?

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 During detailed design, the alignment of the proposed works will be finalized and construction impacts will be known. Consultation with PF&R will be conducted by the DDCA consultant. The arborist report will be updated during detailed design.


110 Sheets 38-40

Arborist report and tree management plans should justify removal of trees #1644 and 1643 and injuries to trees #1239, 1288-129 since TPZ does not appear to be impacted.

1 TF

AM 20Dec2018



111 Sheet 44

Is the arborist recommending removal of trees #817 & 819 due to health since their TPZ do not appear to be reduced? Or are they injuries? Review and advise.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018



112 There are a number of trees identified as injuries adjacent to high inlet capacity CB throughout the drawings but the TPZ are not impacted. The arborist report and tree management plans should clarify the impacts to these trees. Is it just pruning? Review and advise.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018



113 Sheet 61-63

There are trees missing along Hillmount Avenue on the sanitary sewer reconstruction drawings because they only start to appear part way east of Englemount Ave? Are any of these trees impacted by this construction?

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

1 Arborist advised of missing trees. Updated drawings and report will be provided to the DDCA consultant upon receipt



22


Item No.

Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



114 Sheet 65

The arborist report should provide reasoning for the removal of trees #1052 and 1053 even if it due to the open trench cut for storm construction.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018



115

Sheet 67

Arborist report should clarify impacts to tree #2230 since the TPZ is not impacted. Is it pruning or does the open trench for storm construction impact the tree?

1 TF AM 20Dec2018



116 With the amount of open trench cut that is proposed and its proximity to curbs and sidewalks should those impacts not be included on the road resurfacing/reconstruction plans?

1 TF MDS 28Nov18 5 The road resurfacing plans included are only to identify the limits of works assigned to the Basement Flooding Protection Program from Transportation Services. The need for detailed restoration plans will be determined in detailed design.



23


Item No. Page No

Rep Sec Dwg/Figure/Table No.


Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



COMMENTS DEFERRED TO DETAILED DESIGN

6 Controls should be included in a weatherproof steel cabinet or within a building. A building is recommended based on experience at Old Sheppard tank and the need to provide easy maintenance access.

1 AT PSD 28Sep18 1 A building outline has been added. The details of the building are to be worked out following negotiations with TDSB.


7 Show trunk watermains on profile. 1 MP PSD 28Sep18 1 Only partial records exist of the trunk mains, these are shown in cross sections where the proposed works cross the watermain. Available as-builts will be provided to the DDCA consultant and SUE Level A is recommended for critical locations.



Table 4-4 Will the ECA for the tank be through direct review or transfer review? Sanitary and combined storage are direct but storm might be transfer.

1 MP PSD 2Nov18 1 For the purpose of the PDR, a transfer review is assumed. Due to the size and complexity of the PDR, the duration of review is assumed to be 4 months. This type of review needs to be confirmed with the MECP during pre-consultation.


17 i. Sign-off Sheet Does anyone from the City signoff on the design approach? Without this the PDR is not complete. Is there one person to sign-off for each of the groups at the City involved e.g. ECS, TW, Transportation, Parks, Operations, LARP etc.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 5 The City does not have a person assigned for this purpose. The City should continue to pursue feedback from all stakeholders during detailed design.


26 Table 4-4 ECA – City recommends a pre-submission consultation with the MECP who will advise on the level of review require (transfer or direct). This way even if the project is a transfer review, the MECP is aware of the project. Note LARP is for a new development by the TCHC and the recommendation is to package this as one contract due to tunnel section overlap on Hillhurst Boulevard and Dalemount Avenue.

2 MP PSD 23Nov18 1 During detailed design, DDCA consultant to carry out pre-consultation with MECP. Added to Table 4-4 and Section 4.4.4.



24


Item No. Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



27 General Use a 600 mm diameter gravity pipe from the wet well to fill the flush bays rather than a forcemain? If a gravity pipe is used, a flap gate will be required.

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 2 This alternative option added in Section 4.4.4.8. Should be considered in detailed design with input from operations staff.


33 Sheet 11 City Ops staff have indicated that the hydraulics on the flushing gates aren’t good and that they have become a maintenance issue because they get stuck.

Issue may be the hydraulic actuator on flushing gates: valves may not be in a good spot and they are failing?

Suggestion: bring the piping back to the building. Controls, valves in the building and control manually. Specs for the actuator and performance in less than favourable environment.

3 AT PSD 23Nov18 4 Meeting requested with operations staff who maintain these facilities. We need more detailed feedback on these gates.

City issues need to be addressed with manufacturers and construction specifications should reflect requirements.

Piping route to be pursued during detailed design with City operations staff and manufacturer.


35 General Need to go into the existing Memorial Park tank and Old Sheppard Tank to discuss the issues with the vortex separator/OGS, flushing gates, and sedimentation. The solids assessment needs to be validated based on experience at other City facilities.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 2 Access has been requested from the City to ensure lessons learned from existing facilities are reflected in the design of this facility. The DDCA will also need access to the existing tank for detailed design, so access should continue to be pursued.


38 Sheet 8 Control cabinet outside – freezing conditions outside combined with water pressure and electricity is problematic.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 4 See earlier comments on item 6. Can be re-visited during detailed design with City operations staff.


40 Lighting inside tank should not be provided due to the atmosphere, frequency of usage etc.

1 KM PSD 23Nov18 2 Lighting was provided in the Old Sheppard tank. Consultation is required with operations to determine frequency of usage and need. Lighting is carried in preliminary design for electrical load. This should be revisited by with Operations staff by the DDCA consultant as maintaining the lights will also be burdensome due to the atmosphere within the tank.



Was this (topographic and SUE B survey) part of the PD? When?

3 DC MDS 29Nov18 5 Yes, topographic survey and SUE level B survey were performed

CLEARLY IDENTIFY WHAT WORK WAS PERFORMED FOR THE TANK, THE



25


Item No. Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



prior to completing this PDR. The final survey for BF scope was received in March 2018.

TUNNEL OR BOTH AND WHAT IS OUTSTANDING, INCLUDING THE ELEMENTS FROM THE AREA 40 EA.


The SUE Level B and Topographic survey information was completed and all information is included for the final preliminary design scope and alignment/location. No further SUE Level B or topographic survey is required for Assignment 17-15.

The Area 40 scope of work has not yet been finalized and provided to Jacobs. Once finalized, the survey extents will be determined and either the BFPP4 Program Team or the DDCA consultant will obtain the survey depending on the schedule timing,


Are there risks related to traffic coordination and traffic control?

3 DC RV 3Dec2018

5 To mitigate the risks associated with Traffic control and coordination an analysis can be completed before proceeding to detailed design to further defined the risks.



Jacobs identified preliminary traffic control measures on the preliminary design drawings, specifically at the shaft locations. A detailed traffic control plan will be developed in detailed design by the DDCA consultant. Should the City require it, a preliminary traffic control plan can be developed as part of the risk mitigation plan that will be provided to the DDCA consultant.



Are there risks related to PF&R? 3 DC PSD 3Dec2018

5 PF&R comments received, and some of these will need to be addressed during detailed design. Risk related to PF&R are considered low and mitigate will be acheivable.


DOCUMENT THE PF&R COMMENTS IN THE QRF. ALSO CLARIFY IN THE REPORT FOR WHICH LOCATION HAVE WE RECEIVED COMMENTS (E.G., IN THE PARK). CONFIRM IF WE HAVE



26


Item No. Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



CONSIDERED THE IMPACT AND THEIR COMMENTS ALONG THE TUNNEL ALIGNMENT.


Drawings were sent to PF&R. Comments and responses are included in the final QRF. When the alignment of the tunnel and the tank is finalized in detailed design, the exact impacts to trees will be known. Throughout detailed design, further consultation and coordination with PF&R is required. Text is included in the PDR stating that consultation is required during detailed design by the DDCA consultant.

57 General Why not complete SUE B and perform SUE Level A investigations where required. Consider tunnel shafts, conflicts with utilities, and shoring. Identify major conflicts.

1 DC PSD/RV 3Dec2018

2 SUE B investigation is completed as part of PD the and major conflicts have been identified that will require SUE Level A. To mitigate risks associated with conflicts SUE level A will be completed prior to detailed design.

PLEASE CLARIFY WHERE ADDITIONAL SUE B IS NEEDED AND NOTE IN THE PDR AND RISK REGISTER THAT A RISK MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED FOR THE ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.



No further SUE Level B is required for Assignment 17-15. SUE B will be required for the Area 40 scope as previously discussed. All SUE Level A investigations are included on the drawings. Exact locations and depths for the test pits will be included in the Risk Mitigation Plan. Text referring to the risk mitigation plan has been added to the executive summary and Section 4.8 Risk Management.


61 Sheet 5 Sluice gate – knife gate better? Should this not be motorized for automatic operation? Fail safe to closed position?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 Can be determined during detailed design with input from Operations staff on preference. Design presently does not recommend automatic operation based on comments



27


Item No. Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



from TW and ECS. The proposed design is flexible, and this can be added by programming and monitoring equipment if desired by TW with increased risk levels to the downstream system in the event of a failure.

62 Sheet 5 Was the existing tank able to take the pressure when surcharged to maximum HGL elevation?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 Will need access to tank to determine if existing tank can be surcharged, the impact of pressurizing the roof, expansion joints, as well as any potential vacuum or other risks as the tank drains.


65 Sheet 9 Weather proof cabinet at north end of tank for hydraulic lines from flush gates?

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 To be discussed with manufacturer of flush gates to see which option (separate cabinet or bringing lines back to control room) is more feasible from a cost and operations prospective. If a cabinet is required at the north end of the tank, this should be located behind the proposed bleachers which will need to be discussed with TDSB.


66 Sheet 9 Turf grass for vehicles tends to burn? 3 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 To be determined during detailed design based on access needs by operations and park usage by schools and the public.


72 Sheet 15 Indicate the starter type for each of the Decant Pumps. If they are provided in a Vendor package, indicate as such.

2 WT PSD 23Nov18 4 To be determined during detailed design.


74 Sheet 30 and 34

Show layout areas for site compounds. 1 EW PSD 23Nov18 1 Shown but will need to be reviewed based on detailed design and construction methodology.


75 Sheet 30 to 40

Tunnel shown as RCP – could be precast segmental lining with a FRP lining. Put “Tunnel” not “Trenchless”.

1 CQ PSD 23Nov18 1 Tunnel lining and pipe to be determined during detailed design.



28


Item No. Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



76 Sheet 31 Drop pipe during surcharge on 2400 mm diameter sewer diversion to new 3000 mm diameter tunnel sewer.

1 MP PSD 23Nov18 4 Likely during wet weather flow wet well is full and upstream pipe is surcharged and so drop structure is not required. Can be determined in more detail during detailed design.


82 Sheet 40 to 43

Several drop structures required throughout the Assignment. Ensure they are all constructible. Specifically, the drop structure required at the intersection of Dalemount Avenue and Glen Park Avenue might not be constructible as an external drop.

1 MP/SF PSD 23Nov18 1 Agreed and will be added. SUE Level A is recommended to locate pipes and if space is not available some adjustment in the alignment can be made during detailed design.


84 Sheet 47 to 51

Sanitary sewer replacement is significantly deeper than existing. Confirm lateral connections are possible. Dropping them vertically down into the sewer is not possible. Reference TS standard for lateral install as there is a big difference in elevation.

1 SF PSD 23Nov18 2 The sanitary sewer is deep and replaces the shallow sanitary sewer. Laterals would not be typical standard detail and would involve a steep or vertical drop. The alternative is to place a shallow parallel sanitary sewer with less frequent connections. Our preference was to avoid parallel pipes as two pipes have to be maintained. Detail of connection will be needed during detailed design.


85 Sheet 56 and 57

Prue Ave – lateral connections when we drop the sewer.

1 SF PSD 23Nov18 2 Should be feasible to drop the laterals even though the new sewer is deeper.


86 Sheet 59 Hydro duct within existing sewer on Viewmount Ave– flag for SUE A

1 SF PSD 23Nov18 2 As-builts show conflicting information this needs to be verified with SUE Level A investigations during detailed design.


94 Sheet 8

We see that shoring system is detailed but confirm whether an open cut construction will be used to construct the entire tank.

1 TF PSD 28Nov18 5 Drawings show shoring is required. Construction methodology can be further refined in detailed design but the assumption for preliminary design is that the tank will be constructed in open cut with some perimeter shoring, due to the depth, limited space or



29


Item No. Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



proximity of adjacent structures that need protection.

98 Sheet 8

There is a Parks Capital project (construction 2018-19) that includes resurfacing the existing asphalt path along the west wall of the arena/maintenance building. A setback should be maintained from this path which connects to the cross-walk.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 Program Team to obtain resurfacing details such as as-built drawings so that the DDCA consultant can evaluate setback limits during detailed design.


99 Sheet 9

Is the location of the proposed building directly related to the alignment of the 3000 mm storm or as a result of the lack of space because of the proposed storage tank? Standard building setbacks should apply.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 The proposed building is for access to the wet well and the grit classifier. DDCA consultant to evaluate setback limits during detailed design.


101 What is the intended treatment of the apron around the proposed maintenance building?

3 TF AM 28Nov18 5 This will either be asphalt or turf, to be determined in detailed design


102 Sheet 9

There are apparent parking issues on this property when the ball diamonds are permitted. Recommend including access gates at both curb cuts for the maintenance access road around the proposed building or consider one entry point with a hammerhead matching the proposed north access road to avoid through-traffic and reduce paved surface.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 Access roads and issues will be coordinated and dealt with by the DDCA consultant during detailed design. The DDCA consultant will coordinate with PF&R throughout design.


103 There is a large garden, some memorial trees and a stone memorial structure along Chaplin Cres that appear to be impacted by the proposed works. These should be identified on the plans and further consultation is required.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 The alignment of the proposed works on Chaplin Crescent may be changed during detailed design. The DDCA consultant will coordinate and consult with PF&R on all memorial tree and stone memorial structure impacts throughout design.


104 Sheets 32-33

Arborist report and tree management plans should clarify the injuries to trees #1716-1709.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 Tree injuries will be modified and finalized during detailed design. Arborists Report will be updated based on injuries during detailed design.


105 Sheet 34

This drawing has been labelled Chaplin and should be changed to Hillhurst Blvd.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 This drawing is labelled Chaplin since it is a continuation of the

Accept Closed


30


Item No. Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



Chaplin Storm Tunnel. The next drawing also with the same extents is labelled Hillhurst Boulevard.

107 Sheet 34

Clarify the construction impacts to Trees 1661- 1668 at Cortleigh Parkette identified as potential injuries? Are they affected by shoring for the shaft?

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 Likely all trees at the shaft will be impacted in construction. During detailed design, the tree impacts will be finalized with consultation and coordination with PF&R.


108 Sheet 34

Clarify the construction impacts to Tree 1643 on Hillhurst Blvd at CC3 identified as potential injury?

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

4 During detailed design, the alignment of the proposed works will be finalized and construction impacts will be known. Consultation with PF&R will be conducted by the DDCA consultant.


109 Sheet 35

Arborist report and tree management plans should clarify injuries to trees #2336-2338 and 1387-1389, since trenchless construction is proposed and in particular 1388-89 are private trees. Is it related to shoring?

1 TF AM 20Dec2018



110 Sheets 38-40

Arborist report and tree management plans should justify removal of trees #1644 and 1643 and injuries to trees #1239, 1288-129 since TPZ does not appear to be impacted.

1 TF

AM 20Dec2018



111 Sheet 44

Is the arborist recommending removal of trees #817 & 819 due to health since their TPZ do not appear to be reduced? Or are they injuries? Review and advise.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018




31


Item No. Page No



Reviewer Name

Responder Name

Response Date


Response Comment



112 There are a number of trees identified as injuries adjacent to high inlet capacity CB throughout the drawings but the TPZ are not impacted. The arborist report and tree management plans should clarify the impacts to these trees. Is it just pruning? Review and advise.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018



113 Sheet 61-63

There are trees missing along Hillmount Avenue on the sanitary sewer reconstruction drawings because they only start to appear part way east of Englemount Ave? Are any of these trees impacted by this construction?

1 TF AM 20Dec2018

1 Arborist advised of missing trees. Updated drawings and report will be provided to the DDCA consultant upon receipt


114 Sheet 65

The arborist report should provide reasoning for the removal of trees #1052 and 1053 even if it due to the open trench cut for storm construction.

1 TF AM 20Dec2018



115

Sheet 67

Arborist report should clarify impacts to tree #2230 since the TPZ is not impacted. Is it pruning or does the open trench for storm construction impact the tree?

1 TF AM 20Dec2018



116 With the amount of open trench cut that is proposed and its proximity to curbs and sidewalks should those impacts not be included on the road resurfacing/reconstruction plans?

1 TF MDS 28Nov18 5 The road resurfacing plans included are only to identify the limits of works assigned to the Basement Flooding Protection Program from Transportation Services. The need for detailed restoration plans will be determined in detailed design.


BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASE 4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT APPENDIX G8 – RISK REGISTER ASSIGNMENT 17-15 & LARP


Appendix G8 – Risk Register

Included in this Appendix is the risk register developed to identify risks discovered during preliminary design associated with the design and construction of Assignment 17-15. These risks are evaluated on probability and consequence to develop an overall risk rating. Preliminary risk management actions are also included. This risk register has been prepared for the preliminary design but should be kept up to date as the design progresses.

Basement Flooding Protection Program Phase 4 Risk Register for Assignment - 17-15

December 21, 2018 Prior to commencing detailed design, a preliminary risk mitigation plan will be developed by Jacobs and agreed upon by the City.

Risk No.

Risk Category

Risk Description: Consequence Status Impact Prob Risk

Ranking

Action

Response Response Plan Risk

Owner

1 Investigations

Conflict with existing utilities - trunk watermains, gas mains, hydro ducts (sometimes concrete encased) etc. Utilities have requirements when working in close proximity to these mains.

Project delay/Change in design/Additional cost

Active High High High Mitigate

SUE Level A during DD. The revise design if needed and incorporate utility requirements into contract specifications.

2 Investigations Survey - some chambers were not accessible to T2 or there is conflicting information on as-builts and survey.


Active Low Low Low Mitigate

SUE Level A during DD. Revise design if needed and incorporate utility requirements into contract specifications.

3 Investigations

Geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations along conveyance route and possible additional work at wet well in Memorial Park. Preliminary geotechnical investigation at Memorial Park done but layout changed based on findings during PD.

Change in design and construction methodology

Active High High High Mitigate Additional geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation during DD.

4 Investigations

Access existing tanks (Old Sheppard Tank and Memorial Park Existing Tank) and obtain City's experience in the operation of these tanks in terms of sediment removal technologies employed.

Inadequate sediment/flushing removal system or over designed of system

Active High Medium Medium Mitigate

Access and meeting requested with operations. Two types of sediment removal system proposed. The system that is chosen may also depends on negotiations with TDSB for a building within Memorial Park.

5 Investigations Proximity to existing infrastructure. Potential damage or settlement during or after construction.

Claims for damages/Additional cost

Active Medium Low Medium Mitigate

Considered during preliminary design in layout of facilities. Preconstruction and post construction survey recommended. Temporary works and/or support systems to be designed to prevent damage to adjacent structures. This will also need to be addressed in construction contract specifications.



Risk No.

Risk Category


Ranking

Action


Owner

6 Scope Area 40 EA currently underway. Public Information Center held 24 July 2018.


Active Low Low Low Accept

To meet schedule, the Assignment 17-15 and Area 40 work is proceeding concurrently. Any changes made and published in the final EA preferred alternative can be carried out during DD.

7 Scope

Area 40 scope to be added to this project. If PD of the additional Area 40 scope needs to be included in the Assignment 17-15 PDR before proceeding to the DDCA, it will delay the completion of the PDR by months.


Active Low Low Low Mitigate

PD of the additional scope to be completed by the DDCA consultant to avoid further schedule impacts. New scope is minor in comparison to the works already proposed and therefore should be manageable within the DD time frame.

8 Scope

Public Consultation: Area 17 EA was done in 2012 and Area 40 EA is presently underway. Are the public aware of all the changes made to the Area 17 EA such as LARP and the timeframe it will take to complete.

Resident complaints on confusion on works proposed

Active Medium High Medium Mitigate

Have a communications plan with the public so that they are aware of the project and any concerns can be documented and dealt with during, pre or post construction.

9 Design

Complex design needs to be conveyed to DDCA consultant to ensure no scenario is missed. For example, different storm events were used for different areas, assumptions made at the various design stages, model calibration was done differently by different EA consultants.

Final design does not adequately address solution.

Active Medium Medium Medium Mitigate

Engage PD designers/modelers during progression of design by DDCA consultant. During preliminary design, the Area 17 hydraulic model was modified to use the same storm event used in Area 40 to determine the solution.



Risk No.

Risk Category


Ranking

Action


Owner

10 Design

Tunnel vertical alignment may change with additional geotechnical information, SUE Level A information or preliminary design solutions for Area 40 scope that is to be added.

Vertical alignment deeper may result in additional costs.


Already mitigated with deep tunnel design. Tunnel can be made deeper which will also deepen the wet well but should not impact the tank design concept.

11 Design Tunnel shafts - will they fit and has laydown area been taken in account.

Easements needed, relocation of utilities etc. possible redesign.

Active High Low Medium Mitigate

Allowance for shafts and laydown areas has been taken into account and shown on preliminary drawings. This needs to be reviewed when geotechnical and SUE Level A information is obtained in DD.

12 Design

Tank needs to be bigger or additional easement needed due to updated modelling parameters, boundary conditions, changes in design storm events or earlier modelling assumptions.

Does not meet BF Guidelines, Risk of flooding below 1:100 year design event.


Tank has been made bigger than the storage required. The tank design is based on a HGL of 166.0m, actual HGL during a 100-year storm event is 165.15m. So, some contingency allowance already made during PD.

13 Design Power outage risks. Flooding potential Active Low Low Low Mitigate

Tank designed as a passive system, in the event of a power failure the storage would still be active. Most of the storage is above the deep wet well which does not need power to fill or empty.

14 Design Roof downspout disconnection rate not achieved as the City cannot enforce.

Additional storage is needed

Active Low Low Low Mitigate Preliminary design assumes no more downspout disconnection.



Risk No.

Risk Category


Ranking

Action


Owner

15 Design

Proposed storm sewer could conflict with existing sanitary trunk sewer constructed in tunnel on Hillhurst Boulevard.

Tunnel alignment would need to be lowered making wet well deeper. Additional cost.


SUE Level A investigation required for the sanitary MHs and CCTV inspection should help establish elevation. Tunnel size of the proposed downstream storm sewer on Chaplin Cres was increased in order to reduce the tunnel size on Hillhurst Blvd to provide more clearance. Proposed tunnel can be made deeper during detailed design if needed.

16 Design City Operations Staff should provide input or will request changes post design and/or construction.

Project delays due to redesign or acceptance of tank as has happened in the past.


Have maintenance and operations staff involved early in the design. Have them informed/consulted during the design phase.

17 Design Inadequate access for maintenance staff.

No maintenance carried out by operations staff. Water quality suffers. Facility not available or functional when needed.


During preliminary design, provision has been made for a building with staircase access, lighting, hose bibs, and platforms, all to facilitate access by maintenance staff. Maintenance staff should be involved with the design so that the final facility meets their needs and expectations.

18 Design

Assignment 17-15 does not meet the CBH and is proceeding under the assumption that other funding sources will be available.

Project cancelled Active Very High

Very High

High Accept

Assist the City with applications for Infrastructure Canada funding applications and keep the City informed of the cost through the design process.



Risk No.

Risk Category


Ranking

Action


Owner

19 Design Pre-consultation with MECP so that approvals are not delayed.

Project delays Active High Low Medium Mitigate DDCA to be advised.

20 Design Change of design flow or the upstream connection invert for the LARP sewer on Lawrence Ave W.

Redesign required Active Medium Medium Medium Mitigate

ECS to coordinate with Toronto Housing to ensure coordination of the design with the DDCA consultant.

21 Design LARP not ready to be serviced by target construction date in 2022.

Temporary servicing needed

Active Medium Very High

High Mitigate

To meet LARP construction date, an aggressive schedule is needed. The time allotted in the schedule for various City processes makes an aggressive schedule difficult to achieve. The existing City processes need to be modified to make the aggressive schedule or the completion times should be extended.

22 Design Traffic management, road closures and detours during construction.

Stakeholder complaints


Traffic Management Plans to be developed during DD. Traffic management constraints need to be specified in construction contract specifications and communicated to all stakeholders.

23 Design

CCTV review recommends replacement of some sewers. Decision should be made as soon as possible to add in scope in DD.

Missed opportunity to complete other work needed in close proximity to planned construction.


ECS to arrange for the SOGR Program to review CCTV recommendations and if approved, add work into DDCA consultant’s scope.



Risk No.

Risk Category


Ranking

Action


Owner

24 Design

Design flexibility required so operational parameters can be changed in case the real-world conditions are not represented accurately in the hydraulic design model.

Facility cannot be optimized post construction

Active Medium Medium Medium Mitigate

Flexibility built into the sizing of the orifice chamber connected to the wet well to permit control of flow downstream and storage of flow into tank. Pumps could be replaced to different size if needed. Operation sequence can be changed by programming based on post construction experience.

25 Regulatory Memorial Park Easement Agreement with the Toronto District School Board (TDSB).

Project Cancelled Active Very High

Medium High Mitigate

Critical issue identified to the Managers and Directors of ECS and TW in May 2017. Directors met with TDSB to establish understanding. Subsequent temporary access agreement negotiated for geotechnical works to assess feasibility of designing the tank within Memorial Park. City needs to make these negotiations a priority.

26 Regulatory Proposed building in Memorial Park. Project delay/Change in design/Additional cost


TDSB not aware of proposed building in Memorial Park. Project scope has increased since the TDSB were first consulted with Area 40 EA also recommending storage within Memorial Park.

27 Regulatory

Cost of easement may increase. TDSB may ask for additional improvements to park and track. TDSB may want to do this work themselves due to union rules.

TDSB may ask for additional improvements to park and track.

Active High High High Mitigate Opportunity to improve the park and track. Requests from TDSB need to be reasonable.



Risk No.

Risk Category


Ranking

Action


Owner

28 Regulatory Athletic track and field usage by school. Alternative arrangements for students must be made.

Disruption of school activities

Active High High High Accept

Discussion with TDSB in May 2017, resulted in tank being located so that maintenance access is outside the active track and playing fields. TDSB mentioned high school students can be taken to another facility.

29 Regulatory Safety to school students and public. Health and injury due to close proximity of construction work


Hoarding recommended around perimeter of construction limits for the school and public. Requirements to be detailed during DD. Make consideration to relocate play areas temporarily during construction and reinstate after construction is completed.

30 City Processes

Procurement of suitable DDCA consultant.



An RFP with very specific qualification requirements will be issued to procure the DDCA consultant for this scope of work. This RFP has already started to be developed and will be ready to issue upon completion of the PDR.

31 City Processes

Procurement of suitable Contractor(s). Large bonding capacity needed. Aggressive schedule and cash flow.



Prequalify Contractors with the appropriate experience. Solicit interest from Contractor and see who will be bidding for this work. Consider a consortium of companies due to different type of work - facilities, tunnel, open cut etc.



Risk No.

Risk Category


Ranking

Action


Owner

32 City Processes

Coordination of work is extensive - both during design and during construction.


Active High High High Transfer

Choose one DDCA and then as DD is developed, strategy needed for construction. One contractor recommended at present as separate contract will transfer more risk of claims to the City due to coordination.

33 City Processes

Size of project is significant and is larger than the BFPP has previously managed.


Active Medium Medium Medium Mitigate Specialized CA team due to scale of the contract work.

34 City Processes

City’s decision-making processes need to be clear with defined responsibility and fast turn-around time.

Results in delays and claims


ECS to define roles and responsibilities, processes to be followed and timelines for decisions.

35 City Processes

City staff not involved in reviewing the technical content of PDRs. Reviews are being done by the DDCA consultant. Reviews by the DDCA consultant include questions on why major decisions are left open in the PDR.

Project delays Active High Medium Medium Mitigate

ECS to work to close out decisions during PD so that these are not left open during DD.

36 City Processes

As solutions change from EA to PD, TW and ECS need to be aware of the changes and need to approve the design.

Solution/design approach is not what City was seeking. Could lead to project delays or rework.


ECS needs to provide a person who understands and supports the design approach and final solution. The City needs to convey the design to others in the City impacted by the work.

37 City Processes

Program Team to update budgets as design evolves so there are no issues with Level 2 accounts.

Project delays Active High Low Medium Mitigate

DDCA have reporting deliverables that will update the TW scopes of work, cost and schedule as the design evolves.



Risk No.

Risk Category


Ranking

Action


Owner

38 City Processes

Funding approval from City or other levels of government.

Project cancelled or delayed.


Assist the City with funding applications as required and follow up at the Mangers/Director meeting

39 City Processes

Councilors and school trustees need to be informed of project and endorse path forward otherwise there could be rejection of the solution, impact on residents or easement negotiations fail.

Project cancelled or delayed.

Active Very High

Medium High Mitigate

Communication with councilors and trustees as design progresses and during construction as this is a significant project with many stakeholders.

40 City Processes

Are the new developments and redevelopment of homes in keeping with EA projections for future growth?

BF solutions built but flooding still occurs

Active Low Low Low Accept

EA accounted for growth in 2031. Assumed future flow levels with redevelopment are controlled to pre-development levels.

41 City Processes

Tunnel cost estimates are based on limited data from other municipalities.

Cost estimate verification

Active High Medium High Mitigate

DDCA consultant to re-evaluate tunnel costs once additional geotechnical information is known and tunnel design has been finalized. Until then higher contingency allowance (25%) has been carried in the PDR (rather than the typical 15% used in the CET).

42 City Processes

Staff changes Project delays due to learning curve of new staff

Active Medium Medium Medium Mitigate Continuity/overlap of staff to minimize impact of staff changes.

wemco® submersible pump specifications & performance · 2021. 3. 1. · wemco® submersible...

Documents