DOCSLIB.ORG

Doe/Ea-1606 Environmental Assessment for The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Doe/Ea-1606 Environmental Assessment for The DOE/EA-1606 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF SAVANNAH RIVER SITE LANDS FOR MILITARY TRAINING December 2011 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SAVANNAH RIVER OPERATIONS OFFICE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE DOE/EA-1606 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF SAVANNAH RIVER SITE LANDS FOR MILITARY TRAINING December 2011 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SAVANNAH RIVER OPERATIONS OFFICE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE This page is intentionally left blank ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................3 1.3 Public Involvement ......................................................................................3 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ....................................................4 2.1 Proposed Action: Use of a Proposed Area of SRS for Non-Live-Fire Tactical Maneuver Training .........................................................................4 2.1.1 Non-Live-Fire Tactical Maneuver Training Activities ..................10 2.1.1.1 Reconnaissance and Surveillance Operations ..............10 2.1.1.2 Temporary Forward Arming and Refueling Point .......10 2.1.1.3 Refuel on the Move Operations ...................................11 2.1.1.4 Mobile Resupply Operation .........................................13 2.1.1.5 Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Defense Operations ....................................................................13 2.1.1.6 Convoy Operations ......................................................13 2.1.1.7 Casualty Evacuation Operations ..................................13 2.1.1.8 Towed Field Artillery Operations ................................13 2.1.1.9 Tactical Operations Center ..........................................13 2.1.1.10 Forward Operating Base ..............................................14 2.1.1.11 Security Operations ......................................................17 2.1.1.12 Defensive Operations ...................................................17 2.1.1.13 Opposing Forces Operations ........................................17 2.1.1.14 Unit Maintenance Collection Points (UMCP) and Logistic Maintenance Collection Points (LMCP)........17 2.1.1.15 Tactical Offensive Operations .....................................17 2.1.1.16 Movement and Assembly of Troops ............................18 2.1.1.17 Tactical Assembly Area Operations ............................18 2.1.1.18 Urban/Facility Seizure Operations ...............................18 2.1.1.19 Air-Land Operations ....................................................18 2.1.1.20 Air-Water Operations ...................................................19 2.1.1.21 Airborne Operations .....................................................19 2.1.1.22 Air Support Operations ................................................20 2.1.1.23 Tactical Communication Operations ...........................20 2.1.1.24 Civil Support Team and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive Agents Enhanced Response Force Package Operations ...........................22 2.1.1.25 Water Purification Operations .....................................23 2.1.1.26 Helicopter Bucket Operations ......................................23 iii 2.2 ‘No Action’ Alternative .............................................................................24 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Review ..............................24 2.3.1 Alternative Action: Use of a Proposed Area of SRS for Non-Live- Fire Tactical Maneuver Training with Live Fire Tactical Training on Dedicated SRS Ranges. ............................................................24 2.3.2 Alternative Action: Use of Entire SRS for Non-Live-Fire Tactical Maneuver Training .........................................................................25 2.3.3 Drop Zone Alternative Site Analysis .............................................25 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................25 3.1 Land Use ....................................................................................................26 3.1.1 Land Use on the Proposed Permanent FOB Sites ..........................29 3.1.2 Land Use on the Water Gap DZ Site .............................................29 3.1.3 Land Use in the Immediate Vicinities of D-Area and the 681-1G Pumphouse .....................................................................................29 3.2 Meteorology and Climatology ...................................................................29 3.3 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................29 3.3.1 Soils and Topography on the Proposed Permanent FOB Sites ......30 3.3.2 Soils and Topography on the Proposed Water Gap DZ Site .........30 3.4 Surface Hydrology .....................................................................................30 3.4.1 Surface Hydrology on the Proposed Permanent FOB Sites ...........31 3.4.2 Surface Hydrology on the Water Gap DZ Site ..............................31 3.4.3 Surface Hydrology in the Immediate Vicinities of D-Area and the 681-1G Pumphouse ........................................................................32 3.5 Air Quality .................................................................................................32 3.6 Ecological Resources .................................................................................32 3.6.1 Red-cockaded Woodpecker ...........................................................32 3.6.2 American Bald Eagle .....................................................................33 3.6.3 Aquatic Habitats .............................................................................33 3.6.4 Ecological Resources on the Alternative FOB Sites ......................36 3.6.5 Ecological Resources on the Water Gap DZ Site ..........................36 3.6.6 Ecological Resources in the Immediate Vicinities of D-Area and the 681-1G Pumphouse ..................................................................36 3.7 Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Resources .....................................36 3.7.1 Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Resources Within the Proposed Permanent FOB Sites .....................................................37 iv 3.7.2 Archaeological, Cultural and Historic Resources Within the Water Gap DZ Site ...................................................................................37 3.7.3 Archaeological, Cultural and Historic Resources Within D-Area and the Vicinity of the 681-1G Pumphouse ...................................37 3.8 SRS Noise Environment ............................................................................37 3.9 Site Infrastructure.......................................................................................38 3.10 Demographics and Socioeconomics ..........................................................38 3.11 Environmental Justice ................................................................................38 3.12 Air Space ....................................................................................................39 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................39 4.1 Training Activities .....................................................................................39 4.1.1 Air Quality .....................................................................................40 4.1.2 Wetlands and Streams ....................................................................40 4.1.3 Water Quality .................................................................................41 4.1.4 Terrestrial Productivity ..................................................................42 4.1.5 Wildlife ..........................................................................................43 4.1.6 Archeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources ........................43 4.1.7 SRS Infrastructure ..........................................................................44 4.1.8 Air Space ........................................................................................45 4.1.9 Noise ..............................................................................................46 4.1.10 Human Receptors ...........................................................................46 4.1.11 Socioeconomics .............................................................................47 4.1.12 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and American Bald Eagle .....................................................................47 4.1.12.1 Red-cockaded Woodpecker ...................................47 4.1.12.2 Wood Stork ............................................................48 4.1.12.3 Shortnose Sturgeon ................................................48 4.1.12.4 Pondberry and Smooth Purple Coneflower ...........49 4.1.12.5 American Bald Eagle .............................................49 4.1.13 Environmental Justice ....................................................................49 4.1.14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................50 4.1.15 Human Health ................................................................................50
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cost-Effective Levee Design for Cases Along the Meuse River Including Uncertain- Ties in Hydraulic Loads
    Cost-effective levee design for cases along the Meuse river including uncertain- ties in hydraulic loads B. Broers Delft University of Technology . Cost-effective levee design for cases along the Meuse river including uncertainties in hydraulic loads by Ing. B. Broers in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering at the Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences to be defended publicly on January 15, 2015 Student number: 4184408 Supervisor: Prof. dr. ir. M. Kok, TU Delft - Hydraulic Engineering section Thesis committee: Dr. ir. T. Schweckendiek, TU Delft - Hydraulic Engineering section Ir. drs. J. G. Verlaan, TU Delft - Construction Management and Engineering section Ir. S.A. van Lammeren, Royal HaskoningDHV Ir. drs. E. R. Kuipers, Waterschap Peel en Maasvallei An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/. Preface This MSc Thesis reflects the final part of the Master of Science degree in Hydraulic Engineering at the Civil Engineering and Geosciences Faculty of the Delft University of Technology. The research is per- formed under guidance of the Delft University of Technology in cooperation with Royal HaskoningDHV and Waterschap Peel & Maasvallei. I like to thank many people for their support and cooperation during my graduation thesis. In the first place I thank my direct supervisors: Timo Schweckendiek, Enno Kuipers and Bas van Lammeren for their helpful feedback, enthusiasm and guidance during the thesis. Many thanks to Prof. Matthijs Kok for his support and advice. My thanks to Jules Verlaan too, who helped me especially in the field of LCCA.
    [Show full text]
  • Soldier Illness and Environment in the War of 1812
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fogler Library Spring 5-8-2020 "The Men Were Sick of the Place" : Soldier Illness and Environment in the War of 1812 Joseph R. Miller University of Maine, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd Part of the Canadian History Commons, Military History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Joseph R., ""The Men Were Sick of the Place" : Soldier Illness and Environment in the War of 1812" (2020). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 3208. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/3208 This Open-Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “THE MEN WERE SICK OF THE PLACE”: SOLDIER ILLNESS AND ENVIRONMENT IN THE WAR OF 1812 By Joseph R. Miller B.A. North Georgia University, 2003 M.A. University of Maine, 2012 A DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (in History) The Graduate School The University of Maine May 2020 Advisory Committee: Scott W. See, Professor Emeritus of History, Co-advisor Jacques Ferland, Associate Professor of History, Co-advisor Liam Riordan, Professor of History Kathryn Shively, Associate Professor of History, Virginia Commonwealth University James Campbell, Professor of Joint, Air War College, Brigadier General (ret) Michael Robbins, Associate Research Professor of Psychology Copyright 2020 Joseph R.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Evaluation of Hesco Barriers Performance at Fargo, ND 2009," May 2009 Engineering Evaluation of Hesco Barriers Performance at Fargo,ND 2009
    ENCLOSURE 2 Wenck Associates, Inc., "Engineering Evaluation of Hesco Barriers Performance at Fargo, ND 2009," May 2009 Engineering Evaluation of Hesco Barriers Performance at Fargo,ND 2009 Wenck File #2283-01 Prepared for: Hesco Bastion, LLC 47152 Conrad E. Anderson Drive Hammond, LA 70401 Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 3310 Fiechtner Drive; Suite 110 May 2009 Fargo, North Dakota (701) 297-9600 SWenck Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Evaluation......................................................................................... 1-3 1.2 Background Information ...................................................................................... 1-3 2.0 CITY OF FARGO USES OF HESCO BARRIERS ......................... 2-1 2.1 Number of Miles Used Versus Total ................................................................... 2-1 2 .2 S izes ........................................................................................................ ............. 2 -1 2.3 Installation Rates .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.4 Complicating Factors .......................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 INTERVIEWS WITH CITY AND CITY REPRESENTATIVES ............................. 3-1 3.1 Issues Raised and Areas of Concern .................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Comments
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Guide V2 LR.Pdf
    1 Introduction – protect and survive 2 Basic construction guidelines 3 Design of Concertainer structures 4 Fill selection and characteristics 5 Preconfigured structures 6 Improvised structures 7 Maintenance and repair 8 Product technical information 9 Trial information 10 Packing and shipping 11 Conversion tables 12 Contacts 1 Introduction – protect and survive Introduction – protect and survive 1.01 HESCO® Concertainer® has Delivered flat-packed on standard been a key component in timber skids or pallets, units providing Force Protection since can be joined and extended the 1991 Gulf War. using the provided joining pins and filled using minimal Concertainer units are used manpower and commonly extensively in the protection of available equipment. personnel, vehicles, equipment and facilities in military, Concertainer units can be peacekeeping, humanitarian installed in various configurations and civilian operations. to provide effective and economical structures, tailored They are used by all major to the specific threat and level military organisations around of protection required. Protective the world, including the UK structures will normally be MOD and the US Military. designed to protect against ballistic penetration of direct fire It is a prefabricated, multi- projectiles, shaped charge cellular system, made of warheads and fragmentation. Alu-Zinc coated steel welded HESCO Guide Construction for Engineers mesh and lined with non-woven polypropylene geotextile. Introduction – protect and survive 1.02 Protection is afforded by the fill In constructing protective material of the structure as a structures, consideration must consequence of its mass and be given to normal structural physical properties, allied with design parameters. the proven dynamic properties of Concertainer units. The information included in this guide is given in good faith, Users must be aware that the however local conditions may protection afforded may vary affect the performance of HESCO Guide Construction for Engineers with different fill materials, and structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Too Much of a Good Thing by Amy Mccullough, Senior Editor the Air Force Is Struggling to Keep Its Personnel Numbers in Balance
    USAF photo by SrA. Grovert Fuentes-Contreras Too Much of a Good Thing By Amy McCullough, Senior Editor The Air Force is struggling to keep its personnel numbers in balance. t seems the threat of yet another the number down to the authorized “Without these actions in FY10, our combat deployment is less daunt- 332,800 by the end of Fiscal 2012. overall retention would have exceeded ing than the weak job market. In addition, the Air National Guard the goal by more than four percent,” The majority of today’s airmen is projecting it will be at or near its CMSAF James A. Roy told the Senate have spent their entire careers at authorized end strength of 106,700 by Armed Services personnel subcommit- war—many can’t count their combat the end of Fiscal 2011. tee in April. tours on one hand—yet Air Force re- To remedy things, Air Force leaders tention is at a 16-year high and active have implemented a series of voluntary Above: USAF Lt. Col. Andy Veres (l), duty end strength remains bloated above and involuntary force-shaping measures, Provincial Reconstruction Team Zabul congressionally mandated levels. such as convening reduction-in-force commander, re-enlists MSgt. James At the end of Fiscal 2010, there boards and encouraging early separa- Sandifer at Forward Operating Base Smart, on top of Alexander’s castle in were 334,196 active duty personnel, tions through waivers for active duty Qalat City, Afghanistan. Active duty but officials say they expect to whittle service commitments. retention is at a 16-year high.
    [Show full text]
  • All Action MS502 Over USD100000
    This report provides information about FAO’s vendors and their goods and services for 2013 where the value of the Purchase Order exceeds US$100,000. This data is presented to the best of FAO's knowledge as correct. If there are omissions, errors or comments please do contact FAO Vendors with procurement actions over USD100,000 for 2013 [email protected] Name of Vendor Vendor Country General Description of Goods or Services Sum of USD Total Net Value A.G. THOMAS (PTY) LTD Swaziland Construction of Ndlolowane dam and Irrigation scheme 329,722.81 A.G. THOMAS (PTY) LTD Total 329,722.81 A.K. Bhuiyan & Co. Bangladesh Measurement instruments 172,529.31 A.K. Bhuiyan & Co. Total 172,529.31 A.T.I. SANITAL-PIEMONTE-LATECNICA Italy Facility Support Services HQ 4,490,956.25 A.T.I. SANITAL-PIEMONTE-LATECNICA Total 4,490,956.25 AASTRA ITALIA SPA Italy Technical Support Services HQ 107,679.97 AASTRA ITALIA SPA Total 107,679.97 ABDEL AAL RAGHEB COMPANY Palestinian Territory,Occupied Procurement of sheep 239,095.24 ABDEL AAL RAGHEB COMPANY Total 239,095.24 ABID HUSSAIN SHAH CORPORATION Pakistan Breeding Goats 7,865.05 Feeding Kit, Milking Kit & Milk Collection Unit 39,408.72 Milk Collection units 3,212.94 Seeds Silos 27,124.00 Seed Silos & Tool Kits 42,607.67 ABID HUSSAIN SHAH CORPORATION Total 120,218.38 ACADEV COMPANY LIMITED Ghana Constuction and rehabilitation works RAF 75,813.31 Constuction and rehabilitation works RAF 96,702.27 ACADEV COMPANY LIMITED Total 172,515.58 ACEA ENERGIA SPA Italy Electricity - Utilities 2,559,681.70 Electricity - Utilities
    [Show full text]
  • A Strategic Planning Framework for Arverne East
    Planning for a Resilient Rockaways: A Strategic Planning Framework for Arverne East Waterfront Solutions (NYU): Alda Chan, Sa Liu, Jon McGrath, Rossana Tudo, Kathleen Walczak Acknowledgements This project was made possible thanks to the support of many individuals and organizations. Waterfront Solutions would like to thank everyone at Rockaway Waterfront Alliance and NYU Wagner who contributed to this endeavor. We are grateful to a number of experts and individuals who provided participated in meetings and shared information to support this report. Thanks to Arjan Braamskamp and Robert Proos (Consulate General of the Netherlands in New York), David Bragdon (NYC Department of Parks and Recreation), John Boule, (Parsons Brinkerhoff), John Young and Barry Dinerstein (NYC Department of City Planning), Jonathan Gaska (Queens Community District 14); Gerry Romski (Arverne by the Sea), Michael Polo (NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development), Ron Schiffman (Pratt Institute); Ron Moelis and Rick Gropper (L+M Development), and Steven Bluestone (The Bluestone Organization). We would like to express our gratitude towards Robert Balder (Cornell Architecture, Art and Planning) and Walter Meyer (Local Office Landscape) for their guidance and insight during the research process. Our sincere thanks to faculty advisors Michael Keane and Claire Weisz for their feedback and support throughout this process. Front and back cover photo credit: Joe Mabel Table of Contents Executive Summary.........................................................02
    [Show full text]
  • SUNBURST 1 Cover: Spc
    SUNBURST 1 Cover: Spc. Kerick S. Francis, a gunner with C Company, 1st Battalion, 133rd CONTENTS Infantry, scans the road for signs of insurgent activity. - Photo by Sgt. Gary Witte The SUNBURST is a monthly magazine distributed in electronic and print format. It is authorized for publication by the 13th SC (E) Public Affairs Office. The contents of the SUNBURST are unofficial and are not to be considered the official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S. Government, including the Department of Defense. The SUNBURST is a command information publication in accordance with Army Regulation 360-1. The Public Affairs Office is on LSA Anaconda on New Jersey Ave. in building 4136, DSN telephone: (318) 829-1234. Website at www.hood.army.mil/13sce. Contact Sgt. Joel F. Gibson via e-mail at [email protected] 13th SC (E) Commanding General Brig. Gen. Michael J. Terry 13th SC (E) Chief of Public Affairs Maj. Jay R. Adams COVER STORIES 1-133 Out West p. 8 One Tree At A Time p. 24 VETERANS DAY PATCH CEREMONIES p. 14 HIGH SCHOOL BUILDS CONNECTION p. 15 TAE BO-ATHON, ALIVE AND WELL IN TAJI p. 21 MECHANICS GET COURSE IN ASV REPAIR p. 22 SOLDIER’S PPE SAVES THE DAY p. 26 SOLDIERS CREATE A SLICE OF HOME p. 27 THE ZIGGURAT OF UR p. 28 2 SUNBURST SUNBURST 3 Back Page: A Heavy Equipment Transport (HET) Prepares to leave Camp Ar- ifjan in Kuwait to deliver supplies throughout Iraq. - Photo Illustration by Spc. Adryen Wallace 210th MPAD Commander 210th MPAD NCOIC Sunburst Forward Print Officer Maj.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Gulf Oyster Reefs: Opportunities for Innovation
    RESTORING GULF OYSTER REEFS June 2012 Opportunities for Innovation Shawn Stokes Susan Wunderink Marcy Lowe Gary Gereffi Restoring Gulf Oyster Reefs This research was prepared on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund: http://www.edf.org/home.cfm Acknowledgments – The authors are grateful for valuable information and feedback from Patrick Banks, Todd Barber, Dennis Barkmeyer, Larry Beggs, Karim Belhadjali, Anne Birch, Seth Blitch, Rob Brumbaugh, Mark Bryer, Russ Burke, Rob Cook, Jeff DeQuattro, Blake Dwoskin, John Eckhoff, John Foret, Sherwood Gagliano, Kyle Graham, Timm Kroeger, Ben LeBlanc, Romuald Lipcius, John Lopez, Gus Lorber, Tom Mohrman, Tyler Ortego, Charles Peterson, George Ragazzo, Edwin Reardon, Dave Schulte, Todd Swannack, Mike Turley, and Lexia Weaver. Many thanks also to Jackie Roberts for comments on early drafts. None of the opinions or comments expressed in this study are endorsed by the companies mentioned or individuals interviewed. Errors of fact or interpretation remain exclusively with the authors. We welcome comments and suggestions. The lead author can be contacted at: [email protected] List of Abbreviations BLS Bureau of Labor and Statistics COSEE Centers for Oceans Sciences Education Excellence CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act DEP Department of Environmental Protection DMR Mississippi Department of Marine Resources DNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources EPA Environmental Protection Agency FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPCA National Precast Concrete Association NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NSF National Science Foundation OBAR Oyster Break Artificial Reef OCPR Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration SBA Small Business Association TNC The Nature Conservancy TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers Cover Photo: © Erika Nortemann/The Nature Conservancy.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT: VERSION 1.0 Eats
    uclear N CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT: VERSION 1.0 eats The following is a adiological, work-in-progress. R Changes will be made. Your input is invited and xplosive thr E needed. Please use the evaluation instrument at iological, B the end of this workbook to tell us what is good and bad in Version 1.0 and what should be added for hemical, Version 1.5. The CBRNE and high-yield C Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF) is an important new asset. The following attempts to translate existing doctrine, strategy, and lessons- learned to the CCMRF mission. (August 2008) CBRNE i Consequence Management Operational Principles for Managing the Consequence of a Catastrophic Incident Involving Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or High Yield Explosives Every effort has been made to ensure the doctrinal, strategic, operational, and tactical accuracy of this publication. It is specifically designed to prepare CCMRF personnel and their civilian counterparts for a sometimes ambiguous and often dynamic mission. As such it encourages readers to seriously consider how to apply doctrinal and strategic principles to difficult operational and tactical decisions where the correct answer may be less than clear. Any errors are the responsibility of the authors. Please direct concerns regarding accuracy or validity to [email protected]. PURPOSES 1. Familiarize CCMRF battalion and brigade level staff to their mission, roles and responsibilities. 2. Contextualize existing doctrinal guidance to better facilitate effective application of doctrine, strategy, and commander’s intent when CCMRF elements face novel problems in the field. 3. Provide senior operational staff with a ready reference to inform deci- sions during exercises and when deployed.
    [Show full text]
  • Invitation to Bid
    INVITATION TO BID Civil Works at United Nations Common Compound (UNCC) in Garowe, Somalia ITB No.: 143259/21 Project: UNCC Country: Somalia Issued on: August 4, 2021 P a g e | 1 CONTENTS Section 1. Letter of Invitation ..................................................................................................................... 5 Section 2. Instruction to Bidders ................................................................................................................ 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 2. Fraud & Corruption, Gifts and Hospitality .................................................................................................................. 6 3. Eligibility ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 4. Conflict of Interests ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 B. PREPARATION OF BIDS ............................................................................................................................................. 7 5. General Considerations
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Defense Technologies
    In the United States Court of Federal Claims (Filed April 7, 2008) (Originally Filed Under Seal March 14, 2008) INFRASTRUCTURE DEFENSE ) TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ) No. 07-582 C Plaintiff, ) (Consolidated Lead Case) ) v. ) Pre-award bid protest; subject matter ) jurisdiction; standing; prejudice; waiver; bridge THE UNITED STATES, ) contract; sole source supply contract; cross- Defendant, ) motions for judgment on the administrative ) record; motion to dismiss; one responsible and ) source exception to the Competition in ) Contracting Act; standard of review; national HESCO BASTION, LTD, ) defense and security. Defendant-Intervenor. ) ) INFRASTRUCTURE DEFENSE ) TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 07-695 C v. ) (Consolidated Member Case) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) Defendant. ) C. Joël Van Over, McLean, VA, for plaintiff. Jack Y. Chu, of counsel. David A. Harrington and A. Bondurant Eley, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant, with whom were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Brian M. Simkin, Assistant Director. Douglas C. Proxmire, Washington, D.C., for defendant-intervenor. Elizabeth Gill, of counsel. OPINION AND ORDER1/ Merow, Senior Judge In this pre-award procurement protest, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), the protestor, Infrastructure Defense Technologies, LLC (hereinafter “IDT”), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to preclude the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) from awarding a follow-on sole source Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (“IDIQ”) contract for collapsible force protection (“Concertainer”) units to Hesco Bastion, Ltd. (“Hesco”). Hesco has intervened in this action. Pursuant to RCFC 52.1, motions have been filed, by all parties, for judgment on the administrative record of this procurement which record was supplemented by the deposition of DLA official Thomas Lauersen and material submitted by plaintiff.
    [Show full text]