DOCSLIB.ORG

To Flood Fight?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
To Flood Fight? Portland District When Floods Become Fun Again “Resilient Communities Respond” OEMA 2010 Conference “Community Resiliency - Preparing to Recover” Hood River, Oregon D. Leslie Miller, P.E. Flood Preparedness Program Manager BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Fighting Floods – “So what” Factor…. March 2008 Cape Girardeau, MO successful flood fight – raised levee height with sandbags May 2001 Davenport, IA successful sandbagging flood fight of John O-Donnell Stadium May 2002 Crystal City, MO successful sandbagging flood fight of Dairy Queen BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District PERSPECTIVE! The following presentation attempts to compare the fun and excitement we had playing in the sandbox (or other favorite activity) with our friends… to the exhilaration our communities will experience as friends, protecting lives, homes, livelihoods and communities from FLOOD’S DISTRUCTIVE AFFECTS… because we do it together as friends…what is the similarity between: - Tonka Toys & Sand Forms & Plastic Shovels vs. Trucks & Earth Moving Equipment & Flood Fighting Tools - Sand boxes & Beaches vs. Homes & Communities - Play vs. Response friends playing together is fun… BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Developing Perspective Playing in the sand with our friends built our imagination, friendships and character, while having so much fun Competing in sports and student government, restoring a jalopy, attaining Gold or Eagle Rank developed our imagination, friendships and character, making them so rewarding Executing a flood fight that is well designed, planned and practiced before the next major flood occurs stimulates our imagination, friendships and character, making the commitment so revitalizing Multi-organizational efforts to prevent repeat flood damage to our public facilities, infrastructure, local economy and homes utilizes our imaginations, establishes and strengthens friendships, and utilizes our character to overcome...yes…overcome challenges, making life exhilarating Flood fighting is intended to reduce flood recovery’s horrible realities until permanent flood mitigation eliminates recovery…90% of flood damage in the United States, is in less than 3 feet of water…you’re already visualizing what this means in your own jurisdiction…aren’t you…. BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Response is Basic Why Where What When How Who BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Basics –Flood Fight Design & Plan…. • Why – Protect Our Friends (Homes, Jobs, Taxes, Community) • Where - Specific location & access (Real Estate agreements) • What - Coordinated Emergency Operations • When – Site specific triggering • How - Collaborative design • Who – Friends who bring resources and “own” their roles responsibilities • A thorough plan will cover preparation, prevention, response and recovery (removal of the barrier not “mucking” out mud from homes and businesses) BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Why and Where Require Tough Decisions • Warn and Evacuate Only – Flood Fight not economical – Insufficient time to place a barrier or channel • Flood Fight Priorities – Highest life safety – Highest public benefit (government & non-government organizations) – Highest economic impact (livelihoods & taxes) – Highest residential impact (homes, employees & culture) – Highest environmental impacts (hazardous materials, human detritus and sensitive biomes of endangered species) – All priorities are contingent upon a realistic capability to execute • Policy & Assumptions must be included for the overarching and site specific flood fight planning for neighborhoods, business/industrial districts, special districts (fire, levee, etc.); community, county and state infrastructure; private utilities BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Why “choose” to flood fight? Why? • “Personal” action driven by conscience, professional ethic or spiritual convictions • “Essential” action to save life and sustain our community (public buildings, roads and utilities) • “Right-good” action to protect neighbor (homes and neighborhoods; faith, service and cultural facilities) • “Necessary” action to protect our livelihoods (businesses, industry, government) • “Important” action to sustain our environment (health and quality of life – human and nature) • “Sick and tired” of the damage, clean-up, impact to my life, livelihood and community…also, unmet recovery assistance expectations BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Where to design and plan a flood fight? • Where permanent flood mitigation takes years to complete • Where previous last minute “spontaneous” flood fight efforts did not meet expectations: – Unsuccessful because the effort started too late for the resources available – “Shooting from the hip” decisions and management caused confusion resulting in ineffective use of resources – “First come first serve” resource allocation prevented resources from reaching higher priority sites BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Where to design and plan a flood fight; even more reasons? • Where flood science, history and anecdotal accounts combine to form a cost, time and resource effective : – flood fight design and plan (scope, schedule and resources) – preparedness program (updating, training, exercising, stockpiling) – collaborative vision (benefits of damages prevented and alternate uses of resources) • Where the chance of successful flood damage reduction can increase from 10% to 80% by a rehearsed flood fight • Where it provides the stimulus needed to enlist individuals, community, state, regional and national organizations to combine forces to rehearse a successful flood fight BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District What must be included in the barrier’s/channel’s design? • Location – Available footprint (length and width) – Foundation (paved, soil, rock) • Height – Water depth plus 6 inches for no/meandering current – Water depth plus 1 foot for current • Access – Placing (every 100’ or less best for sandbagging) – Ingress and egress – Maintaining – Seepage management BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District When is the flood fight triggered? • Available Time – River/reservoir forecast – current gage height, peak and rate of rise (NWS) – Time difference extrapolated to flood fight site – Alerted by NWS and/or Emergency Operations Center management systems • Flood Fight Actions – Watch/Warning – Emergency Declaration process – local and outside augmentation – Flood fight site preparation – Mobilizing resources – supplies, equipment, people and support – Placement • Factors – Weather – Night – Weekend/Holiday/Trail Blazer or Bowl Game – Plan rehearsed in last three years with all critical partners • Time required = sum of Actions multiplied by Factors • Assumption: Adjusted for actual conditions for “Real Event” BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Who can provide the following resources? • People • Equipment – Leadership – Communication – Management – Office – Administration – Construction – Filling – Technical/Professional – Transportation – Tradesman • Facilities – Labors – Management • Supplies – Operations – Sand, Sandbags, Plastic – Logistics – Earth and Rock – Medical – Lumber – Care & Feeding – New Technology BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Who do these resources come from? • Citizen Volunteers • State Government • Continuity of Operations/Business – Emergency Management • Business & Industry – Public works – Chamber of Commerce – Safety, fire & health • Special Districts, City & County – Water Resources Government – Natural Resources – Levee & fire districts Mineral, flora & fauna – Planning Departments – Military – Public Works & Engineering – Climatologist – Port Authorities • Federal Government – Emergency Services – NOAA, NWS & USGS – Schools • Non governmental organizations – DOD & BOR – United Way – NRCS, BLM, USFS & USF&W – Faith based – FEMA & USCG – Social & Youth BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Who makes up a planning & response team? • Collaborative Design & Planning = Collaborative Response & Recovery • Everyone who is a player during the response and recovery must “own” the design and plan, especially their role and responsibilities • When resources are tight, retirees and volunteers can be selected to form a “Flood Fight Design and Planning Team” BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District How can the barrier/channel be built? • First design and plan a sandbag barrier/channel • Second design and plan a barrier with one or more of the following tools: – Sandbag filling tools – Baskets – Geotechnical Grids – Impervious Fabrics – Water Filled Bladders – Water Weighted Floaters – Barricades – Agricultural Products and Containers • Third include seepage management and the need for pumps BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Flood-Fighting Structures Demonstration and Evaluation Program • US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineering Research and Development Center • Laboratory and Field Testing in Vicksburg, Mississippi • ERDC TR-07-3 Report – July 2007 • Evaluated 4 foot high level of protection: – Sandbag Levee – Hesco Bastion Concertainer Levee – Rapid Deployment Flood Wall (RDFW) – Portadam Levee BUILDING STRONG SM Portland District Sandbagging • Most flexible and commonly used method • Standard for measuring other systems • Bags made of plastic, burlap and cotton • Standard size is 14”X26” • Filled one-half (30 lbs) to two-thirds (40 lbs) • Untied, tied, flap folded under or not • Three stage operation: fill, transport & place • Fill stage: receive, hold, fill and remove • Bags can be used to hold items in place • Corps test results: – Labor intensive – 3 person team fills
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Melvin Jones Fellow
    NORTH DAKOTA Volume 33, Number 12 | Offi LIONcial Publication of Lions Districts 5NE & 5NW | June 2011 Mandan Lions feed fl ood volunteers Submitted by 5NW VDG Pat Vannett On May 25, 2011, Lions Kevin and Pat Vannett of the Mandan Dacotah Lions approached Mandan Mayor Tim Helbling with the idea of organizing food for all of the volunteers that would be needed to fi ght the fl ood. He replied “that would be awesome.” Th e Mandan Dacotah Lions board of directors quickly acted to approve the project and Mandan Lions Club President; Jeff Erickson called his club for workers and within THREE hours Kevin and Pat had organized donations of water, food, and tents. Th e grills were lit and our journey began. Because of the working relationship that all of the Lions of Mandan have with business owners in our community, those businesses quickly got on board to support this project. Many businesses stepped up to the plate when asked to help. Others called us to ask “what do you need, we want to help.” Th is was truly a community wide eff ort where every church, organization, Setting up to feed the volunteers in the 2011 fl ood fi ght are Lion business and private person united in the fi ght to save our city. Bill Schott of the Mandan Lions and Lion Kevin Vannett along with Th e Red Cross soon came by and was quite impressed with his son Matt, and Lion Marcy Moore of the Mandan Dacotah the organization that was in place. Th ey soon were calling to see Lions.
    [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]
  • Blockhouse Creek Restoration Project Year 1 Monitoring Report Polk County, North Carolina
    Blockhouse Creek Restoration Project Year 1 Monitoring Report Polk County, North Carolina Monitoring Firm: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) Monitoring Firm POC: Micky Clemmons Prepared for: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) NCEEP Project Manager: Guy Pearce Report Prepared By: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 797 Haywood Road, Suite 201 Asheville, NC 28806 Contract Number: D06027-A Date Submitted: November 2009 FINAL Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ IV 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND............................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 PROJECT STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.5 MONITORING PLAN VIEW ............................................................................................................................. 8 2.0 YEAR 1 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ....................... 10 2.1 VEGETATION
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Gallery Shelters : Translated at the Army War College from a French Study, July 1917
    Deep gallery shelters : translated at the Army War College from a French study, July 1917. Washington, D.C. : G.P.O., 1917. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t8z89537n Public Domain http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd We have determined this work to be in the public domain, meaning that it is not subject to copyright. Users are free to copy, use, and redistribute the work in part or in whole. It is possible that current copyright holders, heirs or the estate of the authors of individual portions of the work, such as illustrations or photographs, assert copyrights over these portions. Depending on the nature of subsequent use that is made, additional rights may need to be obtained independently of anything we can address. CONFIDENTIAL! FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4 4 7 DEEP GALLERY SHELTERS Translated at the Army War College FROM A FRENCH STUDY U**\ JULY, 1917 of California n Regional WASHINGTON y Facility GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1917 i WAB DEPARTMENT, Document No. 632. General. Office of The Adjutant WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, July 18, 1917. The following notes on Deep Gallery Shelters are published for the information of all concerned. [661.1, A. G. O.] BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR : TASKER H. BLISS, Major General, Acting Chief of Staff. OFFICIAL : H. P. MCCAIN, The Adjutant General. WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON, June 19, 1!H~. To all officers of the Army: You are advised that this and all subsequent documents of a similar character, which may be furnished to you from this office, are to be regarded as strictly confidential.
    [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]
  • Guide De Construction Pour Les Opérateurs Version 2
    Guide de construction pour les opérateurs Version 2 1 Introduction - protéger et survivre 2 Instructions générales de construction 3 Conception de structures Concertainer 4 Matériau de remplissage 5 Structures préconfigurées 6 Structures improvisées 7 Maintenance et réparation 8 Informations techniques sur le produit 9 Informations sur les essais 10 Conditionnement et acheminement 11 Tableaux de conversion 12 Contacts 1 Introduction - protéger et survivre Introduction - protéger et survivre 1.01 HESCO® Concertainer® a joué Livrées à plat sur des palettes un rôle clé dans la protection de bois standards, les unités des forces depuis la Guerre du peuvent être assemblées et Golfe de 1991. Les produits étendues grâce aux goupilles Concertainer sont beaucoup fournies et remplies par un employés dans la protection des minimum de personnel au individus, des véhicules, des moyen d'équipements équipements et des installations communément disponibles. dans les opérations militaires, humanitaires, civiles et de Les unités Concertainer peuvent maintien de la paix. être installées dans différents types de configurations afin de Ils sont également utilisés par proposer des structures toutes les plus grandes économiques et efficaces, organisations militaires dans le adaptées à la menace monde, notamment le ministère spécifique et au niveau de de la Défense britannique et protection requis. Les structures l'armée américaine. protectrices seront normalement conçues pour assurer la Il s'agit d'un système multi- protection contre la pénétration cellulaire préfabriqué, constitué balistique des projectiles directs, d'un maillage d'acier enduit des ogives à charge creuse et d'alu-zinc et garni d'un géotextile des projectiles à fragmentation. en polypropylène non tissé.
    [Show full text]