Proposed Amendments 4 & 5:…

Proposed Amendments 4 & 5:
Where these proposals relate to large road/highway projects that have a fill requirement or are able to manage their excavated soils between local and similar projects, Dillon sees a benefit to the MECP's proposed flexibility from the current excess soil requirements.
However, as they relate to movements between most urban City-center infrastructure projects (e.g. tunnelling), we anticipate these amendments will have limited use or significant implementation challenges for the following reasons:

Project Nature: Most infrastructure projects involve significant net soil removal (e.g., tunneling, grading, excavation), limiting their importation needs and most urban projects do not have the flexibility to incorporate large-volume soil reuse into design (e.g. berms)

Restricted Flexibility: Larger volume generating infrastructure projects will need to identify more than one receiving site, or require the flexibility to pivot to alternative receivers (e.g. due to project delays, limited on-site storage capacity, restrictions at a receiver that temporarily make it unavailable, etc) the exemption from completing the reuse planning requirements where two projects can coordinate will have no impact. Significant single or multi-day delay costs that would result on large infrastructure projects (if a Contractor's QP needs to pivot mid-project to complete reuse planning reports to move soils to an alternate site) would far exceed the risk and costs of completing the reuse planning requirements in advance of the construction works to permit needed flexibility.

Practical Challenges: Coordinating between projects can be complex, considering contract development, procurement processes, multi-year design and construction project schedules, and contractor bid development. This approach could hinder contractor innovation and flexibility in selecting local and cost-effective soil management methods.

Project Delays and Storage: One project's schedule or project delays would have significant impact on the coordination between projects that would be entirely out of the control of the other project stakeholders who would be responsible for finding an alternative plan. Large-scale and long-term storage is not available at most large infrastructure projects to wait out a delay, leading to costly delay claims from the contractor to the contracting project leader as well as the need for alternative disposal.

Pre-Contract Information: Would place additional significant burden on contracting project leader to fully understand soil quality, design and receiving site options prior to the bid-phase of a project noting that significant design and contractor selection of construction means and methods typically occurs following contract award. Soil data information available during contract development and in-market phases is typically limited, but in order to coordinate between projects and select a receiving site prior to contract development (and prior to engaging a contractor), this information would need to be available for inclusion into the contract to support a bid, as the contractor will no longer have power to make means and methods decisions related to soil. Often early site access is complicated by permitting, land procurement and easement timeframes which would limit the contracting project leader's ability to even obtain this information prior to contract award.