Tuesday, July 21 2020
Project Plan Under Permit Review
Construction Cost Estimates
Hazardous Materials Abatement
Our plan is to do minimal ACM abatement in Part I to save money. KMB and FORMA are working now with Advance Environmental, the firm that did the February “hazmat” survey, to identify the most feasible, cost-effective ways to perform the abatement work. In addition, they are looking at possible options, and associated costs, for doing more than minimal ACM abatement.
ACM abatement entails certain set-up costs - such as erecting scaffolding, installing a pressurized enclosure, protective equipment for workers, etc. – no matter how much ACM will be removed. Given these unavoidable costs, we may have an opportunity to abate more than the minimum ACM in Part I at a cost-effective price. This would allow us to avoid those same set-up costs again in Part II, when we’ll likely need to abate more ACM. It all depends on the incremental cost increase – we’ll know when we see the numbers. If affordable, there may be a good argument for abating all ACM in Part I.
It’s worth noting that beyond simple cost considerations, we may wish to consider the exposure risk and our comfort level with leaving known, friable ACM in place until sometime in the future.
Another way we can save money on abatement is to hire the abatement contractor ourselves, rather than through the general contractor, which typically adds a 10% markup on sub-contractor work. For example, we could save about $11,000 per $100K of abatement work by contracting directly. (I am not saying here that the abatement work will cost $100K; we don’t know that number yet.) We must do abatement before the other Part I work starts, but do not need a city-issued building permit, only a state permit from the Department of Ecology.
Please let me know if you have questions about this report.
Chair, Renovation Committee