Dear BPDA Director Golden-  

Thank you and the BPDA for helping us understand more about the thinking that the BPDA has in mind for Pier 5 at the Head of Boston Harbor in the Charlestown Navy Yard.  Our questions here are in preparation for the Pier 5 Association upcoming meetings with the BPDA regarding their announcement in the FCNY Newsletter:

While less urgent, the BPDA anticipates running a project within the next year to provide a similar comprehensive engineering assessment of Pier 5, which has been permanently closed to public access due to similar corrosion. This project is intended to yield construction designs and budgets for Pier 5’s reuse and/or demolition.

We have received some clarifications, but there are still ambiguities as to whether the proposed “Pier 5 Engineering Assessment” will be procured as an RFP or as an extension of an existing study, and what is the precise Scope of Work to be included.

No doubt this warrants a totally new RFP set out to bid as a separate project with a different structure and use-potential type.  What is important to us at this time is being able to assure that the “Scope of Work” of any Pier 5 Engineering Assessment is written to guarantee the inclusion of certain Work Tasks that the extensive work of Pier 5 Associates has shown are necessary for a “Comprehensive Engineering Assessment of Pier 5″.

Comprehensive Engineering Assessment Scope of Work including Specifics Unique to Pier 5.

• RFP or Procurement scope phrasing for this engineering assessment to be “Pedestrian load 100 lb/sq ft. as needed for Pier 5 use as a Public Park inclusive of Courageous Sailing Center”.  
• Public Park use-potential is per our P5A community outreach surveys, petitions and engineering studies.  (See: Pier 5 Preliminary and Due Diligence Engineering Studies commissioned by Pier 5 Association)
• Demolition to be limited and only if / as required. The major consulting engineering firm Pier 5 Association has engaged have indicated that Pier 5 demolition would not be required for certain use potentials and conditions, as did earlier Childs Engineering reports for the BRA/BPDA. The BPDA engineering assessment should demonstrate the need for any demolition with the proposed use is pedestrian load restoration at 100 lb/sq ft.
• WWII toxic waste problem requiring removal or containment,
• Prevention of disruption of adjacent structures, Flagship Wharf and elements close to the seawall or existing sinkhole areas, including the seawall itself. 
• Historic considerations and constraints of the U.S. Navy Yard Transfer Documents and MA Historic Commission re demolition and configuration,
• Study of new restoration techniques such as QuakeWrap, Inc. more applicable to Pier 5 than to Pier 4.
• When issuing the Pier 5 Comprehensive Engineering Assessment RFP, the on-site Inspection reports should be available asap to engineering firms bidding.
• Most importantly: the environmental awareness expected in preparation of responsible RFP waterfront construction estimates is the inclusion of LEEDS “captured carbon equivalents”.  These equivalents are substantial in massive concrete and steel structures such as Pier 5.

We hope to discuss these important aspects of the proposed Pier 5 Comprehensive Engineering Assessment RFP as an agenda in our 3/30/22 meeting. 

Sincerely

Sherrie S. Cutler, A.I.A.

sscutler@ECODESIGN.com