As prescribed in 36.509, insert the following clause:
Protection of Existing Vegetation, Structures, Equipment, Utilities, and Improvements (APR 1984)
(a) The Contractor shall preserve and protect all structures, equipment, and vegetation (such as trees, shrubs, and grass) on or adjacent to the work site, which are not to be removed and which do not unreasonably interfere with the work required under this contract. The Contractor shall only remove trees when specifically authorized to do so, and shall avoid damaging vegetation that will remain in place. If any limbs or branches of trees are broken during contract performance, or by the careless operation of equipment, or by workmen, the Contractor shall trim those limbs or branches with a clean cut and paint the cut with a tree-pruning compound as directed by the Contracting Officer.
(b) The Contractor shall protect from damage all existing improvements and utilities (1) at or near the work site and (2) on adjacent property of a third party, the locations of which are made known to or should be known by the Contractor. The Contractor shall repair any damage to those facilities, including those that are the property of a third party, resulting from failure to comply with the requirements of this contract or failure to exercise reasonable care in performing the work. If the Contractor fails or refuses to repair the damage promptly, the Contracting Officer may have the necessary work performed and charge the cost to the Contractor.
(End of clause)
[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 34761, July 3, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Com. Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 154 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
· cites it 2× “236-9(b), 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-9 (b) (1987) (incorporated into the contract) (“The Contractor shall protect from damage all existing improvements and utilities (1) at or near the work site and (2) on adjacent property of a third party.”
George Sollitt Constr. Co. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 229 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
“236-9, codified at 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-9 (1994) (“Protection of Existing Vegetation, Structures, Equipment, Utilities, and Improvements”), made Sollitt responsible for the costs of damage to utilities at the construction site, Def.”
Joseph Dureiko, as Tr., & S. Pine Isle Corp. v. United States, 209 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-9 (1999). Pine Isle also notes that the Corps’s own Quality Assurance Plan requires that a Quality Assurance Representative “[a]ssure that utility outlets and other features that must not be damaged are marked before removal operations are started.”
RLB Contracting, Inc. (A.S.B.C.A. 2023).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-9 (b). 8. The 0043 Contract specification 1.”
BCI Constr. USA, Inc. (A.S.B.C.A. 2024).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-9 . 77. BCI asserts that prior to beginning construction on the upper training wall, it determined that the existing riprap at Monolith 12L and 12R exceeded the Monolith joint where concrete removal and placement was to occur (app.”
Com. Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
· cites it 2× “236-9(b), 48 C.F.R. § 52.236-9 (b) (1987) (incorporated into the contract) (“The Contractor shall protect from damage all existing improvements and utilities (1) at or near the work site and (2) on adjacent property of a third party.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.