Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2001-12-10 Supplemental Information - Correspondence re: Project 820; Confidential agenda reportDecember 11, 2001 Mr. B. Tilden Kim Richards, Watson 6 Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 60`" Floor Seal Beach, California 90071 Dear Mr. Kim, Pursuant to your letter of November 26" to City Manager John Bahorski, forwarded are two fully executed copies of the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement relating to the Main Street Alley Improvement Project, Project Number 820, entered into by and between Southern California Grading, Inc. and the City of Seal Beach, as well City of Seal Beach check number 35796 in the amount of $79,000, the settlement amount. From your letter it is understood that copy of the executed Release and check counsel for Southern California Grading the Agreement is for your file. Very truly yours, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Encl. you will forward a number 35796 to legal The second copy of THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH 35796 Final settlement paymenL for the sewer main street alley project. 35796 BANK OF AMERICA THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH SEAL BEACH BRANCH 0139 211 STH STREET 20B MAIN STREET SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 SEAL BEACH, CA W740.079 220 (562)431-2527 (582) 3 1 18 BB -0220 Pay: ***Seventy nine thousand dollars 6' Zero cents Date Amount 12/11/01 $79,000.00 To the order of: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRADING, INC.----//7�p/I_"_�'/"�-//��_�, ft m035?96V 1:1 2 20006r 11: 01325^.8020311• INRICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW -A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355 South Grand Avenue, path Floor, Los Angeles, Cali(omia 90073-3101 Telephone 313.626.8484 Facsimile 333.626.0078 MC.AIO RIC....) h9,6-,988) November 26, 2001 .11.111. .11.11 fRWIX F. SOLLR OSNO W O. aIErER STCVEN L OOMACY WAUMUM L )TRAY. MrtcxeLL E. 11..1 I.E.OAVVK STEPSNnICH .00HE VE SROWXE WILLIAM B. RU DUE Owxx M. SA.. CAROL W. 11X1X .. M. RUNC[T THOMAS M.IIMSO ROSERT C. CRoca. 3TINEX I. M.W IMAXX INKY G ..as U.I.II, noo3 IVIN 4 ENMIS MICHAEL MICNACLSM NNIA 1. 1: 4Y[EST EYE WIENER STEVEN R. IRN s. , AIEx nM S.0 CAY L N3.MVM Y,.. O.SUM. NET., M. ILRSOX LSM L M.RAMXMNX I TEEIF L N.ER PIERCE ANN, NEED RAN K. NNNME TFRFN 300.A LIKE SOMI WILL. 1 C 111 .115 o.cwro3 KIYNXL. . WEEK TFKESN C. ...Co.LNRI SIEFC [M.X044 ROY N. CLAM OUGA C LAY r.40V4N GIL M..LDEN.E MICHAEL f=.. .[41XA X.INNxIN PAULA 4UTIfKK. 3A.A PETER A KIM ALEUIND. ASSE A RT A.E. E. IOM [. AIV CA,N 1[ AN i EML KTY.A... OSEM VMTSOX "i MAXD[LL MATT.H.A. POATNOI[ IU.. E. CO. .,Ga.. N. YIN OI COMM ANA.I. MUY.. YEC[NAM a FR MA.. .1114AM.. s[VTIsc.nU RY rYNCo.. OIOLE qp MONmOMEn sTNER SUITE IPO .AACusco. a 9'04 TELEPHONE 45.431-8484 MCSIMII. pSPS.B4B6 ORAXL[ COUm.1'.. CMC CEMTEA CIRCLE PC BOK 1059 SKF.. CA 938__ rE.PiloxE 2,4.990..9.1 IACSIMILE 714-9906230 John B. Bahorski City Manager City of Seal Beach 211 8" Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Reference: Southern California Grading Claim Dear Mr. Bahorski: Mai ? U \ O� /�' �1L�J (AC Enclosed is an executed Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement for the above - referenced claim. We have approved it as to form. Upon your approval, please have the settlement agreement executed, and return to our offices a copy of the executed original, along with the $79,000 settlement draft made payable to "Southern California Grading, Inc." We will then forward it to the claimant's counsel. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, se &Owwt If."000" / B: Tilde/ n Kim ' Enclosure r _-u ✓i cc: Doug Dancs, Director of public Works (w/enclosure) 41,RC1 S7296\0001\676322.1 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY CLIENT ANO/OR THE ATTORNEY WORN PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. 00 NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO HOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCE SSIBLE RECORDS, CITti' OF SEAL BEACH 10130 po DATE: -/O 'O/ AMOUNTS l/illil.:g�ti� ��LvT ��f.✓✓l l-,Lc. 1 JDv MLl C 11YiGLiK � REASON FOR EXPENDITURE: D111RFC NEXT WARRANT LIST IMMEDIATELY ACCOUNT NUMBER nUiif - TOTAL ❑ WARRANT LIST ® HANDWRITTEN CHECK Date: Date: / 2. -/o v 1 /✓ DEPARTMENT APP VAL(mow' Z �IJ;!•71a1'i7i E] PREPARE WARRANT AND FORWARD TO PAYEE PREPARE WARRANT AND FORWARD TO PAYEE WITH SUPPORT DOCUMENT PREPARE WARRANT AND RETURN TO DEPARTMENT�' // OTHER: A ,ivl li - 1- 1 0,21 ie White Original Finance Department Canary Copy - Department Files (upon return) Pink Copy - Department Original SBFD-5 rev, 9 -at RBS Confidential AGENDA REPORT DATE: November 13, 2001 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Doug Dancs, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE SO CAL GRADING CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY REGARDING MAIN STREET ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 820 SUMMARY OF REOUEST: The proposed action will approve settlement between the claimant Southern California Grading, Inc. and the City regarding the Main Street Alley Improvements, Project 820 BACKGROUND: Attached is an analysis from the City Attorney's office regarding the claims for additional monies made by Southern California Grading during the Main Street Alley project. Both the Engineering Division and the City Attorney's office worked together once there was a potential of a claim during construction. The original claim was for $182.132. After a long claims evaluation process, a proposed settlement of $79,000 amount was reached between staff and the Contractor. The City Attorney's and City Engineer's office agree that this appears to constitute a successful and cost-effective compromise as opposed to litigation. Each project has an associated risk factor. No project is immune from claims no matter how many precautions are taken. Often the measures taken to produce the investigations, design, and contract documents to prevent all risks would be cost prohibitive. There were many factors that interacted to contribute to these events and will be addressed on future work. One of the major factors involved that prevented staff from adjusting cost overruns during the process was the inexperience of the contractor performing work for public agencies. This contractor had never worked before as a general contractor for a public agency and the contractor's forces comprised of less than 50% of the work with the majority of the work performed by subcontractors. This was the Agenda nem$ primary factor for the Contractor reporting claims well after the fact of their occurrence and it prevented staff from making field adjustments. Staff is working with the City Attorney's office to use the newly state approved pre - qualification process in our major contracts to hire more qualified contractors. Also, the specifications have been adjusted to not allow for any Contractor to be awarded the work that does not have at least 50% of the work performed by its own forces. Another factor that contributed to the increased amount of the project was the discovery of old abandoned utility lines not shown on the plans. Our engineering records are incomplete since much of the original utility work was constructed over 50 years ago. It would actually take excavating the entire alley to discover all the myriad of either abandoned or undocumented locations of lines and laterals. In future projects the Engineering Division has required additional pot -holing to locate lines to minimize such events however there will always be a risk for underground conflicts. FISCAL IMPACT: Since this was a utility project, the claim for additional funds for this project will be appropriated from the water and sewer enterprise funds. Funds are available in approved CIP Project 50072 Water System Infrastructure Improvements/Reserve ($39,500) and from the Sewer Certificates of Participations for the Master Plan capital improvement program ($39,500) due to potential savings of eliminating the Aquatic Park force main by diversion into the Huntington Beach sewer system. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the settlement offer and direct the City orks/City Engineer Agenda Item _ _ ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT ATTORNEY-CLW,NT PRIVQ.EGE John B. Bahroski City Manager City of Seal Beach 2118"' Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Recommendation on Resolution of So Cal Grading Claim Regarding Main Street Alley Improvements, Project 820 (the "Projeco Dear Mr. Bahroski: This letter outlines the results of recent settlement discussions between claimant Southern California Grading, Inc. ("SCG'), City staff, and the City Attorney's office. SCG was the general contractor on the Project. In short, SCG submitted a claim against the City totaling in excess of $182,132.00 for various claimed change order and delay damages arising out of the Project. After several significant settlement discussions, SCG has agreed to settle and compromise its claims for $79,000, subject to City Council approval. Set forth below is an analysis of SCG's claim, and our recommendation for the City's approval of this hard-fought settlement. 1. Background Facts The Project consisted of certain public works improvements in the alleys adjacent to Main Street. SCG was the lowest bidder, bidding $318,342.58 for the Project. The original start date was March 27, 2000, and the original completion date was June 26, 2000. SCG requested 56 additional working days; in contrast, the City granted only I I working days, and reserved its rights to assert liquidated damages. The City had claimed 28 delay days. CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERWL IS SUBJECTTO THE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRMLEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WRH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW RI REIS PIIOFf49gN.eL fDRPOeeT,ON THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR IMUT SIS-ISREN _ w�i o%we nisi 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET je LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9007 1-1 469 SUITE SAM 12131 626-8484 1.1 NARN —VIN RINKS' ..NN A LAINUAN LIMA M.FACSIMILE 12131626-0078 6°" °°14' N�r rbiNile 1—. .11 a NN October 26, 2001RANKS ANUMIERRRA A ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT ATTORNEY-CLW,NT PRIVQ.EGE John B. Bahroski City Manager City of Seal Beach 2118"' Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Recommendation on Resolution of So Cal Grading Claim Regarding Main Street Alley Improvements, Project 820 (the "Projeco Dear Mr. Bahroski: This letter outlines the results of recent settlement discussions between claimant Southern California Grading, Inc. ("SCG'), City staff, and the City Attorney's office. SCG was the general contractor on the Project. In short, SCG submitted a claim against the City totaling in excess of $182,132.00 for various claimed change order and delay damages arising out of the Project. After several significant settlement discussions, SCG has agreed to settle and compromise its claims for $79,000, subject to City Council approval. Set forth below is an analysis of SCG's claim, and our recommendation for the City's approval of this hard-fought settlement. 1. Background Facts The Project consisted of certain public works improvements in the alleys adjacent to Main Street. SCG was the lowest bidder, bidding $318,342.58 for the Project. The original start date was March 27, 2000, and the original completion date was June 26, 2000. SCG requested 56 additional working days; in contrast, the City granted only I I working days, and reserved its rights to assert liquidated damages. The City had claimed 28 delay days. CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERWL IS SUBJECTTO THE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRMLEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WRH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS RICHARDS, WATSON a GERSHON John B. Bahroski October 26, 2001 Page 2 CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY CLIENT ANOIOR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES . DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. Contrary to the normal course of business in public works projects, SCG was untimely in many of its change order requests, and had failed to properly and timely document many of its claimed additional work. It appears that SCG was fairly inexperienced in public works projects, and thus, unfamiliar with procedures and protocols with respect to claiming extra work. Instead, at various times near the conclusion of the Project, and after work was completed on the Project, SCG submitted 12 claimed items of additional work totaling $182,132.00. Enclosed is City staffs summary of each of these 12 claims. After reviewing SCG's documentation, City staff calculated that SCG had demonstrated an entitlement to only $16,900.00 additional monies in satisfaction of its claimed extra work totaling $182,132.00. Thus, in a letter dated May 14, 2001, the City "closed out" the SCG contract by positing that the final contract amount would be $340,570.58 (including the $16,900.00 claimed extra). Several months later, SCG retained legal counsel, and in a letter dated August 16, 2001, SCG submitted a clam against the City in an unspecified amount in excess of $100,000, i.e., presumably the $182,132.00 minus $16,900 already paid by the City. Thus, SCG tendered a claim against the City in a minimum amount of $165.232.00. 11. Settlement Analysis In late September, 2001, City staff with counsel, as well as various representatives of SCG and its counsel participated in an informal mediation in an attempt to resolve this claim. A survey of each of the 12 claims reveals that the sheer majority of the claims were relatively low figures. However, 3 of the 12 claims totaled roughly $79,000 were the major "big-ticket" items: (1) Claim No. 4 (Condition of Existing Water Main, SCG claiming $17,398.77); (2) Claim No. 9 (Gas Main In Sewer Trench, SCG claiming $39,603.90); and (3) Claim No. 10 (Sewer Encasement, SCG claiming $23,066.66). After the conclusion of several face-to-face discussions, City staff and its counsel determined that, if litigated, SCG would be able to present credible evidence and testimony to substantiate many of its claims. At the settlement conferences, SCG, for the first time, presented viable factual and legal theories to substantiate many of their previously undocumented claims. Moreover, the City's potential technical and proceduml defenses (such as untimeliness of their requested change orders, and non- adherence to "Greenbook" procedures for submitting and documenting additional work claim), both City staff and its counsel believed that SCG would nevertheless present compelling testimony and documentation to seek additional compensation based upon "quantum meruit" theories, i.e., an equitable doctrine allowing an aggrieved party's recovery for the reasonable value of the benefits provided to another party. For example, as to Claim No. 4, SCG demonstrated its ability to provide credible evidence and testimony that the poor condition of the existing water main had significantly contributed to the claimed additional work. Next, SCG and its subcontractor (Kennedy) submitted credible testimonials to justify the magnitude of claimed extra work caused by the unforseen gas main in the sewer trench. Finally, SCG demonstrated sufficient ambiguity in the plans and specifications to justify its claim for additional compensation for concrete encasement of the sewer lines. RICHARDS. WATSON a GERSHON CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY - John B. Bahroski CLIENT ANDIOR THE ATTORNEY WORN PRODUCT PRMLEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS October 26, 2001 HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS Page 3 Significant settlement negotiations resulted in SCG agreeing to compromise its claim by more than 50%, and accept a settlement in the amount of $79,000.00. This figure roughly equates to an acceptance of the three major clams (i.e., Claim Nos. 4, 9 and 10), and a rejection of the remaining 9 claims. In short, if accepted by the City, it appears this settlement would constitute a successfiJl and cost-effective compromise of legitimate claims of extra work. If the settlement proposal is approved by the City Council, we recommend that this dispute resolution be memorialized in a formal settlement agreement as SCG had presented the City With a formal claim. In the meantime, please call me if you have any questions or comments. Veryyours, /Q�Ifden Assistant City Attorney for the City of Seal Beach Enclosures S729610WIW71179.1 cc: Quinn Barrow, City Attorney; Doug Danes, Director of Public Works CLAIM # 1 Alley Alignment Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim 01: Alley Alignment Contractor's Statement from Request "There was an alignment conflict between the plans and survey stakes. Our surveyor staked the job correctly in accordance with the plans. After survey was completed it was obvious that the plans were drawn incorrectly. This resulted in additional concrete removal, and one day delay to the schedule, and additional costs over and above revenues earned by unit prices" What was the amount of $1,213.75 (Originally submitted $1,564.00) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 27, 2000 When was the City June 27, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3.5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: As stated in January 11, 2001 letter to Southern California Grading, the Engineering Division would process payment for the claim providing the Contractor supplied the appropriate Extra Work Reports and back up documentation as provided for in the "Greenbook" and Contract Documents. Extra work bills were properly submitted. However, there were two workers and a backhoe that did not show up on the construction manager's daily reports or the contractors daily reports. Also, the contractor was including a subcontractor mark-up which is not permissible when work is completed by his own forces. For these reasons the allowable payment for this request was approved at $800.81. Payment for this work has already been processed through City Council. A letter was written to the Contractor dated March 15, 2001 approving payment for $800.81. CLAIM # 2 Broken Water Services C Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim 92: 1 Broken Water Services Contractor's Statement from Request "During our demolition of the asphalt alley, our grinder hit a water services that was abandoned improperly. This service was within inches of existing finished service. This is not within code. We are requesting 1 day to the contract, plus associated costs for Kennedy Pipeline's repair." What was the amount of $486.26. (Originally submitted $577.50) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 27, 2000 When was the City June 27, 2000 Noted? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: As stated in January 11, 2001 letter to Southern California Grading, the Engineering Division would process payment for the claim providing the Contractor supplied the appropriate Extra Work Reports and back up documentation as provided for in the "Greenbook" and Contract Documents. The contractor submitted the proper paperwork. However, the hourly rate for the foreman was too high. When comparing the certified payroll hourly rate from the subcontractor, the construction manager noticed that the additional employer payments for insurance, vacation... added to the foreman's wage was not as high as that shown on the extra work bill. The construction manager added the appropriate benefits amount to the hourly wage from the certified payroll for a revised hourly rate acceptable to the City. Also the rental rate for the truck was higher than that specified in the Caltrans Rental rate book. Total amount approved for this work is $380.97. This amount has been processed through City Council for payment. A letter was written to the contractor, dated March 15, 2001 approving $380.97 forthiswork. i CLAIM #3 Cable TV too High Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #3: Cable N to High Contractor's statement from Request "During work period from 6/24/00 we encountered cable N consisting of (3) 2" conduits. These conduits were exposed as we excavated down to the subgrade. These utilities should have been relocated prior to our work. We informed Comcast and they proceeded to relocate their utilities. This resulted in a delay of 3 days to the construction schedule, and cost impact as shown above. See attached letter dated 6/26/00." What was the amount of $4,336.61 ( Originally submitted $5,308.40) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 24, 2000 When was the City June 26, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3.5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: It is our understanding, that at the comer of Main Street Alley and Electric Avenue, the existing cable line was shallow and needed to be relocated deeper. We understand that state law provides provisions to compensate the contractor for the costs of locating, and repairing damage not due to the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care, and removing or relocating such utility facilities not indicated in the plans and specifications with reasonable accuracy, and for equipment on the project necessarily idled during such work. Our construction manager received a letter dated June 26, 2000 from Anthony Cerisano, Southern California Grading, requesting two additional working days. The letter states these two additional working days were to cover delays caused not only by the cable line relocation but also a gas line conflict. The construction manager granted the two additional working days per the letter to allow the Cable Company to relocate facility. When your back up for the claim was reviewed, it was noticed that the Contractor is now claiming 3 working days for the Cable N relocation alone. This differed significantly from what was granted according to your previous letter. According to our inspector records and observations, contractor crews proceeded in other parts of the job with no apparent crews remaining idle. Therefore the City is not willing to pay for this claim since the Contractor retained production in other parts of the job and additional days were granted for the completion of the work. No additional compensation will be made for this item. *w yr CLAIM #4 Condition of Existing Water Main Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim ff4: Condition of Existing Water Main Contractor's Statement from Request "The condition of the existing water main was such that continual seepage deteriorated the subgrade and our trench backfill to the point that we were required to export this over saturated material and stabilize the subgrade with fabric and additional base rock. This is an unforseen existing condition beyond our control. Total delays for this work is 8 days." What was the amount of $17,398.77 (Originally submitted $28,093.35) the claim? When did the claim occur? March 30, 2000 When was the City July 7, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: The Contractor claims that the existing water main's continual seepage deteriorated the sub -grade and this caused extra work to achieve the necessary compaction. As mentioned in from this report in Claim #11: "The Contractor claims that the existing water line was 2" to 6" below sub -grade or approximately 24" below the original grade. Most waterlines back in the 1920's were often installed at a shallow depth and vary. The contractor's backup claims that the contract documents indicate that this line would be found at the same elevation as the proposed water main. Addendum it4, of the contract documents, show a cross section of existing and proposed water, sewer, and gas lines. The drawing is clearly labeled "Not to Scale." The dimension called out for the water line is designated that the new line be installed at a minimum depth of 3'. No "leader" line corresponds or references to the existing water line. Accordingly, the Contract Documents do not indicate that these lines are at the same depth but rather they are in the same general vicinity. Therefore, the Engineering Division does not concur with your statement that this is an unforeseen and changed condition" The area was dry. During the sewer work, no pockets of poor soil were encountered. Accordingly, this was not a condition that existed prior to the project except in the area adjacent to the Bank of America where the sprinklers were left on. The following is an analysis of the individual extra work bills submitted for this claim: 4a: No work was performed on this day, 7/22/00. This is evident in the daily work reports and the certified payroll. No payment will be made. 4b: The contractors daily report states that extra work was required due to poor compaction by the sub -contractor. No payment will be made. 4c: This bill is acceptable with the exception of the subcontractor mark-up. Material invoices must be submitted for the base rock material. The total amount of money that will be approved is $5,138.26 upon receipt of corresponding material invoices. 4d: Work shown on this extra work bill is contract item work. No additional compensation will be made to the contractor for this bill. 4e: Work shown on this extra work bill is contract item work. No additional compensation will be made to the contractor for this bill. 4f: Work shown on this extra work bill is contract item work. No additional compensation will be made to the contractor for this bill. 4g: Work shown on this extra work bill is contract item work. No additional compensation will be made to the contractor for this bill. Total compensation for this extra work will be $5,138.26 CLAIM # 5 Existing Tie Ins Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #5: Existing Tie Ins Contractor's Statement from Request "The water main tie ins required significant modification because the existing water main was not deep enough to match the new water main elevation. We were required to stop work and wait for design change as described in the attached CRSS letter 6/15/00. The modification delayed the job 3days in addition to the associated cost shown above." What was the amount of $3,766.95 (Originally submitted $2,625.00) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 27, 2000 When was the City June 27, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: As stated in January 11, 2001 letter to Southern California Grading, the Engineering Division would process payment for the claim providing the Contractor supplied the appropriate Extra Work Reports and back up documentation as provided for in the "Greenbook" and Contract Documents. The contractor submitted the proper paperwork. However, the foreman's hourly rate was incorrect as was the hourly rate for the truck. The rates were established as per the explanation in Claim number 2. A total of $3,755.95 is approved as long as the contractor submits material invoices for verification. The submittal of material invoices was expressed in the March 15, 2001 letter sent to the contractor. The amount of $3,755.95 was processed through City Council for payment. No material invoices have been submitted as of yet. CLAIM #6 Existing Utilities at Manhole Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim p6: Existing Utilities at Manhole Contractor's Statement from Request "We request an additional 6 days added to the Contract" What was the amount of $0 the claim? When did the claim occur? March 3, 2000 When was the City June 7, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor No claim for cost was made. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3.5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: The Contractor is claiming additional 6 working days. Payment for claims was dropped. The inspector job diaries do not reflect 6 working days but rather 2 working days. Two additional working days are granted. No monetary compensation will be made. CLAIM # 7 Extra Services Added Project: Main Street Ailey, Project 820 Claim 97: 1 Extra Services Added Contractor's Statement from Request "City added (1) Fire Service, (5) 1 '/z" Water Services, and (4) 2" water services. We are requesting 5 working days to the contract. Backup for Kennedy's work is forthcoming." What was the amount of $9,450 the claim? When did the claim occur? •" When was the City •'• Notified? Has the Contractor No, the paperwork supplied is not in accordance supplied the proper back with the provisions. There are no daily work up documentation in reports. accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? ••• Early on in the project the City Water Dept notified the Inspector that there are several meters in the Alley that are larger than 1" as the plans call out. The City and Contractor were aware and it was understood that the Contractor would only get reimbursed for the additional material size. Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: This request entails the upsize of water services from what was noted on the plans. According to the contractors backup, the City added one fire service, five 1 V water services, and four 2" water services. According to the contract documents, all water services were to be 1" services. The fire service was designated to be a 4" which was then upgraded to a 6" fire service. Therefore, the Engineering Division will only allow costs for the difference in material prices between five 1" services and five 1 %:" services and the difference between four 1" services and four 2" services. Also, the Engineering Division will only allow for the difference in material prices between 4" fire service in the contract documents to 6" fire service installed. No labor costs should be added since these were not additional services but rather services that were only upgraded. No back up information has been received from the contractor as of this time. CLAIM # 8 Gas Lines above grade C� Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #8: Gas Lines above Grade Contractor's Statement from Request "During the work period from 6/24/00 through 6128/00 we hit 4 gas lines. The first line was hit at station 7+85 on 6/24, the second was hit at 8+80 on 6/26, the third was hit at 7+40 on 6/24 and the last was hit at 6+00 on 6/28. The existing elevations of these gas lines was higher than the elevation of our subgrade. The condition was unforseen and resulted in delay of two working days plus associated costs above." What was the amount of$4,513.58 ( Originally submitted$4,977.20) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 24, 2000 When was the City June 26, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: As stated in January 11, 2001 letter to Southern California Grading, the Engineering Division would process payment for the claim providing the Contractor supplied the appropriate Extra Work Reports and back up documentation as provided for in the "Greenbook" and Contract Documents. The proper paperwork was submitted. However, the subcontractor mark-up was improperly applied. Total amount approved for this work is $4,103.26. This amount was expressed to the contractor in a letter dated March 15, 2001 and was also submitted to the City Council for payment. CLAIM # 9 Gas Main in Sewer Trench Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #g: Gas Main in Sewer Trench Contractor's Statement from Request "Trenching and excavating existing abandoned gas line (Existing water services were lying directly over the top of existing abandoned gas line, therefore, we were not able to rip the 2" gas line out as we were excavating. NOTE: Gas line was centered directly over the new sewer main which caused 3 hours per day for 43 days (sewer installation only):" What was the amount of $39,603.90 the claim? When did the claim occur? March 21, 2000 When was the City May 9, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted, supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3.5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: The City was not notified of any additional cost until well over a month from the start. Had the City been given the opportunity, it could have had the Gas Company remove the abandoned line at no extra charge or could have had City forces perform the work. No extra work reports were supplied so it is difficult to calculate the time delay damages. It seems excessive for removal of approximately 830' of abandoned gas line. If this work was done separately, it should have only taken 2 to 3 working days. Per section 3-3.3 of the Greenbook: Failure to submit the dally report by the close of the next working day may waive any rights for that day.' Additionally, section 201.5.11 of the Contract Documents: "The Contractor shall not do any extra work except upon prior written order form the Director of Public Works. Compensation for such extra work shall be agreed upon in writing by the Contractor and the Director of Public Works prior to the commencement of the work.' Since the Contractor did not give the City the opportunity to monitor and or decide on cost for this item, it should be responsible for its entire cost. What is even more perplexing, is that in Kennedy Pipelines' April 21, 2000 letter, the subcontractor states: "The problem isn't necessarily the gas line, but the existing water services were installed directly over the top of the abandon line gas line, with no sand, causing quite a bit more in locating the water service." The City's construction manager responded in writing, that this is not a changed condition in regards to the surrounding material around the existing water services and no additional compensation would be made. In correspondence, the Contractor is first claiming for locating water service lines but then well after claims for gas line causing delayed production. No additional compensation will be granted for this claim. The City's stance is that the contractor did not follow the proper procedures established in Section 3- 3.3 of the Greenbook and Section 201.5.11 of the project specifications. r %0 CLAIM # 10 Sewer Encasement V 0 Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #10: Sewer Encasement Contractor's Statement from Request The Contractor does not believe the price for encasement for the sewer was included in the contract. What was the amount of $23,066.66 ( Originally submitted $37,518.00) the claim? When did the claim occur? April 5, 2000 When was the City April 5, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: Early on in the project, the Contractor argued that the encasement for the sewer was not included in the project. The City's construction management firm responded in writing on April 10, 2000 that : -notes 2 on sheet C5 and 7 on sheet C6 call out for the sewer line to be encased per standard plan S-10. Second, the sentence of paragraph 20 of Section 204.7, Installation of Gravity Sewer Pipelines, cleady call out for encasement to be per standard drawing S- 10, Type A." Kurt Cutler, Southern California Grading, responded in writing on April 13, 2000: .you neglect to mention Note #1 of Detail S-10 which says encasement shall be used when cover is under 4' or over 20'. Pipe depths vary from 4.5' to 8' in depth, therefore, not requiring any encasement. Neither the drawings no the specification modify this detail to reflect specific requirements." We direct you to section 201.5.8 Contract Documents: Conflict of Terms which states: With reference to the Drawings the order of precedence shall be as follows: 1. Figures govern over scaled dimensions; 2. Detail drawings govern over general drawings; 3. Addenda/Change Order drawings govern over Contract Drawings; 4. Contract Drawings govern over standard drawings; (Bolded for emphasis). 4 The design engineer calls out on the plan (contract drawings) specifically to encase the sewer line. It was the design engineer's clear intention that the line be encased and he called out a standard drawing to show the method of encasement. Therefore, this price should have been included in the Contractor's bid. As a side note, similar specifications and plans were used on a previous project and the Contractor performed the work without any claim for additional cost. No additional compensation will be approved for this encasement work CLAIM # 11 Shallow Water Main Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #11: Shallow Water Main Contractor's Statement from Request "The above referenced delay of 5 days are a direct result of the existing water main elevation founded 2" to 6" below subgrade elevation. The contract documents indicated this line would be found at the same elevation as the proposed water main. This is an unforseen and changed changed condition. All construction activities were effected by this condition, but only the above cost have been submitted for review" What was the amount of $9,577.24 ( Originally submitted $19,351.70) the claim? When did the claim occur? " When was the City " Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook"7 "" Each time a leak occurred, the contractor was informed if the City would reimburse them or not. There would be no lag time here except for the days when the foreman said no extra cost would be bome by the City, which the Contractor is now claiming for extra payment. Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: The Contractor claims that the existing water line was 2" to 6" below sub -grade or approximately 24" below the original grade. Most watedines back in the 1920's were often installed at a shallow depth and vary. The contractor's backup claims that the contract documents indicate that this line would be found at the same elevation as the proposed water main. Addendum 94, of the contract documents, show a cross section of existing and proposed water, sewer, and gas lines. The drawing is clearly labeled "Not to Scale." The dimension called out for the water line is designated that the new line be installed at a minimum depth of 3'. No "leader" line corresponds or references to the existing water line. Accordingly, the Contract Documents do not indicate that these lines are at the same depth but rather they are in the same general vicinity. Therefore, the Engineering Division does not concur with your statement that this is an unforeseen and changed condition. L Additionally, on many occasions the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care around the existing water line caused many of the problems. Therefore, the Engineering Division will only pay for costs associated with Kennedy ticket numbers 7419, 7571, 7675 and 7576. All these will need to be changed to reflect the proper filing instructions as mentioned in this letter in accordance with the Contract Documents and the "Greenbook." As a side note, the Engineering Division did not receive the attached letter for which the Contractor is claiming $11,241.50. It is perplexing because on the last submittal, the Engineering Division did receive the attached letter but then the Contractor was only claiming $5,040. Nevertheless, all claims must be substantiated by proper documentation to be considered. The following is an analysis of the daily extra work reports for this claim: 11.1: City is willing to compensate labor for Manuel Lopez, 4 hours, Joe Valenzuela and Jamie Baez for 2 hours each. These hours and workers are from the construction managers daily reports. Pump and hose costs will also be covered. No other items will be paid for. It is the City's stance that the other time spent making repairs is due to the contractor's negligence. Total $363.99 11.2: Labor hours and workers and equipment types do not match construction managers daily reports. Also, material invoices are required prior to payment. Total $962.83. 11.3 Denied. There is no extra work ticket #7692 from Kennedy. 11.4 Labor hours and rates are somewhat incorrect, as are equipment rates and hours. Material invoices are required prior to approval of payment. Total $693.37. 11.5 The majority of the time and all the material on this report is due to contractor negligence. Total $220.33. 11.6 Denied. Damage was by contractor while installing sewer. 11.7 Denied. Damage was by contractor due to negligence. 11.8 Denied. What is this material for? 11.9 Denied. The contractor is required to make the proper connection per the contract. The connection of the new meter to existing home owner's pipe was not adequate and it leaked. This work is to repair the leak. The construction manager did request this to be done because it is within the contract requirements and there was a possibility of a rupture in the home owners line. 11.10 Denied. Kennedy was not on site today. The total additional compensation the City is willing to pay is $2,240.52. CLAIM # 12 Water Services Changed to J Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #12: Water Services Changed Contractor's Statement from Request "Water Department changed water meters from 1" to %". This resulted in a delay of 1 day to the schedule and the above cost impact. See attached letter from Kennedy Pipeline." What was the amount of $1,626.90 ( Originally submitted $1,679) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 19, 2000 When was the City June 19, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: It is our understanding, that this claim was caused because the 32 meters supplied by the City Water Department had 3/4" connections rather than 1" connections. Consequently, the Contractor had to purchase fittings to connect the 1" service lines to the City supplied meters. According to the paperwork provided, the Contractor is claiming extra work and that it took a total of 21 person hours to attach the fittings or 40 minutes per fitting. The Engineering Division discussed this matter with its Water Operations personnel. In their experience, it would only take 1 to 3 minutes per meter to install the necessary fitting to make the proper connection. This would total to a maximum of 96 minutes of extra work time. It was the Contractor's responsibility to install the original meters therefore the only allowable claim in time is the difference to install the fitting. Recommendation: No explanation was documented for the additional time. Although on premise, we agree that some compensation is due, we believe the claim is grossly inflated. Therefore, we recommend that the claim be decreased accordingly. The City is willing to compensate the contractor for 2 hours of the foreman's time, 2 hours of the equipment time, and the cost for the material. Material invoices must be submitted prior to approval of the additional compensation. Also, the foreman's rate and truck rate are in excess of the allowables. Total compensation is $424.10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 m of RICHARD B. ANDRADE, ESQ., CSB NO. 075702 3 I^ L ANDRADE S ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Jeffrey Corporate Centre AAkW0 5510 Trabuco9 � �' Irvine, CA 92620 Telephone: 999-553-1951 Facsimile: 949-553-0655 Attorney for Claimant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND CONTRACTORS, INC. CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND CONTRACTORS, INC., Claimant, V. CITY OF SEAL BEACH, Respondent. Case No.: GOVERNMENT CODE CLAIM TO CITY CLERK, CITY OF SEAL BEACH: Claimant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND CONTRACTORS, INC. ("SOCAL") hereby presents this claim pursuant to California Government Code § 910 against THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH (hereinafter "CITY") and makes the following statements in support of its claim: 1. Name and address of the Claimant is as follows Southern California Underground Contractors, Inc., P.O. Bo 1747, Brea, California 92622-1747. GOVERNP 0 NATAWUIIffAM. CA. IM"FJICAgMp. 1O B�m I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The address to which Claimant desires response to thi; claim to be sent is as follows: Richard B. Andrade, Andrade t Associates, Jeffrey Corporate Centre, 5510 Trabuco, Irvine, California 92620, Telephone Number: (949) 553-1951; Facsimile Number: (949) 553-0655. 3. SOCAL was the successful bidder on the project knowr as "Seal Beach Blvd. Rehabilitation, Project No. 49991 & 49757", City of Seal Beach, California (the "PROJECT") and entered intc a written agreement with CITY for the construction of the PROJECT. 4. The contract between the CITY and SOCAL provides in pertinent part as follows: 113-3 EXTRA WORK. "3-3.1 funeral. New or unforeseen work will be classified as extra work' when the Engineer determines that it is not covered by Contract Unit Prices or stipulated unit prices. "3-3.2 Payment. 113-3.2.1 General. When the price for the extra work cannot be agreed upon, the Agency will pay for the extra work based on the accumulation of costs as provided herein." 5. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follows: (A). On or about July 3, 2001, SOCAL notified CITY that th removal of base was not shown as a work item within the contrac between the parties. SOCAL further advised the CITY that i -2- GOVERNMENT C 6:\MTA\Rp11tp.G.VMRWIIpIpp-, [Ol1\4,1 lucp\plop\pwecltl n. Gec 1 order to meet finished grade prior to placing 5" of AC on 14" c 2 base, 1 to 2 vertical feet of existing soil and base would b 3 required to be removed and disposed of. Again, SOCAL advise 4 CITY that the contract between the parties did not contain a Bi 5 Item covering the removal and disposal of existing soil. 6 (B). SOCAL requested CITY to remove the soil and base o 7 alternatively, pay SOCAL to perform the work as Extra Work unde 8 the contract. The anticipated cost to perform this work is $3 9 per ton. 10 (C) . The CITY has refused to remove the soil and base an, 11 has further refused to pay SOCAL for the cost of performing sai, 12 work, in violation of the contract between the parties. 13 (D). CITY has directed SOCAL to perform the removal of th4 14 soil and base and SOCAL is presently performing this work under 15 protest. 16 6. The name of the public employees causing claimant'; 17 damages and interfering with payment to SOCAL under the contract 18 referenced above are: Gary Tomasetti, Bill Zimmerman, Doug Dane: 19 and Ron Brust. 20 7. The CITY has refused and continues to refuse to pal 21 SOCAL for the cost of performing the EXTRA WORK associated with 22 the removal of the soil and base, in the approximate amount of 23 $300,000.00. The refusal of the CITY to pay all sums owed is a 24 breach of the contract between the parties. 25 26 27 28 -3- GOVERNMENT CODE CLAIM s �x.uvavrxxo.u.wwxwowo-e.onv.a e..=mx, ee�a=•.=..... m= U 8. The claim as of this date is in an amount in excess $300,000.00, and will place this action within the jurisdict of the Superior Court. Dated: July 16, 2001 -ANDRA� & AS C RTES By: RICHARD B. ANDRADE Attorneys for Claimant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND CONTRACTORS, INC. _q_ GOVERNMENT C c:�nxeuaorxeex.u.vmeewwun-eemm.a s..�m,�aa�se.em.�..a.� PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 3 ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 4 1 am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. 1 am over the age of I a years and 5 nota party to this action. My business address is Jeffrey Corporate Centre, 5510 Tmbuco, Irvine, California, 92620. 6 On July 17, 2001,1 served the following document(s): GOVERNMENT CODE CLAIM 7 on the interested parties in this action as follows and by the method listed below: 8 CITY CLERK 9 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2118"' Street 10 Seal Beach, CA 90740 11 _ (Service By Mail) I caused such envelope, thereon, fully prepaid, to be placed for deposittelt55 01 Trabuco Irry return California, ee in thsted eoUged 12 States Postal Service. 1 am familiar with the regular mail collection androcesit Andrade & Associates that the mail would be deposited with the United States Postal Service sn of 13 that same day � In the ordinary course of business, and that the envelope was sealed and deposited 19 for collection and mailing on the above date following ordinary business practices. 15 — (Service By Federal Express or overnight delivery) 1 caused such envelope to be placed for deposit at5510 Tmbuco, Irvine, California,. I= familiar with the overnight delivery collection 16 and processing practices of Andrade & Associates that the mail would be deposited with Federal Express or overnight delivery service that same day in the ordinary course of business, and that 17 the envelope was sealed and deposited for collection and mailing on the above date following 18 ordinary business practices. 19CLX (Personal Service) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s). 20 — (Via Facsimile) By faxing copies to the person(s) and fax numbers listed above named. 21 XX (STATE) 1 declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California and the 22 United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct. _ (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at 23 whose direction the service was made. 29 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Cali 'a that the foregoing is 25 true and correct. Executed July 17, 2001 at Irvine, Cali mia. 26 27 RICHARD B. ANDRADE 28 G:mATA'So'n tmaNCA.UNDERGROUND-W37T d11 ac Pldglgwuleim.dm ND R: a .Canq.r. �IemB , wNn d rn MEInwW eMN4ee- Ipmty ,nN.a ef, ene eb. x .PMi your none ena aeeressmm.nWNuf m4lwmw mel we cwn mum lH. S.Anacnmi.iwnromerronl or rl»rrWlgeCL«wme 4ednwwe E^ee n'e o .Wnle'Rerum Rwaq PwuasreCwme meY«er�Wow Me enl Mleee .TM RYum RBCnP wlll Maw la wltlm tlY er141e Me eefvMen YM IM etle 5 b e ee /dtllM�to. 4e. APICISI (ala 1pann Yeo � also wish to receive the idlowing services (tor an egre fee): t, 0 Addressee's Address 2, O Restnded Delivery (gns,At P'."aster t.f tee. 4b. SOMIN - m * cmew btu C-lerL ❑ Registered Ci of 9¢nQ Uae.h. ❑ Epps s Mail ❑ INW°d (l l ",a, RecwV Mercb aloe 0 CAD q�lUO 7.Dotsdl Nome) ME . andleee or Agent X _ PS Fonn 3811, December 1994 loxesse�.eac UWr1D STATES POSTAL SMWICE ►► ►► ► Mei L ees Paka" • Pdrn your name, address, and ZIP Code In this box L --Wen, Tieder, Heller d PitrjmEld, LLP. 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1300 Irv* CA 92614 WATT, l 1EDER, HOFFAR & RTZGERALD, LLP ATTORNEYS AT UAW August16,2001 Via Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested Ms. Joann Yeo City Clerk City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Darold Peiper, Esq. Richards, Watson & Gershon 333 S. Hope Street, 38"' Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1469 Re: Claim Submitted by Southern California Grading, Inc. Main Street Alley Improvements, Project 820 Dear Ms. Yeo and Mr. Pieper: 3 Rae Raza Suite 1800 ImM, CWllornla 82816 Tabplvial 9r&e52-0100 Fe Mle: BIF281-0111 vww.w8i1 com This office represents Southern California Grading, Inc. ("Claimant") in connection with its work to construct the work of improvement known as Main Street Alley Improvements, Project 820 ("Project") for the City of Seal Beach ("City'). This claim for money damages is being submitted by Claimant against City pursuant to California Government Code Section 900 at seq. Additionally, Claimant requests an opportunity to meet with Deputy City Engineer Doug Dancs and any other necessary individuals in hopes of resolving this dispute prior to litigation. Claimant's name and post office address is as follows: Southern California Grading, Inc. 16291 Construction Circle East Irvine, California 92606 McLean, Mrglnla Washington, D.C. Florence. Italy Ms. Joann Yeo Darold Peiper, Esq. August 16, 2001 Page 2 2. Claimant requests that notices regarding this claim be sent as follows: Joseph C. McGowan, Esq. Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1500 Irvine, Califomia 92614 3. The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence which give rise to the claim are set forth in the attached letter from Mr. Dancs dated May 14, 2001, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Said letter from Mr. Dancs addresses the twelve separate claims of Claimant, agreeing to some in part, disagreeing with some in part and disagreeing with some of the claims altogether. Claimant hereby makes a claim with respect to those decisions of the City of Seal Beach Engineering Division that are contrary in full or in part to the claims Claimant submitted to City. Additional detail on each of these claims was submitted by Claimant to City in the form of "Daily Report/Bill for Extra Work" sheets for CCO #1 through CCO #12. These sheets are incorporated herein by reference. 4. A general description of the indebtedness to Claimant is also included in the above-described letter of May 14, 2001 from Mr. Dancs, and the above-described Daily Report/Bill for Extra Work sheets. 5. The persons responsible for the Claimant's loss are those involved in denying the change order requests of Claimant, including Mr. Dancs and others working within the City Engineering Division and representatives of CRSS/Sverdrup, the construction managers for the Project. 6. The amount sought exceeds $10,000, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. Although Mr. Robert Cutler, Claimant's President, is willing to make compromises to settle the numerous disputed issues, he believes the City has taken unreasonable positions in the above-described letter of May 14, 2001. He also believes that many of these decisions contradict agreements made by the City representatives during negotiations of these claims. Finally, he hopes that this dispute could be resolved as the result of a final meeting to discuss the City's "conclusions." Ms. Joann Yeo Darold Paper, Esq. August 16, 2001 Page 3 I will contact the office of Mr. Peiper during the week of August 20, 2001. 1 would appreciate it if Mr. Peiper could contact Mr. Dancs prior thereto to determine his availability for such a meeting. Very truly yours, WWTT, TIEDER, HOFFAR & FITZGERALD, L.L.P Jol eAfi C. McGowa JCM/Iml \/ Enclosure cc: Mr. Robert R. Cutler (without enclosure) Robert C. Niesley, Esq. (without enclosure) 38219 v1 May 14, 2001 to—A, Bob Cutler, President my 2001Southern California Grading Sa: 16291 Construction Circle East \p .. Ct_ Irvine CA 92606 \1c Dear Mr. Culler, �_ SUBJECT: Final Claims Decision by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer The Engineering Division and our construction managers, CRSS/Sverdrup, have extensively reviewed all of Southern California Grading's claims for this project and prepared the attached final claims analysis. A check in the amount of $41,081.22 will be issued, upon approval by Council, to the Contractor and will be full compensation for all remaining retention and any claims. The original contract amount was $318,342.58 and the final contract amount is $340,570.58. A copy of the final progress pay is attached. Please understand that Director of Public Works/City Engineer made this decision only after careful consideration of all the documentation. We believe it to be a fair and equitable conclusion to this matter. We hope this matter is settled but if you desire to pursue legal remedies, all further communications must be made attention to our City Attorney's office: Darold Peiper Richards, Watson 8. Gershon 333 S. Hope Street 38th Floor Los Angeles CA 90071-1469 Telephone: (213) 626-8484, Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 Thank you for your cooperation during the claim process phase. TDancougs, P.E. Deputy City Engineer cc: John Bahorski, City Manager Steve Badum, P.E., Director of Public Works, City of Seal Beach Gary Tomaseti, Contract Construction Manager, City of Seal Beach (CRSS) Darold Peiper, City Attorney, City of Seal Beach, (Richards, Watson & Gershon) B. Tilden Ktm, City Attorney, City of Seal Beach, (Richards, Watson 8 Gershon) Project File Letter File DD w m_. d N -•m o Y00 O w m V m D m U A W N 2 a .�. yTn N N N S3» W N d O m m J m U A W N+ � w 0 m 'c � c o T y VV�i n D D T 2 Ag m A m 1 o o: - p n g d ti S m a 1 0 n n' c e W m g O �mm ' 5�g � i r r W r T r T W m T m T (g!I D D T m�iilI D D (r/1 ril D Xm11 D> Xm11 Xm11 D y N Xm11 D X11 DDD m X11 D T' m T JD o O � -• .- N M 000 N M « y N y� O ' WO G lO Ol V m U S S S S S S� S S S S S o� U w tD N S N N P U t0 N r (� . M. fJ J N . tT O y� M O N O yds O � ' o a a w O 0 3 N � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a A m �,n a � o � N♦pp♦ Y mm � O:.dP. NN ywwy�I S O S S j� S 0 0 w+ S O S 4Ni O S O S S S O O S O O m p (8O N+ � mqq +OO iyI U88 N N 7 N N N y+y yOy yY>y wOwww (W(!!�� 8O yN O S� O S O S S S S S O S S S S O S S O O W OWI N> w m_. d W 1 o Y00 O w v_ rn 'm y C . N 3 o 3 n J � S3» � m d d d 6 O � w m 'c � c o w m_. d D e 7 � m� N O O � Q W a Gary Tomaseti, Contract Construction Manager, City of Seal Beach (CRSS) Darold Peiper, City Attorney, City of Seal Beach, (Richards, Watson d Gershon) B. Tilden Kim, City Attorney, Coy of Seal Beach, (Richards, Watson & Gershon) Project File Letter File DD CLAIM # 1 Alley Alignment Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #1: Alley Alignment Contractor's Statement from Request "There was an alignment conflict between the plans and survey stakes. Our surveyor staked the job correctly in accordance with the plans. After survey was completed it was obvious that the plans were drawn incorrectly. This resulted in additional concrete removal, and one day delay to the schedule, and additional costs over and above revenues earned by unit prices" What was the amount of $1,213.75 (Originally submitted $1,564.00) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 27, 2000 When was the City June 27, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: As stated in January 11, 2001 letter to Southern California Grading, the Engineering Division would process payment for the claim providing the Contractor supplied the appropriate Extra Work Reports and back up documentation as provided for in the "Greenbook" and Contract Documents. Extra work bills were properly submitted. However, there were two workers and a backhoe that did not show up on the construction manager's daily reports or the contractor's daily reports. Also, the contractor was including a subcontractor mark-up which is not permissible when work is completed by his own forces. For these reasons the allowable payment for this request was approved at $800.81. Payment for this work has already been processed through City Council. A letter was written to the Contractor dated March 15, 2001 approving payment for $800.81. CLAIM # 2 Broken Water Services Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #2: Broken Water Services acor's Statement from Request g our demolition of the asphalt alley, our grinder hit a water services that rbat ndoned improperly. Thisservice was within inches of existing finished e. This is not within code. We are requesting 1 day to thecontract, plus iated costs for Kennedy Pipeline's repair." What was the amount of $486.26. (Originally submitted $577.50) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 27, 2000 When was the City June 27, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" 7 Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: As stated in January 11, 2001 letter to Southern California Grading, the Engineering Division would process payment for the claim providing the Contractor supplied the appropriate Extra Work Reports and back up documentation as provided for in the "Greenbook" and Contract Documents. The contractor submitted the proper paperwork. However, the hourly rate for the foreman was too high. When comparing the certified payroll hourly rate from the subcontractor, the construction manager noticed that the additional employer payments for insurance, vacation... added to the foreman's wage was not as high as that shown on the extra work bill. The construction manager added the appropriate benefits amount to the hourly wage from the certified payroll for a revised hourly rate acceptable to the City. Also the rental rate for the truck was higher than that specified in the Caltrans Rental rate book. Total amount approved for this work is $380.97. This amount has been processed through City Council for payment. A letter was written to the contractor, dated March 15, 2001 approving $380.97 for this work. CLAIM # 3 Cable TV too High roject: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #3: Cable N to High Statement from Request eriod from 6/24/00 we encountered cable N consisting of (3) 2" rwork e conduits were exposed as we excavated down to the subgrade. should have been relocated prior to our work. We informed they proceeded to relocate their utilities. This resulted in a delay of 3 days to the construction schedule, and cost impact as shown above. See attached letter dated 6/26/00" What was the amount of 34,336.67 (Originally submitted $5,308.40) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 24, 2000 When was the City June 26, 2000 Notified? Has Contractor the Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: It is our understanding, that at the comer of Main Street Alley and Electric Avenue, the existing cable line was shallow and needed to be relocated deeper. We understand that state law provides provisions to compensate the contractor for the costs of locating, and repairing damage not due to the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care, and removing or relocating such utility facilities not indicated in the plans and specifications with reasonable accuracy, and for equipment on the project necessarily idled during such work. Our construction manager received a letter dated June 26, 2000 from Anthony Cerisano, Southern California Grading, requesting two additional working days. The letter states these two additional working days were to cover delays caused not only by the cable line relocation but also a gas line conflict. The construction manager granted the two additional working days per the letter to allow the Cable Company to relocate facility. When your back up for the claim was reviewed, it was noticed that the Contractor is now claiming 3 working days for the Cable N relocation alone. This differed significantly from what was granted according to your previous letter. According to our inspector records and observations, contractor crews proceeded in other parts of the job with no apparent crews remaining idle. Therefore the City is not willing to pay for this claim since the Contractor retained production in other parts of the job and additional days were granted for the completion of the work. No additional compensation will be made for this item. CLAIM # 4 Condition of Existing Water Main Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #4: Condition of Existing Water Main Contractor's Statement from Request "The condition of the existing water main was such that continual seepage deteriorated the subgrade and our trench backfill to the point that we were required to export this over saturated material and stabilize the subgrade with fabric and additional base rock. This is an unforseen existing condition beyond our control. Total delays for this work is 8 days.' What was the amount of $17,398.77 (Originally submitted $28,093.35) the claim? When did the claim occur? March 30, 2000 When was the City July 7, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: The Contractor claims that the existing water main's continual seepage deteriorated the sub -grade and this caused extra work to achieve the necessary compaction. As mentioned in from this report in Claim #11: 'The Contractor claims that the existing water line was 2' to 6' below sub -grade or approximately 24' below the original grade. Most waterlines back in the 1920's were often installed at a shallow depth and vary. The contractor's backup claims that the contract documents indicate that this line would be found at the same elevation as the proposed water main. Addendum #4, of the contract documents, show a cross section of existing and proposed water, sewer, and gas lines. The drawing is clearly labeled "Not to Scale.- The dimension called out for the water line is designated that the new line be installed at a minimum depth of 3'. No 'leader" line corresponds or references to the existing water line. Accordingly, the Contract Documents do not indicate that these lines are at the same depth but rather they are in the same general vicinity. Therefore, the Engineering Division does not concur with your statement that this is an unforeseen and changed condition." The area was dry. During the sewer work, no pockets of poor soil were encountered. Accordingly, this was not a condition that existed prior to the project except in the area adjacent to the Bank of America where the sprinklers were left on. The following is an analysis of the individual extra work bills submitted for this claim: 4a: No work was performed on this day, 7/22/00. This is evident in the daily work reports and the certified payroll. No payment will be made. 4b: The contractors daily report states that extra work was required due to poor compaction by the sub -contractor. No payment will be made. 4c: This bill is acceptable with the exception of the subcontractor mark-up. Material invoices must be submitted for the:base rock material. The total amount of money that will be approved is $5,738.26 upon receipt of corresponding material invoices. 4d: Work shown on this extra work bill is contract item work. No additional compensation will be made to the contractor for this bill. 4e: Work shown on this extra work bill is contract item work. No additional compensation will be made to the contractor for this bill. 4f: Work shown on this extra work bill is contract item work. No additional compensation will be made to the contractor for this bill. 4g: Work shown on this extra work bill is contract item work. No additional compensation will be made to the contractor for this bill. Total compensation for this extra work will be $5,138.26. CLAIM # 5 Existing Tie Ins Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim 85: Existing Tie Ins Contractor s Statement from Request "The water main tie ins required significant modification because the existing water main was not deep enough to match the new water main elevation. We were required to stop work and waft for design change as described in the attached CRSS letter 6/15/00. The modification delayed the job 3days in addition to the associated cost shown above." , What was the amount of $3,766.95 (Originally submitted $2,625.00) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 27, 2000 When was the City June 27, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: As stated in January 11, 2001 letter to Southern California Grading, the Engineering Division would process payment for the claim providing the Contractor supplied the appropriate Extra Work Reports and back up documentation as provided for in the "Greenbook" and Contract Documents. The contractor submitted the proper paperwork. However, the foreman's hourly rate was incorrect as was the hourly rate for the truck. The rates were established as per the explanation in Claim number 2. A total of $3,755.95 is approved as long as the contractor submits material invoices for verification. The submittal of material invoices was expressed in the March 15, 2001 letter sent to the contractor. The amount of $3,755.95 was processed through City Council for payment. No material Invoices have been submitted as of yet. CLAIM # 6 Existing Utilities at Manhole Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim Fb: I Existing Utilities at Manhole Contractor's statement from Request "We request an additional 6 days added to the Contrail" What was the amount of $0 the claim? When did the claim occur? March 3, 2000 When was the City June 7, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor No claim for cost was made. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: The Contractor is claiming additional 6 working days. Payment for claims was dropped. The inspector job diaries do not reflect 6 working days but rather 2 working days. Two additional working days are granted. No monetary compensation will be made. CLAIM # 7 Extra Services Added Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #?: 1 6dra Services Added Contractors Statement from Request "City added (1) Fire Service, (5)1 'h" Water Services, and (4) 2" water services. We are requesting 5 working days to the contract. Backup for Kennedy's work is forthcoming." What was the amount of $9,450 the claim? Whan did the claim occur? "' When was the City "" Notified? Has the Contractor No, the paperwork supplied is not in accordance supplied the proper back with the provisions. There are no daily work up documentation In reports. accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? """ Early on in the project the City Water Dept notified the Inspector that there are several meters in the Alley that are larger than 1" as the plans call out. The City and Contractor were aware and it was understood that the Contractor would only get reimbursed for the additional material size. Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: This request entails the upsize of water services from what was rated on the plans. According to the contractors backup, the City added one fire service, five 1 Y:" water services, and four 2" water services. According to the contract documents, all water services were to be 1" services. The fire service was designated to be a 4" which was then upgraded to a 6" fire service. Therefore, the Engineering Division will only allow costs for the difference in material prices between five 1" services and five 1 'h" services and the difference between four 1" services and four 2" services. Also, the Engineering Division will only allow for the difference in material prices between 4" fire service in the contract documents to 6" fire service installed. No labor costs should be added since these were not additional services but rather services that were only upgraded. No back up information has been received from the contractor as of this time. CLAIM # 8 Gas Lines above grade Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim $e: I Gas Lines above Grade Contractor's statement from Request "During the work period from 6/24/00 through 6/28/00 we hit 4 gas lines. The first line was hit at station 7+85 on 6/24, the second was hit at 8+80 on 6/26, the third was hit at 7+40 on 6/24 and the last was hit at 6+00 on 6/28. The existing elevations of these gas lines was higher than the elevation of our subgrade. The condition was unforseen and resulted in delay of two working days plus associated costs above." What was the amount of $4,513.58 ( 31Iginaly sub mitted$4,977.20) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 24, 2000 When was the City June 26, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3.5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: As stated in January 11, 2001 letter to Southern California Grading, the Engineering Division would process payment for the claim providing the Contractor supplied the appropriate Extra Work Reports and back up documentation as provided for in the "Greenbook" and Contract Documents. The proper paperwork was submitted. However, the subcontractor mark-up was improperly applied. Total amount approved for this work is $4,103.26. This amount was expressed to the contractor in a letter dated March 15, 2001 and was also submitted to the City Council for payment. CLAIM # 9 Gas Main in Sewer Trench Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #9: I Gas Main In Sewer Trench Contractor's Statement from Request "Trenching and excavating existing abandoned gas line (Existing water services were lying directly over the top of existing abandoned gas line, therefore, we were not able to rip the 2" gas line out as we were excavating. NOTE: Gas line was centered directly over the new sewer main which caused 3 hours per day for 43 days (sewer installation only):" What was the amount of $39,603.90 the claim? When did the claim occur? March 21, 2000 When was the City May 9, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: The City was not notified of any additional cost until well over a month from the start. Had the City been given the opportunity, it could have had the Gas Company remove the abandoned line at no extra charge or could have had City forces perform the work. No extra work reports were supplied so it is difficult to calculate the time delay damages. It seems excessive for removal of approximately 830' of abandoned gas line. If this work was done separately, it should have only taken 2 to 3 working days. Per section 3-3.3 of the Greenbook: - Failure to submit the dally report by the close of the next working day may waive any rights for that day.' Additionally, section 201.5.11 of the Contract Documents: 'The Contractor shall not do any extra work except upon prior written order form the Director of Public Works. Compensation for such extra work shall be agreed upon in writing by the Contractor and the Director of Public Works prior to the commencement of the work' Since the Contractor did not give the City the opportunity to monitor and or decide on cost for this item, it should be responsible for its entire cost. What is even more perplexing, is that in Kennedy Pipelines' April 21, 2000 letter, the subcontractor states: "The problem Isn't necessarily the gas line, but the existing water services were installed directly over the top of the abandon line gas line, with no sand, causing quite a bit more in locating the water service." The City's construction manager responded in writing, that this is not a changed condition in regards to the surrounding material around the existing water services and no additional compensation would be made. In correspondence, the Contractor is first claiming for locating water service lines but then well after claims for gas line causing delayed production. No additional compensation will be granted for this claim. The City's stance is that the contractor did not follow the proper procedures established in Section 3- 3.3 of the Greenbook and Section 201.5.11 of the project specifications. CLAIM # 10 Sewer Encasement Project:Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #10: 1 Sewer Encasement ContractoPs Statement from Request The Contractor does not believe the price for encasement for the sewer was included in the contract. What was the amount of $23,066.66 (Originally submitted 37,518.00) the claim? When did the claim occur? April 5, 2000 When was the City April 5, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" 7 Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: Early on in the project, the Contractor argued that the encasement for the sewer was not included in the project. The City's construction management firth responded in writing on April 10, 2000 that: 'notes 2 on sheet C5 and 7 on sheet C6 call out for the sewer line to be encased per standard plan S-10. Second, the sentence of paragraph 20 of Section 204.7, Installation of Gravity Sewer Pipelines, clearly call out for encasement to be per standard drawing S- 10, Type A.' Kurt Cutler, Southern California Grading, responded in writing on April 13, 2000: .you neglect to mention Note k1 of Detail S-10 which says encasement shall be used when cover is under 4' or over 20'. Pipe depths vary from 4.5' to 8' in depth, therefore, not requiring any encasement Neither the drawings no the specification modify this detail to reflect specific requirements. - We direct you to section 201.5.8 Contract Documents; Conflict of Terms which states: With reference to the Drawings the order of precedence shall be as follows: 1. Figures govern over scaled dimensions; 2. Detail drawings govern over general drawings; 3. Addenda/Change Order drawings govern over Contract Drawings; 4. Contract Drawings govem over standard drawings; (Bolded for emphasis). The design engineer calls out on the plan (contract drawings) specifically to encase the sewer line. It was the design engineers clear intention that the line be encased and he called out a standard drawing to show the method of encasement. Therefore, this price should have been included in the Contractors bid. As a side note, similar specifications and plans were used on a previous project and the Contractor performed the work without any claim for additional cost. No additional compensation will be approved for this encasement work. CLAIM # 11 Shallow Water Main Project: Main Street Alley, Project 820 Claim #11: Shallow Water Main Contractor's Statement from Request "The above referenced delay of 5 days are a direct result of the existing water main elevation founded 2" to 6" below subgrade elevation. The contract documents indicated this line would be found at the same elevation as the proposed water main. This is an unforseen and changed changed condition. All construction activities were effected by this condition, but only the above cost have been submitted for review" What was the amount of $9,577.24 ( Originally submitted $19,351.70) the claim? When did the claim occur? " When was the City Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3- 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? " Each time a leak occurred, the contractor was informed if the City would reimburse them or riot. There would be no lag time here except for the days when the foreman said no extra cost would be bome by the City, which the Contractor is now claiming for extra payment. Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: The Contractor claims that the existing water line was 2" to 6" below sub -grade or approximately 24" below the original grade. Most waterlines back in the 1920's were often installed at a shallow depth and vary. The contractor's backup claims that the contract documents indicate that this line would be found at the same elevation as the proposed water main. Addendum q4, of the contract documents, straw a cross section of existing and proposed water, sewer, and gas lines. The drawing is clearly labeled "Not to Scale." The dimension called out for the water line is designated that the new line be installed at a minimum depth of 3'. No "leader" line corresponds or references to the existing water line. Accordingly, the Contract Documents do not indicate that these lines are at the same depth but rather they are in the same general vicinity. Therefore, the Engineering Division does not concur with your statement that this is an unforeseen and changed condition. Additionally, on many occasions the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care around the existing water line caused many of the problems. Therefore, the Engineering Division will only pay for costs associated with Kennedy ticket numbers 7419, 7571, 7675 and 7576. All these will need to be changed to reflect the proper filing instructions as mentioned in this letter in accordance with the Contract Documents and the "Greenbook." As a side note, the Engineering Division did not receive the attached letter for which the Contractor is claiming $11,241.50. It is perplexing because on the last submittal, the Engineering Division did receive the attached letter but then the Contractor was only claiming $5,040. Nevertheless, all claims must be substantiated by proper documentation to be considered. The following is an analysis of the daily extra work reports for this claim: 11.1: City is willing to compensate labor for Manuel Lopez, 4 hours, Joe Valenzuela and Jamie Baez for 2 hours each. These hours and workers are from the construction managers daily reports. Pump and hose costs will also be covered. No other items will be paid for. It is the City's stance that the other time spent making repairs is due to the contractor's negligence. Total $363.99 11.2: Labor hours and workers and equipment types do not match construction manager's daily reports. Also, material invoices are required prior to payment. Total $962.83. 11.3 Denied. There is no extra work ticket #7692 from Kennedy. 11.4 Labor hours and rates are somewhat incorrect, as are equipment rates and tours. Material invoices are required prior to approval of payment. Total $693.37. 11.5 The majority of the time and all the material on this report is due to contractor negligence. Total $220.33. 11.6 Denied. Damage was by contractor while installing sewer. 11.7 Denied. Damage was by contractor due to negligence. 11.8 Denied. What is this material for? 11.9 Denied. The contractor is required to make the proper connection per the contract. The connection of the new meter to existing home owners pipe was not adequate and it leaked. This work is to repair the leak. The construction manager did request this to be done because it is within the contract requirements and there was a possibility of a rupture in the home owner's line. 11.10 Denied. Kennedy was not on site today. The total additional compensation the City is willing to pay is $2,240.52. CLAIM # 12 Water Services Changed Project: Main Stre=82020Claim #12: Water Se[Kennedy ntractoris Statement from Request ater Department changed water metershis resulted in a delay1 day to the schedule and the above cottached letter from Pipeline." What was the amount of $1,626.90 ( Originally submitted $1,679) the claim? When did the claim occur? June 19, 2000 When was the City June 19, 2000 Notified? Has the Contractor Yes, extra work billing was submitted. supplied the proper back up documentation in accordance with Section 3. 3 Extra Work and Section 3-5 Disputed Work of the "Greenbook" ? Engineering Division Analysis and Discussion: It is our understanding, that this claim was caused because the 32 meters supplied by the City Water Department had 3/." connections rather than 1" connections. Consequently, the Contractor had to purchase fittings to connect the 1" service lines to the City supplied meters. According to the paperwork provided, the Contractor is claiming extra work and that it took a total of 21 person hours to attach the fittings or 40 minutes per fitting. The Engineering Division discussed this matter with its Water Operations personnel. In their experience, it would only take 1 to 3 minutes per meter to install the necessary fitting to make the proper connection. This would total to a maximum of 96 minutes of extra work time. It was the Contractor's responsibility to install the original meters therefore the only allowable claim In time is the difference to install the fitting. Recommendation: No explanation was documented for the additional time. Although on premise, we agree that some compensation is due, we believe the claim is grossly Inflated. Therefore, we recommend that the claim be decreased accordingly. The City is willing to compensate the contractor for 2 hours of the foreman's time, 2 hours of the equipment time, and the cost for the material. Material invoices must be submitted prior to approval of the additional compensation. Also, the foreman's rate and truck rate are in excess of the allowables. Total compensation is $424.10.