Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
Box 502 - Strope Outline...etc,
STROPE OUTLINE EDUCATION AND BACKGROUND Attended Meridian I figh School. entered the Army when I was 18. After 1 had been in a couple of years 1 was recommended for promotion to sergeant and was attending night school working towards an Associates Degree. I earned my assoeiates degree and applied for Officer Candidate School in 1983. I graduated at the top of my OCS class and was assigned to Yurna Arisona. Following my three year tour, 1 applied for a program to complete my hachelor's degree in Accounting and in 1987 attended Boise State University. I graduated in 1988 with honors. In 1991 the Army assigned me to the [University of Idaho where 1 taught in the ROTC department for thur years. while there 1 served on the school board and enrolled in the Master of Public .Administration program, graduating in 1994. Following that 1 was assigned to Germany where I was a community commander. the military equivalent ofa City Manager, ibr three years. In 1999 I retired from the Army after 21 years so my children could start and finish high school in the same place —during the first 20 years my wife and 1 were married I moved her 11 times. After a year in retirement 1 heard about the job in McCall and was selected from a field of 63 applicants. NO EXHIBITS qgz.7 i 9 22 CJNT�� 4/12/20049:54 PM1117inanceO\STAFF\Puhlie\1Jsers1Manager\My 1 Documenls\Pro,jects\J Ditch Ph Illtrial outline narrative2.doc SITUATION WHEN I ARRIVED BID OPENED MORATORIUM IN PLACE The bids for the .1-Ditch project were opened 1 believe the week helorc I started work on May l'1. 2000. l walked in and found that the City of McCall was under a moratorium on sewer connections. the conditions to lift the moratorium included entering into a contract for the construction of the .1-Ditch storage lagoon and starting the irrigation season. St. Clair contractors was the apparent_ low responsihle bidder. For the purposes of defining a responsible hidder, a major factor was the contractor's ability to provide the required bonding for the project. NO EXHIBITS 4/12/20049:54 PMlll inancc0lS'IAITIPubliclUsers\ManageriMy Documents\Projectsl.t Ditch Ph Illtrial outline narrative2.doc MY TASK GET CONTRACT A WA RDED HELP WITH CHANGE ORDER ONE ADMINISTER CONTRA C T ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIP WITH REGULA TOR Y AGENCIES As City Manager, I was responsible for the administration or the project and was the primary representative for the City of McCall. The first thing l was involved with was working with the project Engineer--.i1JI3, and St. Clair, to make changes to bring the contract price in line with the available funds. I'he result of those efforts was change order numher one. Also very early on 1 was introduced to Mr, Steve West of DR), I can't recall the date of our rneeting but am certain it was in May of 2000. Kirk Eimers and Allan Muller had arranged for me to go to Boise with them and we met a variety of key people I would be working with in my new position, such as the City's auditors. Mr. West was one o[those key people. NO EXIIIBITS 411E2120049:54 PM1ll'inanceO\S"l'A1 F\Puhlicli sersiManauer\Mv I)ocutnents\ProjectslJ Ditch Ph 111tria] outline narrative2,doc EARLY IN TIIE PROJECT Early in the project it became apparent they were not making adequate progress on the project. 1 recall a construction progress meeting in which Paul Levihn told the contractor that they did not have enough equipment on site to complete the project, scrapers specifically. As the summer turned to fall. it hccame more apparent that the contractor was behind. NO EXHIBITS 4112/20049:54 PM1Winancc01STAFF\Pub]ic\lisers\Manager\My 4 Documents\Projects\J Ditch Ph Illtrial outline narrative2.doc ORDINANCE CHANGE WHAT IS AN ORDINANCE BOW QUICKLY CAN YOU DO IT An Ordinance is the mechanism used to amend the City Code which is in effect the laws of the community. Any time you change a law you must provide an opportunity to allow people to voice their opinions. you mull conduct the discussion in an open meeting of the City Conncil. and the Council must take action in open session. Generally what will happen is either the staff or the Council will communicate a desire to make a change, a draft ordinance is prepared, reviewed hy the City Attorney. added to an agenda, and heard hy the Council. Based on our meeting schedule, if you wanted to change the law, it would lake a minimum of two weeks. normally' at least four to make a change given the ohligation to make sure the community is aware of an issue and the fact that our offieial newspaper. the StarNews. is published once a week. DID YOU REVIEW THE RECORDS OF COUNCIL MEETINGS TO SEE WHAT THE TIMELINE WAS FOR COUNCIL ACTION —AND WHAT DID YOU LEARN A review of the August 101° Council Meeting minutes has a report front .TUB but there is no mention of a request to do 24 hour operations. A review of the August 24th Council Mceling minutes shows that the City Clerk will Noise Ordinance drafted fbr the next meeting. This tells me that sometime after the 10t. the request was made and the City took action. The item was on the next regular Council meeting agenda, and was adopted on Septernher 14, 2000. At that same meeting, Council approved Si. Clair to work extended hours. The report to the Council on the 28'f' was that a night crew was working. The contractor began 24 hour operations and was making good progress, but ceased the extra shills belore catching up. 'IThis was very frustrating because at the time we thought he was going to gel back on schedule. EXHIBITS —WE CAN USE THE COUNCIIL MEETING NOTES IF NEEDED W1 NEED ST. CLAIRS' LETTER ASKING TO AMEND THE AUGUST 10 MEETING NOTES COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: 8/10/00; 8/24/00; 9/14/00 4/12/20049:54 PMlll'inanceOISTAFF\PuhliclUsers\Manager\My 5 Documcnls\ProjectsN.I Ditch Ph 11\trial outline narrative2.doc AT SOME POINT THE CITY PREPARED A LETTER OFFERING TO PAY FOR THE. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEBRIS PITS AND AN INCENTIVE OF $50,000, WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THAT CAME ABOUT By the time we started working on the letter offering St. Clair compensation for the dehris pits it was clear that he was behind. and that there were sorne costs associated with the additional work that he had to do. Based on those two facts. we wanted to try to resolve things and get him to get back on schedule so we could get the project completed. It was, and remains our position that St. Clair was entitled to additional compensation for the debris pits and even though they didn't follow the claims process. we attempted to resolve the matter by offering the iiiore than $100.000 in compensation outlined in the letter. The letter also spoke of other things we were willing to adjust in the contract to save time. Mr. St. Clair rejected the proposal and did not provide a specific counter-offer that would allow us to negotiate a resolution. ASIDE FROM TRYING TO GO THE EXTRA MILE AND COMPENSATE THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DEBRIS PIT EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE CLAIM PROCESS, WAS THERE ANY OTHER REASON YOU SENT THE SEPT II LETTER? 1l was our belief that fall that St. Clair was the only option for completing the project and eliminating the discharge into the river. We knew that we could not find a new contractor that could mobilize and complete the project any faster that Si. Clair was doing it —we also did not know the hill extent of the defects at that time. I.ate into the fall it hceame apparent that St. Clair would not meet the Novemher 2" dale. We had a numher of meetings with the regulatory agencies providing them information regarding the status of the project. We relayed St. Clair's assertions that they were cominitted to completing the project and made it clear the City was committed as well. EXHIBITS —OFFER LETTER STROPE TO ST. CLAIR 9/11/00; ST. CLAIR TO STROPE 9/18/00, MAYBE AUGUST 30 LETTER? 4/12/20049:54 PMIII'inance0\STAFI"\Puhlicltlscrs\Manager\My 6 I)ocurncnts\Projcctsl.T Ditch Ph II\trial outline narrative2.doe LINER During the fall and early winter of 2000 Scrrot. the liner subcontractor, began installation of the finer. At one point .IUB recommended payment for a portion of the liner. We subsequently received a letter in November of 2000 from Serrot stating that they could not assure the quality of any of the liner work. Around this same time frame St. Clair abandoned the project site and we had no assurances that St. Clair or Serrot would return to complete the work. Based on this, .1t1B revised the recomtnendation for payment to exclude a significant portion of the liner. This position was the only practical alternative given the level of uncertainty. I fully believed that the City might be forced to find a new liner subcontractor to install a new Iiner because I was told that no liner contractor would warranty the work of someone else. I think it is also important to note that the contract called for a 20 year warranty on the liner, something that the City still does not have as evidenced by Wausau's request we pay for work done to fix defects in the liner in 2003. EXHIBITS—SERROT LETTERS, THE HAND WRITTEN NOTE FROM GEORGE AND MATT, MY HAND WRITTEN NOTE TO BILL THAT IS NOT AN EXHIBIT THAT SIIOWS IT WASN'T CHARGED TWICE. BILL, NOT SURE IF I NEED TO COVER ANYTHING ON LINER GIVEN MATT'S TESTIMONY —IF ANYTHING I SHOULD TALK ABOUT THE NO DOUBLE WITHHOLDING FOR THE LINER 4/12/20049:34 PMI\Finance0\STAFF\Public\Ilsers\ManagerlMy 7 Documents\Projectsl.l Ditch Ph llltrial outline narrative2.doc NEGOTIATIONS WITH ST. CLAIR Following mediation the City was still prepared to have St. Clair complete the project and wanted to be able to come to resolution with St. Clair if possible. I personally discussed with Randy St. Clair the City's desire to work things out after he sent the rejection letter to us following mediation. I told hint that by simply rejecting the City's oiler, it left us no choice and we couldn't negotiate against ourselves. We discussed his snhmitting a letter that gave us a counter-offer that we could consider. I am not sure if I told him specifically that one of our higgesl concerns was the threat of what regulatory agencies might do. but I am certain that he was aware of our concerns and our desire to have him and/or Wausau assurne that risk. When we got the counter-offer and it didn't provide for an assumption of that risk, it was really pointless to continue to attempt to negotiate, there were. no significant concessions on 5t. Clair's part, and we had to get the project completes so the City rejected the offer and terminated the contract. It was and is my belief that Wausau saw the threat as real and was unwilling to assume the risk. one of the key conditions Ibr continuing with St. Clair was their acceptance of the risk associated with any fines levied by the regulatory agencies. It was our fear that we would face fines in the range of S25,000 per day if we did not complete the project. Apparently Wausau and St. Clair also saw this as a real threat and rejected our proposal. This was probably the most critical item and it was clear that they were riot going to step up. EXHIBITS --CITY OFFER, ST CLAIR REFUSAL ANI) I IIS COUNTER OFFER, C1'I'Y TERMINATION STROPE TO ST. CLAIR 2/16/01, WAUSAU 2/14101 LETTER, ST CLAIR 1/31/01 LETTER, STROPE 215/01 TO ST CLAIR, 4/'12/20(149:54 PM11Finance0IS'I'AF1'11'uhliclllscrs\Manager\My Documents\Projectsl,l Ditch Ph II\trial outline narrative2.doe Hx LETTER Concurrently with our efforts to reach an agreement with St. Clair and Wausau we began looking at the real possibility of having to terminate St. Clair. One of the options under the performanec bonds was for the City to complete the work. and to that end we asked JUI3 to look into potential completion contractors. We believed that we would have to react very quickly in order to meet the new deadline of .tune 1. 2001 if we terminated St. Clair and it was vital to he ready to 2ct a replacement contractor. As part of this process, J1JB drafted a letter that contained a list items to complete and forward it to HK. It is my understanding that this letter was at one point thought to he a complete list of work remaining on the project, an incorrect understanding that I clarified with Judith ltheinschmidt of Wausau. 1 distinctly recall her responding to correspondence of minc confirming her knowledge that the contract was the scope of work. not the 1-IK letter. Ultimately the City made the decision to terminate St. Clair. During the time that we were considering termination. it vas important to take actions on several parallel courses given the tight timcframes we were operating under. We had .ILIB looking at possible replacement contractors: we attempted to negotiate with St. Clair for continuation on the project; and we sent the required notices to St. Clair and Wausau for termination. Once our efforts to negotiate a satisfactory resolution with St. Clair. we terminated therm for default. 1 remember speaking to Randy St. Clair about our efforts. specifically about their rejection of our offer that immediately followed mediation. I told hint that his flat our rejection. without a counter -proposal left the City without options. It was after that telephone conversation that we received his offer that we ultimately rejected. 1 felt we had made it very clear that the most important aspect of any agreement for St. Clair to continue was their assumption of the risk if the project was not done by June 1, 2001—specifically that they would pay any lines and penalties levied by the regulatory agencies. EXHIBITS-11K LETTER AND WAUSAU TO STROPE 3/15/01 BILL, 1 COULD COMMENT ON JUDITH'S LETTER ACKNOWLEDGING IT IS'N'TA SCOPE OF WORK —I THINK MATT DID OK WITH THE NOT A SCOPE OF WORK 4/12/20049:54 PM11Pinancc0\STAI F\Puhliclliscrs\Manager\My 9 Documcnts\Projects\J Ditch Ph II\trial outline narrative2.doc PAYMENT of 5370,000 I understand there are some questions regarding the payment of funds previously withheld by the City that we made to St. Clair around this time. I recall drafting a letter that accompanied the payment which referred to our belief that Si. Clair was committed to completing the project. I also understand that it may he confusing because within days ofmakin this payment, we made the decision to terminate St. Clair. I think the payment was made for the reasons stated in my letter. but that the inability of St. Clair and Wausau to provide the City with adequate assurances that they would complete the project by June 1. 2001 offset the good intentions expressed by St. Clair that helped motivate the payment. I also believe that we felt it was important to give the benefit of the doubt to the contractor in regard to payment and that making the payment was appropriate. This does not negate my belief that our original decision to withhold payment was justified. EXIIIBITS----LETTER OIJTL.ININCG PAYMENT, JUB REDUCTION IN PAYMENT LETTERS 4/12/20049:54 1'MUinanceo\STAFF\Publiellisers\Manager\My I Documents\Projectsl.l Ditch Ph Illtrial outline narraiivc2.doe COMPLETION OF THE WORK As we moved into the spring of 2001 and Intcrwest began work on the project it became apparent that there were significant problems with some of the work St. Clair performed. I recall Interwest excavating an area that St. Clair had tilled in because .IIIH said St. Clair had not properly installed a section of 24 inch pipe. What we discovered was St. Clair had filled in the trench with snow and fro7cn dirt and had not properly bedded the pipe, jeopardizing the integrity of the piping. We also began to try to resolve the lack of testing of the pipes that connect the storage lagoon with the primary wet well. and the defects relating to the construction of the wet well itself. During mediation and our attempts to resolve the issues that might have allowed St. Clair to complete the job..11113 had identified concerns about the wet well. Wausau was adamant that there wasn't anything wrong with the wet well, an assertion that proved incorrect when we tested the wet well and found it had significant problems. The City tried very hard to come to a resolution with Wausau regarding the defective wet well but at every turn Wausau-s theme was that there wasn't anything wrong hut that they would do anything ,IUI-3 directed them to do. Wausau wouldn't offer any options or possible solutions which was difficult given they had the responsibility to complete the project to the contract DID THE CONTRACT STATE THE CONTRACTOR WAS TO RECOMMEND SOLUTIONS FOR DEFECTS? What was particularly frustrating about this situation was the efforts made by RIB to resolve the issue in the form of a change order. .PUB believed that Mr. John I:igler was in a position to negotiate the specifics of a change order to address the problems and that Wausau would act on his recommendation. They worked with Mr. 1•:igler and Interwcst on a draft change order --- change order numher 3. This was eventually rejected by Wausau, and Wausau refused to correct defects identified by J l 1 B. We also attempted to resolve this situation by drafting a work change directive, which Wausau refused to comply with. This necessitated the City entering into a contract with Contactors Northwest, Inc. for the correction of defective work, One of the functions CNI performed for the ('itv was a test of the primary wet well. This test revealed that the work was defective —in [act several lifiing holes in the concrete structure that had been filled in by St. Clair failed causing damage to the project that had to be corrected. EXHIBITS --LETTERS FROM WAUSAU STATING NOTHING IS WRONG, ETC. BILL, I THINK MATT'S COVERAGE OF THIS IS ENOUGH 4/12/20049:54 PM111 inance0lSTAFF\PubliclUsers\Manager\My 11 ❑ocuments\Projccts\J Ilitch Ph Illlrial outline narrativc2.doc CHANGE IN CONTRACTORS St. Clair was the original contractor We terminated them, and Wausau decided to bring back Intcrwcst to complete the project. While we were not pleased with that choice. we did not have an option to exercise in that regard. While it is true that lnterwest was arguahly in a position to know what work was remaining and had some history on the.joh, they were also part of the team St. Clair had put together that had railed to complete the project on lime. It was good that they were able to gel Serrot to return to complete the liner because we were worried that another liner contractor would have to be found and the entire liner would have to either be removed and replaced or covered with a new liner. As it turns out, Serrot's return may not have been for the hest given the detects we have subsequently discovered. 4/12/20049:54 PM11PinanccO\S'1 AFF\PuhliclUscrs1ManagerlMy 12 DocumentslProjccts\J Ditch Ph Illlrial outline narrative2.doc CNI In the fall of2001, Contractors Northwest, Incorporated was brought in after Wausau's refusal to correct defective work. While Wausau contends that the project was complete in June of 2001. we were [breed to complete over $400,000 in work relating to correcting defective work that Wausau should have taken care of. We selected CNI because they were working on a project fbr the City and had demonstrated an ability to complete construction projects on time and on budget. CNI stepped in and did a great job for the City of McCall. BILL, I THINK MATT'S TESTIMONY IS ENOUGH ON THIS 4/12/20049:54 PMl\Finance0\STAI F\Public\Uscrs\Managcr\\1y 13 Documents\Projects\J Ditch Ph 1I\trial outline narralive2.doc REGULATORY AGENCIES BOR—Ron Golus: Mr. Golus was the person who processed our requests for grant funds to pay for the construction. Ile was very helpful. Ile spent a great deal of time working with the City in an attempt to resolve the challenges of requesting funds when we began withholding funds. The primary problem we encountered was the mathematical logic required on the form itself —it contemplated a project with no withholding and made no provision for liquidated damages. We finally resolved the issues. EXHIBITS —LETTER FROM ME TO BOR STATING NO PAYMENT FOR WORK ALREADY PAID FOR Mr. Gregg: During a meeting told the City that we would have to reinstitute a moratorium on sewer corneetions. Also indicated that we might lose the remaining grant funds given the fact that the project was not complete and we were hcyond the June 1. 200I date. EXHIBITS —LETTER FROM BOR 10119101 DEQ---on the management side we dealt primarily with Stephen West. While DEQ and EPA did not and has not levied fines against the City for being out of compliance with the amended consent order. the consistent theme was that they were real possibilities. that if the City did not continue to do everything, we could to complete the project there would he real consequences —the two things most often referred to were a reinstatement of the moratorium on sewer connections and fines. I believe EPA would actually impose the tines as opposed to DEQ. Given that the City had been subject to a moratorium when I first arrived, it was a real threat and 1 took it very seriously. I am convinced that if the City had discharged into the river after the start of the irrigation season in 2001 we would have been fined. We certainly would have had the moratorium back in place. EXHIBITS —AMENDED CONSENT ORDER, SHOW THE SECTION ON WHAT HAPPENS IF WE ARE NOT COMPLETE: MY LETTER TO DEQ STATING WE ARE NOT IN RIVER 1DWR--IDWR had responsibility for the dam aspects of the project and held the authority to allow for filing the lagoon. They granted temporary and conditional permission to fill the lagoon to certain levels, based on the project status. EPA ---It was my impression that EPA deferred to DEQ on most aspects of the compliance with the consent order —hut retained overall authority as they issued the consent order and amended consent order. 4/12/20049:54 I'M11Financc01S fAFF\PublicltIscrs\Manager\My 14 Documents\Projects\l hitch Ph 111trial outline narrttive2.doc DA MAGES The easy to track damages are those that arc tied directly to repairing defects or are things like legal fees or engineering costs related to the defects or fact that the contractor didn't complete the joh as required under the contract. The damages that are more difficult to quantify, but are very real. are those that resulted from the failure of the contractor to complete the project. For the public, it isn't St. Clair contractors or some insurance company' from another state that didn't get the project done —it is the City of McCall. The negative puhlicity has a real. hut unknown impact, on those who are considering McCall as a place to live. to remain, or to do business. In terms of quantifying some of this impact, I requested our community development director prepare a document for me that attempts to put this into perspective. I•;XHIBITS --- STROPE TO WAUSAU 9/17/01 THAT INCLUDED L1NDLEYS MEMO 4/ 1 2/20049:54 PM\\F'inance(\S TAI F\Public\Users\Manager\Mv ] 5 Documents\Projcctsl.l ()itch Ph II\trial outline narrativc2.doc DID THE CITY REQUIRE WAUSAU TO STATE THEY WORLD PAY UNDER 6.2 BEFORE YOU PAID THEM? The Council originally included that provision in their motion to approve the first pay application hased on concerns 4/ 12/20049:54 PM\IFinance0IS'I'AF1'\Public\1Jscrs\Manager\My Documents\Projects\J Ditch Ph IIltrial outline narrativc2.doe CONTACTING WA USA U In October we contacted Wausau about the pmhlcros we were having and ultitnatcly found ourselves in mediation with the contractor and Wausau. In preparation for mediation, Kirk Rimers provided me a note outlining his suggestions regarding the City position. A numher of his recotnmendations were ultimately incorporated into the proposal the City submitted to St. Clair in an effort to resolve matters prior to termination. BILL —DON'T THINK THIS NEEDS ANY CHAIR TIME 4112/20049:54 PM\\Finanee0\STAFI \Publicllscrs\Manager\My 17 Documents\Projects1.1 Ditch Ph I1\trial outline narrativc2.doc LS 5_— tc,i4 P r—�k-f— A t 5 p rt— A pr f°r -4 5 (Z- u.—6 `) a u g u 7)4 1 (Z— s z571 A4c,c '�- rJ•u•B A h r �,L G a 2n J l J August 7, 2000 Mr. Randy St. Clair St. Clair Contractors, Inc. 111 E. 40th Street Boise, ID 83714 J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 BoLse, Idaho 83709-0944 208-376-7330 FAX: 208-323-9336 Dear Mr. St. Clair: RE: City of McCall J-Ditch Phase II, Construction Schedule and Work Progress We are writing this letter to you to express our concerns about the current project schedule, proposed schedule, and the general progress of work for the above referenced project. An initial project schedule was submitted by you on May 18, 2000 at the preconstruction meeting. At this time the schedule was received by us and was subsequently reviewed and accepted as the project schedule. The Contract Time commenced to run on May 17, 2000 and work at the site began shortly thereafter. Based on our on -site observations, it became evident that the work was not proceeding as outlined by your schedule. Items of work that were slated to begin at the start of the project were delayed and some items that were scheduled to start later in the project were started prior to the dates indicated on the original schedule. Throughout the project, we have had weekly progress meetings to discuss the project and you have attended all but one of these meetings. At each of these meetings the subject of the schedule has been discussed. At each of these meetings you were asked how you felt things were progressing in relation to the work and schedule and you had indicated that you felt that you were a week or two behind, but felt that this time could be made up as you moved to different items of work, replaced inexperienced employees with those having more experience, and brought additional equipment to the site on an as needed basis. Beginning June 29, 2000 and continuing to the current time, you were asked at each of the weekly meetings to submit a revised schedule because of the discrepancies between the original schedule and the actual work being done on the project. On July 31, 2000, you submitted a revised schedule for review. After reviewing the proposed revised schedule, we are unable to accept the schedule. The reason for our inability to accept the revised schedule is primarily due to the fact that the revised schedule shows a completion date of November 25, 2000, which is after the completion date of November 2, 2000 stipulated by the contract. Until such time that a revised schedule is submitted and accepted in accordance with Section 6.04 of the General Conditions we will not be able to recommend to the City, of McCall that future applications for payment be paid. The procedure we are following is outlined in the General Conditions and is specifically spelled out in Sections 14.02.B. and Article 15.02.A. We are informing you of this situation at this time in hopes that a satisfactory progress schedule can be established in the next few days and we will be able to recommend payment of the current application for payment to the City prior to the Council meeting on August 10, 2000. rstUB i ilc c r Sur\ c vnrs F'I,innc•r; 0 Nor We are willing to work with you on the schedule issue and will make all reasonable efforts, as allowed by the contract documents, to resolve this issue and to make it possible for us to give a recommendation for payment to the City of McCall. Sincerely, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. f j J. Matt Uranga, P.E. Project Engineer JMU:lhc cc: Robert Strope, City of McCall F:\projects1116221admin\StClair 8-7-9Q.doc CITY OF MCCALL CITY MANAGER October 13, 2000 City- Council City of McCall 216 East Park Strect McCall, ID 83638 re: J-Ditch Dear Mr. Major and Members of the Council: Attached is a copy of a letter that I asked JUB to prepare regarding the J-Ditch project. More specifically, I asked for a description of what the project should "look like" on October 12, 2000 in terms of being able to have the liner installation substantially complete by the first week in November. On October 12, I met with JUB at the J- Ditch and reviewed the work progress, listed below are remarks relating to each of the areas addressed in JUB's letter. Based on the review it is apparent that the contractor will not meet the November 2, 2000 contract date. We did update Mr. Jack Gantz of DEQ on Thursday following the weekly meeting so he is aware of our concerns. I will discuss this with Mr. Steve West as soon as possible. I did send Mr. West an e-mail early this week on this topic but he has been unavailable. General Excavation/Embankment: The general excavation is acceptable, and perhaps slightly ahead of the rarget in the letter. The embankment is behind and is closely ried to the slope trimming. This is not a serious concern given the liner situation. Liner/Geocomposite: The sub-coutracror has laid a portion of the Gcoconiposite, but has not begun laying liner. What is particularly disappointing is the belief that they could have done some work on Wednesday while it was not raining. Based on the JUB letter, they should have had the south and east dike interior slopes completed by October 12, 2000. Slope 'Trimming: Work on the slope trimming is on schedule. Surface Preparation for the Liner: Work on surface preparation is on schedule. Under drain System: Work on under drains is on schedule with the exception of the toe drains, this is not a concern at this rime. Inlet Structure: This is nor complete. JUB's position is that this work should be completed before the liner is placed in this area, but the contractor does have the option to lay the liner first. 216 Ea't Park Street • McCall, Idaho 83638 • (208) 634-1003 • PAX (208) 634-3036 In summary, the contractor has failed to achieve the level of progress needed to substantially complete the liner portion of the project by the first week in November. Additionally, his lack of progress casts serious doubt on his ability to complete the project at any date this fall. The contractor has submitted an unacceptable schedule that has the pond ready for filling on November 29, 2000. Based on the best information available, and given the unpredictable weather conditions, we are exploring the following options: A) Status Quo --present the contractor with the progress payment when funds are received and continue to make payments even though it is apparent the contractor will not meet the November 2, 2000 contract date. Under this option we would maintain our expectation of substantial completion this fall and not approve any schedule submitted that has a completion date beyond November 2, 2000. It is highly probable rhat some work would not be completed due to the winter weather under this option. B) The City, after conferring with the appropriate agencies, could plan for and authorize a winter shut down and require the current contractor to return in the spring to complete the project. This would be done under strict conditions that would include the requirement that the contractor bear the burden of all expenses related to the shutdown. These costs would include, but not be limited to the increased expense of demobilization and mobilization as well as the costs to repair any weather related damages to work already completed. C) JUB can withdraw its' recommendation for payment of application number 4 because the contractor has not met the requirements of the contract and withhold the progress payment until he is back on schedule or meets a determined level of progress. If we withhold the funds, it is highly likely the contractor will cease work. Should that occur, we would seek to recoup damages through his bond. It is important to note that the contractor told JUB that he has already discussed default with his bonding company and they are prepared to litigate as opposed to honor the bond. I will contact the bonding company to address the issue of their honoring the performance bond and provide follow up details on that conversation. D) Terminate the Contractor for Cause under article 15.02 A. 1. The City would then pursue completion of the project next year and look to recoup damages using the contractor's bond. Under this scenario we would not make the progress payment recommended by JUB as allowed under article 14.02 D. 1. d. Options A and B allow for the possibility of completing much of the work this fall, most importantly they are the options that would allow for completion of the liner installation. The liner installation is key in two regards. First, it protects and October 12 update.doc 2 preserves the dike and slope construction already completed. Second, it potentially allows for filling of the pond beginning this fall, with completion of the other components of the project to follow. Under options C and D another contractor would complete the project and be faced with significant reworking of the project due to weather damage over the winter. I am not yet prepared to nuke a recommendation to Council on which option we should select, but in all likelihood it will be some combination of options A and B. We must confer with the agencies involved in the ramifications of not complying with the consent agreement before making any decision. We are seheduling a meeting for October 19 in Boise with the appropriate agencies. Following that meeting we will not only have a better understanding of the ramifications of not meeting the November 2"`' date, but also an additional week of progress by the contractor to help evaluate the situation. Very Respectfully, Robert A. Strope City Manager Attachment Cc: Dave Bietcr, CiLy Attorney George Wagner, P.E., J-U-B Kirby Vickers, P.E., J-U-B Marr Urtnga, P.E., PU-B Bill Keating_ Director of Public Works October 12 updaLe.doc 3 CITY OF MCCALL CITY MANAGER September 25. 2000 Randy St. ('lair St. (lair ('ontraelors 111 E. 4(Y Street Boise, ID 8371.1 RE: Repolbe to your letter of September 1 S. 2000 Dear ,Mr. St. Clair: At sonic plate in our contract, the notices are required to he given to .1-U-13 EN(;INEF.RS and:'or the City of McCall. \\There a notice is required to ire ticnt to the City of McCall. ; ou should use the address for ct\ in1i notices in ourcontract. I have referred } our tenet of September 18, 2000, dealing. w tth the project schedule, to Regarding my letter of September 11, 2000. 15e did not mean to present you w ith an unreasonable response dedline. I1'our incentives and other proposals «-ere to mike a difference in your completing the .1-Ditch project on schedule. we hel.eved that we needed to \yolk out an aereemcnl in a short time frame. We are available to diyeuss our proposal with you this week, Please call me with your schedule. Sincerely, Robet t :ti. Strope City Nlanager RS:eb 216 East Park Streit • McCall, Idaho 8363E • (208) b31-1003 • TAX (208) 634-3038 STROPF OU 1 LINE EDl 1 CA'I ION AND BAC KG RUl IN D Attended Meridian I1igh School, entered the Army when I was 18. After 1 had heen in a couple of years 1 was recommended for promotion to sergeant and was attending night school working towards an Associates Degree. I earned my associates degree and applied for Officer C'andidale School in 1983. 1 graduated at thc top of'my OCS class and was assigned to Yuma Arizona. Following my three year tour, I applied for a program to complete my bachelor"s degree in Accounting and in 1987 attended Boise State t Iniversity, I graduated in 1988 with honors. In 1991 the Army assigned me to the University of Idaho where I taught in the ROTC C department for four years, while there I served on the school hoard and enrolled in the Master of Puhfic Administration program, graduating in 1994, Following that 1 was assigned to Germany where I was a community commander_ the military equivalent of a City- Manager, for three years. In 1999 1 retired from the Army after 21 years so my children could start and finish high school in the same place --during the first 20 years my wife and 1 were married I moved her 1 I limes. After a year in retirement I heard about the.joh in McC'alI and was selected from a field of 63 applicants. SITUATION ION WHEN 1 ARRIVE) BID OPENEI) MORATORIUM IN PLACE The bids for the .1-Ditch project were opened I believe the week before I started work on May 1'`. 2000. I walked in and found that the City of McCall was under a moratorium on sewer connections_ the conditions to lift the moratorium included entering into a contract for the construction of the J-Ditch storage lagoon and starting the irrigation season. St, Clair contractors was the apparent, low responsible bidder. For the purposes of defining a responsible bidder, a major factor was the contractor's ahility to provide the required bonding for the project. MY 'TASK GET CONTRACT AWARDED) HELP WIT11 CHANGF. ORI)I:R ADMINISTER CONTRACT ESTABI.ISII RF.LA'I IONSIIII' WITI1 REGULATORY AGENCIES As City Manager, I was responsible for the administration of the project and was the primary representative far the City of McCall. The first thing 1 was involved with was working with thc project Engineer -.l IB. and St. Clair, to make changes to bring the contract price in line with the available funds. The result of those efforts was change order number one. Also very early on 1 was introduced to Mr. Steve West of DFQ. 1 can't recall the date of our meeting but am certain it was in May of 2000. Kirk Fimers and Allan Muller had arranged for me to go to Boise with them and we met a variety of key people I would he working with in my new position, such as the City's auditors. Mr. Wes( was one of those kcy people. 4/ 12/20048:40 PMl\Finance01ST AFF1Puh1icll Jsers\Manager\My ❑ocuments\Projectsll Ditch Ph Ilitria! outline nariativc2.doc I:ARI,Y IN THE PROJECT Early in the project it became apparent they were not 'flaking adequate progress on the project. I recall a construction progress meeting in which Paul Levihn told the contractor that they did not have enough equipment on site to complete the project, scrapers specifically_ As the summer turned to fall, it became more apparent that the contractor was behind. 4/ 12/20048:40 P MI1r i n ancc0l S' l'A F 11Pu h l i cl I ] scrs\Manager\M y I)oc a me n is\Pro j ec tslJ Ditch Ph Illlrial outline narrativc2.doc '4* Memo To: From: Date: Re: City of McCall, Idaho Community Development Department Robert Strope Lindley Kirkpatrick, AICP May 11, 2000 J Ditch update prior to tonight's Council meeting JUB has completed their Change Order negotiations with St. Clair. Some items have changed, resulting in a net increase in the contract amount of $34,906. The attached summary sheet identifies the revised cost Figures. The contract amount, including change order #1, is now $3,764,937. The total project costs are estimated to be $4,011,937. I told George that I thought that the project could still proceed. Paul and George both told me that JUB has responded to the items that IDWR asked for in their letter. Paul has spoken to Sonny Hornbaker at IDWR who told him that although we will not have a written approval from them by tonight. IDWR has no problems with JUB's response Steve West told Paul that DEQ is comfortable with the City awarding the contract based on the approval we have already received from IDWR. In Paul's opinion, we should award the contract tonight. Paul spoke to both Steve West and Jack Gantz about the change order. They have reviewed the change order. Although they do not have a written response, they have told Paul that they see no significant problems. They both told him that the City can approve the change order tonight. JUB will have the contract, the change order and the notice to proceed for Council's approval. I asked Cathleen to copy the DEQ and IDWR approval letters for the Council. I did not ask her to copy the budget summary. Yesterday's Advocate included an article that talked a lot about potentially cutting the sodium hypochlorite generator. We should emphasize that this contract includes the disinfection system as originally designed. 1- ; '-Y OF MCCALL ti s May 31, 2000 Steve West, Regional Administrator Boise Regional Office Division of Environmental Quality 1445 N. Orchard Boise, ID 83706-2239 Dear Mr, West: As of October 1, 19991 the City of McCall voluntarily imposed a ban on any new connections to the City's wastewater treatment system until the conditions outlined in the Amended Consent Order signed in December of 1999 were rnet. The City of McCall has met the conditions and will be lifting the voluntary suspension of sewer connections as of May 31, 2000. The City of McCall started irrigation operations on May 30, 2000 for the season of 2000 and the notice -to -proceed was issued to St. Clair Contractor's Inc. to begin construction of the winter storage facility on May 11, 2000. Both of these items were required in order to lift the voluntary suspension of new connections to the wastewater treatment system. Please feel free to contact me at the number listed below should you have any questions. Sincerely, -.Robert A. Strope City Manager jJ"� n. r"/'' 1/ ~- 216 East Park Street • McCaI1, Idaho 83638 • (208) 634-7142 • FAX (208) 634-3038 etc°re \\TTcst I)1:Q \X N•- 208-373-0287 ]']].r .1 NL '•1[11 R 208-3 7 3-0550 k]. ❑ vj ;i• \ ] NLYJ vso C I 'I' Y 0 I NI C (T ,1 I, L 216 I•::1S"1 PARK STREET NE C C .1 I. I. I I) 8 3 6 3 8 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SI-IEET 01ORR1''1111 I Itc I11 Cadil«n I och 1) 11.1 5/31 /00 Ni.), (11 Ir 1C 1-, IN[ I L DING [;()1E.it 11,N1)] IC'. lil r i ALM 1 `.i."•:lii-]1 63-4-4852 1115 i2 I:S I I ii1 il-i "-L-'•[[;I-.: ❑ I'].E 1 i' L".lr !\[1'� 1 ❑ 1'1-! .1S1'- MT; 1" LINER During the fall and early winter of 2000 Scrim., the liner suhcontractor, hem installation of the liner. At one point J1JR recommended payment for a portion of the liner. We suhsequcnlly received a letter in November o1-'2000 from Serrot stating that they could not assure the quality of any of the liner work. Around this same time frame St. Clair abandoned the project site and we had no assurances that St. Clair or Serrot would return to complete the work. Based on this. JU I3 revised the recommendation for payment to exclude a significant portion of the liner. This position was the only practical alternative given the level of'uncertainty. I fully believed that the City might be forced to find a new liner subcontractor to install a new liner because I was told that no liner contractor would warranty the work of someone else. 1 think it is also important to note that the contract called for a 20 year warranty on the liner. something that the City still does not have as evidenced by Wausau's request we pay for work done to fix defects in the liner in 2003. EXxr]3] I S—SERR[ T 1.F I [ LRS 4/ 12120048:40 PMIIFi nanee0\STAFF\Pu hl is\Users\Manager\My Documen ts\Proj ectsl.l Diteh Ph ll\trial outline narrativc2.doc PAYMENT of $370.000 l understand there are some questions regarding the payment of funds previously withheld by the City that we made to St. Clair around this time. I recall drafting a letter that accompanied the payment which referred to our helie[that St, Clair was committed to completing the project. 1 also understand that it may be confusing because within days of making this payment, we made the decision to terminate St. Clair. I think the payment was made for the reasons stated in my letter, but that the inability of St, Clair and Wausau to provide the City with adequate assurances that they would complete the project by June 1.2001 offset the good intentions expressed by Si, Clair that helped motivate the payment. 1 also believe that we felt it was important to give the benefit of the doubt to the contractor in regard to payment and that making the payment was appropriate. 1 his does not negate my belief that our original decision to withhold payment was justified. EXHIBITS —LETTER Ot J'I'LINING PAYMENT, TUB REI)UJC'TIUN IN PAYMENT UTTERS JV�S -eII5/;5 /totY LS- c)"I 037dA- 4112!20048:4(} PM11Finance01ST AIT 1Publicli Jsers\Manager\My 1)oeurnents\Pro_j ectsl.i Ditch Ph 111trial outline narrative2.doc " r J - U . B 1 J a n u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 0 1 M r . R a n d y S t . C l a i r S t . C l a i r C o n t r a c t o r s 1 1 1 E . 4 0 t h S t r e e t B o i s e , I D 8 3 7 1 4 D e a r R a n d y : R E : A n a l y s i s o f C o s t s J - U - B E N G I N E E R S , i n c . E N G I N E E R S " S U R V E Y O R S " P L A N N E R S 2 5 0 S o u t h B e e c h w o o d A v e n u e , S u i t e 2 0 1 B o i s e , I d a h o 6 3 7 0 4 0 9 4 4 2 0 6 - 3 7 6 - 7 3 3 0 F A X : 2 0 6 - 3 2 3 - 9 3 3 6 U n d e r t h e a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d b y y o u r a t t o r n e y d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 0 1 , w e a r e p r o v i d i n g t h i s l e t t e r a n d t h e a t t a c h e d w o r k s h e e t a s a c o n f i d e n t i a l s e t t l e m e n t c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h e w o r k s h e e t i n c l u d e s o u r e s t i m a t e o f t h e c o s t o f w o r k b a s e d o n u n i t p r i c e s , c h a n g e o r d e r s , t h e d e b r i s p i t s , w o r k c h a n g e d i r e c t i v e s a n d d e f e c t i v e w o r k . T h e p r o p o s e d s e t t l e m e n t o f $ 3 . 7 m i l l i o n w a s c a l c u l a t e d b y s u b t r a c t i n g l i q u i d a t e d d a m a g e s f o r s e v e n m o n t h s a t $ 3 1 5 , 0 0 0 f r o m o u r e s t i m a t e d c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t o f $ 3 , 9 8 3 , 7 4 0 . T h e C i t y M a n a g e r h a s s t a t e d t h a t i t i s n o t t h e i n t e n t o f t h e C i t y o f M c C a l l t o g a i n a w i n d f a l l i n l i q u i d a t e d d a m a g e s b e c a u s e t h e p r o j e c t w a s n o t c o m p l e t e d o n s c h e d u l e . T h e C i t y d o e s , h o w e v e r , n e e d t o r e c o v e r e x t r a c o s t s i n c u r r e d b e c a u s e o f t h e e x t e n d e d c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d . T h e s e c o s t s , t o d a t e , h a v e b e e n p r i m a r i l y e n g i n e e r i n g a n d l e g a l . s e r v i c e s , b u t t h e y c o u l d i n c l u d e l o s s o f s e w e r h o o k u p s a n d a g e n c y f i n e s . I n a d d i t i o n t o f i x i n g t h e d o l l a r a m o u n t o f t h e c o n t r a c t , t h e C i t y w a n t s t o a d d r e s s t h e d e l a y s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m e d i a t i o n o f f u t u r e d i s p u t e s a n d t h e r i s k s a n d c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f a i l u r e t o c o m p l e t e t h e p r o j e c t b y J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 1 . T h e C i t y i s p r o p o s i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s b e m o d i f i e d t o r e m o v e t h e m e d i a t i o n p r o v i s i o n . T h e r i s k s a n d c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f a i l u r e t o c o m p l e t e t h e p r o j e c t b y J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 1 , c o u l d b e a d d r e s s e d b y a s u b s t a n t i a l l i q u i d a t e d d a m a g e s p r o v i s i o n o r a g u a r a n t e e t h a t y o u w i l l p a y f i n e s a n d o t h e r c o s t s a n d l o s s e s s u f f e r e d b y t h e C i t y a s a r e s u l t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n e x t e n d e d p a s t J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 1 . T h e p o t e n t i a l c o s t s i n c l u d e l o s t r e v e n u e s f r o m h o o k u p f e e s . I h a v e a p p r e c i a t e d y o u r w i l l i n g n e s s t o d i s c u s s t h i s m a t t e r p r i o r t o m e d i a t i o n . D o n o t h e s i t a t e t o c a l l M a t t U r a n g a o r m e i f y o u h a v e q u e s t i o n s o n o u r c a l c u l a t i o n s . S i n c e r e l y , J - U - B t N G i N E E R S , I n c . G e o r g e L . W a g n e r , P . E . V i c e P r e s i d e n t G L W : l h c c c : J . M a t t U r a n g a , P . E . R o b e r t S t r o p e , C i t y M a n a g e r D a v i d H . B i e t e r , M o o r e S m i t h B u x t o n E t T u r c k e F : 1 p r o j e c t s 1 1 1 6 2 2 \ a d m i n / m e d i a t i o n p r o p o s a i . d o c I f " 4 , TABLE 1 20 0TS Lc eeenv e-un cued i i EMS INCLUDED IN THE BID SCHEDULE 81D ITEM 13ESCRIPT10N 1 Moblltlflion 2 ❑errwbinrahon 3 Tre5eo Gemini 4 Clean end Lind na 5 5. i , o11 Malenel end Relncale E001 rip Tgpfmr meee•eel 6 e Er5IirliN zu.sle 5100101es flap reIncairosl 7 T�p o! Alke Frnel [!radios 5 S�1dae1eApsppce Rued end eeyeweye 9 011.Is ({N pe order 1l 10 CSep (Aces order 1JJ 11 Deleted rr1en0e order 1 12 Land 'e Beth 13 Rebr le seine -rises 14 Chem Line Fence end Owes 15 PVC Coaled Cnem L'n§ Fence 16 30/1em IExuvo15n 17 Dela Embankment 17s Arnehre Adryelmenl for decrease en Deka Embenkmani 15 Ow Excaveleon Ise 60.914 Oromerearene Liner- Pe/nolrelions and Appurlenence s 20 Liner Anchor Trench 21 e' Blonkel f)rern Pod. P� 22 4' Peroreled Trerlen Dram Pipe 23 4' Floor Dre In Per Pipe 24 6' Floor Die In Peif Pepe 25 6' floor Omen Parf Pepe 26 el' Toe Lhaln Pad P,,(�ppa4 27 F. Toe Ure1n Per, Fipe 2P 9' To. Oren Peri Plne 29 e' Trereom1elon Pipe NOPEI 3C T{lMmieslpn Poe �110PE1 31 3' Trsnernielenn P9pSe/ ++++HOPE1 32 10-1ranenermon Rae HOPEI 34 10' baneriesmon P 6 �h8] - - 34 12'lrenern.arniaegn MDP1 35 10 15411smissi0n P Ipi!' 30 15' llansrepon a p1UPl n 37 15'Tr8nlrni6,,n P OtP1 3B 4' Irnemis5nte Slone rain Poe 35 Llnaerd em ftanieolea 40 Ga9Cnmp0alre 40e 1 emena151pp.Vre09fa110n 4, C'rsrn.mcv6nAle alnaOP Trdnemi8al00 Pop42 43 I Construction Dewererin5 44 1 24. 001-See brans Poe 45 20Du-SeteDreeaJTpB 46 0f1aee Draruge Afsnnge 47 Quiet Promotion • Off5na 04a,na AS P16o 48 $od'menleleon Pend 49 Eillusnlirenerler Slryctu rp end Removal or Aaanonnmenl (1 Pipe end Weew9,I 50 24' a 24 $J� Gels at Eill Leenl Transfer 51e11d- 51 24' Low Pressure Pion • Heearvpll Mlluer! 52 , 24' Butty Valve - Near Pue1O 51e11on 53 Sp,�tre Pfe .v0rjplel Structum 54 le' Loh,P e ure pe • Reeerwlr Influen' 55 116' Force Main to J-I]rtM Una 56 110' Force Mein to Filter Doalilp Strucure 57 I Rotor Doslr15 Ste4dn Mpd'108 ons 65 10' Omverve - Near Filter Dosing Siruceun• 5'• I1-51" Process %Haler Line 60 1-1 e7' CNIonno Soluleon PIos 61 l.1,2' Sump Fuer Aecner50 Line 62 1 • Infwent end Elnuenl PIN far Chorine Residual Ano.Yn'r 63 15rggppe.11er Meier end 5..q r Porno 64 I'Arisen,' Pump Siete,- SRe k9,6. 66 Ellluent Pump Sra1.0n - Sinecure! 66 Damara Pvmo�Slalror - Meassni ea' 67 Ellluenl Pur.15 Ink m - Conrad 5w1,1,nn 6B EIluenl Pump Station - Elscincel 69 Miscellaneous Mechanics: 70 Pnme�' Orr -Solt Elnr[rypel Servwe 7' DMlllfacann Fogenv • Srnadure 72 Dlelnlncienn Fecl'Iv • Mechanical 73 DINnlecson Fecrnv • DD.Ir-r3lecliilsn Fr oRMnl 74 75 - j{e{Ipcn[e Cn on�ne Ikel1Ouel Ar41yy' arfumen1e11pr, 77 Trencre Found/l7r Structural 5/APion lfrandll]l �Me nlacrenCB 76 R41p(a1e and 5mcep1ls Surlie([e and Subsurface Rorke 70 Welt Abendoemerl SCHEDULE OF VALUES AMOUNT ESTIMATED AMOUNT AT COMPLETION a1B533500' 53,000 Oa 5500 00 525250 001 $42.400 00 316 460 00) 540 000 OOT 334 850 00, N7A wA f1UA $2 700 00 511,250 00 550.305 56 521,22590 5649 130 01 $350.125.001 57030p 5415000 44434414 s3.825 00 511.604 00) 5624 0151 527, 639 00 535 660 00 56 769 D0, 520,216005 $14.500 ODE 512,740 OC I 5352.01' 51 663 00 52 000 0d 135,744 00 5160590D 5030 00 510\\624.66 535,02E 00' 510,785.00 530.000.0D 515``000 OD 572,365 00 511.649 00 348,01E 40 52.500 00 550 006 00 559.956 00 5146 055 00 5500000 52 500 00 S8,300 00 S20 499 15 59 597 5 513q555 f $10,280-4( 53, 500 00 5t0,71000I S301201A $23 087 2 $4 514 88 52, 933 16 52.595 42) S2 567 0% 5629 20 S.1699 6) 516 441 615 $122 400 00 517 &15 5a 5211E h49 6n 59i1443 5dl 5121 000 0C $`34443 5113 500 00 5124,665 42 510,835.95 $13E 867.52 sd05066 51 833 3+ 5500 00 57,500 00 S3 000 001 51 475001 DIFFERENCE 1 _ $1B533.5001 So COI $3.00000,1 _ SO 00 5500 G6' SO 001 $27 750 00r 52-500 00-1 02703600 I515,37000%1 57.600 00 f510.4150001 540, 000 00 410.80.0.2 134 550 06 _ 50 00 N NUINMNeR NA WA NIAI $5 WO S2,300001 St �.25000 Sum1 147250 - i53,046501 521 221.51 50 00 1 1549,130-0C� 5090] 5507,500 00) 0151 376 00 , SO❑ _ 0570300d1f 545000 0_ S000! $449.414,70 50001 53 820 00 So 00 1 $14.004 06 52.403 5600 00 /r524 00J1 529.25000 _ _ 51,39104J 551 12500 `35.535001 510.600 00 ---- 54 032 00 _I 520.166.00 1556001 $1456000 SO 00 512,740 66 S0 00 5352 001 SO 0O 05 BOO 00 50 114, $2.000 �J�.00 S30 744 f6 00 510 0645 00 -- 50001 512030 CO 5000 12.62400/, 5000 $35.02000 5000 S1) 76B on au 00 S 14u 516 540 00 $1s.0ooa6 5000 $67i43 I $14 878 06 S925399 t52395011 S67,4 59 561 540 435,10 $200.00' SO GO $50000.00' SO CO 536,E50.001 (321600001 Si4605500 SO CO 5500000 5000 $2 500 06' 50 00 $0 300.00 50 00 526 469 1 50 00 S9 597,55I So 00 3134.955.50 S0 00 $10.2804B' SO03 53500650j SO 00 56001 (510,710001 S30126 56 SO CO 523,09724, SO 00 S4 514 00' S0.00 52.933 1 E 50 03 52,585 47 SO-00 $2 704 SO 00 29 20 S0.00 $3,699BSO 00 516 441 60 50.00 $122 400 00 10.00 sir 8Bs 5B 5060 520hf64968 $0 O0 S90.44354 So00 5121,00060 50.661 $1.3,444,31' 50001 516,50000 5000I 3124.665 42 50 001 516,83590 S0001 5136 67.52 56 00 I SS5,003.00 50-60 1 $1.633.31 56O01 550000 5000� $945.06 fS65 5001 5450006E 04200000 00 001 15675 C01 TOTALS 53,764,917.45 53.939,323.16 0174.955,61 w TABLE 2 I10 NDING CRAW E ORDEP5 DESCRIPTION IFgyy . 1u ulonwn Bm2 .N R4-nid0rq I 54« n Far I504.0Re IFw &....• uun 5 TABLE 3 C STS A860CIAFEO WITH DE 005 DESCRIPTION ISuAIw�T'Ym.e ISo1A.w.0 INoenwdf Toole. INonn.e.f O'enw I.d�»mY Emo. TABLE 1 WORKNAAG& GREETING.^. WL01 DESCIIIPTI02 11W Ti poplAun dm..wre ur.acIn neur,eu,i Ier.e ren,.n d lnwn Nbci+ F// 1 2 IN..SY.ovr. -Mt Me S S.'ec' 11 Ner$Inm -D. Sinewy. 0'e ilie f2.121 ..1 1 .vA vulFd 7 ryw p R l Je'e h ne. anN bve pW 5 ) flO • loor .mwnl�n.K p .rryl!/ e�I YYA�' f7 me 12 1. 55LI S'n+ti'Mn p/lI �hR�f(�y_NN e In . corai°.on w. 1: irf.i aen,clere -Ao11,A0A ;; O• RIR., AM, TABLES IOEFECTI V E 0ORK DE6CR1PTON £STIYATE0 COO' 31,X,1 W I)b D57 /, 200OC1 Si a TOTAL 11,,OW p:1 TOTAL COSTS AT CdaPLETION FOR IN D ITS L15 (PC W DCD IH THE E1C SC FLDIAC (TAM 0 1, PP12II0NG CHAIRSE DR/11yyyy,,0�E .J{ l!0.212 2, DFFFr> AO f�Y fAE�e,S (TABLE 3• ESTIMATFO 00S- s,1ens551 jS OW 41 Sit SW p 01 ? 6pc S aoW 5p0 011 12 E3T'4ATE0 LC5T LOYMENI3 5350 CR 5)400 14 DAIS MI e.1RTprAL fleIS�1n le.rd en.n.n.++r d .Lm ese mre.w..w H.°Hera 3(I qiip..� ;,P.mpr. M..M.H.. . f wa.. �..r.N.e- 50 .. ..r nin....l . ec r52()222 alp..... ."..... «......r+..v.o..= i2 a 1 Milk, poi SIfeTTTTAL MT , is e41 TOTAL F:TLATEQ[OST CO411S2R` r{Pe 1ry1 en TOTAL J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 December 18, 2000 Mr. Robert 5trope, City Manager City of McCall 216 East Park Street McCall, ID 83638 Dear Mr. 5trope: 208-376-7330 FAX: 208.323-9336 RE: McCall J-Ditch, Phase II - Basis for Revision to Payment Recommendation As discussed at our meeting on December 11, 2000, with representatives of the City, the Contractor, and the Surety, we are providing you documentation of the calculations which were used as a basis for our letter sent to you dated December 4, 2000, that revised our recommendation for Application for Payment Nos. 5 and 6. As a further description of the calculations included in the attached documentation, we offer this letter and the narrative provided below that discusses the rationale used for the revisions: Table 1 shown on the attached documentation is a summary of the dollar amounts remaining for each of the bid items shown in the Bid Schedule. For each of the bid items shown, the dollar amount shown in the table was calculated as the difference between the current contract amount and the amount completed and stored as indicated on Pay Application No. 6. As can be seen in Table 1, dollar amounts were rounded to the nearest thousand. Also, for items of work which are complete or nearly complete and the actual quantities are different than the estimated quantity in the bid schedule, the difference between the contract amount and the amount completed and stored is not shown or included in the analysis. For example, the difference between the contract amount and the amount completed and stored as shown on Application for Payment No. 6 for Bid Item No. 5 is $15,370.00. However, this work is complete and, therefore, there is no dollar amount shown for Bid Item No. 5 in the first table. By creating the table in this manner, the sum of the dollar amounts for each of the bid items reflects the costs remaining from the schedule of values based on Application for Payment No. 6 and considers variations in quantities. The result of this analysis is an estimate of $1,039,000.00 worth of costs remaining from the schedule of values per Application for Payment No. 6. This sum is not intended to represent the true costs that may be incurred as a result of performing the work, but simply presents the amount remaining on the bid schedule. Table 2 shown on the attached documentation presents the costs associated with the estimated variations in quantities encountered to date. For some bid items shown in the table, the actual quantities have been less and these items are indicated in red or with parentheses. if the actual quantities have been higher, the costs are shown in black and without parentheses. The costs shown in this table were not used to determine any revised recommendation for payment amount, but are included to provide the City with an estimate of their status as it relates to the required level of project funding. As work continues on the project, these estimated costs will continue to change. For this reason, it is important to recognize that the sum of these numbers as presented on the attached documentation is not intended as an estimate of the total project costs associated with variations in quantities, but simply represents those costs that have occurred to date. ;ineers Surveyors Planners Mr. Robert Strope, City Manager December 18, 2000 Page 2 Table 3, shown on the first page of the attached documentation presents the estimated costs associated with completing work or correction or price adjustments to correct defective work. These are hid items for which the associated work has been presented as complete on previous applications, but based on the Engineer's review and inspection, are either incomplete, require correction, or require a price adjustment to correct defective work. The sum of these items is 5111,500.00. This is an estimated cost of performing the work under the current project conditions. The second page of the attached documentation incorporates the sums of the previously discussed tables in order to determine the funds necessary to complete the work should the Contractor be unable to finish the project. The first table on this page, Table 4, was developed to arrive at a total estimated cost to complete the work. in order to determine this value, the costs remaining from the schedule of values as calculated from the first page were multiplied by a contingency factor of 1.4 that is an adjustment to account for work being completed outside of the contract period during the winter or spring. This brings the subtotal to 51,454,600.00. The estimated costs associated with work requiring correction or price adjustment to correct defective work as determined on Table 3 of the documentation was then added to the subtotal. Also added to the subtotal are the costs associated with the liner completed to date as indicated on Application for Payment No. 6. This reflects the position we have taken regarding the liner as indicated in our letter of December 4, 2000. It should be noted that the final two items added to the subtotal were not subjected to a contingency factor as the other work was. The rationale for this approach is that this work either involves a price deduction for defective work, in which case there is not any true work to be performed, but simply a monetary adjustment, or the work may still be performed by St. Clair Contractors this fall. It should also be rioted that if work on the project and, specifically the liner, does not continue, a contingency factor may be appropriate for those items that involve actual work if it becomes evident that the work will not be performed until a later date. The Sum of the values presented results in a total estimated cost to complete the work of $1,888,722.26. Table 5 presents the estimated funds available to the City to complete the project. In order to estimate the amount, the difference between the contract amount and the amount completed and stored thru Application for Payment No. 6 was determined. This amount is shown to be $976,911.56. Note that this calculation treats retainage for items complete as if they are unavailable to the City. At the time of the analysis, the money held back as retainage was assigned to those specific bid items and it was assumed that the retainage associated with each of the bid items would ultimately be due under that bid item. However, if, at a later time, the City should declare the Contractor in default, approximately $123,000.00 will become available as a result of retainage on items previously complete. Added to the subtotal of $976,911.56 is $62,000.00 associated with set -offs made on Application for Payment No. 6 for Work Change Directive Nos. 2 and 8. A deduction of 562,000.00 is noted on page one of the schedule of values in the application for these items. However, the City has elected to make the deductions for the work change directives separately and, in order to prevent this deduction from occurring in two places, it is added here. Also added to the subtotal are funds that are available as a result of the revision in the recommendation for payment for the liner portion of the work. This is the same dollar amount that was used in the calculation to estimate the cost to complete the work. This resulted in a total estimate of the funds available to the City of 51,361,533.82. DAMAGES The easy to track damages are those that are tied directly to repairing defects or are things like legal fees or engineering costs related to the defects or fact that the contractor didn't complete the job as required under the contract. file damages that are more difficult to quantify, hut are very real, are those that resulted from the failure of the contractor to complete the project. l'or the public, it isn't St. Clair contractors or some insurance company from another state that didn't get the project done —it is the City of McCall. The negative puhlicity has a real, but unknown impact, on those who are considering McCall as a place to live. to remain, or to do husiness. 1 n terms of quantifying some of this impact, I requested our community development director prepare a document for me that attempts to put this into perspective. I:XI I113ITS--I.INDLEYS MEMO. MY COMPLICATIONS tl a Li) 7d /7-0°,34-c_ g-(ki 6/ r 5 otoPE '7L6 1.-104."-s#4ci ?//74( 4112/20048:40 PM\\1 inanee0ISTAFF\Public\Users\Manager\My Documents\ProjectsU Ditch Ph Ihtrial outline narrative2.doc C i Y OF MCCALL CITY MANAGER September 17, 2D01 Judith Rheinschaaidt Bond Claim Supervisor Wausau Insurance Companies Pa Bent 8017 Wausau, WI 54402-8017 Re: J-Ditch Phase II, Claim 68-1604, Project Status Dear Ms. Rheinschmidt: J-U-B Engineers SEP 1 9 2001 ID Ju AHu O3J B SE, On September 12, 2001, the City of McCall met with representatives from the Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Environmental Quaky Also in attendance iivere representatives from JIJB as well as legal staff for the governmental agencies In short, the agencies are threatening to suspend funding for the project because it is not complete, threatening to require the City to reinstate a moratorium on sewer connections, and threatening to fine the City the maximum allowable amount if the City discharges effluent into the river. Rest assured, the City will view any such actions as casts associated with the default of your client and the City will seek compensation under the bond from Wausau. Attached is a copy of an e-mail from our Cy Planner outlining the potential losses in terms of connection fees, the actual costa wtsuld be much higher and include last building pernyt.fees and increased property tax revenues. Our position is simple, your client failed to perform, you have taken over the project and delayed the correction of the defective worts, resuking in our current situation: an incomplete project that does not comply with the contract speeifiearions and does not satisfy the regulatory agencies requirements for lifting the voluntary consent order. The voluntary y consent order required the Gryto resume a moratorium on sewer connections if the project was not complete on November 2, 2000, extended to June 1, 2001. It appears the agencies have run out of patience and the blame lies in your failure to complete the project. JUB provided your agents with a design to temporarily correct the defective work in an effort to allow the lagoon to be filled this fall Please recognize that this correction is not equivalent to the design your client bid to complete under the contract. 317e have already stated we will correct this defective work, a component of which is this temporary re, and are prepared to do so, but in fairness to you, we are going to give you an opportunity to make this correction. Please provide by the end of business September 19, 2001, a response as requested by JUB, including a schedule to complete the work, a description of the construction sequence, identification of who will perform the worts, and an unconditional assurance that you will complete all aspects of the temporary correction. The response may require a meeting with JUB to answer -tech n l quay, this meeting must be held not later than September 19sh. By allowing you to respond, does not mean we will permit you to make the correction. Our decision will be based on our evaluation of that response in comparison to the response of another contractor. 216 East Park Street • McCall, Idaho 83636 • (206) 634-1003 • FAX (2081 634-3038 1 - 2 - September 17, 2001 Enclosed is a check for $129,733.09. This check represents the amount due to date for all submitted applications for payment, less delay and default charges as wen as a withholding for the estimated costs of correcting defective work and resolving outstanrI ng work change directives. Also enclosed is an accounting of the payments and withholdings for your review Sinceselb ROBERT A. STROPE City llManager Cc: Bureau of Reclamation Department of Environmental Quality Idaho Department of 'Water Resources Cascade Reservoir Coordinating Counal Payette Lakes Recreational Water and Sewer District McCall Cary Council Susan Buxton, City Attorney JUB Engineers L L L Total Contract Price: S3,798,204.39 Stored and Completed to Date --through Request 11: S3,878,836.84 Retainage: S 193,941.84 Stored and Completed to Date, Less Retainage: S3,684,895.00 Paid to St. Clair Contractors: $2,098,633.49 Paid to Wausau: $ 145,267.27 Net Unpaid: $1,440,994.24 Liquidated Damages November 3, 2000--September 17, 2001: S 468,500.00 JUB Costs associated with the default withheld as of September 17, 2001: S 334,549.15 City and administrative costs associated with the default withheld as of September 17, 2001: $ 18.212.00 Sub -Total: $ 831,261.15 Amount payable to Wausau BEFORE adjustments based on JUB revised recommendation but AFTER ER liquidated damages and default costs: $ 609,733.09 JUB Recommended withholdings: Wetwell (low estimate) $ 315,000 Purnp Station $ 10,000 Link Seals $ 20,000 Penetration Location $ 5,000 Work change directives $ 130.000 Sub -Total: $ 480,000 Revised estimate of payable to Wausau: $ 129,733.09 This estimate does not take into account the continuing liquidated damages clock. We have received approval from BOR for all payments but have not received all funds from BOR We do have BOR funds on hand from a previous overpayment --but did not have approval to make those payments from BOR. McCaII City Manager Lindley Kirkpatrick 'i.pant: Thursday, September 13, 2001 10:17 AM To: Robert Strops (E-mall) Subject sewer impacts Building Permits 2001: We will probably sell another 5-10 residential building permits in the City limits this year. Connection fees will range from $36,000 to $73,000. 2002: We will probably sell 25-35 residential building permits in the City limits next year. Connection fees will range from $183,000 to $256,000. Approved projects Holiday inn Express 85 rooms, phase 1 (40 more rooms in phase 2) planned for construction in spring '02 $112,000 connection fee $400-900lmonth service charge Hearthstone at Spring Mountain Ranch 32 fractional ownership residential units 8 units planned for construction fall '01/spring '02 .,6,000-75,000 connection fees (for the first 4-8 units and clubhouse) $400-$8001month service charge (for the first 4-8 units and clubhouse) Mountain House commercial complex -6,000 square feet art gallery, frame shop, lighting shop, other retail -3,000 square feet planned for construction in '02 $8,000 estimated connection fee Savannah Ridge Cabins 8 single family condominium units (2 under construction) 2-3 units planned for construction in '02 $15,000-21,000 connection fee Projects under review Glenveigh RV Park & Resort -35 acre high -end RV park and amenities currently under review by P&Z - construction proposed in '02 up to 250 RV spaces $30,000-80,000 estimated connection fees Palmer gas station/retail complex (2°00 square foot gas station/convenience store/sporting goods/general retail nceptual review at staff level - P&Z submittal in late '01, construction in '02 1 REGULATORY AGENCIES BOR Ron Ciolus: Mr, Ciolus was the person who processed our requests for grant funds to pay liar the construction. He was very helpful. He spent a great deal of time working with the City in an attempt to resolve the challenges of requesting fiends when we began withholding funds. The primary problem we encountered was the mathematical logic required on the farm itself it contemplated a project with no withholding and made no provision for liquidated damages. We finally resolved the issues. EXHIBITS —LETTER FROM ME STATING NO PAYMENT I=OR WORK ALREADY PAIL} FOR Mr. Gregg: During a meeting told the City that we would have to reinstitute a moratorium on sewer connections. Also indicated that we might lose the remaining grant funds given the fact that the project was not complete and we were hcyond the June 1, 2001 date. FXIIIBITS--LETTER FROM BOR /o/P/9/0/ DEQ—on the management side we dealt primarily with Stephen West. While DEQ and 1iPA did not and has not levied fines against the City for being out of compliance with the amended consent order, the consistent thence was that they were real possibilities. that if the City did not continue to do everything we could to complete the project there would he real consequences ---the two things most often referred to were a reinstatement of the moratorium on sewer connections and fines. I believe EPA would actually impose the lines as opposed to DEQ. Given that the City had been subject to a moratorium when I first arrived, it was a real threat and I took it very seriously. 1 am convinced that if the City had discharged into the river after the start of the irrigation season in 2001 we would have been fined. We certainly would have had the moratorium hack in place. EXHIBITS- AMENDED CONSENT ORDER, SHOW 1'HE SEC LION ON WI IA I HAPPENS IF WE ARE NOT COMPLETE: MY LETTER TO DEQ STATING WE ARE NO1 IN RIVER IDWR-- IDWR had responsibility for the dam aspects of the project and held the authority to allow for tiling the lagoon. They granted temporary and conditional permission to fill the lagoon to certain levels. based on the project status. EPA--lt was my iinpression that EPA deferred to DEQ on most aspects of the compliance with the consent order —hut retained overall authority as they issued the consent order and amended consent order. 4/12/20048:40 PM11FinanceO\STAFF\Puhlicll Jscrs\Manager\ My Documents\Pro_jects\J Ditch Ph Illtrial outline narrative2.doc 'rr United States Department of the Interior IN RFT'i 1' RF.FER T(] SRA-1200 ADM-1.]0 Mr. Robert A. Strope City Manager, City of McCall 216 East Park Street McCall ID 83638 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Snake River Area Office 214 Broadway Avenue Boise, Idaho 83702-7298 October 19, 2001 Subject: McCall Area Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Project Dear �� Strope: The Bureau of Reclamation has assessed the McCall Area Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Project construction situation as described at the September 12, 2001, ineeting with the City of McCall, JUB Engineers Inc., Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, and Bureau of Reclamation in Boise, Idaho. Reelamation's observation is that the construction of the storage facility portion of the project is nearly complete but several construetion deficiencies have to be addressed before the project can beeome operable. Reclamation's present position is that the remaining Federal funds available to the City of McCall, $13],809, can only be requested by the City of McCall to be applied toward completing project construction. Thus, Federal funds may not be expended to rectify design or construction flaws or to fund attorney fees costs related to the ongoing dispute/litigation of the reinedial work. The federal funding that the City of McCall has received were made available so that the City of McCalI could construct a project that resulted in zero discharge of effluent from the City of McCall sewage treatment plant to the North Fork of the Payette River. As a result, the North Fork of the Payette River would then no longer convey City of McCall treatment plant effluent to Reelamation's Cascade Reservoir. Improved reservoir water quality would benefit from the project's construction. Therefore, we must reiterate Reclamation's position as stated at the September 12, 2001, meeting, that there should be no effluent discliarze by way of the City of McCall's sewage treatment plant into the North Fork of the Payette River. ]f those effluent discharges do occur, Reclamation will recommend to the Environmental Protection Agency that an enforcement order be issued that could result in fines to the City of McCall. If you have questions, please contact Ron Golus at telephone number (208) 334-1751. OCT 3 0 2001 Sineerel errold' D. `sreg Area Manager 21246 OCT 2 2 2001 cc: Mr. Stephen E. \Vest Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 1445 North Orchard Boise ID 83706-22399 Mr. Guy Paul Idaho Department of Water Resources 1301 North Orchard Street P.Q. Box 83720 Boise 1D 83720-0098 NEGOTIATIONS IATIONS WIT! 1 ST. CLAIR Following mediation the City was still prepared to have St. Clair complete the project and wanted to be able to come to resolution with 5t, Clair if possi hie. 1 personally discussed with Randy St. Clair the City's desire to work things out alter he sent the rejeetiou letter to us following mediation. I told him that by simply rejecting the C'ity's offer, it left us no choice and we couldn't negotiate against ourselves. We discussed his submitting a letter that cave us a counter-offer that we could consider. I am not sure if l told him specifically that one of our biggest concerns was the threat of what regulatory agencies might do. but I am certain that he was aware of our concerns and our desire to have him and/or Wausau assume that risk. When we got the counter-offer and it didn't provide for an assumption of that risk, it was really pointless to continue to attempt to negotiate, there were no significant concessions on St. Clair's part. and we had to get the project completes so the City rejected the offer and terminated the contract. It was and is my belief that Wausau saw the threat as real and was unwilling to assume the risk. one of the key conditions for continuing with St. Clair was their acceptance of the risk associated with any lines levied by the regulatory agencies. It was our fear that we would face fines in the range of $25,000 per day if we did not complete the project. Apparently Wausau and St. Clair also saw this as a real threat and rejected our proposal. This was prohably the most critical item and it was clear that they were not going to step up. EXHIBITS —CITY OFFER, ST GLAIR REFUSAL, CITY TERMINATION T'ION —i'l 4/ l2/20048:40 PM\\FinanceO1S'I AFI Wublic\LJsers\Manager\My I]ocuments\Projeels\l Ditch Ph 11\trial outline narrative2.doc CITY OF MCCALL CITY MANAGER February 16, 20C 1 St. CIair Contractors Inc. 111 E. 40`4 St. Boise, Idaho 83714 re: St. Clair Contractor's/J-Ditch Project Dear 11r. St. Clair: Thank you for your letter dated February 12, 2001, suhjeet as above, After reviewing your responses, 1 regret to inform you that the City will not reconsider termination. On advice of counsel, we request that future contacts and correspondence be directed or copied to our city attorneys. Sincerely, Robert A. Strope City Manager Cc: David E. Bieter 20756 216 East Park Street • VicCa1H, Idaho 93638 • (208) 634-1003 • FAX (208) 634-3038 St. Clair Contractors Inc. 111 E. 40th St. Boise, Idaho 83714 (208) 343.8742 January 31, 2001 Robert Strope City Manager City of McCall P.O. Box 986 McCa11, ID 83638 —) F ES 5 2001 { RE: St. Clair Contractor's/J-Ditch Project Dear Mr. Strope: Although this may be redundant, we wish to reiterate that St. Clair Contractor's is fully committed to completing thc above -referenced project. Despite significant adverse weather and unforeseen site conditions, St. Clair completed the vast majority of this project prior to the onset of winter weather. Of the S4,000,000.00 in contract costs associated with this project, less than S600,000.00 worth of work remains to be performed. St. Clair and its subcontractors are in thc best position to complete the work promptly and cost effectively and we are fully committed to doing so. Barring a catastrophe, St. Clair guarantees that this project will be completed on or before June 1, 2001. St. Clair Contractor's is a family -owned business which has been in existence for over forty years. In its history, St. Clair has never failed to complete its contractual obligations. S. Clair intends to nphold its tradition of providing quality construction services at an economical price. We look forward to receiving payment for work performed so that we may complete the balance of the project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. ��r ,W,a�• S�4►•s �fy CITY OF MCCALL CITY MANAGER .� February 5, 2001 Randy St. Clair St. Clair Contractors, Inc. 111 E. 40h St. Boise, Idaho 83714 Re: J Ditch Project/St. Clair Contractors Dear Randy: We are in receipt of a letter from your attorney, Geoffrey McConnell, dated February 1, 2001, in which he states that the City of McCall's offer, as reiterated in our January 30, 2001 letter, "is unacceptable to St. Clair Contractors." Because of your refusal to accept this offer, which was the product of our mediation effort, the City of McCall has no ehoice but to terminate for cause as allowed under paragraph 15.02 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contraet (hereinafter "General Conditions"). This letter is the seven day written notice required by paragraph 15.02.B, and such notice is hereby given, of the City of McCall's election to terminate the services of St. Clair Contractors (hereinafter "St. Clair") for cause. The City of McCall's decision to terminate is bred upon one or more events listed in paragraph 15.02.A. These events include but are not limited to St. Clair's failure to adhere to the progress schedule, unauthorized stoppage of work, failure to supply sufficient skilled workers and equipment to the project, failure to reach substantial or final completion in the time rcqnired by the contract documents, and substantial violation of the contract documents by disregarding the claim and change order procedures, as well as other material provisions. Please be advised that the City of McCall intends to exercise the full rights and remedies available under the contract available to an owner terminating for cause under paragraph 15.02 of the General Conditions as well as any other right or remedy available under the contract or by applieable law. Sincerely, Robert Strop e cc: J-U-B Engineers, Inc. Geoffrey J. McConnell Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke, Chartered Ron B lewett Bill McCurdy 20775 216 East Park Street • MuC.II, Idaho 83638 • (208) 634-1003 • FAX (208) 634.3038 ORDINANCE CIIANGE WHAT IS AN ORDINANCE !IOW QIUICKLY CAN YOLJ f)() IT An Ordinance is the mechanism used to amend the City Code —which is in effect the laws of the community. Any time you change a law you must provide an opportunity to allow people to voice their opinions. you must conduct the discussion in an open meeting of the City Council. and the Council must take action in open session. Generally what will happen is either the staff or the Council will communicate a desire to make a change. a draft ordinance is prepared, reviewed hy the City Attorney, added to an agenda, and heard hy the Council. Based on our meeting schedule, if you wanted to change the law. it would take a minimum of two weeks, normally at least four to make a change given the obligation to make sure the community is aware of an issue and the fact that our official newspaper, the StarNe' s. is published once a week. DID YOU REVIEW I'HI- RECORDS OF COUNCIL MEETINGS TO SEE WI IA'[' I'1I1; I'iMFI.INE WAS FOR COUNCIL ACTION —AND WI IAT DID YOU LEARN A review of the August 10`1' Council Meeting minutes has a report from JUB but there is no mention of a request to do 24 hour operations. A review of the August 24111 Council Meeting minutes shows that the City Clerk will Noise Ordinance drafted for the next meeting. This tells me that sometime after the 10111, the request was mach and the City took action. The item was on the next regular Council meeting agenda. and was adopted on September 14. 2000. At that same meeting, Council approved St. Clair to work extended hours, The report to the Council on the 28`1' was that a night crew was working. The contractor hegan 24 hour operations and was making, good progress. but ceased the extra shifts before catching up. This was very frustrating because at the time we thought he was going to get hack on schedule. EXHIBITS ----WE CAN USE "TIE COUNCIL MEETING NOTES IF NEEDED) WE NEED 5T. CLAMS' Ii- I I ER ASKING 1'0 AMEND THE AUGUST 10 MEETING NOTES ./ / ( ii/il:!r ) c101oo 612W(2() 4i12/20048:40 PM11Financc0\STAFI \Puhlicl1Jscrs\Manager\My Documents\Projeets'J Ditch Ph Illtrial outline narralive2.doc DID TIIL CITY REQUIRE WAUSAU TO STATE TIHEY WOUL❑ PAY UNDER 6.2 BFFORE YOU PAIL) THEM? The Council originally included that provision in their motion to approve the first pay application based on concerns 4112/20049:08 PM\\Finance0lSTAFFIPublic\IJserslManager\My Documents\Projects\ ❑itch Ph IIllrial outline narralive2.doc AT SOME POINT THE CITY PREPARED A LETTER OFFERING T() PAY FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEBRIS PITS AND AN INCENTIVE O1- $50,000, WIIA'l 1S YOUR UNDERSTANDING fANDING OF HOW THAT CAME ABOUT By the time we started working on the letter offering St. ("lair compensation for the debris pits it was clear that he was behind. and that there were some eosts associated with the additional work that he had to do. Based on those two facts. we wanted to try to resolve things and get him to get hack on schedule so we could get the project completed. It was, and remains our position that St. Clair was entitled to additional compensation fir the debris pits and even though they didn't follow the claims proeess, we attempted to resolve the matter by offering the more than $100,00() in compensation outlined in the letter. The letter also spoke of other things we were willing to adjust in the contract to save lime. Mr. St. Clair rejected the proposal and did not provide a specific counter-offer that would allow us to negotiate a resolution. ASIDE. FROM TRYING TO GO 'HIE EXTRA RA MILE ANI) COMPENSATE I'HE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DEBRIS PH. EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE CLAIM PROCESS, WAS "1'1 INRE ANY OTI IFR REASON YOU SENT THE SEPT 11 LE1"TER.' It was our helief that fall that St. ['lair was the only option for completing the project and eliminating the discharge into the river. We knew that we could not find a new contractor that could mobilize and complete the project any faster that St. Clair was doing it —we also did not know the full extent of the defects at that time. Late into the fall it hecante apparent that St. Clair would not meet the November 2nJ dale. We had a number of meetings with the regulatory agencies providing them information regarding the status of the project. We relayed St. C lair's assertions that they were committed to eompleting the project and made it clear the City was committed as well. EXI IIBITS - -OFFER LETTER ER /7 .4( 5 7-?) 5 7-- ••-?-./7,-/c)0 C" L J 44 rd 7-W y? / rr ❑ I f i 4!12/20048:40 PMI\FinanccO\STAFF\Public\1 Jsers\ManagerlMy I)ocumentslProjects\J Ditch Ph IIltrial outline nanrative2.doc T / OF MCCALL September 11, 2000 Mr. Randy St. Clair St. Clair Contractors 111 E, 40`h Street Boise, ID 83714 Dear Mr. St. Clair: RE: Project Completion by November 2, 2000 J-U-B Engineers has briefed the City Council on their review of your claim as submitted on August 30, 2000. The engineer has issued a decision to deny your claim. The City of McCall needs this project to be completed by November 2, 2000, and toward that end, we want to create the most positive atmosphere possible. For that reason, we are making the following proposal for your consideration. To assist you in completion of the project on schedule, the City of McCall wilt authorize J-U-B to issue field orders modifying the design and project specifications as appropriate to expedite the work, provided these changes do not, in any way, affect the integrity of the project and are acceptable to regulatory agencies. Examples under consideration at this time include: Use of a precast base for the 60-foot-deep wetwell to avoid the delay associated with allowing the concrete to cure prior to backfilling the excavation; and modification of the specification for preparation of the pond bottom prior to placement of the liner to allow undisturbed native materials to serve as the foundation for the liner, thereby avoiding a long drying (or dewatering) period and extended effort to achieve 92% compaction. These two actions alone are valuable to you in terms of time and cost for execution of the project. The City of McCall will pay your documented direct costs associated with removal of rubble from the foundations of the South and North dikes. The basis for this payment will be established unit prices for over -excavation and embankment, plus extra equipment and operator time associated with excavation of logs, stumps and concrete not covered by the contract unit price. J•U•B has presented the following estimate to the City of these costs. We understand that some adjustments may be made as the final quantities for over -excavation and embankment are established. South Dike Debris Equipment Costs 6/9 to 6/19/2000 $14,806.55 South Dike Additional Over Excavation at $1.00/Cy $5,000.00 South Dike Additional Embankment at 52.50/Cy 512,500.00 Northeast Corner Equipment Costs 58,125.00 Northeast Corner Additional Over Excavation at $1.O0/Cy 55,600.00 Northeast Corner Additional Embankment at $2.501Cy $14,000.00 Total 560,031.55 216 Cast Park Street • iIcCail, Idaho 83638 • (208Y 634-7142 • FAX 12061 634-3038 Mr. Randy St. Clair September 11, 2000 Page 2 Should you complete the storage reservoir portion of the project such that we can begin filling the reservoir on or before November 2, 2000, the City of McCall will: • Make a lump sum payment to you of 550,000. This payment would be made as an incentive to you to complete the project by November 2, 2000, and as complete settlement for all claims associated with the following events: The rubble in the foundation of the south dike; the additional over -excavation in the foundation of the north dike; rain delays referenced in your letter of August 3, 2000; dealing with the foundation of the east embankment; dealing with perched water tables; and quantity adjustments such as slope drams, dike embankment, over -excavation, and geocomposite as may be necessary to complete the project. This lump sum payment would be in addition to compensation on a unit price basis per your contract as adjusted by change orders. • Agree to an adjustment of the date of substantial completion for the effluent pump station and disinfection facility to May 15, 2001. Should you fail to complete the project by November 2, 2000, the City will not be obligated to make the $50,000 payment noted above, or grant the time extension for completion of the pump station and disinfection facility. In addition, the City wilt be allowed to offset, against any valid claim brought by you, the cost and time benefit associated with modification of the project design or specification to expedite construction. The City of McCall is making this offer to you in a spirit of cooperation and with the goal of stimulating the completion of our project on schedule and without unresolved claims. By making this offer. we are not, in any way, acknowledging the validity of any claim made by you. To formalize this offer will require consideration by the City Council on September 14, 2000, and a subsequent change order. Therefore, we are setting a deadline of September 14, 2000, for your response. Sincerely, City of McCall Robert Strope City Manager RS:lhc 1:.projects,11622' aomin,stclair 6ain-.s3 i9-11 OO .aoc St. Clair Contractors Inc. 111 E. 40th St, Boise, Idaho 83714 (208) 343-8742 September 18, 2000 To: Hobert Swope, City Manager City of McCall Re: Letter dated September 11, 2000 Dear Mr. Strope, l received Your letter dated September 1 lth at 11:00 a_m. on September 131h1. Your letter demanded my response by September 14o, which is totally unreasonable. Further, the City's "offer" doesn't even compensate me for the direct costs of additional work not covered by unit prices and fails to account for all quantities of additional work covered by unit prices_ Additionally, you totally disregard the delays caused by such additions work and our costs to accelerate the work because of thc City's refusal to extend the contract lime as provided by the Contract, You should also be aware that we now know that the quantity of embankment will substantially exceed the estimated quantity set forth in the Contract and we wi]] require additional time to perform that added work. Finally, any modifications which can expedite completion wil] be appreciated and may hold down additional costs payable under the Contract. However, in the absence of substantial changes it is extremely unlikely that completion of the lagoon can be accomplished by November 2nd, particularly in light of recent weather conditions. We know of no circumstances that will permit completion of the pump station and disinfection facility hy November 2nd due to thc delays. We must insist upon payment for all additional work as provided by the Contract and extension of time for the delays and additional work required. G,rrr f an �/St. Clair Prcfsidr nt CC: ',JUB id it SEP 210130 J 77 7/ r 2.)) r ? i. f I IK LETTER = ,7 Concurrently with our efforts to reach an agreement with St. Clair and Wausau we heean looking at the real possihility of having to terminate St. ['fair. One ofthc options under the performance bonds was for the City to complete the work. and to that end we asked JUB to look into potential completion contractors. We helieved that we would have to react very quickly in order to meet the new deadline of tune 1, 2001 if we terminated St. Clair and it was vital to be ready to gel a replacement contractor. As part of this process, JUB drafted a letter that contained a list items to complete and forward it to I IK. It is my understanding that this letter was at one point thought to he a complete list of work remaining on the project. an incorrect understanding that I clarified with Judith Rhcinschmidt of Wausau. I distinctly recall her responding to correspondence of mine confirming her knowledge that the contract was the scope of work. not the HK letter. Ultimately the City made the decision to terminate St. Clair. During the time that we were considering termination. it was important to take actions on several parallel courses given the tight timeframes we were operating under. We had JUB looking at possihle replacement contractors; we attempted to negotiate with St. Clair for continuation on the project; and we sent the required notices to St. Clair and Wausau for termination. Once our efforts to negotiate a satisfactory resolution with St. Clair. we terminated them for default. I remember speaking to Randy St. Clair about our efforts, specifically about their rejection of our offer that immediately, followed mediation. I told him that his flat our rejection, without a counter -proposal left the City without options. It was after that telephone conversation that we received his offer that we ultimately rejected. I felt we had made it very clear that the most important aspect of any agreement for St. Clair to continue was their assumption of the risk if the project was not done by June 1, 2001—specifically that they would pay any fines and penalties levied by the regulatory agencies. EXIT I BITS —I IK LETTER'? 4/ 12/20048:40 PM11I'inance0\S'I'AI \PnbliclUsers\Manager\My Documents\Pro.jectsl.l Ditch Ph II\trial outline narratiye2.doc ROBERT STROPE CITY OF MC CALL 216 E PARK ST MC CALL I❑ 83638 Principal: St. Clair Contractors, Inc. Bond: 2350 50 051582 Claim: 68-1604 Project: J-Ditch, Phase 2 This letter responds to your e-mail of March 7, 2001. LIVAUSAU March 15, 2001 The scope of the work we have undertaken is to complete the original contract, although we have utilized Mr. Uranga's scope of work letter for information purposes. As to resolution of work change directives and change orders, our engineering consultant has the authority to gather facts and make recommendations, but I am the only one who has authority to sign or approve any work directives of change orders. You are correct in referring to Mr. Eigler as our "engineering consultant". To aid in your contract administration, however, I suggest that any new work directives should be negotiated a to price and time with Interwest, subject to my final approval. Any old work directives with work completed or partially completed must involve Mr. Eigler in the negotiations of price and time. Any negotiation would be subject to my final approval. As previously indicated, all actions taken by Wausau are with a full reservation of rights. Finally, for the record please not that Wausau is not the contractor. Wausau is the surety. Wausau is in the process o engaging another contractor to work for Wausau to complete the project. 1f you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to contact me. (Adith Rheins • • idt 4ond Claim Supervisor 20802 WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES 2000 WESTWOOD DR • WAUSAU WI 54401-7681 • (715) B45-5211 MAILING ADDRESS' PC BOX 8017 • WAUSAU WI 54402-8017 {ID ECIEBVIE- MAR 1 9 2001 January 31, 2001 Mr. Voyd Stewart HK Contractors, Inc. 6350 S. Yellowstone Highway Idaho Falls, ID 83405 Dear Mr. Stewart: RECEIVED FEB t22001 MSB&T,CTD ENGINEERS, Inc. ENGINEERS o SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83709-0944 RE: McCall J-Ditch, Phase II - Opinion of Cost to Complete 208-376-7330 FAX: 208-323-9336 Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on January 3, 2001, to discuss the above -referenced project. As we discussed at this meeting, the City has requested that J-U-B ENGINEERS contact available contractors to obtain an opinion of the probable cost to complete the project. It is understood that this opinion of probable cost is not intended to be an estimate or quote to perform the work, but is simply an opinion of the cost to complete. The information contained in this letter and attachments is being provided to you so that you may develop a cost to perform the requested analysis. When you have developed this cost, please let me know and I will discuss it with the City. If the City should elect to, you will then be asked to perform the analysis. Please understand that you will not be paid for any work performed on the analysis until you have received authorization. Attached to this letter is a spreadsheet that is organized in a Format similar to a bid schedule. We ask that you use this form, or a replication, to present your opinion of probable cost. We also ask that for each item listed, you provide a brief narrative. This narrative should be a summary of the basis for your opinion of cost. For example, if the item is underground pipe, you could state that your analysis was based on an excavator and operator at a cost of "x"/hr, a pipe crew at a cost of "y"Ihr, total material cost of "z" with major item breakdowns, and an assumed production rate of so many feet per hour. We realize that for some items, this narrative wilt not be as simple as it might be for underground pipe. For these items, we ask that you simply provide what you feel to be the best breakdown of the major components of the work based on the approach that you would take iF you were to perform the work on a time and materials basis. Your analysis should be based on the presumption that work would begin in the middle of February and the date of substantial completion would be June 1, 2001. During our meeting, a number of issues were raised regarding the available materials and current condition of the work and the work to be completed that may affect the opinion of cost to complete. Presented on the following pages is a description of each of the major work items. For each item, we have provided a brief description of the current condition of the work, work to be completed, materials available on -site, and the project requirements. References in this letter regarding the Contract Documents is meant to include the following items: • City of McCall, Idaho, J-Ditch - Phase 2, Project Manual, April 2000. • Construction Drawings dated April 2000. • Addendum No. 1. dated April 21, 2000. • Addendum No. 2. dated April 24, 2000. • Addendum No. 3. dated April 26, 2000. F!LE COPY • Change Order No. 1, dated May 11, 2000. • Work Change Directives Nos. 1-8 and 10-12. Engineers Surveyors Planners IJ� Mr. Voyd Stewart January 31, 2001 Page 2 If you do not already have all of the above noted items, please call me and I wilt make them available to you. Mobilization - This bid item remains unchanged from the Contract Documents. Refer to the Contract Documents for project requirements. Demobilization - This bid item remains unchanged from the original bid package. Refer to the Contract Documents for project requirements. Top of Dike Final Grading - This work has not been performed at this date. This bid item remains unchanged from the Contract Documents. Refer to the Contract Documents for project requirements. Site Access Road and Driveways - This work has not been performed at this date. The typical sections shown on Sheet S10 of the plans are still applicable. The alignments of the roads will generally conform to what is shown on the plans, with field adjustments. For the Walker access road, the alignment will generally follow the exterior toe of the southern embankment. The profile will be adjusted to follow existing ground while maintaining positive drainage away from the embankment. The alignment for the Seubert access road will also be modified to better -fit field conditions. From Sta. 1+00 to Sta. 5+20 and Sta. 7+30 to Sta. 9+75, the alignment will be shifted south approximately 15'. This shift will place these segments of the road in the area between the north embankment and the existing slope that will be regraded as part of other work items. From Sta. 9+75 to the end of the access road, the alignment will be modified to follow the existing construction roadway as close as possible while maintaining positive drainage. These changes will allow the access roads in these areas to be constructed with less excavation and embankment than would have been required with the original design alignment and profile. Aside from the changes described here, the project requirements are described in the Contract Documents. Landscaping Berm - This work is partially complete at this time. The bulk of the material for the landscape berms has been placed roughly to shape. The work that remains to be completed is the final grading of the berms, which includes smoothing the surfaces and removing any abrupt changes in slope. Also included in this work is the construction of areas for tree planting on the berms. These areas wilt typically be depressions in the berm to create a Landscaped appearance when the trees are planted. Another item of work that remains to be completed is the placement of 4" of topsoil on the berm as indicated on Sheet S9 of the plans. Topsoil material has been stockpiled for this purpose in the southeast corner of the site. Also note that the extent of the Landscaping berms is greater than contemplated in the original design. Based on the current conditions at the site, there is approximately 34,000 square feet of landscaping berm surface that needs to be finished. Also note that the seeding requirements for the landscaping berms as shown on the plans and described in the specifications will be handled by the City and will not be required of the Contractor. The specifications indicate that this item of work will oe paid for on a cubic yard basis. Because the bulk of material has already been placed and the remaining work consists primarily of final grading, the measurement basis for this evaluation shall be lump sum. All other requirements of the Contract Documents shall apply to this work. VP.Relocate Existing Trees - This work has not been performed at this time. The requirements of the Contract Documents remain unchanged at this time. The original contract documents indicated that the contractor may elect to either transplant existing trees on the site or to import trees from off -site. No trees were saved during the clearing and grubbing of the site and it will, therefore, be difficult to identify suitable trees for transplanting on -site. There are some areas Engineers Surveyors Planners Mr. Voyd Stewart January 31, 2001 Page 3 that the City may allow these trees to be taken from for this purpose if the Contractor elects to pursue this option. Chain Link Fence and Gates - The majority of this work has not been performed at this time. The City has contemplated modifications to the plans and specifications for this item and the following modifications are planned. On the east, west and north sides of the pond, the fence will be constructed along the outside top of the dike on level ground. All other requirements of the Contract Documents are still valid. Some work has been performed for this item and there are some materials on -site. The work that was completed consisted of drilling fence posts in the southeast corner of the east embankment. In this area, approximately 25 post -holes have been constructed. The fence posts have not been placed or the holes backfilled. Materials on -site for this item of work consist of fence posts only. We believe that there are enough fence posts stored on -site to complete the north, east and west sides of the fence. PVC Coated Chain Link Fence - This work has not been performed at this time. The City has contemplated modifications to the plans and specifications for this item and the following modifications are planned. The alignment of this fence will follow the toe of the embankment slope. The fence will be constructed approximately one foot into the embankment slope. Alt other requirements of the plans and specifications are still valid. —• General Excavation - This work is partially complete at this time. The general excavation on the project has progressed to the point that the liner could be installed. However, several items of D_i work related to general excavation remain to be completed. These tasks are identified separately r below. .r • Correction of southern slope of the excess material stockpile along Chad Drive. The slope in question remains steeper than called out on the plans and now has an approximate slope of 1.8:1. The slope needs to be no steeper than 2:1. The approximate volume of material associated with this work is 5,000 cubic yards. • Final grading of the excess material stockpile. The current condition of the stockpile surface is not in conformance with the plans or specifications. The current surface is not graded to drain and allows water to collect in localized depressions. As indicated on the plan sheets with the "R" prefix, the finished surface of the excess material stockpile is to be uniformly graded. This surface will have to be graded. The volume of material that needs to be relocated to accomplish this work is estimated to be 31,000 cubic yards. This volume is based on all side slopes being 2:1. We are currently working on figures that wilt show the final configuration and grading for the stockpile. Based on the work we have completed, it appears that the majority of the 31,000 yards to be moved is from the top of the stockpile, approximate elevation 5055, to the area that has not been filled surrounding the 24" off -site drainage pipe. Note that this volume does not include backfilling of the 24" off -site drainage pipe trench, which is paid for under a separate item. • Trimming of loose material from the outside slopes of the embankment. The embankments were constructed "fat" to facilitate the compaction process. This resulted in loose material on the exposed edges. This material has been trimmed from the interior slopes prior to the liner installation. This process rJ J imp,Zngrneers Surveyors Planners r-. Ti) Mr. Voyd Stewart January 31, 2001 Page 4 has not been completed on the exterior slopes. The requirements to complete this work are to cut back the loose material until material compacted to the embankment requirements is encountered. Based on what we observed on the interior slopes, this is approximately 18"-24". The other requirement is that the finished slope be no steeper than 2:1. The grade tolerances portion of the earthwork specifications will not be applied to this portion of the work. The approximate volume of material associated with this work is 9,000 cubic yards. • Placement of materia! between the west embankment and the excess material stockpile. As indicated on Sheet R3 of the construction plans, the material placed in this area is to be compacted per the dike specifications, but is paid for under the general excavation bid item. The approximate volume of material associated with this work is 10,000 cubic yards. These are the major items of work remaining that are related to general excavation. J-U-B ENGINEERS is currently working on a grading plan that will provide a more accurate estimate of the volumes associated with each of the above -identified items. When this plan is developed, a copy will be forwarded. This plan will include cross -sections that wilt allow you to devise an earthwork plan for this work. Except as modified here, the requirements of the Contract Documents remain unchanged. Dike Embankment - As originally contemplated in the contract documents, dike embankment is complete, except for small quantities of embankment to be placed in isolated areas along the top of the dike. The volume of material associated with this work is approximately 3,000 cubic yards. The Contract Documents remain unchanged for the performance of this work. 60-mil Geomembrane Liner, Penetrations and Appurtenances - This item of work remains incomplete at this time. From our review, you could see that the base liner has been placed and the majority of seams welded, but the installation is not complete. Items of work that remain to be complete are the QA/QC and testing procedures, patching, safety ladders, penetration boots, and lap sheet around the pond inlet. These are the major items that are to be completed. There are likely other items of work that still need to be completed for this item that are not included here. in order to more accurately determine the current status of the work, you have indicated that you would like to be able to contact subcontractors. We ask that you refrain from contacting subcontractors until you receive written notice of how this contact is to be made and the limits of the contact. We are currently working on this issue and will let you know when it is resolved. The requirements of the Contract Documents remain unchanged for the performance of this work. Outlet Protection -Site Drainage Transmission Pipe - This item of work remains incomplete at this time. Items of work that remain to be completed for this item include placement of additional rip -rap material. The volume of rip -rap that needs to be added for this item is approximately 5 cubic yards. The requirements of the Contract Documents remain unchanged for the performance of this work. Construction Dewatering - It is anticipated that dewatering will have to be performed to complete various aspects of the work. An underdrain system has been installed as shown on the plans. This system intercepts water entering the excavation on the pond bottom and on the interior slopes. Depending on the timing of the remaining work, there may be additional dewatering that needs to be performed. Examples of where additional dewatering may be required include, but are not limited to, dewatering the excavation west of the west embankment and dewatering the lined reservoir area. To facilitate drainage of the lined pond, a drain has Engineers Surveyors Pi anners V Mr. Voyd Stewart January 31, 2001 Page 5 been installed in the center of the pond that is connected to the 24" off -site drainage pipe. This pipe can be used to drain the lined area and, when construction is complete, this pipe can be blind flanged and the liner patched. The Contract requirements for dewatering remain unchanged. 24" Off -Site Drainage Pipe (Backfill Only) - This item of work consists of excavating loose backfill and placing compacted backfill over a 24" ductile iron pipe that has already been laid. This is the area that we specifically looked at during your site visit. Approximately 4,000 cubic yards of loose material will have to be excavated to the point that the pipe bedding is exposed. After the pipe bedding is exposed and is reviewed by the Engineer, backfill can be placed to bring the excavation to grade. The quantity of backfill that needs to be placed to complete this work has been estimated to be 20,000 cubic yards. The requirements for placing the backfill remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. Outlet Protection - Offsite Drainage Pipe - This item of work remains incomplete at this time. Items of work that remain to be completed for this item includes placement of additional rip -rap material and geotextile fabric. The volume of rip -rap that needs to be added for this item is approximately 5 cubic yards and the length extended approximately 4 feet. The requirements of the Contract Documents remain unchanged for the performance of this work. Sedimentation Pond - This item of work remains to be completed. The outlet pipe for the sedimentation pond has been constructed, but no aspect of the sedimentation pond has been constructed. The requirements for constructing the sedimentation pond remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. Effluent Transfer Structure and Removal or Abandonment of Pipe and Wetwell - This item of work is partially complete at this time. The effluent transfer structure has been constructed and portions of the piping abandoned. The work that remains to be performed is the supply and installation of the metal grating on the transfer structure, and abandonment of the remaining portions of the wetwell. The pump and piping has been removed from the wetwell. The work that remains to complete the abandonment of the wetwell is the removal of the top 2' of the barrel sections and the backfilling. Also included in this work is the surface restoration of the disturbed areas. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. 24" x 24" Slide Gate at Effluent Transfer Station - This item of work has not been completed. The requirements for constructing this item remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. The slide gate is stored on -site. 24" Low Pressure Pipe - Reservoir Influent - This item of work has not been completed. 24" HDPE pipe is stored on -site as well as the HDPE fittings. In addition, the 24" "tee" to be located near the pump station is stored on -site. As you saw during your visit, much of the HDPE pipe has been welded and has been relocated close to the area of installation. During our visit, we discussed weather conditions that would allow the HDPE pipe to be moved and installed without damage. Based on this discussion, it seems unlikely that this pipe can be used. For the purposes of your analysis, you should assume that the HDPE pipe is not available and new pipe will have to be supplied. Regarding the type of pipe that you should consider, the original specifications called out for this pipeline to be constructed with PVC C-905 pipe. With Change Order No. 1, the pipeline material was changed to HDPE. For your analysis, you should ignore those portions of Change Order No. 1 that discuss HDPE pipe and base your analysis on the requirements of the Contract Documents with this exception. ,.,,Engineers Surveyors Planners I • Mr. Voyd Stewart January 31, 2001 Page 6 24" Butterfly Valve - Near Pump Station - This item of work is partially complete at this time. The valve has been supplied and installed. The work that remains to be performed for this item includes thrust blocks, operators, valve box, collar, locating wire, backfilt, marking tape, etc. it may also be required to supply new gaskets and flanges as a result of sag over the winter. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. Storage Reservoir Inlet Structure - This item of work has not been completed. Work Change Directive No. 12 has modified the installation of this structure. The structure is stored on -site, but the original cored holes have yet to be filled. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. 18" Force Main to J-Ditch Line - This item of work has not been completed. The pipe and fittings necessary to complete the work are stored on -site, but installation has not been started. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. 10" Force Main to Filter Dosing Structure - This item of work has not been completed. The pipe and fittings necessary to complete the work are stored on -site, but installation has not been started. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. Filter Dosing Station Modifications - This item of work has not been completed. Modifications to the filter dosing station have not been started and the dosing station remains essentially unchanged from its original condition. There are no materials on -site that have been identified for this work. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. 10" Gate valve - Near Filter Dosing Structure - This item of work has not been completed. Two, ten -inch gate valves are stored on the site for this work. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. �i 1-1/2" Process Water Line - This work has not been performed at this date. This bid item remains unchanged from the Contract Documents. Refer to the plans and specifications for project requirements. 1-1/2" Chlorine Solution Pipe - This work has not been performed at this date. This bid item remains unchanged from the Contract Documents. Refer to the plans and specifications for project requirements. 1-1/2" Sump Pump Discharge Line - This work has not been performed at this date. This bid item remains unchanged from the Contract Documents. Refer to the plans and specifications for project requirements. 1" influent and Effluent Pipe for Chlorine Residual Analyzer - This work is partially complete at this time. Approximately 120' of 155' has been installed. The pipe that remains to be installed for this work is the connection to the chlorine contact chamber, connection to 24" influent line, and the connections through the existing chlorination building and connection to the relocated chlorine residual analyzer. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. ��J U - B A , , , , E n g i n e e r s S u r v e y o r s P l a n n e r s N o w M r . V o y d S t e w a r t J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 P a g e 7 P r o p e l l e r M e t e r a n d S u m p P u m p - T h i s w o r k h a s n o t b e e n p e r f o r m e d a t t h i s d a t e . T h i s b i d i t e m r e m a i n s u n c h a n g e d f r o m t h e C o n t r a c t D o c u m e n t s . E f f l u e n t P u m p S t a t i o n - S i t e W o r k - T h i s w o r k i s p a r t i a l l y c o m p l e t e a t t h i s t i m e . T h e i n l e t p i p i n g f r o m t h e r e s e r v o i r t o t h e p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y e f f l u e n t p u m p i n g s t a t i o n w e t w e l l s t r u c t u r e s h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e d . T h e w o r k t h a t r e m a i n s t o b e p e r f o r m e d f o r t h i s i t e m i n c l u d e s t h e s i t e g r a d i n g a n d s u r f a c i n g a r o u n d t h e E f f l u e n t P u m p S t a t i o n a r e a . T h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g t h i s w o r k r e m a i n u n c h a n g e d f r o m t h e C o n t r a c t D o c u m e n t s . E f f l u e n t P u m p S t a t i o n - S t r u c t u r a l - T h i s w o r k i s p a r t i a l l y c o m p l e t e a t t h i s t i m e . T h e w e t w e l l s e c t i o n s a n d l i d s h a v e b e e n i n s t a l l e d f o r b o t h t h e p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y w e t w e l l s . G r a t i n g h a s b e e n p r o v i d e d f o r t h e l i d s , b u t t h e w r o n g m a t e r i a l w a s s u p p l i e d . T h e g r a t i n g n e e d s t o b e r e p l a c e d w i t h m a t e r i a l s t h a t m e e t t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . I t e m s o f w o r k t h a t r e m a i n t o b e c o m p l e t e d i n c l u d e t h e c o n c r e t e s l a b a r o u n d t h e p r i m a r y w e t w e l l , p i p e s u p p o r t s , s u n s h a d e a n d s o u n d w a l l s y s t e m s . W o r k o n t h e s e i t e m s h a s n o t b e e n s t a r t e d . T h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g t h i s w o r k r e m a i n s u n c h a n g e d f r o m t h e C o n t r a c t D o c u m e n t s w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e s o u n d w a l l s y s t e m s . A t t a c h e d i s a c u t s h e e t o f t h e p r o d u c t t h a t i s t o b e u s e d t o c o n s t r u c t t h e s o u n d w a l l s y s t e m . T h e f o l l o w i n g m a t e r i a l s h a v e b e e n s t o r e d o n - s i t e f o r t h e s u n s h a d e : 2 - 2 x 6 1 4 ' p r e s s u r e t r e a t e d l u m b e r 2 - 2 x 6 1 2 ' p r e s s u r e t r e a t e d l u m b e r 3 - 2 x 4 1 0 ' D o u g l a s f i r s t d E c b t r 2 - 4 x 8 1 5 / 3 2 C D X p l y w o o d 8 - 4 x 8 1 9 / 3 2 C D X p l y w o o d E f f l u e n t P u m p S t a t i o n - M e c h a n i c a l - T h i s w o r k i s p a r t i a l l y c o m p l e t e a t t h i s t i m e . B o t h t h e p r i m a r y " a n d s e c o n d a r y p u m p s h a v e b e e n s u p p l i e d a n d i n s t a l l e d , b u t h a v e n o t b e e n s t a r t e d . T h e m o t o r r o t a t i o n o f b o t h p u m p s s t i l t n e e d s t o b e c h e c k e d . T h e m a n i f o l d p i p i n g i s p a r t i a l l y i n s t a l l e d a n d i s c u r r e n t l y s i t t i n g o n t e m p o r a r y s u p p o r t s . A t t a c h e d i s a d r a w i n g t h a t d e l i n e a t e s t h e m e c h a n i c a l w o r k t h a t h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e d t o d a t e f o r t h i s i t e m a n d i d e n t i f i e s t h e w o r k t o b e c o m p l e t e d . T h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r c o m p l e t i n g t h i s w o r k r e m a i n s u n c h a n g e d f r o m t h e C o n t r a c t D o c u m e n t s . T h e f i t t i n g s a n d s p o o l p i e c e s n e c e s s a r y t o c o m p l e t e t h e w o r k a r e s t o r e d o n - s i t e . E f f l u e n t P u m p S t a t i o n - C o n t r o l B u i l d i n g - T h i s w o r k h a s n o t b e e n p e r f o r m e d a t t h i s d a t e . T h i s b i d i t e m r e m a i n s u n c h a n g e d f r o m t h e C o n t r a c t D o c u m e n t s . R e f e r t o t h e p l a n s a n d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r p r o j e c t r e q u i r e m e n t s . M a t e r i a l s t h a t h a v e b e e n s t o r e d o n - s i t e f o r t h i s i t e m o f w o r k i n c l u d e t h e m e t a ! r o o f i n g m a t e r i a l a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s : 8 - 2 x 8 1 6 ' p r e s s u r e t r e a t e d l u m b e r 2 - 2 x 4 1 2 ' d o u g l a s f i r s t d E t b t r 1 2 - 2 x 4 1 4 ' d o u g l a s f i r s t d F x b t r 6 - 2 x 4 1 6 ' d o u g l a s f i r s t d E t b t r 5 - 2 x 6 1 2 ' d o u g l a s f i r # 2 E t b t r 4 - 2 x 6 1 4 ' d o u g l a s f i r # 2 a b t r 4 - 2 x 6 1 6 ' d o u g l a s f i r # 2 E t b t r 6 - 4 x 8 1 5 / 3 2 C D X p l y w o o d 3 0 - 4 x 8 1 9 / 3 2 C D X p l y w o o d 1 - 2 - 6 6 - 8 1 - 3 / 8 " S C B i r c h 3 0 - J o i s t H a n g e r L U 2 6 6 - J o i s t H a n g e r H 1 1 S 2 8 ,,Engineers Surveyors Planners EL:3 Mr. Voyd Stewart January 31, 200i Page 8 Effluent Pump Station - Electrical - This work has not been performed at this date. This bid item remains unchanged from the Contract Documents. Refer to the Contract Documents for project requirements. Materials that have been stored on -site for this item of work include the following: 1 - Marvair 4-ton unit 10 - Lithoniadm 296H0120 1 - PRLC-B 1-5 Main 3 - QMARK MUH05-41 -24V 3 - QMRK MMB10 Unit Heater mtg brkt 1 - Perin Wall Fumex Fan 1 - Lithoniadm 248HOAR120 1- C-H fixture consisting of: - 1-PRL1C100EHDXIST POW-R-LINE 1A Panelboard - 1-LTF20365 Final Trim - 1-LTF20365 Final Trim 1-PRL1C100EHDXIST POW-R-LINE 1A Panelboard 1 - 450 HP Drive - VLT5450AT4CN1EXRODLF00A-00C1 w/ Disconnect 1- Submersible Pressure Transducer 1- Storm Blade Louver Miscellaneous Mechanical - This item of work is partially complete at this time. Work that remains to be completed includes the placement of pipe supports, touch-up painting of scratched pipes, and general clean-up in the mixing station. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. Primary Off -Site Electrical Service - This work has not been performed at this date. This bid item remains unchanged from the Contract Documents. Refer to the Contract Documents for project requirements. Disinfection Facility - Structural - This item of work is partially complete at this time. Items of work that remain for this bid item include providing locks on all doors and entrances, seating of the exterior of the CMU walls, painting of doors, painting of markings on the floor, sheet rock repair and finish work, finish interior painting, painting touch-up work on both the interior and exterior, and exterior grading. in addition to this work, there is a significant amount of finish work that needs to be completed on the building interior. In its current condition, the interior of the building appears rough and incomplete even though the major components are there. The requirements for constructing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. Disinfection Facility - Mechanical - This item of work is partially complete at this time. items of work that remain for this bid item include the supply and installation of two louvers in the chlorination building, supply and installation of special tote connection, relocation of stop bar on hoist to the edge of the brine tank, fixing of the leak in the solution line out of the sodium hypochlorite solution storage tank, fixing of the leak in the carrier water feed pipe, and necessary start-up and testing. The requirements for constructing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. Disinfection Facility - Disinfection Equipment - This item of work is partially complete at this time. Items of work that remain for this bid item include repairing the north metering pump. The motor on this pump is running, but the pump is not working. Also, the final start-up and testing needs to be performed. A preliminary start-up of the system has been performed and the system is currently operational in a manual mode only. When the other components of the work are Engineers Surveyors Planners I; Lr Mr. Voyd Stewart January 31, 2001 Page 9 completed, a final start-up wilt be required to verify that all the equipment, automatic controls, and telemetry systems are installed and operational. The requirements for completing this work remains unchanged from the Contract Documents. Disinfection Facility - Electrical and Instrumentation - This item of work is partially complete at this time. Electrical service has been supplied to the building and the majority of conduit for the telemetry systems has been installed, but wire has yet to be pulled through the conduit, Approximately 25' of conduit remains to be installed in the area of the existing chlorination building. The telemetry system and wiring remain to be supplied and installed. This includes the auto dialer and thermometer with signal to the auto dialer. The Programmable Logic Controller also needs to be supplied and installed. The chart recorder is stored on -site, but has yet to be installed. Telephone service also needs to be extended from the old pump station to the new chlorination building. The other components of the work are either complete or near completion and wilt likely require punch -list items be addressed. When this work is completed, the entire system wilt be subject to start-up and testing procedures. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. Relocate Chlorine Residual Analyzer - This work has not been performed at this date. This bid item remains unchanged from the Contract Documents. Refer to the plans and specifications for project requirements. Structural BMP Modifications and Maintenance - This item of work is partially complete at this time. The work that remains for this bid item includes the final cleaning and disposal of material that has settled in the swales and regrading of the general area surrounding the swales. The requirements for completing this work remain unchanged from the Contract Documents. Misc. Site -Cleaning and Surface Restoration - This i5 a new work item that has been created for the purposes of the analysis that you have been asked to perform. This work will consist of general site cleaning, minor regrading, and surface restoration of the general work area. For the purposes of your analysis, measurement of this work wilt be on a per -hour basis for a "crew". The equipment and manpower that constitutes a "crew" is to be determined by you. Project Warranty - This is a new work item that has been created for the purposes of the analysis that you have been asked to perform. This item wilt consist of providing a warranty for the work that has already been performed. The requirements for the warranty duration and items covered will be the same as for the work as if you performed it. Refer to the Contract Documents for the warranty requirements. During our visit, you raised a number of additional issues and questions that you had about the analysis that you have been asked to perform. You indicated that stored materials would be a significant factor in your analysis and asked that we provide you with our best idea of the materials that have been stored on -site. To accommodate this request, we have tried to list all of the materials stored with each bid item that they are associated with. If you ultimately perform the analysis, you may receive information from subcontractors indicating that there are additional materials stored on -site to what is listed in this document. If this occurs, these materials should be noted in your narrative and the narrative should describe how these costs were incorporated in your analysis. This relates to another issue that you raised, which was contacting subcontractors to gather information about the work that needs to be completed. Regarding subcontractors, I had told you during our meeting that you should not contact subcontractors until the effects of such contact on the City's existing contract with St. Clair Contractors was evaluated. This evaluation is ongoing and you wilt receive written notification of the manner in which contact ��n g i n e e r a S u r v e y o r s P l a n n e r s [ 7 } L M r . V o y d S t e w a r t J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 P a g e 1 0 w i t h t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r s c a n b e m a d e . U n t i l s u c h t i m e t h a t y o u r e c e i v e t h i s n o t i c e , y o u s h o u l d n o t c o n t a c t t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r s . Y o u a l s o s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k e d a b o u t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r b a c k f i l l i n g t h e L a r g e h o l e n e a r t h e w e s t e m b a n k m e n t . Y o u h a d a s k e d i f i t w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t h a t b o t h t h e b o t t o m a n d s i d e s o f t h e e x c a v a t i o n b e t h a w e d p r i o r t o p l a c i n g b a c k f i l l . A t t h i s t i m e , y o u s h o u l d p e r f o r m y o u r a n a l y s i s a s i f y o u h a d t o m e e t a l l o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e C o n t r a c t D o c u m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o f r o z e n s u b g r a d e , w h i c h i s n o t a l l o w e d . W e e x p e c t t h a t y o u w i l l h a v e a n u m b e r o f q u e s t i o n s a f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h i s m a t e r i a l a b o u t t h e c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n o f t h e w o r k . D o n o t h e s i t a t e t o c o n t a c t e i t h e r G a l e n C l e v e r l e y a t ( 2 0 8 ) 8 5 9 - 4 4 6 5 o r m e a t ( 2 0 8 ) 3 7 6 - 7 3 3 0 t o d i s c u s s t h i s m a t t e r . I f i t w o u l d b e v a l u a b l e t o y o u , b o t h G a l e n a n d I a r e a v a i l a b l e t o m e e t w i t h y o u a n d y o u r s t a f f r e g a r d i n g t h i s m a t t e r . W h e n y o u h a v e d e v e l o p e d y o u r c o s t t o c o m p l e t e t h e r e q u e s t e d a n a l y s i s , p l e a s e p a s s t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t o m e a n d I w i l l s e e t h a t t h e C i t y r e c e i v e s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . W h e n t h e C i t y m a k e s a d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e a n a l y s i s , w e w i l l p a s s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t o y o u . T h a n k y o u a g a i n f o r t a k i n g t h e t i m e t o l o o k a t t h i s p r o j e c t w i t h u s a n d h e l p i n g t h e C i t y e v a l u a t e t h e p o t e n t i a l c o s t t o c o m p l e t e t h i s p r o j e c t . Y o u r h e l p i n t h i s m a t t e r i s g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d . S i n c e r e l y , J - U - B E N G I N E E R S , i n c . J . M a t t U r a n g a , P . E . P r o j e c t E n g i n e e r J M U : g a r A t t a c h m e n t s c c : R o b e r t S t r o p e , C i t y M a n a g e r , C i t y o f M c C a l l D a v i d H . B i e t e r , M o o r e S m i t h B u x t o n E t T u r c k e G e o r g e L . W a g n e r , P . E . , J - U - B G a l e n C l e v e r l e y , J - U - B f : \ p r o ] e c t s 1 1 1 6 2 2 1 a d m i n \ H K C o n t r a c t o r s . d o c Absorptive Barriers provide the most effective noise control Roadside barriers designed to absorb sound significantly reduce noise reflections which degrade sound barrier performance and can improve barrier effectiveness several dB. Non -absorptive (reflective) barriers can amplify sound, increasing noise problems in certain arrangements and locations. NoiShield. products offer the best noise -absorbing performance in the industry. The rumble of passing buses and trucks is a common complaint in many locations; NoiShield excels in absorbing these low - frequency sounds. Made of steel or aluminum, NoiShield barriers can be designed with absorptive materials on one or both sides. They are available In a variety of colors and finishes. Low weight and sturdy, they are well suited for structural mounting, retrofit applications, and bridge projects. After more than 20 years of service in freezing -40°F northern climates, IAC NoiShield Barriers are still performing well. IAC products can be supplied as ire tanding\barriere or as cladding for existing barriers. Soundcorem4 Plus barriers offer a proven design with a high level of sound absorption. The prestressed concrete panels allow for wider spans between columns and reduce cost. Because prestressed concrete resists hairline cracks, Soundcore Plus barriers require minimal maintenance. Highly resiatani to water and weather damage, this product is available in a broad range of surface textures and finishes. Acousta WoodTM Plus barriers provide acoustic absorption cladding with the attractive traditional wood finish preferred by some localities. These products are made from engineered timber with superior strength and trustability. They arc pressure treated and kiln dried to make them durable and dimensionally stable. AcoustaWood Plus is available with a variety of sound absorptive finishes. Its acoustic absorption surfaces resist the ravages of water and weather. C Copyripdc 1996b7 Industrial Acoustic' Compvty. lho. i IAC will help you choose the best approach to noise reduction. Selecting the bast environmental noise control barrier requires the consideration of a variety of factors, many of which overlap, The following chart will help you select the best product for each project. Por,a. go A►+{t. C rote r• x Tc, - s rig !Ls Barrier Selection Table AB$Ol9PnvE 2YE8115 RlPLteTWE a1'Srrii$ Not:Ahld,F2 I deers Alva NRCV 1.0 (O.95) Absorption at 12$ Ns2 1.1(045) Ttartultia loll Lola aft 125 W Ihrottird eWN I1 f 14ro1O) lismulard Post Sp■aing, et (m) 1 18 (5) 6.5 (31.73) finish OptIons, sitlCialvarket Cooled - Pb+latt Options, Ms 2 or Maroon Soapwat And4rst5 U St sissy r 0.50 0.3 51 33 48 (1219) 32.5 (10) 54 (MILO Avawrlwood Fiat Of Mid loth A Road sax are rnrd d AgprapaM. Ts:Sures W'Ibk weft or mask with ter* Plus Ne+atriam. w J 0,90 N/A 0.3 WA 39 27 15 13 48 (1219) 1e oat 15 (5) 10 (3) 14.5 MIS) 2.6 (124) Corer*or wog Waal Claddlro Raw horlsaredty owrwuh Soap, vier camps Or or aolwri tra►nrea. N/A NIA 51 35 45 (1219) 32.R (10) 48 Pon Ulan can 6a blceldVV. or shoos 061 Aided or Breared Amuaawood N/A WA ss 15 45 (1219) 16(5) 5,5015) T� Amy wend Tutors, "Nit rani, Was ear - ar matil wllii act* with cpspue aidejs stain + NRc-->rolu woke would uld a as swags of abeorpltart at 250, 5OQ,1000 and 2000 H. ay oax►wndan aulsnlsnls graelar Ito O.* ol. rat : Abaaptlarr a 115 t# robs rrduoaa rs5seama ►ahlch dln+aot.ehaiply osa oppasloa t+urisa:a. a ITC - Sound Tleltnrduron Cass la toad is dassifiam0fl of mustier pmVtloras Brad alihatQi Otdsa oad, to not appraprlli tar WOwy nooks. ill. and 12514 - Tress orlon Lova et 125 Hi provides prowess spirit tuck end boa rumble nobs mane mien Iha allE. • Rigorous testing defines noise control 'performances Where noise absorption is critical, NoiShielde is the beat alternative, especially at low frequencies where truck and bus noise is most objectionable. SoundcoxeT Plus and AcaustaWoodtM Plus offer_sood absorption in the mid -frequency ranges, Transparent Harrier Walls - IAC has extensive experience with Noise -Locke VisionWtlRMbcing used as curtain- wafl for high-rise buildings. These could readily farm Transparent Highway Harriers with about 90% visibility depending on whether transparency is combined with sound absarpdve starfacea. b 125 !8) 500 1000 CAr11CA1 somincsa, Hz FOR IOfilvAY MARC NOIUE �.r..Ma1�Ml1 --..Staaarduaw t+lva A dosuu.Waod PILO — — —Aali slur. aaarhra wir Tt�Ai11: f'ORTATIDN NOL,,HIELDe SOUND I highways • railroads • busts • airports FREESTANDING BARRIERS /re#:.-°Olon NOISH1eLD Types: FS and SFS Barriers -sound absorptive on one and two sides respectively - optimize sound iranaMudon loss and sound absorbing prapertts' In a durable and attractive wall system in harmony with the community. - Excellent low -frequency absorption of truck and bus noisy - Laboratory -rated sound absorption on one or both sits@ - Low walght, rugged construction - Ideal tor „ •., ntln tent dual -coated. galvank lid steal Or aluminum oortatrucdon Moto Standards- - Readily relocated +n the- vant of hiphvesy idar ing Crofter prom CometOURATiON WRIGHT, Aluminum $OMIMAL VIOCli!'I1fiR nisei (6) APPPtICAT ON Mrlet hipw hum Irrquency relic:. j�.:.+.bibveen Invi ds _ LD B Ida r ` rs Inoorparate" ACOUSTIC ;. r1d ' . . • tea prat rioles PERFORMANCE • • *.. a ..ogs "7yp �Itr7g sr.,Par- r _ ,V ib. clad CHARACTERISTIC.:RIG �w. : 'f Y4f!Ils' Typi F!S nrsd . `�andlri' o Walla, which' combine sound•1radarrniasion ices (125 Hz Insertion toit- SSCINKL Q. (4B) and MP scurrd Type PST IS � rigttifhlg 125 Hz iaction loss between 10 stnd 14 dB. eon' NpsHIELD Barriers are Ztnlshsd with a tough. thermosattlno polyester powder coatlrngwhkh Is not damaged by the bash swsnln g chemicals usedtoremove spray poled geld. NOISHIELD whams attratllvs ddellI ariety of toto rednoe ndard spearclera l Might aS .ry ivad by the *RBIl community and motorists. Optional facing* include brick, stem, stucco, wood, slate FINISHIES and others, - Trstsd for accelerated weathering per ASTM G 23 for 2,400 hours with chalking not lees then No. t! rating (ASTM t] 639) and color changes lets than 6 NBS unit* (ASTM D 2244). - Sant spray tasted for checking, blistering, toes of adhplpn. or widen= of corrosion per ASTM S 117 for more than 4,000 hours without coating %Aura, ,fr1■I ► ;rn Gam.I ti.vIVlIVl fIra1yl� I I ICO Pr requiem �:. • subways • elevated systems. SOUND ABSORPTIVE TEATMENT FOR risrazarnm SARNI (69r slot of ?La.`p' S+A 00.i NOIPSHIELD Type C Cladding Modules — sound absarptiva to control rats dons from acoustically hard banters. - Apply to'new or iodating wood, concrete, or steel barriers to reduce reflected noise Rivals In the community - R%Irviit existing barriers to eliminate or mitigate noise complaints - Low weight ruggsd construction — ideal for retrofit applications - Laboratory rated sound absorption ooefflolsnts • 21fn. (84mm) thick metal module system - Abuse resistant galvanised steal or aluminum construction - • Individual rnodsuisc'feadlly maruilaclured and replaced if damsgsd • APPLICATION • 1.- �{ �1i• `.. as; "3 ',le - • ; ; -: +:: T Y,r4 ;a4• �, "� 41 .83 `Zlir .t0' : CiVB2.3 I41; .i •&# rrt J TYPIII aA1.'li8.4k`C12/A 1.;4•Tl: CSIPA1. . _' Appiyi bhowl or meollt tberog irreW: waked, bill - canorsts, +lons;••or elhsr nobs-nrfisolNp w.Ms."3 i ;C1ll adnd Wafer erthanvsd hut# Maimed ,� Yp- F4.1� -a,.ir f��'•L�ma ,. yi - v . it . •"AR, 5 :4"a 71 w � 4 .•r' •- •r1,,,, 1 r• `r , ii mot ttet. • NOISHIEL.O Barriers are snpl- hasered Thom the foundation up for structural and acoustical icrlsgrtty and - . I Initapstion. Low NOIi1Hl!LD might modules slack bstween wARRI`i poste ho whim required wall +ft. INSTALLATION heNOISHIELD barriers can be Installed with horizontal or verti- cal rsvasis to eat$sfy aesthetic and architectural oonsideratiau. Type C Hortarrntsl Pisirrofh Type PS WNW Pree SWudinp BpsalAaatians Transportation N0t6H1EL,D Bound Barriers FBIB Module 1.0. GINERAL 3.0 MATERIALS 1.1 Sound Barrier Modules shall be manufactured and In- stalled wkh .n acouedcady absorptive surface having guaran- teed sound absorptive properties facing the predominant noise source. The barrier shall be conafructed of vertical poets and sound absorptive polyester powder coated metallic modules stacked to arrives the required wall heights. The pre -approved barrier system shall be Transportation NOISHiELG modules se manufactured by Industrial Acoustics Company,1180 Com- merce Ave. Bronx, New lion 104e2-5500 Contact the product mansgsr at 715.430.4515, fax: 710.43o-4530, 1.2 Prs-bid submittals and appraysl shall include ample structural calculations and wall design drawings; current test data illustrating compliance with the requirements of the acous- tical and durability specifications for modules made on produc- tion tits aupeweisedbycadternsn;•pnoof of adsquste manufacwrhg and financial capability correlative with project requirements; and a ample module made on production tooling. 2.0 DS$IQN Z.1 The bonier shell be designed In accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of he AASH7O Guide Speci- fication for the Structural Design of Sound Barriers. trodula 40itraing apathy etthe &Niprt wind pressure. 2.3 Grand Moats l Barriers (grout Iang farm epedkatkrt) 2.4 $lructues Mounted (e.g. Walt, Trap !sander, or rsrkige- Banters 2.4.1 Btructure mounted barriers shall not weigh more than 7-5 ibrfis (35.7 }ghn1j. Nervier maduiss spas be lanlcetsd .af mead end designed with a 1/4 in. (ernrn) meet internal restraining cable attached to the structure. 'the cabs aria be designed to be fastened b the structure duct y inetehat$on of the modules with 12 Ira. (305rthm) of sleek. 2.6 Color, Module Patterns, and GrsB10 flsmoval 2.5,1 Modules shall have a coratstertt color from module to module. A ample of each wrier to be supplied Mad be submitted for apgrorvat prior to the start of manufacturing. 2.5.2 Parole shall be stacked with joints aligned horizontally or joints may be unfair*, stepped where the top or bottom of the wet change stratiorra. Bonier module color pawns shell be shoeeen on shop dr$wkngs (using a legend keyed to color numbers). 2.5.3 Removal of graffttt shall be accomplished with soap and water or Turpentine, Varsoi, or Acetone without damage <0 the module or module actor coating. 2.8 Acoustical a ice 2.aInca' .1 The barrier shall Irporate absorptive sound mate- rials to groat reverberation of noise between persKet between vrhk:les and nearby sound barriers, and naive reflec- tions to unshielded noise sensitive area of the community. 2.8.2 The surfed* of the wan facing the preclonnirm nt source of nose shall have a minimum sound absorption coefficient of 0.95 et each of the 1/3 octave bend canter frequents of 125, 250, 500 and 1000 Hz. 2.4.3 The Sound Transmission Loss of the veal modules shall be a minimum of 20 die at each of the fah octave band center frequencies of 125, 250, 800, 1003, 2000 and S000 Hs. 3.1 Modules shell be constructed of cold rolled galvanized steel sheets manufactured In accordance with the requirements of ASTM A 527 galvanized so ASTM A 5 specifications, mini- mum la gauge solid side and 20 gauge (0.9 mm) perforated side. Modules shall be non -welded, free draining, and free of pockets or cavities In which water may collect. Modules shall be coated In the factory with a polyester powder cooling applied through the use of an electrostatic charge, and thermally bonded to the surface of the galvanized steal or aluminum sheets, 3.2 Acoustic fill material Mail be fiberglass, non -corrosive, resistant to attack by fungus, fire-raslat.M, vermin proof, and non -hygroscopic. Mil materiel shall be tree draining, self support- ing and shall retain physics! and sound absorptive chsrac- tedetios after long term exposure to the elements. 3.3 Pot shall be galvanized steel meeting the requirements of ASSTM A 38, ASTM A 812 Grade 30 or ASTM A 5458 Grade 50 weathering steel. Color coating of poste shall be es required by the owner/architect. 3.+4 Anchor bolts shell be ASTM A 307 or approved equal, premised to ASTM A 153. Reber In toundellons shed be grade 60. Concrete in foundations IMI hew acnompraaehve strength exceed- ing 3.00o pet at 28 days Cr as required by the approved din. 3.5 Bearing blocks ahad be EPOM, neoprene, or rubber, 80 durometur. 3.8 Metertai Testing and Certification W,fll.1 Acoustical twang 3.d1.1 Certified tam reports shad be submitted to dem- onstrate compliance with the Sound Transmtaslon Loss and Sound Absorption Coifficients sprouted. Tarts shaft have been conducted In a laboratory accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation PrOpram (N VLAP). witnessed end oer- titled by an independent aaoustfoal coneufsnt. 3.6.12 Sound Absarpaan Coefficient TO* shall be perforated In accordance with ASTM C 423, Type A mounting. 3,8.1.3 Tranernis.Non Lase Teets shalt be performed In accordance with ASTM E 90 end ASTM E 413. 3.6.2 Module Testing 3.0.2.1 Mottbr4ss Malt helmeted for accelerated weather- ing ki accordance with ASTM O 23 or G 20 In a NVLAP certified independent test laboratory. Ahter2.400 hour* of testing, module samples shall not exhibit chaltdng iees than No. 8 per ASTM ❑ 4214 or color change greater than 5 NBS units per ASTM 02244. 3.8.22 Firs rails error tests ahss be performed on non- metallic materiels In . - . , with ASTM E 84. AN mania shalt have a Clam A fire rating wish llama pad not greeter than 25. 3.6.2.3 Modules shalt be tatted for corrosion resistance In accordance with ASTIR 8117 In a NVLAP certified inde- pendent test laboratory. After 2.400 hours of turn the coat- ing'yetsrn shall not tail due 63 bang, loot eat adhesion, or corroadarn along the score Wise, or other defects, 4,0 SUBMITTALS, APPROVALS AND CONSTRUCTION (Request long form *palliation) 8.0 I&EASURSMENT AND PAYMENT 5.1 The quantity to be paid for sound absorptive modules shall be the square hest of wall surface arse supplied. 52 Separate rneseurernsm and payment shad be made for site preparation, excavaIIonn copings,and backlit. caissons, posts, wail erection, doom, bonier, , appureenenoes, and Al deft i and akationd aitifact ro Dunps wianaurnodaa Mobic d rerai v r+orrraraI ►toques! Inv foray aoaelIneLbne Aar 7ypea MO. SPS S, SFSIA and C. • �s�r. IiIAL ACOUSTICS -:COMPANY ltr t a4g t.EADERs IH NOISE CONTROL ENGINEERING, PAooacrs arufD SYSTEMS r�1 h`.iri►st ' warm mireeess',.aerlMearr a1� «melt cEr+Wrw.TR4opla UUTAT! eo esse011 • ' IISWYarre 1 ii5- IS . • £TAINae, M OOL+ Wets sxs I41m unED(RiaCCNTIN P r• a: - $1I 1� ;; PMONS a1YM) roe-ieii.: ; ''' FNOM MIMS as71, �' eR Ji :+'r',v' ` FAX )1I3Gok're resome'Y° FAX: (OHM 1!, T� mo *L soissISSTATssw I5* vat, limas TamousoIOUY inn 0 a TOTAL COST UNIT COST -Jp ❑Z 0_ LLI Z_ F- Q 0 ❑ LI ap c =� LLJ -Ja0 a0 LLL N pop CEO- c) U- p z 0 0 DESCRIPTION z z o O rCr(1nr (n�OQQO r (*J (f) C+J Q C'7 �J- U _J Ca•-J z 7-�I7->-r UQ'UUU (n ❑7 S'7 (D q) C) r 0 Q (v r] 00 Cr) r r r r C r r CO r 0 N n N U) (f) Lc) t'] a) m U3 LA LL U V' LL' -j ( LL. LL U. Li- -J J J m .s'... _I J J _1 J J JCD cc, ❑ . Y ' N -a U 3 (6 ,. _c • 0 ,0 w I aCs C� p 2 E _c, m .0 N co CT m E m Q hill G Na o m a 1 �, o,(u Qd , as c is c -0 C .0 a E CD•� a• C a ¢' m 7)) m m�, = N Y�.� Y N•C7 U} c m u:o n 2 as o e o d O u) c Im o m m a) a. as = a) m (reh'• 2 y cr. m 7E 7- a) c m ca CC F- a a. a• N v h U co ay o�E� °'oa m� ac13 mEas to c c-m�--°w o 0�•C ie-LL o m' C fi oi.0 a) oLL . mNr❑a_ C�.ca Ell -04 c• m a C m@ m e m m m `a a z O M .- a`� O 5 (ry �' r= c w_ c `° al o m m ` o o a z is o f ❑ i m .m N Eitf a� -0 c 3 C c Es 2 U a iO [I] LL it C O CC7- c (3 O N a 4 m fl❑C 0,43 a) w ffl c._ in �} y c 0.. 'v O U Cr .% U O t,) 0 a l "" 0 C C 79.c0 U 0 c-D 4.) 7, N ity [6 7 m 'i0 Q C c m H S a x � 6.. m❑� � m' m m•'� c (a o .N Y N .a LU c m LL1 p 'O m e -0 a) 2.5 6 2 r F- [n m CC a) a) N m O t, j t= IIII s� ❑ e (g ❑ c a) E 0 a ? Q. a) m 6 0 v ► rl U to m O rn [a U .. U a .._ LU C N O 7 tr ❑ O ❑ to _ _ _ 7 vQ a c w v E m m o m a) xJu7 2LLLL �t ,,-.1?i � E a as c a.-U c ,- „,. m E- coC _ � � v -- _ � O a) O ct a) -C> m O .c -c (aY 0. 7 0d 7 4)=4 �T4 a W brd r i-r- 2❑i—to_1UQt70trr-ti0topUivpcnwcvcvNu)rrii N Q 2 Lit (v r) uz(v ) to a n rn c] Tr n co 0 N (7 (n to n 00 [A C) c, n OQ is] (� ifl (O - t7 ►f) (f) (I) (t] U> N In (n LO r r r w� TOTAL COST UNIT COST � '0 o I 0 0 \� a- 0 27 <=/ �� 0m¥ w 32/ 0�/ \-)\�_Iq/�_1q\-�\\ƒ\ $§§ 0 0 �a= 0 Z . 0 Z 0 — DESCRIPTION E 'I # c: k (, c § #' g q E DV mf.6 E\} J c ®m 7 5 a c ,_ k a 33'2\ 3=�cc n.«222=2 S sc§k2o t\kkk// cv #f\2k�ƒ m 2 2° c° m a m a_— c= c.= _ s o 2— u= E 2 g 2« Egm�om$//$0320= _ . , . , , , t = m I o a ¥ c m c c O c c c m 0..,. 9 0 0 0 0 o c-= s k k.7 3 CC-8 CP _— — — .0 — o — c al ea m& 0 ea u ��-m gym@=mm=I0gs9u2E£a' m m m© a- c a E 2 E E E E' 7 IL IL 2 ID e ��0_a.�eLa_c0_0_00cri \/ = c c E (_ ,ea — m¥ S 2}\ r, a k% ==§ Ti 2 2\\ 8° d co 2 E E E E E «. 2 n' 5 2 f 2 awwuLUwmlELo6Bec73ct. 2 111 n-//oN=comrmrLr) oommcmoaoN- N121 7- - 3 k e 0 e _ CI IAN(il: IN CONTRACTORS St. Clair was the original contractor We terminated them, and Wausau decided to bring back Interwesl to complete the project. While we were not pleased with that choice. we did not have an option to exercise in that regard. While it is true that Interwesl was arguably in a position to know what work was remaining and had some history on the job, they were also part of the team St. Clair had put together that had failed to complete the project on time. It was good that they were able to get Scrrot to return to complete the liner because we were worried that another liner contractor would have to be found and the entire liner would have to either be removed and replaced or covered with a new liner. As it turns out, Scrrot-s return may not have been for the best given the defects we have subsequently discovered. CN1 In the fall of 2001. Contractors Northwest, Incorporated was brought in after Wausau's refusal to correct defective work. While Wausau contends that the project was complete in June of 2001, we were forced to complete over S400,000 in work relating to correcting defective work that Wausau should have taken care of. We selected CNI because they were working on a project for the City and had demonstrated an ability to complete construction projects on time and on budget. CNI stepped in and did a great job for the City of McCall. 4/12/20048:40 PM11Financc01S ! AFF\Publ iell Jscr.\ManagerlMy Docurnents\Pro.jcets\J Ditch Ph Illtrial outliuc narrative2_doc C'OMPI.l.T1ON OF TIIE WORK As we moved into the spring of 2001 and Interwest hegan work on the project it became apparent that there were significant prohlcros with some of the work St. Clair performed. I recall Interwest excavating an area that St. Clair had tilled in hecause JUB said St. Clair had not properly installed a section of 24 ineh pipe. What we discovered was St. Clair had tilled in the treneh with snow and frozen dirt and had not properly bedded the pipe. jeopardizing the integrity of the piping. We also hegan to try to resolve the lack of testing of the pipes that connect the storage lagoon with the primary wet well, and thc detects relating to the construction of the wet well itself. During [nedialion and our attempts to resolve the issues that might have allowed St. Clair to complete thc job, JUB had identified concerns ahout the wet well. Wausau was adamant that there wasn't anything wrong with the wet well. an assertion that proved incorrect when we tested the wet well and found it had significant problems. The City tried very hard to conic to a resolution with Wausau regarding, the defective wet well hut at every turn Wausau's theme was that there wasn't anything wrong but that they would do anything .1U13 directed them to do. Wausau wouldn't offer any options or possihlc solutions which was difficult given they had the responsihility to complete the project to the contract DID THE CONTRACT STATE TIIE CONTRACTOR WAS TO RECOMMEND SOLUTIONS FOR DEFECTS? What was particularly frustrating about this situation was the efforts made by .11)13 to resolve the issue in the form of a change order. RIB believed that Mr. John Sigler was in a position to negotiate thc specifics ofa change order to address the prohlems and that Wausau would act on his recommendation. 'they worked with Mr. Figler and lnterwest on a draft change order — change order numhcr 3. This was eventually rejected by Wausau. and Wausau refused to correct defects identified by We also attempted to resolve this situation by drafting a work change directive, which Wausau refused to comply with. This necessitated the City entering into a contract with Contactors Northwest. Inc. for the correction ofdcfcetivc work. One of the !Unctions CN1 performed for the City was a test of the primary wer well. This test revealed that the work was defective-- in fact several lifting holes in the concrete structure that had been filled in by St. Clair failed causing damage to the project that had to he corrected, FXHIBI`I'S--I,F TI.RS FROM WA[JSAIi STATING; NOTHING IS WRONG, ETC. 4/12/20048:40 PM111~ inance0\S 1 AFF\Puhlic\L'scrs\Manager\My Doeuments\Pro_jccts1.1 Ditch Ph Illtrial outline narrative2.doc