The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutBox 512 - letter from JUB 5-21-01J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. NGINFFRS • SURVEYORS • PLANI,11.H;) Regional Office 250 South Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201 Boise, ID 83709-0944 208-376-7330 Fax: 208-323-9336 May 21, 2001 Judith Rheinschmidt Bond Claim Supervisor Wausau insurance Companies P.O. Box 8017 Wausau, WI 54402-8017 RE: McCaU J-Ditch Phase 2 - Lower Penetration on Primary Wetwell �'� Dear Judith: We have received your Letter dated May 18, 2001, regarding the above -referenced subject. Upon review of your proposal, we were disappointed that you did not address the concerns that have repeatedly been presented to you and your agents. First and foremost, it is our position that any resolution to this issue must resolve all issues associated with the penetration. Your effort to address some aspects of this issue and put others off until a later date is unacceptable. This should not be a new concept to you. During discussions at the weekly progress meetings, it has been made very clear that the proposal to correct the defective work must be a complete proposal that not only proposes physical repair to the defective work, but also addresses future repair costs and liability over the life of the project. The contract documents establish the manner in which defective work can be accepted by the Owner, if they so choose. The contract indicates that the acceptance of defective work will be incorporated into the contract documents by change order. This change order cannot be completed when only half -measures are proposed. For this reason, your proposal cannot be accepted. You can certainly understand that a change order cannot be made part of the contract documents when issues remain unresolved. We are somewhat confused by what appears to be contradictory statements in your letter. In the first paragraph, you state that, "We have no objection to trying to negotiate a settlement in good faith of a limited mutual release on the lower penetration ... ", and in the second to the last paragraph you state that, "We believe this corrective action will be the functional equivalent of the original design and should be accepted as such." The first statement appears to indicate that you are willing to negotiate a settlement that will provide an assurance to the City that they will not be left holding the bag at a later date, while the second statement appears to say the exact opposite and addresses the technical merits of not only the original design, but the proposed fix. Please provide clarification on this point. From your Letter, we can only interpret that you are proposing one or the other. If this is the case, resolution of this issue will be difficult. Your statement that the proposed fix is the functional equivalent of the original design raises a number of questions. The first is what information has resulted in this opinion that you have developed and whose opinion is it? Is this the opinion of a qualified Professional Engineer with applicable experience who fully understands the function of this feature, the implications of failure, and the operating parameters and needs of the project? If so, is this Professional Engineer willing to place their seal on this matter and show proof of acceptable liabiii'ty insurance? Judith Rheinschmidt May 21, 2001 Page 2 Your letter repeatedly refers to the critical time frame to perform the fix so as not to delay project completion. Concerning this statement, consider the following facts. This issue has been known to exist for quite some time. Wausau should have realized that this situation existed when you first became actively involved with this project. Your principal had the best understanding of what was done in regards to this item and should have made you aware of the situation. This issue was again discussed during mediation prior to termination of the contract and you had the opportunity to have whoever you felt necessary present. On March 6, 2001, I personally met with your agent to discuss the project as a whole. During this meeting, I attempted to discuss this issue and was told by your agent that this particular issue was "No big deal," and that he did not want to waste any time discussing such a minor issue. On March 13, 2001, at the preconstruction conference, George Wagner again tried to raise the issue of the defective penetration and was again told that it was Na"big deal" by your agent and was not worth spending time on during the meeting. Now you come forward with a proposal, nearly one month after our last correspondence to you on this subject, and state that substantial completion will be delayed if the proposal is not accepted within four days, two of which are a weekend. This is not only unreasonable, but shows a Lack of willingness to resolve the issues as they arise. Furthermore, the time frame that you have attempted to establish for the approval of your proposal would be impossible to accommodate even if the City Manager is willing to take such a proposal to the City Council. Prior to the initiation of any corrective action, a change order will have to be issued. This process would involve consideration by the City Council. It takes time to assemble the City Council and it would be nearly impossible to assemble a quorum in the time frame you have presented. Secondly, once a change order is written, it will have to be sent to both the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare and the Idaho Department of Water Resources for consideration and acceptance. The time frame involved with this process is beyond the control of the City and J-U-B ENGINEERS as has been previously noted in earlier correspondence. These agencies have been contacted regarding this matter and they are anticipating a proposal and understand that time is critical. However, this does not mean that they will respond in any time frame that you believe to be necessary. Regarding the proposed fix to the penetration, we provide these preliminary comments. There appears to be at least one sheet missing from the technical information for the JetSetGel. The list of physical properties for this product appears to be incomplete. Physical properties that should be provided include, at a minimum, product strength in both tension and compression, coefficients of thermal expansion, expansion coefficients at set, yield strength, elongation at yield, etc. Please do not consider this as a complete list. It was only developed as a result of a cursory review. Additionally, the proposal describes how the gel will be applied. The proposal states that at least two injection ports will be used. What is the basis for determining how many ports will be used and how will assurance be provided that all annular spaces are sealed and not just made water tight? After the gel has set, you state that additional small diameter holes will be drilled to test the penetration and that the number of holes drilled will be based on field conditions. Please provide not only a description on how the number and locations of these holes will be determined, but also a description of how these holes will be repaired after the testing is complete. Statements that indicate these items will be addressed in the field are not acceptable. Further, we ask that you provide a list of other projects that have utilized the JetSetGel in a similar manner and a brief description of the application and date of installation. For each project listed, we would also like to have contact information for both the Owner and Engineer on the referenced project. drir (JUB 1173) L 44401, Judith Rheinschmidt May 21, 2001 Page 3 The comments that we have provided regarding the proposed physical methods to partially correct this defective work are in no way to be considered complete. We are simply providing these comments to give you the greatest opportunity to gather the appropriate information in a timely manner. Our evaluation is continuing, but will not be performed in haste simply to expedite the project completion. As further issues relative to the proposed products arise, we will provide you with additional comments and concerns. Again we express our desire to resolve this issue in its entirety and are willing to take all reasonable measures to reach this goal. As we have expressed to your consultant, both the City and J-U-B ENGINEERS are willing to sit down and work out a negotiated settlement of this issue. As your consultant has been told, simply notify us of a date, time, and place where this issue can be resolved and we wiLL make all efforts to adjust our schedules to attend and work on this matter. It appears now that there is little possibility of completing this work prior to the Consent Order deadline of June 15t. If this is the case, please provide written notification to the City of McCall stating such so that they can begin working with the regulatory agencies to minimize the damages that will result. If this issue cannot be resolved, remember that you always have the option of repairing the penetration to either the original contract documents or to the previously approved fix that was not implemented correctly by the previous Contractor. If you have any questions regarding this issue or require additional clarification, please contact George L. Wagner, P.E., or me at (208) 376-7330. Sincerely, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. J. Matt Uranga, P.E. Project Engineer JMU:lhc cc: Robert Strope, City of McCall George L. Wagner, P.E., J-U-B John Eigler, Wausau Jess Prather, Interwest F:lprojects1116221adminlRheinschmid t10.doc