Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2007Fy I - 6A", TO: Members of the Sebasti . i ity Co cil FROM: Al Minner, City Manag RE: TWIN DITCHES — C U I EMBER WOLFF QUESTIONS DATE: Tuesday, August 21, 20 On Wednesday, August 15, 2007, 1 received an e-mail with questions from Councilmember Wolff about construction related issues for the Twin Ditch Project. The questions are very detailed and took some time to answer. I am taking the liberty to pass these responses on to Council, as the format is a great one to disseminate information about the construction process for the Twin Ditches. Please note the following: • This is a question/answer format. All bold type are the questions from Councilmember Wolff. All the neutral type are the responses. • Also, we are still working on closing out this project. Finanically, a cost and billing needs to be determined of the "V" Notch modification. Therefore, please understand that all financial information are estimates. • Even though the financial information is estimated at this stage. It appears that the City will be below budget by approximately $65,000. This should be enough money to address the few non -planned additions such as additional guardrail and painting the fabric -form on the east head wall. In preparation of planning a project the size and scope of the Collier Creek Canal Retrofit it is necessary to further evaluate the relatively simple project of the Twin Ditches. With reference to the "Minor" issues with discharge. Before addressing these questions, it is important to revisit the situation that occurred with discharge. After SJRWMD permitting, the project was bid and Council awarded the contract to Master Excavators, Inc. (MEI). A standard requirement of the SJRWMD permit is for the contractor to provide details on de -watering and other related construction practices/plans .prior to the commencement of construction. In our case, this did not occur. When MEI started the project, they began bringing equipment and preparing the site by survey and removal of vegetation. This seemed normal. However, when they started grading the middle berm, our staff (Engineering Department) contacted MEI to find their intentions and reminded them of permit requirements before "heavy" construction began. MEI responded affirmatively, but moved ahead with digging out the middle berm at the western headwall. When MEI started this, they had not taken any measure to block silt and did not submit their de -watering plan to CDM or SJRWMD. At this stage, the City completely shut down the project and required that MEI follow the regulations. In fact, I personally made threats of pulling the performance bond and firing MEI should they fail to rectify any problems they created. They were also put on notice that any potential fine levied by SJRWMD would be paid by them as they failed to follow the construction specifications. Further, City staff did everything in our power to inform SJRWMD of this situation; as to help us build a potential case against MEI. Council was immediately verbally apprised of this situation as it developed and ended. In summation, the negative result was that for a day or two extremely turbid water went into the Sebastian River. On the positive side, the situation was corrected, MEI followed regulations, submitted an approved construction plan and during the project there were no more problems with turbid discharge. It should be noted however, that CDM, in the course of their Administrative Services Contract, was vigilant with their instruction to maintain forward pumping. Sometimes this occurred, sometimes it did not. When MEI did not forward pump, they stated that there was flow to the river and/or turbidity was too high to pump forward. 1. Who initially discovered the problem? Initially Dave Fisher provided stern instruction to MEI when they started. However, when the turbid water started flowing into the river, I believe I discovered the issue. I recall going out to check on the site as they began to move equipment and noticed, not only did they move in equipment, they began digging without any silt barrier and the water heading to the Sebastian River tributary was extremely turbid. At that time, I immediately contacted Margie Reynolds, Environmental Planner, and Dave Fisher, via phone because he was on emergency leave to attend to his mother's illness, and we began to take action to control the problem. It is also critical to point out, that as soon as City personnel discovered the problem, the City immediately contacted SJRWMD. Their representatives, Karen Garrett -Krause and Fariborz Zanqaneh came to the site to ensure that environmental matters were handled properly. During the entire duration of the project, it is our opinion that SJRWMD was kept in the loop every step of the way. SJRWMD subsequently expressed their thanks to us for immediately informing them of the occurrence. 2. Who actually did the water testing and where was it performed? During the course of the project, MEI took water samples and provided the water sampling data to SJRWMD per requirements of the permit. During the initial problems, MEI and, I believe, SJRWMD performed tests. During the course of construction CDM monitored testing and MEI completed forms submitted to SJRWMD. As required by the permit, all testing was done on the west side of the Wimbrow/Main Street Headwall and down stream 300-400 yards. This was the approved site by SJRWMD. 3. Was the contractor working improperly? The contractor was working improperly before the City intervened. After the initial problems, MEI performed as required. 4. Who designed or specified the solution? Directly concerning the poor start, the City's and CDM position was that we could not dictate the "means and methods" of how a contractor performs. The City's position as owner is, "We want a specific project completed and have agreed to pay $X." The engineer's position is as designer. In other words CDM figures out how to design/permit what the City wants. The contractor is then charged with the responsibility of how to build what is designed. If these lines are crossed, there can ultimately be liability for the City if the plans are not completed satisfactorily, because the contractor can stipulate, "We did as we were told". In essence, the City needs to be in a position to demand what "the plans call for". Therefore, the means and methods of construction were determined by the contractor. A work schedule, or de -watering plan, had to be approved to meet SJRWMD regulations. After the bad start, MEI, as required, finally provided a method of construction, which met regulations. Their chosen course did deviate from the design specification, which required a modification to the SJRWMD permit, which was approved by SJRWMD. The method employed was to pump water up stream and ground water downstream to keep flow moving into the river, while water was blocked in segments for construction. This process was repeated until the entire ditch was dug. 5. Who paid for all the equipment, testing design solutions, overtime, etc? The most direct cost for the problematic beginning was that a significant portion of the CDM construction administration budget was used to extract a construction plan from MEI. If you recall, Council awarded a $35,000 contract for this purpose at their January 24, 2007 meeting. To date, the City has exceeded this amount by approximately $13,845. $11,115 is attributable to the turbidity issue. MEI will be billed for this in the way of retaining a portion of their final payment. They were informed of this during meetings. Aside from the aforementioned issue, there was not a significant other financial loss to the City with the poor start by MEI. Most of the weekend monitoring was done by salaried City staff. The contractors ultimately were responsible for equipment, testing and design solutions as part of the contract. To that end, MEI initially tried some varying solutions of blocking turbidity, which was a cost they absorbed as part of the overall contract. In fact, the ME] superintendent, who started the job, was ultimately removed and was not seen on site again. For the record, the second superintendent did a very good job monitoring/managing the project. The V Notch's 1. Does SJRWMD know about the V notches? SJRWMD has been notified of the field modification. Engineered field modifications are typical. CDM has reviewed calculations and the formal as-builts submitted for the project will reflect said change. 2. How does this make maintenance easier? The original weep hole was six inches in diameter, located in the top middle of the baffle wall. After a while sand, debris, grass, trash and other sediment could eventually block, or clog the orifice like a blocked artery. The 'V notches are exactly that. A giant' V" is now placed in the baffle wall so debris that might have eventually plugged the orifice will flow right over/through the W" notch; thereby, diminishing the need to ensure that orifice is clear. As an additional illustration, the entire baffle wall is approximately 17" feet high. The vertical length of the 'V is 1.5 feet. Hence the wall is still very much structurally intact. 3. Was any reinforcing steel cut? If so, was it treated to prevent rusting? Yes. The baffle box wall had reinforced steel rebar. Some of that was cut in making the "V" notches. That should not affect the strength of the wall. As of this writing, the rebar has not been coated. it will be coated before final close of the project. 4. Who paid for the (very loud) hydraulic pump that ran for about a month? The pumping was paid for by MEI as a portion of the contract. The pumping was generally done to move water from one segment of the ditch to the other during the digging phase. MEI also used the pump to draw down the level of the water during and immediately after the project. When it was found that the orifice was too small, CDM committed to taking responsibility for the pumping costs. This pumping was required to prevent further back-ups and keep the water level down. CDM and the City still await final billing on the "V" notch modification. With regard to noise, we contacted immediate residents to ensure that they had no issue with the pump working during non -business hours. Additionally, if the pump ran after hours, the pump was at idle speed. 4n one occasion, the pump ran fully open after hours and complaints were received. As a result, the pump was immediately stopped. No complaints were received by the City after this incident. Future Maintenance 1. Was the long-term maintenance issue discussed and planned in advance? Most of the design and planning for this project was done before my appointment as City Manager. For that background, I have had conversation with CDM and the Engineering Department. From those conversations, reduction and/or limitation of maintenance costs has been the emphasis of all stormwater projects since the Master Stormwater Management Plan was adopted. For the Twin Ditch project in particular, several alternate designs were investigated including fabric -form lining the entire channel. Most were determined to be cost prohibitive. The final product is a 4:1 sodded slope, which doesn't require fencing per SJRWMD rules. Please also keep in mind that previously the City had no access to the Twin Ditches except on the berm between the ditches. The new system is much safer for City staff and adjacent residents and allows water quality treatment that was not previously provided. 2. Are prison workers mowing resident's backyards acceptable to the public? Generally not. In fact, I recently received some complaints about this on Bryant Court, where some workers were used to mow and clean Bryant Court Park. For the most part, the Public Works Department tries to notify residents before prison crews perform maintenance work. And the Department also tries to use this force away from residential areas. Three points should be addressed on this topic. First, prison crews are a good way to supplement Public Work activities at little to no cost. Second, because the twin ditch is -a little more open, there may be some potential for using prison workers here. However, if there are complaints about this, it will be immediately stopped. Third, a contract options exists whereby this concern is void. Conlon Landscape has provided a price for said maintenance. His plan would be to mow the ditch in its old and new sections. In other words, his scope was to mow the ditch from about Easy Street, west, to the new headwall at Main/Wimbrow (both sides). His crews would use weed eaters to cut the banks. His price would be $550 per cut, if he were awarded the fourth cut. That is a great price. If the fourth cut is not awarded, I am sure we could negotiate a different price. In any case, contracting this maintenance item may be the best alternative. 3. Who will remove the surface weeds and trash that is already building up against the new dam? What will be the cost? The Public Works Department already has an aquatic spray contract with Applied Aquatics and the Twin Ditch is part of that contract. The contractual price to spray the area is $910 per spray and it will be sprayed three times per year. Currently because of staffing, no plan has been made to remove the dead vegetation from the water. This can be accomplished by reassigning personnel to that task. Not Mentioned in this Report 1. How will the FPL power lines (underground) be rerouted? These are presently exposed in PVC pipes. Who will pay for this? FPL has primary electric lines that service Collier Creek in that area. The line goes from overhead (at the western headwall) to underground and toward the subdivision, right where the headwall is located. FPL was contacted by CDM in the design phase of the project to locate their lines in the project area. The location provided by FPL was shown on the drawings. Upon excavation for the structure, the actual location was found to be closer than indicated by FPL. FPL was notified immediately by MEI and CDM. As a result, the responsibility to move the powerline is the City's. Maybe some argument could be made with FPL that they did not respond to CDM's initial inquiry correctly. A change order in the amount of $10,139 was made and paid to FPL by the City as a part the project costs. The payment represents the cost for FPL to temporarily reroute the line (i.e. the above ground conduit) and then jack/bore a new primary service under the headwall structure now in place. FPL plans to complete this work by the end of August. As a side note, the Engineering Department and I have contacted FPL on a few occasions about the wires being in water or conduit breaking. They seem to have less then an "emergency" attitude about responding to these calls. 2. As part of the due diligence in preparing the plan why was the collapsed culvert (east of eagle drive) not inspected by CDM until after the project was underway? (This is an integral part of the twin ditches). The project's major focus was to remove the middle berm and create one large retention area. In addition, the previous conditions at the Airport Drive East headwall were wet enough to hide the existing condition of the culvert. When conditions presented, Phillip Patnode (Engineering Department) visually inspect the pipe and found that it was in severe condition. Upon that inspection, we conferred at length with Indian River County Utilities because they have a major force main nearby. After assessing various methods and seeking a price estimated from MEI (which seemed extremely high for an open cut), the recommendation was made to Council to line the pipe. As a side note, had we known about the pipe being in such disrepair, I would speculate that the same fix (lining the pipe) would have been recommended because of all the utility conflicts in the area. Recap 1. How much was the total cost of this project? Item Amount CDM Original Contract $106,886 CDM Construction Services $35,560 CDM Construction Services Overage $13,846 CDM Billable for Weep Hole Issue ("V" Notches) ($XX,XXX) Estimated Final MEI Contract Price $898,409 MEI Deduction for Turbidity Issue ($11,115) MEI Deduction for Permit Modification ($1,365) FPL Utility Conflict $10,139 TOTAL PROJECT *$1,052,360 TOTAL BUDGET (SERIES 2003 BOND) $1,118,000 FINAL OVERAGE ($65,640) *Please note this is an estimate. Two issues are yet to be resolved. Agreement from MEI on final payment deduction for permit modification and turbidity issue. Also, CDM and City must calculate and distribute cost for "V" notch modification. This modification should be a deduction in cost to City; hence the project should stay below the $1,118,000 project budget. 2. Was MEI's final bill the same as their original contract? At this time, MEI's final bill is calculated $11,204 lower than original contract. Please note this is an estimate. Currently CDM, MEI and City are still calculating charges for the ' V" notch modification. The W" notch modification should be a deduction to City. To date, the City has paid a total of $800,689 to MEI. This leaves a retainage of $96,444, which leaves any discrepancy within the amount of the retained payment funds. ITEM Original Contract Change Order #1 Change Order #2 Change Order #3 Change Order #4 Change Order #5 Change Order #6 Change Order #7 Change Order #8 Change Order #9 Change Order #10 SUBTOTAL MEI DEDUCT - TURBIDITY ISSUE DEDUCT - PERMIT MODIFICATION TOTAL MEI w/ DEDUCTIONS FPL Payment TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT REASON ($10,100) Less Quantity of 15" HDPE ($3,200) Less 15" HDPE Mitered End $1,260 Add Quantity of 24" HDPE Pipe $2,400 Add 24" HDPE Mitered End $600 Add Quantity 18" RCP $800 Add 18" RCP Mitered End $820 Add 36" CMP Pipe $1,100 Add 36" CMP Mitered End $1,296 Add Concrete to Ditch Bottom of West Headwall — Erosion Protection $6,300 Add 420 S.F. Rip -Rap in Sump — Erosion Protection $898,409 ($11,115) ($1,365) e $10,139 Utility Conflict Paid Direct to FPL $896,068 3. Was CDM's final bill the same as their original contract? CDM's original contract was $106,886 approved by Council on April 4, 2004. This amount was paid to design the project. CDM's Construction Administrative Service Contract was a time/material contract with an estimated cost of $35,506, approved by Council on January 24, 2007. The administrative services contract ran over $13,845. The reason for the overage has been broken into categories. Of this amount $11,115 will be charged to MEI for problems associated with the turbidity issues at the onset of constriction. Also MEI will be charged $1,365 for engineering services needed to modify the SJRWMD permit for de -watering (MEl used sheet rock methods and pumping in lieu of de -watering. SJRWMD approved the permit modification.). Finally, $1,365 is a responsibility of the City for the engineering needed for the FPL utility conflict. Below is a chart, which summarizes these figures: CDM CONTRACTS Original Contract Admin Services Admin Services Overage Total Potential CDM PARTY TO ABSORB OVERAGE CDM Overage TO MEI CDM Overage TO MEI CDM Overage TO CITY TOTAL CMD OVERAGE CHARGE TO CITY CHARGE TO MEI AMOUNT $106.886 $35,560 $13.846 $156,292 CDM ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AMOUNT $11,115 $1,365 $1,365 $13,846 $1,365 $12,480 APPROVED 4/4/04 1/24/07 CM Approved - Overage REASON Turbidity Issue De -Watering Permit Modification FPL Electric Conflict Also note, to date City has paid $152,253 to CDM. This is approximately $3,985 below the contracted amount of $156,238. 4. Was MEI the low bidder? Did any other bidders predict additional costs or problems? MEI was low bidder. The project had two bidders as follows: BIDDER MEI Blue Goose Growers AMOUNT $897,133 $938,673 In hindsight, we assume some of the cost difference would have been associated with dewatering in different manners. 5. Did the City of Sebastian contribute any physical resources to help the construction? Nothing of significance. Dave Fisher and other staff conducted daily inspections while the project was ongoing. Public Works helped relocated the pump for water draw down (which was probably less than two hours of assistance). However, I would not consider anytime spent or resources expended out of the unusual or anything that did not reduce our costs in the long run. Hopefully with questions and scrutiny we can better understand the evolution of capital projects. Obviously the final numbers will tell their own story.