Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout50- Public Works CITY OF SAN BERN RDINO - REQUEST [ )R COUNCIL ACTION File No. 1.653 Proposed Settlement by Southland From: ROGER G. HARDGRAVE Subject: Surveying, Inc. - Survey Services for Widening South "E" Street Dept: Public Works Bridge Date: 8-25-93 Synopsis of Previous Council action: None. Recommended motion: That the proposed settlement by Southland Surveying, Inc. , for providing survey services for widening the South "E" Street Bridge at the Santa Ana River, in the amount of $5 , 000 as paymnent in full for the balance of $8 , 205 . 00 for their claim for extra work, be rejected. cc: Shauna Clark / Jim Penman Signature Contact person:_ Roger G. Hardgrave Phone: 5025 Supporting data attached: Report & Letter Ward: 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Aqenda Item No. 5O CITY OF SAN BERN." WINO - REQUEST F lR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT The contract for widening the South "E" Street Bridge provided that the City of San Bernardino would provide the basic survey control, and that the Contractor would be responsible for the construction staking. In accordance with this provision, the General Contractor, Brutoco Engineering & Construction, entered into a sub-contract with Southland Surveying, Inc. for the con- struction surveying required for this project. Some errors were discovered by Southland during the initial stage of the project, which necessitated some re-staking work. A claim for $11 , 808 . 40 was submitted by Southland for their extra work. This claim was reviewed by our Resident Bridge Engineer, and a determination was made that $3 , 603 . 40 was justified. This amount was paid, which left a balance of $8 , 205. 00 for their claim. During negotiations for closing out the project, both Brutoco' s and the City' s representatives both felt that the payment of $3, 603 . 40 was adequate compensation to Southland for the extra work that they incurred. Therefore, no additional amount was included in the final contract payment. Southland has submitted a proposal, by letter dated 7-15- 93, to accept payment of $5 ,000 as settlement of the balance of their claim. A copy of this letter is attached for reference. We recommend that the proposed settlement be rejected. 8-25-93 75-0264 SOUTI LAND SUR PING 11722 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite F • San Diego, CA 92121-1021 (619) 792-5550 • (619) 271-5550 • FAX (619) 792-5576 July 15, 1993 City of San Bernardino Attn: Roger Hardgrave Director of Public Works/City Engineer 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA. 92418 Re: E Street Bridge Southland Surveying Job #0-827 Dear Mr. Hardgrave, Thank you for taking time to meet with me and Mike King regarding the above captioned project. As we discussed in our meeting of July 14, 1993 the total extra work charges to the City of San Bernardino for the above captioned project amount to $11,808.40, as documented in my letter of March 22 , 1993 to Steve Enna. We have received payment on CCO #21 for $3 , 603 .40, leaving a balance of $8,205.00. In the interest of avoiding litigation and resolving this issue to cover our costs I am willing to discount our claim to a total of $5,000. 00 due from the City. Please let me know if this is acceptable to the City of San Bernardino. Sincerely, Scott Fitch President S FF/ CC - Mike King, Brutoco. wp51/o-827fin OUT LAND SUR YJNG 11722 Sorrento Ve11ay Aoad, Suite F • San Diego, CA 92121-1021 (619) 792.5550 • (619) 271.5550 • FAX (619) 792.5576 March 22, 1993 City of San Bernardino Attn: Steve Enna 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA. 92418 Re: sig" street Bridge Extra Staking Invoices southland surveying Inc. Job # 0-827 Dear Steve, Per our meeting on March 19, 1993 the following is an explanation of the invoices for extra staking we discussed. The two principal reasons for the extra staking required was first, the survey control data and monumentation for the project supplied by the City of San Bernardino was in error, and subsequent corrections of that data supplied were also in error. The details for this process are expanded on in Southland Surveying, Inc. Is (SSI) letter to Brutoco dated April 30, 1992 (Enclosed) . Second, the plan information (Centerline course data, stationing of piers and pier alignment, etc. ) did not match the existing conditions by a substantial amount. As described in our letter to Brutoco on May 5, 1992, (Enclosed) we were unable to even establish the location of the existing bridge structure relative to a centerline station due to the errors of the City supplied control/centerline data and field monumentation. As the construction surveyor for this project our task is to translate the information provided on the project plans by the design Engineer into real world locations for the Contractor to build from. We are not qualified to alter the engineered plan location of the structures designed if they do not match the existing conditions, and we cannot judge what magnitude of discrepancy is structurally significant. For example, the foundation plan for this project shows pier stations to the hundredth of a foot and a typical pier alignment to seconds of bearings. After these plan alignments were staked, (initially based on erroneous control supplied by the City of San Bernardino) the magnitude of the discrepancy between plan and existing was brought to the Contractors attention. At this point we were directed by the City to as-build the existing structures and prolong their alignment to control the new construction. Costs identified in our extra staking invoices are allocated, if applicable, to the Control issue by the notation (1) and to the Plan error/as-built issue by the notation (2) . Invoice #11531 - approved for payment. Total Cost Invoice #11531 - 3,083 .40 Pa (C Invoice #11605 4/28/92 - 5 hrs. 2-person Crew - Cost $650.00 (1) 2 hrs. Travel - Cost $ 80. 00 (1) On Friday 4/24/92 the field crew was supposed to receive new control information from the City of San Bernardino Survey Crew on the new points the City surveyor had to move. The crew waited until 4 : 00p.m. to get the information but it was not received until 7 a.m. the following Tuesday, 4/28/92 . The time shown above was spent verifying the new control set by the City of San Bernardino survey crew. 4/29/92 - 2 hrs. Computing - Cost $130.00 (1) Recompute Control data based on new submittal of control information by the City of San Bernardino Survey Crew. 4/30/92 - 3 hrs. 2-person Crew - Cost $390.00 (1) As-built existing piers and set new (as-built) offsets per new stations and skews. The original stakes had been set based on the erroneous control originally established by the City which combined with the discrepancy between the plan location and actual location of the piers resulted in the new stakes moving approximately 0.401 from the original. 5/01/92 - 3 hrs. 2-person Crew - Cost $390.00 (1) 1 hr. Computing Cost $ 65. 00 (1) As-built existing piers and set new (as-built) offsets per new stations and skews. The original stakes had been set based on the erroneous control originally established by the City which combined with the discrepancy between the plan location and actual location of the piers resulted in the new stakes moving approximately 0.401 from the original. 5/19/92 - 3 hrs. 1-person Crew - Cost $195.00 (1) 3 hrs. Principal - Cost $225.00 (1) 4 hrs. Travel - Cost $160.00 (1) Meeting with City of San Bernardino to resolve control problems and plan problems encountered. 5/22/92 - 2 hrs. 1-person Crew - Cost $130.00 (1) 2 hrs. Travel - Cost $ 80.00 (1) 3 hrs. 1-person Crew - Cost $195. 00 (1) Meeting between Party Chief Kevin Murphy and C&M Engineering and City of San Bernardino to resolve control problems. Recompute new data to verify closure and to insure that it fit existing improvements. Received new control data from C&M Surveyor to tie City of San Bernardino control line into the rest of the job. 5/27/92 - 4 hrs. 2-person Crew - Cost $520. 00 (1) 2 hrs. Travel Cost $ 80. 00 (1) Tie Centerline control line & Bridge to control data received in meeting with C&M and City of San Bernardino per C&M sheet 1 of 1 dated 5/21/92. Total Cost invoice # 11605 - $ 3,290.00 Invoice #11653 6/1/92 - 4 hrs. 2-person Crew - Cost $520.00 (1) 2 hrs. Travel - Cost $ 80.00 (1) 1 hr. Supervision Cost $ 65. 00 (1) As-built existing edge of South "E" Street bridge to check location relative to the control line points established by the City of San Bernardino. 6/5/92 - S hrs. 2-person Crew - Cost $650.00 (2) 3 hrs. 2-person Crew - Cost $390.00 (2) 2 hrs. Travel - Cost $ 80.00 (2) 2 hrs. Supervision - Cost $130.00 (2) The 5 hours of survey time was spent as-builting existing abutment #1 and #9 and staking same. Plan stationing bust at both abutments required us to establish new stations at the centerline bearing of both abutments and stake accordingly. The 3 hours of survey time was spent checking the existing top of footing elevations. A discrepancy between the existing top of footing elevation and plan elevation was found on Piers 6, 7 and 8 and both City and Brutoco were notified. Total Cost Invoice #11653 - $ 1,915.00 Invoice #11675 7/2/92 - 2 hrs. 2-person crew - Cost $260. 00 (2) Checked pour strip elevation relative to existing deck elevation. 2% fall was not maintained using existing elevation at deck to plan elevation at new Edge of Deck as we were directed to do using the plans in conjunction with the extension of the existing bridge. `7 0 0 r .rs. 2-person crew - Cost $260. 00 (7) isting deck elevations on bridge to see if plan nd crossfall will work. Existing Bridge dips and sags ion was raised. Final result was to throw any slop in pour which is to be painted median. nvoice #11673 - $ 520.00 46 hrs. 2-person Crew - Cost $ 665.00 hr. Supervision - Cost $ 65.00 hrs. Travel _ Cost $ 80. 00 .rline Fairway Dr. as described in Extra Slip # 4284 . are needed for placement of K-Rail during construction. .imensions and stations that did not fit in the field. needed to illustrate this tact to the City of San nspector who couldn't visualize the plan discrepancy on nvoice #11746 - $ 810.00 19 xtra Slip # 4865 - 4 hrs. 2-person crew - Cost $520.00 2 hrs. Travel - Cost $ 80. 00 ns done because existing condition didn't fit with plan New grades were needed at stations 15+50 to 16+50 sw quantities of structural roadway section needed on 9. xtra Slip # 4914 - 2 hrs. 2-person crew - Cost $260. 00 letting information for Steve Enna with City of San o do redesign. xtra Slip # 4915 - 5 hrs. 2-person crew - Cost $650.00 2 hrs. Travel - Cost $ 80. 00 btaining data for new quantity totals on "E" street. xtra,Slip # 4916 - 4 hrs. 2-person crew - oat $520. 2 hrs. Travel - .00 per data obtained per Extra Slip #4914 . City of San Bernardino per meeting with Steve Enna on 93 . Total InvOiCQ #11819 $ 2, 190.00. I an enclosing the above invoices and extra slips associated with them as submitted originally to Brutoco. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, 2 Cott F. Fitch President S FIB/ Enc. CC - Steve Brown, Bxutoco. WP51/Docs/0-827xf OUT LAND SUR YINO 11722 Sorrento ValleY AOad. Suite F San 01090, CA 92121.1021 (619) 792 5550 • (619) 271.5550 • FAX (619) 792.5576 May 5, 1992 BRUTOCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION ATTN: STEVE BROWN 211 S. HUNTS LANE, SUITE 4 P.O. BOX 230 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 Re: o'Ei' street Bridge Widening over Santa Ana River. city of San Bernardino Job# 8347 . Southland surveying Job #0-827 Dear Steve, In response to the City of San Bernardino' s letter dated April 16, 1992 item number 4 , we would like to again request vertical alignment, grid-grade notes and slope-stake listings from the "Engineer" (City of San Bernardino) , to the "Contractor" (Brutoco) , for our use in performing the construction staking. We have included a copy of the Standard Specifications section 1, definitions and terms for support of our interpretation of section 10-1. 03 of the Special Provisions, (encl. #1) . If we are incorrect in this interpretation please advise us as soon as possible with an explanation. In response to the City of San Bernardino' s letter dated April 24 , 1992 regarding the revised centerline information supplied by the City of San Bernardino Surveyors, we would like to request a contract change order for the extra time expended to verify the revised data, as shown on the enclosed list, (encl . #2) . We have received three sets of values for centerline control and each time our field crews have had to verify and establish new construction control values based on each submittal of revised values . An explanation of this can be found in our letter dated April 30, 1992, (encl . #3) . In response to the City of San Bernardino' s letter dated April 29, 1992 we would like to request a contract change order regarding the necessity of as-building the existing bridge structures for the new bridge construction. We originally assumed as specified in our proposal the use of the project plans would be sufficient for the new construction. In addition, the problems with the centerline control mentioned above has added to the inability to check the accuracy of the existing structures and their relationship to centerline and the information shown on the plans. I would like to respond to the last paragraph of the letter dated April 29 , 1992 by stating we disagree the root cause for any delays is the fault of Southland Surveying. We have been doing everything possible to get the centerline control information resolved in order to perform the work for the bridge construction. Our original request for information was made on March 27 , 1992 . Our first receipt of data Was on April 14 , 1992 . Piers 2 through 8 have been as-built and staked as directed in the City of San Bernardino ' s letter dated April 29 , 1992 . I will be forwarding the field notes of our as-built data to you. Please submit this information to the City of San Bernardino for their action in coordinating this data to revise the plans and instruct us regarding specific proceedures on how to proceed with the work. If you have any questions or will require any additional information please contact my office immediately. Sincerely, �IG�lK •� Michae Valenti Vice P e ident file:wp\827mv.8 �4.. o OUT LAND SUP WNG INL 11722 Sorrento valley Road. SUrte F • San olego. CA 92121.1021 •� (619) 792.5550 • (619) 271.5550 • FAX (619) 792.5576 BRUTOCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION April 30, 1992 Attn: Steve Brown 2211 S . Hunts Ln. suits "R" , Box 230 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Re: +'E" Street Bridge Widening over Santa Ana River City of San Bernardino Job# 8347 Southland Surveying Job# 0-827 Construction Control Problems Dear Steve, This letter is to review problems related to the control and construction staking of the "E" Street Bridge. on Monday 4/20/92, Tuesday 4/21/92 , and Wednesday 4/22/92 , Southland Surveying survey crews attempted to verify construction survey control set by the City of San Bernardino. After being unable to verity control, a meeting was held in which Southland Surveying received new co- ordinates on April 23 , 1992 . On April 24 , 1992 Southland again tried to verify the control by The City and again found a discrepancy in the data. The points set by the city at centerline station 16+75 . 75 and at 26+03 . 58 should be 927 . 83 feet apart, however, the notes by the city survey crew on April 9 , 1992 show a distance of 927 . 27 feet between the same two points. Later, on the afternoon of the 24th this was pointed out to Jim Davis, City of San Bernardino survey party chief at approximately 2: 00 p.m. Mr. Davis agreed that indeed there was an error and agreed to move the monument for station 16+75. 75 to its correct location. Upon completion of his field work, notes were to be supplied to Southland party chief Kevin Murphy in order for him to stake offsets on centerline pier from edge of deck. Although the city survey crew completed their work @ approx. 3 : 45 p.m. , no notes were supplied to Southland Surveying and at 4 : 00 p .m. Southland's crew left the site. On Tuesday, April 28 Southland crews again attempted to verify the control that had now been reset by the city on April 24, 1992 . Again a discrepancy was found between the control, set by the city and the distance measured by Southland ' s crew. Southland measured 665 . 79 feet between two 1" x 2" hub and tacks set by the city. Per the city 's notes, this distance was supposed to be 665.91 feet. In an ezfort to continue the progress of the job, Southland's crew was instructed by you to stake pier ' s #3 & #4 on centerline with an offset to E .O. D. At the same time, Kevin Murphy had requested of Chuck Babcock to have the city surveyor check his distance of 665. 91 feet. After staking piers #3 & #4 our crew noticed a possible discrepancy in station alignment at pier #4 . Southland then proceeded to asbuilt the distance between abutments #1 & #9 . The plan distance along centerline shown is 634 . 49 at face of abutments. The mean as-built centerline distance of the two existing abutments is 635 . 98 , a discrepancy of +1 . 5 feet. This was brought to your attention at the end of the day . on the morning of Wednesday 4/29/92 , the city survey crew again moved the construction control and stated that they had indeed measured 0 . 56 ' from a point that had most likely been disturbed and had not measured the 665 . 91 feet as shown on their April 24 , 1992 field notes . ':his description of their procedure matches what had been checked by our field crews who found two points and checked the distance of 0 . 56 ' between the points found. As of today ' s date, all field work done by Southland Surveying will need to be repeated, since it was established Prom the control originally set by the city which has now again been moved. In addition, the points set for pier construction will be moved to tit the new control . We would again advise you of the possible descrepancy in the distance between existing abutments, and to take whatever action you deem appropriate. As of this date we have not yet received the field notes of the latest work performed by the San Bernardino City Surveyors. Sincerely, �f Mich a Valenti, Vice President Kev phy, Southland Surveying Party Chief. file:wp\827km. 7