HomeMy WebLinkAbout29- Public Works;tr.rr�rrr.
CITY OF SAN BERNA[ LINO - REQUEST FO' COUNCIL ACTION
File No. 1.653
Proposed Settlement by Southland
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: G. Hard rave Phone: 5025
Supporting data attached: Report & Letter Ward: 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:_ N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
_IAcct. Description)
Finance:
-il Notes: 27,
75-0262 9►
A..w..J_
CITY OF SAN BERNA INO = REQUEST FO^ 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
SOOT LAND
SUR YING
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
i 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,
/.,w) i-�-�,--
/Scott Fitch
President
S FF/
CC - Mike King, Brutoco.
wp51/o-827fin
OUT LAND P1
SUP Y/NG
11722 Sorrento Valley Aoed, Suite F • San Diego, CA 92721-1021
(619) 792-5550 • (619) 271.5550 • FAX (819) 792.5576
March 22, 1993
City of San Bernardino
Attn: Steve Enna
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA. 92418
Re: logo, street Bridge Extra Staking Invoices
Southland surveying Inc. Job # 0-627
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. f
Total Cost Invoice #11531 - 3,083 . 40 t
Invoice #11605
4/28/92 - 5 hrs. 2-person Crew - Cost $650. 00 (1)
2 hrs. Travel - Cost $ 60 . 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 hr's. 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 -- 5 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
looting 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 - $ 11915.00
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.
rs. '-person crew - Cost $260.00 (2)
ist,q 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 #11675 - $ 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
Now grades were needed at stations 15+50 to 16+50
w quantities of structural roadway section needed on
9.
xtra Slip # 4914 - 2 hrs. 2-person crew - Cost $260. 00
jetting 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.
(tra,Slip # 4916 - 4 hrs. 2-person crew - ost $320.
2 hrs. Travel - .00
p tata obtained per Extra Slip #4914 .
21, of San Bernardino per meeting with Steve Enna on
93 .
Tdtal InVOic* #11819 $ 2,190.00.
1 am 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
W cott F. Fitch
President
S FF/
Enc.
CC - Steve Brown, Brutoco.
WP51/Docs/0-827xf
Now
L OUT LAND
Y/Na a
11722 Sorrento valley Road. Suits 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: "Ell 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) I
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,
ku -�&��
Michae Valenti
Vice P e ident
file:wp\827mv. 8
�.1 or2
<,Ouur FLA ND
NG
a�
11722 Sorrento Valley Road, Surte F • SFA Diego . CA
792-5576
5 92121-1027
1 (619) 792.5550 (619) 271.5530
BRUTOCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
April 30, 1992
Attn: Steve Brown
2211 S . Hunts Ln .
Suite "R" , Box 230
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Re: I'E'+ Street Bridge Widening over Santa Ana River
City of San Bernardino Job# 9347
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 verify 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 effort 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. 561 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 . This 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 from 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,
Mich a Valenti , Vice President
KeviLz phy, Southland Surveying Party Chief.
file:wp\827km. 7
C I T Y OF S A N B E R N A R D I N O
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Minor, Mayor
Council Members
FROM: Frank L. Rhemrev, Deputy City Attorney
DATE: September 27, 1993
RE: SOUTHLAND SURVEYING INC. - SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
CC: Roger Hardgrave, Director of Public Works
At the direction of the Council, this of f ice reviewed the above
referenced matter and provides the following:
Background
The City entered into a contract with Brutoco Engineering &
Construction for the widening of the South "E" Street Bridge.
Brutoco hired Southland Surveying, Inc . to do the surveying work.
According to the staff report, some "errors were discovered which
necessitated some restaking work" . (See staff report for complete
details ) . Southland submitted a claim to Brutoco who in turn
raised the issue with the City. It was agreed by the City and
Brutoco that a portion of the claim would be paid. Per Public
Works, the contract with Brutoco has been completed and final
payment has been made and accepted. Southland felt it deserves
more money and has submitted a proposal for settlement which is
currently before the Council .
Analysis
The City contracted with a prime contractor (Brutoco) , to do the
bridge work. The prime contractor contracted with subcontractors
to do the work it cannot do itself . The City does not enter into
any agreements or contracts with subcontractors . Southland was a
subcontractor of Brutoco, and pursuant to CalTrans Specification
8-1 . 01, a subcontractor is considered an employee of the
contractor. The City, therefore, has no contractual obligation to
Southland.
Per Public Works, the City' s contract with Brutoco has been
completed and Brutoco has accepted final payment in full
satisfaction of all obligations due under the contract In
essence, Brutoco is satisfied that it has been paid all monies due
under the contract (which, of course, includes the surveying work
done by Southland) . Additionally, Public Works advises that
Brutoco was always aware of Southland' s claim as Southland
— �q
Mayor Tom Minor & Council Members
Re: Southland Surveying Inc .
Page 2
submitted its invoices to Brutoco for payment (which it did not
pay) . After many meetings with the City ( some including
Southland) , Brutoco agreed that Southland' s claim was unjustified
and that the money they had already been paid fully compensated
them for any extra work that they had done. Brutoco, therefore,
accepted final payment. Southland is now going directly to the
City for the money it feels it is owed, even though its employer,
Brutoco, has concluded its contract with the City. The dispute,
therefore, is between Southland and Brutoco. The City should not
be involved as it has fulfilled its contractual obligations to
Brutoco.
Since Southland is an employee of Brutoco, Southland must go to its
"employer" (Brutoco) to collect any monies it believes it is still
owed.
Conclusion
The City is not in privity of contract with Southland, and thus,
the City has no contractual obligations to Southland. Southland is
under contract to Brutoco. Therefore, Brutoco has the contractual
obligation to pay Southland for any and all work done pursuant to
that contract. Southland must make its claim against its employer
(Brutoco) . The City is under no obligation to negotiate any type
of settlement with Southland.
,Yrank L. Rhe rev
FLR/aL[SoldSur.Mem]