12/19/1968 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~476 '""" ". :v : I 12/19/68 u ,_ ' " _... ." ~, --,.. ~. - .., ., .,.'.., .. '-<;'---" - ___d :-r---- I I substantial disagreements which would ,result in claims and counterclaims, ,the City : hired Cor.nell,' Howland, Hayes & Merryfield to'review the entire record as a disin:-'. terestedthird party. The report resulting from that review, copies of which, were previously dif:ltributed to Council members, was read, stating the co'nc1usion that the contractor failed to accomplish the work according to specifications prepared by the Public Works Department' to meet the minimum standard requirements set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration for, airfie1d.construction. ' The City Manager recommended award of the ,cqntraci, subject to FAA approval, for, i apron and runway over1ay'and taxiway renovation to Wi1dish Construction Company on their alternate low bid based on the CH2M report and the following factors: (1) ,The project being bid is similar to the one on which the report was made, except that there is a higher percent of asphaltic conrete work in the present bid; ,(2) there was continual dissatis~~ction,on the project ,now under .contract; (3) the work must be acceptable to the FAA to assure receipt of grant funds; (4) incomplete status of the present project; and (50 litigation between Montag (M&S Construction) and the city of Salem on sewer construction. The Manager recommended contract award to Steeck Electric for the taxiway lighting. it ~. Mr. James Harrang, speaking for Montag, said compaction was the main problem and that Montag claims the engineers'. requirem~nts were not adequate with regard to removal of materials, resusting in necessity for'more excavation than .specified. He said per- formance on the present ,project would not. interfe~,e with Montag's ao.ility .to ,perform on the new work. ',' .f Mr. C. J. Montag, presiden. t of the company., .said a report obtained from another engineer- I r.' ing firm, would probably be in direct opposition to the CH2M,report. He further ex- -;;;;/ p1ain~d his Company's position as outlined in a 'letter addressed to Council members and " previously distributed 'to them. In answer to questions from Council members, Vaughn .G.. Sterling of CH2M, the Pub lic I Works Director, and the City Manager outlined the general practice and relationship I between contractor and owner for extra excavation, grad'e of material used, condition I of equipment used, testing methods, etc., and touched on operation of Montag's pit I on West 11th on whichcpmp1aints, have been r.eceived ,from owners of abutting properties 'I with regard to silting of ditches. Mr. Art Woods said soil conditions in the airport area ,are not average, resulting in I the compaction problem.: He said, h~, felt ~onttact award should not be based on per- formance on the current proje ct. 1P 'On question from Councilman McDonald as to whether the City feels the CH2M conclusion is correct, - that the contractqF, failed .tq aC;,complish the work ,as SRecified - the Public Wor~s Direc:tor said it is the City's opinion that the contract was b'rought to the asphalt stage in an acceptable manner. Mr. Sterling said that in forming 'an opinion on acceptability of a project, {t is considered that if anyone part fails I in testing, the .total wou~d be considered as not meeting sPecifications. He said the, ' asphalt portion, they felt, did not meet specifications, and 'that' the underlying ,soil is assumed to have met specifi~ations through a series of ,reworking and retesting., I The City Manager said the conditions under which this job was completed to the present I ~ time have some bearing upon the asphalt problem - it is the City's contention that had the' ~ , work progressed ,more ,rapidly, befor,e the rainy weather., there would 4ave been no problem i r with the ~sphalt. He outlined the difficulties experienced5n airport operation because I I of the contractor's perform"!nce, and said the contractor. should not be relieved of re- I I sponsibility for doing the work according to specifications. I I Mr. Richard .LaD:i,ck, Moontag' s .constru:ction foreman, said they ,felt the City should !. have taken tests each.day on compaction. On question from Councilman Purdy, the . I '. Public Works Director said although the City did not ,take daily tests, ,it was known I the contractor was having continual trouble on obtaining a proper mix and that he did II not hesitate to test on gradation and other problem areas and should have taken com- ' paction tests. In answer to question-from Councilman Anderson as to whether lack of daily tests resulted in not meeting specifications, Mr. Sterling said even though ,daily tests would have assisted the contractor, it does not relieve the contractor of the re- I sponsibility to provide the proper material. The City Manager commented that tests on gradation required continual correction but still asphalt was.. being laid and not meet- ing tests. I II Mr. George Goodfellow of McKenzie Road and Dri~~way' said he i~lt '.15eca~~e -oCthe con- j. I struction time element and elapsed time since t~e initial bid call, all of the, bids . I. ' submitted on this, project should be rejected and another bid call issued. The City fI' . I 'l Manager said under FAA permission the City has 60 days in which to award a contract , after the bid opening. He said three of the bidders, exclud~ng McKenzie Road and i I Driveway, have agreed to hold their present bid rates for 30 days in addition to the I '. 30 days called for in the original specifications. In answer to a question from Counyilman Lassen,. the Pu151ic Works 'Direcfor said that if the construction. schedule had, been kept, the projec:t could have been completed I. in the allotted time plus extension for rainy weather. I I ~ ,I 12/19/68 - 3 II ..