For best print results, set
margins to .75" top & bottom and .5" left & right
USE BACK BUTTON TO RETURN TO INTERNET
MEMORANDUM
November 15, 2003
From: Ronald Santa & Paul Roderick
To: Town Administrator Gerry Kempen
cc: Tom O’Loughlin, Warren Hall, Art Benner, & Manny Mello
Subject: Turner Road Meeting 11/12/03
Attendees: Gerry Kempen, Tom O’Loughlin, Warren Hall, Ron Santa, Paul Roderick, Art Benner, & Manny Mello
This memorandum of understanding is intended to document the matters discussed at the driveway of Paul Roderick on November 12, 2003. If anything contained herein differs with your recollection of the events, please respond so as to set the record straight.
The requirement of the contractor to install a 2” binder coat came under question as Art Benner indicated he and Manny Mello had picked up pieces of asphalt that were only 1 ˝” thick. These pieces had been chopped out of the roadbed and left by the side of the road in order to install manhole covers. Town’s response: awaiting the test result of core samples taken.
The integrity of the roadbed came under question, especially since large amounts of the roadbed had been carted off to the drive-in in order to bring the roadway to new grade. If large amounts of the top were removed, doesn’t that leave less than the required 12” gravel base for the roadbed. Town’s response: core samples taken every 200 ft. indicate proper amount of base.
The temporary nature of the grass planting came into question as well as the increased slope at the side of the road resulting from the lowering of the road. Town’s response: Final grass planting and a graduation in the slope for ease in grass cutting will be accomplished next spring.
The temporary patches around sewer manhole covers and water valve accesses came into question as to whether they will survive a year until the final coat for the road. Town response: it should. Note: valve access areas had been observed with only 1” thickness of asphalt.
Three hydrants are well above ground level and if uncorrected there is a danger they may be sheared off below ground level rather than at the appropriate snap flange above ground. The question was will these hydrants be corrected? Town response: Yes but time was not indicated.
The bid specification required brick shelf at every manhole whereas through-pipe was approved for the installation. The question was why? Town response: Because of the low slope, through-pipe works better and is recommended. The question became is through-pipe also better for large slope? Warren Hall’s response: I’ll think about it. The question became why not write specification for through-pipe at all manholes? Town response: can’t use through-pipe when a change of grade occurs, must use brick shelf in that instance. Note: additional Town response justifying through-pipe usage is that Wabasso Terrace was done that way.
Dicon set the sanitary sewer manholes at one elevation, JAM rests them all to a different elevation, Keating comes along and removes all JAM work before grinding road, then Keating resets all elevation after binder coat. The question was isn’t this redundant and wasteful? Town response: That’s the way it is done.
Two days after the binder coat, a pothole was observed at the south end. The question was is that a result of the observed 1” thickness asphault? Town response: No, the cause was ground water and the problem will be solved by the construction of a French drain.
Considerable discussion occurred relative to the contract specification differing with installation.
1. Concrete vs plastic pipe: Ron Santa again raised the concern of bidding for concrete pipe yet allowing the installation of plastic pipe. It was recognized that the concrete pipe requires (3) men and excavator/backhoe to install each 8-foot section of concrete pipe whereas it takes only (2) men without machines to install each 13-foot section of plastic pipe. The question becomes why do we require a bid on the more labor-intensive pipe yet are willing to accept the less labor-intensive pipe? Town response: availability is the issue, at time of installation plastic pipe may not be purchasable. Note: the Town additionally said that it has observed no significant difference in total cost of pipe (concrete vs plastic) when material cost and manpower cost are combined.
2. Brick shelf vs through-pipe: The brick shelf requires more labor to install than a simple through-pipe at each manhole. The question becomes why does the bid specification require brick shelf at all manholes (even with no grade changes) yet the installation allows for through-pipe? Town response: even if the Town were to specify through-pipe, some contractors would continue to install brick shelf.
Ron Santa then explained the perception created by bidding one specification and allowing something different, especially if the bid specification appears to be the more costly alternative and the allowed installation is the less labor-intensive alternative. A reputable contractor bidding exactly per specification would submit the higher cost alternative; whereas, a less-than-reputable contractor would bid the less costly alternative; thereby increasing the chances of the less-than-reputable contractor becoming the selected low bidder and the Town being denied the services of the reputable contractor. It is a perception that should not be allowed to happen! Town response: future bid specifications will specify the cheaper alternatives as an acceptable product.
The question arose as to how the as-built drawings are going to be accomplished since Dicon is fired. As-built drawings are required by Newport Water Department before it can accept the installation so that the residents can be allowed to tie in? Town response: Newport Water Department has agreed to give Town its measurements so that Town can complete as-built drawings. The question arose as to what monies will be used to pay for as-builts? Town response: we will get repaid out of the performance bond since Dicon was supposed to do this work.
Performance Bonds
The question arose as to how much money we will recover from the performance bond? Town response: all of the work that Dicon was supposed to do but the Town had somebody else do it. Questions then arouse regarding the remaining three roads that were part of the original contract: Will these roads get done since there appears not to be any money remaining in the original contract? Town response: Yes these roads will get done. How will they be paid for? Town response: money from the performance bond. Don’t we have to do the road work before we can charge the performance bond? Town response: Yes we do and we will.
In appreciation of the time and effort expended by Town employees for holding this meeting, Ron Santa and Paul Roderick agreed to a three month moratorium of criticism and questioning before the Town Council relative to the Turner Road Project.
Ronald G. Santa Paul Roderick
USE BACK BUTTON TO RETURN TO INTERNET