MANATEE COUNTY GOVERNMENT AGENDA MEMORANDUM...Oct 03, 2000 · FROM: Janet E. McAfee, Director,...

^z-

MANATEE COUNTY GOVERNMENT

AGENDA MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT IFB 00-6699-MP / Rehabilitation of Lift

Stations TYPE AGENDATTEM Consent

BATE REQUESTED IS October 3, 2000 DATE SUBMITTED/REVISED September 18, 2000

BRIEFINGS'/WHO? N/A CONSEQUENCES IFCEFERRED,,; N/A

DEPARTMENT/DIVISION Financial Management/Purchasing AUTHORIZED BY TITLE Jim Seuffert, Dire

TE^lS^TE|%. Rob cuthbert' Purchasing, 3054 TE^PIS^NS^, Janet MCAfee- Director pro^ ^ 5047

ADMIMS|E^^ APPROVAL

1111111:;,,,. ,„:„„,^ 111111 ,_

1 .,,.,„ 11111:::::'^-•ACnON DESIRED ^ . 1 ——— ,:!„„,,, ;,:,,., „,,!:, •^•

INDrcaTEWHETHER "REPORT or "DISCUSSION, "FORM OF MOTION, or ''OTHER ACTION REQUIRED:

Authorization to award Bid No. 00-6699-MP Rehabilitation of Lift Stations to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder meeting

specifications, TLC Diversified, Inc., Sarasota, FL, for a total cost of $263,460 and; subsequent execution of contract and simultaneous

dating of performance/payment bond and acceptance of insurance certificate.

"'::::: 11111' 11: — 1111

- : 1' -":' ":

"ENABLING/REGULATING 'AUTHORITY -:,?, | '17.11111

, ',::;. .

'w'

Federal/Stnte law(s), adminiitratlve ruling(a). Manatee Count)' Comp Plan/Land Development Code, ordinances, reaolutioni, policy.)

Ordinance 99-37, Purchasing Code Article 4

:, ̂ : ,-11 - , , ^ :.:« i S K,:,:,:',;: „ ^ "'^':: 13 ifi S:l 3,::::: ,„ „:._, , !

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION 1 1111""::''"'" ' 1:':'

i. a ,:•:, • . ,:„„:::. , „ :;1 :; E, , ,::: i:" 1

Public Works requires the rehabilitation of eight triplex submersible pump lift stations at various sites throughout the County

to maintain sewage flows. Project Management is managing this work for the Public Works Department, Bayshore Lift Stations

and Collections.

Continued on page 2

HAS COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW BEEN REQUESTED 1 Indicate "NO" or "YES" ®1 right.

,,' If "NO," proceed tottA/lBtelow.1 if'yES," proceed to2A/2B below::,;111; • • lli1:11:1:: ft i:;:s •:. NO

1):::i:IF"NO"TOABdvE11. : ,,:.:„;, ''"ilillll,,,

: :l:::::::::::::::'::8:il,:l 111:" 1, ' -1.::;'1;:'1'1 \ •

A) PllEASE EXPLAIN BELOW: (see alMi following aeetionIB re: contntct, agreement, leane, et<-) ,

Not Required. This is a pre-printed purchase order form using the County's terms and conditions.

B) IF A CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, LEASE OROTHER DOCUMENT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, STATE YEAR OF LAST USE @ RIGHT:

2) IF "YES" TOTIRST QUESTION IN THIS SECTION, ,,, _, 1" l"i ::::i: :1::11 11 1 111 1"11 ;;:: ;• ,

111 " ".';::,:;::;;"1,,;,; ,,,;:;:; :: „:: ,:,::\"'' 11 1

; ;':::;" ":> 1:1 . ,, '„',

A) HAS ENTIRE MATTER, OR ONLY A PORTION. BEEN REVIEWED? IF ONLY A PORTION, WHICH PORTION?

B) Di IP NOT; PLEASE EXPLAIN. A COPY OF FINAL COUNTY

ATTORNEY MEMO RE THIS MATTER MUST BE ATTACHED (If comments were verbal. »o imiicnte.)

ATTACHMENTS: (List in order ill attached)

Ltr. Recommendation: Tabulation of Bids; Vendor Report(various

correspondence); Sarasota County Ltr.

INSTRUCTIONS TO BOARD RECORDS:

N/A

COST $263,460 8 ̂ SOURCE (ACCTJt^ NAME): !:: 4046022181563/Upgrade Lift Stations

COMMENTS:!,| N/A AMTJFREQ. OF RECURRING COSTS

(ADWCH FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT) 1 •••'11:'":'; l1?^^/^_____^________^______'

N/A

F:\USER\MARGEP\WPDOCS\AGENDA\006699mp.agn.wpd

^1

/^

AGENDA MEMORANDUM (cont'd)

• 06/20/00 through 07/14/00 appropriate bid procedures were followed. Notice of bid's availability was sent to 112

prospective bidders, subcontractors, and suppliers; five bids were received.

• Apparent low bidder, DeJonge Excavating Contractors, Inc., Venice, FL ($234,056) was non-responsive as this bidder

does not hold a General Contractor's license (confirmed with Homer Williams of the Florida Department of Business

and Professional Regulation on August 28, 2000).

• Estimated start-up for construction is 11/01/00 with completion within 210 days for an estimated completion date of

05/30/01.

Agenda Memorandum Fonn Last Revised: 1/7/98 @ 2:16 pm 006699mp.agn.wpd last revised on 9/18/00 @ 3:26 PM by:

MANATEE COUNTY GOVERNMENT T r

;

MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 14, 2000

TO: R.C. "Rob" Cuthbert, C.P.M., Purchasing Manager

^^-<c ^y^

FROM: Janet E. McAfee, Director, Project Management

SUBJECT: Recommendation of Award-IFB #00-6699MP

Rehabilitation of Lift Stations

The bids for the above referenced project have been reviewed by staff. The bid tabulation

form is attached for your review. Based on the factors described below, we recommend

award of the above referenced contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, TLC

Diversified, Inc. in the amount of $263,460. The construction cost estimate was $200,000.

The additional funding required to award the project is available in the project.

The apparent low bidder on the project was DeJonge Excavating Contractors, Inc.

However, as stated in Section 00020-1, B.02 "Bidder shall possess a General Contractor's

License for the work which is the subject of this bid..." We have been informed by Marge

Perenich that Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation records indicate

DeJonge does not possess such a license.

The Contractor's Questionnaire, which is required to be submitted with each bid, asks

"Have you ever failed to complete work awarded to you?" Based on discussions with

Sarasota County's Construction Prequalification Coordinator, DeJonge failed to complete

the Proctor Road/Honore Avenue Force Main project for the County. Therefore, it appears

that inaccurate information was provided in the questionnaire.

The contractor included Manatee County and Sarasota County as references in the

questionnaire. Attached for your review is an interim vendor report from a currently

ongoing Manatee County project which describes the contractor's unsatisfactory work on

the project. Also, attached is a copy of Sarasota County's letter suspending DeJonge

Excavating Contractors, Inc.'s Prequalification Certification with Sarasota County.

Attached to that letter are Performance Evaluations for two recent Sarasota County

projects which show unsatisfactory performance by DeJonge Excavating.

Manatee County has previously awarded several projects to DeJonge which were

$150,000 or less and has not had significant problems with them on these projects.

Therefore, at this time we would not dispute the award of projects of $150,000 or less to

PROJECT MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

Memorandum to Rob Cuthbert

September 14, 2000

Page 2

DeJonge Excavating Contractors, Inc. However, this position could change based on the

results of these recently awarded projects.

In summary, based on all of the above we recommend that the Rehabilitation of Lift

Stations contract be awarded to TLC Diversified, Inc. as the lowest responsive, responsible

bidder in the amount of $263,460.

To ensure proper coordination, please provide the Project Manager, Mr. Tim Hochuli,

copies of all pertinent correspondence associated with this project.

Thank you for your continued cooperation.

cc: Mike Limoge, Acting Project Management Manager

Len Bramble, P.E., Public Works Director

T^/ Timothy A. Hochuli, P.E., Project Manager

Project File: 6022181 w/enc.

<F:\USER\PUBWKS14\WPDOCS\8810\RECAWARDTRI.WPD>


VENDOR PERFORMANCE REPORT

Use this form to report unsatisfactory or good vendor performance.

A copy will be given to vendor and will become a permanent part of

The vendor's file.

Department Submitting Report: Pro-iect Management__________

Contact Person: Janet McAfee______________ Phone: x5048

Address: _________________________________________

Vendor Name: DeJonge Excavating Contractors, Inc.__________

Address: P.O. Box 3421, Venice. FL. 34293_________________

Purchase Order No.: P0000153______________ Date: 10/15/99

Commodity: Utility Construction_________________________

I. Check appropriate reason. Give explanation in Remarks

Section. Suggest remedy, if any.

Vendor failed to deliver by date on P.O. ____

Balance of order not delivered by vendor. ____

Delivery made after specified receiving hours ____

Under/over shipment ____

Damaged shipment ____

Vendor substituted for brand specified ____

Merchandise not labeled as specified ____

Vendor refuses to deliver ____

Grade or inspection evidence missing ____

Replacement request refused or unsatisfactory ____

Other - Explain in Remarks Section _X_

II. Remarks. Be accurate, complete, factual. Use reverse side if

necessary. Thank you.

See attached__________________________________________

Person initiating form: person initiating rorm: ./-, .

Tim Hochuli______________________^A^h Date: <0^2.7-<yo

Return to: Purchasing Division, 1112 Manatee Avenue West,

Eighth Floor, Bradenton, Florida 34205

MANATEE COUNTY GOVERNMENT

MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 23, 2000

TO: R.C. " Rob" Cuthbert, C.P.M., Purchasing Manager

FROM: Timothy A. Hochuli, P.E., Project Manager TA^

SUBJECT: NRWTP - STORAGE PONDS/PUMPBACK STATIONS

The purpose of this memorandum is to serve as an attachment to an interim vendor report

for DeJonge Excavating Contractor's work on the above referenced project. When the

project is complete, either a complete vendor report will be prepared or this report will be

amended as needed to include new information. The Purchase Order No. is P0000153,

dated 10/15/99.

The contractor's work on the above project was unsatisfactory for the reasons summarized

below:

• Contractor did not meet submittal deadlines

• Contractor did not comply with contract document defined lines of communication

• Contractor did not properly schedule its material ordering

• Contractor made incorrect and misleading statements throughout the project

• Contractor provided inaccurate information in the submission of its bid

• Current quality of project construction

More detailed information regarding these items is provided below:

Contractor did not meet submittal deadlines

As stated in the project contract documents (Section 00030-6, C.16) "The successful

bidder will be required to submit a detailed construction schedule upon notification of award

or its intent." The notice of intent was dated 9/20/99 (see attached). At the 11/3/99

preconstruction meeting (see attached minutes) no schedule had been submitted and as

discussed at the meeting the contractor committed to having the schedule submitted by

11/12/99. A "tentative" schedule was submitted on 12/21/99 (see attached) with it being

returned for correction by the engineer on 12/22/99 (see attached). An acceptable

schedule was received in early February, 2000. The schedule was submitted over 90 days



August 23, 2000

Page 2

after the notice of intent. Due to the tardiness of the submittal, the County could not

properly schedule emptying several effluent storage ponds which was a critical part of the

overall project. The emptying of the ponds was to be performed in a specific sequence

with guidelines provided in the contract documents, however, the specific sequence was

to be provided by the contractor.

Section 01030-3, 1.07A of the contract documents requires the Hurricane Preparedness

Plan to be submitted within 30 days after the Notice To Proceed. The Notice To Proceed

(NTP) was dated 10/18/99 with the Plan submitted 2/4/00 (see attached letter of 2/4/00).

Therefore, the Plan was submitted approximately 75 days late.

Contractor did not comply with contract document defined lines of communication

As discussed at length at the preconstruction meeting and required per the Agreement for •

the project (00500-1, see attached) "All communications involving the project will be

addressed to the County's project manager and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (design

engineer)." To facilitate minor changes it was further discussed at the preconstruction

meeting that the project inspector and plant chief operator could approve minor field

changes which had no effect on the project cost or time. During the project and to this date

the contractor has sought guidance and discussed various aspects of the project with the

engineer, and not the County's project manager, where both are called for and various

treatment plant staff who can not provide formal County direction on the project. Letters

from the contractor have included statements verifying that they had indeed sought

information from the parties described. These activities by the contractor complicated the

project's lines of communication and were discussed on several occasions with no change

in the contractor's approach.

The contractor was requested to ask project questions via Requests For Information

(RFI's). The project has had one RFI despite the numerous questions asked directly of the

engineer by the contractor during phone conversations. This approach further complicated

proper lines of communication. In addition, the contractor neglected to copy the County

on a series of shop drawing submittals as requested at the preconstruction meeting and

required in Section 00500.

Contractor on several occasions scheduled meetings, in writing, without consulting all

parties and subsequently commented how non-attendance at the meetings was delaying

their work. Examples of this problem are included in the attached correspondence dated

April 11,13, 17 and 20,2000.

Contractor did not properly schedule its material ordering

The contractor noted in correspondence dated 3/1/00 and 3/2/00 the difficulty they were

having in obtaining the specified butterfly valves for the project. The shop drawings for the

valves were received on 12/22/99 and returned 1/24/00. As stated above, the NTP was



August 23,2000

Page 3

issued in October, 1999 apparently giving the contractor ample time to prepare shop

drawings for the project. At the preconstruction meeting it was specifically stated that shop

drawings would be accepted prior to the commencement of the contract time. It is the

contractor's responsibility to determine items that have extensive lead time and schedule

appropriately. It appears that this planning did not occur. To keep the project proceeding,

the County agreed to accept a modified valve which was not our preference.

Contractor made incorrect and misleading statements throughout the project

In several schedule submittals the contractor included statements that were opinions or

related to issues under dispute by the two parties. These statements were included as fact

according to the contractor and caused further disputes regarding the project.

The contractor submitted shop drawings for hatch covers constructed by Halliday Products

which were approved by the engineer. When the covers were received on site they were

provided by U.S. Foundry & Mfg., Corp. rather than the approved vendor. Although the

quality of the hatches was satisfactory, as determined by shop drawings that the County

required to be submitted after it was found that the incorrect manufacturer had provided

the materials, standard construction practice is to submit shop drawings for the alternate

vendor prior to receiving the materials onsite. In addition, as with many other events

discussed herein, the change resulted in additional time consuming efforts on the part of

County staff to ensure quality control and proper completion of the project. These efforts

were beyond those on a typical project of this size and complexity.

Throughout the project, the contractor submitted correspondence which included incorrect

statements which, in many cases, required County staff and design engineer time to

correct. The attached March 6, 2000 letter discusses a GTE utility issue which no party

present at the meeting referenced in the third paragraph recalled, with the exception of the

contractor. The meeting minutes issued by the engineer, which are submitted to the

contractor for review and correction if necessary, also did not include such a statement.

Also, the attached letter of March 21, 2000 included statements that were later corrected

via the attached letter of March 22, 2000 from the County. No further correspondence

disputed this March 22, 2000 correction. Finally, the attached letter of June 20, 2000 at

the top of the page stated that "Unfortunately, it appears to us that slope elevations have

been erroneously identified as bottom elevations" when the drawing specifically labels the

elevations'as "pond bot" which appears to be referring to the pond bottom.

Contractor provided inaccurate information in the submission of its bid

In the Contractor's Questionnaire, submitted with their bid, the contractor made several

incorrect statements. The questionnaire asks about subcontractors used on the work and

the contractor identified electrician and fencing. In addition to these, dirt hauling, sodding,

telemetry installation and possibly other items were subcontracted without any



August 23,2000

Page 4

supplemental list of subcontractors provided to the County.

The questionnaire also asks about equipment being rented for the project. Small hand

machinery is the only item identified. Several major pieces of construction equipment such

as dump trucks were rented without any notification to the County.

Current quality of project construction

Although the project has not yet been completed and accepted for use by the County, two

significant issues have arisen regarding the quality of the final product. First, a concrete

overflow structure for the on-site ponds currently contains several cracks that both our

inspection staff and consulting engineer state are not acceptable. The contractor has been

notified of the lack of acceptability of the condition of this structure. This item is still

currently in dispute, however, during construction of the structure the contractor was

informed on several occasions that they needed to place the reinforcing wire higher in the

concrete pour. The contractor was allowing the wire to settle at the bottom of the pour

which is not conducive to proper construction results.

The other area of concern is related to the approximately three weeks of repairs which the

contractor has been making to the pipeline portion of the project. These repairs have been

necessary because the pipeline can not maintain the pressure required in the contract

documents. This amount of time is not typical for a line of this size and length. While it is

possible that the contractor may make all the repairs required to have the pipe pass the

pressure test this event reflects negatively on the quality of the construction.

The issues presented above are only a portion of the problems caused by the contractor

in their prosecution of the referenced project. These are the most easily presented with

written backup information. Many of the above events have occurred repeatedly over the

course of the project.

The above events and many others have caused the County to expend many hours of time

addressing issues which are not typical of a project of this size. The described events,

specifically scheduling, subcontracting, material ordering and communication issues, are

areas of concern that are more extensive in larger and more complex projects.

cc: Janet E. McAfee, Director, Project Management

Mike Limoge, Acting Project Management Manager

Project File: 6011080

<F;\USER\PUBWKS14\WPDOCS\8705\VEND.WPD>


IFB#99-3131DC

C.13 INSURANCE (cont'd)

Nothing herein shall in any manner create any liability of the County in connection

with any claim against the contractor for labor, services, or materials, or of

subcontractors; and nothing herein shall limit the liability of the contractor or

contractor's sureties to the County or to any workers, suppliers, materialmen or

employees in relation to this contract.

C.14 BID BOND/CERTIFIED CHECK

By offering a submission to this Invitation for Bid the bidder agrees, should the

bidder's bid be accepted, to execute the form of contract and present the same to

Manatee County for approval within 15 days after being notified of the awarding of

the contract. The bidder further agrees that failure to execute and deliver said form

of contract within 15 days will result in damages to Manatee County and as

guarantee of payment of same a bid bond/certified check shall be enclosed within the

submitted sealed bid in the amount of five (5%) percent of the total amount of the

bid. The bidder further agrees that in case the bidder fails to enter into a contract, as

prescribed by Manatee County, the bid bond/certified check accompanying the bid

shall be forfeited to Manatee County as agreed liquidated damages. If the County

enters into a contract with a bidder, or if the County rejects any and/or all bids,

accompanying bond will be promptly returned.

C.15 PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS

The successful bidder shall furnish surety bonds as security for faithful performance

of the contract awarded as a result of this bid, and for the payment of all persons

performing labor and/or furnishing material in connection therewith. Surety of such

bonds shall be in an amount equal to the bid award (100% each) and from a duly

authorized and nationally recognized surety company, authorized to do business in

Florida, satisfactory to this County. The attomey-in-fact who signs the bonds must

file with the bonds a certificate and effective dated copy of power-of-attomey.

(Reference Florida Statute 255.05)

Furnishing the performance and payment bonds shall be requisite to execution of a

contract with the County. Said performance and payment bonds will remain in force

for the duration of the contract with the premiums paid by the contractor. Failure of

successful bidder to execute such contract and to supply the required bonds shall be

just cause for annulment of the award. The County may then contract with another

acceptable bidder or readvertise this Invitation for Bid. If another bidder is accepted,

and notice given within 90 days after the opening of bids, this acceptance shall bind

the bidder as though they were originally the successful bidder.

Failure of the County at any time, to require performance by the contractor of any

provisions set out in the contract will in no way affect the right of the County,

thereafter, to enforce the provisions. Bonds to remain in effect for one year after

final payment becomes due.

C.16 PROJECT SCHEDULE

The successful bidder will be required to submit a detailed construction schedule

upon notification of award or its intent.

00030-6

^//^tff^r

MANATEE COUNTY

GOVERNMENT

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT,

PURCHASING DIVISION

'TO SERVE WITH EXCELLENCE-

EgssssKassasassKss^aasiSis^i^^

CERTIFIED

September 20, ^999

P^CEiVFO

.^P 2 2 1999

DeJonge Excavating Contractors, Inc.

Post Office Box 743

Venice, Florida 34284

Attention: Ms. Eileen DeJonge, President

....PKOJECT MGMT

Madam:

Re: Notice of Intent to Award for

IFB 99-3131DC Reclaimed Water Pumpback Station and Storage Pond - NRWTP

In review of your Bid dated August 4. 1999 for the referenced project, you are the apparent

successful bidder and will be recommended for award in the amount of Two Million, Two Hundred

Ninety-six Thousand, Two Hundred Sixty-six Dollars and Fifty Cents (52,296,266.50).

Award shall be made only by a majority vote of a quorum of Manatee County Board of County

Commissioners in open session. Award is anticipated by the Board on October 5, 1999. The

Manatee County Project Management Department will be contacting you soon after to schedule the

pre-construction meeting and any other preliminary requirements.

To expedite procedures, enclosed are two copies of the Contract Documents for the referenced

project for your execution and subsequent return to this office for further processing. The following

items are to be included with your executed Contract:

1. Two copies of the Performance-Payment Bond in accordance with bid documents.

Do not date the bonds; this will be accomplished upon execution of the Contract by

the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. Submit written

authori- ;tion, signed and sealed by attorney-in-fact, for the Board of County

Commi aioners to date the bonds upon Contract execution. Instructions to the

Surety and the Principal for execution of the bonds are as follows:

• 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Suite 803 • Bradenton, Florida 34205 • (941)749-3014 • FAX (941) 749-3034 j-^

yswswifjseffKssiwmssffifes^^

Recycled Paper

September 20, 1999

Dejonge Excavating Contracotrs, Inc.

IFB 993131 DC-Award

Page Two

Neither signatures nor the Corporate Seal may appear by facsimile unless the

authority for them to appear in that form is plainly disclosed on the face of the

document. The Secretary or other properly authorized Officer must certify and seal

a statement declaring that the authority granted by the power-of-attomey remained

in force on the date that the bond was executed by the Attomey-in-Fact.

2. Two copies of the Certificate of Insurance in accordance with the Bidding

Documents. The Certificate must name the County of Manatee, Florida as an

additional insured and the standard cancellation clause should read as follows:

"Should any of the above described policies be cancelled or changed by restricted

amendment before the expiration date thereof, the issuing Company will give 30 days

written notice to the certificate holder, County of Manatee, Florida."

If you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact

me.

Sincerely,

Deborah Carey-Reed

Buyer

/dcr

Enclosure

cc: Tim Hochuli, Project Management Department

Preconstruction Meeting Agenda

Date of Preconstruction Meeting: November 3, 1999

Project Name & Locations: NRWTP - Reclaimed Water Pumpback Station & Storage

Pond

Project Number: 60110SO BidNumber: 99-3131D.C

1) Introduction.-Each Individual states the Agency represented & sign attendance sheet

a) Owner: Manatee County

Project Engineer: Rick Schappacher, P.E.

Project Manager: Timothy A. Hochuli, P.E.

Project Inspector: Bob Walker

b) Contractor: DeJonge Excavating Contractors, Inc.

Name Telephone

Construction Manager: . See attached list of numbers

Construction Supt.:

Emergency Numbers: Day

(more than one) Night

2) Review of Work

a) Contractor responsible for obtaining applicable permits (County Bidg. Dept.)

b) Contractor to submit Construction Schedule within 10 working days and explain

in detail the proposed method of construction (to be provided by 11/12/99)

c) Names of all subcontractors (to be provided by 11/12/99)

d) All correspondence, pay requests, change proposals, schedules, shop drawing

transmittal letters and field notifications to be delivered to:

Project Manager,

4422 66th Street West, Building "A",

Bradenton, Florida 34210

e) Shop drawings shall be submitted directly to engineering consultant. Shop

drawing submittal schedule shall be submitted within 30 days (to be provided)


Page 2

3) Utilities

a) GTE

b) FPL

c) Cable.

4) Application for Payment

a) Forms (copies furnished) included with bid package (3 originals required) and

must include construction photographs and updated construction schedules. Final

Pay Application shall include Warranty of Title, Final Reconciliation Agreement,

and Final Release of Lien.

b) Submit to Project Manager after field agreement with Project Inspector.

c) Stored materials will be paid only if they are on site, protected and include a paid

invoice.

5) Changes and Modifications

a) Change Orders/Proposals to be submitted to Project Manager and will include

complete breakdown and documentation of costs.

b) Work Directive Change will be issued by County if necessary.

- 6) Record Drawings

a) Required before substantial completion is approved.

7) Safety- and Protection

1) Contractor shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all

safety precautions and programs in connection with the work

2) Job will be posted as a hard hat area. All personnel will wear hard hats.

3) Within 30 days of Notice to Proceed, the Contractor will submit his Hurricane

Preparedness Plan

4) No alcoholic beverages allowed on site.


Page 3

8) Temporary Utilities - If Applicable

a) Power, telephone and water to be scheduled (if required) and paid for by the Contractor

9) Field office - Not Applicable

1) Contractor's office trailer

2) Engineering office trailer

10) Construction Plans and Specifications

1) The County furnished five sets total (two previously furnished).

11) Progress Meetings

1) To be called as necessary - anticipated to be held monthly.

12) Comments (other Business)

Project Sign - sample and County logo provided

Shop drawings - 4 sets plus quantity needed by contractor to be provided. Please

number sets and stamp reviewed by contractor.

RFI's - important questions/issues shall be submitted in writing and tracked by

numbering each.

Testing services shall be provided by Ardaman & Associates, Sarasota (922-3526)

Contractor shall schedule testing with Ardaman.

Submit Schedule of Values for any lump sum items.

Only Chris West and Bob Walker can approve minor field changes.

Construction phasing was discussed and the outline provided in the addenda shall

be followed.

13) Notice to Proceed Completion Date June 27, 2000

Liquidated Damages S250/day

14) Adjourn

Attached is attendance list and emergency numbers

cc: Meeting attendees

Project File 6011080

F:\USER\PUB\VKS14\\\TDOCS\8705\PRECON1.WTD

^e j^mge S^catofac] CW/iacto/ig, Aic.

facauaUon, Q/iading & ^Inde/ig/ioimd ^LUtees ^

November 2, 1999

Manatee County Government

Project Management Department

4422-A 66th Street West

Bradenton,FL 34210

Attn: Mr. Timothy A. HochuU, P.E.

RE: NRWTP Reclaimed Water Pumpback Station and Storage Pond

IFB #99-3131 DC

Dear Mr. Hochuli:

Below you will please find pertinent telephone numbers for during construction or should

an emergency arise.

Office: (941)493-1202

FAX: (941) 493-1204

EUeenDeJonge - President (941) 468-5316 - mobile

Henry DeJonge - V.P./Superintendent (941) 468-2646 - mobile

Henry Davidson - Chief Estimator (941) 468-5317 - mobile

Ernie Miles - Foreman '

(941) 468-7276 - mobile

Michael Monzo - Foreman (941) 468-0338 - mobile

If you should have any questions regarding the above information, please feel free to

contact us.

Respectfully,

DeJONGE EXCAVATING CONTRACTORS INC.

Henry Davidson

Chief Estimator

manpl

P.O. Box 743 • Venice, FL 34284-0743 * Office (941) 493-1202 « Fax (941) 493-1204

Florida State License CU C054928 • FDOTDBE • State Certified MBE

^G//O£Q

PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING

NRWTP - RECLAIMED WATER PUMPBACK STATION & STORAGE POND

NOVEMBER 3,1999

NAME COMPANY PHONE/FAX

NUMBERS

Dghf;g( ^SXuf^; 5-kr /^C7 PUD '7c)Z8g]i ^^29)

tv>3 ^ p.^r F's ^ fi- Lc?<o .-^

^ ^r^ ^^S-^^^

^fi^r^he^- ^gs)— AJ^^ -7^5-- 3^.4//7^/-^•^^

•T^^ZC/^ f ^0, ^ A/^ A/P-^ 7^-?^7^

/

Z?^4^1^/<; /r/ c -p ^ D ^-^Pj

/9^^/^z^6^^ /^^.^^'^ 7^-^^^

/2^-^/ /^^

y

^ .c. /e^^ •7^--r^^^

1?ick Sdi^pp^

>• — i 11 \ i,

w^^ KHA 74/ - g7 Z-L

^Z>L i^7>.\\^^ ^c^M\ py^^jo//^^/

/r€^R,^ J^)ft-^ i F's o i^->

v ' * yi

J)£^wiff><i C^; c/^/f-T^f Lonv^i\ ^if - -VPJ'-'/Zd^

/rs'/u^ ^s^b^cyo. \J)£. )oic)^Cf,c>a^v/f^ (^vJ^r, ^1- ^73-»Z<3-

//'/>l fT^c-^c^/' f^^r} 7^ -^11 ^ ;T^ 7/7^7^

De Jonge Excavating Contractors Inc.

P.O. Box 743

Venice. Fl 34284-0743

^^//a££>

-S'^ ^^^

TRANSMITTAl.

DATE: •T)^- ^). y? JOB NO: 9916 SUBMITTAL NO: 38

TO:

^ , , ,.

KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

1215 MANATEE AVENUE WEST

BRADENTON, FL 34205

ATTN: MR. RICK SCHAPPACHER, P.E.

MANATEE COUNTY NORTH REGIONAL WWTP

RECLAIMED WATER PUMPBACK STATIONS

RE:

WE ARE SENDING YOU:

X_ ATTACHED _

UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA.

X_ SHOP DRAWINGS _PRINTS/PLANS _SAMPLES

NUMBER OF COPIES DATE NO.

THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

. SPECIFICATIONS

__ CHANGE ORDER

DESCRIPTION

7 //?/-?/A9 —r—7-—f———

' 'T^'/^r/yT'/Uf C ^7S 7??oc TTw ,^C'/r-/.y

HESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW;

FOR YOUR USE

AS REQUESTED

X FOR APPROVAL

APPROVED AS SUBMITTED

APPROVED AS NOTED

RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS

SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION

RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS

EMARKS

^ ^ ^

/ / \

<•

lONE'4:941.493-1202'^ €.

-X: 941-493-1204

SIGNED

'^•^a^^' ^HenryUavidson

^•^"^g1 Chlef^^mator"

W ^

S6?:'

Kimley-Hom

and Associates, Inc.

Transm'ittal

Date: be^SM^ ^Z/999 Job No: ' "' • — — f " •-' ' ' "

To: A^ry Dan'^:>^

1215 Manatee Avenue East

Bradenton, Ftorida

34205

TEL 941 741 8722

FAX 941 747 7351

D^J^/i^g- ^C^Y^yh'w ^QY)fy7^-£>fS, 'The..

. P. o. ^x. 743

^

\/g^l^ FL g^g4'^'743________

Re: /^/a^^?^. z^). /y^/i ^WTP Pi^phs^ S-^rf)pyi5

We are sending you

D Attached D Under separate cover via the following items:

a Shop Drawings D Prints/Plans D Samples n Specifications D Change order

D

Copies Date No. Description

3 3S le^yf?^- ^y^T^&^'pr? 5^^^€.

These are transmitted as checked below:

D For your use D Approved as submitted ^ Resubmit 7 copies for approval

D As requested

D For review / comment

D Approved as noted D Submit.

D Returned for corrections D Return

. copies for distribution

_ corrected prints

Remarks 5^î/k /Ut/sf 2c^M^^€ Golf ^W(L ^/<y

-^^^h /V^t/ I ,Z£>s€> 3-^ t^,r /{cfcîkffuw- ^2.. P/fSy?-

^-i/l 're 2^ ^g-^kK/7 ^-k^ •Sc-h^tA<_

'flM l^>C.hcll!

S^b (^Îk/

C^f]'s iê^

^DeJoge^CG^aUng Ccmt/iacto/is, Aic.

fixation. Q/iading fi QAide/cgAound ^LUtoes '

^^

February 4, 2000 "T ••:'• •'•:'••"''

:

! FEB - 7 2000

LPKOJ^G!' ^


Project Management

4422A 66th'Street, West

Bradenton,FL 34210

Attn: Mr. Tim Hochuli

RE: Reclaimed Water Pumpback Stations and Storage Ponds

IFB #99-3131-DC

Hurricane Preparedness Plan

Dear Mr. Hochuli:

The referenced contract specifications require that we submit our Hurricane Preparedness

plan for the project. Briefly speaking, our plan is as follows:

Upon the issuance of a Hurricane Watch, the site will be inspected and all excess or

unnecessary materials will be removed. Stored equipment (i.e. parked and not

being utilized) will be removed from site.

s

Upon the issuance of a Hurricane Warning, all excavations will be filled, the site will be

graded and all remaining equipment will be removed (if possible). In addition,

all materials and equipment which can be moved manually by up to two men will

be removed from the work site. All remaining materials will be positioned and/or

restrained from possible movement. It should be emphasized that all construction

fencing (to include straw bales, filter fencing and traffic control signs will be

removed from the sight.

Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further, please feel free to contact

us.

Respectfully,

DeJONGE EXCAVATING CONTRACTORS INC.

^y ^)- •

^^^^c^^^,

Henry Davidson

Senior Administrative Project Manager

manp5

cc: Mr. Rick Schappacher, Kimley-Hom & Assoc.

P.O. Box 743 - Venice, FL 34284-0743 • Office (941) 493-1202 « Fax (941) 493-1204

Florida State License CU C054928 • FDOT DBE • State Certified MBE

FORM OF AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE

COUNTY OF MANATEE, FLORIDA

AND THE CONTRACTOR AS IDENTIFIED BELOW

ON THE BASIS OF A STIPULATED UNIT COST CONTRACT PRICE

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF MANATEE, a

political subdivision of the state of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "OWNER" and

DEJONGE EXCAVATING CONTRACTORS. INC.. hereinafter referred to as the

"CONTRACTOR," duly authorized to transact business in the state of Florida, with offices located

at 3506 Tundra Road. Post Office Box 743. Venice. Florida 34284 fPhone: 941/493-1202V

Article 1. WORK

CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, supplies, and other items required to complete the

Work for IFB No. North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Reclaimed Water Pumpback Station

and Storage Pond in strict accordance with specifications and any duly authorized subsequent

addenda thereto, all of which are made a part hereof.

Article 2. ENGINEER

The County of Manatee, Project Management Department, is responsible as the OWNER. Kimley-

Hom and Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEER," designed this project and is

responsible for technical/engineering reviews and decisions. The ENGINEER is a member of the

OWNER'S project management team which is collectively responsible in ensuring the Work is

completed in accordance with the Contract Documents. All communications involving this project

will be addressed to:

County of Manatee


Attn: Tim Hochuli, Project Manager

IFB 99-3131DC

4422A West 66th Street

Bradenton, Florida 34210

(Phone: 941/792-8811 ext.5053)

Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.

8586 Potter Park Drive

Suite 100

Sarasota, Florida 34238

(Phone:9417922-8187)

Where the terms ENGINEER and/or OWNER are used in the Contract Documents, it shall mean the

OWNER'S project management team.

00500-1

LJ e -j u 11 LJ c. c.AL.nfniini-i aTl'ta^fi^ljT P • d

€.oilo££>

^De J^cmgc ^cpvQfag CWftacto/[S, îc.__________

.facavdion, QWing & ÎndeftgAoiind Ûtîlles ^

April 11,2000



P.O. BOX 25010

Bradenton,FL 34206

Attn: Mr. Timothy A. Hochuli

Re: Reclaimed Water Pumpback Stations and Storage Pond

IFB #99-3131 DC

Irrigation Pump Station Tie-in

Dear Mr. Hochuli:

Original work required us to tie-in to the pump station main underground. Addendum #3

(without any design) revised this to an above ground tie-in. Sight inspection indicates to

us that this cannot be done due to existing DEP monitoring points.

We request an on-site meeting at the pump station at 11:00 a.m. on April 12, 2000.

Your earliest attention/response to this matter would be appreciated.

Respectfully,

'-'yUuu

Henry DeJonge

Vice President

cc: Mr. Rick Schappacber, P.E.

Kimley-Hom and Assoc., Inc.

manp54

P.O. Box 743 » Venice. FL 34284-0743 ' Office (941) 493-1202 » Fax (941) 493-1204


6^//^Q

^De j^ge fi^caitot^ig Co^/iacto/is, Aic.

fi^caucto, Q/iading 6 ^nde/cg/cound ^tees ,A

F

RECEIVED

APR ( 8 2000

TOJECT MGM7 •

April 13, 2000



P.O. Box 25010

Bradenton,FL 34206


RE: Reclaimed Water Pumpback Stations and Storage Pond

IFB #99-3131 DC

Irrigation Pump Station Tie-in

Dear Mr. Hochuli:

In our letter, dated April 11, 2000 (manp54), we requested a meeting at the irrigation

pump station to discuss tie in methods. Although we received information from the

engineer, we have not yet heard from your office. In a continuing spirit of cooperation,

we again respectfully request a meeting be held at 1:30 PM on Monday, April 24, 2000, at

the pump station. This date has already been approved by the engineer.

As this tie in has recently been identified as a critical path activity, we respectfully urge

you to attend.

Respectfully,

•Uju ft^^l

Henry DeJonge ^

Vice President

cc: Mr. Rick Schappacher, P.E.

Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.

manp55

P.O. Box 743 « Venice. FL 34284-0743 » Office (941) 493-1202 • Fax (941) 493-1204

Florida State License CU C054928 • FDOT DBE • State Certified MBE

^^//^^

^De J^gG ^ccâtog Ccmtefo/is, Aic.

facaâtion, QWing & ÎWe/ig/iound ^LUltes ^^

April 17,2000 |RECEIVED

F

RECEIVED

APR 2 1 2000

TOJECT MfiMT •



P.O. Box 25010

Bradenton,FL 34206


RE: Reclaimed Water Pumpback Stations and Storage Pond

IFB #99-3131 DC

Lines of Communications

Dear Mr. Hochuli:

On April 11, 2000, we received your letter in which you stated: "Once again. Manatee

County requests that DeJonge Excavating Contractors Inc. comply with the lines of

communication outlined in the preconstruction meeting and frequently reiterated

throughout the duration of the project."

DeJonge Excavating Contractors Inc. herein states that we have no idea of what you are

talking about. We have, since the start of the project followed your instructions to the

letter. We will admit that your instructions change with each meeting and do not agree

with the guidance given to and understood by the County and Engineer inspectors.

Perhaps that is where the problems lie.

During the preconstruction meeting, we were directed to bring all minor problems to Mr.

Chris West and Mr. Bob Walker. The minutes of the preconstruction meeting clearly state

that "Only Chris West and Bob Walker can approve minor field changes." Even as

recently as 12:00 noon April 14, 2000, Mr. Walker considered himself the eyes, ears and

mouth of the County's project manager and that informing him of all problems constitutes

simultaneous notification of the County Project Manager. When we informed him Friday,

April 14, 2000 that we had been directed to communicate only to the project manager in

the future and informed him that you had stated "Communicating information to various

?County staff has not been approved by the engineer or the appropriate County staff

provides no useful purpose in properly constructing the project". He did not believe us.

P.O. Box 743 • Venice. FL 34284-0743 « Office (941) 493-1202 • Fax (941) 493-1204



April 17,2000

Page Two

In the minutes of the monthly status meeting held on Tuesday, April 4, 2000 under

Miscellaneous, it states:

"The Contractor anticipates finishing the grading of the west pond banks by the

end of the week. The 24" equalizer pipe valves will be open to allow flow from

the east pond back to the west pond."

During that meeting we were told to inform "us" when we were ready to have the

equalizer pipes open. For what it is worth, at the time we assumed the term "us" meant

any responsible county person at that meeting. Late in the afternoon of April 6, 2000, Mr.

Daryl Young, Chris West's designated assistant came by the work site and asked if we

were ready to have the equalization valve opened. Naturally, as we were on Schedule and

the opening of the valve was per the status meeting, we stated that we were ready. Mr

Young went ahead and opened it. There was not a change in time and frankly, we did not

notify them. They notified us.

It has become obvious that there seems to be an overall problem clouding this project.

We are beginning to become irritated at what we see as constant unsubstantiated

accusations, delaying tactics, interference and frankly general uncooperativeness. We

would like to sit down and settle what ever problems exist in a professional and courteous

manner. We are open to your suggestions, a county mediator would be acceptable. The

current actions can not continue.

Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to

contact us.

Respectfully,

Henry DeJonge

Vice President



manp62

MANATEE COUNTY

GOVERNMENT


VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL

April 20, 2000

Mr. Henry DeJonge


P.O. Box 743 •

Venice, FL. 34284-0743

Re: NRWTP - STORAGE PONDS/PUMPBACK STATIONS

Dear Mr. DeJonge:

In response to your letter of April 17,2000 regarding communication between the County and

DeJonge Excavating this letter exemplifies the issues raised in my previous letter. I am not

familiar with a County request to have DeJonge only communicate with the County's project

manager. Please clarify the source of that information. Also, please refrain from making

characterizations of the County inspector's opinions. The inspector is more than able to do

so himself and I would venture to say that he would not want your firm making statements as

to his opinions.

It does not appear productive at this point to further discuss the lines of communication in

detail. However, as a point of clarification the preconstruction meeting defined Bob Walker

and Chris West as points of contact for minor on site questions and myself for issues which

would involve cost or time to the County. This has been revised once to remove Chris West

as a point of contact. This was intended to streamline communication because your firm was

asking questions of both parties when one may have already given a response to a question.

This has been the only change to the system. As I am sure you recall we discussed this at

length at the preconstruction meeting. At that time I described that we do this on all of our

construction projects to help the contractor eliminate the possibility of performing work for

which he would not be compensated.

If you have any questions please give me a call.

Sincerely,

^•/^^

Timothy A. Hochuli, P.E.

Project Manager

cc: Rick Schappacher, P.E., Project Engineer

Bob Walker, Project Inspector

Bill Parks, WW Maintenance Superintendent

PrOJeCt File 6011080 <F:\USER\PUBWKS14VWPDOCS\8705\RESPONS.WPD>

4422-A- 66th Street West, Bradenton, Florida 34210 • (941) 792-8811 • FAX (941) 795-3442

P.O. Box 25010. Bradenton. Florida 34206

^DG ^cmgG S^cc^Qting Conteto/i9, Aic.

^"<^7<$b

fi^cavafclon, Q/iading & ^nde/ig/iound ^U^lUes ^^

March 6, 2000

RECCED

Manatee County Government ; ,^p _ Q ^ ,

Project Management Department "•'" ~ y '-uuu

P.O.Box 25010 -—-

Bradenton, FL 34206 _

'• ,'

Attn: Mr. Timothy A. Hochuli, P.E.


IFB #99-3131 DC

GTE Cable South Side of Road on North Side of Site Reject Pond

Dear Mr. Hochuli:

When we were preparing to excavate and install the new effluent water mains, we called

Sunshine and requested utility locates as is required us by state law. As is also required by

state law, the various utilities (except for Manatee County) in turn came out to the work

site and located their lines.

To our surprise, GTE located a cable on the south side of the road to the north side of the

Site Project Pond. This cable was not indicated on the contract plans, even though it's

existence was apparently known by Manatee County. The conduit was in direct conflict

with the proposed 12" effluent main and would have to be removed, prior to the

installation of the 12" main and then reinstalled after the 12" main was installed and tested.

Because of the contract plan deficiency, we were unable to know about the additional

work requirement and therefore we were unable to include this added cost in our bid

price.

During the first monthly construction status meeting, Mr. Henry DeJonge ofDeJonge

Excavating Contractors, Inc. informed all those present of the need to remove and replace

the GTE cable. He asked whether the county wanted GTE to do the additional work or

have DeJonge do it. We were directed to perform the additional work. Mr. DeJonge

was quite clear in his informing those present that the cost to perform this added work

was an additional cost.

Accordingly, DeJonge Excavating Contractors, Inc. herein requests that a contract change

order be issued in the total amount of $1,166.58 representing the additional cost which has

been and will be incurred while performing the above cited additional work.

P.O. Box 743 • Venice, FL 34284-0743 * Office (941) 493-1202 « Fax (941) 493-1204

Florida State License CU C054928 • FOOT DBE • State Certified MBE


March 6, 2000

Page Two

Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to

contact us.

Respectfully,

DeJONGE EXCAVATINGrCONTRACTORS INC.

Henry Davidson

Senior Administrative Project Manager


Kimley-Hom and Assoc. Inc.

manp25

6 ^//Os5a

^De ôjjgg^CQât^g Ccmteto/tS, îc.

faccâUon, Q/cadlncj & ^nde/ig/iound ^tites ^

March 21,2000


Project Management Department ^p ^ ^ p/yin

P.O. Box 25010

Bradenton, FL 34206

_ PROJECT'MfiMT


RECEIVED


IFB #99-3131 DC

Modification to the Proposed Effluent Transfer Pump Station Pump Separation

Dear Mr. Hochuli:

On Monday, March 20, 2000, we received authorization to modify the placement of the

pumps for the proposed effluent transfer pump station within its wet well. The wet well

top slab will be rotated 180 degrees and the pumps will be installed with a 38" separation

(rather than the 35 inches in the contract plans).

This change will be at no additional cost to Manatee County. The authorization was

passed on to us by Mr. Rick Schappacher, P.E. the project engineer with Kimley-Hom &

Assoc., Inc. which included approval by Mr. Tim Hochuli, P.E. the project manager with

Manatee County.

We greatly thank Mr. Schappacher for his rapid review and approval recommendation.

Due to his actions we incurred no delay while solving the problems which had been

discovered.

Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter farther, please feel free to

contact us.

Respectfully, -^-.^ ^•-"'V^

r^ "\

^//^•^•- -/•••'^ .-^^w ^,

Henry Davidson

'Senior Admmistrative Project Manager



manp42

P.O. Box 743 » Venice. FL 34284-0743 ' Office (941) 493-1202 • Fax (941) 493-1204

Florida State License CU C054928 • FOOT DBE • State Certified MBE

MANATEE COUNTY

GOVERNMENT


••fsya-szs^.-x^-:

March 22, 2000

VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL

Mr. Henry Davidson


P.O. Box 743

Venice, FL. 34284-0743

Re: NRWTP STORAGE POND IMPROVEMENTS

Dear Mr. Davidson:

In response to your letter of March 21, 2000 regarding modifications to the proposed

effluent transfer pump station pump separation please have this letter serve as notification

that Manatee County has not approved the revision you describe. More specifically no

approval by me has been issued and in fact the County has not received a description of

the proposed modification. Any changes performed by yourfirm based on the assumptions

stated in the above letter are at your own risk.

Please give me a call if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

^•^

Timothy A. Hochuli, P.E.

Project Manager

cc: Rick Schappacher, P.E., Project Engineer via facsimile

Bill Parks, WW Maintenance Superintendent

Bob Walker, Project Inspector

Project File 6011080

<F;\LISERIPU8WKS14\WPDOCS\8705\LSTOP.WPD>

4422-A-66th Street West, Bradenton, Florida 34210 • (941) 792-8811 • FAX (941) 795-3442

P.O. Box 25010, Bradenton, Florida 3420R •

^DG ônge ^CQVafag Contoto^s, îc.

fi^cauatlon, Q/iading & ^nde/ig/iound ÛÛes //

June 20, 2000



P.O. Box 25010

Bradenton,FL 34206


RE: Reclaimed Water Pumpback Stations and Storage Pond Improvements

IFB #96-3131 DC

Reject Pond Bottom Elevation Changes

Dear Mr. Hochuli:

In our letter, subject as above, dated May 1, 2000, we requested $16,650.56 in additional

compensation for performing additional excavation of the material from the bottom of the

reject pond.

In your response to our request you forwarded Mr. Schappacher's letter to you outlining

his position on our request. At this time, we would like to briefly comment on his

obersavations.

Paragraph 1: Mr. Schappacher seems to be making some kind of point by pointing out

that "The inspector's daily report indicated that contractor excavated materials from the

western half of the reject pond on March 16 and 17 and hauled the materials to the spoil

area". Considering that in our original letter, we too listed the personnel, equipment and

dump truck. We do not understand the engineer's statement. The inspector's daily report

seems to have been confirmation.

Paragraph 2: The photograph forwarded with our May 1, 2000 letter clearly shows that

we were conducting work on the banks before the pond was dewatered. We stated in our

letter that the surveyor was denied access to the bottom of the pond as a result of Manatee

County's actions of not permitting us to dewater the reject pond. The statement made by

the engineer that "In addition, there was a discharge from the plant into the reject pond

that could have altered the pond bottom elevations slightly due to the exposed slopes". It

would appear that we are being blamed for the actions of Manatee County's personnel in

discharging treated sewage water into the reject pond. We must question this action.

P.O. Box 743 • Venice. FL 34284-0743 « Office (941) 493-1202 « Fax (941) 493-1204

Florida State License C(J C054928 • FOOT DBE • State Certified MBE


June 20, 2000

Page Two

Paragraph 3: The engineer makes reference to various elevations indicated on the

contract drawing. Unfortunately, it appears to us that slope elevations have been

erroneously identified as bottom elevations.

What has upset .us is that for an extended period of time we were denied the ability to

dewater the reject pond and when we could, our efforts were repeatedly all but interfered

with. Then acting in conjunction with the engineer and county inspector's observations,

we had our surveyors verify the pond bottom elevations once we were permitted to drain

the reject pond. The end results are ignored and denied.

Accordingly, under article 11.2 of Section 00700, General Conditions of the Contract

Specifications, we herein request conferencing with the County Purchasing Director prior

to any further action. This conferencing may be held in reserve until the full extent (and

numbers) of actions have been determined which will be before the final payment request.

Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to

contact us.

Respectfully,

,^^ /,^^9^

Henry DeJonge cY v <^Z^

Vice President


Kimley - Horn and Assoc., Inc.

manp92

ui•roi •-uuu .LU.-U r.i-i a-ti. if-to i^..-i jAy rAU>^l.A£,.'i£,.^J. l^JUUl

n SARASOTA COUNTY

'Dedicated to Quality Service"

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL P261682001

April 10,2000

Ms. Eileen DeJonge, President


P.O. Box 3421


Subject; Prequalification Revocation

Dear Ms. DeJonge:

In accordance with Administrative 2.03A, Section 10, your Sarasota County Prequalification

Certification has been suspended for one year, beginning April 10, 2000.

The Construction Prequalification Committee has reviewed your performance in the execution of the

Contract for the Proctor Road/Honore Avenue Force Main, Contract No. 99-328 and for the

Longwood-Meadowood Force Main and Lift Stations, Contract No. 98-333. It has been determined

that your performance was "non-responsible" on both projects- Copies of performance evaluations

are attached-

Ifyou have any questions please refer to Administrative Directive 2.03A. A copy has been enclosed

for your reference. If you have any additional questions please call me at (941) 951-5266.

Robert R. Walendzik, Construction Prequalification Coordinator

Sarasota County.

Approved:

iemadette C- O'Brien

Procurement Manager

3attch/as

• CC: Warren Wagner, Jody Kirkman and Joe Griffin of Environmental Services, Tom Wilcox, Public

Works, Adriana Consuelos, Esq., Office of the County Attorney, Dale Roberts,. Procurement

•-/A\*a< * ^\iw"» t_ i.'t^.r.t,^. . j

SARASOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT

ADMINISTRATIVE DIREdTVE

NO: 2.03A

ISSXIKD: February 13,1998

EFFECTIVE: DATE: February 13,1998

SUBJECT:

PrequaUfication of construction contractors.

AUTHORITY: •

Ordinance Number 9MO authorizes the County Administrator to determine the eligibility of

contractors to bid on County construction projects.

PURPOSE:

To establish a process for prequalii^ing contractors for County .construction projects.

^ •• • .

POLICY:

It is the policy of Sarasota. CountyGovemment to utiBze only qualified contractois to construct or

renovate buHdiags, roads axui other large construction projects.

RESPONSIBILITY-. .

AH County Government departments are responsible for adhering to the provisions of this

Ajdnumstrafive Directive. The Purchasing & Contracts Management Division of the General Services

Department is responsible for implementing and managing the constniction .contractor

prequalificarion program.

PROCEDURES:

•..-"} All constmcdon contractors wishing to do business with Sarasota County roust first apply for

prequalincation certification with the Construction Prequalification Committee.

s?r\.*.< ,t-^\<^^ L A£.-U£..^ X l^J UU 1^

1. The CONSTRUCTION PREQUALDFICATION COMMITTEE ("Committee") consists of:

Three permanent members as follows:

General Services Director (Chairman)

Transportation Director . .

Utilities Director

Non voting Committee Staff:

The Construction Prequalification Coordinator (Coordinator) under the direction of

the Purchasing & Contracts Management Division.

The Committee will review and investigate ^U Prequalificadon Questionnaires and renewals. The

Committee win determine its own manner of operation adhering to tile requirements of this Directive,

The Coordinator will establish and maintain an official file of all prequalification applications,

questionnaires and supporting material, certificates of prequalification, record of contractor

performance, records of disqualification and will print an updated list of pcequalified contractors

whenever needed.

2.. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION - PREQUALIFIED BIDDER: A propedy

completed application for certification as a prequalified contractor must be submitted to the

Coordinator by each contractor intending to bid on County construction contracts estimated by the

County to cos^ in excess of S100,000. Certification is for a two. year period renewable every two.

years thereafter. A copy of the Application is shown as Attachment I to this Directive.

3. RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATION A propedy completed application for renewal of

certification must be submitted to the Coordinator. Failure to submit a propedy completed Renewal

Application 30 days prior to expiration, may result in the lapse of a contractor's certification.

* ' ^ - . '

Updated information must be submitted immediately by a .prequalified contractor should there be:

a. a. change of ownership, - - . • •

b. any event that adversely affects the contractor's financial condition, or

c. a surety rating change.

4- The Construction Prequalification Coordinator will obtain the review and recommendation

of the Committee within 30 calendar days of receipt of each propedy completed Prequauncation

Application and Renewal Application, (or a processing status update sheet will be sent to the

applicant)

4

5. EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR Based on a positive recommendation by the

Committee, Sarasota. County Government will Issue a Certificate (sample form attached) as a

prequalified construction contractor executed by the County Administrator or his deslgnee. The

Certificate will specify the construction categories for which the contractor is prequalified and will

be issued subject to the bonding restrictions for contract dollar limitation-

2

ui-.^'-uuu .1.0.-1 r.Tî. a-t.1. ^.LO ij.-t o^y muî-ru-.ii&.M ^juu-t

6. If the Committee denies certification, the Committee Chair will send a letter to the contractor

outlining the reasons for this denial. A contractor may appeal such a decision to the County

Administrator by providing an appeal letter to the General Services Director within seven (7) calendar

days from issuance of the denial.

7. A service fee of $200.00 for each Application and $75.00 for each Renewal Application must

be submitted with each contractor's application. Checks should be made payable to Sarasota County

Board of County Commissioners and are non-refundable.

8- Only those contractors holding a valid Prequauficadon Certificate will be permitted to bid on.

construction contracts estimated by the County to cost in excess of $100,000. Bids received from

bidders who do not hold a vaHd Certificate should not be opened. Such bids are not to be recognized

and, if opened by mistake, will not be considered for award.

9. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS Contractor's on

the job performance will be evaluated at least annually using the form shown in Attachment 3 - The

County will maintain records of contractor performance on each project The original records will

be maintained by the user department and a copy maintained by the Coordmator-

10. A contractor's prequalification may be suspended or revoked by the County for Good Cause

upon written notification to the contractor and its surety. Suspension is a temporary termination of

prcquaBficafion status for a stated period of time which shall be determined by tile Committee, based

on the severity of the cause and the circumstances involved- Revocation is -a :tennination of

prequalificalion status which shall be based only on the most serious causes. -Good Cause for

suspension or r€ô<ôn of prequalifi<^tion static may include, but.is not limited to:

a. Delinquency. A contractor is delinquent when unsatisfactory progress has beea made on a

construction project or when the allowed contract time has expired .and the contract work is

not complete. Unsatisfactory progress shall be determined by the express language of the

contract t

b. Non-responsible. A contactor may be determined non-responsible when there is .Good

Cause. Good Cause includes, but is not limited to, drcumstances in which the contractor or

the contractor's official representative:

(1) Makes or submits to the County false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements

in any bid or proposal, or any application for a certificate of qualification;

(2) Becomes insolvent or is the subject of a bankruptcy petition; \

(3) Fails to comply with the contract requirements in terms of payment or

performance record, or to timely furnish contract .documents as required by

the contract or any state or federal agency,

'o--» ony rj\.>j^Livc.,'ir,.\i

(4) Wrong&iUy employs or otherwise provides compensation to any employee

or officer of the County,

C5) Is an affiliate of a contractor who has been determined non-responsible or

whose certificate of qualification has been suspended or revoked and the

affiliate is dependent upon such contractor for personnel, equipment, bonding

or finance.

The Contractor may contest the suspension or revocation by providing written justification to halt

the suspension or revocation within seven (7) calendar days to the Committee Chairman. The

contracting firm will be granted the opportunity for a meeting with the Committee to present its

appeal. The Committee will reevaluate the suspension or revocation taking into consideration the

information provided by the contractor in the appeal and issue a written decision to the contractor'.

The contractor may appeal the Committee's decision by providing written justification, within seven

(7) calendar days to the County Administrator or his designee.

At the end of suspension, the Committee may restore a contractoi's prequalified status upon a

detennination that the cause for suspension has been corrected by the contractor.

11. All determinations of the Cbmnutteeor the County Administrator, or his designee, uQd.ec-flns

Administrative Directive, including determinations to limit prequalificarion eligibility, to deaf

prequalificatioff, to limit or deny renewal of prequalificataon, to determine that a contractor is

delinquent or to suspend or revoke a contractor's prequalification, maybe appealed to the Board of

County Commissioners.

Appeals shall be addressed to the Board in writing and be filed within seven (7) calendar days of the

date of the detcnrimation which is being appealed. Appeals shall include the following:

a. Name and address of appdhnL

"b. • Identification of the determination that is being appealed.

<c. Statement as to why the suspension or revocation is unwarranted.

d. Copies of all documents pertinent to the appeaL

c. A statement of the relief which the appellant seeks from the Board-

The decision of the Board shall constitute final administrative action..

SUPERSEDES:

This Administrative Directive supersedes Administrative Directive 2.03 issued August 14,1991.

ui'-.j'-uuu .Lu-rO r A-^ a •* j. ^ i. o i 0 - -i oAy rKtu- Liu-.iir.N i ifiy UUD

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

CONTRACT NUMBER: 98-333 CONTRACT TITLE: Longwood - Meadowood Force Main and Lift Stations

CONTRACTOR (COMPANY NAME. ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, POINT OF CONTACT):


P.O. Box 743


(941)-493-1202

Mrs. EUeen DeJonge. President

DATE OF AWARD

July 28,1998

ORIGINAL CONTRACT

COMPLETION DATE

March 8,1999

REVISED CONTRACT

COMPLETION DATE

June 1,1999

DATE WORK ACCEPTED

October 26,1999

DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF WORK:

The project consisted of installing IO", 12", 16" and 24" force mains- The project included three (3) master lift stations. The sewer

system included service manholes, structure crossing, directional bores, valve installations, minor WWTP plant •work, and automatic air

release structures-

The project boundaries consisted of Longwood Park to the north, and the Meadowood WWTP to the south. The pipeline was installed via

DeSoto Road to North Metro Park, at the park, the pipe line turned south and was installed to die main entrance of the Park. The pipeline

then tunicd 10 the west to Honore ave. where it turned south and ran to 17'1' Street. The pipelina was installed west oa 17'1' Street to the

Meadowoood WWTP. On site, the pipeline was installed to both the existing lift station and the CKisting headworks of the Plant

PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS

QUALITY OF WORK '

TIMELY PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING

ADHERENCE TO SCHEDULE

COORDINATION WITH OWNERDS

REPRESENTATIVE

SUPERVISION OF SUBCONTRACTORS

COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY STANDARDS

RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC

OVERALL EVALUATION

OUTSTANDING GOOD SATISFACTORY

x

. x

UNSATISFACTORY

X

X

X

X

x

Note: Please supply comments on Page 2 for all Performance Elements evaluated other than DSatisfactory

EVALUATED BY: DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services. Utilities Engineering

Jody C. Kirkman, Senior Engineer

EVALUATOR

OSD Fonn 2.03897

Patrick D. Zoeller, P.E., Engineering Section Supervisor

REVIEWER

oi<.y rr<.u'-i-t<£..'LC.t'.i ifijuu;

COMMENTS

1. Quality of Work: The quality of the Contractor's final product was rated satisfactory. It is noted that the

Contractor did have to re-excavate the pipeline to make adjustments to the deflection of the pipe. It was

noted that the Contractor exceeded the project specification deflection rate as it applies to PVC material. All

pipe installed passed all testing as described in the Contract.

2. Timely Performance; The original Contract completion date was March 8, 1999. It is noted in Section

00500 (General Section of the Technical Specifications) that the work shall be constructed within the eagle

non-nesting season (May 16 to September 30) for that portion of the pipeline within the primary and

secondary zones. The Contractor was reminded of this note during the August 28,1998 pre-construction

meeting and failed to meet the date restriction. The Contractor did not begin installing pipe until December

15,1998, which was well after the specified time period to address the eagle nest area. The Contract would

not be complete until after the next years nesting season posing a schedule problem that the County would

have to deal with- The County offered change order number one (1) to add extra force main work. The

Contractor and County negotiated the change order with respect to time and money. The new completion

date was May 15, 1999. The County then issued change order number two (2) for additional expenses for

general work and included all additional time as deemed executable. Change order number two (2) changed

the completion date to June 1,1999. The Contractor completed me project on October 26,1999. The

Contractor bad 146 days of liquidated damages assessed and was charged with the engineering fees for all

time spent by the engineer during the LD period. The Contractor submitted a schedule late in the pre-

construction phase of the project The schedule was reviewed by the engineer and was not excepted. The

schedule was rejected because it was incomplete with respect to detailed work items. The Contractor was

informed that the County required a updated schedule every month. This was to be reviewed with each pay

request. The Contractor submitted a schedule with each pay request but failed to revise as requested by both

the County and the Engineer. The schedule never incorporated the critical path of the project and was never

accepted by the County for official use. The schedule was a key variable in noting that the Contractor was

not prepared for this project. DeJonge failed to value the importance of the schedule as it applied. With a

project of this magnitude, the schedule is a major tool in helping deliver a project on time. The schedule

would have helped in determining the extra time needed, if any. With the information provided, the

Contractor had no support for the time overage. Also note, the Contractor used valuable time in requesting

to use an unspecified product. It was noted that the Contractor requested the County on the use of PERMITS

coating in lieu ofPROTECTO 401 coating. The 401 coating was specified in the Contract and the

Contractor took the request as far as potential litigation between the County and the supplier of the

PERMTTE coating system- On December 2,1998, the Contractor opted to use the specified product after

wasting months of valuable time. The Contract documents outlines the process of substitution of materials

which the Contractor failed to follow.

3. Coordination w/ Owners Representative: In the early days of the Contract, the Contractor would submit

questions to only the engineer or the County but would not copy both. The Contractor would seek the

answer he wanted without justification from the owner in all cases. The Contractor bombarded alTparties

with correspondences- During the short life of the project, over 250 letters were produced by the Contractor.

Most of the correspondences, some 80%, were request for additional money. Most of the request were time

consuming, not justified and denied by the County and engineer. The County and the engineer spent

numerous hours on these items. The Contractor actually stopped work on every occasion he could muster.

An example of such action was when the Contractor actually stopped pipe installation when he ran. into a

existing fence line. He stated that he needed direction of the fence removal and would charge for "idle

'' equipment" for such a delay. These types of actions continued during the life of the project Instead of

monthly progress meeting, as established by the pre-construction meeting, the County and the engineer were

forced to conduct weekly meeting with the Contractor. This action was created after a meeting on March 9,

1999 where the Contractor was threatening to walk away from the project and take legal actions against the

County. The meeting, which was held on March 9,1999, established goals that all parties tried to reach.

The task of weekly meetings was needed to keep the Contractor on track and to reduce the conflicts that the

Contractor was creating. This action caused additional cost to the County via engineering fees and in-house

cost. The Contractor stated directly to Jody Kirkman, the project manager, "I don't bid a project that I can't

recover on change orders".

4. Supervision of Subcontractors: No real problem were noted with the Contractor's subcontractors. It

should be noted that the Contractor did request multiple meetings between the County and the subcontractors

to resolve or negotiate change orders. The Contractor was informed early on that the County does not have

contractual obligations to subcontractors, but the Contractor failed to follow this fact The meeting consisted

of threats of "do the work my way or don't do it at all". The County was able to negotiate without to much

lost time or money.

5. Compliance with Safety Standards: The Contractor failed to follow all safety standards within the

Contract. The Contractor was warned daily for the use of hard hats and sheering and/or shoring deep trench

lines. Daily, the County informed the Contractor that he would be graded on his safety compliance with

respect to the hard hat issue. The County inspector reported the non-compliance via the daily report.

6. Relations with the Public: During site clearing operations behind the Longwood Run Subdivision, it was

noted that the Contractor confronted a homeowner on the method of removing trees and overhanging

branches. It was noted that the Contractor informed the homeown&r thai it was his business to determine the

method of removing trees and overhanging branches on County owned lands. It was understood that the

Contractor actually used the track hoe to "strip" the trees of branches. This method outraged me

homcowners and the comments offered by the Contractor did not help. Also noted was the lack of

cooperation with staff at the longwood Run Park while the Contractor worked at Longwood Park. The

original plans included a thirty-foot (30') deep installation of a lift station know as NC #1. The lift station

had to be revised with respect to the depth because the Contractor did not include the task of working around

the Park's schedule. This was done to keep the project on track. The revision did cost the County valuable

time and money.

OVERALL EVALUATION; DeJonge Excavating, Inc. did not fulfill the Contract requirements. DeJonge

failed to follow the requirements in which the County required on this project. Due to numerous letter

submittals, the County and the engineer dedicated many unnecessary hours to the project. DeJonge would work

up to a conflict then stop and charge for delays. The Contract was very clear on handling unforeseen items,

DeJonge on the other hand was clear that they were not going to follow the defined documents. The project was

argument from day one in which DeJonge excavating wanted to win, at whatever cost. Currently, DeJonge

Excavating, Inc. has entered into legation against the County to recover claims in which the County has denied.

The Contractor has carried this style of work ethics over to other utility proj ect with Sarasota County. DeJonge

has proven to seek change,orders at whatever means available and this work ethic will cost the awarding

business center more dollars than awarding to the next lowest bidders. This statement has been proven based on

past performance with the Sarasota County Environmental Business Center.

-'It is our strongest recommendation that Purchasing remove the Contractor from the pre-qualified status until

such time that they can adequately prove/provide a successful track record in utility related work. This should

ui'.j-.uuu j.o:ju r.i-k. a-t-i. >>.L& ia--i on.y rn.u'-nvc.iLc.-'.A >touu.>

'include underground water, sewer and storm pipe work, lift station installations, any treatment plant work and/or

Governmental construction projects above the hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) mark.

INITIALS

JCK PDZ

4

y ; • « o' » u y u j. o ; ^ u r AA ^-u. ^xu < ^ - -i •JA^ mu^ i- IVC..AU-,.-' j.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

CONTRACT NUMBER: 99-328 CONTRACT TITLE: Proctor Road/Honore Avenue Force Main

CONTRACTOR (COMPANY NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, POINT OF CONTACT):


P.O. Box 743


(941>493-1202

Mrs. Eileen DeJonge, President

DATE OF AWARD

July 27,1999

ORIGINAL CONTRACT

COMPLETION DATE

November 6,1999

REVISED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE

DATE WORK ACCEPTED

DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF WORK:

The project consisted of installing 8", 10", and 12" force mains. The project included associated valves, fittings and directional bores.

Work is located within Sarasota Counly Transportation right-of-way or easements on Honore Avenue from Ashton to Proctor Road and on

Proctor Road from Honore Avenue TO Gantt.

. Place an 0x0 in the appropriate column

PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS

QUALITY OF WORK

TIMELY PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING

ADHERENCE TO SCHEDULE

COORDINATION WITH OWNERDS

REPRESENTATIVE

SUPERVISION OF SUBCONTRACTORS

COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY STANDARDS

RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC

OVERALL EVALUATION

OUTSTANDING GOOD SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Note; Please supply comments on Page 2 for all Performance Elements evaluated other than OSatisfactory

EVALUATED BY: . BUSINESS CENTER- Environmental Services. Utilities Engineering

Joseph A. Griffin, P.E., Project Manager

EVALUATOR

Patrick. D. Zoeller, P-E., Engineering Manager

REVIEWER

•GSDFonn 2.03 897

jr^y rx\,u^ L i\r..U£,.\ i

COMMENTS

1. Quality of Work: The Contractor did not perform in a satisfactory manner. The Contractor was given directives to complete the

project by letter dated December 2,1999 from our Consultant The system as installed was never tested. (Letter Attached)

2. Timely Performance: The original Contract completion date was November 6.1999. The Contractor had 91 days of liquidated

damages assessed and was charged with engineering fees for all time spent by the Engineer during the liquidated damages period.

This project was started on August 6, 1999. From the beginning the Contractor took it upon himself to meet with the Forestry,

Risk Management, Stomiwater Maintenance, and the Health Dept without our knowledge. The Contractor was required to submit

an updated schedule with each pay request. The schedule never incorporated the critical path of the project The schedule wa$ a

key variable in noting that the Contractor was not prepared for this project All contractors need to understand the importance of

the schedule as it applies to the overall timeline.

3. Coordination w/Qwaers Representative: This Contractor initiated 167 letters. The Contractor did not provide preconstruction

videos or project photos prior to doing directional drill work and was so notified- Response from their chief estimator. Hank

Davidson was "video was taken for record and not for approval and could not see the need for panic". At the preconstruction

conference meeting the Contractor was to provide video for approval prior to starting any work. On an almost daily basis the

Contractor was submitting requests for more time and monies. Our Consultant was prompt in responding to Contractor's requests

and requesting backup information from the Contractor. The Contractor bombarded all parties with excessive correspondence,

sending it to whomever they deemed correct, not as directed and repeatedly instructed. On August 12, 1999 DeJonge met with

Norm Easy of Forestry regarding the trees along Proctor Road (sta. 75+00 to 89 +69) without consultant or Utility knowledge.

Correspondence from Dejonge regarding the issue and their arrogance was the catalyst for the County requesting that Hank

Davidson be removed from this project, letter atttached dated August 20,1999.

4. Supervision of Subcontractors: UNSATISFACTORY - When requested by them, we authorized DeJonge to order HDPE for

additional directional bores and we would negotiate the final cost without ordering delays involved. They received the HDPE, did

not bill for stored materials, and when we could not agree on final costs DeJonge allowed Piore (Directional Bore Contractor) to

use it on another job.

5. Compliance with Safety Standards: Compliance with the Florida Safe Trench Act was questionable (Engineer can provide

Photos) County Public Works shut them down because barricade lights were not functioning.

6. Relations with the Poblic: DeJonge used private property at 533 8 Proctor Road for three months to store materials, without

compensation. We were advised of the situation and required compensation to die owner. The contractor, DeJonge used Mr. Billy

Groves' property, without his permission, to park their equipment

OVERALL EVALUATION: UNSATISFACTORY - Their methods cost us all a lot of time and money. DeJonge refused to

follow directives unless their demands were met resulting in their claims for idle equipment and refusal to complete the work. The

best example of this is the trees on Proctor where they ended up doing tile work as perthe plans and as repeatedly directed but only

after we removed the adjacent tree. Too much time was spent getting them to do the work as bid. Norm Easy told us that the trees

could be removed as long as the county was addressing the impact that would some day happen to the privately owned trees.

October 1\, November 19,1999 and January 26, 2000 meetings were held to resolve various issues. The Contractor had claims

totaling $183,000 that included claims for material, loss of efficiency, and idle equipment The County and the Contractor were at

an impasse. DeJonge was relieved of continuing the project as of February 8, 2000.

The major stopping issues were as follows: Well issue at sta-17+00 on September 22,1999-The Contractor was given direction

to install the force main around the existing well using fittings. He chose not to follow direction. On December 2,1999 he was

directed to install the fittings. He requested demobilization/remobilization costs of S2,948 and reduction in work efficiency of

S3,443. Claim was denied per letter dated January 24,2000. The tree issue at sta. 58+58 - The Contractor was to install the force

main by removing the tree. The tree removal on private property did not delay construction. The claim of$ 1,618 was denied- The

.48" CMP at sta 71+80 - The Contractor chose to ignore directive given by County and Engineer, all costs associated by claim

were denied S 14719.

•J^\^ 1 r\^/^ L AV^.-AI-

It is our strongest recommendation that Procurement remove the Contractor from the pre-qualified status until such time that they

can adequately prove/provide a successful track record in utility related work. This should include underground water, sewer,

storm pipe work, lift station installations, any treatment plant work and/or Governmental construction projects above the one

hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) mark.

______/______ INITIALS

JAG PDZ

MANATEE COUNTY GOVERNMENT AGENDA MEMORANDUM...Oct 03, 2000 · FROM: Janet E. McAfee, Director,...

Documents

Transcript of MANATEE COUNTY GOVERNMENT AGENDA MEMORANDUM...Oct 03, 2000 · FROM: Janet E. McAfee, Director,...