The Alaska Contractor: Fall 2001 - Keep Trees® | digital...

Publication of the Associated General Contractors of AlaskaOctober 2001

Publication of the Associated General Contractors of AlaskaOctober 2001

The AlaskaThe Alaska

NNeeeedd WWee SSaayy MMoorree......NNeeeedd WWee SSaayy MMoorree......

2 THE ALASKA CONTRACTOR / October 2001

3October 2001 / THE ALASKA CONTRACTOR


6 News Briefs

C O N T E N T SO c t o b e r 2 0 0 1

departments

features

The Official Publication of the Associated General Contractors of Alaska

The Alaska

8 President’s MessageB Y B E R T B E L L

35 Safety ReportB Y D O N W E B E R

52 Contractors and the LawB Y B O B D I C K S O N

25 A Gem in the Fairbanks Construction IndustryB Y S T E V E N C . L E V I

Member Profile: GHEMM Company, Inc. approaches nearly ahalf century doing business in Alaska’s Interior.

16 Sorting Out Rural Construction ProjectsB Y A M Y M A R I E A R M S T R O N G

The Governor’s Rural Task Force is preparing a report focusingheavily on the issue of local hire.

33 There are no Yellow Brick Roads in AlaskaB Y S T E V E N C . L E V I

Member Profile: Alaska Roadbuilders, Inc., a Soldatna-based,family owned firm, specializes in roads.

10 Executive Director’s MessageB Y D I C K C A T T A N A C H

39 Keeping the Wheels RollingB Y S T E V E N C . L E V I

Member Profile: Ribelin Lowell and Company in Anchorageoffers the coverage and support that keeps Alaska’s contractorsin business.

44 Terrorist Attack Redefines DebatesB Y R O N D A L B Y

Commentary on the most critical issue of the moment.

28 If You Build It, Will They ComeB Y C L A R K R I C K S

Coming soon to a ballot near Anchorage—a chance to vote for abed tax to fund a new, larger convention center.

12 AGC Conference Schedule

41 Drugs & Alcohol in the WorkplaceB Y M A T T F A G N A N I

38 Construction Activity

14 Education ReportB Y V I C K I S C H N E I B E L


E D I T O R I A L

EditorRon Dalby

Managing EditorClark Ricks

Art DirectorAngel D. Nichols

Graphic ArtistKathryn Fava

ContributorsAmy Marie Armstrong

Frank FlavinSteven C. Levi

B U S I N E S S

Alaska Quality Publishing, Inc.401 W. International Airport Rd.

Suite 13Anchorage, Alaska 99518

(907) 562-9300Fax: (907) 562-9311

Toll Free: 866-562-9300E-mail: [email protected]

PublisherRobert R. Ulin

Project ManagerJoe Hughes

Account RepresentativeCarri Connolly

P R I N T E D B Y

A.T. Publishing & Printing, Inc.1720 Abbott Road

Anchorage, AK 99507(907) 349-7506

Fax: (907) 349-4398www.atpublishing.com

A G C A

Assoc. General Contractors of Alaska8005 Schoon St., Anchorage, AK 99518

(907) 561-5354Fax: (907) 562-6118

The Official Publication of the AssociatedGeneral Contractors of Alaska

The Alaska

Contractor

1. Chevak School Replacement;Osborne Construction Co.; $14.8million.

2. Nome Airport RunwayRehab/Obstruction; KnikConstruction, Inc.; $7.4 million.

3. Emmonak Airport Rehab; BeringPacific; $5.8 million.

4. Toksook Bay Airport Relo; SouthCoast, Inc.; $4.2 million.

5. Deering Airport Rehab; TamsherConstruction; $4.0 million.

6. Point Hope Tikigaq SchoolRenovation; SKW Eskimos, Inc.;$3.3 million.

7. Nikolai Airport Reconstruction;LSH Contractors; $3.1 million.

8. Kaktovik Health Clinic Upgrade;Kaktovik Constructors; $2.45 million.

9. Wainwright Health Clinic Upgrade;Aglaq/CONAM JV; $2.35 million.

10. Barrow Apron Expansion; UICConstruction, Inc.; $2.1 million.

1. Anchorage AIA Concourse C BldgCompletion/Apron; Kiewit PacificCo., $85.5 million.

2. Elmendorf Upgrade HangarComplex Sub-Bids; CornerstoneGeneral Contractors; $10.5 million.

3. Anchorage AIA N/S TaxiwayConstruction; Wilder ConstructionCo., Inc.; $10.1 million.

4. Elmendorf Child Development CtrSub-Bids; Davis Constructors &Engineers; $6.9 million.

5. Palmer/Wasilla Highway Extension;Chenega Management LLC; $6.6million.

6. Anchorage AIA Taxiway LMURUpgrades/Repairs; QAP; $4.2 million.

7. Anchorage New Seward/DimondRamp O’Malley/Potter Resurfacing;

Quality Asphalt Paving, Inc.; $4.1million.

8. Eagle River Business BlvdPedestrian Upgrades; QualityAsphalt Paving, Inc.; $4.0 million.

9. Kodiak Paving Program; BrechanEnterprises, Inc.; $3.5 million.

10. Fort Richardson Central VehicleWash Facility; Nuna Contractors;$3.0 million.

11. Anchorage NorthernLights/Bensen Resurfacing; SummitRoads; $2.4 million.

12. Anchorage AIA AirfieldReconstruction; Quality AsphaltPaving, Inc.; $2.9 million.

13. Wasilla Burchell High SchoolAddition Re-Bid; CollinsConstruction; $2.3 million.


14. Kodiak High School RoofReplacement; Clarion Co.; $2.3 million.

15. Kenai Spur Road UnityTrail/Soldotna School Trail; AlaskaRoadbuilders; $2.14 million.

16. Anchorage Arlene Street UpgradeDimond/Opal; Summit Alaska, Inc.;$2.12 million.

1. Shakwak HighwayConstruction, KM 1,684-1,691.8; Golden Hill Ventures;$7.5 million.

2. Stevens Village Airport ReloPHS 1; Nugget Construction &Rigging; $4.1 million.

3. Fairbanks FIA MaintenanceFacility; Ghemm Co., $4.0million.

4. Galena Construct Clinic/HealthCenter; Collins Construction,Inc.; $3.0 million.

5. Fairbanks Southhall ManorRenovation; OsborneConstruction Co.; $2.6 million.

1. Glacier BayMain Park Road

PHS II; Southeast RoadBuilders, Inc.; $3.3 million.


Photo courtesy of Alaska Roadbuilders, Inc.



T o all of your relief, this is myfourth and final President’sMessage to be published in this

magazine. In the past three editorials Idiscussed reasons to belong to AGC,the organization and how it functions,and issues being dealt with today. Inthis written discourse, I would like toexpress my thoughts of on-going andfuture challenges that AGC will face.

There are many issues facing all of us in the construc-tion industry. Of immediate concern is the impendingshortage of a trained workforce. Construction careerrecruitment has been passé at best. Recent efforts thatmust continue with increased vigor include the “BuildUp” program, scholarships, university-level internshipsand interaction with students. AGC has the responsibilityto make recruitment happen. I feel a standing committeeshould be created to deal with this issue. Improving theimage of construction is part of the solution, and AGC isprepared to act with its industry-enhancement fund.Positive press, community involvement, and lauding oursuccesses and achievements are all marketing methods.Student mentorship, school partnerships, industry fairsand vocational curriculum are all needed to convince theyoung of the viability of a career in construction.

A natural gas line is coming our way. By and largesince the oil pipeline, our membership has not beeninvolved in oil-construction activity. AGC must immedi-ately begin a serious dialogue with them in order to beprepared. The outcome should be win-win for us and forthe oil companies. They will receive a ready-made, pre-pared work force. Our membership should enjoy a signif-icant period of sustained construction activity. An addi-tional aim of our interface should be to create a plan toensure our involvement remains after the line is built.

AGC is responsible to its membership to provide con-

tinuing education. The establishmentof seminar-type learning on a regularbasis is needed. Training in new equip-ment and methodology will help allmembers. Better ways to conduct busi-ness is a venue in which all of us couldbenefit. Written-proposal strategy,insurance, comparative studies, newtechnology, scheduling and projectmanagement are just a few topics of

interest to both the young and experienced. I see AGCbeing a much stronger leader in this education field.

AGC has already established itself as the voice of theconstruction industry; it shall continue to do so in thefuture. Wage establishment, legislation affecting construc-tion, interface with the Alaska DOT and the Corps ofEngineers, reaction to industry ills such as PLAs, andforce-account work are shining examples that will contin-ue.

Additional AGC involvement should include regularmeetings with municipalities, state agencies, theUniversity of Alaska and federal entities to ensure fairand open competition as well as smoother projects for allinvolved. AGC also needs to create closer ties with ruralAlaska. Rural residents have training and employmentneeds for which AGC can help solve, and members wouldreceive the benefit of additional projects.

AGC has done an excellent job of making vocationaltraining for the young a priority in the state. AGC has metwith school boards, curriculum directors, legislators, theState Department of Education and the Governor. Itsfocus must continue to establish the appropriate curricu-lums, to be a watchdog of the outcome, and to assist inproviding qualified educators. All seem to be on board soour efforts must not wane.

The strength and effectiveness of AGC’s role relies onits membership. A constant effort to increase our numbers

b y B e r t B e l l , P r e s i d e n t

P R E S I D E N T ’ S M E S S A G E

What’s Next


is imperative. Our marketing effortscan be and should be improved. A rea-sonable goal of an annual membershipgrowth in the range of 3 percentshould be established. We would thenhave a target to measure our progress.The best sellers are current members—thus it becomes a uniform obligationfor each player to be involved in thisrecruitment effort.

For this range of growth to be real-istic, we will need better retention aswell as new members. A continuedeffort to involve younger memberswill greatly aid retention. The youngare the future and their being involvednow will ensure their presence longinto the future.

A Young Contractors group hasbeen formed. AGC needs to make amore concerted effort toward incorpo-rating it into the parent organization.More frequent and better interfacewith other industry associationsshould also help growth. NECA,Mechanical Associations, ABC, thetruckers and miners, the Alliance, andmany other groups share many of thesame concerns. By acting together, wecan be more effective. Positive results,property marketed, will bring newmembership.

The challenges that face us aremany and varied. AGC is postured tomeet them head on and to be proactivein finding solutions. AGC’s staff iseffective, supportive, professional,experienced and positive. It has nolong-term debt. It has a great volun-teer base that is active, smart andeffective, and works especially well inthe established committee structure.Given a 3 percent annual membershipgrowth, there will be about 750 mem-bers by 2010. AGC’s future is bright.We, as the members, will continue tobenefit in more ways than we’ll everknow.


T he bidding scene in Alaska ischanging. Use of the invitation tobid method of procurement has

been declining and alternative procure-ment methods have become common-place.

For the past few years the AlaskaCorp of Engineers has been biddingmost of its construction utilizingrequests for proposals (RFPs) rather thanthe traditional invitation for bid process. Similarly theAnchorage school district utilized a hybrid design/buildapproach for the Dimond High School project and is plan-ning to use a similar approach on the south Anchorage areahigh school. The Alaska Department of Transportation andPublic Facilities (DOT/PF) is planning to use a design-buildprocess for the Parks-Glenn Highway interchange. The pro-posed Alaska Psychiatric Institute will be bid using design-build criteria for the selection of a construction team fortheir new facility. And, in Anchorage, the Anchorage Waterand Wastewater Utility is planning to utilize a design-select-build construction process for future projects. For allof these entities, the adoption of alternative bidding proce-dures represents a significant deviation from their normalprocedures and poses both a problem and an opportunityfor the construction industry.

At a recent meeting with the Corp of Engineers, theCorp shared their projected project list with AGC members.Of the 40 projects listed, 12 will be RFPs; the same numberwill be invitation for bids (IFB); nine will be 8a set asides;four are projected to be indefinite delivery, indefinite quan-tities (IDIQ); one will be by purchase order; and two are yetto be determined. However, all of the projects the Corp willbe managing for the army and the air force will be RFPs.

The civil-works program of the Corp contains all 12traditional IFBs, the four IDIQ’s and four competitive 8a set-

aside projects. The work the Corp per-forms in their support for other pro-grams is comprised of five sole-source8a projects and one purchase-order pro-ject.

The reasons for these changes fromthe traditional IFB to some alternativeprocurement method are many. TheAlaskan construction industry has seena remarkable evolution of project deliv-

ery systems in response to increasing owner requirements,urgency of schedules, heightened demands for safety andquality, and the critical necessity of reducing adversity inconstruction. The private sector has led the way in innova-tive uses of project-delivery systems, but the public sectorhas been quick to adapt these systems to fit regulatoryrequirements and stewardship of the taxpayers’ money.

Construction companies specializing in public sectorconstruction need to be alert to these changes. Unless thesecompanies adapt to the changing procurement methods uti-lized by public owners, they will find their opportunitieslimited and their futures uncertain. To compete in the newworld of public construction procurement a company mustadopt a different mentality and focus. Marketing and self-promotion will become more important and “having theright number” will be less critical.

Owners are looking beyond the initial cost or bid andare focusing on other intangibles. To be successful in thisnew environment, firms must evaluate and internalizethese factors. Only then can they be successful in this newworld. Firms may not agree with the direction of public pro-curement, but the trend will most likely continue. Thosethat do not adapt to compete in this new world of publicprocurement may very well be limiting their options andmay possibly be writing their own obituaries. It’s not alegacy most firms desire.

EXECUT IVE D IRECTOR ’S MES SAGE

Alternative Procurement Methods

b y D i c k C a t t a n a c h ,E xe c u t i v e D i r e c t o r


RIBELIN LOWELL& COMPANY

BRADY & COMPANYALCAN GENERAL, INC.

Carlile/KW Transport, Inc.

Craig Taylor Equipment Co.

Key Bank of Alaska

NC Machinery, Inc.

Oles, Morrison, Rinker & Baker, LLP

Parker, Smith & Feek, Inc.

Warning Lites of Alaska, Inc.

Acme Fence Co.Alaska Modular Space

Alaska National Insurance CompanyAnchorage Refuse

Anchorage Roofing &Contracting, Inc.

Anchorage Sand & GravelAurora Construction Supply, Inc.

Denali Drilling, Inc.Dick Pacific Construction Co., Ltd.F.M. Strand & Associates, CPAs

Goodfellow Bros., Inc.Hattenburg & Dilley, LLC

Otis Elevator Co.Pacific Alaska Forwarders, Inc.

Polar Supply Co.Rain Proof Roofing Co., Inc.

Roger Hickel Contracting, Inc.Summit Alaska, Inc.

Thomas, Head & GriesenTravelers Bond

Wells Fargo Bank Alaska NAWorksafe, Inc.


Thursday, November 1

7 a.m.: Registration

7:30-8:30 a.m.: Specialty Contractors BreakfastSpeakers:AGC of Alaska President Bert BellAGC National President Bob DesjardinsAnchorage Mayor George Wuerch

8:45-10 a.m.: Department of Defense Joint Presentation

10:10-11a.m.: Corps of Engineers (Question and Answer)US Air National Guard/US Army Meeting (Q&A)US Air Force Meeting (Q&A)US Coast Guard Meeting (Q&A)

11:10-12 a.m.: Corps of Engineers Best Value Presentation

12-1:30 p.m.: Ribelin Lowell & Company “Excellence in Construction” Awards Luncheon.Speaker: Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

1:45-5 p.m.: Alaska Department of Transportation Meeting

1:45-3 p.m.: Anchorage Forecast for the Building Market Panel Discussion

3:15-4:15 p.m.: Anchorage School District/Municipality of Anchorage Joint Presentation

5:30-7:30 p.m.: AGC President’s Welcome Reception

Wednesday, October 31

7:30-10:45 p.m.: Fly-By-Night Club Special AGC Night

Friday, November 2

7 a.m.: Registration

7-8:30 a.m.: BreakfastSpeakers:AGC Alaska Education Director

Vicki SchneibelTim Brady from the Build-up! ProgramNAWIC President Shelli HayesBrian Horschel from the Young

Contractor’s Program

8:40-11:45 a.m.: Board of Directors/General Membership Meeting

8:45-10 a.m.: Seminar-Discipline & FiringSpeaker:Lynn Curry, Ph.D.

12-1:30 p.m.: Brady & Company Excellence in Safety Awards Luncheon

1:40-3 p.m.: AGC Scholarship and Education OpportunitiesSpeakers:Vicki SchneibelJeff Callahan

1:40-3 p.m.: Board of Directors/General Membership Meeting

3:30-4:30 p.m.: Seminar-Winning BidsSpeaker:Lynn Curry, Ph.D.

6-8:30 p.m.: Family Night “Construction Games” at OMNI Freight Service, 5025 Van BurenSaturday, November 3

8-9 a.m.: BreakfastSpeaker: Senator John Cowdry

9:10-11:30 a.m.: AGC Alaska General Membership Meeting & Election of Officers

2001 Building Success Through Education & Training

All events at the SheratonAnchorage Hotel unless other-wise noted.

12-1:30 p.m.: Special Ladies Luncheon sponsored by Warning Lites of AlaskaSpeaker:Mrs. Bev Walsh, Walsh & Company

6:30 p.m.: Dinner/Dance, Howard Rock Ballroom


STP (Supervisor Training Program) STP is again being offered through UAA beginningOctober 2. The first module is “Accident Prevention andLoss Control” followed by “Planning and Scheduling”starting November 6. Both modules are two nights aweek and the second module finishes December 6.

AGC Goes Back to School

E D U C A T I O N R E P O R T

B y V i c k i S c h n e i b e l

A G C T r a i n i n g D i r e c t o r


AGC ScholarshipsThe Education Committee was pleased to receive moreapplications this year than last year. The Committee washard pressed to make their decisions. Five scholarshipswere awarded:

Anchorage Committee:

★ Sean Landers attending University of Idaho

★ Robert Nicholson attending University of Alaska Anchorage

★ Xavier Schlee attending University of Alaska Fairbanks

★ Bryan Sifsof attending University of Alaska Anchorage

★ Katrina Strub attending California Polytechnic State University

Fairbanks Committee:

★ Sarah Vezey attending University of Alaska Fairbanks

★ Xavier Schlee attending University of Alaska Fairbanks

★ Serena Markey attending University of Alaska Fairbanks

Congratulations to the grantees and to the EducationCommittee for the investment of their time and energy.

Partners in EducationThis year the annual international symposium is being

held in Anchorage during October 31 through

November 2. AGC of Alaska was invited to apply to pre-

sent at this event. We were accepted and will tell our

story during a workshop on October 31. I was told there

is much interest in what we’re doing both in Anchorage

and rural Alaska.

NASAAGC of Alaska is helping sponsor the first-time Alaska

visit of the NASA Mobile Aeronautics Education

Laboratory (MAEL). “It’s actually a 53-foot-long trailer,

state-of-the-art classroom bringing new technologies to

partnership cities to excite students grade 5 and up

about science and mathematics. In 10 unique worksta-

tions, visitors can explore these technologies through

“hands-on/minds-on” activities modeling real world

challenges in aviation. An aeronautic theme ties the

continued on page 50


tors—that it is healthy for Alaska to

have a trained and available local

work force to be hired for rural

construction jobs.”

Recent studies by the AGC

predict severe worker shortages in

the next five years. The

shortage will be more

severe in rural areas

where in the past workers

aren’t offered as many on-

the-job training opportu-

nities and have been

somewhat resistant to

travel requirements asso-

ciated with construction

work.

That attitude is

changing, according to

Flanagan.

A large portion of the attitude

shift is driven by fishing failures,

which have left western Alaskan

communities with few economic

options. Many are turning to public

construction to infuse badly needed

by Amy MarieArmstrong

A s members of the

Governor’s Rural

Task Force prepare

formal recommendations

expected to be released

later this fall, worker

training and its efficient

delivery to rural Alaskans

tops the unofficial work-

ing list.

“We found a lot of

common ground,” said

Ed Flanagan, commis-

sioner of the state Department of

Labor and Workforce Development

and co-chair of the task force. “It

seems to center around training and

it is a concern from both sides—

government officials and contrac-

The Governor’s Rural Task Forcefocuses on local hire.

Pho

to b

y Je

ff S

chul

tz/A

lask

aSto

ck.c

om


the project via force accounting.

“It was unusual to do it that

way,” acknowledges Flanagan. “But

the governor wanted to get local folks

employed as quickly as possible and

it seemed like a good solution to a

short-term need.”

What it accomplished within the

state’s contracting community was

tremendous concern that other public

construction projects would follow

suit.

“We saw it as an abuse of force

accounting,” said Dick Cattanach,

AGC executive director.

To soothe hurt feelings in an

industry state government heavily

relies upon to complete major pro-

jects, Knowles put together a task

force of government officials, indus-

try and community leaders as well as

heads of Native non-profit corpora-

tions—kind of an unofficial construc-

tion think tank. The group began

meeting last spring, and its leaders

hope to present its recommendations

in November at the AGC annual

meeting in Anchorage.

While task force members are

keeping relatively quiet regarding

most of their recommendations, sev-

eral did say training rural workers

and employing rural workers high-

lights the pending report.

“The main issue is that we

achieve local hire,” said Bert Bell of

the Ghemm Company in Fairbanks.

“The perception is out there that the

contracting community does not do a

good job of local hiring, but we have

shown that by and large we do hire

local workers who are qualified. It

only makes sense to do so.”

Flanagan agrees with Bell that

local workers are being hired more

often than not. He recently reviewed

certified payrolls for public construc-

tion jobs and compared them to

Permanent Fund records and found

that 37 to 47 percent of workers

resided in the census area of the pro-

ject.

“The trouble is that could mean

that someone working from Bethel

well-paying jobs into their local econ-

omy.

It was in part repetitive fish run

failures that led to the formation of

the task force.

Last fall, Governor Tony Knowles

pulled a major road construction pro-

ject in St. Mary’s off the DOT bid list

and ordered the agency to work with

the local government and complete


project could be

working at one of the

smaller villages and

not be considered a

local hire by the folks

in the community,”

Flanagan explained.

“But we can always

do more.”

The perception of

who is local and who

isn’t is a problem that

goes beyond govern-

ment demographics.

“In some places,

it is very subjective. If

you don’t hire the right locals, then

you haven’t hired locals,” said one

contractor who asked to remain

anonymous.

Despite some social issues that

only time can resolve, public con-

struction is one of the key alternative

income sources in some rural areas

where hard-rock mining or a flourish-

ing tourist industry do not exist,

Flanagan said.

“We aren’t suggesting it as the

total answer for

employment, but

rural Alaskans do

have a lot to offer if

they are trained and

skilled,” Flanagan

said.

He sees rural

communities increas-

ing their outreach

efforts to get individ-

ual residents trained

for projects that may

be several years

down the road. He

also credits the Denali

Commission and Alaska Works for

increasing training opportunities.

Mike Miller of MB Contracting in

Anchorage is a member of the trustee

management for the Operating

Engineers Local 302 Training Trust



that runs a heavy equipment training

facility in Palmer. The site has been in

operation for twenty years and has

more than 200 applicants each year

for 20 apprentice positions. He’d like

to see more spots available for train-

ing.

Flanagan applauds union efforts

to improve training opportunities and

sees that more can be done to supply

outside contractors with qualified

local workers.

So does Lamar Cotton, another

member of the task force and also a

Rural Development Manager with the

state Department of Community and

Economic Development based in

Anchorage.

At a recent job summit in St.

Mary’s, Cotton identified several

large projects—schools, water sys-

tems, airport expansions, road

upgrades and health care clinics—

slated for the next two to three years

in the 10-village area. A conservative

price tag of $140 million plus was tal-

lied for the various projects, Cotton

said. He knows more projects are

planned in other rural communities

not represented at the job summit.

“I would hate to see that every-

body doesn’t get the maximum bene-

fit from those projects,” Cotton said.

To that end, Cotton is pursuing a

pilot program using mandatory pre-

bid conferences, which is yet another

of the recommendations coming out

of the task force.

His agency, in concert with the

Labor Department and the state

Department of Transportation and

Public Facilities, conducted a pre-bid

conference in Emmonak in August for

an airport apron renovation and


expansion.

Eight contracting firms were rep-

resented as state officials outlined the

specifics of the estimated $6 million

project and local municipal leaders

presented what is essentially a “vil-

lage resume,” Cotton said. This vil-

lage resume included what heavy

equipment was already on site, the

availability of housing and the skills

of workers living there.

“If these communities better posi-

tion themselves to offer more, then

perhaps contractors will take a closer

look at what is already there and

make more of an effort to utilize those

resources,” Cotton said.

He readily admits that a pre-bid

conference might not work for all pro-

jects, but he is pursuing the procedure

for as many as five projects next

spring.

“We haven’t scheduled the next

one and this certainly is not going to

be a required policy for all public con-

struction,” Cotton said. “We are only

going to do it when it makes sense to

do so.”

But contractors themselves aren’t

as sold on the idea as government

officials.

“Mandatory pre-bids are not nec-

essarily going to solve the problem of

local hiring,” said Miller. “I don’t

think it is a very good idea, but it is

worth a try.”

Miller’s firm, which strictly does

road and airport work, won’t be bid-

ding on the type of rural projects

Cotton will most likely select for more

pilot pre-bids, Miller said. But he

thinks setting a mandatory date for all

contractors wishing to bid on a

project will actually limit the number


of competing contractors.

“A trip to a job site before hand is

just good business. But every contrac-

tor has a different schedule and to

have to go on someone else’s sched-

ule is just not convenient, and not

everyone will be able to go,” he said.

“With public contracting, the low

price gets the bid and sometimes the

best contractor for the job won’t be

able to attend a mandatory meeting

and then the public won’t get the best

bang for the public’s dollar.”

That doesn’t mean he won’t sup-

port the process of piloting pre-bid

conferences for another five projects.

He thinks the process will help rural

communities organize their

informational resumes for future use

“Without the

proper training, we

cannot ensure that

folks in rural Alaska

have the best shot

possible at getting

construction money

to stay in their

communities in the

form of wages.”


by outside contractors.

“The idea of a community resume

is an excellent one,” Miller said.

Bell agrees with Miller.

But knowing that any large pro-

ject has a pre-construction meeting

anyway, Bell thinks officials will have

to employ some flexibility if pre-bid

conferences become mandatory.

“For instance, what if your plane

doesn’t fly?” he asked.

Others in the contracting business

were not favorably impressed with

the first mandatory pre-bid confer-

ence in Emmonak.

“Based on the first one, many of

the contractors I spoke with who

went did not feel it was all that use-

ful,” said Cattanach. “It did not talk

enough about the job. People who

went lost at least a whole day and

$400 on the charter from Fairbanks

plus the cost of getting from

Anchorage to Fairbanks.”

Cattanach said much of the com-

munity’s presentation could be done

via the Internet instead of in person.

That’s an idea Cotton is also pur-

suing.

He hopes to set up websites on

which rural communities can list

readily available resources including

heavy equipment, laborers and sup-

port staff.

He thanks Cattanach for remind-

ing the task force that public con-

struction “isn’t just the guys with the

machines.”

“The support staff is a critical part

of making a project successful.

Everything from administration to

technology information, engineering

and management is needed. If a

village has people qualified for those


“We are glad the governor stepped up to the plate

and dealt with it (the St. Mary’s project), and I think now

the government can see how their mode of operation has

several flaws,” Bell said. “We think this task force has

been a good thing and we appreciate from the gover-

nor’s standpoint how much his administration has put

into this.”

Cattanach is somewhat concerned that the task force

is set to disband.

But he clings to hope that its recommendations—

especially those to open up additional training opportu-

nities and to better document experience levels—will be

carried forward to the gubernatorial administration fol-

lowing Knowles.

“I have to believe that they [government officials]

are committed to making change and I have to be will-

ing to give it a chance,” Cattanach said. “The main thing

our contracting community needs to know now is that

discussion is taking place. We haven’t solved everything

yet, but we are working on it.”

services as well, it will be a bonus to contractors,” Cotton

said.

While he remains rather positive about the pre-bid

conference, he admits it is a learning process. “Next time

we will have a better idea of what to do,” he said. In the

meantime, he believes the task force focus on training is

appropriate.

“Anything we do will have to be balanced with the

training that is needed,” he said. “Without the proper

training, we cannot ensure that folks in rural Alaska

have the best shot possible at getting construction

money to stay in their communities in the form of

wages.”

He describes the task force work as a good faith

effort. He is hoping that its recommendations are fol-

lowed through after the group disbands this fall.

So do Cattanach and Bell. Both think the presence of

three state commissioners on the task force shows the

governor is serious about working through construction

issues.


T here is an old saying inAmerican business that thatthe bigger the company

becomes the less attention to paysto detail. While that may be true inthe Lower 48, in Alaska every com-pany lives and dies by the attentionit pays to details. Alaska, after all, isstill a handshake community whereyour word is as good as a signedcontract and the reputation youearn is based upon the quality youdeliver job by job.

Fairbanks is home to a con-struction company that has earnedits respect for five decades by deliv-ering a quality product using themost honorable business methods.GHEMM Company, Inc. was estab-lished before statehood and hasbeen serving the Alaskan marketsince 1952. In business so long, its contractor license is #116and its business license is #5,431, both symbolic of itslongevity and commitment to its clients.

According to Bert Bell, president of GHEMM Company,“GHEMM was founded by five resourceful gentlemen in1952 and two of them are still active with the company on aday to day basis. We started as a five-man operation andtoday we’re one of the largest Alaskan contractors inFairbanks.”

During the summer construction season, GHEMM hasa payroll of more than 100. During the winter, “we scramblefor business just like everyone else,” said Bell.

In the early days of statehood, GHEMM concentratedon construction in the Bush. That changed after the pipelinewas built and spending patterns brought more money intoFairbanks area. But not before GHEMM completed what

was probably the largest of its pro-jects. In 1973, it joint ventured withManson-Osborg to construct the $33million Yukon River Bridge for theTrans Alaska Oil Pipeline.

“One of the most intricate largeprojects we are currently doing isthe remodel of the RasmusonLibrary at UAF, a $12 million pro-ject. We’re in month three of a 28-month project and work is progress-ing as fast as could be expectedbecause we are remodeling a struc-ture that is still being used on adaily basis.

“Slowly, floor-by-floor, we willbe doing the remodel. This willallow students and faculty to con-tinue to use the building while weare working. The noisy activity willbe accomplished at night or on

weekends so as not to interfere with students studying.UAF is a Fairbanks institution and we are proud to be partof the growing community so we are careful to make surethat our future business leaders, politicians and construc-tion engineers will not have to miss a single midtermexam,” Bell said with a laugh.

But dealing with the Rasmuson Library’s collections isno laughing matter, and Bell is well aware of the incrediblehistorical value of the collection he is working around. “Inthe lower floors of the facility, where the historical archivesare located, we will be moving irreplaceable historical doc-uments, records, films and audio recordings to another partof the building. The material won’t leave the library but itwill remain safe while we do the remodel of the archive andstorage rooms.”

GHEMM is no stranger to working around a client’s

M E M B E R

P R O F I L E

A Gem in the FairbanksConstruction Industry

Doylon, Limited Headquarters, Fairbanks,built by GHEMM Company, Inc.

b y S t e v e n C . L e v i

Photo by Brian K. Allen


unique needs. Five years ago GHEMMremodeled the Fairbanks MemorialHospital’s emergency room and addedan outpatient surgery center. For thehospital this meant trundling patientsinto alternate rooms for emergency ser-vices and surgical procedures whileGHEMM worked on the main emer-gency room and two of the operatingrooms.

“It took a lot of coordination to

keep all essential services in full opera-tion,” Bell said. “It took eight weeks tocomplete the emergency room portionof the project and we had to attack it inpieces.

“While it was awkward when theER was busy, I’m happy to say thatFairbanks Memorial was pleased, sopleased we’ve been asked back forother projects. That’s when you knowyou did a good job.”

The most unique job GHEMM hasbeen involved in recent years was the$10 million Clean Coal Demonstrationproject for UAF. In an attempt to takeadvantage of the coal that can be foundin the Fairbanks area, UAF designed anine-megawatt generator that could useeither diesel or a coal-slurry mix.

“Coal is a big industry in theInterior and the University was lookingfor a way to generate a local energyindustry based on that coal. The gener-ator was part of a $50 million energyrelated grant that is still ongoing. Thegenerator was just the start.”

GHEMM Company has constructedmany of the buildings which make up theFairbanks skyline. In addition to publicschool projects, public swimming poolsand work at Fairbanks MemorialHospital, GHEMM Company completedconstruction of Alyeska’s Fairbanks cor-porate office building,

Doyon’s Corporate HeadquartersBuilding, the new homes of AuroraMotors and Gene’s Chrysler, along withthe Big Dipper Sports arena are just a fewvery visible local projects. Overall Bellfeels the Fairbanks construction climate isgood.

“We started out slow at the begin-ning of 2001, but it got better and better asthe months progressed. Next year looksto be good as well. Better, in fact. Thereare quite a few big projects coming on lineand there’s always hope that the naturalgas pipeline will go and that the missiledefense project will come on line. ButFairbanks is still an area where you haveto scramble for work in the winter. I don’tsee that changing any time soon.

When asked of the secret toGhemm’s success, Bell had a simpleresponse. “You have to be sensitive toyour clients. They know what theywant. They also have special needs theyexpect you to respect. Just as every jobis different, so is every client. Treat yourclients well and they will ask you back.That’s what’s kept us in business foralmost half a century.”

I t could be downtown Anchorage’s biggest project inyears—a $100 million convention center with threetimes the space of the Egan Center. Proponents say

such a center would bring an estimat-ed 40,000 new visitors to the stateannually, prompting an additional$60 million dollars in constructionexpanding hotels, restaurants andother hospitality-related facilities.

Others claim that hopes of luringnational conventions to Anchorage isunreasonable, and that building alarger convention center would be atremendous waste of both downtownspace and municipal resources.Either way, the issue will be comingto a head in the coming months as theAnchorage Civic & ConventionCenter Yes organization begins lob-bying for the project.

Construction TimetableThe first hurdle will be getting voters to approvea major increase in the hotel bed tax, currently setat 8 percent. ACCCY wants to increase the rate to12 percent effective January 2003 and is workingclosely with hospitality industry leaders to drumup support for the project. Without the rateincrease, the convention center is not economical-ly viable, and to a large extent, the entire project’ssuccess depends on voter approval of the mea-sure, set to be on next April’s ballot.

Site selection has already begun, and concep-tual designs for two potential sites have alreadybeen drawn up. Additional evaluation anddesign work will continue in the coming months.


Port ofAnchorage

Ship Creek

GRA

ST

MBE

LL S

T

RDPO

ST

Plans for a Bigger, BetterConvention Center Get Underway

By Clark Ricks

Proposed Site One

Proposed Site Two

If You Build It,Will They Come?If You Build It,Will They Come?


The ACCCY anticipates that the finalsite will be selected and purchasedwithin 12 months.

Construction is slated to begin in2005. Construction will not beginuntil 2005, largely due to financingissues. In addition to a new bed tax,arrangements need to be made toobtain federal and state grants, find abuyer for the Egan Center, and possi-bly auction the naming rights for thenew facility.

After construction begins, thebuilding will take about two years tocomplete. Supporters hope to havethe new convention center fully oper-ational by 2007.

Site SelectionTo determine where to build the newcenter, 13 potential sites were selectedin the downtown area and ranked onmore than a dozen criteria. Somewere rejected because of “fatal flaws,”such as seismic concerns or zoningrestrictions. The rest were judged onfactors ranging from site acquisitioncosts, number of adjacent hotel roomsand amenities to things like pedestri-an access, available parking andviews of nature.

Consultants narrowed the list tothe two most promising sites. Site oneis located just north of the AlaskaRailroad depot, near Ship Creek andwith easy access to the area via CStreet. The site has no existing roadsor structures and could accommodatefuture expansions. Advocates of thissite say it would rejuvenate the entirenorthwestern section of downtown.Site two is a three-block area east ofthe 5th Avenue Mall and north of theAnchorage museum. The area is cur-rently occupied by parking lots, apark and “undervalued businessstructures.”


Facility SizeConsultants originally recommendedthe new center have a “proposedtotal program area” of about 626,500square feet. This was determined bycomparing successful conventioncenters nationwide to Anchorage-specific data, such as the number ofhotel rooms. The Egan Center, incomparison, is approximately 97,000square feet.

Because of budget constraints,this recommendation has been scaledback dramatically. Preliminarydesigns for both the Ship Creek andthe Downtown Core sites are only280,000 square feet. The Ship Creeksite offers the option to expand later,but the Downtown Core site does not.

Despite all the hype the hospitali-ty industry is generating about a newconvention center, two major ques-tions remain to be answered: First, isthe funding plan reasonable? Andsecond, does Anchorage reallyneed—or will it even use—such alarge facility?

Funding IssuesThe $100 million project will be fund-ed through four different avenues:Increasing the bed tax, selling theEgan Center, obtaining state and localgrants, and selling naming rights.

Financing convention centers isalways risky business. Conventioncenters throughout the nation typical-ly require large government subsidiesto meet operating costs, and the pro-posed project is no exception. A 1998Deloitte and Touche study estimatesthe operating deficit for the new cen-ter to be $857,000 for the first year,decreasing to $667,000 by year five.The Egan Center, completed in 1985,had a $270,000 operating deficit lastyear. This “investment in the commu-nity” is usually recovered throughindirect economic activity generated


by convention-goers. For the pro-posed convention center, however,the municipality’s return on invest-ment is tenuous at best.

The largest source of funds forthe new center is the 4 percentincrease in the hotel bed tax. Thesenew funds would be dedicated to ser-vice the $70 to $80 million debt creat-ed with tax revenue bonds issued tofund the project. These bonds willcover about 80 percent of the project’scost. Supporters claim this tax will bepaid entirely by out-of-town visitors,but 35 percent of delegates to the newcenter will be local or in-state resi-dents, staying an average of twonights each. This type of delegatewill not contribute to the indirect eco-nomic impact the convention centerrelies on. They likely will have littleneed for airline tickets, car rentals,taxis and souvenir shops, throwingthe study’s earnings estimates intoquestion.

Additionally, an increase in thehotel tax will inevitably lead toincreased room prices, which coulddiscourage visitors, tourist and dele-gate alike, from coming toAnchorage. It’s not likely—accordingto a 1998 survey conducted by theTravel Industry Association, the aver-age hotel tax in 50 major cities is 12.3percent—but it should have beenconsidered in the financing process.

The Egan Center will be sold orleased to raise an additional $10 to$20 million. Currently, the propertycontains a reversionary clause thatrequires the land to be returned to thefederal government if the municipali-ty is not using the land for public pur-poses. This clause would need to beremoved before the sale. Supportersare also planning on receiving $20 to$30 million in federal and stategrants.

Naming rights, estimated to be


worth about $2 million, rounds out the listof funding sources. A relatively new andunique source of funds, selling namingrights for a non-sportsaffiliated venue is stilla controversial issue.

If the financialestimates are correct,it is clear that the newconvention center willbe profitable once theindirect economicbenefits are factoredin. However, it willnot be nearly as profitable as the existing Egan Center.Compared side by side with the same municipal subsidy, itbecomes clear the new ACCC is not a lucrative venture.

Will They Come?Perhaps the most glaring question in the debate is why anew convention center is needed at all. Members of theconvention industry say the Egan Center is limiting theirability to pursue new larger conventions and serve multi-

ple conventions simultaneously. They claim that a newcivic and convention center would allow them to hostmore and larger national and regional conventions. Incoming years, local demand on the Egan Center andSullivan Arena may exceed capacity, although this hasn’thappened yet. The largest event so far, the annual AlaskaFederation of Natives convention, can still be shoehornedinto the Egan Center, but sessions are already overflowinginto the Performing Arts Center.

Financial Performance of Egan CenterCompared to Estimated Performance of New ACCC

(In thousands of dollars)

continued on page 42

Year 1998 1999 2000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Total Revenues 2,041 2,247 2,360 2,652 2,986 3,245 3,543 3,676

Total Costs and Fees (2,433) (2,614) (2,630) (3,509) (3,723) (3,899) (4,196) (4,337)

Operating Subsidy 730 730 730 730 730 730 730 730

Net Income 338 363 460 (127) (7) 76 77 69

Egan Center Proposed New ACCC


M ost Alaskans don’tthink about roads toomuch. Very few of us

drive down Tudor Road orCushman Avenue and say to our-selves, “Gee, this is a great road!The ride is smooth and the engi-neering is superb. Every neigh-borhood should have one.” Nope.

What we do is hit a potholeand start yelling “*%$*$, whenthe ^&%% is someone going to fixthis road?” Then we go on tomumble about no one cares aboutpotholes until just before an elec-tion and why didn’t we live onthe same street as the Mayorwhere they fix the potholes evenbefore they become potholes.

The only other times we think about roads is whenwe hit the rumble strips or get detoured all over town byflag men who spend most of their time misdirecting traf-fic into cul de sacs. Then everyone in the neighborhoodgets to bet on which makes it onto the gravel first—asphalt or snow.

In the old days of Alaska, road building meant run-ning a cat through the forest and then following it with aroad grader. It was called a road grader because after youfinished grading you had a road. It might have been afrontier road but in the days of the frontier that was thebest you could expect. Gravel roads were better thanmud and ice beds were pretty much the standard any-where in the northland from the middle of October toMay, sometimes longer.

For the Alaskans who arrivedafter 1970, the road system was abit like the yellow brick road ofOz. The newcomers knew theyweren’t in Kansas anymore andthe roads were already laid down.And those were the last majorroads built. Alaska has not seen arash of new roads being built sothe bulk of the work has beenrepaving and re-engineering.

“Road building today can be avery sophisticated science,” BlakeHardina, vice president of AlaskaRoadbuilders, Inc. in Soldotna.“But it’s more than science. It’s agood mix of business along withcivil and mechanical engineering.It has gotten so sophisticated that

[individuals like me] need to get more education. That’swhy I’m getting my Master’s Degree inArchitecture/Design Build at Washington StateUniversity [in Spokane]. I’m spending my constructionseason in Alaska and learning how to better manage ourbusiness in the off season.”

Because of its size, Alaska Roadbuilders feels thecompetition from above and below. “We’re not one ofthe larger road construction outfits in Alaska,” Hardinasaid, “but we’re not small either. We run a crew of about60 during the summer and then trim down to only ahandful during the winter. We do go after multi-milliondollar projects, but then again, we do a lot of drivewaysand parking lots, too.”

The largest project the company has undertaken

M E M B E R

P R O F I L E

There are No Yellow BrickRoads in Alaska

Ronnie, Terri, and Ron Davis, co-owners ofAlaska Roadbuilders, Inc.




stand that the greatest enemy to aroad is not ice or studs or avalanches.It’s water. Keeping water away fromthe roadbed is the key to building agood road. Multiple freeze-thawcycles break up our highways causingthe road to buckle. That’s where thequality engineering makes a differ-ence. You have to design and buildthe roadway so the water you knowwill be there is effectively accommo-dated. You have to put in a variety ofdrainage structures: pipes, cisterns,bridges.”

Another area where quality engi-neering shows is in the creation of theasphalt. “Our industry has been try-ing for many years to develop betterasphalt pavements. I think that tosome extent we have been successful,but the reality is that asphalt reallyhas not changed that drastically in thelast 30 years. The science of makingasphalt has changed a lot, but theproduct is largely the same.”

For Dorothy in Oz, using theYellow Brick road was easy. She andToto just followed it footstep by foot-step. But in Alaska, companies likeAlaska Roadbuilders, Inc. have toconstruct the road, foot by foot bothforward and up from the roadbed.The Yellow Brick Road only sawusage by five people and a dog and itnever rained. Alaskan roads have tosupport millions of passenger mileseach year, winter and summer, in rainand snow and sleet and hail and tor-rents of Winnebagos.

“Roads are meant to be safe.That’s the way we build ‘em,”Hardina said. “People roll on our rep-utation all year long. Their safetydepends on us, from constructing theroad bed to laying the asphalt—andwe take our responsibility veryseriously.”

recently was a $9.7 million phase ofthe Kenai Spur Highway. “We recon-structed about three miles of highwaybetween Soldotna and Kenai,”Hardina said, “changing the roadwayconfiguration from a two-lane to afour-lane highway including a centerturn lane. The project involved mov-ing about half-a-million yards of exca-vation and borrow, complete high-way electrical and signalization sys-tems, and some heavy-duty drainagestructures, as well as construction ofnew pedestrian pathways on bothsides of the new highway.”

Alaska Roadbuilders does about75 percent of its business on road-ways and the balance of the workloadis site development.

“We’ve had our share of closecalls, just like any other company,”Hardina said when asked about hiscompany’s most interesting project.

“Every project is different. No oneroad is like every other road—or anyother single road as a matter of fact.

“One of the toughest highwayjobs we did was the reconstruction ofa rip-rap dike in Valdez. Things weregoing along as well as could beexpected when there was a recordsnowfall. That was followed by aglacier-dam burst. We were standingon the edge of the dike and watchingthe water rise right to the top of theembankment. We just about lost thebridge and a large excavator. It wasvery exciting for a while, severalhours of wondering whether thebridge, the dike and our equipmentwere going to get washed to sea andnever heard from again.”

Alaska Roadbuilders also pridesitself on its erosion control work. “Alot of Alaskans who are not in theroad building business don’t under-


N IOSH and OSHA

statistics cite the

p r e d o m i n a n t

reasons for injuries and fatalities in the workplace are:

“slips, trips, falls, struck-bys and electrocutions.” This

article will focus on the issue of struck-bys, in particular,

those accidents involving powered industrial trucks

(PITs) at construction sites and elsewhere in the work-

place.

What are PITs? They are defined as very mobile,

power-driven vehicles that are able to carry, push, pull,

lift, stack and maneuver material. There is a wide range

of these vehicles from the walk-behind PITs to the large

construction PITs with articulating booms. The most

common of these vehicles is the single-seat forklift. The

average speed of these vehicles is 10-15 mph.

Construction forklifts can easily achieve a much greater

speed. All of these lift trucks have a reputation for injur-

ing, crippling or even killing operators and pedestrians

each year. Additionally, because of careless operation

and many other non-safe work practices, they are

responsible for a considerable amount of damage to mer-

chandise, materials and facilities.

Before we get to the injuries, let’s address the most

collision-prone objects encountered by PITs. Typically

we see objects being struck as being a result of narrow

aisle ways or narrow, restricted spaces in new construc-

tion and throughout build-

ing sites in general. The

order of precedence for

these accidents seems to fall into the following cate-

gories: 1) doorways, doors, walls, posts and beams,

handrails/stairs, and overhead areas; 2) utilities and

steam/gas/water pipes; 3) racks and signs; 4) fire extin-

guishers and hoses; 5) electrical boxes and wiring; 6)

vending machines and adjacent supporting areas; 7)

products on pallets, chemicals on containers; 8) fencing

and barricades; 9) machinery, other heavy construction

equipment and other lift trucks on site; 10) compressed

gas cylinders; and much more valuable property.

When these objects are struck, it’s not unusual to

have a near total loss of materials or excessive building

damage since PITs are not exactly your average light-

weight vehicles. The typical weight of a small ware-

house PIT is around 5,000 pounds, construction forklifts

can be 20,000-50,000 pounds plus. When one of these

units strikes, the damage is severe. Another common fac-

tor are collisions while traveling in reverse. Statistics

show that more than 95 percent of these collisions

involve traveling rearward while going too fast and/or

the operator not paying attention.

As for personnel involved in fatal collisions, the cur-

rent statistics show that the number-one reason for fatal-

ities is the tip-over of the PIT (25.3 percent) with the

S A F E T Y R E P O R T

Powered Industrial Trucks—Forklift Safety

b y D o n We b e r

Don Weber is director of AGCSafety Inc., which providessafety instruction and trainingclasses to AssociatedGeneral Contractors.

AGC Safety ReportProudly Sponsored By:

Alaska National Insurance CompanyEagle Insurance Companies, Inc.

Spenard Builders Supply


struck-bys following a closesecond at 18.8 percent.Other reasons for fatali-ties include struck byfalling loads (14.4percent), elevatedemployee on PIT(12.2 percent),PIT ran off dock or working surface(7 percent), improper maintenance

procedures (6 percent), loss ofcontrol (4.5 percent) and small

percentage reasons toonumerous to list.

So, how are we toavoid these unfortu-

nate incidents? Let’sbegin with the

operator being trained and havinga current certification (29 CFR

1910.179) and an intimate knowl-edge of the PIT that he/she isusing. In addition to this, the oper-ator needs to be very cognizant ofall safety rules and practices(including the truck’s limitations).

Other suggestions would be toslow down, watch where you aregoing, check overhead clearances,check behind you, check the loadcapacities of the PIT, watch forpedestrians, and become familiarwith any unusual operating condi-tions. Remember: As a forkliftoperator, your vision is obstructeda good part of the time so it’s inyour best interest to slow down,sound the horn when necessaryand be extremely observant in alldirections while operating a PIT. Ifyou can’t do this easily on the PIT,then get a spotter to work with youfor a second set of eyes.

Pedestrians

What about the pedestrians andtheir responsibilities? May we firstsuggest asking the other workers atthe site to stay back from the fork-lift when it is moving aload? Be sure the dri-ver can see you ifyou must crossthe forklift’spath. Neverwalk under anysuspended forkliftloads. Do not ridethe truck or betempted to be lifted by the forks,and if working on a ladder/platform/scaffold, you may wantto come down while the


forklift is working inyour immediate area.If not, then make cer-tain the operator seesyou and where you’reworking. Also, don’tjust arbitrarily changeyour position whilethe operator is maneu-vering the PIT in yourarea.

Finally, as anoperator or a pedes-trian, please remem-ber that the center of gravity ofthe load can quickly upset thestability of a PIT. Operators aregenerally quite aware of thisfact, but pedestrians often havethe mistaken view that the PITs

can stop quickly. In general, PITscan stop and turn quickly, butthe load continues on, strikingany object in its path.

These problem areas andnegligence on PITs throughout

the United Statesyielded an averageannual toll of 85fatalities and 35,000serious injurieseach year for thelast 10 years.

If your organi-zation doesn’t havea forklift safety pro-gram at your busi-ness, and if youroperators are notproperly trained

and certified, please get it doneimmediately. This will help yourcompany avoid what more than35,000 employees and their fam-ilies have had to endure eachyear—bad news.


Con

stru

ctio

n Ac

tivi

ty


W ant to talk aboutboring? Talkabout insurance.

Or bonding. And when itcomes to interesting dinnerguests, how many peopleimmediately think of aninsurance salesperson?

Actually, if these last linessum up your attitude towardinsurance, you really don’tunderstand capitalism.Nothing happens withoutinsurance. Nothing. Trucksdon’t roll, bridges don’t getbuilt, homes aren’t bought, schools aren’t open and no one getsa paycheck. That’s because insurance is the single most impor-tant building block of our economy. Any company can get aloan; it’s just a matter of asking enough banks—or loan sharks.A business license is about $50 in any state of the union, andthere’s always some fool willing to hire his wife’s cousin to con-struct a multimillion-dollar building.

“Unfortunately not that many people realize just howimportant our industry is,” Richard Lowell, resident of RibelinLowell and Company in Anchorage, said. “We keep the wheelsrolling. Yes, insurance may not be an industry with lots of raz-zle and dazzle, but without us there will be no economy.”

That may be the good news. While insurance is critical tokeep the economy going, in Alaska, maintaining an insurancecompany is a very difficult proposition.

“[Ribelin Lowell] maybe one of the largest inde-pendent insurance compa-nies in Alaska, but we stillhave to scramble. But thescrambling isn’t always forclients; it’s for access tonational financial markets.

“Though we can dealwith a vast array of finan-cial markets, we can onlydo business with thosecompanies that want to dobusiness in Alaska. Thatreduces the number sub-

stantially. In terms of overall numbers, figure that Alaskaonly accounts for about 1 percent of the national market ininsurance.

“Large companies are constantly testing the waters ofAlaska, picking up clients, and then abandoning the state.That leaves us holding the bag. We’re the ‘local face’ forthose national companies. Our customers see us as theinsurance provider, not as company between them and thefinancial market. When a big company gets out of Alaska,our customers expect us to find them similar coverage at thesame rate.”

Ribelin Lowell is an old Alaskan firm. It was formed in1977 as the Ribelin Insurance Agency and, over the years,has grown to be one of the three largest independent insur-ance companies in Alaska. Concentrating on property and

M E M B E R

P R O F I L E

Keeping the Wheels Rolling

Marie Wilson, president elect of AGC, with Ken Patterson ofRibelin Lowell and Company.


Photo by Frank Flavin


casualty, it is still small enough to handle a personal lineincluding auto and home insurance, lodges, boats andremote contractors. It insures contractors from southeast-ern Alaska to the North Slope.

But Ribelin Lowell is more than just the local face forthe national insurance market. It is also the source for bond-ing, key to financial survival in a state where constructionis big business.

“Bonding is more than just big business in Alaska,”said Pat Salvucci, bond manager for the company. “Forevery person involved in a construction project there areprobably six or seven that provide back up support. Everyvehicle needs grease, oil, fuel, tires, replacement glass, wire,mechanical backup, whatever. Every construction workeris making a house payment, buying groceries, visiting doc-tors and dentists and optometrists. Just because someoneisn’t swinging a hammer doesn’t mean they are not in theconstruction business. But none of those people are goingto get paid unless the contractor can get bonded.”

Five years ago, any contractor could get a bond. That’sbecause the insurance industry was making more oninvestments than insurance. It made sense for those com-panies to take greater risks because the capital was makingso much in the stock market.

As you know, though, times have changed and thelarge insurance companies are backing away from stocks.That means they are taking fewer risks. In turn, that meansthat bonding requirements are getting tighter. “Good solidcompanies are not going to have any trouble getting bond-ing,” Salvucci said, “but start up operations, the new mom-and-pops will find it tougher. Ribelin Lowell can helpbecause we are local and integrity of the client means asmuch as cash in the bank. That’s the power of dealing witha local insurance broker.”

Supposedly the golden rule is, “He who has the goldmakes the rules,” but when it comes to insurance, money isonly part of the equation of success. Finishing a construc-tion project is more dependent on the quality of the con-struction company than the money at its disposal. A largercredit line will not necessarily help a contractor finish a pro-ject on time and on budget. But a good insurance companycan ensure the survival of a quality construction company.

“Our primary responsibility is to make sure our cus-tomers spend their time on the job site, not looking forbonding or insurance coverage,” Salvucci said. “If ourclients don’t make money, we don’t make money. So wehave this business relationship. They put the buildings upand we keep their wheels rolling.”


W O R K S A F E

O n August 1, 2001 the U.S.Department of Transportation(DOT) Office of Drug Policy and

Control issued its final rule for the proce-dures for transportation workplace drugand alcohol testing programs (49 CFR Part40.) This updated regulation is an importantstep in creating safer roads, airways, water-ways and railways across America. It is crit-ical that employers become familiar withwhat is expected of them to comply withthe federal regulations. Failure to complycould result in federal audits and fines of upto $10,000 a day.

Who needs a background check?A new requirement for DOT regulated industries man-dates employers complete a work history backgroundcheck of all-new hires or employees transferring to a posi-tion for safety-sensitive duties. Safety sensitive dutiesinclude commercial driving, airline employment, mainte-nance of pipelines, charter and tour operating, railroadoperation, and more.

An employer must obtain a work history for a periodof two years prior to the date of application for work ortransfer to a safety-sensitive position. Applicants arerequired to provide a complete two-year work history tobe eligible for employment. This work history shouldfocus on DOT safety sensitive work.

What information must employers research?Businesses are required to request information from pastemployers about the applicant regarding: Alcohol testswith a result of 0.04 or higher alcohol concentration, veri-fied positive drug tests, refusal to be tested (including ver-ified adulterated or substituted drug and alcohol test),and other violations of DOT agency drug and alcohol test-ing regulations. The background history check includesviolations of pre-employment drug tests. Work history atall previous DOT agencies must be considered whencompleting a background check for a safety-sensitiveposition.

What if a check reveals problems?If an employee has a record of any suchinfraction, he or she must have documenta-tion of the successful completion of DOT’sreturn-to-duty requirements (including fol-low-up testing). Once documentation isreviewed and deemed acceptable, the appli-cant may be employed to perform safety-sen-sitive duties. If the applicant does not haveproof of return-to-duty requirements, theapplicant cannot be hired to perform safety-sensitive functions until compliance is met.

In order to meet the DOT’s return-to-duty requirement, the applicant must complete a face-to-face evaluation by a recognized Substance AbuseProfessional (SAP). The applicant must then complete all ofthe education and treatment follow-up prescribed by theSAP. Any employee who refuses to complete the return-to-duty requirement is medically unqualified to be hired ortransferred to a DOT safety-sensitive position.

May a business release itself from liability by having anapplicant sign a consent or release form?

An employer must not require an employee to sign a con-sent, release and waiver of liability or indemnificationagreement with respect to any part of the drug or alcoholtesting process.

How can a business get and stay in compliance?WorkSafe provides in-depth training for companies regard-ing drug and alcohol testing by providing consultation ser-vices, return-to-duty services and follow-up testing whenneeded. WorkSafe can advise you on the numerous specificrequirements of the new law. If you are interested in moreinformation regarding this regulation or in promoting adrug-free workplace, please contact Matthew Fagnani, C-SAPA with WorkSafe, at 907-563-8378. AGC membersreceive reduced rates. Please mention that your company isa member of AGC to qualify for the discount. As a serviceto AGC members, WorkSafe will e-mail you a copy of theupdated (49 CFR Part 40). E-mail requests [email protected].

b y M a t t h e w F a g n a n iPresident of WorkSafe, Inc.

Understanding the New Federal DOTDrug Test Regulations


However, the center is nearcapacity. The Anchorage Conventionand Visitors Bureau said their salesforce is already selling dates in 2007and 2008. Unless a new center isbuilt, the Anchorage convention mar-ket cannot grow beyond the level it isat currently, and that affects thegrowth of hotels, car rentals, andeven Anchorage’s cruise industry.Bringing 40,000 new delegates andexhibitors to town every year, witheach delegate spending $800 per con-vention, could have a major positiveimpact on every retail business in thedowntown area.

Advocates say the new ACCCwill be able to lure regional andnational conventions and tradeshows to Anchorage. Why? Whatwould convince winter conventionorganizers to forsake the Sunbelt fora cold, dark Alaskan winter?Granted, the “Alaskan mystique”draws summer visitors, but is itenough to attract major organizationswith a variety of closer, cheaper andmore exotic locations? The EganCenter already struggles to attractregional trade shows due to the costand difficulty of shipping exhibits.

Bruce Bustamante, President ofthe Anchorage Convention andVisitors Bureau, is optimistic. He saysthe perception of higher prices is amyth the bureau is working to clearup. “During the fall-winter-springseason, when most conventions areheld, prices are lower here than insome of the larger cities,” he said.

He is also confident aboutAlaska’s appeal as a winter destina-tion. “Not everybody wants to go toCalifornia and Florida,” Bustamanteclaims. “St. Louis, Kansas City,Chicago, Minneapolis, they’re allmajor convention cities, and wintersin Anchorage are milder than in those

continued from page 32...If You build It, Will They Come?


places. In Anchorage, winter doesn’tslow us down, and that’s an advan-tage,” he says, listing a range ofevents visitors participate in. Winterconvention guests “come away witha wonderful experience,” he claims.

That may be true, but realityopens the door for questions. IfAlaska really is so attractive in thewinter, why is tourist season limitedalmost exclusively to three summermonths?

The tourism industry will beaffected more than most by the newconvention center. The increased bedtax will affect all hotel guests, and theincreased room prices will probablyhave a negative effect on summer vis-itors. “There may be some elasticityin demand,” Bustamante admits.“However, that’s going to be mitigat-ed by an increase in capacity.” Hebelieves that the increase in visitorsfrom the convention center will“more than make up” for any lostrevenues during the summer. On theother hand, new hotel constructionspurred by the influx of new dele-gates would heighten competitionand possibly reduce margins duringthe peak summer months.

The issue boils down to a funda-mental question: Is a new conventioncenter the best use for the millions oftax dollars such a project wouldrequire? The answer depends onyour perspective. For the construc-tion industry, it looks like a winner.They’ll gain between 880 and 930 jobsduring the two years of construction,and more than $160 million in work.It will also be a winner for the airport,with 27,000 additional annual roundtrip airfares and associated addition-al airport revenues.

For the City of Anchorage,though, the numbers may notadd up.


A s I write these words, one week almost to theminute since the twin towers of the World TradeCenter crumbled into twisted girders and con-

crete dust, the nation’s thoughts and prayers are stillfocused on the disaster sites in New York City andWashington, D.C. And this is only right. We must—andthat includes a lot of contractors and their crews activelyon the job at ground zero—expend every effort to locateany possible survivors and to find and identify as manyas possible of those whose lives abruptly ended in thecrush of steel, concrete and glass that had long been theleading symbol of America’s business prowess.

Since September 11, we daily read comparisons tothe Pearl Harbor attack of nearly 60 years ago. That,however, is unrealistic. At Pearl Harbor, 349 planes pilot-ed by Japanese airmen killed about 2,400 people, mostlyservicemen in the Navy and the Army Air Force. Pearl

Harbor, though certainly a shock, was a military opera-tion launched by Japan in hopes of tilting the strategicbalance of forces in the Pacific in its favor.

No such justification applies in the terrorist attack ofSeptember 11. On that bright sunny morning, four civil-ian airliners were used to kill about 6,000 people, mostlycivilians, a number that continues to increase as moreand more names are added to the long list of the missing.New York and Washington, D.C. were the targets of massmurderers motivated by hate, killers who lack a con-science and blame others for their own incompetenceand inability to cope with life.

Other countries—certainly Israel comes to mind—have experienced this hate in smaller doses over a pro-tracted period of time. The United States has also beenvisited by smaller, less spectacular acts of terrorism over

bbyy RRoonn DDaallbbyy


the years. Sorting out and executingour nation’s response to this mostrecent, dastardly act will be a lengthyprocess. And it will be years beforewe can fully assess the changes in ourlives.

Think about it for a moment… Atthe close of business on Monday,September 10 in New York City, thetalented, educated professionals whodetermined much of the course of thenation’s business were in charge.Today and for much of the future, thecrane operators, truck drivers, police,firemen, soldiers, sailors, airmen,marines and countless others nowclearing rubble and searching for sur-vivors are the people we turn to, thepeople who will ultimately clean upthe mess, investigate the crimes, pun-ish the perpetrators, and rebuild theWorld Trade Center and thePentagon.

These events will impactAlaskans as much as anyone else inthe country. A so far little-mentionedfact is that this act of war has dramat-ically redefined the debates on theArctic National Wildlife Refuge andthe National Missile Defense System,two arenas where Alaska’s contrac-tors will be key players in the yearsahead.

First consider ANWR. We are, asPresident George W. Bush has stated,at war. We will respond appropriate-ly. It will be a war like no other wehave ever fought. But one unavoid-able fact remains: Our militarymachine, probably the greatest in theworld, runs on oil, much of it import-ed from the Middle East, the likelysite of many of the upcoming battlesas we seek out and destroy terrorism.That source could dry up in aninstant.

Suddenly the reality of the oil


available in ANWR stands out instark contrast to the over-hypedpossibility of disrupting a few caribouthat has so convoluted meaningfuldebate on the issue for decades. Instarkly simple terms, developing theoil in ANWR could be critical to ournational security in the years ahead.The possibility of upsetting the habitsof a few caribou cannot compare inscope. Unless we are secure as anation, we do not have the option ofguaranteeing the future of the caribouin ANWR—or anywhere else for thatmatter.

The debate on ANWR is nolonger about caribou, it’s aboutnational security.

If we develop the resources avail-able in ANWR, Alaska’s contractorswill play a huge role in the effort.And, because of limited manpower,contractors from other parts of thecountry will likely be involved aswell.

But ANWR is only part of the pic-ture that will likely affect Alaska’scontractors. We now know we arevulnerable to one kind of attack, butother, perhaps greater dangers lurk inthe shadows. A number of nationsconsidered rogue states by our gov-ernment have, or will soon have theability to fire missiles against ournation. Thus the National MissileDefense System may also get a boost,and Alaska offers the most likely sitefor basing all or a significant part ofthe system. That, too, will requirescores of builders.

The NMDS debate is no longer aquestion of whether we will beattacked but one of when the attackwill come. The hate-crazed suicidebombers of September 11 proved dra-matically that even weapons asinnocuous as a pocketknife can be


used to facilitate mass murder andunprecedented destruction. Thepotential weapons that can bedelivered by missiles defy the imagi-nation—and do not require suicidalfanatics to operate. And we nowknow that if a weapon can be used,unscrupulous people will find a wayto use it. The United States is proba-bly a tentative missile target of roguenations even as you read this.

I have long believed that bothdeveloping ANWR’s resources andperfecting a missile defense systemwere crucial to the future of our coun-try, and I have often spoken out infavor of both. I had always hoped,though, that it wouldn’t take a war tobring these projects to fruition. Surely,I thought, reasoned debate wouldultimately prevail. Tragically, rea-soned debate has been drowned outby the final agonizing screams ofdeath from 6,000 or more Americans.For better or worse, we are in an inter-national war against terrorism. Muchof what will be needed to fight thatwar will come from contractors whoconstruct the facilities necessary forus to persevere.

As one who experienced twoyears of combat in Vietnam, I abhorwar. But wars are occasionally neces-sary. I believe this one is necessarybecause millions—perhaps billions—of innocent civilians around theworld are the targets of the hate-filledfanatics who launched this war. Andpsychologically this war will be hard-er on me than my own service in com-bat. My son and son-in-law have bothchosen careers in the Army. It is somuch harder for me to watch themprepare to go in harm’s way that itwas for me to go myself.


In response to the numerousoffers of assistance fromAGC members and chapters,the AGC Education &Research Foundation hasunanimously approved theformation of a fund to assistthe children of those killed inthe September 11, 2001 ter-rorist attacks against theUnited States. A preferencewill be given to the childrenof craft and managementconstruction workers wholost their lives in the attacks.

Contributions may be madeto the:

AGC Education & ResearchFoundationAttn: Terrorist VictimsFund333 John Carlyle StreetSuite 200Alexandria, VA 22314

For additional information,please contact ShannonKnutti at 703-837-5346 [email protected]

AGC EDUCATION&

RESEARCHFOUNDATION

ESTABLISHES FUNDFOR TERRORIST

VICTIMS


station together as participants gather

essential data necessary for the com-

pletion of a cross-country flight. The

MAEL’s trailer and program were cre-

ated through a partnership between

Cuyahoga Community College and

NASA Glenn Research Center in

Cleveland, Ohio.” Many sponsors are involved in

the effort to bring the MAEL toAlaska. It’s focused on middle schooland an estimated 15,000 middleschool students will have an opportu-nity to explore math and science in aworkstation. The trailer will concludeits visit to Alaska in Anchorage dur-ing the Partners in EducationSymposium!

Because math is crucial to con-struction, AGC of Alaska feels it’simportant to promote and participatein helping students become “jazzed”about construction career choices.After all, a contractor built the trailerand each spaceship!

On Site!We now have the postcards with a

continued from page 15...AGC Goes Back to School


photo of a bridge in Alaska that we’lladd to every On Site! toolbox.Alyeska Pipeline Service Companygraciously provided the photo andpicked up the full cost for the printingof the postcards that will be given toevery student who goes through thecurriculum.

We feel it’s important to not onlytalk about structures around theworld, but at the same time talk aboutsignificant construction projects herein Alaska. This way the students willsee Alaska on a global or worldwidelevel.

Education Effort UpdateWe’re continuing the Build Up! effortin the Anchorage School District.We’ll soon know the school and class-room count for Anchorage. With thatcount we’ll contact our members forsponsorship and classroom volun-teers for this school year.

Our Build Up! effort in ruralAlaska will continue this year as welland likely increase.

We’re launching On Site! this yearin Anchorage and rural Alaska. TheYoung Contractors are taking the leadwith On Site! in the Anchorage class-rooms.

And, we hope to have more highschools in rural Alaska using CoreCurriculum from NCCER. NCCER isaffiliated with the University ofFlorida in Gainesville.

If you are interested in support-ing any of the education efforts,please contact me. I’m more thanhappy to talk with you about whatyour chapter is doing to capture yourworkforce!

Contact Vicki Schneibel at 561-5354 or

via e-mail at [email protected].


A side from workman’s com-pensation insurance, whichall employers must carry for

their employees, most contractorsessentially need two types of insur-ance. The first type protects the pro-ject itself against physical damage,and the second protects the contrac-tor against claims from others forbodily injury and property damage.For design/build contractors, athird type, design errors and omis-sions, should be secured. This arti-cle will address the first category.

Builders’ All RiskThe general legal rule is that in the

absence of anything in the contract onthe point, the contractor is responsiblefor the construction until it is turnedover to the owner. This means that itis in the contractor’s interest to haveinsurance to protect against loss ordamage to the work during construc-tion. Such insurance is referred to asbuilders’ all-risk insurance. It is essen-tially a fire insurance policy thatincludes loss due to other externalphysical forces. Most constructioncontracts, including the AIA and AGCforms, require the contractor to carrysuch insurance.

The premium and limits of theinsurance policy are determined bythe value of the work. Such policiescan be either project specific or coverall of a contractor’s ongoing projectsprovided the limits are sufficient.Many current policies permit monthlyreporting so that the premium isbased only on the value of the work asof that particular time. The intent ofthe policy is to provide protectiononly during the course of construc-tion, with the owner acquiringhis/her own casualty insurance uponacceptance and occupancy of the pro-ject.

Although traditionally such poli-cies did not cover a contractor’sequipment, there are policies avail-able today that cover all real and per-sonal property used or owned by thecontractor in the course of the con-struction. This is a substantialimprovement over prior traditionalpolicies, because the protection coversproperty in transit, debris removal,expediting expenses, accounts receiv-

C O N T R A C T O R S A N D T H E L A W

b y B o b D i c k s o n

Robert J. (Bob) Dickson is apartner in the Anchorage lawfirm of Atkinson, Conway &Gagnon, Inc. He concentrateson civil litigation with anemphasis on constructioncontract disputes and con-struction bonding matters.

Builders’ All-Risk Insurance Coverage


able losses due to loss of records, and even claim prepa-ration expenses. Not surprisingly, some of these new cov-erages come with specific limits.

Major exclusions of coverage typically facing con-tractors include defective work, defective design or“latent defect.” Under current policies the insurer willnot pay for the cost of repair of the specific part of thework that was defective or the specific aspect of thedesign that was defective, but will pay for the cost ofrepair of all damage caused by such defective work ordesign. Consequently, where a column or beam wasunder designed or installed incorrectly, the insurer wouldnot pay for the specific structural member, but would payfor the rest of the damage caused by collapse, racking orother structural compromises due to the defective mem-ber.

Another major exclusion includes damage caused bysurface or subsurface water, or by earth movement. Adetailed discussion would require much more space thanavailable here. But fundamentally, water or earth move-ment resulting from natural phenomena occurring exter-nally to the construction is generally covered; while man-made causes occurring internally to the construction aregenerally not covered. The specific language of the poli-

cy is the most important factor.Care should be taken at the conclusion of a project in

defining the time when responsibility for the safety andprotection of the construction transfers from the contrac-tor to the owner. If the owner simply occupies the projectwithout a formal acceptance, many builders all risk poli-cies will consider the coverage terminated.

The question of who is an insured and whose proper-ty is insured, as between contractors, subcontractors andowners, has been the subject of considerable litigation. InAlaska, subcontractors are deemed to be co-insureds forall purposes of the general contractor’s all-risk policyeven if the language of the policy specifies that the sub-contractor is an insured only to the extent of the subcon-tractor’s work on the project. The result is that the gener-al’s all-risk insurer cannot pursue the subcontractor forrecovery even if the subcontractor negligently caused theloss. Some new policies expressly make the subcontractor,and even sometimes the owner, an insured for all purpos-es. “Wrap-up” insurance coverage is available where onepolicy protects the owner, general contractor, subcontrac-tors and even the designer. But such coverage is generallyavailable only on very large projects because the languageon several policies must be specifically tailored.


Alaska Airlines Air Cargo .................... 55Alaska Cover-All ................................. 37Alaska Diesel Electric ..........................11Alaska Industrial Hardware ................. 22Alaska Quality Publishing, Inc. ............ 48Alaska Telecom, Inc. ...........................50Alaska USA FCU ................................ 43Allied Building Products, Corp. ...........26Alaska Rubber & Supply Inc. .............. 30Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. ...............46American Fast Freight .........................49

Anchorage Refuse ..............................36Anchorage Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. ....50Arctic Structures, LC .......................... 30

The Alaska

Index of AdvertisersIndex of AdvertisersContractor

Arctic Transportation Services ............ 51Atkinson Conway & Gagnon .............. 53Atlas Alaska ......................................... 4Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot ............ 52Brady & Company ..............................13Canadian National .............................. 15Carlile ................................................. 46Chugach Electric ................................ 42Cleanaire Alaska .................................11Construction Machinery, Inc. .............. 56Contech ............................................. 45Craig Taylor Equipment Co. ................17DeLisio Moran Geraghty & Zobel, P.C. 52Dura Wrap ......................................... 21ENSTAR Natural Gas Co. .................. 23First National Bank Alaska ................. 31George’s Courier Service, LLC ........... 36Golden Valley Electric ......................... 46Greer Tank, Inc. ................................. 30Holaday-Parks, Inc. ........................... 20Inland Petroservice, Inc. .................... 20Insulfoam ........................................... 34International Union of Operating Engineers . 46Lynden ................................................. 2M-B Contracting Co., Inc. .................. 20NC Machinery Co. ............................... 3Norcoast Mechanical ......................... 50Northern Air Cargo ............................ 18Northrim Bank ................................... 47Office Products Services ................... 22Pacific Alaska Forwarders, Inc. .......... 29Parker Smith Feek ............................. 45Petro Marine ...................................... 49Phillips Petroleum ................................ 5The Plans Room ................................ 51Pike’s Waterfront Lodge ..................... 32Port of Anchorage .............................. 19Rain Proof Roofing Co., Inc. .............. 30Ribelin Lowell and Company ............. 40Ron Webb Paving & Snow Removal .. 20Seekins Ford, Lincoln, Mercury .......... 21Seward Chamber of Commerce ........ 24Sourdough Productions ..................... 54Span Alaska Consolidators .................31Spenard Builders Supply ..14, 29, 43, 53Swalling Construction ........................ 48Tire Distribution Systems, Inc. ........... 45Udelhoven ......................................... 47Unit Company ................................... 50Warning Lights of Alaska ................... 24Weaver Bros., Inc. ............................. 40Wells Fargo .......................................... 9West Coast Training ........................... 14

The Alaska Contractor: Fall 2001 - Keep Trees® | digital...

Documents

Transcript of The Alaska Contractor: Fall 2001 - Keep Trees® | digital...