Port of Oakland
530 Water Street
Oakland, CA  94607


November 22, 1996


Mr. Herb Cheong,
CESPN-PM
333 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94105 1905

Dear Herb,
I have reviewed Dutra's schedule submittal of 11/8/96, including Serial Letter No. 95-C-0003-182 and attached maps, and offer the following comments on the deficiencies and inconsistencies I see in this submittal:
  1. The schedule does not indicate when Port Berths 60-63 will be completed, as called for under the contract.

  2. The bar chart schedule showing completion of dredging by July 31, 1997 is inconsistent with Serial Letter No. 95-C-0003-0182, which indicates completing the project on October 4, 1997. This seems to indicate a demobilization period of over 60 days!

  3. The maximum quantity of dreded material (as determined by the 10/17/96 analysis done by Gahagan & Bryant for the Corps) based on actual quantities dredged to date plus an estimate of 100% of overdepth for incomplete polygons is only 869,588 cubic yards NOT 900,500 cubic yards as claimed in Dutra's letter.

  4. The basis for determining the maximum schedule extension allowable under the contract should be based on a breakdown of this "overrun" into standard dredging and overdepth dredging for each of the contract bid items compared with the estimate of these quantities provided in Section 02480-2.1 and Sectoin 02480-2.2 as amended by modification No. 1 dated 11/22/94. According to Secton 00800-1 (FAR 52.212-3), Section 00800-18, and Section 02480-2.1 & 2.2 the additional time allowed will be at the rate of one (2) calendar day for each 8,000 yards of material ACTUALLY DREDGED in excess of 115% of each of the quantities estimated in Section 02480-2.1 & 2.2. This is closer to 90 days; NOT 113 days.

  5. If Dutra only dredges half of the overdepth as they claim, and therefore only removes 5,630,000 cubic yards this allowable extension will shrink dramatically (the original bid quantity was 5,510,000).

  6. "Newly defined accepted sections" are not consistent with the contract. The Port would like to see acceptance of groupings of defined polygons based on some standard of navigational utility, but we do not agree with Dutra's proposed "acceptance sections."

  7. The schedule does not reflect completing the Todd and Schnitzer wings of the Inner Harbor turning basin and yet shows completing the rest of the dredging of material designated for disposal at the Galbraith disposal site. This is inconsistent with the RWQCB permits and the contract.
Based on the above information it is evident that the project is NOT on target for completion within the time frame allowed by the specifications.

Sincerely,



Rob Andrews