San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers
333 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1905

Contracting Division

November 19, 1996                                       03 00070 96111902

Mr. Robert D. Johnston
Dutra Dredging Company
1000 Point San Pedro Road
San Rafael, CA  94901

Subject:  Schedule for Construction Contracts, FAR 52.236-15
                 Dutra Progress Schedule Update, Nov 20, 1996
                 Serial Letter No. CESPN-CT-95-C-0003-0014

Dear Mr. Johnston:
Reference is made to your contract DACW07-95-C-0003 for (-)42' Navigation Improvement, Oakland Inner and Outer Harbors, Alameda and San Francisco Counties, California. This confirms understandings from the meeting with Tom Keesling on November 13, reviewing your proposed updated schedule provided with your transmittal letter dated November 8, 1996. We received this information on November 12, 1996. Preliminary review was set out in the notes of the Progress Meeting on November 12 so that you can begin thinking about our objectives and concerns. The review meeting held with you on November 13, 1996 presented an initiative and highlighted steps needed to carry it forward. You are hereby directed to meet with COE on November 21, 1996 at 0900a in the office of Max Blodgett on performing the following steps: 1. This letter modifies the understandings from the November 13 meeting where Dutra asked that COE develop details from the survey performed by Dutra's subcontractor, GB Star company, on the distribution of the 4M CY reported by GB Star as remaining to be dredged in order to reach plan grade, as of the survey date, several weeks ago. Upon review, COE has determined that there is no evident support for the quantities in each acceptance area Dutra proposed in its Nov 8, 1996 schedule submission. Dutra should coordinate with its subcontractor, GB Star, to determine such details as are necessary in order to calculate the amount to be dredged and the consequent level of effort with respect to time, equipment, labor and all other resources to dredge the remaining material to plan grade in each acceptance area Dutra proposes. Accordingly, you are directed to do so, and further you are directed to notify us in advance if you expect to incur any additional expense in order to comply with this direction. Based on such research as you determine necessary to prepare a practicable schedule to dredge the project to grade, Dutra shall then submit a schedule for accomplishing this objective. 2. You are directed to change the order of performing your proposed acceptance areas so the schedule provides continuity of adjacent areas with the exception of completing the Galbraith disposal site. 3. You are directed to include in the schedule the activities for the Navy Sewer Line, showing the time alotted for completion of your shoring design to construct the crossing beneath the Union Pacific Railroad, procurements and construction, including the relationships with other work activities. Any other known obstructions or interferences should be shown on your revised schedule. 4. You are again directed to submit a Contract Management Plan, as specified in COE serial letter #0013 dated November 4, 1996, which plan you indicated during the meeting on November 13, would be submitted to us on November 15, but which was not submitted. We need this plan to evaluate Dutra's ability to perform its proposed schedule, and to complete this contract. A key aspect of the Contract Management Plan is the assignment of qualified personnel to prepare the weekly Plans of Dredging Operations called out in secton 02480 para 4.2, which Dutra has not been able to perform. These plans show Dutra has adequately planned the daily implementation of its project completion schedule, as intended by the contract. 5. You are directed to show a single completion date for the project based on the GB Star survey dated 30 October 1996 entitled Complete Condition Survey of the entire project area for Modification #P00030, and the revised acceptance plan you propose. Your letter of November 8, 1996 says the job will be finished on October 4, 1997, but your schedule documents indicate the completion date is July 30, 1997. Your revised schedule should correct this discrepancy based on the amount of material to be dredged. 6. Submit an explanation of how the average daily production rates for dredging for the Paula Lee and the Antone were calculated based on the record of dredging to date. 7. Address the observation by GB Star at the November 12, 1996 Progress Meeting that the cut depth over the remaining project area is smaller than the depth of areas where dredging has been performed in recent weeks, with the evident consequence that production rates should decline. How do you expect to maintain production at the proposed rates under the conditions forcast by GB Star of smaller cut depths in the remaining acceptance areas? 8. You are directed to include in your schedule the proposed dates of performing the items shown in the Gahagen & Bryant list dated October 30, 1996, which list was submitted to you attached to our serial letter #0013 dated November 4, 1996. Items on the G&B list which you object to performing shall be so identified and an explanation made of why you believe it is not responsible for performing such tasks. 9. You are directed to adequatley identify any and all schedule documents in your re-submission. This includes the plan drawing of the revised acceptance areas, the Schedule sheets, the Production sheets, so that each document is dated, shows it was produced by you for the Oakland Harbor project, shows the name of the person who prepares it and the source for the information it contains, including any calculations needed to convert source data for the information in Dutra's schedule documents. Activities shown on the schedule need to be numbered and identified on the Acceptance Areas plan sheet. The Acceptance Areas plan sheet should be color coded so that the proposed order of acceptance reflects the broader pattern of progress on useful areas of the project, all to facilitate effective evaluation of the practability of your schedule. Sincerely Thomas Benero
Chief, Contracting Division Copy to:
  1. CESPN-CO-S, L. SooHoo, M McGovern
  2. T. White, R. Andrews