DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers
Contracting Division
333 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1905
November 19, 1996 03 00070 96111903
Mr. Robert D. Johnston
President
Dutra Dredging Company
1000 Point San Pedro Road
San Rafael, CA 94901
Subject: Contractor Evaluations, Form 2626
Dutra letter Nov 7, 1996
Serial Letter No. CESPN-CT-95-C-0003-0015
Dear Bob,
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 responds to your letter of Nov 7, 1996 taking exception to having received
the Corps' DD Form 2626, dated 13 June 1996, assigning Dutra Dredging Company
an "unsatisfactory performance rating" in connection with progress on the
Oakland Inner & Outer Harbor Dredging Project. Your contention that this
evaluation was "subjective" and "unwarranted by the facts," is incorrect. Our
records show Dutra continues to warrant an unsatisfactory rating. COE
regularly reviews performance of its contractors and seeks opportunities based
on improved performance to improve the ratings of contractors. Recent
improvements in production by you offer a hopeful sign that your rating can be
upgraded, provided improvement continues.
There are two basic shortfalls apparent in the record which warrant an
unsatisfactory rating. Dutra's production has been below that required to
complete the original bid quantities within the project completion period, and
there are no requests for additional time which warrant adjustment of this
factor. If Dutra feels otherwise, it should point out the information it
relies on to reach such conclusion.
Dutra's recent schedule update shows it now seems to expect to complete the
original pay quantities (5.5M CY adjusted in some way by Dutra to 4.9M CY) by
Apr 27, 1997, which is the original completion date based on contract
completion period of 840 calendar days; yet, that schedule projection reflects
estimated production rates that have not been borne out by your performance on
the job. You show rates of 3,000 CY and above for the Paula Lee dredge and
7,000 CY per day for the Antone dredge, or a combined average of 10,000 CY per
day. Dutra has not achieved this rate consistently with this equipment and has
offered no information showing a basis for expecting it can do so, nor that you
intend to marshall additional equipment to make up the shortfall.
Second, Dutra's continued difficulties administering the contract further
reflect unsatisfactory performance that is reflected in unsatisfactory dredging
production rates to the extent that contract management is intended to support
production. Your call for the parties to work together a little more closely,
requires closer adherence to contract requiements designed to facilitate
communications. To accomplish this, adequate resources applied to contract
management, we directed Dutra to submit a Contract Management Plan on Nov 8,
1996. Dutra did not do so, but instead advised the plan would be submitted on
Nov 15, 1996. This was not done.
A primary example of unsatisfactory contract management is your failure to
update the project schedule in a timely manner. Without a current, well
thought out practicable schedule, there is no basis to productively deploy the
resources you are providing. Neither is there a basis for us to coordinate the
work with affected parties to expedite your ability to gain access to the work.
You have persistently failed to comply with section 02480 para 4.2 to submit a
weekly Dredging Plan of Operation. In recent weeks you have submitted
documents purported to respond to this requirement; yet, such documents have
not in fact addressed the many planning elements intended to assist the
Contractor in meeting the daily details of implementing the project schedule.
This lack of planning is evident in your failure to meet your own projected
production rates, and so is unsatisfactory.
Your methods of communication result in continued misunderstanding and
consequent re-work, reflected in poor, unsatisfactory production. Documents
are delivered without transmittals, undated, and unidentified. Submittal
registers are unattended with the result that orderly communication is rendered
impossible. This is unsatisfactory.
These and many other examples warrant continued withholding of funds under the
contract authority for COE to protect the interests of the government in
ensuring performance of the work within the contract amount. We are anxious to
assist you in clearing the unsatisfactory condition. As stated, recent
improvements offer promise of an early review of this evaluation status. Your
ideas for improving progress meetings and other steps to accomplish contract
administration requirements more effectively, should be submitted.
Sincerely
Thomas Benero
Chief, Contracting Office Division
CF:
CESPN-CO, L. SooHoo
T. White, R. Andrews, M. McGovern