CONTACTS 
0201 - O-0395 0201 Department of Natural
020101 - Mr. Wayne Wetzel, Project Manager
020102 - Mr. Norman Barnard, Hydropower Engineer
0202 - O-0389 0101 Tudor Engineering Compa
020201 - Mr. Jeff Ghilardi, Resident Engineer
020202 - Mr. Rod Welch, Office Engineer
0203 - O-0392 0103 Sletten Construction
020301 - Mr. Bill Merriman, Vice President
020302 - Mr. Paul Robinson, Project Coordinator
020303 - Mr. Kieth Fergeson, Superintendent
020304 - Mr. Dave Marsh, Field Project Coordinator
020305 - Broadwater Power Project
0204 - O-0394 0301 Voith Hydro, Inc.
020401 - Mr. Kenneth L. Carlson, Field Representative,
0205 - O-0396 0201 Project Planners
020501 - Mr. Terry L. Wyrick,
0206 -

SUBJECTS
Weekly Schedule, & Progress Meeting
Welch Assignment

0604 -
0604 -    ..
0605 - Summary/Objective
0606 -
060601 - Follow up ref SDS 3 0000.
060602 -
060603 - Bill Merriman initially asked about Rod Welch's position on the
060604 - project.  He observed that notes for the meeting on 880831,
060605 - ref SDS 3 0001, show a title for all of the attendees except Welch.
060607 -  ..
060608 - Rod Welch explained his assignment is to help the Resident Engineer
060609 - with communication, and this includes analysis of disputes for timely
060610 - resolution, per meeting with Tudor on 880815. ref SDS 1 0770
060612 -  ..
060613 - Jeff indicated Rod is an "Office Engineer."
060614 -
060615 -     [On 881005 Mr. Bob Sletten asked about Welch background.
060616 -     ref SDS 11 LG3L
060617 -
060618 -     [On 881102 Sletten staff and counsel make further inquires about
060619 -     Welch background. ref SDS 13 WC8L
060620 -
060621 -
060622 -
060623 -
060624 -
060625 -
060626 -
0607 -

SUBJECTS
Tape Record Meetings Demand Broadwater Dam Hydroelectric Project Mon

3203 -
320401 -  ..
320402 - Contractor Tape Records Meetings to Ensure Accuracy
320403 -
320404 - Bill Merriman said that Sletten wishes to tape record the meeting, and
320405 - furnish a typed transcript to supplement the record prepared by the
320406 - Engineer.
320407 -
320408 - This was accepted by the Engineer and the meeting was tape recorded.
320410 -         ..
320411 -        [On 880922 Sletten discontinued tape recordings, ref SDS 7
320412 -        8538, also on 880928 ref SDS 9 9330, and analysis 880925
320413 -        ref SDS 8 7742
320414 -
320416 -  ..
320417 - Bill feels Sletten's position is incorrectly represented in the record
320418 - for meetings held on August 24 and 31, 1988.  He cited "corrections"
320419 - Sletten filed, ref 5, to the August 24 meeting. ref SDS 2 8366
320420 -
320421 -        [On 881003 DNRC counsel Sarah Bond reported having listened to
320422 -        a tape recording Sletten made for the meeting, and Sarah found
320423 -        the SDS record accurately represented what was on the tape.
320424 -        ref SDS 10 6M6F
320426 -  ..
320427 - Below, Bill makes a correction on why Sletten did not install spider
320428 - bracing to assemble the DTL. ref SDS 0 526J
320429 -
320430 -
320432 -  ..
320433 - Engineer Accepts Contractor's Proposed Notice Procedures
320434 -
320435 - Bill said that Sletten will assume the Engineer accepts its
320436 - corrections, unless the Engineer notifies Sletten to the contrary.
320437 -
320438 - The Engineer accepted this procedure.
320440 -  ..
320441 - Wayne Wetzel said he feels Sletten's "remarks" in its letter to the
320442 - Engineer dated 880902, (ref 5) are incorrect in construing contract
320443 - requirements.  He will submit comments on the Engineer's meeting notes
320444 - and on Sletten's 880902 letter.
320446 -  ..
320447 - Jeff advised that everyone who attends the meeting should submit any
320448 - corrections and additions needed to ensure an accurate, useful record.
320449 -
320451 -  ..
320452 - Purpose of Meeting Notes, Differences from "Minutes"
320453 -
320454 - Bill Merriman contended that meeting Notes should comply with the
320455 - standard offered in Sletten's "corrections" (ref 5)  which states:
320456 -
320457 -   "...meeting minutes should be a true and accurate recording of
320458 -   statements made during the meeting as possible. [sic] Interjections
320459 -   of opinion are not acceptable.  Self serving determinations, opin-
320460 -   ions, and positions, if not actually made during the meeting, would
320461 -   better be transmitted under separate cover when those determina-
320462 -   tions, opinions and positions are a result of the meeting and the
320463 -   ensuing discussions."
320465 -  ..
320466 - Rod Welch explained that Sletten's proposed standard for professional
320467 - records of businsss meetings reflects the aim of SDS to advance the
320468 - interests of all the parties involved in the work.
320469 -
320471 -  ..
320472 - People need to know in a timely manner understandings drawn from
320473 - meetings and action items for saving time and money based on
320474 - correlations, implications and nuance in relation to objectives,
320475 - requirements and commitments, as a result of what transpired during
320476 - meetings and other communications.
320478 -  ..
320479 - A typical meeting, can involve some 50 - 200 or so different subjects
320480 - (e.g. ref 3 and 4).
320481 -
320482 -      [On 880907 reviewed with DNRC rep Wayne Wetzel. ref SDS 4 6927
320484 -       ..
320485 -      [On 880908 reviewed with Tudor Project Engineer Jeff Ghilardi.
320486 -      ref SDS 5 4920]
320488 -       ..
320489 -      [On 971008 USACE determined cost savings using SDS to track
320490 -      actual subjects that increases span of attention and reduces
320491 -      rework to correct mistakes caused my managers using conventional
320492 -      meeting methods. ref SDS 15 1273]
320493 -
320495 -  ..
320496 - The Engineer must provide adequate narrative to convey important
320497 - understandings from discursive dialog and gestures, based on project
320498 - history and contract requirements.  Otherwise there is no purpose in
320499 - meeting.
320500 -
320501 -      [On 970624 DE San Francisco District Corps of Engineers cited
320502 -      tension between need for accuracy and providing a useful record
320503 -      that makes sense of half-sentences, nods, and discursive dialog.
320504 -      ref SDS 14 4695]
320506 -  ..
320507 - Issuing separate letters is too burdensome for expeditious management.
320508 - Such fragmentation causes confusion from proliferation of documents
320509 - with attendant increased costs of production, storage, handling and
320510 - research.
320511 -
320513 -  ..
320514 - Managers often do not have enough time for preparing, managing and
320515 - researching multiple docuements, and so meetings and the record that
320516 - follows must enable timely, economical communication so work can
320517 - meet requirements for quality, cost, and schedule.
320519 -  ..
320520 - This, and the preceeding paragraph illustrate the point.  No doubt the
320521 - language shown was not expressly stated at the meeting, yet its
320522 - substance was presented.  What benefit is gained by placing "exactly"
320523 - what is said in one place (half-finished sentences, nods, rambling
320524 - dialog interposed on different subjects in a sentence, contrary to
320525 - project organization structures) and placing its significance in
320526 - another, particularly in an environment where time is of the essence?
320527 -
320528 -     [On 880908 briefed Project Engineer on communication practices
320529 -     implementing notice requirements to expedite the work, and save
320530 -     time, and money. ref SDS 6 4920
320532 -  ..
320533 - Of course it is harmful to falsely attribute agreement or acquiescence
320534 - where none occurred.  It is improper to misrepresent and inaccurately
320535 - characterize comments of those attending a meeting  as charged by
320536 - Sletten, ref 5.  The harm is compounded where there is delay in
320537 - distributing the record to obtain feedback.
320539 -  ..
320540 - Protection from these potential abuses arises in several ways.
320541 -
320542 -   • Feedback is vital to ensure an accurate record.  Many people
320543 -     attend meetings.  Perceived errors in any communication must be
320544 -     immediatly submitted for review and incorporation into the project
320545 -     record in order to provide timely notice for everyone.
320546 -
320547 -        [On 881005 Sletten planned to submit corrections to the record.
320548 -        ref SDS 12 0001]
320550 -         ..
320551 -        [On 881102 Sletten claimed harm from unspecified errors in the
320552 -        project SDS records, but failed to submit corrections.
320553 -        ref SDS 13 0899]
320555 -      ..
320556 -   • If unreasonable delay in distributing the record results in work
320557 -     being performed that conflicts with understandings, then the party
320558 -     responsible for the delay should be accountable for any extra cost
320559 -     that might have otherwise been avoided, provided the conduct is
320560 -     appropriate based on the record that was available at the time.
320562 -      ..
320563 -   • Sletten's tape recordings offer complete protection against false
320564 -     and improper meeting Notes.
320565 -
320567 -  ..
320568 - These protections, incorporating procedures requested by Sletten and
320569 - accepted by the Engineer, together with the demands of the Project for
320570 - efficient and timely flow of information, permit use of meeting notes
320571 - for thorough and uniform communication of understandings, intent and
320572 - actions to carry on the work.
320573 -
320574 -
3206 -
3208 - ë3K5Y
3209 - Correspondence Procedures
3210 -
321001 - Rod Welch suggested that Sletten apply the same procedure for
321002 - numbering letters issued from its Field office that is used by the
321003 - Main office in Great Falls, provided it is not overly burdensome.
321005 -  ..
321006 - Bill Merriman said it would be an added burden.  He pointed out that
321007 - Sletten only adopted the procedure of numbering documents in order to
321008 - satisfy a request by the Engineer earlier in the job.  Jeff explain-
321009 - ed the problem of getting several letters with the same date some with
321010 - a document number and others without one  such that referring to a
321011 - document by date causes confusion.
321013 -  ..
321014 - After some discussion, Sletten agreed to use "F" numbers for
321015 - documents prepared in the Field office to distinguish them from the
321016 - "L" numbers already in use by the Great Falls office.
321017 -
321018 -
3211 -

SUBJECTS
Coordination with
Gracon Contract

3304 -
3305 - Gracon Access across
330601 -  ..
330602 - Sletten Objects to Gracon using Access Route to Spillway
330603 -
330604 - Jeff asked whether the State could compensate or otherwise indemnify
330605 - Sletten sufficiently to meet the objections for providing access to
330606 - the Gracon contract?
330608 -  ..
330609 - Bill Merriman explained an example of another project where Sletten
330610 - feels it was incorrectly held liable for workmens compensation damages
330611 - growing out of an incident caused by another contractor.  Bill
330612 - indicated that Sletten's insurance rates were raised as a result of
330613 - damages paid by its surety, even though Sletten was not at fault, and
330614 - this reduces Sletten's competitive position in the market.
330616 -  ..
330617 - Sletten believes the proposed access to Gracon through its project
330618 - area holds a comparable risk of harming Sletten.
330620 -  ..
330621 - Rod Welch asked how such risk was considered in bidding relative to
330622 - the contract requirement to provide access to other contractors and
330623 - how Sletten intended to meet this concern for the various
330624 - organizations presently using the access.
330626 -  ..
330627 - Bill explained that the proposed access for Gracon at issue here was
330628 - not disclosed in the plans used for bidding.
330630 -  ..
330631 - The Engineer will review this matter and issue a determination.
330632 -
330633 -
330634 -
330635 -
3307 -

SUBJECTS
Schedule
Time Extensions

3604 -
360501 -  ..
360502 - Updated Schedule Draft Will Be Ready for Review Tomorrow
360503 -
360504 - Sletten has hired Terry L. Wyrick (see line 0206) to prepare an
360505 - updated schedule.
360507 -  ..
360508 - Terry expects to have a first draft completed by tomorrow.
360509 -
360511 -  ..
360512 - DTL Pour Delayed to Meet Voith Alignment Specs
360513 -
360514 - The DTL embedment which was expected to be poured by Friday of last
360515 - week, has been delayed due to longer than expected alignment
360516 - operations by Voith.  Sletten expects to pour this Saturday, 880910.
360518 -  ..
360519 - This depends on Voith completing the installation of an "Embedment
360520 - Fixture" by Friday, 880909.  Ken feels this can be done.
360522 -  ..
360523 - During the meeting Ken explained that he needed crane time from
360524 - Sletten to set the equipment in the structure this afternoon.
360526 -  ..
360527 - Keith left the meeting and made immediate arrangements to do this.
360528 - ..
360529 - He asked Voith to provide more notice on Voith's crane use
360530 - requirements.
360532 -  ..
360533 - Ken agreed to this.  Ken left the meeting to organize his work force
360534 - to perform the work.
360535 -
360536 -
360537 -
3606 -

SUBJECTS
Concrete Pour
Equipment Embedment

3704 -
370501 -  ..
370502 - Concrete Pour Specs Affirmed; May Be Adjusted Based on Experience
370503 -
370504 - The pour rates shown in the Notes of the 880831 meeting, were
370505 - affirmed. ref SDS 3 9402
370506 -
370507 - Performance will be monitored on the first pour to evaluate and decide
370508 - adjustments on subsequent pours.
370510 -  ..
370511 - Jeff will issue a revised written procedure on this matter.
370512 -
370513 -
370515 -  ..
370516 - Water spraying Embedded Equipment during Concreting
370517 -
370518 - This requirement was affirmed as shown in the Notes of 880831
370519 - meeting. ref SDS 3 2280
370520 -
370521 - Sletten will arrange to perform this work.  It may turn out to be
370522 - unnecessary if the DTL does not "overheat."
370524 -  ..
370525 - Jeff said this will be determined during the pour.
370527 -  ..
370528 - It was agreed that this information satisfies Sletten's request on
370529 - this matter in its letter L205, item (3).
370530 -
370531 -
370533 -  ..
370534 - Vibrating concrete around Voith Equipment
370535 -
370536 - The contractor can vibrate concrete between the rows of mudlugs.
370537 -
370538 - Vibrator operations should stay 1 foot away from mudlugs, from the
370539 - Draft Tube Liner itself, and from any rebar attached to either the
370540 - mudlegs or the DTL.
370541 -
370542 -
370543 -
370544 -
3706 -

SUBJECTS
Schedule
Voith Contract
Coordination

3905 -
390601 -  ..
390602 - Voith Start Date Changed to 881015 by Sletten Delayed Concrete Pour
390603 -
390604 - Bill Merriman advised that in light of delayed concrete pour for the
390605 - DTL work, discussed above, ref SDS 0 6174, the 881003 date set at the
390606 - progress meeting last week on 880831, ref SDS 3 6829, cannot be met.
390607 - It now appears that 881015 is a more likely date when Voith can begin,
390608 - for the following reasons...
390609 -
390611 -      ..
390612 -     Sletten Clarifies Voith will have "Area" to Begin Work
390613 -     Structure Backfill Needed to Permit Voith Installing Equip
390614 -
390615 -     Bill explained his intent last week was to indicate that Sletten's
390616 -     interior concrete work would have progressed sufficiently to
390617 -     provide an "area" for the Voith contract operations to begin; but
390618 -     he did not intend to convey that the backfill would be completed
390619 -     in sufficient amount to provide an adequate crane staging area
390620 -     which is needed to support Voith's work.
390621 -
390623 -      ..
390624 -     Crane Pad for Voith Equip Installation Needs Backfilling
390625 -
390626 -     Bill asked whether Sletten would be permitted to backfill to
390627 -     elevation 3940 before the structural slab at elev 3950 is
390628 -     completed?
390629 -
390630 -     Jeff indicated this is acceptable provided the concrete strength
390631 -     is 4000 psi; with an accelerator, this should be achieved in 3
390632 -     days.
390634 -      ..
390635 -     Bill said that based on this criteria, Sletten can complete the
390636 -     backfill to elevation 3940 by 881015, allowing for a 5 day cure on
390637 -     the walls.
390638 -
390640 -  ..
390641 - Voith Delayed Start
390642 -
390643 - Jeff advised that Voith may wish to delay starting work for its own
390644 - convenience.
390645 -
390646 - Bill Merriman suggested that the Engineer discuss with Voith the
390647 - possibility of delaying the start of its contract work until the end
390648 - of October.  This would permit Sletten to reduce its cost of
390649 - acceleration which Sletten expects to recoup through claims from the
390650 - State.
390652 -  ..
390653 - Jeff explained that since Voith must complete by a fixed date, it
390654 - would have to incur acceleration cost in the Field operations if it
390655 - delayed the start date.  So, the issue for Voith is whether any extra
390656 - expense it may incur to meet the contract start date, is greater than
390657 - the acceleration costs resulting from a delayed start.
390659 -  ..
390660 - Additionally, Voith may already be too committed to revise its
390661 - manufacturing operations to benefit from a relaxed start date.
390663 -  ..
390664 - Bill Merriman recommended that despite these uncertainties the
390665 - Engineer should pursue these inquiries in light of the potential to
390666 - reduce Sletten's acceleration claim.
390668 -  ..
390669 - Jeff will do this, but wants to review Sletten's updated Schedule
390670 - being prepared by Terry, ref SDS 0 8205, in order to assess the
390671 - viability of completion dates discussed at the meeting today.
390673 -  ..
390674 - Since Sletten will have a draft ready for review tomorrow, Jeff can
390675 - use it to evaluate this coordination.
390677 -  ..
390678 - Jeff will then contact Voith about Bill's suggestion.
390679 -
390680 -
390681 -
390682 -
390683 -
390684 -
3907 -

SUBJECTS
Draft Tube Liner Constrction

4303 -
430401 -  ..
430402 - Voith Completed Corrective Work on DTL Damaged by Sletten
430403 -
430404 - Alignment work is completed today.
430405 -
430406 - Sletten to hire a surveyor to survey the DTL prior to the pour on
430407 - Saturday in order to establish the final alignment valuations
430408 - achieved by Voith.
430410 -  ..
430411 - They expect to do this on Friday, 880909.
430412 -
430413 -
430415 -  ..
430416 - Production welding Mostly Completed
430417 -
430418 - Sletten must do the 1" x 3/16" weld on the mud lugs noted below.
430420 -  ..
430421 - Welding Procedures Mud lugs Accepted by Voith
430422 -
430423 - Jeff advised Voith has accepted following alternate procedures:
430424 -
430425 -   Weld one side with 1/2" fillet.
430426 -
430427 -   Weld the other side with 1" long x 3/16" fillet.
430428 -
430429 - ..
430430 - It was agreed this information satisfied Sletten's request
430431 - pertaining to this matter in its letter L205, item (1).
430432 -
430433 -
430435 -  ..
430436 - Welding Rebar to Mud lugs Approved
430437 -
430438 - Jeff advised the Contractor may do this.
430439 -
430440 - It was agreed this information satisfied Sletten's request
430441 - pertaining to this matter in its letter L205, item (2).
430442 -
430443 -
430444 -
430445 -
430446 -
4305 -

SUBJECTS
Draft Tube Liner Dispute

4903 -
490401 -  ..
490402 - Engineer's Decision on DTL Tolerance Issue Submitted to Sletten
490403 -
490404 - Bill said today that he did not make the statement on why Sletten did
490405 - not install spider bracing to assemble the DTL, as reported in the
490406 - record on 880824. ref SDS 2 9904
490408 -  ..
490409 - As a result, he was asked today why Sletten did not install bracing on
490410 - the DTL pipe?
490412 -  ..
490413 - Bill advised that the DTL was assembled in the manner Sletten believed
490414 - was appropriate and they believed that bracing was not needed.
490416 -  ..
490417 - Since this explanation appears to substantially align with prior
490418 - understandings from the meeting on 880824, ref SDS 2 9904, the
490419 - Engineer's decision based on the prior understanding was unchanged.
490421 -  ..
490422 - Therefore, at the conclusion of the meeting today, the Engineer's
490423 - decision, ref OF 8 0001, on this matter was given to Sletten,
490424 - responding to Sletten's request for determination in its letter L205,
490425 - item (4).
490426 -
490427 -
490428 -
490429 -
490430 -
490431 -
4905 -

SUBJECTS
Submittals
8" Drain Pipe System
Geotextile Wrap

5005 -
500601 -  ..
500602 - Engineer Advises on Geotextile Wrap for Drain System
500603 -
500604 - Discussed Sletten's letter L203, ref 9, asking for a decision on
500605 - "perameter dimensions for the Geotextile wrap at the 8" drainage pipe
500606 - system."
500608 -  ..
500609 - Jeff advised a discussion took place some time ago with Doug Stratton
500610 - in which he indicated that the dimensions sought by Sletten are not
500611 - "critical" and therefore Sletten may order the material based upon
500612 - availability.
500614 -  ..
500615 - It was agreed this information satisfied Sletten's request pertaining
500616 - to this matter in its letter L203, ref 9.
500617 -
500618 -
5007 -

SUBJECTS
Welding Payment Claim
Pay Item 34

5104 -
510501 -  ..
510502 - Pit Pier Pipe Chase Information on Sletten's Change Request
510503 -
510504 - Discussed Sletten's letter L207, ref 10, asking for a decision on
510505 - Sletten's claim for "...$7,632.00 and the addition of 2 days to the
510506 - contract" to perform field welding on the pipe chase on the grounds
510507 - that it was intended to be shop welded by others.
510509 -  ..
510510 - Jeff explained that he approved payment to Sletten for welding this
510511 - item under pay item 34.  Therefore, there is no basis for extra
510512 - payment.  He further explained that the quantity for welding in
510513 - connection with this matter is actually unchanged, because the portion
510514 - that was added was offset by a corresponding reduction on the same
510515 - work item, reflecting a design adjustment.
510517 -  ..
510518 - Paul asked whether Jeff has prepared a breakdown showing how the total
510519 - quantity of welding under this item was determined so Sletten can
510520 - verify the Engineer's position.  Jeff indicated he has done this and
510521 - will make the calculations available to Sletten.
510523 -  ..
510524 - Paul explained Sletten's position that this work should be compensated
510525 - as extra work rather than pay item 34.  One of the grounds he cited is
510526 - that the character of this work is inherently more difficult than the
510527 - welding that was eliminated.
510529 -  ..
510530 - Jeff agreed the Engineer should consider a claim on this basis.
510532 -  ..
510533 - Sletten will submit its calculations showing the increase in cost of
510534 - performance attributable to increased difficulty.
510535 -
510536 -
510537 -
5106 -

SUBJECTS
Backfill Concrete
Pay Item #24

5204 -
520501 -  ..
520502 - Sletten Requests Consideration of Backfill Claim Pay Item #24
520503 -
520504 - Bill Merriman asked the Engineer to reconsider its position on this
520505 - matter, as discussed in the 880831 meeting. ref SDS 3 0027
520507 -  ..
520508 - Jeff explained that the contract call for payment to the plan line
520509 - shown in the plans, and any changes approved by the Engineer, rather
520510 - than to the actual excavation line, and further that this pay item was
520511 - intended to apply to a particular location on the site where it was
520512 - expected that unsuitable material would have to be removed; but, since
520513 - this turned out not to be necessary, then there is no basis for any
520514 - additional payment.
520516 -  ..
520517 - Bill asked how the Engineer determines the Backfill Concrete pay item
520518 - was intended solely for this purpose?
520520 -  ..
520521 - Jeff noted the quantity computed from the dimensions shown on the
520522 - plans for the anticipated unsuitable material area is comparable to
520523 - the quantity shown for pay item 24.
520525 -  ..
520526 - Bill indicated that Sletten did not recognize that relationship in
520527 - bidding the job.  He noted there is no language or other comment that
520528 - alerted Sletten to this intent and so it did not draw the conclusion
520529 - in submitting its bid, that the Engineer apparently intended to
520530 - convey.
520532 -  ..
520533 - He feels that since Sletten's interpretation is reasonable, the
520534 - Engineer should permit payment for Backfill Concrete.
520536 -  ..
520537 - Jeff pointed out that Sletten has excavated beyond the plan lines to a
520538 - degree not warranted by conditions of the work.
520540 -  ..
520541 - Rod Welch asked what would protect the owner from negligent or
520542 - deliberate overexcavation by the contractor under Sletten's standard
520543 - of bidding interpretation?
520545 -  ..
520546 - Bill indicated Sletten will review this matter further and submit more
520547 - information to assist the Engineer in making an equitable
520548 - determination.
520550 -  ..
520551 - Jeff agreed that the Engineer will accept additional information from
520552 - Sletten to support its position, so that the matter can be resolved in
520553 - a manner that is fair to both the State and Sletten.
520554 -
520555 -
520556 -
520557 -
520558 -
520559 -
520560 -
520561 -
520562 -
520563 -
520564 -
520565 -
520566 -
5206 -