THE WELCH COMPANY
440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111-2496
415 781 5700
S U M M A R Y
DIARY: September 19, 1988 08:30 AM .......;
Worked at BPP on Dispute resolution, Schedule Update Voith Contract.
2...Voith Field Superintendent Notes Support Tudor's DTL Instructions
3...Ken Carlson Support's Tudor's Instructions to Sletten on DTL
4...Paul Robinson Reports Planning Meeting on DTL Installation
5...Draft Tube Dispute Notify Sletten to Submit Evidence
6...Schedule Proposal Resolve Acceleration and Liquidated Damage Claims
7...Time Extensions Not Supported by Sletten's Schedule
8...Sletten Argues its Schedule is Not a CPM, there is No Critical Path
9...Sletten Claims Added 8 Days for Cadwelding on Curb Ring
10...Rip Rap Placement
12...Reviewed Silt Barriar with Jeff; Needs Work ASAP
13...Sletten Maintains it Has Not Prepared CPM Schedule
14...Triangular Metal Fabrication, 4 day time extension
15...Claim for Backfill Concrete
Click here to comment!
0403 - ..
0404 - Summary/Objective
040501 - Follow up ref SDS 3 0000, ref SDS 2 0000.
040503 - Paul Robinson came by this morning to visit. I requested a list of
040504 - documents which Sletten's records show are pending response from the
040505 - Engineer.
040507 - ..
040508 - Decided to meet and review this tomorrow.
Draft Tube Dispute Defective work by Sletten showing inexperience
060401 - ..
060402 - Voith Field Superintendent Notes Support Tudor's DTL Instructions
060404 - Received from Ken Carlson an extract he wrote out from his Diary of
060405 - contacts he had with Sletten's work force during installation of the
060406 - Pit Pier and the DTL.
060408 - [See below discussion with Ken. ref SDS 0 0861]
060410 - ..
060411 - This seems to support Tudor's instructions to Sletten, and shows that
060412 - Voith's letter on 880912 prepared by Greg Snyder misrepresents the
060413 - record on this matter, per analysis on 880915. ref SDS 3 7650
060415 - [See below discussion with Ken. ref SDS 0 0861]
060417 - [See below for Sletten's recollection on this. ref SDS 0 7458]
060419 - ..
060420 - [On 880920 revised DTL findings. ref SDS 4]
060423 - ..
0608 - Greg Snyder's letter
060901 - Jeff said he agreed with analysis on 880915, ref SDS 3 4829, of
060902 - Voith's letter on 880912, as set out in the letter to Tudor on 880916.
060903 - ref DIP 1 2502
060905 - ..
060906 - Jeff requested a follow up call to Greg Snyder, Voith's program
060907 - manager in Ohio, to discuss issues raised in analysis Greg's letter.
060910 - ..
060911 - Proposed calling Greg about recollections of the .010 tolerances Voith
060912 - presented for Sletten to assemble the Draft Tube Liner (DTL), and
060913 - further noted that other issues on strengthening accuracy of Voith's
060914 - communications are less amenable to mere telephone discussion.
060916 - ..
060917 - Tudor needs to "improve" communications with Voith immediately through
060918 - a management meeting, otherwise "miscommunication" for expediency to
060919 - gain momentary advantage, rather than accuracy will continue. This
060920 - meeting needs to be organized with an agenda and conducted by someone
060921 - who knows contract management, and has command of the facts in this
060922 - case, including project schedule requirements.
060924 - ..
060925 - Jeff advised that a meeting cannot be arranged because Tudor managers
060926 - in San Francisco do not want to pressure Voith in performing contract
060927 - requirements. He explained that Tudor senior management feels they
060928 - have strong, effective working relationship with senior people at
060929 - Voith, which resulted in Voith getting the contract for Broadwater
060930 - Dam. Apparently this relationship is long standing, and Voith helped
060931 - Tudor specify the hydro equipment work, which gave them the inside
060932 - track on getting the contract now at issue. Jeff indicated that Tudor
060933 - management in San Francisco has other deals in the works with Voith,
060934 - and does not want any disruptions. They plan discuss Broadwater as
060935 - part of other matters in ongoing communications.
060937 - ..
060938 - Recommended that Tudor confirm verbal understandings with Voith in
060939 - writing, with copies to the State. The State can then decide on
060940 - whether to incur extra expense resulting from misrepresentations and
060941 - failure to perform contract requirements, including claims by Sletten
060942 - on the tolerance issue for the DTL.
060944 - ..
060945 - Jeff said that Tudor management does not like feedback putting
060946 - communications in writing, except when both sides agree on content in
060947 - order to minimize controversy. Tudor senior executives like to work
060948 - by conversation to expedite with wriggle room to avoid disputes.
060950 - [On 880921 reviewed urgency of taking action with Tudor's VP,
060951 - Clyde Earnest. ref SDS 5 8526]
060953 - ..
060954 - [On 890324 Clyde explained Tudor practice to avoid accountability
060955 - in order to expedite getting things done. ref SDS 7 8R97
Draft Tube Dispute Tolerance Requirements Voith notice to Tudor
080401 - ..
080402 - Ken Carlson Support's Tudor's Instructions to Sletten on DTL
080404 - Ken feels Greg's letter is incorrect with respect to discussions that
080405 - occurred on 880816. He said Voith confirmed the valuations in Tudor's
080406 - 880803 Determination during the teleon of 880816.
080408 - [On 880920 revised DTL findings. ref SDS 4]
080410 - ..
080411 - Ken said that he informed Jeff that Voith required the tolerances
080412 - shown in the Engineer's Determination issued, 880803, ref 5. He
080413 - explained that Voith management felt that it would be prudent to
080414 - demand more stringent tolerances from the Contractor than were
080415 - necessary. Voith felt that this maneuver would most likely result in
080416 - achieving the actual tolerances needed. Voith believed that if the
080417 - Contractor believed its true objective was to construct to .030
080418 - tolerances (the actual required tolerances), then the likely result
080419 - would be inadequate; whereas, if the Contractor strove for a higher
080420 - goal, then missing it might result in achieving what was needed.
080421 - ..
080422 - It appears that Jeff was at all times unaware of Voith's true
080423 - position. He was consulting and relying in good faith on Ken, and Ken
080424 - was being instructed by Voith management.
Draft Tube Dispute Assembly, Failure to follow Instructions
090401 - ..
090402 - Paul Robinson Reports Planning Meeting on DTL Installation
090404 - Paul pointed out that a meeting occurred in Helena between Voith's
090405 - Ken Carlson, Craig Stenson, Tudor and Sletten management following
090406 - assembly of the DTL in May.
090408 - [On 880920 revised DTL findings. ref SDS 4]
090410 - ..
090411 - Paul recalls that Voith maintained during the meeting that the
090412 - procedures used by Sletten were adequate. He indicated that the
090413 - matters of rolling the unit, assembling in vertical segments and
090414 - installing spiders were represented by Voith management (Craig
090415 - Stenson and Ken Carlson) as not critical to installation.
090417 - ..
090418 - Paul will try to obtain a record of the meeting.
090420 - ..
090421 - Paul said that Sletten's mechanic, Art Harding, has informed Sletten
090422 - management that, when Voith's representative, Fred Gross, left the job
090423 - in May, 1988, he was satisfied with Art's work assembling the Draft
090424 - Tube Liner (DTL).
090426 - ..
090427 - Jeff asked Paul to submit a statement from Art on his recollections.
Draft Tube Dispute Settlement Discussions
100401 - ..
100402 - Draft Tube Dispute Notify Sletten to Submit Evidence
100404 - I gave Paul a copy of Voith's reports for 880826 and 880906.
100406 - ..
100407 - Explained the Engineer will need evidence that Sletten's bidding
100408 - conclusions were reasonable with respect to:
100410 - Tolerance requirements for Voith Embedded Equipment
100412 - The duty to install Equipment pursuant to Manufacturer's
100413 - instructions permits ignoring verbal recommendations of Field
100414 - Representatives, and relying solely on written instructions.
100417 - ..
100418 - Paul asked about Sletten's potential grounds of recovery.
100420 - ..
100421 - I suggested the following areas which may permit the Engineer to
100422 - approve extra payment:
100424 - Reasonable cost to perform according to instructions that exceeded
100425 - the cost of performing under procedures that would ordinarily be
100426 - assumed from the BPP contract bidding specification.
100428 - ..
100429 - I encouraged Sletten to offer evidence on this issue, or alterna-
100430 - tively to point out other grounds the Engineer should apply to
100431 - recognize entitlement.
Schedule Time Extensions Updated Schedule
120401 - ..
120402 - Schedule Proposal Resolve Acceleration and Liquidated Damage Claims
120404 - Paul Robinson came by for discussions.
120406 - ..
120407 - Paul asked if the State would be interested in an arrangement where
120408 - Sletten would complete the work in accordance with the 880914
120409 - understandings, (e.g. Voith Contract work would commence on 881015),
120410 - and waive entitlement for time related claims (e.g. acceleration), in
120411 - exchange for the State waiving interest in liquidated damage claims.
120413 - ..
120414 - I asked Paul how Sletten could do this in light of its position that
120415 - an additional 8 days is needed to perform cadwelding on the Curb Ring
120416 - (see discussion below)? He indicated Sletten could figure out how to
120417 - do this.
120419 - ..
120420 - I explained any such agreement would require adequate Schedule data
120421 - to indicate the objectives are viable.
120423 - ..
120424 - I suggested we meet Wednesday, 880921, so that Sletten could offer
120425 - information showing it can perform the proposed schedule commitments.
Schedule Time Extensions Updated Schedule Not CPM
140401 - ..
140402 - Time Extensions Not Supported by Sletten's Schedule
140403 - Sletten Argues its Schedule is Not a CPM, there is No Critical Path
140405 - Paul Robinson and Dave Marsh both said today that Sletten's Schedule
140406 - Update (dated 880905) is not a "CPM" and that the markings on the
140407 - Schedule that show what is generally accepted within the industry as
140408 - the "critical path" are not in fact the critical work.
140410 - ..
140411 - This discussion was in connection with a request by Sletten that the
140412 - Engineer direct Gracon to vacate an area where Sletten intends to
140413 - place rip rap; and further regarding a claim for an additional 8 days
140414 - to construct the Curb Ring due to the addition of cadwelding.
140416 - ..
140417 - Sletten's Schedule shows Rip Rap will be performed in December, so it
140418 - cannot be a critical activity to Curb Ring construction which Sletten
140419 - schedules to be completed prior to 881015. Therefore more time for
140420 - rip rap approved by the Engineer cannot influence time extensions for
140421 - Curb Ring work that must be performed in time to avoid delaying
140422 - another contractor, as called out in the contract, and previously
140423 - approved schedules.
140425 - ..
140426 - Paul feels the Engineer cannot use Sletten's Schedule to evaluate the
140427 - critical nature of time extensions.
140429 - [On 880927 Paul Robinson objects to the Engineer's letter
140430 - confirming Sletten's explanation in the meeting today that the
140431 - Engineer cannot rely on Sletten's schedule. ref SDS 6 6H8L
140433 - ..
140434 - There was discussion that the Contractor has to demonstrate through
140435 - competent evidence entitlement to additional time. If the schedule
140436 - supplied by the Contractor does not disclose relevant information, as
140437 - maintained today, then the Engineer will have no basis to approve time
140438 - extensions.
140440 - ..
140441 - Contract requirements for scheduling inform both the Engineer and the
140442 - Contractor of when work activities are expected to occur, so they can
140443 - plan allocation of forces and other matters affected by contract
140444 - performance. Sletten's explanation of its CPM schedule today,
140445 - indicate failure to perform these requirements.
140447 - [Below Paul requests time extension for more work that is not on
140448 - the critical path in the Sletten CPM schedule. ref SDS 0 7399
Curb Ring, Cadwelding, Time Extension
160501 - ..
160502 - Sletten Claims Added 8 Days for Cadwelding on Curb Ring
160504 - Paul advised that Sletten expects cadwelding to require an additional
160505 - 8 work days relative to the duration of the Curb Ring shown on
160506 - Sletten's Schedule of 880905. This was in connection with a letter
160507 - requesting a time extension submitted within the past few days.
160509 - ..
160510 - I noted that this position appears to conflict with Sletten's
160511 - representations during the meeting 880914. ref SDS 2 0026
200501 - ..
200502 - Rip Rap Placement
200504 - Dave Marsh
200506 - Called Dave Marsh about Sletten's 880912 letter demanding that the
200507 - Engineer require Gracon to vacate an area where Sletten (subcontractor
200508 - Swan) is to place rip rap. Sletten contends its lack of access to
200509 - this area is delaying the work. Dave indicated the Subcontractor
200510 - intended to begin work on 880912.
200512 - ..
200513 - We reviewed Sletten's Schedule showing this work is to be performed in
200514 - December, not September. Jeff discussed the schedule with Swan's
200515 - representative last week and was informed they did not intend to
200516 - proceed in the manner described in Sletten's letter. Additionally,
200517 - Sletten cannot perform this work until they obtain approval for the
200518 - silt barriar specified as required prior to commencment of work in the
200519 - river, as involved in this case.
200521 - ..
200522 - Dave said the Schedule is not a CPM. He said Swan will begin when
200523 - Sletten directs them to begin; and contended the Engineer should not
200524 - hold independent discussions with Sletten's subcontractor's. (see also
200525 - discussion below under "Jeff").
200527 - ..
200528 - Dave evidentally feels Jeff's suggestions warrant a "change order."
200530 - ..
200531 - I asked explained that Tudor does not have a change order in mind, but
200532 - rather is coordinating the work so that each contractor is not impeded
200533 - by the work of others. I asked Dave to submit a claim as soon as
200534 - possible, if Sletten is damaged.
200536 - ..
200537 - Dave was concerned about this. He explained that his letter of 880915
200538 - was his notice of claim. I tried to point out that the notice is
200539 - defective in light of the information available. Dave said Sletten's
200540 - Schedule is erroneous and he hasn't had time to correct it, but will
200541 - as soon as possible to show the winter work and other things that
200542 - demonstrate his point about the importance of doing the Rip Rap
200543 - activity in September instead of December, as shown in the Schedule.
200546 - ..
200547 - Silt Barrier
200549 - Dave said Sletten's silt barrier program for work in the river will be
200550 - delivered today. He believes Sletten should be able to proceed
200551 - without the approval of the affected State Agency.
200553 - ..
200554 - I asked how this could be done?
200556 - ..
200557 - Dave indicated that Sletten has already made this submittal and so any
200558 - delay due to the present submittal obligation is due to the Engineer.
200560 - ..
200561 - I asked him to furnish Slettens records of its prior submittal.
200563 - ..
200564 - Hopefully this will expedite the process.
200566 - ..
200567 - Dave will do this.
200570 - ..
200571 - Reviewed Silt Barriar with Jeff; Needs Work ASAP
200573 - Jeff wants to do this work as soon as possible. He asked Sletten
200574 - in a letter of 880912 to submit a plan for performing the work,
200575 - and offered some sequencing factors for consideration in
200576 - formulating their plans.
200578 - ..
200579 - One of Jeff's concerns is that he will direct Gracon to revise its
200580 - operations needlessly, since Swan has indicated to him that it did
200581 - not intend to proceed in the manner claimed by Sletten.
200583 - ..
200584 - Paul Robinson
200586 - ..
200587 - Paul met with Jeff and I on this.
200589 - ..
200590 - After some discussion, Paul will meet with Jeff tomorrow to evaluate
200591 - the area in question to work out a coordination plan.
220601 - ..
220602 - Sletten Maintains it Has Not Prepared CPM Schedule
220603 - Triangular Metal Fabrication, 4 day time extension
220605 - Paul explained that work on triangular metal fabrication was critical
220606 - because it was installed in a location where other critical work was
220607 - dependant on its completion.
220609 - ..
220610 - We looked at Sletten's CPM schedule, per above. ref SDS 0 9291
220612 - ..
220613 - Triangular metal fabrication is not on the critical path in Sletten's
220614 - schedule.
220616 - ..
220617 - Paul explained that Sletten's Schedule is not a CPM. He explained
220618 - that markings which give the appearance of the "critical path," and
220619 - seem to comprise the shortest continuous timeline through the schedule
220620 - is not the actual critical path for the work. Paul explained that
220621 - Sletten does not intend for the Engineer to base decisions about time
220622 - extensions on the Updated Schedule. He further maintained that
220623 - despite this fact, Sletten can demonstrate that the claimed 4 days was
220624 - critical to completion.
220626 - [On 880927 Paul Robinson objects to the Engineer's letter
220627 - confirming Sletten's explanation in the meeting today that the
220628 - Engineer cannot rely on Sletten's schedule. ref SDS 6 6H8L
220630 - ..
220631 - Jeff advised that Tudor will consider additional information on
220632 - Sletten's claim for 4 more days to complete the project.
220634 - ..
220635 - Paul asked what information is required for approval?
220637 - ..
220638 - Sletten can offer an amended Schedule to demonstrate entitlement to 4
220639 - days time extension due to delays performing work on triangular metal
220640 - fabrication. If the Engineer accepts the revised schedule for
220641 - approving Sletten's claim for time extension on this matter, the
220642 - Engineer will further rely on the same schedule for coordinating the
220643 - work, and evaluating other time extension claims, per discussion
220644 - above. ref SDS 0 O936
220646 - ..
220647 - Jeff feels Sletten's decision to award this work to its supplier,
220648 - Metelna may have been flawed because they are located in Europe.
220650 - ..
220651 - Paul explained this decision was intended to ensure that the new item
220652 - would be compatible with adjacent and integrated equipment.
220653 - ..
220654 - Jeff does not share Paul's concern but indicated that he is
220655 - unsure whether he would have made a different decision, if he had been
220656 - given the opportunity to pass on the matter.
220658 - ..
220659 - Paul explained that Jeff, as the Engineer, approved payment for the
220660 - added work under Misc. Metal which resulted in payment to Sletten
220661 - above what it expected based on the added cost it incurred. He feels
220662 - Sletten is still entitled to extra time because the additional payment
220663 - is less than the liquidated damage cost of 4 days lost time.
220665 - ..
220666 - I suggested Paul submit the explanation of why he decided to award the
220667 - work to a vendor in Europe rather than obtain it locally; and further
220668 - Sletten should show how the delay it incurred affected the completion
220669 - of the job, that is, demonstrate it is on the critical path of the
220670 - work.
220671 - ..
220672 - Paul said he will do this right away.
Payment Backfill Concrete
Notice to Contractor
to Submit Claim
240601 - ..
240602 - Claim for Backfill Concrete
240604 - Paul plans to meet with Jeff tomorrow to survey the drill holes for
240605 - determining the amount of overexcavation