CONTACTS 
0201 - Dep Natrl Rscrs & Consvn                                                                                                                                       O-00000395 0102
020101 - Mr. Wayne Wetzel
020102 - Mr. Walt Anderson; Hydro Power Section Supervisor
020103 - Engineering Bureau  fax 406 444 0533
020104 - Mr. Mike Sims                                                                                                                                                    O-00000395 0203
020105 - Plant Superintendent
020106 - Engineering Bureau  fax 406 444 0533
020107 - Mr. Rick Bondy; Chief; Engineering Bureau  fax 406 444 0533                                                                                                      O-00000395 0205
020108 - Ms. Sarah Ann Bond, Esquire
020109 - Department Counsel
020110 - Mr. Gary Fritz; Administrator
0202 - Power Field Services, Inc.                                                                                                                                         O-00000255 0201
020201 - Mr. Dave O'Day, P.E.; Project Manager                                                                                                                            O-00000395 0701

SUBJECTS
Voith Contract Closeout
Engineering Management
Failure to Perform, General Notice to Voith
Submit Shop Drawings for approval, review
Meeting Procedures, Transcripts
Case Study Broadwater

1008 -
1008 -    ..
1009 - Summary/Objective
1010 -
101001 - Follow up ref SDS 18 0000.
101002 -
101003 - This meeting was to get the results from the York meeting, relative to
101004 - the objectives set out at ref SDS 6 0000.
101005 -
101006 -    Dave O'Day submitted his notes from the York meeting, ref DRT 1
101007 -    0000.
101009 -     ..
101010 -    Walt's notes will be available tomorrow.
101011 -
101013 -     ..
101014 -    Follow Up
101015 -
101016 -    Wayne requested a list of things to do and assignments to proceed
101017 -    following the York meeting.
101018 -
101020 -  ..
101021 - Transcribed Notes
101022 -
101023 - Dave advised that DNRC's side requested a note taker which Voith
101024 - supplied for the two (2) days of meetings in York.
101025 -
101026 -    It was unclear from the meeting today when Voith is required to
101027 -    submit the transcript of the meetings, and whether there was a
101028 -    request for a copy of the original notes.
101030 -     ..
101031 -    Follow Up
101032 -
101033 -    Consideration will be given to demand a copy of the transcribed
101034 -    notes to see if they differ in any material way with the under-
101035 -    standings reflected by meeting notes prepared by Power and DNRC.  A
101036 -    copy of the note taker's original notes are also needed for record
101037 -    purposes.
101038 -
101040 -  ..
101041 - Speed Increaser Shop Drawings
101042 -
101043 - Dave reported that Voith did not provide the SI shop drawings as it
101044 - promised to do in requesting DNRC attend the meeting in York.
101045 -
101047 -     ..
101048 -    Voith's Persistent Failure to Perform
101049 -
101050 -    There was initial discussion today of the post-award Submittal
101051 -    Schedule meeting on Nov 3, 1987 at Tudor's office in San Francisco,
101052 -    in which Renk shows in a document dated Sep 8, 1987 that the speed
101053 -    increaser "shop drawings" would be submitted on Feb 3, 1988 (see
101054 -    ref OF 1 3988).  Voith was required to submit these shop drawings
101055 -    but did not do so and the majority of submittals it did make on the
101056 -    speed increaser are dated Feb 15, 1989, 3 months after the speed
101057 -    increaser was delivered to the job.  Such submittals were
101058 -    thereafter rejected on Mar 28, 1989, and there is no record they
101059 -    have been revised, re-submitted and approved. ref OF 2  See review
101060 -    in the record on 911116. ref SDS 2 4912
101062 -     ..
101063 -    There was also consideration today that Voith represented in its
101064 -    letter of July 29, 1991 that the design for the replacement speed
101065 -    increaser would be completed on or about Sep 7, 1991, and that
101066 -    Voith later promised in a supplemental Agreement on Sep 3, 1991 to
101067 -    submit on or about Nov 15, 1991 shop drawings showing the speed
101068 -    increaser complies with the contract.
101070 -     ..
101071 -    Voith failed to perform these promises.
101073 -     ..
101074 -    DNRC demanded in a letter of Nov 21, 1991 that Voith submit by Dec
101075 -    5, 1991 the shop drawings for the original speed increaser (due on
101076 -    Feb 3, 1988), and that Voith also submit shop drawings for Voith's
101077 -    proposed corrective work.  Voith failed to perform this demand; but
101078 -    instead on Dec 5, 1991 Voith promised to fulfill its contract and
101079 -    proposed a meeting on speed increaser shop drawings.  On Dec 13,
101080 -    1991, ref SDS 7 0758, DNRC Deputy Director agreed to meet with
101081 -    Voith for the following purpose, stating:
101082 -
101083 -         ... that DNRC will meet with Voith's technical engineers in
101084 -         Germany, York, PA, or such other location as may expedite the
101085 -         timely review of all relevant information.  Wayne requested
101086 -         that this be done as soon as possible and for as long as
101087 -         necessary (e.g. a day, a week, two weeks).  Greg suggested
101088 -         meeting at Voith's office in York.  Voith will provide all
101089 -         shop drawing information and make available such working areas
101090 -         and administrative support as the parties require to make a
101091 -         professional review of the speed increaser design sufficient
101092 -         to show Voith's proposed design meets the contract.
101093 -
101095 -  ..
101096 - Voith Did Not Submit Speed Increaser Shop Drawings
101097 -
101098 - Dave advised that Voith represented at the York meeting that despite
101099 - being an experienced hydro electric contractor, and despite having bid
101100 - to perform the requirements in the contract specifications, and
101101 - despite having committed to submit shop drawings on Feb 3, 1988 and on
101102 - numerous occasions thereafter, that Voith did not provide the shop
101103 - drawings at the Jan 14, 1992 meeting in York, because Voith did not
101104 - know what shop drawings to submit that would show its work complies
101105 - with the contract.  Voith advised that it left the shop drawings in
101106 - Germany, even though DNRC had agreed to go to Germany if that is where
101107 - the shop drawings are located.
101108 -
101109 -
101111 -  ..
101112 - Dave advised that at the Jan 14, 1992 meeting in York, Voith alleged
101113 - that DNRC from whom Voith has at all times withheld its shop drawings,
101114 - should somehow have told Voith which specific shop drawings to bring
101115 - to the meeting.  Voith's allegation conflicts with the purpose of the
101116 - meeting as stated in the Dec 13, 1991 telephone call that Voith was to
101117 - bring "all shop drawing information" to the meeting so DNRC and its
101118 - representatives could determine which shop drawings were needed,
101119 -
101120 -
101122 -  ..
101123 - Voith Promised to Submit Speed Increaser Shop Drawings
101124 -
101125 - Dave advised that despite Voith's failure to perform, Voith strongly
101126 - maintained at the Jan 14, 1991 meeting that it would submit the speed
101127 - increaser shop drawings and intended to complete its contract with
101128 - DNRC, 1189.1.
101130 -  ..
101131 - Dave explained that in order to assist Voith, Power submitted to Voith
101132 - on Jan 15, 1991 a drawing list (prepared with Geartech's assistance)
101133 - based upon representations by Voith that Voith would comply with GC
101134 - 6.7.2, 6.7.3 and other applicable submittal contract provisions.
101135 -
101137 -  ..
101138 - Voith Admits Knowing Scope of Shop Drawings Needed for SI
101139 -
101140 - After Power submitted a list of proposed shop drawings for Voith to
101141 - submit, Voith objected to the scope of the list and stated that Voith
101142 - would determine which shop drawings to send for review by the
101143 - Engineer.  This record indicates that Voith has at all times known
101144 - what shop drawings to submit, but has at all times refused to do so.
101145 -
101147 -     ..
101148 -    Submittal Dates to be Confirmed
101149 -
101150 -    Dave indicated there was no requirement set out in Power's letter
101151 -    for the date Voith is to submit the shop drawings.  He explained
101152 -    that there was a verbal understanding that some drawings are to be
101153 -    submitted on January 24, and the balance are due by January 31,
101154 -    1992.
101156 -     ..
101157 -    It was not clear from the discussion today whether these under-
101158 -    standings have been confirmed in writing to Voith.
101159 -
101161 -     ..
101162 -    Follow Up
101163 -
101164 -    Consideration will be given to confirm this state of the record and
101165 -    such verbal understandings that involve any action Voith offers,
101166 -    agrees or is directed to take in connection with the contract.  The
101167 -    record shows Voith does not respond to verbal understandings that
101168 -    are contrary to its view of its interests, but rather has persis-
101169 -    tently and incorrectly attributed its failures to perform to DNRC
101170 -    failures to give Voith adequate notice.
101172 -     ..
101173 -    Therefore, careful attention is needed on matters involving the
101174 -    notice provisions of the contract.
101175 -
101176 -
101177 -
101178 -
1012 -

SUBJECTS
Meetings Productivity Official View of Reality False Memory Rely Con
Replace v. Retrofit, 920120

1804 -
1805 - Discussion
180601 -  ..
180602 - Economic Analysis
180603 -
180604 - Follow up ref SDS 19 8856, ref SDS 18 8851.
180605 -
180606 - During the meeting today, Sarah asked Dave to investigate Tudor's
180607 - 910816 letter, ref DRP 2 0000, on the economic evaluation of
180608 - replacement v. retrofit.
180610 -  ..
180611 - Rick commented that DNRC has already determined that Tudor's 910816
180612 - analysis was inadequate.  Walt asked why further analysis is needed,
180613 - since Rick made a review last August?
180615 -  ..
180616 - Dave with Power Engineering recommended that, based on Rick's
180617 - analysis, DNRC ignore Tudor's report and develop a separate projected
180618 - revenue study for each day of the year.
180619 -
180620 -     [On 920124 Rick explained that his conclusions about the adequacy
180621 -     of Tudor's 910816 letter did not reflect the detailed scheduling
180622 -     and cost information attached to Tudor's report.  He has not seen
180623 -     that information and so has no opinion on it. ref SDS 20 0001
180625 -  ..
180626 - Sarah explained that the department plans to fire Tudor and sue them
180627 - to recover damages for failure to perform.  One of the grounds for
180628 - action is that Tudor's letter on 910816 failed to provide economic
180629 - analysis of Voith's proposal on fixing the speed increasor.  Tudor is
180630 - obligated to provide such professional advice under terms of an
180631 - agreement for engineering services on Broadwater Dam.  While, as Walt
180632 - points out, everyone has been disappointed by Tudor's letter on
180633 - 910816, review this morning found calculations showing present value
180634 - analysis, and detailed work plans of the projected tasks and times in
180635 - a CPM format (which lends credibility that may not be justified) from
180636 - which a calculation of downtime for replacement v. retrofit could be
180637 - useful for weighing the relative risks of options facing DNRC
180638 - management. ref SDS 19 8856, Before the department recommends to the
180639 - Director that the State fire Tudor, and sue them for failure to
180640 - perform, the Legal Department and Executive Office want to get this
180641 - additional information checked by engineering experts to determine if
180642 - Tudor failed to perform, or possibly DNRC overlooked a good faith, and
180643 - professional work product.
180644 -
180645 -          [On 040416 case study cognitive overhead not enough time for
180646 -          diligence perform good management. ref SDS 21 GN7J
180648 -           ..
180649 -          [On 050517 case study researching resistance to diligence
180650 -          investing time for cognitive overhead. ref SDS 22 PY4U
180651 -
180652 -
180654 -     ..
180655 -    Inspection Program
180656 -
180657 -    Dave reported that Geartech recommends a careful inspection program
180658 -    under the retrofit option, of the disassembled speed increaser.
180659 -    Voith raised objections in the York meeting to this on the grounds
180660 -    of extra cost and delay, see Power's report of Jan 23, 1992, ref
180661 -    DRT 2 line 385.
180662 -
180664 -         ..
180665 -        DNRC Insists on Adequate Inspection
180666 -
180667 -        Sarah pointed out that since the prior speed increaser failed,
180668 -        and is admitted to be defective in several respects and since
180669 -        it is an unauthorized substitution, and since Voith appears to
180670 -        have ignored inspection reports on the original speed increaser
180671 -        that it did not meet the specifications, then if Voith feels
180672 -        that retrofit is the best method to meet the contract specifi-
180673 -        cation, DNRC should follow the recommendations of the Engineer
180674 -        on insisting upon full and complete inspection of the disas-
180675 -        sembled unit.  DNRC is now on notice to inspect more carefully
180676 -        than was done with the prior effort.
180677 -        ..
180678 -        This position is consistent with advice from hydro
180679 -        electric engineers, ref SDS 5 line 250, ref SDS 10 line 72 and
180680 -        ref SDS 13 line 89.
180681 -
180683 -     ..
180684 -    Inspection Risks
180685 -    Retrofit Option Delays
180686 -
180687 -    The time required for performing an adequate inspection may extend
180688 -    the period of downtime associated with the retrofit option.  There
180689 -    is also a possibility that inspection will disclose defects that
180690 -    require other repairs and parts which could extend the down time
180691 -    for lost revenue for several weeks or months.
180692 -
180693 -
180695 -  ..
180696 - Follow Up
180697 -
180698 -
180699 -    Verify Lost Revenue Projections
180700 -
180701 -    Sarah will ask Wayne to ask a DNRC person to prepare the daily lost
180702 -    revenue report that Power recommends.
180703 -
180704 -        Consideration should be given to obtain the Engineer's written
180705 -        recommendation on the scope and format for this report.
180706 -
180708 -     ..
180709 -    Install Time to Replace SI
180710 -
180711 -    Tudor seems to show about 2 months are needed for this task, ref
180712 -    DRP 2 lines 66 - 74.  There appears to be no information in the
180713 -    record from Voith on this position.
180714 -
180715 -        Tudor's valuations should be checked against estimates from
180716 -        Voith or some other credible source.
180717 -
180719 -     ..
180720 -    Install Time to Retrofit
180721 -
180722 -    Voith has estimated the downtime for retrofit option from 4 to 5
180723 -    months, ref DRP 1 0000. Tudor estimates downtime from 3 to 6+
180724 -    months. Power's meeting notes indicate inspection tasks on the
180725 -    disassembled unit recommended by Geartech which would further
180726 -    extend the dura- tion of this activity, see ref DRT 1 line 389.
180728 -     ..
180729 -    The Engineer should develop estimates from credible sources on this
180730 -    matter.
180732 -         ..
180733 -        Voith Liability
180734 -
180735 -        Engineer should give Voith notice to submit work plans for
180736 -        retrofit and replacement on which the Owner can rely to
180737 -        evaluate the choice of retrofit or replacement in light of
180738 -        differences in lost revenue time.
180739 -
180740 -
180741 -
180743 -     ..
180744 -    Cost Estimates
180745 -
180746 -    Estimates of cost are needed from Voith for following:
180747 -
180748 -        1.  Replace with new spur gear.
180749 -
180750 -        2.  Replace with double helical gear.
180752 -             ..
180753 -        3.  Retrofit existing gear.
180755 -         ..
180756 -        Note:  Voith was required and remains obligated to submit
180757 -               information on costs of its alternate design under GC
180758 -               6.7.2 and 6.7.3.
180759 -
180761 -     ..
180762 -    Technical Analysis
180763 -
180764 -    Engineering opinions are needed from Voith and the Engineer on
180765 -    merits and risks of items 1 - 3 above, particularly in resolving
180766 -    difficulties cited in the Power report on the York meeting, ref
180767 -    DRT 1 lines 75, 88, 95, 104, 173, 200, 210, 225, 266, 375, 445,
180768 -    455.
180769 -
180770 -
180771 -
180772 -
180773 -
1808 -

SUBJECTS
Voith Contract Closeout
Opinion Contract Requirements,
Industry Standards, 911005
Expert opinions
Admissions by Voith on Defective Work
Notices: Noise/Vibration

2208 -
2209 - Discussion
221001 -  ..
221002 - Dave and Walt reported on the technical information set out in
221003 - Power's report ref DRT 1 0000.
221005 -  ..
221006 - This report focuses mainly on the design considerations and presents
221007 - some management issues with respect to adopting the retrofit option
221008 - for the speed increaser.
221009 -
221010 -    The subjects of this section are treated in the Power's report at
221011 -    ref DRT 1 line 75, 88, 95, 104, 173, 200, 210, 225, 266, 375, 445,
221012 -    455.
221014 -     ..
221015 -    The general impression that emerges from the report is that there
221016 -    remains considerable design work to be done to bring the original
221017 -    design into conformance with contract requirements for the speed
221018 -    increaser.
221019 -
221021 -     ..
221022 -    Follow Up
221023 -
221024 -    The understandings set out in Power's report need to be checked
221025 -    against the meeting transcript prepared by Voith.  If the trans-
221026 -    cript supports the meeting notes, there appear to be some helpful
221027 -    admissions against interest by Voith with respect to DNRC's right
221028 -    to demand a new speed increaser.
221030 -     ..
221031 -    The Engineer should report on the chances of success and likely
221032 -    progress in meeting the concerns raised in the report.
221033 -
221034 -
221035 -
2211 -