CONTACTS 
0201 - Corps of Engineers, SFD                                                                                                                                            O-00000632 0403
020101 - Ms. Monti Jaggers; Contracting Officer
020102 - Contracting Division
0202 - Corps of Engineers, SFD                                                                                                                                            O-00000632 0203
020201 - Mr. Marc McGovern; Civil Engineer, Construction Manager
020202 - Construction Operations Division
0203 - Corps of Engineers, SFD                                                                                                                                            O-00000632 0401
020301 - Mr. Thomas Benero; Chief
0204 - Corps of Engineers, SFD                                                                                                                                            O-00000632 0402
020401 - Ms. Ofelia R. Rosales; Contracting Officer
020402 - Contracting Division
0205 - Corps of Engineers, Sausalito                                                                                                                                      O-00000645 0201
020501 - Mr. Leonard SooHoo, P.E.; Chief; Construction Service Branch

SUBJECTS
Corps of Engineers, SFD, Applications
Obtain Comments on Meeting Notes

0404 -
0404 -    ..
0405 - Summary/Objective
0406 -
040601 - Follow up ref SDS 7 0000, ref SDS 6 0000.
040602 -
040603 - Tom Keesling was not in so I scheduled discussion of pending stuff for
040604 - tomorrow.
040606 -  ..
040607 - Max was tied up in a meeting with Tom Benero, so I will review with
040608 - him the stuff Monti asked about later -- actually, it turned out that
040609 - Marc McGovern got Max's input on the VEP matter before I arrived, per
040610 - below.
040611 -
040613 -  ..
0407 -
0408 -
0409 - Discussion
0410 -
041001 - I gave Tom Benero a copy of the meeting notes from yesterday.
041002 - ref SDS 4 0001
041003 - ..
041004 - Tom was in a meeting, but he let me in for a second to drop off
041005 - the draft and he indicated he would provide comments.
041007 -  ..
041008 - I gave a copy to Monti, and she will have comments later today or in
041009 - the morning.  Monti walked with me to Marc McGovern's office on the
041010 - 8th floor.
041012 -  ..
041013 - I gave a copy of the draft meeting notes to Marc.  He will have
041014 - comments by tomorrow morning.  Actually since he is leaving on his
041015 - vacation tomorrow, I need to get them later today.
041017 -  ..
041018 - I left an informational copy of the notes on Tom Keesling's desk so
041019 - he can edit if he wishes with respect to matters he may want to say
041020 - differently relative to COE's Claim Team work.
041021 -
041022 -
041023 -
041024 -
0411 -

SUBJECTS
Navy Sewer Line Re-design
Navy Sewer Line, RR Slope Stability
Changes and Changed Conditions, 52.243-5
Differing Site Condition, 52.236-2
Navy Sewer Line Installation

0907 -
090801 -  ..
090802 - Received Instruction on Dutra's VEP Proposal
090803 -
090804 - Marc gave Monti and I a copy of a memo he emailed on a discussion with
090805 - Max this morning.  He indicated to us that Max has approved informing
090806 - the contracor to proceed with the Sewer Line according to plans and
090807 - specs.
090808 -
090809 -       [On 961015 reviewed with Tom Keesling. ref SDS 11 7590]
090811 -  ..
090812 - Marc's memo says...
090813 -
090814 -     I spoke now with Max.
090815 -
090816 -     We concluded that it is necessary for the Contracting Officer to
090817 -     respond to Dutra letter, serial no. 0167, dated Sept 6, 1996...
090818 -     ref DRT 2, that he is to immediately proceed with his work as
090819 -     specified in his contract. That any requirements presented by the
090820 -     RR are his responsibility to comply with, as his contract
090821 -     specifies in Section 01005, paragraph 2. If these RR requirements
090822 -     to obtain their permit constitute a change to his contract in his
090823 -     opinion, then he can submit a claim (do not tell him he can submit
090824 -     a claim).
090826 -      ..
090827 -     Our engineering staff maintains that slope stability is not at
090828 -     issue (we do not need to tell him this).  They have denied a
090829 -     change to the design.  We must direct Dutra to start work
090830 -     immediately, according to their contract.  Let them claim if they
090831 -     so desire.  This whole business has gone on for too long.  It
090832 -     appears as if Dutra is not and does not want to diligenty proceed
090833 -     with the execution of their contract.  In no case should we
090834 -     authorize a change to the design.  If we do, then the additional
090835 -     costs, and they will be substantial, will be on us and this is not
090836 -     responsible on our part.  Dutra bid the project, and apparently
090837 -     badly underbid this item.  Now he must live with it.
090838 -
090839 -        [On 961205 UPRR indicates location has history of problems...
090840 -        ref SDS 16 9630]
090842 -  ..
090843 - Received Correspondence Submitted by Dutra to COE
090844 - Navy Sewer Line Correspondence Conflicts with Official View Reality
090845 -
090846 - Marc said I should have copies of correspondence Dutra has submitted,
090847 - on the Navy Sewer Line VEP to use in helping Ofell draft a letter for
090848 - Tom Benero to tell the contractor to proceed with the work.
090849 -
090850 - There was no further discussion with Marc.
090852 -  ..
090853 - Subsequent review, shows a lot of conflicts between the documents and
090854 - expressions in various meetings by contractor and agency staff of what
090855 - the documents say, similar to problem reported on 920120, ref SDS 1
090857 -  ..
090858 - Review of the Navy Sewer Line documents show.....
090859 -
090860 -     Dutra 960812 letter on "Sewer Line Crossing" adds 650' pipeline,
090861 -     ref DRT 1 8338
090862 -
090863 -     Contractor cites prior unspecified conversations at weekly
090864 -     meetings, and correspondence with unidentified individuals that
090865 -     indicates the Navy Sewer Line, as designed in the contract plans
090866 -     and specs, is...
090868 -                 ..
090869 -                "rift with unknowns and potential hazards."
090870 -
090871 -         ...ref DRT 1 4822
090872 -
090873 -         [On 961119 Progress Meeting cited Dutra's letter #0161 dated
090874 -         960812 to illustrate need for Communication Metrics to support
090875 -         contract management, ref SDS 14 4822, as called out in COE
090876 -         letter on unsatisfactory evaluation of Dutra.
090878 -          ..
090879 -         [On 961204 meeting with Dutra and conference call with
090880 -         Engineer developed solution acceptable to all parties that
090881 -         increases income for Dutra without adding expense to the
090882 -         governement. ref SDS 15 0149
090884 -          ..
090885 -         [On 961205 UPRR indicates location has history of problems...
090886 -         ref SDS 16 9630
090888 -      ..
090889 -     There is nothing apparent in this letter that offers a Value
090890 -     Engineering submission.  Section 00752 is not cited as authority
090891 -     in Dutra's letter.
090893 -      ..
090894 -     Why is Dutra's position characterized as a VEP?
090895 -
090896 -         [On 961015 Bob Johnston said Dutra has not submitted a Value
090897 -         Engineering proposal; ref SDS 10 5739, and discussion with Tom
090898 -         Keesling at ref SDS 11 8492
090900 -      ..
090901 -     Dutra cites Union Pacific's geotechnical firm, Shannon and Wilson
090902 -     which is a document dated 960724, attached to ref DRT 1 3845.
090904 -      ..
090905 -     S&W's letter is a "shoring review" of a submission prepared by
090906 -     Dutra Dredging, that is undated, and intended to obtain a permit,
090907 -     ref DRT 1 8477.
090909 -      ..
090910 -     Dutra characterizes S&W's 960724 letter as raising concerns about
090911 -     slope stability. ref DRT 1 7563
090912 -
090913 -         This seems like an incorrect characterization, which, if
090914 -         correct, would support Dutra's contention that a different
090915 -         design is needed from that shown in the government's plans;
090916 -         whereas, S&W's concern is that Dutra's proposed construction
090917 -         method does not show an adequate plan to provide for slope
090918 -         stability during construction.  ref DRT 1 6726
090919 -
090921 -      ..
090922 -     Dutra's Shoring Design Omits Key Information
090923 -
090924 -     S&W says Dutra's submisson omitted sections A-A and B-B located on
090925 -     Figure 1, and omitted from the Operation Plan (OP) a construction
090926 -     sequence of these casings and sleeve(s) particularly with regard
090927 -     to the connection at the shoring wall. ref DRT 1 3748.
090929 -      ..
090930 -     S&W says this missing information is needed in order to evaluate
090931 -     potential impacts of the excavation on jetty slope stabilty. see
090932 -     ref DRT 1 3754
090934 -      ..
090935 -     S&W recommends that Dutra submit contingency plans for maintaining
090936 -     slope stability, ref DRT 1 4628, and offers other suggestions to
090937 -     assist the Contractor in preparing an adequate design for
090938 -     obtaining a UPRR permit to construct the work.
090939 -
090940 -         [On 961015 Dutra submitted more information. ref SDS 10 5739]
090941 -     ..
090942 -     There is nothing apparent in the S&W 960724 letter that
090943 -     shows a defect in the underlying COE contract plans and
090944 -     specifications, as impliedly set out in Dutra's 960812 letter,
090945 -     ref DRT 1 4822 and ref DRT 1 7563
090946 -
090948 -      ..
090949 -     Dutra's Investigation of Slope Stability Reveals No Problems
090950 -
090951 -     The Contractor says the S&W report and its own investigation of
090952 -     slope stability, led the Contractor to hire GEI Consultants to
090953 -     investigate slope stability. ref DRT 1 4728
090954 -
090955 -     GEI Consultant's letter dated 960808 to Dutra Dredging is
090956 -     attached to Dutra's 960812 letter to COE at ref DRT 1 0044.
090957 -
090958 -          GEI's letter says it reviewed S&W's 960724 letter calling for
090959 -          plans to maintain stability of railroad tracks and need for
090960 -          shoring members, ref DRT 1 5499, both of which are elements
090961 -          of shoring that Dutra is providing to perform its contract
090962 -          with COE,
090964 -           ..
090965 -          GEI says conditions are not "risk free," and lists design
090966 -          criteria Dutra's shoring must meet. ref DRT 1 5814
090968 -      ..
090969 -     Contractor offers a "solution" to a "slope stability" issue, of
090970 -     moving alignment of pipeline 500 feet and adding 650' of pipe, see
090971 -     ref DRT 1 5999.
090973 -      ..
090974 -     However, the only "slope stability" issue identified in Dutra's
090975 -     submission dated 960812, is the lack of design details in the
090976 -     Dutra shoring submission reviewed by S&W that meet the existing
090977 -     conditions Dutra contracted to perform. ref DRT 1 3748
090978 -
090980 -      ..
090981 -     Pipe Stability Severe, Complex, Becoming "Critical" oa 960812
090982 -
090983 -     Contractor describes shoring for slope stability, for which it is
090984 -     responsible to submit an adequate shoring design, as a severe and
090985 -     complex issue. ref DRT 1 5588
090986 -
090987 -     Dutra requests a "group" to come up with solutions. ref DRT 1 5588
090989 -      ..
090990 -     Dutra says the pipeline crossing is rapidly becoming a critical
090991 -     item. ref DRT 1 8402.  There is no reference to a CPM schedule and
090992 -     there is no information offered on the amount of float in this
090993 -     work activity, to show the degree of urgency needed for a
090994 -     solution.
090996 -      ..
090997 -     Contractor requests assistance from the government, and asks to be
090998 -     contacted if there are questions, ref DRT 1 8402
090999 -
091001 -      ..
091002 -     Questions from Dutra's 960812 Letter and Attachments
091003 -
091004 -
091005 -     1.  What was said in weekly meetings, cited by Dutra, that show a
091006 -         problem exists that justifies extra payment? ref DRT 1 4822
091007 -
091008 -     2.  Where is prior correspondence cited by Dutra? ref DRT 1 4822
091010 -          ..
091011 -     3.  Has Dutra submitted the missing information requested by S&W?
091012 -         ref DRT 1 3752
091014 -          ..
091015 -         Where is the transmittal?
091017 -          ..
091018 -         What if any response has been issued by S&W?
091020 -          ..
091021 -     4.  What authority does the Contractor rely upon for COE to assist
091022 -         the contractor in submittng missing design information for its
091023 -         shoring system, cited by S&W? ref DRT 1 3752
091025 -          ..
091026 -         Has COE responded to this request for assistance?
091028 -          ..
091029 -     5.  What document shows the pipeline is becoming "critical?"  Has
091030 -         the Contractor prepared a CPM showing this?  ref DRT 1 8402
091032 -          ..
091033 -         Is there some other evidence that informs the Contractor the
091034 -         pipeline is critical?  If so, where has it been submitted to
091035 -         COE?
091037 -          ..
091038 -     6.  What information causes this matter to be considered a Value
091039 -         Engineering proposal, as characterized at Weekly Progress
091040 -         Meeting for 960924? ref SDS 2 5477
091041 -
091042 -
091044 -      ..
091045 -     Letter 960906 "Sewer Line Crossing Change Conditions," adds 700'
091046 -     pipeline, serial #0167. ref DRT 2 6499
091047 -
091048 -     Dutra cites meetings and correspondence as having identified
091049 -     changed conditions on the Navy Sewer Line Crossing. ref DRT 2 4882
091051 -      ..
091052 -     Dutra indicates its letter dated 960906, serial #0167, formally
091053 -     advises COE that Dutra seeks relief from having encountered
091054 -     changed conditions. ref DRT 2 4888
091056 -      ..
091057 -     Dutra claims the slope at the UPRR location has steepened from
091058 -     conditions shown on the contract drawings, and says COE has been
091059 -     given drawings showing this change. ref DRT 2 4894
091060 -
091062 -      ..
091063 -     UPRR Requires Stability and Use of Tracks
091064 -
091065 -     Contractor says it did not know prior to bid that:
091066 -
091067 -        1.  Railroad requires construction methods that maintain slope
091068 -            stability and guarentee stability.
091070 -             ..
091071 -        2.  Railroad insists on using the track at all times.
091072 -
091073 -        ...ref DRT 2 4898
091074 -
091076 -      ..
091077 -     Dutra Claims Contract Design is Impossible to Accomplish
091078 -
091079 -     Dutra says it cannot drive H beams due to rock rip rap, and it
091080 -     cannot excavate the rock and still assure slope stability.  see at
091081 -     ref DRT 2 6491
091082 -
091083 -     Dutra says it is not possible to guarentee stability while jacking
091084 -     a casing under the tracks as shown in the plans. ref DRT 2 6491
091085 -     This contention appears to conflict with the next paragraph that
091086 -     says it may be more expensive than another design. ref DRT 2 6499
091087 -
091089 -      ..
091090 -     Dutra Says Alternate of Adding 700' Pipeline May be Cheaper
091091 -
091092 -     The Contractor's assertion that a design adding 700' of pipeline
091093 -     (up from 650' in the letter of 960812, ref DRT 1 8338), may be
091094 -     cheaper than a shoring design that assures stability of railroad
091095 -     track, ref DRT 2 6499, impliedly rebuts the previous contention
091096 -     that an adequate shoring design is "not possible."
091098 -      ..
091099 -     The Contractor's assertion that the cost of an alternative may be
091100 -     cheaper, establishes that there is no clear and direct benefit to
091101 -     the government in changing the design, since the cost could turn
091102 -     out to be greater.
091103 -
091105 -      ..
091106 -     Schedule Impact "Critical"
091107 -
091108 -     Dutra says it is "critical" that it be advised on how to continue.
091109 -     ref DRT 2 6996
091110 -
091112 -      ..
091113 -     Lead Time on More Pipe is 100 Days
091114 -
091115 -     Contractor says procurement of pipe requires 100 days from notice
091116 -     to proceed, ref DRT 2 6996.
091117 -
091118 -        This addresses in part the question raised at the progress
091119 -        meeting yesterday, ref SDS 4 5883, except it seems to conflict
091120 -        with Bob Johnston's representation that procurement is not
091121 -        recognized by Dutra as a long lead issue. ref SDS 4 4825
091122 -
091124 -      ..
091125 -     Second Sewer Line - Impact on Dutra's Work
091126 -
091127 -     Dutra asks about a 2nd pipeline. ref DRT 2 5739, reflecting
091128 -     speculations on this issue from its 960812 letter. ref DRT 1 4828
091129 -
091131 -      ..
091132 -     Questions from Dutra 960906 Letter
091133 -
091134 -
091135 -     1.  Where are cross-sections Dutra has submitted showing changed
091136 -         condition from original plans? ref DRT 2 4894
091137 -         ..
091138 -     2.  What does the contract say with respect to frequency of
091139 -         using the railroad tracks? ref DRT 2 4898
091140 -
091141 -             [On 961013 decided to investigate. ref SDS 9 4914]
091143 -          ..
091144 -     3.  Is COE aware of a 2nd pipeline, does it require investigation?
091145 -         ref DRT 2 5739
091147 -          ..
091148 -     4.  Where is the COE Engineering review Marc cites from his
091149 -         discussion with Max. ref SDS 0 2992
091150 -
091151 -
091152 -
091153 -
091154 -
0912 -

SUBJECTS
Piling encountered, Schnitzer

1003 -
100401 -  ..
100402 - Response to Contractor's Notice of Piling Problem
100403 -
100404 - Monti took me to Ofell's office and explained to Ofell that I will be
100405 - available to help her draft the letters for Tom Benero to sign on the
100406 - VEP matter.  We need the Technical Analysis report from Leonard in
100407 - order to issue a letter on the piling problem.  Ofell will call
100408 - Leonard on this.
100409 -
100410 -      [On 961017 meeting with Contractor and COE, ref SDS 12 0000; and
100411 -      subsequent analysis at ref SDS 13 0000.]
100413 -  ..
100414 - I saw Leonard later when I came in to install SDS update on Tom
100415 - Keesling's computer.  He was engaged in continuous dialog with
100416 - colleagues outside Max's office, so I did not interrupt to ask about
100417 - the status of the Technical Analysis on the piling problem.
100419 -  ..
100420 - I called for Glen Chafey later, but he is off today and tomorrow. see
100421 - ref SDS 8 0000
100422 -
100423 -
100424 -
1005 -

SUBJECTS
Disposal at Sonoma Baylands
Environmental Protection
Galbraith Disposal Requirements

1305 -
130601 -  ..
130602 - Sediment Testing at Galbraith - Contracting Problem
130603 -
130604 - Monti advised that a problem has arisen today about the contract with
130605 - MEC who is doing sediment testing at Galbraith, discussed at the
130606 - Progress Meeting on 961001, ref SDS 2 5488, and which Gail Staba
130607 - reported yesterday at the Progress Meeting, is going "perfectly." see
130608 - ref SDS 4 6282
130610 -  ..
130611 - Monti understands that the Engineering people have arranged to award
130612 - the work to MEC under exigent procedures.
130614 -  ..
130615 - Tom Benero was not aware this was done.
130617 -  ..
130618 - There is concern the procedure may have been non-standard, and that
130619 - another contractor may complain.  There is also concern this could
130620 - delay work at Galbraith, which is otherwise going well, with respect
130621 - to environmental activities, per report yesterday. ref SDS 4 6282
130623 -  ..
130624 - Tom Benero was meeting with Max on this when I left.
130625 -
130626 -
130627 -
1307 -