2009/12/09 Council Agenda Packet

Increased Oversight and Assistance to Contractor In the course of the project the members of the design and construction management team have found the level of effort necessary to answer contractor questions and review submitted materials has exceeded what would normally be expected for a project of this nature. The team has endeavored to be as responsive and timely as possible as all are aware of the tight schedule and critical deadline that this project faces. In addition, a number of the companies supporting the construction have felt that additional effort has been expended to guide the contractor through the construction, answering questions and providing solutions to construction issues that would normally be handled by the contractor. If the November 29th 2009 BRT opening date was not critical a less contractor supportive management approach would have been utilized which would have resulted in additional submittals rejected for not meeting contract specification requirements, basic spec book requirements and the project schedule would have slipped well past November 29th 2009. Some of the efforts beyond what was anticipated include: We are currently at RFI tt'16 with a significant portion of the construction still to be completed. While RFIs are part of construction, the quantity and nature of the RFIs on this project have been required greater effort than anticipated. A number of the questions asked have required a significant amount of redesign work on the design team's part. The majority of the design changes were due either to unknown site conditions (shallow electrical conduits), accommodating contractor phasing (redesign of the integral platform curbs so the platform could be constructed first), or contractor misunderstandings (catch basin collar.) Numerous material submittals, especially crushed aggregate materials, have been unacceptable per the specifications and required resubmittal. Each time a material is submitted the design time must review the submittal and in the case of soil, aggregate, and paving materials lab work performed on the submittal. Submittals that must be resubmitted require this work to be performed multiple times. The method in which Corstone has organized their construction has required that the HWA testing be onsite to perform testing far more than they had anticipated based on typical project organization. As an example HWA had assumed that the concrete paving for the project would be made in two pours, requiring 2 days of onsite observation. It currently appears that there will be at least 5 separate pours, requiring 5 days of onsite observation and additional samples and lab work. In order to accommodate the phasing and accelerated project schedule additional concrete cylinders have been collected in order to determine early concrete strength, something that is not typically done. 48