NCD980602163_20020717_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Change Orders 1 - 5-OCR

OC-24 'rev-9-88 . . ..
INSTITUTION:
PROJECT:
STATE CODE & ITEM :
CONTRACT FOR:
CONTRACTOR:
NCDENR
STATE CONSTRUCTION OFFICE
CHANGE ORDER NO. 05
Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification
ID#: 010440101A
IT Corp, 200 Horizon Center Blvd
Trenton, NJ 08691 -1904
X
□ □ □
OR Owner Request
CR Contractor Request
DR Designer Request
CC Concealed Condition
D DE Design Error
0 DO Design O . ri 13 14 IS I/'
0 SC Schedul nge ~ o ~,,
0 OT Other 'b J{/1_ ~ (1'
(';; ~ <Oo< '/~
Co1vc> S1.;t;;..-; ..,J ~n •u11r.,;, . '
Under the terms of the Contract and without invalidating the original provisions thereof, the following ftange 1n;..wg.rf(~ _f:'·:
authorized for the change in contract amount herein set forth : (Description of change order with detai -,~l.oreakcfawn • ,' _--/
attached) •----.: _ " ,,
Add portions of Phase 2 contract line items as permitted by receipt of additional funding and delete Phase 1 confriicfli~e
items that would otherwise be duplicated.
The time of completion including previous orders is 292 calendar days and shall be increased by 100 calendar days by
this change order for a revised contract date of completion of April 8, 2002 . To that must be added the final actual EPA
review time for TSCA permit application, which had a duration of 352 calendar days, period July 2, 2001 through receipt of
signed copy by NCDENR on June 18, 2002. Add ing the 352 days results in a revised contract date of March 26, 2003.
CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
1 . Original Contract Amount
2. Amt. of Previous Orders
3. Amt. of This Order:
ADD
ADD
$ 539.00 Deduct
~O Deduct
'-~.;:i4-1)5cd~~
4. Total additions lines 2 &3 $~0 Minus Total Deducts: ~ d;;i.50.,,oaq~ct.L __ _
(Line 4 shall show the net amount to be added or (deddcted) from the co~~ amount.)
5. Revised Contract Total Amount
6. The Owner certifies that the contingency fund balance after this change is
TOTALS
$6,658,000.00
$ 16,227.28
~~~
$
Fill in one copy only
I certify that my Bonding Company will be notified forthwith that my contract has been increased by the amount of this
change order, and that a copy of the approved change order will be mailed upon receipt by me to my surety.
IT Corp By: ----'---------------(Contractor)
200 Horizon Center Blvd
Trenton , NJ 08691-1904
Gary W. Duke, P.E.
Pro:s:ag(', _
By: u ~
NCDENR, Div of Waste Management By: · :___. d=; . ~
Earth Tech
(Designer)
-------'----------='-------(Owner)
State Construction Office By: -----------------
By : -----------------Other approving Agency (if needed)
DISTRIBUTION: 1 original to State Construction
1 original to Owner
1 original to Board or Commission (if any)
1 original to Designer
1 original to Contractor
1 original to Surety
to( ')..1 / b~
(date)
(Date)
7/::i /DL-
(Date)
7&7/d?.-
, (Date)
(Date)
, .
•.
RE91.Jl::S~FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE
DATE: STATE CODE: SCO#010440101 A
REQUEST NO.: 05 PROJECT NAME: Warren County PCB
Landfill
OWNER: CONTRACTOR: IT Corp.
DESIGNER:
NCDENR
EarthTech CONTRACT FOR: BCD Detoxification
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:
Add portions of Phase 2 contract line items as permitted by receipt of additional funding and delete Phase 1
contract line items that would otherwise be duplicated.
REASON FOR CHANGE:
Additional funding has become available.
SUMMARY REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE FOR TIME AND COST: (Attach Contractor's detailed cost breakdown of labor
and materials).
All costs are per original bid lump sum and unit rate prices, no further breakdown provided:
PHASE 1
Delete existing line item 5 -Phase 1 decon/dismantle/demob CREDIT
Delete existing line item 6 -Performance demonstration site restoration CREDIT
Phase 1 TOTAL CREDITS
PHASE 2
Add line 10 -Topsoil, fill & clay liner removal & stockpile
Add part of line 11 -BCD soil treatment, 23,500 tons
Add part of line 12 -Liquid BCD treatment with offsite recycle,
20,000 gallons
Add line 13 -Decontaminate & dispose of oversized and
incompatible debris, 20 tons
Add line 14 -Process decontamination, dismantlement &
demobilization
Add part of line 15 -Community outreach program, Phase II
Add line 16 -Site restoration
Phase 2 TOTAL ADDITIONS
Total change order value:
DESIGNER SUMMARY:
ADD
ADD
ADD
ADD
ADD
ADD
ADD
$504,200.00
14,300.00
$518,500.00
28,000.00
2,077,400.00
88,000.00
4,700.00
488,000.00
5,000.00
76,900.00
$2,768,000.00
$2,249,500.00
1. Schedule items affected by this change: Add portions of Phase 2 items, delete some Phase 1 items, see detail above.
2. Can Contractor mitigate the change without requiring a contract time extension? No
3. Will the change require a contract time extension for other contractors? No Which? n/a
4. Are additional costs indicated by reason of the time extension? No If so they must be included in 5 & 6 Below.
CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE DESIGNER'S ESTIMATE
5. Estimated cost of change: _$2_,_24_9_,s_o_o_.o_o ______ _
6. Estimated time extension field cost (if any) _n/_a _________ _
DES':GtiJER ,ECOMMENDATION AND CERTIFICATION:
I certify that I have reviewed all aspects of this change order and have determined that it is in the best interest of the owner to have the
work accomplished. I have also determined that the cost and time allotment are fair and equitable, and I recommend acceptance by the
owner.
Approved by: _____________ Date: ______ _
Title:
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
July 17, 2002
Mr. Gary Duke, P.E.
Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure
200 Horizon Center Blvd
Trenton, NJ 08691-1904
Dear Mr. Duke:
In change order G-5 you certified that you would notify your bonding company of the increase in your contract due
to the order. Normally, this is all that is required. However in our recent conversations you have indicated that you
will be obtaining performance and payment bonds from another company for Phase II of the project. Since the
change order covers items from Phase II, I must require that you provide those bonds before performing the work
authorized by the change order.
I understand that it will be difficult to obtain them before the demonstration test based on your current schedule.
There has been some confusion over whether the soil treatment for the demonstration test is a Phase I or Phase II
item. Addendum No. 2 to the Contract Documents for the Warren County PCB Landfill Site BCD Detoxification
issued December 12, 2000 provide an additional specification to Bid Item 3, Performance Demonstration, stating
that the "contractor will be paid for tons of soil treated to the Performance Standards in accordance with Bid Item
No. 11." At that time we did not anticipate the bankruptcy or your current bonding situation nor the significant
quantity of soil that would be required for the performance demonstration. Soil treatment for the demonstration is
clearly a part of Phase I. If Kemper states that your Phase I bonds are still in full force, I will permit you to proceed
with the soil treatment for the demonstration test up to the amount for which you are bonded.
I feel that the state has been more than patient over the past two months while Shaw has negotiated with Kemper to
resolve the bonding issue. However, as you proceed into the actual detoxification, the state must have assurance that
Shaw can and will obtain the bonding required by the contract.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
\ptt:e~J
PCB Landfill Project Manager
cc: Jim Cloonan, Earth Tech
Zack Abegunrin, State Construction Office
Mike Kelly, DENR
Laird Davison, DENR
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER-50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
ti ...
,"' OC-24 rev. 9-88
INSTITUTION:
PROJECT:
ST ATE CODE & ITEM :
CONTRACT FOR:
CONTRACTOR:
NCDENR
STATE CONSTRUCTION OFFICE
CHANGE ORDER NO. Q1
Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification
ID#: 010440101A
IT Corp, 200 Horizon Center Blvd
Trenton, NJ 08691-1904
D OR Owner Request D CR Contractor Request
D DR Designer Request
D CC Concealed Condition
D DE Design Error
D DO Design Omission
X SC Schedule Change
0 OT Other
~\S \~ 1118 Jg?() ~~ . ~
Under the terms of the Contract and without invalidating the original provisions thereof, the following ge ir0t,pr~d8 ~~
authorized for the change in contract amount herein set forth: (Description of change order with det .~ break~?:~~ 1
attached) 0") CONS 0~ 1 t co n T,,UCTf ON
Extend schedule due to circumstances associated with obtaining approval for Erosion and Sediment ontrol p{Jr'{;E \~o c\~~v '·\.r.--1. ~ ':)'
""·--"' P 7 \ t\\\t-
The time of completion including previous orders is 270 calendar days and shall be increased by .l1 calend~s--b · his
change order for a revised contract date of completion of December 28, 2001 (plus EPA review time for TSCA permit
application).
CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
1. Original Contract Amount
2. Amt. of Previous Orders
3. Amt. of This Order:
ADD
ADD
$0
$0
Deduct
Deduct
$0
$0
4. Total additions lines 2 &3 $0 Minus Total Deducts: $0
(Line 4 shall show the net amount to be added or (deducted) from the contract amount.)
5. Revised Contract Total Amount
6. The Owner certifies that the contingency fund balance after this change is
TOTALS
$6,658,000
$0
$6,658,000
$
Fill in one copy only
I certify that my Bonding Company will be notified forthwith that my contract has been increased by the amount of this
change order, and that a copy of the approved change order will be mailed upon receipt by me to my surety.
IT Corp.
(Contractor)
200 Horizon Center Blvd
Trenton, NJ 08691-1904
f~Te~
(Designer)
Iv C. De P A-IZ--r-AA siv r o t:
By ~ _,,,,.v' 0 ..,.A!...._...,
Ga~e,P.E.
Project Manager
By : er,~
9/4/01
(Date)
/u) 2-/u I
'(Bate)
l=AJv1R...oAJ.rnG'I.Jr f N,:;-n.ueA-L Ke-sct1eGtiS By:
(Owner) 7 l (Date)
State Construction Office By:
By:
Other approving Agency (if needed)
DISTRIBUTION: 1 original to State Construction
1 original to Owner
1 original to Board or Commission (if any)
1 original to Designer
1 original to Contractor
1 original to Surety
//JZc-0/ 1 (Date)
(Date)
-REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE
DATE:
REQUEST NO.:
OWNER:
DESIGNER:
9/4/01
01
NCDENR
EarthTech
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: Add 21 days to contract time.
STATE CODE: SCO#010440101A
PROJECT NAME: Warren County PCB
Landfill
CONTRACTOR: IT Corp
CONTRACT FOR: BCD Detoxification
REASON FOR CHANGE: Circumstances associated with obtaining approval of E&SC plan
SUMMARY REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE FOR TIME AND COST: (Attach Contractor's detailed cost breakdown of labor
and materials). No cost impact.
DESIGNER SUMMARY:
1. Schedule items affected by this change:
Wc, ~·~ > ~CA..R'M, ske-~
2. Can Contractor mitigate the change without requiring a contract time extension?
tJ ~)
3. Will the change require a contract time extension for other contractors? Which?
//VJ
4. Are additional costs indicated by reason of the time extension? If so they must be included in 5 & 6 Below.
(l):i
CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE DESIGNER'S ESTIMATE
5. Estimated cost of change: _o __________ _
6. Estimated time extension field cost (if any) _o __________ _
DESIGNER RECOMMENDATION AND CERTIFICATION:
I certify that I have reviewed all aspects of this change order and have determined that it is in the best interest of the owner to have the
work accomplished. I have also determined that the cost and time allotment are fair and equitable, and I recommend acceptance by the
owner.
Approved by:
Title:
July 30, 2001
Earth Tech
10 Patewood Drive
Building VI, Suite 500
Greenville, SC 29616
Attn: Mr. Jim Cloonan, P.E.
[phone] phone
[phone] fax
Subject: Notice of Delay
Warren Cowitv Landfill PCB Detoxification
NCSCO ID #010440101A, IT Corp Project# 827062
Dear Mr. Cloonan,
~ ' ~ ~L.\<,,. ..i '\
11' Corporation
200 llorizon Center Boule1'ard
Trenton, NJ 08691-1904
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
A Memlmr of The IT Gro11p
In accordance with Article 23.e of the contract General Conditions, tJris is to provide notice that IT Corp.
has experienced a delay due to causes which we fee\ are beyond our control. Verbal notice ohhis situation
was provided to you at the monthly progress meeting on July 12, as documented in item 3 of the meeting
minutes.
HISTORY
The delay is directly related to delays experienced in receiving approval of the Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan. A chronological list of the relevant events which have occurred to date, or which are
anticipated within the next few days, is as follows:
April 24: IT Corp issues purchase order and subcontract to Kearneco Grading to perform clearing,
grubbing, grading and other site preparation activities. Included in their subcontract scope of work is the
obtaining of any related permits, specifically including the Erosion and Sediment Control pennit.
May 18: IT's grading contractor, Kearneco Grading, submitted to NCDENR Land Quality Section (LQS) a
plan which consisted solely of the three (3) E&S drawings from the project specifications. This was done
without the knowledge oflT Corp., despite several meetings with them both prior to and after the issuance
of their subcontract (the last such meeting was held on May 11 ), in which we requested that the plan be
submitted to IT for review and approval prior to submission to LQS.
May 23: At a morning meeting with IT, Keameco informed us of the 5/18 submission to LQS and
described what had been submitted. We immediately recognized that the submission lacked a number of
essential elements listed on the plan checklist provided by the state, a copy of which had been provided to
Keameco by IT on May 11-14 as part ofa continuing effort to support them in meeting their obligation
under their subcontract. IT and Keameco jointly called John Holley of LQS to discuss the situation. John
stated that he had not y~t seen the plan but reminded us that a fee of $40/disturbed acre was required;
Kearneco ~ent to Rale~gh that afternoon and paid the fee. After further discussion at the meeting with
Keameco it became evident that they would be unable to submit an acceptable plan in a timely manner.
May 24: IT relieved Keameco of further responsibility for the E&S plan, other than to provide input as
requested on matters such as the proposed construction sequence. IT contacted Barnes Ferland and
Associates (BFA) to assist in updating the plan and drawings provided in the specifications and providing
.....
additional required support information such as the design calculations. BF A was selected primarily
because they had produced the specification drawings under their subcontract from ETG as part ofETG's
design effort under their contract from NCDENR Div of Waste Management. As such, BFA already was
intimately familiar with the design and already had most, if not all, of the supporting information in hand.
In addition, BF A was already under subcontract to IT to revise the site grading plan to accommodate the
larger concrete pad required by our proposed thermal/BCD treatment process, and so could most readily
incorporate the minor grading changes required into an updated E&S plan application.
May 25: IT informed Patricia Backus ofNCDENR Div of Waste Management of the situation regarding
Keameco and BF A. We also advised her that we would be requesting her assistance in completing the
Financial Responsibility/ Ownership form since NCDENR is in effect the "owner" of the site as that term
applies to the E&S plan application.
May 30: Ms. Backus returned the completed Financial Responsibility/ Ownership form to IT.
June 1: Revision O of the updated application sent to LQS by IT (via Fed Ex for Monday 6/4 delivery),
incorporated updated drawings prepared by BF A.
June 4: LQS received Rev 0, starting 30 day maximum review period.
June 6: IT received fax of preliminary review comments from LQS, all appeared to be relatively minor in
nature. Comments were forwarded to BF A for assistance in revising their portions of the plan.
June 9: IT Project Engineer Mark Sapyta called John Holley at LQS to discuss their comments and the best
manner in which to move the process forward. John suggested that Mark call Pat Backus and Bill Sessoms
at NCDENR Div of Waste Management and have them contact him (John Holley) to discuss this. Mark
called both of them and forwarded this request.
June 13: Keameco commenced cutting trees. Gary Duke had called John Holley to confirm that cutting
could be performed while the E&S plan was under review as long as no grubbing or other earth-disturbing
activities were performed.
June 15: June 1: Revision 1 of the updated application sent to LQS by IT (via Fed Ex for Monday 6/18
delivery), incorporating updated drawings and calculations prepared by BF A as well as other revision made
in response to the June 6 comments.
June 18: Copies of Rev O and Rev 1 transmitted by IT to Earthtech and Pat Backus as Transmittal
Numbers 014 and 015, respectively.
June 19: IT Project Engineer Mark Sapyta called John Holley at LQS to determine the review status of rof
Rev land was informed that the plan was still unacceptable and would be rejected. IT Project Manager
Gary Duke called Pat Backus to inform her and request her assistance in setting up a meeting later that
week between representatives ofNCDENR, Div of Waste Management (Pat Backus and/or Bill Sessoms),
NCDNER LQS (John Holley) and IT (Mark Sapyta and/or Bill Gallagher) in an effort to resolve the issues.
Ms. Backus made several attempts by phone and e-mail over the next two days to schedule such a meeting
with Mr. Holley but was unsuccessful.
June 20: IT Corp instructed Keameco to cease clearing operations, based on the rejection of the E&S plan.
IT Corp. instructed BFA to halt any work on revising grading or E&S plans, contracted Aiken and Yelle
Associates (A&Y) to take over efforts on E&S plan. Aiken & Yelle was selected in part because they had
performed the site surveys that were used by BF A to produce the specification drawings. As a result, they
already had all of the existing topography CADD files. In addition, A&Y was already under subcontract to
IT to perform surveying services under our contract, and we had found during that procurement that they
also routinely prepared E&S plans for work in North Carolina and so were very familiar with LQS's
requirements and with John Holley in particular. IT and A&Y agreed that A&Y's Harold Yelle would
handle all future contact with Mr. Holley.
2
June 21: IT Project Engineer Mark Sapyta called John Holley at LQS to find out when formal comments
explaining the rejection of Rev 1 would be issued. A&Y wanted this information to assist them in
preparing the new permit application. He was told that they would be out later this week.
June 28: Harold Yelle completed a new E&S pan and reviewed it with IT's Bill Gallagher. Harold called
John Holley to see if a meeting could be arranged with him when it was delivered to LQS. John stated that
he would not look at it until he issued his rejection letter on Rev 1, which he now expected to do on Mon
7 /2. He also stated that he would require a letter from the county authorizing use of county owned land on
the west side of the site where Harold had told him the new plan proposed to locate sedimentation basins.
IT contacted Pat Backus to request her assistance in obtaining that approval. She arranged with the County
Manager, Loria Williams, to get the county Board of Commissioners to vote on this at their meeting on 7/2.
July 3: LQS prepared and dated (but did not send) the formal comments and rejection of Rev 1, 30 days
after their June 4 receipt of Rev 0 and 15 days after the June 19 phone conversation with Mark Sapyta in
which John Holley informed him that Rev l was unacceptable and would be rejected.
July 5: Yelle received a fax from LQS of the July 3 rejection of Rev I. IT's Bill Gallagher picked up the
county authorization letter and delivered it to A& Y to complete the E&S plan submittal package. Harold
Yelle called LQS and found out that John Holley was on vacation until Wednesday 7/11.
July 9: Yelle delivered the latest E&S plan application to LQS.
July 11: IT' s Project Manager Gary Duke picked up a copy of the rejection letter from A& Y's office, but it
did not include the third page, which gives the reasons for the rejection
July 12: Harold Yelle obtained the third page and faxed it to Gary Duke at the project site. At that
afternoon's monthly progress meeting Gary Duke provided verbal notice to Earthtech and NCDENR, Div
of Waste Management representatives, ofIT's intent to request contractual relief, as documented in item 3
of the meeting minutes.
July 13: Pat Backus called John Holley who said the latest plan would be approved. He was trying to get
the approval letter out that day since he would be off on Monday 7 /16.
July 16: IT Project Engineer Mark Sapyta called Kimberly Summers at LQS and was told that the plan was
approved and that work on installing E&S controls could begin immediately. Kearneco began doing so that
afternoon. This approval was received only 7 days after the plan prepared by A&S was submitted and 27
days after IT first contacted A&S to request that they prepare a plan.
July 30: IT contacted Kimberly Summers at LQS to inform her that the E&S controls are substantially
complete and to request an inspection on July 31. If inspected then and found substantially acceptable,
clearing and grubbing and site grading activities could resume as early August 1, 42 calendar days after
they were stopped on June 20.
RELIEF REQUESTED
IT Corp. requests an extension of time for the period when critical field work could not be performed due
to the lack of an approved E&S plan. As shown above, that period began on June 21 (the day after clearing
was ordered halted on 6/20) and is expected to end on August 1 (the earliest date on which work may be
able to resume). The no-work period of June 21 through July 31 represents 41 calendar days.
3
CONTRACTUAL BASIS OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF
IT Corp. requests relief under the provisions of Article 23.d of the contract General Conditions, specifically
those portions relating to "any act or negligence of the owner ..... or by any employee .... ,by any causes
beyond the contractor's control; or by any other causes which the owner's consultant and owner determine
may justify the delay".
Should you have any questions please contact me at [phone] at your earliest convenience to discuss
them.
Sincerely,
G-:Ze, ;:-z?--L-
Project Manager
Cc: Patricia Backus, Project Manager, NCDENR, Div of Waste Management
Dukefile: corres/Delay NOTICE l .doc
4
...
[Fwd: [Fwd: Response to Gary Dukes July 30 Letter]]
G)
1 of6
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Response to Gary Dukes July 30 Letter]]
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:27:29 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: Mike Kelly <[e-mail]>
This is what we are going to do unless you have problems. If so, let me
know quickly.
Thanks.
Pat
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Response to Gary Dukes July 30 Letter]
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:26:09 -0400
From: Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
To: "Cloonan, Jim" <Jim_ [e-mail]>
Yes, that sounds good to me.
Your suggestion of not being too specific with the written explanation sounds
good to me. I'll just keep that in my back pocket as reference if it comes up .
"Cloonan, Jim" wrote:
> Pat -
>
> I agree that IT tried hard to use local firms to the extent possible and I
> commend their effort. My role is to be curmudgeon on change order r e que sts
> wh ile still seeing the job go forward with all parties committed to the same
> result. A compromise here would be a good gesture towards keeping the team
> together. My onl y concern is to not allow that Kearney was at fault or that
> the BFA design was at fault. Perhaps we just give them some time and
> explain verbally to Gary our rationale.
>
> I like your view of best possible time vs . what they did. They got verbal
> on 7/16. If the best they coul d have done was 6/25, then this i s a 21 d ay
> difference. Perhaps we offer them 21 days by stating that IT was
> responsible for a portion of the delay, that further extensions other than
> for EPA review time or weather will not be considered, and leave it at that.
> How does this sound? Do you want me to draft a response? Regards,
>
> Jim Cl.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Backus [inailt o :Pat .Back us@ncinail .net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 4:17 PM
> To: Cloonan, Jim
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Response to Gary Dukes July 30 Letter]
>
> I want to give them some days, but I 'm not sure how many. I'm trying to
> develop
> a justification that sounds good but has as little as possible t o do with
> their
> justification which is a bit bogus.
>
> The only thing I can come up with so far is to first say that say tha t t hey
> clearly did not know what was required based on the E&S tasks in their
> schedule. Based on their qualifications as a general contractor and
> engineering
08/16/2001 9:10 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Response to Gary Dukes July 30 Letter]]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
2 of6
firm in North Carolina it is reasonable for Earth Tech and the state to
expect
that they should have known the requirements. Secondly, as a
designer/builder
on the project they have the right to make changes in the design provided in
the
program documents in order to meet their specific project implementation
needs.
They did choose to change the pad design and grading so they had knowledge
that
changes in from what was provided in the program documents would be needed.
Third, it was ultimately the designer/builder responsibility to ensure that
the
E&S plan submitted was of acceptable quality to obtain approval. John
Holley's
original comments indicate an incomplete submission package in addi tion to
some
suggested changes. Neither Earth Tech o r the state were supplied with the
information prior to submission and cannot be held responsible for del ay due
to
concerns we voiced after the package had been submitted. The state may have
been concerned about information in the program documents, but did not have
the
actual submittal package to determine wh ether the concerns had been
addressed.
As we saw with the TSCA permit application, those concerns can be judged
inappropriate or in error by the contractor .
However, I think it is reasonable for the design/builder to have assumed
that
what was supplied in the program documents was of acceptable quality and
could
be modified or used as a guide f or their submission. Also, it would seem
reasonable t _o assume that a grading contractor would have s ome understanding
of
E&S plans. The state recognized through some of the tasks in their contract
with the technical advisor that an extra effort would be needed to ensure
that
local residents and businesses enj oyed some financial benefit from the
project.
The state (and possibly Earth Tech) recognizes the effort that IT has put
forth
in working with local and disadvantaged contractors.
at
This problem occurred
the beginning of the project and has been a learning experience for all . I
believe IT is pay ing closer attention t o ensure that similar mistakes do not
happen in the future. (You may want to add something that woul d more
strongly
emphasize the point that this won't be an excuse in the f uture.)
So what should their schedule have been? This is the most optimistic I
think
they could have assumed if everyone was knowledgeable and working
diligently to
get things done.
April 24th -Responsibility for E&S plan in contract signed by Kearnco .
(???? When did IT finish the new pad design? That should start the
"knowledgeable" Kearn co clock. Sinc e I do not know I will assume April 24th
for
now.)
08/16/2001 9:10 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Response to Gary Dukes July 30 Letter]]
3 of6
> April 24th-May 7th -Kearnco prepares acceptable E&S submittal package with
> necessary changes due to change in pad. Delivers to IT on May 7th.
> May 7th -May 11th -IT reviews internally.
> May 14th -May 18th -Earth Tech and state review submittal and offer
> comments.
> May 21st-25th -Comments incorporated and Kearnco submits acceptable E&S
> plan
> to Land Resources.
> June 25th -Land Resources approves E&S plan.
> June 26th -July 10th -IT installs E&S controls
> July 10th -IT call Land Resources for inspection
> July 11th -Land Resources inspects and approves
> July 12th -Grading begins.
>
> I think that is about 20 days or half of what they asked for. Again this
> would
> be the best I would consider. Do you have the pad design date? Would it
> make
> this a little more real or would it simply emphasize our point that their
> schedule was unrealistic?
>
> Your thoughts ...
> "Cloonan, Jim" wrote:
>
>>I too feel sorry for Gary but my sympathies are lessened when he accuse s
> my
>>client of negligence . Do you want to discuss how many days, if any, to
> give
>>them? Giving IT more time may work o ut in our favor in terms of pushing
>>Phase II back into FY '03.
> >
>>-----original Message-----
>> From: Pat Backus [mailto:Pat.Backus@ncmail .net ]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:50 PM
>>To: Cloonan, Jim
>>Subject: Re: [Fwd: Response to Gary Dukes July 30 Letter]
> >
>>Well, I did receive my call from Dollie this morning.
> the
We did talk about
>>last sentence of Pat 's letter, but her main concern is that someone heard
>>the
>>IT folks saying that IT would never be bringing equipment on the site.
> Those
>>probably aren 't the exact words, but you know how stories change. That
> is
>>being passed around the community and folks are saying it is all a hoax
> and
>>the state doesn't plan to do anything. Then Dollie gets hit from the
>>community with questions. I passed this on to Gary.
> >
>>I explained to Dollie about liquidated damages and how f or other reasons
> > (i .e.
>>they had no idea what was required f or an E&S plan) we, Earth Tech and the
>>state, don 't think they have a legitimate claim. I emphasized to her tha t
>>since they don't have a legitimate claim they are going at it with every
>>idea
>>they can. After we talked a little, she seemed t o understand . I
> emphasized
>>to her about how IT has been working closely with Paul Kearney on
> paperwork
08/16/2001 9:10 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Response to Gary Dukes July 30 Letter]]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
4 of6
> since the E&S problem was recognized.
> should
She and I both agreed that Gary
> have never written those notes.
> he
> is going to give her a call.
>
I mentioned this to Gary also and I think
> I have no idea what Pat's justification i s in Item 2. He really tiptoed
> the
> issue . An extension should be granted, but no one is responsible for the
> delay.
>
> Ted is Ted Horenstine. He worked for BFA on the original E&S drawings. I
> think this was the final work he did for BFA. He is not a PE in North
> Carolina and had never prepared a plan here. He is actually one of us, a
> ChE,
> so he has to be a pretty smart guy. However, based on some comments
> attributed to him by Pat Barnes, I would not take any comments in
reference
> to
> what the manual says as gospel .
PE
Pat had said that Ted said it was ok for
> from other states to do work in North Carolina without any kind of
> paperwork.
> Even though I had the statues and administrative codes in front of me and
> had
> talked to the Board's general counsel, Pat still said he knew Ted had to
be
> right.
>
> I think the comment about encroaching on county land is interesting. Was
it
> an IT constraint? Pat was at the kickoff meeting and other meetings wh en
we
> talked about getting permission for encroachment if necessary. Aiken and
> Yelle were the ones that said county land was needed. Bill G. called me
> about
> that. The agreement had to be in the package that A&Y sent not the IT
one.
> On Gary's timeline, IT requested that I get a letter from the county on
June
> 28th. I found out what was needed and asked Loria Williams, the county
> manager, to ask the commissioners to approve it at their Jul y 2nd meeting.
> That plan was submitted on July 9th. The rejection was on the plan and
> revisions that were submitted in June. Remember what we said about the
> early
> June letter from Holley and his responsibilities. On the July 9th
> submittal,
> the clock restarted and John had fifteen days to reply; he did so in f o ur.
>
> Ditto on that last comment. I felt a little sorry for Gary when I spoke
to
> him. As I told him, I am guilty of sometimes saying too much or trying to
> indicate that I am important enough to know what's happening. But we all
> need
> to be careful about that. And it also is in how you say things.
all
We a re
> concerned about the Phase II money, but you don't say that IT won 't b e
> bringing equipment on site because the project doesn't have the money.
That
> is not really the truth either.
to
Instead you say something like "It 's up
08/16/2001 9:10 AM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Response to Gary Dukes July 30 Letter])
5 of6
>>that darn General Assembly in Raleigh. You need to call Senator Ballan ce
> or
>>Representative Fox or Governor Easley. Heck, why don 't you call ale Jesse
>>and
> > see if he' 11 get us some money. "
> > ·---~c::--------,,:-,-----:--:----,---> > "Cloonan, Jim" wrote:
> >
>>>Pat -
> > >
>>>Why does Barnes think an extension is justified (Item 2)? Who is Ted?
> Is
>>>he a NC PE?
> > >
>>>The access to county land issue is interesting.
> they
When did IT realize
>>>needed more land? Clearly this wasn 't noted in the original submittal
> so
>>>when they changed design based on their revised calculations it wo uld
> seem
>>>that the clock would restart on their new plan . Did you get a read from
>>>Holley on his interpretation of their submittal process ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I give IT credit for pissing off as many people as possible in t his
> exercise.
>
> Jim Cl.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Backus [ma i l to: Pat . [e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 8 :01 AM
> > > To: Duke, Gary; Jim Cloonan; John Funk; Jones, Dennis; Mike Kelly; Ed
> > > Mussl er; Bill Sessoms
>>>Subject: [Fwd: Response to Gary Dukes Jul y 30 Letter]
> > >
>>>Any comments?
I Pat Backus <[e-mail]>
j Environmental Engineer II
j Division of Waste Management/ PCB Landfill Detoxification Project I North Carolina Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
??
08/16/2001 9:10 AM
Sun Mon Tue April 2001 1 2 8 9 15 16 22 23 29 30 3 4 10 11 17 18 24Contract with 2 5 Kearneco Wed Thu Fri Sat 5 6 7 12 13 14 19 20 21 26 27 28
Sun Mon Tue Wed May 2001 1 2 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 23Kearneco informs IT of E&S submittal and describes what was submitted. IT and Kearneco call John Holley. Fee paid. 27 28 29 3 o PB returns completed financial responsibility form. Thu 3 10 17 2 41T relieved Kearneco of E&S plan responsibility. IT contacts BF A to support E&S plan submittal. 31 Fri 4 11 Last request from IT to Kearneco for E&S submittal. 18Kearneco submits a plan consisting of three E&S drawings from the project specs to LOS. No IT review of submittal. 2 51T asks Pat Backus to supply the Financial Responsibility/Owner-ship form. Sat 5 12 19 <--DENR contacted about Kearneco submittal. 26
Sun Mon Tue Wed June 2001 3 4 LOS receives Rev 0. 5 51T receives fax of preliminary review. Several problems noted and sent to BFA. 10 11 12 1 31T sends Rev 1 to LOS. 17 1 8 Copies of Rev 0 and Rev 1 19MarkcallsJH to determine 20Kearnco instructed to transmitted to Earth status of review. JH cease clearing based Tech and PB. states it is still unac-on call with JH. IT ceptable. Gary calls contacts A& Y to Pat. Pat tries to set prepare new E&S up mtg with LOS. plan. 24 25 26 27 Thu 7 14 21 Mark calls JH to find out when formal comments will be issued. 28A&Y completes new E&S plan and calls JH to set up meeting. Not until after rejection letter of Rev. 1. Does say Let Fri Sat 1 IT sends Rev O to 2 LOS. 8 gMark Sapyta calls John Holley about best way to move the project forward. JH suggests he contact PB and Bill Sessoms. 15 16 22 23 29 30 ----------------------------letter is needed from County. Pat Backus gets letter to county.
Sun Mon Tue July 2001 1 8 15 22 29 2County Commissioners approved letter of entry. 9A& Y deliver new E&S plan to LQS. 16Mark calls Kimberly Summers and was told that E&S was approved and installation of E&S controls could begin. 23 3 0 IT informs Kimberly Summers that controls are complete. 3LQS issues formal rejection and comments. 10 17 24 31 Kimberly Summers inspects controls and finds them acceptable. Wed 4 11 Letter at A& Y did not contain reasons for rejection. 18 25 Thu Fri 5A& Y receive copy 6 of rejection letter from LQS. JH on vacation until 7/11. 12A~Y ~btain reiect1on 1 3 PB talks to JH and asks reasons and fax to about new E&S. He Gary. is in the process of reviewing to get out that day. 19 20 26 27 Sat 7 14 21 28
FW: Trne Outreach Is in the Immediate Community
1 of2
•
Subject: FW: True Outreach Is in the Immediate Community
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:38:46 -0700
From: "Duke, Gary W." <[e-mail]>
To: "Pat Backus (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
FYI per our call today
-----Original Message-----
From: Burwell, Dollie [mailto :Dollie.Burwell@mail .house .gov ]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 5:35 PM
To: Garrett, Jim; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Patrick
Barnes
Subject: RE: True Outreach Is in the Immediate Community
Patrick:
As you know at our last CAB meeting we discussed
severalcommunitystategies for obtaining the additional 7 .5 million dollars
to complete the detoxification project. With N.C. tremendous budget
shortfall, I know that the Warren County Community and particularly the
Coley Springs Community citizens are going to aggressively lobby all of the
elected officials to get this funding. Warren County citizens have suffered
the economic disadvantages of this landfill for almost 20 years. While,
Granville, Vance, Halifax, Northampton and Franklin counties were listed as
surrounding counties, citizens from these counties have in no way been
involved over the years struggling to get this dump detoxified, and frankly
they will not be involved in trying to secure the remander of the funding
for completion. I just know that this community has got to have a reason to
continue to fight for this site to be cl eaned up. I hope that things can be
worked out with Paul. I do believe that it will be in the best interest of
all of us to try in every way to work this out. We have come to far to n ot
may this thing happen. Frankly , my creditability is on the line . Please
let me know how I can help.
Dollie
> ----------
> From: Patrick Barnes[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 4:51 PM
> To : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Burwell, Dollie
> Subject : True outreach Involves The immediate Community
>
> Jim, I tried to reach you by phone but was unsuccessful. First let me
> thank you and Gary for taking the time to meet with Paul in an effort to
> resolve potential misunderstandings in is bid. During our meeting we
> i dentified several areas where adjustments could be made and the
> unofficial result was a difference of about $12,000. Which you indicated
> in the interest of true outreach you could live with.
>
> Gary indicated that together you'll decided to use the apparent low
> bidder and reserve the water main for Mr. Kearney. The purpose of this
> e-mail is to once again stress the importance of having the Coley
> Springs community economically involved in the project. This community
> will be the single most important component to successfully obtaining
> funding for Phase II of the project. They have already been asked to
· ·::;·-=>right letters in that regard. Without a financial stake in the project
> the motivation to help may change to a feeling of disenchantment, which
08/15/2001 2:40 PM
FW: Trne Outreach Is in the Immediate Community
I >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
2of2
would be a severe blow to the project. We all know ITs' bid was very
competitive and I am not advocating that you cut your potential margin
any lower, but rather that you look at the very big picture. Without
very strong community support the project is in danger of being
completed ..... Please allow me one more attempt to bring Paul's numbers
within line before you contact his competitor .. Thanks, Pat
From: Patrick Barnes[SMTP:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 1 9 , 2001 5:13 PM
To: Garrett, Jim; [e-mail]; [e-mail] ; Burwell,
Dollie
Subject: True outreach Is in the Immediate Community
It was Necessary to resend this ....
Jim, I tried to reach you by phone but was unsuccessful. First let me
thank you and Gary for taking the time to meet with Paul in an effort to
resolve potential misunderstandings in is bid. During our meeting we
identified several areas where adjustments could be made and the
unofficial result was a difference of about $12,000. Which you indicated
in the interest of true outreach you could live with.
Gary indicated that together you'll decided to use the apparent low
bidder and reserve the water main for Mr. Kearney. The purpose of this
e-mail is to once again stress the importance of having the Co ley
Springs community economically involved in the project . This community
will be the single most important component to successfully obtaining
funding for Phase II of the project. They have already been asked to
right letters in that regard. Without a financial stake in the project
the motivation to help may change to a feeling of disenchantment, which
would be a severe blow t o the project . We all know ITs' bid was very
competitive and I am not advocating that you cut your potential margin
any lower, but rather that you look at the very big picture . Without
very strong community support the project is in danger of being
completed ..... Please allow me one more attempt to bring Paul 's numbers
within line before you contact his competitor .. Thanks, Pat
08/15/2001 2:40 PM
RE: IT Change Order
1 of2
Subject: RE: IT Change Order
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16: 10: 33 -0700
From: "Cloonan, Jim" <[e-mail]>
To: '"Pat Backus"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "Funk, John" <[e-mail]>
Pat -
I'm out Wed -Fri this week but can call from the road or you can call me
here tomorrow. See my responses t o your comments below. In summary, Holley
took the time allowed to him by the law to review the documents . Here are
my responses to attachment supporting their claim. Suggest getting Holley
to review their contentions, if can be done diplomatically. I don 't see
basis for a claim unless IT can show he acted outside his legal timeframes,
which they don't challenge.
Here's the deal. IT realized on June 15th that first submittal was wrong
based on LQS comments and resubmitted Rev. 1 on June 18th to LQS. LQS
comments are meant to avoid "formal disapproval" and help maintain schedule .
Ask Holley if June 18th date doesn't therefore start the 30-day clock . If
so , he was well within timeframes. Holley could have waited until July 3rd
to give them the comments and then where would they be? Holley helped them
with early submittal of comments.
"Negligence by the Owner".
1. First, they have a lot of chutzpah charging us with neglige nce. As f or
BFA drawings, they were conceptual and IT had to develop their own plan.
Where did IT say they would use BFA's plans verbatim and why, since their
footprint was different?
2 . IT had responsibility of having
responsible for content, not DENR.
shouldn't have used them. Did they
s ubmittal? I got Rev. 0 and 1 week
to Holley.
a NC PE submit the plans . Their PE i s
If BFA's plans were no good they
even ask our comments on the first plan
of June 18th, AFTER they were submitted
3 . Sessoms is not res ponsible for approval of plan . If they wanted his
input, should have asked for comments on their original submittals BEFORE
they were submitted to LQS. Even then, Sessoms only has opinion as to what
will pass. If calculations showed that sed ponds weren't needed then LQS is
wrong . But since A&Y added them it seems like they were necessary. Also,
were adding sed ponds a specific comment from LQS? I don't have the
mysterious page 3 from Holley .
"Beyond Contractors Control "
4. Holley may have known on 6/19 that plan was no good but could still use
time to assess all deficiencies . He worked within his allotted 30 days .
5 . I see no evidence of "prejudice" against out of state firms . Rejec tion
items were valid. IT is not an out of state firm, they have office, GC, and
PE in state. We don't care about rift between IT and BFA.
"Other Causes"
6. Problem is not in using Kearney, problem is in having Kearney submit ESC
plan. Really, not Kearney's fault, problem lies with IT PE who submi t 'ted
the first plan. I specifi cally told Gary Duke at the pre-bid meeting that
low bid wins regardless of local support. Can 't blame Dollie for their
inappropriate use of a sub . Will they blame her again when if Kearney
messes up the water main?
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Backus [mailto :Pat .Backus@ncmail .net]
Sent : Monday, August 06, 2001 5:13 PM
To: Cloonan, Jim; Funk, John
Subject: IT Change Order
08/16/200110:14AM
RE: IT Change Order
2of2
I just finished reading the letter and extra page for the request for
relief due to the E&S plan problems. My first impression is "No way
Jose" or "sounds like a personal problem to me", but I do feel that we
should consider some of the impressions they were working under. When
do you want to discuss? I'll be at the s ite most of tomorrow (Tuesday)
There are a few pieces of backup information I would be interested in
seeing to help me understand it all and fight some points. I know I am
probably thinking too hard on this, but that's just me. I think they
need to be put in their place on a few issues to get rid of some of the
bell aching, "he didn't play fair" comments.
(1) I would like to get a copy of the Kearneco subcontract or at least
the part of Kearneco's contract that specifies that they were to obtain
the Erosion and Sediment Control permit. Doesn't matter, Kearney wasn't
capable.
(2) I would like to look at a project schedule issued before all the
problems started to see what IT really planned for. Agreed.
(3) Do you know whether IT or in particular the IT folks involved with
remediation projects have done projects in North Carolina where they had
to prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan? I know that OHM
prepared plan for excavation of Geigy Site in Aberdeen, NC in 1995, Duffey
involved.
(4) I would like to see the information shown on a calendar so I can
see weekend and holidays in this story. I'll do that. OK.
(5) Did the resubmittal on June 15, correct all the problems that had
been identified from Holley letter? What were the comments from the
rejection. I only have the preliminary list of insufficient items, not the
page 3.
(6) What is John Holley required to do versus what IT wanted him to do?
From timeline I sent you pvsly, I believe he met his statutory requirements.
I'm sure Holley gets a lot of submittals and IT shouldn't think theirs is
the only one he is reviewing.
(7) Do you know what is meant by "did not send" on the July 3rd
comment? I'll check on how DWM handles replies based on a statutory
limit. I think IT expected comments then based on 30-day clock. See if LQS
has to prepare by then, mail time is different. I think LQS was nice to fax
the information.
(8) Who is A&S on July 16? I guess Gary was getting so flustered by
that point he couldn't remember who was working for him. Should it be
A&Y? Yes. IT surprised it was approved in 7 days but one it was correct
and LQS only had 15 days to review, plus should take less time the 5th time
around.
(9) Looks like they got excellent response from Land Resources on July
30/31! Due to pity, no doubt.
08/16/2001 10:14 AM
Memorandum
To: Gary Duke, P.E. Project Manager, IT Corporation
From: Patrick Barnes, P.G. President, Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc
Date: August 13 , 2001
Subject: July 30, 2001 Letter to Earth Tech (Jim Cloonan, P.E.)
All of the work BF A performed for IT was under their direction and approval, so I take
exception to insinuation that we were somehow responsible for the delay as if we were
operating independently. We had no conversations with John Holley, for example,
instead we were asked to deal directly Mark Sapyta, which we did. Mark expressed his
approval of our work on more than one occasion. Additionally we asked if you would
allow us to bring on to the project a N011h Carolina P.E. with civil enginee1ing
experience, your response was that IT had North Carolina, P.E.s and that that was not
necessary. In fact I went as far as having the gentleman attend the States outreach
meeting where I introduced him to you, and others.
In reading the chronology, it appears that several things occmTed that we were not privy
to since all communication were being handled by Mark Sapyta.
The reasons for the rejection dated July 3, 2001 seem minor in nature. Hay bales were
not being placed across areas of concentrated flow, but rather were being placed as flow
spreaders. Velocities from the swales around the lined pond, once spread to sheet flow,
would not exceed the velocities stated in the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Manual.
Ted inf01med me that he followed the manual, so if there is something else required, then
we consider this a personal request, not something stated in the manual. Ted indicated
that he did not see what IT sent as the last revision, but the version that we submitted to
IT had a rock outlet from both the sedimentation swale and the sedimentation basin. We
did not have silt fencing nor hay bales across these outlets.
One of the constraints that we were operating under was to not encroach onto the
County's property. That is why we had a long mu.Tow sedimentation swale that was not
specifically in conf01mance with the typical design of sedimentation basins. Use of the
County's property obviously adds design flexibility.
With respect to the 18" CMP drainage pipe it was designed to be fairly flat. Once again,
we were operating under the velocities stated in the, manual. Outlet control should not be
required if velocities are not exceeded and discharge is into a sedimentation basin.
It appears we were at a significant disadvantage not dealing directly with John Holley and
perhaps his requirements were not being clearly communicated back. A meeting with
John Holley at the beginning would have resolved a lot of these issues.
Concerning your "notes for potential use in support of delay"
1. I am unsure what comments on the E&S we were unresponsive to when a
response was asked of us. What do you mean by the term (among others?). Also
I am unsure why the work performed by us during the design phase has any
bearing on this cmTent delay. Under this phase the work was being conducted
under the direction of an IT North Carolina P.E.
2. As with any design manual flexibility is given to allow for application of vaiious
standards in different site-specific situations. Since BF A had no direct contact
with John Holley we simply responded to the requirements of the manual, but
obviously he and his department have certain approach preferences. These could
have been easily accommodated earlier ifwe had access to Mr. Holley. We
believe that a time extension should be granted, but BF A cannot be held
responsible for the time delay.
3. Concerning your final point, it amazes me that to this day you do not understand
or respect the hist01y of this project or the unique paiinership of trnst, which has
developed over the years. Instead of trying to foster outreach and local economic
development, which as the prime contractor only you can do, you seem to be
setting the stage to say, "I told you this wouldn't work". With that attitude I am
amazed it has worked thus fai·. During the pre-bid phase of the project everyone
at IT seemed to understand that this project had a serious community outreach
objective, now that fact seems to be lost to some. For the record I want to register
my resentment of the implications made of Dollie and I in your final comment.
G Duke notes for potential use in support of notice of delay -E&S plan
CONTRACTUAL BASIS OF REQUEST FOR RELIEF
IT Corp. requests relief under the provisions of Article 23.d of the contract General Conditions, specifically
those portions relating to "any act or negligence of the owner ..... or by any employee .... ,by any causes
beyond the contractor's control; or by any other causes which the owner's consultant and owner determine
may justify the delay".
A. "any act or negligence of the owner ..... or by any employee"
I. NCDNER,DWM employee(s) knew specification drawings depicted E&S plan that would not be
approved but said nothing until after Rev 1 had been verbally rejected by NCDENR,LQS. Had they
done so we would either have taken plan out of Kearney's SOW in April or at least have lined him up
with an engineer in to assist him in early May, 3-4 weeks before we got BF A involved, cutting delay
by over half.
2. NCDNER,DWM employee(s) knew that BFA had been unresponsive to comments on E&S drawings
(among others?) and was using a Florida engineer with no NC experience during design phase but said
nothing until after Rev 1 had been verbally rejected by NCDENR ,LQS. Had they done so as soon as
they knew we were using BFA (May 25 call for Pat, who may not have known all of history, but
especially 6/7 SCO meeting at the latest for Bill Sessoms, who was involved at design stage) we would
have gotten A&Y involved instead, doing so in early June would have gotten approved plan by early
July latest, based on actual A&Y contact-to-approval duration, cutting delay by over half.
3. NCDNER,DWM employee (Sessoms) knew Rev 1 would not be approved due to lack of sed ponds as
soon as he saw it (transmitted 6/18, Pat's 6/20 e-mail to Holley says Sessoms reviewing it) but said
nothing until after Rev l had been rejected in writing by NCDENR,LQS (IT got comments 7/12,
Sessoms talked to Mark & Bill that day after SCO meeting), so he knew what the problem was weeks
before we did.
B. "any causes beyond the contractor's control"
4. Based on Sapyta's phone call of 6/19, Holley knew at that time that Rev 1 was no good, but waited 13
days until 7/3 to write comments (using up his full 30 days), then 2 more to fax them out and not even
directly to us.
5. Especially in view of his attitude as evidenced by item 4 it is possible that Mr. Holley had a prejudice
against plans which he knew were being developed by an out-of-state engineering firm or some other
non-objective reason .. If so, he may have been overaggressive in looking for reasons to reject Rev 1.
IT has asked BF A to look at the rejection comments and compare the Rev 1 submittal to practices and
standards shown in the NC E&S Guidance Manual. BFA must decide if they wish to defend Rev 1 as
meeting the requirements in the manual, in which case either Rev 1 was improperly rejected or the
manual currently sold by NCDENR does not reflect the practices and standards that its reviewers are
presently judging submitted plans by. This defense has been tasked to BF A on the grounds that they
are in the best position to know how their portion of the plan (which is what generated the 3
comments) was prepared and to what extent the NC manual was used as a reference. The outcome will
also impact an internal issue between IT and BF A.
C. "any other causes which the owner's consultant and owner determine may justify the delay "
6. The "community relations" aspect of having Kearney for a civil sub in the first place contributed
greatly to the delay. As we now know, Ellington had a local engineer lined up to do the E&S plan for
him ifwe had awarded to him as we intended before getting the frantic "True outreach is in the
immediate community" e-mails from Barnes and Dollie Burwell, hers (to an IT VP) explicitly relating
Kearney getting the award to community support for phase 2 funding.
Dukefile: corres/Delay NOTES I .doc
1 . OC-24 rev. 9-88
STATE CONSTRUCTION OFFICE
CHANGE ORDER NO. 03 I
~
INSTITUTION:
PROJECT:
ST ATE CODE & ITEM :
CONTRACT FOR:
CONTRACTOR:
I
NCDENR
Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification
ID#: 010440101A
IT Corp, 200 Horizon Center Blvd
D OR Owner Request D CR Contractor Request
D DR Designer Request
X CC Concealed Condition
D DE Design Error
D DO Design Omission
0 SC Schedule Change
0 OTOther
Trenton, NJ 08691 -1904 .{JiJT/3-;g 0 "'>-, A <u,,:).,
~' ~ \1 ,
Under the terms of the Contract and without invalidating the original provisions thereof, the following c 6~e in~ tJ'• ~
authorized for the change in contract amount herein set forth: (Description of change order with detai _-q breakdp;«f 1 ~
attached) . ,•1;.,"'~.:11;: (.M
' I ') ',)j t..-ucnn(lt ~
·; t:°;.~.-r1,.. Vt .:"\.,
Add cost for excavation and off-site transportation and disposal of 1 load of buried construction debris !hat was · · ' t ,:;,:':
encountered during grading operations. · · ·' .. r-':: '0/ I • ,.. ... ,., . ' -, 7 I '.11 \ ,,.,
The time of completion including previous orders is 292 calendar days and shall be increased/decreased by ··ocatenthfr"
days by this change order for a revised contract date of completion of December 29, 2001 (plus EPA review time for TSCA
permit application).
CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
1. Original Contract Amount
2. Amt of Previous Orders
3. Amt of This Order:
ADD
ADD
$0
$539,00
Deduct
Deduct
$0
$0
4. Total additions lines 2 &3 $539.00 Minus Total Deducts: $0
(Line 4 shall show the net amount to be added or (deducted) from the contract amount)
5. Revised Contract Total Amount
6. The Owner certifies that the contingency fund balance after this change is
TOTALS
$6 ,658,000
$539.00
$6 ,658,539
$
Fill in one copy only
I certify that my Bonding Company will be notified forthwith that my contract has been increased by the amount of this
change order, and that a copy of the approved change order will be mailed upon receipt by me to my surety.
IT Corp.
(Contractor)
200 Horizon Center Blvd
Trenton, NJ 08691-1904
(Designer)
NC--°DEPA/2....Tl'l'\E:XJT 0~
By :Z ~d
G::O:,P.E.
10/0101
(Date)
By: Pr~~
E,.;v ,fl.o-.J m~T 4 N.A-TUIRAL ~esol.)f'-e'ey:
(Owner) (D te)
State Construction Office By:
By:
Other approving Agency (if needed)
DISTRIBUTION: 1 original to State Construction
1 original to Owner
1 original to Board or Commission (if any)
1 original to Designer
1 original to Contractor
1 original to Surety
l{J-?Z:;.tJ/
' (Date)
(Date)
•
'
.REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE
DATE: 10/01/01 STATE CODE: SCO#010440101 A
REQUEST NO.: 03 PROJECT NAME: Warren County PCB
Landfill
OWNER: NCDENR CONTRACTOR: IT Corp
DESIGNER: EarthTech CONTRACT FOR: BCD Detoxification
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: Add cost to cover excavation and off-site transportation and disposal of 1 load of
buried construction debris that was discovered during grading operations.
REASON FOR CHANGE: This was a concealed condition not known at time of bid.
SUMMARY REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE FOR TIME AND COST: (Attach Contractor's detailed cost breakdown of labor
and materials). Subcontractor Kearneco Grading (labor and equipment): $390.00
Subcontractor Kearneco Grading (landfill tipping fee): $100.00
Subtotal cost to prime contractor IT Corp.: $490.00
Prime contractor 10% markup: $ 49.00
Total change order value: $539.00
DESIGNER SUMMARY:
1. Schedule items affected by this change: None
2. Can Contractor mitigate the change without requiring a contract time extension? Yes
3. Will the change require a contract time extension for other contractors? No Which? n/a
4. Are additional costs indicated by reason of the time extension? n/a If so they must be included in 5 & 6 Below.
CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE DESIGNER'S ESTIMATE
5. Estimated cost of change: _$5_3_9_.o_o ________ _
6. Estimated time extension field cost (if any) _o __________ _
DESIGNER RECOMMENDATION AND CERTIFICATION:
I certify that I have reviewed all aspects of this change order and have determined that it is in the best interest of the owner to have the
work accomplished. I have also determined that the cost and time allotment are fair and equitable, and I recommend acceptance by the
owner.
Approved by:
Title:
NE1' HJTH
M:ON1'Ml:Y l.~% AN N'IJAL 18%
Y~_L.A_'A-$'1:l-'PI1".f,~011 ANQ .~li;:tt,1~N Wr'rH 'fOl.iA f°llf:"Mf',!JiM(;)l
►-·>·•· ..•
: ;:;1~1tJ:;t\fft .•.. :;11~tttiiri:~11ltJ1.retil~I~t1~1:·<.:~J.1,; i:kU:l~ii4,qJ~t, I
l?A.\.ANC~iF, J'◊l,f.AP.l.) (>
,;;-' ·. • ~,-~:--:~~--··--·::···-:·:·•"~-.. " .. :·"=•---~..::,.:;--"····--··•""1i-"· I ,._ . . .~~-r,
·••·-· . . G:=~~i: .... Es~~¢.?. 1 ....... Jt~~f.~ ~r,, }, .. . eD ~ l ·7" s-Gp:. 7 t c·k .'/._·• .• 'i . · ... ., . ·· .. it~~ .... ;-~ ... "?'? .... i, . .• . J·-
•' .· .;; 'A . . . . . -1.-!1.t 's.. ~¾~.c ,: :
..................... .¢.~~ Zf~-~1~ ""'"' 'l '"'''•/""
.. .. ,. , . [;'·· "... . . . .... ... ....... . . .. ·• 1l . . (-..... '(':'
....... .... · ,, ".," " ·• · • · " • · • • .,, .......... _ ............. ,, · --.. ·· · • ... " · •· " .. .. " " · •
1
1--• "· · " ~f_;_·lY;W•
r,,. ~Jr :•,•··J· J ' ~\, /~ r'•
,1'!_.....,.,__,,,,,_,,,-4 ..,,....__.,..,_,,T•--,.--•~•----4-1.__,_ ... -.;, . .,_,..-. ...,•-t--1 .... ,...,.., __ _,,...,_ .• _J,ll+,-.,..., . .-, ~~.:.;~~•"->''"
•)ir::k:::~.. t c)
:····•1•·•···•·••J .. , ...... ·
~~.: .... ,:i. ,,, ,,... .
, I t . .,t..,.~,,---__,...,,_-
-<:~f"•
t~.p,y· L,,'i.$H ,t,M<.lVf.JY
tN 'rt-mi~· t;Ql;.l,li\•\!."
OC-24 rev. 9-88
INSTITUTION:
PROJECT:
STATE CODE & ITEM :
CONTRACT FOR:
CONTRACTOR:
NCDENR
STATE CONSTRUCTION OFFICE
CHANGE ORDER NO. 02
Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification
ID#: 010440101A
IT Corp, 200 Horizon Center Blvd
Trenton, NJ 08691-1904
D OR Owner Request
D CR Contractor Request
D DR Designer Request
D CC Concealed Condition
D DE Design Error
D DO Design Omission
X SC Schedule Change
0 OT Other ~ff},:".-;:., /~·t~ .. \•J {!J 'd, ,/'~ .. ,
I,.' ',' ..41 . --,,_, ',, a<\✓ .. -~ .• -,-:.-~\
Under _the terms of the Co~tract and without invali~ating the original p~o~isions thereof, the fol!owinJ~~~~e i;0;_r tit \t\
authorized for the change in contract amount herein set forth: (Description of change order with de~~_t)~d b(~~,~~0wn ...::71
attached) t~ ; ., ... , ',>--. '-'11 ,-.. I ':'] ·\•.,. -~ -••. ;..."' •·; _,:· ... v
Extend schedule due to impact of greater than normal number of rain-impacted days in August, 2001 _\Attached c~lendar,;):/
shows 7 such days incurred vs. 5 year average of 6 such days in August per attached agreed-upon bas~li.ne:' -_,, , ~· •~ ,_r . .y·
-~t.!::...&~~~_;_,...'_;;~
The time of completion including previous orders is 291 calendar days and shall be increased by _1 calendar days by this
change order for a revised contract date of completion of December 29. 2001 (plus EPA review time for TSCA permit
application).
CONTRACT COST SUMMARY
1. Original Contract Amount
2. Amt. of Previous Orders
3. Amt. of This Order:
ADD
ADD
$0
$0
Deduct
Deduct
$0
$0
4. Total additions lines 2 &3 $0 Minus Total Deducts: $0
(Line 4 shall show the net amount to be added or (deducted) from the contract amount.)
5. Revised Contract Total Amount
6. The Owner certifies that the contingency fund balance after this change is
TOTALS
$6,658,000
$0
$6,658,000
$
Fill in one copy only
I certify that my Bonding Company will be notified forthwith that my contract has been increased by the amount of this
change order, and that a copy of the approved change order will be mailed upon receipt by me to my surety.
ITCorp. By: -~ ~._L_ __ ___,_ ____ (_C_o-nt-ra-c-to_r_)______ -
200 Horizon Center Blvd Gary . Duke, P.E.
vtt/l.'t"' I -eu,,..._ By: ""~
Tr~on , N~ 086;;;..~ 9014 Prooject _~:n~;r
-----------------(Designer)
N C.. DePA--1c r1Y? e.JT o ~
£'1Jv1fl.0JJM6Vr 1 /J~7ll~L-Re.tJtJJec-6.5 By : :/?a;_e_,,: ; ~ . ~
(Owner)
State Construction Office By:
By: -----------------Other approving Agency (if needed)
DISTRIBUTION: 1 original to State Construction
1 original to Owner
1 origiriel to BeBfd er G9A'H¥liS3iOl"I (if an-y)
1 original to Designer
1 original to Contractor
1 original to Surety
9/20/01
(Date)
lo /3 /ut 1 (11ate)
(Date)
jtJ ,-? z -t'I//
7 (Date)
(Date)
,,,.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE
DATE:
REQUEST NO.:
OWNER:
DESIGNER:
9/20/01
02
NCDENR
EarthTech
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: Add 1 day to contract time.
STATE CODE: SCO#010440101 A
PROJECT NAME: Warren County PCB
Landfill
CONTRACTOR: IT Corp
CONTRACT FOR: BCD Detoxification
REASON FOR CHANGE: Greater than normal number of rain-impacted days in August, 2001 .
SUMMARY REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE FOR TIME AND COST: (Attach Contractor's detailed cost breakdown of labor
and materials). No cost impact
DESIGNER SUMMARY:
1. Schedule items affected by this change:
~z)A-~
2. Can Contractor mitigate the change without requiring a contract time extension?
f\)o
3. Will the change require a contract time extension for other contractors? Which?
/J i
4. Are additional costs indicated by reason of the time extension? If so they must be included in 5 & 6 Below.
rJ :)
CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE DESIGNER'S ESTIMATE
5. Estimated cost of change: _O ___________ _
6. Estimated time extension field cost (if any) _o ___________ _
DESIGNER RECOMMENDATION AND CERTIFICATION:
I certify that I have reviewed all aspects of this change order and have determined that it is in the best interest of the owner to have the
work accomplished. I have also determined that the cost and time allotment are fair and equitable, and I recommend acceptance by the
owner.
ugust 2001 'RE:l COUNTY PCB LANDFILL DETOXIFICATION PROJECT WEATHER DATA Sun I Mon I Tu: r = Rain Day I i = Impact Day 5 '6 12 113 r 7 14 Wed 1 8 r 15 i Thu Fri Sal 2 3 4 9 10 11 16 17 18 .#I I l Daily Rainfall: 1.IDailr Rainfall: 2.3" Daily Rainfall: 0.05" \ \ Mo. To Date: I.Mo.To Date: 3.3" Mo. To Date: 3.35" 19 120 121 22 23 24 r 125 • II r I Dail-Rainfall: 0.4" Daily luinfa11: 0.25" Mo.fo Date: 3.75" Mo. To Date: 4.0" 26 121 128 29 30 31 r I 11 I I I Daily Rainfall: 0. I:: I I I ?vlo.ToDate: 4.1 Date of ]:'rt: A30,2001 Unless otherwise noted the rain ·gage reading are taken at 8:00 AM Monday through Friday ,.&2 Average nthly Rainfall: 4. 9-~1-(J/ Actual M,mthly Rainfall: 4. Approved: .. ~ ~ IJ&,--:,.._/ . ' . Work Da~:s Lost Due to Ra.in: 7 n d1ys and 2 impact days) ' Dennis Jones ' Date ----' ··n :;o 0 ~ ..... -I (") 0 ..., ,:t E ll.J ..., ..., 11) :::, (") ' 0 i:: :::, c+ u:: z (") Tl D X 1 a ,~ \~ -~ co U) 11) ,:t I\) --J I\) (SI (SI ~ ~ ~ .. ~ (SI D 3 "1J I\)
,,.
Year Jan Feb
1996
1997 7 4
1998 10 6
1999 6 6
2000 7 2
2001 5 7
Average 7 5
Yearly 72
PMB
Rain Days Recorded at Arcola, NC Station
(July 1, 1996 -July 31, 2001)
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
8 6 6
10 7 2 7 6 3 5
6 10 4 5 8 4
6 7 2 7 7 7 10
4 7 4 10 9 11 10
8 5 8 2 5
7 7 4 6 7 6 8
Oct Nov Dec
4 7 8
5 7 8
4 5 7
4 3 4
0 5 3
3 5 6
August 31 , 2001
. .,
Form OC-24
Rev. 9-88 SECTION 310 FORM OF CHANGE ORDER
STATE CONSTRUCTION OFFICE
CHANGE ORDER NO. . 4
INSTITUTION: /J £JV R
PROJECT: 'wARR~µ <::6l/Jv<T'( PcfiLIIWdFtLL
STATE CODE & -ITEM: o /0 44 o Io <K_tl
CONTRACT FOR: LJ:ltv{)Flll {)c1¢;c1F101m,CAUSE:
CONTRACTOR: 7T corpor4 now CODE:
-
~OR
0 CR
0 DR
0 cc
0 DE
0 DO
0 SC
O OT
Under the terms of the contract and without invalidating the
original provisions thereof, the following change(s) in work is
(are) authorized for the change in contract amount herein set
forth: (Description of change order with detailed cost breakdown
attached) REPC11R o,-:: %RO.I'16)J /)f-/J S'eci11•-tel-/'I-Co;vlfr1L f1e4.l'vree1
The time of completion including previous orders is 2 q 2. calendar
days and shall be (ineree.sed) (decree.sed) (unchanged) by _o __ ___
calendar days by this change order for a revised contract date of
completion of J 't2.. p (!'.171 • (Detailed analysis supporting the
requirements fora change in duration is attached.)
CONTRACT COST SUMMARY: TOTALS
1. Original Contract Amount •••....•.•••••••••••••••• $ 0>, (:, 1r 8,C)CJO, ~ , J
2. Amt. of Previous Orders:
Add $ 5"5 2. ~ Deduct $ o .ap.
3. Amt. of This Order:
Add $0 .01:J Deduct $ lq -:2 J 7. 18
4. Total of lines 2 & 3
Minus Total Deducts: $ I 6, ::2 :> '7 1 :l 8
[Line 4 shall show the net amount to be added or (deducted)
from the contract amount.]
5. Revised Contract Total Amount .••••••.•••••.•.••••• $ 6 .. G 4 :2, 3' /I. ?..l: > ,
6. The owner certifies that the contingency fund
balance after this change is:
Fill in one copy only
I certify that my bonding company will be notified forthwith that
my contract has been (~fte£eased) (decreased) by the amount of this
change order, and that a copy of the approved change order will be
mailed upon receipt by me to my surety.
By:
(Contractor) (Date
ftvvJh--~J..... By:
(Designer)
1J ENR-By: ~ -fiJ . ~ t,jlfl/tJ 2-
(Owner) (Date)
State Construction Offi_gg ~~~-:· ~-c>.;;,
~~· (Date) •
Other Approving Agency
(if needed)
DISTRIBUTION:
By:
1 original to state Construction
1 original to owner
(Date)
1 original to board or commission (if any)
l original to designer
l original to contractor
l original to surety
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE
DATE: FE (3 ';;) o, 2 0 C ')_
REQUEST NO. : ½,;.
OWNER: {) Fi IV R..
DESCRIPTION ·OF CHANGE:
STATE CODE:D10440101o.i:TEM #:
PROJECT NAME: y,,, ,:freR r, µ ce,. £.AµJ f'I '-<
CONTRACTOR: r, CoR. P
/?GPA1~ o,::: ;;R.or,o~ Et·fvd f'cJ,,,._q,-.,r CCi.l..,<f;t'i,l Mt?A.lv(2.a. {)j;'J.,1{<_ µ071F,~J
FeB 41, ').ov-:i. or V ICJL,'1710,-,J ,~ f-l2of1VJ.,' ~.,....c:1 S'<c..c:l11,.,te,-/[ Cc/V'fr11l f)e1e1-t-1'(
""''<r" COhr,lun.r<.«-Je-1d Lwl 012 F~B /1, ?<11J?. iG"€ A'H'p,c.J..e..t:I Reeorf
REASON FOR CHANGE: p;;f\/1'2. {le. e.e..,p"f Oi7 f;(l.0!1t,-,..,-A.vJ J'e..d-1M e.,..,.,,-c,oM{r-~(..
P6(2ttl<r v,0L.t1"'T1uy, JJ0T1Pi~r'1T1u'J../4
,
SUMMARY REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE FOR TIME AND COST:
(Attach contractor's detailed cost breakdown of labor and
materials) AT'Tf\c:L..t,d p/JR(l,f rGc~ Lener dArr~.i Pet3 ~CJ~ :1£10'.:2
\,n<; ~ (3Prck:vp /J/VO;C~.J <frtJn /3PtR7 Tfr°c 4 f'u-/'3Cu1-(Jr;ffc.'{(l/t?.f
DESIGNER ~UMMARY:
1. Schedule items affected by this change:
2. Can contractor mitigate the change without requiring a contract
time extension?
3. Will the change require a contract time extension for other
contractors? Which?
4. Are additional costs indicated by reason of the time extension?
If so, they must be included in 5 & 6 below.
CONTRACTOR'S ESTIMATE DESIGNER'S ESTIMATE
5. Estimated cost of
change:
6. Estimated time
extension field
cost (if any)
µ/A
I
DESIGNER RECOMMENDATION AND CERTIFICATION:
< 1-/ b I Z 2 1: 2-.9 /
/1)0UL
I certify that I have reviewed all aspects of this change order and
have determined that it is in the best interest of the owner to
have the work accomplished. I have also determined that the cost
and time allotment are fair and equitable, and I recommend
acceptance by the owner.
APPROVED
TITLE:
BY: (j)(_ DATE: ~/IV:f1 L
PMJ eot /4 a;#U'~ .
f
7 01 Co rporat e C e nte r Driv e , Suite 475, Rale igh, N o rth Caro l (na 2 7607
February 20, 2002
Mr. Gary Duke, P.E.
Project Manager
IT Corporation
200 Horizon Center Boulevard
l'renton, NJ 08691-1904
Reference: Warren County PCB Landfill
Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
NC SCO ID No. 010440101A
. VIA E-MAIL FOLLOWED BY CERTIFIED MAIL
Dear Mr. Duke:
IT Corporation is hereby notified that the work of controlling erosion and subsequent
sedimentation at the Warren County PCB Landfill had not been performed in a
satisfactory manner.
T e l e phone
Fae s imi l e
As you are aware, the design of the concrete containment slabs caused water · to 9 1 9 . s 5 4 • 6 2 5 9
concentrate at one point in the vicinity of Slab #4 sump. Stormwater has overflowed this
point and caused severe erosion of the slope on the west side of the site. To attempt to
correct this situation, IT, through it's subcontractor KPH Trucking/Landscaping, Inc.,
installed hay bales on the west side of Slab #4 inside the containment curb. The work ·
was performed by KPH on January 16, 2002 in accordance with the instructions provided
by IT's site manager, Mr. Bill Gallagher, in his letter of January 16th• Earth Tech visited
the site on January 30th and noted severe erosion of the west side of the site to such an
extent that an eight to ten foot section of the 6-inch water main was exposed and
undercut. The hay bales at Slab #4 were clearly ineffective in controlling erosion, and
the extent of damage to the site caused by erosion was greater on the 30th than on the 16th•
Digital photographs of the deteriorated conditions at the site were taken by Earth Tech
and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) personnel and sent to
you electronically on the 30th• The situation of the 30th was such that DENR was
notified of a violation of its erosion and sediment control permit on February 4th due to
the ineffectiveness of the controls instituted by IT Corporation in controlling erosion at
the site, and due to IT Corporation not properly maintaining the control measures and
structures. Also documented m the photographs was the severe erosion on the landfill
slope to the east of Slab #1 and subsequent sediment buildup, erosion at the end of the
pole barn roof drain culvert, and. lack of vegetation on the southwest comer of the site.
As a further complication, KPH informed the Earth Tech site manager, Dennis Jones, that
they had not been paid for previous work and were unwilling to perform additional work
for IT until they were paid and the bankruptcy payment issues had been resolved. Due to
the emergency nature of the potential permit violation and to prevent further damage to
the site, DENR requested that Earth Tech undertake immediate measures to repair the
damage to the site caused by erosion and to put in place measures to minimize further
damage and erosion. Due to your illness, Earth Tech notified Mr. Bill Gallagher by
phone on February 1, 2002 of the DENR's intent to have Earth Tech undertake the
EARTH@T EC H
A tqca INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMPANY
Mr. Gary Duke, P.E.
February 20, 2002
Page2 of2
repairs. Mr. Gallagher acknowledged that Earth Tech would do the work, and we
requested that Mr. Gallagher so notify you.
On February 4, 2002, KPH, under subcontract with Earth Tech, mobilized to the landfill
site to repair erosion damage to the water main, install new seed and netting on the east
hillside, cleanout the west sediment basin, repair erosion at the roof drain culvert, and
seed the southwest comer of site. Earth Tech also subcontracted with HICO to run a
temporary electric line from the trailers to the Slab #4 sump and to install a 90-gpm pump
in the sump. The sump pump was installed to address your specific concern that the
containment curb not be saw cut to allow for controlled drainage of the slab. All work
was completed on February 81 2002.
The costs incurred by DENR to perform the above work pursuant to Article 28 of the
General Conditions totals $16,227.28, as follows:
KPH Trucking
HICO Electric
Grainger (sump pump)
Subcontract sub-total
Earth Tech 20% overhead and profit
Subcontract total
Earth Tech labor: Jones, 40 hrs @ $55/hr
Funk, 6 hrs @ $98/hr
Jones per diem, 5 days at $81/day
Total change order
$9,677.50
$_883.70
$300.70
. $10,861.90
$2,172.38
$13,034.28
$2,200.00
$588.00
405.00
$16,227.28
The amount of $16,227.28 will be deducted from the current retainage on your contract
· through a change order. Please feel free to caU me at [phone] if you have any
questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Earth Tech, Inc.
Jim Cloonan, P.E.
Project Manager
c: Pat Backus, NCDENR
Zack Abengunrin, SCO
Bill Gallagher, IT
John Funk
6\trJtJ;, ~U/-Tt,l ~ATTt\WS,~,~~o~ ,, " Ca■e # ___ _
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOUR
LA.ND UAL/TY SECTION: 3800 Ba"en Drive 1628 M. ii Service tel'. Ralei h NC 27699-16 --.~..,.;~~
~~~'~:!l:l~(;I..,t-i!~---~ .
Person
Address:,_..L.l,,i:;,_;L-4,l;l..--1.:.::i..c..u. ....... i...)J"'-~!i...1,.-3io..:!'-"!.::.L~--......1:~1.1i...1.u;µi::; _ _c:~,.__...,t;;z:.....L.~...,_.,._ ______ _
1. Project ~on :S 14-f(oC/:;-1 . Pictures: No \i:t? Yes a · 1..I _Prin_· _ts_□ __ s_li_de_s_a_ .. __ rn_·gi_·ta1 __ a __ v_i_deo __ □_I
2. WeatherandSoil~nditions ,::&<r--f0t, -:zocr; ,:SofgAAU-C-
3. Is site currently under notice of violation? Yes □ No ~
4. ls the site in compliance with the S.P.C.A. and the.rules? . Yes a No \,n lfno, check violations below: .
5. Violations: ,-· ·
□ a. No approved plan, G.S. I I3A-S7(4) and ISA NCAC 4B.0007(c) □ g. In!ldequate buffer zone, G.S.113A-S7(1)
~-Failure to follow approved plan, G.S. I 13A-61.l ah. Graded slopes and fills too steep, G.S. I 13A-S7(2)
□ c. Failure to submit revised plan, G.S. l 13A-S4.I(b) and or lSA NCAC 4B.0024 (d)
ISA NCAC 4B.00l8(a) . □ i. Unprotected exposed slopes, G.S. 113A-S7(2)
□ d. Failure to provide adequate groundcover, G.S. 113A-S7(3) and □j. Failure to maintain erosion control measures,
ISA NCAC 48.0007(b) or ISA NCAC 4B.0024(e) ISA NCAC 4B.0013
tie. Insufficient measures to retain sediment on site, G.S. l13A-57(3) a k. Other(dcscribe) ________________ _
~ Failure to take all reasonable measures,ISA NCAC 4B.0005 4 6. NPDES Permit Violation? Yes )!j) No □ Dcscribe __ _,._'"·::;...:::;;_..:..;..._.__.;:V~U..-=O:a.=,.._ ___ ___,. __ ...,..,......,,C7"'1'---------
7. Has sedimentation damage occurred since last inspection? Yes a If yes, where? (check all that apply): No
Lake/natural watercourse on the tract a Lake/natural watercourse off the tract □ Other property □
Description: -
Degree of damage: Slight □ Moderate a Severe □
8. Contact made with (Name) tyC C NL. OH vcTt-Title ~ , ,
Inspection Report given □ or sen~ to Person Financially Responsible Date given/sent -B I,' ,5Q{ Q ir O ~/()'If()~ 9. Corrective actions needed: ____________________________________ _
Report by: \U ~Lt 5.,At,.yµ~.5 Others present _____________________ _
Date of Inspection: Q l /,.;,s 'oa;
·{§)~A:I i?>A~u.s
Del.JR--D~M
Time arriving a.t site:._I~\ ........ : ..._!...:~=-----Time leaving site: _ _.I~·\ ___ : 4~0~----
'.Ju'n-14-06 OB: 12A K P HAWKINS
KPH TRUCKING AND LANDSCAPING,
P. 0 . Box 129
Macon, NC 27551
[phone] FAX [phone]
1 ·BILl,,TO ··-
l ---··-liarth Ti;c;J~
70 I Corponslc Drive
Suit.: -47.S
Ro.icigh,N .C.27607
I ••--·
I ITEM l~fac
I
I
· Mi:IC
Mi!IC
Misc
Mi!IC
Mir.c
Mill#,;
Misc
Misc
Misc
DESCRIPTION
-Miscellancous/R.1.'(lllir of erosion damttgc 111 the Warren
County PCI! I .andlill, W111M1 Coimty, North Carolinu. .·
Work to include mt au~ion feature on W1.'3l side of the
com,ri:I~ l.'mtAinment struclt.m: with M-sito materials
including on-silC ABC stone inoludinK hw;lc tilllng and
i:t,mpacting around the c:,<posed 6-inch PVC wlllt!r main,
clean-out the scdlmcntatioo bo:lin oo the wci'lt :.idc or
th~landlill site, rl.'-lll.'t.-d bare areas on the soutllwcst !.ide
of the lundfill i;lte,re-.,ood, stabilu..c.: 11nd mulch.on the
ea!lt hillside in the un:.u of the light poles, rc•l!CW the
north hilhidc her.ween the c:oncoolc tflrU1;h1re and the
lined Rtonn wal.c:r pond, add rip rap and hay bales al the
di:Ki~ nl' the C011crcte culvert fivm pole hw't) tMf
drain11: on the west side orlsmc:11111.
-Mi:M:ll1111,~nu.'llhockhoc
-Mi.~cllancou!IIUlmb."ln dum1, truclc
-Mii!Ulll!J\~or
-Miscclliliw..'ou.'4/(6 )rnen @27 .50ea.
-Mi~llAtl6l'IU.~( J )rru:n(ti.)27 .5~.
-Misccl111I11."'0U:i/Jut1; man.inc
-I\AiKCella11eousllimc,sccd,fcrtilizi.-r&lll11J.W
-Misccl)ruu."Ou:i/rip-ruj-1
-MisullruJOO\W
-Subtotnl
Thunk you for lho opportunity lo 8'.TVt; ynu.
I
257 1026+
DATE
2/S/2002
QTY RATE
0.()()
24 n.lXJ
10 50.011
20 4S.OO
)8 165.00
7 82.50
2,000 0,60
I 1,0311.IX)
1l) G0.00
l 100.no
P.02
Invoice
INVOICE NO.
946
AMOUNT
0.00
1.800.00
500.00
900.00
2,970;00
577.50
1,200.(J(J
t,ol0.00
600.00
IOO.IXl
9,677.50
SIJ.677.50
HICO ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING
1216 Elmira Ave.
DURHAM, N.C. 2no1
Phone: . [phone]
TO-=~~-T---=---~----
DATE COMPLETED
Signature _________________ _
Work ordered by _______________ _
I hereby acknowledge the satisfactory completion of the above described work.
ORDER TAKEN BY
IQ1)AvWORK 0 CONTRACT □ EXTRA
JOB NAME/NUMBER
Sii~~:i~s~!! 6~! 7 7 Q l -~•~11111:11::■111111111:11111r~~iO~~ 7; ~~E2 O 8 : 54 DBT/CRD CODE l SALES ORDER NUMBER OPEN 1055786274 RALEIGH NC 2 7 6 o 7 _ o o o DEPARTMENT NUMBER CALLER REQUISITIONER BRANCH ADDRESS DENN 4820 SIGNETT DRIVE PACKING LIST EMPLOYEE I PAGE NO 3CHG 1 ofl DELIVERY NUMBER 6068971898 TELEPHONE NUMBER PROJECT/JOB NUMBER RALEIGH NC 2 7 6 0 4 -2 8 7 8 919854620◊ 919-790-0888 -liil1~1■-,~~~iiii~~r )T_EM DESCRIPTION _ ·--_ I ITEM NUMBER I SHIP QTY I BACKORDER MESSAGE !TAXI UNIT PRICE I TOTAL rtrn7::t::ir::::~:&t,:~iffii=>:::~:i0Tut:ltlli>::>t>:t:t:>tt't:,Jl I:t~=fu:~:,&i,ld@rr<t<,ri~<tt:::trttr:tr:ttt<ttt>trlt&::~ttrtf=,=iiI:ft&iGltrrti=~=,JJ:::iiiStr Upon the return for credit and/or replacement of the above listed Grainger product(s), customer warrants and represents that no property damage or personal Injury has resulted from use of returned product(s) and customer further agrees that It will not assert any claim against W.W. Grainger, Inc., Its subsidiaries and divisions or Its suppliers In any suit involving the above listed product(s). GRAINGER@ DIV of W.W.GRAINGER; INC. SAP DELIVERY 6068971898 I certify that If I am purchasing the materlalls) as "materials of trade" as defined In the Hazardous Materials Regulations in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. I intend to use the materlal(s) In direct support of my principal business (which Is not transportation), and I do not Intend to resell the material, or transport them In a vehicle other than my own. TAX TOTAL 18.32 300.07 111111111111 111111111111111 11111 11111 1111111111 1111111111111 Visit our web site@ www.grainger.com ___ ,_( __ _