CONTACTS 
0201 - Dutra Oakland Project Ofc                                                                                                                                          O-00000648 0201
020101 - Mr. Chris Peterson;
0202 - Dutra Dredging Company                                                                                                                                             O-00000644 0101
020201 - Mr. James J. Galli, P.E.; Manager
020202 - West Coast Dredging
0203 - Corps of Engineers, SFD                                                                                                                                            O-00000632 0405
020301 - Mr. Marcus Tikotsky; Contract Specialist
020302 - Contracting Division
0204 - Corps of Engineers, Sausalito                                                                                                                                      O-00000645 0201
020401 - Mr. Leonard SooHoo, P.E.; Chief; Construction Service Branch
0205 - COE, Oakland Harbor Project                                                                                                                                        O-00000646 0102
020501 - Mr. Glen N. Chafe; Inspector
0206 - Corps of Engineers, Sausalito                                                                                                                                      O-00000645 0202
020601 - Mr. Mike Murphy; Construction Service Branch

SUBJECTS
Inner Harbor Work Area, Schnitzer
Piling encountered, Schnitzer
Debris Removal Modification, 961017
Todd Turning Basin
Galbraith Disposal Requirements
0019   Remove concentrated debris Todd and

1008 -
1008 -    ..
1009 - Summary/Objective
1010 -
101001 - Follow up ref SDS 9 4044, ref SDS 9 0000.
101002 -
101003 - Developed information from the Contractor on a work operation to
101004 - remove debris from the Schnitzer and Todd Wings.  Leonard advised the
101005 - Contractor will be paid on a negotiated unit price basis, rather than
101006 - the force account (time and material) method the contractor proposed.
101007 - Mike Murphy raised environmental issues that require research. Marcus
101008 - suggested a composite work operation to reduce the cost of the work to
101009 - the Government.
101011 -        ..
101012 -       [See follow up discussion with COE team, ref SDS 10 line 74.]
101013 -
101015 -  ..
1011 -
1012 -
1013 - Discussion
1014 -
101401 - Dutra Submits Proposed Work Operation for T&M Payment
101402 -
101403 - Jim Galli submitted at the meeting a proposed work operations for
101404 - debris removal that calls for an initial step to "Boom off the entire
101405 - area in question," ref DRT 1 2142, per Leonard's request at Progress
101406 - Meeting on 961015, ref SDS 9 7364.  Jim and Chris explained that Dutra
101407 - feels the best method of payment would be time and material (also
101408 - called "force account").
101409 -
101410 -      [On 961107 RFP 19 was issued but Dutra failed to boom off the
101411 -      area, resulting in COE directing this be done, ref SDS 16 0000.]
101413 -  ..
101414 - Marcus explained that the government's experience shows that time and
101415 - material payment is generally not successful in accomplishing cost
101416 - effective performance because it lacks incentives for innovation and
101417 - timeliness.  Chris said Dutra is anxious to complete this work so it
101418 - can move the equipment at Galbraith to another project.  Marcus noted
101419 - the government has found that consistent use of sound contract
101420 - practices produces better results than relying on ad hoc intentions
101421 - that are subject to changing circumstances.
101422 -
101423 -
101425 -  ..
101426 - COE Will Issue RFP for Unit Price Payment
101427 -
101428 - Leonard advised the Government wants to determine an equitable unit
101429 - price for removal of the debris, based on the estimated quantity of
101430 - work to be performed.  This will permit Dutra to exercise its desire
101431 - for timely completion and also provide incentives explained by Marcus.
101433 -  ..
101434 - Chris indicated the quantity is difficult to estimate.
101436 -  ..
101437 - Jim feels a rough calculation could be made based on the record of
101438 - performance so far.  Jim explained the costs incurred to date are not
101439 - representative of the cost to perform the work as a dedicated
101440 - operation, because each time Dutra has encountered a debris area, it
101441 - has pulled out of that area.  This approach means that Dutra's costs
101442 - so far include excessive costs to mobilize and demobilize which will
101443 - not be incurred during a dedicated operation to perform the work.
101445 -  ..
101446 - Jim estimated that so far Dutra has removed about 1500 to 2000 CY of
101447 - debris.  Pictures were examined showing that such material has a lot
101448 - of wood piling and other debris mixed with bay mud, similar to what
101449 - might be expected in a disposal site, so possibly this area was used
101450 - as a dumping site at some time in the past.
101452 -  ..
101453 - Chris said Dutra would have to take the debris to a location where the
101454 - mud and the wood and debris can be separated for appropriate disposal.
101455 - They contemplated then hauling the Bay Mud that would have dried, back
101456 - to Galbraith.  He explained that Zaccor has been able to salvage for
101457 - sale some of the wood encountered on the demolition contract for the
101458 - Todd Wing piers.  Possibly Dutra can do the same.
101460 -  ..
101461 - There were discussions of using berth 9 (???).
101462 -
101464 -  ..
101465 - Payment by CY or by Ton?
101466 -
101467 - Since the material will be trucked to a landfill disposal site, that
101468 - quantity can be readily captured based on weigh tickets at the
101469 - disposal site.
101470 -
101471 - A conversion factor from CY to tonnage can be used for estimating
101472 - purposes of calculating a budget.
101474 -  ..
101475 - A means is needed for the parties to determine the quantity that goes
101476 - directly to Galbraith, if any.  Jim said it could be trucked or loaded
101477 - back into a scow and towed by that method.  It seemed as though Jim
101478 - indicated the scow can hold 250 (??) truck loads, which means it would
101479 - be much cheaper.
101481 -  ..
101482 - More thought is needed on structuring a simple yet adequate range of
101483 - tasks to provide an equitable adjustment for the Contractor.
101484 -
101485 -     [See discussion with COE at ref SDS 10 line 83, and telecon with
101486 -     Tom Benero, ref SDS 12 line 70.]
101488 -  ..
101489 - Galbraith Disposal Requirements for Creosote Contaminants
101490 -
101491 - Mike Murphy pointed out concerns as to whether the creosote on these
101492 - piling which necessarily becomes mixed into the mud, is appropriate
101493 - for the Galbraith disposal site, as called out for both the Todd and
101494 - Schnitzer Wing.
101496 -  ..
101497 - Jim noted that if the debris cannot go to Galbraith, then it will have
101498 - to be trucked to an inland disposal site that accepts such
101499 - contaminated material.
101501 -  ..
101502 - Leonard will inquire about whether the mud, once dried and separated
101503 - from the debris, can be sent to Galbraith.
101504 -
101505 -      The issue is whether there is sufficient quantity to justify
101506 -      making an operation to separate it and haul it to different
101507 -      locations.
101509 -       ..
101510 -      This is an imponderable that increases the risk of estimating
101511 -      the cost of the work.
101512 -
101514 -  ..
101515 - Combining Work Operations May Reduce Cost/Save Time
101516 -
101517 - Marcus asked if Debris Removal could be performed in conjunction with
101518 - dredging under the contract?
101519 -
101520 - Jim indicated initially that this would not be an efficient, cost
101521 - effective method.
101523 -  ..
101524 - Chris seemed to recall, however, that Dutra used this method on a
101525 - prior project with success.  There would be two scows.  One for
101526 - dredged material, and another for material contaminated with debris.
101527 -
101528 -     [On 961024 reviewed contract provisions and options for RFP to
101529 -     maintain progress of work at reasonable cost. ref SDS 13 4933]
101531 -  ..
101532 - The objectives are to:
101533 -
101534 -    1.  Avoid excessive mobilization charges, which Dutra reported
101535 -        today have been incurred, per above.  This operation could
101536 -        continue until the hard material is encountered, and thereby
101537 -        ensure that most of the debris was removed, so the chances are
101538 -        minimized of standing down the debris removal operation, and
101539 -        then having an argument about mobilizing it again, if during
101540 -        subsequent dredging in the area, more debris is encountered.
101542 -         ..
101543 -    2.  Avoid being charged for dredging at the higher unit price for
101544 -        debris removal.  It seems impossible to avoid coming up with
101545 -        buckets of good material, along with buckets of debris. There
101546 -        may be layers of debris from having used these locations in
101547 -        different ways over the past 100 years under the constancy of
101548 -        shoaling.
101550 -      ..
101551 -     [On 961018 discussed with Tom Benero at ref SDS 11 7399]
101553 -  ..
101554 - A key question may be whether the location of the work permits use of
101555 - two scows, as Chris recalled Dutra used on a prior project.  Another
101556 - concern may be that the contract price for dredging under these
101557 - conditions may justify an increase to account for some diminished
101558 - efficiency relative to a straight dredging operation, as contemplated
101559 - by the original contract.  Of course on the plus side for Dutra any
101560 - such inefficiency is being rewarded by the much higher earnings from
101561 - debris removal.
101563 -  ..
101564 - In any case, this may be a better solution than the alternative which
101565 - would entail doing the debris removal operation, then starting
101566 - dredging and finding that all of the debris was not removed, so the
101567 - debris operation has to be re-mobilized and so on.
101568 -
101569 -
101571 -  ..
101572 - Avoiding Excessive Costs of Antone
101573 -
101574 - There was discussion consistent with Bob Johnston's observation at the
101575 - 961009 meeting that the Antone excavates piling and hard material with
101576 - equal efficiency.  Difficulties from snagging hydraulic cables would
101577 - not be expected to occur once the debris removal operation is
101578 - completed, since miscellaneous items would have been removed.
101579 -
101580 -       [On 961024 determination that Antone cannot dig in this area
101581 -       because specs call for mud bucket, ref SDS 13 5882,
101583 -        ..
101584 -       [On 961108 letter to Contractor on mud bucket. ref SDS 17 0000]
101586 -  ..
101587 - There was discussion that the debris removal operation cannot be
101588 - guaranteed to discover and remove piling stubs that have broken off
101589 - below the mud line, and/or the line of the hard material below the
101590 - soft mud.  Jim said extra cost from this work primarily arises in
101591 - connection with off-loading at Galbraith.  Chris noted that if
101592 - of -loading is slowed below the rate of excavation, then stand-by
101593 - costs accumulate all along the work operation, including the Antone.
101594 - This can be remedied in part by adding scows, but Jim pointed out
101595 - Dutra does not have unlimited scows.
101597 -  ..
101598 - There was discussion that Dutra will be asked for a separate unit cost
101599 - to remove debris encountered by the Antone after the Debris Removal
101600 - operation is completed.  Chris noted this will be a very big cost,
101601 - because the Antone is not a cost effective operation.
101602 -
101603 -       [See discussion by COE team, ref SDS 10 line 79.]
101605 -        ..
101606 -       [See final RFP 19 issued to Contractor ref SDS 15 line 240.]
101608 -        ..
101609 -       [See where Antone is not permitted to perform this work because
101610 -       it does not have a clamshell mud bucket, ref SDS 18 line 436.]
101612 -  ..
101613 - Jim advised, however, that the Antone is the only machine "in the
101614 - world" that can excavate the "hard" material in the SF Bay.  While
101615 - this may be an exaggeration, in the sense that Dutra and other firms
101616 - have excavated hard material previously and will continue to do so
101617 - even without the Antone, it reflects that the work operation is very
101618 - slow.  Unfortunately, the capital cost of the Antone, seems to be so
101619 - high that even with its increased performance, the unit cost of the
101620 - work winds up being higher than the slower, but less expensive
101621 - alternative equipment.
101623 -  ..
101624 - Jim observed that the Antone excavates at 10K CY per day.  There was
101625 - brief consideration of recent production reports on this project
101626 - showing an average of below 6K CY per day, ref SDS 6 line 123.  Jim
101627 - indicated that recent performance has been closer to 10K CY per day.
101628 -
101629 -
101631 -  ..
101632 - Liberty Off-Loader Scheduled for Another Project
101633 -
101634 - Chris re-stated that Dutra is anxious to complete work in the Todd and
101635 - Schnitzer wings because they want to move their off-loading equipment
101636 - at Galbraith where the material from these locations is being sent, to
101637 - another project.
101639 -  ..
101640 - Jim indicated Dutra has scheduled 3 weeks for this work operation.
101642 -  ..
101643 - There was no discussion today of Dutra's delayed performance in
101644 - mobilizing the Antone which is needed to complete work in the
101645 - Schnitzer and Todd wings, and its work underway to update the project
101646 - schedule, as reported at the Progress Meeting on 961015, ref SDS 9
101647 - line 332.
101649 -  ..
101650 - Using a combined operation to remove both debris and perform contract
101651 - dredging may offer the best method to expedite completion, since it
101652 - permits continuity of work, rather than requiring mobilization of
101653 - separate operations.
101654 -
101655 -
101657 -  ..
101658 - Estimated Cost:  12 - 30 Day Job x Spread Rate
101659 -
101660 - Glen asked how much time may be required to accomplish debris removal?
101661 -
101662 - Jim initially felt this could not be estimated.
101663 -
101664 - There was discussion of considering a hypothetical where Dutra
101665 - received the contract plans as an ordinary IFB that showed the two
101666 - piers in the Todd Wing, and the IFB requested a cost for performing
101667 - debris removal.
101669 -  ..
101670 - Jim felt Dutra would have to assume there was debris throughout the
101671 - area and so would make a calculation based on that and an assumed
101672 - depth based on Dutra's experience performing work of similar nature
101673 - throughout the Bay and other locales.
101675 -  ..
101676 - This could generate a quantity as a target for developing an RFP.
101678 -  ..
101679 - There was discussion of assuming for purpose of the RFP that there is
101680 - 2 feet of debris throughout the work areas, even though it is actually
101681 - assumed debris is not evenly distributed.
101683 -  ..
101684 - Jim indicated the debris is likely concentrated in and around the
101685 - location of the piers, plus centered approximately between the piers
101686 - where there may have been a prior pier that has since been torn down.
101688 -  ..
101689 - Jim estimates debris removal for each of these three areas can take
101690 - from 2 - 5 days on a 24 hour shift.  That makes 6 - 15 days for the
101691 - Todd Wing.  For budgeting purposes, it can be assumed there is a
101692 - similar quantity on the Schnitzer side.  This makes it a 12 - 30 day
101693 - job, assuming a single spread for both jobs.
101694 -
101695 -
101696 -
101697 -
101698 -
1017 -