CCMIN071691 - Laserfiche WebLink

335 Mr. Mclnerney then made the following points: (1) The Weko-seals were tested according to the manufacturer's requirements, as called for in the Agreement. The City's requirement that the seals hold 12 lbs. of pressure per square inch (psi) for an undetermined amount of time is not part of the Agreement. (2) Part of the compromise was to address the leaks in the pipes. He stated that a sample of the Weko-seal was given to the City for its inspection and review, and the City watched the installation of the seals without any objections. After 194 of the seals were in place, the City asked that all the brass test plugs on the seals be removed. He added that there is no evidence that the plugs need to be removed to put the line in place. (3) The City is using MJB Pipeline's refusal to add steel bands to the Weko-seals as grounds for termination of the contract. (4) The reason given for non-payment of the paving job MJB Pipeline did on Hopyard Road is the compression of the soil on a portion of the road. The compression was caused, not by the paving work, by an unplugged sprinkler head which flooded the area. He indicated that there was no evidence of inadequate compaction, based on the two thousand compaction tests done on the site. (5) The cross-complaints filed against the City by MJB Pipeline's insurance carrier, with respect to the lawsuits filed by three homeowners in the area, have been dismissed. He added that he would be able to respond to the City's request for tender after the City responds to the $30,000 lawsuit filed by Gradeway Paving, a subcontractor to MJB Pipeline. (6) MJB Pipeline has acted in good faith and has spent over $2 Million to complete the project. He added that MJB Pipeline has done many projects for the City in the past without any claims, litigations or problems, and that MJB Pipeline has responded to the City's emergency calls at no cost to the City. He indicated that termination of the contract would hinder MJB Pipeline from doing other public works projects and requested the Council not to terminate the contract. Ms. Mohr inquired whether the project would be completed before the winter rains come if the dispute goes to arbitration. Mr. Roush replied that having the arbitration by the end of the year is unrealistic. He explained that the parties have not had a conference with the judge to set a discovery timetable and that since there are numerous experts and documents involved, the discovery would take a considerable period of time. Mr. Tarver inquired if the City is terminating the contract because MJB Pipeline refuses to do the work requested by the City, and if MJB Pipeline can take exception to doing the work and seek legal recourse to complete the job, as opposed to having the contract terminated. - 39 - 7-16-91