CCMIN020304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Wilson mentioned that the Engineer incorrectly calculated the number of pipeline lengths and manhole covers, and as a result, what was installed was the same as shown in the plans, but different than what was actually bid. Mr. Brozosky asked if the bids were projected based on the plans? Mr. Grubstick stated that the bid documents included individual line items, and in this particular case, the Engineer probably counted 36 manholes when in fact there were 39 manholes. Therefore, the Engineer miscounted. He mentioned that the contractor building the project follows the plans and counts everything that it builds. In this case, the contractor informed staffthat there were more manholes built than what was originally estimated. The City pays the same unit rate for additional manholes but the actual bid that the contract award was based on did not include all 39 manholes. Mr. Brozosky asked if this was the same situation for line item 14 where there was $130,000 in DEA quantity overruns? Mr. Grubstick noted that this falls into the same category, but in that particular case, it was lengths of pipe. 245 linear feet of 8" pipes were missed. Mayor Pico asked if the Engineer assumed any responsibility for part of the cost? Mr. Wilson indicated that there is some responsibility placed on the Engineer in terms of the plans and how correct they are. In this particular case, the mistakes are not necessarily in the plans, but if identified correctly, they would have been the original bid amount. Therefore, ahigher contract amount would have been realizedifthe lineitems had been correctly identified. He mentioned that the City paid the same price for the additional increase of pipeline that it would have paid if the correct quantifies had originally been reflected. Therefore, the City ended up paying later on in the project then it would have paid earlier on when the project went out for bid. For clarification, Mayor Pico asked if there was any third party liability?. Mr. Wilson said there was no third party liability for line item 14. He noted that in certain construction projects there might be items that were not identified in the field, and in those cases, the Engineers could be held responsible. In this circumstance, the City could not prove out of pocket expenses because it had to pay for these expenses one way or another. It was not due to a mistake in the plans, but was due to a mistake in the quantities. Mr. Grubstick pointed out that when stafffinds design flaws, it goes back to the Engineer and informs him or her that it needs to be corrected. Mr. Brozosky asked if there were any design flaw errors reflected in the change orders? Pleasanton City Council 12 02/03/04 Minutes