SS9301-CS 931222 (2) blEMORANDUlVl
To: James Witt, City Manager
From: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., City Engineer ~
RE: Grapevine Creek Sanitary Sewer Project SS 93-01
Date: December 22, 1993
On Friday, December 17, 1993 Garreth Campbell, Construction Inspector, faxed a copy of the
City's holiday schedule to the sub-contractor working on the Grapevine Creek Sanitary Sewer
Project. The schedule stated that City offices would be closed on Christmas Eve, December
24th; Christmas Day, December 25th; Sunday, December 26th; and Monday, December 27th.
Therefore, the sub-contractor should not anticipate working on those four days.
Then sub-contractor is currently micro-tunnelling from Grapevine Creek between two houses,
towards the cul-de-sac in the Creekview Subdivision on East Bethel Road. He is micro-
tunnelling through clay soils and is very concerned that to let his equipment set for a period of
four days would cause the equipment to 'freeze up' and he would be unable to begin his
operations again on December 28th. There has been some previous conversations with the sub-
contractor concerning the need not to disrupt the Creekview Subdivision during the Christmas
Holidays. In essence, during the micro-tunnelling process, a pit is constructed at each end of
the operation. The down stream pit is where the machinery and the pipe enter and the up stream
pit is the receiving pit where the equipment is removed and the manhole is constructed. The
receiving pit on this run will be constructed in the cul-de-sac of East Bethel Road in the
Creekview Subdivision.
The sub-contractor contacted me concerning Garreth's letter and stated that they wished to
continue micro-tunnelling on the 24th and on the 27th with only a two day shut down on the
25th and 26th. He stated that if they were unable to continue, that the equipment might Nfreeze
up" and that the retrieval could cost upwards of $25,000 and quite possibly there could be some
peripheral damage to the adjacent structures. I told him we had some concerns about open
cutting the street prior to Christmas. I told him I would contact Garreth Campbell, who is on
vacation this week, to get his perspective on the situation to see if there were any alternatives
to the process. Before I could contact Garreth and respond back to the sub-contractor, I
received a faxed notice of a potential law suit on behalf of the sub-contractor against the City
of Coppell if they were unable to continue their operations. I am a little unsure as to why the
sub-contractor felt it was necessary to expend his funds to have an attorney write a letter to the
City on something that the City was still working to come to an agreeable solution on as we
have in many other conflicts on this project. I have spoken with the general contractor, Dan
Frettinger, with Kenko, concerning the operation and concerning the letter from the attorney.
I informed him I was somewhat surprised that the sub-contractor felt it was necessary to go to
that extreme when the City, the contractor and sub-contractor have been very successful in
working out many minor problems encountered along the way.
The solution discussed with the general contractor was for the sub-contractor to micro-tunnel up
to where the receiving pit would be in the cul-de-sac but not to actually open cut the street prior
to Christmas. On Monday, December 27th they could then open cut the street and retrieve their
machinery and then start micro tunneling down East Bethel Road or set up for another run or
clean up where they are currently working in the creek. The main thing was to try to hold off
open cutting the street prior to Christmas. The general contractor, Dan Frettinger, felt that that
would be a good solution.
On December 22nd, I received a fax from Dan Frettinger stating that he had been in contact
with the sub-contractor concerning the situation and the letter from the attorney. The
subcontractor agreed to delay mobilization on East Bethel Road until Monday, December 27th
as had previously been discussed with the general contractor. Therefore, again I am again
unclear as to why the subcontractor felt it necessary to involve an attorney. Because I have
received papers from an attorney, I am unsure whether this should be processed through our
attorney for informational purposes or if it should be filed away for future reference. Also, after
I received the letter concerning the agreement not to mobilize until December 27th, I have been
informed that to be absolutely certain that the machinery will not "freeze up" between the
adjacent homes, the sub-contractor will work on December 24th, 25th and the 26th to push at
least one joint of pipe each day. This is basically to just operate the equipment to insure it does
not "freeze
They have been instructed to place notices on approximately 15 homes in the cul-de-sac area to
inform them of the minor work activity on those days and that the street will be open cut on
Monday, December 27th. They have also been instructed that if they are leaving the site for
any period of time after they open cut the street that the pit should be plated for the safety of
the citizens in the area.
With this memo I am attaching the correspondence from the attorney, the initial letter from
Southland Contracting and the follow-up letter from Kenko Contractors. Again, I am seeking
direction as to whether or not this should be processed through our attorney or held in our files
for future reference.
If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
file/grpvne.christms.mm
December 20, 1993 ~az [8~?} ep9-~98
Ken Oriffin
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Dear Ken:
We received a fax from Garreth Campbell late Friday the
17th regarding the City's holiday schedule. It was requested
to not work Friday the 24th through Monday the 27th. We have
some concern. The soil conditions that we are encountering
have the jacking loads higher than anticipated. If we stop
the jacking operation for four consecutive days, there is a
possibility that the pipe will be seized by the surrounding
soil and Southland can not be responsible should this occur.
We feel very strongly that we should continue the drive
until completed, with a maximum of two days shut down, being
Saturday 25th and Sunday 26th. To complete this drive, it is
imperative that the shaft be dug in the street. If the drive
fails because of the four day shut down the cost estimated to
retrieve the machine and complete the drive is a minimum of
$25,000.00.
It is not our intention or our desire to inconvenience
anyone, but Southland simply cannot take this risk. We
regret that this situation has presented itself, but again to
minimize the risk of this expense to the City, we recommend
avoiding the four day shut down and having the street
complete and ready to receive the drive by Friday, December
the 24th.
When this drive is completed, hopefully Friday the 24th,
Southland will be happy to discontinue the operation until
the Christmas and New Year holidays are past. I will be in
touch with you by phone later today to see what your thoughts
in the matter are.
Sincerely,
Charlie Griffith
cc: Kenko