SS9402C-CS 960508 MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Witt, City Manager
From: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., ACM/City Engineer
RE: Bethel Road Sanitary Sewer Project (SS 94-02C)
Date: May 8, 1996
The gods have heard our plea and smiled upon us.
I now see the whites of their eyes and I say "FIRE"!
Pate is removed from the problem and the problem and solution is 100% HDR's.
I suggest a two prong attack:
1. Go through the corporate office in Omaha (402) 399-1000. No sense dealing with the
local office when it appears they have not told the entire story to the corporate office
and apparently do not have authority to make the final decision. This would include not
only the Bethel Road sewer line, but also problems with the other two sections such as
the inability to remove the sewer line that crosses the Northlake Nursery Landscape
property because of errors in the original surveying and design.
2. Go through State Board of Engineers. My opinion is that the plans are misleading and
as such are a violation of Section 131.156(a)(9) of the "State of Texas Law and Rules
Concerning the Practice of Engineering and Professional Engineering Registration". I
suggest we gather information and submit it to the Board for further action and possible
sanction against HDR. This could result in a one year suspension if the Board finds
them guilty. As Engineers, they cannot delegate away their responsibility just by stating
that they are doing it.
FACTS:
1. HDR did design of sewer line.
2. HDR previously did design of Bulk Postal Facility and Lift Station.
3. HDR did surveying.
4. HDR knew goal of project was to take lift station out of service.
5. HDR had site visit requirements in their contract with the City which included
"ENGINEER shall: Make recommendations to OWNER concerning the disapproval or
rejection of Contractors' Work while it is in progress if ENGINEER believes that such
Work will not produce a completed PROJECT that conforms generally to the Contract
Bethel Road Sanitary Sewer Project
May 8, 1996
Page 2
Documents or that it will prejudice the integrity of the design concept of the PROJECT
as reflected in the Contract Documents."
6. Pate is no longer a player in the section in question (They have to replace section east
of the problem which has no bearing on the problem section.).
SOLUTION:
1. Direct Pate to remove and replace their problem area east of HDR's problem (the
common point is Station 47+27 - go east for Pate and west for HDR).
2. Direct HDR to submit solution and fund solution either through their own contractor or
cash settlement with City of sufficient amount to 100% cover costs of correcting the
problem, i.e., no $100,000 upper limits. Based on my investigation, this would include
about 1500 LF of 12" sewer line at 0.2% and 1275 LF of 15" sewer line at 0.15%.
This is HDR's problem not the City's or Pate Brothers.
3. Give one week for contract or money to be submitted.
IF NO CONTRACT OR MONEY SUBMITTED, CONTINUE ON:
4. End negotiations after one week and direct Pate to correct problem.
5. Contact Corporate Office.
6. Submit report to State Board of Engineers.
7. Begin legal proceedings to recover cost.
The only bad fact is an attempt by HDR to absolve themselves of any responsibility for a faulty
or misleading design by including language in their contract to that effect. I take responsibility
for that. However, beyond that, let me be very clear that this is not a City problem this is
strictly a design problem by HDR and as such they should step up to the plate and take full
responsibility for their actions.
It's always good to step back and reflect on a problem and then address it with full force when
the issues have become clear.
In closing all I can say is "CHARGE".