Agenda - Public Works Committee - 03/18/2008

Home

CASE # Jj CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER FOR FORMER ST PAUL TERMINALS . ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP By: Steven Jankowski, City Engineer Background: Recall that Improvement Project 06-33, Removal of Contaminated. Soils on the Former St. Paul Terminals Property project consisted of the excavation, hauling, and disposal of contaminated soil for a 1.5 acre industrial property located at 14050 Basalt Street. This site was acquired by the City from St. Paul Terminals for redevelopment purposes and for many years was occupied by Danny's Trannys. The scope of this project had been estimated to require the excavation and removal of 4400 cubic yards of material, of which 200 cubic yards was estimated to be contaminated to such a degree that it would need to be disposed in a hazardous waste landfill as Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) wastes. The project was completed early last year and the final quantities have been determined. The contractor on the project, Team Earthworks is requesting final payment based upon the actual project quantities plus an additional paymentof$14, 107.50 for compensation associated with extra cost associated with the disposal of the TSCA wastes. Team Earthwork's letter and invoice of January 25, 2008 is attached. The TSCA waste was located in an earthen bank located along the western property line . Upon excavation large pieces of concrete and other de items were found buried. Inside the bank. This debris was neither evident from visual observation prior to the work, nor was it encountered in the two soil borings made by ProSource Inc., the City's environmental consultant which assisted in the preparation of the technical specifications for this project. Bidders were not permitted to make their own borings because of the hazardous nature of the material involved. The hazardous waste bags that were used to transport the TSCA waste to the disposal site contained roughly half of the tonnage that they are anticipated to accommodate due to the bulkiness of the excavated material due to the debris. Staff feels that this entitles the contractor reasonable consideration for compensation since it represents a changed condition over that which was bid. Corroborating this fact, it should be noted that the other si~ bidders that submitted proposals for this project submitted unit prices roughly similar to Team Earthworks, and all six would have experienced a loss had they been compensated for the removal and disposal of the TSCA wastes assuming that the disposal cost were the same. It might be noted that another consideration also has bearing on staff's recommendation. The actual volume of TSCA waste removed was only 37% of the quantity estimated in the bid document. Generally, a contractor is entitled to an adjustment in unit price in the event of a significant quantity under runs on substantial contract items, although specific language was not included in these contract documents. The method of compensation proposed by the contractor seems appropriate in light of the circumstances, however staff would recommend that documentation of the actual disposal cost claimed be submitted. 13