Meeting Minutes > SCDOT/CAGC Utilities Sub Committee Meeting Minutes

February 26, 2009

Attendees:

Greg Cook, U. S. Group, Inc.
Jason Edmonds, Ashmore Bros., Inc.
Tim Wilhelm, Blythe Construction
Gerald Ringer, Cherokee, Inc.
Marion E. Leaphart, Coleman-Snow Consultants
Clarke DeHart, C. R. Jackson, Inc.
Brett Murray, Rea Contracting
John Ard, Jr., Rea Contracting
Benji Vinson, U. S. Group, Inc.
Mark Attaway, SCDOT
Ed Eargle, SCDOT
Kevin Ulmer, SCDOT
Todd Steagall, SCDOT
Jim Feda, SCDOT
Robbie Isgett, SCDOT
Bryan Jones, SCDOT
Tim Henderson, SCDOT
Yvette Oliver, SCDOT
Clem Watson, SCDOT
Sammy Hendrix, CAGC

The meeting was called to order by Greg Cook with introductions.

Old Business

None

New Business

Alternate Pipe

Ed Eargle explained that the reinforced concrete pipe fill height table is not ready for publication yet.  The other pipe materials (SRAP, CAAP & HDPE) fill height tables have been published in the Department’s Standard Drawings for several months.

Ed provided a handout and explained the various ways that alternate pipe will be placed on the plans.

After review of the three methods to show alternate pipe on the plans, the preferred is example #1 which dithered the drainage on the plan and profile sheets and added “D” sheets to the plans that would also have the alternate pipe table on the lower portion of the “D” sheet.

Jim Feda added they are working on a data base to track the type of pipe being used.  Greg Cook suggested that US Group would be willing to provide an electronic as-built if that will help as a test to see if this concept is worth considering on future projects for long term record keeping on underground facilities.   This can go along with SUE in identifying what is underground.

Gerald Ringer asked what joint pressure indicates.

Ed responded 10PSI  is in the new spec for joint material.  DOT is requiring the manufacturer to identify the gasket they are using so when the contractor orders pipe he will get the gasket that has been approved to go with the pipe.

Engineer Quantity sheet with phrase “Where Directed by Engineer.”

Jason Edmonds asked about the phrase “Where Directed by Engineer” which has been on several projects they have done.  This is a vague term when trying to bid a project.

Kevin Ulmer explained they have been told to reduce using this phrase as much as possible.  The problem is these are quantities not calculated by headquarters.  The information the resident provides are quantities we cannot calculate.  If DOT does not get the information then it has to be left out.

An example Jason gave is when the resident is called, the information is known, but it is not on the strip map.  More detailed notes are needed to help the contractor understand, and DOT would also get a better price.

The strip map is prepared by the field per Jim Feda.  The question seems to be where quantities derive from and how to ensure they are more realistic for bid purposes.  Todd Steagall volunteered to look further into this issue to find out if it is a historical concern or a recent change in bid preparation for quantities.

Full Depth Patching Quantities on Resurfacing Projects

Jason Edmonds – Ashmore has been “stung’ hard in this area as a high amount was bid, but the actual amount for the job was much less.  It also hurts scheduling crews and work.  We ride every road before we bid.  If we see less and bid the correct amount, we can lose the job when we actually bid the correct amount.  Clarke DeHart has also seen this same problem in the last 12 months.

Jim Feda is concerned if DOT is over estimating.  We need to look at this.  This could also go the other way that there is more work by the time the project is actually let and the work begins due to further road deterioration.

Greg asked how districts handle this.  District 1 confirms the quantities.  District 6 sends an inspector to figure the quantity and sends this information to Maintenance.

This topic was also discussed at the Road Subcommittee meeting.  They are collecting data to see if it is happening more in some districts than other. Marty McKee with Thrift Development is collecting the information.  Asphalt contractors are being surveyed.  We’ll have more information at the next meeting. 

There will be stimulus money for strip maps so DOT needs to know if there is a problem.  Todd Steagall will combine these two issues and report back on this at the Joint Committee meeting.

Implementation of Utility Window in Project Plans

Greg Cook asked what the opinion is of using a utility window as a widespread application for project plans in the bid specifications.  This concept requires clearer communication in the preconstruction phase of a project.  It forces Utilities to commit to both start dates and completion dates for coordination and the realistic creation of a CPM Project Schedule as required by SCDOT specs.

Kevin Ulmer noted that in the April letting there is a project with a three month window for clearing, grubbing and utilities.

Greg clarified that after clearing and grubbing the clock stops and then time begins to finish work for utilities.

The Utilities continue to claim they are not communicated with.  We need one contractor all the way and not a set aside.  In our (US Group) experience it works.  We can offer this as an olive branch to the Utilities.  The contractors can partner with them and continue to work in other areas while utilities are being moved.

Todd Steagall – Need to be sure this time is in the special provision.  DOT is trying to allow time for the utilities, but the time is not spelled out for the bid process. 

At a minimum, Todd will endeavor to clarify that time allowance more clearly in future bid specifications.

Kevin Ulmer – The April project was moved from the December letting four days before the letting due to a Utility not having the money to do their work.  So we are still fighting the Utilities.  They ask for the final construction plans before they will do any work.  DOT goes to them, tells them what is coming and if we do not have final plans, they do nothing.

Kevin Ulmer – the primary battles are the smaller utilities.  The larger companies are doing better as they have the funds to do the work.  We do need to communicate better to the contractors and utilities.

Both Greg and Marion Leaphart stated the utility window has worked when it was used.  The contractor can continue to work productively which is the goal.

Co-Permitting Agreement During Design Process

Greg Cook asked if DOT will agree to this.  Examples, right of way, easements. 

Kevin Ulmer – When the utility gets the right of way plans, they should get in touch with DOT to request being a part of this process.  The Upstate sends plans to the utility at final right of way.  Utilities appear not be doing anything.  We are trying to get the utilities involved as early as we have concrete information.

Another problem seems to be getting a person with some authority from the utility to the pre-con meetings. 

Todd Steagall - Another possible issue with the window is sometimes one utility may have to wait on another utility to move before they can do their work.  This can affect staging. 

Tim Wilhelm – Maybe two windows could be an option in these cases.

Clem Watson will look into a possibility of the utility going with DOT when they purchase the right of way so they can determine if they need more and this can be handled at the same time.  Clem offered to meet with John Walsh and set up a follow-up meeting with Greg Cook and Sammy Hendrix to try to work together on this action item.

Withholding Encroachment Permits

The issue is if encroachment permits can be withheld for utilities if they do not comply on a project.

Jim Feda does not see how DOT can deny permits.  There have been problems with this in the past.  They will go to a politician.  Also, which permits do we hold?
Clem added it is a political move and DOT will not win. 

AGC continues to support the possibility that a more concerted effort to enforce the current Utility Legislation is still a viable option.  Greg will follow-up with details from Allen Gray with AGC to provide more hard information to Clem for his research.

Another issue is the contractor handling the work for the utility.  The cable company has indicated they are willing for the contractor to handle getting their work done as they would most likely use a sub the cable company would use.  Even adding just the cable to the contract would help.  Jim Feda added that it if is a prior rights situation, DOT has to pay for the work. 

Mark Attaway added that power is the first utility that has to move and they will not let the contractor handle.  The most optimistic application for this concept is smaller power co-ops.

Utility Coordination – Stimulus Investment

Kevin Ulmer – if everybody had adequate funds to move their utilities, we would hot have the problems we have discussed.  The small utilities are ones who cannot afford to move their utilities.  They really do not have the funds available.

Jim Feda – There is no legislation to enforce this even though when a utility uses a DOT right of way they know they have to move if DOT requests.

Sammy Hendrix reported that the Legislature told the counties and cities they will not be receiving any more money because there isn’t any money available.  The Highway Commission needs to look at this and try to get some help for DOT to be able to move forward.

In summary of items discussed today, it appears that we cannot move forward with co-permitting or withhold encroachment permits. 

Other Business

Jason Edmonds asked for clarification on completion date of the stimulus resurfacing jobs. 

Clem Watson – The end of November with carrying over the Thermo to spring.  There is also a push in reporting for stimulus on jobs created, etc.  That may drive the end of the year date.  The information is on the web site now.  The first wave of stimulus money is $100M with the second $100M coming later.

Todd Steagall added that other jobs may be pushed to the spring.  Regular maintenance resurfacing will also come later per Jim Feda.  Lettings on April 14 and 28 and May 12 will probably be stimulus money. 

Brett Murray asked about why it seems more bids are being rejected. 

Todd Steagall – if the bid is over 10% of the estimate, it is rejected.  That rule is being looked at more closely.

Brett – Can the bid be rejected if within 10% but only two bidders.

DOT – if within the 10% it is usually awarded.

Gerald Ringer asked if Flex Tera is all that is currently approved for grassing. 

DOT – For now it is. This spec is being reviewed.

The next meeting will be April 23 and will again be a joint meeting.