6/22/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FF__ J U N 2 2 1993 PIAU 91,32 Also, in this meeting, I stated that the bridge as designed could not be constructed without closing the bridge to traffic and still meet the criteria of safety as required by the DOT and the county specifications. I was told to bid the project with the bridge left open, Alternate A to traffic and to bid the project with the bridge closed, Alternate B. I bid Alternate A with one way traffic. After the bids were opened, I sent a letter to the County Commissioners c/o Mr. Jim Davist Public Works Director. and stated that if I was awarded the job with the bridge closed, I was low on Alternate B, the bridge would be opened for uninterrupted traffic prior to December 24, 1993p and the job be completed by February 1, 1994 without changing any of the specifications or contract documents except therequired completion dates. I called Mr. Davis on June 14th and requested a meeting with him and the engineers on the project. The meeting was set for Wednesday June 16th,, 1993 at 11:00 a.m. On Tuesday June 15th, 1993 1 got a call from the design Engineers and he stated that'they would be at the June 16, meeting. At this meeting composed of Mr. Davis, Mr. Cain and myself the design engineers did not show up, and we were unable to get them on the phone. I told Mr. Davis & Mr. Cain, that the only way I could bid this job under Alternate A, leaving the bridge open to traffic was to have one-way traffic, as two way traffic could not be maintained and still meet the DOT requirements as called for in the plans & specifications. At this time both Mr.Davis & Mr. Cain stated -that since I was the only contractor that questioned the ability of the bridge being left opened and not meeting the DOT requirements that I must be wrong. There is a note on Sheet B-1 of the plans that the existing bridge bents were omitted in plan & elevations for clarity. If Mr. Davis Mr. Cain and the design engineer had taken the time and effort to super impose the existing brige on the proposed bridge in section they would have seen that the bridge as designed would not meet the criteria of the DOT ascalled for in the plans and specifications and they would have seen that I was not wrong. ' 1 Sheltra & Son was the low bidder on the project':�&S__called for in Alternate B (bridge being closed and traffic rerouted). If the plans or specifications are changed from the original bid to allow traffic over the bridge, then in all fairness to the County and Sheltra & Sont the project should be rebid, because all of this was pointed out,at the pre-bid conference and could have been corrected prior to the bid. I understand that the commission is going to award this bid on the regular meeting Tuesdayr June 22, 1993. 1 request permission to be present and answer any questions that may Sincerely yours, Z.H. OUTLAW 68 be asked. -