Disputes and Claims 3 Processes Dispute Resolution and Administrative Claims Process Default Process C&MS 108.02 Partnering OR PN 108 -Dispute Review Board (DRB) Considered for use on projects over $20 M and/or of a highly technical nature OR PN 109 Dispute Resolution Advisor (DRA) Considered for use on projects between $5M & $20M
Dispute Resolution and Administrative Claims Process STEP 1. On-Site Determination Meeting Project Personnel STEP 2. District Dispute Resolution Committee (DDRC) DDRC District Construction Administrator (DCA) Planning & Engineering Administrator (P&EA) District Deputy Director (DDD)
Dispute Resolution and Administrative Claims Process STEP 3. Director s Claims Board Notice of Intent to File a Claim Certified Claim (Notarized) DCB DD Construction DD Engineering DCA of another District
Claims Resolution History Year Total # of Claims # Heard by DCB # Heard by ADR # Dropped or Settled 2008 21 14 2 7 2009 25 17 3 5 2010 18 13 0 5 2011 11 4 0 7 2012 12 7 1 4 2013 12 8 0 4
Claims Resolution History DISTRICT PROJECT DESCRIPTION OUTCOME 7 1060(09) Qty. Disagreement (304 Base & Asphalt Surface Course) Court of Claims 9 0251(12) Casing for Wet Holes DCB Accepted 12 1041(10) Deficient Deck Grid Installation DCB Accepted 8 0233(12) Centerline Markings DCB Accepted 6 0341(11) Shop Applied Inorganic Zinc Primer DCB Accepted 6 0541(12) SWPPP Costs Pending 12 0249(12) Kelly Bar DCB Accepted 7 0512(12) Column Repair Pending 12 3012(10) Utility Delay/ Reinforcing Steel on Beam Flanges District-Resolved 8 0468(12) Surface Preparation of Bridge Deck District-Resolved 2 0168(11) Unsound Patches District-Resolved 10 0626(11) Readjusting Ph. Deck/ Temp. Pavement Final Calcs. District-Resolved
2013 CLAIMS Demand vs. Award DEMAND AWARD % TOTAL STEP 3 CLAIMS $568,033.41 $80,791.41 14.2
DISTRICT 2 DISPUTE RESOLUTION ODOT Project 11-0168 SR -2 Edison Bay Bridge Ottawa/ Erie Co.
DISTRICT 2 DISPUTE RESOLUTION ODOT Project 11-0168 SR -2 Edison Bay Bridge Ottawa/ Erie Co.
Item 519: Number of Square Feet of exposed surface of all completed patches.
Item 519.irrespective of the depth or thickness of the patch
Final Acceptance Inspection
Step 1 ODOT Patches do not meet specifications-repair/replace them. Contractor We disagree, would like to move to Step 2
Step 2 Contractor Patches being variable depthlends to differences in sounding Sounding with claw hammer is not scientific method to determine patch quality Area around Galvanic Anodes may sound different due to differences in patch material
Step 2 Cont d. Vibration from live overhead traffic may have caused bonding issues 61% of all work was performed by force account, but ODOT never requested any changes in methodology during the force account work
Step 2 Cont d All patches were sounded at the times the forms were removed ODOT Bridge Manual does not recommend patching spalls over traffic or other safety sensitive areas because of potential debondingcould create a hazard
Step 2 ODOT Does not meet specifications Contractor never sounded patches Worried that patches may fall at some point injuring boaters/fisherman
Step 3 Preparation Could not verify original plan design Difference of opinion as to original design Difference of opinion of a repair plan Potential repair-fiber Wrap -requires experience Contractor wanted to settle outstanding payment issues and close out project District agreed to perform any future fixes under a new contract
Settlement Split the cost of the Pull-Off Test 50-50 Approximately $10,000 ea. Split the 2-inch Depth issue 50-50 Approximately $ 4,000.00 ea. Contractor agreed to refund $40,000 to the project ODOT agree to modify the contractors C-95 scores related to the patch work Prime Contractor agree to waive his 5% mark-up on the Settlement items.
Best Practices All parties wished they would ve paid more attention to thoroughly sounding the original patches as they were completed in the first season. Clarity of plan notes and what s included in the bid item for payment
Thank You
DISTRICT 10 DISPUTE RESOLUTION Project: 11-0626 (HOC 56 16.45) District Step 2 Dispute Resolution 10-110626-01 10-110626-02
Claim 10-110626-01 Pile Encasement Background: This project included the replacement of a three span continuous slab on capped pile abutments and piers. To protect against scour, the district Bridge Engineer and Designers prefer to encase new piles with polyethylene pipe and Class C concrete, and tried to express this by inserting a plan note. The Dispute involves whether the Contractor has the option to galvanize the piles in lieu of the encasement.
Claim 10-110626-01 Pile Encasement
Claim 10-110626-01 Pile Encasement Contractor s Position: The contractor contended that the Standard Drawing CPP-1-08 called out on the plans allows the option of galvanizing or concrete encasing the piles. The contractor also pointed out that the plan note mentioned galvanizing in it. In the Contractor s opinion, the note reiterates the option of galvanizing in lieu of encasement.
Claim 10-110626-01 Pile Encasement District s Position: The District contended that the note does instruct the contractor to encase the piles. The District also contended that this same scenario happened on a previous project where the Area Engineer told the contractor in the future it was always going to be the District s preference to encase the piles. The District instructed CGCC to encase the piles after they were ordered with galvanizing.
Claim 10-110626-01 Pile Encasement Findings: The DDRC agreed that there is some confusion in the note shown in the plans because it included language taken directly from the Standard Drawing which includes how galvanizing will be paid for. The DDRC awarded Complete General Construction Company $13,522.11. The costs were not in dispute.
Claim 10-110626-01 Pile Encasement
Claim 10-110626-02 Downtime for H-Pile Decision Background: During construction of a three span continuous slab, the contractor damaged an HP10 x 42 pile while trying to achieve refusal, which the Department describes as penetrating bedrock for several inches as to a minimum resistance of 20 blows per inch. When the contractor tried to achieve this, the top of the piles began to deform. There was some downtime while the Department made a decision regarding the blow count, and remaining piles.
Claim 10-110626-02 Downtime for H-Pile Decision Contractor s Position: The contractor contended that it lost work time waiting on a decision from the Department to continue driving piling after piles were damaged. During the pile driving operation the Department stopped work after the first pile became damaged before reaching the required 20 blows per inch. There was some confusion as to whether the Department actually allowed the contractor to reduce the required blows, and a call was made to Central Office to see if that was an option. It took approximately three hours to get an answer back to the project. The contractor requested compensation for down time during this three hours of $970.71.
Claim 10-110626-02 Downtime for H-Pile Decision District s Position: The district believed by spec that it was up to the contractor to size the hammer to appropriately drive the piling to refusal without damage. It was the belief of the district that the hammer used was too large for the relatively small piles. The district also took the position that by spec the contractor is required to stop the pile driving operation when damage occurs.
Claim 10-110626-02 Downtime for H-Pile Decision Findings: The DDRC found that the project was correct when it stopped work after seeing the damage to the pile, and that the district was diligent in the response to help come up with a solution once the damage occurred. The DDRC ruled that the District did not owe damages in this case, Complete General accepted the ruling.
DISTRICT 12 DISPUTE RESOLUTION District 12 Presenters: Pat McCafferty, Area Engineer Greg Kronstain, District Construction Administrator
Step One Dispute Resolution Project - 12-0630 Contractor -The Great Lakes Construction Company. Project Details Bridge Reconstruction on 3 Structures over RTA and NS tracks. Active project that is 55% complete.
Step One Dispute Resolution
Step One Dispute Resolution Contractor s Disputes 1. Daily movement of concrete barrier wall 2. Flagging traffic into parking lot 3. Noise ordinance shutdown 4. RTA delay de-energizing catenary lines 5. RTA delay reattaching catenary lines
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs Plan Location of Barrier Wall
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs Contractor s Position - Excavation work required daily movement of barrier wall - Flagger required to maintain access to church parking lot
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs Plan Excavation Limits
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs Daily Movement of Barrier Wall w/ Flagger to Maintain Access to Church Parking Lot.
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs Project Engineer s Position - Sheeting required to complete work as shown on plans and to maintain access to parking lot
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs Area Engineer looked at the plans and went to site and talk to both parties
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs D12 s Decision Sheeting not required. ODOT agreed to pay for one remobilizing of barrier wall. ODOT agreed to pay for additional asphalt to widen apron. ODOT agreed to pay for additional concrete base replacement. ODOT agreed to move waterline to avoid relocated barrier and additional pavement removal
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs Placed Temporary Asphalt to Widen Apron
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs New Concrete Pavement Required under Asphalt
Step One Dispute Resolution for Barrier Wall Relocation and Flagging Costs Waterline moved to stay within relocated barrier wall.
Step One Dispute Resolution for Noise Ordinance Contractor s Dispute 3. Noise ordinance shutdown
Step One Dispute Resolution for Contractor s Position Noise Ordinance - City notified contractor after the night crew had started to work. - Incurred extra costs leaving the project before putting in a full night of work.
Step One Dispute Resolution for Noise Ordinance Project Engineer s Position - Plan note did not allow night work.
Step One Dispute Resolution for Noise Ordinance Area Engineer looked at the plans and talked on the phone to both parties
Step One Dispute Resolution for Noise Ordinance D12 s Decision - Request for compensation denied. - Future night work would require a noise waiver from the City
Step One Dispute Resolution for RTA Delays (During Weekend Shutdown) Contractor s Dispute 4. RTA delay de-energizing catenary lines 5. RTA delay reattaching catenary lines
Step One Dispute Resolution for RTA Delays (During Weekend Shutdown) Contractor s Position - Incurred extra costs waiting for RTA to turn off the power to the catenary lines. - Incurred extra costs while RTA decided if the temporary protective structure (supporting the catenary lines) could be removed.
Step One Dispute Resolution for RTA Delays (During Weekend Shutdown) Project Engineer s Position - RTA s Special Provisions do not guarantee outages or the time they will occur.
Step One Dispute Resolution for RTA Delays (During Weekend Shutdown) Area Engineer looked at the plans, special provisions, and talked on the phone to both parties.
Step One Dispute Resolution for RTA Delays (During Weekend Shutdown) D12 s Decision - Request for compensation denied for RTA s delay to turn off the power to the catenaries, but compensation granted for the delay while waiting for the RTA decision of the canopy removal.
Dispute Resolution District 12- Project 10-1041
DisputeResolution Resolution of Disp. 12-101041-07, prior to Step 2 Project- 10-1041, Willow Avenue Lift Bridge Location-City of Cleveland Contractor- The Ruhlin Company Sub-Contractor- Perram Electric Project Bid Cost- $3.9M
Willow Avenue Lift Bridge
Willow Avenue Lift Bridge
DisputeResolution City of Cleveland project The project work- Replacing the lift span deck and stringers Rehabilitation of the electrical and mechanical systems Other related bridge repairs
DisputeResolution Dispute Description-Damage to the Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) occurred during the rehabilitation of the electrical system. The Contractor agreed to replace the ATS at their cost in the original location. Estimated cost $9927. However, there was a differing interpretation of National Electrical Code (NEC) regarding the installation of this new equipment
Dispute Resolution Existing ATS New ATS
DisputeResolution Contractor Position- Replacing ATS in existing location is in compliance with C&MS 107.10 -Would restore property damage to a condition similar or equal to that existing before the damage - Would meet requirements of NEC 110.26
DisputeResolution National Electrical Code- Article 110.26 Space About Electrical Equipment Requires sufficient access and working space to be provided and maintained to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance for panels. Access was only available by ladder
DisputeResolution Electrical Schematic
DisputeResolution Contractor was directed to relocate ATS No agreement on NEC requirement ODOT agreed that the project did receive a considerable betterment
DisputeResolution New Location Actual Cost = $26,177 w/out markups = $21,605 Existing Location Est d. Cost = $9,927 w/out markups = $8,461 Difference = $13,144 labor diff. markup = $1,214 Total settlement = $14,358
DisputeResolution Summary- This settlement is an example of: Good communication between the Contractor and ODOT Working together for a resolution