# Problem with a project.



## Blas (Jan 29, 2008)

I bid on a army job in Texas. Priced what seemed like a nice easy change order to make up for the price cuts. The change order was to add a 1.5 foot layer of road base under all the foundations. Had to verify my quantities like 15 times because the RFP was so vague. They apparently wanted the base under some footings and not others but some how forgot that I am not psychic and can only price what they put into words, but that is for another time. The RFP was to add rock exactly under the footings not to extend out past the edge. I graciously explained to them that this would not be possible and that my quantities would reflect the rock extending out past the edge of the foundations a minimum of 6". The contractor we are working for is a massive contractor that we do a lot of business with and they ok'd what I sent them (apparently without having this signed off with the engineer) We had an awful time getting compaction on the road base around here I used trench rollers big diesel plate packers Rammers etc.. Barely hit our numbers with an unbelievable amount of effort.(perfect moisture 6" lift etc..) So I widened out our dig another foot to get the SD 40 down there. This obviously did the trick and everything is fine I will go over my quantity a bit but I am fine with that as the trench roller looks in pretty bad shape after rebounding off the concrete like base 67 passes and failing to meet compaction. Well turns out the genius engineer that dreamed up this entire debockle wants the base exactly under the footings only not even the oversize. I explained the the GC that a bucket on an excavator is not a laser beam and that such a thing was clearly the idea of a very junior engineer or a complete space Cadette. The footings are all different sizes elevations pads down the center etc... The clay is a very dry powdery exploding clay. I pretty much told him to go f himself and if he was so worried out bird bath effect he should have poured a mud slab or added some drain tile. I am at my wits end with this crap. Any suggestions. Have you guys ever run into this kind of idiocrocy or am I being unreasonable. The footings are spread footings formed and poured.:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:


----------



## tgeb (Feb 9, 2006)

In my world, I would think you would be required to have the stone extend out from the sides at least the thickness of the stone bed past the footers.

But I am not at all familiar with the expansive soils that are down there. Can this engineer show where this exact procedure was done before, maybe you could interview that contractor and see how he accomplished the impossible.

Sorry I'm not much help......good luck with it.


----------



## WC&T (Feb 22, 2010)

Blas said:


> I bid on a army job in Texas. Priced what seemed like a nice easy change order to make up for the price cuts. The change order was to add a 1.5 foot layer of road base under all the foundations. Had to verify my quantities like 15 times because the RFP was so vague. They apparently wanted the base under some footings and not others but some how forgot that I am not psychic and can only price what they put into words, but that is for another time. The RFP was to add rock exactly under the footings not to extend out past the edge. I graciously explained to them that this would not be possible and that my quantities would reflect the rock extending out past the edge of the foundations a minimum of 6". The contractor we are working for is a massive contractor that we do a lot of business with and they ok'd what I sent them (apparently without having this signed off with the engineer) We had an awful time getting compaction on the road base around here I used trench rollers big diesel plate packers Rammers etc.. Barely hit our numbers with an unbelievable amount of effort.(perfect moisture 6" lift etc..) So I widened out our dig another foot to get the SD 40 down there. This obviously did the trick and everything is fine I will go over my quantity a bit but I am fine with that as the trench roller looks in pretty bad shape after rebounding off the concrete like base 67 passes and failing to meet compaction. Well turns out the genius engineer that dreamed up this entire debockle wants the base exactly under the footings only not even the oversize. I explained the the GC that a bucket on an excavator is not a laser beam and that such a thing was clearly the idea of a very junior engineer or a complete space Cadette. The footings are all different sizes elevations pads down the center etc... The clay is a very dry powdery exploding clay. I pretty much told him to go f himself and if he was so worried out bird bath effect he should have poured a mud slab or added some drain tile. I am at my wits end with this crap. Any suggestions. Have you guys ever run into this kind of idiocrocy or am I being unreasonable. The footings are spread footings formed and poured.:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:


What are you looking for suggestions on? Negotiating the CO? Getting paid for the extra material outside the footings? I don't understand why they would only want an over ex. directly under the footings since the bearing load of the footings extends out past the edge of the footings. Normally the specs. would call for an over ex to be equally outward (in this case 1.5'). I assume this is a USACE project and if you have never worked with the Corp. you always will negotiate the prices. Usually you have to supply a REA (request for equitable adjustment) explaining the cost before the issue a UCO or Case number to get paid for the extra work. The REA should have explain that you could not/should not only excavate directly under the footings and that your price reflected this cost.The USACE also has change order price negotiators that sole job is to negotiate change order pricing so you always start on the high side and negotiate your price down. I never start extra work for the core until I at least have a UCO to bill against and if it causes a delay than they pay for it. Myself and the general just got done negotiating a $185k (before delay cost) Case last week. Took some time to get it finalized but in the end I got paid well for my CO since I refused to do any of the work and each day we negotiated the delays kept on piling up. It put the ball in my court not the ACE since every day they spent f^&king around cost them $1500 from both the general and myself.


----------



## PipeGuy (Oct 8, 2004)

Blas said:


> I bid on a army job in Texas.The contractor we are working for is a massive contractor that we do a lot of business with...


Do I understand correctly that the contractor convinced you to bid on a job in Texas even though your base of operations is in Minnesota? I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how anyone other than the Fluor's, Granite's, Lane's, etc of this world can profitably operate far from home - but that's a different thread.



Blas said:


> Priced what seemed like a nice easy change order to make up for the price cuts.


Which price cuts were those? I think I missed that part.



Blas said:


> The change order was to add a 1.5 foot layer of road base under all the foundations....because the RFP was so vague...I am not psychic and can only price what they put into words.


So you're saying the words of the RFP specified 18" of road base under all the foundations? Because if not then you couldn't have priced it - right?



Blas said:


> I explained to them that my quantities would reflect the rock extending out past the edge of the foundations a minimum of 6".


Explained it in writing? Is that what the Change Order Directive you received from your customer requires?



Blas said:


> The contractor we are working for ok'd what I sent them


OK'd it in writing? Is that what the Change Order Directive provided by the contractor you are working for says?



Blas said:


> We had an awful time getting compaction...So I widened out our dig another foot to get the SD 40 down there.


I've found that the only people worse then contractors when it comes to throwing around arcane acronyms are school teachers. :w00t:
I pretty much guessed the SD 40 you're referring to wasn't either a 6-axle GM diesel locomotive or a compact Canon digital camera so I added "compaction" to the query - then Google steered me to the I/R roller.



Blas said:


> This obviously did the trick and everything is fine... I will go over my quantity a bit but I am fine with that as the trench roller looks in pretty bad shape after rebounding off the concrete like base 67 passes and failing to meet compaction.


:blink::blink:



Blas said:


> Well turns out the genius engineer that dreamed up this entire debockle wants the base exactly under the footings


Do you have the new requirements in writing? Is that what the revised Change Order Directive says? If not I think you could have another debacle brewing.



Blas said:


> I explained the the GC that a bucket on an excavator is not a laser beam and that such a thing was clearly the idea of a very junior engineer or a complete space Cadette.


Did you explain that in writing (I hope not)? Is the GC the same massive contractor that you do a lot of business with? If so, somehow I'm thinking it didn't need that explained and that doing so isn't gonna' help you get what you want.



Blas said:


> I pretty much told him to go f himself and if he was so worried out bird bath effect he should have poured a mud slab


This made me think of the last 30 seconds of the scene posted here




And what's a bird-bath effect anyway?



Blas said:


> Have you guys ever run into this kind of idiocrocy or am I being unreasonable.


I use to run into it every year or so; then a couple of times a year. Now I see this kind of idiocy every single week. Unreasonable has nothing to do with it. Either you did what you were directed to do or you didn't. If you did then additional work = additional pay. If you didn't then additional work is on your dime until either 1.) you complete the work you were directed to do or 2.) the direction you received is modified to reflect the work you've already done.



Blas said:


> Any suggestions.


It's not clear to me from what you've written what it is your customer wants done now. What's the issue? Do they want the work you've already done removed and replaced or do they not want to pay you for work that's beyond the limits of what's required? If your trying to get everyone to agree that the work you've done thus far complies with the direction you've been given then I'd say you need to get everyone together in the same trailer, ASAP, with copies of all the RFP's, details, sketches, Change Order Directives and any other pertinent documentation and have at talking some sense into the concerned parties. 

What's been made clear to me by experience is: don't ever take it upon yourself to set forth the requirements for how a particular piece of work is to be done (the specifications) - that's the design team's job (the contractor's role is exclusively to build what's been specified).
In this instance, if the RFP was vague you needed to issue an RFI seeking either the info that was lacking or clarification of the info provided - or both. Also clear: 
Don't offer proposals for work that isn't specified in writing.
Don't do work that isn't specified and directed in writing.
Only do work that is specified and directed in writing.

Runnin' with the big dogs ain't all it looks to be. They'll  on ya' in a second - or worse.


----------



## PipeGuy (Oct 8, 2004)

WC&T said:


> ...with the Corp. you always will negotiate the prices. The USACE also has change order price negotiators that sole job is to negotiate change order pricing so you always start on the high side... I never start extra work for the core until I at least have a UCO to bill against and if it causes a delay than they pay for it...in the end I got paid well for my CO since I refused to do any of the work and each day we negotiated the delays kept on piling up...every day they spent f^&king around cost them $1500 from both the general and myself.


Another point worth making, that sort of lines up with all the good one's made above: You very likely WILL NOT GET PAID for work you do for which you don't AT LEAST have a UCO. Even with a UCO you risk being left with very little, if any, price negotiating leverage if you do work in advance of receiving the Contracting Officers Decision / Change Directive.


----------



## Blas (Jan 29, 2008)

We work all over the midwest. First time down to Texas and about my 50th corp job nothing new here. Hell I have worked projects in Guam. Your questions are good ones as this post is also a little vague. This is a design build project. We priced the change order with a very specific outline and summary of the work we were to perform as a design build project usually change order directives are left to some interpretations and we offer solutions for the GC/owner to consider prior to completing work. In this instance We specifically spelled out "in writing" the exact course of work we were to perform. I am not at all concerned with getting paid for work performed as I have not done anything outside of my fully executed CO directive. It came to the attention of the GC that the owners rep had a problem with the extension of the rock layer outside of the base of the foundation which made no sense to their designer and engineers and I don't quit understand the process in which they arrive on an agreement on design with so many chefs in the kitchen, Nor is it my place to interject myself into that decision process. However, the owners rep thinks there is a problem with the work that has been completed. I'm not trying to start a blog war here I was just wondering if any of you had run into such a strange request that flies in the face of simple engineering principles or have had any experience with resolving issues like this. In my mind this is their problem as I have not done any work outside of my contract but I imagine they will try to make it my problem. I guess my main question or vent would be have you guys ever seen a design for an over ex under the foundation only directly below the footing? If so how would go about completing such an impossible task. The bird bathing is a term the engineer used in his concerns he is afraid that water will collect in the road base layer under the foundation and cause ponding in the rock layer(again design issue). I guess I just don't see how having the footing over the rock layer will stop this from happening. My other question would be do I stay out of this until they resolve it internally or should I try to set up a meeting with all parties. This may just get resolved between the designers and may not be an issue or this could be a real problem. If there is anything you guys have done in the past or would recommend I would be happy to entertain all suggestions. 
Pipe guy thank you for pointing out all the holes in my incoherent rant. I usually don't post something here without rereading it but, I am stuck in Texas stewing on this this today and I appreciate the collective knowledge we all posses in this unique forum. The price cuts I refereed to were internal prior to bidding we do not entertain price negotiations after proposal unless the owner is looking for legit ways to cut costs. The internal price cuts are the ones we each make prior to submitting a proposal these days. There is always the price you want and the one you can get :laughing:


----------



## PipeGuy (Oct 8, 2004)

Blas said:


> I guess my main question or vent would be have you guys ever seen a design for an over ex under the foundation only directly below the footing?


No - never.



Blas said:


> ...how would go about completing such an impossible task.


hand work below the limits of the footing



Blas said:


> The bird bathing is a term the engineer used in his concerns he is afraid that water will collect in the road base layer under the foundation and cause ponding in the rock layer


I've always heard it used in the context of identifying deficiencies in a paved surface - kind'a like real shallow ponding. 
Like you said, a mud mat might've been more appropriate. Even with that any water that finds its way down along the foundation will accumulate at the footing line. What kind of structre is being built?



Blas said:


> My other question would be do I stay out of this until they resolve it internally or should I try to set up a meeting with all parties. This may just get resolved between the designers and may not be an issue or this could be a real problem.


Keep an ear to the wall and play it close to the vest.


----------



## rino1494 (Jan 31, 2006)

Wow Rick, you've been busy tonight.


----------



## Blas (Jan 29, 2008)

Hand work below the limits of the foundation is out of the question. This is over 160,000 SF of buildings and we need to get this done before the next coming of Christ. Even then some excavation beyond the edge of the foundation would occur.:thumbsup: I will probably wait to see if common sense still exists in this world and go from there. Thanks for your time and consideration of this post.


----------



## ch0mpie (Nov 30, 2005)

Are you not allowed to place stone outside the limits of the footing or your just not going to get paid for the excess material? Sounds like they wanted the cost for any excess you anticipated included in your unit cost directly below the foundation.


----------



## cexcavation (Apr 17, 2008)

My suggestion is to offer them two prices. One with less rock and more labor to install, and one for more rock and less labor to install. 

Point being, the engineer is paid to "save money" and without installation knowlegde, he trims out 200cu. yards of rock and saves the day. You come along and spoil the victory by saying you'll need to put that extra 200cu. yards back on the bill in order to complete the project correctly. 

Your best plan of attack is not to throw the "correct method" argument on the table, rather it will cost less to overdig and compact. Explaining the labor requirement to stay directly under the footings will more than likely demonstrate that the engineer is failing to save any money, and at that point the next guy in the chain who actually signs the checks will go with your method and you can sleep better at night.


----------



## PipeGuy (Oct 8, 2004)

rino1494 said:


> ...you've been busy tonight.


that's what too much strong coffee in the morning does to me


----------



## Dozerman56 (Dec 11, 2009)

Blas:

Common sense does still exist in some corners of the world but we've been working on an ammo depot at Fort Bragg for a year and I have yet to see any in the USACE.


----------



## Blas (Jan 29, 2008)

Update

After a few heated debates between nerds they concluded that the 6" oversize I provided would be acceptable. All that anger and worry for nothing. Thanks to all who commented. And yes Chompie they only wanted the rock originally directly under the foundation footings only with no lateral oversizing. So all is well with the world today....but there is always tommorow. I just wish some of the other projects on base would start up soon so they will leave me alone.:no:


----------



## ch0mpie (Nov 30, 2005)

"wish in place" engineering :laughing:


----------

