HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-847(E) - Jamboree Road Realignment between Pacific Coast Highway and Palisades Road (1969-1971)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FINAL REPORT FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF JAMBOREE ROAD
FROM
PALISADES RD. TO MAC ARTHUR BLVD.
AHFP PROJECT NO. 501
APRIL 1971
I
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
FINAL REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
JAMBOREE ROAD
FROM
PALISADES ROAD TO MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD
' City Contract Number 1205
AHFP - Project 501
' PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Date work began: July 1, 1970
1 Date work completed: February 3, 1971
L
The project consisted of the extension of Jamboree Road from
800 feet southerly of
Palisades Road to MacArthur Boulevard, providing
a through route from
the Pacific Coast Highway to northerly of the
'
San Diego Freeway.
Included in the
project was the construction of a curbed median,
'
drainage facilities,
Road and installation
modification of the traffic signal at Palisades
of a traffic signal at MacArthur Boulevard.
Additional fill
was placed to raise the grade of Jamboree Road to
'
accommodate the construction of the future Corona del Mar Freeway.
The cost of this work
was paid by the State Division of Highways and
was not included in the AHFP funding.
1
'
Length in miles:
0.38
Contractor
E. L. White Company, Inc.
1
Engineer in Charge:
Benjamin B. Nolan
City Engineer
RCE 12806
Date work began: July 1, 1970
1 Date work completed: February 3, 1971
L
FINAL REPORT INDEX
- 2 -
Page
I.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT COST DISTRIBUTION
3
II.
COST DISTRIBUTION FOR OTHER 'WORK
4
I
a. Design Engineering
4
b. Construction Engineering
6
c. Work Performed by Southern California Edison
7
III.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
7
IV.
CHANGE ORDERS
7
V.
DIVISION OF COSTS
8
VI.
COST SUMMARY
8
VII.
CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE
9
VIII.
QUALITY OF 'WORK
9
IX.
ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION
9
X.
APPENDIX
10
- 2 -
I i
I
W W W W W NN N NN N N NN N�� - +- J- +- +�' -..•�
Z'^+n
i
0 W m- C)%Dw V mCn AwN•-- �Ci%Ow V MCn 4A W N - -O IOW V q�ITA W N�
O
O
. . . . . . . . . . .
(D
tZi1
I
�
n
n n C7 WO- nO-M N
O Jw011O
C
'I Mn I 4+ - 4wcnww4 CO 0 1 O O CD
WCD T Cl( I mnO W \NA AA AOAW
V
�
D D 1 3 In a �+. (D J e =. A I I I It I I I N J J. I 140 n d CD w
�••�
Z
Z Z J. O tit C d 3 J. J. J. J. J. J. J. J. n S 3 3 J• J• T d d In 0 00
O
O
.n ". M r T n n n K 7 3 0 0 N a n n i 3 CD I T In. G <<
(•')
m
rn
m m m (An J• 3 J• K d S C O n n n n n n n n ---' =r c-) n fG
m a a== 0 0 0 0 0 ID D ID
d
O
C Nn 7 T T T T --. S S7'S T3-3�K S3d w 7
2
O
O OO P 3'o <n NPPRP d 10 0 7 n to CD
O
to
�
O :;a T. c+;a D w CD T crn==;Iow A'G3 n d PDfD T mn-+O AX
Z
.
D
G O O P T J• -a C1 O'< • O CD O r+ C) C T X N T 1 -••
T)
m
�'I m mc+na C+ (a <3 n nn Cl nno 7 CD KnP nt0 1 T
j
c
�
� ;o cu J._z(Dw0 7, .. . . Cn mac+• a aTJ -c�C
D
Cl)
b- c d T < - CD -00 < C 7 t0 n
W...
n
N -� -+P7TC H . 41- CD d T • CD d Pn a S7
Ds
r1
n 0 CD-0 .... J. 1 dC+ -, _A C+ SK 10
=
o 3 x s a o 3 n J• J. J• 0 rD < .J J• rD o
n
n
� ?• =-a O � 0 °-
C 1n
N m S 7 N
3
O
. 1wf1 ff<pp c0i O cC-+
N
S
T J• 3 Sm N a_a -C T -'K
K
ten{
d HI CD n 'S KKK < w C KO'
fKD
d
1
A
C+ 03
O
n r3+ • OIL 3 t to a#
n
cn
K• co n K K 0 CD T Sm P
K
N
n
1r
C 3 N
-1
O 0 C K ID
N O K D �• n o n CL -+ J•
r+
3
a � o0C0(D
3 .w
c
c31d
M
r
Im ID
to
N W
Q
fD K
N N
�
3
W
N A W V N N N
n
O
N A Cn Cn 00 CA) 0001 w V 40 c O
-0
00000000 OO OO o
'
Ccn
O O0) 00000000 vJ C> �-�v+V Ulm o M V Cn W O 00000 v, 00
-i
n w
O
0 OO 0o 00.00w0 V V O Zr 0000000(11 V 0 0 0 o ocn V 00000
CDn
ooNO
000000wo 000000000000000aoocn Cl, 00000
K
r
r N r r r r r M M Ln r r r r� r r r r r r r rv+- Cmrmr -I nn rrr rm
N
(A T N N N N N a D Tn T'-q T T O T �n T1 m Cn CA N N K O D T D �n O« N C/1 �1 N D
� Z Z Z
Cnw W A
J
V
w J JC) CO ww (. N J J J C. N V
O
O
M(n
0 C)0 M W 0C)J
O 00 0000 �
A(D 01 Ca 1V 01 w 0000 A N V 0001000• --�0
C
O
NJ 0
O 00 C) (D OOV VANOWO -J 010Aw 0000 A t0 •.+WNOw000000A
d
3Q
3Q 3Q 3Q 22 3Q 3R Df LC 3¢ 22 EQ 3Q 3E
3
to cn
•
_ • . t71 � to
1C
Cn .. N ��71trmr -ICIe r m
303*7V-n -n-n n -m—n n -n
71 DA'n- �7TT-nOt1T?7 T :. <�i„RIT
2
N N
N
co
0 c) 0C) WAN �-.-+
.'a
-r�Cn to Vl 01 -•Cn 0100000W
w0Cn 0-+O
Iq
bO �C000V -• AN W 00CD C> 00 NOw o CD
g
34 re A2
D
01 N 01
C+
ul 14
N m m w r r r r� r r r N -n
DDTm-n -I-n -nT-n <0 0« -n
w
.H to
.
m
J
I
J.
C 71
N
N
N W
W
-� V W W m w N V N N W .,. t0 -J N
.i.._
. ff
to
CNO O W ACn
V000Cn
Cn Cn NN V 1t0w01 V NCO W W 00010101 t0 t0 N01 (.n tpOw
W
�tT
O
I
CO
w OpN NOOpOOOCnVN00Cn
0 V tONCn V W OtO 0 O O 00 V w� V OOw00
-• OD Q4A 0000wNA0
I•
14 %0 O0
K
N
000 N
p0000
OOOOSNOS O ppW
6:
eMi
00 OOOSOOOtnA c6
I
O
a
C DM Cn W CAO w N CO N -.
,O
Co
O AA NOV N 01 Cn Vt 010 N0 A
,C
o
I{
3¢
Cy
O
to W N
3;
rD
w
,+
n
m to r r r N -1 -4 r
K
C
-m -n m -n <3 << -n
0
O
a
w
01
0
Cl.
W
N
W O1
"
t0
t0
001
In V W O N W w N 01 0
n
CD
O
O
O O
O Cn - W W t0 O r -.
0
LO
O
Ch
00 AWO w N Vw wSAO Ck
H
w
O
OA
00 00(71 A O VCn 60 AO O
K
C+
O
O
C) C)
CD CD 000 O O A000 O
J
�
I
I
W
V
to
A=-
W N w t11 -
K
01 N Cn A O
d
W
0 +
3
O
w
r rr mr n
`.
J
N
0
_
3
O
N
M
%0
N r w O
n
=
ko
N t0 t0 A 71.1 A
Ix
A Ow
C+
O
.
V
A 00 00 N
O
O O O S O
p£�
'<
O
N
A
1
1
rWr CT
d
1
C
n
v
s
rnrvnr
cf
aT,a-n
f
�
T
0
A ��
T
` Cn
CA71 W C71 t0 V
C
O
ko
I
O tWO
On
d
O
O O O O A
C+
I
_.
i
-
I
i
I
'
II. COST
DISTRIBUTION FOR OTHER WORK
'
A. DESIGN
ENGINEERING
1.
Consulting Engineer
1.1 Original Design
$ 9,215.62
1.2 State Highway Redesign (Note A)
5,500.00
'
1.3 O.C.R.D. Redesign (Note B)
1,467.02
Total
$ 16,182.64
2.
City Labor
I
2.1 Labor Costs
$ 3,592.99
2.1.1 18% overhead
646.73
2.1.2 Total
4,239.72
2.2 Pro -rata Cost for Each Phase of Design
2.2.1 Original Design
$ 2,416.64
'
2.2.2 State Highway Redesign
1,441.51
2.2.3 O.C.R.D. Redesign
381.57
h
'
3.1
Total Design Cost for Each Phase -
'
3.1 Original Design
11,632.26
3.2 State Highway Redesign
6,941.5-2
'
3.3 O.C.R.D. Redesign
1,848.59
TOTAL
$ 20,422.36
'
4.
Pro -Rata Design Cost for Each Agency
'
4.1 AHFP Eligible
I
AHFP Units Constructed x Original
Design
Total nits Constructed less
'
State and County Changes (Note C)
152 ,472.42
- 97. - 3,826—.5-5
x 11 632.26
'
8,219,11
'258,813.32
j'
I
I'
-4-
III.
1
I1
COST DISTRIBUTION FOR OTHER WORK (Cont'd.)
A. DESIGN ENGINEERING (Cont'd.)
4.2 0. C. R. D.
Original Count Units Constructed x Original Design
ota On onstructe Less btate
and County Changes (Note C)
58,776.85 x $11,632.26 = $ 3,168.40
768,813.32 - 39,191.10 - 3,826.55 ,
O.C.R.D. Redesign
1,848.59
TOTAL $ 5,016.99
4.3 City Water Fund
Original City Units Constructed x Original Design
Total Units Constructed less State
and County Changes (Note C)
4,540.40 x $11,632.26 244.75 244.75
258, - 3,826.55
4.4 State Division of Highways
State Highway Redesign (from Line 3.2) 6,941.51
TOTAL $ 20,422.36
NOTE A: Subsequent to the completion of the design, the State Division of Highways
requested that the grade of Jamboree be raised to accommodate the future.
Corona del Mar Freeway. The cost of the re- design and of the additional
fill, etc. was borne by the State.
' NOTE B: Subsequent to the completion of the above re- design, the County Road
Department requested that the Jamboree intersection be revised to
' accommodate the widening of MacArthur from 4 to 6 lanes. The cost of
the re- design and of the additional work was borne by the County.
NOTE C: "State Changes" is the total amount of unit price work charged to the
' State. "County Changes" is the amount of the net increase in unit
price work resulting from C.C.O. #1.
' -5-
' II. COST DISTRIBUTION FOR OTHER WORK (Cont'd.)
B. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
1.
Ci ty
Cos is
1.1.
Labor Cost
$5,472.78
1.2.
18% Overhead
985.10_.
1.3.
Equipment (Transportation)
431.22
1.4.
Barricades (Note D)
682.47
1.5.
Sandblasting
195.50
1.6.
Signs and Paint Markings
869.21
1.7.
Total
$8,636.28
2.
O.C.R.D.
Costs
1,778.72
3.
State
Division of Highways Charges
263.00
4.
Total
$10,678.00
5.
Pro -Rata
Construction Engineering
Cost
for each
Agency
5.1.
A.H.F.P. Eligible
AHFP Contract Cost
Total Contract Cost x
Total Cons t.
En r.
9
155,399.42 x
263,046.32
10,678.00 =
6,308.23
5.2.
O.C.R.D.
Formula as above
63,909.40
263,046.32 x
10,678.00 =
2,594.31
5.3.
City Water Fund
Formula as above
4,540.40
263,046.32 x
10,678.00 =
184.31
5.4.
State Division of Highways
Formula as above
39,197.10
263,046.32 x
10,678.00 =
:1,591.15
' 5.5. Total $10,678.00
' NOTE D: The contract required that no paving be placed until 'the
signal systems were near completion. Because of the
probability of rainy weather and the possibility of
delays in the delivery of the signal components, it was
' decided to proceed with the paving and then barricade
the road until it could be opened to traffic.
-6-
11
.II. COST DISTRIBUTION FOR OTHER WORK (Cont'd.)
C. WORK PERFORMED BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
The Edison Company had a guy pole and anchors in the proposed traveled way.
It was found that these facilities were in a prior easement from the
Irvine Company and Lockheed Aircraft Company. The cost of relocating the
' pole and anchors was $2,261.53. A copy of the invoice is attached. The
work performed was all in the city and 100% A.H.F.P, eligible.
III. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
The contract date of completion was November 16, 1970. The signal was com-
pleted and the road opened to traffic on February 3, 1971.j Part of the delay
was due to accidental damage to the controller during shipping; however, it
was determined that the completion would have been delayed 33 days purely due
to slow delivery on the part of the supplier. Liquidated damages in the
amount of $3,300 were assessed. The proceeds were shared on the basis of the
cost of the construction contract paid by Orange County Road Department, A, H.F.P.,
and the City.
IV. CHANGE ORDERS
1. Provided for widening the intersection at MacArthur Boulevard to
accommodate the upgrading of MacArthur from primary to major status.
I 2. Provided for application of hydro -mulch erosion control on the cut slope
southerly of Palisades Road.
' 3. Provided for installation of a 30 second time delay switch at the
Palisades Road signal.
4. Provided for removal and replacement of existing curb and gutter at
MacArthur Boulevard; removal of A.C. berm on Jamboree Boulevard; and
lowering of existing water main.
[1
Note: All change orders have been reviewed and approved by the Orange
County Road Department. Copies of the approved change orders are
attached.
- 7.-
V.'•.DIVISION OF COSTS
9. A.H.F.P.
Construction contract
Design engineering
Construction engineering
Edison Company charges
Total A.H.F.P. eligible
Less 50% by City
County cost
Expended by County to date
Less liquidated damages
Balance due from County (A.H.F.P.)
2. O.C.R.D.
Construction contract
Design engineering
Construction engineering
Total
Less deposit by OCRD
Less liquidated damages
Balance due from County
3. City Water Fund
Construction contract
Design engineering
Construction engineering
Total
4. State Division of Highways
Construction contract
Design engineering
Construction engineering
Total
5, City (Gas Tax)
50% A.H.F.P: eligible
Less liquidated damages
Total
$155,399.42
8,219.11
6,308.23
2,261.53
172,188.29
-86 094.14
86— 415
- 67,046.61
- 1,169.17
$ 17,878.37 *
$ 63,909.40
5,016.99
2,594.31
71,520.70 :-
- 62,686.00
- 961.66
$ 7
$ 4,540.40 ;.
244.75
- r�4w3�
4 02 69
$ 39,197.10
6,941.51 .
1,591.15
$4,72.6
$ 86,094.14
- 1 169.17
$ 8 ,924.47
*an invoice for this amount accompanies this report.
VI. COST SUMMARY
' City (Gas Tax)Share $ 84,924.97
A.H.F.P. Share 1 84,924.98 -
Orange County Road Department Share 71 "520�;TQ -76 0
' City Water Fund Share 4,969.46
State Division of Highways Share 47,729.76
Total Project Cost- 293,�D8�21
' -8-
r�
i
Y�
.1
1 .
1
1
1
VII. CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE
The general contractor, E. L. White Company, Inc., completed the project
in a workmanlike manner. The sub - contractors were: Steiny and Company
(signals), excellent; L. J. Davis (concrete), excellent; Barnett &
.Thomas (pipe), barely acceptable; and Industrial Asphalt(paving), very good.
VIII. QUALITY OF WORK
All phases of the project were of excellent quality except the storm drain
and water main which were acceptable.
IX. ENGINEERS CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct statement of the work
performed and the costs incurred on the above project.
April 15,1971
Date
- 9 -
Bfnjamirf B. Nolan.
City Engineer
`I
XII. APPENDIX
1. Before and after photographs
2. Copies of Change Orders 1 through 4
3. Billing for relocation of Southern California Edison facilities
- 10 -
..
MAR 71
e
_ H
�
4
�
e
2
1
MRfl
]I
J,Ati1BOQEE Via. - �74L i,S.aoES ,ea
/NT€r2a�'EGT /ON_ LOOS /NG NE L�/
MAP it
1
i
_J
1 "
t wiz '�x.F+�•' ° °' °" �S�a : [ �.
� �� �
�- _: � �
.. - -- � f.
l
Y
MAR 11
goo Fr.. igAvzY OF' f 4tissro�s _
MAR
' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DATE September 20 1970
CONTRACT -NO. 1205 PURCHASE ORDER NO. BUDGET N0. 25- 3389 -054..
CONTRACTOR'S NAME E. L. White Co., Inc.
PROJECT NAME AND NO. Jamboree Road Improvements, Palisades to MacArthur
ACTIOIi•. To accomodate the up- grading of MacArthur Boulevard from
primary to Major status, revised plans date July 28, 1970 were
: previously forwarded to you. The approximate changes in
quantities reflected by the revised plans are:
Note:
200
CY @
0.70
$ 140.00
520
Add
0.55
286.00
t6.
Tons @
Roadway excavation
2,010.00
120
7.
Local borrow
804.00
8.
Aggregate base
1.70
E
13.
Asphalt concrete
1.50.'.
,.
693.00
24.
"B" curb
27.
"Ell curb
32.
Traffic Signal Mod
145
Delete
0.50
14.
Miscellaneous A. C.'
LF @
25.
"D" curb
75
28.
3" P.C.C.
Note:
200
CY @
0.70
$ 140.00
520
CY @
0.55
286.00
670
Tons @
3.00
2,010.00
120
Tons @'
6.70
804.00
56
LF @ 1
1.70
95.20
462
LF @
1.50.'.
,.
693.00
�_
406.00
..
$4.434.20
145
SY @
0.50
72.50
57
LF @
1.70
96.90
75
SF @
0.43
32.25
$ 201.65
Net change in contract price per this change: _$4,232,5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
' PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT CHANGE ORDER
' CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 DATE September 30. 1970
CONTRACT NO. 1205 PURCHASE ORDER NO. - BUDGET NO.19 -3389 -054
' CONTRACTOR'S NAME E. L. White Company, Inc.
' PROJECT NAME AND NO. Jamboree Road Improvement, Palisades Road to MacArthur Boulevard
' ACTION
Due to the running sand encountered, treat the cut slope from approximately Sta 180 to
Sta 184 with the spray -on erosion control material as described in Section 11 -18 of the
Special Provisions. This work shall be performed at the agreed upon price of $0.02
. ' per square foot.
The approximate cost of this change is:
1
M
' APPROVAL:
L1
21,600. SF & $0.02 _ :5432.00.
Lug
• / /,f•
r
cc: Purchasing % ✓ / c, d d 3
Concurrence:
r ragge . tkn;y
Roqd ReparU"t
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
DATE October 29, 1970
CONTRACT NO. 1205
PURCHASE ORDER NO.
BUDGET NO.
E. White
Company, Inc.
CONTRACTOR'S NAME L.
'
PROJECT NAME AND NO. Improvement of Jamboree Road from Palisades Road to
MacArthur Boulevard
ACTION:
Provide a 0- 30.second time delay
switch in the detector circuit for the Jamboree
Road southbound right turn lane
at Palisades Road. '.This work
shall be performed for
the.agreed upon lump sum price
of $200.00..
�<
o
OEF
CONT T
'
BY /
DATE . /i /L
/ .
/ 7d
,APPROVAL:
; 1
Fie' Engineer
Date
tepar
Date
H
nt ad
Date
.�
.. range TotnWItotd Depar nt,
ccr Purchas3no,.. _
-- s.., _,_!... .,•._..,
.�_�� _.____ 5
Q
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
' PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT CHANGE ORDER
' CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 DATE December 17, 1970
CONTRACT NO. 1905 HFP Snl PURCHASE ORDER NO. _ BUDGET NO-See below
CONTRACTOR'S NAME F- 1_ White co_, Inc. j
PROJECT NAME AND NO. Jamboree Road F usinn, Palicadas Road to MacArthur Rndavard
ACTICN:
Remove.and replace approximately 62 LF of "A" curb and gutter at the northeasterly
corner of Jamboree and MacArthur. The cost of this work, including.A.C. patching,
�. is $300.00.
2., Remove approximately 510 LF of type E curb and 7 reflector stakes in southbound
Jamboree Boulevard at MacArthur Boulevard. The cost of this work, including .
any A.C. patching necessary is $600.00.
,r 3. Remove and replace approximately 160 LF of 12 -inch A.C.P. water main found to
.,.; be in the proposed aggregate base section at approximately Sta. 196+70 .to-..,
198 +30. The cost of this work is $2,295.00.
Ref: Letter from.E..L. White Co., Inc. dated December 38 1970..
Note: Items 1 &.2, .O.C.R.D.
Item 3, AHFP
Budget No.:
25- 3389 -054 = $900.00
19 -3389 -054 = $1,147.50
20- 3389 -501 = $1,147.50 .--
`' .. CONTRACTO J4�? ax"
BY r
DATE . I � &41-iQ
.' APPROVAL:
Field En Weer Date
' 0,40
// -7/.
Dep tment head Date
jr
range County Road Department Uate /:...
.nct'.'.';Durehaeine4Fa.S��24
NrwronT nrtAE,N m,ANC11 YO.13A�
CITY OF NEWP(--"1T BEACH llsnnk oi' "trica �?
E r , "CALIFORNIA' ., a+ + + VIA LIDO
NENIFORT 6EACM, CALIFORNIA
No 21054
PAY : - I&A 0 N:" i r:/" 2 �+I. tiilF .il,.:p;� «14"w
RDfR OF .
Sept. 17 1 70 21 1
-� /' nom . 2.261653
!Southern California Edison Co. r054 6!53i�
! - L oAM -• CNECA NUMIKN /jj� j�jj NET ANOUNT
8120 Garfield Ave, _
Huntin ton apach Calif
222m13941: 020201N802010. ✓:: A. F
"•_ PLEASE OLTACX •LEON[ DEFOSITINO, •��'
HADZ ACCOUNT
INVOICE
R NO. ICE No. NET INVOICE • 'FUND TOTAL AMOUNT omeomlPhYW:
NUMBER AMOUNT
19- 3389 -054 1 ,130.76
20 -3389 -054 , 1,130.77,'. 2.261.53 2 9261.53
I.
Relocat
guy acnch
Road an
MacArthur
LCADE DETACH THIS STAY HIT
FORE Dame TINe CHEDK , t
Sales Invoice
Huntingi
DISTRICT
DIEGO
Relooatioa of
jamboree Road
and guy pot
vd.
THI• CHECK 1• TENOERtb II
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 FAVMENT OF ITER/• LI/tto
CA.LI►ORNIA
_.r•..Y+w mow.. Y'.�"_^'._w'��•.r.. .. .e_wi - .�..+_^' ..�.w•, rf .�.
G COLyEC'i70N COPY =a .
Southern California Edison Company
— T� w fwA
Please mall payment. to: 1 '
Southern Caltiomta Edison Co City of 1letrpohr! lseacn
8120 Garfield . "City Ball
RuaLingtl °__ 3ehrpoaO 8aoch• Caul.
L
♦ purchase Order Na �.•�t� See Abow
: ... i Address .
i B= Order Ne.
,. .:. 3a.. ,.. .. .,.. ,,._ .... .. to ..: r _ _. _..: .•9a�}wA.ir'I.s,:%: ., .t
W
TU� Y H SEYMOUR
ATT011N6Y4:LAW
' SUITE'�'9
366 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH. CALIR'ORN:A 02660
:.,17141 6445020
_ - X
JI�rold 5. oIJv9r. Esq
a�ttbrriey, at Law
14442 X. W'hitter Boulevard._ ,
P.O. Sox 938
Whittier,.`. California 90608
rot Coxeo, Inc., et al., v. City of
Newport Beach
8MRerioX Court No. 167868_
Dear Jerry:.
I was pleasantly sd1�dlto read in the newspaper of your
appointm44t ",to the Butch. Congratulations on your new os eer.
I am sure.thagt you will make a superb judge..
OA June 1, 1971, 1 ro*ignmd my position'as'City Attorney for
rJewport Beach to accept a part -time City Attorney's position
with the City of Laguna Beach. I.have opened an:office of ,
the general practice of lava in Newport Cent®r..The City of
Newport Beach has retained me to'do tome consulting work during
the period that they are recruiting fore new City Attorney.
One of the pieces of unfinished businesa.Witch I hope to close
out is our liquidated damages case.
Afteer reviewing your letter of April 7, 1971, with the City's
Public Works. Department I am prepared to x*oommend a settlement
to the City Council on the basis of a fifty - fifty split of the
811,750.00 withheld by the City as liquidated damages, i.e._;
g'i:yment of $5,875.00 to Coxco in full settlement of their glans.
I am sure that you will agree with me that -a trial of this-case
is unwarranted and would quite probably result in the Court or
jury striking a compromise between your claim_ for.refund of
liquidated damages and our counter claim for actual damages
suffered by the City.
t
The above proposed settlement figure is, of course, based
solely on an effort to arrive at a reasonable compromise and
is not intended to reflect a re- evaluation of.,thd City's actual
monetary losses. I would appreciate your reply,to this proytosal
_1-
Jerrold S. Oliver, raq 22, 1971
as soon -.'*a, possible, since the trial date is rapidly approapk'IA
and we wiil ustdootedly want to get into some discovery if..; r
offer is rejected.
Kindest regards',
Yours very truly,
TULLY H. SEYHOUR
THS:ada
Cc:, Duffern Helsing, Esq.
Acting City Attorney, Newport Beach.
;Public Works Director, Newport Reach..
0 4k
April 23, 1970
TO: CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: Field Engineer
SU6JECT: Jw,160REE ROAD REALIG !4EWT ( - 47)
Following is the information requested in your memo dated April 7, 1970:
1, No other agency shared in the )11,750 liquidated damages
assessed iy the City.
2. The City's costs regardi;;3 the delay in completing thie
projects were:
A. Cabildo Corporation :vas awarded a contract (C -1019) on
April 10, 1::65 for construction of a water main in
Jarworee Road. This main was to be attached to the side
of the bridge deck. The timing of the award was such
that Caoildo's wurK could be done concurrently with
Coxco's completion of the deck. On May 25, 1966 we
notified Cabildo of the possible rejection of the deck
and asked them to delay the work on the bridge. On
August 10, li)66 we notified Cabildo that they could
continue across the bridge -- we assumed that the corrective
measures would be approved and that the deck members
would remain. On August 12, 1966, Coxco requested that
we not allow Cabildo on the deck or to attach anything
to tine deck. Cabildo was so notified. Cabildo laid
tine pipe on either side of the bridge, then on August 15,
IJo6, reiiioved their crew and equipment due to not being
allowed to do the aork on the bridge. Upon completion
of the repairs to the deck by Coxco, a cnanae order was
negotiated oy toe City and Cabildo to compensate Cabildo
for the extra expense caused by the delay. A copy of
this change is attached. Items IA and Iis were not
related to the delay. The cost of the remaining items
was 53,315.29.
d. Toe uridge deck slabs were rejected by the City on
Narch 17, 1966. Tiie new deck was completed on April 11,
146 7. During this time the City incurred expenses for
wages of personnel involved in determining the extent
S
Page Two
April 23. 1970
of the faulty work. review of the plans for the
proposed reredial work, and construction of the remedial
work. de nave no exact payroll records for the above
period, but do have the following:
7 -1 -u5 to 6 -31 -66 $2.535.34
7 -1 -66 to 6 -31 -67 53.972.62
I feel that the fiscal year 66 -67 total wages would fairly
reflect the 13 -month period above. To these raw labor
costs should be added 20:0 ($794.52) for fringe benefits
and then 18% ($1358.08) for overhead, making a total of
&45,625.22.
A total of the above two direct costs is :P'3940.61.
3. Date
From
To
Contents
3 -i7 -o6
C .y
axco
Deck no good.
4 -1 -66
City
Coxco
No furt,ier work till
d:.,ck fixed.
4 -4 -56
-�cckviia
City
.1il1 fix known defects.
4- 1;i -60-
City
Coxco
Fin+ all possible defects.
4 -27 -65
Rockwin
Coxco /City
Propose test to find defects.
4 -29 -66
Coxco
City
Let's meet to discuss.
Early May, no record,
but meeting was
held. Decided that
City would
check with
State, County,
etc.
5 -24 -06
State
City
3/4 -inch maximum displacement OK.
6 -7 -66
Rockwin
Coxco /City
Here are talcs for repairs.
6 -9 -66
City
P.O.A.
Here are talcs for repairs.
6 -9 -66
City
State
Here are talcs for repairs.
(Sacramento)
6 -1u -66
City
Coxco
Calcs oeing reviewed; find defects.
6 -29 -66
State
City
Calcs probably OK.
7 -8 -6G
P.O.A.
City
Calcs probably OK.
7 -10 -66
City
(file)
Tests completed
7 -13 -66
City
Coxco
Deck rejected
7 -14 -66
Rockwin
Coxco /City
Let's hire consultant.
7 -13 -66
City
Coxco
OK, maybe
7 -23 -66
Coxco
City
Have hired Wm. Lever
7 -28-66
Lever
City
Thanks for notes.
3-16 -66
City
Cty /St /POA
Lever's preliminary talcs
8 -26 -66
Flood District City
OK
8 -22 -66
State
City
OK
3 -17 -66
POA
city
OK
8 -23 -66
County
City
10;
9 -20 -66
City
County
Please.
0 0
Page Three
April 23, 1y70
Date
From
To
Conxaents
10 -3 -66
County
City
10!
10 -12 -66
city
Coxco
OK, but you buy County share
10 -14 -56
Rockwin
Lever
Proceed -- hurry
11 -14 -66
Lever
City
Proposed specs.
1J -27 -66
city
Lever
OK, but add.....
11 -15 -66
Lever
City
Plans, etc., for approval
11 -17 -66
City
Flood
Plans, etc., for approval
11 -17 -66
City
State
Plans, etc., for approval
11 -30 -66
Flood
City
Plans OK
12 -1) -G6
&tate
City
Plans OK with corrections
12 -23 -66
City
Lever
Plans OK wita corrections
12 -2g -66
Lever
City
Plans, etc., for approval
12 -30 -6G
City
Coxco
Giange order for County's
share.
1 -9 -67
Lever
City
,Approved plans and specifications
received.
t -i -u7
Coxco
ity
Comple4iun date will oe 3 -3 -67.
4 -11 -67
Rocicwin
city
Repairs Completed
4. oeu e;ie attacuied Xerox copi..,c of specifications. Generally,
even if you don't catch re, with aly hand in cPhe cookie jar,
iC is still stealing. Also, it is worth noting that the
nature of the problem (sonovoid tubes floating aoove tneir
designed location in tiie slabs) was sucl, that the defects
were "hidden ", i.e., not visible to the eye.
I still feel that we nave a strong case for the full damages.
Aaturally Coxco and Rockwin will try to bring in items to clord
the issue, i.ut, in cV opinion, these are not valid in our particular
case. As I rei,ieober the previous cases and ap ^::als, in each that
the contractor ;von, there were many circumstances Coat had no
D;�arir.g on our case. In both the Board of Education case and the
Flood Control District case, the contractor, in my opinion, was right
from the start. There are none of these extenuating circumstances
in the present matter.
Je
u. P. Dunigan, Jr.
Field Engineer
uP 0 /bg
1.;
f.
.. CITY OF NEWPORT' BEACH
CALIFORNIA
Jerrold S. Oliver
Attorney at Law
14442 E. Whittier Boulevard
Post Office Box 938
Whittier, California 90608 .A
Re: Corso, Inc., et al., V. City of Newport Beach
Oranae County Runerinr (`mir* CanA Nn 167R6R
Dear Jerry:
This is in reply to your request for voluntary dj4tovery as
set forth in your letter of February 26, 1971.
Your first question requests details substantiating the City's
first counterclaim in the amount of $3,315.29. Thiq- amount
is the out of pocket loss to the City resulting fraa lelays
caused by the repair of the bridge deck by Coxco. On April 10,
1966, Cabildo Corporation was awarded a contract - -fdr
construction of a water main in Jamboree Road. The main was
to be attached to the side of the bridge deck.. The timing of
the award was such that Cabildo's work could be done concurrently
with Coxco's completion of the deck. On may 25, 1966 the City
notified Cabildo of the possible rejection of the deck, and
asked them to delay the work on the bridge. On August 10,
1966 the City notified Cabildo that they could proceed on the
assumption that Coxco would proceed expeditiously with the
correction of the defects in the bridge deck. On August 12,
1966 Coxco requested that the City halt Cabildo from proceeding
with any work on the bridge, and Cabildo was so notified. After
laying pipe on either side of the bridge, Cabildo removed its
crew on August 15, 1966 in compliance with the City's request.
After Coxco had completed repairs to the deck Cabildo was called
back to complete the unfinished portion of its work. C- ,ibildo
filed a claim with the City for extra work, and a change order
was approved by the City. A copy of the change order is enclosed
herewith. Note that Items 1A and 1B were not related to the
delay, leaving a balance of $3,315.29.
Your second question relates to the basis of the
counterclaim in the amount of $10,000. On March
bridge deck slabs were rejected by the City. Th,
completed on April 11, 1967. During this period
City's second
17, 1966, the
new fleck was
the City
i
Rer .Coxco, Inc.
.. 'f
-2_
March 31,_,1971
engine "ring staff had numerous meetings with representatives
Of the contractor and other participating public agencies, as
well as engaging in extensive correspondence and telephone
,contacts with same. In addition, City personnel made quite a
ftmber of field trips to the site for purposes of inspecting
tlW work. Of course, we are in a °position to document the above
it(fts: should that become necessaryi;
You also request any authorities I may have concerning the
City's right to recover actual damages. I refer you to Aetna'
..Cas. Etc. Co. v. Bd. of Trustees, 223 C.A. 2d 337, 341 where
the court held that although liquidated damages.would not be
allowed due to.the fact that the delay in completion was due to
the mutual fault of the parties, the public agency retained its
right to show actual damages.
I am prepared to recommend to the City Council that it authorize
a compromise settlement of this litigation on the basis of the
City retaining $9,140.00 in lieu of its actual damages of
$13,315.29 as alleged in the amended complaint. From the
$11,750.00 held by the City as liquidated damages, this would
leave the sum of $2,610.00 to be refunded to your clients.
Please advise if you wish me to present this proposal to the
City Council.
Yours very truly,
TULLY H. SEYMOUR
City Attorney
THS:mh
Encl.
• -a �-77/
I�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY
Department
T0: Public Works Director DATE: April 7, 1970
(Attn: Pat Dunigan)
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: COXCO, INC., vs CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (C -847)
On April 7, 19702 I met with the attorneys for Coxco, Inc., and
Rockwin Prestressed Concrete, in the chambers of Judge Van Tatenhove,
to discuss possible settlement of the above entitled lawsuit. In
order to analyze the City's position I would appreciate it if you
could obtain the following information for me:
1. What disposition was made of the $11,750 in liquidated damages
retained by the City? I particularly want to know whether the
other public agencies received their shares of the damages.
2. The law in California appears to be quite clear that a public
agency may not assess liquidated damages in cases where the
cause of the delay in completion is partly attributable to
actions of the public agency. In such situations the courts have
taken the position that they will refuse to apportion the fault
between the public agency and the contractor, and will refuse to
allow the public agency to withhold any liquidated damages.
However, this would not preclude a public agency from seeking
recovery of actual damages. For the purpose of assessing our
position with respect to the possibility of claiming actual
damages, would you advise me as to any consequences which
affected the City as a result of the delay in completion of the
project, which might be considered as having caused the City a
financial outlay which would not have been necessary had the
contract been completed on time.
3. The attorneys for the contractor and subcontractor have made a
big point out of the delay in approving the Change Order and
related plans by the public agencies involved. Will you advise
me as to the length of that delay and the causes thereof?
4. The opposing attorneys also alleged that the City had inspected
the bridge components at the assembly plant and had approved
them for use in the bridge prior to the time that they were
moved to the job site. Can you give me further information on
this allegation?
Although the trial date for this lawsuit has been set for October 6,
1970, I would like to pursue the matter of settlement while the file
is open and the information is relatively fresh in nmy mind.
/Lcl�
THS:mh TULLY H"EYMOUR
City Attorney
0 r
October 17, 1969
Orange County Road Department
400 Civic Center Drive, blest
Santa Ana, California 92701
Attention: firs. Donis 3arrett
SUBJECT: REALIU.'I lT OF JAMBOREE R0 '(C-847)) AHFP 138
Dear Ars. Barrett: �..---11
As you requested, enclosed is a copy of the invoice from
The Irvine Company for equipment rental for the subject pro.iect.
In compiling the original list of Other 'Work, $26.08 was
placed under equipment rental rather than materials for settle -
p:vnt rate readings. This error is corrected on the enclosed r
revised "Other 'Work" page.
Please bill the City in the amount of $28,262.62, the
refund due the County for this project.
Very truly yours,
G.P.Dunigan, Jr.
Field Engineer
GPD /em
Enclosures
•s 0
5-05 CONTD
0
BE NECESSARY AND SHALL CONFORM TO SUCH EXPLANATION OR INTERPRETATION AS
PART OF THE CONTRACTS SO FAR AS MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE
ORIGINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. IN THE EVENT OF DOUBT OR QUESTION
RELATIVE TO THE TRUE MEANING OF THE SPECIFICATIONSj REFERENCE SHALL BE MADE
TO THE ENGINEER, WHOSE DECISION THEREON SMALL BE FINAL.
IN THE EVENT OF ANY'DISCREPANCY BETWEEN ANY DRAWING AND THE FIGURES
WRITTEN THEREON, THE FIGURES SHALL BE TAKEN AS CORRECT.
-06. SUPERINTENDENCE: WHENEVER THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT PRESENT ON'ANY PART
OF THE WORK WHERE IT MAY BE DESIRED TO GIVE DIRECTIONS ORDERS WILL BE GIVEN
RY THE ENnINFF.R IN WRITING, AND SHALL BE RECEIVED AND, OBEYED BY THE SUPER-
INTENDENT OR FOREMAN IN CHARGE OF THE PARTICULAR WORK IN REFERENCE TO
WHICH ORDERS ARE GIVEN. '
5 -07. LINES AND GRADES: ALL DISTANCES AND MEASUREMENTS ARE GIVEN AND WILL
BE MADE'IN A HORIZONTAL PLANE. GRADES ARE GIVEN FROM THE TOP OF STAKES
OR NAILS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS.
THREE CONSECUTIVE POINTS SHOWN ON THE SAME RATE OF SLOPE MUST BE USED
IN COMMONS IN ORDER TO DETECT ANV VARIATIONS FROM A STRAIGHT GRADES AND
IN CASE ANY SUCH DISCREPANCY EXISTSj IT MUST BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER.
IF SUCH A DISCREPANCY IS NOT REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER, THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ERROR IN THE FINISHED WORK.
THE CONTRACTOR SMALL PRESERVE ALL STAKES AND POINTS SET FOR LINES,
GRADES OR MEASUREMENTS OF THE WORK IN THEIR PROPER PLACES UNTIL AUTHORIZED
TO REMOVE THEM BY THE ENGINEER. ALL EXPENSES INCURRED IN REPLACING STAKES
THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORITY SHALL BE PAID BY THE CON -
TRACTOR.
5 -08. INSPECTION: THE ENGINEER SHALL AT ALL TIMES HAVE ACCESS:TO'T.HE'.'WORK
DURING CONSTRUCTIONS AND SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH EVERY REASONABLE FACILITY
FOR ASCERTAINING FULL KNOWLEDGE RESPECTING THE PROGRESS, WORKMANSHIP AND
CHARACTER OF MATERIALS USED AND EMPLOYED IN THE WORK,
WHENEVER TMF- CONTRACTOR VARIES THE PERIOD DURING WHICH WORK IS CARRIED
ON EACH 000,HESHALL GIVE DUE NOTICE TO THE ENGINEER2 SO THAT PROPER IN-
SPECTION MAY BE PROVIDED. ANY WORK DONE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ENGINEER
WILL BE SUBJECT TO REJECTION.
THE INSPECTION OF THE WORK SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF ANY
or HIS 08LICAT�IONS TO FULFILL THE CONTRACT AS PRESCRIBED. DEFECTIVE WORK
SHALL BE MADE GOOD AND UNSUITABLE MATERIALS ,jt.A F,,,,, F�PACT _NOL I TH STANDING •
THE THAT SUCH DEFECTIVE WORK AND.UNSUI TABLE, MATERIALS HAVE BEEN
(,1„Q�1B Q ,OQK Y T E ENGINEER AND ACCEPTEDOR�ETIMATED FOR PAYMENT.
PROJECTS FINANCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITH STATE FUNDS SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO INSPECTION AT ALL TIMES BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSO OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIAo OR H13 AGENTS. ,
C' i ry Socscs u uocri k..s ic,v r4- C 6c.*4.& a•w.,47 .
- _ OF %Oki, ;•
Q S
may bn considered evidence as to 1
be the sole judge as to whether
the plans and specifications, and
iations therefrom shall be final,
station of Plans, Standard Speci-
hese Standard Specifications, the .q
it provisions, contract change or- i
its are essential parts of the con -
in one is as binding as though
to he cooperative, and to describe I
q,
iandard Plans; Standard Plana
:hese Standard Specifications; the
Path these Standard Specifications
e done or any of the matters rela-
ed or explained in these specifica-
ans, the Contractor shall apply to
nations as may be'necessary and
ontract. In the event of any doubt
ie meaning of these specifications,
reference shall be made to the
Il be final.
ween any drawing and the figures
taken as correct. Detail drawings
,*ed by the special provisions
sequence of operations as set
with such requirements will be
id for the various contract items
n will be allowed therefor.
tractor shall designate in writ-
!d representative who shall have
the Contractor,
f 2 or more persons, firms, Part-
on a joint venture basis, said
before starting work, the name
shall have the authority to rep-
be present at the site of the
ly in progress on the contract.
,ing periods wben work is sus -
Engineer shall be made for any
ithorized representative is not
'ork where it may be desired to
the Engineer, which shall be
CONTROL OF WORK Section b
received and obeyed by the superintendent or foreman who may have
charge of the particular work in reference to which the orders are given.
Any order given by the Engineer, not otherwise required by the
specifications to be in writing, will on request of the Contractor, be
given or confirmed by the Engineer in writing.
6.1.07 Lines and Grades. - --Such stakes or marks will be set by
the Engineer as he determines to be necessary to establish the lines
and grades required for the completion of the work specified in these
specifications, on the plans and in the special provisions.
When the Contractor requires such stakes or marks, he shall notify
the Engineer of his requirements in writing a reasonable length of time
in advance of starting operations that require such stakes or marks. In
no event, shall a notice of less than 2 working days be considered a
reasonable length of time.
Stakes and marks set by the Engineer shall be carefully preserved
by the Contractor. In case such stakes and marks are destroyed or
damaged they will be replaced at the Engineer's earliest convenience. a
The Contractor will be charged for the cost of necessary replacement
or restoration of stakes and marks which in the judgment of the Engi-
neer were carelessly or wilfully destroyed or damaged by the Con -.
tractor's operations. This charge will be deducted from any moneys
due or to become due the Contractor.
6 -1.08 Inspection. —The Engineer shall at all times have access I�
to the work during its construction, and shall be furnished with every
reasonable facility for ascertaining that the materials and the work - 1
manship are in accordance with the requirements and intentions of i
these specifications, the special provisions, and the plans. All work done
and all materials furnished shall be subject to his inspection.
--Tr—ojects financed in whole or in part with Federal funds sball be
subject to inspection at all times by the Federal agency involved. j
6 -1.09 Removal of Rejected and Unauthorized Work. —All work
which has been rejected shall be remedied, or removed and replaced ".
by the Contractor in an acceptable manner and no compensation will
be allowed him for such removal, replacement, or remedial work.
Any work done beyond the lines and grades shown on the plans or F
established by the Engineer, or any extra work done without written
authority will be considered as unauthorized work and will not be paid
for. Upon order of the Engineer unauthorized work shall be remedied,
removed, or replaced at the Contractor's expense.
Upoa failure of the Contractor to comply promptly with any order
of the Engineer made under this Section 6.1.09, the Department may i
(21)
Sr4re -,ow, 0 #W kwys I SPer's
t
i
I'
it
is
I:
' II
,
li
11
26 24.5 Itent.) — 3.1
conform to the lines, elevations, and grades shown on the '
plans.
Three consecutive points set on the same slope shall be •I
used together so that any variation front a straight grade t
can be detected. Any such variation shall be reported to
the Engineer. In the absence of such report, the contractor
shall be responsible for any error in the grade of the finished
(cork.
Grades for underground conduits will be set at the sur.
face of the ground. The contractor shall transfer them to i
the bottom of the trench.
2 -10 AUTHORITY OF BOARD AND INSPECTION. The
Board has the final authority in all matters affecting the j
work covered by the plans and specifications. Within the
scope of the contract, the Engineer has the authority to
enforce compliance with the plans and specifications. The 1
contractor shall promptly comply with instructions from the
Engineer or his authorized representative.
On all questions relating to quantities, the acceptability of I
material, equipment, or work, the execution, progress or I
sequence of work, and the interpretation of specifications or
drawings, the decision of the Engineer is final and binding,
and shrill be precedent to any payment under the contract,
unless otherwise ordered by the Board.
All work rind materials are subject to inspection and ap.
proval of the Engineer. The contractor shall notify the Engi.
neer before noon of the working day before inspection is re-
quired. Unless otherwise authorized, work shall be done only
in the presence of the Engineer or his authorized represents.
tives. Any work done without proper inspection will be sub.
ject to rejection. The Engineer and his authorized repre. i
sentatives shall at all times have access to the work during it
its construction at shops and ,yards as well as the project site.
The contractor shall provide every reasonable facility for
ascertaining that the materials and workmanship are in
accordance with these specifications. -lnapectjsty,,,n w work
h�all �nQt r li v the contractor or of the o aeataon to u a
all conditions or trip contract.
SECTION 3 - CHANGES IN WORK
I3 -1 CHANGES REQUESTED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
Changes in specified methods of construction may be made at
the contractor's request when approved in writing by the
Engineer.
Changes in the plans and specifications, requested in writ.
ing by the contractor, which do not materially affect the
work and which are not detrimental to the work or to the
interests of the Agency, may be granted by the Board to 4
facilitate the work, when approved to writing by the Engi-
neer. r
3.1.1 — 3.2.1.3
3.1.1 Payment F
tractor. If much than.
a reduction in cost or
Nothing herein shall b
contractor to demand
3 -2 CHANGES IN
Agency may change
the work, or quantity
dollar value of all mucl
does not exceed 25% a
necessary to exceed tl
written supplemental t
Agency.
Change orders shay
value of the change c
adjustment in contract
involved, shall pro-lid
dicating his acceptance
3 -2.1 Payment Fr
3 -2.1.1 Contract
tiered in an item of w
and such change does r `.
character of the work
eluded in the specifics
be made based upon th•
the contract unit price
decrease in a major bi
adjustment of payment
change which, together ,
is not in excess of 251/.
on the original quantitl
If a change is of
a contract unit price, an
tial change in the chart .
the plans or included it
payment will be made i
Should any cunt:
payment will be made
to notification of such c
3.2.1.2 Stipulate
are those established b
ments, as distinguished
by the contractor. Stipu
adjustment of contract
2.2.1.3 Agreed P
changes other than them
3 -2.1.2 will be determitn
and Agency. If unable t .
direct the contractor to
(Subsection 3.3).
ou 0
S.."49
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DATE January 189 1968
CONTRACT NO. 1019 PURCHASE ORDER NO. - BUDGET.NO.50- 9297 -025
CONTRACTOR'S NAME CABILDO CORPORATION
PROJECT NAME AND NO. 18 -INCH WATER MAIN IN JAMBOREE ROAD, EASTBLUFF DRIVE TO PALISADES ROAD
ACTION:
Complete the project, including the below described extra work, for the lump sum,
extra cost of $5,000.00. The cost breakdown is:
I. A. Revise vault vents $ 110,00
B. Modify abutment water main supports. 1,574.71
II. B. Clean stockpiled pipe 593.29
D. Additional work in valuts 175.00
x. Clean and spot prime exterior of pipe 195.00 .
•III. A. Interest on retained funds 500.00
B. Move on and off 350.00
C. Estimating, review, loss of momentum, etc. 1,450.00
D. Additional labor costs 52.00
APPROVAL:
Total
It is understood that should chlorination and /or flushing in excess of
that normally needed be required,.the costs will be negotiated as a
separate item.
^^&IV A nrnn. PAnil nn MOMPIRATION
cc: Purchasing •
1l=.% Ws Change4 order approved by City Council 3/27/67.
�TO:
DATE....... _
Ken Perry V /
Pat Dunigan
MAYOR
COUNCIL
MANAGER
F--j ATTORNEY
F-� BUILDING
F-1 CITY CLERK
F-j FINANCE
r--j
FIRE
GEN. SERVICES
O HARBOR S:
TIDELANDS
F--1 LIBRARY
F-1 MARINA PARK
F-1 MARINE SAFETY
F-1 PARKS St REC.
PERSONNEL
PLANNING
POLICE
rX-1 PUBLIC WORKS
M PURCHASING
r'-jTRAFFIC
.FOR:F-iACTION & DISPOSITION
FILE
Xn INFORMATION
REVIEW & COMMENT
RETURN
REMARL(S Please review this corres-
pondence .......... I ... wou . I - a review ... t"o .... discuss
----our- 401-Ir- ... poi-n-ts
made by Mr. Oliver.
.......... .. ..... ......
be contacting y ou soon
.... to ... wet --- up --- a:-meetknT ...................
............................................................ .............
Tullv
TELEPHON E:6BJ B2B6 '
LAW OFFICES OF _
l')I
JERROLD S. OLIVER i.lP
_ ,
I4442 E. WHITTIER BOULEVARD \ � p /�� ",\
POST OFFICE BOX 938 -
WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 90608
Illl April 7, 1971 -
°: r�
TULLY H. SEYMOUR
City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: Coxco, Inc., et al., vs. City of
Newport Beach
OCSC Case No. 167868
Dear Tully:
Receipt of your letter of March 31, 1971 is acknowledged. I
appreciate your cooperation in replying to the questions posed
in my letter of February 26, 1971. Unfortunately•..I- cannot
agree with your contentions concerning:the City'-s.right -to
receive by way.of its counterclaims thelsum of $13,315.29.
In regards to the $3,315.29 expended by the City to Cabildo,
you should recognize that the City ordered the cessation of
works during the period March 17, 1966 to July 13, 1966 because
of subsidence in the fill areas. Admittedly during that same
period of time the difficulties pertaining to the bridge members
were discovered and remedial methods were discussed and eventually
accepted by change order #7 dated December 30, 1966. The delay
between July 13, 1966 and December 30, 1966, in my opinion was
the result of the City as the contracting agent attempting to
obtain the consent of the other agencies to the remedial concept.
This can be verified by the letter of October 12, 1966 from
Ben Nolan, Assistant Public Works Director, addressed to Coxco,
Inc. Without attempting to place the blame for the necessity
of the remedial work in the girders, it is a matter of record
that a city inspector was present at Rockwin Corporation's plant
during May of 1965, at which time he inspected and approved the
girders. The girders were then held in storage until mid - February
of 1966 when they were erected and the problems were then discovered
in March of 1966. 9ut'for faulty :inspedtion, during the period of
time from May 1965 to March 1966 more than adequate time would have
been available to.correct the problems if they had been discovered
by the city inspector: Under such circumstances and because of the
foregoing, I do not believe that my client should be responsible
for the out of pocket payment of $3,315.29 to Cabildo Corporation.
TULLY H. SEYMOUR April 7, 1971
City Attorney -2-
City of Newport Beach
Concerning the $10,000.00 counterclaim, admittedly administrative
time of City personnel was used in order to develop a remedial
program. However, by change order #7 referred to above, it is
my belief that by reducing the contract price by $31,229.13 and
by my client in effect paying all costs to remedy the problem,
the City has already been compensated for the amount asked under
your counterclaim.
I have read with great interest the case you cited in your letter
of Aetna Casualty vs. Board of Trustees, 223 C.A. 2d 337, and as
you know the case- correctly states-thetlaw about the nonapportion-
ment of liquidated damages where.mutual fault occurs. The dicta
of the case does indicate that under some circumstances an owner
might recover actual loss proved resulting from subsequent delays,
but that is not our situation and, as a matter of fact, the case
of Sinnott vs. Schumacher, 45 C.A. 46, cited in the Aetna case
doesn't add any merit to your claim for $10,000.00 for the reason
that the cited case is one where the contractor abandoned the
contract. For the foregoing reasons I do not believe the City
is entitled to recover $10,000.00 on its second counterclaim.
At the time of the settlement conference,.I represented to you
that my client would settle this case for. the sum -.of $8,- 500.00"
I still have this same authority and therefore if the City will
refund this sum to my client, the case can now be settled.
Please advise.
JSO:lj