How to prepare a claim in construction projects

WESTBAND CONSTRUCTION LTD.
9910 39 Avenue
P.O. Box 2408 Edmonton, Alberta T5J 2R4

October 27 - 2011

City of Edmonton Drainage Branch

Dear Madam / Sir,

Request for Change Order:

Regarding to our meeting dated July 30, 1993; WestBan Construction Limited needs City’s approval for extra time and cost to precede with additional scope of the construction work (changing slope in North and East banks, adding required shoring for stabilizing the soil, leaving shoring in the ground, pouring tank concrete walls instead of shotcrete), according to the option B for both North and East Slopes (Attachment F2), the chosen schemes for slope remedies are attached in this document.

WestBan, due to the delays of City of Edmonton and UMA in providing requested services to this company, believed that the justifications in cost and schedule are necessary to complete the project within satisfactory quality.

WestBan is proposing extra CAD$72,500 and additional 28 days to the original project duration according to general conditions to the contract clauses 410.1, 404.3 and 404.4. It is noteworthy that the total amount of money requested is additional to the insurance of North and South slopes which stipulated in Attachment G Section 1.2 (Course of Construction Insurance). The detailed cost breakdown and the revised schedules are attached for references.

The revised milestone dates are as followed:
Completion of Storage Tank: 17-Sept-1993
Completion of Mech./Piping: 08-Oct-1993
Completion of Electrical/Control: 15-Oct-1993
Substation Completion: 12-Nov-1993

We appreciated your considerations regarding this change order.

Sincerely Yours,
Project Manager, WestBan Construction Limited.

The change order is requested to be issued according:

WestBan Construction Limited provided the City of Edmonton with work schedule, work plan, WBS and bulk excavation for reviewing on May 25, 1993 for evaluation. All documents were approved by the City of Edmonton after the approval of engineers, according to the clauses below, and had issued the award to us (WestBan) on May 26, 1993.

Clause 3, ‘Engineer’s approval required’: Devision1- 01700: Material and Equipment

“The Engineer will consider proposals for construction methods, materials and subsitution of materials, equipment and methods only when such proposals are accompanied by full and complete technical data and sealed by a professional engineer, licensed by APPEGA and all other information required by the Engineer to evaluate the proposed substitution.”

Clause 3, ‘General Instructions’: Division 1-01100- 4.0 General

“4.3- The work shall not proceed until submission is reviewed. Only items approved by the Engineer will be incorporated into the work.”

WestBan requested for additional area for excavated material during the Pre-Construction meeting on June 1, 1993 which was denied by City of Edmonton. This request was held because WestBan had a concern for stockpiling of material regarding site condition.

Regarding the General Conditions (Clause 303.1: “the contractor shall be responsible for the delivery and storage of the Contractor’s product”), there is also clause 3.4(2) Division 1 General Requirement on page 134 of excavation regarding excavation material should not be stockpiled on site. We admired that we have the responsibiliy for the material storage, thus, we have already made a request to the City of Edmonton for extension of storage area.

On June 17, 1993, the excavation was 70% completed, the backfill was retained in the storage area and the material was removed from the site, and continued as the work schedule approved by the City and UMA (Attachment C). The excavation base area and elevation as required for the project were approved and the City and UMA were confirming that the slope angles were “within local normal construction practice” and it is reasonable given the known pre-construction soil conditions in conformance to “minimum guidelines stated in the project soils report. The design sketch is not in any violations of any Occupation Health and Safety regulation” (Attachment F1 Q4).

On June 18, 1993, the City of Edmonton has requested for constructing a step in the bank after the development of the crack in the south bank and relocates the spoil pile if the weather allowed. However, the City of Edmonton refused to gave additional storage area (which we request on 1 June, 1993), but only after the crack has been developed on June 18, 1993 in the south bank. After the instruction and approval were given by the City (Attachment D City Site Instruction), the piles were relocated on 23 June, 1993. There was a one-week delay by City of Edmonton to provide additional storage area for the stockpiling material, according to the revised “construction work site sketch” (Attachment D) given on June 24, 1993.

On June 25, 1993, WestBan emphasized to City of Edmonton that WestBan is not responsible for the excavation design and only responsible for construction methods, materials and substitution of materials and equipment as mentioned above.

On June 28, 1993, WestBan has submitted a new excavation slope angle design for the proposed berming of the south bank, as requested by the City after the crack appeared as the promptly remedy actions toward the crack.

On June 30, 1993, our revised slope shop drawings were not accepted by the UMA, and the City. There was a considerable delay in the approval process that would enable the WestBan to take action.

Based on the Slope Back Analysis (Attachment F2, ‘Clause 2’ Slope Back Analysis), the initial slope angle designed submitted by WestBan “was reasonable based on average undrained shear strengths of the clay till as documented in the geotechnical report”. As we are going to study the pressure (how much it can tolerate) and safety factor of the North Slope based on the report we conclude that for short term temporary slope, safety factor 1.4 to 1.6 would be better for pressure range of 70 to 80 kpa to support the proposed slope excavation angle and height. After analysing the all factors we propose in the change order for the full slope height condition “average undrained shear strength of the clay till can be taken as 50 kpa for the purpose of redesign of excavation slopes” For slope redesign purposes we are going to consider the recommendations of the UMA for unsupported slopes, safety factor will be 1.5 (in the undisturbed native clay til).

For the change order we propose option B to support our documentation as a revised drawing for the stability of the North and East slopes.

North Slope Option:

To stabilize the loose fill along the base of the slope a tie- back wall should be constructed. As we do not want to relocate the tank base so these walls would be designed to accommodate the expected lateral pressure of the overlying slopes. (Drawing of this option is attached).

East Slope Option:

“This option is the utilization of tie-back retaining wall system at the crest of the slope intended to secure the gas lines with a 2H: 1V unsupported excavation slope below the wall. Depending on the height of the wall utilized this option may leave some loose fill at the base of the slope that would require remediation by incremental excavation and recompaction. Depending upon the ultimate position of the toe of slope the tank may have to be relocated to west a small distance” (Drawing of this option is attached).

As a result of the meeting, (attachment F2 Question 7) City has requested to UMA provide plan for the stabilization of the slope (south). It means that City has realized that change should be done and copy of information was also received by the WestBan through UMA. In Clause 1.8 attachment G UMA clearly indicate failure was due to the stockpiling and not due to any design problem and all this was related to inadequate area. On these grounds our change order should be approved.

General Conditions:
802.2 - “The contractor shall not be responsible for any damage or injury to the work and to the property of the city which may be directly caused by the city, its agent or employees, or from any work or risk which the City has agreed to insure, provided the Contractor has taken reasonable protective precaution.”

CONCLUSION:

The City of Edmonton awarded the contract for construction of underground water tank of Millwoods town to WestBan. The WestBan carried out the construction according to the approved design of City of Edmonton and its consultant UMA. After completion of almost 70% of the work, WestBan requested for some additional area for the storage of piles which was initially rejected but later on accepted by the City of Edmonton after the appearance of a crack in the tank due to bulk loading of stockpiles. Further delay in the approval of revised design by the city of Edmonton forced WestBan to forward a change order as this delay would affect the schedule and finance of the project.

The WestBan claimed for extra time and money as the delay in approval of design caused by City of Edmonton cost WestBan extra labour and equipment charges. WestBan thought it would affect the project efficiency both in terms of time and money. The claim includes, the revision of scheduled dates for the completion of storage tank, piping/mechanical, electrical/control and substation and the extra cost of labour, material and equipment.

In view of the foregoing, it is stated that WestBan is not guilty of delaying the project and claims for extra 28 days and CAD$ 71,150 for the successful completion of the project.

| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Detailed Cost Breakdown |
| |
|Project : Millwoods Drainage Improvements Phase III |
|Storage Tank and Pump Station at Millbourne |
|Project Location: Millbourne, 76 Street & 41 Avenue |
|Submitted by : WestBan Construction Ltd |
|Submitted to : City of Edmonton |
|Consultant : UMA Engineering Ltd. |
| |
| |
| |
|No. |Description of work |Unit |Estimated Quantity |Unit Price ($CAD/Unit)|Amount |
|1 |Provide Design and drawings | | | | |
|1.1 |(Designer, safety inspector, overheads, surcharge are |LS |1 |8000 |8000 |
| |included) | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|2 |Dewatering | | | | |
|2.1 |Supply and Service machine for Dewatering |day |6 |150 |900 |
|2.2 |Labor charge ($50/hr x 6 days) |hr |48 |50 |2400 |
| | | | | | |
|3 |Removal of Sliding Soil | | | | |
|3.1 |Supply and Service for Hauling | | | | |
|3.2 |Excavator for excavation( one machine) 2days@1 |hr |16 |250 |4000 |
|3.3 |Truck (three truck) 2days@3 |hr |48 |70 |3360 |
|3.4 |Supervisor charge ($90/hrs x 2 days) |hr |16 |90 |1440 |
|3.5 |Dump Sluge Soil from site to 20 Km away, (2 truck x 5trip x |trip |20 |400 |8000 |
| |2days) | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|4 |Stabilizing the Soil | | | | |
|4.1 |Install the North Tie-Back Wall | | | | |
|4.1.1 |Steel rods |m2 |36 |100 |3600 |
|4.1.2 |Grouted tiebacks |m3 |0.5 |500 |250 |
|4.1.3 |Shotcrete |m2 |41 |75 |3075 |
|4.1.4 |Additional Labor Cost ($50/hr x 20 days) |hr |160 |50 |8000 |
| | | | | | |
|4.2 |Install the South Tie-Back Wall | | | | |
|4.2.1 |Steel rods |m2 |36 |100 |3600 |
|4.2.2 |Grouted tiebacks |m3 |0.5 |500 |250 |
|4.2.3 |Shotcrete |m2 |43 |75 |3225 |
|4.2.4 |Additional Labor Cost ($50/hr x 20 days) |hr |160 |50 |8000 |
| | | | | | |

|No. |Description of work |Unit |Estimated Quantity |Unit Price ($CAD/Unit) |Amount |
|5 |Force Account for 4 days | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|5.1 |Excavator machine(stand by for 4days x 1 Nos) |hrs |32 |150 |4800 |
|5.2 |Truck (stand by for 4days x 3Nos ) |hrs |96 |40 |3840 |
|5.3 |Labor charge at site ( 4days x 4 Nos ) |hrs |128 |30 |3840 |
|5.4 |Supervisor charge at site ( 4days x 1 Nos) |hrs |32 |60 |1920 |
| | | | | | |
| | | | |Total Amount |CAD |
| | | | | |$72,500 |

Original Schedule
[pic]
Original Schedule Milestone Dates:
Contract Award: 01-Jun-1993
Completion of Storage Tank: 17-Sept-1993
Completion of Mech./Piping: 08-Oct-1993
Completion of Electrical/Control: 15-Oct-1993
Substation Completion: 12-Nov-1993
Revised Schedule (By impacting delays 1 to 5 (additional items in BOQ) to Non-Delay Schedule as shown)
[pic]
Original Schedule Milestone Dates:
Contract Award: 01-Jun-1993
Completion of Storage Tank: 15-Oct-1993
Completion of Mech./Piping: 05-Nov-1993
Completion of Electrical/Control: 12-Nov-1993
Substation Completion: 10-Dec-1993
Proposed Supporting Systems for North and East Banks: Option B

North Bank:
[pic]

East Bank:

[pic]