The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1970-10-20COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.-0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) October 16, 1970 TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION -~--pI~~~ICT NO. 5 Gentlemen: T'E LE PH 0 N E 5: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the· regular meeting held October J.L~., 19~(0, the Board of Directors of County Sani ta ti.on District No. 5, will meet in a.n adjourned regular meeting: Tuesday, October 20, 1970 at 4:30 p.mo City Council Charriliers Newport ~each, CaJ.ifornia "· ,. •' jl 60/\~~)S or DmEC10RS II County Sanifo~i on Di!:trids P. 0. Box 51 7 5 of Oran5e Coun'iy1 California 10844 Ell is :\venue Fo unta in Valley, Ca lif., 92708 (1) (2) (3) ( L~) (5) DIS1 .. R.ICT No. _ 5 AGENDA Adjourned Regular Meeting ~DJ OU R MMENTS ...... ~:- Tuesday, October 20 , -197 0 -4 : 3b p .m. coMP & Ml LEAG E .........•. ~·· Roll Call City Council Ch~1iliers Newport Beach FI LES SET UP .......... ~~ •.• llESCLUT:o1:s CEF'TinED .... LETI ER S VIHnTEN ...... ~ MINUTES WRIHEN ... ~ .... MIN UTES f !LED ............. '-"" Appointment of Cha.irma.n pro tern ,. if necessary Re port of the General Manager Cons ide ration of An..nexation No. L~ t o County Sani t8,tion District. No . 5 (s ee following attachments ) Letter from The Irvine Company, dated Octob er 9 , 1969 , with accornpanylng l egal description and map . See page "A 11 ---- Supp l ementary l etter f rom The Irv:Lne Co mp a n y, dated Octob er 15, 1970 , with accompanying map o See p age 11Brr ·--- Letter from Shuirman.-Simpson, Consul t i:qg Engineers , dated October 13 , 1 970 , and a.ccompa,nying map . See II C It · page Rep ort. of Enginee rs a.ncl sta ff o n r eimbo.rsen1ent amount for Big Ca.nyon Se\--.rero See page "D" for Eng~Lnee:rs 1 l ette r d ated September 24 , 1968. -(C:u'rrent written · r e c omme ndation of Enginee:2s 1 u n der preparation~) ~ ---(6 ) Othe r b usiness and communi c ations ; if any ('i7)· Co n s ideration of mo tion to adjourn 1 I j ~ I ~ J • I • i l l I ' I ru~n~ Builders ofTomorrow's Cities ... Today October 9, 1970 Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District #5 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention Wayne Sylvester, Secretary Gentlemen: The Irvine Company hereby requests County Sanitation District #5 to annex 3.86·acres located within the Tentative Tract 7247 to be developed in the City of Newport Beach .. In accordance with the District procedure of annexation dated September 10, 1970, the following is submitted to facilitate the subject annexation: 1. 2. 3. 4. Legal description.and map of the territory for which annexation is requested. One sepia anp four copies. Owner -The Irvine C.ompany, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660 -rhone 644-3011 Parcel# 12-141-47, 1.00 acre, assessed value of $1,397.50' . Parcel #458-011-08, 2.86 acres, assessed value of $4,373.17 Cashier check for $325.00 Since the next Local Agency Formation Commission meeting is scheduled for October 28, 1970, we would appreciate it if this annexation request can be acted upon by the District Board of Directors at the regu~Rrly scheduled meeting of October 15, 1970. JP:pme Very truly yours,/,/ ~4~----r.A.~ Panchal Senior Engineer cc: Josep~ Devlin City of Newport Beach Gerald Rewers -The Irvine Company .. Th~ Irvine CompJny • 550 N•;wp0rt Cenwr Driv~ • Newpor: B·~ach. Cal1forni3. 92 6GO • (714 i f.·14·3011 District ') _ .. __ ---. ..--~-·--' .. - I . -. I .. I l l I l' ···· .. · ......... . :,•• . . ... . · .... .. .. .. PROPOSED ANNEXATION" NO. 4 TO ·--··· --·. -.. COUNTY SANITATION DIST;UCT ·No. 5 OF ORANGE ·cotJNTY ·That portion of B~ocks 96 and 97 of Irvine's Subdivision . . in the Cou.nty of OrangG, State of. California~ as per map filed in Book 1, pag~ 88 of Miscellaneous .Record Maps in· the office. of . . . . the County Recorder.·of said County, described as follows: . Beginning at th-2 Southwest· quarter' co~1er of safd Bl"ock 97, said corner bcdng a po.int on the boundary of Cour~ty Sanitat1_or~ District No4 5 of Ornnge County as establiah~<l by the Rc3olution of the Board of Supcrvicors of O!·ano--2 Co:!nty,· d;;lted De~t-::fftbcr 4, 1947; thence North 40° 35r 23n Er2st 261.Blt-feet alcnz said . . . boundary to a po:tnt Ori a non~t£rn.~?-~TIC CU!\10 CCliC<lVe . South~rly having a radius of 206u,OO feet, a r~clial · to said po:tt1t b(!.;:1 . .rs North 7 ° 40' 01" West; · t:hr;ne~ · leaving said boundary Easterly 34~01 feet along said Ct.t ... 11--=-thro11 i:rh ~r1 '-i"""erla t)f · 0° ·~r.~ l1.~,, t·o ".' r:1o{·rd· ... l ..... ··0~ v.a. ~.J..Jo ..:;;. .J v ,_} • a t: ···-· .•. .. C."1. • r l...,· ..:t )0 .... ] t (') C! !l i ."1 ... , ~ j ., ~~ l1 ; ' '.i .,, ,., ~."'"' -~ :·-''"' -6 -:i L· '"I ,, J r. I T .~ -. ...... ;. • • c1.Cl .c~ • o..; Q(.• ~-~ i-~·., -~~~ ~-'"--c;.~-·~ l.!t,..>.( ~ ... t~ r.) · . ..., .. •11...::.:1.., j t.h·:.•;;.ce Sonttl 6° L:..Ji 16n Eaat 60.00 fcr.::t along sr.id r ~.-1-r~1· #(.-1..:.-;.~n.~ ~f'1~t-'t" 1° t.;6 1 snn r,r,..~r'-$-f..l)q o/'1 f~•::~·· C.:.u-C. ' l:i.-.j,.,_,_..._, L-~ ...... __ .ii. -_" l'.\.:Wf..,.. "-~ .r -• •.•. •-·-...--> th C\T'Ce <"'r-.,1.!·~ -,·Lio?~' ()[.~l r~~--:. ..... ·:---/;")(., 1·/J. fc.r.-'-• t·!-.,~.-~~.··~ -J.J 0~J .... ~-.l.i. • -V ( \1\;:~);.._,. t--· •• ~~·'-l..) .l.L __ J._-1.:., S cut h 8 0 ° 11 r 3 0 n F e5 t 1 71: .• 0 7 f et: t to s a id b ') u n<l a r y · o.f" Cn,,-:--.~·-:·· ~::--:..,-i~-r-;.?---r,-n D1:.-+--.,{,··t p,.,\ ·Jr:-or,_ o-... ,·1···r:·.") r'".ur'·~--•7 ' ..._ --··''·.,.,,. 1.J-·--'-~·c::-1.. .. ~J. ____ ;.1\.J...i.-.... _{1..,..0 . -<l1.:.,.-,•• v"\... ~-'~.l: t J., .. "\.1.-,.-. .. "") !•1 1)1A/"t.-h !t.0° '°.{Cl f co•! !.';:-,~!r 5n1--:; • (;"! )~e~·~· C..-l1,""-.-1g °C'fd "1 lJ.,._ 4\ ... "'-• J.,'\ ..... ~ .__ • _,JJ .,,J AJ-'-~ .-. •"'-'V.,. -, -'-.-.b \ '~11. ;:J-.......1--'-.-•. bou~1d!'r'7 t·"\ t-~1~: p,r~-·-,-\-c·17 b··'·l-",-ir·,-.jr.~_. · L -• ./ . l. ..,. ..., l. ~ ~ t.. , .L '-• G . ~ -# • • , c_-, • . Agenda Item f/:lt _____ ....... ,._.. •. _ ...... -..,...._ .. _ A-2· • J ·. . .. · .. .· '.· Co 0 . O<::::>. . . . - ~ 0~04 ~. ,.;· ·~~ fr ·. . ·. . . : .. ~ .·~ \.e_~D.) .--.... ,, ... . . ~ : .. v · . . ~: .. • • • ·.·..,.. ._::..: •• r ...... ?.: .. · .. '·f · ... •·:·:~ J. I I· I I· . ' A-3 Dis tr5_ct h -··----·-··---2 .. r· l j i miffil~ Bui.lders afTamarrow's Cities ... Today October 15, 1970 Orange County Sanitation District #5 Po O. Box 8127 \ Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Mro Paul Brown Assistant General Manager Gentlemen: Reference is made to our request for annexation of 3.86 acres dated October 9, .1970 to District #5 for the purpose of sewer serviceo .This is to inform you that the subject area is not within any sewering agency at this time as shown on the attached map of the area, and is wholly mvned by The Irvine Company. Additionally, inasmuch as the area north of Ford Road, also owned by The Irvine Company, should be more logically served by the Irvine Ranch Water District due to the topography, we would appreci- ate it if the Board of Directors would. consider favorably to waive the annexation fee for this parcel with the understanding that equivalent area will be de-annexed from the District north of Ford Roaq and ~ast of MacArthur Boulevard. Very truly yours, ~;~-·--~/ ay--Panchal enior Engineer JP:ea · Attachment The Irvine Company· t50 Newport Cent•;r Or;·•e • Ne1w•:por! 8car.h. C<1lifornia 9 2 C60 • (714) 64'1·3011 B-1 I I I I ·1 I l I I ,J ~ ! i---- County Sanitation District #5 10844 Ellis Avenue ~ountain Valley, California Attention: Fred A. Harpe·r Gentlemen: . . . ~ .. October 13, 1970 The legal description for the proposed Annexation No. 4 has been reviewed and is satisfactory. ·The exterior northeasterly boundary coincides with the pendi~g annexation to the City of Newport Beach. The area proposed for annexation is within the Irvine Ranch Water District, but is not within Sewer Improvement District No. 1. Therefore, no taxes have been levied on this property for sewer purposes~ The computed area. of the annexation is 3.86 acres. Existi~g District facilities are adequate to serve the area. .DCS: c fl:E\'JPORT CEr.ITEn E1UlLDl~'>!S 3:J9 Srin Miguel Drive Newport 8eC1ch. CEdifrirnio 82660 C7 1 -1J G4'1-05G3 Ae;_enda Item :/fl+ C-1 Very truly yours, SHUIRMAN-SIMPSON 4~d7p-d:.~ Donald C. Simpson Distr:tct '5 ~---.. ------·- . ' l ! i I· ~ . : I I· --·····-----·-----·-------·-----------... ----------------------------- . ·<· ' . i SHU J: RM AN -SI M·P S 0 N I consulting engineers I I --~~--0'--~~~-- SUBJECT: ANNEXATION . · OG-lob~,.-13,-1970 . DaM --~--~~------- SANITATION 0/STRIC T . H 5 c, A~ . BY----~--~~------- l. I I . I I . -·-., r ... --. ---·- 1 I ; ~ .... .... · .. .. · · ....... -.--.. . . \•" .· ... -,.. · .. "' .... ·-. ·:.-.-.. ·. ·: ·:.· IRYINE ,eA.NCH· WAT£,€ 01sr..e1c7 '· . . 1.. -i£-;,-;r, -P-.o;;;;D;:R_Y_ --::..:.., 1 . · S:Af'-JITATION .D(ST, :ii 5 ~ . . , . . . . . I . .. --~ ---- C-2 . .. ,- IRVINE .. '· .. : . RANCH· WATE~ DIS7/.21C.T .· ... · P;<opo.sED. ;:-;,.,,N!!:>~A r1oi-J Tel THE C/iY OF ,Ne'tN'rOR./ '2it:.-Ac1-1 .. ·. · . . ' i ... ' .. i 1 i . ' I S H U I R M A N -S I lv1 P S 0 N consulting · civil engineers URBANUS SQUARE .MacARTHUR BLVD. AT FORD ROAD CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 (714) 644-0563 September 24, 1968 County Sanitation District No. 5 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif. 92708 , Attention: Fred A. Harper, General Man~ger Ft LEO ln the Office of tn::: S~cr~tary Co'"mty Sani~atic..r District No t. " -OCT 9 ES8 1\/i_, S!,'c& J,#2 PSI!-'•• ~ ~-~ ;='II ;:..·., .. ·; .... :-.. :_r In accordance with the procedure outlined in your letter dated 9/6/68, sealed bids were received and opened for the construc- tion of the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer at 10 ·A.M., September 17, 1968, in the Sherman Oaks office of the Donald L. Bren Company. Enclosed are copies of the 3 bids received, to~ether with a ·bid summary. Since the work was· ~dv~rtised, the Engineers have deter- mined that the concrete encasement included in I~ems 15 and 16 would ~. not be required and could therefore be deleted. Due to a misunder- standing of an addendum, one bidder did not include a price for Item No. 7.· To make the bids comparable, this Item was deleted from all proposals. · The total of the bids received, after d~ductinq the above Items and deducting the amounts bid for· the increased construction time are as follows: Mark Dakovich ................. $163,605.00 M & M Pipeline Company ........ $186,160.50 Henson Construction Inc .... -... $·20 t1, 6 9 0. O 0 The low bid· was substantially in excess of thr-:=·relimina.ry bu~get amount of $13.0" 000. In analyzing the bids it was evi6.snt that the all-·weather access road would cost approximately $50, 000. Mr. Kaylor indicated that development of the Big Canyon are~, which ·will probably occur within a few years, will provide permane11t all- . weather access. It was therefore decided to delete the itecs pertain- ing to the iccess road, and negotiate a new proposal ~ith M2rk Dakovich, the appar_ent low bidder. D-·l District f5 --..--.--.... ----....i::- The negotiated bid of Mark Dakovich is $103,025.00. A copy of this bid is enclosed. This bid.was reviewed, and since it appeared ~easonable it has been approved. The total estimated cost of the project; including engineering, permits, etc. is now $117~745.00 well within the . preliminary bu~get of $130,000.00. DCS:c Encl. --"! _.,-·-·, -· . ~ .... • ... i ' • • • ·...-, : ~-·:. "5 • • . .. . .. ' .· :; •.· . ·'T'' SHUIRMAN-SIMPSON ~~a,~ Donald c. Simpson D-2 BIG CMTYON SEWER COST ESTIMATE · M. DAKOVICH BID SOILS & GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION (includes test pits:f6r boring & consolidation tests) DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION STAKING DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ·ENCROACHMENT PERMIT BOND INSPECTION FEES GRADING ·, $ 30.00 350.00 (East of Mac.P~rthur Boul_evard; includes disposal and soils control) 12,000 c.y. @ .295 D--3 $103,025.00 2,300.00 8,500.00 380.00 3,540.00 $117_,_ 745 .00 ~ I --·- HHUIRMAN • SIMPSON c:=:I CONSUL TINO CIVIL ENGINEERS October 19, 1970 County Sanitation District No. 5 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Gentlemen: A meeting was held on October 14th with Mr. Merrill of the Bren Company·, Dave Kaylor of The Irvi~e Company, Mr. Brown of the District staff, and the undersigned to discuss the reimbursement agreement for the Big Canyon trunk sewer. ··'rn order to finalize a reimbursement agreement, the amount to be reimbursed must be determined. At the meeting, Mr. Merrill of the Bren Company submitted an itemization of all costs in connection with the construction. I was requested to review the invqices and report on my findings. · In order to provide a background, and for ease of reference, copies of a number of 'pertinent documents and letters are attached to this letter as exhibits. Each exhibit is identified by a letter designation in the lower right-hand corner. The project was started in the early part of October, 1968 and completed in March of 1969. Prior to the start of construction, the project was discussed at one or more adjourned Board meetings particularly as to the total cost and the method of reimbursement. As a result of these discussions Mr. Harper wrote a letter on S~ptembe~ 6, 1968 setting forth the method of bidding and procedure for opening and awarding a contract. This letter is attached as Exhibit 11 !11 • Plans were submitted and were rev~~wed by the Distric~ and our firm and were finally approved. On September 17, 1968 bids were received. Exhibit "G" attached is a copy of our letter summarizing the bids that were received and indicating what changes were made in order to obtain a lower negotiated bid from Mark Dakovitch. Exhibit "H" is a letter from Mr. Merrill of the Bren Company transmitting a copy of Dakovitch's bid together with a total project cost estimate. The total estimate is shown as $117.,745.00, but as Mr~ Merrill noted this amount did not include any contingencies and he was indicating that a total amount of $130,000\00 had been quoted to the Sanitation Di~trict. NEWPORT CENTE!R BUILDINO 359 San Miguel Drive Newport Beach, Celifornia 92880 (714] 844-0563 - 1 - ·. - i I I -! j i I i - 2 - Exhibit "A" is a sununary of the cost as submitted by the Bren Company at the meeting of October 14th, 1970. Included with the sununary are copies of invoices to support the amounts shown. Under the "Construction" heading, a total amount of $99,367.00 is shown. The principal difference between this amount and the $103,025.00 bid by Dakovitch was that Item 3 of Dakovitch's bid was for 10" sewer that is beyond the limits of the District's sewer. This item amounted to $3,120.00. The next item on the cost summary sheet is "Emergency Repairs" amounting to $6, 777. 87. Exhibit ".D" attached is a l~tter from the undersigned to the District explaining a failure that had occurred. The amount listed under emergency repairs was in connection with this failure. The protection required was added to the plans on October 2, 1968, as noted in Exhibit "E" a letter from Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates. It does,not appear therefore that the cost of the protection had been included. in Dakovitch's bid which had bee~ submitted earlier. However, the Contractor had been advised by the inspector on the job on numerous occasions to provide the required protection to avoid damage to the sewer. In Exhibit "C", another letter from Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates, it was indicated that three additional channel protections had been added and that the estimated cost for all six crossings was $6,500.00. The prorated cost for each crossing would be $1,083.33. It is recommended that in lieu of the emergency repairs of $6,777.87 the prorated cost of $1,083.33 be allowed for each crossing or. a total of $3,250.00. As a result of the failure. of the sewer, a large amount of material was washed downstream into· existing trunk sewers thus requiring substantial cleaning effort by District crews. A record was kept of the direct cost to the District for this work and the total amounted to $lc261.40. In our opinion, this failure was the result of negligence on the part of the Contractor and/or De~eloper and for this reason it is recommended that the total amount of the District's cleaning costs be ded~cted from the total project cost. · In the sununary sheet under "Grading of Right-of-Way" a total expenditure of $5,997.93 is shown. This compares with the estimated cost of $3,540.00 in E~hibit "H" submitted by the Bren Company. The J. A. Thompson Company was doing the grading work in the Bren subdivision for 29~¢ per cubic yard, and it appears that when the cost estimat~ was made Mr. Merrill felt Thompson would do the grading on the sewer project for the same price. Apparently · because the area was more restricted, Thompson wanted a higher price• of 40¢ per cubic yard. The back-up ihvoices substantiate that Thompson ~as paid the amount shown. Altho~gh the total cost appears to be reasonable considering the conditions, no one connected with the District w~s notified of the increased cost~ ·~ - 3 - The amount of $278.32 shown in the summary for the relqcation of utility poles appears to be reasonable, although this item ~as not included in the original estimate. A total of $14,187.86 was expended for engineering and geology compared with an amount of $10,800.00 shown in the estimate. The main extra item was in the amount of $2,998.00 for construction staking paid to Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates. Although the estimate showed an item of $8,500.00 for design and construction staking, it appears that the cost of construction staking was not· included. "The amount shown for both the design and construction staking appears to be reasonable. The .$503. 66 paid to J. A. Thompson was for excavation of pits in connection with the:geolo~ic investigat~on. An amount of $825.45 was paid for fees and permits compared with the amount of $380.00 shown in the estimate. The bore under MacArthur Boulevard required a substantially longer time to complete than estimated, and as a result the pivision of Highways' inspection fees were substantially greater. The amount of $83.19 expended for blueprints appears to be a reasonable charge. On the sununary sheet an amount of $2,953.0"0 is shown for additional excavation. In the back-up material that was furnished, there are letters from the Contractor and the engineers indicating that the depths of excavation encountered in the field were greater than shown on the approved plans. Apparently the plans were prepared using topographic maps which later proved to be inaccurate. There appears to be little doubt that the excavation encountered in certain areas was greater than that shown on the plans. No one from the District.was made aware of this potential extra cost when the problem was encountered. However the main question seems to be that of responsibility. In the amount paid to the engineers for the design of the sewer, a substantial amount was included for field topographic surveys. Prior to inclusion of this additional excavation cost, the engineers should demonstrate to the District's satisfaction that the unit prices bid would have increased a proportionate amount had the plans been accurate .. Under the item "Rock Excavation" an amount of $15,833.48 is shown in the summary. More time has been spent discussing this particular extra item than any other. There is no question that the Contractor did actually encounter rock excavation. However, because of the wording of the bid no one from the District was ever aware that the Contractor expected to be paid extra should rock excavation be encountered. As a result, actual field measurements were never made by the field inspector. The inspector's notes do make reference to rock excavation in certain areas which are sub- stantially the same as those claimed by the Contractor. .. - 4 - In Exhibit "H" attached, the schedule of prices submitted by the Contractor is shown. At the bottom of the second page 9f the schedule of prices, the Contractor has included an amount of $0.50 per cubic foot "for that quantity of rock excavation required by the County Sanitation District No. 5, Contractor shall supply all necessary labor, materials and equipment to install said rock excavation at a unit price of •.• ". Exhibit "F" is my letter of September 24t~, in which the schedule of prices submitted was approved subject to certain conditions. No mention was made of rock excavation in this approval since the clause in the schedule of prices was interpreted to mean extra payment would be made only if the District or i,ts representatives ordered a change in the grade of the sewer, thus resulting in additional rock e~cavation. In this same September 24th letter, the Bren Company was requested to furnish a copy of the executed Construction Contract. This request was· repeated verbally on a number of occasions, and again in our letter attached as Exhibit "B" on April 11, 1969. Until the meeting on October 14, 1970, we had never been furnished with a copy of the Contract between the Developer and the Contractor. In this formal contract incorporated by reference were: A. General Conditions -Prepared by Raub, Bein, Frost & Assoc. B. Exhibit "A" -Which is the schedule of prices submitted by the Contractor. C. All drawings listed in the agreement. In Section XXII of the General Conditions entitled "Subsurface and Latent Conditions" there is language pertaining to rock excavation. In part the section states "· ... rock excavation not apparent from the surface, nor reflected in the plans or specifications, and not reflected in the Contractor's bid shall be considered as extra work under said Section XXIII." The section goes on to define rock excavation and further states " .•. quantity of rock excavation shall be measured in the field by the Engineer." In addition, the Section states '' .•• upon the ~ncountering 6f rock coming within the provisions of these paragraphs the payment schedule will be negotiated, and failing ~uch the provisions of said Section XXIII. shall apply." · Obviously the language in the Schedule of Prices and in Section XXII of the General Conditions is at variance. If the Contract had been furnished as requested, this question of rock excavation could have been clarified prior· to the work bei~g accomplished. Based on conversations with the Contractor, I am quite certain that the unit prices he submitted contemplated extra compensation if rock were encountered. I I i ~ .. - 5 - In sununary, I reconunend that the following items be included in determining the cost of the sewer construction: Sewer construction ------------------$99,367.00 Emergency repairs ------------------- (The cost of three crossing protections pro-rated) · Grading of Right-of-Way -----------~- Relocation of utility poles --------- Engineering and geology ------------- Fees and ~ermits -------------------- Blueprints --~----------------------- Subtotal Less emergency repairs by District crews Total sewer construction cost 3,250.00 5,997.93 278.32 14,187.86 825.45 83.19 $123,989.75 1,261.40 $122,728.35 The amount of $2,953.00 for "Additional Excavation" and $15,833.48 for "Rock Excavation" shown on the Summary Sheet has not been included in the above total. It is apparent from the evidence submitted that the Contract for the construction was not carefully and diligently administered. If the Contract had been administered by the.District many of the items would have been clarified in advance. If the rock item had been clarified, the bids probably would have been higher than submitted by Dakovitch in the Schedule of Prices. A possible solution to the dispute might be to allow the originally estimated amount of $130,000.00 as the total amount to be reimbursed. This, in effect, would allow an amount of ap~roximately $7,000.00 toward the rock excavation and the additional depth exca- vation. In my opinion if these items had been 'clarified in advance the actual construction cost would have increased by at least this amount. Very truly yours, SHUIRMAN-SIMPSON ~~~ Donald C. Simpson NEWPOH'J' HILLS, INC. BIG CANYON TRUNK SEWER ITEM CONSTRUCTION Trunk Sewer Mark Dakovick 15" VCP Mains 12" VCP Mains Standard Manholes 36" steel casing-jacked in place 30" steel casing-j acl~ed in place . EMERGENCY· REPAIRS ' Plumbing Contractors Mark Dakovich Ray Cochran Ray Cochran Welch's Ready Mixed Concrete GRADING OF RIGHT-OF-WAY J. A. Thompson & Son, Inc. contract Grading After relocation of S. c. Edison Pole RELOCATE UTILITY POLES . Southern California Edison Co. Pacific Telephone Company ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Construction Staking: Raub, Bein, Frost & Assoc. Design: Raub, Bein, Frost & Assoc. Geologic Investigation: Moore & Taber J. A. Thompson & Son, Inc; FEES AND PERMITS Division of Highways: Inspection Fees . BLUEPRINTS Raub, Bein, Frost & Assoc. ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION . (SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE #1) Manholes Main Line -Additional depth of 3.55 feet ROCK EXCAVATION {SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE #2) QUANTITY .,UNIT· PRICE 4,258 LF 3,011 LF 26 Ea. 1 Ea~ 1 Ea. Force Act. Force Act. Force Act. Force Act. Lump Sum 13,000 CY Force Act. Lump sum Lump Sum Contract Contract 35.5 VF 1888 LF Lump sum $ 11.00 9.00 395.00 7,600.00 7,560.00 ,.;:- .40 797.93 ~. ' 30.00 1.00 COST $46,838.00 27,099.00 10,270.00 7 ,_600. 00 7,560.00 ... 629.50 5,643.42 . 28.00 400.00 76.95 5,200.00 797.93 179.32 99.00 2,998.00 8,442.00 2,244.20 503.66 1,065.00 1,888.00 ""f ,, TOTAL $99,367.00 6,777.87 5,997.93 I ,· 278.32 ! 14., 187. 86 I 825.45, 83 .19, I I ' 2,953.00. 15,833.48 . ~6.30~! SH IRMAN-SIMF INli ' .. l j O :.!~ D ~~ ~ • \ ·::::.~ztl.~ ·····-····-····· J • H • \ ·················-····· ·····-····-····· p •A. \ ·····-····-····-····· ~~j\;;1: ~!:1~~-f.·.·.-.-~.-.-.-.~-.-.-.~. County Sanitation District No. 5 10844 Ellis Avenuo Fountain Valley, California Attention: Mr. Fred A. Harper, Goneral Manager ·, D • C. \ ···········-····-····· \ ·····-····-····-···- \ ·····-····-····-····· \·····-····~-r~ FILE \ .£_(2.~ ......... . Aa.roported earlier, the recent rain atorma resulted in considerable erosion in the Big Canyon area, washing out the sewer in one location and threatening damaqe to the sewer in aeveral othera. The desi9n engineers have submitted modification• to the plans that would provent future da1\'1:19e to the aewer. The aatimated coat of these modifications ia $6500. The Irvine Company i• plannin9 a development in the Bi9 canyon area that would obviate the need for the proposed erosion protection dovices. Tho timing ot this development bea been reviewed with Mr. Frank Iiu9bea. lie fee:l.a it is likoly but not certain that the development will be underway by the Pall of thia year. It is thoretore reconunended that the propoaad.modificationa be held in abeyance until September 1, 1969. If the Irvine Company 1• · not proceeding vith develop~ont by that dat•, the erosion control devices should then be installed. In the meanti~e, it the Bren Company desires to proceed· with acceptance of tlie sewer, they ahould take th• following atepat 1. Fill the eroded areas over the •ewer, an4 grAde the ACCeaa road in accordance With the plans. 2. Submit the fin:al c:ost of the sewer with supporting contracts and invoioaa for our approval. 3. Submit final form of reimbursement agreement between the Irvine Company and the District. This same agreemant could contain a provision ooverin9 installation of the •rosion control devices it required. 4. Submit grant· of easement;: Please contact me if you have any queationa. cc-Irvine Co(D.Kaylor) cc-Donald L. Bren co. (B.Merrill) cc-Raub,Bien ' rrost(M.Anderaon) : .... SIWI~-SIMPSON Donald c. Simpson ''B'' I l. '.l l l I l \.'· RAUB, BEIN, F'ROST & ASSOCIATES'ROUTE \ ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS PHONE 548•77:113 P. O, BOX 117 Shuinnan-Simpsan Urbanus Square 136 ROCHESTER STREET COSTA MESA, CALIF'ORNIA April 9, 1969 Mac Arthur Boulevard & Ford Road Corona del Mar, California , •• !-· Attention: Donald C. Simpson, Civil Engineer Subject: Big Canyon Tnmk Sewer Dear Don: ···--·········· ... --····-····· ..... -····-····· .... --····-····· ·····-····-····· ·····-····-····· ·····-····-····· ·····-····-····· .... ----····· ·-··-····-····· TO \ INl TI.ALS G. S. ·····-····-····-····· D. C. S • \ ······-··········-····· J. I-I. \ ·················-····· p .A. \ ..... -· .......... ;.. ..•.. C. B. \ ·····-··········-····· F • S • \ -····-··········-····· D • c • I·~.-.-.-.~.-.-... ·.·~.-:.·.-.~·.·.-.-:. \ ..... ._ _________ ..... FILE \ =·-··-·--= Attached for your review are two (2) copies.of the revised: subject plans which have been modified in accordance with your letter of March 7, 1969 · to the Catmty Sanitation District No. 5. The construction plans now provide for protection against potential wash outs at three locations in addition to the three main channel crossings previously shown on the plans. The total estimated cost for all six drainage course crossings is $6500. 00. . . If yru have any questions or desire any additional infonnatian, please call. Very truly yours, RAUB, BEIN, FROST & ASSOCIATES Michael J. !irson MJA:bas Enclosure cc: Sanitation District No. 5 (F. Harper) Doanld L. Bren Company (H. Merrill) Irvine Canpany (D. Kaylor) .''C " .. I l I i I .q . " SH IRMAN-SIMP County Sanitation District t~o. S 1CS4' Elli3 Avenu& Fountain Valley, California Attention' Mr. Fred Harper, General Manager Biq Canyon 'l'runk Sewer Failure ,.~ Gentlamani ~~~ D~~~;. /:::~:~ ·····-····-·····/ J • H • I -···-··········~---·· ···········-····· p. A. I ·····-···· .. ····-····· ·····-··Maj he .tj. tft..i! fl ·····-····-····· c_F. ~ ~ ~-~~:::::::~::::: . ·····-··········· D. C • 1-················-····· ·····-····-····· '·················-····· ·····-··········· I-····-··········-····· :::::z:I FJI.F. l~J.z::·:: On Wodnesday, February 26, 1969, Dill Clarke notified me by phone that the Distric·t' s crews had located a break in the Bi9 Canyon trunk sQwcr, easterly of Jamboroa Road. It was roported that a large amount o! debris and mud had been deposited in the exiat~ · in9 District trunk and in the entrance manhole of the Jamboree Pump Station. · ~he District crews cleaned the line above the Pwnp Station to the junction with tho Big Canyon trunk sewer, and then constructed a brick plug in the outlet ·of the Big Canyon trunk sower at this junction to prevent additional mud and debris fro~ entering the DiGtrict•s facilities. This information was ii:unediately rolayed Ly phone to Bob Bein ot Raub, Dein, and Froat, who accepted rosponsi~ility for notifying the Contractor either directly or throuqh the Bren Company. The Contractor had a small cr~w on the job Thuraday rs~orninq, Marc.n 27th. 'l'he. crew had blocked off. the sewor upstream of the brank to prevent further diachar9e of raw aeva9• int.o Big C.anyon. The crew had alao be9un el<cavation between Manholes 15 and·l6 to locate and repair the break. The portion of the line that had been washed out was from the northerly bank of the existing ~ulloy to a point approximately 30 foot southerly. · As st,own on the plan, th~ exiatinq invert of the Bi9 Canyon 'JUlloy is approxil&iately 2 f aet ~,:.:.v• tl~e· proposed invert· of the g~~ar. lA order to protoct th~ ?i~ against possible waah-outa, drawi .. 'lf.8 c:alled for this oros:.;ing A& well as tvo othar& to be . protected with .riprap. None of the rip.rap had boen placed, and aa a, rasl:lt during the h~D:vy storm t..'"l& netural flow line was eroded ~d lowered bolow thG pipe line and the line waahed out. As far aa could be determncd, the larqe amount of silt and debris then washed into the open downstream end ot the sower. - 1 - "[) ,, . I ; ~ SH IRMAN-SIMP JON Tho Contractor laid in a new section at the break, and completed this work late Friday afternoon, the 28th. Prior to backfilling the section that was replaced, a partial concrete cradle waa placed arowld thG pipe. ~~he cradle at the southerly end of the break was fairly complete, but the Contractor ran out of concrete and as a result only a sxuall atnount of concrete waa placed around the pipe at tha northerly end ot the break. Thia ia the ~oat critical soction aince it is directly below tho existin9 flow line. The type of protection provided will not be satiafaotory for a permanent solution. The riprap called for on th• plans vill atill need to be placed. After tlle break was repaired; the Contractor removed th• ·upstream plug that had been retaining the· sewage. But we· ordered him not to reu~ve the plug that had boen placed by thG Diatrict, nor a plug that he had placed at Manhole 13, until th• complete scaotion · from upatrelltn of tho break to the District trWl.k had been balled and inspected. Tho Contractor thon set up a portable pwnp at Manhole fl, ond by moans of a f irc hose laid throuqh tl1e culvert under Jamboree Road pumped the sewage to the District trunk. Thi• pump has been operatin9· during the daytimo houra from Saturday mornin9 March l to date. The pump operates d~rin9 the daytice when the crews are in the area, but the Contractor has been shuttin9 the pump down at niqht and relying on lino storA9e. · The Contractor bas continued cleaning oporationa every day aincu ~aturday u~rning. But due to tho amount of material in the ~ewer, on~y about half has been olellned aa of this date. The undersi<]ned walked the entire line from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Uoulovard and found that the sewer waa in danger of b~ing waslloc1 out at tho followin9 looations a . l.. Detwoen Manhole ts and i 6 fthi• ia wh•r• the break occurred). 2. Last of Manhole tll. 3. Between Manholoa f 16 and tl7. '· Between Manhole a 117 and f18. s. ha tween Manholes f lS and 119 •. 6. cnat ot Manhole 120. 7. De tween Manholes t:a and 122. Locations numbered 1, 4, and 5 are ·atream croasinqa that are shown on the plans to be protected by riprap. aiprap has not been placed at any of those locations. 2 - ' -·-~-' -\ SH IR.MAN-SIM:E-30N At locations nwnberod 2, 3, 6, and 7 there ia no protection shown on tho plans. ~owovcr, on the original plan, prior to deleting soine ot tho orosion control work, protection 1Aas shown. Tho Contractor had been reminded a number of times that prior to acc~pto.nce of the work riprap would need to be placed at tho locations shown on the plans. However, he has contended that this is not included in his contr.•:.ct. We have never aoen a copy of the contract between tho Contractor and the Bren Company, so we do not have any ~nowlodge as to the extent of the Contractor's responsibility. llowover;:the work should· not be accepted by the l?istrict until riprap has been placod. ,.,. At the loc~t1ons whera riprap protection is not abown on the plans, it is reco~ti!Onded that Raub, nein, and Pro•t provide a recommendation for protection at those locations. The cost of installing riprap at the recornr~ended locations should be included in tho amount to be reimbursed by the Sanitation District ainoo tho protection is naceosary to provont waah-outa of the aewer lin~. The coat of ropairin9 the wash-out and cleaning the debris from the line should not be included in the cost to t.. roimbursod by the District, '·since tho protection had not been provided as indicated on the plans. · Main t~nance L"ld protection of the line should continue to bo the responsibility of the Contractor and/or the Bren Company until all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the District. When the Bren Company feels that all work hes been cor.pleted· in accordance with the plans, they should request our office to make an inspection. Upon completion of our ina1>9otion, we will submit a written recommendation to the Dia~riot. Please contact me if you have ~Y additional queationa. DCS;c cc-H.O.Merrill~ Dren Co. cc-~. Anderson, Raub, Bein ' Frost co-D. Kaylor, The Irvine Company SliUIRMAN-S Il~SON Donald c. Si~p•on I l,' I, ·. '. \ ; I: I' Ii I' : I 1· -~ RAUB, BEIN, F'ROST & ASSOCIATES County of Orange Sanitation District #5 10844 Ellis Avenue ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS PHONE 5'49•7723 p, O, BOX 11'7 1 36 ROCHESTER STREET COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA October 2,. 1968 Fa.mtain Valley, California Attention: Donald C. Simpson, District Engineer Attached are the plans for the Big Canyon Tnmk Sewer which have been revised by the following: 1. The concrete encasement at the charmel crossing has been deleted. and a rip rap apron utilized in the channel over the sewer. 2 • The invert at manhole # 10 has been lowered 9'' to provide a miniJTllllU 0. 5% slope for the sewer in the future, based on the predicted maxinrurn possible settlement. · These changes were incorporated into the plans based on our review of the Addendum Soils Report by Moore and Taber dated September 30, 1968. It is not expected that the future settlements indicated in the report will adversely affect the. capacity or alignment of the sewer. A differential settlem.mt of 4" in SO' (or 22 minutes deflection) is well within the tolerances allowed for compression joints per A51M-C-425. This specification allows ~" · per foot or 2~0 per joint for 12" diameter pipe and 3/8" per foot or 2° per joint for 15'' pipe. , If you desire any additional infonnatian for your review of these plans~ or need any additional infonnation, ·please call us. ' Very truly yours, RAUB, BEIN, FIUST & ASSOCIATES . . /')/,{~~ . /I LJiac1 .J. MJA:bas cc: Dona L. Bren Company (Harry Merrill) The Irvine Company (David Kaylor) Moore and °Taber (Doug BrCMn) ' . ''£ ,, . ·--------~----i ,, ,, SH·~ IRMAN-SIMP September 24, 1968 Donald L. nreri··company 15233 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, California .Attention: Mr. Harry Merrill Subject: Big Canyon Trunk Sewer Gentlemen: ,.~ ROUTVi TO G.S • ...;o·N ......... . o.c.s. _ ..... \_ -----~ J.B. P.A. C. B •. F.S. D. C. FILE 1--~~~ I~~~~::~ ...... ::.:~:~~:: 1 ....................... . \ ............. ; ......... . \ .................... . \ ..................... . \ ..................... . \ •...................... I,. ... ·-············· . 1.S..'2.7/ The bid of Mark Dakovich in the. amount. of $103,025.00 for the construction of the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer has' been reviewed. In accordance with the procedure set forth in Mr. Harper's letter, dated ·september 6, 1966, the Dakovich bid is hereby approved subject to the following conditionsi 1. The price bid for Items No. 1, 2, and ; shall include the sandbackfill and bedding sho~n on the typicai section on the drawings. 2. The total prices bid for IteMs No. 5 and 6 are lump sums, and the unit prices bid are to be deleted. The above conditions can be clarified in the Contract for the work. Please furnish us with a copy of the executed Construction Contract. Your total cost estimate of $117,745.00 appears to be satisfactory. However, to be eligible for reimburse~~nt by the District, all expenditures will need to be supported by actual invoices. Please remind the Contractor to notify our office 48 hours in advance of starting construction in order that we can schedule inspection for the work. Also, your: Engineers should furnish u~ '"i th a copy of the cut sheets. DCS:c cc-F.Harper cc-D.Kaylor Very truly yours, SHU:tRMAN-SIMPSON Donald c. Simpson ''F ~, r- 1 SH\ .. IRMAN-SIMF September 24, 1968 County Sanitation District No. 5 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif. 92708 . Attention: Fred A. Harper, General Manager ::RouTE d 11. o··N···~G.S. ·-···-···-···'·' .D. c ~ s. -........... -...... J J .H. · ................. "''···~ :p .A .. · ·······"'"'""'····'·' t . B , I :F.:;. :::::::::::~:::::: 1J • a • :::::::3·::::::: ..... ~ ......... . -· .... FILE ...... !.~: ... ;:; .. ~:.:: .... : In accordance with the procedure outlined in' your letter dated 9/6/68, sealed bi~s were rece•ved and opened for the construc- tion of the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer at 10 A.M., September 17, 1968, in the Sherman Oaks office of the Donald L. Bren Company. Enclosed are copies of the 3 bids received, together with a bid summary. Since the work was advertised, the Engineers have deter- mined that the concrete encasement included in Items 15 and 16 would not be required and could therefore be delete~. Due to a misunder- standing of an addendum, one bidder did not include a price for Item No. 7. T~ make the bids comparable, this Item was de'leted from all proposals. The total of the bids received, after deducting the above Items and deducting the amounts bid for the .. increased construct.ion time are as follows: Mark Dakovich ••.•••••••..•..•. $163,605.00 M & M Pipeline Company ••..•••• $1SG,160.50 Henson Construction Inc •.••••• $204,690.00 The low bid .was substantially in excess of the preliminary . budget amount of $130,000. In analyzing the bids it was evident that the all-weather access road would cost approximately $50,000. . Mr. Kaylor indicated that development of the Dig Canyon area, which will probably occur within a few years, will provide permanent all-' weather access. It was therefore decided to delete the items pertain- ing to the access road, and negotiate a new proposal with Mark Dakovich, the apparent low bidder. - 1 - .. ,, G ,, .. SH'-IR.MAN-SIMF....;ON The negotiated bid of Mark Dakovich is $103,025.00. A copy of this bid is enclosed. This bid was reviewed, and since it appeared reasonable it has been approved. The total estimated cost of the project, including engineering, permits, etc. is now $117,745.00 well within the preliminary budget of $130,000.00. DCS:c Encl. - 2 - SRUIRMAN-SIMPSON , ... "-· Donald c. Simpson ·i DONALD L. BREN COMPANY 15233 VENTURA BOULEVARD I SHERMAN OAKS, CALIFORNIA 91403 / (213)783-5950 September 19, 1968 Shuirman-Simpson Urbanus Square Ford Road @ MacArthur Boulevard Corona Del M~r, California 92625 Attention: Mr. D. c. Simpson Re: Big Canyon Trunk Sewer Gentlemen: Enclosed you will find three copies of our cost estimate for the Big Canyon Trunk Sewer, along with three copies of Mark Dakovich's bid covering Items 1-6 only. The attached cost estimate does not note any contingencies, therefore, I feel that as long as we can stay under the figure quoted to the Sanitation District, $130,000.00, all parties will be satisfied. As you know, we are most anxious to start construction and would appreciate hearing from you by telephone on Friday, September 20th if you are able to clear it with the Sanitation District. 'r have asked Mike Anderson to submit three copies of the latest plans to you on the morning of September 20, 1968. Thank you. Very truly yours, ,. --r J~ \h1,hC/~ Harry O. Merrill Vice President cc Mr. Dave Kaylor ·'1HN I : I I: 'i \. BIG CANYON SEWER COST ESTIMATE ,.. .~ .. M. DAKOVICH·BID SOILS & GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION (includes test pits for boring & consolidation tests) DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION STAKING DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT BOND INSPECTION FEES GRADING $ 30.00 350.00 (East of MacArthur Boulevard; includes disposal and soils control) 12,000 c.y. ~ .295 " ' .. . ·,,. ~ .. ·--~ ...... _ ... _._ ;. ····'··· i..-...,, .... $103,025.00 2,300.00 8,500.00 380.00 . 3 I 540 • 00 _$117 t ~45 • 00 I . r; .. I ! I. ! i. .1 SCHEDULE OF PRICES Extension of these unit prices·· is on the basis· of esti- mated quantities {said estimated quantities are not warranted or guaranteed) , an.d the totaling of said extensions is for the purpose of comparing bids only. The mathematical accuracy of such extensions and totaling will be checked and corrected by the Engineer before evaluating the bids, and the lowest of such corrected and checked totals will determine the lowest bid. I A.11 applicable sales taxes, State and/or Federal, ·and any other special taxes, patent rights or royalties are included in the prices quoted in this proposal. ITEM : APPROX. NO. QUANTITY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. . 7. 8. 9. 4,275 Lin. Ft. 3,050 Lin. Ft. . 390 Lin. Ft. 26 each 1 Lump Sum 1 Lump Sum 1 Lump Sum , 2700 Tons 3 Each ITEM UNIT PRICE 15 11 dia. V.C.P. Sewer for // C'C the unit price of ......... ·. $ 12" dia. V.C.P. Sewer for ·f,tJCJ the unit price of .......... $ 10" dia • V.C.P. Sewer for· ?~ (J t> the unit price of .......... $ ~ 48" dia. standard manhole, .Jf'S. £'0 for the unit price of •• · •••• $ 36 11 dia. Steel casing {80 1 ±) jacked-in-place for the unit price C?f. .••••••••• $--·~-~-·-·c_._o_. _ 30 11 dia. steel Casing {84'±) jacked-in-place for the unit price of .••••••••. $ Grade 15' wide Sewer Access Road {7500 ft.±) for the unit price of .•••• -••••••••• $_' ____ _ Class 2 Aggregate Base Pavement for the unit price of ......................... $ _____ _ Channel Crossing, including Grading & 36 11 C.M.P. Construc- tion for the u~it price of.$ ___ ~----- -3- TOTAL PRICE $_z fMCt? / . . I .( $ dp IJ,-~ $ )./e' &cl I SCHEDULE OF PRICES (Cont'd): ITEM NO. 10. 11. 12. 13. ·14. APPROX. QUANTITY 4500 Sq. Ft. 2100 Sq. Ft. 500 Sq. Ft. 3200 ·Lin. Ft. 2800 Lin. Ft. ITEM 6" thick P.c.c. Apron for UNIT PRICE the unit price of .••.••••••• $ ------ 12 11 thick Rip Rap (150 lb) for the unit price of ••••••• $ ------ 24 11 thick Rip Rap (150 lb) for the unit price of ••••.•• $ ------ Type "A" P.C.C. Channel and Downdrain for the unit price of •••••••••••••••••••••••••• $ _____ _ Type "A" Brow Ditch for the Unit price of ••••••• · ••••• ~ •• $ ------ .. TOTAL PRICE TOTAL OF ITEMS l THROUGH 14, INCLUSIVE: ••.••••. $ /f} 3 // _2 S. (".JC} . ' (a)* For that quantity of sandbackfill·required by the County Sanitation District No. 5, . Contractor shall supply all necessary labor, materials and equipment to install said sand bedding at a unit price of: ••....••.•.•• $ .2J~O For that quantity of rock bedding required by the County Sanitation District No. 5'; Contractor shall supply all necessary labor, materials and equipment to install said rock bedding at a unit price of: .••.•• ~ ••••.•• $., ZP't? For that quantity of rock excavation required by the County Sanitation District No. ·5, ~ontractor shall supply all necessary labor, materials and equipment to install said rock excavation at a unit price of: •••••..••• $ .... 5"t? * -Item (a) is not to be included in Total Price above. -4- per ton per ton per cu. ft. - r . !i J •• i . --·--:· ...... ~-----J~ ... NOTE: The unit costs of each item includes the cost of a Performance Bond in the total amount of the contract. (b) Lump Sum Deduct for Increase in Time of Com~letion from thirty (30) calendar days to forty-five (45) calendar days • • • • • • • • • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • DEDUCT $ _____ _ Lump Sum Deduct for Increase in Time of Competion from ~orty-five (45) calendar days to sixty (60) calendar days •••••••••••••••••••••••• DEDUCT $ _____ _ . ,. _; ... .. ' ~ .. Bidder shall signify receipt of all addenda here, ~f ariy), Respectfully submitted, Contractor's License No. of Representative (SEAL) i Telephone Number --~~--~--~--- ~f Bidder ·is a corporation, show State in which Incorporated) The full names and residences of all per~ons and .parties· interested in the foregoing proposal as principals are as follows: .. . -5- - r. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 71"4 540-2910 962-2411· 10844 ELLIS AVENUE, P.a. BOX 5175, F"OUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF"ORNIA, 92708 ··················I G. S. .................. / n.c.s. The Irvine Comp~ny . P. 0. Box 37 Irvine, California Attention: Mr. David A. Kaylor September 6, 1968 ........... -..... J .H. ·················· P.A. ·················· C. B. •················· F • S. •················· D. C. ••················ •·•··············· . Subject: Bidding Procedures for Big Canyon Trunk Sewer - Proposed Reimbursement between Newport Hilla, Inc. and County Sanitation District No. 5 ·······-;.·/J···.f.. I~---~ .. /-····-····-·· .. -····· /-····-····-····-····· 1-················-···-- 1-····-····-····-·· ... 1-················-···-- 1-····-··········-..... '·····-.... -····-···-1-····-·· .. -.... _.,_ 1..5.l.?.:?.:.t. ... At the September 5 meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5, the writer was instructed to advise your Company of certain procedures which should be followed in connection with subject project as a condition of eventual approval of the above noted reimbursement agreement. These conditions are·as followaz l. An invitation for bids for the project shall be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the County at least 10 days before the date of bid opening. 2. Sealed bids shall be opened in a loc~tion available to the public at the time and place advertised. A representative of the District, in this case Mr. ·nonald c. Simpson, · District Engineer, shall be present at the bid opening. 3. Contract award shall b~ made to the lowest responsible bidder and approved in' writing by Mr. Simpson, with a copy of his letter and a. bid tabulation forwarded to the District. If there are any questions in this regard, please get in touch with Mr. Paul Brown of oµr staff. Mr. Brown has already verbally advised Mr. Anderson of Raub, Bein, Frost & Associates, engineera tor· the project, of condition No. l. ' FAH:gg cc to: ~a~--c·- Fred A. Harper General Manager Secretary of Board/ Donald c. Simpson~ . Donald L. Bren Co. -Attn: Harry o. Merrill Raub, Bein, Frost & Assoc~ates Paul G. Brown ,, I II • EXCERP'.rS FROM MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEE'rING OF '11HE BOARD OF DIREC7I'ORS OF COUNTY SANI'I'A'l1 ION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA An a r1 j our n e d reg u 1 a r me e t in g of the Bo a rd of Dire c to l~ s of County Sanitation District No. 5 , ·or Orange County, California, was held at October 20 , 19 70 , at City Council· Chambers, Newpor't Beach, California. The Chairman calle~ the meeting to or0er at ·4:30 p.m. The roll was called ana a ouorum of the Board was reported present. Directors present: Lindsley Parsons (Chairman), Edgar Hirth and Alton E. Allen Directors absent: None , Present: Fred A. Harper, Secietary p~o'tem Of the Board of Directors * * * * * * * * * Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Senitation District No. 5 be adjourned· to 5:30 p.m., November 12, 1970, at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at STATE OF CALIFORNIAl SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE I, FRED A. HARPER J Secretary pro tern of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District Noo 5 , of Orange County, California, do hereby certify the above an~ fore- going to be full, true and correct copy of minute entries on record taken from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 , of Orange County, California, on the 20th f.ay of October , 19 70 .IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand ano affixs0 the official seal of County Sanitati0n District .No. 5 ~ this 20th day of October , 19 70 S-110 ~d, )/_eu_f{ ~ SecretaJ:protem, Board~ Directors, County Sanitation District No. 5 EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5; 6, 7 and 11, OF OR.ANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A regular joint meeting of the Boards of Direct~rs of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, was held at the hour of 7:30 p.m., October 14 , 19 70 , 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. The Chairman of the Joint A1ministrative Organization called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.o. The roll was called an~ the Secretary reporte~ a quorum present for each District's BoarCT. * * * * * * * * * DISTRICT 5 Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned to 4:30 p.m., October 20, 1970, in the Council Chambers, Newport Beach City Hall, Newport Beach, California. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:47 p.m., October 14, 1970. STATE OF CALIFORNIAl SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Secretary of each of the Boarrls of Directors of County Sanitation Distri~ts NosG 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, ~o hereby certify that the above and foregoing to be full, true an~ correct copy of minute entries on meeting of said Boards of Di rec tors on the 14th day of October 19 70 ' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hanrl this .-lay of October, 1970 J 14th S-107 - // oan~s of Directors ~tion Districts Nos. 7, and 11 .... f f l I Meeting Dat e i Oj';lo f 70 J OINT BOARDS Culver Arb iso Baum Berton Christie Clark Davis Dutton Finnell Gibbs Green Gris e t Harvey Herrin Hirth Hyde Just --- Mc Innis McWhinne;z__-= Mill er Parsons Porter Ro gers Shipley Sims Smj_th Wedaa Win n Hirstein ____ _ All en . . . . . Mitchell ----Boyd OT BERS Harp e r ___ _ Brown Sylve s te y:---- Car ls on Clarke Dunn Finster Galloway Hoh e n er ---- Keith Lowry Maddox Mar t inson Nissan Piersall __ _ Sigl e r Stevens Hunt Cr abb --- DISTRICT 8 Mitc h e ll Boy d All e n 7/8/70 gc Lewis Hogard Westra Root Magnus Bousman Pebley Gomez. Shipley Herrin Kan e l Griset Croul Kroes en Harper Hirth Coco Hirt h Coen Zuniga Hileman Machado Schniepp Al l en Phi llips Goldberg Goldb e r g P h illi p s Time 'f .· ~ 0 District No. S -~------ Type of Meeting aclj o u v-'()e c\ DISTRICT 1 Gri s et Mill e r Port er Allen DISTRICT 2 Herrin Coco Phillip s J ust Harper Christie--Root Cl ark Magnus Culver Dutton F innell Herri n Sims Smith Wedaa Wi nn All en DISTRICT 3 Culv er Arbiso Baum Berton Christi_e __ Cl ark Davis Dutton Green Harvey Herrin Hyd e Jus t McWh j.nne y-· Sj_m s Allen DISTRICT 5 Parsons ./ Hirth 1/_ All en _t,L_ Pebl ey Go mez Gris et Zuniga Hileman Machado Sc hniepp P hillips O~ lj~ t~;~~d ~0 Wes t r.a Root r/'-.Magn us ~ BousITl_an y Pebley Ship ley Kanel Gr j _set Kro es en Harp er Zuniga Phillips Croul Phill ips ---- DIST RICT 6 Port er Mc Inni s Allen DIS TfUC T 7 Mill er Gri s e t Port e r Hi r th Phillip s Coco He rrin Ro ge r s Hirth Smith Hilema n Hi rste in-All e n DI STH I CT 1 1 Shipl e y Co e n Gibbs -- -~--All e n Phil lip s