R2003-0015 02-10-03 RESOLUTION NO. R2003-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND,
TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
ENTER INTO AN ENGINEERING CONTRACT WITH DANNENBAUM
ENGINEERING, CORP. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REVISIONS TO
THE CITY'S STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS:
Section 1. That certain contract by and between the City of Pearland and
Dannenbaum Engineering, Corp., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
made a part hereof for all purposes, is hereby authorized and approved.
Section 2. That the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute
and the City Secretary to attest a contract with Dannenbaum Engineering Corp. for the
development of revisions to the City's Storm Drainage Criteria Manual.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this the 10th day of ,
A.D., 2003.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
COKER
CITY ATTORNEY
February
MAYOR
Exhibit "A"
R2003-'15
CITY OF PEARLAND
STANDARD AGREEMENT
FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
This Contract (Contract) is made between the City of Pearland, Texas
(hereinafter "City"), and Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation (hereinafter "Engineer")
as follows:
1. Summary of Contract Terms. The following information and referenced documents
shall be a part of this Contract:
Description of Project: Drainage Criteria Manual Revisions
EngineedSubconsultant(s) Fee Basis of Compensation
Dannenbaum Engineering $55,535 Lump Sum
Maximum Contract Amount
* All financial obligations created by this agreement are between the City and
Engineer, and shall not be construed to be between City and any subconsultant.
Delivery of revised Criteria Manual: 12 weeks, excluding City review periods.
Attachments: Scope of Services - Exhibit A
Project Schedule - Exhibit B
2. Services and Payment.
Engineer shall perform services within the Standard of Care of the Engineering
profession as follows:
A. Engineer will furnish services to the City in accordance with the terms and
conditions specified in this Contract. Payment for the services of Engineer shall be due
and payable upon submission and approval of a statement for services to City.
Statements for services shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly.
After consultation with the City, the Engineer shall specify the basis of
compensation in the scope of work for the project. The Engineer shall provide adequate
detail of the basis of compensation so that the City can determine the reasonableness
of the fees and have the ability to make reasonable progress payments to the Engineer
based upon work completed at the payment intervals. The Engineer shall subcontract
for all subconsultants, subject to City approval, necessary to complete the scope of
work. The subconsultant's fees and administrative mark-up, if any, shall be included in
the scope of work. Unless otherwise agreed upon, the method of compensation shall
be one of the following methods:
1. Salary Cost Times Multiplier Plus Direct Nonsalary Expense ("Salary")
Compensation shall be based on 1) the direct salaries (including benefits)
of the Engineer's employees whose time is directly chargeable to the
project; 2) an agreed upon multiplier to compensate the Engineer for
overhead and profit; and 3) reimbursement for direct nonsalary
expenditures and subconsultant contracts as defined in the scope of work
for the project. The Engineer shall provide a proposal that includes the
total fees for the project, which shall not be exceeded without prior City
approval.
2. Per Diem ("Per Diem")
Compensation shall be based upon 1) an agreed upon lump sum per day
for specific services; and 2) reimbursement for direct nonsalary
expenditures and subconsultant contracts as defined in the scope of work
for the project. This method is best suited to expert witness work or other
short-term engagements involving intermittent services.
3. Cost Plus Fixed Fee ("Cost Plus")
Compensation shall be based upon 1) reimbursement of the actual costs
of all services and supplies related to the project and 2) an agreed upon
fixed fee (profit). The Engineer shall provide an estimate of the costs to
be reimbursed, but actual compensation shall be based upon invoices and
supporting documentation provided by the Engineer.
4. Lump Sum ("Lump")
Compensation shall be based upon an agreed lump sum payment for
completing the entire scope of work. This method is best suited to
investigations or studies and for basic services with limited scope and
complexity.
5. Percent of Construction ("Percent")
Compensation shall be based upon 1) the "Harris County Curve for
Engineering Compensation" for basic and construction phase services;
and 2) reimbursement for direct nonsalary expenditures and subconsultant
contracts as defined in the scope of work for the project. The Engineer
shall provide a proposal that includes the estimated construction cost of
the project and the total fees for the project. If the actual Iow bid for
construction is 20% above or below the estimate, the engineering fees are
subject to equitable adjustment by mutual agreement of the Engineer and
City.
2
If City fails to make any payment due Engineer for services and expenses within
thirty (30) days after receipt and approval of Engineer's statement for services therefore,
the amounts due Engineer will be increased at the rate of one percent (1%) per month
from said thirtieth (30th) day, and, in addition, Engineer may, after giving seven (7) days'
written notice to City, suspend services under this Contract until Engineer has been paid
in full, all amounts due for services, expenses, and charges.
B. All the Engineer's working drawings, plans, and specifications, if required under
this Contract, shall be sufficiently accurate, detailed, and complete so that competitive
bids for the work can be obtained and the improvements constructed.
C. Approval of the Engineer's work by the City shall not release the Engineer, its
employees, agents, or consultants, from the responsibility and liability for the accuracy
and competency of their designs, working drawings, and specifications, or other
documents and services.
D. Subject to Article 8 herein or as otherwise agreed, the Engineer shall promptly
correct errors in the Engineer's work, including errors discovered after final payment,
without receiving additional compensation.
E. Prior to execution of this agreement, the Engineer shall prepare a project
schedule identified as an attachment to this agreement and submit it for review within
15 calendar days after receiving a Notice-to-Proceed. The Project Schedule shall be
submitted in digital and paper form, in the Microsoft Project for Windows format. The
Project Schedule shall contain a complete schedule so that the Engineer's scope of
services under this contract can be accomplished within the specified time and contract
cost. The Project Schedule will provide specific work sequence and definite review
times by the City and the Engineer of the work performed. If the review time should
take longer than shown on the project schedule, through no fault of the Engineer,
additional contract time may be authorized by the City through a supplemental
agreement, if requested by a timely written request from the Engineer and approved by
the City.
3. Term and Termination. This Contract term will begin upon execution and end sixty
days after issuance of the certification of completion of construction by the Engineer.
The City may terminate this Contract at any time during its term by giving written notice
to Engineer. The City shall pay the Engineer for all services rendered to the date of
termination.
4. Modifications. City without invalidating the Contract, may order changes within the
general scope of the work required by the Contract by altering, adding to and/or
deducting from the work to be performed. If any change under this clause causes an
increase or decrease in Engineer's cost of, or the time required for, the performance of
any part of the Services under the Contract, an equitable adjustment will be made by
mutual agreement and the Contract modified in writing accordingly.
5. Subcontracts. If, for any reason, at any time during the progress of providing
services, City determines that any subcontractor for Engineer is incompetent or
undesirable, City will notify Engineer accordingly and Engineer shall take immediate
corrective action, which may include cancellation of such subcontract. Subletting by
subcontractors shall be subject to the same regulations. Nothing contained in the
Contract shall create any contractual relation between any subcontractor and City.
6. Ownership of Documents. All drawings, report data, and other project information
developed in the execution of the services provided under this Contract shall be the
property of the City upon payment of Engineer's fees for services. Engineer may retain
copies for record purposes. Owner agrees such documents are not intended or
represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others. Any reuse by City or by those
who obtained said documents from City without written verification or adaptation by
Engineer will be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Engineer, or
to Engineer's independent associates or consultants, and City shall indemnify and hold
harmless Engineer and Engineer's independent associates and consultants from all
claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorneys' fees arising out of or
resulting therefrom. Any such verification or adaptation will entitle Engineer to further
reasonable compensation. Engineer may reuse all drawings, report data, and other
project information in the execution of the services provided under this Contract in
Engineer's other activities. Any reuse by Engineer will be at Engineer's sole risk and
without liability or legal exposure to City, and Engineer shall indemnify and hold
harmless City from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorneys' fees
arising out of or resulting therefrom.
7. Insurance.
A. The Engineer shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement,
insurance against claims for injuries to persons, damages to property, or any errors and
omissions relating to the performance of any work by the Engineer, its agents,
employees or subcontractors under this Agreement, as follows:
(1) Workers' Compensation as required by law.
(2) Professional Liability Insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 in
the aggregate.
(3)
Comprehensive General Liability and Property Damage Insurance with
minimum limits of $1,000,000 for injury or death of any one person,
$1,000,000 for each occurrence, and $1,000,000 for each occurrence of
damage to or destruction of property.
(4) Comprehensive Automobile and Truck Liability Insurance covering owned,
hired, and non-owned vehicles, with minimum limits of $1,000,000 for
injury or death of any one person, $1,000,000 for each occurrence, and
$1,000,000 for property damage.
B. The Engineer shall include the City as an additional insured under the policies,
with the exception of the Professional Liability Insurance and Workers' Compensation.
Certificates of Insurance and endorsements shall be furnished to the City before work
commences. Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not
be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to
the City. Upon request, certified copies of all insurance policies shall be furnished to the
City.
8. Indemnity. Engineer shall indemnify and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees, harmless from any claim, loss, damage, suit, and liability of every kind for
which Engineer is legally liable, including all expenses of litigation, court costs, and
attorney's fees, for injury to or death of any person, for damage to any property, or
errors in design, any of which are caused by the negligent act or omission of the
Engineer, his officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors under this Contract.
9. Assi.qnment. Engineer shall not assign this Contract without the prior written
consent of the City.
10. Law Governing and Venue. This Contract shall be governed by the law of the State
of Texas and no lawsuit shall be prosecuted on this Contract except in a court of
competent jurisdiction located in Brazoria County, Texas.
11. Entire Contract. This Contract represents the entire Contract between the City and
the Engineer and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or contracts, either
written or oral. This Contract may be amended only by written instrument signed by
both parties. Purchase orders issued under this Agreement shall contain a statement
nullifying additional terms and conditions on the reverse side of the purchase order and
referencing this Agreement.
12. Conflicts in Contract Documents. The above provisions shall govern over any
conflicting provision contained in any referenced contract document specified above.
13. Dispute Resolution Procedures. The Engineer and City desire an expeditious
means to resolve any disputes that may arise between them regarding this Contract. To
accomplish this, the parties agree to mediation as follows: If a dispute arises out of or
relates to this Contract, or the breach thereof, and if the dispute cannot be settled
through negotiation, then the parties agree first to try in good faith, and before bringing
any legal action, to settle the dispute by mediation of a third party who will be selected
by agreement of the parties.
,200~
CITY O~
Bill Eisen
City Manager
Dannenbaum EngineCJ'ing Comor. ation
Wa~n(~ G/C, Brens
Chief Operating Officer
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF
BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared
~,'J/ ~--.,-~. , known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the
foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same for the purposes
and consideration therein expressed.
MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE THIS //"~ DAY
G~V/EN UNDER
Of .._.~/~-,~'-~ , A.D., 20 o ..~.
,.PERLA N, LEHMAN
~otary P~bUc, State of ~(~s
APRIL 2, 2005
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF ~t¢,¢¢'~'~
"~I'4OTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
PrintedName: ?~.r /,~ ~,
My Commission Expires: ./~,,£) ,=,?. ,~. o¢,..~
/
BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared
r~,,~,.~: ¢'~r~5 , known to me to be the person name
whose
is
subscribed
to
the Foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same for the
purposes and consideration therein expressed.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL
(,(n~Ar~j , A.D., 20 t)3
OF OFFICE THIS 2.¢1~J' DAY OF
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Printed Name:
My Commission Expires:
DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORPORATION
3100 WEST ALABAMA HOUSTON, TEXAS 77098 P.O. BOX 22292 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77227 (713) 520-9570
November 14, 2002
Revised November 26, 2002
Revised December 2, 2002
January 31, 2003
Mr. John Hargrove, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Pearland
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas 77581
On-Site Detention Performance Issues and Update of Appropriate Sections of the
Design Criteria Manual
Dear Mr; Hargrove:
Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation (DEC) appreciates the opportunity of submitting this
proposal to you. This letter outlines the steps required to evaluate the effectiveness of City of
Pearland's detention requirements on storm events of various frequencies and durations. This
proposal will also present methodology for proposing modifications to the City's detention
criteria to protect against more frequent (varying durations) storm events.
The effect of new development on watershed response is somewhat misunderstood. While pre-
project peak design flows are maintained by the use of on-site detention, the original time of
concentration can not be duplicated (concentration time is usually less than original) nor can the
development runoff volume match original volumes. Development will always generate an
increase in runoff volumes. Intuitively, one may conclude that some hard to quantify residual
impacts from on-site detention may occur, since we cannot duplicate the original hydrograph of
mother nature. We understand that on-site detention facilities do not always perform as
expected. This is partially due to the fact that in Southeast Texas typical on-site detention design
release rates historically have been based on less frequent, high intensity storms, i.e. the pre-
project 10- and 100-year discharges for a 24-hour duration. When long duration, low intensity
storm events with widespread flooding occur, little or no flow attenuation is realized. This may
aggravate downstream flooding. Various cases in which the current detention design criteria
may be inadequate can be identified as follows:
1. The bank full capacity of the ultimate outfall channel is less than the 1 O-year event.
The outlet structure, while sized for 10 and 100-year events, could let more flow pass
through than pre-project conditions during more frequent storms (3, -5-year).
G :\ 11 i 0\HHENG\FI.ORES\,I.tr- 1 Hargrovc.doc
Mr. John Hargrove, P.E.
City of Pearland
Page 2
November 14, 2002
Revised November 26, 2002
Revised December 2, 2002
January 31, 2003
On-site detention performance may fall below expectations (some flow through) for
long duration, low intensity storms.
Ae
On-Site Detention Performance Evaluation Methodology
An analysis is proposed to investigate the performance of the City of Pearland's current
detention design criteria for various rainfall frequencies and duration. This analysis
should be done on two existing subdivision ponds, one of medium and one of a large size.
The performance of the ponds will be analyzed using current design rainfall, as well as
rainfall frequencies and durations other than current criteria. The goal is to determine the
critical frequencies and durations that should control the detention basin design. Most
likely a revision to the City of Pearland "Storm Drainage Design Criteria" would need to
include additional design frequencies/durations to be computed for plan approval. It is
envisioned that single pipe outfall structures may no longer do the job and multiple
outfall openings or pipes configuration will be needed. The result of these changes may
be increased storage volumes, since storage volume will most likely be controlled by long
duration, low intensity storms. A detail spreadsheet presents various tasks and man-hour
projection.
Update of Appropriate Sections of the Design Criteria Manual
As you know, timing for updating your "Storm Drainage Design Criteria" is good at this
point for a couple of reasons: (1) The "Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project
(TSARP) has introduced new rainfall data, rainfall losses, as well as other methodology
updates. New preliminary FEMA maps are expected for Clear Creek, mostly in Harris
County, by March, 2003. The City of Pearland manual should incorporate TSARP
changes for consistency with Harris County Flood Control District. (2) A second reason
for updating the manual is consideration of the NPDES Phase II mandate to have a
Stormwater Management Plan by March 10, 2003. This mandate affects cities with
populations less than 100,000 people. Post-construction stormwater management in new
developments and redevelopments is one of the programs to protect water quality in
receiving waters. Harris County, your neighbor, is already implementing this program.
Harris County requires holding the first 0.5 inches of the stormwater runoff for a
recommended holding time of 48 hours, with no more than 50% of the water quality
volume draining in the first 24 hours. Obviously, this extra holding time would increase
overall detention volumes. The City of Pearland could incorporate this volume as a part
of detention storage for flood control functions. Quantification of this volume will be
performed. A detail spreadsheet presents various tasks and man-hour projection.
Co
Prepare a Cost Comparison
Based on results from A and B above, evaluate additional construction costs (on a per
acre basis) for a future development to meet a revised detention drainage criteria.
o°
Mr. John Hargrove, P.E.
City of Pearland
Page 3
November 14, 2002
Revised November 26, 2002
Revised December 2, 2002
January 31, 2003
Do
Prepare Report
A report that summarizes the methodology and results of the detention issues analysis
and Design Criteria Manual update will be submitted. The report will contain a cost
impact estimate for a future development to meet the recommended detention design, as
well as exhibits and tables that summarize the results. The appropriate sections of the
"Storm Drainage Design Manual" will be identified and updating recommendations will
be made.
me
Pro,iect Management and Coordination
Meetings and coordination with the City of Pearland (COP), HCFCD and BDD#4 are
anticipated on a frequent basis to keep the project running smoothly. Time for project
management and internal Qa/Qc are included in this task.
Other Directs Costs
This task includes costs due to mileage, supplies, messenger deliveries, two copies of
draft report, and three copies of final report.
The engineering fees for performing the above analysis is $55,535.00. The timetable for
completing such analysis is 12 weeks from notice to proceed.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this proposal, please do not hesitate to call
me at 713-527-6365.
Sincerely yours,
DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORPORATION
ro C. Flores, P.E., CFM
Senior Project Manager
Attachments
DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORPORATION
31 CO WEST ALABAMA HOUSTON, TEXAS 77098 P O. BOX 22292 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77227 (713) 520-9570
November 14, 2002
Revised November 26, 2002
Revised December 2, 2002
Mr. John Hargrove, P E
City Engineer
City of Pearland
3 519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas 77581
RE• On -Site Detention Performance Issues and Update of Appropriate Sections of the
Design Criteria Manual
Dear Mr. Hargrove:
Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation (DEC) appreciates the opportunity of submitting this
proposal to you. This letter outlines the steps required to evaluate the effectiveness of City of
Pearland's detention requirements on storm events of various frequencies and durations This
proposal will also present methodology for proposing modifications to the City's detention
criteria to protect against more frequent (varying durations) storm events.
The effect of new development on watershed response is somewhat misunderstood. While pre -
project peak design flows are maintained by the use of on -site detention, the original time of
concentration can not be duphcated (concentration time is usually less than original) nor can the
development runoff volume match original volumes. Development will always generate an
increase in runoff volumes. Intuitively, one may conclude that some hard to quantify residual
impacts from on -site detention may occur, since we cannot duplicate the original hydrograph of
mother natare. We understand that on -site detention facilities do not always perform as
expected. This is partially due to the fact that in Southeast Texas typical on -site detention design
release iates historically have been based on less frequent, high intensity storms, i.e. the pre -
project 10- and 100-year discharges for a 24-hour duration. When long duration, low intensity
storm events with widespread flooding occur, little or no flow attenuation is realized. This may
aggravate downstream flooding Various cases in which the current detention design criteria
may be inadequate can be identified as,follows:
1: The bank full capacity of the ultimate outfall channel is less than the 10-year event.
2. The outlet structure, while sized for 10 and 100-year events, could let more flow pass
through than pre -project conditions during more frequent storms (3, -5-year).
leer*
of
Excellence
G:\I 110\HHENG\FLORES\Ltr-1 Hargrove.doc
Mr. John Hargrove, P E
City of Pearland
Page 2
November 14, 2002
Revised November 26, 2002
Revised December 2, 2002
3. On -site detention performance may fall below expectations (some flow through) for
long duration, low intensity storms.
A. On -Site Detention Performance Evaluation Methodology
An analysis is proposed to investigate the performance of the City of Pearland's current
detention design criteria for various rainfall frequencies and duration. This analysis
should be done on two existing subdivision ponds, one of medium and one of a large size.
The performance of the ponds will be analyzed using current design rainfall, as well as
rainfall frequencies and durations other than current criteria. The goal is to determine the
critical frequencies and durations that should control the detention basin design. Most
likely a revision to the City of Pearland `Storm Drainage Design Cnteria" would need to
include additional design frequencies/durations to be computed for plan approval. It is
envisioned that single pipe outfall structures may no longer do the job and multiple
outfall openings or pipes configuration will be needed The result of these changes may
be increased storage volumes, since storage volume will most likely be controlled by long
duration, low intensity storms. A detail spreadsheet presents various tasks and man-hour
prof ection.
B. Update of Appropriate Sections of the Design Criteria Manual
As you know, timing for updating your ` Storm Drainage Design Criteria" is good at this
point for a couple of reasons: (1) The "Tropical Stoiui Allison Recovery Project
(TSARP) has introduced new rainfall data, rainfall losses, as well as other methodology
updates. New preliminary FEMA maps are expected for Clear Creek, mostly in Harris
County, by March, 2003. The City of Pearland manual should incorporate TSARP
changes for consistency with Harris County Flood Control District. (2) A second reason
for updating the manual is consideration of the NPDES Phase II mandate to have a
Stoiuiwater Management Plan by March 10, 2003. This mandate affects cities with
populations. less. than 100,000 people. Post -construction stonnwater management in new
developments and redevelopments is one of the programs to protect water quality in
receiving waters. Harris County, your neighbor, is already implementing this program.
Hares County requires holding the first 0.5 inches of the stormwater runoff for a
recommended holding time of 48 hours, with no more than 50% of the water quality
volume draining in the first 24 hours Obviously, this extra holding time would increase
overall detention volumes The City of Pearland could incorporate this volume as a part
of detention storage for flood control functions. Quantification of this volume will be
performed. A detail spreadsheet presents various tasks and man-hour projection.
C. Prepare a Cost Comparison
Based on results from A and B above, evaluate additional construction costs (on a per
acre basis) for a future development to meet a revised detention drainage criteria
Mr. John Hargrove, P.E.
City of Pearland
Page 3
November 14, 2002
Revised November 26, 2002
Revised December 2, 2002
D. Prepare Report
A report that summarizes the methodology and results of the detention issues analysis
and Design Criteria Manual update will be submitted. The report will contain a cost
impact estimate for a future development to meet the recommended detention design, as
well as exhibits and tables that summarize the results. The appropriate sections of the
"Storm Drainage Design Manual" will be identified and updating recommendations will
be made.
E. Project Management and Coordination
Meetings with the City of Pearland (COP) are anticipated on a frequent basis to keep the
project running smoothly. Time for project management and internal Qa/Qc are included
in this task.
F. Other Directs Costs
This task includes costs due to mileage, supplies, messenger deliveries, two copies of
draft report, and three copies of final report.
The engineering fees for performing the above analysis is $55,535.00. The timetable for
completing such analysis is 12 weeks from notice to proceed.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this proposal, please do not hesitate to call
me at 713-527-6365.
Sincerely yours,
DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORPORATION
ay.) ,
Alej dro C. Flores, P E , CFM
Senior Project Manager
Attachments
TRANSMITTAL
LETTER
DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORPORATION
3100 WEST ALABAMA HOUSTON, TEXAS 77098 P.O. BOX 22292 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77227 (713) 520-9570
PROJECT: On -Site Detention Performance Issues and
(Name,address)Update of Appropriate Sections of the
Design Criteria Manual
r
TO: Mr John Hargrove, P.E.
City of PeaMand
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas 77581
ATTN:
L
WE TRANSMIT:
tX I herewith ( 1 under separate cover via
( 1 in accordance with your request
FOR YOUR:
( I approval ( 1 distribution to parties
• ( I review & comment ( I record
)(X I use
THE FOLLOWING:
I 1 Drawings
( 1 Specifications
1 1 Change Order
1
PROJECT NO:
J-
DATE: January 20, 2003
J
If enclosures are not noted, please
inform us immediately.
If checked below,please
( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures.
( ) Return enclosures to us.
information
S hop Drawing Prints I I Samples
S hop Drawing Reproducibles ( 1 Product Literature
s'
!93
Copies
Date
Rev.No.
Description
Acttiion
ce
1
Proposed
Schedule
ACTION A. Action indicated on item transmitted
CODE B. No action required
C. For signature and return to this office
REMARKS
1- 7-1 IMP (<41- CtitA VISLULC2-e-t. (-P, 5 e-oget,c =
D. For signature and forwarding as noted below unde REMARKS
E. See REMARKS below
to c42,00,1/4,77,
•
cita/
COPIES TO: ( with enclosures )
■
■
BY:
Al&landro C. Flores, P.E., t
Senior Project Manager
ONE PAGE
M
I I
w
0
1 112
z
cc
0
0
o
_
.-
U
>-
m
w _
o g
1—
IANUAL
March
M
W_
cc
w
w
0
D
(O
J
z
a
o
0
o
Cn
0
( 13)
IIIo
2
2
H
m
w t.rzl 1
o
w
J
= ItM
Exte
Exte
s. Deal
0
Ian
w p
UZ
N
WU
w 1-
'
Z
W
�..............,o.,,,,,..
ice Issues.mpp Page 1
6.2 wks Mon 02/03/03 Sat 03/15/03
12.8 wks I Mon 02/03/03 I, Fri 04/25/03
•
Finis)
3; TueC
4.2 wks Tue 04/01/03 I Fri (
65 days Mon 02/03/03 f Mon I
e
y
iumrr
UITear
SCH
at
co
2.6 wks 1
_
_
1
I
C
o
as
`.
\On -Site Detention Perforn
-
co
-
IN-
\P
Z
0
Z
O
En
0
p
rn
0
—
w
u)
_
RMANCE EVALt
DATE THI
(EVERY 4 WEB
2
H a
to
NG\FLOF
)RI
C.
al
Z
OU)
r0
_
NDATIONS
\RE A COST COMPARI
;RE REPORT
�T MANAGEMENT AN
;t: On -Site Detention Pei
Mon 01/20/03
J_001 \PROJECTS\1110'
O
LL
cc
W MILESTON
w
d
z
0
H
z
w
asp
as
O
•w
Yew_-
w
0
o
Y�
cc
cc
cc
cc
do
as -
p
2