Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />,I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />II <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The geotextile drain design as shown if Figure 2 was put out to bid in March of 1998 in hopes of <br />completing the project by the 1998 irrigation season, Bid prices came in much higher than anticipated <br />for this design and the project was put on hold temporarily. Through discussion with the bidding <br />contractors it was determined that the high cost of construction was primarily due to the short time <br />frame and the uncertainty of the embankment drain and muck bottom, <br /> <br />Delaying the project to the 1998-1999 off-irrigation season allowed the contractor to eliminate overtime <br />pay, To eliminate some of the uncertainty of embankment seepage during construction, a new drain <br />was designed to capture seepage before it could get to the embankment. This drain involved a 6-inch <br />diameter ADS drain pipe embedded in pea-gravel placed at the invert elevation of the Rep and running <br />parallel to the pipeline on each side for the entire length, This drain design is shown if Figure 3. A <br />price for the drain was negotiated with the contractor and the drain installed in June of 1998, Based on <br />the performance of the drain, a new contract was negotiated for the remainder of the work for the <br />project, A cost for this option. including the drain, is shown in Table 2, <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />