My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2000-12-11_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981015 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981015
>
2000-12-11_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981015 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2023 8:33:53 AM
Creation date
2/27/2023 9:23:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981015
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/11/2000
Doc Name Note
Fruita/American Shield Closeout-BF
Doc Name
IMP Closeout Files
From
DRMS
To
DRMS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
t <br /> Change Orders: <br /> Change Order#1: May 26, 2000 <br /> 1) Additional machine time could be used to further regrade the access road and other <br /> locations to approximate original contours. Bond monies were available and the Coal <br /> Program approved of the additional reclamation. An estimated 40 hours of track-hoe time <br /> (4, $75/hr was directed for an additional $3,000. The item extended the contract 5 days. <br /> 2) Additional regrading required additional revegetation work. Approximately 2 acres of <br /> additional revegetation was needed. The Additive Alternate #4, Revegetation, amount of <br /> $500 was applied. This item extended the contract 1 day. <br /> 3) Excessive winds and inclimate weather for revegetation were experienced extending the <br /> contract an additional 5 days. <br /> The total Change Order costs resulted in an increase to the Purchase Order of$3,500. <br /> IV. CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY <br /> Construction start-up was delayed because of tardiness in State Purchasing issuing the <br /> contract. Prior to issuing the Notice to Proceed, the contractor had already mobilized a Komatsu <br /> D41 E dozer to the site and had also installed a locking gate at the start of the access road to the <br /> bench to prevent vandalism of the machinery. A Komatsu PC200 track-hoe and a MOXY MT30 <br /> Rock truck were mobilized on—site and were used for moving the excavated channel material <br /> initially against the trench side cuts and eventually to the designated disposal area to the south. <br /> At the later part of slope reduction, material moved to the designated disposal area from the <br /> base was performed by the rock truck and a Komatsu WA380 tire loader. The amount of rock <br /> encountered during channel excavation was more than sufficient to satisfy the riprap <br /> requirements. An excess amount of greater than 4'd rock was encountered. The larger rock <br /> was approved for channel placement as long as it was keyed in per specs. Rock placement in <br /> the channel was exciting watching the loader dumping rocks at the top of the channel and <br /> watching the hoe trying to defend itself from damage. <br /> Field Directive #1 was issued shortly after construction commenced. An argument was brought <br /> up by the contractor regarding the specifications which referred to two given elevation points and <br /> how the slope between them could not be changed from the original/pre-construction grade. <br /> Field Directive#1 stated: `There was an oversight on document preparation which neglected to <br /> state, in writing, that the channel from the lower point of the gully headcut would be constructed <br /> at a 3:1 on Drawing #1 referenced for final grade. The 'construct 3:1 channel from lower(point <br /> gully headcut) to bottom of fill slope per specs' referenced 2 given elevation points that exhibited <br /> a 2.5:1 and cannot be graded to a 3:1. Therefore the lower point (gully headcut) to bottom of fill <br /> slope grade will be at a 2.5:1 per pre-construction". Concern was made by the Coal Program as <br /> to the area where the slope would transition between the 3:1 and the 2.5:1. Previous experience <br /> has shown how slope transition areas are subjected to higher erodibility from flow velocity and <br /> that the transition zone should located higher up-slope as possible. <br /> Field Directive #2 authorized additional machine time, Additive Alternate #1 (track-hoe), to be <br /> used for additional side channel work from the east and at the toe of the slope. It also directed <br /> that machine time could be used to pull out the drainage to the west, to start the access road <br /> recontouring, and for sediment pond spillway work. Field Directive #2 also allowed for diviting <br /> with the hoe bucket as being an acceptable surface roughening instead of the specified dozer <br /> blade furrowing. <br /> The punchlist for the channel work included: the need for filling the voids between the larger <br /> rock; the need to address side slope riprap placement in places lacking the 48" minimum height; <br /> a few side slopes not adhering to the 3:1 specification and; the upper portion checkdam <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.