12/03/1980 - City Council Special t
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1980 4
SUBJECT: SPECIAL WORKSHOP SESSION FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1980
TO DISCUSS PROJECT #241 AND THE CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM
OF BONESTROO, ROSENE & ANDERLIK
Enclosed are two reports (2) for your review to be discussed at the meeting
on Wednesday, December 3, 1980. The first report is a project analysis
of Project #241 which consisted of several public improvements to the Saddle-
horn, Lakeside Estates and Dodd Road area within our community. Normally,
when the City staff analyzes any public improvement project, there is not
as much detail required as the amount of detail provided for this project
review. Additional information such as the history was provided to allow
the City Council a complete understanding of all the steps in detail required
in processing and monitoring a public improvement project. The City of
Eagan has always retained a consulting engineering firm for the purpose
of being the project manager of all public improvement projects. This was
true for Project #241 as well as all other projects handled in the City to
date.
The other report provides for a review of the Consulting Engineering Firm
of Bonestroo, Rosene & Anderlik. The City Administrator and Director of
Public Works have experienced a number of problems, some ' of which seem
to be administrative while others have some direct impact on policy during
the past several months. Normally, the Director of Public Works and myself
would have never endured the problems as Tong as we did if the Consulting
Engineering Firm had been one of several working for the City or had been
recently hired and was found to be incapable of providing the information
and productivity we required. Since the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene & Ander-
lik has been the only consulting engineering firm used in the City for the
past twenty-two (22) years, additional time and consideration was given
for the types of problems we were experiencing, hopeful that patience and
cooperation would help to improve productivity as it relates to public im-
provement projects. The problems have only worsened, even though
cosmeticly the firm is making efforts to change their operating procedures
to meet the workloads and demands our City is experiencing at the present
time.
I have a great deal of admiration for Bob Rosene, who has spent many
hours working for this City; however, the problems that the City is ex-
periencing due to inefficiencies and lack of productivity as required from
the consulting engineering firm is starting to affect the credibility of the
City Council and City staff to a point where the issue must be addressed
and corrected as soon as possible. The Director of Public Works and I
have shared many of the problems on a day to day basis that he addresses
in his report. The consulting engineering firm, mainly Bob Rosene and
Keith Gordon, have- been given many opportunities in the past several months
to resolve the problems that are addressed in the report and, to date,
through efforts have been made, many of the problems we have constantly
experienced are still occurring on a -day to day basis. This report was
Special Workshop Session Memo
December 1, 1980
Page Two
requested by this office to provide the City Council with better under-
standing
nder•standing of what is happening administratively with the public improvements
authorized in 1979 and 1980.
Some recommendations are provided in the report provided by the Director
of Public Works to deal with the specific engineering problems. Because
of the amount of public improvements in the past two (2) years, the City's
Director of Public Works and Director of Finance, who were hired during
that time, and this office have been reacting to the problems of the
engineering firm and also the pace of development, rather than planning
and updating procedures and policies that can be followed for future con-
struction years. However, many of these policies and procedures have been
drafted and are being implemented this fall through the office of the City
Administrator, and by spring, a complete public improvement manual will
be drafted including the policies and procedures as they relate to all public
improvements will be prepared and presented to the City Council for review
and consideration.
In summary, it is hopeful that changes can be made to benefit the accounta-
bility of public improvement projects in the City of Eagan. There is no
power struggle between the Consulting Engineering Firm and the City's
in-house civil engineer. The problem is simply one of the Consulting
Engineering Firm not being able to presently provide the City with the
proper information and adequate manpower to maintain the required manage-
ment of public improvement projects. The City's general fund cannot afford
to sacrifice interest income and property owners must be assured that cost
estimates and public improvements have been thoroughly thought out by
our consulting firm before construction occurs and final assessments are
considered. Productivity, as it relates to the Consulting Engineering Firm,
must be improved along with other considerations given to maintain
additional assurances by City Administration as well as the City Council
that all public improvement projects will be properly managed in the City
in the future. To assure proper accountability for public improvements,
one consideration may be that the City Administrator and Director of Public
Works be allowed to recommend other consulting engineering firms for certain
public improvements as they occur in the City of Eagan if necessary and
also to strengthen the Engineering Division by adding one or two persons
fully financed by the percentage assessed to public improvements by the
City of Eagan. Because of the magnitude of the issue, it was not possible
to get the information out prior to this afternoon; the report was finalized
only this morning; however, I will take whatever time is necessary at the
meeting on Wednesday to review, and/or go through any portions of this
information the City Council so desires.
l \
City Administrator
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: NOVEMBER 1980
SUBJECT: CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM OF BONESTROO, ROSENE & ANDERLIK
During the fall of 1978, the City's first civil engineer was hired as the
Director of Public Works. With the past and future anticipated growth
of City utilities, streets and other engineering activities, it was decided
that a staff engineer be hired to guide the activities and development of
the Public Works Maintenance Division. During 1978, 1979 and 1980 through
November 18, 1980, the City has experienced three (3) active construction
years relative to public improvements and related construction, $3,440,666,
$6,836,784, and $6,294,839, respectively, or a total construction of
$16,572,289. With the activity experienced in the City during the last two
(2) years related to new public improvements, the Director of Public Works
was kept extremely busy reviewing feasibility reports, plans and specifica-
tions, construction and finalizing projects. At the same time, it was
necessary to establish new operative policies and procedures for the Public
Works Maintenance Division.
Problems began to surface in 1979 when it was observed by the Director
of Public Works that inspection provided by the Consulting Engineering
Firm was limited and inadequate. Projects were not completed according
to completion schedules, inspection was not always performed, estimates
were incorrect, and, finally, assessments were not finalized for tax col-
lection as desired. The City Administrator and Director of Public Works
were assured during last winter (1979-80) that more staff would be employed
by the Consulting Engineering Firm to properly handle the anticipated pro-
jects in 1980. Unfortunately, the day to day problems were increased.
The Director of Public Works was asked by this office to prepare a report,
consisting of of a review of the Consulting Engineering Firm. A report
was prepared and is attached for your review.
In summary, the Consulting Engineering Firm has provided the City of Eagan
with service for approximately twenty-two (22) years. However, recently
the City has experienced a surge of growth the firm has not been able
to adapt to, causing many administrative and policy concerns and problems
for the City. The firm of Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik was paid $304,322
in 1978, $697,388 in 1979, and $576,030 (through October) in 1980, or a
total of $1,577,740 in three (3) years. Therefore, the suggestions and con-
siderations discussed in the attached memo, as prepared by the Director
of Public Works should be closely examined.
City Administrator
TO: THOMAS L. HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS `
DATE: NOVED.2BER 24, 1980
i
RE: CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM REVIEW
Per your request, and for Council consideration, the following memo is an analysis
of the City's present consulting engineering firm as witnessed by the Director of
Public Works during the past two years.
SUMMARY
For the past 20-22 years, the City of Eagan has retained the firm of Bonestroo,
Rosene, Anderlik and Associates as the City's Consulting Engineering Firm to handle
all engineering-related duties for the City. These have entailed preparation of
feasibility reports, design of plans and specifications for construction projects,
construction management of contracts awarded by the City, providing surveying and
inspection services as requested, assistance in the preparation of final assessment
roles and final cost tabulations, preparation of specific comprehensive reports,
and handling individual requests by the general public/Council/staff on a per-request
basis. In October of 1978, the City hired a registered engineer as the Director of
Public Works to oversee, review, coordinate, supervise and administer all activities
of the Public Works Department (Engineering, Maintenance, Assessments). At that
time, the City of Eagan was already involved in a very fast rate of development re-
quiring the installation of utilities and streets. Due to my understanding that
the City had a professional consulting engineering firm handling all construction
and engineering projects for the City, the major emphasis of the Public Works Director
was to review the activities of the maintenance divisions and to establish the nec-
essary policies, procedures, etc. to upgrade the efficiencies and effectiveness of
the available equipment and manpower services. It was my intentions at that time
to allow the Consulting Engineering Firm to handle all aspects of engineering and
construction development within the City and to review as necessary the operations
so that necessary changes could be incorporated to alleviate and reduce future main-
tenance needs of the City.
During 1979, passive reviews by the Public Works Director indicated that there were
areas that needed to be upgraded and more detail provided relating to construction
improvements. These entailed providing more detailed feasibility reports indicating
the extent of the improvements to be constructed, which represented maps and assess-
ment areas to aid the assessment division in properly evaluating who would receive
what pending assessments for a particular portion of any project. In addition, it
was determined that there was major inadequacies in the amount of inspection per-
sonnel involved in the construction of the several construction projects being managed
in the City of Eagan-. The lack of the adequate inspection personnel was not catching
the problems that are inherent with any construction schedule and which would in-
herently become future maintenance problems for the City. In the past, these in-
spection procedures were provided on a part-time basis by Keith Gordon out of Bonestroo,
Rosene's main office and periodic inspection by the construction survey crew. With
the volume of work that the City had in 1979, it was not feasible for one engineer
on a part-time basis to handle all the coordination required in managing a contract
and to provide the adequate public relations necessary with both the contractor and
the general public to insure a speedy and proper completion of contract.
Page two
Subsequently, at the end of the 1979 construction season, it was determined that
an increase in inspection personnel would be required for the 1980 construction
season. This would require the addition of a full-time field engineer along
with
several full-time inspectors. After several meetings with the consultant, it watos
determined that the preparation of an inspection procedure manual be prep
aredinsure that all inspectors understood their responsibilities and duties. The
selection of the field engineer and the respective inspectors were the responsibility
of the consulting engineer. At that time, it was felt that with the revisions and
the feasibility report, combined with the increase in inspection personnel and pro-
cedures in the construction management area, that the construction activities for
the upcoming 1980 construction season could adequately be handled. Several meetings '
were held with Bob Rosene, the City Administrator and myself relating to the ex-
pectations of the Consulting Firm by the City. Emphatic reassurances were given
to the City by the Consultant that they could satisfactorily handle the increased
needs of the City for the upcoming construction season. Subsequently, the 1980
construction season brought with it an increase in construction activity with no
significant increase in quality in consulting engineering services. The consulting
engineering firm's ability to properly design, manage, inspect and close-out pro-
jects during the past two-three years became evident during the final assessment
hearings held in September of 1980. Because of the quantity and magnitude of the
problems that have surfaced during the past 2-3 years, it is necessary to address
these problems with recommended solutions to insure that future growth within the
City of Eagan is handled according to the City's specifications.
FACTS/DETAILS
The Consulting Engineering services can be broken down into five general areas:
Reports/Studies, Design, Construction, Assessments, and Administrative
Each of these areas will be discussed with specific short-comings listed for dis-
cussion with the City Council.
I. REPORTS/STUDIES
During the past two years, feasibility reports have been revised in formatdand
expanded from their previous 2-3 pages to the present 6-8 pag articular
to
the need to more accurately define the areas to be included within a p
feasibility study. These areas are graphically represented by several attached
maps to these reports. These reports, once prepared and accepted by the City
Council, become a reference document for all City personnel pertaining to a specific
project until its completion and final assessment role is prepared. It is also
continually used as a reference manual in relationship to future projects in the
near vicinity as it pertained to area assessments. Until just lately, the Con-
suiting Engineer could not comprehend the needs of the City pertaining to these
feasibility reports. On a few instances, recommendations made by the Public
Works Director as to revisions to be performed within the report, were superseded
by the Consultant's direction to his staff in the preparation of the report as
being"not necessary" without understanding the real needs of the City or
accepting the. City'srequirements at face value. Until last month, these reports
were never given the opportunity to be reviewed with the Director of Public Works
during its compellation. Instead, the reports were prepared and assembled before
they could even be reviewed by the Public Works Director. These reports were then
submitted at the "eleventh hour" for review and signature approval by the Director
of Public Works. There was never any time to prepare the necessary revisions
Pare three
required by the City prior to the scheduled public hearing or prior to review by
the City Council. Subsequently, any revisions that were mandatory and subse-
quently included, were performed at a later date after all copies had been dis-
tributed. This created much confusion as to which feasibility report was the
correct one. After several discussions with the consultant, timely submission
of these reports never improved. It has now been required that these reports
be submitted in a draft form on a special color-coded paper to the Director of
Public Works for review and comment before it is even scheduled on a Council
agenda.
Additional problems associated with the preparation of reports is their timeli-
ness. Several times, preparation of feasibility reports have been requested by:
Council action without being initiated within the proper time frame. At the
present time, there are several outstanding feasibility reports that were ordered
for preparation by the Council during June/July of 1980 that have not yet been
completed in a rough draft form for review by the Public Works Director. Dead-
lines are promised time and again by the consultant but are never fulfilled.
During the preparation of feasibility reports, proper engineering design has not
always been used. In addition, the estimated improvement costs have been in-
accurate due to multiplication and addition errors. This indicates improper
preparation and review by the Consultant.
II. Design
Preparation of plans and specifications have not been performed with the detail
necessary to properly construct the project in the field. In particular, when
streets and/or utilities are constructed in an existing subdivision, more detail
is required as to the existing conditions then in a general new development.
During the past two years, I have not noticed any distinction between existing
developments and new developments pertaining to the design, the plans and/or
specifications by our Consulting Engineer. This has resulted in several problems
with the design being able to fit the existing terrain and subsequently, requiring
re-design in the field at additional cost to the City. The City presently pays
7% of the contract bid for engineering services for the design and preparation
of plans and specifications. Any re-designs that are required in the field through
the field engineer and survey crews, are billed to the City on an hourly basis
Subsequently, the City is paying more for design services than necessary because
they weren't reviewed in the detail necessary during their original preparation.
Once these plans and specifications have been prepared, they have not been sub-
mitted on a timely manner for review by the Director of Public Works prior to
advertisement for bids by the Consulting Engineer. The majority of the time, a
cover sheet is submitted for signature approval by the Public Works Director
with the promise that any additions or corrections will be performed by the Con
sultant with the appropriate addendums and notifications being sent to those con-
tractors who have already picked up the plans and specifications. In addition,
I have not been confident that all suggested and required changes and revisions
Page f®ur
have been performed by the Consultant.
0th theseveral
completesrevised sethave
ofeplanseandthat
my red-lined" copy be returned along wi
specifications to insure that the requested changes have been incorporated. Of the
30 projects designed during 1980, two red-lined copies were returned with new sets
of plans and specifications. Continued requests to the consultant stilldraftl'unhceded.
I have reviewed detailed plans for projects where there have been g
ro
design errors. On one particular set of plans, the cross sections necessary to E
review the impact on adjacent properties were drawn backwards. A review of these
plans would have indicated that a certain amount of fill would have been required
involved. On
adjacent to a property owner where in fact, subreanotaindicatedcutsrand several others
these same plans, several existing driveways weOf
were shown in the wrong location. This has severely affected hwheneaeferring to
the City staff in discussions with the affected property owners
these plans.
On other projects, utility manholes, catch basins and gate valves have been de-
signed to final centerline elevations on stage construction work. This has re-
quired reconstruction and readjustment of utilities to the interim design eleva-
tions of the first stage of construction associated with a particular contract.
This has incurred additional cost that could have easily been foreseen and elimi-
nated during the design process.lnOthe bidone coaenin, so thatomission
all contractopsans couldand
specifications required a delay opening
be made aware of the omission by way of an addendum to properly submit a competi-
tive bid.
Designs of adequate street section to the required 5-7 ton designs have not taken
into consideration the existing
material
�cordisite.
a pre-setsstandard.ultant ntThis shas
to design street construction hicknessang
o the contract for sub-grade correction or additional
resulted in additional cost t
e street to its proper load-bearing capa-
aggregate base necessary to construct th
cities.
There have been excessive delays in the completion of plans and specifications on
requested projects which have resulted in higher bids being received due to the.
time frame that they were subsequently advertised for bids.
There have been several instances where omissions in the design for projects have
resulted in subsequent change orders of an substantial
the C ty's temporaay financing
d costs to
the projects not originally anticipate
capabilities.
Plans and specifications have been prepared referencing wrong project numbers and
wrong contract numbers. This has created confusion in processing pay requests.
Page five
COM77-RUCT IO'I tI NAGDMNT
During the past two years, the Consulting Engineering Firm has had one man re-
sponsibile for construction management and design engineering for 25-30 projects.
There is no person that can perform both functions for this number of construction
projects and do justice to their respective requirements. This is probacly the
biggest area of deficiency of our Consulting Engineering Firm. During 1979, the
City authorized 24 improvement contracts. During 1980, the City has authorized
30 improvement contracts. These are projects that were initiated since I've
started with the City of Eagan. In addition to these contracts, there were several
outstanding contracts from 1977 and 1978 that were still under construction. Of
all these contracts, I personally do not know of one contract that was completed
within the specified completion date timetable, and although specifications call
for the assessment liquidated damages for time over-runs on contracts, I have not
received one recommendation from the Consulting Engineering Firm to assess liqui-
dated damages to insure that the project is completed as soon as possible or
necessary. Because the projects have not been completed within their respective
time frame, subsequent follow-up projects have not been able to begin their con-
struction activity when promised. Subsequently, change orders adjusting unit prices
have been processed due to time delays in contracts and the ever-increasin7 ma+eri:--
cost to perform such work.
There has not been the proper written notification or documentation as to increase
in costs due to delays in projects, or subsequent changes in the scope of nrojects
to those people that have been affected. The Consultant has had the attitude that
as long as it can be justified there is no need for explanation until requested.
This has created severe problems at the time of final assessment hearings.
i
Several times, substantial "field changes" have taken place without consultation
with the City until after the fact.
I have had several problems until recently with the consultant recommending accep-
tance of a project before it is complete and with outstanding corrective items to
be performed by the contractor. These requests are as a result of pressure by the
contractor with the Consultant giving the City assurances that these items will be
.resolved if final payment is made. I have not witnessed a satisfactory follow-up
based on the Consultant's assurances. The Consultant has also authorized over-
payments to contractors on periodic pay requests with the thought that at the time
of final payment all costs will be adjusted to insure that he was paid no more than
the contract calls for. This has resulted in an interim cash flow problem for the
City.
i
Preparation of periodic pay requests for contracts has also had its problems. We
have witnessed the process of double payments on specific contracts, and inaccurate
multiplication and addition of final pay requests. These are all items that were
caught by City staff after a quick review of these pay requests. It is evident
that the Consultant has not been reviewing these requests before submission to the
City.
I have witnessed instances where the Consultant has proceeded with restoration
work without consulting the appropriate files to determine what actually was re-
quired in conjunction with the acquisition of specific easements.
On specific instances, there has been no action by the Consultant for the City to
have a contractor complete the specific job performance as directed or when require
Page six
by the City.
I have required that when all final pay requests are submitted to my attention,
that they be accompanied by an official certification form by the Consultant
stating compliance with plans and specifications and that proper reviews have
been performed by the City Maintenance Division. I have yet to receive the
proper certification as requested.
The Consultant has continued to recommend approval and initiation of contracts
without all necessary easements being acquired. This has placed the City in a
difficult position more than once in having to acquire the necessary easement
at all costs without being subjected to a claim by the contractor for delay of
the contract. The Consultant has not properly insured that all State and/or
County permits have been obtained prior to authorizing the contractor to proceed.
Several of these permits require design changes that must be incorporated in the
contract. This has created poor relations between the City and the County/State.
Several times, we have given developers time frames that certain construction
items must be completed by. I have stated that if they do not or cannot comply
with that time frame, the City will then perform the work and bill them for our
services. On those occasions where the developer has requested the City to
the work because they themselves cannot do it within the requested time
frame, our Consultant has not been able to have the contractor complete it within
the required time frame. Consequently, developers have criticized the City for
the costs and the time delays incurred.
i
Page seven
V. ADMINISTRATIVE/OTHER
In this particular category, there are problems that do not specifically fall
under any of the above major headings. These problems are generally associated
with the ability of the Consultant to perform specific work requests by the Public
Works Director, Finance Director, City Administrator, and Assessment Clerk. There
have been several instances where I have issued a verbal request to the Consultant
to prepare specific information. This has been followed up by a written note
placed in the Consultant's box asking for the status of that request. Continued
inaction in several instances have precipitated the need for a letter directed to
the Consultant demanding response within a specific deadline. There have been
some cases where several months later another follow-up letter has been sent to
the Consultant's attention documenting the past requests and demanding that the
information be submitted within a specific time frame. In a couple of instances,
this has still not resulted in receiving the information as originally requested.
In the meantime, the time span of approximately six months had occurred.
There are instances where it has taken approximately 2-3 months to prepare the
requested change orders necessary to insure completion of specific requirements
on individual projects.
There has been an instance where the Consultant has proceeded to submit an adver-
tisement for bids in the local trade journals after a direct request for delay
by the Public Works Director because proper review of the plans and specifications
have not been performed.
Specific requests for the Consultant to respond to questions and concerns by the
general public have been put aside until second and third requests are submitted
by the City staff and/or Council. The Consultant has not responded to several
requests by the staff to update our utility and street base maps used for "as-built"
plan indexing.
With the workload encountered by the City staff resulting from the final assessment
hearings, we had requested the Consultant to supply us with additional manpower to
handle the resulting problems. It was indicated that this manpower need was urgent
and immediate. After seven days from the initial request, a "Kelly Girl" was or-
dered by the Consultant's firm. This person proved to be unacceptable for the work
required.
There have been instances where the City has demanded that additional attention be
applied to a specific work request. The Consultant has taken away personnel from
other City projects rather than add the additional personnel required to handle
the new request. This is indicative of our Consulting Engineering Firm's attitude
of putting out fires rather than providing the necessary manpower to handle the
additional workloads.
There have been instances where our Consultant has been contacted separately by
developers requesting information, review, etc. This- has resulted in the Consultant
speaking on behalf of the City and then not notifying City staff of the decisions
reached. This has impacted several areas (completion dates, easement acquisition,
final plat recording).
Page eight
IV. ASSESSA.ENTS
The problem with the preparation of final assessment roles are still fresh in every-
body's mind from September/October of 1980. Because contracts were not being com-
pleted within the required time frame, the City was required to start making pay-
ments on our bonds. Subsequently, I ordered our Consultant to close out the pro-
jects, prepare final cost tabulations for a great majority of our outstanding con-
tracts. This information was discussed in detail with the Consultant during July
of 1980 of the very tight frame that would be necessary to meet the final assess-
ment hearings in September. Although continued discussions were held with the
Consultant of the need to final out these projects and get final costs in a time
frame to tabulate those costs and review them with the Public Works Director, I
did not witness any extra effort being exerted until the middle of August. This
placed such a time restraint on the City that up until three hours before the
final assessment hearing, we still did not have some of the final costs for a few
projects. In addition, when final assessment figures were submitted to the City,
they referenced wrong subdivisions to be assessed, they were submitted on hand-
written sheets of scrap paper that were difficult to determine which project they
applied to much less the proper subdivision. There has resulted omissions from
specific lots due to these inaccuracies and not all costs associated with the pro-
ject have been tabulated or anticipated in several instances during the preparation
of these final assessment figures.
On a few occasions, we have received a recommendation to proceed with the final
assessment hearing before the project has even been completed and final costs
tabulated.
During the more recent policy change by the City staff pertaining to the prepara-
tion of a preliminary assessment role to be submitted with public hearings, the
Consultant has not performed the proper research to insure that all parcels have
been included within an assessment area. They perform these calculations with
"the best information they have available" without researching whether more accurate,
up-to-date information is available through the City or the County. This has
created problems with dispersement of pending assessment information and accurate
information whether a particular parcel is included or not in a specific project.
In computing areas for trunk area assessment calculations, the Consultant has
performed multiplication and addition errors that were easily picked out by pre-
liminary review by the Public Works Director. This indicates that no review of
their work is being performed before being submitted to the City.
All these factors have incurred an unbearable workload situation for the City
staff .
Page nine
OBSERVATIONS
with our Consulting Engineer for the past two years, and reviewing
After workingCity, personal
the problems that have been as with development Firm the
sthe proper man-
observations indicate that this Consulting Engineering
agement organization to handle the workload generated by the City of Eagan during
g the next several years. While
the past two years and anticipated grown have the expertise and manpower to
the Consultant has indicated that they
handle a certain amount of development, when increeirdown initiative, addedthe
during the past two years, they have not, under th
additional personnel necessary to handle the additional workload to a satrofession.
quality required by the City and expected of the consulting engineering p
Without adding the additional manpower required, they
il
havitheirnabreadd their
to forces
rform
thinner to accommodate the work without indica g
satisfactorily. Consequently, with additional workloads being. generated by the
ower being provided by the Consultant,
City of Eagan, and without additional mane give _ and it did.
the quality of work provided is the only factor that has to g'l
Because each new contract means additional business forthe Consultat theant, e i sn not
going to inform the City that he cannot handle it knowing
have other resources available developers, we havenot
, alhadwith aditonaltheooption prject anwork
retain
quests demanded of the Cly y was always sent to our
additional consulting services as required.
ossiblerytThegConsultant, in his effort
singular consultant to do as quickly as p indicated that
to try and supply the City with the proper level of service, always
the work request could be performed with no problem. The over-estimation of his
confidence .has severely affected their credibility with the City
I honestly believe that the many errors attributable to our Consulting Engineering
Firm are not flagrant or intentional on their behalf. Rather they are the result
of their trying
to do too much with too little. Subsequently, they have not
been reviewing their work to the accuracy that is demanded of a professional
consulting firm.
is
control
There are two answers to the problem as eareonsasfirst-come�,efirst serveobasis.
growth to a specific dollar amount per y
This dollar amount would be determined
a after
revnal workiew frequiredthe lwibhin anppecificom
our Consulting Engineering Firm. Any
construction season would have to be performed privately byanthe
vdeveloper.neThis
direction would still require additional inspection and p
insure compliance with City specifications. Second alternative
vsmorem7by an ower•
This must either be provided by our existing ConsultingEngineeringthe City to create
addition of several consulting engineering firms approved by
an overload consulting services "pool", or the creation of an in-house engineering
staff. rienced
ity of
an
ing the
Based on the workload that I have
expeily incorpo atehthreethe Cseparateagconsulting en-
past two years, the City co
gineering firms to perform the work necessary. While our Peeared all sthelcom-
engineering firm has been with the City for 20-22 years, prep
prehensive plans that are used as guides for the extensions of streets and utili-
ties, combined with the fact :that they are most familiar with the interstate and
Page ten
County improvements, pending and proposed within the City of Eagan, it would be
recommended that this Consultant be retained to perform .design and construction
management on those projects dealing with the extension of trunk utilities, water
supply and storage, and related interstate, state and county improvements. If
their firm can prove additional manpower availability, individual development
projects could be directed to their attention with the recommendation of the
Public Works Director. Additional consulting engineering firms could then handle
the design and construction needs of new developments as determined by the Public
Works Director. Any project within an existing development should be given to
a consultant engineering firm that has proven expertise in dealing with reconstruc-
tion or existing subdivision improvements. This requires special public relations,
extra detailed design, and expert construction management.
In any event, the addition of certain personnel to the existing Public Works De-
partment will be required. If we stay with the same Consultant for all work,
additional personnel will have to be hired and added to the staff to thoroughly
review all work submitted for its accuracy and completion rather than the general
review that should be expected. If additional consultants are made available for
selection by the Public Works Director, a full-time secretarial position will be
required to adequately handle and process the required work orders and corres-
pondence.
Another alternative to handle the workload would be to hire the necessary in-house
engineering personnel to handle a specific volume of workload per year. Any
additional work requests that could not be handled by the City staff could then be
directed to our existing Consultant or to one of several consultants that could be
made available to the City for such overload work. In any event, it is evident
that specific detailed personnel must be made available, either in house or through
a consulting firm. These deal with a development engineer to review the grading
and drainage plans of developments being proposed and to insure that the grading
is being performed in accordance with these approved grading plans and subsequently
review and approve all revisions or changes and insure that the plans and specifi-
cations being designed for the installation of streets and utilities reflect these
revisions. The City has been encountering several change orders to existing City
contracts because the developer has either not completed his required grading or
has performed it to a state other than .was submitted and approved by the grading
plan on file with the City. It is also necessary to insure that there is a project
manager for approximately every 10 contracts (1 plus or minus million dollars) to
insure that the design, construction, pay request, permits, etc. are all performed
and acquired within the proper time frames. Each project manager should have 1-2
project engineers under him to perform the design and construction field engineering
required with each contract. Finally, qualified field inspectors are necessary to
handle the detailed inspection required for these construction projects. ex-
isting consulting engineering firm, in trying to provide the additional manpower de-
manded by the City for inspection services, have placed several inexperienced or in-
capable inspectors on our projects. Many times, consulting engineering firm in-
spectors do not understand the maintenance repercussions associated with poor
quality construction. It is strongly recommended that an in-house inspection de-
partment be created to insure uniformity between any and all consulting firms and
construction companies performing work within the City of Eagan.
Page eleven
The specific instances related above have been generalized in consideration of
the length of this report. More detailed information can be readily documented
for any and all aspects mentioned previously. Since June of 19M I have been
keeping a notebook reference of all problems associated with our Consultant which
should be used for discussion of this report.
This report is meant to be an overview of the activities that have been occurring
within the past two years along with the recommended solutions to alleviate future
problems. I would be happy to expand on any facet of this report in greater de-
tail if so requested. I feel that the City of Eagan, with its potential for
growth due to land quality and transportation access, demands that it be per-
formed in the highest quality possible to insure that future general fund main-
tenance burdens to the City are minimized that may result from poor design or
construction today.
Respectfully submitted,
, /Z�
i
omas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
TAC/jac