Loading...
CR 03-044 Award Bid - Nine Mile Cove Relocation Project ? . ~J : . I CITY Or: '\ -, . April 1, 2003 HOPKINS Council Report 2002-44 Award of Bid - Nine Mile Cove Watermain Relocation Project, City Project 03-02 Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: "Move that Council adopt Resolution 2003-026, Resolution for Award of Bid.,Nine Mile Cove Watermain Relocation Proiect, City Proiect 03-02. Overview . This watermain was originally constructed with the Nine Mile Cove development in 1997. There has been a history of failures in this section of watermain and a series of repairs. The condition of the pipe during the most recent repair was observed and studied by STS Consultants. The observations as to the cause of the failure are attached in James Overtoom's December 3, 2002 correspondence. STS Consultants concluded the design and construction of the pile caps is the cause of the failure. STS Consultants provided the trench design recommendation, for the relocation, in their January 22, 2003 letter. STS Consultants has reviewed the relocation plans. The development is connected to the municipal water system in two locations. The watermain in question can be shut down for the work but is needed to provide adequate flow for fire protection. Primary Issues to Consider . Bid Tabulation, Engineer's Estimate, and Recommendations . Resolving Responsibility for Cost of Relocation Supporting Information . STS Consultants, December 3,2002 Letter . STS Consultants, January 22, 2003 letter . Construction Plans . Contract . Resolution 2003- 26 , ~ . Anderson P.E., Assistant City Engineer . Financial Impact: $ 43.066.00 Budgeted: Y/N li..- Source: Water Utilitv Fund Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _ Notes: Adeauate water utilitv funds are available for this proiect . . " " City Council Report 2003-044 Page 2 . Bid Tabulation, Engineer's Estimate Bidder Metro Utilities Inc. Engineer's Estimate Base Bid $46,396.00 $31,440.00 Alternate Bid $43,066.00 $31,440.00 . Recommendations Requests for quotes were sent to four local contractors, one quote was returned. The low quote of$43,066.00 by Metro Utilities Inc. is by a reputable company who has completed similar work for the City of Hopkins. As this project is under $50,000, public bidding is not required by state law. The costs associated with this construction were very difficult to estimate due to a number of factors including: size of job, wet and unstable soil conditions, utility conflicts, and limited access. We believe these factors account for the difference in cost between the Engineer's Estimate and the quote provided by Metro Utilities. Staff recommends authorization to award the bid to the Metro Utilities Inc. in the amount of$43,066.00. . Resolving Responsibility for Cost of Relocation This section of watermain has required many repairs and is not operating reliably. The City has investigated the cause of the failure and has determined it to be the design, and construction of the pile caps. City staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney who is working on developing an opinion on what course of action, if any should be taken. Determining those answers does not repair the watermain. This repair is important to provide an adequate supply of water for fire protection and should not be delayed. Proceeding with the repair should not preclude possible action to recoup costs incurred by the City. City staffwill continue to work with the City Attorney to develop an opinion on the best course action to pursue relative to the financial responsibility of this matter. . . CD i~'" . ~~ STS CONSULTANTS STS Consultants, Ltd. 10900 - 73rd Ave. N., Suite 150 Maple Grove, MN 55369-5547 763-315-6300 Phone 763-315-1836 Fax December 3, 2002 Mr. Steve Stadler, P.E. City Engineer City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: Evaluation of Watermain Distress at Nine Mile Cove in Hopkins, Minnesota; STS Project 98664 Dear Mr. Stadler: At your request, and in accordance with our proposal dated April 5, 2002, we observed the excavation and repair to the 8 inch pile supported ductile iron pipe watermain located on the south side of Nine Mile Cove in Hopkins, Minnesota. This repair took place on April 23, 2002. The repairs were completed by workers from the City of Hopkins Public Works Department and Valley Rich Utility Company. During the repair process, we observed the excavation of two possible leak locations. The first location excavated was located approximately 120 feet west of the intersection of Nine Mile Cove and Second Avenue South (Station 14+85) was not leaking. The location of the leak was at the next pile support to the west, at approximately 138 feet west of the intersection (Station 15+03). We observed that each of these locations was the location of a pile support for the watermain. The pile supports consisted of an 8 inch nominal diameter concrete filled pipe pile, with a nominal 12 inch by 12 inch by about 36 inch long timber pile cap supporting the 8 inch diameter ductile iron pipe. A light duty pipe strap was observed at each location "holding" the pipe to the timber cap. The strap appeared to be held in place by one or two nails driven into the pipe supporting timber cap. The wood pile cap appeared to be treated with a preservative consisting of creosote type materials and had been drilled for hold down rods connecting the timber to the pile. These rods were loose or missing at the east excavation and loose at the west excavation. At both locations, the pile cap was badly crushed and split, resulting in a loss of vertical thickness from the nominal 12 inches to less than about 4 or 5 inches. Where the pipe was leaking, the pipe was cut, and patched with a sleeve. We understand the watermain was constructed in 1997. The first break in the watermain was detected and fixed in the fall of 1998. Subsequently, there have been four additional pipe breaks, with the break repaired on April 23 being the fifth break. We understand that the pipe breaks have been similar at each location with the pipe being buckled at the invert immediately above the pile support. We further understand that there are approximately 18 pipe supports within the Nine Mile Cove alignment. With the previous four breaks and the two pile cap failures observed on April 23, six of the 18 pile caps have failed. The observed failure mechanism, splitting and crushing of the timber pile caps, results in a wedge of wood remaining immediately above the pipe pile resulting in a R6664001.doc THE INF'"RASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE _ 'J ~~ , ^.,..~...~ ?~'?!"~~:t..~ ~~ _11 . ~''t ~~~~:~~ I'. .~{~ ~: J,~:...~1,~".~, ~~~ i' y !t.:'~ . ~~ STS CONSULTANTS City of Hopkins STS Project 98664 December 3, 2002 Page 2 fulcrum action and subsequent buckling formation of the ductile iron pipe until tearing occurs. In our opinion, as continued long-term settlement of the Nine Mile Cove' embankment occurs, further stresses will be placed on the watermain, pile caps and piles, resulting in additional pile cap failures. While on-site, we recommended to the Public Works Superintendent, City Engineer and Assistant City Engineer that the watermain be rerouted several feet to the north, to near the toe of the existing roadway embankment within this area, and be constructed of either flexible HOPE pipe, continuously butt welded, or ductile iron pipe with mechanically stabilized joints. If this new watermain is placed within the edges of the existing embankment, where the majority of the consolidation settlement of underlying softer soils has occurred, additional consolidation settlement is likely to be within tolerable limits (2 to 3 inches over the next 20 years) and would provide the expected service for the City of Hopkins. . We recommend that standard bedding conditions and corrosion protection be provided as appropriate for the pipe materials installed. If desired to reduce the embedment depth and to reduce the weight of soil above the pipe and therefore further consolidation' settlement, light weight fill within the trench above the pipe could be placed. Blocks of Styrofoam fill placed immediately above the pipe would serve as an added insulation and would reduce the trench backfill weight above the pipe. We have appreciated having the opportunity to be of assistance to the City of Hopkins on this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, STS CONSULTANTS, LTD. ~~ James H. Overtoom, P.E. Principal Engineer JHO/dn Encs. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, AND THAT THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. Si9~~ Registration No. 11102 James H. Overtoom, P .E. Date Jz,r y-p 2.- CI> R6664001.doc THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE _~~-iiiiwJ~... '-'~'~,?-, ~-"'-i~~m:J:iiiijE~,~~_.~1Et,;1t~~ . i._" (D. THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE ~~ ~~ ETE CONSULTANTS Table of Contents BACKGROUND ............. ......... .......... ...... ................................. .... ...... 1 APRIL 23, 2002 WA TERMAIN REPAIR .....................,..................... 3 ON-SITE RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 5 R66640D1.doc . . ,,': (!) [~STS CONSULTANTS Nine Mile Cove STS Project 98664. December 3, 2002 BACKGROUND In 1996, Taurus Properties, Inc. began planning for the development of the Nine Mile Cove housing subdivision in Hopkins, Minnesota. As part of this planning process, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. was retained to design infrastructure improvements within and leading to the development. This included sanitary sewer and water line from the northwest, a water line at the location of Nine Mile Cove, and the construction of the Nine Mile Cove roadway from Second Avenue to the development. GME Consultants, Inc. was also retained to provide geotechnical exploration for the development and subsequently for the proposed utilities at Nine Mile Cove in report 6360 dated November 6, 1996 and 6360-A dated January 10, 1997. The soils encountered along Second Avenue South and Nine Mile Cove (boring 8-13) indicated approximately 6 feet of fill overlying peat and organic silt extending to a depth of about 34 feet. GME recommended "Ideally, this water line should be supported on driven piles which transmit the loads down to the competent, non-organic soils at depth." GME provided estimated pile lengths for anticipated working load capacities for piles supporting utilities within the project. As an alternative, GME also proposed that the water line on Nine Mile Cove could be bedded on soil without the use of deep foundations provided that four conditions were met. These conditions were: A. The present road grades along Second Avenue South (Nine Mile Cove) does not change by more than 2 feet higher than present grade. B. There is a minimum of 3 feet of sand bedding below the pipe invert. C. The pipe can be designed so that it could tolerate up to 3 degrees of rotation at the joints. D. The owner/client is willing to accept the risk of some total and differential settlement. The GME report stated that "If these conditions cannot be met, then this section of the line should also be pile supported." THE INF'RASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE R6664001.doc ~~ STS CONSULTANTS . Nine Mile Cove STS Project 98664 December 3, 2002 approximately 7 inches. This break was located 100 feet :t east of the "circle" (possibly near Station 16+00). APRIL 23,2002 WATERMAIN REPAIR On April 23, 2002, the City of Hopkins Public Works Department repaired the watermain break which was apparent at the site at a distance of approximately 127 feet west of the fire hydrant located on the north side of Nine Mile Cove at its east end. Excavation at this location progressed around the upper utility lines to expose the water line and pile cap. Soils encountered consisted of surficial topsoil, then a mixture of sand and clay fill extending to below pipe elevation. There appeared to be some granular bedding material immediately below the pipe invert. Soils were moderately cohesive, being classified as a silty and sandy clay or clayey sand by the writer. Groundwater was encountered initially approximately 6 to 7 feet below surface grade. The surface grade was about elevation 881 to 881.5 feet at this location, sloping up slightly to the west. Exposure of the ductile iron pipe through opening the polyethylene protective wrap indicated that this area was not leaking but rather, water was migrating along the pipe length from the west. 'The ---~------------excavation. revealecfFiowevenha-nlie1Z oy12-Wn5erpWe-cap. suppbiiin-g-tliEf a1Jctlleiron------~----- - --- pipe was crushed and effectively failed. See photograph #1 in the Appendix. No further repairs beyond backfilling this excavation were completed. Rather, excavation proceeded to the west to the next pile support. The elevation of the top of the pipe at the first excavation was 871.23 feet as determined by Mr. Steve Bot, Assistant City Engineer with the City of Hopkins. Therefore the depth of soil fill over the watermain pipe is about 10 feet, about one-third greater than the standard 7.5 feet of cover generally specified for frost protection. . The second excavation was completed at a distance of 145 feet west of the hydrant at the east end of Nine Mile Cove. A similar depth of soil cover above the pipe was observed. At this location, water was observed leaking from the invert elevation of the pipe. Photographs 2 and 3 show the excavation at the time the pipe was uncovered. At this location also, the pile cap (timber block) was split, with a major portion of the wood shifted to the east, and a smaller section of the wood shifted to the west. The upper surface of the timber was also severely crushed. Removal of the timber pile cap at this (!) THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE 3 R6664001.doc . .: R~ STS CONSULTANTS Nine Mile Cove STS Project 98664 December 3, 2002 The January 10 GME report also commented on construction of new pavement at Nine Mile Cove. At that time, significant new fills were not anticipated. A follow-up letter from GME Consultants to Taurus Properties dated January 17, 1997 restated the recommendation that the water line along Second Avenue South (Nine Mile Cove) could be bedded in soil without the use of deep foundations provided that the four conditions were met. At that time, GME became aware that 5 to 6 feet of new fill would be added to create the new roadway at Nine Mile Cove. It was anticipated that the fill would be in-place at least six months before the water line was installed, and the water line would not be within or under the new fill embankment, but rather at the edge of it. This letter reiterated GME's opinion that the water line could be bedded on soil provided that the conditions S, C and 0 of the January 10 report still applied. We understand the roadway fill was placed in September and October of 1997. The owner and their engineer had evaluated the piling option and the restrained joint pipe on soil option for this area. In a letter from Westwood Professional Services, Inc. to the City dated October 7, 1997, Mr. Dwight Jelle, P.E., requested the City's acceptance of -----.~--~--- consfruCtlngthe waterrnain withrestralnedjoinf auctile'lron plpe'wlfhTribedding-mat8rl8lS-- --.---- as recommended by GME Consultants. However, since the roadway fill was just completed, expected settlements and joint deflection would still occur; the majority of such movement within the subsequent six month period. No further clarification in this letter relative to pipe location, elevation or light weight fill usage was provided. We understand the City response called for a review of the geotechnical evaluation and pipe support proposals. We further understand that the water line was supported on piling in the fall of 1997. The first failure of the water line occurred in the fall of 1998. '. . CD We understand this watermain break and the subsequent two watermain breaks were repaired by the installing contractor without significant documentation. The fourth watermain break in May of 2001 was documented by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. A sketch provided by Hugh Hanford of Westwood indicates that the 8 inch ductile iron watermain was flattened approximately 1.5 inches, and the 12 inch by 12 inch by 36 inch long timber pile cap was pushed down over the 8 inch concrete filled steel pile THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE 2 R6664001.doc . . .: (f) ~~ ~ STS CONSULTANTS Nine Mile Cove STS Project 98664 December 3, 2002 location indicated that the pile cap had crushed down over the concrete pipe pile and then split laterally due to the forces of the pipe on the upper outside edges of the timber block. As the pile cap split, a wedge of timber remained immediately above the pile cap, becoming a fulcrum supporting the ductile iron pipe. Photograph 4 in the Appendix shows the east half of the pile cap timber after removal. Please note that the top of the timber which is slightly concave is at the bottom surface on the photograph (closest to the clod of soil). The bottom surface of the timber (near top of photograph) is crushed inward where it split and sheared along the pipe pile. The two vertical slots shown are from the anchor bolts penetrating through the timber cap. These were not observed attached to the pile. Photograph 5 also shows the three pieces of the timber pile cap recovered. The center piece in the photograph has the impression of the pipe pile embedded in it. The bottom piece of timber still has the stainless steel pipe strap attached to it on the side. Samples of the timber pile cap were submitted to Twin City Testing for testing to determine the maximum fiber stress (modulus of rupture) in accordance with ASTM Specification 0-143. The contract drawing specified a minimum fiber stress of 1600 psi. The TCT report is included in the Appendix. The wood was determined to be Douglas fir. Photographs 6 and 7 show the portion of the pipe removed during the repair construction. Photograph 6 shows the invert of the pipe and the tears caused during the plastic deformation of the ductile iron pipe due to buckling at the pile cap. Photograph 7 taken through the pipe shows the amount of buckling sustained by the pipe during the plastic deformation. Samples of the ductile iron pipe were submitted to Crane Engineering and Forensic Services for opinions about the suitability of the ductile iron material. The Crane Engineering report is included in the Appendix. The report indicates the pipe was of the proper material as specified, and behaved as expected under the stresses imposed on it. The pipe failed after significant plastic deformation. The watermain break was repaired with a mechanically attached sleeve and gaskets, and put temporarily back into service. THE INF"RASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE 4 R666400tdoc 1., ~~ 5TS CONSULTANTS . Nine Mile Cove STS Project 98664 December 3, 2002 ON-SITE RECOMMENDATIONS At the time of the excavation and repair of the pipe at this location, we provided our recommendation to Mr. Michael Lauseng, Utility Superintendent, Mr. Steve Bot, Assistant City Engineer, and Mr. Steve Stadler, P.E., City Engineer to replace the entire pile supported watermain. From our understanding of the previous pipe repairs, it is our opinion that the timber pile caps are not of adequate strength to support the load resulting form the soil above the pipe and the auxiliary loads transmitted to the pipe due to traffic on the adjacent roadway (the pipe is estimated to be approximately 6 feet away to the curb line). The Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) has an internet based design program which will calculate the stresses on ductile iron pipe assuming pipe size, working pressures, saddle angle and depth of cover. The DIPRA recommends that the saddle angle (the notched out area on the pipe support to fit the lower cord of the pipe) be between 90 degrees and 120 degrees. Little or no benefit is gained by increasing the saddle angle more than 120 degrees, while with angles less than 90 degrees, the - - - - - -- n_ - - -----maximum stresstendstoincrease raploTrwHllaecreasing"sadareangre.--Please-i16fe- - -- - ------ -- -- - ------ that the timber pile caps used for this project indicated a saddle on the drawings. The saddle was to be notched into the timber pile cap prior to pipe placement. Review of the documents by Mr. Hugh Hanford and observations in the field indicate there are no saddles provided for support of the pipe. (The May 24, 2001 transmittal and May 14, 2001 note of Mr. Hanford is attached.) The DIPRA program indicates that a unit load per length per foot of pipe would be about 1,010 pounds. Therefore, each pile and cap supports approximately 18,000 pounds. At a load of 18,000 pounds per pile, and a net area of the pile of 58.3 inches, a crushing strength of 308 pounds per square inch is required. Typical cross grain compressive stresses for Douglas fir of 460 psi are recommended as per ASTM 0-2555, Standard Method of Establishing Clear Wood Strength Values, Table 3. Therefore, at 1,000 pounds per lineal foot of pipe, the timber would not be stressed above recommended allowable levels. However, the pipe is pile supported because the soils below it are soft and organic in nature, and compressible. On-going compression and resulting settlement (t) THE INF"RASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE 5 R6664001.doc . '. ~~ STS CONSULTANTS Nine Mile Cove STS Project 98664 December 3, 2002 of the surrounding soil results in increased load and shear forces on the pipe. In accordance with the Marsden theory of pipe load for a po~itive projecting pipe, a load in excess of 2,000 pounds per lineal foot is possible. With this load, the crushing stress on the pile by the pile cap would be In excess of 615 pounds per square inch which is well in excess of allowable recommendations by the timber industry. Contract documents specified the structural timber pile caps to have a "minimum fiber stress" for structural timber caps and cradles to be 1600 psi. The "minimum fiber stress" as shown on the drawing does not specify in bending or in compression (perpendicular to the grain). The TCT tests for fiber stress in bending (modulus of rupture) give an average value of 9550 psi, well in excess of the 1600 psi requirement, if that is what was meant. But the cap is not stressed in bending, but rather in compression, perpendicular to the grain. The ASTM standard recommends a fiber stress of 460 psi. Recommended design values vary from 325 to 525 pounds per square inch. Additionally, pressure treatment with creosote or other materials, and permanent placement below the water table (saturation) will reduce the allowable strength of the timber. Samples were submitted to Twin City Testing Company for determination of allowable bending stress. Eight samples . -- ----.----~ ---- - were testedto -determinethe mc)dulus 'of rupture (maximum fiber Stressin bendingTThe------n-- - -- average modulus of rupture value of 9,547 psi was determined. This value is for clear specimens of timber. The actual allowable values for design would be reduced for wood imperfections, loading conditions, saturation and preservative content. If the specified "minimum fiber stress" on the drawing referred to compressive strength, perpendicular to grain, only one wood is listed in ASTM D-2555 as complying with this strength requirement. Live oak has a compressive strength greater than 1600 psi, at 2039 psi with a standard deviation of 571 psi. Oak wood was not used for the pile caps. . . (f) In our opinion, the failures of this water line are the result of timber pile cap failures. The pile cap failed through crushing over the pile and splitting due to edge compressive forces imparted by the bending ductile iron pipe. The lack of pipe bearing saddle area likely also contributed to failure. THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPERATIVE 6 R6664001.doc ([~ STS . CONSULTANTS STS Consultants, Ltd. 10900 73rd Avenue North, Suite 150 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369-5547 voice 763-315-6300 fax 763-315-1836 web www.stsconsultants.com ~ -,. -- - - -- -- - -- - - - -- -~- - ~ - January 22, 2003 Mr. John Anderson City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: 2nd Avenue (Nine Mile Cove) Water line Reconstruction; STS Project 98664 Dear Mr. Anderson: STS Consultants, Ltd. conducted an engineering evaluation at the water line failure at the above site. As part of our evaluation, we recommended that the water line be reconstructed as a conventionally supported pipeline to the north of the pile supported alignment. As the fill soils which caused the long term consolidation and settlement of the native underlying organic or soft soils have been in place for several years, it is our opinion that the majority of the settlement of these soils has occurred. Therefore, a replacement pipeline supported on conventional bedding materials can be constructed. . We recommend the new water line be aligned about 10 to 12 feet north of the existing pipe line to miss other utilities and to also avoid most of the existing fill load and traffic loadings. This may place the ne w alignment into the edge of the existing organic or soft soils. The new pipe should be constructed of ductile iron pipe, with mechanically bolted joints. The pipe should be supported on a minimum of 12 inches of granular bedding and stabilization rock, not exceeding 24 inches in total thickness. The top of the pipe should be buried about 7.5 feet below final grade, or a layer of foam insulation 4 to 6 inches thick and 4 feet wide placed about 2 feet above the pipe. Foam thermal insulation will need to be ballasted to prevent floating. Metallic piping should be wrapped with polyethylene pipe wrap, and surrounded by at least 12 inches of clean sand bedding as corrosion protection. Backfill above the pipe in green areas should be native soil of sufficient weight to prevent the foam from floating (if used), but should not increase the total weight of the pipe trench from what existed previously. Under the roadway crossing, similar total weight constraints should apply, but the road supporting subgrade soils should be compacted in accordance with city standard specifications. and be comprised primarily of granular materials. A partial use of light weight (foam) materials for backfill may be considered. If you have any further questions about the replacement installation, please call me at 763-315-6300. Sincerely; JHO/dn C6664001.doc 10Q.LH.a (4102) ~~ J> Z J> :0:: .::0 .::0 ::r ^ ^ 111 111 -I r- .::0 - . E (/) DR. - J~ 2ND D~ . S. >>Ul-l UlZ"O:r 01Tl1Tl 3: 0 0>-3: 0..,,- -1"-% "TI OZ -)>)>I'TI rrlO-UJ') 00-0 -0-1 llJ-IZ> -<_Ul o 0 (l)Z"TUTI "OUlO"O ITl ::0> 0> ::0 -z:r:-I "TIO-3: - G'l1Tl Ul o>:rz "0 >3::E-I ITl -I1Tl> 0 -z-<o - 00 "TI "TI Z3:0 - 1Tl0-l 0 "TIZZ::O > O-lUl> -I ::OUl-lZ - :OUl 0 -I-IC:"O Z :r:roo Ul -rrl-I::tI .. V');O--I 1Tl0> "O-IZ-I ::00-- o .0 '-Ul Z 1Tl:r0 0>> . -Ir-lUl . rlTl-l 0> G'l Z OUlO <1Tl> 1Tl"O:O ::0-10 ZITl ;::: ITlllJ XITl 0::0 ITl "OUI -I- N o o o . ~ ty of Hopkins r- jUl 1Tl0+ XO:T + j VI + c , ~c o r o ~I~ ;;JJ ~ . ~ r rn :JJ -at- en ~ Vl :J: rr1 @] N rr1 -I Z 0 ::E 0 ...... -t- "1) (') z ([) r 0 0 \ ~ )> < rr1 Z rr1 (/) x :3 z :::0 :J: 0 rr1 rr1 0 (/) rr1 -. ~ :J: -I :J (') rr1 0 rn z z -I )> -0 Vl s:: -I rr1 \ :::0 0 C (') '--. ~ ([) ...... 0 0 z -t- - - - R~~' .""... ;;:;:- 03-02 Nino Nil. C....-;;;......" R.laoatlonll'i1 ~'H ~ _M_ COVERSHEET ,J .--, JJ' ~e I O"TI-J> "TIC:ZZ ::0 -< -1-1-1 :r:r:r"O 1Tl1Tl1TlC: ::0 III o-or o rrl- ZO"OO -1-1-1 :::o:r::r:c: >1Tl -I 0::0)>- -I zr oco- ::0-1 -I _r_ -IrOITl O-OUl -I> O--IUI OH'T'I-::J: -IUlOO > Z:E -;::: Z Z>> -<ZO -I OZ :r1Tl ITlX;:::-I Z -C:I: 0 r- (/1(1) - -I O-l-lUl ITl o .. >>llJ"O -IZlTlr -0 > o <Z ZUlrrl :r:o> )>)>-::0 (lH-"T'IfT'I r_ Ul 1Tl0 C:lllOZ 01Tl r :r llJ-< . -1-< :r > 1Tl-l"O :r"O ::OlTl::O ITl 0 UlOX "00- OZ3: Z-I> Ul::O-l -1>1Tl III 0 --I ro -::0 -I' -< G'l o "0 :r ITl ::0 Ul -I > -I ITl o Z ITl o > r r Ul -< Ul -I ITl ;::: <Xl en OUl 0- ~J. UIUI NA 1.6 -0 eno enN Ul> :rr >r r r> "0 llJ-o ITlr 00 0> iij~ rlTl 1Tl"TI 01Tl o :E1Tl -::0 -II> :rr - ZUl -I -I> :r-l rrllTl 0> oz ZO VI -Ir ::00 c:o 0> -Ir or z> :E OUl ." I> -IZ :ro VIa ;u -00 ::0- oz <-> rrlZ 00 -I1Tl 'Ul . . Z e ;;I !:' mt-n...~ .:ID ar-.... CD UI N "TI 00 Ie . . n... ~~Z ~ ~ ~n_. ~.~ gl'lC 1'1 ~ C:JnZ~ l?1;g ..... < :J ::p''U~ 1lI;!ll: ~~~ : g E:~~ ~~~ ~~Z m ~ ~~~z ~~~ I'I~~ ; t Cg~~ ~~E en :a . -, cau""":c 0 r- DZ~ _ - _ml?1~ m ~~~ ~ ~8~~ dm~ "'... I ",;h,ca ...;lIe: .: Qi.... en ... U11 ~'{ fl1g_m ::u..r- Z PI ' N -- " 0 -8- (i). "'U IT1 n. .... !:;. ~~ ~ :: S; ~",ms:l i:la:l z ~ !ii? ~~ I i= =~~ g ~ ! ~ !i .... i zo ;;f~ it ~! ~.Ra "."ll;:il ."."... PI~ .aa" ~&' "d:..l ~=i. 5 b8. ~: ii~ ~~ U':! ;j:l~;;l !:j"'z :;; -a= ~i 11 ili~c ~g;! n i; "'~$lil . Pi;; ~ o c:;:J::tI CO ::-r: .. _~ "'...l!!' ~~ /. "'-z.. ..... . ~~o- m~ "'UfT11T'1" . . ".. ~ " o~ ~ ~ , SO~- 0 \ 8;~~ ~~ , -t-... \ ",~~! ~- 8...!:: ,..z /=O!;l;s ~ . 1Il a n" 3~ ..< n.. +m PO" mo; !l.:!: ~~ ... f VI. c~ !~ a - , :> ~ ~ ~ po l; )( VJ ~m ~ 9 ." ~". ~ : !!I ~ - ~~ " 3 .3 ~ po po ~ -+::::a ..... ::::J .... '" ~" . ~8 ~ .. - ~n a -~ ~ -l ;- +'" o . ~~ ~;' -10 .a ~ ~ ~ VI - n :> ~ PI .. .. ~ rr CD .",m !:ji!i~ ~"'~ ~d'" _n;;l z",.. ... ..._m "r->e mm_ zo.. n ... :"2;; ",a -m ;;l;:l .",.. !lie; ...... ';~ n.. me /li;:: z ..... :r: 51/= mr- '" '" ..... '" 0.. .../= l)l< m,.. Olil '0 C -l I o -l )> 7 l~ 'I, :11 ! , , II 0, ~ e ~~~#~ il u Ul' ct;' o *, e: " f~ ty of HopkIns ~c .. -, Pro!. 03-02 "Ine 11110 Cavo .:'_1" Ro'ooat'CIlllm' Watermaln Relaoatlon DESCAIPTIOHS DATE R~~ ". 00500 CONTRACT DOCUMENT THIS AGREEMENT made the day of 2003, by Metro Utilities Inc., hereinafter called the Contractor, and the City of Hopkins, hereinafter called the owner. WITNESSETH, that the Contractor and the Owner consideration hereinafter named agree as follows: for the ARTICLE 1. The Contractor agrees to provide all the materials, equipment and labor necessary for the complete construction of all the work shown on the drawings and described in the specifications prepared by the City's engineer and to do everything required by the specifications and the drawings for: Project 03-02 Nine Mile Cove Wate~ain Relocation ARTICLE 2. The Contractor agrees that the work contemplated by this contract shall be entirely completed on or before August 30, 2003. ARTICLE 3. The Owner agrees to pay the Contractor in current funds for the performance of this contract the sum of fourty three thousand sixty six dollars ($43,066.00) subject to the addi tions and deductions as provided for in the specifications and to make payments on account of the contract as provided for in the specifications, except as hereinafter stated~ . 00500-1 . . .. ARTICLE 4. The Contractor and the Owner agree that the specifications and the drawings, together with this agreement, form the contract and that such specifications and drawings are as fully a part of the contract as if attached or herein repeated. The Contractor and the Owner agree that the following is a complete list of the drawings and specifications: Plans and Specifications dated March 5, 2003 The Contractor and the Owner for themselves, their successors, executors, administrators and assigns hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF they have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. In the presence of: Contractor Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor Steven C. Mielke, City Manager 00500-2 " , . " CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2003-025 RESOLUTION FOR AWARD OF BID NINE MILE COVE WATERMAIN RELOCATION PROJECT CITY PROJECT 03-02 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that the lowest bid of Metro Utilities, Inc., in the amount of $43,066.00, is the lowest responsible bid for the Nine Mile Cove Watermain Relocation Project, City Project 03-02, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, this 1 st day of April 2003. By Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk