Date: January 23, 2004
Committee Members Present: Weise, Ashford, Cassity, and Sprecher.Others Present: Ted Brenson, Matt Filus, Gina Templin, Reggie Jaquish and Greg Borecki from Team Engineering, Gene Wiegand, Chad Hendee.
Chairman Weise called the meeting to order at 11:15 a.m. and staff certified the meeting had been properly posted. Motion by Sprecher, seconded by Cassity to adopt agenda as changed. Motion carried.
Communications:
None to report.
Business Items:
None to report.
Team Engineering
A. Status and presentation on Bear Creek and Washington GPS Control Project.
Reggie Jaquish, Team Engineering presented history and background of staff and equipment on this project. He reviewed mass mailings to people in the area, research of property in the area and began working on the control network for baseline information and then to the more difficult terrain. Before Christmas met with members of mapping regarding the project and status of it and what was needed from the county. It was discovered that the needed to change to focus of the project to meet the county's needs. Control network has been resubmitted and meets the 1 in 50,000 criteria and once that is approved the coordinate values will be forthcoming .
Filus then spoke of some concerns that he had on the project and under the impression that they would receive a final adjusted network and 70 corner positions provided, which have not been provided to date. He also spoke of control points that have not met the requirements that are being reviewed.
Mr. Jaquish then stated that he cant submit corners without having the control network and briefly explained the controls and phases and referred to the map submitted. He also stated that there is a 95% tolerance that a certain point is in that position, they can use those to tie the points to and currently are occupying them and observing the points.
Responding to a question from the committee, Mr. Jaquish spoke of readjusting the harn and Mr. Filus gave additional information.
Cassity asked whether the data was wrong to start with and its still wrong or if it was right and is still right.
Mr. Jaquish believes the data is right. Mr. Filus referred to the RFP and explained a subnetwork (smaller than state and county harn) and gave a copy of the Troy project to Team and stated that was the type of work they were looking for. He then spoke of the equipment that Team spoke about using on the project and other equipment that is used by the Industry to do project of this type. Filus suggested that there are about 5 or 6 areas that are nearly 7/10th of a foot off and believes there is something in the data set that doesn't compute. Now the errors are distributed to somewhere else. To answer the questions, it is the same problems, however the errors are just distributed somewhere else. Filus again referred to the RFP and specifications and stated that the bottom line is that the positional accuracy should end up somewhere around ¾ of an inch, rather than 7/10th of a foot.
Ashford asked what a dataset means. Filus explained.
Ashford asked if they have already submitted, what would they change now and would they go back and look at what was already submitted. Jaquish stated this shouldn't be an advesarily process, but a working relationship process and they can't be completely error free, but choose to manage their errors.
Ashford asked when you work on datasets what tells you that something would be incorrect. Jaquish stated that the software he has compares with what is adjusted to the known points. 8391 adjustment to a 8397 adjustment. Filus stated the specs call for the 97 values and questions why the 91 values were used.
Filus stated the meeting is not to be advesarily and his concern is related to time and completion of the project and continued to talk about the labor intensive process and the work that needs to be done.
Jaquish stated they are not geodetic engineers. Ashford asked when the project started and when it is to be completed by. Filus stated it started on or near September 26th and have 48-50 calendar days left to complete the project.
Filus asked about failed vectors and network adjustment.
Ashford stated the completion of this project is based on 2 grants that total around $97,000 if the project is completed.
The committee then reviewed the steps that would need to be taken in the project after Team was finished with their work to complete the project to get the grant.
Ashford asked if the work isn't correct, who is going to fix it. Brenson stated that in the last project, the hired individual went out and immediately resolved the issue.
Sprecher asked about Team taking on more help to address the time issues on the project. Mr. Borecki stated they have crews hired to work on the project and their actual start date was October 1st.
Sprecher asked what he felt the timing was to complete the project. Mr. Borecki stated it should be completed by March 15th. Washington should be done with the observation by February 1st.
Filus stated that the length of observation may not have been ample and feels there may be problems with how the software derives the coordinates. Jaquish stated that he had talked to tech support on his software to deal with that issue.
Filus stated that there are a lot of points in the project where things could go wrong. "1 bad apple could spoil the bunch" and gave an example relating to the project.
Ashford asked if in a week from now, Team could do something that could prove that they can complete the project and provide something to the Mapping and Surveyors office that is acceptable per the RFP. Jaquish stated they could do that and he could reobserve the network within a week.
Filus stated there could be errors in the height issues and explained. He also talked about the involvement in the project and feels that he could have a conflict of interest and feels that he has already spent too much time on the project, especially when there are people involved that should be able to handle it.
The committee continued to talk to Filus on how the project is or should be done.
Filus asked why Team would reobserve the network a 3rd time. Jaquish stated he wasn't sure, but felt it could be done.
Cassity asked about communication between Filus and Team. Filus stated he provided examples, specification of the project and the contractor should be able to complete the work.
Cassity asked Jaquish if they are going to get the job done or not. Jaquish stated that is their intention.
Sprecher asked if they had other expertise to depend on other than Filus and all the committee can say is they want it done on time and done right. Jaquish stated they do.
Brenson asked what someone from the DOT would say if they told them they were 7/10th of a foot off. Jaquish stated the DOT wasn't comfortable with it either.
Ashford stated they need some guarantee that they can submit work in a short period of time that will be acceptable to Brenson and Filus.
Hendee asked about time frames to get this part of the project correct so they can move on. Jaquish stated that he agrees with Matt on his assessment of the data being inaccurate and has a copy of repeat vectors in front him which he referred to. He also stated that within a week it is possible to provide accurate information, but does not want to be held to a week.
Filus stated there are 200 corners left to observe in 52 days, which would be about 8 a day and asked how that would be accomplished. Jaquish stated they would have a crew on each corner for an hour or 2.
Wiegand asked if the issue that it is 7/10th of a foot off or is it that the process that arrived at that is flawed. Filus stated the devil is in the detail and his concern is somewhere in the process and there are many points of possible error.
Wiegand asked what will be changed in the process that will correct the error.
Sprecher stated he wants to know that they are going to incorporate some kind of expertise to assist and help in the duties that Filus is having to take care of.
Borecki stated they have talked to the State Engineer. Jaquish asked how they could assure the committee.
Wiese stated they should have these problems solved by Feb 10th committee meeting and if they don't have it done by then, the problems probably won't be solved.
Cassity stated if Team agrees that it is wrong, why does Filus have to tell you that it is wrong, that process of correcting errors should happen before it gets to Filus.
Filus stated his concern is times and if there is potential without knowing what the problem is. If it is the data, then there will be problems with meeting the deadline. This project could have a substantial impact on the county's finished project and money invested if this particular project isn't completed correctly and on time.
Sprecher does not want to give an extension until they are satisfied that this particular problem has been taken care of and can move on.
Wiese stated if it is not taken care of by the 10th of February the committee has to look for someone else to complete the project.
Cassity asked what kind of timing is acceptable. Filus stated the sooner the better and they need accurate information. Filus also stated he didn't endorse the contract, the committee did. He wants to see what is in the best interest of the county and there are several options, but we need to get to where we need to be with GIS in the best way. He stated he has voiced his concerns and if they don't complete on time, do you want to penalize, break the contract, what does the committee want to do.
Cassity asked Filus if he believes they should break the contract or go to Feb 10th to see if things will play out. Filus stated if the contract continues another month and the data isn't correct, then what do you do? Concerns are who is going to get the data, what happens with contractual pay for what was done and what happens to the $97,000 grant money if the project doesn't get completed on time.
Brenson stated there is no grant extension allowed for the $97,000. He also stated at the bear minimum 90 days to map after the project was done.
Filus broke down the days and the process for RFP's using the last list and whether or not the county board has to approve. Wiegand and Hendee provided what would need to be done through RFPs and county board.
Filus stated based on timing, if the contract would be broke and needed to hire a new firm, it would have to go to County Board in February to contract with a new firm to complete the work.
Ashford stated there is a lack of confidence in Team's ability to complete the project correctly and on time.
Cassity asked if the data submitted today would be acceptable. Filus stated that was the data he was referring to during the meeting. Cassity confirmed the Jaquish was not happy with the data he submitted either.
Jaquish stated he could start discussing the project with others as soon as the meeting is over.
Wiegand asked if the issue is with the control or the surveying the follows the control. Filus stated both and discussed.
Cassity stated the 10th sounds good, but then they have to go back to Matt, he is the county surveyor elected by the citizens and he is their "specialist" and doesn't want to hear "I told you so".
The committee discussed timing problems with if they chose to need to hire another contractor.
Filus stated that if Jaquish feels his field information is good, then it is a software issue, which could be fixed rather quickly, so 18 days would be excessive. Jaquish agreed.
Ashford asked if there could be a progress report as of next Tuesday's meeting of the committee. Jaquish stated he could know a lot by then and would have some answers and could attend the meeting.
Filus asked if they received professional training with their equipment and software that is being used on the project. Jaquish stated they did not.
Ashford asked if they are not familiar with the equipment. Jaquish stated he has been using it since October 1st. Ashford stated that it could be part of the problem here that they don't have the proper or any training of the equipment being used.
Filus asked if they will end up with about 4-500 vectors on the project. Jaquish said roughly, yes.
Hendee stated that there is an ability by the county to terminate for default if after 20 days of receiving written notice the contract fails to rectify the default. He referred to the December 9th letter from Filus to Team. Hendee stated he recommended that if cancellation is where they feel they are headed, they produce written notice as to what they specifically find default with.
Motion by Ashford for Hendee to prepare a letter today that they have 20 days to satisfy all concerns and issues otherwise the contract will be canceled, seconded by Sprecher. Motion carried.
Cassity clarified with Jaquish and Borecki that they understand the committees stance and what will take place if they are not able to fulfill the requirements of the contract.
Filus asked about "item D" and project invoicing. He stated that he has paid Team to date, but after that payment will be held.
Wiese stated an extension will not be discussed until the committee is comfortable that the project will be done right.
The committee then discussed item d. Filus stated the payment being held is for the work that hasn't been completed to date, but invoiced.
Hendee asked if it is specially broken out to what was provided or payment based on time? Filus stated it was a discussion at the December 17th meeting. Hendee asked how much the invoice is for $31,600. His legal opinion is the payment within 30 days of receipt providing good and services delivered, installed or accepted, as specified.
Sprecher believes the check should be held until they can correct issues and prove that they can complete the job to specifications. Ashford and Wiese agree. Cassity state they will know by the 27th on their progress and then a decision will be made after the Feb 10th meeting.
Motion to adjourn by Ashford, seconded by Sprecher. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Ashford, Secretary