Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 1 of 75
911
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 2 of 75
912
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 3 of 75
913
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 4 of 75
914
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 5 of 75
915
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 6 of 75
916
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 7 of 75
917
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 8 of 75
918
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 9 of 75
919
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 10 of 75
920
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 11 of 75
921
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 12 of 75
922
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 13 of 75
923
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 14 of 75
924
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 15 of 75
925
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 16 of 75
926
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 17 of 75
927
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 18 of 75
928
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 19 of 75
929
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 20 of 75
930
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 21 of 75
931
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 22 of 75
932
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 23 of 75
933
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 24 of 75
934
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 25 of 75
935
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 26 of 75
936
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 27 of 75
937
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 28 of 75
938
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 29 of 75
939
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 30 of 75
940
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 31 of 75
941
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 32 of 75
942
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 33 of 75
943
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 34 of 75
944
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 35 of 75
945
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 36 of 75
946
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 37 of 75
947
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 38 of 75
948
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 39 of 75
949
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 40 of 75
950
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 41 of 75
951
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 42 of 75
952
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 43 of 75
953
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 44 of 75
954
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 45 of 75
955
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 46 of 75
956
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 47 of 75
957
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 48 of 75
958
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 49 of 75
959
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 50 of 75
960
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 51 of 75
961
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 52 of 75
962
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 53 of 75
963
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 54 of 75
964
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 55 of 75
965
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 56 of 75
966
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 57 of 75
967
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 58 of 75
968
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 59 of 75
969
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 60 of 75
970
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 61 of 75
971
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB Kyle D. Johnson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 62 of 75
Norman, Wendell N MVM [[email protected]] Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:43 PM Kyle D. Johnson Clayton, Carlos E MVM Venture Production Table Venture Production Breakdown.pdf
Venture Production Breakdown.p...
Mr. Johnson, Attached is the table provided by Weeks Marine, Inc. in response to the Memphis District's current dredging solicitation (W912EQ-08-B-0001). Wendell Norman
1
972
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 1 of 1 Page 63 of 75
Kyle D. Johnson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Kyle D. Johnson Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:38 AM 'Norman, Wendell N MVM' Douglas B. Mackie; 'Sauls, Daniel'
Subject: Solicitation Tracking: Recipient
'Norman, Wendell N MVM' Douglas B. Mackie 'Sauls, Daniel' Read: 4/9/2008 1:49 PM Read
Dear Mr. Norman, As discussed in our telecon yesterday regarding Amendment 5 to Solicitation W912EQ-08-B-0001, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company LLC intends to file a bid protest in the United States Court of Federal Claims regarding the referenced solicitation for the reasons stated in our letters dated February 8th, 14th, and 25th, 2008. We are preparing the protest and intend to file on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2008. As also discussed, Great Lakes requests to meet with the District in an effort to mutually resolve this dispute. We suggest a meeting in Memphis, Monday afternoon, April 14. Sincerely,
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC Kyle Johnson Vice President
tel (630) 574 3465 fax (630) 574 2909 [email protected]
cc: Douglas B. Mackie, President GLDD
4/28/2008
973
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 1 of 3 Page 64 of 75
Kyle D. Johnson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Kyle D. Johnson Friday, April 11, 2008 5:06 PM 'Norman, Wendell N MVM' Clayton, Carlos E MVM; Douglas B. Mackie
Subject: RE: Email from Weeks Marine to the Memphis District Corps of Engineers Dear Mr. Norman: Thank you for this information and the production table provided by Weeks Marine. I also wish to confirm our teleconference scheduled for Monday, April 14 at 2:00p to further discuss our concerns with the IFB. Further to the additional information you have provided, I would like to offer the following for your consideration: 1. The District states that the Weeks Venture did not perform at "full capacity" on the 2004 and 2007 Memphis District Mississippi River Rental contracts and only had to meet the "minimum requirement". Firstly, we are surprised that the Government would assert that its dredging contractor was allowed to purposefully perform at a rate below full capacity in order to increase rental contract earnings, especially given that an underperformance penalty provision was included in both the referenced contracts. Further, we believe the facts simply do not support this assertion. From Weeks' own daily reports, the Venture produced only 1062 cubic yards per hour during the 2004 contract. Thus, the Venture could not even meet the minimum requirement of 1100 cubic yard per pumping hour on the work performed. For the 2007 contract, Weeks' own records show that the Venture produced only 1044 cubic yards per hour from the required dredging template (968,867 required template cubic yards divided by 928.25 hours -- this is in contrast to "gross" cubic yards hour.) Again, the Venture could not meet the minimum requirement. Contrary to the assertion by Weeks Marine, the penalty for not working at full capacity is not new to the 2008 solicitation and the under-performance penalty was indeed in place for both contracts performed previously by Weeks. (Please see clauses 00800 SP-6 and 02482 2.1.1 of W912EQ-07-B-0010 and W912EQ-04-B-0019). Weeks was required by the contracts and under threat of a reduced payment penalty to work at full capacity and at least the minimum required production of 1100 cy/hour. The Venture could not do so. If the Venture had additional capacity in reserve, why would Weeks not utilize this capacity in 2004 or in 2007 to at least meet the minimum contract requirement? We do not believe it reasonable to assert that the Venture purposefully worked below her full capacity when in fact the dredge could not even reach the minimum production required by the contract under threat of a reduced payment penalty. 2. The production table provided by Weeks Marine only shows that the Venture's performance is widely variable and is highly dependent upon the characteristics of the work performed, like any other dredge. We also note that Weeks excludes some six other contracts performed in the same period. The best indicator of the Venture's production capacity on this solicitation is her actual historical performance on this same project. That the Venture has performed at higher or lower productions on other projects is no surprise. The fact remains that the Venture's historical production performance on this same project is at best equal to -- not greater than -that achieved by the Pontchartrain on the same work and, when taking into
4/28/2008
974
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 2 of 3 Page 65 of 75
account non-effective hours, the Venture has actually underperformed the Pontchartrain by over 10%. 3. Although it is less than the amount of data available for the Pontchartrain, the two years of historical production data for the Venture from this project are more than sufficient data to judge the Venture's performance on the work to be performed. This data includes two full seasons of work involving almost three million cubic yards of dredging and more than 3,000 pay hours on the predecessor contracts. 4. We do not concur that there is no dispute concerning the Venture's power or size. As proven by the actual historical performance of the dredges on this project, the ratio of pump discharge diameter that was used by the Corps to determine the relative rental bid hours is not a metric that determines dredge productivity on this project. Further, the Venture has in fact gained no production advantage due to its pump horsepower. Quite to the contrary, the Pontchartrain is as productive as the Venture on a effective hour basis on this project and is more productive than the Venture when taking into account non-effective hours. Given that the Weeks Venture has historically achieved average productions of only 1044 cy/hr and 1062 cy/hr on this project, and has further proven itself unable on this project to meet the minimum requirement of 1100 cy/hr, we do not understand how the District can now provide Weeks Marine a bidding advantage based on a production of 1321 cy/hr. Should Weeks wish to be provided a bidding advantage with the Venture, we respectfully suggest they first win the solicitation on an even playing field and then actually perform at the levels asserted. As we have asserted earlier, it remains clear from the historical performance data on this project that the Ponchartrain has a demonstrated and proven 12% production advantage per total effective and non-effective hours over the Venture, and that the Lot 2 estimated bid hours should be raised to 12% more than the Lot 1 estimated bid hours in order to provide a fair and equal basis for bidding. Nonetheless, in the spirit of partnering with the District, Great Lakes remains willing to accept that the Corps amend the solicitation for the rental portion of the work to a single bid schedule with single bid hours for a minimum 27-inch dredge as was done under Amendment #3. I look forward to further discussing the issues with you on Monday and exploring solutions for a fair resolution of this matter. Sincerely, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC Kyle Johnson Vice President
tel (630) 574 3465 fax (630) 574 2909 [email protected]
-----Original Message----From: Norman, Wendell N MVM [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 2:48 PM To: Kyle D. Johnson Cc: Clayton, Carlos E MVM Subject: Email from Weeks Marine to the Memphis District Corps of Engineers Mr. Johnson, Below is the only correspondence between the Corps and Weeks Marine that I have not already shared with you.
4/28/2008
975
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 3 of 3 Page 66 of 75
I assume we are still planning to meet Monday afternoon. you get a definitive time established. Wendell Norman 901-544-0775 -----Original Message----From: Steve Chatry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:37 PM To: Norman, Wendell N MVM Subject: memphis rental Wendell:
Let me know when
After reviewing the historical production data, my primary concern is that there is significantly more data with respect to the dredge Ponchartrain than the Venture and, as such, a meaningful comparison may not be possible. Also, it is interesting to note that the highest production to date (1,207 cy/hr) was achieved by the Venture. In any event there is no dispute with respect to pump size and horsepower. In the case of the Venture, it has approximately 50% more horsepower and a 2 inch larger pump discharge diameter. These attributes must be recognized when developing the number of hours for a given dredge on the bid schedule.
Another key aspect of this issue is the fact that the solicitation was amended to include a penalty in the event the contractor is unable to meet a minimum production rate. The addition of this provision ensures that the equipment is meeting its capabilities, and if it is not, a commensurately lower rate of earnings will apply. This compensates for various equipment sizes and capabilities and levels the playing field for all contractors.
Steve
4/28/2008
976
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB Kyle D. Johnson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr. Johnson,
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 67 of 75
Norman, Wendell N MVM [[email protected]] Saturday, April 12, 2008 10:17 AM Kyle D. Johnson Clayton, Carlos E MVM; Douglas B. Mackie RE: Email from Weeks Marine to the Memphis District Corps of Engineers
I don't want to get into a war of words. previous e-mail.
However, I must clarify one statement in your
I have not made the statement (nor has the Memphis District) that the "Venture did not perform at full capacity". In a phone conversation with you, I said "There is nothing in the daily logs that indicate the Venture was operating at full capacity." Your analysis is predicated on the assumption that the Venture was operating at full capacity and/or fully utilizing it's capabilities during the performance of the two contracts included in your table. In my opinion, Great Lakes has not adequately proven this assumption. Very Respectfully, Wendell Norman -----Original Message----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 5:06 PM To: Norman, Wendell N MVM Cc: Clayton, Carlos E MVM; [email protected] Subject: RE: Email from Weeks Marine to the Memphis District Corps of Engineers Dear Mr. Norman:
Thank you for this information and the production table provided by Weeks Marine.
I also wish to confirm our teleconference scheduled for Monday, April 14 at 2:00p to further discuss our concerns with the IFB.
Further to the additional information you have provided, I would like to offer the following for your consideration:
1. The District states that the Weeks Venture did not perform at "full capacity" on the 2004 and 2007 Memphis District Mississippi River Rental contracts and only had to meet the "minimum requirement". Firstly, we are surprised that the Government would assert that its dredging contractor was allowed to purposefully perform at a rate below full capacity in order to increase rental contract earnings, especially given that an underperformance penalty provision was included in both the referenced contracts. Further, we believe the facts simply do not support this assertion. From Weeks' own daily reports, the Venture produced only 1062 cubic yards per hour during the 2004 contract. Thus, the Venture could not even meet the minimum requirement of 1100 cubic yard per pumping hour on the work performed. For the 2007 contract, Weeks' own records show that the Venture produced only 1044 cubic yards per hour from the required
1
977
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 68 of 75
dredging template (968,867 required template cubic yards divided by 928.25 hours -- this is in contrast to "gross" cubic yards hour.) Again, the Venture could not meet the minimum requirement. Contrary to the assertion by Weeks Marine, the penalty for not working at full capacity is not new to the 2008 solicitation and the under-performance penalty was indeed in place for both contracts performed previously by Weeks. (Please see clauses 00800 SP-6 and 02482 2.1.1 of W912EQ-07-B-0010 and W912EQ-04-B-0019). Weeks was required by the contracts and under threat of a reduced payment penalty to work at full capacity and at least the minimum required production of 1100 cy/hour. The Venture could not do so. If the Venture had additional capacity in reserve, why would Weeks not utilize this capacity in 2004 or in 2007 to at least meet the minimum contract requirement? We do not believe it reasonable to assert that the Venture purposefully worked below her full capacity when in fact the dredge could not even reach the minimum production required by the contract under threat of a reduced payment penalty. 2. The production table provided by Weeks Marine only shows that the Venture's performance is widely variable and is highly dependent upon the characteristics of the work performed, like any other dredge. We also note that Weeks excludes some six other contracts performed in the same period. The best indicator of the Venture's production capacity on this solicitation is her actual historical performance on this same project. That the Venture has performed at higher or lower productions on other projects is no surprise. The fact remains that the Venture's historical production performance on this same project is at best equal to -- not greater than -- that achieved by the Pontchartrain on the same work and, when taking into account non-effective hours, the Venture has actually underperformed the Pontchartrain by over 10%. 3. Although it is less than the amount of data available for the Pontchartrain, the two years of historical production data for the Venture from this project are more than sufficient data to judge the Venture's performance on the work to be performed. This data includes two full seasons of work involving almost three million cubic yards of dredging and more than 3,000 pay hours on the predecessor contracts. 4. We do not concur that there is no dispute concerning the Venture's power or size. As proven by the actual historical performance of the dredges on this project, the ratio of pump discharge diameter that was used by the Corps to determine the relative rental bid hours is not a metric that determines dredge productivity on this project. Further, the Venture has in fact gained no production advantage due to its pump horsepower. Quite to the contrary, the Pontchartrain is as productive as the Venture on a effective hour basis on this project and is more productive than the Venture when taking into account non-effective hours.
Given that the Weeks Venture has historically achieved average productions of only 1044 cy/hr and 1062 cy/hr on this project, and has further proven itself unable on this project to meet the minimum requirement of 1100 cy/hr, we do not understand how the District can now provide Weeks Marine a bidding advantage based on a production of 1321 cy/hr. Should Weeks wish to be provided a bidding advantage with the Venture, we respectfully suggest they first win the solicitation on an even playing field and then actually perform at the levels asserted.
As we have asserted earlier, it remains clear from the historical performance data on this project that the Ponchartrain has a demonstrated and proven 12% production advantage per total effective and non-effective hours over the Venture, and that the Lot 2 estimated bid hours should be raised to 12% more than the Lot 1 estimated bid hours in order to provide a fair and equal basis for bidding.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of partnering with the District, Great Lakes remains willing to accept that the Corps amend the solicitation for the rental portion of the work to a single bid schedule with single bid hours for a minimum 27-inch dredge as was done under
2
978
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Amendment #3.
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 69 of 75
I look forward to further discussing the issues with you on Monday and exploring solutions for a fair resolution of this matter.
Sincerely,
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC Kyle Johnson Vice President tel (630) 574 3465 fax (630) 574 2909 [email protected]
-----Original Message----From: Norman, Wendell N MVM [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 2:48 PM To: Kyle D. Johnson Cc: Clayton, Carlos E MVM Subject: Email from Weeks Marine to the Memphis District Corps of Engineers
Mr. Johnson,
Below is the only correspondence between the Corps and Weeks Marine that I have not already shared with you.
I assume we are still planning to meet Monday afternoon. you get a definitive time established.
Let me know when
Wendell Norman 901-544-0775
-----Original Message----From: Steve Chatry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:37 PM
3
979
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
To: Norman, Wendell N MVM Subject: memphis rental
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 70 of 75
Wendell:
After reviewing the historical production data, my primary concern is that there is significantly more data with respect to the dredge Ponchartrain than the Venture and, as such, a meaningful comparison may not be possible. Also, it is interesting to note that the highest production to date (1,207 cy/hr) was achieved by the Venture. In any event there is no dispute with respect to pump size and horsepower. In the case of the Venture, it has approximately 50% more horsepower and a 2 inch larger pump discharge diameter. These attributes must be recognized when developing the number of hours for a given dredge on the bid schedule.
Another key aspect of this issue is the fact that the solicitation was amended to include a penalty in the event the contractor is unable to meet a minimum production rate. The addition of this provision ensures that the equipment is meeting its capabilities, and if it is not, a commensurately lower rate of earnings will apply. This compensates for various equipment sizes and capabilities and levels the playing field for all contractors.
Steve
4
980
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 1 of 1 Page 71 of 75
Kyle D. Johnson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Kyle D. Johnson Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:45 PM 'Norman, Wendell N MVM' Douglas B. Mackie
Subject: W912EQ-08-B-0001 Tracking: Recipient
'Norman, Wendell N MVM' Douglas B. Mackie Read: 4/15/2008 3:13 PM Read
Mr Norman: A bonus scheme something like you suggested during our telecon yesterday has been used for rentals in the New Orleans District. (See DACW29-97-B-0035 and others). As I confirmed yesterday, Great Lakes would accept in principle a single bid schedule with an adjustment in payment for production above the minimum requirement. Frankly, we do not see why Weeks would not do so. If a bidder is confident they can produce at higher productions than the minimum, the bonus would allow them to price any such advantage into their bid. We feel this is the fair solution instead of giving Weeks an automatic bid advantage in spite of them historically performing at levels nowhere near the 1321 cy/hr provided and even below the minimum requirement. If they are not confident that they can earn the bonus, then we again fail to understand how they can be provided a bid advantage based on higher production. regards, kyle Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC Kyle Johnson Vice President
tel (630) 574 3465 fax (630) 574 2909 [email protected]
4/28/2008
981
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB Kyle D. Johnson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kyle,
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 72 of 75
Norman, Wendell N MVM [[email protected]] Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:41 PM Kyle D. Johnson Clayton, Carlos E MVM RE: W912EQ-08-B-0001
I don't have a copy of the solicitation. Orleans District.
I will attempt to get a copy from the New
As I read the court case, it appears that the bid schedule in the solicitation was set up with different bid schedules to be evaluated for different size/type dredges. That tends to contradict an incentive contract based on one bid schedule. The incentive idea is not a dead issue; however, I do not think that incentives alone will solve the potential protest. Wendell -----Original Message----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12:45 PM To: Norman, Wendell N MVM Cc: [email protected] Subject: W912EQ-08-B-0001 Mr Norman:
A bonus scheme something like you suggested during our telecon yesterday has been used for rentals in the New Orleans District. (See DACW29-97-B-0035 and others). As I confirmed yesterday, Great Lakes would accept in principle a single bid schedule with an adjustment in payment for production above the minimum requirement. Frankly, we do not see why Weeks would not do so. If a bidder is confident they can produce at higher productions than the minimum, the bonus would allow them to price any such advantage into their bid. We feel this is the fair solution instead of giving Weeks an automatic bid advantage in spite of them historically performing at levels nowhere near the 1321 cy/hr provided and even below the minimum requirement. If they are not confident that they can earn the bonus, then we again fail to understand how they can be provided a bid advantage based on higher production.
regards,
kyle
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC Kyle Johnson Vice President tel (630) 574 3465
1
982
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
fax (630) 574 2909
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 73 of 75
[email protected]
2
983
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 1 of 2 Page 74 of 75
Kyle D. Johnson
From: Sent: To: Kyle D. Johnson Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:07 PM 'Norman, Wendell N MVM'
Subject: RE: Venture Production Table
Dear Mr. Norman: We have reviewed the Dredge Venture production table supplied by Weeks Marine. As stated in my April 11 email to you, this table is irrelevant and at most shows that the Venture's production rates have been widely variable and highly dependent on the characteristics of the work required on the different jobs, as is the case with any dredge. The best evidence of the Venture's ability to perform under the IFB is its prior performance under the 2004 and 2007 Memphis District rental contracts. Nevertheless we do also question the data presented in the table. For example, we have obtained copies of Weeks' daily reports and pay estimates for the 2002-2003 Baptiste Collette project under the Freedom of Information Act. The data from those documents do not square with the figures in the table provided by Weeks. For this project, Weeks' reported on their daily reports and pay invoices to the Corps of Engineers the following numbers: CY PAY CY GROSS DELAYS 1,230,590 cubic yards 1,265,320 cubic yards 555 hours
Subtracting the 555 delay hours from the 1774 total hours that Weeks shows in their table results in 1,219 operating hours. Thus, from Weeks records reported to the Corps, the Dredge Venture produced 1,009 cubic yards pay per operating hour (1,230,590 cy ÷ 1,219 hours)and 1,038 cubic yards gross per operating hour (1,265,320 ÷ 1,219 hours) on this project. This production is considerably less than 1,109 cy pay per hour and 1,426 cubic yards gross per hour represented in the table and also much less than the 1321 cy/hr production afforded the Venture on the Memphis rental. Further we also note that the "average" production rates represented in Weeks table are not mathematically correct and are overstated. These averages should calculated by dividing the total gross cubic yards and the total pay cubic yards by the total time on all jobs listed. Instead, the table calculates the "average of the averages", which overstates the production achieved. Thank you for your continued consideration in this matter. kyle Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC Kyle Johnson Vice President / Chief Contract Manager
tel (630) 574 3465 fax (630) 574 2909 [email protected]
4/28/2008
984
Case 1:08-cv-00282-SGB
Document 15-2
Filed 05/12/2008
Page 2 of 2 Page 75 of 75
-----Original Message----From: Norman, Wendell N MVM [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:43 PM To: Kyle D. Johnson Cc: Clayton, Carlos E MVM Subject: Venture Production Table Mr. Johnson, Attached is the table provided by Weeks Marine, Inc. in response to the Memphis District's current dredging solicitation (W912EQ-08-B-0001). Wendell Norman
4/28/2008
985
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms