Free Response to Cross Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

SUBMITTAL REGISTER
(ER415-1-10)
CONTRACTOR
TYPE OF SUBMITTAL
FICATION
i N

CONTRACT NO,
SPECIFICA nON SECTION
CONTRACTOR ACTION
GOVERNMENT ACTION

TITLE AND LOCATION
CLASSl-

KVK Contract 8
CONTRACTOR SCHEDULE DArES

0
I

A

c
s
& N
G

T

i

s
T
I R R

I

V

T E

T S

C E R T

I

M

D ReA
0
SUBMIT
D

MF
C
APPROVAL MATERIAL NEEDED BY NEEDED BY
DATE
E

0
0
E V
I

R U H T
A C E E
E
F I

SUBMIT TO
GOVERNMENT

C

0
D E

DATE

REMARKS

T

TRANSMITTAl NO,

y
M0
E

N

SPECIFICATION PARAGRAPH NUMBER

0
N R T
E V
W
E R

MP C E a A
T T E

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

N

0

W T D D I I U A N 0 L T G N E

ASS 5
S S S

S A M P L E S
L 0 L N E S N Y T D

R E C 0 R 0 S

M A N U A

R M A T 0 I N

V E R N

A P P R

DESCRIPTION OF ITEM SUBMITTED e,

.,
f g h
;

b.

,
i
k i. m " 0

d p
q
"

,
I

"

"

w,

,

y,

,

"

oo8oo,1.8c
X Report X X

Pricing Data

x

x

oo800,1.8.a,b, Claims
x
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Document 34-3

000034
x
X

s:
A A

00800,1.16

Fue

Usage

'" '"
of InsDecton Certifcae

00800,1.24
x

Breakdown of Contract Work

:i

o

00800,1.28

AccidentPrevenlionPlan

00800, 1.29

Certificate

00800, 1.32

Insurance

00800, 1.33

Field Ofce

00800,1.37.b

Orr of WorK for Dredging and Others

00800,1.41

Safe Price Manual & Diing Operation Plan

A
E A A A A A

SiedesposaALT

00800,1.45-1,2
X

X X X X X X

Filed 04/14/2008

01130,1.6.8
x

Environment Protecion Plan

01312,1.9

aCSUpclte

01320,1.1
Projec Schedule

InilialProiectSchedule

01320,1.1

Preiminary

01320,1.1
Qualifcations

PerodicSchedi.eUpdale

Page 1 of 31

01320,1.1

Personnel

01320,1.1
Report

NarrativeReoo

01320,1.1

Schedule

x

x

ENG FORM 4288, Jul 96

Page

of

Pages

(Proonent: CEMP-CE)

SUBMITTAL REGISTER
(ER415-1.10)
CONTRACTOR
TYPE OF SUBMITTAL
FICATION
I N

CONTRACT NO.
SPECIFICATION SECTION
CONTRACTOR ACTION
GOVERNMENT ACTION

TITLE AND LOCATION
CLASSI-

KVK Contract 8
CONTRACTOR SCHEDULE DATES

C

A

C T

I

0
I

S S
G

E R

& N

T E
T

S
T
A R

T

MF

0
C

I V I

TRANSMITTAl
R I F

M

SPECifICATION
S
E
R A U C

o R
C H

0
SUBMIT
D

T

NO.

Y D A I I

N

PARAGRAPH NUMBER
DATE

T E
V I

APPROVAL MATERIAL NEEDED BY NEEDED BY
E

0

SUBMIT TO
GOVERNMENT

C

0
0
E

DATE

REMARKS

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

0
E

WT
N 0 T G N
W
E R A

N

0
S S
DESCRIPTION OF ITEM SUBMITTED

V A R M R E P E I A E A M E R P D M P C M C N A N R U E 0 A P OUT 0 M 0 L N R T L R A I N E V E T T E E 0 L 0 L N E S S S S S S S N Y T 0

.
,
g. h. ;,

b

"

d,
k,

.
J
p,
X X X X X X

I. m. n ,0,
q
t.

,

,

"

"

w,

,

y,

,

..

01320, 3.5.1

Data Disks

X

01320, 3.5.2 Report Diagram Prevention Reprt X X X X X X X X Plan X X

Narrative Reøort

Document 34-3

000035
A A

':
x A

01320, 3.5.4

Scedul

w
x x

w

01320,3.5.5

Netrk

x

2:

~
Lo

01420,2.0

ccidenl

01420,5.0

Dailv QualiIV Con

01420,5.0

Daily Inspection

01420,6.4

Crane & Derick Operalots Qualifications

A

01420,8.0
LineWo Plii

Montly Exsure Repor

Filed 04/14/2008

01420, 10.3

Eneroized

01420,12.0

Safe Meeting Document

X

X

01451,3.2

QuaiityConlrlPlan

X X X X

X X

X

A

01451,3.3

cac Svstem

01451,3.9

cac Documentation

X X X X X X X X

Page 2 of 31

02100,4

DriUersLoo

A

02100,6

Samoles

02100,9.2

Equipment

ENG FORM 4288, Jul 96

Page

of

Pages

(Proponent: CEMP-CE)

SUBMITTAL REGISTER
fER 415-1-10)

CONTRACT NO.

TITLE AND LOCATION

KVK Contract 8
CONTRCTOR
TYPE OF 5 U8MlTTAL
I N C

SPECIFICATION SECTION
CONTRACTOR ACTION

CLASSIFICATION
CONTRACTOR SCHEDULE DATES
E
I G

GOVERNMENT ACTION

A

C T

I

0
& N

S S
R

TRANSR R

T E

T S
T

T

MF

0
C
E

I V I

MITTAL

M

ORe A
0
S
SUBMIT

SPECIFICATION PARAGRAPH

U H
T
R

T

NO

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Y

N

NUMBER

A C

I F I

M R A M 0
E

APPROVAL MATERIAL NEEDED BY NEEDED BY
DATE

0

SUBMIT TO
GOVERNMENT

C

0
0
E

DATE

REMARKS

0
E

W T
M 0 E V
W
E
R

V E R N
V I

A P P R

N

0
N E

R E E E A E D M P C M C U E 0 A P 0 L N R T L R E T T E E 0
T 0

N A 0 I I U T 0 A N 0 A I N T G N L 0 L S S S S S S S N Y

ASS
q,

DESCRIPTION OF
ITEM SUBMITTED

,
,
g. h. f,

,
j,

, ,
'- m. n. o.

d
p
t
X X X X X X X X X Bisst Plan X X Log Fomi X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

.
,

,

"

,

w.

"

y,

,

"

02200, 1.2.1

INklv InsDQions and Claim Report

02200 1.3.1

Exolosivelnventory

Document 34-3

000036
A

02200, 1.5.2

PublicMeengColTspondenc&

:¡ '" '"
A A
Monitoring Pln

02200, 2.5

ContinQencvPlan

s:

'"

02200, 4.3

lvibralion

02200, 4.3

Blast Recrds

02200, 4.4

ir Blast Data

02200 5.2.1

rrest Blast Plan

A A A

02200,5.4

Report

02200,6.1

Operatiril

Filed 04/14/2008

02200,7

Dri Log and Blast Repor Form

02220, 1.3

WOrkplan

02900, 4

ITransporttiOl

02900,6.2

Disposal Scedule w/anticipat quantites

A x
X X X X X X X

02900,6.7
Reprt

NorrHARS Matrial Disposal Schedule

02900,7.4

Observaton

Page 3 of 31

0290,7.3

AlIPiacmenActvities

02900, a

Daily Report of Operation X

11010,1.2

Digital Photo Management System

X

A

ENG FORM 4288, Jul 96

" Page

of

Pages

(Proient:CEMP-CE)

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 4 of 31

000037

oiisoo

-,~":'-;.

, ~.

,

.'

--~
/
.i
.-,'/~ .-..
'i

\

i

I

i

,

i

i

i

\1 :

.¡

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 5 of 31

~
tha 48.5 feet ML W. Th surey

Quaity Contrl Surey Pla

Hydrphic Sur wi be peormed on a day bais for eah dredge to confrm th
design de ba been achieved and to deteine if any dredg ii occWTed deepe
equipmet wil consist of an Odom Hydrogrphc
Echo Sca Multibeam sys 1hs systm will ii 15 chals for a tota be width of 90 degres Th horizon positions will be derve frm a trble MS 750 RTK. GPS

reeive. The reeiver will us RTK adjuseits frm a ba reiver at a known
locaton. The posion of sodis frm each beam ar adjus wiùi readgs from a 1'8 Merdian Gyo and a TSS heve, pitch. ai roll motion senor.
The calibraton of eah dece wil be cheked pror to conducting a surey. The velocity
of sound in wa wil be obsed by physcaly hanin a disc beth the truc at

pre me depth an adjust th velocit of sound acoidgly. Reaingi will al
be recordd fr an Odor Digiba at elevations consistent with th expecte rage of

depts to be encounte.

Surey lins will be pr planed to include an overla of at least 20 fee betwn pase,
lh helian will navigate th surey vesl with guidace frm "Coas

r-

Ocogrcs HYSWEEP" soft. Th hydrgrpher will have an indedent display for obseing sounings an side sca retu in rel tim. Tides will be rerded
an tie std dur the suey to develop a tide cue for post procsing ofùie

data. Dur post proin, da will compar in the overla region to confi
retale conssteny. Sounings wil be plottd on boar the surey vesL. The plots
wil consis of

baymetc maps an cro seons marked with sttions corrndín

to th cuts On th drge plan. In ùie event, the is any questions abut th integrty of
the soundings th surey will be re-peoned and a companson will be mae. Also

soungs wi be performed in a "contl ara" which will be estblishe prior to th

st of excavation The contol area will be adjacent to th work area whee no drgig is anticipated. lh resuts in th ar will be th sa when all eqipmen is properly
calibr. Th only excetion wil be wh some shoaling ii occur whch wil be
noticeable over ti.

Plottd sounding!; will be diussed with th capta and the operator. Any adjustmnts to theses sounings. The plottd th diggi depth an width wi deteined frm resuts of
sounings wi:r. be arhive on the dredge and in th field offce as a ha coy an in
digita form. ' IUchives will be us as a basis for any future clean up if needed.

On a bi-wekly ,àsis a complete survey of all cuent work aras will be pefored to
deterne th payable volwn of mateal removed in each accepta Setion. Each

suey will be conducted usin ùie metds prously described.

r-

000038

005271

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 6 of 31

John James Gall
Page 18
1

Q.

Okay. Prior to writing this letter, did Army

2 Corps of Engineers personnel tell you that the standard

3 of acceptance for the KVK 8 contract would be a matrix

4 of three by three average soundings?
5

A.

Three by three wasn't mentioned, but average

6 soundings were discussed any number of times.
7

Q.

Do you recall who from the Army Corps of

8 Engineers told you that acceptance would be measured by

9 average soundings?
10
A.

I recall a number of people when asked that

11 question were - - did not respond directly. 12 Okay. Who didn't respond? Q.
13

A.

Well, they did not respond. They said that it

14 may be. Sandy McDonnell (ph) and Ron Conetta,

15 Mark Alton, Sam DiDato.
16

MR. WEINBERG: A-l -t -o-n. D- i -D-a- t -0. D- i

17 is lower case. Both Ds are capital. Sorry. Never

18 mind.
19 BY MS. KILFoYLE:
20
Q.

Do you recall when these discussions occurred?

21

A.

There were two phases of the project. One was

22 material that was unsuitable for unconfined aquatic

23 disposal. That material went upland. The other was

24 material that was suitable for aquatic disposal. The
25 unconfined aquatic disposable material was done with
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES DC 1-800-441-3376 MD 1-800-539-6398 VA 1-800-752-8979
000039

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 7 of 31

Alex E. Dick
Page 28
1
2 3

A.
Q.

Yeah.
Do you remember when the first time you
discussed that with the corps?

4
5 6 7 8 9

A.

I don 't.

I don i t recall. We had several

meetings, we had progress meetings all the
time, but early -- early in the project.
Q.

Did any representative of the corps ever tell

you that the average method would be used to
process acceptance surveys?

A.
Q.

Yes.
Do you recall when that occurred?
It was early in the proj ect because we were in
acceptance Area 1, so I don r t remember the

A.
13 14

date exactly.
time.
Q.

I mean, I don r t even remember

15 16 17 18 19 20 A.

the month exactly, but it was around that

Do you recall who told you that the average method would be used to process acceptance

surveys?
It was either Ron Conetta or Mark Kucera or it
might - - probably one or two of them.

21
22 23 24
Q.

Probably Mark Kucera.

Was anyone else present for that discussion?

A.

Yeah. Jim Galli, I believe Paul Porter, you

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES DC 1-800-441-3376 MD 1-800-539-6398 VA 1-800-752-8979
000040

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 8 of 31

Paul E. Poirier, Jr.
Page 17
1 2
3

it specifically.
Q.

Does this document refresh your recollection as
to whether surveys were discussed?

4 5 6 7 8 9

A.

Under Surveys, it says surveys were discussed,

and under RFI, it says, "None," and somebody
wrote in an EM manual number.
Q.

But it doesn't help you remember anything about
the meeting?

A.
Q.

oh, no. There was one every week.

10 11
12 13 14

That's fine. Did you ever hear anybody from the
Corps state the average method would be used for
acceptance surveys?

A.

I recollect way in the beginning during the
preconstruct

ion era, way in one of those

15 16 17
18 19

meetings, as one of the meetings broke, somebody
from the Corps - - and I don't remember the

person, but they said that areas would be
accepted on a 3 by 3 matrix minimum soundings for rock and a 5 by 5 average soundings for HARS

20
21 22
23
A.
Q.

material.
What's the difference between rock and HARS

material?
One's rock and one was HARS material. HARS
material was categorized as material that could

24

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES DC 1-800-441-3376 MD 1-800-539-6398 VA 1-800-752-8979
000041

..

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 9 of 31

.,
¡

,

J~ :i
United States Army Corps of Engineers Kil Van Kull Project Ofice
Caven Point Marine Terminal
3 Chapel Avenue, Port Libert'

Jersy Cit, New Jersey 07305

22 November 2004

Jay Caslman, Inc.
Boston, MA 02125

20 West Howell St.

Subject: Contract No. DACW51-03-C-0014, Kill Van Kul1 & Newark Bay Chanels Navigation Improvement Project, Phase II, Contract VIII (Area 8), R0014, Survey Reconciliation Elizabeth Channel
Serial Letter No. G-109

Gentlemen,
You are requested to submit a proposal for the following work being considered for adjustment under the
subj ect contract:

Credit the Government, for additional Acceptance Surveys performed by the Government, as follows:

Acceptance Area
13
2
3

Government
Surveys Performed
3
3

Gov't
Surveys Allowed
2 2
2 2 2

Credi t

to Gov't
1

1

4 4A
5

_5_
24

5 4 4

_2_
12

-212

3 2 2

Under Authority of Contract Clause "Changes," FAR 52.243-4 (Aug 1987) you are requested to submit a cost proposal within seven (7) calendar days. The breakdown of your proposal shall be in accordance with Contract Clause 252.236-7000 'Modification proposals - Price Breakdown'. Your proposal must include sufficient detail to permit an analysis of profit, and all costs for material, labor, equipment and overhead, for prime and subcontractors.

000042

DJC009481

r

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 10 of 31

r

..-' -::

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mark Alton at (201) 433-9232.

Sincerely,

Ronald D. Conetta, F.E.
Resident Engineer

CC: CENAN-CO-M/Leach

000043
DJC009482

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 11 of 31

r--Ara
2

---2
2 2 2

KVK8

,-

Production Record
Finish

HARS

orédâe~Start
JAYC JAYC JAYC JAYC JAYC JAYC AJF AJF AJF JAYC JAYC
AJF AJF AJF Viriinian
'AJF

,---

Days
Viriiinlan

2 2
2 2
3A 3A 3A , 3A 3A 3A

3/31/2004. 6121994 6/16/2004 6/26/2004 7/10/2004 7/28/2004 3/15/2004 7/27/2004

6/1/2
6/9/2004 6/23/2004
7/312004

AJF

JCI

'--','"
-

63 9
8 8
6

7/15/2004 6/10/2004 6/1/2004

14

79
2
1

7/281004
10/2/2004

10/2/200
7/4/2004 7/15/2004 6/1/2004 9122004 9/24/2004

3

7/6/2004 7/15/2004
8/912004

9
4
1

9/5/2004 9/24/2004

'--

1

8/91203
8/10/2003

9/2/003

25
24 25 4 29
5 15'

3
3 3 3

f----- -',-,.. 3 Virginian

I--3 '
4

AJF AJF AJF

~6/2003 Jl/13/2003
8/5/2003 9/3/2003
8/9/2003 9/16/2003
11/17/2003' 1/30/2004 6/23/2004 i 6/291200

9/212003 9122/2003 10/151003 11/7/2003 11/10/2003

Virginian

4,
4
4
4

AJF AJF
'AJF

7/212004

7/4/200

AJF

4 4

JayC. JayC,
Jay C,

4
4A 4A 4A 4A -oC' 4A

Virginian

8/4/2004 8/26/200 . 6/9/2004 6/20/200 7/3/2004 7/3/2004 8/12/2004 8/30/2004 11/10/2003 1'2/14Ï2003 6/2/2004
6/2912004 7/5/2004

76 7 3 23

---_..,

12
1

19

35

---

1,..-,
14

-- L-~
,

AJF AJF AJF

6/15/2004 7/2/2004

7//2004
6/24/2004 7/19/2004

8"- 6/23/2004

.,-

4 3
2 4

Jay C,

--7/16/2004
1/31/2004 3/25/2004 6/6/2004 12/14/2003

-Totals

5 AJF 5 AJF
5 Jay C.
5 Virginian

3/15/200
5/5/2004 6/9/200 :
115/2004

44 42 23
103

,---4

394

154

000044

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 12 of 31

William Bruce Wood
Page 53
1 2
3

A.

That ioa percent will give you ioa percent

coverage. However you decipher that information
is not explained here.
Q.

4 5
6 7 8

Okay. How about the next sentence? "The most

precise pos i tioning and depth standards and
techniques must be employed for this class of

project." At the time you prepared your bid,
what did that mean to you?

9

A.
Q.

That you needed a multibeam system.

10 11
12
13

Is a multibeam system the most precise

positioning and depth measurement system?

A.

I believe so. There may be more precise.
don't know.

I

14

Q.

No worries. Did you ever make inquiry with the
Corps regarding the method to be used to process

15
16

acceptance surveys prior to submitting your bid
for the contract?

17
18
A.
Q.

No.
Did you personally make inquiry regarding the

19

20 21
22 23
A.

method to be used for acceptance surveys after
work began on the contract?

Myself, no.
MS. KILFOYLE:

Can we go off for one

24

second?

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES DC 1-800-441-3376 MD 1-800-539-6398 VA 1-800-752-8979
000045

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 13 of 31

EM 1110-2-1003 1 Jan 02

the varation could be attbutable to the uneven bottom topogrphy coupled with the lO-ft the acoustic beam covers a larger area in these 50-foot depths, causing a generalization in the recorded depth. In genera, however, stadard deviations at this level would be expected based on the estiate results back in Table 4- I an the fact that this distat project area represents a "worst case" condition th tht assumed in Table 4-1. (Note that the compute stadard deviation is not the same as the RMS in tht the (-) 0,04 ft is not included The difference is negligible given the small mean bias--the RMS (95%) could be computed from Equation 4-1, e.g., RMS (95%) = 1.96
Some of HYPACK search radius. The footprint size of (0.9442 + 0.043 2) 1/2 = :t 1.85 ft). Like the computed mean above, the confdence level of

the computed

deviation could also have been computed--Mikhl, 1976. Such a computation would have shown tht the:t 0.94 stadard deviation actually lies somewhere betwee:t 0.8 and:t 1.2 (95% confdence level). Additional cross-line comparsons would have reduced ths spread.

d Multple transducer or multbeam comparison. Had the above project been sureyed using
swath surey systems, then two digita elevation models could have bee generated with which to perform a

comparison. Thousands of comparson points would have resulted rather th the 78 in the single beam
example, Regardless of the number of comparative points, the computed mean and deviation should not be significantly different--at least within the range of the confidence interval estimations described above. The

standad deviation of multibeam data might be slightly higher since the accurcy of the outer rays is not as good as near-vertcal depths. However, the confidence level of the mean would have a very small value since a larger number of points are included.
e. Unaccounted biases. It is agai emphasized that such comparsons are only indicators of data

quality. There could be biases in the data that would not be detected. Examples might include: (1) a
constat error in the tidal datum reference plane or MLL W elevation reference, (2) an error in the DGPS

vercal geoid model, or (3) a constant vessel draft error, Data outliers can also be present in the data, such
as the 4.05 foot difference in Table 4-2. These outliers reresent values well outside the 95% confidence leveL They mayor may not be correct. Typically, outliers falling more than 3 ties the estimated stadard error (i.e" 3 . 0,944 ft) are rejecte,
f Final analysis of results, The nearly :t 2 foot depth deviaton in ths example clearly exhibits the

case that individual depth observations contan signficant radom errors, It also ilustrtes that a single depth observation cannot be evaluated based on the "apparent accuracy" of its plott value (i.e" nearest 0, i foot). Moreover, this case shows that the accurcy of a surey must be evaluate based on the statistical agreeent of the entire data set--or portions of tht data set. Minmizing constat bias errors is far more important than reducing deviations. More refied acoustic measurement technques will have to be developed if more accurte depth observations are required,

4-8. Evaluation of Depth Accuracy on Dredging Projects
Evaluating chanel clearance on dredging projects involves a review of the soundings obtained on the final after dredge surey and/or final chanel clearce sweep surey. Numerous shoals or stres above the required grade may be present on these sureys. The project manager or contracting offcets representative (COR) must deterine wheter these shoals/stres above grde warant additional work effort to assure project clearnce, or they are isolated, stry soundings with the "noise" (i,e., accurcy) level of depth
measurement. Therefore, ths assessment of above-grae soundings must consider (I) the error budget of
project--Table 3-1, and (4) the detection repeatabilty of

individual depth measurements, (2) their relative magnitude, (3) surey accuracy standards specified for the the acoustic system.

a, The object detection stadard in Table 3-1 specifies that a minimum oftl acoustic "hits" be
obtained on a potential shoal or strike. These hits should ideally be obtaned on reated passes over an

object. A single pass is adequate if numerous hits above grde are obtained, and the depth are consistently
above the required grde.

4-13

000046

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 14 of 31

EM 1110-2-1003 1 Jan 02
b, A single hit O,l-ft to 0.5-ft above grde presents problems. This hit could be the edge ofa shoal or rock oflarger size aud shoaler elevation, If the estimated accuracy of the depth measurment process

used is :! 1.0 ft, then this could be au observation lying within that 95% accury tolerace--e.g" taen when

a vessel without heave compensation was surging down in the trough of a wave. Such a potential varation
between depth aud surveys is clearly exhibited in Table 4-2, Thus, additiona obserations ar neeed to
conf the existece (or non-existence) of material lying above the 'project grade, Additional passes should
be ru over the ara, If acoustic hits above grde ar repeatedly obtaned on these additional passes, then a

high probability exists that a shoal or rock strke is present in the chaneL. The confdence levels of shoal
hits above grade (dZ), (2) stada error of depth hits (n), Using approximate t-density fuctions, it cau be shown that all th of the above factors (varables) wil determine the overall confdence of dection, which cau be roughly computed by the following: detection cau be estimated given (1) height of measurements (s), aud (3) number of

t aI,~l ~ sqrt (n) (dZ) / s
For example, given 3 hits averaging l-ft above grae aud a:! 1,0 ft stadar errr, the detection confidence

is roughly 75%. If only 2 hits were recorded, the confidence of a shoal drps to 60%. If 10 hits are

recorded, the confidence of detetion is 98%, Thus, obtaining a 95% detection confidence may requie
more thau 3 hits, depending on the magntude of the thee varables descrbed above,

c. Obtaining multiple hits with a single, narrow beam echo sounder is diffcult. Stealth-like-objects
may not always be detecte with vertical beams.' Close line spacing must be ru over a suspected strie--

e.g., 10 ft to 20 ft intervals, A multiple trausducer or multibeam system is far more effcient in detectig
stres and confining them with multiple passes. Multibeam sweeps should be conducted such tht the

beam aspect is vared frm near-vertical to au outside beam. Multibeam side scau imagery on the outer
l:ams will also be of

value in detecting strikes above grade. On critical projects, towed side scau may be

necessar to locate stres,

d. The relative height of au object or shoal above grde will determine the need for clearauce. This the shoal within the chanel, tye of bottom materal, size of shoal, potential navigation hazard, etc, The project COR makes the final determination on wheter to mobilize or remobilze a dredge to remove the object/shoaL.
may depend on the location of

4-9. Evaluation of Dredge Quantity Estimates Based on Depth Accuracy and Density
Thee primar factors impact the accuracy of dredge volume computations, in this order:
. Terin irreguarty aud data density

. Bias errrs in depth measuements
. Deviation of depth obserations
It has been shown that data density has the most importt effect on the overall accurcy of a quatity
computation, Required data density is a fuction of

the irregularties in the terrain, as is clearly ilustrated in
the depth cau cause volume errs if

Figue 4-3. Systematic biases in the depth database wil obviously cause constat dredge volume errors.
The deviation or estimated accuracy of

the stadad error is large aud

an insuffcient number of points are observed. A volume derived from a densely grddedlinned multibea
surey will yield a more accurate quautity thau that obtaned from lOO-ft spaced cross'sections, even if depth accuracy (i.e" stadard deviation) of

the the multibeam survey is not a goo as the cross-section depths.

These concepts are discussed below,

4-14

000047

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 15 of 31

1

R. Kiss

47

21 version to the' 04 were definitely as a result
31 of our multi-beam user group meetings.
4
Q

And that was something that really

51 was the brain child, if that's the right word,
6 I of the New York district?
7
8

A
Q

We began it.

Would it be correct to say that

9 I the New York district was in the forefront in
10 I multi-beam technology for dredging for the

111 Core of Engineers?
12
A

Actually Philadelphia was ahead of

131 us at one point, but I think we ultimately
14 I there's a tremendous fear of mul ti-beam

151 technology, about the accuracies that could be attained and things like that. I believe as 16
17 I time went on we did move to the forefront of

18 lit.
19
Q

There was a lot more new work

20 I dredging that was done in New York than in

21 1 Philadelphia, correct?
22
A
Q

Ab sol ute 1 y .

23

Did you have decision making

24 I authority with regard to the engineer manual

25 I or was it just advisory?
LEX REPORTING SERVICE
000048

800-608-6085

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 16 of 31

1 2 3
4

R. Ki s s
A
Q

48

Advisory.
Could I direct your attention to

page 11-35, please. Paragraph 11-17 says 51 "contract specifications for multi-beam
6 I measurement and payment," and there are some
7 I con t r act c 1 au s est hat are r e c 0 mm end e d ; you see

8 I those?
9

A
Q

Yes.
Did you have any role to play in

10

111 preparing those clauses?
12

A

I believe those clauses were

13 I discussed at the multi-beam user meetings.
14
Q

Do you know if they were ever

151 actually inserted in dredging solicitations?
16
17

A
Q

That I don't know.

Do you know if a clause, either

181 this clause or a clause like it, was inserted
191 in New York district dredging contracts prior
20 I to this EM being issued?
21

A

No, I don't believe it would have

22 I been, no.
23
Q

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I

241 don't recall seeing a similar provision in
25\ those earlier manuals about recommended
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000049

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 17 of 31

1

R. Kiss

49

2

clauses for insertion, would I be correct in
my recollection?

3
4

A Yes, you would.
Q I'll direct your attention to page
1145, which I think is the last page, and
there's a chart there that provides
r e c 0 mm end e d de p t h s e 1 e c t ion and d a t a

5
!;:I

¡i
I! I:
I

6 7

ii 1,I!i

8
ili!

,¡

9

processing?

10
11

A Right.
Q First indented listing, "depth
selection method used to select representative

12

13
14

shoalest depth from multiple depths of the
ce 1 1 . "

So this manual is making it clear that

15 16
17 18

that's what's recommended?

A Yes.
Q No longer saying, as earlier
versions did, that minimum should not be used
or centroid should be used, that's a change, I

19

20
21 22

take it?
A

Everybody finally saw things my
L

way.
Q

23
24

So you're recommendations led to

2

this change in the manual?
A

2
2

25

Yes, or at least had a lot of
LEX REPORTING SERVICE
000050

n f'," r",. rrt....

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 18 of 31

1

R. Kiss

50

2 3
4

impact on it. Q You referred to the multi-beam
users group and apparently there was a meeting
in November of 2003.

5
6

Let me show you a
Do you

document that will help you remember.

7
8

recall attending that particular meeting?

A Yes, I do.
Q i noticed on the second page of
this document, which ends in the number 269,

9

10 11 12

there's an e-mail message that you were copied
on and then a t the bot tom 0 f the page its ays,

13
14

in the last paragraph, "this year the main topic was review update of chapter eleven of
the engineer manual and mandatory requirements
for multi-beam surveying."
Do you recall that

15 16
17 18

being the main topic?

A Yes.
Q Is that the discussion that lead
to the changes we just talked about in the
2004 manual?

i
I

I 19

20
21
22

A Yes.
Q So would it be correct to say, at
least at this time in November' 03, there was
a lot of active discussion within the
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

23
24

25

800-608-6085
000051

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

="O--=~~~~.~=~~,~.~-_._~ Filed 04/14/2008 Page 19 of 31

1

R. Kiss

51

2 3
4

mu1 ti-beam users group as to what revisions

should be made to the guidance and what kind
of provisions should be inserted and that sort
of thing?

5
6 7 8 9

A Yes.
Q On the page that ends with the
numbers 272A.

A Yes.
Q

10 11
12

There are some administrative

1 1 1 1 1

issues that were apparently the topic of the

meeting.
A
Q

Were you involved in the discussion

13
14

of those things?

Yes.
Do you recall what was discussed

15 16
17

1
1 1 1

with regard to that first copy contract
language currently in use?
A

18

I have some general recollections,

19
"

yeah.
Q

1

20
Ii i , ,

What do you recall?

2 2 2 2
2 2

21

A

Most of the other districts in the

22 23
24

NAD apparently their dredging contracts did
include some verbiage about the surveying end

of it.

My impression was that it concluded

25

more than New York's did at the time and they
LEX REPORTING SERVICE
000052 800-608-6085

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 20 of 31

._"-~.,,~

Willam Bruce Wood
1

minimum.
Q.

Page 38

2
3

How did you become aware that the Corps was
using the minimum?

4
5 6

A.

Through conversations with Jim Galli and then,
as I said, the letter in October.

Q.

Did Cashman's performance of the KVK 8 contract
change after you became aware that the Corps was using the minimum depth method to process
acceptance surveys?

7
8 9

10 11
12 13

A.
Q.

Probably.
How?

A.
Q.

We had to dig deeper and take more material.

Why did you have to dig deeper?

14 15 16

A.

Because the minimum survey shows - - has more
information and shows higher spots than the

average, and to get that acceptance area, you
have to dig deeper.
Q.

17
1S

After Cashman began

real ized - - strike.

19

After Cashman realized that the minimum depth
method was used to process acceptance surveys,

20
21

did the Corps acceptance surveys continue to
find high spots?

22
23

A.
Q.

I believe so.

24

Why do you think that was?

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES DC 1-800-441-3376 MD 1-800-539-6398 VA 1-800-752-8979
000053

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 21 of 31

1

R. Conetta

2 i or two deeper than allowable over depth to

51

3 i achieve the requirements of these hard digging
4 i proj ects?
5
A

I'm sorry, let me read it again.

61 I didn't specifically get that out of there.
7 8

He's suggesting yes, that it should be, yeah, it should be expected.

Yes, correct.

9 i should be non paid over depth beyond paid over
10 11

There

depth.

There should be allowable beyond the

Well, again in the context 12 I of that I haven't read the whole __ the whole

paid over depth.

13 i presentation and I don't know specifically
14

what he's

what he's, you know, what his

151 reference is and what his general point is.
16 i It would seem -- it would also seem from that

17 l same if you -- if you make that leap, it would
18 i certainly seem reasonable that the expectation

19 l is that they're going to go after the paid
Otherwise it wouldn't matter how 21 i much, you know, whether you went __ whether
20
over depth.

22 i you allowed over depth beyond the paid over
It speaks -- it speaks to whether or 24 i not the contract or what effort the contractor
23

depth.

25 l is going to make to get the over depth.
LEX000054 REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 22 of 31

1

R. Conetta

23

2 3
4

came up?
A
Q

When?

Yes.
Not

5
6
7
8

A
Q

specifically.

Early in the job, middle of the job, end of the job?
A

I -- I'd be guessing, but it was

9 I -- to be honest I'm not sure if the job was
10 11 12

complete when I left.

I think it was, but I
I'm guessing it's

wouldn't swear to that.

probably about mid way.
two-thirds through.

It could have been

13

I -- I -- I really don't

14 I recall.
15
Q

How did it come up in terms of how

16 I was it co mm un i cat e d toy 0 U ?

17

A

I don't specifically recall short

18 I of the information that -- that's in the
19 I correspondence -- that list of correspondence
20

I mentioned earlier.

That kind of tracks, you

21 I know, a history of the issue.
22
Q

As you refer to the surveying

23 I methods being employed, what did you come to

24 I learn about what methods existed?
25
A

Well, it really depends about
LEX REPORTING SERVICE
000055

800-608-6085

..23
1

_.,,"

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 23 of 31

._---,--,

R. Conetta

24

2

where in the process.

I -- prior to the

31 correspondence and our discussions with
4 I surveys in, you know, relation to the
5 I correspondence, prior to that I -- I had no __ 6 I i was really -- i wouldn't say I wasn't aware
7
3

of any differentiation.

I wasn't familiar

8

with any differentiation between types of

9

surveys.

As a result of -- of that whole or

10 I that survey, as a result of -- I'm going to
11 i say as a result of reading the correspondence

12 I because I -- I really remember very little

t
ow

13

specifically actually, I should say as it --

14 I as it, you know, may have occurred, but it
15

became apparent that there was more than one

16 i way to analyze the data and there was a -- one

t
~

17

being a -- an average method, the other being

18 i a shoalest and to be honest, all I remember
19

about the difference is that the shoalest was

)U

20

apparently what we used because it represented

211 our best -- our best assurance that the
22 i contract rate had been met and that there were
23 I in fact no areas above minus forty-seven feet.
24
Q

Do you know whether it was

25 i important for the dredging contractor to
LEX REPORTING SERVICE
000056 800-608-6085

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 24 of 31

1

R. Canetta

25

21 understand what method was going ta be
3 I employed by the New York District with regard

4 I to acceptance surveys?
5
A

I was listening to the second part

6 I of your question and I forgot what you

71 initially asked.
8
Q

That's okay.

9

Do you know whether it was

101 important for the dredging contractors to
11 I understand what survey method was being used?
12 13
14
A

How important it was to the
I'm sure it had

contractor, I don't know.

some importance.
know.

How much importance, I don't

15

I -- I know that we needed -- we needed

161 -- we needed everything to be below
17 I forty-seven feet and as much information as he
18 I needed to insure that, that's how much it was

191 important.
20 I Q Well, when you finish an
21 I acceptance survey, in simple terms you end up
22 I with a picture of what the bottom looks like;

231 is that right?
24
A
Q

In simplest terms, yes.

25

You're interested in elevations?
LEX REPORTING SERVICE 000057

800-608-6085

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 25 of 31

1 2
Q

M. Al ton
I'm not sure, but that's the term

11

31 I've heard.
4

A

Okay, we were calling it the

51 contractor's surveyor we call it Cashman's

61 survey most of the time and then our survey,
71 okay.
8

MS. KILFoYLE:

Can we take a

9

break for a moment since there's
no question pending?

10
11 12

I f you feel

1

there is a question pending -MR. PAYNE:

i
1:

That's fine.

13
14

(Whereupon, a brief recess was

,1:

taken. )
Q

Ii
1~

is
16
17

So you know at least what I'm

referring to when I use the term pre
acceptance survey?
A
Q

IlE
17
8

18

Yeah, yeah.
Would those surveys on the KVK8

19
20 21 22 23
24

9 o 1
!

proj ect have been presented by the contractor
to you?

A Yes.
Q Were you the main point of contact
wi th the contractor?

t2

r:
Is
i ¡

25

A Yeah, on a day-to-day basis, yeah,
LEX REPORTING SERVICE
000058

800-608-6085

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 26 of 31

11
rm

1

M. Alton

12

yeah. 3 I Q Who did you generally deal with?
2

4 I A Jim GaIly.
5 I Q Wha t would you do wi th a pre
6 I acceptance survey when you received it?

7 I A What we would do is go down to our
a
8 9

Survey Branch or call them and set up a

,
,,1

Government acceptance survey.
Q

10

Would you look at the pre

111 acceptance survey yourself first?
12

A

Well, usually they were a blank
I think the first couple of

,as

13

sheet of paper.

14 I times I did, but the reason why they gave it

15 I to us they said Cashman was saying the area

16 i was clear and yeah, I think we'd open it up
17 i and look at it and yeah, it looks clear.
18 I Let's do a Government survey type thing.
19
Q

Was there something provided to

)r

20
21

you in an electronic form as well?
A

You know, it's been so long ago, I

22 I think yeah, they had to give us a disk too, if

ict
ih,

23
24

I remember correctly.
Q

Yeah, I think so.

Would you look at the electronic

25

da t a?
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000059

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 27 of 31

1

M. Alton
A
Q

13

2 3

Never.
You would look at the map or

and d

4 I whatever was on paper?
5 6 7
8

A
Q

Right, right, right.

acce¡:

Would you go over that wi th Mr. Conetta as well?
A

were
acce¡:

Usually not these pre acceptance
There was -- it was almost a

9

surveys.

10
11

formali ty, I think, they were sending us a

surv¡
was

letter saying yeah, we feel we're clear, go do

12 I a Government survey.
13
14
Q

I assume there was no point in the

cont:
woul,

contractor giving you a pre acceptance survey
if he didn't feel the area was clear?
A
Q

15

acce'
,

16
17

Yeah.
So you would take it and present
" 1\

18 I it to Survey and say here, do your thing?
19 20
A

too
know

I don't even think we'd give it to
We wouldn't present it to them.

Surveys.

happ

21 I We'd pretty much either call or go down to
22

it
I

w

talk to them.

They would never see the

pre

~
'.1

23 I acceptance, I don't believe.
24
Q

the

They just would get an

25 I authorization or request from you to go ahead
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000060

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 28 of 31

1 Is. Weinberg 27
2 I pre-acceptance survey showing that an area was

3 I clear but the Corps' survey did not confirm

4 I that?
5
6 7 8

A
Q

Yes.
Is that a fairly common thing --

A
Q

Yes.
-- to have happen?
1 ~ , :1

9

A Yes.
Q Did it happen, if you know, to any
greater degree in KVKB than in those earlier

10 11
12

li
11
2 '¡

projects?
A

i

i1

13
14

I do not know.

I -- I don't have

!1

the -- as I said, I'm rarely involved once a

1
1

15
16
17

contract is awarded, so I can't just -- I have

no idea how many surveys are submitted on

1

other contractors' jobs.
Q

J

18

I f all of the other contractors,

J

19

as I think you're saying, understood that the
shoal

J

20

est method was going to be used, how do

¿

21 I you account for the fact that they
22 I nevertheless submitted acceptance surveys that

23 I weren't clear?
24
A

As a non surveyor, I can only

"¿

251 speculate, and I don't know if that's helpful.
LEX REPORTING SERVICE
000061

800-608-6085

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 29 of 31

S. Weinberg
A

10

I wrote portions of it.

A lot of
I can

portions were written by other people.
,

talk to you about what I wrote/ what I got
from other people and how we coordinated, but
I can't talk to you about the writing of all

parts of it. Q Were some parts of it boilerplate
in the sense that they were taken from
previous packages?

A That is also true, yes. Q It's not necessary to re-draft the
entire plan and specification package?
''4

A
Q

That is true.
Is there any way to easily

5

1£ I identify those portions that you wrote in the

'P
II

KVK8 project package by category, for example?

a8
'19
510

A Well, most of my contributions
would have been parts of what is called
section 800/ section 2900 and i think there
was a 2200 still in this spec.
Q

:j

~i
22

What were those sections?

What

23 I did those sections deal with, if you recall?

24 I A Section 800 was general contract
25 I provisions. Section 2900 is the drèdging
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085 000062

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 30 of 31

1 2

S. Weinberg

11

1
¿

specification. 3 1 blasting.
4

2200 would have involved

Q

Was the Survey Branch required to

51 draft or furnish any parts of the
61 specification?
7

A

Their contribution was more or

8 1 less boilerplate that was recycled from

91 previous contracts and then sent back to them
10
11

for review.
Q

1

What who was your point of contact

1

12 I in Surveys?
13
A

Let's see.

This was 2003.

I'm

14 I trying to remember if then it was Richard or
15

-- Kiss or if it was still Ray Elmore.

I'm

161 trying to remember when Ray retired.
17
18

MS. KILFOYLE:

Off the

record.
(Whereupon, a discussion was
held off the record.)
Q

19

20

21

Mr. Weinberg, I'm handing you a

22 I copy of solicitation Paragraph 1.15, a

231 provision dealing with final examination and
24 1 acceptance, and ask you whether that is a
25 I provision that you are familiar with?
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000063

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 34-3

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 31 of 31

1

R. Kiss

18

2 I associated with this particular contract or
3

another one.

I was consulted on some minor

4 I issues, minor questions.
5
Q

Would it be correct for me to

61 assume that with regard to surveying the
7 I language and contracts it was sort of boiler

81 plate across the KVK8 projects?
9

A
Q

That sounds about right, yeah.

10
11

Do you know whether the KVK8
~,

con tract did indeed include any measur~~~nt

12 I and payment provisions stipulating the type of

131 survey system that was to be used?
14

A

No, I don't.

15 I Q Do you know whether this engineer
16 I circular defines the accuracy that the Core of
e
17
18

Engineers surveys are required to meet?
A

Yes, it does.

I would like to

19 i qualify that.
20
Q

Sure.
It's always our feelings wi thin

,,11

21 22 23

A

of
,ow
1

the New York district that it defines minimum

cr i teria.
Q

I'LL direct your attention to page
You see the table

A3 where there's a table.

LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000064