Free Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 1 of 38

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

JAY CASHMAN, INC. Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 06-101C (Judge Francis M. Allegra)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

APPENDIX

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 2 of 38

APPENDIX INDEX PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 DESCRIPTION Bid Abstract dated March 25, 2003 Cashman Letter dated March 27, 2003 Project Fact Sheet - Kill Van Kull & Newark Bay Project Fact Sheet - New York & New Jersey Harbor Deposition of Harold Hawkins - p. 9, 10 Corps Memorandum For Record dated May 12, 2003 Deposition of Bruce Wood - p. 11 Contract Price Schedule Contract Specification Section 02900, p. 3 Deposition of Harold Hawkins - p. 43 Deposition of Richard Kiss - p. 15 Deposition of Harold Hawkins - p. 14 Deposition of Richard Kiss - p. 9 EM 1110-2-1003 - p. 1-1 EM 1110-2-1003 - p. 1-2 EM 1110-2-1003 - p. 11-1 EM 1110-2-1003 - p. 11-33 EM 1110-2-1003 - p. 11-10 Contract Special Requirement 1.15 Deposition of Ronald Conetta - p. 14 Deposition of William McDonald - p.11, 12 Deposition of Harold Hawkins - p. 25,26

i

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 3 of 38

INDEX PAGE 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 38 40 41 42 43 44 DESCRIPTION Deposition of William McDonald - p. 13 Deposition of Richard Kiss - p. 62,63 Deposition of Ronald Conetta - p. 34 Deposition of James Galli - p. 39 Deposition of Alex Dick - p. 14 Deposition of Bruce Wood - p. 25 Deposition of Alex Dick - p. 20,21.22 EC 1130-2-210 - p. A-2,3 Deposition of James Galli - p. 29 Deposition of James Galli - p. 37 Deposition of James Galli - p. 18 Deposition of James Galli - p. 19 Cashman Pre-Final Survey of Area 1 dated December 1, 2003 (Oversize document, exhibit limited to relevant notations) 45 46 47 Deposition of Alex Dick - p. 31 Corps Letter dated June 22, 2004 Corps Acceptance Survey of Area 1 (Oversize document, exhibit limited to relevant notations) 48 49 51 54 55 Deposition of Mark Alton - p. 13 Deposition of Ronald Conetta - p. 22,23 Corps Letter dated October 1, 2004 Deposition of Richard Kiss - p. 23 Deposition of Richard Kiss - p. 30

ii

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 4 of 38

INDEX PAGE 56 58 59 DESCRIPTION Deposition of Bruce Wood - p. 57,58 EM 1110-2-1003 (1 Apr 04) - p. 11-44 Cashman Pre-Final Survey Area 1&3A (Oversize document, exhibit limited to relevant notations) 60 62 64 66 Deposition of Mark Alton - p. 13,14 Deposition of Richard Kiss - p. 63,64 Deposition of Steven Weinberg - p. 30,31 Deposition of Richard Kiss - p. 23

iii

PRELIMINARY BID REPORT Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA
INVITATION FOR BID NO.

.,mendments .. DYMß l)..ITIME~tv 5If/l38 Document 28-4 Filed 12/14/2007 Page of
PROJECT & LOCATION. Recorded By
KVK8 Channel Contrct 8 See. IT H£/foc
GOVl.
ESTIMATE

DACW51-03-B-0004
NO.

m~

O~~~

DESCRIPTION
CONST NAV CHANNEL
MOBfDEMOB DEBRIS REMOVAUDISPOSAL

.A'~~~i2Æ _

BID NO.2

BIDNO.3 .-

0001
0001 AA
0OO1AB

,; ":7 ~ / "". òÒ 1£
,

unit
Total
AT

."S/tJ()Ò

0001AC

OENJ/other site Silt

Total

/hI.. ~ ý/, / 9-f:tK lIt? ~ff5h¿1Æ/~ 7æ2£:/~ ~ øå£ IÂ1a1 9 ,
ff, l'()
17. ff.1

.J5. r;tv. ct ~

,; a:.¿
~aJ

W5--~ J'tØ.t!

.,

/. ~.

,

_.

.. .. ",..A .. ~

/A h?~gø

d'ø.a'

/cJ dZ1?

;(¿¿
~,ø

C/6..

t~/J.¿(

0001AD

DEWATERING unit

0OO1AE

Total SUBSURFACE SAMPLING AND DRILLING UNIT Total

IY.Sf¿1r,d)

/Ã/) ",/~4h.~ .. ~/p: ?/-a
74.&a:æJ -,

a/ Yaø
,.

6./.?tJa)

5~ .;

3,;¿¿il,Ø
.5' a:XI,¿Ø

-f /Y~ CJ
7. /.&l.a? -..

':~ h?,¿

0001AF
0OO1AG

FJELD OFFICE

DREDGING/DISPOSAL AT HARS unit

/63.2m.àJ 1:¿¡, a: /tl.2 Ø:. C1 /5t? dI¿: 1.:, t5 /B'..cx /ffLk .£9. 9'.5
It.. 13'1 ~¿l.A .
1111.;6"7. .d ç;

Total

0001AH

unit
Total

vur
. A l reer

1~~Ã/.a .;Ýø'~ áá

31. g/ 90t7t'f.ã:
/31, If

39- Ø5 ~ , FA2.ç Ç', ~. ñ1

~~

0001 AL

unit
Total

79-P5
5? Lh LAt/
.'

..- ~

2. pǡ ~~lAJ J.~/52t7l).. ,.

r7/.A.. '~ø

/ .:l:" a1~
/t1 á1tt ø

~¿X 8"~m¿6 /¿:¿¡

TOTAL

BASE BIDS

31. 8~. M.t
n..""
5 I :7 tl.t:c)
/'Y,d¡;
/. "7.

3,5 Y6 ~.. ~ Sfil.¿fba/yJ

00
OOSA

OPTIONAL INSURANCE

:: Oa;, /.

unit
Total

..

d~ff

/t:tØd~Ø
6:¿.

.sO

005B

OENJ/other site Sil
Total

.-, ZJ
t:/,f ""/.c ~..

..£R5 ~t7.f~5ëJ
/,tJ()
3:7 ¿7tJ

~ø

./r /. 6ff ~..¿V

/?dJ

~¿¿
/£.;G5.a
ýà¿Jd

D05C

DEWATERING unit

//..£3
//1 /~/'dJ

Total

Fd / ;7¿J,áJ /.: /7L~oo

-ffh' Ed? ø Sf/;z~-øM ~~C) / ,¿

oo6A

DREDGING/DISPOSAL AT HARS unit

/6,/7
/.;hjZ .r:..~ .

/t7-C

Total

5, 3J 2-5S.a

/. B5 l,l),å
'"

# .. d!t: 25. ,f/tLF

006B

DREDGING/DISPOSAL AT reef unit

Total
D06C
DREDGING/DISPOSAL AT OËNJ/other site Silt

/9',E/,7 Çfä' :;aCO 9"~ /Ld'A, .;733 iW,æ /,,5/3 /X?a ~ ..
.: '9 r

?33 ;Ka

r; ~9.5
/¿;3 ~2L A.

Total

ff 334 CJ¿)

0060
,

DEWATERING unit

C2lf
~ ;..;£'00

~æ
/, ~f't1-ø

//5LX 9';?:; ¿j.;b'aoo ~/ ./ ~ .. ..

d.,6
, ") :i

.h6 ¿o

Total
TOTAL
TOTAL

3/V./Jà

~ .;:;0,. aO

OPTIONS
,. " -$- ~'

,

If ,;3E /Jqlh 1&,5¡; 5ffôi ,

BASE BIDS PLUS OPTION

Xl./ ?WA

3:~,5fG~ bt.f.r5 2~t2 ~X i.~ /5'aæ l39~¿?æa /!/:%l ¡/Y5L b
001639

000001

/

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 6 of 38

~t..M~
.. ..
J

~
,. ..... ..
~ ~:" f. . ~ ",'.

617.287.:600

fax 617.288.4597

~.

. , i¿

Email bwooaycashman.com

w. Bruce Wood
President, Marine and Equipment Division

-' ..

JAY ~HM~, INC.
, '10 West Howell Street

Boston, MA 02125

March 27, 2003

'. ."

. #.0_'

..

Ms. Ella D. Snell

Contracting Ofcer
Department of the Army New York District Corps of Engineers Jacob K. Javits Federal Building New York, NY 10278-0090

Attention: Myrlande Lee
RE: Kil Van Kull and New Bay Channels Navigation Improvements Project,
Phase II, Contract 8 (Area 8 ),New York and New Jersey DACW51-03-B-0004
Dear Ms. Snell:

This ,letter is to confirm the bid and prices as Jay Cashman, Inc., submitted for the above referenced project.

Jay Cashman, Inc., is looking forward to your notice of award.

If you have any questions, please contact me directly. Thank you for your

cooperation.
Very truiy yours,

JAYC:;MAN,dNC~ //

~ Bruce Wood . ;tMt~V~ W.
President, Marine and Equipment Division

WBWllkr

000002

001716

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 7 of 38

Kill Van Kull & Newark Bay, NY & NJ
US Army Corps

of Engineer&'
New York District

Navigation Improvement Project

FACT SHEET
DESCRIPTION: The General Design Memorandum, dated June 1986, recommended that the project be constructed in
two phases:
Phase I - Deepening channels from 35 feet to 40 feet below mean low water.

Phase II - Deepening channels from 40 feet to 44 feet below mean low water. (Report recommended deferring the
additional one-foot deepening until shipping usage warrants additional depth).

AUTHORIZATION: The project to deepen the Kil Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels to a depth of 45 feet was
authorized for construction by the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-88).

STATUS: Phase I - Phase I construction was initiated in July 1987 and substantially completed in September 1995. A total
of 7 constrction contracts were awarded and completed.

Estimated Project Total Cost = $265,737,000
Federal Cost = $199,303,000
Non-Federal = $66,434,000

Phase II - A Limited Reevaluation Report (LRR), which recommended the deepening of the channels to 45 feet was submitted to Corps of Engineers Headquarters in April 1997 and was approved on 6 October 1997. The estimated fully funded project cost for the general navigation features for Phase II is $ 733 milion, of which $550 milion is the Federal cost and $183 milion is the non-Federal cost. An additional 10 percent of cost allocated to general navigation wil be required from the non-Federal sponsor within a period 000 years following completion of construction.
The benefit to cost ratio is 3.2 to 1. The average annual benefits are $458 milion, which are primarily for transportation
cost savings.
The local sponsor for the Phase II is the Port Authority of

New York and New Jersey.

The Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with the project sponsor was executed on 13 January 1999 and the first construction contract for (area 2) was awarded 16 March 1999, construction was initiation on 25 May 1999 and was completed 18 September 2000. The second contract for (area 1) was awarded 4 August 1999 and was completed 17 July 2001. The third contract for (area 4a) was awarded 29 February 2000 and was to be completed 15 February 2002. The fourth contract for (area 7) was awarded March 12,2001, and was completed 28 March 2003. The fifth contract for (Area 5) was awarded 10 December 2001 and is scheduled to be completed August 2004. The sixth contract for Area 3 was awarded 20 August 2001 and was completed 2 October 2002. The seventh contract Area 6 was awarded 25 July 2002, and was completed 6 January 2004. The eighth contract was awarded 23 May 2004 and was completed November 2004.
CO NT A CT: Mr. Harold 1. Hawkins, P.E. Proj ect Manager, mailto: harold. i .hawkins(iusace.ary .mil tel: 917 790 8204

Engineers, New York District 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278
U.S. Army Corps of

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil E

000003

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 8 of 38

NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY HARBOR
US Army Corps
NAVIGATION PROJECT

of EngineersC!
New York District
FACT SHEET
New York and New Jersey and includes the Arthur Kil); Newark Bay Channel; Bay Ridge; and the Port Jersey ChanneL. The Port of New York and New Jersey is the largest port on the East Coast, providing more than 230,000 direct and indirect jobs in port related activities and $20 bilion in economic activity to the State of New York and New Jersey. The Port receives and ships waterborne general cargo to all parts of the United States and throughout the world, at the four major container terminals, two located in New Jersey; Pt. Newark/Pt Elizabeth and Global Marine Terminal, and two located in New York: New York Container Terminal in Staten Island and the Brooklyn Marine TerminaL. Rail, truck, and inland waterway routes throughout the
PROJECT AREA AND PURPOSE: The project area encompasses the Port of the Ambrose and Anchorage Channel; New York and New Jersey Channels (Kil Van Kull and portion of region are used to transport commerce to large segments of the northeast and mid-western states. The Port of

New Y ork-

New Jersey receives container ships from the Far East as well as from on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, the Caribbean, Africa and the Persian Gulf. Current channels within the Harbor range in depths from 30 to 45 feet, which are inadequate to provide access to the large post -Pannamax ships, which require water drafts of 48 feet and more
PROJECT AUTHORIZATION: Section 101(a)(2), Water Resources Development Act of

2000 (P.L. 106-541)

the four container terminal and includes deepening the Ambrose Channel from deep water to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to 53 feet below mean low water (mlw), and also deepening the Anchorage Channel (from the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to its confluence with the Port Jersey Channel), the Kil Van Kull Channel, portion of the Newark Bay Channels, the Arthur Kil Channel (from the Kil Van Kull to the New York Container Terminal), the Port Jersey Channel and the Bay Ridge Channel to 50 feet mlw (52 feet mlw in rock or otherwise hard material). The current estimate for the 50 ft project, project is $1.6 billion. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 2.5 to 1 based on annualized costs of $109,404,000 and annualized benefits of $161,525,000, which results in net excess benefits of $52,121 ,000. In 2002 Congress consolidated the NY and NJ Harbor 50 ft project with prior authorized projects that provided for deepening the Kil van Kull and Newark Bay Channels to 45 ft; for deepening of the Arthur Kil Channel to 41ft to the New York Container Terminal; and for deepening the Port Jersey Channel to 41 ft. The cost of the consolidated project is $2,500,000,000.
AUTHORIZED PROJECT: The authorized project provides 50 ft water access to the each of

STATUS: The Project includes 16 dredging contracts and construction of2 marsh restoration projects to mitigate project impacts. To date, the two marsh restoration contracts and three dredging contracts have been awarded with scheduled completion as follows: Woodbridge, NJ marsh restoration (completed), Elders Pt, Jamaica Bay, NY (completed), Contract Area S-KVK-2 (March 2007), Ambrose Channel contact area 1 (August 2007), Anchorage Channel Contract la
(January 2008). Remaining contracts scheduled for award in 2007 include: Newark Bay Contract Area 1, Pt Jersey

Contract Area 3, and Anchorage Channel Contract 1 b.

AUTHORIZED PROJECT (Consolidated) COST:
Estimated Federal Cost Estimated Non-Federal Cost
Total

$1.300,000,000 $1.200,000,000 $2,500,000,000

CONTACT: Harold 1. Hawkins, P.E., Project Manager, mail to:h.a!91Q.haw:lCins~usace.arm'y.mil , (917) 790-8204 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/ 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278

A

000004

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 9 of 38

1

H. Hawkins

9

2 sort of being admi tted as expert.
3
Q

What did you seek to qualify as in

4 terms of being an expert?
5

A

That was for my father-in-law and

6 that was about a home air-conditioning system.
7
Q

Okay.

Have you been the project

8 manager for the Harbor Deepening Proj ect from

9 the inception of that project?
10
A

Pretty much.

Tully was the first

11 project manager during the feasibility stage
12

of the forty-five foot project.

I'm not

13 exa c t 1 Y sure who wa s commanding the fort y foot

project. We had a different sort of 15 organization at that time and it was more of a 16 handoff, so you had probably several people
14

17 that was involved in what would now be called

18 proj ect management.
19
Q

Is the current Harbor Deepening

20 Project one that you would refer to as the

21 fifty foot project?
22
A
Q

Yes.
About when did that start in terms

23

24 of your involvement as the project manager of

25 it?
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000005

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 10 of 38

1

H. Hawkins
A

10

2

The official start was probably

3 March of 2004 with the award of SKVK2 for the
4

Federal Government.

You had the award of area

5 five where the Port Authority piggybacked on

6 to ours, so depending on how you want to

7 interpret when the fifty foot started, it
8 either started with the Port Authority
9 deepening of that area or with us initiating

10 SKVK2.
11
Q

Have you been involved in all of

12 the KVK Harbor Deepening Projects that have

13 occurred in recent years?
14
A
Q

For the forty-five, yes.

15 16
17

And for the fifty?

A
Q

Yes.
Were you the project manager of

18 the KVK8 proj ect that's the subj ect of this

19 litigation?
20
A
Q

Yes.
As a proj ect manager did you have

21

22 any role to play in the preparation of the
23 plans and specifications for the KVK8 Project?
24
A
Q

Yes.
What was your role?
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

25

800-608-6085
000006

/

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 11 of 38

It
CENAN-CT

e
rl.M4yø3
Responsible Bidder for Kill Van Kull and Newar Bay

MEMORAUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Determination of

Chanels Phase II Contract 8, New York and New Jersey

Re: Solicitation DACW51-03-B-0004

1. Jay Cashman me. in response to the reference IF solicitation, subsequent to the

bid opening, on 25 March 03, was determined to be the apparent low bidder.
2, The techncal PDT members performed a ngorous responsibility determnation for this effort, IA W FAR 9.104-2 and 9.104-3.
3. Basd on the fidings provided by the techncal members of

the PDT, as provided by the responsibility position paper on Jay Cashman Inc. it is the deterination
of

the undersigned that Jay Cashman, Inc. is considered responsible for contrct

performance IA W the subject solicitation.

End

~AVIDH. ~E;MA
MA, USA Contracting Offcer

í)~/l~

000007

001662

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 12 of 38

William Bruce Wood
Page 11

What does it mean for a dredging contract to be
a new work contract?
Can you repeat that?

MS. KILFOYLE: Can you read it back?
(Reporter read back the last question.)

It's dredging deeper than the published
elevation of the channel f a deepening proj ect.

Okay. Was KVK 8 a new work contract?

Yes.
What does hard bottom material mean in the
context of a dredging contract?
It means that it's rock or hard till.
What is till?
Hard-packed material.

Can you give an example of something that might
fall into that category?
Gravel f heavy clays frock.

Did - - I'm sorry. Are you finished?

Yes.
Did KVK 8 contain hard bottom material?

Yes.
Are you familiar with multibeam surveys?

Yes.
What arè multibeam surveys?

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES DC 1-800-441-3376 MD 1-800-539-6398 VA 1-800-752-8979
000008

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA
~'

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 13 of 38

e
SECTION 0010
SUPL OR

e
PRICE SC
SERVICE AN PRICECO

.
DW DESCRIPIONS
BASE BID lTM.4;
OOIAC DREING, TRSPRTATION, PROCSIG AND PLACEMENT

OUAN l1 UN PRCE AMOUN

001 CONSTRUCT NAVIGATION CHNN
OOOlAA MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION

LSS
50

$6,' Sl J U8; Oò
$ /(),(XX. ócJ ,
s~ b~ 120.00

OOOIAB DEBRIS REOVAL AN DISPOSAL
OF NON-ROCK

TON S 20

DELIVRY, 214,400

CY s44.C?O

AT TI KA, EXCLUDES DEWATEG: IT 00IAD (pLACE AT eith th OENJ CHROKE
BAYONN LAFILL REMEIATION AN/OR AT TI CONTClR'S PROPOSED
DISPOAL FACIIT (lS))
Name of Sit

MATE UNSUIABLE FOR PLACEMENT

(s) r'EIV:r bOU:Coul-S¡ NameofPOs) j'F""SU", I/JIl4/V
Add of Site (s)
Phones (s)

SIft.

7~A~/ar¡;

NJ

Ln/-3?7- Ql30

'it,'d;:~:fi;~~1l~t¡l~.t.i~rr:7ON ~::~ , . . . , . .' ..,:;..1.::.'

.~~.':.t~;~~;;,,;)'~.,0:':;:~WW~~~~~ ~~=~:~ FACIL~,40 CY S 1_00 $ 7-'t- Ya'/. 00 . '..

,¡.'r',:;' ' . ~CHjDRlLUNGANSAMLING 15 'EÄ;-S:S;OoÓ .~s7S;0l.~;,,'.', .,;:, 4~;~~~~f~~,i"'~"C"kf":~j~'t;~0);~xi:J~:;~:Z,,~,~~ ,

.,'Ã~' ." 'C.' .Ol~_.'" ," .,t. "',..."': ,i,,,..,;i . .
'_ l~':;%6;;~~J:, ~~~~é;~r::Ct ~t¿'i;j:~~~~~i:: ~§r~i~~'~\~"'~.~~;i.~.:~/;:!¿~~:t~~f:Nt;; :~.;~t;~E~P~~f;;~':~:'~t~~~i~::E~~;t0~ .:: .

OOiAH DREING, TRSPORTATlON,DELIVY, 23,850 CY s 3' ,00 s ~si, 'on ()

. Am PLACEME OF NON-ROC '
MATERILS UNSUIABLE FOR PLACEME

'. . AT J1HA for PLACEME ATTI NEWAR BAY , CONFD DISSAL FACI, CDF.
OOOIAL TI DRIING, BLASTIG, DREDGING,

AN DISPOSAL OF ROCK MATERIS AT TH

15,200 CY sSOR

, 00

S 760.000. Of ,

ARTIICI REF

.

TOTAL

BASE

BID: $.~S yt,O..-I30. 00

~2-Seon 0010

1

000009

001634

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA
.'

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 14 of 38

e
OPTONAl. IT..S

e
LS S 100 (Y ,

.

002 ADDmONALCOST FOR OPTIONAL INSURNCE

s leJqoOO. oc

003 Dot us

00 Dot us
005 Material wltIln A_unc Are 4A
OooSA DREING, TRSPRTATION, DELIVRY,
AND PLACEME OF NON-ROC
81,830

cysh.OO
cys40.CO

s M~/98û. 00
S4Kb. 'i.OO ,

MATE SUITABLE FOR PLACEME
AT TH HAR
OOSB

DREING, TRSPORTATION, DELIVRY, 12,170 PROCSING AN PLACENT OF NON-ROCK

MATE UNSUIABLE FOR PLACEME
AT TH BAR, EXCLUDES DEW A TEG:IM OOOSC

(pLACE AT eith the OENJ CHOKE BAYONN LAFIL REIATION AN/OR
At TI CONTCTR'S PROPOSED DISPOSAL F ACllIT (I)
AS IN IT 0OOIAC)

.

(s) NaofPOI) DE I1 GOLF COiAC'í r in: J~$S ieA l /Æ.d:ItA
Nam of Site

Add of Site (I)

RA,r",/l tv
,.

Phes (i)

?1'J/-377-Q33()

005C DEWATERIG IN ACCORDANCE WI 12,170
TI HOST STATE WQC AN DISPOSAL FACllIT

cys/.DO

s 12., 70~

, 00

TERM AND CONDmONS FOR UPLAND PLACEME

00 All Materils In Accace are 6 and 7
00A DREING, TRNSPRTATION, DEIVRY, 112,55 CY $/O.OÖ
s " I2K StSà tX

AN PLACE OF NON-ROC
MATERI SUIABLE FOR PlACEMENT AT TH BA

,,

00 TH DRIING, BLAG, DREING, 30,375 CY S S-O.. 00
AND DISPOSAL OF ROCK MATERILS AT TH

$

liS' ß" 7S0~ 00

ARTICI REEF

00

DREING, TRSPRTATION, DELIVY,

PROCESING AND PLACEME OF NON-ROCK MATERIS UNSUIABLE FOR PLACEMBNl AT TH BA, EXCLUDES DEW A TERIG:IM 0000

1,480

CYS 49, $"0

s 73.2'0,00 ,

(pLACEME AT eiter the OBNJ CHROKE

BAYONN LAFn REDIATION ANOR
AT 11 CONTCfOR'S PROPOSED DISPOSAL FACn.IT (I)

.

Nam ofPO(I) ~ £5 ~ 11;1 v.e L Ii -Add of

AS IN ITM 00IAC) Name ofSil (i) () Je I'T h () ÚÃ/ sl rr

Sit (i)

BAV~ IU
2./~ 377- Ç:~30

Phon (i)

Am2-Secon 0010

2

000010

001635

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA
'.'

.

,.

.

-

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 15 of 38

e
$11 1f5¿ 00

oo06D DEWATEG IN ACCORDANCE wr 1,480 CY $ 2.. ieTI HOST STATE WQC AN DISSAL FACHlT
TERMS AND CONDmONS FOR UPLAN PLACEME

TotaofalOptionyOO2-0 5~. l¡Y6, 5'72-. aõ
TOTAL BASE BID PLUS OPTONAL ITEMS: 53 9, 30?, 02. L. co ,

..

.

Am2-Seon 0010

3

000011

001636

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 16 of 38

e
13530rx1535.
4. Dredge/Disposal Inspector.

e

problem with opetionlficton of the ADISS/ ADISSPlay/ ADISSLt eqpment should be diecte to

SAlC persnnel imately, at (401) 261-4931, (401) 847-4210, and to the NY Distrct at (212) 264

The Contrctor at hisler own expense shal have the USACE certifed Inspector(s) orOpen Water
Disposal of Dredged Matenal overee the placement activities of all drdged materals at the uplad

disposl sites, Newa Bay Confed Dissal Facilty and the HAS or arificia reef site, or other ocea placement loction, ifus. The Drdgelspsal hipetor sha be respnsible for ensurg that th requments contained in the drwigs, spcifications, the New Jersey DEP Water Quality
Certficate/Coasal Zone Determation and NYS DEC WQC/CZM are met. The Inpector must

complete USACE Traorttion and Placement Logs and checklists for all placement activities performed Inspectors wil be reuired to be on duty and in the towig vessel wheelhouse, to observe scow monitorig equipment fuction, watch for endage spcies, and perorm other inpector duties,
from the time the towig vessel depar from the dredgig site until the scow has completly emptied and

all reporting requiennents have been completed.

5. General Requirements
5.1 Overdepth and Side Slopes

5.1. Allowable Overdepth
To cover inccurcies of

the drdgig pross, maena actully reoved from with the spified aras

to be drged to depth as specifed below for alowable overepth, will be estiated and paid for at the

contrct price. Allowable overdepth dredging will be petted to a depth of not more than 1.5 ft for all
drdging ar. The requird drdgig depth as shown on the drwings is 47 ft below ML W. An

allowable overdepth drdging wil be measured and paid for at the applicable contrct price in the same
marier as specifed for the overlying matenal.
5.1.2 Side Slopes

The side slope drdgig requirments as shown on the drawings are as follows:

Non-Rock material: tV to 3H

Rock material: tV to IH
Mate acrually removed with liits shall provide for fial side slopes not flatter than those indicated
on the drwings and wil be estited and paid for. The Contrctor may drge matenal in original position or may drge below the pay slope plane at the bottom of the slope to allow for sloughg of upslope material capable of fallig into the cut. However, material removed below any pay slope plane will not be estiate for payment. In computig the liitig amount of side slope drdgig, the reuid
depth indicated on the drwigs, measured vercaly, wil beused. The quantity of

materal to be paid for

shl not be in excess of tht origily lyig above ths litig slope. Side slopes ar given for payment
puroses only and are not necessaly the angle of repose of th soil. Sloughg side slopes shll not be

the basis for claim agai the Governent. End slopes, where indicated on the drwings, sh be trated in the same maner as side slopes.

Am2- Section 02900

3

000012

001455

;..c,_"...~~

,

-~'....Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA Document 28-4 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 17 of 38

1

H, Hawkins

43

1

2

survey issues?

2

3
4

A There was a conflict with surveys,
but most of the issues were variation in
estimated quantity, that I mainly recall.

3
4

5
6 7
8

Not

5
6 7
8

so much because of survey itself as to the

amount of material that was removed and
conflicts with what our survey said and the
contractor's survey said.
Q

9

9

10 11
12

Do you recall what the project

10

depth was for the KVK8 Proj ect?
A

11
12

It was required -- it was a

13
14

forty-five foot project, but we required a

13
14

clear forty-seven feet for the forty-five foot

15

proj ect,

The two feet difference is the

15

16
17 18

safety factor that the Corps requires for our

16
17 18

hard bottom contracts,
Q

What does a hard bottom contract

19

mean?
A

19

20 21
22

It's loosely defined to a certain

20 21 22

extent, but it mainly is dealing with material
in which if the ship hits, that there's the
possibility of having damage done to the hull,

23
24

23
24

Soft bottom if it hits the likelihood of
damage to the bottom is highly unlikely.
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

25

Rock

25

800-608-6085 000013
Ii

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA
1

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 18 of 38

R. Kiss

15

2 redundant and looked upon as time wasting
3

things.

Our crew chiefs in the field always

4 complained they were spending most of their

5 time doing quality control work rather than
6

doing surveys.
you to do.

I said that's my money, I'll

7 take care of that and you just do what I tell
8

So A, it was a quality control in

9 the field and B, we realized early on that due
10

to the number of

the amount of data that

11 was available one product for the purposes of 12 new work dredging was not sufficient so we 13 decided inhouse to provide two products to the

14 construction division for their use.
15
Q

What were the two products?
One was a hit map, which was

16

A

17 strictly the shallowest soundings available

18 from the database and that product was the
19 result of the shoalest soundings that were
20

available wi thin the data cells.

We then

21 produced another product, which was a general

22 sounding map, which used the average depth of

23 the sounds wi thin a cell in order to produce a
24 more equitable volume number for payment

25 purpose s.
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000014

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 19 of 38

1

H. Hawkins
Q

14

2

When was tha t?
That was back in the early '90s.

3
4

A
Q

Was a decision made to employ

5 multi beam surveying in the KVK projects?
6 7
8

A
Q

Yes,
Who made that decision?

A

Sort of made by our headquarters

9 people who felt that that was the most

10 accurate method of doing surveys.
11
Q

Was multi beam surveying used from

12 the beginning of the KVK Harbor Deepening

13 projects?
14
A

Offhand I -- I can't remember what

15 we used in the first one, but I believe it
16 was.
17
Q

C an you remembe r any part i cul ar

18 time when multi beam surveying was in wide

19 spread use in the New York District?
20
A

I would say that the multi beam

21 survey was utilized extensively starting right
22 after we had completed the -- the forty foot

project. We, you know, phased it in, or I 24 should say the forty foot proj ect we phased it
23

25

into the forty-five foot project,
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

Prior to

800-608-6085
000015

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 20 of 38

1

R. Ki s s
Q

9

2

In the field of multi-beam

3 surveying?
4

A

And bringing various parts of the

5 Core surveying organizations together.
6
Q

You said with the advance of

7 multi-beam surveying, is there a particular
8 time period that you would assign to describe

9 the advance of multi-beam surveying?
10
A

i would say probably around 1995,

11 1996 is when it sort of began, but within the
12 Core of Engineers it probably was a few years

13 after that, maybe in the late nineties.
14
Q

Is there any sort of a surveying

15 conference that's held on a yearly basis or

16 anything like that in the North Atlantic 17 Division or in the Core?
18
A

Yes, we began a North Atlantic

19 Division multi-beam conference a number of
20 years ago, I don't remember the exact year,

21 but we, in the New York district, were the
22

ones who initiated that conference.

It used

23 to be a tri annual survey conference that most

24 of the survey organizations would attend

25 historically.
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000016

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 21 of 38
EM 1110-2-1003 1 Jan 02

Chapter 1

Introduction
1-1. Purpose
This manual provides techncal guidance for pedorming hydrogrphic sureys that support the plannng, engineering design, constrction, operation, maintenance, and regulation of navigation, flood control, river engineerig, charting, and coastal engineering projects. Accuracy standards and quality control criteria are
defined to establish US Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE)-wide unformity in pedorming sureys

involving dredging measurement, payment, and acceptance.

1-2. Applicabilty
This manual applies to all USACE commands having responsibility for pedorming, contracting, or monitoring hydrographic surveys in support of the Corps civil works activities.
1-3. Distribution

This publication is approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

1-4. References and Bibliography
Referenced USACE publications are listed at Appendix A. Where applicable, bibliographic information is listed at the end of each chapter.

1-5. Use of Manual
This manual shall be used as a technical guide in pedorming hydrographic surveys with USACE hired-labor forces or contracted surey forces. It should be directly referenced in contract specifications for dredging or Architect-Engineer survey services. The accuracy standards and quality control criteria in the manual shall be specified for all surveys supporting dredging measurement, payment, and acceptance functions. This manual may be referenced should hydrographic sureying fuctions be required as part of a USACE militar constrction or environmental restoration activity. It is also applicable to surveys performed or procured by local interest groups under various cooperative or cost-sharig agreements.

1-6. Background
this manual was published in 1991 and was revised in 1994. Most ofthe standards and technical guidance in the 1991 and 1994 versions were designed to support older analog depth recording instruments, mechanical, visual, or microwave positioning, and manual data processing and drafting methods. Since the last update, signficant advances in hydrographic sureying technology have
The original version of

occured. These include replacement of short-range microwave positionig techniques with local and

nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) systems, enhanced applications of and expanded use of full-bottom coverage acoustic multibeam systems, airborne LIDAR hydrographic surey systems, and fuctional use of carer phase DGPS for accurate water surace determination. Field-finish data collection equipment and softare has also become more robust, allowing for near-final data editing and processing on board the surey boat. Data accuracies have been enhanced though use of inertial and DGPS
vessel motion sensors. Automated data editing, processing, transfer, and Internet display methods have also

evolved considerably since 1994. In addition, the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and the
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) have promulgated updated hydrographic surey accuracy

1-1

000017

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA
EM 1110-2-1003 1 Jan 02

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 22 of 38

standards, statistical measures, and reporting standards. The accuracy standards in this manual were revised
to more closely conform to these international and Federal standards. Older surey classifications (i.e.,

Contract Payment, Project Condition, and Reconnaissance) were originally developed to reflect accuracy limitations in manual and microwave positioning equipment. DGPS positioning has largely eliminated these distinctions; thus survey classifications have been modified accordingly. The manual now contains separate chapters that detail curent procedures for dredging sureys, river engineering and charing sureys,
airborne LIDAR surveys, and coastal engineering sureys. The chapter on contracted sureys has been

expanded to reflect the increasing use of Architect-Engineer service contracts for hydrographic sureying.

1-7. Mandatory Requirements
ER 1110-2-1150 (Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects) prescribes that mandatory requirements
be identified in engineer manuals. Mandatory requirements in this manual are sumarized at the end of each chapter. Mandatory accuracy standards, quality control, and quality assurance criteria are sumarized
considerations: (1) assurance of

in tables within each chapter. The mandatory criteria contained in this manual are based on the following navigation safety, (2) essential to navigation project fiction, (3) previous Corps experience and practice has demonstrated criteria are critical, (4) Corps-wide geospatial data standardization requirements, (5) adverse economic impacts if criteria are not followed, and (6) HQUSACE commitments to the dredging industr.
a. Previous versions of this manual contained more rigid prescriptive criteria for performing all hydrographic surveys, including mandatory plant and surey instrmentation, equipment

aspects of

calibration procedures, accuracy standards, data collection procedures, and data plotting criteria. This updated version of the .manual now limits mandatory requirements to those dealing with resultant accuracy standards and selected quality control and quality assurance criteria. This change more closely conforms to USACE policy emphasizing pedormance-based specifications--and recognizes the fact that technical procedures, equipment, and operating specifications are now evolving at a rapid pace.

b. Equipment calibration, operation, and procedural methods for pedorming and processing
automated field hydrographic sureys are now usually detailed in operation manuals provided by the various equipment and softare vendors. References and recommendations in this manual to specific operational

methods must be carefully weighed against newly evolving technology and the latest manufacturer's recommendations.
c. Other Corps regulations may dictate mandatory requirements for processing, displaying,

transferrng, and archiving hydrographic survey data. These mandatory regulations will be referenced in
each chapter when applicable. As surey technology and procedures develop, distrcts are strongly
manual--see Proponency and Waivers section at the end of

encouraged to recommend modifications to all mandatory criteria or technical guidance contained in ths this chapter.

1-8. Scope of Manual
hydrographic surveying performed to support USACE river and harbor navigation activities, flood control projects, and coastal engineering projects. Special emphasis is placed on
This manual covers all aspects of

sureys that support constrction/dredging of coastal and inland waterway projects. An overview of these
support fictions is covered in Chapter 2. The manual focuses on the preparation of design drawings and

other documents associated with these projects, including related contracted constrction pedormance

activities. Throughout the manual, mandatory or recommended hydrographic surey criteria are normally summarized in tables. Technical or procedural guidance is in more general terms where methodologies are
described in readily available references or surey instruentation operating manuals. Numerous references

are made to those more detailed operation manuals. Where procedural guidance is otherwise unavailable

1-2

000018

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 23 of 38
EM 1110-2-1003 1 Jan 02

Chapter 11

Acoustic Multibeam Survey Systems for Deep-Draft Navigation Projects
11-1. General Scope and Applications
This chapter provides USACE policy and guidance for acquisition, calibration, quality control, and quality assurance of multibeam survey systems used on deep-draft navigation, flood control, and charting
projects. Instrctions for operating specific multibeam systems, or the acquisition, processing, and

editing of data from these systems, are found in manufacturer's operating manuals and softare

processing manuals specific to the systems employed.

Figure 11-1. Full-coverage muJtibeam survey of coastal inlet navigation project (Galveston District)

11-2. Background
The US Navy developed multibeam swath survey technology in the early 1960s for deep-water bathymetric mapping. Only since the early 1990s has this technology been developed and marketed for shallow-water USACE applications, such as those illustrated in Figure 11- 1. It is expected that the use of multibeam systems wil significantly increase over the next few years, and wil gradually supplant single
beam transducer surey systems in deep-draft navigation projects. Multibeam systems, when coupled

with digital side-scan imaging systems, have the potential to become a primary strke detection method in USACE. Multibeam systems have technically advanced since their introduction in the early 1990's to the point that they now have a direct application to most Corps navigation project surey activities. When

11-1

000019

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 24 of 38
EM 1110-2-1003 1 Jan 02

more data than can be plotted or is needed for volume computations, it may optionally be thinned down into rectangular bins (or grids) using standard commercial softare routines. The maximum bin size wil depend on the application. For dredging measurement, payment, or acceptance, the bin size should be kept as small as possible--typically less than 1 to 5 m is recommended. The shot point depth nearest the bin centroid shall be used; not average or minimum, or shoal-biased depths. Bin size may be increased for smooth, soft bottoms.

11-14. Multibeam Publications
The following publications provide additional technical information on the use and calibration of multibeam systems.

a. Field Procedures for the Calibration of Shallow Water Multibeam Echo-Sounding Systems, André Godin, Canadian Hydrographic Service, February 1996.
b. HYPACK MAX User's Manual, Coastal Oceanographics, Inc., Middlefield, CT., www.coastalo.com. May 2000.
c. Multibeam Surveying Workshop Proceedings, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NOAA Surveying, Mapping, and Remote Sensing Conference, St. Louis, MO, 19 Aug 1997.

d. Trimble HYDROpro Navigation Software Manual, Trimble Navigation Limited, Sunnyvale, CA, http://www.trimble.com e. American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM), ACSM-ASPS-MAPS-MARLS 2000
Workshop Program,

Hydrographic Sureying; Little Rock, AR, 21 March 2000 (Shallow Water

Multibeam Systems for NOAA Hydrographic Surveys)

11-15. Mandatory Requirements
The policy outlined in paragraph 11-4 (USACE Multibeam Policies, Procedures, and Applications) is considered mandatory. All calibration, QC, and QA criteria summarized in Table 11-2 are mandatory.

11-33

000020

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA
EM 1110-2-1003 1 Jan 02

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 25 of 38

f Volume computations. Measurement and payment surveys performed using either multibeam or multiple transducer boom systems shall compute pay quantities using the full, densely populated, data digital terrain models (DTM) generated by swath survey data. Data sets should be thinned to a gridded or binned to a digital elevation model (DEM) only when multiple or duplicate points within a specified bin size exist; the representative depth selected within a fixed bin should not be biased or overly smoothed. The bin (or DEM post) size should not exceed either the estimated positional accuracy or the acoustic
beam footprint size. The algorithms used for data thinning routines must be thoroughly tested to verify

that thinned volume quantities do not differ from raw data set quantities. In effect, data thinning shall be kept to an absolute minimum. Actual dredged quantities should be computed from either the raw DTM or the gridded DEM relative to the applicable payment template using standard CADD softare routines. (For sparse data sets, such as traditional single-beam cross-section surveys, dredged volumes may be computed using traditional average end area routines or from triangulated irregular network (TIN) models).

g. Dredging contract specifcations. Measurement and payment provisions in dredging contract specifications shall clearly stipulate the tye of survey system, acoustic frequency, navigation guidance system and software, data acquisition parameters (horizontal and vertical control, density, etc.), data processing and binning techniques, and mathematical volume computational method/software that wil be employed by the government. In order to ensure consistency when performing measurement and
payment surveys, commercially

available softare should be employed for data collection, data

processing, data quality control, and volume computations.

h. Training requirements. Multibeam system operators require considerable expertise in both surveying and on CADD workstations. Prior to using multibeam systems on USACE surveys, system operators should have completed specialized training. Presently, the Corps PROSPECT course on Hydrographic Surveying Techniques is not considered sufficient for multibeam training. Comprehensive training courses are available from: (1) the University of New Brunswick, (2) Coastal Oceanographics, Inc., (3) Triton Elics International, (4) Odom Hydrographic Systems, Inc., (5) University of New Hampshire-NOAA Joint Hydrographic Center, or (6) The Hydrographic Society of America seminars. Multibeam manufacturers may also offer specialized training sessions. In addition, the operator should have completed a manufacturer or Corps PROSPECT course associated with the differential GPS system, inertial compensating system, and CADD processing/editing system employed. For contracted multibeam survey services, the Architect-Engineer (A-E) contract solicitations shall require that proposals
identify the experience and training of system operators in Block 7 of

the SF 255.

i. Plant utilzation andjustifcation. Multibeam sureys may be obtained using hired-labor forces
multi beam systems should internally determine that such a system represents an effective and efficient utilization of floating plant, given the $200 K to $500 K investment for a complete system. Some factors that should be evaluated or through A-E service contracts. Commands considering procurement of

include: (1) proposed multibeam vessel, (2) system configuration (hardware and softare), (3) estimated

annual utilization (time and location), (4) FTE allocations, (4) system operator qualifications, (5) field data processing, editing, and plotting, and tuaround capabilities, (6) estimated daily plant and survey crew rental rate, and (7) comparative analyses between hired-labor and contract costs.
j. Calibration and quality control. Field calibration of multibeam acoustic refractions and vessel

motion is significantly more critical and complicated than that required for standard single beam systems. Recommended calibration requirements, procedures, and allowable tolerances are described in later sections of this chapter. Accuracy performance tests are essential in order to demonstrate data quality. These quality control calibrations and quality assurance performance tests must be processed and adjusted on board the survey vessel prior to and during the survey--after-the-fact checks in the district office are of
11-10

000021

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 26 of 38

e
L 14 PERFORMCE EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR (1985 JAN HQ USACE)

e

DACW51-03-B-0004 0002
Page 21 of 51

communication range of approximately ten (10) miles. The frequency has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission.

a. As a minimum, the Contractor's performance will be evaluated upon final acceptance of the work. However, interim evaluations may be prepared at any time during contract performance when determined to be in the best interest of the Government. b. The format for the evaluation will be SF 1421, and the Contractor will be rated either outstanding, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory in the areas of Contractor Quality Control, Timely Performnce, Effectiveness of Management, Compliance with Labor Standards, and Compliance with Safety

Standards. The Contractor will be advised of any unsatisfactory rating,

either in an individual element or in the overall rating, prior to completing the' evaluation, and all Contractor comments will be made a part of the official record. Performance Evaluation Reports will be available to all DoD contracting offices for their future use in determining Contractor responsibility, in compliance with DFARS 36.201 (c) (1).

1.15 FINAL EXAMINATION AND ACCEPTANCE (1965 APR OCE)

As soon as practicable after the completion of an entire acceptance area, a final examination of the work will be conducted by the Contracting Officer, at the cost and expense of the Government by acoustic sweep survey system. Should any shoals, lumps, or other lack of contract depth be disclosed by this examination, the Contractor will be required to remove same. The Contractor, or his authorized representative, will be notified when soundings ,or, sweepings are to be made, and will be permitted to accompany the survey party. The Government shall notify the Contractor of the findings of survey within ten (10) calendar days from the date the survey was performed by the Government. When the area is found to be in a satisfactory condition, it will be accepted. Should more than two sounding or sweeping

operations 'by- the fuvernment over an area be'necessary by reason of work for
the removal of shoals disclosed at a prior sounding or sweeping, the cost of such third and any subsequent sounding or sweeping operations will be charged against the Contractor at the rate of $8,200.00 per occurrence. For purposes of this Contract, Acceptance Area 1,2,2A,3,4,4A,5,6 and 7 as defined on the drawings have been identified as acceptance areas. Progress payment shall be arranged at the pre-construction conference. The Contractor shall perform pre-final hydrographic sweep surveys of an entire acceptance area to verify the area is satisfactorily completed prior to final examination by the Government. The pre-final surveys shall be performed using a multitrack or multibeam survey system to insure 100% coverage of the entire acceptance area. The proposed method for performing these surveys and all equipment and programs shall be submitted for approval. The Contractor's hydrographic surveys shall meet or exceed the survey standards listed in EC 1130-2-210, HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYING, 1 October 1998 for Class I

surveys.
1. 16 FUEL USAGE

000022

001395

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 27 of 38

1

R. Conetta

14

2 York and we would meet wi th the contractor

3 prior to, typically prior to stop and start of
4

construction.

In some cases construction

5 would already be underway by the time we had

6 that meeting, but those were the two pre 7 construction, so to speak, conferences we

8 would have.

9 Q Do you specifically remember
10 whether there was a pre construction
11 conference that you attended on the KVK8

12 proj ect?
13
14
A
Q

Specifically?
Yes.
I can't say I remember

15

A

16 s p e c if i c all y t hat I was at the KVK 8 pre

17 construction conference. 18 Do you recall whether the subj ect Q
19 of surveys was something that was normally

20 addressed at the pre construction conferences

21 for dredging?
22
A

Yes, typically we would have

23 representatives from our Survey Branch at the 24 pre construction conference and to varying 25 degrees the topic would be -- would be
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000023

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 28 of 38

1

W, McDonald, II
Q

11

2

Did you have any involvement in

3 the preparation of the plans and

4 specifications for KVK8?
5
6

A
Q

No.
Or any input wi th regard to any

7 surveying procedures that should be specified

8 in the contract?
9

A
Q

No,
Were you involved at all in the

10

11 pre construction meetings that took place on 12 KVK8?
13
14
A
Q

We did not attend, no,

Is that typical for your office

15 not to attend it?
16
17
A
Q

Not typical at all.

You normally do attend?

18

A
Q

Yes.
Why is it that there was no one

19

20 that attended this particular one?
21
22
A
Q

I don't know.

Who would normally attend, any

23 particular person?
24
A

I was the one that attended

25 ninety-five percent of all of those and every
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000024

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA
1

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 29 of 38

W, McDonald, II

12

2 once in awhile I brought someone wi th me or

3 someone else attended, but primarily myself.

4 Q You don't recall why you didn't

6 A No. 7 Q You weren't told not to attend? 8 A No.
9
Q

5 attend this one?

What was your normal role at those

10 pre-con meetings?
11
A

Main role was to be there for any

12 questions on surveying methodology, how we do 13 our volume computations and general knowledge

14 of meeting all the partners of the team also
15 so we know each other by face and so forth.
16
17 18
Q

Including the contractor?

A
Q

Correct,
If there were no questions would

19 you make a presentation?

20 A No.
21 Q Did you usually get questions?
22
A

Generally what would occur, their

23 surveyor and I would meet and it was an

24 informal situation, either during lunch hour 25 or something similar.
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000025

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 30 of 38

1

H. Hawkins
A
Q

25

2

I believe so.

3
4

Were you in charge of it?

A
Q

No.
Were you similarly involved in pre

5

6 construction meetings for the other KVK

7 projects as well?
8 9

A
Q

Yes.
Do you recall whether the survey

10 methods that would be employed for acceptance

11 surveys were discussed at the pre con.?
12
A

We discussed something about

13

surveys.

Surveys was not present, but I'm

14 pretty sure that I mentioned at that time, as
15 I usually mention, that instead of fighting

16 over tenths of inches that they should try to
17 get as much of the paid over depth as possible

18 to avoid the conflicts of tenth of an inch 19 that we've run into, you know, in all the 20 other forty-five foot projects,
21
Q

Do you know why Survey was not in

22 attendance at the pre con.?
23
A

Offhand I don't recall why they

24 were not.
25
Q

Were they in attendance at some of
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000026

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 31 of 38

1

H, Hawkins

26

2 the pre con. meetings?
3
4

A

I would say they were in

attendance
other ones.

I'm pretty sure they were in

5 attendance by somebody from Surveys in all the
6

I cannot say for certain, but,

7 you know, I'm pretty sure that the majority of

8 the other pre cons somebody was there,
9
Q

Is it customary to have a separate

10 meeting after the pre con. either that day or 11 some time thereafter dealing just with
12 surveys?
13
A

If the contractor, you know, so

14 asks, we usually at the pre con., and I'm

15 pretty sure I'd mention at the pre can. that
16 they had the ability to ride our boat and I
1 7 us u a I I Y hi g hI Y r e co mm end t hat the y , you k now,

18 ride our survey vessel so that an
19 understanding could be, you know, obtained of 20 what we're doing and they better understand 21 what we're doing and hopefully that helps in,

22 you know, resolving conflicts,
23
Q

Do you recall having any

24 discussions with the contractor during a
25 performance of the KVK8 Project about the
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000027

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA
1

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 32 of 38

W. McDonald, II
Q

13

2

Did that happen on the KVK8

3 project?
4

A

No, not that I'm aware of, I

5 wasn't there so.
6
Q

Some time thereafter did you meet

7 with the Cashman surveyor?
8

A
Q

No,
Did you ever meet the people who

9

10 were doing the surveys for Cashman?
11 12
A
Q

No.
What about the project meetings

13 that would occur on the project, did you

14 attend any of those?
15
16
A
Q

No,
Is that also something that

17 normally is not done by your people?
18
A

Correct, we do not attend the You're talking about the meetings

19

meetings.
Q

20 held by construction?
21
22

Yes.
No,
Even if there were survey issues

A
Q

23

24 they wouldn't ask you to attend?
25
A

If there was a survey issue it
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000028

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 33 of 38

1

R. Ki s s
A

62

2

I assume it was the construction

3 division representatives, we never saw them.
4

Q

You would, I assume, at some point

5 receive a request from construction to please

6 go out and survey this area?
7
8

A
Q

That is correct.

And you would go out and do it and

9 you would return the results back to

10 construction?
11 12
A
Q

Correct.
What was the normal turn around

13 time with something like that?
14
A

It depends on two factors, the

15 size of the area to be surveyed and how well
16

the dredger dredged.

The more hits that we

17 located the longer it would take us to process 18 the data because each individual hit had to be
19

manually researched.
Q

It's a long process to

20 take care of.
21

What's involved in manually

22 researching the hit?
23
24
A

You have to actually go through

the data sets. In order for a sounding, a 25 shoal sounding to be put on the survey, there
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000029

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA
1

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 34 of 38

R. Ki s s

63

2 have to be three hits of that elevation seen
3

within the data cell.

So you have to actually

4 go back research the data cell, research the
5 hit, find the cell and take a look at the cell 6 itself and make sure there were three of those

7 soundings in that cell.

8 Q Cell being three feet by three
9 feet roughly?
10
11
A
Q

Right.
How many data points would there

12 typically be in a cell?
13
A

Could be fifty or sixty and

14 generally we look for them to be on separate

15 passes.
16
Q

Do you know whether Cashman was

17 using the shoalest or minimum sounding method

18 on its pre-acceptance surveys?
19
A

After reviewing some of the

20 material, apparently, he was using an average

21 method.
22
Q

Understanding that, I think you

23 said a minute ago you didn't receive these for 24 review during the course of the contract?
25
A

That is correct.
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000030

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 35 of 38

1

R. Conetta
A

34

2

No, I don't specifically recall

3 tha t .
4

Q

When a survey map iS provided to

5 you showing hits, how do you define a hit?
6

A

Any spot as identified under --

7 above forty-seven feet, 47.0.
8
Q

Even a tenth of an inch or a tenth

9 of a foot, I should say?
10 11
12
A
Q

Correct.
Would a contractor be required to

go
a

back and re-dredge a spot that's a tenth of

13
14

foot?
A
Q

Yes.
Is that an expensive proposition

15

16 for a contractor to go back and get spots like

17 that?
18
A

I'm not qualified to say whether
My guess is that it --

19

it's expensive or not.
it's no t che ap .

20

It -- I'm sure it costs them

21 money to get his equipment out there, but I

22 don't have a -- I don't have first hand
23 knowledge of exactly what -- what the expenses

24 are.
25
Q

Did you or your office ever do any
LEX REPORTING SERVICE

800-608-6085
000031

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 36 of 38

John James Galli
Page 39

1 result of that investigation?
2

A.

The conclusions are that the shoalest method

3 shows more higher - - the shoalest method would show

4 nonacceptance more than the average method would.
5

Q.

And do you recall when that investigation

6 occurred?
7

A.

Investigation was ongoing. You did that every

8 time you were processed.
9

Q.

Did you have the opportunity to meet with Army

10 Corps of Engineers representatives from the survey 11 branch during the KVK 8 contract?
12

A.

My recollection is they attended the

13 partnering meetings occasionally. I don i t think we ever
14 had a meeting with them. Our correspondence went

15 through the designated representative.
16
Q.

Did you ever have the opportunity to discuss

17 the method for processing acceptance surveys with a

18 representative of the survey branch?
19
A.
Q.

I never did,

20

Did you ever ride on the Army Corps of

21 Engineers survey boat?
22
23

A.

No.
MS. KILFOYLE: Can we mark this as an exhibit?

24 (Exhibit No.9 marked.)
25 BY MS. KILFOYLE:

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES DC 1-800-441-3376 MD 1-800-539-6398 VA 1-800-752-8979
000032

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 37 of 38

Alex E. Dick
Page 14
1

the mul tibeam surveys for both of these

2 3 4 5 6

projects, Scituate and Hyannis?

A.
Q.

Yes.
Do you know how the Army Corps of Engineers
processed the survey data?

A.

They used, I think, every technique that's

7
8

available and looked at the resul ts and they
made evaluations based on the different
resul ts that you could expect.

9

10

Q.

Did you have a chance to look at the
evaluations that the Army Corps performed?

11
12

A.

Only - - only the end product. They would

13 14

produce maps. So any - - any evaluation that
they did was not distributed to us.
Q.

15
16

Did the maps for those proj ects say what

system was being - - what method was being used

17 18
A.

to process the survey data?

I can't recall if they did, but we would
typically, you know, look at them and - - you

19

20 21
22 23 24

know, it was multibeam at the time .We
understood that there were various methods.

MS. KILFOYLE: Okay. Can we mark
this as Exhibi t 1.

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES DC 1-800-441-3376 MD 1-800-539-6398 VA 1-800-752-8979
000033

Case 1:06-cv-00101-FMA

Document 28-4

Filed 12/14/2007

Page 38 of 38

William Bruce Wood
Page 25
1 2
3

Q.

That i s fine.

Prior to submitting the bid for

the KVK 8 contract f did you ever discuss the

method that the Corps would use to process
acceptance surveys wi th anyone?

4
5
6

A.
Q.

In-house f we probably discussed it.

Do you recall who you discussed it with?

7 8
9

A.
Q.

Probably Jim Galli.
Do you recall the nature of the discussion? It was just in a typical discussion of the

A.

10 11
12 13 14
Q.

proj ect .

I i m sure it was one of the items that

we talked about before we put the final price

in.
Do you recall what Mr. Galli believed was the
method that the Corps would use to process
acceptance surveys?
A.

15 16

I can i t remember directly f but there was nothing
about mentioning or any discussion about a
minimum mul tibeam survey.

17
18

19 20 21 22
23

Q.

Did you have an impression of the method that
the Corps would use to process acceptance

surveys at the time that you were preparing your
bid for the contract?
A.
Based on the plans and specs f I assumed it was

24

an average mul tibeam survey.

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES DC 1-800-441-3376 MD 1-800-539-6398 VA 1-800-752-8979
000034