2011-10-25 Water Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

whereby DWS sees a benefit to the system if DWS adds a connection or changes the line size. That kind of thing would be something above and beyond the contract, Mr. Inaba said. He gave the example of a party that wants a separate connection to their property;that would obviously be out of the scope of the amount in question. The Manager-Chief Engineer noted that this is a design-build contract, similar to the one in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates. A design-build project takes some of the control away from the governing agency, he said. The reason for doing the design-build is timing. DWS would prefer projects that are the conventional pattern of design first,then build. In this case,the contractor does the design and also does the construction. The contractor is responsible for the price he gave, because theoretically he went through the entire design and priced it out, he said. The contingency should have been built into the contractor's fee,the Manager-Chief Engineer said. The Deputy said that with a design-build,the contractor and the consultant are one team, and DWS is on the other side. The design consultant works with DWS to make sure that the design is what DWS wants. That is why DWS is paying for everything, he said. The contingency amount is covered in there, he added. Mr. Kaneshiro noted that there may be some changes, and asked whether there is some type of leeway in the contract or a contingency, on the Department's side. Mr. Inaba said that DWS did include a contingency on the Department's side, which gives DWS the leeway to have the added changes over and beyond what the contractor originally bid on to design and construct. DWS would have a limited amount to do added changes, Mr. Inaba said. Ms. Garson requested three revisions to the agreement. She said that normally, DWS works very well with all of the developers, and they are very reasonable. She wanted language that covered instances where the parties do not agree. She asked for the Board's authorization to add a clause to provide for some sort of alternative dispute resolution for times when the parties do not agree. She suggested the Honolulu arbitration group called DPR. Mr. Lim, introducing Kohanaiki's development manager, Mr. Kaimi Judd, said that he and Mr. Judd will agree to alternative dispute resolution with DPR. Ms. Garson said that clause would be added. She noted that at the bottom of Paragraph 3, Kohanaiki understands that DWS is not going to process or submit any requests for a change order unless Kohanaiki deposits the full monetary amount caused by Kohanaiki's modifications. Ms. Garson said she wanted to add that DWS is not going to submit a request for change order unless the monetary amount is deposited under any circumstance, not only when Kohanaiki requests a modification but also including when there are unforeseen circumstances. She said this is just a clarification. Mr. Lim said that was acceptable to him and his client. Ms. Garson said the third item is a clarification in Paragraph 4. Kohanaiki added the statement that any payments made by Kohanaiki are also going to be credited to the prevailing facilities charges. Ms. Garson wanted to clarify that this is subject to the 24 percent mentioned in the agreement. Mr. Lim said he agrees with that. Ms. Garson apologized for making these changes in front of the Board. The parties did not have time to make all the clarifications before the Board meeting; Kohanaiki needed to have this Item on this month's Agenda. Page 5 of 21 10-25-11—Water Board Minutes js