Work on hold until Oct. 1 over pile-driving issue

Completing the third phase of Washington’s city docks project has been anything but easy.

The latest kink in the project concerns pile-driving efforts.

First, it took more than three years to obtain the permit for the project — an expansion of the marina. Second, there were disputes over the location of channel limits within the Washington harbor, plus negotiations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over how close to that channel the docks could be built.

The project began in March, but it faced a moratorium that prohibits the driving of piles in the Pamlico River between April 1 and Sept. 30 of each year. The city was given permission to delay compliance with that moratorium until April 16.

“We also started that project without resolution of a permit condition introduced by the Corps of Engineers that prohibited mooring of boats to the outboard ends of the expanded docks A and B because they and the Coast Guard were of the opinion that those boats would add to an existing boating safety problem in Washington Harbor,” wrote Bill Forman with Bay Design Group, the engineering firm working with the city on its marina project, in a letter to Washington officials. “We performed a boat traffic study based on similar studies done for large California marinas and found no basis for a boating safety or congestion problem. That study was presented to the Corps of Engineers and they rescinded the permit condition.”

Forman’s letter was included in the City Council’s agenda for its meeting Monday evening. That agenda did not indicated if the council would discuss the issue. The letter is a follow-up communication to the council. Forman appeared before the council May 2 to inform it of the latest developments, including the pile-driving matter, regarding the project.

Pile driving started about March 30, with the contractor, T.D. Eure Construction Co. of Morehead City, with the contractor assuring that all 84 timber piles in the two-dock structure could be driven by April 15, Forman wrote in his letter dated May 9.

“Within two days of starting to drive piles, the Contractor reported that he could not drive the timber piles more than 5 to 6 feet into the bottom. The project was stopped in order to investigate the pile driving conditions,” Forman wrote. “Keep in mind that since 1999, over 220 timber piles have been driven along the Stewart Parkway waterfront for construction of docks A through F, side-to-side docks G-L, and for three 6-pile fendering dolphins at dock L. There were no complaints, delays, claims of differing pile driving conditions, or requests for additional compensation by the contractors that drove those piles. There was no reason to believe that the pile driving conditions in the phase 3 project would be any different.”

The contractor wants more money than the $354,400 contract for the project calls for because he believes the project conditions warrant the increase, according to Forman.

“He ran into some conditions, which he said he couldn’t drive piles through,” Forman told the council May 2. “That’s why we’re doing the investigation.”

Geotechnologies Inc. of Raleigh was hired to perform borings offshore of docks A and B to determine the subsurface conditions and recommend pile-driving equipment appropriate for those conditions, according to Forman’s letter. Once Bay Design Group has the geotechnical report in hand, it plans to work with a geotechnical engineer to formulate a plan to resume pile driving Oct. 1, the letter notes.

Although Bay Design Group has prepared some “worst-case” estimates of what the additional costs associated with the pile-driving conditions might be, it is not presenting those estimates (at this time) because a strategy for addressing any differing pile-driving conditions (if they exist) has not been formulated, Forman wrote. The estimates are based on giving the contractor what he believes he is entitled to and his additional cost for predrilling the piles, Forman wrote.

Forman’s letter notes the overall goal is to keep the project within the limits of the contract price.

“That may require some modifications to the scope of the project together with negotiations with the contractor to complete the work as defined by the contract,” Forman wrote.

City Docks Project scope

The $329,900 base bid for the project includes the following general scope of work:

• Heavy timber construction of 14 new fixed dock boat slips complete with water and marine power utilities.
• Construction of approximately 2,900 square feet of marine pile supported by timber docks and decking.
• Installation of potable water and electrical utilities to serve the new fixed docks including relocation of an existing sewer pump-out device on dock A.

The contractor submitted a $22,000 bid for Alternate 1, which calls for removing and disposing of approximately 2,450 square feet of treated timber decking on docks A and B and replacing with 2-by-8 treated timber decking.

The contractor submitted a $2,500 bid for Alternate 2, which calls for removing existing utility pedestals on docks A and B and resurfacing fiberglass gel coat with marine-paint products.