HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAG2020-079 - Change Order - #1 - HCI Industrial & Marine Coatings, Inc. - 125K Reservoir Recoating and Fall Protection Improvements - 01/11/2021KENT
Agreement Routing Form
For Approvals, Signatures and Records Management -
This form lombines & replaces the Request for Mayor's Signature and Contract Cover Sheet forms'
(Prlnt on pink or cherry colored paper)WaSHtNGToN
f
oLgg
Originator:
S. Anderson
Department:
PW Engineering
Date Sent:
3lt l21
Date Required
N/A
Authorized to Sign:
E Director or Designee E MaYor
Date of Council APProval
N/A
Budget Account Number:
W20050:641 10.330
Budget? EYes E No
Grant? EYes E No
Type: N/A
Category:
Contract
Vendor Name:
HCI lndustrial & Marine Coatings
Sub-Category:
Change Order #1
Vendor Number:
'1787669
project Name: 125K Reservoir Recoating and Fall Protection lmprovements
Work includes grinding
PrOjeCt L)etallS:of coatings, and adding
to be heavily Pitted.
rouoh welds, expanding the amount of sand blasting to include
theiask of back brushing to lill pits and pin holes This work is
rounding off rough pitted edges, increasing lhe number
due to tlie intereiioi surface of the reseruoir was found
Basis for Selection of Contractor: $id
Termination Date: 135 Working DaYS
Agreement Amount: $35,792. 1 0
start Date: 31312020
Local Business? E Yes E No*
*lf meets requirements per KCC 3.70.100, please complete "vendor Purchase-Local Exceptions" form on Crtyspace
Contract Number:
cAG2020-079
Notice required prior to disclosure?
EYes E No
Comments:Date Received by CitY AttorneY:
Date Routed to the Mayor's Office
Date Routed to the City Clerk's Off ce:
Olc
*aJ
-.OIG
.E gr-
o=E,ir!e
.9ut
td(Vl))113-1 -)0
Visit Documents.KentwA.gov to obtain copies of all agreements
.jr^P
KENT
WA3HIN6TON
CHANGE ORDER NO. #L
NAME OF CONTMCTOR: HCI Industrial & Marine Coatings ("Contractor")
CoNTRACT NAME & PROIECT NUMBER:125K Reservoir Recoating & Fall Prote4ion Improvements
ORIGINAL CONTMCT DATE: March 3' 2020
This Change Order amends the above-referenced contracU all other provisions of the
contract that are not inconsistent with this Change Order shall remain in effect. For valuable
consideration and by mutual consent of the pafties, the project contract is modified as follows:
l. Section I of the Agreement, entitled "Description of Work," is hereby modified to add
additional work or revise existing work as follows:
In addition to work required under the original Agreement and any prior
Amendments, Contractor shall provide all labor, materials, and
equiPment necessary to:
Work includes grinding rough welds, expanding the amount of sand
blasting to inclirde roirnding otr rough pitted ed99!, increasing the
numbei of coatings, and adding the task of back brushing to fill pits and
pin holes. This work is due to {he intererior surface of the reservoir was
found to be heavilY Pitted.
2. The contract amount and time for peformance provisions of Section II "Time of
completion," and section III, "Compensation," are hereby modified as follows:
$1J58,412.00Original Contract Sum,
(including aPPlicable
WSST)
alternates and
$0.00Net Change bY Previous Change Orders
( incl. applicable WSST)
$1,358,412.00Current Contract Amount
(incl. Previous Change Orders)
Current Change Order $32,538.27
Applicable WSST Tax on this Change
Order
$3,253.83
Revised Contract Sum $1,394,204.10
CHANGE ORDER - 1 OF 3
Original Time for ComPletion
(insert date)
125 working days
Revised Time for ComPletion un der
prior Change Orders
(insert date)
125 working days
Days Required (+) for this Change Order 10 calendar daYs
Revised Time for ComPletion
(inseft date)
135 working days
In accordance with Sections L-04.4 and 1-04.5 of the Kent and WSDOT Standard
Specifications, and Section VII of the Agreement, the Contractor accepts all requirements of this
ci"range ordei by signing below. Also, pursuant to the above-referenced contract, Contractor
agrees to waive any protest it may have re-garding this Change order and acknowledges and
aicepts that this Change Order constitutes final settlement of all claims of any kind or nature
arising from or connecte.-d with any work either covered or affected by this Change order, including,
without limitation, claims related to contract time, contract acceleration, onsite or home office
overhead, or lost profits. This Change order, uniess otherwise provided, does not relieve the
contractor from sirict compliance *iln the guarantee and warranty provisions of the original
contract, particularly those pertaining to substantial completion date'
All acts consistent with the authority of the Agreement, previous change orders (if any),
and this change order, prior to the effective date of ffris change order, are hereby ratified and
affirmed, and the terms of the Agreement, previous change orders (if any), and this change order
shall be deemed to have aPPlied.
The parties whose names appear below swear under penalty of perjury that they are
authorized to enter into this contraci modification, which is binding on the parties of this contract'
3. The Contractor will adjust the amount of its peformance bond (if any) for this project
to be consistent with the revised contract sum shown in section 2, above'
IN WTTNESS, the partieS below have executed this Agreement, which will
become effective on the last date written below'
CITY OF KENT:
Print Name:P.E.
(signature)
d Bieren.
P &*'h/-
COI{TRACTOR:
By
(iltle)
DATE .0110812021
Print Name:Joseph R Comelius
(signature)
Vice President
CHANGE ORDER - 2 OF 3
ATTEST:
t
Kent City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
(applicable if Mayor's signature reguired)
Kent Law Depaftment
[n thls ield, you may enter the electonic filepath whee 6F ont@t has bffi saved]
CHANGE ORDER - 3 OF 3
FILE NO: 2OO.2KENT
CHANGE ORDER WORKSHEET NO. 1
Co nstruction Enoineerinq Division - Public Works
Project: 125K Reservoir
Project Engineer:
Capital Construction:
Project No.: 18-3008 W20050
Fed-Aid No.:
Contractor: HCI Industrial & Ma
G&O Russ Porter
Paul Kuehne rine Coatinqs
Date: 8/L8/2O2O
I. REASON AND BACKGROUND FOR THE CHANGE
The reservoir interior surface was found to be heavily pitte d upon draining and entering the
tank. Durability and life expectancy of the new coating depends upon achieving uniform minimal
coating thickness. Additional work not included in the original Contract is necessary to round off
sharp edges created by the pits and fill crevasses and pinholes. New work includes grinding
rough welds, expanding the amount of sand blasting to include rounding off rough pitted edges,
increasing the number of coatings, and adding the task of back brushing to fill pits and pin
holes.
II. METHOD OF PAYMENT
Chante Order No.FOR ACCOUNMVG USEONI.Y
Sch. No.Item Description Total
Est. Qty
Qty this
PE
Unit Unit Price Total Estimated Cost
Excessive Pittinq 1 1 LS rc32,538.27)
TOT AL ESTIMATED COST OF CHANGE ORDER X
THIS PAY ESTIMATE
*Total of the Cost of ltem Columns
3 53A.27 no tax
ITI. WORKING DAYS
534.27
Original Contract L25 Due This Change Order*!0 Previous Total L25
TOTAL WORKING DAYS*135
7
*This Change Order + Previous Total
/*r IGapital Projects Manager:
Gonstruction Engineering
Supervisor:
Construction Manager:
FILE NO:2OO.2
Date:9 zt*Lo
Date:'x *"-7 '-7 '] r -'.
(-) L r'r L--tj
KENT
wasHrN6rox
i L-...
L/-r/ Date:E
2
s iltfrf{E
ITEI
August 6,2020
City of Kent
Public Works Department
400 West Gowe
Kent, WA 98032
Attn: Paul Kuehne, Construction Engineering SuperuisorConstruction Management I
Public Works Department
Re: C1y of Kent l2SKReservoir Recoating and Fall Protection lmprovements -Rebid
eroleA No. W20050/18-3008 - Notice of Unforeseen Conditions
Dear Mr. Kuehne;
I regret to inform you, under Section 1-04.7 of the Standard Specifications for Road,
Bridlge and Muniiipal Construction of: Notice of Differing Site Conditions or Changed
Conditions, and are as follows:
I received some photos from my Site Superintendent of the Existing Ladder on the
reservoir interior floor that is remaining in place. Upon closer review the Reservoir Shell
Photos, I noticed and Supervisor confirmed that the Reservoir interior is "Severely
_@1" below the water line.
I have not ascertained the total extent of the Pitting as I have not been inside the
Reservoir but it is certainly significant enough (in photos) to request a Formal Site Visit
and lnspection by The City of Kent and its representatives.
During this Site Visit (ASAP) we can address a few other minor issues i.e., ladder
welde? to floor that was not specified to be replaced and Spider/Seismic Rods (RFl 6)
as well as inlet outlet rebar screen and Weld Seams.
lmpacts and Solutions:
Abrasive Blasting:
Additional Abrasives, Fuel, Consumable's, Labor & Equipment Hours and Support for
the efforts for the added surface area. (Surface lrregularity/Pitting)
Coatings: Thicknesses should be increased to "Maximum NSF Thickness" i.e.
combiriation of thicker individual coats and an additional coat of NSF Epoxy. Or:
Option: Switch the specified NSF Epoxy to High Build NSF Polyurethane or Epoxy
Sherwin Williams Product.
Respectfully
Randy Cornelius PM
HCI INDUSTRIAL & MARINE COATINGS INC. P.O. BOX I573 BRUSH PRAIRIE, WA 98606
pH-360-260 -szso .SAFETY -QUALITY -PRODUCTION FX-360-260-00e6
Kuehne, Paul
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I agree and I am good with both.
Sean M. Bauer, watersystem Manager
Water Division I Public Works Department
220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032
Phone 253-856-5610 | Cell 253-740-7089
sbauer@KentWA,qov
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
KentwA.gov Facebook ' ': YouTube
PLEASE COijg]DTR THE EIIVIRONMEITT EgFORE PR]I]TIruG IHTS E-MATL
Bauer, Sean
Tu 18, 2020 2:56 PM
Russ Porter; Kuehne, Paul
RE: Overflow Pipe City Response - t25K Reservoir -lnlet Outlet ScTeenREQUEST FOR
INFORMATION NO.6
f aK.r oV AntuaJ'I
t8,2O2O 2:55 PM
To: Kuehne, Paul <PKuehne@kentwa.gov>
Cc: Ba uer, Sean <SBauer@kentwa.gov>
Subject: RE: Overflow Pipe City Response - 125K Reservoir -lnlet Outlet ScTeenREQUEST FOR INFORMATION NO.6
Paul and Sean,
Did you receive the forwarding of Randy's email with the attachment? CO5 is the addition of the brackets to allow for
the rebar grate at the bottom of the bowlto be removable. I think that is a good idea and only a minor addition.
I am in the office if you want to discuss the issues.
I agree with Randy that additional work is required to get a good coating. lf he doesn't take extra care blasting and
backbrushing, the coating will start to have pinhole corrosion in various places that will require attention and will
eventually require more rapid recoating. I think the additional work will result in the coating lasting 5-10 years longer
than if he does not do the additional effort.
Please let me know if you have any questions
Russ Porter, P.E. I Project Manager I 206.284.0860 p I 206.283.3206 f
Gray & Osborne, tnc. | 7730 Rainier Ave. 5., Suite 300, Seattle, WA, 98744
Please consider the environment before printing this email'
'vE-{ CIq %'*tJKuehPaul
From:
Attachments:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
< rpofter@g-o.com >
esday, August 12,2020 10:54 AM
Kuehne, Paul; Araucto, Joseph; Bauer, Sean
Connor, Eric; 'mark ficca'; Ryan Hale
FW: Kent
Inspection Report 20200810.docx
Subject:
All,
Here is our inspection report from Monday
The pitting is fairly severe and is located above the waterline around the tank. We were only able to measure it near the
ladder. The pitting appears to have occurred during the paint system prior to the coating that is on there now. Whoever
painted it the last time did a good job of removing the rust from the pits and getting a good coating on there because
there is not much rust. The depth of the pits appears to be okay relative the overallthickness of the metal. One thing to
keep in mind is that we won't really know the full condition of the pits until they start blasting the tank.
There are some options to get a good coating
t. We could have him trowel on a pit filler - Sherwin Williams Steel Seam - to fill the seams and smooth them. We
often do this for pits in floors. Since the pits are above the waterline it will take some effort to do the work due
to the location of the pits.
Z. We could have him spray a high build product - Sherwin Williams Duraplate - and squeegee the product to level
it and fill the pits. This would be less labor intensive but the product could be expensive and I am not sure Randy
has the equipment to do it.
3. I have talked to Randy and he thinks that he-could get a good coating by spraying the products that we specified
and backbrushing the paint over the pits to ensure that there is good coverage in the nooks and ffannies. He
also suggested adding an additional top coat as long as the total dry film thickness of the system didn't exceed
the total allowed by the manufacturer. This option would require some additional labor for back brushing and
the cost of the additional coat but I don't think it will be too bad.
4. Wecouldjusthavehimdoitperspecandrollthedice. lamnotsureifthisisthebestwaytogotoensurea
good coating. We will have the holiday testing to verify but I don't think will be possible to get a good coating
without some additional effort.
Of the four, I like option 3 but I want to discuss it with Mark Ficca and Sherwin Williams to make sure they are
comfortable with it too. tt looks like they got a good coating last time without filling the pits. lf everyone is comfortable
with this option, we could ask HCI for an estimate.
Another issue in the tank is that the welds between the plates were not ground very well when it was built in some
places. I would recommend that we get an estimate to have those ground prior to painting. Poor welds are hard to get a
good coating on. We do have a stripe coat in the spec to help with places like this but it would be better to grind
smooth. I would recommend getting a cost for what that would take from the contractor and if you can afford it, go
ahead and do it.
Russ
Another issue is that there is an additional ladder in the reservoir. The ladder is below the main interior ladder and
allows one to get to the center drain. The options here include blasting and recoating it or removing it. Since it wasn't
known about at the time of bid, there will be some cost with either option. I think it just depends on what you want to
do with it. lt is useful for entering the tank to inspect the drain since the bowl is very difficult to negotiate.
As far as the overflow pipe goes, the pitting is fairly severe but it looks like there may be sufficient metal for it to
function. As with the sidewall, though, we won't know its full condition until they blast.
Those are my thoughts. Please let me know if you have questions.
Russ Porter, P.E. I Proiect Monager | 206.284'0860 p I 206.283.3206 f
Gray & Osborne, tnc. | 7130 Rainier Ave. 5., Suite 300, Seottle, WA, 98144
Please consider the environment before printing this email,
2
(catn Gnt*lKuehnPaul
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
August
rcus@hotmail.com>
12,20207:02 PM
Araucto, Joseph
Bauer, Sean; Russ Porter; Kuehne, Paul; Connor, Eric; Ryan Hale; Reed, Jim
Re: Kent
All,
I would agree that option 3 is appropriate and a reasonable solution. With back rolling of the epoxy coats, an extra coat
and the specified holiday testing the finished system should provide long term protection.
Mark Ficca
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 12,2020, at3:47 PM, Araucto, Joseph <JAraucto@kentwa.gov> wrote
I am in agreement with option 3 recommendation. Back rolling ensures the primer
and top coat gets in the pitted areas. An additional top coat for the area above the
waterline will provide additional protection.
In any case, let us know if additional information becomes available during blasting.
Joseph Arauqtor P.E.
Utility Engineer I Public Works Operations
5821 South 240th Street, Kent, WA 98032
Phone 253-856-5664 I Cell 253-508-4068
JAraucto@KentWA.sov
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
www.KentWA.oov Facebook .blclg
PLEA55 COr,{5-IDER Tl-38 fl,ll/IROSiMENT EEFORT pA}$;T3NG Tl{I5 e-MAIi-
From: Bauer, Sean
Sent: Wednesday, August L2,2020 11:10 AM
To: Russ Porter; Kuehne, Paul; Araucto, Joseph
Cc: Connor, Eric; 'mark ficca'; Ryan Hale; Reed, Jim
Subject: RE: Kent
Thjnks for the information Russ. I'm not a structural or coating expert, so I will
defer the preferred method of correction to the experts. My comment would be to
go with which method provides us the best fix to prolong the life of the tank' I
59ree that the welds should be taken care of to provide for a better coating. As far
ai tne ladder goes, I would leave it and include with the blasting and coating.
Thanks Russ.
Sean M. Bauer, water system Manager
Water Division I Public Works Department
220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032
Phone 253-856-5610 | Cell 253-740-7089
sbauer@ KentWA.oov
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
KentWA.govFacebook , , YouTube
PLTASE CCNS'DER T!-IE E'!VTRONT4E}1T SgFORE PRINTSNG THTS E.t4A:I.'
1
ficca <
Kueh Paul
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
5
Eric.A.Zimmerman @shenrrin.com >
L7, 2020 8:48 AM
Randy Cornelius; Kuehne, Paul
Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Unforseen Condition - excessive pitting
Co&f'rnr 5*? 7lt ar
Randy & Paul,
I am sorry you are having to deal with the challenges of the pitting in the reservoir being rehabilitated. Based
on the studies documented by NACE Paper #7422, Expected Service Life and Cost Considerations for New
Construction and Maintenance Protective Coatings Work, I would concur with Randy's statement that
additional millage will extend the service life of the tank in potable water service. AWWA DI0a-L7,lCS#3 is
designed to be a minimum of 20 mils of ultra-high solids epoxy and per the table average service life in
potable water is in excess of 18 years.
Eric AZi
1
The system HCI is proposing wilt give the City of Kent in excess of 20 mils of epoxy and the additional labor
they are proposing will give the best opportunity to address the pitting and halt corrosion short of applying a
complete parge coat of epoxy mastic into the pits (which would be extremely labor intensive)'
Macropoxy 55OOLT can be applied up to 28 mils total DFT for the complete lining system and still be in
compliance with NSF G1 Drinking water standards. Please feel free to contact me directly with any additional
questions or concerns.
Eric Zimmerman
Business Development Manager - Water lnfrastructure
Western North America
The Sherwin-Williams ComPanY
Protective Coatings Division
(360)605-9734 cellula r
eric.a.zimmerman @sherwin.com
NACE Level lll CIP #10561
From: Randy Cornelius <randv@ hci-coatings'com>
Sent: Friday, August 14,2O2O 3:25 PM
To:'Kuehne, Paul' <pkuehne@kentwa.gov>
Cc: E ric A Zim me rma n < Eric.A.Zim me rma n (dshe rwin.com>
Subject: IEXTERNAL] FW: Unforseen Condition - excessive pitting
This email originated outside the Company
Paul,
Below lS what I sent to Russ/G&O yesterday.
I have lncluded (Eric Zimmerman)Sherwin Williams in this conversation to
use a resource, to discuss the increased longevity with this increased
system thickness as I described below.
Eric Zimmerman - Business Development Manager - Water lnfrastructure -
Western North America - The Sherwin-Williams Company
Protective Coatings Division - (360)605-9734 cellular
NACE Level lll CIP #10561
Based on the current conditions of the reservoir and the specified film
thickness of 12 to L5 DFT I feel you might get 10-12 years out of the
system. (current Condition) if you're lucky'
My belief is; By increasing the film thickness as detailed below and
additional procedures listed, I would expect to almost double the life of
the reservoir coating system. lf it is applied as described belowl
You can anticipate 1 year of service for each mil of coating in the
reservoir which frustrates me when these systems are specified at 1'2 -1'5
(AWWA Minimum)when NSF Certifications can run up to 20 mils DFT and higher'
I have not spoken to Eric about this Email so he is going to be blindsided
3
by it and I anticipate you two having an open honest discussion regarding
the proposed system, its longevity, permeability etc.
And any additional technical questions you might have.
Thank you
Randy
----Original Message----
From: Randy Cornelius [mailto :randv@hci-coatings.com]
Sent: Thursday, August L3,2O2O 5:57 PM
To: 'Russ Porter'; 'Ryan Hale'
Cc: 'kim@hci-coatings.com'; 'tom@hci-coatings.com'; 'tom@hci-coatings.com';
'joe b @ hci-coatings.co m'
Subject: RE: Unforseen Condition - excessive pitting
Russ,
Here is What I am Thinking.
Everything is going to have to be rolled twice, an additional stripe coat
and an additional Coat as required.
*AWWA D102: lnside Coating system No. 2 - * Minimum AWWA 12.0 MILS
1 ct. Macropoxy 55001T 3.0 (75)
1 ct. Macropoxy 55001T 4.0 (100)
1 ct. Macropoxy 55001T 5.0 (125)
Acceptable for use with AWWA DLO2: Component of Outside Coating System No. 5
and No.6
Other acceptable topcoats over Macropory 55001T Primer:
Dura-Plate U HS/Sher-Plate PW
*Maximum of 28.0 mils (700 microns) for entire system
NEED TO CONFIRM WITH AWWA AND SW
PAINT SYSTEM:
ZINC PRIMER.3 TO
4 DFT
STANDARD STRIPE COAT
3 DFT
FULLBASECOATL@6TO
7 DFT WITH 1OO% BACK ROLL
ADDED STRIPE COAT @
4
3 DFT
FULL INTERMEDIATE COAT @ 6 TO
7 DFT WITH 1OO% BACK ROLL
FULL SPRAY APPLIED FINISH @ 6 TO
7Dft
TOTAL DRY FILM THICKNESS FROM 21TO 25 DFT
-27TO 28 MAX DFT @ STRIPE LOCATIONS
LABOR COST EST.:
75.55 Per Hour: Cambridge Costs in October 2OL9 off my Job Cost Sheet as
Backup:
Add 16 hours labor for added stripe coat, 16 hours for added finish coat and
16 hours to back roll two coats:
Add 25% Rig and Move time, add 25% for helper/pot tender and add 25%for the
Site Supervisor
= 94 hours:
PAINT:
94 hours @ 75.55 =7082.81x29/o=
9L36.82
Sundries/Consumables at 6 bucks an hour = 564.00 = x2tYo
682.44
Paint cost 55 gallons (added 10 mils plus stripe) @ 35.00 -1925.00 x2tYo =
2329.25 - 10 mils at 4000 sft,x2o%o loss on spray and add20% for added
Stripe Coat = 55 gallons
Thinner 20% include s 7o%thinning and MEK Wash Thinner 55 x 2OYo = 11 Gallons
x 25.00 = 332.75
Fuel @ 94 hours x 10.00 per hour - 940.00 x2tYo =
Lt37.4O NO Charge for dust collector, compressor,
generator-Just Fuel
Total Paint Work =
L3,6L8,66
ABRASIVE BLASTING: DIRECT COSTS-3O% INCREASE IN SURFACE AREA.PITTING
49 hours @ 47.03 per hour cost on Equipment 2304.47 xZLYo =
2,788.4L - 30% increase in surface area
Estimate 95 hours additional blast, lnc. support/super @ 75.55 = 7t77.25 x
29To = 9258.65 - 49 plus Rig and Move @ 25%,Pot Tender @ 4 to L
Supervisor@4to1
Fuel @ 10.00 per hour 95 hours = 950'00 x21%o=
1149.50
Consumables, Safety, Lead, Paint, Blast @ 10.00 x 95 = 950'00 xZIYo=
1149.50
Abrasives approx.: 389.00 per ton x 5 tons = 2334'OO x ZLTo =
2824.1,4
Sand Removal@2 hours perton x6ton = 1.2 hours @ 75.55 x 29%=
1169.51
Sand Disposal is 80.00 per ton x 6 tons -480 x 2tYo=
5
580.80
Total Abrasive Blast Work =
18,979.6r
Total costs all in
32,538.27
Tax @ lOYo=
3253.82
Lump Sum Price
35,792.09
This is 30% of the cost of replacement of the Overflow in COP # 3
lf the plural option was used:
80 mils - 25 SQFT PG - 160 gal at 55 ish = 8,800.00 for the materials same
for the pump, 1900 set up fee, same for the added labor = 26,400 plus
markups = around 32,200.00
No credit on labor, going to burn more hours. Will STILL require a zinc
prime, an epoxy stripe coat (maybe two) and the high build material.
Credit - 75 gallons of 5500 LT NSF @ 35 =2625'00
Credit 650 bucks on spray pump'...= 28,925.00 - way rough order of magnitude
for high build urethane. lnclude the blast and
you're lookihg at:48,000 minimum
Perhaps the city can offset some of the cost through elimination of 3rd
party lnspection Firms.?????? (exception being the welds)
we are a QP-1 and 2 Certified Contractor but I realize some may perceive
this as the fox guarding the henhouse.......
lll let you discuss that with them and it's your idea
Don't tell Fica I suggested that.....i like the guy....
I would/could bring our inspectors in at cost on an hourly time and material
basis with certified equipment.
Let me know what you guys want to do.....am going to start blasting
soon.....and I need to get the interior coating (NSF Epoxy) ordered' I have
the Zinc so you have some time.....
Thank you
RC
----Original Message---
From: Russ Porter [mailto:rporter@e-o.com]
Sent: Thursday, August L3,2O2O L:42PM
To: 'Randy Cornelius'; 'Ryan Hale'
S u bj e ct : R E : Re s i z e d - 2O2OO8 L3
-12O2L4 -L9
625 4 437 6 45204. j p e g
No final word but everyone seems to think backbrushing with an extra top
6
coat is a good way to go. Do you have an idea of what you think the
additional labor and materials would be?
Russ Porter, P.E. I Project Manager | 206.234.0860 p | 205.283'3206 f
Gray & Osborne, lnc. | 1130 Rainier Ave' S., Suite 300, Seattle, WA, 98L44
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
---O rigina I Message----
From: Ra ndy Cornelius [mailto: randv(ohci-coatings.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 13,2O2O 1:4L PM
To:'Russ Porter' <rporter@g-o.com>;'Ryan Hale' <rhale@g-o.com>
Su bject: RE : Resized-20200813 -L2O214 -196254437
645204.jpeg
yes I agree it was addressed pretty well....hell....... I feel sorry for the
guy. But they did a pretty damn good job on the blast but the paint job
sucks...
Just for your viewing Pleasure....
Any word on the issue with pitting? Resolution My e-mail was messed up so I
am confirming I didn't miss anything from you or Ryan or Paul.
Thanks
Randy
---Original Message-----
From: Russ Porter [ma ilto:rporter@g-o'com]
Sent: Thursday, August t3,2O2OL:77 PM
To: 'Randy Cornelius'; 'Ryan Hale'
S u bj e ct : R E : Re s i ze d-202008 1 3- 1 2O2L4 -L9
6254437 645204.j pe g
That looks pretty pitted but it looks like it was addressed pretty well at
the last coating and there isn't much new corrosion.
Russ Porter, P.E. I Project Manager | 206.284.0860 p | 206.283.3206 f
Gray & Osborne, lnc. | 1130 Rainier Ave. S', Suite 300, Seattle, WA, 98144
Please consider the environment before printing this email
----O rigi na I M essage----
From: Randy Cornelius [mailto:randv@hci-coatings.com]
Sent: Thursday, August L3,2O2O 12:09 PM
To: Russ Porter <rporter(og-o.com>; Ryan Hale <rhale@g-o.com>
Su bject: Resized-202 OO8L3 -l2O2I4 -L96254437
6452O4 jpeg
7
Riser interior
Kuehne, Paul
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
L2, 2020 3:48 PM
€I,; Russ Porter; Kuehne, Paul
Connor, Eric; 'mark ficca'; Ryan Hale; Reed, Jim
RE: Kent
I am in agreement with option 3 recommendation. Back rolling ensures the primer and top coat
gets in the pitted areas. An additional top coat for the area above the waterline will provide
additional protection.
In any case, let us know if additional information becomes available during blasting.
Joseph Araucto' P.E.
Utility Engineer I Public Works Operations
5821 South 240th Street, Kent, WA 98032
Phone 253-856-5664 | Cell 253-508-4068
JAraucto@KentWA.gov
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
www.KentWA.oov Facebook YouTube
PLEASE CONSTDER TI-iF Eil'VIA,O},iMFF{T B€FOR.i: PR,SF;TTHG T9{3S €-MAIL
From: Bauer, Sean
Sent: Wednesday, August 12,2020 11:10 AM
To: Russ Pofter; Kuehne, Paul; Araucto, Joseph
Cc: Connor, Eric; 'mark ficca'; Ryan Hale; Reed, Jim
Subject: RE: Kent
Thanks for the information Russ. I'm not a structural or coating expert, so I will defer the
preferred method of correction to the experts. My comment would be to go with wh!9h method
provides us the best fix to prolong the life of the tank. I agree that the welds should be taken
care of to provide for a better coating. As far as the ladder goes, I would leave it and include
with the blasting and coating.
Thanks Russ.
Sean M, Bauer, water System Manager
Water Division I Public Works Department
220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032
Phone 253-856-561O I Cell 253'74O-7O89
sbauer@ KentWA.qov
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
KentWA.gov Facebook ";r',. YouTube
PL-AsE CONSIDFR liIg ETIVIROTMf TqT BEFORE PR:NT]NG TII15 E.F{A:i!-
1
Araucto, Joseph
Wednesd
lnspection Report
Client: City of Kent
Project: 125K Reservoir Recoating and Fall Protection lmprovements #L8599
Date: AugustLO,2O2O
Time:2:00 pm
Location: 125K Reservoir
lnspector: Ryan Hale, P.E., NACE CIP Level 1
Report Narrative
I accessed the reservoir using a manlift operated by T Bailey welders. The new hatch riser and interior
ladder are installed, the existing top platform is still in place. I enter the tank and begin my inspection on
the interior floor of the reservoir floor. Pitting is not present on interior floor and only appears to be
present on the walls of the tank, approximately halfway up the tank and above. Using the ladder, I
collect steel thickness readings using the ultrasonic thickness gauge.
Steel Thickness Readings
Bottom Steel Course
0.352"
0.346"
0.352"
0.355"
0.352"
Average:0.351"
Middle SteelCourse:
o.354"
0.365"
o.349"
o.36L"
Average: 0.357"
Top Course/Roof:
o.282"
o.284'
0.286',
0.301"
0.274"
o.277"
Average: O.284"
pitting is only accessible from the ladder/standoffs currently. The pit gauge was used to measure depths
of pits, on middle course pits found to be !f8" deep maximum, on top/roof plate pits were found to be
1/16" maximum.
pitting at the ladder appears to be minor, whereas the pitting opposite the ladder appears to be worse
and is currently inaccessible to assess. Pitting away from the ladder appears to be wider, potentially
deeper than pitting measured at the ladder. Pitting does not appear to have sharp edges and the
previous coating appears to be intact, no corrosion observed. Pitting should be more accessible when
the interior of the reservoir is blasted to bare metal and scaffolding or swing stages are assembled.
pitting is present on the overflow pipe as well, however, the City has already elected to not address this
pitting. Pits on the overflow were measured to be a maximum depth of tf8" .
The existing weld between the bottom/floor course of steel and the middle course was observed at the
interior ladder to be rough, requiring an extra weld and/or grinding. lt is unclear if this condition exists
around the entire circumference of the weld.
The reservoir interior does include an existing second "ladde/' from the base of the vertical ladder to
the center of the bowl. This "ladder" allows the user to walk up and down the bowl of the reservoir to
and from the base of the vertical ladder more easily. The "ladder" is hinged at the base of the reservoir
and rests on the floor near the center of the tank. lt is currently unclear how this "ladde/' relates to
OSHA/WAC requirements and it requires further investigation.
Photos:
lnterior ladder
Second interior ladder
l,l
Overflow pipe pitting
Pit gauge reading 1/8" (behind ladder, middle course)
rr I
Pitting as seen behind the ladder
rr I
Pitting opposite the interior ladder
,,
Weld between bottomfloor plates and middle course
1
Estimated Service Life for Practical Maintenance
Coating Systems for lmmersion Service
(in years before first maintenance painting)4
Excerpt; NACE paper #7422, Expected Service Life and Cost Considerations
Type
ng Systems for lmmersion
rimer/m
N
o
g
oclo
L
oo
atttf
an
a
(Eoo
o
on
E
2
2
E
E
.E
=Fll-o
Service Lifel'3
ots
FE
o-
.(6o
='i.coOe.EEL!
LCooo(aB6
oc
Epoxy Tar Epoxy Blast 2 16 17 14
Epoxy Blast 2 I 12 I I
Epoxy {AWWA ICS-I)Blast 2 6 10 8 o
Epoxy (AWWA rCS-z)Blast 3 12 15 12 11
Epoxy 100o/o Solids {AWWA IGS-3)Blast 1 20 18 16 14
ZinclEpoxY/EPoxY
A
Blast 3 10 16 13 12
Epoxy Phenolic Phenolic/Epoxy Phenolic Blast 2 12 14 12
Metallizing llizing/Epoxy Blast 2 I 20 17 15
Metallizing Blast 3 13 24 20 18
Misc 100% Solids
A ICS.4
Blast 1 25 18 16 14
Misc Ester/Vinyl Ester Blast 2 20 14 12
Misc Polyester (composite filled)Blast 2 25 14 12