Dear Editor:
No one was more stunned than we were at Granite Construction
Company upon reading your recent articles (Jan. 19 and 20) on the
Santa Teresa Boulevard widening project. Characterizations made in
these articles that the project has crashed, that there is a brawl
brewing between the City of Gilroy and Granite and that Granite
has
”
refused to accept responsibility for the road problems
”
, the cause of which has not yet been determined, are very
concerning to us.
Dear Editor:
No one was more stunned than we were at Granite Construction Company upon reading your recent articles (Jan. 19 and 20) on the Santa Teresa Boulevard widening project. Characterizations made in these articles that the project has crashed, that there is a brawl brewing between the City of Gilroy and Granite and that Granite has “refused to accept responsibility for the road problems”, the cause of which has not yet been determined, are very concerning to us.
On Oct. 26, 2005, Granite received written direction from the city not to proceed with paving the final lift on the southbound lanes of Santa Teresa Boulevard pending the city’s investigation into apparent rutting of the base pavement. Since then we have been waiting for results from a testing firm hired by the city to examine pavement samples taken last November and again earlier this month. In the absence of testing data and the ability to analyze and interpret this information, it is premature and speculative to draw any conclusions at this time. We are in agreement with the city as it stated in its Nov. 28 correspondence to Granite Construction; “Responsibility for this issue cannot be assigned until the cause of the rutting is determined.”
The impressions that the readers of last week’s articles are left with are unfortunate. Implied is that: 1) it is a foregone conclusion that this situation will result in a protracted legal dispute – this is simply conjecture. The working relationship between the city and Granite is positive and open. Numerous construction challenges throughout the project have been met and resolved at each juncture; 2) the timing of a significant item of work, such as paving, is solely chosen by the contractor – when, in fact, it is driven by the project starting date, the time contractually allowed to complete the project and the project schedule (which is reviewed on an ongoing basis by the city); 3) payments made to Granite Construction Company in November and December were somehow excessively large or inappropriate – approximately 47 percent of the $7.4 million contract awarded to Granite Construction Company for being the lowest cost bidder on this project is for sub-contract items such as electrical, landscaping, soundwall and other work not performed by Granite. Consistent with the overall contract, approximately 46 percent of the payment amounts referenced in last week’s articles were for work performed in September and October by sub-contractors who are entitled to payment.
With many of the facts of this situation still unknown, including potential and unforeseen geo-technical conditions that may have been outside the initial design and engineering scope of the project, it is premature and speculative to reach many of the conclusions implied in these articles. We hope Dispatch readers will keep these considerations in mind as Granite Construction and the city of Gilroy work together in the coming weeks to resolve these issues and complete construction on this important community project.
Kurt Kniffin, Branch Manager,
Granite Construction Company
