Janowski, Zachary - FOI Re O&G Award of Contract E

From: Harley, Thomas A.To: Parker, Jeffrey A; Casamento, Charlene ASubject: FW: 92-531/622/627 Addendum No. 6 Contract E New HavenDate: Thursday, September 30, 2010 4:39:54 PM

From: Rolfe, Mark D Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 3:49 PMTo: Dudzinski, John; Melchionne, Philip J.; Washburn, Kevin; Isabelle, David; [email protected];Weiss, Jacob E.Cc: Harley, Thomas A.; Raiola, Robert; Mercure, Brian; [email protected];[email protected]; Armstrong, Richard B; Fallon, James A; Wilson, Timothy M; D'Agostino, Joseph;Straka, GregorySubject: RE: 92-531/622/627 Addendum No. 6 Contract E New Haven Addendum No. 6 for Contract E was issued today. With the possible exception of final contractorquestions, this addendum concludes our work on the bid package for Contract E - the largest contractever advertised by the Department. This is a momentous occasion and all involved should be praisedfor the tremendous work they have done in making this happen. Thank you all for your efforts... looking forward to a great bid on October 13! Mark

From: Melchionne, Philip J.Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 10:03 AMSubject: 92-531/622/627 Addendum No. 6 Contract E New Haven

FYI - Addendum No. 6 is now available online Via theInternet on the Department's FTP Site:

https://sfile.ct.gov/Logon: CTDOTContractPassword:

For ease of use please copy & paste the logon &password directly from this email into the appropriateboxes. Prospective bidders will receive revised DVD's &revised bid proposal forms via overnight expressdelivery.

A list of prospective bidders and Q & R's can befound here: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2288&q=259258 The Bid Opening is currently scheduled for October13, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.

Bidders must acknowledge addendums on their bidproposal form.Please be advised that your firm may receivemultiple copies of this e-mail, as it is being sent toboth plan holders and prospective bidders.Please disseminate to the proper personnel

Philip J. MelchionnePhilip J. MelchionneAssociate Fiscal Administrative OfficerConnecticut Department of TransportationContract Section2800 Berlin TurnpikePO Box 1317546Newington, Connecticut 06131-7546Phone (860) 594-3129Fax (860) 594-3378Email: [email protected] DOT Contracts Website: http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=2288&Q=300688&dotNav=

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Everhart, Judd B; Parker, Jeffrey A; Rodosevich, Denise; Harley, Thomas A.; Straka, GregoryCc: Sucato, Pamela P; Nursick, Kevin J; Straka, GregorySubject: RE:Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:20:00 PM

Greg:Do you have a list of what has been awarded in the past/ Thanks Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

From: Everhart, Judd B Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:17 PMTo: Parker, Jeffrey A; Rodosevich, Denise; Casamento, Charlene A; Harley, Thomas A.Cc: Sucato, Pamela P; Nursick, Kevin J; Straka, GregorySubject: FW:

Just got this from Ed Mahony at the Courant. He doesn't say why he's asking, but I think I canguess.Given tomorrow's E contract bid opening for the Q, we should talk about how and when torespond. But we could start with a list of existing contracts.

From: Mahony, Edmund [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:03 PMTo: Everhart, Judd BSubject:

Judd,Could we talk at some point soon about what we be involved in me obtaining a list of DOT work awardedto O&G Industries? Is it possible also to talk about what they may be bidding on and what they may havecompleted? Edmund H. Mahony Hartford Courant 860-241-6532 (office) 860-681-3022 (cell)

From: Parker, Jeffrey ATo: Harley, Thomas A.Subject: Fw:Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:59:03 PM

Please send me an email that summaries the bids immediately after the opening. Don't need all thebids but a few low ones

From: Casamento, Charlene A To: Everhart, Judd B; Parker, Jeffrey A; Rodosevich, Denise; Harley, Thomas A.; Straka, Gregory Cc: Sucato, Pamela P; Nursick, Kevin J; Straka, Gregory Sent: Tue Oct 12 15:20:22 2010Subject: RE:

Greg:Do you have a list of what has been awarded in the past/ Thanks Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

From: Everhart, Judd B Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:17 PMTo: Parker, Jeffrey A; Rodosevich, Denise; Casamento, Charlene A; Harley, Thomas A.Cc: Sucato, Pamela P; Nursick, Kevin J; Straka, GregorySubject: FW:

Just got this from Ed Mahony at the Courant. He doesn't say why he's asking, but I think I canguess.Given tomorrow's E contract bid opening for the Q, we should talk about how and when torespond. But we could start with a list of existing contracts.

From: Mahony, Edmund [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:03 PMTo: Everhart, Judd BSubject:

Judd,Could we talk at some point soon about what we be involved in me obtaining a list of DOT work awardedto O&G Industries? Is it possible also to talk about what they may be bidding on and what they may havecompleted? Edmund H. Mahony Hartford Courant 860-241-6532 (office)

860-681-3022 (cell)

From: Harley, Thomas A.To: Parker, Jeffrey ASubject: FW: Rte 34 west bound on rampDate: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:17:00 AMAttachments: Harley101210.pdf

Don't know if I'd been keeping you in the loop, but NH has agreed to close the on ramp to 34 frombrewery. It has limited value; is costly to reconstruct as part of the Q program; and is a traffic problemif the 34 boulevard concept plays out.We'll be doing a change order to remove the work from the Q and save some money...

-----Original Message-----From: Michael Piscitelli [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:39 PMTo: Harley, Thomas A.Subject: RE: Rte 34 west bound on ramp

Hi Tom,Sry for losing all of last week and appreciate your patience. Here is the letter...keep me posted onprogress so we can notify constituents and alderpersons.Thanks, Mike.

Michael Piscitelli, AICPDirectorTransportation, Traffic and Parking DepartmentCity of New Haven200 Orange St., Ground FloorNew Haven, CT 06510(203) 946-8067FAX 946-8074

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Parker, Jeffrey ACc: Harley, Thomas A.Subject: qDate: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:17:00 PM

contract estimate - $519M low bid - O&G/tut.... (not sure of partner name ) - $356MSDE Interchange - $378M Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Everhart, Judd B; Parker, Jeffrey A; Rodosevich, Denise; Harley, Thomas A.; Straka, GregoryCc: Sexton, Alice M; Nursick, Kevin J; Sucato, Pamela P; Daley, Mark TSubject: RE: O & G - CourantDate: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:52:21 PM

i have a call into tom to discuss moving forward with a responsibility meeting... i will be at aWTS event all day, however, I will be able to step out and discuss with him when he hastime...so i think a decision will be made on this tomorrow. Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

From: Everhart, Judd BSent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:49 PMTo: Parker, Jeffrey A; Rodosevich, Denise; Casamento, Charlene A; Harley, Thomas A.; Straka, GregoryCc: Sexton, Alice M; Nursick, Kevin J; Sucato, Pamela PSubject: O & G - Courant

I sent Ed Mahony the list of bids received today for Contract E of the Q. I told him that although theO&G joint venture had the low bid, everything is under review and that we have 60 days to make adecision on awarding the contract. He asked what the process is, and, specifically, how the KleenEnergy "willful violation" citations will figure in that process. I told him I would get back to him tomorrow (Thursday). He and other reporters at the Courant have written in the past about "responsibility meetings" -- e.g.,Barr Inc. -- so he knows a little bit about that. We can tell him that a decision has not yet been made on whether a responsibility meeting would benecessary in this case, but with the 60-day clock ticking, he knows we have to decide soon. My twocents is that more questions would be raised than not, if we do not hold such a meeting - regardless ofthe ultimate outcome -- so we should just tell him that we are going to bring them in for a meeting. BTW, has Nancy Arnold or anyone in the AG's office weighed in on any of this? Judd EverhartDirector of CommunicationsConnecticut Department of Transportation2800 Berlin TurnpikeNewington, CT 06131-7546(860) [email protected]

P Go green! Before printing this email, please consider the environment.

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: "[email protected]"Cc: Parker, Jeffrey ASubject: FW: O&G Letter.pdf - Adobe ReaderDate: Thursday, October 21, 2010 2:59:00 PMAttachments: O&G Letter.pdf

Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

From: Casamento, Charlene A Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:25 PMTo: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'Subject: FW: O&G Letter.pdf - Adobe Reader

Please see the attached letter and questions. Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Everhart, Judd B; Rodosevich, Denise; Sexton, Alice MCc: Parker, Jeffrey A; Harley, Thomas A.; Daley, Mark TSubject: RE: O&G - CourantDate: Monday, October 25, 2010 1:47:00 PM

They did provide some materials today, however, the rest will be coming in onFriday/ Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

From: Everhart, Judd B Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 12:49 PMTo: Rodosevich, Denise; Sexton, Alice M; Casamento, Charlene ACc: Parker, Jeffrey ASubject: O&G - Courant

Ed Mahony asked for copies of O&G responses to our questions for the responsibility meeting.He knows we may not receive everything until the 29th. Meanwhile, how is it going??? Judd EverhartDirector of CommunicationsConnecticut Department of Transportation2800 Berlin TurnpikeNewington, CT 06131-7546(860) [email protected]

P Go green! Before printing this email, please consider the environment.

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Everhart, Judd B; Rodosevich, Denise; Straka, Gregory; Harley, Thomas A.Cc: Parker, Jeffrey A; Nursick, Kevin J; Sexton, Alice M; Cannon, Lewis S; Connery, James PSubject: RE: Courant - O&GDate: Monday, October 25, 2010 6:00:00 PM

I don’t think we can provide a decision date, until we have received the responses from the questions. Greg - can you provide a response on the appeals question?

thanks

Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation

Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

-----Original Message-----From: Everhart, Judd BSent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:59 PMTo: Casamento, Charlene A; Rodosevich, Denise; Straka, Gregory; Harley, Thomas A.Cc: Parker, Jeffrey A; Nursick, Kevin J; Sexton, Alice M; Cannon, Lewis S; Connery, James PSubject: Courant - O&G

Courant's Ed Mahony is asking when we will have a decision on O&G and if there is an appeals processshould we find them 'not responsible.'

Also, he's asking for a copy of everything they submit.

Thanks.

From: Parker, Jeffrey ATo: Everhart, Judd B; Casamento, Charlene A; Rodosevich, Denise; Sexton, Alice M; Harley, Thomas A.Cc: Nursick, Kevin J; Straka, GregorySubject: Re: O&G - CourantDate: Friday, November 05, 2010 8:30:06 AM

I am fine unless denise wants to discuss it

----- Original Message -----From: Everhart, Judd BTo: Casamento, Charlene A; Rodosevich, Denise; Sexton, Alice M; Harley, Thomas A.Cc: Parker, Jeffrey A; Nursick, Kevin J; Straka, GregorySent: Fri Nov 05 08:25:37 2010Subject: O&G - Courant

Ed Mahony left a message asking where things stand. I would like to send him Kevin O'Connor's Oct. 29 letter to us and our response, which I think is goingout today. OK?

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Everhart, Judd B; Parker, Jeffrey A; Rodosevich, Denise; Straka, Gregory; Harley, Thomas A.; Rolfe, Mark DCc: Sucato, Pamela P; Nursick, Kevin J; Sexton, Alice M; Oushana, Pall B.Subject: RE: O&G - NH Register 11-17-2010Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:36:00 PM

FYI - we have an extension to - 1/11/11

Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

From: Everhart, Judd B Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:24 PMTo: Parker, Jeffrey A; Rodosevich, Denise; Casamento, Charlene A; Straka, Gregory; Harley,Thomas A.; Rolfe, Mark DCc: Sucato, Pamela P; Nursick, Kevin J; Sexton, Alice M; Oushana, Pall B.Subject: O&G - NH Register 11-17-2010

O&G gains support for bid to build New Haveninterchange; State senator, unions pave way for firm toget highway project

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

By Ed Stannard, Register Metro [email protected]

Several of the state’s labor unions have come to the support of O&G Industries of Torrington,which is awaiting a decision on whether it will be awarded a $357 million contract to build thenew highway interchange near New Haven Harbor.

A meeting Friday between three state legislators, an O&G executive and two labor leadersresulted in a letter from state Sen. Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia, to state TransportationCommissioner Jeffrey A. Parker, offering her “unqualified support” of O&G.

In a story Nov. 10 on newhavenregister.com, Prague said O&G should not be given the jobbecause it was the primary contractor in the Kleen Energy project in Middletown, where anexplosion Feb. 7 killing six workers.

“After meeting with these gentlemen, I am convinced that O&G Industries Inc. is an excellentemployer, dedicated to the safety, health and well-being of the men and women working on theirconstruction job sites,” Prague wrote.

“I am particularly pleased that O&G intends to have a full-time safety supervisor on site at alltimes during the project.”

The Connecticut Laborers Union took out a full-page ad in Tuesday’s Register Citizen ofTorrington and today’s Middletown Press, in the form of a memo, signed by 17 union leaders,pointing out that O&G has paid almost $400 million in wages over the past six years.

“O&G Industries has demonstrated a longstanding commitment to the safety, health and well-being of our members,” said the memo, which had been submitted as part of O&G’s bidpackage.

O&G, founded in 1923 and still run by family members, was the low bidder on the interchangeproject in a joint venture with Tutor Perini Corp. of Peekskill, N.Y. But the state Department ofTransportation has been scrutinizing O&G’s safety record, asking the company to explain how itcomplies with a state law that bars contractors from getting bids if they have three or moreoutstanding unabated safety citations in the past three years.

On Aug. 3, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited O&G for 142violations, 117 of them classified as willful, in the Kleen Energy accident. On Feb. 7, asubcontractor was using natural gas to purge a line when the gas ignited, triggering anexplosion that could be felt for miles. Gov. M. Jodi Rell later banned using natural gas to purgegas lines.

A source close to the project has confirmed that O&G was not only the contractor but one of theowners of the Kleen Energy plant and was due a bonus if the job was completed early.

The second-lowest bidder, SDE Interchange Joint Venture of Secaucus, N.J., has sued Parker,seeking an injunction barring the commissioner from awarding the interchange project to O&Gand Tutor Perini.

SDE, which is composed of Schiavone Construction of Secaucus, N.J., DeFoe Corp. of MountVernon, N.Y., and Empire Paving of North Haven, bid $379 million to reconfigure the interchangeof Interstate 95, Interstate 91 and Route 34. There were eight bidders in all for the project,which the DOT estimated would cost more than $500 million.

Benedict Cozzi, business manager for Operating Engineers Local 478, who met with Prague,state Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen, and state Rep. Kevin Ryan, D-Montville, along withJeffrey Merrow of Laborers Local 611 and O&G Vice Chairman Raymond Oneglia, said O&G is“a fine company” with an excellent safety record. Connecticut workers are indebted to thecompany for its record of good, well-paying jobs, he said.

“O&G employs on a regular basis over 300 operating engineers,” Cozzi said. “If they’re going tobe prohibited from being awarded a contract until this thing is settled, which could be years,they’re going to go out of business. … It’s that simple.”

He pointed out that the OSHA citations are being contested and that it had hired a subcontractorwith expertise in blowing out gas lines.

Prague said the meeting persuaded her to take “a second look.”

“I retracted my objection as long as there’s going to be a safety supervisor on the job everyday,” she said. “I thought that that was very appropriate. It is a Connecticut company.”

She said Cozzi and Merrow were persuasive because “they will stand up for their workers.”

John Acampora, an East Haven attorney who is representing SDE Interchange in its lawsuit,said the DOT needs to award the contract based on the statute, Section 31-57b, which barsstate work for any company “which has been cited for three or more willful or serious violationsof any occupational safety and health act … during the three-year period preceding the bid,provided such violations were … not abated within the time fixed by the citation.”

“I think the issue is whether you’ve got the safety record to meet the requirements of thestatute,” Acampora said.

O&G’s attorney, Kevin O’Connor of Hartford, has said the OSHA violations have already beenabated. Dan Carey, spokesman for O&G, would not comment on the lawsuit or the meeting, butsaid of the unions’ ad, “We’re certainly appreciative of what they wrote. … They are probably theorganization that knows us the best.”

Parker, who has until Dec. 13 to award the contract, said, “We’re in the due diligence phase tosee what the response of (O&G) is, then we’ll make a decision and we’ll make it public.”

Call Ed Stannard at 203-789-5743.

Judd EverhartDirector of CommunicationsConnecticut Department of Transportation2800 Berlin TurnpikeNewington, CT 06131-7546(860) [email protected]

P Go green! Don't print this email!

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Everhart, Judd B; Harley, Thomas A.; Straka, Gregory; Rolfe, Mark DCc: Rodosevich, Denise; Sexton, Alice M; Nursick, Kevin J; Sucato, Pamela P; Parker, Jeffrey A; Cannon, Lewis SSubject: RE: O&G - CourantDate: Monday, November 29, 2010 1:19:00 PM

I think Denise has the recommendation at this point. Denise do you have a sense as to your timelines?


Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

-----Original Message-----From: Everhart, Judd BSent: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:37 PMTo: Casamento, Charlene A; Harley, Thomas A.; Straka, Gregory; Rolfe, Mark DCc: Rodosevich, Denise; Sexton, Alice M; Nursick, Kevin J; Sucato, Pamela P; Parker, Jeffrey A; Cannon,Lewis SSubject: O&G - Courant

Ed Mahony is asking for a ball-park timeframe on a decision on awarding Contract E to O&G. Any guidance?

From: Rodosevich, DeniseTo: Everhart, Judd BCc: Sexton, Alice M; Nursick, Kevin J; Sucato, Pamela P; Parker, Jeffrey A; Cannon, Lewis S; Casamento, Charlene

A; Harley, Thomas A.; Straka, Gregory; Rolfe, Mark DSubject: RE: O&G - CourantDate: Monday, November 29, 2010 1:50:32 PM

Hi. Judd, the Department continues to work on the matter. Time frames slip too easily so your call onwhether you want to give him one. If you do, I would say that a ballpark for a final decision would bewithin the next couple of weeks.

- Denise

-----Original Message-----From: Casamento, Charlene ASent: Monday, November 29, 2010 1:20 PMTo: Everhart, Judd B; Harley, Thomas A.; Straka, Gregory; Rolfe, Mark DCc: Rodosevich, Denise; Sexton, Alice M; Nursick, Kevin J; Sucato, Pamela P; Parker, Jeffrey A; Cannon,Lewis SSubject: RE: O&G - Courant

I think Denise has the recommendation at this point. Denise do you have a sense as to your timelines?


Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

-----Original Message-----From: Everhart, Judd BSent: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:37 PMTo: Casamento, Charlene A; Harley, Thomas A.; Straka, Gregory; Rolfe, Mark DCc: Rodosevich, Denise; Sexton, Alice M; Nursick, Kevin J; Sucato, Pamela P; Parker, Jeffrey A; Cannon,Lewis SSubject: O&G - Courant

Ed Mahony is asking for a ball-park timeframe on a decision on awarding Contract E to O&G. Any guidance?

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Straka, GregoryCc: Parker, Jeffrey A; Harley, Thomas A.; Daley, Mark T; Rolfe, Mark D; Rodosevich, DeniseSubject: FW: Contract E Signed JV Responsibility DeterminationDate: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:06:00 PMAttachments: JV Responsibility Determination 11-28TH as revised by DR12-3.pdf

HI Greg:

I have reviewed the responsibility recommendation from the panel, and concur with theirrecommendation that the JV is responsible. Please proceed with the awarding of this contractto the JV. Charlene

Charlene Casamento Bureau Chief of Finance & Administration Department of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201 Fax: (860) 594-3094

______________________________________________

From: Barakat, Rabih M

Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 1:00 PM To: Casamento, Charlene A; Rodosevich, Denise; Straka, Gregory Cc: Harley, Thomas A. Subject: Contract E Signed JV Responsibility Determination

On behalf of Tom, attached in the Signed Contract E JV Responsibility Determination.

To: Charlene Casamento, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Finance and Administration From: Thomas A. Harley, Mark D. Rolfe, and Mark T. Daley Date: December 3, 2010 Subject: New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Improvement Program

Project Numbers 92-531, 92-622 & 92-627 O&G Industries, Inc. and Tutor Perini Corporation, a Joint Venture

Section 13a-95 of the Connecticut General Statutes directs the Commissioner of the

Department of Transportation (Department) to award a bid to the lowest bidder deemed by him to be responsible.1 On October 13, 2010, the bids were opened for Project Numbers 92-531, 92-622 and 92-627; a singular contract within the New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Improvement Program (hereinafter the “Project” and “Q-Bridge Program” respectively). The apparent lowest bidder was O&G Industries, Inc. (O&G) and Tutor Perini Corporation (TPC), a Joint Venture.

As required by the Department’s Construction Contract Bidding and Award Manual,

both O&G and TPC have been prequalified by the Department. By virtue of that prequalification, the Joint Venture is eligible to receive the award of the subject contract pending a determination that each party to the Joint Venture is responsible (“Responsibility Process”). Information available to the Department at the time of bid was insufficient for the Department to make such a determination. As will be detailed below, a key concern to the Department was O&G’s safety practices in light of the explosion at the Kleen Energy power plant on February 7, 2010 that claimed the lives of six workers and injured many more. The financial consequences or effect on O&G as a result of that incident was also of concern relative to O&G’s financial wherewithal to complete the Project. With regard to TPC, more information was needed regarding safety and administrative performance issues (particularly with regard to the Disadvantaged, Minority, and Women Business Enterprises (D/M/WBE) requirements) that had been noted during TPC’s prequalification process.2

In order to determine whether this Joint Venture should be deemed responsible, on

October 25, 2010, Thomas A. Harley, Chief Engineer and Bureau Chief for the Bureau of Engineering and Construction; Mark D. Rolfe, District Engineer, District 3, and Mark T. 1 Section 13a-95 provides:

The commissioner may, at any time, call for bids to construct, alter, reconstruct, improve, relocate, widen or change the grade of sections of state highways or bridges. All bids shall be submitted on forms provided by the commissioner and shall comply with the rules and regulations provided in the bid specifications. The commissioner shall state the amount of the bond which shall accompany each bid and shall name the place where bids shall be received and the time and place for opening the same. Each bid shall be accompanied by a surety company bond satisfactory to the commissioner and in such sum as the commissioner determines, and shall be so conditioned that, if the contract is awarded to the bidder, such bidder shall, when required by the commissioner, execute an agreement in writing, to be prepared by said commissioner, with such bond as shall be acceptable to the commissioner, conditioned as provided in section 49-41. The commissioner may reject any and all bids if, in the commissioner's opinion, cause exists therefor; but otherwise the commissioner shall award the contract to the lowest bidder deemed to be responsible. The successful bidder shall give evidence satisfactory to said commissioner of such bidder's ability to perform the contract. When such contract is executed by the commissioner and the successful bidder, a copy of the contract, with an estimate of the cost of the work, shall be immediately filed with the commissioner.

2 Consistent with past practice, such concerns remain unresolved until said contractor submits an apparent low bid.

2

Daley, Chief, Fiscal and Administrative Services, acting as your designee (together, the Panel), held a meeting with representatives of O&G and TPC. A copy of the sign-in sheet for this meeting is found in the appendix labeled Attachment A-1.

What follows is brief background information concerning the Project, the

information obtained from the Responsibility Process and the Panel’s assessment of the same, along with the Panel’s recommendation in this matter.

Summary Background a. The Project

The Department is advancing the Q Bridge Program which is valued at roughly $2.2 billion. Due to the size and complexity of the Program, the Department has put the Program out to bid in phases. Multiple phases or projects are already complete and others are currently under construction.

On April 28, 2010 the Department put the subject Project out to bid. The Project is the final major contract in the Q Bridge Program involving the reconstruction of the interchange of I-95, I-91 and Route 34. The work involves the construction or reconstruction of 21 bridges, 21 retaining walls, more than eight and a half miles of highway and ramps, new drainage systems, signing and lighting. It also involves the demolition of numerous existing structures and the movement of over 500,000 cubic yards of rock and earth. The roadway and bridge work taken incrementally is not particularly unique. The difficulty of the Project lies in the sheer amount of work, the aggressive milestone deadlines imposed in the contract and the need to maintain traffic operations for approximately 200,000 vehicles per day through the I-95 and connecting ramps work zone. It is imperative to provide a contractor with Notice to Proceed by late March 2011 to ensure sufficient time to complete certain portions of the work that control the progress of adjacent construction contracts; specifically the timely progression of the contract to replace the I-95 bridge over the Quinnipiac River (known as the Q Bridge). By September 2013, this Project must create the approach roadway to portions of the new Q Bridge allowing traffic to be moved to the new bridge, and further allowing for demolition of the existing Q Bridge and completion of the new structure. An incentive payment of up to $4 million will be paid for completing specified work in advance of certain milestone dates. The contract also includes penalties of over $20,000 per day if such work is not completed by the milestone dates. Additional incentive payments for completing other specified work in advance of associated milestone dates are specified in the contract. Their value is in excess of $9 million. These significant incentive payments, coupled with contractual milestone deadlines, are indicative of the importance of this contract work being started and progressed in a timely manner because other adjacent contract work is depending on its progress.

3

b. Responsibility Meeting and Process In conformance with the Department’s Construction Contract Bidding and Award

Manual , by letter dated October 21, 2010, O&G and TPC were invited to a responsibility meeting. Included with that letter were specific issues and concerns for O&G, TPC and the Joint Venture to address (Attachment A-2). While the enumerated issues and concerns were lengthy, broadly speaking, the issues and concerns fell into the following categories:

1. The Safety records and practices of both companies including how the Joint

Venture would ensure safety on the Project; 2. The financial wherewithal of O&G to complete the Project in light of its

remaining responsibilities at the Kleen Energy site, the announced OSHA fines and the various civil complaints that have been filed against O&G;

3. Past performance for both companies; 4. Previous Joint Venture projects; and, 5. Clarification of bid items.

In addition to addressing the above areas of inquiry, at the meeting, O&G and TPC

were allowed to make whatever presentation they saw fit for the relevant purposes. In advance of the meeting, the Panel had reviewed numerous documents, including,

but not limited to, sections 13a-95 and 31-57b of the Connecticut General Statutes (Attachment C-1), a September 16, 2010-dated letter from Attorney Kevin O’Connor (counsel to O&G) to Attorney Devin Marquez (Department of Administrative Services Staff Counsel) concerning section 31-57b (Attachment C-2), Department evaluations of O&G dating back to 2005 (Attachment C-5), OSHA compliance information found on the OSHA website for both Joint Venture companies. This information was subsequently provided by the Joint Venture and is presented in Attachment A-7, Tabs 3-9, Attachment A-8, response to question 9 (a), and Attachment A-12. The Panel also reviewed various news articles found via web search which concerned both Joint Venture companies relative to OSHA and contract compliance issues elsewhere.

At the October 25, 2010 meeting, the Joint Venture presented various materials,

some responsive to the Panel’s questions put forth with the Department October 21, 2010 letter. Said materials are identified as Attachments A-4, A-5, and A-6.

Subsequent to that meeting, the Department presented the Joint Venture with additional questions in a letter dated October, 27, 2010 (Attachment A-3). On October 29, 2010 the Joint Venture responded more fully to the initial questions raised by the Department in the October 21st letter and discussed at the October 25th meeting (see Attachment A-7 for O&G responses and A-8 for TPC’s responses). On November 2, 2010 the Joint Venture responded more fully regarding the follow up October 27th questions from the Department (see Attachment A-9). All of this information in addition to the pre and post-bid contract submittals (see Appendix B in its entirety), and miscellaneous reference information (see Appendix C) was duly considered by the Panel as will be detailed below.

4

c. The Joint Venture Per the Joint Venture Agreement between O&G and TPC, O&G is the Managing Sponsor of the Joint Venture and will be responsible for all day-to-day operations of the Project site if the Joint Venture is awarded the contract. The proposed management team for the Project is entirely comprised of O&G employees (Attachment B-1, Resumes and Organizational Chart). Therefore, while the safety record of both companies is at issue, the Panel reviewed with particular scrutiny the safety record of O&G and the steps it would take to ensure safety on this Project.

Pursuant to the Joint Venture Agreement between O&G and TPC, each company is jointly and severally responsible for the successful completion of the Project, if the other company should lose the financial ability to complete the Project (Attachment A-4, response to question 1b). Section 4.3 of that agreement provides, “If any party hereto shall dissolve, become bankrupt, or shall file a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, the remaining party or parties shall do all things necessary to wind up the affairs of this Joint Venture, including the completion of said construction contract, the collection of all monies and property due to the Joint Venture, the payment of all debts and liabilities of the Joint Venture, and the distribution of its assets.”

The Safety Records and Practices of Both Companies Including How the Joint Venture Will Ensure Safety on the Project

a. Section 31-57b of the Connecticut General Statutes

As noted above, on February 7, 2101, an explosion occurred at the construction site for

the new Kleen Energy Power Plant. O&G was the prime contractor at the site. As a result of that incident, O&G was issued four citations by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) containing 143 violations; 117 of which violations are listed as “willful,” 23 are listed as “serious,” and the remaining three are listed as “other” (Attachment A-7, Tab 9, response to question 8).

The Panel is aware that § 31-57b of the Connecticut General Statutes, in relevant part

provides: No contract shall be awarded by the state or any of its political subdivisions to any person or firm or any firm, corporation, partnership or association in which such persons or firms have an interest (1) which has been cited for three or more willful or serious violations of any occupational safety and health act or of any standard, order or regulation promulgated pursuant to such act, during the three-year period preceding the bid, provided such violations were cited in accordance with the provisions of any state occupational safety and health act or the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and not abated within the time fixed by the citation and such citation has not been set aside following appeal to the appropriate agency or court having jurisdiction …

Since O&G has been cited for three or more willful or serious violations from OSHA in the last three years, the issue is whether O&G has timely abated the violations. Relevant to the Panel are the following factors:

5

- Contained on the first page of the citations issued to O&G is the following statement: “Issuance of this Citation does not constitute a finding that a violation of [OSHA] occurred unless there is a failure to contest.” O&G did contest (Attachment A-10). Federal OSHA has yet to make a determination as to whether, in fact, three or more serious or willful violations exist that need to be abated.

- 29 CFR § 1903.19(b)(2) provides that “Abatement date means: …(ii) For a contested citation item for which the Occupational Safety and Health Commission (OSHRC) has issued a final order affirming the violation, the later of: (A) The date identified in the final order for abatement; (B) The date computed by adding the period allowed in the citation for abatement to the final order date; (C) The date established by a formal settlement agreement” (Attachment C-6). The determinations set forth in subdivisions (A), (B) and (C) have yet to be made (Attachment C-8). In fact, the Federal Department of Labor has yet to file an initial pleading against O&G in this matter; having requested and received two extensions of time to do so. The most recent request for an extension of time states: “[I]n light of the ongoing, productive nature of [ ] settlement efforts, the parties’ believe it is in our mutual best interest to continue our negotiations prior to the filing of a complaint. Complainant is optimistic that a settlement, partial settlement or narrowing of issues will occur in these cases…” (Attachment C-8).

- The OSHA document entitled “Employer Rights and Responsibilities Following an

OSHA Inspection” provides that “a proper contest of any item suspends your legal obligation to abate and pay until the item contested has been resolved” (Attachment C-13, pp. 11-12). As noted above, O&G properly contested the citations.

- An email from Attorney Ann Rugens at the Department of Labor that indicates:

“[a]fter some research and consultation with our AG [Assistant Attorney General] unit, we do concur with O&G that the statute does not come into play until the matter is final – and does not apply to matters under contest” (Attachment C-7).3

- The Department of Administrative Services (DAS), a sister agency to the

Department, is also subject to the requirements of § 31-57b. After due consideration of the applicability of this section, DAS recently has prequalified O&G; making O&G eligible for contracts let by DAS (Attachment C-4).

Based on the above, because the citations have been contested, there is no date by

which O&G needs to abate at this point in time, and accordingly, section 31-57b does not currently preclude the Department from awarding the subject contract.

b. Other O&G OSHA citations, their resolution, and how safety will be approached on this Project. In the past three years, O&G has undergone 23 reported federal OSHA inspections. OSHA citations were issued following nine of these inspections; all of which were contested. The citations with regard to three of these inspections remain “open,” and the rest

3 O&G’s position regarding section 31-57b is also set forth in Attachment A-10.

6

have been “closed.” For the closed matters, one involved five “serious” violations, which were reduced to one serious violation at the conclusion of the matter; one involved four “serious” violations, which were reduced to one serious violation at the conclusion of the matter; one involved one serious violation, which was completely eliminated at the conclusion of the matter; and the remainder of the closed matters were for “other” violations; only one of which resulted in a monetary fine (Attachment C-9). O&G indicated that their response to citations and alleged violations have been immediate, diligent, and thorough. (Attachment A-7, response to question 8d). Their actions minimally involved correcting specific site safety conditions and retraining staff with respect to the cited condition. Two “open” matters are for inspections at the Kleen Energy construction site following the February 7, 2010 explosion. The contract work at this site involved construction of a power plant structure/facility and site improvements. The work being performed at the time of the incident involved an operation called a “gas blow”; intended to clean pipes. O&G hired a specialized subcontractor to plan, execute and oversee the pipe cleaning process. That subcontractor’s duties included ensuring the safety and propriety of the pipe cleaning process (Attachment A-10 p. 3). As previously noted, OSHA alleges 117 “willful,” 23 “serious,” and three “other’ violations at the Kleen Energy construction site. All findings have been contested by O&G; as is their right under OSHA regulations. The majority of the alleged OSHA violations arose from the use of natural gas for the gas blow (Attachment A-10, p. 4). At the time of a June, 2010 study conducted by the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 63% of the respondents from the Combined Cycle Users’ Group (a power plant industry group) used this gas blow method. At the time of the explosion, there were no federal safety standards prohibiting this type of procedure and no agency regulated the process used (Attachment A-10, p. 3; Attachment C-12, pp. 2 and 4). Since the explosion and prior to Governor M. Jodi Rell's order banning the gas blow procedure, O&G prohibited the use of natural gas blows to clean pipes. (Attachment A-10, p. 4). While the subject Project does not require “gas blow” construction activity, some of the alleged violations for which O&G was cited involve issues that pertain to general construction administration and to activity that will occur on this Project; activities such as fall protection, training, and record keeping. The third “open” citation involves work at Quinnipiac University. An accident occurred during the backing of heavy equipment which resulted in the death of a worker. As explained to the Panel, a foreman directed a crew member to pick up material with a forklift and transport it to another location. The foreman then walked directly behind the forklift and was struck by it. OSHA alleged two serious violations relative to that incident. Those findings have been contested and are without resolution at this time. The contract involved construction of buildings and site work. While O&G denies any wrongdoing on its part, it immediately retrained all workforce on site covering the subject hazard. The machine involved was tested for the functionality of its safety equipment and was found to be fully operational; including the backup alarm (Attachment A-7, p.7).

7

Based on the above and relative to the closed matters, O&G’s contest of OSHA citations has resulted in the majority of “serious” violations being deleted. At most, only one violation from each investigation has survived its classification as “serious” following O&G’s contest of the subject violations. The Panel also notes that during the week of July 31, 2009, OSHA visited the Kleen Energy construction site and not a single violation was cited (Attachment A-9, p 6, response to question I, and Attachment A-10, p. 4, n. 1). In spite of this track record, for those matters that are still under contest, the Panel acknowledges that it can draw no conclusions as to what the outcome will be. The Panel does find significant, however, the commitment that the Joint Venture has made to ensure the protection of the workers on the Project and the motoring public traveling through the Project, should the contract be awarded to it. More specifically:

> O&G summarized the company’s safety program in a document entitled “O&G’s approach to safety” (Attachment A-4, pp. 1-3). O&G strives to be at the forefront of construction safety; the company is dedicated to safety; it has an on-going safety training program; senior executives are involved in company and site safety (Attachment A-10, .pp. 1-3, and A-7, pp. 6-8). It appears from O&G’s documents and their oral representations that they have increased staffing and implemented certain efficiencies (cross training) in their safety division. They have also retooled their general and project specific safety manuals. They have done so with the help of a third party consultant with expertise in job site safety (Attachment A-7, p. 6). > O&G has a corporate Safety Program and a Health & Safety Manual. (Attachments A-5, A-6). Typically, O&G creates a project-specific safety plan. The Joint Venture has committed to developing and implementing a project-specific health and safety plan (the Safety Plan) to be created with the assistance of a qualified third party safety consultant and approved by the Department for the Project (Attachment A-9, p. 8, response to question M; Attachment A-7, p. 2, response to question 3). > Should the Joint Venture be awarded the contract, it has acknowledged that as the general contractor for the Project it is responsible for the safety of all individuals on the work site including the motoring public (Attachment A-9, p. 3, response to question B). > Management for the Project will include a full time Site Safety Manager reporting directly to the Project Manager/Director. The Site Safety Manager will work exclusively on this Project and the active work site will always be staffed with an individual whose sole responsibility is safety compliance. All safety personnel will be appropriately trained for such a role. The project safety staff will monitor and track all accidents and safety issues on site, including the activities of the subcontractors, and report that information to the Department (Attachment A-9, pp. 3-5 and 8, response to questions D, E, F and M). > The Site Safety Manager for the Project is anticipated to be Mr. Sean McNeill. According to Mr. McNeill’s resume, he has a Bachelors of Science in Occupational Health and Safety and has some 17 safety certifications and training (Attachment B-

8

1, resumes, Attachment A-9, p. 3, response to question D). O&G represents that Mr. McNeill will, among other things:

- enforce strict compliance with the Safety Plan, O&G’s safety and health program, OSHA standards, and all other federal, state, and local safety codes and regulations; - handle and oversee new employee orientations, hazard recognition, remediation and site audits, and on-going training; - track safety incidents, review and report incidents, implement recommendations resulting from investigations; - report all issues to O&G’s corporate office (Attachment A-9, pp. 3-4, response to question D).

With regard to his authority, O&G has represented that

- Mr. O’Neill will have “clear and unambiguous authority to stop any work performed on this Project, including work by subcontractors and to correct any needed safety concerns”; - its standard agreement with subcontracts will explicitly authorize Mr. McNeill to “stop any part of the work which Contractor deems unsafe until corrective measures satisfactory to Contractor have been taken.” Furthermore, O&G indicates it will issue a written directive to all workers on the site concerning Mr. McNeill’s authority (Attachment A-9, pp. 4, response to question D.)

> O&G’s contract with its subcontractors specifically provides: “Subcontractor shall comply with all applicable safety laws and regulations and with any and all safety standards established during the progress of the work by the Contractor. Subcontractor shall establish and implement a safety program for its work. If requested, Subcontractor shall submit its safety program for review by Contractor. … When so ordered, Subcontractor shall stop any part of the work which Contractor deems unsafe until corrective measures satisfactory to Contractor have been taken. Should Subcontractor neglect to adopt such corrective measures, Contractor may do so and deduct the cost from payments due to Subcontractor..” (Attachment A-9, Exhibit 1, section 17). > Rider A to O&G’s contract with subcontractors includes the following provision: “Any violations of the safety rules by the [subcontractor] …will be sufficient reason to have said person and/or subcontractor removed from the jobsite and the subcontract terminated (Attachment A-9, Exhibit 1, Rider A). > Mr. McNeill will be supported by other O&G safety personnel in identifying hazards and taking all actions that may be needed. No directive given by Mr. McNeill or other safety staff can be overridden (Attachment A-9, p. 5, response to questions D and E).

9

> Every year since 1998, O&G has received recognition from the Connecticut Construction Industry Association for Achieving Excellence in Construction Safety and Health (Attachment A-10, p. 2). > Detailed reports will be provided to the Department of (a) safety issues found during the reporting period; (b) what action was taken to correct the same and verify that corrections occurred; and (c) identification of upcoming safety concerns and the safety measures, training, etc. that will be implemented regarding he same (Attachment A-9, p. 8, response to question M).

Relative to safety, the Panel also finds significant that:

> 17 union leaders signed a document at some point after the February 7, 2010 explosion that, among other things states: “We can state without question that O&G Industries, Inc. is a quality contractor who shares our concern for the well-being of the union women and men the company employs. … O&G operates a quality safety program and has worked continuously to improve workplace safety at its many construction sites, plants and locations. Due to O&G’s safety plans, we are confident that our members are working in as safe of an environment as possible under O&G’s direction (Attachment A-11). > The Connecticut Department of Administrative Services, after initially making a preliminary determination under its statutes and regulations to not prequalify O&G, recently has prequalified them (Attachment C-4). > That after prequalifying O&G and then placing that prequalification on “hold,” the Massachusetts Department of Transportation has recently re-instated O&G’s prequalification status (Attachment C-11).

10

> Although not yet required to do so, O&G represents that it has abated all of the alleged violations in the OSHA citations4 (Attachment A-7, page 6, response to question 8(d)).

c. TPC’s OSHA citations and safety program TPC submitted documentation of fifty one (51) OSHA violations for which Tutor-Saliba Corp., Perini-Tutor Saliba III Joint Venture, and Perini Building Company West received OSHA citations during 15 inspections over the course of the past three years (Attachment A-8, response to question 9(a)). Twenty-four (24) of the violations were cited as “serious,” twenty one (21) were cited as “other” and six (6) were “NOVs” (notice of violations) only. All violations were abated, and total fines of $38,028.50 were paid (Attachment A-12). Many of the violations pertained to work and trades associated with vertical (building) construction. However, a number of the serious violations related to scaffold, guardrail, ladder, and fall protection; issues which would apply to activities that will occur on this Project. Three of the serious violations were related to Perini/Tutor Saliba III Joint Venture’s work on the Tappan Zee Bridge. These violations were immediately corrected during the course of the inspection. Fines of $1800 were paid. On another contract on the New Jersey Turnpike, a TPC employee fell to his death. The cause of the fall was represented to be a defective plank which had been miss-labeled by its manufacturer. TPC received a “serious” violation and paid a $7000 fine (Attachment A-8, response to question 9(a), also Attachment A-12) TPC also provided documentation showing that inspections by the State of Nevada, Division of Industrial Relations, Occupational Safety and Health Administration resulted in the issuance of Notices of Alleged Safety or Health Hazards. While the majority of these related to vertical construction of buildings, there were multiple reported safety hazards related to the maintenance and operation of cranes. The Project involves the operation of multiple cranes. TPC also submitted safety plans, training records and staff qualifications for 11 projects undertaken in the last three years. A review of these plans shows organization and staff responsibilities with regard to workplace safety for each project for both prime contractors and subcontractors. The plans document safety protocol, including safety observation and reporting; discipline for violation of job safety rules; job site orientation and indoctrination; minimum standards for safety meetings (frequency and content)’ first aid and sanitation; emergency procedures; protection of the public; fire prevention; hazardous material handling; environmental protection; electrical and equipment safety; fall protection; and more (Attachment A-8, response to question 9 (c) and found in the individual safety plans). Key staff assigned safety responsibilities for these projects include Certified Safety

4 As noted above, the contract at issue here contains incentives for completing specified work in advance of certain milestone dates. Concerned about a possible nexus between incentives and O&G’s OSHA violations, the Panel inquired further into this topic. O&G indicates that for the projects on which it was issued an OSHA citation in the last three years, all such projects were on schedule at the time of the alleged OSHA violations, but were not in an accelerated delivery mode. It also points out that OSHA and the Connecticut Department of Labor (by virtue of its representation on the Nevas Commission) specifically examined whether the number of hours worked at the Kleen Energy site was the cause of the explosion. Hours were not found to have contributed to the incident. As of the writing of this memo, no civil complaints filed against O&G state that excessive hours worked was a cause of the explosion. (Attachment A-7, p. 8-9; response to question 8(e).

11

professionals (certified by the Board of Certified Safety Professionals); staff with specific college degrees in Public Safety, including a Masters degree in Occupational Safety and Health; and several authorized OSHA trainers with many years of experience in the field of job safety (Attachment A-8, response to 9 (c) and found in the individual safety plans). At the corporate level, TPC maintains an independent safety department, lead by a Director of Safety, and its overall safety training program includes safety orientation for all new workers, OSHA 10 hour training for craft workers, OSHA 30 hour training for supervisors and task specific training pertinent to the work to be performed (Attachment A-8, response to question 9 (d)). Financial Capabilities/Capacity to finish the work

A fundamental concern of the Panel was the financial capacity of the lowest bidder to complete the work. Of particular concern in this case are the possible outstanding liabilities of O&G resulting from the Kleen Energy incident. Accordingly, the Panel pursued information regarding this concern.

At the responsibility meeting and in its responses to the Department’s written

questions, O&G indicated that it has no reservations whatsoever about its financial capacity and ability to complete the Project notwithstanding all potential liabilities from the Kleen Energy incident (Attachment A-7, pp. 10 – 12). O&G outlined the various insurance policies that were in effect at the time of the Kleen Energy incident and has represented that such coverages are more than sufficient to cover potential liabilities. No insurance carrier has denied coverage (Attachment A-7 p. 11). Relative to the potential OSHA penalties, O&G indicates that even if such penalties are not reduced or eliminated as a result of its contest of the citations, it has ample reserves to cover the same (Attachment A-7 pp. 11-12).

As an indication of its financial wherewithal, it was noted that surety companies

continue to support and affirm O&G’s $2 billion surety bond program and have gone on record that they will provide payment and performance bonds for the Project, should the Project contract be awarded to the Joint Venture. (Attachments A-7, p. 3 response to question 4, also p. 12; Attachment A-4 ). Such bonds ensure that the Project can be completed in the event that O&G is not able to complete the Project. Further, in accordance with Department policy, payment and performance bonds are required for 100% of the amount of the contract.

Finally, as noted above, under the Joint Venture Agreement between TPC and O&G,

TPC would be responsible for the Project should O&G be unable to complete the Project and pursuant to the Department’s Construction Contract Bidding and Award Manual, joint venture parties are jointly and severally responsible for the performance of the entire contract. (See page 21 of the Manual).

Taken together, the Panel finds that O&G, the Managing Sponsor of the Joint Venture who will be responsible for all day-to-day operations of the Project site is not in financial risk as a result of the Kleen Energy incident. The surety assurances and the terms of the Joint Venture agreement provide the Panel with confidence that financial wherewithal would not be a factor for finding the Joint Venture not responsible. Past Performance records for both companies

12

This section will examine the performance records for each of the entities involved

in the apparent lowest bid, beginning with the Project sponsor, O&G. It will then review the minority partner, TPC, and then finally discuss the performance record of the Joint Venture team on previous projects. O&G’s Performance Record

O&G is a large Connecticut-based contractor with a long track record working with the Department. O&G’s primary operations include heavy and highway construction, materials production, and building construction. Over the past 10 years, O&G has completed 21 Department projects totaling approximately $516 million. The projects range in size from a $127,000 emergency repair of a bridge over the Norwalk River to a $105 million project to construct the Brookfield Bypass. A list of the Department projects O&G has completed in the last 10 years is shown below.

Contract No. Contract Description 0042-0265 Construction of HOV Lane Extension on I-84 Westbound. 0301-0023 Reconstruction of The New Haven Rail yard Facilities Diesel Shop 0163-0164 Construction of State Route 661 and Bridge over the Willimantic River 0065-0103 Resurfacing of Scoville Hill Road 0063-0529 Pedestrian bridge over Columbus Blvd. and Access Ramp to Constitution Plaza 0107-0149 Extension of Taxiway "F" at the Oxford Airport 0102-0313 Emergency repair to Bridge #01664, Route 123 over Norwalk River 0144-0173 Construction of Route 111 and Route 15 interchange 0008-0083 Emergency Replacement of Pipe Culvert over Beacon Hill 0130-0169 Resurfacing, Bridge and Safety Improvements on I-84 0092-0526 Construction of Church Street South Ext. over the New Haven Rail Yard 0301-0039 New Haven Rail Yard Facilities 0102-0316 Emergency Repair to Bridge No. 01664, Route 123 over the Norwalk River 0035-0176 Resurfacing and Median Reconstruction on I-95 0117-0154 Emergency Response and Repairs to Bridge #0536 over the Norwalk River

0300-0019/0301-0053/0059 Milford RR Station Renovation

0102-0312/0089-0118 Reconstruction of Route 15 / Main Ave. Interchange and Rehab of Br #05810

0092-0533/0569 New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Improvement Program - Contract C2 0018-0113 Construction of U.S. Route 7 Bypass 0043-0122 New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Improvements - Contract C1 0117-0155 Emergency Replacement of Bridge No. 0536 over Norwalk River

Excluding emergency projects, projects not through final audit, and the Norwalk project which was terminated for convenience, the unweighted average cost growth on O&G’s projects over the last 10 years and the unweighted average time increase has been favorable to the Department. Further, despite its long history with the Department, O&G has not filed a claim on any of its projects with the Department.

13

The Department is required to evaluate the performance of all contractors. Annual and final performance ratings are prepared for prime contractors. O&G’s final performance evaluations on the projects where it was the prime contractor averaged 3.1 (out of 4) for the last five years. A rating of 3 or better indicates a “good” performance rating. Copies of the performance ratings are included in Attachment C-5.

O&G has highlighted several projects on its corporate resume (Attachment B-1, Section II Work Performed). Among those projects are two previously completed projects in the New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Program, Projects C1 and C2. The contract value for these reconstruction projects was $41 million and $69 million, respectively. Both projects were on I-95 east of the Q Bridge. These projects are noteworthy in that they include similar construction as that proposed on Contract E (although at a smaller scale) and they also demonstrate familiarity with the Program management principles adopted for the Program.

Other projects submitted as part of the qualifications package include several road and bridge projects along the heavily traveled I-95 corridor. These projects demonstrate a clear pattern of success reconstructing large and small bridges and the highway under the high traffic conditions present on I-95 in New Haven and Fairfield counties.

The O&G qualifications package also lists projects to replace the Lake Saltonstall Bridge in East Haven and the Founders Bridge in Hartford. These projects are not included in the list of completed projects shown above because O&G was not awarded either project by the Department. In both instances, the original contractor was unable to complete the project, and the surety selected O&G to complete the remainder of the work. O&G was able to successfully navigate the difficulties of restarting a partially completed project and completing these technically challenging projects within the prescribed time frame. In particular, it should be noted that the Founders Bridge project included substantial work on the I-91 / I-84 Interchange in Hartford.

Finally, over the past 10 years O&G has completed five emergency projects for the Department. O&G was selected for these projects as a result of an emergency declared by the Commissioner of Transportation. Emergency projects require the contractor to work cooperatively with the Department’s engineers to develop a design and a work plan to repair the emergency condition. In each instance, O&G provided the skill, expertise and resources to complete the repairs and resolve the emergency condition. O&G’s record in successfully completing difficult projects was a key factor in its selection for multiple emergency projects.

Neither O&G nor any of its officers, directors or employees have been suspended,

debarred or disqualified by any state, city or federal entity in the last five years (Attachments A-7 pp.12-13, C-4, C-11)

14

TPC’s Performance Record

TPC was formed from a merger of Tutor-Saliba and Perini in 2008. Tutor-Saliba was primarily a West Coast firm specializing in large public works projects and infrastructure in California. Perini was a national firm based in Massachusetts constructing building and infrastructure projects across the country. Given the relative short existence of TPC, it is appropriate to extend the review of TPC to its predecessor companies.

TPC has provided documentation of its performance record in its response to questions, in its prequalification documentation, and in the qualifications package submitted by the Joint Venture. (Attachment B-5, B6, and B-1, Section II Work Performed). References were checked for the Tappan Zee Bridge and the Passaic River Bridge projects. In both instances, representatives of the project owner indicated that the projects went well. Specifically, it was noted that Perini had deep resources with technically talented staff, and was able to meet the challenges of complex projects. Both projects were managed locally with only minimal involvement from the home office. Neither project had any claims and both owners indicated they would like to do business with TPC in the future.

As part of its Prequalification materials (Attachments B-5 and B-6), TPC disclosed to the Department an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York involving TPC’s contracting of work to minority and women-owned businesses D/M/WBE. The following summarizes the incident (Attachment A-8, response to question 9 (l)):

In 2001, the company received a grand jury subpoena for documents in connection

with an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. The investigation concerned contracting concerns between the company’s civil division and disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The company received similar subpoenas in 2006 and 2007 as well. In December of 2008 the company was notified that there would be no criminal charges brought against them in connection with the investigation. In January of 2009 an indictment was unsealed in the Eastern District of New York. The indictment alleges fraud charges against two former employees of the company. These two employees were terminated from the company as of March 30, 2007. These employees are also no longer associated with the company.

In October of 2009, a settlement agreement resolved all outstanding allegations. Under this settlement agreement, the company paid $9.75 million to the U.S. Justice Department. In a letter from the FHWA, dated December 22, 2009, it was indicated that the company is presently responsible and that suspension and debarment is not required. The company is eligible to participate in federally funded projects and programs (Attachment A-8, response to question 9 (l)).

Nevertheless, the Panel was concerned about this adverse history and wanted more information regarding what TPC has done to ensure compliance with the D/M/WBE program. Therefore, as part of the Responsibility Process, the Panel obtained additional information about TPC’s D/M/WBE compliance program.

TPC now has in place a D/M/WBE compliance program and monitoring regime to ensure full compliance with the laws pertaining to D/M/WBE subcontractors (Attachment A-8, response to question 9 (n)). This program includes, but is not limited to, a corporate

15

compliance committee, a corporate compliance manual, and a corporate compliance ethics and audit alert line. Further, new procedures and staff were added to the Civil Division of TPC relative to D/M/WBE program compliance and an outside independent consultant was retained to develop new monitoring procedures, implement such monitoring and train employees. The consultant also assisted with the creation of a formal D/M/WBE Corporate Policy Manual that outlines compliance procedures to be followed during the pre-bid, pre-award, and post-award phases of a construction project. Additional submittals, such as, the M/W/DBE Procedural Review/Report, the Corporate Compliance Committee Minutes and other various supporting documentation relative to TPC’s revamped DBE program is further evidence to support that TPC has successfully addressed this matter.5

TPC reports that none of its officers, directors or employees have been suspended,

debarred or disqualified by any state, city or federal entity, and TPC has not had any prequalification determination revoked or denied by any public entity in or outside of Connecticut in the last five years (Attachment A-8, response to questions 9 (k) and (m)). Previous Joint Venture Projects

O&G has completed five joint venture projects with TPC and its predecessor companies (Attachments B-1, Section II Work Performed and A-7, pp. 3-4). All of the projects completed by O&G and TPC as a joint venture are heavy civil / infrastructure projects. The cumulative value of the work completed by them as a joint venture exceeds $1.5 billion (Attachment B-1).

In Connecticut, both O&G and Perini were part of a joint venture team that completed the Baldwin Bridge carrying I-95 over the Connecticut River. This major bridge structure was the first concrete segmental bridge built in Connecticut and was finished nine months early.

Other joint venture projects included in the qualifications package are a $782 million project along the Alameda Corridor in California. The scope of this project included the construction of a depressed rail corridor, 29 bridges and several miles of retaining walls. This project was successfully completed in 2002. (Attachment B-1, Section II Work Performed). Although this project is twice as large as the subject Project, it is particularly noteworthy because, like Contract E, it involves wall and bridge construction.

O&G and TPC also completed the rehabilitation of the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge in New York (Attachment B-1, Section II Work Performed). A representative of the owner, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, indicated that this $137 million project was technically demanding with a very tight schedule. Perini brought substantial resources to the project and developed several innovative solutions to the project challenges. The representative noted that the project was managed locally without much involvement from either the TPC home office or O&G, the joint venture partner. There were no claims on the project and the representative indicated they would be pleased if either TPC or the joint venture submitted a bid for the next project.

5 The Panel knows of no issues with regard to O&G and the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program.

16

Unlike many joint venture relationships that exist only for a specific bid or project, O&G and TPC have a long work history of working with each other in joint ventures extending over two decades. The record indicates they have forged a productive working relationship and a history of success on large, complex projects. Although the Project Management team proposed for Contract E is different from the prior projects in that it will be led by O&G staff, it is noted that the same corporate principals and management oversight will be in place as was the case in the earlier projects completed by the O&G / TPC joint venture team. Based on the above, the Panel finds that performance of O&G, TPC and the joint venture of O&G and TPC would not be a basis for finding the Joint Venture not responsible. Clarification of select bid items Eight bidders submitted bids for the Project contract, with the O&G/TPC Joint Venture submitting the apparent lowest bid of $356,823,562.20.The second lowest bid was submitted by SDE Interchange Joint Venture at $377,990,000 and the third lowest bid was submitted by Cianbro / Middlesex X, A Joint Venture at $387,458,760. A complete listing of the bids received is found in Attachment B-8.

In accordance with Department practice, an analysis of the bids received was performed by the Office of Quality Assurance. A copy of that analysis including a tabulation of all bid items for the five (5) lowest bidders is included as Attachment B-9. In addition, because the Project is part of the New Haven Harbor Corridor Crossing Improvement Program, the Department also requested that the program management consultant, Parsons Brinkerhoff (Program Manager), conduct an independent assessment of the bid results. A copy of the PB analysis is included as Attachment B-10.

The apparent lowest bid is the Department’s official estimate and the estimate developed by the Program Manager. As mentioned above, the

analyses were performed independently using a similar, although not identical, approach to the bid analysis. Both analyses focused on the major items in the bid and recommended several items for additional inquiry. Neither analysis found any mathematical errors or any basis for concluding that the bid was materially unbalanced.

At the October 25, 2010 Responsibility Meeting, the Joint Venture was queried

regarding several items contained in its bid. In particular, it was noted that the items for structural steel were bid lower than expected; especially at Site Nos. 1 and 7. The Joint Venture responded that many changes were received late from subcontractors and suppliers on the morning of the bid. Rather than making last minute changes to many items and risk an error in its bid, the Joint Venture chose to adjust only several items. In this case, almost all of the late adjustments were downward, resulting in deductions to the bid items for structural steel for Site Nos. 1 and 7. The Joint Venture reiterated this response in its October 29, 2010 letter to the Department. (Attachment A-7, page 14, response to question 11). Relative to these bid items, the letter concludes that “[t]hough the value of the Structural Steel items appear [sic] skewed from the other bidders, the Joint Venture is prepared to perform all of the Structural Steel items in accordance with plans and specification for the values shown in the bid.”

17

Subsequent to the October 25th meeting and receipt of the Joint Venture’s responses to the Department’s written inquiries, the Department and the Program Manager completed their respective bid analyses. In several instances additional questions were raised concerning the amount bid for certain items. As of this writing, none of the additional questions raised concerning the Joint Venture’s bid appeared to be a major cause for concern and it is expected that if the decision is made to award the subject contract, the issues will be resolved as part of the normal pre-award discussions with the contractor. The bid submitted by the Joint Venture has been reviewed and checked mathematically. No discrepancies were identified. Further, there is no indication that the bid is materially unbalanced. The Panel therefore concludes that there are no issues with the bid that would impact a responsibility determination. Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the above, it is the Panel’s recommendation that the contract for this Project be awarded to the Joint Venture. Significant detail is provided above in support of this recommendation. By way of summary, however, the following general conclusions support this recommendation:

Safety: While the Panel does not believe that any safety program can ever guarantee

that accidents will not occur, the Panel believes that O&G’s approach to safety on this Project will provide the greatest assurances possible that worker safety and that of the motoring public will be of utmost importance and that safety lapses will not be tolerated.

Financial wherewithal: The Panel no longer has any concerns about the financial

capability of the Joint Venture to complete the Project. Performance: Both O&G and TPC’s past performance provide no reason for not

awarding this contract to the Joint Venture. Based on the information presented, the Panel has no concerns over whether the DBE requirements for this Project will be met.

Bid Items: Major concerns regarding bid items have been resolved and the

remaining issues (which will be addressed during the standard pre-award process) provide no reason to not award the contract to the Joint Venture.

19

Responsibility Process Documents for the Record

Re: O & G Industries, Inc/Tutor Perini Corporation, a Joint Venture Contract E – Project # 92-531, 92-622, 92-627

Appendix A

(Documents from the “responsibility” process) Attachment No. A-1 Oct. 25, 2010 Meeting Sign in Sheet A-2 Oct. 21, 2010, DOT to JV inviting them to Oct. 25 meeting

(w/questions) A-3 Oct. 27, 2010, DOT to JV with follow up questions A-4 thru 8, JV’s submittals responsive to DOT’s Oct. 21, 2010 letter to JV A-4 Miscellaneous materials supplied at Oct. 25, 2010 meeting A-5 O&G Safety Program, dated March 2010, supplied at Oct. 25,

2010 meeting A-6 O&G Health and Safety Manual, dated May 2010, supplied at Oct. 25, 2010 meeting A-7 Oct. 29, 2010, O’Connor to DOT, letter (w/ O&G attachments)

responsive to Department’s Oct. 21 letter A-8 Oct. 29, 2010, TPC’s Responses to Department’s Oct. 21 letter A-9 Nov. 2, 2010, Response to DOT letter of Oct. 27, 2010 with

Exhibits 1, 2, & 3 A-10 Oct. 22, 2010, Kevin O’Connor Letter to Commissioner Parker A-11 Letter of support to O&G from multiple unions along with email

from O&G council verifying approximate date of document A-12 11-30-10, Email confirmation, Summary of TPC’s OSHA

violations

20



Appendix B

(Contract documents, required submissions, pre/post bid) Attachment No. B-1 Oct. 22, 2010, letter from O&G to DOT, Specialized Work and

Qualifications– per contract specification B-2 Nov. 15, 2010, (fax) Supplemental Specialized Work and

Qualifications Submittal B-3 O & G Industries, Inc. – Prequalification Application (CON 16) B-4 O & G Industries, Inc – CON 16 Attachments B-5 Tutor Perini Corporation – Prequalification Application CON 16 B-6 Tutor Perini Corporation – CON 16 Attachments - which include

internal emails and information re: legal and administrative matters noted in financial statement, etc.

B-7 The Joint Venture’s Bid Proposal Request Form – includes Part C

from both companies, letters from both companies outlining the sponsor and percentages of contract responsibility.

B-8 Complete Bid Results B-9 Department Bid Analysis B-10 Parsons Brinkerhoff Bid Analysis B-11 O&G and TPC Certificates of Compliance with CGS Section 31b-

57 (without attachments)

21



Appendix C

(Miscellaneous reference materials) Attachment No. C-1 Connecticut General Statutes 13a-95 & 31-57b C-2 Sept. 16, 2010, O&G Letter to DAS re: Prequalification C-3 Oct. 17, 2010, O&G Letter Requesting DAS to Reconsider their

Decision on Prequalification C-4 Nov. 3, 2010, DAS letter Prequalifying O & G C-5 O & G Evaluations since 2005 C-6 29 CFR 1903.19 C-7 Email from Attorney Rugens C-8 Nov.17, 2010 Motion and Nov 23,2010 Granting Further

Extension of Time, Sec of Labor v. O&G C-9 OSHA Website Search for O&G citations (summaries) C-10 OSHA Website Search for TPC citations (summaries) C-11 MassDOT Prequalification Renewal Letters C-12 Judge Nevas Statement C-13 Employer Rights and Responsibilities Following an OSHA

inspection

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Everhart, Judd B; Rodosevich, Denise; Harley, Thomas A.Cc: Rolfe, Mark D; Daley, Mark T; Straka, Gregory; Sucato, Pamela P; Parker, Jeffrey A; Scarrozzo, Philip T;

Nursick, Kevin JSubject: RE: O&GDate: Friday, December 03, 2010 9:06:25 PM

article was just posted in the hartford courantthe new haven register has a small write up


Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094________________________________________From: Everhart, Judd BSent: Friday, December 03, 2010 5:44 PMTo: Casamento, Charlene A; Rodosevich, Denise; Harley, Thomas A.Cc: Rolfe, Mark D; Daley, Mark T; Straka, Gregory; Sucato, Pamela P; Parker, Jeffrey A; Scarrozzo,Philip T; Nursick, Kevin JSubject: O&G

I talked to Jeff about our O&G decision. I have informed the Gov's Office and the 3 reporters who havebeen following this (Courant, NH Register and Wtby Rep-Am).

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Parker, Jeffrey A; Martin, Albert ACc: DiMattia, Marilyn MSubject: mondayDate: Saturday, December 04, 2010 9:11:22 AM

FYI if i am not served over the weekend, I am planning on working at district 3a on monday. Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

From: Casamento, Charlene ATo: Parker, Jeffrey A; Harley, Thomas A.Subject: FW: Contract E and Moses Wheeler programmingDate: Monday, December 13, 2010 7:40:46 AMAttachments: E Comparison 12-10-10.xlsImportance: High

FYI. I had asked for this. Charlene CasamentoBureau Chief of Finance & AdministrationDepartment of Transportation Phone: (860) 594-2201Fax: (860) 594-3094

From: Hustus, Patricia A.Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:38 PMTo: Casamento, Charlene ACc: Card, Robert C; Godcher, Raymond G; Meyers, Darren E; Stoltenberg, Douglas L.Subject: FW: Contract E and Moses Wheeler programming

Hi Charlene,See Doug's email below and attached spreadsheet. Hope this answers the Commissioner's questions - if not just let us know and we'll try again!Pat

From: Stoltenberg, Douglas L. Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:17 PMTo: Hustus, Patricia A.Cc: Meyers, Darren ESubject: Contract E and Moses Wheeler programming

Pat,Please see the attached spreadsheet noting the following..... The first tab represents the Contract E April 2010 Post FDP estimate (used forfederal authorization) compared to the November 2010 Low Bid Estimateand identifies projected savings per year through the estimated length of thecontract.

We were able to obligate additional funds on the three Contract E projects of approximately $112m in FY2010 due to funds available at the end of the year,(shaded in purple).This allows us the ability to now apply Contract E FY2011 projected funds of$112m back to the program, (shaded in orange).

Funding available to the program due to the low bid ($161m) is shaded inblue and shown in FY2011-2017. This equates to a total of $273 million available to program over FY2011-2017.

2. The second tab "Work added", contains a listing of projects identified as oftoday to program towards the projected savings. These projects total approximately$220 million. The other $53 million available to program will be used forpreservation work yet to be determined. 3. The third tab represents the Moses Wheeler Bridge Replacement potentialsavings based on the PS&E estimate which is lower than the programmed estimatewe are currently carrying.

April 2010 - Estimate used for Federal Authorization

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

92-531 41,049,608 98,877,653 23,988,889 99,051,111 79,925,556 62,071,766 54,178,434 10,385,543 469,528,560

92-622 4,380,000 4,380,000 4,380,000 4,380,000 17,520,000

92-627 11,000,000 35,000,000 36,000,000 29,000,000 22,000,000 28,842,900 161,842,900

41,049,608 114,257,653 63,368,889 139,431,111 113,305,556 84,071,766 83,021,334 10,385,543 648,891,460

November 2010 - Post Bid Opening

Actual Obligation

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

92-531 106,706,731 0 20,700,000 90,560,000 74,400,000 50,430,237 10,000,000 9,485,989 362,282,957

92-622 17,411,111 0 627,345 0 0 0 0 0 18,038,456

92-627 29,181,550 0 7,200,000 35,000,000 25,230,000 10,891,338 0 0 107,502,888

153,299,392 0 28,527,345 125,560,000 99,630,000 61,321,575 10,000,000 9,485,989 487,824,301

Difference at Low Bid 161,067,159

Difference of Programmed vs. Actual Obligations in FY10 112,249,784due to available (excess) funds at end of year.

Available due to the fact that we were able to overprogram 112,249,784Contract E in FY2010.

Available to program due to Contract E low bid. 2,007,869 34,841,544 13,871,111 13,675,556 22,750,191 73,021,334 899,554 161,067,159(Difference in Programmed Funding)

Total available to program due to FY10 overprogramming 114,257,653 34,841,544 13,871,111 13,675,556 22,750,191 73,021,334 899,554 273,316,943and Contract E low bid.

Programmed Funding

Programmed Funding

Contract E

PROJECT PHASE T-working ROUTE TOWN DESCRIPTION YEAR1 ADV OBL COMMENT

151- 285 CN EBS I-84 WATERBURY Replace Sanitary Sewer Station 2011 5/4/2011 Added

63- 621 CN BRX Sigourney St HARTFORD Rehab Br 03624 o/ Central NE RR 2011 11/11/2011 Added

102- 317 CN BRX CT 15 NORWALK Rehab Br 00718 2011 11/11/2011 Added

82- 299 CN BRX Rt 66 MIDDLETOWN Arrigoni Bridge Rehab Placeholder 2011 2/9/2011 Added

59- 159 PE STPA CT 77 GUILFORD Replace Br 02481 o/ brook (List 22) 2011 Added

58- 317 CN I-M I-95 GROTON I-95 Safety Impr., Breakout from 58-307 2011 5/25/2010 Added

63- 639 CN I-M 84/91 HARTFORD Rehab Bridge 05868, I-84/91 Flyover, pier cap & joints 2011 8/31/2011 Added

170-3046 CN BRX Various STATEWIDE Gusset Plate Strengthening, (8) truss bridges 2011 3/23/2011 Added

170-xxxx PL EBS STATEWIDE Planning's Travel Model Placeholder 2011 11/11/2011 Added

172- 392 RW NHS Various VARIOUS Rehab 5 culverts, CT 2 in Marlborough, Colchester and Preston 2011 Added, FIF-Road Candidate

14- 174 CN STPA SR 740 BRANFORD Realignment, Brookwood to Williams Rds 2011 11/11/2011 Added, (needs mod to reflect current estimate)

172- 391 RW NHS Various VARIOUS Rehab 3 culverts, CT 9 in Haddam 2011 Added, CN FY12

171- 346 RW STPA STPA Culverts VARIOUS Rehab 4 culverts, CT 99 Cromwell and SR 410 Middletown 2011 Added, CN P20-FY11, Not in STIP

172- 393 RW STPA STPA Culverts VARIOUS Rehab 3 culverts, CT 82 Chester and Ct 148 Killingworth 2011 Added, CN P20-FY12, FIF-Road Candidate, Not in STIP

170-2876 RW STPA STPA Culverts VARIOUS Rehab 3 culverts, CT 188 in Southbury and CT 57 in Weston 2011 Added, CN P20-FY12, Not in STIP

174- 351 RW STPA STPA Culverts VARIOUS Rehab 3 culverts, CT 69 Burlington, CT 219 Granby, CT 254 Thomaston 2011 Added, CN P20-FY12, Not in STIP

172- 394 RW STPA STPA Culverts VARIOUS Rehab 2 culverts, CT 207 in Franklin and SSR 430 in Mansfield 2011 Added, CN P20-FY12, Not in STIP

170-2875 RW I-M Various VARIOUS Rehab 5 culverts, I-95 Guilford, I-395 Montville & Thompson 2011 Added, CN P20-FY13, Not in STIP

173- 291 CN STPA US 1 DISTRICT 3 Int. Impr. On Rt 1 at Capital/Island Brook and East Main/Beecher/Huntington 2011 11/11/2011 Added, In Bin, Not in STIP

77- 206 CN STPA CT 195 MANSFIELD SB Bypass Lane @ Chaffeville Rd 2011 11/11/2011 Added, In Bin, Not in STIP, Qualifies for STPR funds

73- 174 CN BRX CT 8 LITCHFIELD Br 00606 o/ Campville Road 2011 11/11/2011 Added, List 19F

82- 302 CN I-M I-91 MIDDLETOWN I-91 Illumination & Guiderail improvements 2011 6/29/2011 Added, Not in STIP

171- 327 CN STPA Various DISTRICT 1 Install STC Traffic Signals 2011 2/9/2011 Added, Not in STIP

174- 334 CN STPA Various DISTRICT 4 Install STC Traffic Signals 2011 1/26/2011 Added, w/ 174-328

174- 328 CN STPA Various DISTRICT 4 Install STC Traffic Signals 2011 1/26/2011 Added, w/ 174-334 (80/10/10)

174- 354 PE BRX Various DISTRICT 3 Bridge Joint Replacement - 11 bridges 2011 Bridge Preservation Initiative

173- 411 CN BRX Various DISTRICT 3 Bridge Joint Replacement - 6 bridges 2011 4/20/2011 Bridge Preservation Initiative




171- 353 PE STATE Various DISTRICT 1 Bridge Steel Repairs, under joints, 14 bridges 2011 Bridge Preservation Initiative




174- 357 PE STATE Various DISTRICT 4 Bridge Joints, asphaltic plug - 38 bridges 2011 Bridge Preservation Initiative

173- 414 PE STATE Various DISTRICT 3 Bridge Joints, asphaltic plug - 44 bridges 2011 Bridge Preservation Initiative

173- 414 CN BRX Various DISTRICT 3 Bridge Joints, asphaltic plug - 44 bridges 2011 3/23/2011 Bridge Preservation Initiative

174- 357 CN BRX Various DISTRICT 4 Bridge Joints, asphaltic plug - 38 bridges 2011 3/23/2011 Bridge Preservation Initiative

174- 356 CN BRX Various DISTRICT 4 Bridge Steel Repairs, under joints, 18 bridges 2011 4/20/2011 Bridge Preservation Initiative





128- 150 CN NHS RT 10 SIMSBURY Pavement Preservation; Owens Brook Blvd to Granby town line 2011 3/23/2011 Pavement Preservation Initiative

76- 214 CN STATE I-84 MANCHESTER Pavement Preservation; I-291 to Slater Street 2011 3/2/2011 Pavement Preservation Initiative

PROJECT PHASE T-working ROUTE TOWN DESCRIPTION YEAR1 ADV OBL COMMENT

159- 187 CN NHS CT 15 WETHERSFIELD Pavement Preservation; CT 175 Wethersfield to I-91 Htfd. 2011 3/16/2011 Pavement Preservation Initiative

21- 107 CN EBS CT 63 CANAAN Thin overlay, Cornwall town line to South Canaan Rd 2011 3/9/2011 Pavement Preservation Initiative

130- 177 CN EBS US 6 SOUTHBURY Pavement Preservation; Pine Hill Rd Southbiry to CT 64 Woodbury 2011 3/23/2011 Pavement Preservation Initiative

77- 228 CN EBS CT 89 MANSFIELD Pavement Preservation, chip seal from CT 195 north 3.25 miles 2011 3/9/2011 Pavement Preservation Initiative

68- 214 CN EBS CT 101 KILLINGLY Pavement Preservation; Valley Rd to RI state line 2011 3/23/2011 Pavement Preservation Initiative

164- 234 CN I-M I-91 WINDSOR Pavement Preservation; Novachip Capen St, Windsor to CT 140 E. Windsor 2011 3/2/2011 Pavement Preservation Initiative

88- 180 CN STATE I-84 NEW BRITAIN Pavement Preservation; CT 72 (New Britain) to US 6 (Farmington) 2011 3/2/2011 Pavement Preservation Initiative, w/ I-M

88- 180 CN I-M I-84 NEW BRITAIN Pavement Preservation; CT 72 (New Britain) to US 6 (Farmington) 2011 3/2/2011 Pavement Preservation Initiative, w/ State Resurf.

53-xxxx CN BRX CT 3 GLASTONBURY Putnam Bridge Repair Placeholder 2012 11/11/2011 Added

15- 248 CN BRX US 1 BRIDGEPORT Rehabilitate Br#00325 o/ Stillman Pond Brook 2012 8/15/2012 Added

63- 633 CN STPH US 44 HARTFORD Safety Impr., Homestead Ave to Garden St 2012 11/11/2011 Added, Bal NHS, Not in STIP

63- 633 CN NHS US 44 HARTFORD Safety Impr., Homestead Ave to Garden St 2012 11/11/2011 Added, Bal STPH, Not in STIP

172- 391 CN NHS Various VARIOUS Rehab 3 culverts, CT 9 in Haddam 2012 5/2/2012 Added, FY12

174- 351 CN STPA STPA Culverts VARIOUS Rehab 3 culverts, CT 69 Burlington, CT 219 Granby, CT 254 Thomaston 2012 9/26/2012 Added, Not in STIP

170-2876 CN STPA STPA Culverts VARIOUS Rehab 3 culverts, CT 188 in Southbury and CT 57 in Weston 2012 5/16/2012 Added, Not in STIP

172- 394 CN STPA STPA Culverts VARIOUS Rehab 2 culverts, CT 207 in Franklin and SSR 430 in Mansfield 2012 5/9/2012 Added, Not in STIP

172- 392 CN NHS Various VARIOUS Rehab 5 culverts, CT 2 in Marlborough, Colchester and Preston 2012 5/16/2012 Added, Not in STIP, FIF-Road Candidate

172- 393 CN STPA STPA Culverts VARIOUS Rehab 3 culverts, CT 82 Chester and Ct 148 Killingworth 2012 4/18/2012 Added, Not in STIP, FIF-Road Candidate

43- 128 CN BRX CT 100 EAST HAVEN Replacement of Br 01665 and Improvements on Route 100 at US Route 1 2012 8/29/2012 Added, w/ 43-127

59- 159 CN STPA CT 77 GUILFORD Replace Br 02481 o/ brook (List 22) 2013 11/14/2012 Added

151- 316 CN BRX CT 8 WATERBURY Rehab Br 03190A CT 8 NB o/ CT 8 SB & Riverside St 2013 2/13/2013 Added

171- 346 CN STPA STPA Culverts VARIOUS Rehab 4 culverts, CT 99 Cromwell and SR 410 Middletown 2013 11/28/2012 Added, Not in STIP, FIF-Road Candidate

170-2875 CN I-M Various VARIOUS Rehab 5 culverts, I-95 Guilford, I-395 Montville & Thompson 2013 10/31/2012 Added, Not in STIP, FIF-Road Candidate

Janowski, Zachary - FOI Re O&G Award of Contract E

Documents

Transcript of Janowski, Zachary - FOI Re O&G Award of Contract E