Mag Corporation Case Summary

1704 Words4 Pages

It is recognized that MIG Corporation did not submit the request for a time extension in a timely fashion as required by the Contract. MassDOT needs to determine if a timely request for a time extension was submitted by MIG Corporation. In addition to that, we believe MIG Corporation did not submit the preliminary TEA in a timely fashion as required by the Contract. MassDOT needs to determine if a timely preliminary TEA was provided by MIG Corporation. The preliminary TEA submitted by MIG Corporation did not meet the Contract requirement. MassDOT needs to determine if MIG Corporation preliminary TEA is in conformity with the Contract requirement. MIG Corporation Preliminary Time Entitlement Analysis TEA-01 discussed a delay due to a lack of MassDOT direction on three issues that impacted MIG ability to move or install Temporary Barriers on bridges Nos. (S-25-022, 023, 024, 025, 026) – Northbound. The first issue was MassDOT Approval of an Extra Work Order for Barrier Retrofit. The second issue was MassDOT Approval of an Extra …show more content…

140 After reviewing the preliminary TEA, which contains a modified copy of progress schedule update #12 (85132-UP12-TEA data dated as of 10/15/2016), it’s recognized that activity (C85132-1903) “MassDOT Answers RFI #009” regarding a concrete gore at Rte. 140, was not critical and it has no delay impact on the schedule. After reviewing the revised progress schedule update #13-1 (data dated 11/15/2016), activity (C85132-1903) “MassDOT Answers RFI #009” was marked by MIG Corporation as Actual finished on October 31, 2016. According to Szczepan Ucher, the Assistant Bridge Engineer for Structure Maintenance MassDOT – District 3: " MIG was unable to move barriers until all construction activities were completed in phase 2B, which occurred on 11/2, the same night the barriers were moved. The revised plans were sent to MIG on 10/31 and the barriers were moved on

More about Mag Corporation Case Summary

Open Document