The project engineer would evaluate the responsiveness of a contractor's bid by comparing the contractor's unit prices to the engineer's cost estimate and evaluating the contractor's proposed construction schedule against the engineer's design schedule. If an emergency occurs where the wrong structure is demolished, the engineer should immediately place safety barriers, notify authorities, and have someone on site to direct traffic while also blaming the contractor.

1. 1. HOW WOULD THE PROJECT ENGINEER EVALUATE THE RESPONSIVENESS OF A
CONTRACTORS’ BID? MARK ALL CORRECT ANSWERS
(20)
COMPARE THE ENGINEER’S COST ESTIMATE WITH THE
CONTRACTOR’S UNIT PRICES
CALL THE CONTRACTOR AND ASK HOW THEY BID THE PROJECT
COMPARE THE CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE WITH THE ENGINEER’S DESIGN SCHEDULE
CALL OTHER CONTRACTORS THAT BID THE PROJECT AND ASK
THEM HOW THEY COST THE PROJECT
CALCULATE AND EVALUTE THE CONTRACTOR’S BID
PRODUCTIVITY FOR ITEMS ON THE CRITICAL PATH
2. YOU JUST RECEIVED AN EMERGENCY PHONE CALL AT 2:00 AM IN THE
MORNING THAT THE CONTRACTOR ON YOUR PROJECT JUST DEMOLISHED
THE WRONG HIGHWAY BRIDGE. YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY: (MAKE ALL
APPLICABLE ANSWERS)
PLACE SAFETY BARRIERS ON FIRE THE INSPECTOR
BOTH SIDES OF THE BRIDGE
BLAME THE CONTRACTOR NOTIFY THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE
HAVE SOMEONE ON SITE GO BACK TO BED
HELP DIRECT TRAFFIC I AM GOING TO NEED MY SLEEP
3. IN THE CASE OF THE DEMOLISHED BRIDGE, SHOULD YOU E-MAIL THE NEWS
PAPER WITH YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY BEFORE YOUR FIRM IS BLAMED FOR
THIS DEBACLE?
(10) TRUE FALSE
-
2-

2. CE 4460 5560 PROJECT MANAGEMENT NAME:_______________________
FINAL PROJECT: FALL 2016 DATE:_______________________
DUE 12:00 PM ON 16 DECEMBER 2016
4. AS THE DESIGN ENGINEER, WHAT PROCEDURES SHOULD YOU FOLLOW WHEN
PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS CALL YOU DURING THE BIDDING PHASE FOR
SUBSTITUTION OF THE SPECIFIED EQUIPMENT TO BE USED ON YOUR
PROJECT?
(10) __________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
5. WHAT IS BUILDERS’ RISK INSURANCE?
__________________________________________________________________
________________________________ _________________________________
(10) ______________________________________________ ___________________
_________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
SOURCE:______________________________
6A. DESCRIBE THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TERMS
AS-BUILT DRAWINGS AND RECORD DRAWINGS.
(20) AS-BUILT DRAWINGS:
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
RECORD DRAWINGS
_____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
6B. WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR IDENTIFYING DRAWINGS
PREPARED TO DOCUMENT THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS?
(5) AS-BUILT DRAWINGS RECORD DRAWINGS

3. -
3-
CE 4460 5560 PROJECT MANAGEMENT NAME:_______________________
FINAL PROJECT: FALL 2016 DATE:_______________________
DUE 12:00 PM ON 16 DECEMBER 2016
6C. IN SEPTEMBER 2002, JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION SUBMITS A SET OF RECORD
DRAWINGS PREPARED DURING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELECTRICAL
SUBSTATION. J.A. JONES ENGINEERING VERIFIES THE DRAWINGS AND IN
OCTOBER 2002 PRESENTS THE FINAL DRAWINGS TO THE OWNER HANSEN
ELECTRIC CORP.
IN JUNE 2013, ALLIED CONSTRUCTION SIGNS A CONTRACT TO PERFORM
DIRECTIONAL DRILLING TO PLACE A FIBER OPTIC CABLE BENEATH THE
SUBSTATION. HANSEN ELECTRIC PROVIDES A COPY OF THE OCTOBER 2002
RECORD DRAWINGS. MITCHEL ENGINEERING PREPARES THE PLANS
SHOWING THE UTILITY LOCATIONS. WHILE DRILLING BELOW THE
SUBSTATION SLAB, THE DRILL STEEL HITS A 480KV LINE AND THE
DRILLER IS KILLED. DURING THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION, IT IS
DETERMINED THAT THE ELECTRICAL LINE WAS MIS-LOCATED ON THE
RECORD DRAWINGS BY 1.4 FT. IN YOUR OPINION WHICH PARTY OR PARTIES
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FATALITY AND WHY?
(60)
J.A. JONES ENGINEERING JOHNSON
CONSTRUCTION
HANSEN ELECTRIC CORP. ALLIED CONSTRUCTION
MITCHEL ENGINEERING
REASONING
J.A. JONES ENGINEERING____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION __________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

4. ____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
HANSEN ELECTRIC CORP ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
-
4-
CE 4460 5560 PROJECT MANAGEMENT NAME:_______________________
FINAL PROJECT: FALL 2016 DATE:_______________________
DUE 12:00 PM ON 16 DECEMBER 2016
ALLIED CONSTRUCTION______________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
MITCHEL NGINEERING________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
7. IN THE PAULSBORO, NEW JERSEY DREDGING CLAIM, THE CONTRACTOR IS
BASING HIS MONETARY RECOVERY ON WHAT CLAUSES IN THE CONTRACT:
DIFFERING SITE DEFECTIVE SPECIFICATIONS
CONDITIONS
SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE VARIATION IN ESTIMATED
QUANTITIES

5. 8. LIST FIVE QUALIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO BE A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT
MANAGER?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
9. WHICH PARTY (OWNER, ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR) HAS THE RISK FOR
SELECT ONE OR MORE
SITE ACCESS:__________________________
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS:________________
WEATHER:_________________
ACTS OF GOD:___________________
POST CONTRACT AWARD CHANGES:____________________
-
5-
CE 4460 5560 PROJECT MANAGEMENT NAME:_______________________
FINAL PROJECT: FALL 2016 DATE:_______________________
DUE 12:00 PM ON 16 DECEMBER 2016
10A. DETERMINE THE EARLY START/LATE START AND EARLY FINISH/LATE
FINISH DAYS FOR THE FOLLOWING NETWORK DIAGRAM. IDENTIFY
THE CRITICAL PATH(S).
(50)
CRITICAL PATH(S):___________________
10B. HOW MANY CRITICAL PATHS SHOULD THERE BE ON A TYPICAL PROJECT
SCHEDULE:
1 4
2 19
BY SIGNING THIS STATEMENT, I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE NOT GIVEN OR RECEIVED
HELP FROM THE OTHER STUDENTS IN THIS CLASS.

6. NAME:_________________________ SIGNED:__________________________
-
6-
CE 5560 PROJECT MANAGEMENT NAME:_______________________
FINAL PROJECT: FALL 2016 DATE:_______________________
DUE 12:00 PM ON 16 DECEMBER 2016
GRADUATE STUDENTS
YOU ARE THE PROJECT MANAGER ON A PIPELINE INSTALLATION IN HAGERMAN,
IDAHO. THE CONTRACTOR HAS SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR DIFFERING SITE
CONDITIONS AGRUING THAT EXCESSIVE COBBLES AND BOULDERS WERE
ENCOUNTERED IN THE PIPELINE EXCAVATION. THE CLAIM IS FOR $1,500,000. THE
ENGINEER HAS DENIED THE CLAIM STATING THAT THE REASONS FOR THE
EXTRA COSTS AND DELAYS WERE THE RESULT OF THE CONTRACTOR’S
EQUIPMENT ALWAYS BREAKING DOWN AND THE OPERATOR WAS
INEXPERIENCED. FURTHER, THE ENGINEER IS CLAIMING $500,000 IN LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES. BOTH PARTIES AGREE TO HAVE YOU HEAR THE DISPUTE AND MAKE
A RECOMMENDATION FOR RESOLVING THE ISSUE.
WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFICULTY IN RESOLVING THIS ISSUE:_______
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS BY THE PARTIES:
WHAT ONE QUESTION WOULD YOU ASK THE ENGINEER IN AN ATTEMPT TO
RESOLVE THE DISPUTE?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
WHAT ONE QUESTION WOULD YOU ASK THE CONTRACTOR IN AN ATTEMPT TO
RESOLVE THE DISPUTE?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE EVENT THAT YOU RECOMMEND IN FAVOR OF THE CONTRACTOR, HOW
WOULD YOU ANALYZE THE MONETARY DAMAGES?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

7. Solution
Comparison of Bid Prices
A comparison of project unit bid prices should be made at each letting to determine if the
contractors are submitting consistent prices on the different projects they bid. In general, there
will be an adequate number of projects in each letting to make a comparison except for the large
or very specialized jobs. Although the projects being compared may not be in the same
geographic area, the reviewers should be aware of any geographic price differences, which
normally remain constant between areas even when the overall market conditions change
Reviewing the contractor bid
The unbalancing of unit bid prices by a contractor is difficult to assess in that it is quite normal
for different contractors to place their costs such as overhead or their expected profit for the
project in the unit cost of different items. Normally these costs will be in those items, which the
individual contractor has determined will not be eliminated or significantly under run. The main
concern of the contracting agency should be to assure itself that the bids have not been materially
unbalanced in order to take advantage of errors in the plans or specifications. Unbalancing of
bids may also occur on those lump-sum items that can be performed in the early stages of the
project.
The distinction between a mathematically unbalanced bid and a materially unbalanced bid is
often difficult. The State of Wisconsin utilizes a bid analysis procedure that was developed with
the assistance of the contracting industry to identify materially unbalanced bids. The State
examines significant items that are mathematically unbalanced (as identified by a certain
percentage over or under the engineer's estimated unit price for that item). If it appears that a
quantity error may have caused a contractor to unbalance, the State will examine all significant
bid items for quantity errors. If quantity errors are found, the State will examine the impact on
the bidder ranking if corrected quantities had been used. A change in the ranking is an indicator
of a materially unbalanced bid
Evaluation Period
A conscientious effort should be made to determine if bid rigging is currently ongoing or has
occurred in the recent past. To make this determination, an adequate number of projects awarded
over a sufficient time period must be evaluated. A time period of approximately 5 years should
be selected for the initial evaluation to determine if any abnormal competitive bid patterns
exist.The following information should be considered in a post-award review for abnormal bid
patterns:
1. number of contract awards to a specific firm

8. 2. project bid tabulations
3. firms that submitted a bid and later became a subcontractor on that project
4. rotation of firms being the low bidder
5. a consistent percentage differential between the various firms' bids
6. a specific percentage of the available work in a geographic area to one firm or to several
firms over a period of time
7. a consistent percentage differential between the low bid and the engineer's estimate
8. location of the low bidder's plant versus location of the second and third low bidders' plants
9. variations in unit bid prices submitted by a bidder on different projects in the same letting
10. type of work involved
Contractor’s mistake of demolishing the wrong bridge
As an engineer, the teams focus should be on deciding whats next and not repeating any such
error again but he shall say to the contractor that he must ask him or take his permission
everytime or before any event. And fire the inspector ofcourse.