Search

Department of Justice

(5) Take other remedies that may be
legally available.

(b) Hearings, appeals. In taking an en-
forcement action, the awarding agency
will provide the grantee or subgrantee
an opportunity for such hearing, ap-
peal, or other administrative pro-
ceeding to which the grantee or sub-
grantee is entitled under any statute
or regulation applicable to the action
involved.

(c) Effects of suspension and termi-
nation. Costs of grantee or subgrantee
resulting from obligations incurred by
the grantee or subgrantee during a sus-
pension or after termination of an
award are not allowable unless the
awarding agency expressly authorizes
them in the notice of suspension or ter-
mination or subsequently. Other grant-
ee or subgrantee costs during suspen-
sion or after termination which are
necessary and not reasonably avoidable
are allowable if:

(1) The costs result from obligations
which were properly incurred by the
grantee or subgrantee before the effec-
tive date of suspension or termination,
are not in anticipation of it, and, in the
case of a termination, are
noncancellable, and,

(2) The costs would be allowable if
the award were not suspended or ex-
pired normally at the end of the fund-
ing period in which the termination
takes effect.

(d) Relationship to debarment and sus-
pension. The enforcement remedies
identified in this section, including
suspension and termination, do not
preclude grantee or subgrantee from
being subject to ‘‘Debarment and Sus-
pension" under E.O. 12549 (see § 66.35).

$66.44 Termination for convenience.

Except as provided in §66.43 awards
may be terminated in whole or in part
only as follows:

(a) By the awarding agency with the
consent of the grantee or subgrantee in
which case the two parties shall agree
upon the termination conditions, in-
cluding the effective date and in the
case of partial termination, the portion
to be terminated, or

(b) By the grantee or subgrantee
upon written notification to the award-
ing agency, setting forth the reasons
for such termination, the effective

§ 66.50

date, and in the case of partial termi-
nation, the portion to be terminated.
However, if, in the case of a partial ter-
mination, the awarding agency deter-
mines that the remaining portion of
the award will not accomplish the pur-
poses for which the award was made,
the awarding agency may terminate
the award in its entirety under either
§66.43 or paragraph (a) of this section.

Subpart D—After-The-Grant
Requirements

$66.50 Closeout.

(a) General. The Federal agency will
close out the award when it determines
that all applicable administrative ac-
tions and all required work of the
grant has been completed.

(b) Reports. Within 90 days after the
expiration or termination of the grant,
the grantee must submit all financial,
performance, and other reports re-
quired as a condition of the grant.
Upon request by the grantee, Federal
agencies may extend this timeframe.
These may include but are not limited
to:

(1) Final performance or progress re-
port.

(2) Financial Status Report (SF 269)
or Outlay Report and Request for Re-
imbursement for Construction Pro-
grams (SF-271) (as applicable.)

(3) Final request for payment (SF-
270) (if applicable).

(4) Invention disclosure (if applica-
ble).

(5) Federally-owned property report. In
accordance with §66.32(f), a grantee
must submit an inventory of all feder-
ally owned property (as distinct from
property acquired with grant funds) for
which it is accountable and request dis-
position instructions from the Federal
agency of property no longer needed.

(c) Cost adjustment. The Federal agen-
cy will, within 90 days after receipt of
reports in paragraph (b) of this section,
make upward or downward adjust-
ments to the allowable costs.

(d) Cash adjustments. (1) The Federal
agency will make prompt payment to
the grantee for allowable reimbursable
costs.

(2) The grantee must immediately re-
fund to the Federal agency any balance
of unobligated (unencumbered) cash

217

AMENDMENT No. 2
TO
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BETWEEN
CITY OF NASHUA
AND
HAYNER/ SWANSON, INC.
This Amendment No.3 made the day of 2022, by and between The City of

Nashua, New Hampshire (hereinafter called OWNER), and Hayner/Swanson, Inc (hereinafter called
ENGINEER).

WHEREAS, an AGREEMENT was entered into on May 7, 2020 and amended on April 9, 2021, between the
OWNER and ENGINEER, which AGREEMENT is entitled “Pavement Management Engineering Services”.

hereinafter referred to as AGREEMENT.

The AGREEMENT shall be further amended to include this Amendment, a copy of which is attached as

EXHIBIT A.

CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE:
Original Contract Price

$398,230

CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES:
Original Contract Times

Contract completion date: December 1, 2020

Net changes from previous Amendments

$242,500

Net change from previous Amendments

395 Days

Contract Price prior to this Amendment

$640,730

Contract Times prior to this Amendment

Contract completion date: December 31, 2021

Net Increase (deerease) of this Amendment

$227,300

Net Increase (deerease) of this Amendment

365 Days

Contract Price with all approved Change Orders

$868,030

Contract Times with all approved Change Orders

Contract completion date: December 31, 2022

Amendment 2
Professional Services
Pavement Management Engineering Services

Page 1 of 5

§ 66.51

advanced that is not authorized to be
retained for use on other grants.

§66.51 Later disallowances and adjust-
ments.

The closeout of a grant does not af-
fect:

(a) The Federal agency’s right to dis-
allow costs and recover funds on the
basis of a later audit or other review;

(b) The grantee’s obligation to return
any funds due as a result of later re-

funds, corrections, or other trans-
actions;

(c) Records retention as required in
§ 66.42;

(ad) Property management require-
ments in §§ 66.81 and 66.32; and
(e) Audit requirements in § 66.26.

866.52 Collection of amounts due.

(a) Any funds paid to a grantee in ex-
cess of the amount to which the grant-
ee is finally determined to be entitled
under the terms of the award con-
stitute a debt to the Federal Govern-
ment. If not paid within a reasonable
period after demand, the Federal agen-
ey may reduce the debt by:

(1) Making an administrative offset
against other requests for reimburse-
ments,

(2) Withholding advance payments
otherwise due to the grantee, or

(3) Other action permitted by law.

(bo) Except where otherwise provided
by statutes or regulations, the Federal
agency will charge interest on an over-
due debt in accordance with the Fed-
eral Claims Collection Standards (4
CFR Ch. I). The date from which inter-
est is computed is not extended by liti-
gation or the filing of any form of ap-
peal.

Subpart E—Entitlement [Reserved]

28 CFR Ch. | (7-1-10 Edition)

PART 68—-RULES OF PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRA-
TIVE HEARINGS BEFORE ADMIN-
ISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES IN CASES
INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF
ALIENS, UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-
RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRAC-
TICES, AND DOCUMENT FRAUD

Sec.

68.1 Scope of rules.

68.2 Definitions.

68.3 Service of complaint, notice of hearing,
written orders, and decisions.

68.4 Complaints regarding unfair immigra-
tion-related employment practices.

68.5 Notice of date, time, and place of hear-
ing.

68.6 Service and filing of documents.

68.7 Form of pleadings.

68.8 Time computations.

68.9 Responsive pleadings—answer.

68.10 Motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted,

68.11 Motions and requests.

68.12 Prehearing statements.

68.13 Conferences.

68.14 Consent findings or dismissal.

68.15 Intervenor in unfair immigration-re-
lated employment cases.

68.16 Consolidation of hearings.

68.17 Amicus curiae.

68.18 Discovery—general provisions.

68.19 Written interrogatories to parties.

68.20 Production of documents, things, and
inspection of land.

68.21 Admissions,

68.22 Depositions.

68.23 Motion to compel response to dis-
covery; sanctions.

68.24 Use of depositions at hearings.

68.25 Subpoenas.

68.26 Designation of Administrative Law
Judge.

68.27 Continuances.

68.28 Authority of Administrative Law
Judge.

68.29 Unavailability of Administrative Law
Judge.

68.30 Disqualification.

68.31 Separation of functions.

68.82 Expedition.

68,33 Participation of parties and represen-
tation.

68,34 Legal assistance.

68.35 Standards of conduct.

68.36 Ex parte communications.

68.37 Waiver of right to appear and failure
to participate or to appear.

68.38 Motion for summary decision.

68.39 Formal hearings.

68.40 Hvidence.

68.41 Official notice.

218

REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
APRIL 6, 2016

A meeting of the Finance Committee was held on Wednesday, April 6, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic
Chamber.

Mayor Jim Donchess, Chair, presided.

Members of the Committee present: Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson, Vice Chair
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien
Alderman Benjamin M. Clemons
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Ken Siegel

Also in Attendance: Mr. David G. Fredette, Treasurer
Mr. Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Attorney Steven Bolton, Corporation Counsel
Mr. David Simmons, Superintendent of Wastewater

PUBLIC COMMENT - None
COMMUNICATIONS

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: Contract Award for Auditing Services — FY2017 (Value: $116,500)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND CONTINGENT UPON BOARD OF
ALDERMEN APPROVAL, EXTEND THE CONTRACT WITH MELANSON HEATH & COMPANY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $116,500. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN DEPARTMENT 126, FINANCIAL SERVICES;
GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET; 53, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES ($87,375);
DEPARTMENT 168, SOLID WASTE; 53, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES ($11,650); AND,
DEPARTMENT 169, WASTE WATER; 53, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES ($17,050)

ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Wilshire

| don’t have any questions for tonight because | read what you put in here. It makes sense that we continue to
employee Melanson Heath & Company given that they have familiarity with the old admin system and of
course the new Lawson system and it makes sense to me to keep them on until we get through all of this. | am
going to support this.

MOTION CARRIED

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: Contract Award for Aquatic Herbicide Treatment for Mine Falls Park Mill Pond and Canal
(Value: $21,345)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
SOLITUDE LAKE MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,345. SOURCE OF FUNDING IS
DEPARTMENT 177, PARKS AND RECREATION; MINE FALLS PARK EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND, 55,
OTHER SERVICES

Report of the Finance Committee Page 2
April 6, 2016

ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Clemons

| am very familiar with the milfoiling and all of the exotic weeds that plague our state but | am wondering is this,
how long is this effective for because it looks like we did this a couple of years ago and the infestation is back
and from what | understand it really is never going to go away and | am wondering if we have looked into, or if
the state allows, there are different ways to treat this and one of them is by importing a bug called a milfoil
weevil and it actually eats all of the milfoil completely out of the lake or pond. In some cases it’s moderately
effective, in other cases it’s too effective and what it does is it will eat out all of the aquatic vegetation but in my
view | almost look at that as a better alternative because you can always restore a pond once it’s been
eliminated of its vegetation. | am wondering if this is just putting a band aid on a bigger problem and maybe
there are other solutions out there that we have not looked at.

Alderman Siegel

Just to address the question of is this effective, it’s not every two years and it has been recently effective. As
far as the milfoil bug, | am not so sure about that because we haven't discussed that before the Board of Public
Works. Typically the restrictions with the state won’t allow that. I'll try to bring that up before the Board of
Public Works next time but this has been effective and the one thing that’s not listed in here is water chestnut
mitigation and that’s been done by hand pulling and apparently is not only very effective but is free because it’s
been done by volunteers so that’s good news there.

MOTION CARRIED

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: Purchase of Playground Structures for Labine Park (Value: $62,485)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE
FROM M.E. O’BRIEN & SONS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,485. SOURCE OF FUNDING IS
DEPARTMENT 184, URBAN PROGRAMS; CDBG FISCAL YEARS 2015 AND 2016 ($50,952); AND,
DEPARTMENT 177, PARKS AND RECREATION; PRIOR YEAR ESCROWS-LABINE PARK; 71,
STRUCTURES ($11,533)

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Wilshire

The M.E. O’Brien & Sons quote says that they are doing the installation of this equipment, is that correct?

Mr. Kooken

They are installing a portion of it; the more technical items are going to be installed and then there is going to
be a public day where they are going to install some of the remainder of the equipment.

Alderman Wilshire

The reason that | ask is because on their quote it says that the prices are not using prevailing wage rates
unless otherwise specified. If they are using CDBG funds then they have to use the Davis-Bacon Wage Act.

Mr. Kooken

| will have to follow-up on that as it has not been brought up and discussed previously.

Report of the Finance Committee Page 3
April 6, 2016

Alderman Siegel

| know that Davis-Bacon has limitations and certain thresholds that you have to pass before you are exposed
to Davis-Bacon restrictions. I’m not sure if they are going passed those and it may be that the majority of the
work is the kind of work that they won't be doing.

Mr. Kooken

I'll take a look at that.

Mayor Donchess

Alderman Wilshire, are you suggesting that we hold this at this point?

Alderman Wilshire

Well, its playground equipment and | think the lead time on getting this stuff in will really hold them up. |
brought it up because | don’t usually see that in a contract like this. | don’t really suggest holding it up. |
would just like clarification with the use of the CDBG funds if it’s following the Davis-Bacon Wage Act.
Alderman Clemons

| would imagine that if we pass this contract and it is in fact not following those wage guidelines then there

would be a re-evaluation and | would assume a new contract would come before us for the remainder of the
dollars?

Mayor Donchess
Correct.
Alderman Caron

| have a question about that CDBG money because the money that they requested for 2016-2017 is for this
same piece of equipment so I’m a little bit confused.

Mayor Donchess

| think that the cost of the project is requiring that more CDBG money be assigned to it so | don’t think this is a
duplication of what the money that’s being requested in 2017. The donor is giving about $150,000 and this
would take it to $212,000 but | think then more money is required.

Alderman Caron

How much are we getting from that funding source that we have been dealing with for the last four years? |
think this is great and | agree that | don’t want to hold it up. The other thing is that the picture that was in the
paper this morning was not the facility that they are doing this repair. | think this piece of equipment is
wonderful and I'll support it.

Alderman Cookson

If somebody could catch me up because the last time | was in this Chamber | thought Legacy Playground was
paying for everything.

Report of the Finance Committee Page 4
April 6, 2016

Mayor Donchess

The Board of Aldermen approved the location on the east side of Concord Street, then a plan was developed
by Jennifer Brook and working with her were Eric Brand and Tom Papas. They developed a very nice plan but
the trouble was that the estimate was around $500,000. That was kind of pending for a while and then the
Legacy Playground Group decided to switch the location to Labine Field which, | don’t even know if it was
approved by the Board of Public Works but the Board of Aldermen was not involved because it wasn’t Greeley
Park. Yes, it is going to require additional funds to construct the park beyond those available to the Legacy
Playground fundraising effort. Since we all consider it to be a very worthwhile project we are asking that we go
forward with it even though all of the money was not privately raised.

Alderman Cookson

In addition, how much is being contributed by Legacy Playground?

Mayor Donchess

It seems like it’s in the range of $150,000 to $165,000.

Alderman Cookson

| think it’s outside of the scope of this because this is just about the equipment but | know that this playground
is going to abut a ball field and | know that there are several homeruns that are hit over that left field fence so |

just want to make sure that there is protection for the patrons of this new park that might be visiting, especially
the children.

Mayor Donchess

| think that’s going to be taking care of with a net. The request that was approved by the Human Affairs
Committee is for the construction of the upgrade of the restrooms at the facility. As | recall it’s a $20,000
inclusion in the CDBG resolution, which again is restrooms and not this equipment. The request was reduced
by the committee.

Alderman Caron

The $20,000 that’s in the resolution is for the restrooms only and not for this piece of equipment.

Alderman Siegel

Should there be a requirement to adhere to the Davis-Bacon Wage rates, that’s really up to the contractor to
pay that money, it doesn’t come back to the city. If they have to pay a higher rate because that’s a
requirement then that’s the way it goes, that’s why we contracts.

Alderman O’Brien

| would like to point out that the contractor is M.E. O’Brien and it’s just a common name and there is no conflict.

MOTION CARRIED

Report of the Finance Committee Page 5
April 6, 2016

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: Amherst Street Improvements — Charron Avenue to Diesel Road (Value: $1,537,096)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND, CONTINGENT UPON BOARD OF
ALDERMEN APPROVAL, AWARD THE CONTRACT TO CONTINENTAL PAVING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,537,096. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN DEPARTMENT 160, ADMIN/ENGINEERING; BOND &
CONTRIBUTIONS AMHERST STREET ROAD & TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ($1,392,477) AND TRUST
FUND, 61 SUPPLIES & MATERIALS ($69,619); AND DEPARTMENT 161, STREET; GENERAL FUND,
PAVING ($75,000)

MOTION CARRIED

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: Construction Phase Engineering Services for Amherst Street Improvements (Value: $77,865)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
GREENMAN - PEDERSEN, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,865. SOURCE OF FUNDING IS DEPARTMENT
160, ADMIN/ENGINEERING; BOND & CONTRIBUTIONS, AMHERST STREET ROAD & TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENTS

MOTION CARRIED

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: FY16 Asphalt Testing (Value: $23,600)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
JOHN TURNER CONSULTING IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,600. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN DEPARTMENT
161, STREET; GENERAL FUND, PAVING; AND, TRUST FUND; 54, PROPERTY SERVICES

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Clemons

| would like to know what the purpose of this is.

Mayor Donchess

The purpose is to try to ensure that the quality of the asphalt that is being laid down meets the specifications.
If it doesn’t then the road deteriorates more quickly.

Alderman Clemons

The asphalt from who?

Mayor Donchess

From Continental Paving who has been awarded the paving bid.
Alderman Clemons

We are paying for the testing?

Mayor Donchess

Yes, if this contract is approved.

Report of the Finance Committee Page 6
April 6, 2016

Alderman Clemons

What happens if it is not good?

Mayor Donchess

The testing is done before it’s laid down so they have to make it conform.

Alderman Clemons

Is that acommon practice? It seems odd to test a product that they are delivering to us.

Mr. Kooken

It’s a fairly common practice that we have not been doing in the past. | think there have been some cases

where if we were to have had this kind of information we would have made some adjustments that would have
made the quality better on some of the roads.

Mayor Donchess

| think the answer is we have not done this before. My recollection is that it first came up when we were
discussing the major paving program that was proposed at the end of 2015; one that will be renewed in the
near future.

Alderman Clemons
So it’s not really something that we have done but other communities maybe have done it. My question is that

if we find fault; we just passed the contract for Charron Avenue, so if we find fault what happens to that
contract? Are we going to have to pay more? Wvill that project increase in price or what?

Alderman Siegel

Just so you know, this is not for Charron Avenue, this is testing for the FY 2016 Paving Program so this is all
onus. We are just making sure that the paving that gets laid down is to spec and will last so we are not laying
down a bunch a junk. | think it’s fairly prudent given the millions of dollars we are spending on this just to make
sure that we are getting our value. That’s what this is about.

Alderman Cookson
Within the documentation that we received, Table 1 identifies the street list which also identifies the testing
locations or at least the number of testing locations for each one of the segments. For example, Blackstone

Drive from Amherst Street to end of pavement has two testing locations so they are going to be doing 6” core
samples of the pavement. Everything is documented.

Alderman Siegel
That’s why we get these sheets.
Alderman Cookson

It’s helpful to have a conversation about it.

Report of the Finance Committee Page 7
April 6, 2016

Alderman Clemons
| guess it’s good to test it, | just... I'll forego any more comments.

Mayor Donchess

None of us here are asphalt testers so we could inquire in more detail regarding the procedure that’s going to
be used and report to the committee next time if that would be helpful.

Alderman Clemons

No, that’s fine.

Mayor Donchess

Mr. Kooken, do you have anything to add regarding the testing procedure?

Mr. Kooken

| do have one thing in talking with the City Engineer. They test on site but they are also testing to make sure
that the content of the asphalt that’s being brought in and laid down is actually what it is supposed to be

because if you don’t test it then you don’t really know.

Alderman Wilshire

In my sixteen years on the Board | have never seen this so when it came up | thought it’s not a bad idea given
the amount of money we are going to be putting into paving to make sure that we are getting quality goods for
our money. | like the idea.

Alderman Cookson

There was just one anomaly that | wanted to inquire about and it is with regard to 11" Street from the 2015

joint to 90’ from Ledge and there are zero testing locations. | am curious as to why it is identified, why aren’t
there testing locations and why is it there?

Mayor Donchess

Why it is there, | think that it’s part of the paving program. Why there is not a testing location, | don’t know. Is
that anything you have any insight to, Mr. Kooken?

Mr. Kooken

| will have to follow-up on that. It could be just an oversight, I’m sure they intended to have testing on all of the
streets that they listed.

Mayor Donchess

| could make a guess that it’s a very short stretch of pavement. 11" Street down to 90’ from Ledge is short but
| don’t know that’s accurate. If you want we can ask about that and get back to you.

Alderman Cookson

That would be helpful, but it's not necessary to hold this up.