From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)

Subject: FW: Emailing: PF225 Change Request (Offset)
Date: Friday, February 08, 2008 4:16:59 PM

Please pass to El Paso Sector.

(b)
(6)

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 4:15 PM
To: (b) (6) Flossman, Loren W; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: Re: Emailing: PF225 Change Request (Offset)

(b)
(6)
6 ft off-set is approved for J-1, J-2 and J-3.

Thanks

(b)
(6)
Message sent from my Blackberry

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: FLOSSMAN, LOREN W(b) (6)

Cc (b) (6)

Sent: Fri Feb 08 15:52:59 2008

Subject: FW: Emailing: PF225 Change Request (Offset)

<<PF225 Change Request (Offset).doc>> Loren - recent guidance has been to

construct the new fence 3 feet north of the International Boundary. The
contractor has been so instructed and is prepared to move out accordingly.

Some information regarding local site conditions that was not available when
this issue came up earlier this week has been included on the attached CR.
Grading operations for site preparation have created a topography issue that
will reduce the effective height of the fence on the south side if
constructed at the 3' offset. Sector is requesting the fence be constructed
6' north in order to mitigate this situation.

Cost Impact: None

Schedule Impact: None (if decision is made timely)
RE Impact: None
ENV Impact: Conferred with (b) (6) EA states "approx. 3 feet north".
(b) (6) feels that this change would not create an ENV concern.

Recommendation: Approve change request as written.

(b) (6)
PF225 Program Manager
Engineering and Construction Support Office
CESWF-PM-EP
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 1:20 PM
To (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Emailing: PF225 Change Request (Offset)

(b)
(6)
I have forwarded this to you as I am not sure that a proper change management
plan has been successfully developed. The attached document is regarding the
problems that have been created by the degrading operations for the
installation of the fence along J1/J3 and needs to be disseminated
accordingly.

Yesterday evening, the CBP called me ((b) (6) and

requested that I submit a change order on their behalf. This is a
time-sensitive related issue and has been requested to be implemented by
(b) (6) of the El Paso Sector and Patrol Agent in
Charge of the Santa Teresa Station for the J1/J3 Projects.

I believe that you'll see that the clearing and grubbing operations have
created additional problems and considerations that will require us to
"rethink", or at least consider the ramifications and newly discovered
problems.

To avoid additional delays or costs, we need to have a decision made by COB

Sunday 10th of January.

Please advise regardless of outcome or direction.

Thanks,
(b
)
PF225 Change Request
Change Request Number: (SBI to assign) Change Request Date:
14 January 2008
USBP Sector: Project/Map ID:
El Paso Sector J-2 and all other projects

Corps Project Manager: USBP Section TI Coordinator:

(b) (6) on behalf of (b) (6)

Change Requested By
Name: Telephone Number:
(b) (6) (b) (6)
E-mail Address: Fax Number:
(b) (6) (b) (6)

Justification for Change:

CBP respectively requests that the Offset for the Border Fencing for J1/J3 (Santa
Teresa) be adjusted from the Programmatic Level 3 feet minimum clearance to
the Mexican Border increased to a minimum of 6 feet north of the border.
Request is based upon circumstances generated after clearing and grubbing
operations were preformed.

Degrading operations necessary for proper installation of the fence created

additional problems by the creation of a “berm” or elevated areas which
effectively reduce the overall height of the fence (see embedded pictures).

3/22/2010
Photo 1: Tetra Tech’s PM measures distance from string-line to border (2-feet of
clearance) to the Mexican Border. The elevated area is approximately 3 foot
high and effectively reduces height fence from 15’ to approximately 12’ in the
area referenced.

3/22/2010
Photo 2: Tetra Tech’s PM holds a survey rod for the actual placement of the
fence as per the Programmatic Level 3 foot Offset from the Mexican Border

3/22/2010
Picture 3: Tetra Techs PM illustrates problems created by degrading and
reduction of fence performance due to elevated areas.

3/22/2010
 Picture 4: Tetra Techs PM illustrates problems created by degrading and
reduction of fence performance due to elevated areas.

Description of Requested Change

Request a minimum set back distance of 6 feet from the US/Mexico Border.

Cost Adjustment

No additional cost or impact to the schedule is anticipated if a decision is

implemented Not Later Than (NLT) 1700 hours Sunday, 17th of January 2008.

Schedule Adjustment:

No Impact to the RFP Process or construction schedule

3/22/2010
Notes

Approval Signature

_________________________________________ ___________________
Loren Flossman, PF225 SBI TI Project Manager Date

3/22/2010