HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/2009, C 12 - BUENA VISTA & GARFIELD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, SPECIFICATION #90676 counat 1/06/2009
j agcnaa RepoRt a,
CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director ,
Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Senior Traffic Engine
SUBJECT: Buena Vista & Garfield Intersection Improvements, Specification #90676
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the Finance Officer to execute a purchase order amendment with Wallace
group for construction management in an amount not to exceed $35,000.
2. Approve the transfer of funds in the amount of$35,000 from CIP reserve to the project's
construction management phase.
DISCUSSION
On April 15, 2008 the City Council awarded a contract to Brough Construction Company for the
Buena Vista and Garfield Intersection Improvement Project, Specification Number 90676. On
October 22"d the Finance Director executed a purchase order with Wallace group in the amount
of$28;280 for construction management services for the Buena Vista& Garfield project.
During the middle of the project, the contractor uncovered two abandoned underground petroleum
storage tanks beneath city right-of-way during demolition of the existing roadway. These tanks
were not shown in historical research or records. In addition to the discovery of these tanks several
other unexpected conditions were discovered which slowed the contractor and ultimately caused an
extension of contract days. To date an additional 28 working days have been added to the contract
time; 8 days for inefficiencies due to working around the underground tanks until they could be
removed, 3 days for modifying the new street section to match the existing irregular street section,
15 days for inefficiencies due to modifications to traffic handling and associated concrete cure
times, and 2 days for modifications to the electrical service as required by PG&E. These additional
days will have required additional construction management time at approximately $1,250 per day
totaling an estimated additional $35,000 to complete the project. City staff is currently researching
original ownership of these tanks and if possible will be pursue reimbursement of all costs
associated with the disposal including costs of construction management. Because this additional
cost exceeds the amount originally approved, authorization to amend the purchase order as
requested requires council action.
FISCAL IMPACT
The construction management and materials testing phase of the project currently has a budget of
$35,000 with $28,280 allocated to the construction management contract and $6,720 allocated to
materials testing. The additional construction management costs associated with project will cost
$35,000 in addition to the original $35,000 which has already been allocated. Staff recommends
o
i
Buena Vista & Garfield Intersection Improvements, Specification 490676 Page 2
transferring the $35,000 from the CIP reserve. Currently the CIP reserve has a balance of
$349,612; following the transfer the CIP reserve will have a balance of$314,612.
Existing Project Budget CIP Reserve New Project Budget
Total Project Estimate: $492,463 $527,46
Design Allocation: $48,000 $48,00
Construction Allocation: $362,463 $362,463
Const.Management: $35,000 $35.00 $70,00
Public Art Landscaping $10,00 $10,00
10%Contingencies: $36,00 $36,00
Project Total: $491,463 $526,463
Miscellaneous $1.00 $1,00
(PGE Permitting,Printing,etc.): 46
Total Cost: $492,463 $527, 3
Transfer from CIP Reserve(90215) $35.00 $35,00
Total Funds Available: $492,463 $527,463
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could choose not to approve the contract amendment. However, City _
inspection staff would then have to be reallocated from other projects to this project, ultimately
requiring additional funding for contract CM services on those projects.
ATTACHMENT
Wallace additional services proposal
G:\Staff-Reports-Agendas-Minutes\_CAR\2008\Transportation\90676 Buena Vista&Garfield\Additionalcm.Doc
Cha -�
I.
ATTACHMENT
CONTRACT AMENDMENT
m
Project Name: Buena Vista—Garfield at Monterey Street CA No. 1
Client Name: City of San Luis Obispo Project/Phase No. 0061-0042/0500
WALLACE GROUPo
Attention: Jake Hudson Date: December 23,2008
Address: Public Works Department,919 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California 93401
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Wallace Group requests the Client's authorization to proceed with revisions to the contract agreement for CONSTRUCTION
MEN
the above referenced project as herein described.Approval below incorporates this document as a part of
the original contract signed October 22,2008.If approved,please return one signed original Contract LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
Amendment to Wallace Group.
MECHANICAL
Description and Purpose of the Revision(s) ENGINEERING
PLANNING
Continue to provide Construction Management services due to added days to the construction phase,per PUBLIC WORKS
Change Orders 1-8, totaling 28 working days.Services will be provided at a daily rate of$1,250 per working ADMINISTRATION
day,totaling $35,000.
SURVEYING /
GIS SOLUTIONS
WATER RESOURCES
WALLACE SWANSON
INTERNATIONAL
Revision(s)Represent: Revision(s) Fee:
O a change in previous instructions O hourly(time&materials)$
( ) a change in Scope of Services ( ) progress billing: $
(X) other:Extension of CM services due to added (X) not-to-exceed w/o authorization: $35,000
contract days to the project
Revision(s)will be invoiced as:
(X) increase to an item within the existing contract
( ) a new item added to existing contract
Issued by,
WALLACE GROUP,a California Corporation Approved by Client
Signature: D Signature: WALLACE GROUP
A California Carpowion
Print Name: adfor R:Br Lc d,PE 41819 Print Name:
612 CLARION CT
Title: Princi al Title: SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA 93401
Date: December 23,2008 Date:
1805 544-4011
F 805 544-4294
www.wallacegroup.us
0 /a -3
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Terry Mohan [catsdad@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sun 1/4/2009 3:47 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Consent Agenda Item C12,January 4, 2009
Attachments:
Consent Agenda Item C12, January 6, 2009
I object to the approval of the $35,000 to the Wallace Group for additional construction
management. The 28 days of delays caused by the suspect discovery of underground
tanks on the site was nothing more than down time where no construction management
by the Wallace Group should have been needed. According to the description of delays,
$1250 per day is way out of line. The services described includes:
• 8 days of inefficiencies due to working around underground tanks until they could
be removed. (Why didn't they wait until the tanks were removed? Isn't that a
decision management is supposed to make to eliminate inefficiencies?)
• 3 days.for modifying the new street section to match existing irregular street
section ( does that mean they put down a metal plate over the opening in the
street)
• 15 days for inefficiencies due to modification to traffic handling and associated
concrete cure times (Sounds like they had to leave the pylons, which were already
installed, up longer while the concrete dried. Was a Wallace engineer present
everyday watching the concrete cure?)
• Finally 2 days for modification to the electrical service as required by PG&E. I
doubt a construction engineer is needed to supervise electrical service
modification. Sounds like double dipping to me.
This project was originally budgeted at $290,000 at the April 15, 2008 meeting.
In less than nine months the new project budget, hidden in this consent agenda, has
skyrocketed to $527,463! Doesn't sound like exemplary management to me.
I think there is more to any budget short fall the city management may be estimating
than just the binding arbitration settlement.
Terry Mohan
2416 Santa Clara eels 1, tip
[,�,r-CLERK,,,,,.
UNCIL f;
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 A0CHIEF
ORNEY ,�C''f�C i�C�E CHF
RED FILE T H& ;s P;ME ING AGENDADATE / ITBA
nila�nm,�s /cert'cow,
u�L
-�-CL6ze—
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Consent%2OAgenda%20Item%20C 1... 1/5/2009
=1 . �m����iii��ulllllllllli"""'91111U
a council me moizAnbum
t r,
777777'
' r N;.
Date: January 6, 2009 Dco C�+1plL
RED FILE V C70IF3
L�GA6 Gr}0`}M--e E FTO: City Council MEETING AGENDA � +fli�ueG-'FP ITEn� @ /�- o'ATTORNEv [moVIA: Ken Ham ian, Ci O'CLERK/ORIG C�P❑ DEPT HEADS p'
I�PlI3 L7 UTILDIR
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Director �!�2c p-Fiq DIR
�✓G�'i/rlvxc3
SUBJECT: Red File Item C12 BUENA VISTA & GARFIELD CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT January 6, 2009 City Council Meeting
The purpose of this memo is to address concerns raised by resident Terry Mohan
regarding the request for additional construction management funds to complete the
Buena Vista & Garfield project.
It is important to understand the distinction between the construction activities and
construction management required for the project. The additional days which have been
granted on the construction contract are the result of work being slowed from the pace
which was originally agreed upon due to unforeseen conditions. For construction,
slowed work does not necessarily cost additional dollars, but it can result in
inefficiencies for the contractor when their plan for the work is disrupted. However, for
construction management the inspector still has to be onsite regardless of the pace of
work.
1. In regards to the 8 days for the gasoline tanks, this simply slowed down the pace
of work. There was no need to stop the work on the project as there was other
work the contractor could do on site. He was just not able to proceed with work
adjacent to the tanks until the tanks were removed. Stopping all work to wait for
the removal of the tanks would have caused longer delays, and would have cost
the city much more in right-of-way delays and remobilization costs.
2. In regards to the 3 days for modifying the street section, the contractor had to
use a deeper concrete section than what was originally specified to match the
existing irregular street section. Because it takes longer to construct a thicker
section, and that thicker section takes longer to cure, the next items of the project
were subsequently slowed.
3. In regards to the 15 days for inefficiencies due to traffic handling as a result of
concrete cure times, other elements of work were dependant on the completion
of certain sections of concrete; these areas of concrete were poured and cured in
smaller areas in order to work around the petroleum tanks and to maintain better
access to adjacent properties. Other work elements were subsequently slowed
by the extra time needed to work around the tank issues.
4. In regards to the ';e days for modification to the electrical service as required by
PG&E, this included additional conduit and concrete work as well as electrical
work. This additional work slowed the pace of the next items of work as well.
The project construction work did not stop as a result of the discovery of the gasoline
tanks. The contractor worked With City staff to continue to make progress while waiting
for the soils analysis to be completed. It is clear that the delay caused the contractor to
change the work flow from what was originally intended, but it is also clear that.
construction inspection Was required during that time as well.
The original project budget of $290,000 presented to Council in April 2008 did not reflect
the updated quantities and current costs of construction after two years of design and
approval work. The Council approved additional funding at the time of contract award
for a construction contract total of $362,463. The total budget for the entire project
including study, surveying, engineering, :permitting, etc... was $492,463. This request
increases the total overall project budget by $35,000 to $527,463.
If the Council has additional questions, please call Public.Works Director Jay Walter.
g:\sW-reports.agendas-minutes\_amemos=OSVed file c dl memorandum buena vista garfleld.da