HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/2009, B 6 - SANTA ROSA PARK RESTROOM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION APPROACH council Judy 21, 2009
agcnaa REpont �N
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B 1 5 P 0
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public WorksgI3
Prepared By: Bridget Fraser, Engineer III
SUBJECT: SANTA ROSA PARK RESTROOM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
APPROACH
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and consider staff's analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of a traditional
design/site-built process for Santa Rosa Park Restroom replacement versus a process
utilizing a prefabricated restroom building.
2. Based on the results of this analysis, authorize staff to proceed with design of Santa Rosa
Park Restroom using the traditional "site-built" approach.
3. Direct staff to investigate options for reducing overall project costs and incorporate
options into the bid documents as bid alternates.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report focuses on determining the most cost effective means for design and construction of
the Santa Rosa Park Restrooms as well as determining an appropriate level of quality and
aesthetic design. Based on concerns with the current Laguna Lake restroom project, Council
directed staff to stop design work on Santa.Rosa Park restroom until these concerns could be
further evaluated and addressed.
Options for design and construction include using a traditional design/site-built approach versus
an approach that involves the procurement of a prefabricated restroom through a government
purchasing program. The "site built" approach involves hiring an architect to provide
construction documents for construction of a new restroom to be built on site together with all
other site improvements required for the project.. The project would then be competitively bid
and constructed using a single contractor. The "prefab" approach is different from the "site-
built" approach in that the restroom building is excluded from both the design and the
construction contracts and handled under a separate procurement/contract with a restroom
manufacturer.
The two options were analyzed by comparing design/construction costs derived from the Laguna
Lake Restroom bids and by comparing the step-by-step processes for each approach. Staff found
the Site Built approach to be less expensive in the current competitive bidding climate, provided
a more streamlined approach and had the added benefit of keeping the design and construction
dollars closer to home rather than to out-of-state restroom manufacturers. Staff recommends
moving forward with the traditional site built approach for the Santa Rosa Park restrooms.
I
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design Page 2
A preliminary conceptual design was completed last fall for the Santa Rosa Park restrooms by
one of the City's on-call design consultants. Costs for this initial phase of work was
approximately $8,000. The conceptual design is based on keeping the restroom in the same
general location, keeping the same number of fixtures currently provided and keeping the
exterior design compatible with the existing two toned concrete block buildings in the park. This
design incorporates low maintenance/vandal resistant fixtures and. finishes similar to the new
Laguna Lake restrooms. Staff has identified various options for reducing costs with a trade off of
reduced aesthetic design to increased maintenance costs.
DISCUSSION
Background
Public Works has been actively working on Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects for the
replacement of the two Laguna Lake restrooms and the older restroom near the playground at
Santa Rosa Park over the last year. These restroom projects originated from a 2004 agreement
entered into with the Department of Justice to bring various City facilities into compliance with
federal ADA regulations. Given the poor condition and age of these three restrooms and the extent
of the remodeling required to bring them into compliance, it was determined that these structures
were not suitable for remodeling and should be replaced. A CIP for replacement of the restrooms
was approved as part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan.
Staff initially began work on the Laguna Lake restrooms. A replacement project was brought
forward to Council in January 2009 for approval to advertise for bids. Public testimony was
received at this meeting regarding the perceived high costs of the project and the possible use of
prefabricated structures (prefabs) as a method to reduce costs. These same concerns were echoed
by some of the Council members. As a result, Council directed staff to bid the project and
provide cost comparisons between a project using traditional site-built restrooms versus the use
of prefab restrooms.
Staff returned to Council on April 21, 2009 to award a contract for construction after obtaining
bids for both the site-built option and the prefabricated option. The lowest bids were received for
the site-built option which was $74,000, or 18% lower than the prefab option. Council awarded
the project based on the site-built bid option; however; they were still not convinced that the
traditional approach was most cost effective. Council requested that the prefabricated design
process be further evaluated and presented to Council before moving forward with the design for
the Santa Rosa Park restrooms. Attachment 1 gives a more detailed recap of the Laguna Lake
Restroom process.
Prefabricated Restrooms.
Prefabricated restrooms are public restroom buildings that are completely fabricated off-site in a
manufacturing plant and transported to the project by truck in one or more sections. The sections
are connected, hooked up to utilities, and placed in service. They arrive complete with
everything installed - plumbing, toilets, sinks, partitions, tile, etc. The City under separate
contract would be required to prepare the building pad and underground utilities prior to
installation of the building and do any other work associated with the project, such as demolition,
site work,building pad, landscaping and ensuring accessibility to the restroom.
Ub—oZ
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design Page 3
Some prefabricated restrooms can be purchased through a government piggyback program such
as the State of California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) procurement program. Through
CMAS, cities can purchase a prefab restroom directly from one of the suppliers using a state
negotiated contract and eliminate the need for a formal purchasing process. Prices are generally
discounted from standard retail prices.
Prefab manufacturers offer many standard models and floor plans. Because of this they can save
design costs by not having to "start from scratch" each time. Design and permitting is included in
their costs. Theoretically, since we do not need to have an architect to provide the design services
for the restroom, we should be able to save on these design costs.
Since the restrooms are transported on public highways they fall into state regulations for
"Commercial Modular" buildings. Other examples of structures regulated through the state are
manufactured homes, RV's and modular office buildings. These Commercial Modular buildings
are permitted through the Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD). Designs
are reviewed by state-approved plan checkers and the manufacturing is reviewed by state-
approved inspectors. There is no local building department review or inspection. According to
HCD personnel, "commercial modular" structures are required to only meet the 1991 building
codes and the state-approved plan checkers are only obligated to plan check them to this older
code. These buildings are exempt from review by our local building department and are exempt
from meeting the current 2007 California Buildings Codes (CBC) and any local ordinances or
regulations. The restroom manufacturers have indicated that their buildings will meet the current
CBC; however, if the City wishes to ensure compliance we would need to hire a plan checker
outside of our local building department to perform a review for conformance to the current
codes. Once the restroom is approved it is issued a sticker by the state. Any future modifications
to the building require state inspection. A building permit, however, is still required for all the
work done out side of the restroom structure itself, such as, demolition, site work, underground
utilities, irrigation, landscaping, etc.
Currently there are two prefabricated restroom suppliers listed in the CMAS program — CXT,
Inc. from Washington, and Restroom Facilities, LTD from Nevada. CXT provides all-concrete
structures. Walls and roof are formed to simulate common materials like barn wood, split-faced
block, wood-siding, wood shakes or metal-ribbed roofing and then painted. Restroom Facilities,
LTD, offers restrooms constructed with typical building materials and most resembles a site-built
restroom. They offer a wide range of standard products and finishes with options for upgrades
and customized designs. Both manufactures are in the business of providing public restrooms
and appear to have very vandal-resistant, easily maintained structures. Brochures and product
information from both manufacturers is available for review in the Council Reading File.
At the time of writing this report, staff was in the process of identifying any prefabricated
restrooms in our locale. Once locations can be determined, staff will visit the restrooms and
contact the owners for information about maintenance issues and the procurement process used.
This information will be presented to Council via a Red File memo.
Santa Rosa Park Restroom-Design Considerations/Work Accomplished To Date
One of the City's on-call Architects was hired last summer to provide the first phase of the
design process. This first phase of design included meeting with staff(Recreation, Maintenance,
and Engineering) to review uses, past issues of the park, determine programming needs of the
136 -3
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design Page 4
building, and design considerations to be used to develop a conceptual building and site plan.
Considerations used for developing the design for restroom structures include the following
items:
1) Building Size/Number of Stalls—based on park activities. The main area of the park serves a
large play ground, two group picnic/BBQ areas, many individual picnic tables, skate park,
hockey/basket ball court, and large open turf areas. Park use is increasing not diminishing
with potential for more frequent uses once the hockey rink and skate park are completed.
Staff felt reducing the number of stalls from the current eight was not appropriate for this
park. (This is the same size as the larger restroom currently being built at Laguna Lake.)
2) MaintenanceNandalism/Durability—Maintenance, durability and vandalism go hand in hand
and are issues for all City parks and facilities. Santa Rosa Park has had its share of issues —
graffiti, damaged lighting controls, bashed in doors to name a few. Providing a vandal
resistant, durable structure will cost more upfront but will reduce maintenance costs over
time. Santa Rosa Park design should include anti-graffiti coatings, heavy duty doors and
frames, stainless steel fixtures and partitions (rather than vitreous china which can shatter and
plastic partitions which can be gouged'or burned), sealed or urine-resistant concrete floors,
painted concrete or tiled walls, durable roofing systems. These same design considerations
were used at the Laguna Lake restrooms.
3) Standardized Equipment — locks, hardware, flush valves, dispensers, etc. Standardizing
features commonly used in other park restrooms helps to reduce replacement time and allow
Maintenance staff to maintain a smaller inventory of replacement parts.
4) Building Materials/Aesthetics/Compatibility — Design and materials should be compatible
with existing structures or with any established master plan or theme within the park. Unlike
Laguna Lake Park, there is no master plan for Santa Rosa Park. Staff is recommending the
restroom be compatible with the architecture of the three existing structures in the park.
These structures are constructed using two colors of split-faced and smooth concrete block
with blue colored metal doors and trims. The existing structures have asphalt composition
shingles. Maintenance staff has requested the use of a more durable roofing system to reduce
future maintenance costs.
5) Functions of the Building Beyond being a Restroom.The Santa Rosa Park Restroom building
does not need extra room for storing equipment or for a concession stand as is needed at
some other parks; however, it is home to the "nerve center" for the park, housing the
electrical meters, panels and lighting controls for the group BBQ areas, playground and
horseshoe areas as well as the irrigation controls for the entire park. This extra feature of the
building is more easily accommodated by the site built design approach.
The architect completed a concept plan and site plan (Attachment 3) last fall based on the design
considerations above. This concept plan is ready to submit to Community Development
Department (CDD) for design approval and staff is recommending moving forward with a
restroom design based on the architect's concept plan, pending CDD approval. Staff, however,
has delayed moving forward with the formal submission to CDD in the event Council would like
to make any changes based on the outcome of this agenda item.
As part of this preliminary process the architect contacted a prefab manufacturer to provide a
preliminary layout and estimate based on many of the design considerations above. They
provided a preliminary cost estimate of$200,000 using all of their standard features. This cost
does not include upgrades such as anti-graffiti coatings, stainless steel partitions and fixtures or
�6 -y
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design Page 5
City standard flush valves and lock systems or any other site specific requirements. Refer to the
Attachment 3 for the preliminary concept. (As a matter of comparison, the same size Laguna
Lake Playground restroom bid at $172,000 for site-built and includes all of the upgrades listed
above as well as the added rolling security gate.)
A pre-review with CDD based on the preliminary concept suggested that this structure would be
considered minor and incidental and would not require formal ARC review. This determination
was based on the fact that the concept plan as presented (two toned block structure with blue
trims) is compatible with the other structures in the park.
Costs to date for this preliminary design phase are approximately $8,000. It should be noted that
this preliminary phase would be required regardless of whether the final design was based on a
site-built structure or a prefab structure. The next step would be to move forward with finalizing
the building and site design then move forward with developing bid documents.
Comparison—Site-built versus prefabricated restrooms
What is the complete process?
There are several steps to take a project from concept to construction which can help in
understanding the benefits or drawbacks of the construction options. A detailed step-by step
process is presented in Attachment 2 for a traditional "site-built' structure which is designed by
an architect, competitively bid and constructed by a contractor versus a "prefab" process that
incorporates a prefabricated structure purchased through a government piggy back program and
coordinated with a separate competitively bid contact for the site work.
What is common to both methods? What is different?
As one can see from Attachment 2, there are many steps that are common to both processes.
Specifically, both processes require hiring an architect or engineer to coordinate several sub-
consultants work and provide plans and specifications for all the work required beyond the
design of the restroom. Subsequently, both processes require a competitive bid for this work and
installation by a licensed contractor.
The difference between the processes is the design and procurement of the restroom building.
With the traditional approach, the architect would also provide the design of the restroom
building in the bid documents, which in turn, would be competitively bid and installed by the
general contractor and his subcontractors. In the prefab approach, procurement and installation of
the restroom is handled under a separate additional contract if the City wishes to take advantage
of the cost break associated with large volume purchasing. The City would work directly with
several restroom manufacturers to find a suitable design and then contract with one of them
directly for the design and construction of just the restroom. The City would then be required to
coordinate the restroom contract around the site work contract. The alternative is to require the
site contractor to provide the prefab. They would likely pay a higher price for the unit and would
also include a markup on the cost to cover the handling and risk associated with furnishing the
unit along with profit. This alternative would also require plans and specifications for the
restroom to be included in the bid documents as required for competitive bidding.
B6 -S
1 /
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design Page 6
Pros and Cons
Based on what we learned from the Laguna Lake project, general information on prefabs and the
processing of both types of restrooms, staff has,developed the following comparison chart.
Comparison Chart
Traditional Site-built Restroom Process ' Prefab Restroom Process
Pro. Overall process is more streamlined Con. Overall process is more involved requiring
involving only 2 contracts — all design work a 3rd contract for the procurement and
is handled by one architect and all installation of the restroom. This process
construction is handled by one contractor. requires the City to coordinate work between the
City will administer a total of 2 contracts. prefab manufacturer and the contractor and
increases the City's risk for being "caught in the
middle" for installation and warranty issues.
Con. Architectural fees are higher since Pros. Architectural fees are lower since restroom
restroom is designed by Architect. design cost is included in the price of the
building. However, design costs are still incurred
for the contract documents needed for the site
work.
Pro. Lower combined design/construction Con. Higher combined design/construction
costs based on Laguna Lake restroom based on Laguna Lake restroom.
Pro. Local Building Department will review Con. State-approved plan checker will review
design for conformance to current 2007 CBC restroom for conformance with 1991 UBC
codes. This will ensure that our building is building codes. City will have to pay extra for
designed and built to current codes. separate third party plan checker review to 2007
California codes
Pro. Construction and inspection is handled Con. Construction and inspection is handled out
locally keeping "quality control" at a local of state by third party inspectors. No local
level. control. Quality not reviewed locally until
restroom is delivered to site.
Pro. All warranty issues (building and site) Con. Building is warranted by out of state
are the responsibility of the general manufacturer.
contractor. All other site work is warranted by general
contractor.
Pro. Keeps 100% of project funds (and jobs) Con. Restroom is manufactured out of state.
directed to our local community since all Using the Laguna Lake restroom bid as and
design and construction is by local forces. example, 75% of the project cost will be paid to
an out of state company.
Staff Recommendation for Design/Construction Process for Santa Rosa Park Restrooms.
Based on the comparison of the two processes, Staff recommends the traditional architect
designed/site-built approach for Santa Rosa Park restroom. The staff recommendation is also due
to the fact that this approach is less costly overall, is a more streamlined approach (two contracts
rather than three), and it keeps the work and the dollars closer to home with local.contractors.
This is reflected in the extremely competitive bids received for almost all public works projects
over the last nine months. Had this analysis been performed several years ago when construction
costs were at their highest, it is possible the use of a prefab restroom would be less expensive. As
the economy turns around, and construction costs start to climb, the City will consider the use of
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design J Page 7
a prefab for future park restroom replacements such as Laguna Golf Course and Johnson Park,
especially as those buildings do not have secondary park functions to serve.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Santa Rosa Park Restroom Replacement Project is identified in the 2009-11 Financial Plan
on pages 3-316 through 3-318 of Appendix B. Funding comes from a combination of General
Funds, Community Development Block Grant allocations for the years 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008
and 2009. Total budget identified for this project is $440,000 ($50,000 design, $330,000
construction and $60,000 construction management). To date approximately $8,000 has been
spent on preliminary design work.
Based on review of the Laguna Lake project, it appears that the site -built option is less costly as
long as the bidding climate remains competitive. Staff recommends expediting the design
process in order to bid the project by early winter to take advantage of this favorable bidding
climate.
ALTERNATIVES
Cost Saving Measures for the Santa Rosa Park Restrooms
Although there has been much discussion about the use of prefab restrooms versus site-built
restrooms, staff is assuming that Council's underlying concern is really about overall project
costs and whether the design/construction process to be used is cost effective and whether the
quality and design is overly "rich" and needs to be downscaled. Whether the restroom is site-
built or prefab, there are opportunities to reduce costs further by eliminating aesthetic features
and/or maintenance/vandal-resistant features. Although not recommended, staff has identified
some possible ways to reduce overall costs for the Santa Rosa Park Restrooms. With Council
direction, staff will investigate the feasibility and actual costs associated with these reductions
and incorporate them as deductive alternates in the bid documents. These bid options will be
presented to Council as the project comes forward for approval to advertise. After the project is
bid the City can decide if the reductions should be incorporated into the project award or not.
1. Use one type of block rather than a combination of smooth/split-faced block. The new
building will not match the existing buildings.
2. Use standard CMU colors rather than matching the existing two toned custom colors or use
only one color rather than two. The new building will not match the existing buildings.
3. Eliminate front overhang. This will eliminate a place for protection from sun or rain.
4. Eliminate Stainless Steel fixtures and partitions—opt for less costly china fixtures and plastic
partitions. Stainless steel is durable and graffiti, scratches and gouges can be easily buffed
out. China fixtures are prone to breaking and shattering and plastic partitions are prone to
knife gouging and burning. Maintenance costs will increase as vandalism occurs. As an
example, the downtown restrooms were closed approximately twice a month to repair either
interior damage or damage to the doors and are now closed. Maintainable restrooms keep
staff and contract costs down.
5. Use a less costly roofing material such as composition shingles. According to Maintenance
staff, composition shingles wear out and need replacement more frequently than metal
roofing. They have also been subject to vandalism in areas where the roofs can be accessed.
221 0b —
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design Page 8
Use of composition shingles will likely cause more frequent replacement and higher
maintenance costs.
6. Eliminate anti-graffiti coatings. Graffiti is a huge problem in our public parks. Maintenance
staff must have ways to address the removal. Not providing anti-graffiti coatings may make it
impossible to remove graffiti. Currently graffiti is occurring approximately three times a
week per park.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recap of the Laguna Lake Restroom process
2. Comparison of Site-Built process versus Prefab process
3. Santa Rosa Park restroom concept/site plan
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Prefab brochures, information&photos
_ M1
g:\smR-repot agmdu mmutm\cm\2009\rip\90923=a mss mstmom\90923 soots mm restmam dncmion.doc
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design and.Construction Approach Attachment 1
Recap of Laguna Lake Restroom Project
Cost Comparison -Prefab versus Site Built Options.
The following table represents a breakdown of the project design and construction costs
for the two Laguna Lake Restrooms. The fact that there are two restrooms being built has
not always been correctly conveyed in media reports of this project that cited higher
costs.
Design Costs:
Prelim Design: Cost Estimating, Prefab
Investigation, Project Programing, $221440
Conceptual Design, CDD Approval
Site Design (Estimated) $22,000
Building Design (Estimated) $18,000
$62,440
Construction Bid_Results Site Built _:;Prefab
Site Costs $90,959 $105,588
Building Costs (2 restroom Bldgs) $307,555 $366,929
$398,514 $472,517
Add Architect Building Design Costs $181000
Remove estimated 10% markup on prefab $0 $37,000
$416,514 $435,517
Construction Cost difference $741003
Cost Difference after adjustments $19,003
As shown above, the prefab option construction cost was around $74,000 higher than the
site-built option costs. However, in order to better compare the costs of each option, an
adjustment was made for the architect fees associated with design of the site built option
(estimated at $18,000) and the contractor's markup for the prefab option (estimated to be
approximately 10% or around $37,000.) Taking into account the added design fee for the
site built option and removing the contractors markup for the prefab, the prefab option
was still around $19,000 higher.
According to the bidders, the lower site built costs was largely due to the competitive
climate we are currently experiencing. Contractors and subcontractors are simply trying
to keep their crews busy with the hope of breaking even on costs. Profit margins, if any,
are extremely small. Had we bid this project three years ago at the height of the building
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design and Construction Approach Attachment 1
boom we would most likely have seen higher costs for the site built option, bringing it
closer to or more than the prefab option.
Contractor Comments during Bidding.
Several Contractors voiced their comments and concerns regarding the prefab structure
bid option. Staff felt these concerns should be passed on to Council. Some of their
concerns were:
1. The contractor and the City have no local control over quality and inspection
since the structure is completely built off-site and out of state.
2. The prefab manufacturers are not subject to prevailing wage requirements (during
the manufacturing process) as the contractors are. Prevailing wages raise labor
costs considerably for contractors doing public works jobs. Contractors felt that
was an unfair advantage.
3. Local contractors also expressed their dismay that the City would consider
sending over 75% of the project costs to an out of state vendor and not keep the
work and the dollars in our own local economy.
Council Comments during Award Meeting.
At the Council meeting of April 2 V% staff presented the bid results between the site built
option and the prefab option which indicated that the site built option was less costly
(even when taking into account the design fees) than the prefab option. One
Councilmember expressed a concern that the Laguna Lake Restroom bid process did not
provide a fair comparison as the prefab manufacturers may have been "forced" into
adapting to the site-built plans and specifications and that perhaps their costs were higher
because they could not take advantage of their"standard" designs. Staff does not believe
this is the case and stands behind the Laguna Lake bid as a very good comparison in
today's bidding climate. This is based on the following facts: 1) The overall general
design was based on a prefab structure— size, dimensions, number of stalls, CMU walls,
tile and painted walls, timber roof truss option, rock veneer option, stainless steel screens,
heavy duty doors and frames — with the intent that a prefab manufacturer could easily
provide a similar product using their own standard designs, structural details and
construction that would essentially comply with the project specifications; 2) The bid
documents allowed prefab manufacturers to deviate from the site-built structural details
to adapt to their normal standard of the industry design and construction processes; 3)
The design contained only a few non-standard items, such as the self-weathering steel
roof, City standard flush sensor valves and door locks, that would cause the prefab
manufacturer to "go outside" of his standard designs and options.
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design and Construction Approach Attachment 2
Step by Step Process for Site-Built Structure and Prefab Structure
The following list provides step by step processes for both a traditional design-bid-build approach that
is customarily used for a building project as well as staff s best estimate for a non-traditional approach
of using a prefabricated restroom.
For the traditional approach, referred to as "Site-Built," all design work including restroom and site
work is handled entirely by an architect. The whole project is then competitively bid and all
construction is handled entirely by a general contractor.
The "prefab" approach is based on information derived form initial contacts with restroom
manufactures. Upon further more in-depth investigations, the following step by step approach may be
refined. In this option staff has made several assumptions: 1) the City will procure a restroom through
a piggy back purchase off of CMAS to eliminate the time and need to develop a formal RFP and take
advantage of discounted CMAS rates; 2) City staff will have adequate time to handle the prefab
procurement process but will hire an outside architect or engineer to provide design and construction
documents for all other work required outside of the restroom building itself.
No.. Task Description Site-Built Prefab .
1. Hire Architect to provide bid documents Yes ..... Yes
(plans/specifications) for Restroom building & Site improvements
site improvements. only
a. Obtain site survey and base map and
investigate all underground utilities Yes Yes
b. Obtain soils report to determine Yes Yes
building ad & foundation requirements
c. Continue developing restroom design
to determine more specific plumbing, Yes
electrical and mechanical needs.
d. Review park facilities needs of new
structure — the restroom building also
acts as nerve center for the park, housing Yes Yes
park lighting controls, irrigation controls
and power meter.
e. Architect hires electrical engineer to
determine if existing electrical service is Yes
adequate. And provides plans and specs Yes (But omit restroom
for restroom electrical and relocation of electrical. Provided by
park lighting controls, meters and prefab)
irrigation controls
f Architect hires plumbing/mechanical Yes
engineer to determine if current water (But omit restroom
and sewer services are adequate and Yes plumbing/mechanical.
rovides lans& specs as needed. Provided by prefab)
g. Architect hires structural engineer to
provide structural design of building and Yes No
foundation
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design.and Construction Approach Attachment 2
No. Task Description __. _ , Srte-Bwlt Prefab
h. Architect hires Landscape Architect
to provide improvements and Yes Yes
modifications to irrigation system and
landsca ing if required
i. Architect provides site plans,
demolition plans, specifications and Yes Yes
coordinates and packages the work of all
site work subconsultants
J. Architect also provides
architectural/building details, and No Yes
coordinates and packages the work of all
restroom building subconsultants.
k. Architect provides cost estimate Yes Yes
(omit restroom
structure)
2. Investigate/Select prefab structure.
City Staff will: No Yes
a. Investigate CMAS procurement
procedures and identify available No Yes
restroom suppliers
b. Investigate each restroom supplier for
quality, warranty, standard features,
optional designs and upgrades and No Yes
general suitability for Santa Rosa Park
Restroom
c. Determine which have designs that No Yes
would meet Staff/CDD expectations.
d. Request concepts and quotes from No Yes
selected manufactures
e. Select best manufacturer based on
price, quality, warranty, and negotiate No Yes
final details and price. Include options.
for up grading or downgrading.
3 Process plans and specifications through Yes Yes _
Local Building Department to obtain (For Site work only:
permit. No review of restroom)
4 Council approves and authorizes-: Yes Yes
a. The plans and specs, advertise Yes Yes
bidding- Site Work only
b. The procurement of the prefab No Yes
restroom
5 Prefab procurement process:
a. City issues PO for prefab. No Yes
b. Prefab manufacturer prepares plans &
documentation, submits to City for No Yes
approval
—/cl
CAR Santa Rosa Park Restroom Design and Construction Approach Attachment 2
No. Task Descri tion ,Site-Built Prefab
c. City hires third party plan checker to
review project for compliance with No Yes
current 2007 CBC.
d. City reviews for compliance with PO. No Yes
e. Manufacturer submits documentation
for State HCD review for compliance No Yes
with 1991 building codes.
f. Once approved by Staff & State,
restroom goes into production. Third-
party state-approved inspector reviews
manufacturing process. State issues No Yes
(no local review)
"Commercial Modular" sticker at
completion. Allow 2.5 - 4 months for
delivery to site.
7. Contractor competitively bids: Yes
(Site work&restroom Yes
building) (Site work only)
8. Contract is awarded for Yes Yes
(Site work& restroom (Site work only)
buildin )
9. Construction Phase:
a. Coordination performed by: Contractor- Site work
Entirely by contractor City Staff-Restroom
b. Contractor completes building
demolition and relocation of electrical
service, meters, lighting controls and
irrigation controls, demolition of the Yes Yes
restroom, grading, site prep,
underground utilities and building pad.
c. Contractor constructs restroom. Yes No
d. Contractor discontinues work until No Yes
restroom is installed
e. Prefab restroom is delivered and No Yes
installed by manufacturer
f. Contractor completes site work:
reinstalls electrical service, meters,
lighting controls, irrigation controls, Yes Yes
walkways, irrigation modifications and
landscaping
10 1 year Warranty period begins: Contractor warranties Contractor warranties
all work including site-work.
building: Prefab manufacturer
warranties restroom.
t36-l3
0
- ATTACHMENT 3
M
Z m
LU
W m -
O O
IL
LLI
� Qz
- - I-
N i
J d� a
a
W
9 < Z LL
LL III I
Q O O
N CLU
,I -- --;--- L }
<
I I Q
I >R
115 W
i I d
I I
sE ACK I
W�.• W
�N
vo 'o iso. sin] Nds
aiw SNOLVA913
�p g,il.f >WW `dS02i ` iNVS :oe 90:aw I,a :A NAWO Ntnd W01=1 �
'RE tZ99:mwmw aow aNlmins :omn mro :No1!"im5ia d
NOLL7fRllSO7110j ION S`)NIAAVHG AdVNIWn3dd
H
Z
W
ATTACNaaE";T3
Q
.94rs
z
-- o
Z z
o W °
aW >
w
W O J
W N W
aC 2
W o- -- - - 0
at LL
O
Oz
J
®� cf) w
,
W ~
f Lm
W
N
Z U-
® «u a- o N
— ItQO0M U
Z Oz
0cn ID
o aW
�— 0 IL
LL
Q W
of U)
4@ ,
o- --
01-.61
.01-.SZ -- - - -
-
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
e. D & _ITEM #
DATE
council mcMOIZAnbum
Date: July 21, 2009 ECOUNCIL 2rCDD DIR
E3'Gt Oe" A6X 0-FIN DIR
TO: City Council E!rAGA0P& C4V fir-e Er FIRE CHIEF
13-ATTORNEY IrPW DIR
ErCLERK/ORIG C!POLICE CHF
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Manager p DE�t3 EADS SEC DIR
�--�,.--- ZIUTIL DIR
FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director N� ?2�11 DIR
AAW nate5 �Cpu vCcL
SUBJECT: Santa Rosa Restroom Design and Construction Approach -''e`ry/L1G2
Additional information.
Review of Local Prefabricated Restrooms
Staff performed a site review of two local prefabricated restrooms - one located in
Pismo Beach at Dinosaur Caves Park and one located in Atascadero at Atascadero
Lake Park. Colored photos of these two restrooms are attached and will be made
available to the Council at the meeting tonight.
Atascadero Lake Park. The structure is around 2 years old and is slightly larger (about
5') than the proposed restroom at Santa Rosa Park. Staff felt it was a high quality
installation and very attractive. Maintenance staff was very pleased at the quality and
durability of this product. This restroom is manufactured by Public Restroom Company
from Nevada.
The project manager for the City of Atascadero, Bob Joslin, indicated that the
construction cost was around $286,000 for the project. He did not know off hand what
part of that cost was for the prefab structure and how much was for site work. Staff later
contacted the manufacturer who recollected the cost for the structure being around
$195,000 (before any contractors mark up). Staff asked Mr. Joslin: If Atascadero were
to do another restroom project would they use a prefab structure again? His response
was "No, not in this economy, it doesn't pencil out." Atascadero, like San Luis Obispo
and other cities, has been experiencing a very favorable bid climate and contractors are
bidding projects very low in order to get the work.
Dinosaur Caves Park. This restroom is far too small compared to what our needs for
Santa Rosa are but it gave staff an idea of the typical construction used by this
manufacturer. It is an all-concrete structure manufactured by CXT, Inc from
Washington. The structure did not offer much aesthetic appeal particularly after
comparing it to the Atascadero Lake restroom.
Overall staff was. not impressed by this structure. There were cracks throughout the 4
1
' year old structure. The equipment room was so small that it was almost impossible for
the maintenance staff to store cleaning supplies or have adequate access for plumbing
repairs or maintenance. The venting system was not working and the door hinges were.
sprung. The project manager could not be reached but the maintenance staff we talked
to on site indicated that they would not be using this company again.
Questions from Council Member Carter.
Question 1: On attachment 1, do the site built building costs shown of$307,555 include
the cost of construction management (at 15%) and contingencies(at 10%)?
Answer: No, none of the costs - prefab or site built - in the Laguna Lake analysis of
both approaches, includes CM or contingences. The costs are only for the design and
construction costs. We considered the CM and Contingences to be a "wash" in both
approaches
Contingencies. In either approach, we would most likely have budgeted the same dollar
amount of contingencies. Contingences cover unexpected costs and unknowns. In a
building project such as this, the unknowns would be associated with the demolition and
site work not necessarily the new building structures.
Construction Management. For the Santa Rosa Restroom project, it is not certain at this
time whether this project would use an outside construction management firm or not. In
the past few years construction management firms were used due to the large number
of construction projects. Since the overall number of projects is less due to budget
issues it is likely that we will not require construction management for Santa Rosa
Restroom. For the sake of this analysis we made the assumption that construction
management would be handled in-house by staff - similar to the assumption that the
procurement of the prefab would be handled in-house by staff. A smaller amount of
construction management funds would be set up to handle the special inspection for the
building pad and site work which would be the same for either approach. Again, for the
purposes of this analysis the construction management should be a wash under either
approach.
Question 2: The comparison for site-built is made against "pre-fabricated," specifically
products made by CXT and Restroom Facilities. Was there a reason why Romtec "pre-
engineered" products were not included? In previous correspondence, Romtec
explained how "pre-engineered" is different from "pre-fabricated" (granted this may have
been a snow job). They also said they have a CMAS contract with California.
Answer: To keep things somewhat simplified we kept the report focused on just the
site-built and the prefabricated buildings since that seemed to be Council direction. By
nature of their product it appears the pre-engineered Romtec buildings can be
processed similar to the site-built approach were their plans are incorporated into a
standard bid document or similar.to the prefab approach by procuring it through CMAS.
Cost wise there does not seem to be a big advantage to using this product. Our
2
• investigation of this product last January revealed that the installed cost of a smaller 6-
stall restroom (we need 8 for Santa Rosa) was approximately $216,000 for a standard
off the shelf design. This cost is already above the estimates received for prefabs of the
size we need (which were around $200,000) as well as the site-built (which we found to
cost around $183,000 after adding in design) Based on this fact alone it does not make
sense to pursue the Romtec alternative much further.
At the time of this writing this is what we know about Romtec:
• The estimated costs of the installed Romtec building where found to be higher than
both the prefab building costs and the site built building costs - $216,000 was
estimated per Council memo of Jan 15, 2009 for a smaller building of questionable
quality.
• The Romtec buildings did not receive a positive recommendation from the State
District Park Maintenance Supervisor who had some experience with the Romtec
products. Unfortunately he has worked up and down the state, so we could not
perform site visit to a local Romtec installation to verify his concerns.
• Romtec indicates they will provide design services and provide plans and
specifications that can be incorporated into a traditional bid document. They indicate
that the City would need to pay for the design services up front in order to obtain the
plans and specifications but that they will credit the cost if and when they get the job.
At this time we do not know what the estimated amount of these fees are.
• If the Romtec product is handled under a traditional bid document approach it would
be subject to the general contractor's markups making the $216,000 price tag even
higher.
• Through Romtec's CMAS contract information, they indicate that design services
cannot be a part of the CMAS procurement due to the Brooks Act. This would need
to be investigated further. Perhaps it is negotiated and paid separately outside of the
CMAS process.
• On a positive note, since the Romtec building is a built on site and is not regulated
by the State it would be subject to processing through our local Building Department
and reviewed for compliance with current codes.
Question 3: One reason for mentioning Romtec is that they stated they would handle
the entire project both building and site. If true, that removes your arguments about the
difficulty of dealing with two contractors.
Answer: Staff does not believe this is true. The CMAS contracts are negotiated for very
speck items, in this case, the restroom. Staff does not believe that the State would
allow them to provide other work outside of the restroom itself - demolition, walkways,
parking lots, ramps, irrigation and landscaping, etc — without a competitive bid. If we
attempt to purchase the product outside of CMAS, then it would have to be
competitively bid since it is over $25,000. If Romtec is qualified to perform the duties of
a general contractor then they could bid the entire project; however, we would then
need to address the issue of whether there is a conflict of interest - a designer on a
project turning around and bidding the project they helped design. Currently, our
practice is to not allow an entity that provided plans and specs to bid the installation.
3
J 1
Question 4: What appreciable difference is there between the 1991 and 2007 building
codes?
Answer: According to the Building Official there have been 3-4 significant revisions to
the building codes since 1991. He indicated these changes are primarily due to the
large earthquakes experienced in 1989 (Northridge) and 1994 (Loma Prieta) where the
seismic and structural codes have undergone revamping based on what was learned
from these catastrophic events. In general, the seismic analysis is more intensified and
more focused. For example, every structure, no matter how big or how small, requires a
soils report to determine specific seismic parameters to be used for design. This may
end up being more restrictive or less restrictive than the 1991 codes depending on the
location of your project and the soils in the area. Essentially, the current codes will
ensure that the building is designed to include the best seismic and structural safety
enhancements.
Attachments: Color photos of local prefabs.
g:Waft+eporb-agenCasmnutes%_canMDA=MMOAM
4
fL CU
f` w
J ' 1
ANN
I
co
_ 1 j
c,�'� �..CYy to z.: � '�^�_._,_-,r•
•
• •
I T
CU
4 All
'�� ( � 11.{•11, •j _.— --.
h.. ., �. 14 J• � b .
'T•/ 1 y gyp. 1 -y� ¢' R `
N�
jopijjoo duiglul we sab 10 Joual01
CD
U l �cQ I
}, ,s.a �
L
C �
`4 CL c
I ( (D N
cu
cu
U �
�ut �
a ;
r
111 I \ J{
a
( 1 f
. i
mi�sc o u n a l m c m o RA n o u m
,cmy of san tins osispo.
DATE: July 14;2009
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Dave Romero, Mayor
SUBJECT: July 21,2009 Communication Item: City Manager Recruitment
In order to meet our aggressive schedule of making the appointment of our new city manager
prior to the end of the year, we must initiate the hiring process without delay. Therefore, at the
City Council meeting of August 4, 2009 our Human Resources Director, Monica Irons, will
bring forward a recommendation for contracting with a search firm to initiate the recruitment
ASAP.
Monica expects to receive proposals from several different companies (maybe as many as 10)
and is prepared to review them and make a recommendation to Council. However, she has also
asked if the Mayor and Vice Mayor could serve as a"sounding board" should she need input on
the final recommendation to the Council. If there are no objections from Council members, Vice
Mayor Settle and I would be happy to play this role. Of course, the full Council will become
engaged in the process as soon as we have the search firm under contract.
RED FILE FUNa`CDD DIR
-- MEETING AGENDA � O'FIN DIR
eZ�fIRE CHIEF
DA �s / a ITEM#� �A 0A-r1c es Q'POL IR CHF
ADS SEC DIR
(3'J�IB E UTILDIR
In^............1` 0'�R DIR
71140 C0U4JC/L
1-1CCENED
JUL 1 A 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
Q0ocuments and SeMngs*hamMn\DesktW\Communiaadon Item-CM Reaudmentdoc
Kr
ATTACHMENT#3
y� Y•v
' r� �,meq : ��,; .,,� •^<
i
r