HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/02/1997, C-1 - WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DIGESTER #2 REPAIR, SPECIFICATION NO. 97-49B. council K-fi-xj) '
9/2/97
AD ac enaa RepoRt h.. e-1
C ITY O F SAN LU I S O B 1 S P 0
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey,Public Works Director
Prepared by: Barbara Lynch,Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Water Reclamation Facility Digester#2 Repair, Specification No. 97-49B.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve the award to and execute a contract with Speiss Construction in the amount of
$168,040 for the Water Reclamation Facility Digester#2 Repair, Specification No. 97-49B.
2) Appropriate$100,000 from Sewer Fund Balance to the project for the Digester#2 Repair.
DISCUSSION:
On July 15th the City Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for the repair of Digester #2.
This project had been given priority over other projects underway because of a failure of the heat
exchangers inside the digester. The bid opening was held on August 14'. Only one bid was
receive-t which was over the budget available to complete this project. Because of the critical
services that this project provides, staff is recommending the project progress. In addition to the
base bid, a number of alternatives were included in the bid which would be reviewed for necessity
after bids were opened.
The project was bid with six alternatives addressing three areas:
1. The first of these was a reduced coating system. After emptying Digester#1 last year, it was
discovered that the coating was in good condition with the exception of the roof and upper
portion of the walls. It was thought the same might be true of Digester#2. Unfortunately, staff
has had difficulty in getting a contractor to complete the emptying of this digester and, thus, do
not know the condition of the coating. The alternatives were included in case the true condition
of the digester was known and therefore a cost reduction could be realized. Since this was not
the case staff is not recommending award of alternatives 2A and 5A,which would have resulted
in about a $54,000 savings. If, during construction, staff finds that the coating is in good
condition, there is the possibility of reducing the amount of the contract with a commensurate
reduction in the amount of coating.
2. The second area focused on the replacement of the heat exchangers. The heat exchangers have
failed and need to be completely replaced. The alternatives (22A and 22B) requested cost
information to replace the heat exchangers with stainless steel rather than coated steel.
Experience at the WRF plant with stainless steel inside the digester indicates that when
removed, it comes out looking only slightly discolored,can be hosed off and returned to the
digester with no further work. Stainless steel is expected to give at least twice the life(20 years
vs. 10 years) of coated steel and does not need to be recoated. Coated steel must be recoated at
five-year intervals. The additional cost for stainless steel amounts to $18,260. The cost to
recoat the heat exchangers is about $6,000 with the heat exchangers being replaced at 10-year
e-1 -1
Council Agenda Report- f,/RF Digester No. 2
intervals for a 20-year cost of about $52,000. The cost of stainless steel over the same period is
about $38,000 resulting in $14,000 savings in that period. Staff is recommending that the
increased up-front cost of stainless steel be included in the project award.
3. The third area dealt with the replacement of two of the digester lids with stainless steel lids
(Alternatives 6A and &A). The lids are currently coated with lead so cleaning is more
expensive than might nominally be expected. Again, the stainless is expected to give at least
twice the life of regular coated steel, and it does not have a coating which needs maintenance
every five years. Staff felt for the additional cost of about $580 it would be cost effective
compared to a cost of about $3000 every five years to clean and re-coat the lids. Staff is
recommending that the increase up-front cost of stainless steel be included in the project award
This project is seasonally constrained. Because of the heavier loading at the plant when Cal Poly is
in session and because the weather is critical to proper coating application, it is important to
complete this project during the dry months. The failure of the heat exchangers makes it important
to complete the project as soon as possible. For these reasons, staff does not feel it would be
beneficial to rebid the project in the hopes of getting better bids. Speiss Construction has worked
for the City before and has recently completed the repair of Digester #1. Staff is therefore
recommending that the project be awarded, including Alternatives 6A, 7A, 22A, and 22B, budget
amendments made as necessary and the project move forward as expeditiously as possible.
CONCURRENCES:
The Utilities Department is in agreement that this project should proceed as rapidly as possible and
that the use of Sewer Fund balance is appropriate.
FISCAL UAPACT:
This project is over budget but is necessary in order to provide needed services to the City. It was a
project created by an unexpected failure of the Digester and the budget was quickly determined
based on what information was available at the time. It requires supplemental funding from the
Sewer Fund balance and those fiords are available.
Expected Costs: Budeet:
Empty and Clean: $ 25,000 Original Budget: $150,000
Repair: $168,040 (clean&repair)
Equipment: $ 38,000 Additional funds
Contingencies: 18,960 from Sewer Fund balance: $100,000
Total Project: $250,000 Total Funds Available: $250,000
The sewer fund balance will continue to be in excess of the City's 20%policy level following this
appropriation.
ATTACHMENT:
Bid Summary
Contract
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: BP "VMMARY SHEET Page 1 of 1
Project: Water Reclamation Facilk. gester No.2 Repair Spec.No.:9749B
Bid Opening: 8/14/97 Estimated followvo dates:
Project Engineer.Barbara Lynch Award: . 9/2/97 Request for bonds/im: 9/5/97
Pre-job: 9/23/97
GINEER'S Speiss Construction
BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION 31STIMATE
JNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL
No. ITEM UNIT QUAN RICE PRICE PRICE PRICE
1 Remove/disposeofexisting LS 1 4000.00 $4,000.00 6000.00 $6,000.00
2 Sandblast interior M2 675 35.00 S23,625.001 56.00 $37,800.00
3lnteriorcrack seal M2 12 100.00 $1,200.00 85.00 $1,020.00
4 Exterior crack seal M2 5 100.00 $500.00 85.00 $425.00
5 Coat interior M2 675 50.00 $33,750.00 78.00 $52,650.00
6 Sandblast plates M2 6 200.00 $1,200.00 500.00 $3,000.00
7 Coat plates M2 6 60.00 $360.00 137.00 $822.00
8 Remove/reinstall gas diffuser IS 1 1000.001 $1,000.00 3300.00 $3,300.00
9 75mm stainless pTe-gas M 11.5 300.00 $3,450.00 340.00 $3,910.00
10 50mm stainless pipe-gas M 0.5 200.00 $100.00 990.00 $495.00
11 I OOmm gale pipe-gas M 3.5 200.00 $700.00 240.00 5840.00
12 100mmpvcpipe-gas M 7.5 150.00 $1,125.00 190.00 $1,425.00
13 65mm gals pipe-gas M 2.5 200.00 $500.00 300.00 5750.00
14 40mm pvc pipe-3w M 15.5 75.00 $1,162.50 110.00 51,705.00
IS 25mmpvcpipe/hosebib-3w EA 2 100.00 $200.00 210.00 $420.00
16 Sludge/digesterinterface LS 1 1000.00 51,000.00 1500.00 $1,500.00
17 100mm pvc pipo-studge M 12.5 200.00 $2,500.00 130.00 $1,625.00
18 25/40mm pvc pipe-drain M 19 75.00 51,425.00 85.00 $1,615.00
19 65mm gals pipe-hot water M 22 100.00 $2,200.00 100.00 $2,200.00
20 Modify electrical connection LS 1 350.00 5350.00 400.00 5400.00
21 City furnished materials LS 1 4000.00 $4,000.00 3700.00 $3,700.00
H25
Heat exchanger/plate EA 10000.00 $20,000.00 10050.00 $20,100.00
Replace clean bobs LS 1 2000.00 $2,000.00 700.00 $700.00
Phue modification LS 1 500.00 5500.00 300.00 $300.00
Digester testing LS 1 1000.00 $1,000.00 1500.00 $1,500.00
Comply with OSHA LS 1 3000.00 $3,000.00 1000.001 $1,000.00
TOTAUI I $110,847.50 5149,202.00
ALTERNATEENGINEER'S Speiss Construction
BID ITEM&DESCRIPTION ESTIMATE
IT TOTAL IT TOTAL
No. ITEM UNIT QUAN PRICE PRICE RICE PRICE
2A Sandblast interior M2 260 30.00 57,800.00 122.00 $31.720.00
5A Coat interior M2 260 30.00 $7,800.00 26.00 $6,760.00
22A Stainless heat exchanger EA 2 15000.00 $30,000.00 18380.00 $36,760.00
22B New stainless bolts 11.s 111
6000.00 $6,000.00 1600.00 $1,600.00
6A Stainless dome plate LS 2000.00 $2,000.00 2600.00 $2,600.00
7A New stainless bolts LS 4000.00 $4,000.00 1800.001 $1,800.00
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this day of , 19_, by and between
the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, hereinafter called the
Owner, and Spiess Construction Co.. Inc., hereinafter called the Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be
performed, shall provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools,
expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required to complete all
the work of construction of
Water Reclamation Facility Digester#2 Repair Specification No 97-498
in strict accordance with the plans and specifications therefor, including. any and all
Addenda, adopted by the Owner, in strict compliance with the Contract Documents
hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished
and said work performed and completed under the direction and supervision and subject
to the approval of the Owner or its authorized representatives.
ARTICLE II, CONTRACT PRICE: The owner shall pay the Contractor as full
consideration for the faithful performance of this Contract, subject to any additions or
deductions as provided in the Contract Documents,the contract prices as follows:
Item Item Unit of Estimated Item Price Total
No. Measure Quantity (in figures) (in figures)
1. Remove/disposeof existing LS 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
2 Sandblast Interior M2 675 $56.00 $37,800.00
3 Interior crack seal M2 12 $85.00 $1,020.00
4. Exterior crack seal M2 5 $85.00 $425.00
5. Coat interior M2 675 $78.00 $52,650.00
6A. Stainless dome plate LS 1 $2,600.00 $2,600.00
7A. New stainless bolts LS 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00
8. Remove/reinstallgas diffuser LS 1 $3,300.00 $3,300.00
9. 75mm stainless pipe-gas M 11.5 $340.00 $3,910.00
10. 50mm stainless pipe-gas M 0.5 $990.00 $495.00
11. 1 00m gaiv pipe-gas M 3.5 $240.00 $840.00
12. 100mm pvc pipe-gas M 7.5 $190.00 $1,425.00
13. 65 mm galv pipe-gas M 2.5 $300.00 $750.00
14. 40mm pvc pipe 3w M 15.5 $110.00 $1,705.00
15. 25mm pvc/hosebib-3w EA 2 $210.00 $420.00
16. Sludge/digesterinterface LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
17. 1 00m pvc pipe-sludge M 12.5 $130.00 $1,625.00
18. 25/40mm pvc pipe-drain M 19 $85.00 $1,615.00
19. 65mm galy pipe-hot M 22 $100.00 $2,200.00
20. Modify electrical connection LS 1 $400.00 $400.00
21. City fumished materials LS 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00
22A. Stainless heat exchanger EA 2 $18,380.00 $36,760.00
22B. New stainless bolts LS 1 $1,600.00 $1,600.00
23. Replace dean bolts LS 1 $700.00 $700.00
24. Plate modification LS 1 $300.00 $300.00
25. Digestertesting LS 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
26. Comply with OSHA LS 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
TOTAL: $168,040.00
BID TOTAL: $ 168.040.00
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in accordance with and subject to the
provisions embodied in the documents made a part of this Contract:
- 2 - �'-� -S
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted, or of any extra
work which the Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment
to the Contractor, during the performance of this Contract, said dispute shall be decided
by the Owner and its decision shall be final, and conclusive.
ARTICLE III, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the
following documents,all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, if not
attached, as if hereto attached:
1. Notice to Contractors and information for bidders.
2. Contract General Conditions and Technical Specifications.
3. Accepted Proposal.
4. Public Contract code Section 10285:1 Statement and 10162 Questionnaire.
5. Noncollusion Declaration.
6. Plans.
7. List of Subcontractors.
8. Agreement and Bonds.
9. Insurance Requirements and Forms.
ARTICLE IV. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should
there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the bid or proposal of said
Contractor,then this instrument shall control and nothing herein shall be considered as an
acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands
this year and date first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
A Municipal Corporation
City Administrative Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
7"01 Spiess Construction Co., Inc.