Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2001, BUS 9 - AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT DOWNTOWN TRANSFER CENTER council December 11,2001 j aGEnda Pepoat 1�Numb� 849 CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Michael D. McCluskey,Director of Public Works Prepared By: Tim Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works jyw SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT DOWNTOWN TRANSFER CENTER CAO RECOMMENDATION: Approve a contract with Burke Construction to construct the Downtown Transfer Center (Specification No. 99267) in the amount of $713,880 and authorize the CAO to execute the contract. DISCUSSION On March 13, 2001 the City Council authorized staff to bid and award the Downtown Transfer Center project if the construction cost received was less than the consultant project architect's estimate of$727,000. Additionally, the City Council authorized staff to delete the provision of on- street planned restrooms, if needed, in order to achieve the approved budget. If either case did not meet the budget objectives, the issue must return to the City Council with staff recommendations for resolution. Bids were received on October 30, 2001. Burke Construction was low bid with a total construction cost df$851,880. This number was obviously over the architect's bid estimate of $727,000. In anticipation that bid results may be in excess of both funding and the architect's estimate, staff not only included the restroom deductive as a bid alternative but also included another deductive—the elimination of decorative concrete pavers for the intersection of Palm and Osos Street. By including this deductive alternative in the bid package, staff believed we would have greater flexibility in obtaining a doable project if the construction costs again were higher than expected. As reported in the March 2001 Council Report, these aesthetic improvements are important for tying in the various public buildings at this intersection and assist in creating a "place" for the transit layover area - but are not an absolute necessity to the transit project. These aesthetic improvements are not integral to the transit project from a functional standpoint and can be done at a later time. After reviewing the bid results, staff's concerns regarding the high cost of construction were realized. Implementing the deduction of the restroom component alone did not result in bids less than that approved by the Council. Only by implementing both deductives could the bid amount be less than that approved. The primary source of funding for this project is Federal Transit Administration capital grant monies (Section 5307). Therefore, deletion of the brick pavers in addition to the restrooms is an obvious recommendation in order to complete the transit project. However, since the Council did not authorize the second deductive, staff is returning to Council for further direction. BUS 9-1 Council Agenda Report—DTC construction project award Page 2 Finally, in order to reduce the likelihood of substantial construction delays or disruptions to the reconstruction of the City Hall parking lot(due to inclement weather), staff has structured the bid so that construction of the project will not actually commence until after the rainy season in late March or early April of 2002. One change that the Council did ask for staff to review and include, if possible, at the March meeting was retaining existing curb and gutter as an integral design element within the project. It had not been designed that way and it was thought that when the DTC on Osos was abandoned for a more permanent one north of Santa Rosa (NARF — Transit), the on-street pedestrian improvements could be eliminated and parking restored with the existing curb and gutter intact. An in-depth design analysis revealed that the existing curb and gutter was incompatible due to a combination of street drainage needs and existing sidewalk grades. Building new curb and gutter to the new elevations is possible but when/if the DTC is abandoned would not remain because street improvements would need to return to its original elevation. Assuming that a new Transit site does get built someday,a major bus turnout/stop facility along City Hall will still be a necessity and most of the proposed improvements could therefore remain in place. CONCURRENCES The project has received NEPA and CEQA environmental review and has approval from the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). The project received Architectural Review Commission approval in March 1999. FISCAL IMPACT Project Fnnding Federal Transit Administration Grant $600,000 Transportation Development Act(TDA) $125,000 General Fund(Design Services) $35,000 General Fund(Parking Lot Reconstruction) $79,000 Total Project Budget: $8399000 Of this amount, $39,000 has been spent for design services with Insite Design, Inc. to prepare the plans, specifications and estimates. To date,Council has appropriated the remaining$ 800,000 for construction of the project. Construction Budget: $727,000 Contingency(10%): %73,000 $800,000 BUS 9-2 Council Agenda Report—DTC construction project award Page 3 Constmction Low-Rid Amount Birk . Constrn .tion) Total Bid Estimate $851,880 Restroom Deductive Alternative 1 <$96,000> Intersection Improvements Deductive Alternative 2 <$42.000> Total Bid minus Alt. 1 &Alt.2: $713,880 Note:For full bid results please see Attachment 1. Therefore the revised construction budget for the staff recommendation is: Construction Budget: $713,880 Contingency(12%): $x6,1 an $800,000 It is important that a construction contingency amount be maintained for the project. The revised contingency is 12% of project costs, which like the originally approved budget, is at the lower end of contingencies percentages for similar projects. ALTERNATIVES Multiple alternatives are possible and are discussed further. Where the"CII'Reserve"is referenced, it is important to note that this is a General Fund resource with a. current funding balance of $400,000. A. Re-bid. The bids could be rejected and the project could be re-bid to test the current or future markets at a later time. However, there is no indication that re-bidding of the project would absolutely lower costs and time delays that may result could jeopardize FTA funds if the project is delayed further. B. Award the pmierj without the resstroombut include the aesthetic improvements for the intersectinn of nsos and Palm Street_ This alternative would require that an additional $31,468 ($713,880 + $42,000 + 10% contingency = $831,468) of CIP reserve monies be budgeted to the project. The actual amount of necessary CIP reserve monies needed to complete this alternative would be dependent on how much contingency is needed during construction. If contingencies are kept low, there may be enough funding in the current budget to complete this alternative and all remaining funds could be then returned to the CIP reserve upon completion of the project. C. Award the project with the restronms but without the sesth .ti . imTmvements for the intersection of 6sos and Palm Street This alternative is similar to Alternative B except that the restrooms would be constructed. This alternative would require that an additional $90,868 ($713,880 + $96,000 + 10% contingency = $890,868) of CIP reserve monies be budgeted to the project. The amount of necessary CEP reserve monies needed to complete this alternative would be dependent on how much contingency is needed during construction but at a minimum, if no contingencies are used (which is not likely), would require an additional $9,880 ($713,880 +96,000 = 809,880) expenditure to complete the BUS 9-3 Council Agenda Report—DTC construction project award Page 4 project. Similar to above, any remaining contingency amount at the end of the project could be returned to the CIP reserve. D. Award theproject in total- —This alternative would build the entire project. This alternative would require that an additional $137,068 ($713,880 + $42,000 + $96,000 + 10 % contingency= $937,068) of CII' reserve monies be budgeted to the project. The amount of CIP Reserve monies necessary to complete this alternative would be dependent on how much contingency is needed during construction but at a minimum,if no contingencies are used (which is not likely), would require an additional $51,880 ($713,880 + $42,000 + $96,000 = $851,880) expenditure to complete the project. Similar to above, any remaining contingency amount at the end of the project could be returned to the CIP reserve. E. Decide not to build the DTC project. This alternative would delete the project from the City's CIP program and shelve the current plans and specifications. The City is utilizing $600,000 from a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 Grant in 1998 for the construction of the Downtown Transit Center. Staff has again consulted with FTA to determine if these funds could be reprogrammed for other projects. FTA has now indicated that there may be some small flexibility in the use of these monies. Should the City choose not to proceed with this project, the FTA funds allocated to the DTC, may not be lost only if the Council amends it's 1998 grant application and diverts these funds to one of the approved projects included in that grant: a) purchase of additional transit support vehicles, b) signal and communications equipment, and/or c) bus stop improvements. This reprogramming approval is subject to FTA authorization and as such, there is no absolute assurance that the reprogramming will occur. Likewise, any remaining local match required of Transit Development Act (TDA) funds ($150,000) could also be diverted to these projects or other transit related projects. Attachments Attachment 1: Construction Bid Sheet Attachment 2: Site Plan 1:\Council Agenda Reports\)TC construction project award.doc BUS 9-4 _ o00 0 ATTACHMENT 1 O h N Q 00 4n O .� 7 00 P1 O C 00 W N 00 O Q G7 P `D d Fri F V w � w w c U T m O) z 0 0 o c Oo, h O O %o o F U w 0 4 C O O O U [st z a 0 0 0 0 d o o m � a n � - o`�. U 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 Cc 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C h ce c p .0 z CL G ¢ 49 W F a o Yo U L U a 3 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rz t� oo v oo �o r t en 0 E. w ar- A n U � a r7 e � V Q ami y u ZO O $ a .] r p = m F Q dS z o o a o F !a o p3 Y SI , L II Vi y0 C i F g o � F ` FF- BUS 9-5 V a m d z �I K UR 1 N- ©_�_�AlMEN S'•i ���I�JN rY'J...`�i'�J3a.�5 •i% �tla..+.Y �,='C. � f` I: . .+ Q�� ]moi—� ,,��1 I,•���'M �l 7 �-vim 32 3 m- .4 MEN Ll �ti�.�r�• � �77�5S5'.SS..;. t. ..: