Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 038-1998RESOLUTION NO, 38-98 AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERMCO ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT DESIGN & MANAGEMENT OF CALIFORNIA SEWER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 9609 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. The City Clerk is hereby ordere I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20thday of APRIL , 1998, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GALL I GAN, KNIGHT, O' MAHONY, SP I NELL I NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JANNEY ity Clerk AMENDMENT NO 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERMCO ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 9609 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into this _ day of , 1998, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and PERMCO ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT," WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT have previously entered into an agreement for certain services, said agreement being dated FEBRUARY 3, 1997; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties to amend said agreement as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amendment of Agreement Said agreement dated FEBRUARY 3, 1997 is hereby amended to include those revisions in services and compensation set forth in EXHIBIT "A", attached hereto. and effect. 2. In all other respects said agreement dated FEBRUARY 3, 1997 shall remain in full force IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME A municipal corporation 2 City Manager Permco Engineering & Management Approved as to form: City Attorney 3 PERMCO ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT March 27, 1998 Mr. Donald Chang City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Re: California Drive Interceptor Sewer City Project No, 9609 Request for Amendment to Contract Dear Donald: OR 1 1998 DEP. OF Ptfc. UC CITY OF 8Ui LWJG� $1S S As you are aware, the design and bidding portion of our contract ran substantially over the original estimated budget due to additional tasks that were required during the design process and the expansion of the scope of work. The original approved contract amount was $457,483. Of that, the original budget for pre - construction work totaled $326,279, which included $131,418 for gathering background information, analysis and modification of the preliminary design, $190,789 for the preparation of construction documents, and $4,072 for assistance during the bidding phase. The final cost for the pre -construction work totaled approximately $430,000 or $103,721 over the original budget. As requested, we have prepared the attached spreadsheet showing the man-hours and costs by task for these phases. The particular tasks that significantly exceeded the original budget were: Id) Field surveys, potholing $17,578 le) Verify capacities/determine sizing $ 9,800 2a) Construction document preparation $78,655 2c) Construction permitting $ 3,752 3a) Bidding assistance $ 5,910 The cost overrun for Item 1 d, Field surveys and potholing, was due to the increase in the amount of microtunneling (additional pit locations that had to be investigated), the television inspection of the existing lines in Broadway and Rollins, and the mis-marking of utilities (particularly in Rollins Road as caught during the pre-bid walk-thru) that required additional potholing. The cost overrun for Item le, Verify capacities/determine sizing, was due to discrepancies between the City base maps and actual field conditions that required additional field visits, additional modeling to duplicate measured field conditions during certain storm events, and the expansion of the area of study to include California Drive all the way to Trousdale as an alternate to the Roll ins-Marsten Bypass proposed in the original studies. 6251 CENTER STREET 0 CLAYTON, CALIFORNIA 94517 • 510/672-4590 0 FAX 510/672-2959 Mr. Donald Chang March 27, 1998 Page 2 of 2 The largest overrun, of course, was for Item 2a, Construction document preparation. The majority of these cost related to increases in the scope of the project (increasing the run in California Drive from Rosedale to Trousdale; addition of sliplining and pipeline replacement work on Broadway and Rollins; additional microtunneling on California Drive due to an existing box culvert). The dealings with the JPB for the crossing of the Caltrain tracks required the relocation of the pits on Cadillac Way as well as the preparation of a plan and specifications for installation of a casing pipe and insertion of the new sewer. The casing pipe plan was then removed during the bidding process when the JPB dropped the casing requirement. The Item 2c, Construction permitting, overrun was due to the additional permits required from Caltrans for the sliplining and pipe replacement work, as well as the additional dealing with JPB that was required due to their original insistence upon a casing pipe instead of allowing the microtunneling. The cost overrun for Item 3a, Bidding Assistance, was caused by the need to re- bid the project due to the original low bidder having an unqualified microtunneling subcontractor. These overruns were slightly offset by savings in the other items of work leaving the total overrun for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the contract at $103,721, as stated above. When we prepared the budget for the construction management and inspection phase of the project, we assumed a construction period of 120 days. The additional microtunneling and pipe repair (sliplining and replacement) have extended the construction period to 150 working days. It appears that the contractor will require the entire allowable working period which, in turn, will make the original budget of $131,200 inadequate. Also, the increase in microtunneling length may necessitate additional input from Woodward -Clyde for submittal reviews and consultation. For a worse case scenario, we recommend budgeting an additional $60,000 for construction management and inspection. This would bring the total contract amount to $621,000, thereby requiring a contract amendment in the amount of $163,517 ($621,000 - $457,483). Based upon a percentage of construction cost basis, the final contract costs would break down as follows: Preliminary Engineering: $166,700 or 4.1% Design Engineering: $253,000 or 6.2% Bidding: $ 10,000 or 0.2% Construction Management: $191,000 or 4.6% Totals $621,000 or 15.1% Please consider this a formal request for an amendment to our contract to cover these expended and anticipated costs. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely,� Rick Angrisani, P.E. Principal