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