Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 102-1998RESOLUTION NO. 102-98 AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WOODWARD-CLYDE-INTERNATIONAL-AMERICAS PHASE II (TOP DECK CLOSURE) CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES CITY PROJECT NO. 9117 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. 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. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered an 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 23rd day of September, 1998, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GALLIGAN, JANNEY, KNIGHT, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: > - u' -Deputy City Clerk AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES W OODWARD-CLYDE-INTERNATIONAL-AMERICAS CITY PROJECT NO. 9117 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 WOODWARD-CLYDE-INTERNATIONAL-AMERICAS, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT," WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT have previously entered into an agreement for certain services, said agreement being dated ; 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 is hereby amended to include those revisions in services and compensation set forth in EXHIBIT "A", attached hereto. effect. 2. In all other respects said agreement dated shall remain in full force and IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME A municipal corporation City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk f..\pbwksdir\projecl \agr=end. fil Approved as to form: City Attorney Consultant 01 Woodward -Clyde qW Engineering & sciences applied to the earth & Its environment September 2, 1998 941074NC Mr. Frank Erbacher, P.E. City Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Subject: Project Scope Changes and Budget Increase Request #2 Phase H Closure Construction Services City of Burlingame Landfill, Burlingame, California City Project No. 9117(1) WCI-A Project No. 941074NC Dear Mr. Erbacher: As you are aware, the extensive winter rains, construction scope increases and contractor cost recovery requests have again caused increased construction management (CM) time to be spent on the project. The original project budget was set up based on the anticipated length of construction and working hours noted within the project bid documents. Our first budget increase request addressed requested additional work by Woodward -Clyde (W -C) related to additional work items in the construction contract. This second budget increase request addresses the additional CM time needed to address additional construction work items as well as to support the City in decisions relating to a cost recovery request for winter work by the Contractor. This letter is to document the scope changes and their effects on the project budget as well as to request additional funding to cover the scope changes. SCOPE CHANGES In general, the scope changes fall into the following categories: • inspectionsicoordination over winter; • additional contractor working days due to scope increases and difficulties performing the work; • increased documentation required for two closure certifications; and • construction close-out. Woodward -Clyde International -Americas C.�Ak26udfnc.dm 500 12th Street, Suite 200 • Oakland, California 94607-4014 (510)893-3600 • Fax(510)874-3268 Woodward -Clyde Mr. Frank Erbacher, P.E. September 2, 1998 Page 2 Inmections/Coordination During Winter Due to conditions documented in the first budget increase request, the project was not finished before winter. Additional CM, PM and CQA time was expended during the weather down-time to coordinate site erosion/drainage issues as well as clearing up contracting, change order and invoicing issues to be ready for project restart when the weather clears. At the time of the first budget increase request (early January) it was anticipated that this time would average 12 CM, 4 PM and 2 technician hours per week for 24 weeks. In mid-January it appeared that the contractor's storm water prevention measures were not sufficient for the extensive winter rains. At that time the City requested that W -C perform additional inspections and coordination of storm water issues. In addition, in a letter dated 3/19/98 the Contractor requested compensation for a long list of items relative to the winter delays to the project. At the City's request, W -C attended meetings, provided documentation and brought in an internal expert for opinions regarding this request. Since it was requested that this issue be resolved after construction is complete, additional time to resolve this issue is noted under construction close-out. Responding to the additional stormwater and Contractor compensation issues were not anticipated at the time of our first budget increase request. These resulted in an additional 104 hours of CM time, 71 hours of PM time and 54 hours of technician time over what was anticipated in late 1997. Expenses were also slightly higher, mainly associated with site travel. Task 1000 (CM) cost: 104 CM hours + $100 = $13,600 Task 2000 (CQA) cost: 71 PM hours + 54 technician hours + $200 = $14,600 TOTAL COST = $28,200 Additional Contractor Working Days A number of work items were added to the Contractor's scope of work over the winter. These included the redesign work on the site entrance, revisions to the chipping/putting area, adjustments to the south side of the soccer field, constructing manifolds for several of the LFG condensate traps and lowering many of the LFG boxes. These work items increased the anticipated CM time and increased the design work to be done in support of these changes. In addition, near the end of the project the contractor has had a number of difficulties correctly performing the work. This resulted in many CM and CQA hours identifying problems, discussing solution options and testing the redone work. Specifically these included the subgrade pumping in the parking lot, the re -excavation and replacement of the driveway, the insufficient Woodward -Clyde Mr. Frank Erbacher, P.E. September 2, 1998 Page 3 heights of the parking lot berms and the insufficient sand in the soccer practice area. All except the sand in the practice area have now been resolved. The contractor removed the trailer from the site June 30, anticipating that the work was nearly complete. All of these problems were encountered after the trailer was removed. Had these problems occurred while other work was being done, the CM and CQA would have been much more efficient. Because this work dragged on, the contractor had little work being done, but still needed periodic inspections. The inspections were often covered by the CM to keep the project moving. In addition, the CM had to try to find office space at the wastewater treatment plant and the City, had to constantly move to accommodate needs for that space, and had to make most coordination calls on a cellular phone. This was a very inefficient way to work and it lasted for 5 weeks between when the trailer was removed and the contractor reached substantial completion. In our first budget increase request we assumed that the field work would begin early May and take 4 to 6 weeks, finishing early June. The field work began April 22 and was considered substantially completed on July 31, 14.5 weeks later. The additional inspection and testing for the practice area sand should take about a half -week. This is about 9 weeks longer than anticipated in January. CM time in support of this work has been averaging 50 manhours (including travel time) and $150 expenses a week for this work plus an extra $100 per week for cellular phone use for the 5 weeks without a construction trailer, totaling 450 hours and $1900 for the extra work and construction delays. Since the CM covered most of the additional inspections, there was no additional technician time over what had previously been estimated. Coordinating the redesign of the entrance driveway took a large amount of designer hours (120), mainly because we were working with incomplete as -built information. Task 1000 (CM) cost: 450 CM hours + $1900 = $60,400 Task 3000 (design) cost: 120 designer hours = $10,200 TOTAL COST = $70,600 Additional Certification Documentation In his letter commenting on the parking lot development plans, Greg Schirle of the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health requested that a certification report be prepared for the parking lot work only. A certification report for the remainder of the topdeck will be required when that work is complete. It is anticipated that he will also request that the certification report for the topdeck be submitted before development begins. We have put off doing this in an inefficient manner by calling a certification of compliance letter the certification Woodward -Clyde Mr. Frank Erbacher, P.E. September 2, 1998 Page 4 report, with the backup documentation coming as an addendum to that report. However doing two reports takes more time than one and one report was what was anticipated. The budget for this task (Task 4000) was $10,600 for one report. It is anticipated that the second report will take an additional 20 hours PM time, 20 hours CM time, 10 hours technician time, 10 hours word processing time and $400 in copying ant other expenses. Task 4000 (Report) cost: 20 PM hrs + 20 CM hrs + 10 tech hrs + 10 WP hrs + $400 = $7,000 Construction Close -Out There are two major items that need to be taken care of at the end of the construction work. These are finalizing the documentation on the project change orders, including the final pay quantities, and negotiations for contractor payment over the winter. As noted above, the contractor has requested a number of items for work during the winter months for which they feel they should be compensated. The CM has documented information in support of the City's negotiations of the contractor's request. At the City's request, this negotiation was put off until the project was complete and the final pay quantities agreed upon. The CM has been finalizing the change order documentation and the contractor has provided calculations of material quantities. W -C has met with the contractor to discuss these and is currently checking all pay quantity calculations in support of the final project invoice. With time already spent and time estimated to be spent, we anticipate there will be 100 CM hours on this work and 80 staff engineer hours to finalize the change orders, check the pay quantities and document the negotiating strategy. No PM hours are anticipated for this as the CM has the necessary information. The negotiations are ongoing, but are anticipated to be settled soon, without litigation. Should litigation be necessary, additional PM, CM and staff time may be needed. This would be done only at the City's request. Task 1000 (CM) 120 hours + $200 = $15,800 Task 3000 (design) 80 staff hours = $6,800 $22,600 REQUESTED ADDTTIONAL BUDGET The cost for this additional effort is estimated at $128,400. A spreadsheet with how this amount is applied to the project task budgets is attached. Woodward -Clyde Mr. Frank Erbacher, P.E. September 2, 1998 Page 5 IN CLOSING This letter documents the additional costs estimated to complete this project. The additional costs are based on the additional work performed to date and providing CM/PM/CQA/design support during the final construction. As always, we will only have personnel working on the project as needed to provide the level of support necessary to minimize construction costs and certify conformance with the Closure Plan. All payments will be on a time and materials basis, therefore we will only charge for actual time spent on these tasks, to a maximum amount approved by the City. We thank you for the opportunity to work with the City on this project and for your understanding of the changes in project scope and budget If there is further documentation we can provide, please don't hesitate to ask. Sincerely, Linda J. Locke, P.E. Project Manager Attachment: Table 1 - Estimated Additional Costs Woodward -Clyde TABLE 1 - PROPOSED BUDGET INCREASE #2 TIME AND MATERIALS ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE CITY OF BURLING.AME LANDFILL- PHASE 2 CLOSURE City Proect Na. 9117 0) - W -C Pro ect No.941074NC Position Name ORIGINAL Total Cost. Budget Increase No. t 1/981ncreased Budget. PROPOSED Additional Hours PROPOSED Additional. Budget PROPOSED 9/98 Increased Budget CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ask 1000 Pre-constructlon I Don Landeck $10,400 $0 $10,400 0 $0 Dunna construction I Don Landeck $65,DD0 $89700 $154700 554 $72,020 1 Don Landeck $5,200 $0 $5,200 120 $15,600 Other Char es Truck Use $3000 $0 $3,000 $2200 Communication/computers $3,000 $1,700 $4700 $86,600 $91,400 1 $178,000 $89,800 $267,800 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE ask 2000 COA Orgcer/Proed Mgr Linda Locke $52,700 $37,500 1 $100,200 71 $9,9DO Oversight Reviewer Bill Bischoff $2,500 $0 1 $2 500 CQATeam Richard Kress $11,200 $33,000 $44,200 54 $4,500 Stacey Ball $40,500 $0 $40,500 Mike Carroll ins on rate $4,300 $3,000 $7,300 Laboratory Testinq (City cast of one set of tests per material 8 one test fill from attached sheet $8,300 $4,000 $12,300 Other Cha es MbNe (Locke, Kress and Cal $2,000 $2,400 $4,400 1 $200 Truck Rental Ball $6,000 to$6,000 Loader & c r for SFO da $18 900 $16,000 $2,900 Field Densily Testing E ui me $1,700 $1,700 'SDRI (elm fieldmm) Testim $1000 $1,000 communication/com eters S4,WD 1 $4800 $163,900 $63,900 $227,800 $14,500 $242,400 DESIGN SUPPORT Task 3000 Grading/Piping Allen de Slel uer $6,700 $500 $6,200 Designer $19,000 $51100 $13,900 200 $17,000 LFG Mike Carroll $1,400 $7000 $8,400 Others as needed $6,900 1 $0 $6,900 Omer Cha es communicatioNcom uters $1,400 $0 $1,400 $35,400 $1,400 $36.800 $t7,0DD $531800' CERTIFICATION REPORT Crask 4000 Linda Locke $2,800 $0 $2,800 20 $2800 Don Landeck $3900 $0 $3,900 20 $2600 Sta Belt $t.2DD $0$i,200 r0 $800 Dra tin $1,700 $0 $1,700 $0 Word Processing/Re $600 $0 $500 10 $600 Omer ChargesI communmation/com uters $400 $0 $400 $q00 $10,Wu $0 $10,600 $7,000 $17,800 I $296 500 $156 700 AMENDMENT #1 TOTAL BUDGET $453,200 SECOND BUDGET INCREASE $128,400 AMENDMENT #2 TOTAL BUDGET $581 600