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