Loading...
301-CPH-Fee Adjustments Conkiln, Porter and Holmes SANFORD, FLORJD A 32772-2808 TEL 407-322-6841 TEL 407-831-5717 FAX #4~7-3~0'0639 Ianuary 11, 1995 Mr. William A. Simmons, P.E. ~ City Manager 1 Z 1995 City of Sanford P O Box 1778 Sanford, Florida 32772-1778 L~i'P/OF S~HFOt~D Re: Engineering Fee - Designated Seminole Towne Center Projects S0613.01 Construction Setvices / Developer Improvements - Amendment 11 S0613.02 Construction Setvices / CRA Improvements - Amendment 11 S0613.05 I4/SR46 Rebidding as a Unit Price Contract S0613.04 Construction Setvices (Const Admin & Inspection) On F4/SR 46 Dear Mr. Simmons: As required by our contracts and as previously discussed, we are writing to advise the City that we have, are currently, or will sustain additional costs beyond our current contract amounts on the four divisions of the Seminole Towne Center projects as identified above. The subject divisions of the overall project involved are: Job No. Authorization Construction Services Description 30613.01 Amendment I1 Temporary Access Road from SR 46 to the entrance to the Mall; construction of which was contracted for by a Developer change order. 30613.02 Amendment 11 Remaining roadways, stoma drainage and utilities, including Towne Center Boulevard, St. Johns Parkway and North Towne Road, which are being contracted for construction by the CRA. This work excludes the I-4 and S.R. 46 work. 30613.05 Verbal Authorization Relating to I-4/S.R. 46 Rebidding as a unit price contract. Amendment 13 acknowledged on our Invoice of 7/25/94 30613.04 Amendment 13 Construction Administration and Inspection Services 1-4 and SR 46 Roadway Improvements Discussion: S0613.01 - Amendment 11 - Temporary Access Road - and 66" Drainage Outlet This project, involving the temporary access road and major drainage outlet to Smith Canal, was contracted for as a change order to Amick's construction contract with the developer. Our finn provided construction administration services and inspection for the CRA. When our proposal (Amendment 11) was prepared, it was based on a construction period of 3 to 5 weeks (as we were advised by the construction manager for the developer). It actually took Amick 11 weeks to complete this work. This extended construction period required significantly more inspection, supervision/direction, pay request processing, meetings, etc. on our part, as the cost of construction services directly relates to the length of time it takes the contractor to complete the work. Difficulty was also experienced on this project because the contractor was basically working for the developer and additional time and effort was required by CPH staff in getting the contractor to pay attention to CRA construction inspection and control. We also provided inspection of utility construction on the actual mall property at the request of the City but not included in our original plan of study and estimate. There was considerable difficulty with the soils and testing firm (Mortenson) as to tests, reporting procedures, and related matters on the quality control testing, resulting in extra time and costs not anticipated for the l~roject. This project is now complete and has been closed for further charges. S0613.02 - Amendment 11 - Remaining roadway's, storm drainage and utilities. including Towne Center Boulevard. St..|ohns ParkWay and North Towne Road The bidding of this project work was completed, an award made and construction is currently underway. There was, however, a long delay in awarding the work and late start (both pre and post bid) in initiating construction of Towne Center Boulevard, St..~rohns Parkway and North Towne Road during which time we incurred significant charges which are inherent with such delays including coordination and meetings with all parties including the developer and his engineers, contractors, regulatory agencies, FDOT and the City. There also was a bid protest by Hubbard of the low bid of Amick, and considerable extra engineering costs were incurred on this issue. Also contributing to additional costs were material submissions and substitutions and changes not anticipated in our original Plan of Study. Additional services were also provided in connection with this project including the modification of the standard agreement contract language in order to allow the CRA to assign the contract to the Developer; the review of the lighting plans which was not included in the original scope of work; and generally in coordination and inspection over what was originally planned including meetings and coordination with the City, PEC and initial discussions with the Developer for the Gateway project. Also, there was a mathematical (extension) error in our Plan of Study (attached to Amendment 11) which formed the basis of our estimate of the engineering fee for the scope of services described. By way of explanation, we anticipated 20 hours/week of construction inspector time as stated in the Agreement and P1 an of Study with proportionate supervision, direction and construction administration services to support that amount of inspection. The written Section 2 - Scope of Construction Related Services (specifically paragraph 2.3.2-1) calls out the 20 hours per week. The "extension" error occurred in the Plan of Study Attachment where we only calculated a total of 160 hours for construction inspection personnel for the entire job. The construction period allowed in the Documents was 39 weeks (270 days), which at the stated rate of 20 hours/weak, would result in 780 manhours total for the project instead of the 160 allotted for the inspection category alone. Another continuing extra that is being incurred is a great mount of extra coordination on utility matters including Florida Power, the gas company, Southern Bell, lighting and landscaping/irrigation systems, and Seminole County water and sewer facilities. In addition to the extra coordination, there have been major utility conflicts caused by utilities found in the field not being in the location shown on the plans, PEC's plan omissions on utilities, resolution of conflicts and omissions and change orders required. Two examples include the existing Seminole County 16" forcemain on the south end of Towne Center Boulevard and their Water and 8" forcemain at or adjacent to SR 46. There also have been significant erosion/siltation problems that continue with the contractor and the St. Johns River Water Management District and trying to get the contractor to do a better job and at the same time discuss and try to resolve problems that have occurred with the SJRWMD. We are not satisfied with the contractor's performance in this area and look for continuing problems with him and the SJRWMD on this subject. Not included in our original Plan of Study scope of work was preparation of front end documents for the irrigation/landscaping plans prepared by City Staff. We also were asked to review these plans, had meetings on the subject and gave advice to City Staff on these matters. In the field it has been determined that there was a lot more muck and poor soils existing than shown by either Mortenson's soils work or the PEC plans. We indicated this was a likely problem in our first reviews of the soils work and PEC plans. Much wetter groundwater conditions and soils are being found as well as the need for more road underdrains as previously indicated. This is now being confirmed by Universal and o.thers. There has been an unseasonably large amount of rainfall this year (67" through November 21) which has made the situation even worse. We also believe that the use of fill for the embankments utilizing a relatively high fines content (up to 15%) allowed and furnished very close to this limit along with the wet weather and heavy truck construction traffic has resulted in pumping of water and fine materials upward to the surface of the roadway in a number of locations. The issue of suitable materials and methods has resulted in additional inspection and administration costs. In addition to initial exploratory meetings with Gateway Development, we have been involved in considerable additional coordination, meetings, review and advice to the City, Gateway and their engineers on the site plan work as well as the substantial changes that have become necessary to the north part of Towne Center Boulevard and essentially all of St. Johns Parkway with PEC on roadway and utility plans. These changes included the need for Mditional road right-of-way occasioned by the new Gateway development project proceeding at this time. There has also been considerable extra time that was required by several changes in the sequencing and scheduling of Amick's construction work including requesting information, meetings on the subject and review of the information when received. Conkiln, Porter and Holmes SANFORD, FLORIDA 32772-2808 TEL 407-3226841 TEL 407-831-5711 FAX #407-330-0639 We comj~ue to be concerned regarding Amlck's quality of construction, pollution abatement measures, scheduling and sequencing of constructiou and their finishing the work satisfactorily a~d ou time. We need to meet with you and the MSA representatives ou this matter. We have regularly attempted to redire~ct our personreel to not be as responsive to requests for sezvices, j~spectioas, meetings, etc. from others except the City. We also have regularly attempted to redirect our persom~el's time and Lnvoivement at a lower rate and reduced scope ia order to attempt to reduce the size of the overage ou this part of the overall project which still has a coaalderable time to go until completiou with much work and ma~y problems remaining to be resolved. S0613.0S - Verbal Authorization Relating to Amendment 13 - 14/S.]~. 46 ~tehlddin~, A~ a ~Jnit Price Contract During the bidding period of the ]'-4/S .~,. 46 work, we were verbally instructed to cha~ge the basis of bid from a lump sum to a unit price co~tz~ction contract (verbal authorization relating to Ameudment 13 aclG~owledged by our Invoice of 7/25/94). We kept t~ack separately of the time and cost and the work which included quantity calculations and bidding cha~ges and services related thereto, for this service from the time it was requested nufil its completion (August 24, 1994). ~q~is work was not anticipated nor included in the ~]a~ of Study of Amendment 13, and while it probably resulted iu lower comtruction costs more than offsetting the additional engineering costs, there were significant engineering costs incurred which were not anticipated in the original scope of work and fee estimate. Some quantity determination was made with the intent of using them as a check on work progress under the Lump Sum Contract, but when the change was made to Unit Price, we had to breakout further some of the earlier quantities and check what had previously been done. The decision to go to a Unit Price Contract has turned out to be a good decision because as the work has progressed on I-4 and SR 46, there has been a need for a significant number of change orders and the Unit Price type contract gives the CRA set prices for most of the affected work items. These change orders have addressed maintenance of traffic, pavement quantity changes, piping and storm drainage changes, etc. Presently under work is a change order to modify the traffic signal components to be installed to bring them into conformance with the latest standards. The Unit Price contract helps define the change order costs and reinforces the CRA's bargaining position in this traffic signal change order. S0613.04 - Construction Administration and Inspection - I-4/SR 46 Roadway Improvements This Amendment work has not exceeded the maximum contractual authorization for the work at this time, but there has been and likely will continue to be additional work not included in the Amendment nor Plan of Study that may cause us to exceed the maximum. There has been a considerable amount of additional work involved in changes to the Maintenance of Traffic plan involving construction coordination with Martin, PEC, FDOT and the City including safety and other maintenance of traffic issues including alternative ways to maintain traffic. We have met repeatedly with FDOT at their request to help remedy discovered problems with the original MOT and coordinated with the engineer (PEC) and the CRA and MSA on this matter. There also have been major job sequencing and scheduling changes requiring our participation and attention. Conkiln, P~rter and Holmes (~D~ ENGINEERS, INC. There have been many more progress and other meetings than originally anticipated in our Amendment. The signalizafion plans for the project were submitted by the design engineer to the wrong department of the County government and there has been extra time involved on our part in satisfying concerns of the County, City, contractor, FDOT, etc regarding the signalization plans and changes to them basically required by the County. There have also been substantially more change orders to the construction contract than anticipated. Summary The following table shows the four Towne Center projects that have been previously discussed in this letter: (Refer to Table on Following Page) ::::::::::::::::::::::: .[.]~.[]i[~T[~iTT]] .......... I.i.,il I'VI3 '9.~. .......... ~ ............................... S(}613.(11 Jo|~ ss compk. l~.' aml ~fk!,:llvdy Iolally hsll~:d aid i~aid by S I 7.:i02.66 $2(,.705.07 $26,553.86 2,6,553.86 Developer Contracted temporary use of some of the authorization of CPH Job Temporary Access Road No. S0613.02. It may be advisable to bring the formal and Drainage Outlet authorization up to the amotmt actually billed and paid by the City which would require an additional authorization of $9,051.20 from the City. The job, however, is complete and all charges have been billed to and paid by the City. S0613.02 As of 12/13/94 we are over the authorized amount for the $38,276.80 42,006.24 27,409.~6 27,4(39.76 Remaining CRA Roads total project by $3,729.44 and there will be a considerable Cfowne Center Boulevard, amount of remaining work required to finish the project~ St. Johns Parkway and The work scope being required and the date that the project ) North Towne Road - will actually be completed are so uncertain that we are Excluding I4/46 ) - unable to provide a definitive estimate to complete the Bidding, Construction project. The amount of fee being spent/earned per month Administration and over the reent project history has averaged about Inspection $6000/month. We would request that an additional authorization be raado of $18,000, which will cany the project for a few months at the eunent rate. As that additional authorization amount is approached we and the City would reconsider what adjustment would be required to finish the project. S06i3.05 The work of converting the documents and re-bidding the $.00 $13,546.00 $.00 $.00 Quantities and Rebidding of I-4/SR 46 work as a unit price contract was previously, I-4/S.R. 46 as Unit Price verbally diraeted and we respectfully request that the Contract $13,546.00 of fee spent in accomplishing the work ha authorized so that we can bill the City. ) S0613.04 The work of this project has not exceeded the contract $44,838.36 $26,783.99 $16,885.86 $16,885.86 Construction maximum as yet, and we are not requesting an increase in Administration/Construction the maximum fee at this time. We believe it is likely that Inspection I--4 and SR 46 an ineresse will ha required and we have described Roadway Improvements additional services rendered to date in this letter, but we Towne Center Mall suggest waiting 30-40 days or so before making a formal request as the work will ha further along and a clearer picture of the time of completion and adjustment needed to the maximum fee (if any) will hopefully be much eleerer at that time. As mentioned, we have regularly attempted to initiate cost control measures for construction services on the Towne Center project. We have rebudgeted and redirected our personnel several times on the remaining work in attempts to reduce the scope of services previously being provided and to not be as responsive to requests for services from the Contractors, developers, regulatory agencies and others (except for requests from City Staff), and in general, attempting to spend less time on the job thereby reducing engineering costs while attempting to obtain a satisfactory project for the City. It is our intent to continue these efforts throughout the remaining project work. This project is a difficult, complicated project with a whole array of participants and has had many problems to contend with including inadequate soils and plan information, contractor difficulties, extremely adverse weather and the continuing need for assistance to the CRA and MSA's construction manager. Some of these construction management duties are having to be provided by City Staff and our firm beyond the scope of conventional construction administration and inspection which we contracted to provide. Please understand that we always appreciate the opportunity to work for the City and will continue our best efforts on behalf of the City and the CRA to see that the CRA gets quality work in accordance with the documents and at the same time spend no more on these construction services than is absolutely Per your request, we have attached a summary of requested fee changes for your information and consideration. We'd be happy to meet and discuss these items with you and answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, NKLIN PORTER AND HOLMES-ENGINEERS, INC. Sr. Vice President President JCB-PEP/jms Conkiln, Porter and Holmes SANFORD, FLORIDA 32772-2808 TEL407-32.2-6841 TEL407*831-5717 FAX #407-330-0639 Summary of Requested Contract Fee Changes Designated Seminole Towne Center Projects Item CPII Job # Dcscripticm Additional Fvc ReAluc~t a. S0613.01 $26,553.86 billed and paid by the: CRA; woik complctc~l. The 59,051.20 additional fee being requested ($9,051.20) represents the amount actually billed tO and paid by the City. These charges when incurred were billed under the S0613.02 authorization. This request would not result in new billings against this project, but would represent those charges billed against the S0613.02 authorization. b. S0613.02 $27,409.76 billed and paid by the CRA. Interim increase requested at $18,000.00 this time. c. S0613.05 $13,546.00 of costs incurred based on verbal authorization. Request $13,546.00 written $13,546.00 authorizaf~on to allow billing of charges incurred. Please refer to separate attachment which itemizes labor hours and expense resulting in these costs. d. S0~13.04 $16,855.86 billed and paid by the CRA. N0 additional authorization .00 requesmd at this time. Conkiln, Pb~rter and Holmes POST OFFICE BOX 2808 SANFORD, FLORIDA 32772-2808 TEL407-322-6841 TEL407-831-5717 FAX #407'330'0639 Itemizafion of Labor Hours (By Employee Classification) and Direct Out-of-Pocket Expense Verbal Authorization Relating to Amendment 13 I-4/SR 46 Rebidding as a Unit Price Contract Labor Factored Labor Expense Amount Classification Hours Description Engineer 127.50 hrs $6,819.26 Mileage 13.26 Technician 50.50 hrs $2,559.90 Postage 312.60 Draftsman 50.00 hrs $1,040.37 Blueprint 15.00 Clerical 20.25 hrs $659.32 Xerox 1,222.00 Phone 49.33 Hmtogral~hics 85~-.96 Winter Pazk l'fluJ[~rint~ 'r~;lal 2 IS.25 Irt~,., SI 1,078.li5 "l'c;t~.l 57..467.15 Services: During the bidding period of the 1--4/8 .R. 46 work, we were verbally instructed to change the basis of bid from a lump sum to a unit price construction contract (verbal authorization relafmg to Amendment 13 acknowledged by our Invoice of 7/25/94). We kept track separately of the time and cost and the work which included quantity calculations and bidding changes and services related thereto, for this service from the time it was requested until its completion (August 24, 1994). Conkiln, Porter and Holmes RECEIVED (~ E  SANFORD, PLORIDA 32772-2808 December 22, 1994 DEC 2 FAX #407-330-0639 Mr. William A. Simmons, P.E. ~II':Y OF SANFORD City Manager City of Sanford P O Box 1778 Sanford, Florida 32772-1778 Re: Mill Creek / Cloud Branch - Year 2 Improvements CPH Job No. S0707.07 Dear Mr. Simmons: This letter will serve as a request for a fee modification to the above referenced project (Amendment 8), for geotechnical services performed in connection with a Level 2 Assessment Report on the Wharton Property. At the City's request, we reviewed Storm Richard's Level 1 Assessment Report and discussed the report with him at several meetings. We were requested to solicit a proposal for a Level 2 Assessment Report from Universal Engineering Sciences, and in that regard, met and discussed the project with them. A proposal was obtained, discussed with the City and upon their direction, Universal was instructed to complete the report which was subsequently reviewed by CPH and passed on to the City. We are requesting an adjustment of $5,000 to the authorized engineering fee outlined in Amendment 8, resulting in a revised total authorization of $67,067· 14. This increase covers the subconsultant charges and engineering time in connection with meetings, project coordination, and data review. If this request meets with the City's approval, please so indicate by signing and returning one copy for our files. Thank you. Sincerely, CONKLIN PORTER AND HOLMES-ENGINEERS, INC. James C. Branch, P.E. Sr. Vice President JCB/jms roTE APPROVED: " Date: ,9' ~'f" Wflh · 'am A.:~mons, P.E., City Manager on n or er an s, o mes CITY OF SAN To: William A. Simmons, P.E. City Manager From: ]ames C. Branch, Date: January. 11, 1995 Subject: Mill Creek / Cloud Branch Project "Additional Services" Wharton Property CPH Job No. S0607.07 Responding to your question on our billing in connection with the Wharton Property, we are processing Universal's invoice ($3,246.00) for their portion of the work. Our request for a fee adjustment of $5,000 submitted to the City on December 22, 1994, includes Universal's charges. If we can provide additional information, please advise.