HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1981/10/27 Item 8COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 8
Meeting Date 10-27-81
I EM TITLE: Resolution ~~ 6 ~~ Approving change order no. 2,
payment for extra work performed and additional
extension of time for Transit Center
S EMITTED BY: City Engineer ~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x )
D no Construction, Inc., contractor for the transit center, has
s bmitted three requests to the City Engineer which affects their
c ntract dated June 15, 1981:
lj To change the specified tree size from 42 inch box to a 36
inch box.
2~ A claim for extra work in the amount of $5,542.93.
3 An additional 15 working day extension of time to their
contract.
I is my
R COMMENDATION: That City Council approve resolution to:
1 Approve change order no. 2, reducing the tree size from 42
inch box to 36 inch box and decreasing contract $1,097.10.
2~ Approve payment for claim of extra work performed in the
amount of $3,161.36.
3.I Grant an additional 10 working days extension of time
changing the contract completion date to November 10, 1981.
B ARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
D SCUSSION:
D no Construction, Inc., on October 8, 1981, submitted a claim
f r extra work in the amo unt of $5,542.93 and requested an
a ditional three weeks to the ir contr act time resulting from time
w sted in forming the raised planter walls. On October 9, 1981,
t ey submitted a request to change the specifications for the
t ees reducing the size from 42 inch to 36 inch box.
Claim for Extra Work
P eliminary design plans for the transit center surface
i provem ents were prepared by our consulting landscape architect,
t e Pekarek Group. The purpose of the preliminary plan was for
n otiation of a change order with MTDB to include this project
Page 2, Item $
Meeting Date 10-2 - 1
w.
u:
ac
M7
th their border station project. We then had the option of
ing the Pekarek Group to complete the plans and enter into an
reement with MTDB to administer the project as an addition to
DB's larger project.
W later decided to bid and administer the contract ourselves.
M DB installed the curbs outlining the transit center and also
t e street lights. The City's contractor then would complete the
s rface improvements within the curbing. The curbing didn't
e actly conform to the original plans which required changes to
P karek's preliminary plans. To avoid additional payment to the
P karek Group and to reduce the time period that it would have
t ken to advertise for bids, City staff made the modifications to
P karek's preliminary plans. I believe we saved $2,000 to $3,000
a d three to four weeks time by our modifying the plans.
H wever, we misinterpreted a detail on the plans concerning the
1 yout of the center planters.
T e layout of the planters was very critical because the shelters
a d benches had to fit tightly between the planters. Our
i terpretation of the plans was that the centerline of the
p anter was on the base line of the light poles. Actually the
e sterly point of the planter calculated to be 1.25 feet offset
f om the centerline.
T e contractor started forming up the planter walls on September
1 1981. Between September 18 and October 2, 1981, one pair of
p anters was formed up three times and each time rejected for not
b ing correctly laid out.
A ter the third rejection of the forms, Engineering staff
p epared a detailed blow up plan on how the raised planters were
t be laid out. In order to draw up this detail, staff had to
m ke additional computations using the minimum information as
s own on the plans. The detail prepared by staff is analagous to
a shop drawing.
T e claim of Dyno Construction, Inc. in the amout of $5,542.93 is
f r the cost of work which was performed between September 18 and
0 tober 2 on building the forms for the planter walls and which
w re rejected. The contractor contends that the plans did not
pr vide sufficient information to layout and construct the forms
correctly - that the plans are inadequate and in error.
Engineering staff has reviewed the contractor's claim and has
determined that he is entitled to $3,161.36. This amount was
de ermined after reviewing the inspector's daily work reports for
t e project and the fact that the planters couldn't be built in
ac ordance with the contract plans.
/~% ~ ~~'
Page 3, Item 8
Meeting Date 10-27-81
contractor's claim was reduced for the following reasons:
1
Between September 18th and the 23rd, the contractor was
using the wrong grade of form lumber. Work performed up to
this point was not acceptable and did not conform to the
project specifications.
2.
The contractor is responsible upon discovering any error or
omission in the plans or specifications to immediately call
it to the attention of the Engineer. The contractor did not
inform the Engineer until September 28, 1981, that he could
not build the planters from the information on the plans.
Tt
ie $3,161.36 cost for extra work includes:
Labor $2,883.43
Equipment 220.23
Materials 57.70
Total $3,161.36
(For a more detailed breakdown of costs, see attachment.)
T e $3,161.36 cost of extra work as determined
s aff has been reviewed and accepted by
A sistant Vice President, Dyno Construction, Inc.
by Engineering
Chris Hinman,
I am recommending approval of payment for their extra work
b cause I believe the contactor has a justified claim resulting
f om omission of needed information on the plans provided by the
C ty. I believe if the contractor was furnished from the
b ginning the blow up detail prepared/furnished by staff on
S ptember 29, 1981, that the contractor would not have had the
p oblem of correctly laying out the forms for the raised planter
w lls.
Extension of Time
0 September 23, 1981, the City Council by Resolution No. 10639
g anted Dyno Construction, Inc. a 23 working day extension of
t'me. The contract expiration date was extended to October 27,
1 81.
T e agenda statement accompanying the resolution showed that the
c ntractor was justified a 30 working day time extension. A 23
d y extension was granted instead because the contractor felt
t at he could complete the project by October 27, 1981 barring
u foreseen circumstances.
S bsequent to the City Council granting the tim e extension, the
c ntractor has added additional personnel and has made every
e fort to complete the project by October 27, 1981.
i~~ 7~
Page 4, Item 8
Meeting Date 10-27-81 ,
T e problems with forming the walls for the raised planters has
d laved the project to the point that the contractor cannot m eet
t e completion date of October 27, 1981.
T e contractor has requested a time extension of three weeks.
R view of this request by staff has determined that the
c ntractor was delayed for the period of September 18, 1981
t rough October 1, 1981 - 10 working days.
T e raised planter walls were cast on Monday, October 19, 1981.
B tonight's Council meeting, the contractor should have all the
c ncrete flat work completed except for laying about 1/3 of the
t le pavers.
W rk remaining includes planting of the trees, installation of
1 ndscaping, drinking fountain, shelters and kiosk.
T e contractor expects to have this remaining work completed by
N vember 2, 1981.
I am recommending that the contractor be given an additional 10
w rking day extension of time. This will make November 10, 1981,
t e new contract completion date.
C an in Tree Size
T e project specifications call for 42" boxed trees to be matched
f r height, spread and caliper.
B b Sennett, City Landscape Architect, has inspected the 42"
b xed trees to be furnished by the contractor and has rejected
t em for not meeting City specifications.
A source of 36" boxed trees has been located and have been
i spected by Mr. Sennett. It is his opinion that the 36" boxed
t ees meet the requirements for the 42" boxed trees and in fact
a e superior in growth characteristics. Mr. Sennett recommends
t at the 36" boxed trees be accepted.
T e difference in cost between the 42" and 36" trees is $47.70
p r tree. For 23 trees this amounts to $1,097.10. Since this
w uld be a change order reducing the contract by more than
$ ,000, Council policy requires that the change order be
s bmitted to them for approval.
I recommend that the City Council approve changing the tree size
f om 42" box to 36" box and approve change order #2 reducing the
c ntract $1,097.10. (The City Council on October 21, 1981,
a proved in concept the reduction of tree size from 42" to 36"
b x. This action will officially approve the change order.)
-%06-~~
Page 5, Item $
Meeting Date 10-27-81
F:
CNANCIAL STATEMENT:
Authorized expenditure $136,200.00
Original contract cost 121,103.38
Change order #1, x-walk 115.00
Subtotal $121,218.38
Change order #2, trees - 1,097.10
Subtotal $120,121.28
Claim for extra work 3, 161.36
Revised contract cost $123,282.64
F:
[SCAL I!~lPACT: Increase in project cost of $2,179.26.
fG:fpw/DS030
-ja6~7~'
TRANSIT CENTER
Dyno Construction Inc.
Claim for Extra Work
September 18, 1981 to October 2, 1981
Dyno
Lak
Equi
Materi ~
TOTAL
nor: Foreman 42 Hr. @ 18.06
Carpenter 80 Hr @ 17.06
Laborer (Carpenter) 75 Hr
@ 14.60
Laborer 20 Hr @ 14.60
Total Labor
20% Markup
Sub Total
Foreman Truck 42 Hr
@ $7.00
Service Truck 40 Hr
@ $7.00
Generator 10 days @
$25.00 + Tax
Total Equipment
15% Markup
Sub Total
1s: Lumber and Materials
$300 + Tax
15% Markup
Sub Total
. CLAIM
~-ko~ ~~
$ 758.52
1,364.80
1,095.00
292.00
$3,510.22
702.06
$4,212.38
$ 294.00
280.00
265.00
Engineering
Recommenda
16 Hr @ 18.06
64 Hr @ 17.06
64 Hr @ 14.60
6 Hr @ 14.60
16 Hr @ $7.00
$ 839.00
125.85
$ 964.85
$ 318.00
47.70
$ 365.70
$5,542.93
#s
ATTACHMENT "A"
DS030
Staff
ti on
$ 288.96
1,091.84
934.40
87.66
$2,402.86
480.57
$2,883.43
$ 112.00
-0-
79.50
$ 191.50
28.73
$ 220.23
$ 50.17
7.53
$ 57.70
$3,161.36