HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 94-074 - Approve & Authorize the CM to authorize & contract for Professional Services, with CO 004, between COR & URS Consultants, Inc (Acct 149-557-4941; Contract No C-3079) Transfer Station Design Project RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE
FOLLOWING IN CONNECTION WITH PERFORMING ADDITIONAL TASKS
RELATED TO THE TRANSFER STATION DESIGN PROJECT:
AUTHORIZATION AND CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES,
TOGETHER WITH CONTRACT MODIFICATION (CHANGE ORDER) 004,
BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDDING AND URS CONSULTANTS, INC.
(ACCOUNT NO. 149-557-4941; CONTRACT NO. C-3079) , TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL SERVICES BY URS CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR THE TRANSFER
STATION PROJECT, IN AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$70,982.00.
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Redding
hereby approves the above-mentioned Authorization and Contract for
Professional Services, together with Contract Modification (Change
Order) 004, between the City of Redding and URS Consultants, Inc. , in
an additional amount not to exceed $70,982. 00, true copies of which are
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City of
Redding is hereby authorized and directed to sign said documentation on
behalf of the City Council of the City of Redding; and the City Clerk
ti is hereby authorized and directed to attest the signature of the City
Manager and to impress the official seal of the City of Redding.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and
read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on
the 5th day of April, 1994, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Anderson, Kehoe, Moss and Arness
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dahl
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CARL ARNESS, Mayor
City of Redding
A ST: FO APPROVED: \I
CONNIE STROHMAYER, aty Clerk RANDALL A. HAY6, City Attorney
CONTRACT MODIFICATION (CHANGE ORDER)
CHANGE ORDER NO. : 004
PROJECT NAME: Transfer Station Design
CONTRACTOR: URS Consultants, Inc.
ADDRESS: 500 Northeast Multnomah Street
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Portland, OR 97232
CONTRACT NO. : C-3079
DATE: April 5 , 1994
RESOLUTION NO. : 94-
ACCOUNT NO. : 149-557-4941
JOB NO. : 9922-21
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Following Modifications to the Contract are Hereby Ordered:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Additional services due to change of conditions. See the at-
tached contract details.
The attached scope of work to provide additional services is not
to exceed $70,982.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONTRACT AMOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $542,000.00
PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS (ADD/DEDUCT) : 94,620. 00
THIS CHANGE ORDER (ADD/DEDUCT) : 70.,982. 00
REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT: $707,602.00
----------------------------------------------------------------
OWNER
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF REDDING
CITY MANAGER
ROBERT M. CHRISTOFFERSON
BY:
DATE:
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONTRACTOR
----------------------------------------------------------------
URS CONSULTANTS, INC.
BY:
DATE:
----------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF REDDING
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
RON MASINGALE
BY:
DATE:
RPTLS. 040 03-25-94
I
CONTRACT DETAILS
PAGE 1 OF 12
2. Processing of Building Permits
a. Original Agreement
In developing the scope of work and lump sum compensation for the original City-URS
Agreement, we allocated approximately $10,000 for the necessary labor and expenses to
prepare and process construction documents for obtaining Building Permits:
Labor: 140 hrs. $ 9,000
Expenses:1 1,000
f
Total Estimated Compensation $10,000
This estimate was based on many years experience with similar projects, most recently a
large MRF/transfer station that URS designed for the City of Sunnyvale, California. We
anticipated the following:
-- No more than 1 to 3 separate building permits would be needed.
-- The entire Building Permit submittal/approval process would require 4 to 6 weeks
to complete.
-- For each permit, all calculations, drawings and specifications would be initially
submitted to the City of Redding Building Department.
-- All Building Department comments would be placed on this initial submittal and
returned to URS for response.
i
-- URS would respond to all Building Department Comments by either agreeing to
revising the documents or convincing the Building Department that specific
revisions were not needed. Recognizing that URS retains professional
responsibility for the design and construction documents, the Building Department
would not insist on discretionary changes or their own "engineer's preference"
modifications to those documents.
-- URS would revise calculations, drawings and specifications as agreed and send
them to the Building Department, who would then issue the permit(s).
i
I
I
1Printing, computer, long distance phone, and so forth.
i
i
2-1
i
I
I
CONTRACT DETAILS
PAGE 2 OF 12
b. Changed Condition
Contrary to our expectations, and, we believe, the reasonable intent of the City-URS
Agreement, substantially more time, staff hours, and expenses have been incurred by
URS in processing permit application documents and responding to Building Department
comments and directives.
-- As shown on the attached submittal table, seven (7) separate Building Permits
were required for the project. Each permit application, therefore, underwent a
separate submission and approval process. In addition to drawings specific to
each permit, each submission package (and resubmission package) had to include
certain layout/general drawings. Hence, there were many duplicate drawings in
the seven application packages.
-- As shown on the attached submittal table, one permit application, 93-1238, was
originally submitted on September 24, 1993. The remaining 6, 93-1376 through
93-1381, were all submitted on November 11, 1993. As of March 16, 1994, none
of the seven permits has been granted, nor has the Building Department's review/
approval been completed for any of them. So far, processing building permits has
lasted over 4 months, and is not yet finished.
-- As shown on the attached submittal table, as of March 16, 1994, we have made a
total of 25 submittals for the seven applications. More submittals will be needed
before the process is finished. For each submittal, two bluelines (each stamped b}
the P.E. in responsible charge) of all the drawings originally submitted for the
given permit had to be provided. This was required even though the Building
Department may not have commented on the entire set of drawings included in
the previous submittal. In addition, the full set of calculations relevant to the
given permit had to be resubmitted, even though most of the calculations were
unaffected. Each original submission and subsequent resubmission ranged
between 20 and 50 blueline prints (i.e., 2 for each contract drawing). Thus, 600 to
800 total bluelines had to be CAD produced, printed and furnished to the
Building Department. Moreover, over 25 calculation packages had to be
produced and provided. The plotting and printing cost alone, exclusive of staff
time, was approximately $5,000.
-- In numerous instances, the Building Department added comments to resubmittals
that had not been placed on URS's original submittal nor previous resubmittals.
Obviously, had these comments been included on the original submittal drawings
for the 7 applications and returned to URS for response/action, URS's work
could have been done much more efficiently. This "shooting at a moving target"
caused us to expend additional staff time and incur more expense.
-- Many of URS's responses to the Building Department's comments were ignored.
(In some instances, portions of our resubmittals seem to have been lost,
misplaced--or just not read.) When returning the drawings to URS, the Building
2-2
CONTRACT DETAILS .
PAGE 3 OF 12
Department merely repeated the identical comments as mark-ups on the
bluelines. This happened several times and caused us to expend substantial
additional staff time (1) trying to understand the Building Department's
concerns/comments, and (2) preparing responses.
-- We did not anticipate that face-to-face meetings between our Project Manager,
Bob Carn, and Building Department staff would be needed during permit
processing. Even though this assumption may have been optimistic, Bob Carn
ended up meeting three separate times with the Building Department. At these
meetings, issues previously discussed and, we thought resolved, were again brough
up. These meetings, including preparation and follow-up, required URS's
additional staff time and expense.
-- The Building Department raised numerous issues regarding the design and its
presentation that were discretionary or fall into the category of "engineer's
preference". Among these were interpretations of some ambiguous provisions of
the Uniform Building Code2. Over URS's objections, the Building Department
insisted that numerous changes be made to the drawings, specifications and
calculations notwithstanding the fact that URS and its engineers had full
professional responsibility for all construction documents. These changes involved
additional staff time and expense by URS.
As a matter of principle, URS welcomes the independent review of its work product by
the Building Department's engineering staff. In at least two cases, the Building
Department detected deficiencies which were duly corrected on the contract documents.
The changed condition leading to URS's additional staff time and expense was caused, a:
described above, by the excessive number of permits needed for a single project, the
seemingly unending series of submissions and resubmissions which have drawn the
process out over at least 4 months, the inability to resolve design/detailing issues once
and for all, and the Building Department's insistence on a multitude of discretionary and
'engineer's preference" changes to the contract documents.
I. Request for Additional URS Compensation
Based on the changed conditions described in Section 2.b, URS requests that its lump
;um compensation be increased by $34,866. Processing of Building Permit applications
has taken place between early December 1993 and the present time, March 16, 1994.
During this period, as much as 75% of URS's staff hours, and project related expenses,
-Ixclusive of subconsultant charges, have been devoted to Building Permit activities. A
breakdown of hours and compensation is set out below.
2The Uniform Building Code establishes minimum structural design and detail standards for buildings/
structures in general; good engineering judgment is often needed to apply the Code to a specific structure.
2-3
CONTRACT DETAILS
PAGE 4 OF 12
MONTH MONTHLY TOTALS PERMIT PROCESSING
Hours Comp. %.of Total Hours Comp
Dec. '93 436 $24,867 50 218 $12,434
Jan. '94 375 26,726 75 281 20,045
Feb. '94 143 9,982 75 107 7,487
Mar. '94 est 140 9,800 50 70 4,900
1094 $71,375 676 $44,866
i
Original Estimate 140 10,000
Requested Additional Compensation 536 $34,866
This breakdown indicates a four- to five-fold increase in staff hours and URS
Compensation expended during the permitting process as compared with the original
estimate.
Attachment: Submittal Table
i
i
2-4
I
CITY OF REDDING
PLAN CHECK and BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS
MIZF/TRANSFER STATION
P.C. # = PLAN CHECK NO.
CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURES
Main Processing Service Building Office BuildingStaff Facilities Truck:Wash '! HHW
• Building Building Enclosure
Foundations, grade P.C. #93-1238 P.C. #93-1238 P.C. #93-1377 P.C. #93-1376 P.C. #93-1381 P.C. #93-1380
beams, slabs & walls
(concrete & masonry)
Pre-Engineered steel To be assigned To be assigned N/A N/A To be assigned To be assigned
frames including bracing,
metal roof decking and ,d z
siding >
r�
Mechanical, electrical P.C. #93-1378 P.C. #93-1379 P.C. #93-1377 P.C. #93-1376 P.C. #93-1381 P.C. #93-1380 v, H
and plumbing o
H
N H
r
STATUS
s
93-1238 93=1376' 93-1377 93 1378.; 93-1379 93-1380..;: 93 1381
1st Submittal 9/24/93 11/11/93 11/11/93 11/11/93 11/11/93 11/11/93 11/11/93
Comments received 11/ 5/93 11/30/93 11/30/93 11/30/93 11/30/93 12/ 6/93 12/ 6/93
2nd Submittal 12/14/93 12/21/93 12/21/93 12/21/93 12/21/93 1/ 5/94 1/ 5/94
Comments received 1/17/94 1/10/94 1/10/94 2/21/94 2/ 4/94 2/ 4/94
3rd submittal 2/ 1/94 1/24/94 1/24/94 3/15/94 2/ 7/94 2/ 7/94
Comments received 3/ 3/94 2/21/94 2/21/94 3/ 3/94 3/ 3/94
4th submittal 3/18/94 3/ 2/94 3/ 2/94 3/14/94 3/14/94
CONTRACT DETAILS •
PAGE 6 OF 12
3. Schedule Delay
a. Original Agreement
The attached schedule, which was included with the City-URS Agreement shows 4-1/2
months to complete engineering and issue construction documents. With the early-May
1994 start-up, drawings and specifications were to be ready for bid by mid-September, 1993.
b. Dela,, (Changed Condition)
In fact, changed conditions extended URS's engineering by two months. Thus, final issue
of construction drawings and specifications was extended to mid-November, 1993.
Reasons for the delay included:
• More time needed to reach decisions by the City and regulatory agencies with
respect to wetland mitigation.
• The timing of the City's decision to proceed with construction of the Corporation
Yard.
• Addition of Corporation Yard roadways to the Transfer Station/MRF off-site
roadways contract.
• Delays in completing financial package(s).
We do not disagree with these reasons for delaying the project. The delays allowed the
City to properly address critical issues affecting both the Corporation Yard and MRF/
Transfer Station, as well as to perform its overall financial/administrative functions.
However, this changed condition impacted URS's engineering, as described in the next
subsection.
C. Impact of Schedule Delay on URS
Following receipt of the City's notice-to-proceed in early May 1993, URS began assigning
staff to the project team. The team steadily expanded to match the increasing volume of
work. During early phases, the work consisted of planning, developing conceptual
layouts, budget estimating, and review meetings with the City. This work entailed
relatively few staff. With the adoption of layouts and design concepts, detailed
engineering started, requiring that more engineers, technicians and support staff be
added to the team. Detailed engineering comprised calculations, computer runs,
drawings and specifications, and checking/quality control for the civil, structural,
mechanical and electrical elements of the facility. Detailed engineering, and project
team size was expected to peak just before final issue of construction documents in mid-
September 1993. Thereafter team size would fall rapidly to the lesser number needed to
process Building Permit applications and assist the City during bidding, construction and
start-up of the MRF/transfer station.
3-1
CONTRACT DETAILS •
PAGE 7 OF 12
To the contrary, as described in subsection 3.b, final issue of construction documents was
delayed until mid-November 1993. We became aware that the delay would occur after
our project team reached its peak size of 8-10 persons. At this time--August 1993--the
team was intensely involved in the final stages of detailed engineering. Extending the
schedule profoundly impacted work efficiency. We attempted to mitigate the inefficiency
and costs associated with the delay. However, we were hindered in this effort by the
following factors:
• It was very difficult to remove key personnel from the project team for a short
period of time--during the early part of the delay period--yet retain their
availability to complete the work. We simply did not have other work "waiting in
the wings" to transfer them to for a short time.
• Modification to the project continued to occur during the delay period, requiring
additional URS staff time and expenses.
•
Closely related to the previous factor, extending the "deadline" for completing
documents also delayed the times when critical decisions affecting the project
design had to be made. Such decisions, involving operational, appearance and
permitting issues, were often put off to the last moment in order to allow the
j relevant issues to "mature". However, the decision making delays led to
inefficiencies in URS's work production such as modifying earlier versions of
j designs, rechecking and revising layouts.
j The next subsection identifies URS's additional staff time and cost arising from the
schedule delay.
d. Request for Additional URS Compensation
The 44 percent increase in the completion schedule caused URS to expend about 400
additional staff hours and incur extra project-related expense. Please note that these
hours translate into just over two person months of additional effort (i.e., one person for
i two months). Thus, we are not attempting to claim the cost of prolonging the entire
team of 8 to 10 persons for two months. (This demonstrates that, to a large degree, we
were able to mitigate the worst effects of the schedule delay.)
Our request for compensation due to the changed condition is summarized below:
• Staff charges (approximately 400 hours) $27,000
• Project-Related Expenses 2,000
Total Compensation Adjustment $29,000
I
Attachment: Project Schedule
I
3-2
CONTRACT DETAILS
PAGE 8 OF 12
MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY
UE
sou-s INVEsnGATION
ACQUISmoN ANO I I I I I I I
SITE I AND ARRANcBUILDING EMMTSE , "° I I I I I I I I I I I I
BUI
AML DESIGN I I (
• ROADWAY I I I I I I I I I I
• SITE INCLUDING UTILITIES I I I I I I I I I I I I
STATURAL & ARCHIr CTU I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I
• PROCESSING I I
• OFFICE I r
MMiANI
• PROCESSING
• OFFICE• I I I I I I I I I
El fCSlrTE�B�.
I I I I I I I I I i
• P140CESSING I I I I I I I fig; I I
• OFFICE I W ORDER TO FACRJTATE THE TAAMER
OPERATION. THE MRF EJOIAPME?R OOUID
MRF EouI Will I CbY OVAIj I I I I I I I KWDELAYED NnL THAr�sEEn OPf71AT10N9 I I
• LAYOUT
AW
ID &I AWAR FAMLTE ! w,.mkL I ( ST IP
• PURCHASE
QA AP ALCly L
AL
�1ilC_BE10E�i o=4 G VS r E)CN. « I I I I I I I I I
CONSTRUCTION I I I 81D AWM A fj'
awl =• ROADWAYS & SITE PREP I IENo AW AW I .XZE• PRE-ENGINEERED BLDG. D . ..�.LAY
• GENERAL INSTALLATIONIeI • AMD
INCLUDING OFFICE
CITY OF REDDING - MATERIALS RECOVERY b TRANSFER STATION
PROJECT SCHEDULE
CONTRACT DETAILS •
PAGE 9 OF 12
i
4. Preparation of Construction Contract "Boiler Plate"
i
a. Background and Additional Work Performed
As agreed between the parties, URS prepared "technical specifications" to be included in
construction contract bid packages. Standard "boiler plate" material for these packages
was to be furnished by the City. The City also furnished legal review of all construction
contract documents. On July 1, 1993, a Sample Specification for Transfer Station/MRF
Project was supplied to us by the Public Works Department, and we were instructed to
use it as the "starting point". URS's "technical specs would be added to the end of the
document". The boiler plate had been used for a recently "put out to bid" project by the
Public Works Department. (See attached copy of the City's July 1, 1993, letter.)
We edited/modified the City's boiler plate material and added the technical
specifications as directed. The contract package was then submitted to the Public Works
Department. The City Attorney, however, did not accept a large portion of the boiler
plate and asked that we substitute Division 1 of Construction Specifications Institute
(CSI) Specifications plus certain other City forms in lieu of it. Division 1 is, essentially, a
set of General Conditions. This involved further editing and reorganization of all
contract documents as well as another submittal to the Public Works Department and
responding to final comments.
b. Request for Additional URS Compensation
This changed condition required additional staff time for URS's specifications writer,
project manager and word processor, and minor incidental expenses. These costs are
summarized below.
I
Staff Charges (approximately 63 staff hours) $ 4,400
• Expenses 100
Total Compensation Adjustment $ 4,500
j Attachment: City of Redding, July 1, 1993, Letter
i
I
I
4-1
i. CONTRACT DETAILS • Attachment C
o ff
PAGE 10 OF 12
^ R 1\
City of Reddi 9
July 1, 1993
S-020-650
I
Mr. Richard Kerr
URS Consultants — --
500 N E Multnomah
Portland, OR 97232 ——
Dear Richard:
Subject: Sample Specification For Transfer Station/ MRF Project
Enclosed for your review is the front end section of a specification that the
City of Redding recently put out to bid. Although this document is considerably
longer than our normal "boiler plate" portion of the specification, the overall
format has been approved by both our City Attorney and Risk Manager and would
probably be a good starting point. As you can see from the last page, your
technical specs would be added on to the end of the document. Also note that we
normally insert the proposal packet loose in the book so that it can be easily
submitted for bidding.
I will check to see if the document is available on WordPerfect from Boyle
Engineering. We may be able to ship you a computer disk of the document. f you
consider multiple contracts on this project. each one would utilize the same
boiler plate section. The "general conditions" section could probably be
streamlined down utilizing smaller type and closer spacing.
if you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me
any time at X916) 225-4175.
Sincerely,
Jerry C. .Aasen
Assistant City Engineer
! Ja/kr/71
nciosure
i
I
I
-60 1'1RK 1L% ��VAI E. RI-A)DING. 1 964101-3396 1'.O. BOX 4961171, 96149-61171 19161 JINN)
I
CONTRACT DETAILS
PAGE 11 OF 12
5. Repackaging Site Preparation Contract
a. Background and Additional Work Performed
As our design effort neared completion, there was a time when site preparation/grading,
etc., was to be included with the off-site roadway construction package. Later, the City
decided to include this work with the General Installation contract for the MRF/
Transfer Station. Consequently, URS and its subconsultants prepared construction
documents for the off-site roads that included site preparation/grading for the MRF/
Transfer Station, then deleted this work from the off-site roads package, and, finally,
added it to the General Installation Contract.
b. Request for Additional URS Compensation
Although the individual sections of the Technical Specifications themselves were not
greatly affected, our specification writer spent considerable time reorganizing and editing
them to effect this change. URS's staff time and charges are set out below:
Staff Charges (approximately 24 staff hours) 1,800
Total Compensation Adjustment $ 1,800
Attachment: None
I
i
5-1
J
CONTRACT DETAILS
PAGE 12 OF 12
6. Additional Geotechnical Engineering
a. Background and Additional Work Performed
During the pre-bid meeting for the General Installation Contract, the Public Works
Department requested that URS's subconsultant, Kleinfelder, Inc., prepare more
jalternate road cross sections. This request came well after the City had approved the
design and construction documents for the roadways. A copy of Kleinfelder, Inc.'s,
report is attached.
b. Request for Additional URS Compensation
Charges are summarized below. A copy of Kleinfelder, Inc.'s, invoice for this work is
attached.
I Kleinfelder, Inc., Charges $ 742
• URS Mark-up @ 10% 74
Total Compensation Adjustment $ 816
I
Attachment: Kleinfelder, Inc., Report
Kleinfelder, Inc., Invoice
I
6-1