Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 Falcon Point Change Order Agenda # . . Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Ed Taylor, Water Utility Manager Date: October 11, 2002 Subject: Change Order Falcon Point#1 Date of Board Meeting: October 16, 2002 BACKGROUND: The Board of Directors at the May 1, 2002 meeting awarded the Falcon Point Booster Station Project contract to Longo Construction, Inc. The contract for the construction of the Falcon Point Booster Station was $155,475. The design for the Falcon Point Booster Station was based off of the as built drawings provided by Dart. The as built drawings were for the construction of the Falcon Point Tank. The design was completed during the winter months when snow prevented the site from being surveyed to determine the tank location. The site was surveyed after the bid award but prior to the start of construction. The tank location was 3 feet different than the as built drawings had indicated.The building and pump station design did not change, but the elevation and the orientation were changed. The station had to be lower four feet into the embankment which required additional excavation and additional concrete retaining wall construction. ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: $155,475.00 CHANGE ORDER#1 $14 475.39 TOTAL AFTER CHANGE ORDER= $ 169,950.39 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the Board approve Contract Change Order#1. Attachment: Memo from Sauers Engineering, Inc. 0 Page 1 SAUERS ENGINEERING S80 26S 6884 10/10/02 10o S0am P. 001 Sauers Engineering, Inc. Civil & Environmental Engineers October 9, 2002 Mr. Ed Taylor, Water Utility Director Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 309 Truckee, CA 96160-0309 SUBJECT: FALCON POINT PUMP STATION - PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER Dear Ed, We have reviewed the proposed change order and backup information submitted by project contractor Longo, Inc. The change order is intended to cover additional work associated with the relocation of the purnp station on the site as compared to the original project plans. The amount of the proposed change order is $40,475.39. The proposed change order and backup information appear to reflect all of the material and labor charges associated with the excavation of the building site and construction of the building footings, slab, and concrete walls. The information does not appear to reflect any work which would have had to have been done based on the original plans. We looked at the charges invoiced by the contractor for various items of work and compared them with our estimates of the work which would have been required by the original plans. We have identified approximately $14,700 in legitimate additional charges. Some of the issues which came out of our analysis include the following: 1. The contractor appears to have charged all of the equipment and labor for the excavation of the footing key-way and for the pouring of the footings and floor slab. Although the key-way was added to the footing as a result of the building acting as a retaining wall, the re-designed footing/key-way only resulted in an increase in excavation and concrete of less than 20% as compared to the original footings. Also, there should be no extra cost associated with the pouring of the concrete slab as the slab was always part of the design. 2. The contractor appears to have charged all of the labor for forming and stripping the concrete walls and for the labor and materials for pouring the walls. The station re-design provided the option of masonry block or cast-in-place concrete walls for the retaining wall portion of the building. Had the contractor opted for the masonry block, there would have been a minimal increase over the original design to cover the need for 12" deep rather than 8" deep block for the lower two — - --- - ,,,.. r "I SAUERS ENGINEERING Sao 2SS SSS4 10/10/02 10:50am P. 00Y to three feet of the wall. The contractor informed us that he preferred cast-in- place as it would be faster and more cost effective than the masonry block. We do not see any reason why the cast-in-place walls would result in additional cost. 3. Having the building act as a retaining wall did require additional backfill and drainage around the building and waterproofing of the retaining walls. We would agree that this is extra work. 4. Much of the contractor's extra charges are associated with excavation and rock removal. The original plans indicated there would be excavation for the pump station building as well as excavation and construction of a driveway between the new building and the existing tank access. This included any rock encountered during excavation. As a result of the building relocation, the driveway was eliminated. From the original plans, we estimated the amount of excavation for the building and driveway and compared it to our estimate of the actual volume of excavation. We determined that as a result of the new building location, the amount of excavation increased by approximately 30%. We would agree that 30% of the cost of excavation and rock removal would be extra work. 5. Other items in the proposed change order included additional ductile iron spools and the relocation of dumpsters (garbage can enclosures). The pipe spools were needed to accommodate the discharge manifold being deeper under the station floor as a result of the new building and meter vault locations. We would agree that pipe spools and dumpster relocation are extra work. I am waiting for the contractor's certified payroll reports to verify the hours and wages shown on the proposed change order invoices. At this point, I would not recommend approval of the proposed change order as submitted by the contractor. I would recommend approval of extra work not to exceed $14,700. Your ruly, 0 Keith Knibb, Project Engineer