Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHANGE ORDER - RFP - P1161 PEDESTRAIN AND BICYCLE GRADE SEPERATED CROSSING AT TROUTMAN PARKCity of Flirt Collins ngineedng .. Nds. Planning, Development & Tr nsportation Engineering 281 North College Avenue Ro. Box 6B0 Fart Collins, CO 80622.0680 070.221.660S 970.221.6378 - Iax Change Order Form PROJECT TITLE: Mason Corridor Troutman Crossing PROJECT NUMBER: 400903206.3 (P1161) CONTRACTOR: J F Sato & Associates (PO #9962494) CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 2 1. Reason for change. 2. Description of change. 3. Change In contract cost 4. Change in Contract time. 1&2. See attached sheet for detail. 3. The contract cost will increase by $ 89,621.38 4. The contract time will be extended to December 31, 2011. ORIGINAL CONTRACT COST TOTAL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS TOTAL PENDING CHANGE ORDERS TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER TOTAL % OF THIS CHANGE ORDER TOTAL C.O. °% OF ORIGINAL CONTRACT ADJUSTED CONTRACT COST (Assuming all change orders approved) ACCEPTED BY: REVIEWED BY: ACCEPTED BY: ivro)ect manager - Lngmearing) ACCEPTED BY: -t2E.b I- ep nt Head) `lam APPROVED BY: (P rohas' g Agent over $60,000) W. Contractor Purchasing Prolaet Flle 41.07% 41.07% $21B,211.00 $0.00 $0.00 $89,821.39 $307,832.38 DATE: Q-I-L) _ DATE ( (n / /! Al deja. J �� Engineering, Environmental, es and Program Management Servic 5878 South Rapp Street • Littleton, CO 80120 Phone 303.797.1200 • Fax 303.797.1197 J. F. SATO AND ASSOCIATES www.jfsato.com JF0919 August 15, 2011 Mr. Jin Wang City of Fort Collins Engineering 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Subject: Proposal for Additional Services Fees Final Design — Troutman Parkway Grade Separation Structure Dear Jin As discussed over the last year, there have been numerous additions to our scope of work that have required additional work hours. The majority of these have been due to changes requested by the BNSF Railroad but there are some due to the BRT changes to the project. Also, recent discussions with the BNSF indicated they are willing to allow a cut -and -cover operation during the 7 days their tracks are shut down in July, 2012. By allowing this open -cut type of construction, the City can save over $400,000 by eliminating the use of the BNSF RR construction forces and just allowing the City's contractor to do all the work. In order to meet this 7 day "window" however, it is required that precast frame type structures be used. The existing design and plans must be revised for this new type of structure. I have broken this scope of work for additional services into two parts: (1) All the BNSF and BRT changes prior to the BNSF allowing an open cut; and (2) Revising the design and plans to accommodate a precast frame structure for the cut and cover operation to occur in the 7 day window when the BNSF will be shut down. Work shall be performed in accordance with the Scope of Services described below (1) ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR BNSF AND BRT CHANGES After the January 13, 2010 meeting with Michael Baker regarding the BRT Corridor design coordination with Troutman Parkway, you directed us to proceed with the final design of the bridge prior to receiving the BNSF comments due to the length of time it was taking the BNSF to reply. JFSA proceeded with the final design of the girders, caps and foundations. On February 17, 2010 we had a phone conference call with the BNSF and received comments from them. Some of their comments required that we revise the structure selection report to address their issues, revise the location of the piles and hence, the pile cap configuration, and allow the BNSF to construct the portion under the railroad tracks. The BNSF wanted revised plans before they would complete their initial review. The BNSF estimate to do their portion of the construction is close to $1.2 million, almost 3 times what our original plans were developed for. We feel this indicates that the amount of work that went in to making Page 1 of 3 J Engineering, Environmental, and Program Management Services FS61%k 5878 South Rapp Street • Littleton, CO 80120 Phone 303.797.1200 • Fax 303.797.1187 J. F. SATO AND ASSOCIATES www.lfuto.com the BNSF changes is commensurate with the increase in construction costs and that the estimated hours provided are valid increases. 1.1. Revise plans per BNSF changes. 1.2. The structure selection report actually had most of the BSNF concerns addressed but not the order they wanted. The report was revised to accommodate their required order. The piling revision and cap revisions were made but these also required changes to the girder layout in order to maintain standard 7-foot girder widths and keep the track centered on the girder gaps. 1.3. In addition, in April 2010, the BNSF decided to relook at doing a portion of the construction. They originally said they could not do the construction in-house due to legal issues. Then in May, after the plans were 65% complete, they notified us that in order for them to give the City a construction cost bid on the project, they needed all the drawings brought up to "shop drawing" level of detail, including bill of ladings and rebar bar lists. This work was partially compensated for by charging the construction administration portion of the budget. However, that quickly ran out due to the numerous changes. 1.4. Also, the notice that the BNSF would now be constructing the portion of the bridge supporting the existing track and future track now required that JFSA revise the plans to indicate this two part construction. This required additional calculations to ensure that the two portions were distinct construction phases and more revisions to the general layout plan, the construction and foundation plan, the phasing plans (2), the abutment plans (2), the pier plan, and the superstructure plan. 1.5. The BNSF RR changed their standard plans after much of the plans were completed and they required that we change all the drawings that were done to conform to the new standards. We were notified of the change in standards in September 2010. The changes affected almost all the plans dealing with the railroad standards (approximately 12 drawings). 1.6. The BNSF then required that we change the crown of the bridge to a Flat slope, after they had agreed to the crown. This work required extensive changes to elevations of the deck, walls, ramps, and stairs. This also affected the pier caps requiring extensive changes to the geometry and reinforcement of each piece of cap. 1.7. The BNSF also revised the grading around the track. Rather than keep the grades the same as the existing situation, they wanted only 6-inches of ballast. This required much excavation and complete changes to the grading plan that had been completed earlier by JFSA. 1.8. The BNSF originally said no deck drains were required. Later, they changed their minds and required a transverse deck drain at the north side of the bridge. This required an in depth review of the pipe path since there are now numerous other drain pipes involved. 1.9. The BRT designers added their drainage system to the drainage pipes on our project. This required adding one manhole, one new stretch of pipe, revising almost all the invert elevations, and changes to the size of our pipes. While the BRT designers provided some of the details, almost all the details on our drainage plans had to be revised. 1.10. Additional project management and coordination effort for the above work. Page 2 of 3 Engineering, Environmental, and Program Management Services 5878 South Rapp Street • Littleton, CO 80120 - Phone 303.797.1200 • Fax 303.797.1187 J. F. SATO AND ASSOCIATES wanv.ifsato.com (2) DESIGN AND PLAN REVISIONS FOR 7-DAY ALTERNATIVE 2.1. Revise design and plans to allow precast 3-sided bridge with precast slab footing. Provide performance specifications to specify AREMA loadings requirements on the portion of the structure under BNSF ROW and for AASHTO specifications for the portion under the BRT. This includes redesign of the walls and ramps at each entrance to the underpass. 2.2. Design and detail cast -in -place reinforced concrete skewed end portion of structure. 2.3. Provide independent design check of the cast -in -place portion. 2.4. Provide bridge rating of the cast -in -place portion. 2.5. Design, detail, and coordinate with BRT designer for modifications to storm sewer system to accommodate the precast bridge and slab footing. 2.6, Design, and detail, for modifications to the lighting details due to change from a two span structure to a one span precast structure. Coordinate with BRT designer for location of new power source, including details of equipment and revise electrical conduit for the new location. 2.7. Provide plans, coordination, and revisions for new submittals (50%, 80% & 100%) to the BNSF RR for the new plans and include meetings and revisions. 2.8. Revise and add new specifications for the new structure. 2.9. Provide new construction cost estimates at each of the new submittals (see item 5) 2.10. Provide project management and coordination for the new submittals. 2.11. Geotechnical engineer review of impacts of precast structure on geotechnical recommendations Design for the portion of the structure under the BRT lanes will be in accordance with AASHTO specifications. Design for the portion of the structure under the BNSF RR will be in accordance with AREMA and the BNSF RR standards. Please review my fee proposal and scope of services to verify that they are acceptable to you. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at 303-868-2489 or e-mail me at skobayashi64@msn.com. Sinceerrely, Stan Kobayashi, P Project Manager Attached: Exhibit A, Engineer's Estimate of Fees Page 3 of 3 J FS J. F. SATO AND ASSOCIATES Engineering, Environmental, and Program Management Services 5878 South Rapp Street • Utgeton, CO 80120 Phone 303.797.1200 • Fax 303.797.1187 vmvw.jfsato.com EXHIBIT A - FEE SCHEDULE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF FEES FOR DESIGN CHANGES Troutman Parkway Grade Separation LABOR HOURS J.F. Sato and Assoc. KDG Engineering Sr. Bridge Hydaulic Bridge CAD Tech Scope Item Subs Expenses Total En r En r. Tot. Hra. Labor Billing Rates: $75.00 $94.52 $80.00 $65.00 (1) ADDITIONAL SERVICES 85.0 12.0 108.0 333.0 538.0 $37,794.25 $0.00 $37.794.25 1.1. Revise plans due to BNSF requirements 12.0 0.0 24.0 71.0 107.0 $7,435.00 $7.435.00 1.2. Revision to Structure Selection Report for 80 0.0 7.0 8.0 21.0 $1,530.00 $1,530.00 BNSF 1.3. Shop drawing level of plans for BNSFbid 120 0.0 32.0 88.0 132.0 $9,180.00 $9.180.00 t 1.4. Revise plans and estImate for BNSF 4.0 0.0 22.0 68.0 94.0 $6,48D.0 $6.480.00 construction 1.5. Revise plans for new BNSF standards 4.0 D.0 8.0 24.0 36.0 $2,500.00 $2.500.00 1.8. Changes to plans and elevations due to 4.0 0.0 12.0 32.0 48.0 $3,340.0 $3,340.00 BNSF gat bridge 1.7. Regrading due to BNSF change in existing 2.0 0.0 1.0 22.0 25.0 $1,660. $1,680.00 lope. 1.8. BRT drainage system changes and 2.0 12.0 2.0 2D.0 36.0 $2,744.2 $2,744.25 coordinabon. 1.9. BRT Storm Line Changes 20.0 20.0 $1,500.0 $1,500.00 1.10 Project management 19.0 19.0 $1,425.0 $1,425.0 (2) 7 DAY CONSTRUCTION REDESIGN 168.0 6.0 160.0 344.D 678.0 $48,327.131 $3,500.00 $0.00 $51,827.13 2.1 Revise plans for precast units. Revise 80 32.0 180.0 220.0 $14,860.00 $14,860.0 design of entrances. 2.2 Design & Plans for CIP Skewed end. 12.0 40.0 48.0 100.0 $7,220.0 $7.220.00 2.3 Independent Design and Plan Check 40.0 8.0 40.0 88.0 $6,240.0 $8,240.00 Skewed End 2.4 Bridge Rating Skewed End 4.0 8.0 12.0 $940.0 $940.00 2.5 Modifications to Storm Lines 16.0 6.0 8.0 30.0 $2,287.1 $2,287.13 2.6 Revise lighting and power 8.0 Ere 16.0 $1,120.0 $3,500.00 $4,620.00 E7 Addlbonal submittals & meetings (3) & 240 24.0 60.0 108.0 $7,620.00 $7,620.00 revisions 2.8 SpecIflcations 8.0 16.0 24.0 $11880.0 $1,880.00 2.9 New Construction Cost Esflmates 24.0 24.0 48.0 $3,720.00 $3,720.00 2.10 Additional Project MgL & Coord. 24.0 8.0 32.0 $2,440.00 $2.440.00 2.11 Geotechnical Engineer Review Total Addendum Not to Exceetl Hours and 253.0 18.0 268.0 677.0 1216.0 $86,121.3E $3,500.00 $89,621.38 Fees' NOTES: i- Note: Does not include hwrs used for shop OWN level of plans work that was charged to Shop Ommngs under the Conmiction Administration Phase previously. These are In addition to those hours. 2-Note: Does nolinclude hours replacement of construction administration hours used for BNSF Shop Drawings. The Construction Administration hours will be shod due to this.