No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHANGE ORDER - RFP - 7155 PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES - MASON CORRIDORCityof Planning, Development & Transportation Engineering F6rt Collins I 281 College Avenue 580 l n , CO 80522.0580 Fortrt Colh w-� 970.221.6605 970.221.6378 - fax fcgov.com/engineering CHANGE ORDER FORM PROJECT TITLE: Mason Corridor BRT Project PROJECT NUMBER: 400903280 CONTRACTOR: AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (PO #9104026) CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 2 In preparing change orders show in order as separate numbered paragraphs the following 1. Reason for change. 2. Description of change. 3. Change in contract cost. 4. Change in contract time. 1 &2. This Change Order will extend the performance time of this contract and increase the total contract cost. Pursuant to Contract 7155, dated August 4th, 2010, Exhibit A, entitled Scope of ServIces this Change Order will Increase the contract performance period from August 1, 2012 to July, 30 2014. Pursuant to Number 4, Compensation, the total contract cost is changed from $828,243 to $1,229,276. See attached for additional reason and description of change. 3. The contract cost will increase by $401,033.00. 4. The Contract time is extended thru July 30, 2014. ORIGINAL CONTRACT COST TOTAL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS TOTAL PENDING CHANGE ORDERS TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER ADJUSTED CONTRACT COST $699,498.00 $128, 745.00 $0.00 $401,033.00 $1,229,276.00 (Assuming all change orders approved) ACCEPTED BY: � r YG�, %/`rSa. kCE 5 DATE: SUBMITTEDE REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: cc: City Clerk Contractor Purchasing Project File 'E:I • lb •I?--� TE: rE: rE: Excluded Parties List System Page 1 of 1 Search - Current Exclusions I Mo, C __ ti1 Resources >Advanced Search > Multiple Names > Exact Name and SSN/TIN > MyEPLS > Recent Updates > Browse All Records View Cause and Treatment Code Descriptions > Reciprocal Codes > Procurement Codes > Nonprocurement Codes Agency & Acronym Information > Agency Contacts >Agency Descriptions > State/Country Code Descriptions OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT USE ONLY • Debar Maintenance •Administration > Upload Login Results Search Results for Parties Excluded by Firm, Entity, or Vessel : AECOM Technical Services, Inc State: COLORADO Country : UNITED STATES As of 19-Jul-2012 10:57 AM EDT Save to MyEPLS Your search returned no results. Back New Search Printer -Friendly > Search Help >Advanced Search Tips • Public User's Manual •FAQ > Acronyms > Privacy Act Provisions > News System for Award Management > (SAM) Reports >Advanced Reports > Recent Updates > Dashboard Archive Search - Past Exclusions >Advanced Archive Search > Multiple Names > Recent Updates > Browse All Records Contact Information > For Help: Federal Service Desk https://www.epls.gov/epls/search.do,jsessionid=C5685394ODB5AFAF418B4lD663D9A423 7/19/2012 Title: AECOM Change order #2 Mason Corridor BRT Date: 7-19-12 CONTRACT CHECKLIST FOR NON-COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS (SOLE SOURCE) Checklist Item Contract File Comments Location 7) Independent Cost Estimate The City made and documented an Yes and in the file independent cost estimate before receipt of proposals. 10) Unnecessary Experience and Excessive Bonding Unnecessary experience and excessive na bonding requirements were not included in this solicitation or contract documents. 11) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) If there is an apparent or potential OCI the solicitation contains provisions to eliminate or mitigate the conflict (e.g. by inserting a clause no that prohibits the contractor from competing for the follow-on contract to the current design or research contact) and OCI Certification is submitted by the contractor. 12) Arbitrary Action There was no arbitrary action in the procurement process. (An example of arbitrary action is when award is made to no other than the contractor who most satisfied all the City requirements as specified in the solicitation and as evaluated by staff. 13) Brand Name Restrictions Brand Name or Equal. When it is impractical or uneconomical to provide a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements of the property to be acquired, a "brand name or equal" description may be used to define the performance or other salient characteristics of a specific type of property. The City must identify the salient characteristics of the named brand that na offerors must provide. When using a "brand name" specification, the City does not need to reverse -engineer a complicated part to identify precise measurements or specifications in order to describe its salient characteristics. FT A's "Best Practices Procurement Manual," (BPPM) contains additional information on preparation of specifications including examples with specific language. 14) Geographic Preferences The solicitation contains no in -State or local no geographic preference except where Federal statutes mandate or encourage them. 15) Contract Term Limitation The contract period of performance for rolling stock and replacement parts does not exceed five (5) years inclusive of options without prior na written FTA approval. For all other types of contracts, the procurement file contains evidence that the contract term is based on sound business 'ud ment. 18) Award to Responsible Contractor The City made a determination that it was awarding to a responsible contractor considering such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record 1. Yes of past performance, and financial and 2. Yes technical resources. 3. Yes 1. Appropriate Financial, equipment, facility and personnel. (Y/N) 4. Yes 2. Ability to meet delivery schedule. (Y/N) 5. Yes 3. Satisfactory period of performance. (Y/N) 4. Satisfactory record of integrity, not on declined or suspended listings. (Y/N) 5. Receipt of all necessary data from vendor. (Y/N) 19) Sound and Complete Agreement This contract is a sound and complete agreement. In addition, it includes remedies Yes change order for breach of contract and provisions covering termination for cause and convenience. 24) Clear, Accurate, and Complete Specification A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchased description was yes available and included any specifications and pertinent attachments which define the items or services sought in order for the bidder to properly respond. 38) Sole Source if other Award is Infeasible The contract file contains documentation that award of a contract was infeasible under small purchase procedures, sealed bids, or competitive proposals and at least one of the following circumstances applies: (1) The item was available only from a single source. (Verify prices are no higher than price for such item by likely customers.) (2) Public exigency for the requirement did Change order not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation. (3) An emergency for the requirement did not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation. (4) The FT A authorized noncompetitive negotiations. (5) Competition was determined inadequate after solicitation of a number of sources. 39) Cost Analysis Required Cost analysis and profit negations were performed (initial award and modifications) And documented for price reasonableness yes was established on the basis of a catalog or market price of a commercial product sold in substantial quantities to the general public or on the basis of prices set by law or regulation. 40) Evaluation of Options The option quantities or periods contained in the contractor's bid or offer were evaluated in order to determine contract award. (To be na eligible for Federal funding, options must be evaluated as part of the price evaluation of offers, or must be treated as sole source awards. 42) Written Record of Procurement History The file contains records detailing the history of this procurement. At a minimum, these Yes... originally selected by RFP records include: and consultant has been (1) the rationale for the method of responsive. Hourly rates per work procurement, order (2) Selection of contract type, (3) reasons for contractor selection or rejection, and 4 the basis for the contract price. 43) Exercise of Options The grantee exercised an option on this contract adhering to the terms and conditions of the option stated in the contract and determined that the option price was better no than prices available in the market or that the option was a more advantageous offer at the time the option was exercised. If an option was not exercised under this contract, check NA. 44) Out of Scope Changes The grantee amended this contract outside the scope of the original contract. The Yes, the work is outside of the amendment was treated as a sole source original agreement procurement (complying with the FTA requirements for a justification, cost analysis and profit negotiation). 45) Advance Payment Provisions The contractor did not receive an advance payment utilizing FTA funds and the contract no does not contain advance payment provisions or, if it did, prior written concurrence was obtained from FTA. 46) Progress Payment Provisions The contract contains progress payments based on costs incurred (as opposed to percent of completion) and the contract contains a provision giving the grantee title to yes property (materials, work in progress, and finished goods) for which progress payments are made. The contract may contain other security in lieu of obtaining title. 47) Time and Materials Contracts This is a time and materials contract; the grantee determined that no other type of no contract is suitable; and the contract specifies a ceiling rice. 48) Cost Plus Percentage of Cost This is not a cost plus a percentage of cost No type contract. 49) Liquidated Damages Provisions This contract contains liquidated damages provisions and the assessment for damages Na is specified in the contract at a specific rate per day for each day of overrun in contract time. 50) Piggybacking 1) The file contains: Assignability provisions. No 2) The procurement file contains: Price reasonableness determination. 56) Clauses This contract contains the appropriate FTA Yes required clauses. Excluded Parties Search EPS run and include in the file. yes F6rt Collins 1�/ � 8 C 1,11.111 Planning, Development & Transportation Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522,0580 970.221.6605 970.221.6378 - fax fcgov. comlengineering To: Jim O'Neil, Director of Purchasing and Risk Management From: Erika Keeton, Special Projects gineer �-- Date: 6/25/2012 Re: 7155 Project Management Services— AECOM CO No. 2 Cost Analysis and Sole Source & Justification AECOM requires an additional supplement (CO#2) for the MAX BRT project as the Project moves into the Construction Phase. The Construction Phase project management assistance was generally discussed in the original scope of work but was not budgeted. This CO#2 will allow AECOM to continue services through the remainder of the project. I recommend a budget supplement to extend their consulting services through May of 2014: AECOM is requesting a supplemental budget increase of $401,033.00 for the construction phase of the Project. Attached to this memo, please find the proposed Change Order #2 from AECOM, which includes a drawdown schedule for the Consultant Project Manager (CPM). It is assumed that the Construction Manager will take over most of the CPM duties over time however, the CPM is valuable resource and should remain part-time allocated to the Project. I have prepared an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) also attached, which is relatively close in cost at $404,040 based on our preliminary negotiations. The first AECOM CO#2 budget request was $447,438.00 and through change order negotiations the budget was reduced to $401,033. The attached ICE is very close to the sub -consultants change order request as the rates and the timeframe are negotiated prior to requesting the change order. The assumptions of the ICE are detailed in the attached ICE spreadsheet. The differences in cost are minimal and the estimate is reasonable as compared to the ICE. A -:COM should be utilized for this particular work effort since it would be less cost effective to have another consultant do this consultant project management work as AECOM has been engaged with project for the past 4 years. In preparing my ICE for this change order, I used previous change order personnel rates from AECOM and compared them to other consultants doing similar consultant work, such as Michael Baker Corp, and found AECOM's rates to be reasonable for this change order. I based the estimated number of hours to perform these services for the ICE from my previous project related experience with AECOM and the Safety Security portions of the BRT and other projects of similar complexities. 11 of rtCollins Currently, the AECOM contract expires in July 2012 and will need to be extended to July of 2014,in conjunction with this change order. As AECOM consultant project manager services are necessary to progress the project through testing and startup of the BRT, a budget supplement is warranted. Based on my experience, I believe the requested Change Order #2 for the amount of $401,033.00 is reasonable for the currently anticipated work remaining for the construction and testing/startup phase of the BRT project. I recommend approval of this Change Order. 2 FOriCAIVos Independent Cost Estimate Bid 7155 - Project Management Services, AECOM Change Order No. 2 Date of Estimate: 18-Jun-12 Contract Type: T&M 7 Contract or PO (YIN): Y )escription of Services: Extend funding for consultant project management services and safety security certification oversight during the construction From June of 2012 thru May of 2014. CO#1 extended design phase services from November of 2011 thru March of 2012, per the original AECOM contract #7155, dated August 2, 2010. This service will conclude the consultant project management and safety security oversight duties during the construction phase. The CPM will assist the City with Real-estate acquisitions, agreements, FTA reporting, etc. The safety security consultant support portion will cover the Operational Preparedness, testing verification review workshop, Construction CIL's and a Construction verification workshop. Additionally supplements may be required for consultant project management through the construction phase of the project AECOM's original budget was based on the design phase only. As AECOM consultant project manager services are necessary to progress the project to the construction phase, a budget supplement and contract extension is warranted. Cost of Services, Repairs, or Non -Standard Items Item/Task: Materials or Work Description Other Direct Labor Rate Labor Labor Class Allocated. SG&A" Profit TOTAL Costs ($) Hours Overhead Consultant Project Management Construction Phase (Assume $ 150.00 1920 $ 288,000.00 50% utilization for 24 months) Support $ 170.00 40 $ 6.800.00 Safety Security Oversight - Construction Phase (deisgn phase hour estimate for SS $ 180.00 500 $ 90,000.00 wasl500 hours : assume 113 for construction phase) CDC's(10%of services) $ 19,240.00 Total 2460 $ 404,040.00 'SaWg. enteral and Adnllydstralive Expenses Signature of Pre 4ig a R. Keeton, P.E. AECOM AECOM 303.376.2900 tel 717 17" St., Suite 2600 303.376.2999 fax Denver, CO 80202 v .aecom.com June 18, 2012 Erika Keeton, PE City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 Reference: Mason Corridor BRT Project Management Services Purchase Order Number 9104026 Contract Supplement No. 2 Dear Ms Keeton: AECOM continues to be available to the City of Fort Collins for Consultant Project Management services to assist you with ongoing management activities through the construction phase of the MAX BRT Project. Our original contract budget accounted for management services through July of 2011. Contract Supplement No. 1 extended our budget professional services budget to March of 2012 and contract time to July of 2012. We have cautiously utilized our budget to extend our services through June of 2012. At your request, AECOM is submitting a budget supplement of $401,033.00 for Contract Supplement No. 2. This budget supplement includes cost to extend Project Management Services and Safety Security Certification Support through the construction phase of the Project. Additionally, we would like to request extending our Contract Completion timeframe to July of 2014 when the project is expected to be closed out. This budget supplement includes project management support and other direct costs such as travel, vehicle transportation costs and the like. Should Project Construction be delayed beyond December of 2013 or the Testing and Startup phase be delayed beyond May of 2014, additional budget supplements may be required. I. Project Management and Coordination - Construction Phase 1541 Hours Estimated The Consultant Project Manager (CPM), will continue to support the City regarding the overarching project management activities. These will generally include coordination with the FTA, monthly FTA and AECOM report updates, assistance with real-estate, coordination with City's attorneys regarding real-estate and project legal issues such as IGA's and licenses to enter private property, consultant oversight and invoicing, BNSF coordination with construction, PUC's and other project agreements. These activities are dependant upon a multitude of factors outside the control of the CPM such as the Construction Managers (CM) involvement and/or knowledge and available time to deal with some of the project management activities, FTA/CDOT/City management requests or updates, etc. Based on discussion with the City's Management Team, AECOM estimated these hours based CPM drawdown through the construction phase of the Project. The discussion revolved around the understanding of the time of the writing of this proposal that the CM will eventually be integral to the overall project management but will take some time for this to occur thus there will be a slow drawdown of CPM engagement through the construction phase. AECOM also possesses critical project and historical knowledge that may be useful to either the CM or the City or both as the project moves forward. A COM II. Project Controls 40 Hours Estimated Erika Keeton 6/18/12 Page 2 of 3 AECOM has historical assisted with scheduling of the project and requests minimal hours for schedule review or assistance to the CM regarding scheduling. Additionally, we request hours for any necessary quality assurance reviews regarding AECOM contract deliverables. III. Construction Phase — Safety Security Oversight Total 736 Hours Estimated — Detailed Breakdown Below A. Construction CIL - Finalize Construction Phase Specifications Conformance Checklist/ Certifiable Items List (CIL). 106 Hours Estimated 1. Update Certifiable Items List (CIL) from Design Phase: 2. Review awarded Contracts/specifications for BRT Main Contract and VMFE and finalize the certifiable items list (CIL) 3. Complete the development of, and deliver the CIL B. Testing Verification Review Workshop -Conduct one workshop with Construction Staff and CFC for Testing/ Inspection Verification/Review, and Status of compliance based on testing documentation. 96 Hours Estimated 1. Conduct one workshop to advise, coordinate, and review responsibilities and Process for Safety Certification during Construction. a. The Construction Contractor will demonstrate compliance with CIL by referencing daily inspection reports, audits, surveillance activities, transmittals, test reports and associated evidence documents. b. The Construction Contractor is responsible for completing the Specification Conformance portion of the CIL Checklist. Completion of the checklist involves providing verification that the installation or testing to verify the requirement has been completed satisfactorily. c. Construction Management Staff will enforce Contractors compliance with contract requirements and collect documented evidence of compliance. d. FLSC: i. Once the Construction contractor completes the checklist for a particular element, the FLSC reviews the checklist. ii. The FLSC verifies that the test, inspection, product cut out or construction related documentation resolves the checklist safety or security requirement. iii. The FLSC and the Safety and Security Consultant have review responsibility for the checklist and recommend approval of the checklists to the Risk Manager. iiii. The Risk Manager has final approval authority for the completed checklists. 2. Conduct one workshop to review status of Contractor's Compliance. All CIL evidence of compliance documentation will be produced (electronically) by the Contractor and the CFC construction management staff/ Inspectors and made available to the safety certification team and FLSC. A COM Erika Keeton 6/18/12 Page 3 of 3 C. Provide safety and Security Construction Phase verification support 32 Hours Estimated Coordinate/ meet with construction management staff performing construction verification; review construction verification data produced by Construction Contractor, Construction Management Staff/ Resident Engineer, Construction Management Inspectors, and CFC Construction Manager(s). D. Provide safety and security support in operations preparedness (rules, procedures and training) 238 Hours Estimated Coordinate/ meet with construction management staff performing construction verification; review construction verification data produced by Construction Contractor, Construction Management Staff/ Resident Engineer, Construction Management Inspectors, and CFC Construction Manager(s). E. Provide safety and security support in operations preparedness (rules, procedures and training) 72 Hours Estimated Review of BRT and City O&M documents prepared and/or revised by CFC/ Transfort. Operational Readiness Review Workshop - Review of BRT and City O&M documents prepared and/or revised by CFC/ Transfort. 32 Hours Estimated Conduct one workshop with Construction Staff and CFC/Transfort for Operational Readiness Verification/ Review, and Status of compliance based on Update by the City/ Transfort of their Operating Plans and Procedures. G. Safety and Security Certification Verification Report 160 Hours Estimated Support FLSC in preparing report, incorporate comments from CFC, and one comment cycle from PMOC. For your consideration, we have prepared the following estimate of fees to complete the final design phase of the MAX BRT Project. Sincerely, 4e�'J 47tj Richard Romig, PE Denver Area Manager AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Enclosures cc: T Tyrrell, File 60181730 MAX BRT Project Management Estimated Other Direct Costs - Supplement No. 2 Item Quantity Unit Price Total Leased vehicle (per month) 12 $1,000.00 $12,000 Miscellaneous printing, postage, meals, etc 15 $200.00 $3,000 Travel (assume 4 person -trips for safety -security program): Airfare 4 $500 $2,000 Rental cars (days) 8 $100 $800 Hotel 8 $150 $1,200 Per diem 8 $90 $720 Mileage 20,000 $0.555 $11,100 Total $30,820 cuxu Munn St¢ BRT Pm)ert XOmLemem Sen'km- Supplement Ne?(Comtruetloo Pnate Se Icn) Cmt EtHmate - Jung 2012 L I'njrcr �lana>rervrael(a�XlriiXu- C Plumm®�' ®®®0m®®®�®�®' ®®®®®��®®�m® e�InnWn (ILC num[114n PE .afiltSe[uirry Par¢nnllrtnlplflaa4 J1 �( _' _ :. ( .r ': �' . IT I.f atlolry4.k4y r In4ha mtiq � ¢�Nuav a Iyna am{maa rya qn f(m.nL_ Crtw IF`Smm SILN�nalaMYa