HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHANGE ORDER - BID - 7332 MAX BRT PROJECT (7)US
PROJECT TITLE:
CONTRACTOR:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PURCHASE ORDER NO.:
DESCRIPTION:
1. Reason for change:
CHANGE ORDER NO. 04
Mason Corridor - MAX BRT
Concrete Express, Inc.
7332 (CEI project no. 12-009)
9124039
Downtown Street Maintenance
This work is being added to the CEI contract to assist the Streets Department with their 2013 Maintenance
Program. By adding this work to the CEI contract, the City has combined work into a more efficient delivery
thus taking advantage of existing traffic control utilized by the MAX BRT project and minimizing disruptions to
the downtown businesses. This contract change also offers better schedule and cost control for work
performed in the downtown area without introduction of another contractor to perform this work.
2. Description of Change:
This change order adds curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt, concrete and other miscellaneous maintenance
repairs from Laurel Street to Cherry Street in Downtown Fort Collins.
The work authorized through this change order is paid for at established contract unit prices as bid in the
MAX BRT contract. A summary of the quantities, prices and overall cost is attached to this change order.
3. Change in Contract Cost: $220,240.42
4. Change in Contract Time: 0 calendar days for substantial completion
0 calendar days for final completion
TOTAL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
TOTAL PENDING CHANGE ORDERS
TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER
TOTAL % OF ORIGINAL CONTRACT, THIS C.O.
TOTAL % OF ORIGINAL CONTRACT, ALL C.O.'S
ADJUSTED CONTRACT COST
(Assuming all change orders
ACCEPTED BY:
Contractor's Represe
REVIEWED BY:
Construction Manage
APPROVED BY: (
City Project Manager
APPROVED BY:
City Engineer
APPROVED BY:
Purchasing Agent over
cc: City Clerk Architect
Contractor Engineer
Project File Purchasing
0.69%
1.24%
$32,281,281.34
DATE: .
DATE:
-DATE: 3 o �3
DATE: 3
DATE:
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
of past performance, and financial and
1. Y
technical resources.
2. Y
1. Appropriate Financial, equipment, facility
3. Y
and personnel. (Y/N)
4. Y
2. Ability to meet delivery schedule. (Y/N)
5.Y
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.)
CHANGE ORDER
(2) Public exigency for the requirement did
CONTRACTOR IS CEI
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
YES ORIGINALLY SELECTED
of this procurement. At a minimum, these
BY BID PROCESS
records include:
CONTRACTOR HAS BEEN
(1) the rationale for the method of
RESPONSIVE AND PRICES
procurement,
ARE FROM EXISTING LINE
(2) Selection of contract type,
(3) reasons for contractor selection or
ITEM PRICING FROM BID
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
amendment was treated as a sole source
THE 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
NO
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
System for Award Management
Page 1 of 1
CONCRETE EXPRESS, INC.
DUNS: 184088763 CAGE Code: 442U2
Status: Active
Entity Overview
Entity Information
DUNS: 184088763
Name: CONCRETE EXPRESS, INC.
Doing Business As: CEI
Business Type: Business or Organization
POC Name: None Specified
Registration Status: Active
Expiration Date:06/13/2013
Exclusions
Active Exclusion Records? No
SAM I System for Award Management 1.0
Note to all Users: This is a Federal Government computer system. Use of this
system constitutes consent to monitoring at all times.
2027 W COLFAX AVE
DENVER, CO, 80204-2331 ,
UNITED STATES
IBM v1.817.20130323-2053
WWW1
https://www. sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/?portal:componentld=7cbf8635-61 f6-41 ff-bfb6-2... 3/27/2013
cityo
Fort Collins Independent Cost Estimate
Date of Estimate: 27-Mar-13
Contract Type: T&M
Egsling Contract or PO (YIN): Y
Description of Goods (A) or Services (i
Work includes curb gutter, sidewalk, asphalt, concrete and other micellaneious maintenance reparis from Laurel Street
to Cherry Street in Downtown Fort Collins. It is most cost effective to have CEI, the contractor for the MAX Ell provide
repairs for this area. Utilizing CEI would be the most beneficial to the COFC in that there cost savings as well as
womanly and project consistencies through the downtown corridor.
I have obtained the following estimate from;
Published Price Ust / Past Pricing (date)
Engineering or Technical Estimate (performed by) Kad Craven
Independent Third Party Estimate (performed by)
Other (specify)
Cost Estimate Details:
(Estimate calculated in US Dollars)
C: t of Standi It..
Product
Cost($tea)
Cost($lea)
Notes/Data Source
Delivered
No Frei ht
Total
Cost of. Services, Repairs, or Non -Standard Items
Item7Task:
Materials or Work. Description
Other Direct
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Allocated
Costs
Streets
Overhead
SG&A',
Profit
TOTAL
Aggregate Base Course
183.0
TON
$ 23.81
$ 4,356.32
HMA Hand Patching'?IO" -
Remove & Replace
33?..0
TON.
$ 95.00
$ - 31,540.00
Concrete Sidewalk Culvert -
Remove &-Replace
9.0
EA
S 1,536.98
$ 13,832.78
Metal Sidewalk Culvert - -
Additional 5/8"Plate
8.0
SF
$ 149.04
$ 1,192.32
Remove Concrete
330.0
SF
$ 1.66
$ 546.48
Apron 8" - Remove & Replace
200.8
SF
$ 7.25
$ 1,454.80
Crosspan 8" - Remove &
Replace
184.8
SF
$ 7.25
$ 1,338.88
Vertical Curb, Gutter, No
Sidewalk - Remove & Replace
624.0
LF
$ 27.84
$ 17,373.10
Barrier Curb 12" - Remove &
Replace
15.0
LF
$ 15.53
-
$ 232.88
Highback Curb, Gutter, No
Sidewalk-- Remove &Replace
1823.0
LF
$ 35.19
$ 64,151.37
Pedestrian Access Ramp -
Remove & Replace
2322.1
SF
$ 7.71
$ 17,905.13
Truncated Dome Panel
255.2
SF
$ 41.30
$ 10,538.87
Flatwork 6" - Remove &
3983A
SF
$ 6.28
Replace
-I
$ 25,023.63
Replace Flatwork - 1"
Additional Depth
1760.0
SF
$ 0.72
$ 1,275.12
Colored Concrete San Diego
Buff-U Charge
33.0
SF
$ 0.93
$ 30.74
Alley Approach 8" - Remove
& Replace
809.6
SF
$ 7.97
$ 6,452.11
Expansion & Caulking
8.3
LF
$ 4.14
$ 34.36
Reset Fla tone
366.0
SF
$ 2.07-
-
$ 757.62
Traffic Control. ESTIMATED
20%
1.0
LS
$ 39,607.30
$ 39,607.30
Signature of Prepares ' _,.%
TOTAL $ 237,643.78
'W11.E� 1-
max
CHANGE ORDER NO. 4
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Project: Mason Corridor — MAX BRT
Project No. 7332 (CEI project #12-009)
Date: March 11, 2013
Description of Change:
MAX Field Construction Office
3000 South College Ave., Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80526
fcgov.com/maxconstruction
This change order adds curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt, concrete and other miscellaneous maintenance repairs
from Laurel Street to Cherry Street in Downtown Fort Collins. This work is being added to the CEI contract to assist
the Streets Department with their 2013 Maintenance Program. By adding this work to the CEI contract, the City
has combined work into a more efficient delivery thus taking advantage of existing traffic control utilized by the MAX
BRT project and minimizing disruptions to the downtown businesses. This contract change also offers better
schedule and cost control for work performed in the downtown area without introduction of another contractor to
perform this work.
The work authorized through this change order is paid for at established contract unit prices as bid in the MAX BRT
contract. A summary of the quantities, prices and overall cost is attached to this change order.
Change In Contract Value:
The contract value is being increased by $220,240.42. Please see attached quantity and unit price cost schedule.
Total _Contract Change -.this change Total Change Change Order: $220,240.42
Change in Contract Time:
There is no requested change in contract time. The contract time remains as outlined below.
Contract Time`Summary
Revised Substantial Completion Date (through CO #3):
January 8, 2014
Revised Final Completion Date (through CO #3):
February 7, 2014
Days added (change order 4):
0 calendar
Page 1 of 1
Downtown Street Maintenance - MAX BRT Contract Unit Prices March 11, 2013
Concrete Express, Inc. - Work Change Directive 44
Item No.
Description
Contract Quantity
Unit
CEI Unit Price
CEI Contract Cost
202-00220
Remove Asphalt
604.0
SY
S 4.80
$ 2,899.20
304-06000
ABC CL 6
183.0
TON
S 25.75
S 4,712.25
403-00721
HMA Patching (Permanent)
332.0
TON
S 146.00
S 48,472.00
604.21
Concrete Sidewalk Culvert - Remove & Replace
9.0
EA
$ 1,480.00
S 11,840.00
604.24
Metal Sidewalk Culvert - Additional 518" Plate
8.0
SF
$ 40.00
$ 300.00
202-00200
Remove Sidewalk
37.0
SY
S 10.05
$ 371.85
2002-00210
Remove Cone Pvmnt
22.0
SY
S 16.80
$ 369.60
412-00800
Cone Pavement 8"
22.0
SY
$ 52.25
S 1,149.50
2002-00210
Remove Cone Pvmnt
21.0
SY
S 16.80
$ 352.80
412-00800
Cone Pavement 8"
21.0
SY
S 52.25
$ 1,097.25
202-00203
Remove Curb & Gutter
624.0
LF
$ 4.50
$ 2,808.00
609-21020
VCNSW
624.0
LF
$ 10.24
$ 6,389.76
202-00203
Remove Curb & Gutter
15.0
LF
$ 4.50
S 67.50
609-20010
C&G Type 11
15.0
LF
$ 12.00
$ 180.00
202-00203
Remove Curb & Gutter
1823.0
LF
$ 4.50
$ 8,203.50
609-71000
Curb Special (Highback)
1823.0
LF
$ 28.00
$ 51,044.00
202-00206
Remove Curb Ramp
258.0
SY
$ 27.00
$ 6,966.00
608-00010
Cone Curb Ramp
258.0
SY
$ 72.30
$ 18,653.40
202-00200
RemoveSidewaik
443.0
SY
$ 10.05
$ 4,452.15
608-00006
Concrete Sdwk 6"
443.0
SY
$ 38.22
S 16,931.46
N/A
Additional depth
1760.0
SF
S 0.72
S 1,267.20
N/A
Colored Concrete San Diego Buff -Up Charge
33.0
SF
$ 1.70
S 56.10
2002-00210
Remove Cone Pvmnt
90.0
SY
S 16.80
S 1,512.00
412-00800
Cone Pavement 8"
90.0
SY
S 52.25
S 4,702.50
N/A
Reset Flagstone / Pavers
366.0
SF
$ 2.40
S 878.40
N/A
Traffic Control
LO
LS
$ 15,064.00
S 15,064.00
633-00000
Mobilization
0.0
LS
$ 9,500.00
TOTAL CONTRACT CHANGE
$ 220,240.42
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
fcgo v. com/e ngine enng
Memorandum
To: Jim O'Neill, Director of Purchasing and Risk Management
From: Erika Keeton, Special Projects Engineer
Date: March 6, 2013
Re: Justification for Change Order - Concrete Express (MAX BRT Project)
Street Maintenance Concrete Repairs on Mason Street Downtown
Budgeted Amount: $ 220,000
Background:
City Streets Department needs to make concrete repairs on Mason Street between Laurel and
Cherry. Engineering already has a number of MAX Bus Rapid Transit project work zones in
place under the Concrete Express contract that encompass the same work areas, and will have
more in the very near future. After discussing this with the Streets team, I would like to request
that CEI be utilized to complete the concrete repairs.
• Competitive concrete repair prices — a cost comparison has been completed and the
CET unit prices are lower than the existing Street Maintenance contract. In addition, CEI
already has in place the necessary railroad insurance, safety training, and permits.
• Traffic control cost savings— CEI can utilize MAX traffic control setups to complete
portions of the work at no additional expense to the project. This also avoids the
difficulties associated with two traffic control companies and two sets of traffic control
equipment in the same area.
• Warranty Consistency — all repairs would be completed by the same contractor,
simplifying the management and repair of any warranty related items in the future.
• Schedule Control — CEI is on site and could begin work immediately. This will expedite
the completion of the work in the downtown area, and maximize the volume of work that
can be completed within existing work zones.
• Project Delivery Consistency — all repairs would be managed by the MAX construction
management team, which would provide consistent control of the schedule, provide
consistent public outreach efforts, and minimize the impacts to citizens due to multiple
mobilizations of different contractors.
• Achieves SMP Critical Path — It is crucial that Streets complete critical path concrete
efforts for their 2013 project this spring. Mason work is not critical path from a Streets
perspective, as the paving won't be complete until September. The Phase I and 11
concrete efforts need to start on the critical path projects, not Mason.
I believe the amount of $220,240.42 is very reasonable for the work prescribed and as such, 1
recommend approval of this change order.
2
CEr Change Order Proposal
Street Malydenance Cost Comparison
Concrete Repair- Mason from Laurel to CAeny
No. Ma
Dasedptlm
.._ .
Cantram WntRy
Unit
Street
Mabnonenp Unit
Stneb Contract Cpt
.,_
CEIUNt Pile.
_- __.
CEI Contract Cost- 1
202-00220
Remove'Asphmt I
-604.0
SY
S 4.80
S 2,999.20
304.01
Aggregate Base Course
183.0
TON
$ 23.81
S 4,356.32
304-06000
ABCCL6
, ; ;1830.
TON.
$ '25.75
S. 4712.25,
403.01
Tmryoney Patching
TON-
S 165.60
S, -
403.08
BMA Hand ParL6tg>_IO"-Remove&Replace
332.0
TON
S 95.00
S 31.54000----
.40340721 -
1IldAPatchvng(Pmmneet) _ -
- -- 332.0
TON 1
Y 146.00
S 48,472.00-
604.21
ConaCe Sidewalk Colvm- Remove&Replace
9.0
EA
S 1,536.98
$ 13,832.78
S l.'480.00�
S -� 11,940.00.
604.24
Metal Snde.A Cdvm- Additional SB' Plate
8.0
SIF
$ . 149.04
S 1,192.32
S 40 W
S _-- _ 30Q00'
608.01
Remove Concrete
330.0
SF
$ 1.66
$ 546.48.
202-00200
Remov<Sidewalk
370
SY
f 10_05
f 37L85
608.03
Apure 8' - Rmrove & Replace
200.8
SF
$ 7.25
S 1,454 80
2002-M 10
Remove Conilvtmt
,.22A
SY",
S ,16.80
�f' 369.60
412'400800'66c
Piveeienl8"
220
;SY52.25'
S; 1149.30:
603.04
Croiipm 8'- Remove &Replace
184.8
SF
f 7.25
S 1,339.88
a -_
2002-00210
Remove Come Pvmd,
21.0.
SY
-
S 16.80
$ 352$04
412-00800
Come Pavement 8" -
21.0,
SY
S, '52.25
' S I'llm5
608.08
Vernal Curb, (ante; No Sidewalk- Remove & Replace
Q4.0
LF
$ 27.84
$ 17,373.10
202-00203
Remove Curb RGuner
624.0
LF
- -
S 4:50
'1', 2,808.00�.
609Q1020
VCNSW
,,614.0
LF
S' 10.24
S ,6,389.76�
608.10
Barrier Curb 12' - Rove & Replace
15.0
LF
S 15.33
S 232.98
-
202-00203
Removve Curb & Goats -
'15.0
LF .,
S .4.50
S , 67.50`
609--20010
C&G TypeIl
15.0
- `LF
S .. 12.00
S t80.00'
603.13
Fliglabark Cnrt%Gmter. No Sidew"agc- Remove&Replace
1823.0
LF
S 35.19
S 64,151.37
2024W203
Reeve Curb& Gutter
1823.0
LF
$ 4.50
f. um.50
609;71000
Curb Special(F08MWck)
1823.0
LF
$ 28.00.
S 51,044.00'
603.14
Pedestdm Access Ratny-Remove&Replace
23221
SIF
S 7.71
1 17,905.13
202410'206
Remov Q6Ramp
.258.6
SY ,
f. 27.00
: S. 6,966.00:
6%-MI0
Coac Curb Ramp
258.0
SY
$ -: P JO
f 18,653:40.
608:16
Tr ncaed Dome Panel
255.2
SF
$ 41.30
S 10,538.87
-
6M.18
Ramcnt 6' - Remove & Replace
3983.1
SF
$ 6.28
S 25,023.63
,
202-00200
Remove Sidewalk -
1443.0
SY,.
'S 10.03.
S' 4452:13!
- 605-00006
Coiaiete Sdwk 6-
443.0
.SY
f 38.22
S 16,931t46
608.19
RepaceFlawoh-I'Additional3kph
1760.0
SF
$ 0.72
S 1r75.12
-
- ----
NIA
Additional depth
1760.0'
SF
S 0.72
S 1j67.20
6M.20
Colored Conmae San Diego Bull- Up Chsge
33.0
SF
S 0.93
$ 30.74
WA
...._ _. UpOmp - ..
Colored Concrete Sae DiegoBuff-
-
33.0`._ !
SF. ...
_
S '1.70
-
1 5610.
608.23
Alley'ApproacA B'- Remove&Replace
809.6
'SF
S 7.97
S 6,452.11
2002-W210
Reviove Cone Pt --
90.0
SY
3 1680
f 1;512.00.
412-00800 -�-
Cone PaYwent 3" - - -
- 90.0
- SY
S 52.25
S 4,702.50
608.24
Expansion & Caulking
8.3
LF
S 4.14
S, 34.36
608.27
React Flagstone
366.0
SF -
$ 2.07
S 75762
N/A
Reaa.Fligstme/Pavem - -
366.0
SF
$ 2.40
$ - - 878.40
630.01
Traffic Control ESITMATED 205f
1.0
(S
$ 39,607-30
S 39,607.30
NIA _ ... ,
Traffic Central ' _ ._ _ .. _
. ;. 10 _..
LS , ".
S 15,064.00_
S 15064.00
6J3.00000_ .MobM
u
-I
-
S 9,5LL0
-
TOTAL
?...:�_ 220.240A2
Poe 1 oft
Title: MAX Change Order 4
Date: 3-27-13
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
independent cost estimate before receipt of
proposals.
10) Unnecessary Experience and
Excessive Bonding
Unnecessary experience and excessive
NO
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
NO
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.