Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHANGE ORDER - BID - 7426 TRANSFORT MAINTENANCE FACILITY EXPANSION (3)Nam Change Order No. 2 PROJECT TITLE: Tranfort Maintenace Facility Expansion CONTRACTOR: Heath Construction BID NUMBER: 7426 DESCRIPTION: 3� 1. Reason for change: Incorporation of various Pricing Change Requ�sts (PCR's) Into the Contract. 2. Description of change: PCR#2 - Replace 9 deciduous trees and 0`Spruce and add 4 Austrian pines - $1,282.60; PCR#3 - Delete the steel tube frames from all OH Doors, Increase 8' X 10' OH Door to 8' X 12' and frame w/ MC Channel - ($4,965.22); PCR#4 - Replace the existing Trench Draln in Chassis Wash and Cap Lube Llne - $7,114.27; PCR#5 - Add Electric Sensing Edge, Double End Stiles and 3" Track to all OH Doors - $3,486.34; PCR#6 - Remove 8" Backnow Preventer and Install 4" RPBF in Fire Sprinkler System - $5.783.36; PCR#7 - Add Parapet Cap to Chassis Wash & Addition - $11.566.72. 3. Change in contract costs: $24,268.07 4. Change in contract time: 0 Days ORIGINAL CONTRACT COST $2.156,000.00 TOTAL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS $10,044.07 TOTAL PENDING CHANGE ORDERS $0.00 TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER $24.268.07 TOTAL % OF THIS CHANGE ORDER 1.13% TOTAL C.O. % OF ORIGINAL CONTRACT 1.59% ADJUSTED CONTRACT COST $2,190,312.14 REVIEWED BY: ACCEPTED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: cc: Contractor Purchasing Project Re aDATE: �o 1"zzi 3 Facilities Project Manager DATE: & - t a ' 13 DATE: _Ota'c Dom, OW `i 45 1Lr `t VC4 4 ��" DATE: R'S REPRESENTATIVE System for Award Management Page I of 1 R. C. HEATH CONSTRUCTION CO. DUNS: 086341062 CAGE Code: 4LGA6 Status: Active Entity Information Entity Overview Name: R. C. HEATH CONSTRUCTION CO. Doing Business As: HEATH CONSTRUCTION CO Business Type: Business or Organization POC Name: None specified. Registration Status: Active Expiration Date:03/28/2014 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. 141 RACQUETTE DR FORT COLLINS, CO, 80524-3244 , UNITED STATES IBM v1.1016.20130614-1637 WWW3 https://www. sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/?portal:componentld=8db509l l-8037-43be-8794-... 7/9/2013 For`Y� � t ollins Independent Cost Estimate Date of Estimate: 4-Jun-13 Contract Type: Fixed Price Existing Contract or PO (Y/N)t Yes Description Services (B): Proposed Change Requests - #2 - Change 0 Deciduous Trees and 3 Spruce Trees to Austrian Pine and add 4 Austrian Pine; #3 - Remove Tube Steel Frame from all OH Doors, change one OH Door from 8' X 10' to 8' X 12' and make 8'X 12' frame of MC Channel; #4 - Replace Existing Trench Drain in Chassis Wash and Cap Lube Line; #5 - Overhead Doors ARemates; #6 - Remove Existing 8" Backtlov; and Instal 4' RPBF. #7 - Install Parapet Cap @ Chassis Wash and Addition. I have obtained the following estimate from: Engineering or Techincal Estimate (performed by) - Ron Kechter F Materials or Work Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost TOTAL Proposed Change Request #2 Change 9 Deciduous Trees to Austrian Pine 9 EA $ $ Change 3 Spruce Trees to Austrian Pine .3 EA $ $ - Add 4 Austrian Pine 4 EA $ 2 55.00T-T.TBOUROff- PCR#2 Subtotal $ 11100.00 Propose Chan a Re uest#3 Delete 4" Tube Steel on All OH Doors 428.00 LF $ (TOO) $ (2,996.00) Delete Fabrication & Installation 32.00 HR $ (60.00) S (1,920.011 Delete Reglet Fabrication in Precast Panels 112.00 LF $ (17-00) $ 1,904-00) Add MC Channel @ B' X 12' OH Door 32 LF $ 22.00 $ 704.00 MC Channel Fabrication & Installation 16 HR $ 60.00 S 960.00 Change oor to PCR#3 Subtotal $ (4,726.00 Propose Change Request #4 Cut, Drain, Remove & Cap Hydraulic Line 5 HR $ 75.00 $ 375.OD New 4"Wide Trench Drain 4B LF $ 83.50 $ 4.008.00 Install New Trench Drain 28 HR $ 75.00 $ 2,100.00 Sawcut Existing Floor 100 LF $ 2.95 $ 295.00 Demo Existing Floor &Trench Drain 30 HR $ 45.00 $ 1.350.00 Credit for Eliminating Sawcut for Piping 80 LF $ 2.95 $ (236.00) Credit for Removing Concrete & Coring Pit 16 HR $ 45.00 $ 720.00) redd or Eliminating Pipe Installation 10 LF 34.50 3 5.00 PCR#4 Subtotal $ 6,827.00 Propose Change Request 95 Add Monitored Electric Sensing Edge 184 LF S 6.90 $ 1.269.60 Doub!e End Stiles, 3" Track & Rotors 6 EA $ 137.50 $ 1.100.00 Upgrade to High Cycle Springs (100K) 8 EA 4, 1 JD.VJ PCR #5 Subtotal $ 3,297.60 Propose Change Request 1116 Remove 8" Backflow In Pit 8 HR $ 75.00 $ 600.00 Procure Galvanized B" Section 11 EA $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Install Galvanized 8" Section 4 HR $ 75.00 $ 300.00 Procure 4" RPBF 1 EA $ 2,450.00 $ 2,450.00 Install 4" RPBF 16 HR $ 75.00 $ 1,200.00 Test System 4 HR $ 76.00 $ 300.00 Design 4 HR 75.00 .0 PCR #6 Subtotal $ 5,350.00 Proposed Change Request #7 CW PreOnished Parapet Cap 5.00 800.00 CW Wind Clip 150 LF 2.00 CW Cap Installation Labor 16 HR 85.00 CW Woad Blocking -2X10 CW Blocking Installation Labor Addition Prefinlshed Parapet Cap 400 LF 5.00 Addition Wind Clip 400 Addition Cap Installation Labor 32 65.00 Addition Wood Brooking - 2X10 400 LF 3.00 Addition Blocking Installation Labor 36 TIRT PCR #7 Subtotal PCR's #2-7 Subtotal $ 22,458.60 GC Mark-up on Subcontractor Work @ 5% $ 1,122.93 $ 23,581.53 Bond @ 1% $ 235.82 ver ead rott 5% 1,179.08 Total Pricing frt Forestry or Quote Unit Cost from RS Means "' Unit Cost Based on Recent Experience Signature of Preparer:Q&6n,r "" Discounted to Second Low Pricing MAX Field Construction Office 3000 South College Ave., Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80526 fcgov.com/maxconstruction Delivery by hand June 26, 2013 Ms. Erika Keeton, PE MAX Project Manager City of Fort Collins — Engineering Dept 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: MAX Bus Rapid Transit Project — Transfort Maintenance Facility Expansion 7426 Independent Cost Analysis — Change Order No. 2 Heath Construction Proposed Change Requests #2-7 Heath Construction was requested to provide Proposed Change Requests #2 through #7 in order to accomplish changes that were needed to the work based upon changed conditions discovered during the planning for and prosecution of the work required under this project. The following paragraphs describe the requirements of each Proposed Change Request. Proposed Change Request #2 — This request was made so the City could provide better visual and sound screening for the residents to the east of our project in Brittany Knolls. With this request we are replacing 9 deciduous trees and 3 spruce trees with 11 Austrian pines, as well as adding 5 Austrian Pines for a net add of 4 Austrian pines. Proposed Change Request #3 — This request was made in order to eliminate continuous maintenance on the proposed steel tube frames around each of the overhead doors. The structural engineer was engaged and he determined that the precast panels provided sufficient structural strength that the tube steel frames could be eliminated on all overhead doors. We also needed to increase the height of the single overhead door going from the existing maintenance space into the new addition from 10' to 12' and provide a structural and protective frame of MC Channel for the opening for this door. Proposed Change Request #4 — This request replaced the existing trench drain and the separate proposed new trench drain in the addition to the Chassis Wash and provided for a continuous trench drain running the full length of the existing area and the added area in the Chassis Wash, which enables better drainage and long term maintenance of this drain. We also are capping a hydraulic line that used to go to the lift that was in the Chassis Wash. Proposed Change Request #5 — This request was to add electric sensing edge, double end stiles and 3" track and rollers and heavy duty springs for all 8 of the large overhead doors. This was done to provide heavier duty and longer lasting components for these large doors, as well as provide a needed safety feature for each of these doors. Proposed Change Request #6 — This request was made in order to comply with the requirements of the Fort Collins Loveland Water District where they require a reduced pressure backflow preventer to be installed on all fire sprinkler systems within their district. Proposed Change Request #7 — This request was made to place a metal cap in order to protect the top edge of the precast panels as recommended by their manufacturer and supported by the architect. The labor, materials and equipment costs proposed by Heath Construction were evaluated against an Independent Cost Estimate and are consistent with pricing for similar work. As such, I find the aggregate cost of these six Proposed Change Requests from Heath Construction bundled into Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $24,268.07 to be reasonable for the required increase in scope. As such, I recommend acceptance of this additional cost to the contract. a C"' �-Ac Ron Kechter Project Engineer City of Fort Collins Operational Services - Facilities Cc: job file Change Management Checklist CategoryCorripliance •. te Reviewed Reference Initials Noise EA 3.7.3 — Noise was Reviewed for compliance with reduced for the neighbors by trees Environmental Assessment 6/26/13 and berms; Vegetation EA 3.11.3 RK — Trees were mitigated greater that 1:1 Improvements to OH doors Reviewed for construction/safety impacts 6126/13 enhanced operational safety and RK long term maintainability Costs were determined to be in Independent cost estimate prepared 6/26113 keeping with recent costs on RK similar work or costs from an estimating guide Reviewed for PCGA grant compliance 6/26/13 Part of Build Alternative Scope RK included in SCC 20.04 Reviewed for real estate impacts/needs 6/26/13 Construction is not in the right -of- RK way; City owned property Reviewed for compliance with design ADA 302.1/302.3/305.2 — Modifying the trench drain in the criteria/ADA Chassis Wash enhanced the slip ow+ htto://w.access-board.gov/ada-aba/ada- 6/26/13 resistance, installed rates with g RK standards-dot.cfm openings that comply and leveled the floor surface Title: 7428 Transfort Maintenance Facility change order 2 Date: 7-8-13 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. 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 judgment. 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 Heath 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, (2) Selection of contract type, ARE FROM EXISTING LINE (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 ne otiation). 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 YES EPS run and include in the file.