HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFP - 7638 PARKING STRUCTURES SPECIFICATIONS & DRAWINGSADDENDUM NO. 1
SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
Description of BID 7638: Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings
OPENING DATE: 3:00 PM (Our Clock) May 21, 2014
To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described
above, the following changes/additions are hereby made and detailed in the following
sections of this addendum:
Exhibit 1 – Questions & Answers
Exhibit 2 – Precast Analysis of Civic Center Structure
Exhibit 3 – Precast Analysis of Old Town Structure
Please contact John Stephen, CPPO, LEED AP, Senior Buyer at (970) 221-6777 with
any questions regarding this addendum.
RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN
STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE BID/QUOTE STATING THAT THIS
ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED.
Financial Services
Purchasing Division
215 N. Mason St. 2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6775
970.221.6707
fcgov.com/purchasing
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 1 of 19
EXHIBIT 1 – QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
1. Trying to verify the scope of work, does the proposed work include both 2013 and
2014 repairs as indicated by Martin and Martin or have 2013 repairs been already
completed?
Yes, the scope of work includes both 2013 and 2014 repairs. At this
time, none of those repairs have begun.
2. Would the City provide Martin and Martin’s survey drawings of the condition
assessment to the prospective bidders before the bid date of 5/21/14?
No drawings were provided in the condition assessment – only pictures
of the repairs needed were provided.
3. The Martin Martin 2013 Assessment references a 2007 Carl Walker Assessment.
Can we have a copy of the Carl Walker Assessment? We're interested in the
findings of that Assessment as a whole, and specifically the chloride test results.
We do not have an electronic version of the Carl Walker assessment,
however, the awarded consultant will be able to review the original hard
copy.
4. We assume the CoFC has the original Construction Documents for both Decks. Is
this true?
We have tiff files for both garages - no cad files. The selected consultant
will be able to review.
5. Does the CoFC have the original Shop Drawings for the Decks?
No, only construction documents.
6. If you don't have the original Shop Drawings, do you know who supplied the
precast concrete?
As of now we do not know.
7. The RFP states "this is a one year agreement but, at the option of the City, the
Agreement may be extended for additional one year periods not to exceed four (4)
one year periods." You also ask that we provide a lump sum cost broken out by
structures and a total lump sum cost. Are we to assume the lump sum cost(s) are
for repairs and maintenance in the 2014 City of Fort Collins budget only? Going
one step further, are the desired 2014 repairs/maintenance items a combination of
the 2013 and 2014 repairs suggested in the Martin Martin Assessment?
Yes on the lump sum cost for the 2014 budget only. Yes, the 2013-14
maintenance items are combined.
8. How much flexibility does the Design Consultant have to alter the priority (if
necessary) of the repairs in the 2013 Assessment?
There is a lot of flexibility since we have not started any of the repairs.
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 2 of 19
9. Please confirm it is acceptable to submit a fee based on the work scheduled to be
performed this year alone plus the initial maintenance plans for each garage, thus
leaving future fees to be negotiated for the given years construction tasks?
Yes
10. The following items pertain to the Bid Assistance portion of the project we started
to discuss during the pre-proposal walk. Please elaborate on the level of Bid
Assistance that the City is requesting by responding to the following questions.
a. Do you intend to select a contractor in year one and retain the same company
for future years so our bid assistance would only be necessary in year one?
Yes, ideally the City would like to retain the same contractor for weather
proofing, concrete repair, etc. but no bid process has been completed
yet.
b. Would you like full Owner’s Representation for this process including front end
specifications, writing and administering the RFP, holding a pre-bid meeting,
receiving and reviewing bids, etc.?
Yes with the City obviously involved with the decision making.
c. Will the bid documents be open to public bid or will contractors go through a
pre-qualification process?
Contractor will be selected by either a public bid or public RFP process.
d. If specialty repair contractors are desired, how will the City qualify the potential
bidders? Do you need the consultant to help write the qualifications and/or
specifications so that only specialty contractors can meet the project
requirements?
For specialty repairs, the City would go with the recommendations from
the consultant but this would need to follow the Purchasing process
and may be a public bid or RFP process. City reserves the right to only
send quotes but this is price dependent and must follow the Purchasing
process. Yes, the City will desire assistance on writing the qualifications
and specifications.
11. The anticipated construction budget for the Civic Center indicated “Primary
Structure Repairs 1 & 2” for years 2014 & 2015 respectively. Will the consultant
determine the highest priority items from the original condition assessment to be
performed in 2014 or is the City going to dictate their desired scope of work?
This will be negotiated with the awarded consultant but follow the RFP
scope of work.
12. How was the date of June 20th determined for the completed Bid Documents
request?
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 3 of 19
It was determined by having work completed this year in warm weather
since work is temperature sensitive.
13. How quick will the project be awarded following the interviews on June 5th.
Within 2-3 days depending on completion of reference checks.
14. How long does it typically take to go through a Bid process with the City and select
a contractor?
3-6 weeks depending on cost and contractor response.
15. Since only the top rated firm will have their references called, how will the City
determine if a firm has completed a sufficient number of garage repair and
restoration projects for their point rating under the “Firm Capability” portion of the
evaluation form?
We rely on the proposal and like work to judge “Firm Capability”
followed by reference checks with the selected consultant.
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 4 of 19
February 11 , 2014
Mr. Mike Breeze
City of Fort Collins
Operations Services/Parking Services
300 West Laporte, Building B
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Civic Center Garage
Martin/Martin Project No: 13.0341.S.04
Dear Mr. Breeze:
We have reviewed the precast concrete members at the Civic Center parking garage that were
previously defined as the most critical areas of concern in our initial condition assessment report
dated August 9, 2013. This report will provide a background of our previous concerns, as well
as present our new findings from the additional analysis that has been performed. The report
sections below will describe the documents we have reviewed, briefly discuss the calculations
performed, present our recommendations for repairs, and offer an opinion of the construction
cost associated with the repairs.
Background
During our initial assessment, we observed damage to various structural elements in the
northeast corner of the garage at the upper deck. It is our understanding that this area supports
heavy loads during snow removal procedures, typically consisting of stockpiling snow along the
north edge and then later dumping the snow over the east side onto the alley below.
The most critical damage noted in our previous report is the cracking of the load-bearing
spandrel beam on the east side of the northernmost bay. This spandrel panel is part of the
primary support system for the upper deck and the damage to it is of serious concern. The top of
this spandrel appeared to have been hit with snow removal equipment based on the chipped
concrete located at the top of the inside edge (photo 1). During our initial assessment report, we
had assumed that the cracking in the east spandrel had occurred either due to an overload
condition from the stockpiling of snow, or due to an impact load from the snow removal
equipment.
Other damage observed includes several yielded steel plates and failed weld connections
between the concrete spandrel panels and flanges of the double-tee beams below the snow
stockpile areas along the north edge (photo 2). The double-tees under this area span from east to
EXHIBIT 2 - PRECAST ANALYSIS OF CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURE
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 5 of 19
Civic Center Garage
February 11, 2014
Page 2
west and are supported on an inverted tee beam near the center of the garage, and by a spandrel
panel at the exterior. The failed connections between the spandrel beams and the double-tee
beams at the north end of the top deck are not the primary gravity load bearing elements;
however, they are intended to transfer in-plane loads and are therefore important to the overall
structural integrity of the garage. We believe that the double-tee to spandrel connections have
failed due to the deflection of the double tee beams under the weight of the stockpiled snow
coupled with the weight of the snow removal equipment.
Documents Reviewed
We were able to determine that Stresscon Corporation was the designer for and supplier of the
original precast concrete members at the Civic Center parking garage. Stresscon provided us
with all of the electronic documents they had in their archives for our use during the analysis
period. After reviewing the documents provided, were able to acquire only part of the
information required to validate the original design of the structural members. The information
that was useful for our analysis from the Stresscon documents included:
o Structural plans showing all structural elements including double tee beams at the deck,
spandrel beams, inverted tee beams and columns.
o Detail cuts on the plan sheets and corresponding details.
o A “piece” drawing of the cracked spandrel, including overall dimensions and reinforcing
provided.
o Calculations for a typical double-tee beam at the south end of the structure (where no
damage was present).
Items that were not found in the documents provided include:
o “Piece” drawings of the double-tee beams showing overall dimensions and reinforcing.
o Structural calculations for the double-tee beams at the north side, directly under the snow
stockpile area.
o Structural calculations for the spandrel beam where torsional cracks were observed.
o Design criteria outlining the dead loads, live loads, and snow loads used during the
design of all of the structural members.
Once we were able to define the known variables reported above, we performed calculations
using conservative assumptions as well as current code standards to account for the missing
information.
Calculations
Stresscon calculations for the south double tees show that a 55 pound per square foot (psf) live
load was used in their design. The governing building code during the time that the Civic Center
was designed was the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The current building code adopted
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 6 of 19
Civic Center Garage
February 11, 2014
Page 3
by the City of Fort Collins is the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), which uses 30 psf
snow load and 40 psf live load. When comparing the different load criteria and associated load
factors between the two codes, we found that the resulting total design load in either case comes
out identical. Therefore, we believe that the original strength design for the precast double tees
and spandrels at the Civic Center should be equivalent to designing for the live and snow loads
that are required by the current code.
Cracking at east spandrel
Due to the direction and orientation of the cracking in the spandrel on the east side and
northernmost bay of the roof deck, we believe the cracking was caused by a torsional loading
condition. There is a significant torsional load placed on this spandrel panel because of the
gravity loads (dead, live, and snow) are applied eccentrically to the spandrel through the haunch
that supports the double tee stems. Additional torsional load would be applied to the spandrel
when a snow plow impacts the top of the spandrel while dumping snow over the edge.
Calculations were not available in the Stresscon documents for this spandrel; however, we did
locate a detail that defined the reinforcing present in the spandrel. Based on the equivalent
loading conditions between the two codes discussed above, we performed our own calculations
for this panel based on the current code and its required loads. We based our spandrel
calculations for torsion on these loads as well as the corresponding ACI Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI code).
Our first calculation analyzed the dead, live and snow loads only (i.e. no impact loads). We
found that a less than a code-level load on this spandrel would surpass the torsional cracking
threshold of the concrete and induce torsional cracks in the concrete. We also found, however,
that the spandrel does have sufficient torsional reinforcing to resist the total torsion load caused
by the self-weight of the structure and code-required live and snow loads.
We performed a second set of calculations to determine what magnitude of impact load would
cause cracking in the spandrel. This number came out to be larger than the vehicle impact load
listed in the IBC for vehicle barriers. It therefore seems unlikely that the spandrel cracking was
caused by an impact force alone.
Although our calculations show that the spandrel has sufficient torsional strength to support
dead, live and snow loads, cracking can still occur under various loading conditions. Torsional
members that are designed per the ACI code are detailed with stirrup reinforcing, which is
designed to resist the torsional forces present. If the member is subject to a loading condition
that creates a torsional stress larger than the concrete cracking threshold, the concrete will crack
and the stirrups will engage to carry the load. We suspect this type of phenomenon has occurred
at the east spandrel in question.
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 7 of 19
Civic Center Garage
February 11, 2014
Page 4
It is impossible to know if the loading conditions in the past surpassed the maximum code level
loads, or simply more than the concrete cracking threshold. In the recommendations section
below, we discuss further how overloading the structure in the future can be avoided.
North double tee to spandrel connection
As mentioned previously, it appears that the steel plates have yielded and the weld connections
have failed due to the deflection of the double-tees under the stockpiled snow. Although we
were not able to locate the original design criteria for the double tees at this exact location, we
were able to review calculations for similar double-tees at the south end of the garage under a
similar span and loading condition (discussed above). It is common practice within the design
industry to use the same design criteria throughout a given level, therefore, we are comfortable
assuming that the double tees at the north end were designed using the same loads. Based on
this, we believe the original strength design of the double-tees is sufficient to support the code
required loads.
In addition to strength design, structural engineers also design for serviceability of the structure,
which includes predicting how the structure will deflect under a code-level load. Since we have
determined that the structure has sufficient strength to support a code-level load, we can assume
that the connections have yielded due to deflection under loads that are larger than the code
required magnitudes. In other words, the individual double tees under the snow stockpile areas
have likely had loads larger than the code-required magnitudes in the past.
Due to the nature of the prestressing force in the double-tees, it is possible that they can support
larger than code level loads over a short period without sustaining permanent damage. Although
this may have been the case at the Civic Center Parking Garage in the past, it is not
recommended that larger than code loads be applied in the future.
Since the stockpiled snow has been present on the structure for a relatively short amount of time
compared to the life of the structure, it caused an instantaneous and temporary deflection rather
than a permanent deflection to the double-tees. The recommendation section below will outline
how to reestablish the connections between the double tees and spandrel panels.
Recommendations
Cracking at east spandrel
Although we do not believe the existing cracks at the east spandrel were caused by impact loads;
precautions should be taken to prevent snow plows from hitting the spandrel in order to protect it
from surface damage and/or additional cracking in the future.
We recommend that all existing cracks greater than 0.0012” in width be injected with a super
low viscosity epoxy (photos 3 & 4). This includes cracking found on both the interior and the
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 8 of 19
Civic Center Garage
February 11, 2014
Page 5
exterior faces of the spandrel. Due to the location of the damaged spandrel, the exterior repairs
will likely have to be performed from an articulating lift stationed in the adjacent alley.
After the repairs to the concrete surfaces have been completed, we recommend a protective
coating be applied to the spandrel. Doing so will extend the life of the repairs and allow for easy
evaluation of when future damages occur (if any). The City may want to consider installing a
bright colored coating with a striped pattern to increase visibility of the spandrel panel in an
effort to reduce the future impacts to the spandrel during snow removal procedures.
North double tee to spandrel connection
Stockpiling of snow at the current location along the north end of the garage will need to be
restricted because of the span direction of the double-tees in order to prevent overloading them
and the connections in the future.
We recommend that the failed connections between the double tees and the spandrel panel be
removed and new connections installed. We recommend that the new connections be designed
to allow for small vertical movements to accommodate deflections that occur due to the snow
piles and snow removal equipment.
We also recommend that the snow piles be limited to a maximum height of 30 inches across the
entire double-tee width on the north end before the snow would need to be completely removed
from the area.
It should be noted that the snow pile height limit has been estimated based on the approximate
weight of consolidated snow piles from past experience and assuming a vehicle axle weight of
no more than 4,000 pounds for the snow removal equipment with a fully loaded bucket. Since
the specific type of snow removal equipment used at the Civic Center Garage was not provided
to us during our additional evaluation period, our recommendations have been based on past
experiences and conservative assumptions listed above.
If requested, we are available to develop a custom snow removal plan with procedures that
would be based on the actual snow removal equipment weights and sizes provided by the City of
Fort Collins. Depending on the plowing methods for stockpiling the snow, and the removal
equipment and techniques used, the snow pile heights may be able to be increased to allow for
less frequent removal of the snow.
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 9 of 19
Civic Center Garage
February 11, 2014
Page 6
Cost Opinion
This section of the report will offer an opinion of the approximate construction cost in 2014 dollars that
will be associated with the repairs recommended in the previous section. The costs listed below are
meant to be general in nature and serve only as a “ballpark” estimate to establish a rough order of
construction cost, and do not include any engineering fees, permitting fees, or markups to estimate for
inflation.
In addition to the approximate cost estimates listed below, we recommend that any budget based on these
estimates include a construction contingency of 15 – 20% above the anticipated cost for the defined scope
of work. This contingency will allow for minor changes to the scope of repairs due to deficient items
discovered during the implementation of the repairs.
• Cost estimates:
o Structural repairs to the spandrel on the east side ........................... $30,000 to $35,000
o Removal and replacement of the failed connections ........................... $3,500 to $6,000
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Please call if you have any questions regarding
this report or if we may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ben Bromiel, P.E.
Sr. Project Investigative Engineer
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 10 of 19
Civic Center Garage
February 11, 2014
Page 7
Related Photographs
Photo 1: Damage to top of east spandrel
Photo 2: Failed connections at north spandrel
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 11 of 19
Civic Center Garage
February 11, 2014
Page 8
Photo 3: Cracks to receive epoxy injection
Photo 4: Cracks to receive epoxy injection
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 12 of 19
February 20 , 2014
Mr. Mike Breeze
City of Fort Collins
Operations Services/Parking Services
300 West Laporte, Building B
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Old Town Garage – Precast Analysis
Martin/Martin Project No: 13.0341.S.04
Dear Mr. Breeze:
We have reviewed the precast concrete members at the Old Town parking garage that were
previously defined as the most critical areas of concern in our initial condition assessment report
dated August 9, 2013. This report will provide a background of our previous concerns, and
present our new findings from the additional analysis that has been performed. The report
sections below will describe the documents we have reviewed, briefly discuss the calculations
performed, present our recommendations for repairs, and offer an opinion of the construction
cost associated with the repairs.
Background
During our initial assessment, we observed damage to several structural elements at the upper
deck of the garage. The damage includes cracking in the stems at the daps of the double-tee
beams on the southeast corner (photo 1) as well as cracking at the bearing location of an inverted
tee beam at the north end (photo 2). Our understanding is that the southeast corner is used for
snow removal, which consists of stockpiling snow and then later dumping the snow over the east
side onto the alley below.
The direction and orientation of the cracking in both the double-tee stems in the southeast corner
as well as the inverted-tee beam on the north side of the top deck resembled shear cracks. Shear
cracking is of concern since it represents an overloaded condition in which the failure mode is
sudden and can be catastrophic. Our previous report had assumed that the cracks could be caused
by shear under areas that may have been subject to significant loads due to the stockpiling of
snow and weight of snow removal equipment above.
EXHIBIT 3 - PRECAST ANALYSIS OF OLD TOWN STRUCTURE
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 13 of 19
Old Town Garage
February 20, 2014
Page 2
Documents Reviewed
We were able to determine that Rocky Mountain Prestress (RMP) was the designer for and
supplier of the original precast concrete members at the Old Town parking garage. RMP
provided us with all of the paper documents they had in their archives for our use during the
analysis period. After reviewing the documents provided, were able to acquire only part of the
information required to validate the original design of the structural members. The information
that was useful for our analysis from the RMP documents included:
o Structural plans showing all structural elements including double tee beams, spandrel
beams, inverted tee beams and columns.
o “Piece” drawings of the double-tee beams showing overall dimensions and reinforcing.
o Detail cuts on the plan sheets and corresponding details.
o Study of design loads for top decks of parking structures produced by the Colorado
Prestressers Association.
Items that were not found in the documents provided include:
o “Piece” drawings of the inverted-tee beam showing overall dimensions and reinforcing.
o Structural calculations for the double-tee beams, especially under the snow stockpile
area.
o Structural calculations for the inverted-tee beam where cracks were observed at the
bearing location.
o Design criteria outlining the actual dead loads, live loads, and snow loads used during the
design of all of the structural members.
After we determined the known variables reported above, we performed calculations in attempt
to better understand the original designs and capacities of the structure.
Calculations and Consultation
The documents obtained from RMP were unclear as to exactly what live loads had been used in
their design. Based on forces that were noted on various connection details that were included in
the RMP documents, we attempted to back-calculate the uniform live load values that may have
been used for design. We used this approach at multiple locations, however, the live load
magnitudes determined from this exercise varied and were largely inconsistent.
A study that was produced by the Colorado Prestressers Association dated January 1983
regarding design loads for top decks of parking structures was included in the documents we
received. This study outlined six possible loading combinations of considering parked vehicles,
snow loads, and snow removal equipment that could be present in Colorado.
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 14 of 19
Old Town Garage
February 20, 2014
Page 3
The findings of this study were that the most likely “real-world” scenario was as follows;
Vehicles are parked in the stalls when the code level snow load blankets the entire top deck.
Since the vehicles are immobile due to the heavy snow, they are still present in the stalls when
the snow removal equipment arrived to plow the drive aisles. The loading for the snow removal
equipment in this study included the self-weight of the equipment as well as an impact force
from dropping the plow blade onto the parking surface. This loading condition resulted in an
equivalent live load of 52.2 pounds per square foot (psf) averaged over the top deck.
The governing building code at the time when the Old Town garage was designed would have
been the 1982 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The current building code adopted by the City of
Fort Collins is the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), which uses 30 psf snow load and 40
psf live load. When comparing the different load criteria and associated load factors between the
two codes, we found that the resulting total design load in either case comes out identical for
flexural calculations. For shear calculations, however, the old code factors combined with the
assumed design criteria of 52.2 psf would result in approximately 11% lower capacity than if it
were designed by today’s code.
In addition to reviewing the documents noted above and performing our own calculations, we
met with Jim Linskens from Rocky Mountain Prestress to discuss our findings and inquire about
additional questions we had. Jim has been a practicing engineer in the prestress concrete
industry since 1979 and was working as a third party consultant to Rocky Mountain Prestress
during the time when the Old Town garage was designed and constructed.
Jim was able to provide us with additional documentation on several “typical” details that would
have been used, as well as precast double tee beam design theories of the day. Of particular help
was the detail of the embed plates and reinforcing at the bearing ends of the double-tee stems
that was used where cracking was of concern (detail attached). He also indicated that there
should not be any reason to suspect that the design live load of the top deck of the Old Town
garage would have been any less than the 52.2 psf previously discussed.
Our additional analysis suggests that the loading conditions in the past were enough to cause the
concrete to crack at the dapped stems of the double-tees, however, a full structural failure has not
occurred. After the concrete cracked, the steel reinforcing shown on the detail provided by RMP
would have been engaged to resist the loads present at that time. In the recommendations section
below, we discuss how overloading the structure in the future can be avoided.
Based on this information, we believe that the original strength design for the precast double-tees
and inverted-tee beams at the Old Town garage should be sufficient to support normal garage
activities going forward provided certain repairs are performed and slight restrictions to the snow
storage and removal procedures are implemented.
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 15 of 19
Old Town Garage
February 20, 2014
Page 4
Recommendations
We recommend that all existing cracks greater than 0.0012” be repaired and new waterproofing
materials be installed above the repaired areas to limit the amount of water and chlorides from
deicer chemicals from reaching the repaired areas.
The method for repairing the cracks will likely differ due to access restrictions and the location
of the cracks relative to the edge of the member. For example, many of the cracks in the double-
tee stems will be able to be injected with a super low viscosity epoxy. Cracks in the inverted-tee
beam, however, may need to be repaired with a thicker cementitious repair mortar to prevent the
material from falling out during the curing process at the beam bearing seat.
After the repairs to the concrete surfaces have been completed, we recommend new sealants be
installed in all horizontal joints in the deck above within 20 feet of the repair location.
Furthermore, we recommend a protective traffic coating be applied to the surface of the parking
deck above within the same 20 foot square area over the repairs. Doing this will extend the life
of the concrete repairs.
Stockpiling of snow at the Old Town garage will need to be restricted to prevent overloading the
structural members in the future. We recommend a custom snow removal plan and set of
procedures be developed to help the City understand the limitations that will need to be placed
on the locations and size of snow piles. Consideration for the actual weights and sizes of the
snow removal equipment typically used at the Old Town garage would also factor into this plan.
Until this is completed, we recommend that the snow storage be limited to the parking stalls
along the east side of the garage. The snow piles should be limited to a maximum height of 30
inches of consolidated snow spread over an area no more than 8 feet from the east wall of the
garage before the snow would need to be completely removed from the top deck.
If requested, we are available to develop this custom snow removal plan and procedures for the
Old Town garage that would be based on the actual snow removal equipment weights and sizes
provided by the City of Fort Collins. Depending on the plowing methods for stockpiling the
snow, and the removal equipment and techniques used, the snow pile heights may be able to be
increased to allow for less frequent removal of the snow.
It should be noted that the snow pile height limit has been estimated based on the approximate
weight of consolidated snow piles from past experience and assuming a vehicle axle weight of
no more than 4,000 pounds for the snow removal equipment with a fully loaded bucket. Since
the specific type of snow removal equipment used at the Old Town Garage was not provided to
us during our additional evaluation period, our recommendations have been based on past
experiences and conservative assumptions listed above.
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 16 of 19
Old Town Garage
February 20, 2014
Page 5
Cost Opinion
This section of the report will offer an opinion of the approximate construction cost in 2014 dollars that
will be associated with the repairs recommended in the previous section. The costs listed below are
meant to be general in nature and serve only as a “ballpark” estimate to establish a rough order of
construction cost, and do not include any engineering fees, permitting fees, or markups to estimate for
inflation.
In addition to the approximate cost estimates listed below, we recommend that any budget based on these
estimates include a construction contingency of 15 – 20% above the anticipated cost for the defined scope
of work. This contingency will allow for minor changes to the scope of repairs due to deficient items
discovered during the implementation of the repairs.
• Cost estimate:
o Structural repairs to the cracked precast members .......................... $20,000 to $25,000
o The cost for to protect the repairs with waterproofing elements was included in the original
assessment report dated August 9, 2013.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Please call if you have any questions regarding
this report or if we may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Ben Bromiel, P.E.
Sr. Project Investigative Engineer
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 17 of 19
Old Town Garage
February 20, 2014
Page 6
Related Photographs
Photo 1: Cracked double tee stem at dap
Photo 2: Cracked inverted-tee beam
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 18 of 19
Addendum 1 - 7638 Parking Structures Specifications & Drawings Page 19 of 19