HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.101-04RESOLUTION NO. J~
Series of 2004
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING BURLINGAME D HOUSING PROJECT CHANGE ORDERS FOR
ADDITIONAL WATER LINE DEPTH AND REINSTALLATION AND
RELOCATION OF PHONE LINES, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND ASW,
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT CHANGE
ORDERS TOTALING $17,728.48 ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council, proposed change
orders for additional water line depth and reinstallation and relocation of phone lines at
Burlingame D housing project, between the City of Aspen and ASW, a tree and accurate
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves proposed change
orders for additional water line depth and reinstallation and relocation of phone lines at
the Burlingame D housing project, between the City of Aspen and ASW, a copy of which
is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City
Manager to approve said change orders on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the r/~ day
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a tree and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City ~f ]tiPeii; COloradO; at a meeting held On the day herelnabove stated.
TLO- saved: 10/5/2004-276-G:\tara\Resos~Burlingame D change orders.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MAYOR KLANDERUD AND ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
ED SADLER, ASSET MANAGER
STEVE BOSSART, ASSET - PROJECT MANAGER
04OCT04
BURLINGAME D - CHANGE ORDERS
Summary:
This memo will address a mtmber of change orders requested by the developer team on
the Burlingame D housing project.
Council established the "Developer Model" with the belief that the private sector would
be able to successfully plan, design, and build housing at a lesser price per unit than the
Housing office had previously done. An important aspect of this was that the developer,
with their professional experience, would adequately anticipate all contingencies, would
carry the risk, and thus costly changes would be avoided.
The City of Aspen contract form addresses this matter of responsibilities rather well.
There are however a few provisions covering unforeseen conditions. Under these the
developer has asked for a number of change orders and contract increases.
Background:
In early 2003 a competition was held with ASW being selected as the Burlingame D
developer in April. A number of cost increase issues were negotiated at that time. Our
current contract amount is $7,393,774.85, which includes the McBride and water meter
changes.
In April of this year we became aware that the contractor, RA Nelson, had a significant
number of change orders in preparation. In June we were presented with a list of eleven
changes totaling approximately $220,000.
Over the past four months staff'has asked the developer and their contractor for backup
information to aSsist in evaluating the requests.
(A previous change order (#64 Water Meter Relocation for $49,700) was presented to
Council and approved.)
After two recent meetings with the developer team, Staff has agreed to forward some of
the change order requests to Council.
Discussion:
The following changes orders are being recommended for approval.
COg4. Additional Water Line Depth $15,533.28
After pre-construction meetings an abandoned buried fuel tank was discovered in the
planned routing. The revised routing required additional excavation and taps. This was
viewed as less costly than dealing with tank cleanup issues.
CO#30. Reinstall and Relocate Phone Lines $2,195.20
Conflict with bike path. Not identified on civil plans.
The following change requests are believed by Staff to have some merit but are
questionable from a strict interpretation of contract provisions. We feel Council should
discuss these.
CO#42 Various Fire Sprinkler Issues $128,444.84 - revised to $59,400.00 for testing
delays.
The revised figure is based on a 33 day delay in testing the water lines at $1,800 per day.
Water Department testing is stopped after a certain date due to possible damage from
freezing. Issues such as the McBride changes caused schedule slip. On a 1-10 scale, Staff
would give this a 6.5.
CO#54. Sprinkler Inspection Delay $16,200.00 - possible revision to $10,800.00
The Contractor makes this claim since the Fire inspector did not respond within two days
for inspection. This is an unusual request in comparison to other contractors who plan
their schedule in advance with the Fire Marshall's offibe. On a 1-10 scale Staff would
give this a 3.5 recommendation.
Staff has denied the following change requests.
CO#14. $678.69 Addition of 2-Hour Stair and Reduction of 1-Hour'Rated Soffit
CO#33. $13,130.88 Additional Drywell and Storm Drain
CO#42. $69,044.84 Various Other Fire Protection Issues (not including the portion
above for Council discussion)
CO#4355,530.00 Excavation Overtime due to Delay in ConstrUction Start
CO#44 $25,834.90 Framing Overtime
CO#49 $1,460.48 Add Knox Boxes
CO#55 $19,757.27 Redesign of Fire Sprinkler Labor and Materials
Total Denied $135,437.00
Staff's recommendations for consideration reflect our belief that, even with a "developer
model", unforeseen conditions will continue to surface. An owner should be responsive.
and understanding, to a point, and allow for reasonable compensation. One could say the
schedule imposed on the developer team was aggressive enough that any team would
have encountered these issues.
Financial Implications:
The costs for Staff recommended changes are $17,728.48, for those awaiting Council
direction, $70,200.00, for a total of $87,928.48.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends accepting the change orders totaling $17,728.48, and presents the
balance to Council for discussion.
Council should also be aware however that the developer team (contractor) has another
significant change order in preparation and we should not be surprised to see more.
Please note that as of this writing Staff has received word from the developer that the
contractor is planning a number of additional change order requests in the near future.
Manager's
Comments: