Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2003-07-21 Item 4D - Final Acceptance - 2002 Small Drainage Repair by West Coast Construction Company for $206,329.601 1908 CAS Number: 03-097 Agenda Item Title: I Original Sponsor: Timeline: Sponsor's Summary: Meeling Date 7/21/03 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Meeting Date 7/21/03 0 3 `i1 Accept as complete Contract No. 02 -092 with West Coast Construction Co. Inc. of Woodinville for the 2002 Small Drainage Projects and release retainage. Council The contract with West Coast Construction Co. is complete for the 2002 small drainage repairs. Construction began September 30, 2002 and was completed on March 11, 2003. Two change orders for $24,795.70 were issued and underruns amounted to $7,716.52. The total contract amounted to $206,329.60. Recommendations: Sponsor: Accept the contract as complete and authorize release of retainage. Committee: Move to Regular Consent Agenda. Administration: Same as Sponsor. Cost Impact (if known): $206,329.60 I Fund Source (if known): 412 Storm Drainage Initials Prepared by 1 Mayor's review 1 Council review ITEM INEORMATION Original Agenda Date: July 21, 2003 Admin. Public Works Action m s` ICEglib Meeting Date 1 Attachments 7/21/03 I Information memo dated June 18, 2003 Notice of Completion of Public Works Contract 02 -092 Utility Committee Meeting Minutes from July 8, 2003 ITEM No. ot To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Directoy i't Date: June 18, 2003 CCJJ Subject: 2002 Small Drainage Projects Proiect Completion and Accentance ISSUE Accept construction contract as complete and authorize release of retainage in the amount of $9,482.06. BACKGROUND The Notice to Proceed for Contract No. 02 -092 with West Coast Construction Co., Inc., of Woodinville, Washington, was issued September 30, 2002, for construction of Project No. 01 -DR03. This project provided drainage improvements to eight locations throughout the City. This contract was totally completed on March 11, 2003. Two change orders were issued during the contract, one to repair a failing pipe discovered during construction and the other for improvements at a new site in response to a citizen complaint. The contract costs are summarized below: ACTION TAKEN Contract Award Amount (without sales tax) $172,562.00 Change Order No. 1 16,005.70 Change Order No. 2 8,790.00 Underruns <7,716.52> Sales Tax 16.688.42 Total Amount Paid (incl. retainage bond) $206,329.60 INFORMATION MEMO The final payment has been issued, final records are being prepared, and this acceptance will formalize the close -out of this project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this contract be forwarded to the Tukwila City Council on the consent agenda for formal acceptance and authorize the release of the retainage bond, subject to the standard claim and lien release procedures. RL:ad attachment: Notice of Completion of Public Works Contract (F. V mjraM- DR PajrMM l- DROAloto Memo Mamma) From: Ksia State of Washington Department of Revenue Zs PO Box 47474 R EVENUE Olympia WA 98504 -7474 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Comments: Contractor's Registration No. (UBI No.) 578 020 821 Date 5/14/03 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT pnaled Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below Description of Contract 2002 Small Drainage Projects Contractor's Name West Coast Construction Company, Inc. Contractor's Address P.O. Box 419, Woodinville, WA 98072 Date Work Commenced Date Work Completed 10/2/02 3/11/03 Surety or Bonding Company Contractor's Bonding and Insurance Company Agent's Address 1213 Valley Street, P.O. Box 9271, Seattle, WA 98109 Contract Amount Additions Reductions OK T of Public" f eye en r- �t, Project No. 01 -DRO3 172,562.00 24,795.70 7,716.52 Sub -Total 189,641.18 Amount of Sales Tax Paid at 8.8 16,688.42 (If various rates apply, please send a breakdown.) TOTAL 206,329.60 Signature Type or Print Name Phone Number Assigned To Date Assigned fict. of- pros f3 enf tTsel Contract Number 02 -092 Telephone Number (425) 483-1900 Date Work Accepted Liquidated Damages Amount Disbursed 196,847.54 Amount Retained 9,482.06 i isknramlig Tg„e TOTAL 206,329.60 The Disbursing Officer must complete and mail THREE copies of this notice to the Department of Revenue, PO Box 47474, Olympia, WA 98504 -7474, immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUNDS until receipt of Department's certificate, and then only in accordance with said certificate. To inquire about the availability of this document in an alternate format for the visually impaired, please call (360) 753 3217. Teletype (TTY) users please call (800) 451 -7985. You may also access tax information on our Internet home page at http: /dor.wa.gov. REV 31 0020e (6 -27 -01) Utilities Committee July 8, 2003 Present: Pam Linder, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dave Fenton Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Ryan Larson, Gail Labanara, Brian Shelton, Mike Cusick, Lucy Lauterbach; Dennis Robertson, Mrs. Roberson 1. 2002 Small Drainage Protects The project to do the small drainage works last year was finished this March. West Coast Construction did the work. Ryan said there are typically 5 -7 projects each year. This year there were two areas that needed extra work. One was on S. 154` where there was a small leak whose cause hasn't been discovered yet; the other was on S. 138 at a new development. There are generally two ways to save on storm drain projects: save on the amount of materials used, or not have any unforeseen circumstances that need fixing (such as bad soils that need replacing). There was a $7,700 underrun this time, but $25,000 in overruns for the two projects. Recommend $206.329.60 oroiect closeout to a Regular Meeting consent agenda. 2. Unsewered areas The committee members had asked for information about the areas in the city that still need sewers. Staff used a 1999 study that showed six areas still needing sewers. Allentown Phase 2 and Foster Point may be constructed next year. The two parts of Allentown, both east and west, will be done if the City gets its $5 m. Public Works Trust Fund loan. When asked why the costs didn't add up to $5 m in the project list, Jim M said both road and water improvements are also generally done when sewers are put in. When asked how optimistic staff was about getting a loan, Jim said the 2003 cutoff was right at the two Tukwila projects. They did get a sense they were fairly highly rated in initial discussions this spring. Increases in sewer rates have been done to pass on County increases, but not any city increases. The sewer fund can afford to pay back the PWTF loan, but just barely. The other unsewered areas are unfunded. The only ways to fund them are to increase sewer rates greatly, or use LIDs. Pam said she thought getting sewers to all the homes was a very high priority for city projects. She asked the other members for their opinions, and Joan said she thought it was important to do when people's septic systems were failing. Mrs. Roberson said two homes near hers on 51 Ave. had failing septic systems. Jim M said the committee should let him bring all the public works projects that are needed before they set priorities. One example he gave was the city's 51 street lights, which each cost $4,000 to maintain every year. There is a failing lift station at Fort Dent, which has to be paid for by the city since the city owns Fort Dent. The committee wanted rates to be kept high enough to pay for city projects. It may be tougher to get PWTF loans for properties not on the river. Sewers remaining to be done will cost $6.7 million, without counting Poverty Hill and South City near Segale. Information. 3. Sewer Comnonent Agency Agreements The Metropolitan Water Pollution Abatement Advisory Committee (MWPAAC) works on behalf of its agency cities and districts, on sewer and pollution abatement contracts with King County. For this year they have worked out some policies to be discussed with the County. They included finding a way to set the facilities charge in the contract; a way to approve indirect expenditures; approval of regulatory mandates and letting agencies know about them; and tracing indirect overhead expenses that are part of the water treatment budget. Jim M said he wished there was an oversight agency like this for garbage and surface water, too. Information.