Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2003-04-21 Item 4C - Agreement - Change Order for Additional City Hall Repair Work with Nordic Construction for $24,500COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Meeting Date 4/21/03 Initials ITEM NO. Prepared by 1 Mayor's review 1 Council review 1 TP ,4c -it 1 L1!/.t CAS Number: 03-052 I Original Agenda Date: April 21, 2003 Agenda Item Title: City Hall NE Entry and Lunchroom Deck Change Order with Nordic Construction, Inc. I Original Sponsor: I Timeline: Sponsor's Summary: Recommendations: 'Sponsor: Committee: Administration: Cost Impact (if known): Fund Source (if known): Meeting Date 4/21/03 Meeting Date 4/21/03 Council ITEM INFORMATION Admin. Public Works Significant additional repair work was required at the NE Entry and the lunchroom deck at City Hall. The four items included the inability to re- utilize the expensive siding, insulate a discovered fire sprinkler line, replace a rotted main support beam on the deck, and reinstall gutters. The original contract was for $9,000 and the additional work totaled $24,500 bringing the contract to $33,500. Authorize the Mayor to sign Change Order No. 1 with Nordic Construction, Inc. Forward to Regular Consent Agenda Same as Sponsor $24,500.00 bringing the total contract to $33,500.00 Facilities 303 Fund RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Action APPENDICES Attachments Information Memo dated February 26, 2003 Change Order No. 1 with Exhibits Utilities Committee Meeting Minutes from April 8, 2003 To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: February 26, 2003 Subject: City Hall Northeast Entry and Lunchroom Deck Entry Additional "Force Account" Work ISSUE During the replacement of City Hall entries, additional work was required. BACKGROUND Item 1 The initial repair plan by the low bidder was to re- utilize the expensive 1 x 4 tongue and groove siding as much as possible. This turned out to be impractical given the brittleness of the material and the amount of decay on the backside of the assembly, both in the northeast planter where it was subjected to summer irrigation and at the lunchroom deck where a previous repair had been done with an early form of water absorbing oriented strand board. Item 2 During the repair of the northeast entry, we discovered a hidden fire sprinlder main line in the wall cavity which needed to be maintained. Item 3 During the repair of the lunchroom entry wall, we discovered that the main 8" x 12" x 24' support beam for the deck was badly rotted and infested with insects to the point of being a structural hazard. Item 4 During the course of the 1998 roof replacement, an important gutter /soffit detail was eliminated making it difficult to reinstall the chain drop for the popular downspout detail. ANALYSES/ALTERNATIVES/RECOMMENDATIONS Item 1 INFORMATION MEMO Analvsis Both the problem areas are exposed to the elements outside of the roof protection. As it turned out, the failing lunchroom wall had been repaired before. The practice of protecting all edges and all faces of the 1 x 4 tongue and groove siding with preservative, stain or primer paint was not done in addition to the replacement of the original untreated plywood with a worse water absorbing material OSB. The subsequent exterior paint layers versus the original penetrating stain allowed the build up of moisture inside the siding and wall interior. Mayor Mullet Page 2 February 26, 2003 Alternatives While it appeared at first to be a viable plan to salvage the very expensive siding, it was soon apparent that it was not an option. The substrate needed to be replaced with pressure treated plywood over new pressure treated framing and where the framing could be reused was slathered with preservative products. The only way to extend the life of the siding is to increase the life cycle by individually cutting and double prime each piece prior to installation. This is a painstaking process. We added venting to the interior cavity to further enhance the longevity. This with the new wide flange sheet metal cap should provide the protection to "not" do this expensive repair again within the foreseeable future. Recommendation Accept the additional cost to use new material and extra care of pre installation priming and installation. Estimated cost $9,000.00. Item 2 Analysis Much to our maintenance staff's surprise during the rework of the entry, a 4" main fire sprinkler for the upstairs ceiling sprinkler system was found to exit the bottom floor ceiling and to extend on the outside of the building in a hollow cavity formed by the entry. The pipe was not insulated by a pipe jacket but the cavity wall was. While we have had trouble in the past with frozen pipes in the soffit areas fed from this pipe, we elected to enhance the cavity insulation and maintain the warm building air access into that space to keep this vital fire suppression system operative. Alternatives The pipe is in a very difficult location to monitor and repair if damaged. As with the live sprinkler line throughout the city hall soffit area, which on occasion has frozen and broke, a variety of prevention methodologies have been considered. The maintenance and introduction of warm building air has been the solution versus the installation of pipe insulation (as the water is not loop fed) and the installation of heat (trace) wire (which to meet the Fire Code would need to be served by the emergency generator, well beyond its capacity). Recommendation Insulate the cavity as best possible and maintain building heat flows into the cavity. Estimated cost $1,000. Item 3 Analysis After we had the opportunity to work under the deck area, we discovered that while the outward appearance of the large beam was good, when you proceeded to drill a hole through it, it was a mere shell of about 1" of good wood. Someone in the past had shored up the beam with an interim post and temporary footing block; however, the decay and insect migration continued to compromise the main support of the deck. Mayor Mullet Page 3 February 26, 2003 Alternatives The deck surface of western red cedar is in good condition having been replaced in the more recent past. The 2 x 12 joists are still satisfactory except in a few areas and would be appropriate to replace or double up with pressure treated members when the beam is removed. To replace the 8" x 12" x 24' beam with anything other than a wood preservative treated beam would not be prudent. The length of 24 feet would require a glue lam beam and to be treated, which would be a special order and take much time. A steel beam was considered; however, like the glue lam beam would weigh 400 to 6001bs. and may necessitate the removal of the deck and joist. Another option which would not require the deck complication and avoided the weight problems was the installation of pressure treated 2 x 12's sandwiched together to form a substitute beam. This option was reviewed and accepted by the Building Department. Work includes construction of a temporary wall to support the deck during beam removal and replacement. Recommendation Replace 800 lbs. of rotted beam with composite beam and where necessary bolster the joists with treated "sisters." On joist to remain, slather wood preservative treatment to thwart decay and critters to point saturation several times. Estimated cost $12,000. Item 4 Analysis Fabricate and install replicas of the original downspout grabber to fix the new gutter downspout detail. This component must be strong enough to support the weight of the chain and thwart lateral movement of the chain in wind or act of vandalism. Alternatives During the 2002 installation of new round downspouts and chain drops, the previously restored "grabber" had been discarded. With the new downspouts and chain assemblies, it was soon apparent that the weight of the chain and potential motion would damage the gutter. The discarded grabbers were for a different downspout shape and too few. The new grabbers had to be redesigned for a different connection to building as the 1998 roofing project changed the gutter location. Recommendation Fabricate, apply numerous coats of primer and finish coats to match existing and install to secure downspouts. This will require a rental lift to access high and difficult locations. Estimated cost $2,500. attachments: Modification Proposals and Details CITY OF TUKWILA CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DATE: 2/26/2003 SHEET 1 OF 1 PROJECT NO.: 02 -BG12 CONTRACT NUMBER: 03 -030 PROJECT NAME: City Hall Entries To: Nordic Construction, Inc. Contractor You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes to the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract: NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved by the "Owner Conditions: A. The following change, and work affected thereby, are subject to all contract stipulations and covenants. B. The rights of the "Owner" are not prejudiced; and C. All claims against the "Owner" which are incidental to or as a consequence of this change are waived. CHANGE: See attached modifications proposal details Change in contract price: Increase of 24,500.00 Adjusted Contract Amount 33,500.00 By reasons of' this order, the time of completion will be adjusted as follows: 30 days We the undersigned Contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefore the prices shown above and below. ACCEPTED: Date 3 `1 D 3 Contractor: Nordic Construction, Inc By Title PYest 8e n-E Original Contract 9,000.00 APPROVED BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA Previous Change Order 0.00 Date This Change Order 24,500.00 YCJR REV. CONTRACT AMOUNT 33,500.00 ORIGINAL: City Clerk (1 of 2) Contractor (2 of 2) CC: Finance Department (w /encumbrance Construction Inspector Construction Engineer File: /d t2 I. PROPOSAL REQUEST CITY OF TUKWILA MODIFICATION PROPOSAL NO 1 SHEET I OF I DATE: l2-- 7 )0 ff PROJECT NAME: NA-Ot t-e -..C` 9Zth-E CONTRACTOR: G hd r14-CTLA II. CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL (Agreed) or Maximum) Cost: (Agreed) or Maximum) Credit Time Extension (if required) Authorized Contractor's Signature PROJECT NO.: BUDGET NO. CONTRACT NUMBER: Asivfep Please furnish your proposal for executing the following changes to make the herein described changes to the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract: CHANGE:P }✓tQ 141' IC C-, c fr2 St OH-44 Iit roiro (-0 (n c4 eCt,t (L At SIDt ,144m.S, ct-.SdS 6i4.SUL,M CW S t?tQ 1 OI SCovre l` i) !N Oho t 12ic_ REASON FOR CHANGE: (SQ -lx. N,c!&OIC. OA.A—tft jA i'7. at 14(.4- $tTthcas. Date III. CONSULTANTS REVIEW We have examined the foregoing proposal and find the cost reasonable an recommend its acceptance. Consultant's Signature Date Proposal Rejected: IV. OWNER ACCEPTANCE: The Owner hereby accepts the foregoing proposal, pending review and approval of detailed costs and preparation of a formal change order. This acceptance (does) (does not) constitute a FIELD ORDER to proceed immediately with the modification Owner Representative Signature: Date NOTE: This Modification Proposal is not effective until approved by the "Owner Conditions: A. The following change, and work affected thereby. are subject to all contract stipulations and covenants. B. The riehts of the "Owner' are not prejudiced: and C. All claims against the "Owner' which are incidental to or as a consequence of this change are waived. Copy Distribution ORIGINAL and copy to: Contractor. 1 copy to Consultant,I copy to Construction Inspector. 1 copy to Construction Engineer File: CITY OF TUKWILA MODIFICATION PROPOSAL NO. 7, PROJECT NO.: SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: 1— (9 BUDGET NO. f �i t CONTRACT NUMBER: L t T 1� PROJECT NAME: "14 CONTRACTOR: N ,-,ca,,C i vN c. I. PROPOSAL REQUEST 60 Please furnish your proposal for executing the following changes to make the herein described changes to the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract: n� t CHANGE: 1�xiVtt PI?UC �2 tT'f -Q e X`2- G cri eR'li'1t O)Ltjc— j rc Scki z -.t ?T Mcft UL4bY 2. P dl.duLOY wvtm CVtAJ z.r flsrQ t. tt vet r-r. r rte, S t c. �WCt f \L tc +c CAN30-0 cfr, {bk.. 7 c Lek— SP Lt,ty, REASON FOR CHANGE: t.4.44 t(-C LA-1'L 01 S C_s, ifiz- Y7 II. CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL (Agreed) or Maximum) Cost: (Agreed) or Maximum) Credit Time Extension (if required) Authorized Contractor's Signature t tTh-c -S Date III. CONSULTANTS REVIEW We have examined the foregoing proposal and find the cost reasonable an recommend its acceptance. Consultant's Signature Date Proposal Rejected: IV. OWNER ACCEPTANCE: The Owner hereby accepts the foregoing proposal, pending review and approval of detailed costs and preparation of a formal change order. This acceptance (does) (does not) constitute a FIELD ORDER to proceed immediately with the modification Owner Representative Signature: Date NOTE: This Modification Proposal is not effective until approved by the "Owner". Conditions: A. The following change. and work affected thereby. am subject to all contract stipulations and covenants. B. The rights of the "Owner" are not prejudiced; and C. All claims against the "Owner" which am incidental to or as a consequence of this chanee are waived. Copy Distribution ORIGINAL and copy to: Contractor. I copy to Consultant,' copy to Construction Inspector, 1 copy to Construction Engineer File: Permit #D02-370 THIS SET OF APPROVED I LAp3, MUST BE ON THE JOB AT ALL TilVIES DURING CONSTRICTION. Ff!S BUILDING IS NOT TO BE OCCUPIED UNTIL AFTER (FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL QY THE TUXWFLA BUILDING DIUISION12 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVeCOPR ENT CITY OF TUKWILA MODIFICATION PROPOSAL NO. 2 i SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: PROJECT NAME: C It k1 t✓ 5 (11 A-1, CONTRACTOR: -1,4.0 C.�st., t r-tc_ I. PROPOSAL REQUEST __„:"amit> ms~_ PROJECT NO.: BUDGET NO. CONTRACT NUMBER: P390 etp Please furnish your proposal for executing the following changes to make the herein described changes to the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in.the plans and specifications on this contract: GalLIVAWL) CHANGE: I N S LI LkfD u7 iii -fr+ C QJw� tJL Ov�/L lc 2 014 C n 'tiA 1\ cl_ S ua,Yt Y U nk (<Dt, C is b &r-Lis ks l cvr 3 1 6 NL flrcL1ti frfru 61£ 'Let (M-t irs 2 Ldc& xm (D,t4114s !Q- IrtOin GV 5 A 7_ W G4T -trr -r QUJc S REASON FOR CHANGE: 64;i44ifl O (*DT Q (Zgt,ls -OS Wlr A-f G,L.t° C ')l.iZ 'z- t i- S`rRSL -L M? II. CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL (Agreed) or Maximum) Cost: (Agreed) or Maximum) Credit Time Extension (if required) Authorized Contractor's Signature Date III. CONSULTANTS REVIEW We have examined the foregoing proposal and find the cost reasonable an recommend its acceptance. Consultant's Signature Date Proposal Rejected: IV. OWNER ACCEPTANCE: The Owner hereby accepts the foregoing proposal, pending review and approval of detailed costs and preparation of a formal change order. This acceptance (does) (does not) constitute a FIELD ORDER to proceed immediately with the modification Owner Representative Signature: Date NOTE: This Modification Proposal is not effective until approved by the "Owner Conditions: A. The following change. and work affected thereby. are subject to all contract stipulations and covenants. B. The ri_shts of the "Owner" are not prejudiced: and C. All claims against the "Owner" which are incidental to or as a consequence of this change are waived. Copy Distribution ORIGINAL and copy to: Contractor. 1 copy to Consultant,1 copy to Construction Inspector, 1 copy to Construction Engineer File: Downspout Grabber Utilities Committee April 8, 2003 Present: Pam Linder, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Dave Fenton Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Brian Shelton, Ryan Larson, Gail Labanara, Tom Pulford, Lucy Lauterbach 1. Public Works Trust Fund Loan The City submitted a $100,000 loan request to the Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF). They have received that loan, and the City is being asked to accept it. It will be used along with CDBG block grant funding to design the needed drainage improvements in Cascade View. They hope to get a loan to do construction next year. Ryan drove to Olympia to turn in the loan application, finding out later he had even more time to do it. Ryan gave information about his other project, TIB, which is going well. There have been some complaints about debris on and off the road, and the work being done for storm water lines. The work for the storm drains is 70% complete. When that's done, the power lines will go in. Recommend City accent 5100.000 PWTF loan. 2. GIS -based Infrastructure Inventory Public Works has agreed to a contract with Perteet to do a global positioning study of the area north of S. 115` in Allentown, including Ryan Hill and East Marginal Way. The annexed areas of the city don't have good drawings of the infrastructure, and it makes building difficult for contractors. It will also let our crews know where the outfalls and catch basins are for maintenance. $100,000 in funding will come from the 303 (Facility maintenance) fund and $169,715 will come from Surface Water. Dave asked if connectivity could be part of this study, and was told it could not be as they're looking for metal pipes only. A year ago the city called for consultants to present the information they would gather in a study like this, and Perteet was the clear winner. The only disadvantage of doing this is that it costs $269,715, and is only a small portion of the whole city. Move authorization for contract with Perteet engineering to provide infrastructure inventory to Regular Meeting. 3. Lower City Hall Entrance Work The northwest entrance to city hall with the deck is rotted and falling apart. The low bid did not include all the work that eventually needed to be done. It turned out that with the change orders, the eventual cost equaled the two higher bidders. What was first thought to be a small improvement turned in to a much larger job, with rot, previous cheap work, and insect damage all beyond what was known up- front. The project will be paid out of the 303 facility improvement fund. Dave and Joan wanted to know how this would affect the project of updating Council chambers. Jim M explained that there is a list of action items, a list of design items, and a list of needed but not scheduled items. The Council chamber is at the top of the design list. Another item Jim mentioned was the possibility of hiring a reliable and decent painting firm to do city projects for a year. Though it would cost more, it would result in higher satisfaction with painting jobs rather than relying on low bids that often do unsatisfactory work. Recommend change order to Council for approval.