HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Civic Center Contract 87-9 CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 21 , 1987
SUBJECT Award of Civic Center Bid Contract 87-9
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Tables Identifying Project Costs and Funding
Resolution of Award of Contract
Letter of Agreement : Re: Surplus Trees
RECOMMENDATION w 1 . Adopt Resolution.
j 2 . Reduce the contract scope by eliminating
alternatives .
3 . Proceed with financing as outlined in report .
4 . Authorize the Mayor to execute agreement for sale
of surplus trees .
5 . Allow Staff to develop and circulate Request For
Proposal for special testing services .
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See report .
DESCRIPTION At the regular meeting on October 26, 1987 the City
Council authorized requesting bids on the Dublin Civic Center project .
The City distributed plans and specifications to more than 180 Contractors ,
Subcontractors , and Suppliers . The City also made arrangements to have sets
available for review in plan rooms at 12 Builders Exchanges. Contractors
were required to pay a $100 deposit and 50 percent is refundable upon return
of the plans . The City had requests for approximately 220 sets of plans
from contractors and suppliers , since some Contractors purchased more than
one set .
On December 10, 1987 the City opened bids on the project . The contract
documents required a lump sum bid , which was broken down into a base bid and
four alternates . The following summary identifies the bid results showing
the total cost including all alternates . Alternate 3A and 3B would be an
either/or addition . For purposes of identifying maximum bid amounts 3A is
shown in conjunction with the Base Bid and Alternates 1 and 2 .
Construction Costs Without Contingency
Base Bid with Construction Net Construction
-Alternates Savings If Costs (Base Bid )
1 , 2 , 3A Alternates
Are Deleted
Dickman-Nourse , Inc . $9 , 695 , 000 $403,000 $9 , 292 , 000
Roebbelen Engineering 9 , 987 , 000 475, 000 9 , 512 , 000
Nibbi 10,045 , 000 455 ,000 9 , 590, 000
S . J. Amoroso 10, 086 , 000 469, 000 9 , 617 , 000
Ralph Larsen & Son 10, 118 ,000 549,000 9, 569 , 000
Vanderson Construction 10, 492 ,000 644,800 9 , 848, 000
Regardless of the alternates selected , Dickman-Nourse would continue to be
the low bidder .
Contingency
As noted in previous Staff reports , it is recommended that the City budget a
Construction contingency in addition to the contract cost . This funding
would allow for adjustments during construction . Harris & Associates have
recommended a 5 percent Contingency . These funds would only be authorized
to be used when the Contractor demonstrates that additional costs are
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
Harris & Associates
George Miers & Associates
Dickman-Nourse, Inc .
ITEM NO. e
r
incurred . for items outside of the base contract . The change would also
require a change order in accordance with the contract documents .
Therefore , the estimated Construction Budget based on the Base Bid plus 5
percent contingency is $9 , 756, 600 (Base Bid = $9 , 292 ,000 Contingency =
$464 , 600) .
Financing
The Civic Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) met on December 15 , 1987 to
review the bid results and a range of alternatives . At a Council meeting on
June 8 , 1987 , the City Council directed Staff to proceed with efforts which
would provide additional Certificate of Participation revenue and potential
cost savings from refinancing the 1985 issue. The Staff has been working
with an Underwriter and Bond Counsel to accomplish this task. However ,
Staff believes that it is appropriate to size the issuance after all costs
are known. Once the City Council awards the bid , the costs will be more
clearly defined .
Staff has completed tables showing estimated costs through the completion of
the project . This assumes the award of the base bid to Dickman-Nourse . As
noted , the total remaining costs are estimated at $11 , 060, 350. Table II
identifies the additional funding required , based on the award of the low
bid to Dickman-Nourse . The total additional funds would be $5 , 185 , 350. As
indicated , the CCAC reviewed a wide range of options. The final
recommendation of the Committee is as follows :
4 Point Financing Plan
1 . Delete the Alternatives and award the Base Bid to Dickman-Nourse .
2 . Use $900 , 000 in new revenues .
3. Contribute $1 million from reserves .
4. Issue Certificates of Participation (COP ' s) to finance the remainder .
The following discussion will describe each element noted above .
The deletion of Alternate Bid items is a quantifiable cut in the project
cost . The total savings including a 5 - % contingency is $423 , 150.
The alternates consisted of the following items :
1 . A clocktower which was to be located on the east side of the main entry
road . The cost submitted by Dickman-Nourse with a 5 % Contingency
added is $313 , 950 .
2 . Addition wood slats on the upper walls of the Council Chamber . This
alternate introduced additional wood on top of the fabric acoustical
panels . The cost submitted by Dickman-Nourse with a 5% contingency
added is $21 ,'000.
3A. This alternate eliminates a stucco fascia above the courtyard window
wall . The fascia would be replaced with curved metal panels . The cost
submitted by Dickman-Nourse with a 5 % contingency added is $88 , 200.
3B . This is an alternate to 3A. Instead of using curved panels , it would
use straight metal panels . The cost submitted by Dickman-Nourse with a
5 % contingency added is $69 , 300.
The second action is the use of new revenue sources . The following projects
and their funding sources are impacted . The grant funding column identifies
new funding sources which were not known when our current fiscal plan was
prepared .
-2-
New
Project 1986-91 CIP General Fund Grant Funding
Estimated Contributions Commitment
Obtained/Type
San Ramon Rd (Phase IV) $1 ,886, 000 500, 000/FAU
Shannon Park Renovation 870, 160 50,000/State
Park Grant
East Dougherty Hills Park (Phase II) 68, 070 50,000/State
Park Grant
Arroyo Vista Soundwall 128 ,000 126 , 000/CDBG
San Ramon Road Phase III 913, 300 160, 000/Measure
B (2 years
local funds)
Catch Basin Grate Repair 200,000 15 ,000/TDA
Total $4,065 , 530 901 ,000
As shown above , the City will be able to reduce the General Fund
contribution to these projects by $901 ,000. Therefore , the City can utilize
$900, 000 in General Fund monies for funding on the Civic Center Project. It
is also apparent that although outside funding has been obtained , that the
.majority of the costs for these projects continue to be substantially funded
by the City General Fund . City Staff will continue to seek additional grant
funding for these and other identified projects .
The third revenue source involves the use of unrestricted General Fund
reserves . These funds are currently invested and the investment income
provides operating revenue for the City . However , based on the Audit
prepared for the period ending June 30 , 1987 , it is estimated that the City
had a year end available cash balance of approximately $11 .8 million . It
should be noted that this figure includes approximately $4. 1 million which
are restricted funds . The use of $1 million for the Civic Center project
should not materially affect the financial stability of the City . If you
assume that interest earnings are 7 % per year , it will result in a
reduction of interest revenue of $70 , 000 per year from the investment of
these reserve funds .
The final action would be the issuance of additional COP ' S . Based on
preliminary discussions with the Underwriters , the City ' s annual debt
service payments would increase by approximately $430, 000 per year . This
assumes that the City issues an additional $3. 3 million . This does not take
into consideration potential cost savings from refinancing the 1985 COP' s .
Staff has also utilized a conservative estimate of the interest rate , which
a new issue may require .
Impact of Additional Debt Service
The issuance of additional COP ' s will increase the City ' s annual debt
payments . This results in a reduction of discretionary income which can be
used for other projects . The City currently finances an aggressive Capital
Improvement Program with significant contributions of General Fund Revenues .
The increased debt service would reduce the funding available for these
projects . During the next two years , the CIP identifies $12 , 966 , 985 in
projects . The additional debt service will reduce the funding to initiate
these projects . It should also be noted that these projects have a deficit
funding balance as currently presented in the CIP.
As noted in the CIP transmittal letter , the lack of funding for all projects
is not an indication of financial weakness . It merely reflects that some of
the projects may be outside the financial scope of , the 1986-91 CIP. Due to
anticipated design time frames and other factors , some of these projects may
already be outside the anticipated CIP planning period . Staff will be
preparing an update to the CIP, for presentation prior to the next fiscal
year . This will allow the council to analyze current priorities , and review
changes and new requests .
Additional Actions Required
The former Valley High School Site has several trees which are not currently
planned to be used on the Civic Center site . Prudential Development Group
has indicated an interest in purchasing 8 trees at a cost of $100 each . The
-3-
total cost of relocation would be their responsibility. Staff has prepared
an abbreviated agreement and it is recommended that the City Council
authorize the execution of the agreement by the City Manager.
As part of this project , special testing will be required . This includes
inspection of grading , structural welds , spray on fireproofing , grouting,
and concrete . In order to consolidate these services , it is recommended
that the City seek a single firm to conduct all work. If the City Council
concurs with this approach , Staff will circulate a Request for Proposals
(RFP) and present a final recommendation at an upcoming City Council
meeting .
Conclusion
The CCAC evaluated many alternatives , taking into consideration the costs
already invested and the need for many of the amenities provided in the
project . The Committee determined that the multi-level approach to
financing the project made a responsible effort to meet the overall needs of
the community . The approach includes : Design cuts , use of reserve funds ,
use of new revenues , and limiting the increase in Debt Service.
Therefore , it is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution
awarding the contract , reduce the contract scope by eliminating alternatives
and proceed with financing as outlined in report. It is also recommended
that the Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement to sell
surplus trees on the site and allow Staff to proceed with a Request for
Proposal for special testing services .
-4-
TABLES IDENTIFYING PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING
TABLE I
CIVIC CENTER COSTS
JULY 1 , 1987 - PROJECT COMPLETION
CONSTRUCTION BASE BID
Construction Contract $ 9 , 292 ,000
Construction Contingency 5% 464, 600
Subtotal $ 9 , 756, 600
Furnishings (equipment ,
furniture , telephones , etc . ) $ 500,000
Remaining Soft Costs
Architect/Construction Mgmt Fees $ 643 , 750
Special Testing 76 ,600
Utility Fees 18, 800
Printing & Shipping 63,500
Underground Utility Cost 1 , 100
Subtotal $ 803, 750
Total Remaining Cost $11 , 060, 350
TABLE II
CIVIC CENTER FUNDING ANALYSIS
1 . 7/1/87 1985 COP FUND BALANCE $ 5 , 600 , 000
2 . INTEREST INCOME 7/1/87 TO PROJECT COMPLETION 255 , 000
3 . INCOME FROM SALE OF PLANS & SPECS 20 ,000
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $ 5 , 875 , 000
REMAINING COST TO BE FINANCED $11 , 060, 350
ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED $ 5 , 185 ,350
f
RESOLUTION NO. - 87
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR
DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER PROJECT NO. 87-9
WHEREAS , the City of Dublin did , on December 10, 1987 ,
publicly open , examine , and declare all sealed proposals or bids
for doing the work described in call for Bids , Dublin Civic Center
Project No . 87-9 adopted on October 26, 1987, which call is hereby
expressly referred to for a description of said work and for all
particulars relative to the proceedings under said call .
WHEREAS , said proposals were submitted to the City
Manager who has recommended that the proposal hereinafter
mentioned is the lowest and best bid for doing said work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City
Council does hereby find that :
Said City Council hereby rejects all of said proposals
or bids except that herein mentioned and herby awards the contract
for doing said work to the lowest responsible bidder therefore , to
wit : Dickman - Nourse , Inc . at the Base Bid of $9 , 292 ,000 (Nine
Million Two Hundred and Ninety-Two Thousand Dollars) as more
particularly described in its bid on file in the office of the
City Clerk. None of the alternates outlined in the proposal shall
be included as part of this contract .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby
authorized to execute the agreement .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of 1987 .
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Mr . George Deeter
Prudential Development Group
4309 Hacienda Drive , #500
Pleasanton , CA 94566
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
Prudential Development Group is hereby authorized to remove trees
from 6900 Dublin Boulevard (former Valley High School Site) .
Quantity Unit Price Total
8 trees @ $100 each $800.00
Conditions :
1 . Trees are sold "As Is" and the City does not warrant their
condition.
2 . Prudential Development Group (PDG) may hire a consultant at
their sole expense to oversee the removal .
3. Total cost of the removal shall be at the sole expense of
PDG .
4. Addition or deletion of trees taken or left shall be at the
unit price of $100 per tree .
5 . PDG agrees to remove the trees in a timely manner .
6 . The City reserves the right to issue a 10 day written notice
at which time the trees must be removed or forfeited .
7 . PDG shall indemnify , hold harmless and defend City , its
officers , agents , and employees ; from claims arising out of
this agreement . PDG shall also assure that any
subcontractors also provide indemnification.
8 . PDG or their subcontractor shall have the responsibility to
notify Underground Service Alert and/or affected utilities
and conduct the removal with appropriate care .
Acceptance By :
George Deeter Date Linda J. Jeffery Date
Prudential Development Mayor
Group City of Dublin
CITY OF DUBLIN REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
TESTING SERVICES
DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER PROJECT
A. THE PROJECT
The City of Dublin is soliciting proposals from various testing firms to
provide special testing services in conjunction with the construction of a
Civic Center Facility. The City has hired the firm of Harris & Associates
to act as Construction Managers. This firm will have a full-time inspector
on site coordinating testing and construction.
1 . Description of Project
The project consists of the construction of a 53, 000 square foot City
Office and Police Facility located at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard
and Sierra Court. The project will also include landscaping and parking
facilities. The project is being constructed on an 11. 6 acre parcel . A
reduced site plan is included to provide a general sense of the project.
2 . Objectives of Testing Services
The City desires to retain the services of a single responsible testing
firm to provide ongoing services for the duration of the project. The
contract is expected to be flexible enough to provide the varying levels of
testing needed, yet contain safeguards which will provide assurances that
the testing will be timely and thorough.
3. Conduct of the Work
When a field technician is on the job full-time, he will be expected to
schedule and perform all field operations promptly at the job site. For
call-out field services during part-time testing periods, testing firm
shall respond by 8: 00 a.m. , if a request if made by the Construction
Manager prior to 5: 00 p.m. , on the previous work day. Tests will include
concrete, structural welding, fireproofing, and masonry grouting,
compaction tests, grading inspection, etc.
4 . Work by Others
If another firm will be providing services as a sub-contractor, the
proposal shall indicate the name of the sub-contractor, the scope of work
to be provided by that firm, the location of the firm, and any statement
related to the qualifications of the subcontractor.
5. Information to be Provided
Testing firms will be provided with access to the soils and foundation
report, project plans and specifications, and applicable City Ordinances.
Page 1
B. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Governing Regulations
The facility is anticipated to be constructed in accordance with the 1985
UBC. Therefore, proposals should include any anticipated testing which
will be required based on the plans and specifications for the project.
Proposers should also familiarize themselves with applicable City
Ordinances. A copy of the Grading Ordinance will be provided. Please note
that mass grading requires full-time inspection.
2. Level of Effort
a. Frequency and description of tests
i . Concrete cylinder tests - During the progress of the
work and for each different mix of concrete, a set of three standard 6" x
12" concrete cylinders shall be cast andtested for each 100 cubic yards or
fraction thereof poured during each and every day concrete is poured.
Sampling of the concrete for the purpose of casting
test cylinders shall be in conformance with ASTM C172. One cylinder shall
be tested at an age of 7 days, a second at an age of 28 days, and the third
cylinder of the set shall be held as a spare. Making and curing of the
cylinders shall be in accordance with ASTM C31. Testing of cylinders shall
conform to ASTM C39.
Casting of test cylinders and slump tests will be
performed by the Engineer' s representative, subject to review by the
Engineer.
The testing firm shall arrange and pay for
transportation of test cylinders from job site to the laboratory. An
acceptable method of storage shall be in tightly constructed, firmly braced
wooden boxes, located so as not to be subjected to vibrations. The box
shall be constructed or equipped so as to keep the temperature immediately
adjacent to the specimens between 60 degrees F and 80 degrees F and to
prevent loss of moisture. Other methods may be used, subject to approval
of the Engineer.
ii . Proctor tests - Proctor tests will be required for all
imported backfill and at all changes in the existing soil.
iii. Atterberg limits - Provide as required by the Engineer.
iv. Compaction Tests - Provide as required by the Engineer.
V. Non-destructive welding inspection - Provide ultrasonic
testing on welding, except where not feasible due to the type or location
of the weld. Perform magnetic particle, liquid penetrant or radiograph
tests when ultrasonic testing is not feasible.
1 ) Ultrasonic tests and standards of inspection shall
be in accordance with AWS D1 .1 Part C.
Page 2
2) Particle tests shall be in accordance with ASTM
E109 .
3) Penetrant tests shall be in accordance with ASTM
E165.
4) Radiography tests shall be in accordance with AWS
D1 .1, Part B.
vi. Visual welding inspection - Provide visual inspection
while the operators are making the welds and again after the work is
completed. After operator has completed the weld and hand or power wire
brushed and thoroughly cleaned the weld, inspect welds with magnifiers
under strong, adequate light for the following defects:
1) Surface cracking
2) Excessive roughness
3) Unfilled craters
4) Undercuts
5) Overlaps
6) Size
7) Insufficient throat and concavity
Reinspect after correction of failed welds.
b. Manpower requirements should be estimated and presented in
the response.
C. Reports shall be submitted in triplicate to the Construction
Manager in a timely manner. Reports shall clearly identify any problems
encountered in conducting tests, as,, well as test results failing to meet
specification requirements . Reports shall utilize a standard format
approved in advance by the Construction Manager. Testing firm shall
establish a system for numbering, identifying, and locating each test, and
shall coordinate development of said system with the Construction Manager.
3. Qualifications
Firm shall have expertise in the management of the required
inspection program and conduct of tests, including possession of or access
to necessary testing equipment. Proposal shall describe firm' s ability to
provide the level of effort and response time required.
4. Project Timing
The project will proceed as soon as possible. The project has a
fourteen month project duration. The bid is anticipated to be awarded
December 21, 1987, and construction should be under way by January, 1988.
5. Facilities and Equipment
The testing firm shall be responsible for all of its own needs at
the site (s ) for housing, power, telephone, and water. The testing firm may
choose to transport samples to an offsite laboratory or to place a trailer
Page 3
at the site to store and/or test materials. The field technician (s) shall
possess all necessary supplies and equipment to conduct the required tests.
all such costs shall be included in the unit price.
6. Fee Basis
a. Field Technician. Two hourly rates shall be included in the
proposal : one for .a. full-time field technician (40 hours or more in a 5
day period, Monday - Friday) , and the second rate for less than full-time.
A two-hour minimum charge for field work conducted on a single work day
will be permitted. Both hourly rates shall be inclusive of the following:
i . wages
ii. benefits
iii . direct site overhead
iv. home office overhead
V. supervision and site visits by home office personnel
vi . cost of testing apparatus
vii . profit
viii . transportation
b. Tests. Proposal shall include a cost for each of the
following tests, on the basis noted for each:
i . concrete cylinder test - per cylinder actually tested
ii . Proctor test - per test
iii . Aterberg Limit Analysis - per test
The fee for each test shall include conducting the test
and preparation and distribution of reports. It is intended that this
charge cover work performed by testing firm employees other than the field
technician (s) .
The costs of in-situ compaction testing and visual or
non-destructive inspection of welds is included in the hourly rates paid
for the field technician; no additional per-test fee will be established.
7. Payment Basis
Testing firm will be paid one or two hourly rates for actual
hours worked by the field technician(s) plus a unit fee for certain tests
conducted. The testing firm shall submit to City a monthly invoice for
work performed during the previous month. The form of the invoice shall be
subject to prior review and approval by City. The City will not retain a
percentage of each payment to the testing firm.
C. THE PROPOSAL
1. Format and Requirements
Although there is no maximum proposal length, proposals should be
kept to a minimum length necessary to address the requirements of the RFP.
Proposals shall be 8 1/2" x 11" with pages numbered sequentially.
Page 4
2. Proposal Contents
a. Signature: Proposal shall be signed by an authorized
corporate officer.
b. Valid Period: Include a statement that proposal will remain
valid for 60 days .
C. Approach to the Project: Discuss how the firm will approach
the delivery of the desired services.
d. Scope of work: Refer to scope in RFP and note any
recommended deviations therefrom.
e. Qualifications: Firm's relevant experience; responsiveness;
ability to perform; anticipated manpower allocation; certificates or
licenses, etc.
f. Qualifications of key personnel.
g. Insurance - Please provide information related to insurance
limits. City requests Errors and Omissions Coverage and General Liability
Insurance Coverage with a policy limit of not less than $1 million.
h. Work by others : Identify tasks assumed by the testing firm
to be provided by City or others.
i . Cost Proposal : Provide costs for the following items, as
described in Section 7 above:
Field Technician
i. Full-time rate per .hour
ii . Part-time rate per hour
Testing
i . Concrete cylinder test - per cylinder actually tested
ii . Proctor test - per test
iii. Atterberg limit A
j . Appendix: Include supplemental information, if any, such as
firm brochure, fees for additional services, etc.
D. THE PROCESS
1. Submittal : Five copies of each proposal shall be submitted to
the City Clerk' s Office, 6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite 205, Dublin, CA
94568 no later than 10:00 a.m. , Monday, January 11, 1988.
Proposals shall be transmitted in a sealed envelope bearing the
following wording on the exterior:
"CIVIC CENTER TESTING RFP RESPONSE"
2 . Review: Proposals will be evaluated by a committee comprised of
City Staff and the Construction Manager. A recommendation will be made to
the City Council as soon as feasible following the interviews.
Page 5
V 1`+, r
r '� i
,
r �4 eras t- `d
S
.. •F i K- ��sa!f :. jac ,. rK t-,'.; � e „7 r, h� s)9.� r 1-i 3 s i
• l - r �•'�-� t r,t x � �rTi-4 �`x. .s,�•? �W �Y �{.+ ��P �:.A i _yv .f. .
1 7 � r• � •�� T 4{i ��gxf+f 7� t:I� f 2 _...rL s.��rd � ��� �!_* x xz ',f< {''`� ,t';' yF'}y�'.r ?t. !t_,' 4 =1
v rux { T o
7l •'� i., s
3 Award ,` Award will Abe made by the;- City ,Councilata regularly
scheduled.-meeting,,.... ,City :reser'ves ;:,the right'` toy-note award=a contract,"to
T
reject.,any:,and all.'. proposals; to 'negotiate 'with,3a 4pr`oposer; ;and}tot waive 4.
informalities ,and .irre ularities in .P ro osals �received.
:1 V g lylf rs y k ti o f b, q yMn rT 5
.. .. � . ..— .... ,-j: *3a�i ._y, r cR - 1,:,��.a"I47 tx' —^" ,� rt r }�,.a. r 7Si• �
4. Questions may be`,directed
4T F
i r t
City Representative `; Construction-'Manager Representative
Paul S. Rankin ;Ms. �Sue Hyler i- ,s`` z
Assistant to the City. Manager. ` '.,:. •Hari.s '& Associates , '
6500 Dublin Boulevard;-::Suite " 205 .• '.220 :Mason-Circle`;
Dublin, CA 94568 Concord; CA , 94520, 2:
i'
(415) 829-4600 (415) t827 4900
!r 4
.. .. - .1 '}' ) 741. C < .. .• ,
• ••lam .. • .a �
Page 6