HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-88 RESOLUTION •
iCI r \IFD
RESOLUTION NO. 96_88
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTRACT
WITH CH2M HILL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to execute an amendment to a contract with CH2M Hill for
engineering services for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project.
A copy of said amendment authorized for execution hereby is
attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED this _ 20th day of December 1988 .
APPROVED
By:
Mayor (994"14*--
ATTEST
By: e•DYi�
Clerk
,
1/4: a 4-4 s`:4:\
•
1. -c •. a ;
•
�,,, 3-1'1
a '
TASK ORDER NUMBER 10 , AMENDMENT 3
ADDITIONAL RESIDENT OBSERVATION AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
This Amendment No. 3 amends Task Order Number 10 executed
between CH2M HILL Southeast, Inc. (Engineer) , and the City
of Fayetteville, Arkansas (Owner) , on the 25th day of April,
1987 .
Article 1
The scope of work is to provide additional resident
observation services and engineering services during
construction for the added period from June 30, 1988,
through September 24 , 1988 , resulting from the delay in
construction, in addition to those services covered by the
Amended Task Order Number 2 and Task Order Number 10 as
previously amended for the Wastewater Treatment project.
Article 2
As consideration for providing the services enumerated in
Article 1 above, the Owner shall pay the Engineer on the
basis of raw labor plus 163% for overhead plus 15% for
profit plus all project related direct expenses.
Subcontractor costs will be marked up 5% . The total
additional cost is $ 44,000.00.71trTIie total for Task Order
Number 10 as amended is thus $ 399,300.00.6
Article 3
Payment to the Engineer for services provided as described
in Article 1 is due to be made within 30 days after date of
billing.
EXHIBIT A
mgmDS7/061 -1-
•
Article 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto each herewith sub-
scribe the same in triplicate.
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
By:
111°.4114a-) 9°1"44..---d
Title
ATTEST:
FOR CH2M HILL SOUTHEAST, INC.
By:
ame Title
Dated this Le day of , 1987
ATTE ^'T
mgmDS7/061 -2-
Engineers
® Planers
7 ClfMHILL Economists
- Scientists
November 17, 1988
MGM18766 .FO
Mr. Bob Franzmeier
Project Coordinator
City of Fayetteville
• 113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Bob:
Subject: Fayetteville Wastewater Treatment Plant
Task Order No. 10, Amendment 3
As you know, the costs for our providing engineering
services during construction and resident observation
services since June 1988 have exceeded the amounts in Task
Order 10, as amended. We have submitted monthly invoices
showing the amount of additional costs since June.
In the attached task order amendment, we have shown our cost
for three different time periods for engineering services
during construction and resident observation services
(during regular hours) . The first time period is June 1,
1988 to July 1, 1988. For Task Order Amendment No. 2 we
estimated our costs and thought the amount would be enough
to carry us to July 1, 1988, although the time period stated
in the Amendment was only to June 1 . We spent $6,574. 31
more than our estimate. This expense was incurred prior to
the contract completion date for the construction that had
been extended for 30 days from June 1, 1988, to July 1,
1988.
The second period is between the contract completion date _
(July 1, 1988) and August 25, 1988, when the majority of the
construction reached an acceptable level of completion as
evidenced by a joint walk-through inspection by the ADPC&E,
ourselves, and you. These costs we believe are appropriate
to be assessed against the completion contractor (Huber,
Hunt & Nichols) .
CH2M HILL Montgomery Office 2567 Fairlane Drive P.O.Box 230548 205.271.1444
•
Montgomery,Alabama 36123-0548
f
Mr. Bob Franzmeier
Page 2
November 17, "1988
MGM18766.FO
a
In a letter dated July 18, 1988, we informed the completion
contractor, Huber, Hunt, and Nichols, that they were subject
to the City assessing both liquidated and actual damages.
In early October we met informally with Huber, Hunt, and
Nichols, to see if our claim for engineering costs could be
resolved. We attribute our claim to their not completing
the work to an acceptable level by the contract completion
date of July 1, 1988. In addition to the costs resulting
from his not completing the construction by the contract
• completion date, we have an outstanding claim of $6, 709. 12
for resident observation time (essentially for Jim Davis)
incurred while the contractor was working overtime. The
contractor has paid other resident overtime costs, both for
Jim Davis and Charles Wentworth. The contractor recently
refused to pay the charges based on their opinion that Jim
Davis was not productive, especially during the transition
period when both Jim Davis and Charles Wentworth were
onsite. We do not accept that reason for refusing to pay
those costs incurred between April 24, 1988, and June 25,
1988.
The third period starts August 24 and includes our
engineering costs that we believe cannot be assessed to the
contractor. This period includes costs ($12, 648. 85) that we
believe are outside of the contracted project performance
evaluation task. During the period between September 25 and
November 1, there were also costs (approximately $2, 958)
that are appropriate to be included as a part of our
original lump sum contract, since the tasks were related to
performance evaluation issues. (These latter costs are not
included in the attached Task Order Amendment No. 3 even
though the performance evaluation period did not begin until
November 1, 1988. )
In our October 4 meeting with the contractor, he indicated
that the bonding company must be involved in any payment of
the above contractor related charges (the second time period
in the Task Order Amendment and resident overtime charges) .
We therefore asked him to assist in facilitating a meeting
with the bonding company. We have heard on several
occasions that the bonding company was preparing a letter to
us relative to a meeting with them, and that the letter
would be forthcoming within a couple of days. Over a month
has elapsed with no communication from the bonding company.
We therefore believe that the City needs to assert the
claim, which we believe is the City's right against the
Contractor.
• � f_
•
•
Mr. Bob Franzmeier
Page 3
November 17, (1988
MGM18766.FO
Regarding your rights against the contractor, the original
Contract Documents specified deadlines for completion of
construction for three phases. Individual amounts of
liquidated damages were stated for time overruns beyond each
deadline with the accumulation of damages for multiple
deadlines being exceeded. During the period that the
completion contractor was late, there were Phase 1, Phase 2
and Phase 3 items of work which had not been completed.
Phases 1 and 2 had the second of the three deadlines and
Phase 3 was the third. These items were not prohibiting the
startup of the facilities, which had already been declared
substantially complete. However, the Contract Documents
establish damages for the lack of completion of the work,
not lack of substantial completion. One interpretation of
the contract documents could be that the cumulative sum of
$600 for not completing Phases 1. and 2, and $600 for Phase 3
being incomplete could be assessed as liquidated damages.
The maximum amount that you could consider the City's right
to collect is $1, 200 per day for the period between July 1,
1988, and August 25, 1988, a total of 54 days for a total of
$64, 800.
In light of the above, on the next pay request from HH&N, we
recommend withholding the sum of $32, 419.58 for engineering
services between July 1, 1988, and August 25 , 1988, as
actual damages and $6, 709 .12 for overtime resident
observation services. In addition, you may deduct an amount
of liquidated damages that you believe appropriate.
We ask that the City approve the attached Task Order
Amendment No. 3 for $58, 351. 86. Efforts to collect
$39, 128. 70 from the contractor as stated above should also
be made for that portion of the Amendment. Overall, the
wastewater treatment plant project construction and
non-reimbursed additional engineering costs (excluding the
added belt filter press and assuming collection of
$39, 128.70 from the contractor) result in a final cost
$12, 190. 00 less than the original construction cost of
$21, 232, 000.
Sincerely, /
Dennis A. Sandretto, P.E.
Project Manager
mgmDS7/060
cc: Johnny Quinn/McClelland
Bob Blanz/LIT