Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-09 88-222 ORDER�o�n .anon 88-222 Item/Subject: Award If Phase II Construction Contract - Downtown Parking Garage Responsible Department: Purchasing Commentary: Since the bids that were opened on April 19, 1988 were all over budget Rich & Associates and City staff have reviewed many possible cost saving measures with the two low bidders in an effort to reduce the final cost of the building. A preliminary schedule of Cost reduction possibilities from the two low bidders is attached along with the bid tabulations The contract award recommendation from Rich & Associates (copy attached) focuses primarily on the two methods of construction and the construction schedule. Recmmoende- ations for all cost saving measures and a final building budget will be available for the May 9 Council Meeting. -Manager's Command: `,'� F'MEm�C {-=AA�aaa��M 11 /µ�Q�ndM A/,�4 PP. 2rce.n.,,wit,..t-r�±a�'W.✓.v�a.w,9ed.wva�c� xbAdiessissi� GAP , 6 -t 1 ll M w`�, cay Alnnnpe. Associated Information Budget Approval - 0 qg..5 Legal Approval: ny sncdrw Item No. Page _of_ 88-222 Introduced by Councilor Tilley, Hay 9, 1988 ryrypp CITY OF BANGOR (TITLE.) @rbrrr, Awarding Contract for Phase II of the Construction of the Downtown By the Cily Coaxed ofUle City ofBanpor: ORDBBSD, THAT WHEREAS, bids were opened on April 19, 1988 for Phase II of the construction of the downtown parking garage; and WHEREAS, all bids w carefully reviewed by City staff and the City's architectual consultant, Rich & Associates; and WHEREAS, Rich & Associates and the City staff recommend and of the construction contract to Reed & Reed Inc., the low bidder at $4,425,000.00 for the alternate precast construction design; and WHEREAS, the City Council Finance Committee has reviewed this recommendation and have approved the contract award subject to full Council approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANGOR THAT Reed & Reed Inc. is hereby awarded the construction contract in the Amount of $4,425,000.00 for Phase II, of the downtown parking garage. STATEMENT OF FAM This contract will provide all required construction for the completion of the downtown parking garage. 88-222 IN CITY COUNCIL O R D E R May 9, 1998 Pass d Title exxv eRK A.wWU1g .Ganact .f¢c Rhace .LL xC .U1e. .Sanetivctien.n{,che Dovntn� P.Nck'a . Garage. Introduced and filed Ey Councilman 88-222 Satsiedulee KING m level rmmet mrmnw days BANGOR, 1M07 Q` mosto assess sm Film 3d5 elms Ims d/19/831 CITYROF MAINE ro t sq.fe./totare rete m rmmet mrmnw ® #similarad Q` mosto assess sm Film I elms Ims d/19/831 ro t 1 �eirn INCURRED 1. 1. J e d IBMwS tmutrveelw 8.3]1.693 150 - m to yee ew a m eededue do " I ruM W YI-153 •alu uee roep WA WA N.61o.pd sv.06x,sa n es his yet eaM Mp %-15X eem t nee N.95d.Ob v.5ro.wo ffi yd he l M,k " 1m, N/A NIA N.55.w EL.35o.am w VB v¢ IW wv s ES yeu num.,,. enemw wpml® 3/69 (Mid atato mark V 15X -20x Mss Wry µ.07.0Po 59n.0Po - - Te y6 ffi ffi Beae t ecUbale wH u IU -M ee WV N.J]O.ON M) as ffi MS 6]U ulmtiv ('wim"d till "blade) e dw elm e dp See a lap1t1l I �� I i i Ilii CITY OF BANGOR, MAINE PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE DEDUCTION COMPARISON I 1®LI® SIw.000• i 85.[M '_ A3.000•••• i Olu Gry. s 91.1Yj �. S6. Fjo sid.%E^^ S 95.805 mnl I - 94475"' v ooe to 11191"1 told old of Y.N5.wog ,Mma lov _ sy.w wtnynesing. RICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTURE , PARKING CONSULTANTS • ENGINEERING 35240 LAHSER ROAD , SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 48030 (313) 3535050 May 2, 1988 R1`CF/bepf4,V, City Of Bangor Maine City HallyyB 73 Harlow Bangor, Maine 04401 Attn: Mr. David N. Pellegrino, Purchasing Agent Be: .Recommendation for Phase II Contract of the Water Street Parking Structure Our File No. 8811 Dear Mr. Pellegrino: Rich and Associates has reviewed the bids as submitted by the four contracting firma. On Wednesday April20th, Bill Paxton from Rich and Associates met with both individuals from Reed and Reed and Diaz Corp. to get clarification on the respective bids and to also request additional information on adds and deducts that we saw could be taken for the project. Though responses from the firms were expected on April 25th, we did not receive confirmation on dollar amounts via telephone until April 28th and April 29th. W¢ have reviewed the alternates proposed for adds and deducts by both organizations and have the following comments. 1. In philosophy, Rich and Associates prefers the construction of a precast parking structure over that of poured in place. This is due to the strict quality control requirements for a parking structure. It has been our experience as both designer and owner, that precast offers more assurances for quality control in the plant and also in the field. In a poured in place parking structure quality control is of the utmost concern, this can be a problem depending on the contractor and the supervision ofthe construction. Therefore, there is a preference in our firm towards precast design and building. UNGTIONUOESIGN • PARKING SECURITY PLANNING N OPERATINGSTUDIES , DESIGNSUILD , DEVELOPMENT, FINANCING& PROFESSIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT THROUGH MEOPARK IHC. Mr. David N. Pellegrino May 2, 1988 Page 2 As you may remember in October or November when our firm was completing schematic designs and design development drawings, we thoroughly interviewed all the precasters within a supply area of Bangor. Based upon unit coat estimates of the precaster at that point, we ruled out the precast because the cost per square foot was between $18.50 and $21 per square foot. With this in mind we priced out poured in place, post tension construction and found it significantly cheaper than precast. However, it .is our understanding that a precaster who had expected several jobs to materialize found these jobs were cancelled and immediately needed additional work and therefore offered lower cost in precast. 2. The bids as submitted by Diaz Corp. in both their base bid and an alternate for a longer time schedule were to the best of our knowledge, bids based upon the plans and specifications as developed by Rich and Associates. The Reed and Reed base bid of a poured in place parking structure to the best of our knowledge was also bid from our plans and space. However, the voluntary alternate for precast as submitted by Reed and Reed did not include a brick exterior on the panels and this did not appear as an exclusion in their bid form. We have since requested adds and deducts from both Reed and Reed and Diaz which are shown on the following chart. However, when we looked at the Reed and Reed bid, the brick facade desired by the City was not in the base bid of $4,325,000 and would add $100,000 to their base bid on the precast design for a total of $4,425,000 as opposed to the Diaz low bid of $4,370,000. The difference in cost is approximately $55,000. RICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. David N. Pellegrino May 2, 1988 Page 3 3. The time schedules on these two low bids for precast and poured in place differ greatly, when examined carefully. The Diaz proposal or bid or $4,370,000 has a substantial completion by June and a total completion by the end of August. The precast structure has a substantial completion around December of 1988 and final completion around June of 1989. This latter point i somewhat confusing in that if the superstructure of the parking structure is up by December of 1988 all that would remain are the elevators, elevator shafts and stair towers, which can be completed during the winter months. Therefore, we feel a June completion is giving the worse possible scenario to the City and that the deck could be completed substantially before that. As a note t0 this point Diaz has told Rich and Associates that they would be able to give partial occupancy of the structure in December for the Holiday season. However, Rich and Associates has not ascertained how they would do this and it is somewhat questionable if in fact this could be done. All in all it is the recommendation of Rich and Associates that the City consider the Reed and Reed bid for precast design of the parking structure as a viable alternate to the poured in place and that the City proceed t0 contract with Reed and Reed for the construction of the parking deck in precast. There are several points that lean toward this one of which is the obvious benefitsof precast. Also the fact that Reed and Reed will be doing the pile contract and can therefore coordinate the project better offers a smoother transition from foundation site work to superstructure and actual construction. Finally the time schedule for precast should allow substantial completion before June of 1989. RICH AND ASSOCIATED. INC. Mr. David N. Pellegrino May 2, 1988 Page 4 There are however, two key points in the decision for Reed and Reed. The contractor has proposed on precast for which the building has not been designed. A firm price has been given for this deck based upon a layout of the precaeter. The final design of the building still needs to be completed 1£ precast 1e chosen. There is also the possibility of substantial change orders in this final design that would not occur with the poured in place scheme. In order to avoid these potential change orders a clear understanding of the ground rules with Reed and Reed must be established. 4a' essence, what we have in choosing Reed and Reed is a negotiated design build bid in.which Rich and Associates would work for the City. and with the contractor and redesign the building for precast. Therefore,r n summary while the poured in place concrete bid is o paper lowerin overall cost, it is our recommendation that the City proceed with the precaeter and the precast bid from Reed and Reed, because of the timescheduleand quality control. I£ there are any questions on this letter please feel free to contact the writer. Sincerely, RICH AND ASSOCIATES. INC. ichara A. Ricn PAR: so Enclosure RICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.