CR2002-117 Engineering Services Fee change order
< CITY OF
~
. June 27, 200? HOPKINS Council Report 2002-117
.. .
Approve Engineering Services Fee Change Order - Lake Street Bridge Reconstruction
Project, Project No. 99-03
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that Council approve
additional enqineerinq services fees in the amount of $35,362.00 for construction
services provided by SRF Consultinq Group on the Lake Street Bridqe reconstruction
proiect.
Overview.
In 1999, City Council approved a $91,500 engineering services agreement with SRF
Consulting Group for design and construction services regarding Lake Street Bridge
construction. Staff has negotiated an agreement with SRF to compensate them fairly
for construction services provided to the City that were beyond the scope of their
original fee proposal. The additional services and costs were due to: project scope
increase during design development, one year project delay, sanitary sewer forcemain
break, and substantial revisions to utility replacement work during construction. The
negotiated additional fee is $23,471 less than SRF's total incurred construction services
. costs.
Primary Issues to Consider.
. Additional Fee Justification
. Total Engineering Services Fees
Supportinq information.
er rom Jerre Steiner to Jim Klosterman, Qwest
Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director
Financial Impact: $ 35,362 Budgeted: Y IN N Source: Utilities & PIR Funds
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes: PIR: $17,681; Utility Funds: $17,681
.
. Council Report 2002-117
Page 2
Analysis of Issues
. Additional Fee Justification
The reasons that additional services beyond the original fee proposal were necessary,
along with an explanation of each, follows.
. Scope of project: The city's request for proposals required the
submission of proposed professional services fees. The SRF
proposed fee was $84,500, which included $35,000 for construction
services. The other consultant that submitted a proposal had a fee of
$99,450 + 10% of construction cost ($154,650 based on construction
contract amount). Rather than submit simply a percentage of
construction fee proposal, SRF based their proposed construction
services fee on estimated construction cost - assuming a smaller
bridge deck (no sidewalks) and minimal approach roadways
construction. Therefore, the actual construction project scope required
. services beyond what SRF budgeted and proposed. To cover some of
the cost of these additional services, SRF has asked to be
compensated at 9% of the actual construction contract amount, or
$49,697. Staff agrees that the actual project scope exceeded SRF's
understanding of the project scope when their proposal was developed
and, as a result, additional services were required and provided to the
city. The 9% x construction cost request is fair and reasonable
com pensation.
. Project Delays: The Qwest-caused one year project delay resulted in
a lot of additional work, including: construction surveying,
preconstruction meetings, utility and contractor coordination. SRF has
submitted documentation of these additional services. The additional
fee request of $4,560 is justified.
Staff has been attempting to get Qwest to admit their negligence in
causing this delay and pay for the resulting additional project costs. To
date, we haven't been successful. We have put them on notice that
we continue to expect reimbursement for our additional costs - see
attached June 3, 2002 letter. We will determine our next course of
action with Qwest when we know our total additional costs, i.e., after
we finish negotiating with Lunda Construction on their additional costs
due to the delay.
.
. Council Report 2002-117
Page 3
. Sanitary Forcemain Break: This accident resulted in considerable time
on the site during the break repair and after the break was repaired to
monitor the contractor and meetings with MCES (forcemain owner).
SRF has submitted documentation of the additional time and cost. The
additional fee request of $7,513 is justified.
. Construction Revisions to Utility Work: The contractor had to revise
construction methods and location of the water and sanitary sewer
pipes and carrier pipes under the bridge. This was due to the actual
location of the MCES forcemain east of the bridge. This required
redesign of the jacking location under the creek. In order to complete
the new work prior to winter, the contractor was paid on a time and
materials basis for this new work - SRF provided full time on-site
inspection during this operation. SRF has provided documentation of
their project time and contractor work progress during this December,
2001 time period. The additional fee request of $8,970 is justified.
. . Total Engineering Services Fees
The total engineering and construction services fees paid on this project, including
these proposed additional fees, are $126,862. This is 23% of the original construction
contract amount or 19% of the construction cost when the cost of the additional utility
work is included.
.
. .
.. .-
. MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
A TTORNEYS AT LA W
JERRE A. MILLER 400 WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING
JEREMY S. STEINER" 1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH
WYNN CURTISS HOPKINS, MiNNESOTA 55343
KIRSTEN A. HOLSETH
· Rcal Property Lmv Specialist. certified 952-938-7635
hy the Minncsnta Swte Bar Association FAX 952.938-7670
Writer's Direct Dial No. 952-938-6219
June 3, 2002
Mr. Jim Klosterman
Engineering Manager
Qwest
9700 Sclunidt Lake Road, Room 344
Plymouth, MN 55442
Re: Lake Street Bridge Reconstruction Project
. City of Hopkins Project No. 99-03
Dear Mr. Klosterman:
I represent the City of Hopkins. Steve Stadler and Steve Bot have asked that I respond to your letter
of December 17,200 I, regarding the above project and the increased costs incurred by the City as
a result of Qwest's failure to disclose the location of its underground facilities in a timely matmer.
I have met with Steve Stadler and Steve Bot and have read the letters exchanged between you and
them regarding this dispute and the supporting documents provided to me by Steve Bot. Based on
the information 1 have reviewed. I believe it is apparent Qwest simply failed to respond to the letters
and notices that it received from the City's consultant, SRF consulting Group, Inc. ("SRF"), did not
attend the July 7, 2000, preconstruction meeting and failed to notify the City, SRF, or the general
contractor, Lunda Construction Company ("Lunda"), ofthe existence ofthe underground telephone
conduit in the bridge construction site until July 11,2000, approximately nine months after the initial
letter from SRF to Mike Johnson forwarding the preliminary plans for the Lake Street Bridge
reconstruction. Neither SRf nor the City have any records in their files other than your letters
j ndicating Mr. Johnson or Qwest responded to any of the lettcrs and notices received by Qwest prior
to the July 11.2000. on site construction meeting convened by Lunda. It is simply not plausible that
Qwcst notified the City or SRl~' orthe location ofthe underground telephone conduit before July 11,
. 2000.
~
.
, ..
.
Mr. Jim Klosterman - 2 - June 3, 2002
Qwest derives significant benefit from the use of City-owned street right of way, such as the right
of way of Lake Street adjacent to the Lake Street Bridge. This privilege carries with it an attendant
duty to respond to requests from the City and its consultants for disclosure of the location of
underground facilities maintained by Qwest within City-owned street right of way. We believe
Qwest breached this duty to the City by failing to respond to the notices and requests that it received
prior to the July] 1,2000, on-site construction meeting. As a result of Qwest's failure to respond,
the City has incurred and will incur substantial additional costs and damages that would not have
been incurred had Qwest responded in a timely and appropriate manner. These costs and damages
include additional engineering and consultant's fees for modifying the bridge design after the
location of the underground conduit was disclosed. They also include claims submitted to the City
for increased labor. materials and overhead costs claimed by Lunda and its subcontractors because
of the delay in construction of approximately one year resulting from Qwest's delay in disclosing
the existence and location of the underground telephone conduit. The final amount oftlle costs and
damages that will be incurred by the City has not been ascertained at this time. At such time as the
final amount has been determined, we will provide you with a statement of the increased costs
incurred by the City as a result of the delays in the bridge reconstruction project attributable to
. Q\vcst's failure to respond to the notices and requests that it received from SRF.
The purpose of this letter is to place Qwcst on notice the City of Hopkins will expect Qwest to
rei mburse the City for all of the additional costs and damages incurred by the City as a result of
Qwcst's failure to respond to the notices and requests from SRF. As stated above, we will provide
you with a statcment ofthosc additional costs at such time as the final amount has been determined.
In the meantime, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
tU~7 :L-
eremy S. Steiner
JSS/drs
cc: Me Steven Stadler, Hopkins Director of Public Works
Me Steven Bot. Hopkins Assistant City Engineer
Mr. Robert Moore, SFR Consulting Group
c: hope i v i I \K!oslcfman .llr
.
l