CR 99-141 Approve Engineering Services Agreement Elmo Park Water Treatment Plant Renovation
July29,1999
\ i Y 0
..
1- c"
o P K \ ~
Council Report 99-141
Approve Engineering Services Agreement
Elmo Park Water Treatment Plant Renovation
ProDosed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that council authorize the City Manacer to enter
into an acreeme"t with SEHRCM for the encineerinc services related to the renovation of the Elmo Park
Water Treatment Plant.
Overview.
The Elmo Park Water Treatment Plant filters were installed in1967 and they are in need of renovation. The
filter media is in need of replacement with new filter materials and the Wheeler Under Drain System is in
need of renovation. Both of these systems have reached their normal life span limits. With the renovation
work to these systems and the addition of an air wash and a backwash water recovery system the plant will
serve the City of Hopkins for at least another 30+ years.
PrimalV Issues to Consider.
What is the estimated project cost? City cost?
The estimated costs should be covered by the $395,000 that was entered into the Capital Improvement
Plan. The cost of the engineering services is $60,437.
Project schedule
Complete design: September- October,1999
Award Project: November,1999
Construction: December-March, 2000
Engineering Selection Process and SEHRCM engineering fees
Engineering proposals were solicited from three firms. We received proposals from all three fully
qualified engineering firms: SEHRCM, TKDA & Associates and OSM & Associates. Staff selected
SEHRCM based on their qualifications, and because RCM designed the plant originally and has been
involved with numerous other up grades to the Water plant. SEHRCM fees total $60,437, including an
estimated $ 25,237 for construction services. One other factor that was taken into consideration is the
fact that their offices are about 10 minutes away which should help keep travel time costs down on
inspection related visits to the site during construction of the project. All of the proposal costs were within
9% of each other.
SUDDortinc Information
SEHRCM Addendum to proposal
. CIP Project Sheet
"'serlCIII
10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 200, P.O. Box 130, Minnetonka, MN 55343-0130 612.935.6901 612.935.8814 FAX
architecture
engineering
environmental
transportatIon
June 29, 1999
RE: Addendum to Proposal for Engineering Services
Water Treatment Plant #4 Filtration System
City of Hopkins
SEH-RCM No. P-HOPKN9907.00
Mr. Michael G. Lauseng
Utility Superintendent
City of Hopkins
11100 Excelsior Blvd.
Hopkins, MN 55344
Dear Mike:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the water treatment plant improvements project with you
yesterday. The dialog was very helpful for us to understand your approach to the project more
clearly. We have prepared the following comments and clarifications for your review.
Scope & Fee Comparison
Both SEH-RCM and TKDA have documented in their proposals how time has been budgeted for
design and construction phase services. The design phase fees were similar, but a very different level
of effort was proposed for construction phase services.
Design Phase
SEH-RCM has proposed a slightly lower fee than TKDA, and we are comfortable that we can
provide a high quality set of bidding documents for this fee. Our efficiency likely comes from our
past experience with tanks of similar style to the proposed tanle Our computer software that
compares the cost of tank size and depth configurations apparently also reduced our proposed fee,
and has a great potential to save overall project costs for the City. (See the item entitled:
"Construction Cost Savings" in our letter at the front of our proposal.)
Construction Phase
SEH - RCM has proposed a higher fee than TKDA, but we also proposed 70 more staff hours during
the construction of the proposed work. We proposed an "hourly not to exceed" fee during
construction, since the actual time needed during construction is very uncertain. If a diligent and
careful contractor wins the bid, much less time would be needed than if a careless or neglectful
contractor wins the project.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Offices located throughout the upper Midwest
fVe help you plan, design, and achieve.
Equal Opportunity Employer
Michael G. Lauseng
June 29, 1999
Page 2
The most significant difference between SEH.RCM and TKDA's proposal for construction phase
services is in the time budgeted for shop drawing review. SEH. ReM appears to have placed a much
greater emphasis on shop drawing review. While we expect that TKDA will provide this function
as an assumed (though not budgeted for) task, we have a few reasons why we put a greater focus on
this part of the construction phase services.
First, anything done on paper is easier to change than work that has been built incorrectly. When
facilities are constructed differently than the project design documents, based on an incorrect
assumption of the contractor or other cause, the Owner is often stuck with the dilemma of lots of
time spent fighting for changes, or accepting a deduct in the contract price and living with the
problem for a long time. Contractors are almost always more willing to adjust items in the shop
drawing phase.
Second, competitive bidding climates tend to encourage lower quality shop drawings. When a
General Contractor pushes suppliers and subcontractors to repeatedly lower their prices during and
even after bidding, these sub's look for ways to cut costs. Recently we have seen this cost cutting
appear in shop drawings that propose inferior quality items, neglect to provide all items specified,
or tend to be vague and error- filled. We have worked diligently to protect our clients interests by
requiring full conformance with contract documents during the shop drawing review phase.
Sometimes this requires extra effort on first submittals and additional effort to review multiple re-
submittals until the shop drawings meet the intent of the design.
Proposed Adjustments
With the overall fee differences in mind, we offer the following adjustments to our fee to show our
good faith effort to meet the City's needs in a reasonable manner.
1. Adjust Shop Drawing Review Time. After our discussions, we looked closer at our estimated fee
for shop drawing review. We believe that we can reduce the time required by 63 hours. This
will reduce the fee by $5,540. With the remaining 96 hours budgeted, we can still provide a
reasonably aggressive protection of your interests.
2. Average Quality Contractor. The quality of the successful low bid contractor is unknown.
Because we have a history of not coming back to clients for additional fee, we added a 5 percent
contingency into our estimated hourly fee for the construction phase. This allowed the flexibility
of available time to deal with a poor contractor. Since the fee was proposed as "hourly not to
exceed," a good contractor would require less time, and the City would not pay the extra 5
percent. Weare willing to delete this contingency with the assumption that we will be working
with an average contractor. This will reduce the fee by $1,223 (after adjustment above).
The resulting fees that we propose to use are as follows:
Design Phase:
Construction Phase
$33,800 lump sum plus $1,400 estimated for expenses
$24,537 hourly maximum plus $700 expenses
Fee $35,200
Fee $25,237
Michael G. Lauseng
June 29, 1999
Page 3
Conclusion
We believe that we have offered the best qualified personnel to complete the treatment plant
improvements desired by the City. Though our initial fee proposed was higher than those of the
other firms that have submitted proposals, our scope was clearly more aggressive at protecting the
City's interests during construction.
We believe that the adjustments offered above bring our fees into a range closer to those of the other
firms while still maintaining a moderately aggressive approach to protecting the City's interests.
We appreciate the opportunity to discuss this project with you, and hope you give us the opportunity
to serve as your engineer on this project.
Sincerely,
SEH.RCM
~v
Dale A. Fo1en, PE
Project Manager
~;tll:t~
Costa J. Dimitracopoulos, PE
Minnetonka Water/Wastewater Service Area Team Leader
Enclosure
H IW ATERIPROPOSALIHOPKlNSIHOPKN9907\Lauseng52999 wpd
CATEGORY
Utilities
FUNDING
SOURCE
PROJECT TITLE
Water Treatment Facilities, Elmo Park
SCHEDULED PROJECT ACTIVITY
2001 2002 2003
2000
Water Fund
WF
395,000
LOCATION:
1401 Elmo Park Service Drive
DESCRIPTION:
Reconstruction/repair of the water treatment facilities at the Elmo Park site.
JUSTIFICATION:
The present facility is in need of repair and upgrading to improve utilization and
efficiency. Several safety related items need attention. Improvements include new
filter media and backwash retention tank.
CURRENT STATUS/PROJECTED SCHEDULE:
Plans and Specifications
1999
Bid and Construct
2000
RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS AND OTHER PROGRAMS:
Consistent with water and sewer master plan approved in 1990.
NUMBER
WA-2
2004
Project moved back to 1999/2000 due to 1998 SCADA implementation, storage tank paint projects.
5 YEAR COST
$395,000
FUTURE