COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence | ||||
Department of Public Works | ||||
DATE: |
November 22, 2006 | |||
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
December 5, 2006 | |||
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: |
None | |||
VOTE REQUIRED: |
4/5ths | |||
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | |||
FROM: |
Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Works | |||
SUBJECT: |
Increase in Contract Authorization – Retrofitting the Roof Panels and Installation of Seismic Dampers at the San Mateo County Hall of Justice – Redwood City (Project No. P2205) | |||
Recommendation | ||||
Adopt a resolution authorizing an increase of $266,779 in the “Not-To-Exceed” payment limit for contract costs for the above referenced project (from $2,730,000 to $2,996,779). | ||||
Vision Alignment | ||||
Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all. | ||||
Goal 7: Maintain and enhance the public safety of all residents and visitors. | ||||
The increased in contract authorization will reimburse the contractor for additional work associated with the seismic retrofit of the Hall of Justice, that improves the building’s resistance to earthquake loads thereby making it safer for the building occupants. | ||||
Background | ||||
Previous Board Action | ||||
Adopted Resolution No. 66898 on August 31, 2004, awarding a contract for Retrofitting the Roof Panels and Installation of Seismic Dampers at the San Mateo County Hall of Justice to Gonsalves and Stronck Construction Co., Inc. | ||||
Approved an additional appropriation for the project in the final 2006/07 budget as it was anticipated that additional costs would be incurred to cover anticipated contractor claims for changed project conditions. | ||||
History | ||||
The Hall of Justice Seismic Retrofit project has been underway since 1995, as construction on the various floors of the building had to be completed in phases, as the work required asbestos abatement and the temporary vacation of offices while the steel cross braces were installed and anchored to the building’s existing steel superstructure. The final phase was the installation of visco-elastic dampers that absorb the energy of an earthquake similar to the shock absorbers on a vehicle. | ||||
Unfortunately, the damper material specified during the design phase of the project in 1993 was no longer commercially available by the time the contract to acquire and install the material was awarded; and the physical properties of the substituted material could not meet the performance criteria of the original material in the same size and configuration. The contractor was required to do additional work as the steel braces and connection plates had already been installed as part of the previous phases, and the new damper modules were typically twice the length as the original modules. This also necessitated additional demolition and finishing work. | ||||
Discussion | ||||
We anticipated that the contractor would be submitting claims for additional work at the time the substitute material was approved in August 2005, and we have been monitoring the contractor’s work in order to substantiate actual costs throughout the duration of the project. It was not practical to negotiate the total cost of the change in advance, as every brace configuration was unique requiring a different connection detail modification or different demolition/reconstruction. The contractor’s claim consists of $154,912 in additional welding and bolting work and $144,733 for increased demolition and finishing work associated with the increase to damper module sizes. We have checked the contractor’s claims and agree with the amounts stated. | ||||
The contractor has essentially completed this project, which also completes the seismic retrofit work on the Hall of Justice. There are still some outstanding issues with the State regarding lateral bracing of some of the suspended ceilings in some of the courtrooms. The State has conditioned their taking over the building as a court facility until additional ceiling bracing is done. We disagree with the State that additional lateral bracing of some ceilings is necessary and are continuing with our discussions to reach a mutually agreeable compromise. | ||||
A resolution has been approved as to form by County Counsel. | ||||
Fiscal Impact | ||||
The total contract cost including the proposed increase is as follows: | ||||
Contract Amount |
$ 2,599,251 |
|||
Contractor’s Claim for Additional Work |
$ 299,645 |
|||
Processed Change Orders for Other Work |
$ 97,883 |
|||
Proposed Total |
$ 2,996,779 |
|||
Less Original Project Authorization |
($2,730,000) |
|||
Proposed Increase |
$ 266,779 |
|||
Sufficient funds have been appropriated to cover the cost of the work including the contractor’s claim for the additional work associated with using different visco-elastic material in the dampers. | ||||
There is no additional impact to the General Fund. |