Loading...
PROJECT ANALYSIS - MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING - POLICE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING - CITIY PARKING GARAGEProject No. 2700 -01 -01 Municipal Services Building Police Headquarters Building City Parking Garage Clearwater, Florida Project Analysis June 3, 1997 Prepared for: The City of Clearwater, Florida Submitted by: HIGH -POINT RENDEL 3000 Gulf To Bay Blvd., Suite 102 Clearwater, FL 34619 (813) 799 -6611 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page i June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Assignment 1 1.2 Procedure 2 1.3 Summary Issues 3 1.4 Summary Conclusion 12 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Configuration 16 2.2 Building Descriptions 16 2.3 Design and Construction Service 17 3. ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION 3.1 City Objectives 19 3.2 High -Point Rendel Assignment 19 3.3 High -Point Rendel Personnel 21 4. ANALYSIS 4.1 Overview 22 4.2 Project Delivery Method 24 4.3 Owner /CM Agreement 25 4.3.1 Form of Agreement 25 4.3.2 Cost -Plus, Not -to- Exceed 25 4.3.3 General & Supplemental Conditions 26 4.4 Owner /Architect Agreement 27 4.4.1 Form of Agreement 27 4.5 Project Budget 28 4.5.1 Initial Project Budget 28 4.5.2 Current Construction Budget 30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page ii June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rcndel 4. ANALYSIS (Continued) 4.6 Construction & GMP Cost Categories 30 4.6.1 Preconstruction Fee 31 4.6.2 Construction Stage Fee 31 4.6.3 General Conditions of the Contract Lump Sum 37 4.6.4 Performance and Payment Bond Premium 38 4.6.5 Cost Savings 39 4.6.6 Changes to the GMP 40 4.6.7 Construction Change Directive (CCD).. 42 4.7 GMP Contingency 43 4.7.1 Description 43 4.8 Alternates 44 4.8.1 Description 44 4.8.2 Value and Scope Identification 45 4.8.3 List of Selected Alternates 45 4.8.4 Effect on GMP Value Determination 47 4.9 Value Engineering 47 4.9.1 Description 47 4.9.2 Value and Scope Identification 48 4.9.3 List of Selected Value Engineering Items 48 4.9.4 Effect on GMP Value Determination 51 4.10 Tax Savings 52 4.10.1 Tax Savings Issue 52 4.10.2 Application of Tax Savings 52 4.10.3 Value of Materials Deleted from the GMP 53 4.10.4 GMP Acknowledgment 55 4.10.5 Determination 55 4.10.6 Current Procedure 56 4.11 Construction Change Directive (CCD) Evaluation 57 4.11.1 CCD Application 57 4.11.2 Owner Right to Revisit Executed CCD's 58 4.11.3 CCD Analysis 58 4.12 Proposed CO #3 .. 59 4.12.1 Submission 59 4.12.2 Observations 61 4.12.3 Conclusion : CO #3 as Proposed 62 4.13 Approved Reductions in the GMP 63 4.13.1 CCD and Other Items 63 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page iii June 3, 1997 114411-Point Rendel 4. ANALYSIS (Continued) 4.14. Actual Construction Costs 64 4.14.1 All Work by Trade Contractors 64 4.14.2 Contractual Requirement to Provide Actual Cost Information64 4.14.3 Current Value of Actual Construction Costs 65 4.15 Current GMP 68 4.15.1 Description 68 4.15.2 GMP Summary 69 4.15.3 Actual CM Cost Summary 70 4.15.4 Current Projected Total Construction Cost 70 4.16 Progress Schedule 71 4.16.1 Significance to Final Determinations 71 4.16.2 Progress Schedule Contract Requirements 71 4.16.3 Contract Time and Performance 72 4.16.4 CM Compliance with Contract Procedures 74 4.16.5 Notice of Commencement and Actual Time of Performance 76 4.16.6 Approved Extensions to the Contract Time 77 4.16.7 Current Schedule Performance 78 4.17 Architectural Fees 79 4.17.1 Basic Services 79 4.17.2 Additional Services 79 4.18 Potential Cost Recovery 81 4.18.1 Owner /GC Agreement 81 4.18.2 Owner /Architect Agreement 82 4.18.3 Architectural Second Cost Issues 86 ' 5. CONCLUSIONS 94 6. EXHIBITS 6.1 Project Budget Attached to the January 3, 1995 City Commission Agenda 6.2 Creative/Beers December 12, 1994 Project Estimate Recap Sheet 6.3 City of Clearwater Direct Material Purchases as of January 17, 1997 6.4 HPR CCD Analysis 6.5 Creative/Beers March 7, 1997 Contingency Adjustment Log 6.6 Transcript of the January 3, 1995 City Commission Meeting 6.7 Notice of Commencement Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 1 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Bendel 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Assignment High -Point Rendel was selected by the City of Clearwater, Florida in November, 1996 to provide certain owner representative services and project evaluations in connection with the design, construction, and cost of the Municipal Services Building, Police Headquarters Building, and City Parking Garage projects. These services included examination of Contract Documents and project records, analysis of Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and job cost information, assistance with expediting completion and close -out of the Municipal Services Building and Police Headquarters Building, and assistance with managing the construction phase of the City Parking Garage. High -Point Rendel was additionally requested to advise the City with respect to project substantial completion, current Applications for Payment by the Construction Manager, requests for additional services by the Architect, status of tax and other potential savings on materials purchased directly by the City, and payment for materials stored off site. These services are included in the High -Point Rendel assignment budget. The project consists of three individual buildings, including a new Municipal Services Building, new Police Headquarters Building, and new Parking Garage. The start of construction was established at January 14, 1995. The Municipal Services Building was occupied in April, 1996, the Police Headquarters Building was occupied in January, 1997, and the Parking Garage is currently scheduled for completion in October, 1997. The method of project delivery is Construction Management with Guaranteed Maximum Price. Construction Management services are provided by Creative/Beers, a joint venture of Creative Contractors, Inc., of Clearwater, Florida, and Beers Construction Co., of Tampa, Florida. Design services are provided by Rowe Architects, Inc., of Tampa, Florida. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 2 June 3, 1997 Ili�h -Point Renck! 1.2 Procedure The scope of work provided by High -Point Rendel involved identification and evaluation of project records as made available. These documents included agreements, cost and proposal records, progress schedule documentation, previous communications, and contemporaneous correspondence. Review of these materials was supplemented with on -site inspections. One hundred seventy -five (175) Construction Change Directives (CCD's), two (2) executed Change Orders, and a proposed Change Order #3 were addressed. In order to support this procedure, a review of all contract, GMP, and design phase documents was performed. In the initial stages of the analysis, it became apparent that a large number of CCD's, actual construction cost data, and other information required for the analysis was not available. Both the Architect and the Construction Manager were asked to provide the missing information. The Construction Manager eventually provided much information approximately three months after the initial requests, but has still failed to provide supporting documentation for key items of costs as presented. To date, the Architect has provided very little of the requested information. High -Point Rendel conducted and documented regular progress meetings that continued through the occupancy stage of the Police Headquarters Building. Upon the start of demolition of the existing police headquarters building, the format of the regular Design - Construction Team (DCT) meetings then returned to the previously established arrangement of being conducted by the Architect and documented by the Construction Manager. High -Point Rendel is continuing to assist the City with the enforcement of contract compliances on the part of the Construction Manager, Architect, and the City. Most recently, High -Point Rendel has met with the Construction Manager in order to review both the City's determinations and the Construction Manager's positions with respect to the application of certain contract provisions, the determination of the final Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 3 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Mendel Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), assessment of actual costs expended, and the reconciliation of approximately fourteen months of delay in final completion of the project. To date, the City and the Construction Manager have been able to agree on many items relating to the determination of the final GMP, but there remains significant disagreement on several major issues. 1.3 Summary Issues 1.3.1 Construction Cost Issues In general, the form of agreement between the City and the Construction Manager was unnecessarily confused at many important levels. The custom - designed agreement form left a number of key contractual terms and responsibilities unclearly defined. The standard form General Conditions used in the arrangement had been designed by the American Institute of Architects to be used in a conventional lump sum form of agreement. The standard form was not sufficiently modified by the Supplemental Conditions as necessary to adequately address the specific concerns and manner of operation of a Construction Management with Guaranteed Maximum Price (CM w /GMP) project delivery arrangement. The overall result is a contractual relationship in which the definition and applicability of nearly every important line item value is subject to differing degrees of interpretation. On this project, the Construction Manager is paid a "lump sum" fee to manage construction; specifically in contrast to other types of construction management agreements which can provide for a fee based upon actual cost. If actual construction costs ultimately are below the adjusted Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), they are to be deducted from the GMP value, with any resulting savings reverting to the Owner. If Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 4 June 3, 1997 high -Point Rendel actual costs exceed the adjusted GMP value, the Owner's obligation to the Construction Manager is limited to the value of the GMP. The effective result of this arrangement is a cost -plus, not -to- exceed contract. High -Point Rendel determined that the prescribed CM w /GMP project delivery format was managed in a way that significantly confused the contractual definition of "Guaranteed Maximum Price" and "Contingency." Both the Construction Manager and the Architect incorrectly applied items of construction cost to the GMP Contingency. Intermediate values of the current Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) were incorrectly determined, and requests have been made to the City for additional project funding. Pursuant to the High -Point Rendel analysis, it does appear that the GMP is subject to an increase due to design changes on the project, but not to the magnitude claimed by the Construction Manager. Generally, items that represent legitimate changes to the GMP are those resulting from Owner program changes that cause changes in the scope of work, and items resulting from design errors or omissions that should not have been otherwise anticipated by the Construction Manager during the design development and estimating phases of the project. Nowhere in the contract is the term "Contingency" defined, yet the term and its application is a major focus in the ultimate determination of the current value of the GMP. The values of Construction Change Directives (CCD's) for items of work not completely described in the original GMP documents were identified in most CCD's as being applied to the "Contingency" or "Contingency Fund." The subsequently proposed Change Order #3, however, applied these same items as increases to the GMP. This fundamental inconsistency is an important example of the types of position reversal that has characterized the treatment of many contract terms by both the Architect and the Construction Manger. The CCD has been used as the primary, but not exclusive, mechanism to identify both items of work intended as design clarifications within the GMP and those intended as Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 5 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Hendel scope changes adjusting the value of the GMP. This process has contributed to confusion with respect to the final value of the GMP. The problem had been further compounded with CCD descriptions that are not consistent with their own supporting documentation. In addition, other costs have been submitted as proposed increases to the GMP that were presented outside of the CCD procedure and are lacking any supporting documentation. For those situations where the contractual application of certain terms was not clear, or subject to multiple interpretation, High -Point Rendel attempted to identify the conduct of the parties with respect to the manner in which those terms of the contract have been constructively applied. In many such cases, however, the conduct of the parties was ultimately determined to be too inconsistent to be used to define such contract terms with any degree of confidence. In these cases, High -Point Rendel identified each important contract issue, and considered the respective contract treatment. If the contract was unclear, High -Point Rendel then provided interpretation to the extent possible, along with support for any such interpretation. Correspondence by the Architect often combines discussion of GMP values, proposed changes, and project funding in a manner that unnecessarily complicated issues with respect to their applicability to the GMP and Contingency. An important example is "tax savings" previously applied by the Architect as an "increase to the Contingency" (functionally as an increase to the GMP). In actuality, the contract does not provide for any such increase to the GMP; instead, the contract provides that the value of any tax savings is to revert to the City, and thereby decrease the final GMP value. This issue is a good example of the inconsistent conduct of the parties, and currently remains as a significant point of contention between the City and the Construction Manager. After review of all relevant documents, High -Point Rendel has determined the current value of the GMP to be $10,255,903. This value represents High -Point Rendel's opinion of the maximum potential cost exposure of the City to the Construction Manager, subject to the qualifications described in this analysis. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 6 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Rendel The Construction Management with Guaranteed Maximum Price (CM w /GMP) contract arrangement utilized on this project provides that the final value to be paid to the Construction Manager at project completion is based upon the actual costs expended by the Construction Manager as prescribed in the contract - up to the limit of the GMP. In accordance with the terms of the contract, the Construction Manager is required to submit this actual cost data contemporaneously with its periodic Applications for Payment. To the extent that the actual justifiable costs are below the adjusted GMP, the contract provides for the City to benefit from the difference. High -Point Rendel attempted to secure the current actual cost information from both the Construction Manager and the Architect for over three (3) months, in order to allow not provided any such information, even though the Construction Manager has maintained that they have provided this information to the Architect each month since the project's inception. On March 10, 1997, the Construction Manager provided High -Point Rendel with its Contingency Adjustment Log dated March 7, 1997, and represented that this information contained all actual costs -to -date and estimated costs -to- complete for the entire project. The document was acknowledged at that time by the Construction Manager to contain possible errors, and to also possibly include cost items that may not be allowed by contract (such as general conditions related to unapproved delay in project completion). All appropriate documentation necessary to substantiate actual costs as presented in the Log still remain to be delivered by the Construction Manager to the City, and so the values presented by the Construction Manager have never been audited or reviewed. As a result of a limited analysis of the Log, High -Point Rendel identified items in the Log that do not appear to be allowed by the contract. Based upon the job costs as submitted by the Construction Manager, however, and in consideration of the definitions of "Guaranteed Maximum Price" (GMP) and "Contingency" as described in this analysis, the resulting value of total construction costs Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 7 June 3, 1997 high -Point Rendel identified by the Construction Manager is $16,693,954. This value includes materials ultimately purchased directly by the City, is subject to further adjustment based upon final verification of allowed costs, and does not consider any recovery of costs related to project delay. It is not to be directly compared to the current estimated value of the GMP without appropriate adjustment. Subtracting the $5,503,116 actual cost for the materials purchased directly by the City would result in a total request for payment by the Construction Manager of ($16,693,954 - $5,703,116) = $10,990,838. For reasons presented in this analysis, the City's total commitment to the Construction Manager is limited to the value of the GMP, in the event that the actual costs exceed the GMP. Because the actual cost value submitted by the Construction Manager is greater than the current GMP value as determined by High -Point Rendel, including all changes to date, the legitimacy of the adjusted GMP determination is critical to the final determination of the City's total payment obligation to the Construction Manager. By the values presented above, the Construction Manager would be expected to absorb the difference of: ($10,990,838 Actual Cost) - ($10,255,903 Adjusted GMP) = $734,935. Considering the GMP limitation of the City's obligation as described above, the total construction costs projected to be obligated to by the City for the project is equal to the current GMP plus the actual cost of materials purchased directly by the City. The resulting total is: ($10,255,903 + $5,703,116) = $15,959,019. Compared to the construction budget, which was changed subsequent to the approval of Change Order #'s 1 and 2 from $16,180,000 to $16,087,295, the total construction of the project is currently operating under budget by ($16,087,295 - $15,959,019)= $128,276. None of the values presented above consider the costs related to the considerable delays experienced by the project. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 8 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel The October 1, 1996 proposed Change Order #3 had been represented by the Construction Manager and the Architect to include all those items that the Design - Construction Team (DCT) considered to be an increase in the GMP for all items finalized as of that date. The Architect and Construction Manager were pressuring the City to approve the Change Order as submitted. In reviewing the Change Order #3 submission, however, High -Point Rendel identified numerous significant discrepancies between the CCD items presented in the Change Order and the respective CCD's themselves. Many new items of large values were also included in the Change Order proposal without supporting backup. It was also recognized that the Proposed Change Order #3 did not include many items which are known to the DCT to be reductions in the GMP (credit adjustments). Both the Architect and the Construction Manager were again asked to provide the missing information in order to allow the evaluation of the proposed Change Order to proceed. To date, the Architect has not provided any information. Eventually, several meetings were arranged between the Construction Manager and High -Point Rendel in which each CCD and other items of proposed additions to the GMP were reviewed. The intention of those meetings was to address each item, agree to the extent possible on their respective assignments as either the Contingency or as changes to the GMP, and arrive at a revised change order that includes all current changes to the GMP. This value would then be added to the GMP to arrive at the properly adjusted GMP. In those meetings, it was also recognized between the Construction Manager and the City that if this procedure results in an adjusted GMP that exceeds the actual cost value as descried above, the City's commitment to the Construction Manager will be limited to the actual cost. If, however, the adjusted GMP is less than the actual allowed costs, the adjusted GMP will then be the maximum financial commitment by the City to the Construction Manager. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 9 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Rendel Having advanced through the process of reviewing all cost items submitted as part of the proposed Change Order #3, High -Point Rendel and the Construction Manager have agreed on (133) items of direct cost totaling approximately $608,363. Disagreement remains on (36) items totaling approximately $533,103. This $533,103 value has not been included in High -Point Rendel's determination of the current GMP value. 1.3.2 Delay Issues The project record is unusually quiet with respect to project delay. Despite the fact the project is currently projected to be approximately fourteen (14) months beyond the current approved completion date, there is little documentation on file addressing schedules and their updates, or notice to any party of delay responsibility. The issue is significant in consideration of the fact that only forty -four (44) calendar days have been agreed to (by CCD) as a time extension. In contrast, there are (172) CCD's that affirmatively acknowledge "0" calendar days, with no further qualification. Many of these CCD's were originally submitted with time extension requests and/or reservations to consider time effects of the respective CCD, but were subsequently negotiated and agreed to by the Construction Manager as having no effect on the project's Date of Substantial Completion. Mr. W. Baird of the City has repeatedly requested since June, 1996, both verbally and in writing, schedule updates to be provided by the Construction Manager for the Municipal Services Building (MSB) and the Police Headquarters Building (PHB) as specifically required by the contract. Both the City and High -Point Rendel have also requested the Construction Manager to provide its daily reports of labor staffing for the MSB and PHB. To date, no schedule updates have been provided. On January 24, 1997, the Construction Manager provided copies of thirty-two (32) Daily reports which included Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 10 June 3, 1997 High -Point Rendel labor information. At the subsequent DCT meeting, Mr. Jay Fortune, of the Construction Manager's office stated that no other such reports exist. In addition, the current identified total delay to the project includes a four month delay based upon a schedule submitted by the Construction Manager in January, 1997 for the Parking Garage. This schedule extended the construction duration for the Parking Garage from four (4) to eight (8) months, without explanation. Both the Construction Manager and the Architect have been repeatedly asked to substantiate the reasons for this unapproved delay, but neither has responded with any explanation at all. The (44) calendar days of time extension agreed to within the CCD's are acknowledged in this analysis despite the fact that three Change Orders have been prepared and executed by both the Construction Manager and the Architect with unchanged dates of Substantial Completion. Change Order #'s 1 and 2 have been fully executed by the Architect, Construction Manager, and City in this manner. Change Order #3 has been proposed and executed by both the Architect and Construction Manager (as of October 1, 1996) specifically with an adjustment in the Contract Time of "0 days;" also leaving the date of Substantial Completion unchanged. The result of all these considerations is a current contract date of Substantial Completion of August 5, 1996. This date has been determined in this analysis to have been constructively agreed to by the Construction Manager, Architect, and City, but has not been confirmed through procedure prescribed by contract. Currently, however, the Project is projected by the Construction Manager to be Substantially Complete on October 1, 1997. The result is an unsubstantiated delay of (422) calendar days. On April 18, 1997, the Construction Manager asserted its belief of entitlement to its actual costs related to the extended completion date of the project. The Construction Manager presented its jobsite costs associated with the delay in an estimated amount exceeding $400,000. Implicit in this assertion is their opinion that the cause for the entire Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 11 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Kendel delay is divided in some manner between the Architect and the City, and that the Construction Manager bears no responsibility for any portion of the delay. Because, however, the Construction Manager has presented no information or argument supporting its assertion for entitlement to costs associated with delay or otherwise responding to the issues summarized above despite being repeatedly requested to do so, High -Point Rendel can only assume at this point that the responsibility for the delay rests with the Construction Manager. There has been informal allegation by the Construction Manager that certain delays have been caused by the Architect. This information, however, is poorly documented, and does not appear to constitute the orders of magnitude approaching the projected fourteen (14) month total delay. Even if some justification is ultimately considered by the City, such delays will then likely be chargeable to the Architect. 1.3.3 Design Issues The Architect has presented numerous invoices to the City for additional services. While the scope and value of these claimed additional services are subject to much scrutiny, major components of these fees are directly related to the extension in the project completion date. To the extent that any amount of these fees are justifiable, they may be chargeable to the Construction Manager. This decision, however, will require the determination if any portion of the project delay is related to design errors and omissions or active /passive interference. An additional component of the fees for additional services as submitted would apparently compensate the Architect for design services related to correcting design errors and addressing design omissions. High -Point Rendel investigated and identified numerous items of additional cost to the project that were ultimately determined either to Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 12 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Rendel be of a second cost nature, to have resulted from a design error, or were the result of a combination of the two effects. A "second cost" item is recognized as one which is necessary to achieve the intended design result, but had not been identified until after the original design had been completed and priced. The added work is therefore necessary to the project, but the out -of- sequence introduction results in cost for the work that is higher than it would have been if the work had been incorporated in the original design. The difference between the two values for the same work is considered to be the "second cost." Work that is described as being the result of a design error or omission characteristically adds no value to the project, but is often the result of rework or other interference with planned construction as necessary to correct the subject of the respective design problem. The added costs to the project caused by these conditions are ultimately recoverable by the City from the Architect. High -Point Rendel has identified twenty -three (23) CCD's of which the Architect has acknowledged on the faces of those documents to be the result of "Document Omission," seven (7) CCD's that were the result of the failure to address current City code requirements during the original design process, and twenty -seven (27) additional CCD's that include varying degrees of second cost components. 1.4 Summary Conclusions The contract provides for the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), as may ultimately be adjusted by change order, to represent the upper limit of Owner committed costs. This price ceiling is subject to downward adjustment based upon the Construction Manager's properly substantiated actual costs. The GMP may be adjusted to reflect both positive and 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 13 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel negative changes in scope, and the Construction Manager is responsible to deliver a completed project within both the GMP contract sum and contract time; as either may be adjusted by change order. To date, "actual cost" calculations are based upon an unsubstantiated cost summary report prepared by the Construction Manager, which may include costs not allowed by the Owner /CM agreement. Substantiation of actual cost information, including documents such as actual subcontracts, material purchase orders, payroll records, etc. has not been forthcoming from the Construction Manager as required by its contract and as requested. Such information is significant to the determination of the final project costs in order that they may be compared to the current GMP, and must be secured before any determinations are finalized by the City. The initial Guaranteed Maximum Price was established at $15,875,000. The current GMP has been determined by High -Point Rendel to be $10,272,796. This current value is based upon two executed Change Orders, deletion of the GMP values of materials purchased directly by the City, and an estimated value for the Proposed Change Order #3. The Change Order #3 estimated value is represented in the amount believed to be correct by High -Point Rendel. It includes reallocation of CCD items proposed as changes to the GMP to the contingency provided within the GMP, and identifies approximately $300,000 in reductions to the GMP identified by High -Point Rendel, and agreed to by the Construction Manager. These GMP reductions had not been previously presented by either the Construction Manager or the Architect. The valuation does not include any consideration of the cost related to delay in project completion. Using this $10,255,903 valuation for the GMP, the current projection of total cost to the City for construction, including CM fees, bonds, direct material purchases by the City, and the current GMP valuation is $15,959,019. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 14 June 3, 1997 11igli -Paint Rendel Although this value would be subject to downward adjustment based upon actual construction costs experienced by the Construction Manager that are below the GMP, the Construction Manager has presented its unsubstantiated cost summary totaling project costs that exceed the current GMP. If this relationship is ultimately verified through review of related cost records, the City commitment to the Construction Manager will be limited by the GMP value indicated above. Because the "Construction Stage Fee" is described in the contract to be a "lump sum" (fixed value), the Construction Manager is responsible to absorb its own costs associated with any unauthorized extension or delay in project completion. The Construction Manager has not recognized this condition in the log of actual costs submitted, and has included "Fee" values in excess of the contract limit. The Construction Manager's unsubstantiated cost summary places the current value of total construction costs at $16,693,954, compared to the value based on the current GMP of $15,975,912. The Architect has submitted claims for additional services on the project. To the extent that the architectural fees related to project delay can be justified by as being required by the actions or neglect of the Construction Manager, those fees and other City expenses related to project delay may ultimately be chargeable to the Construction Manager. It is apparent, however, that certain fees being presented by the Architect as additional may in fact be related to design and redesign actually required to correct errors or omissions in the initial documents. In consideration of the information provided to High -Point Rendel, there does not appear to be a significant City responsibility for the delay between the current approved completion date of August 16, 1996 and the current Construction Manager's schedule completion date of October 1, 1997. This presumably leaves the responsibility for the major portion of the project delay to be divided between the Construction Manger and the Architect. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 15 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel Before any final determination is made with respect to delay responsibility, the Construction Manager is being given the opportunity to present its reasons for the delay in a manner that will allow verification and evaluation. If any component of their response indicates that the City and/or Architect should be responsible for any portion of the delay, those issues will then need to be addressed. The Architect has acknowledged many CCD items as being required in the construction contract because of "document omission." These items, combined with additional items identified by High -Point Rendel as also required or otherwise directed by the Architect due to an apparent error or omission by the Architect, are identified in the analysis. The value of these items is estimated to be $346,873, but is further subject to change based upon the final determination and resolution of all items of additional scope to be properly included in the pending Change Order #3. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 16 June 3, 1997 high -Puint Rendel 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Configuration and Location The High -Point Rendel assignment addresses three of four buildings originally combined in a single project. The separate facilities include the construction of a new Municipal Services Building (MSB), construction of a new Police Headquarters Building (PHB), and construction of a new City Parking Garage (PG). Demolition of the existing police headquarters building is required in order to allow construction of the Parking Garage. The three facilities are located about the intersection of Myrtle Ave. and Pierce St., in the City of Clearwater, Florida. The complete Project initially included the renovation and code up -dates to the existing City Hall. This scope of work, however, has been deleted from the Owner /CM agreement, and is included in the High -Point Rendel assignment only to the extent of identifying the deletion of the scope and value from this contract. 2.2 Building Descriptions The Municipal Services Building (MSB) is a 70,000 sf office building originally budgeted in June, 1994 at $5,477,250. Its main entrances are on Myrtle Ave. and Park St., Clearwater, Florida. The building was occupied in April, 1996 with a conditional Certificate of Occupancy. It has experienced long delays in the completion of its punch list, and has continued to experience problems with the operation of its elevators and HVAC system. The Police Headquarters Building (PHB) is an 83,000 sf building designed to house City Police services. Its main entrances are on Pierce St. and East Ave., and was originally budgeted in June, 1994 at $7,227,790. The building was nearing substantial 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 17 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Retitle' completion at the onset of High -Point Rendel's involvement in November, 1996, and was determined to be substantially complete in December, 1996. Occupancy of the new Police Headquarters Building began on January 6, 1997. To date, most architectural punchlist items have been completed. Problems persisting with the elevator and HVAC system operation have apparently been brought under control very recently. Questions that remain with respect to the integrity of the design and construction of the exterior sealant are currently being addressed. The City Parking Garage (PG) is a 500 car parking facility to be constructed on the site of the existing police headquarters building. It is a precast concrete structure with an original construction budget adopted in June, 1994 of $2,725,000. Construction is expected to commence in April, 1997, immediately after the demolition of the existing police headquarters. Currently, demolition of the existing police building is progressing, and the precast concrete materials for the garage have been substantially fabricated and are stored off site. The original demolition/construction schedule of four (4) months had recently been extended in January, 1997 by the Construction Manager to eight (8) months without explanation. This additional delay to the project has not been accepted or approved by the Owner, and remains to be resolved. 2.3 Design and Construction Services The project was designed by Rowe Architects, Inc. of Tampa, Florida under an AIA form of agreement between the Owner and Architect, modified for a Construction Management with Guaranteed Maximum Price (CM w /GMP) arrangement. Construction management of the project is provided by the Construction Manager; a joint venture of Creative Contractors, Inc., of Clearwater, Florida, and Beers Construction Co., of Tampa, Florida. The form of agreement is a non - standard form for Construction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 18 June 3, 1997 High -Point Rendel Management with Guaranteed Maximum Price, and includes AIA General Conditions for Lump Sum General Contract for Construction adapted to the CM w /GMP format. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 19 June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel 3. ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION 3.1 City Objectives The City of Clearwater had concerns that certain costs may not have been correctly applied to the project as required by contract, and that cost increases currently being proposed to the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) may not be correct. In addition, the City is concerned that some portion of approved increases to the GMP may be of a second cost nature. To the extent that this may be true, such added cost that may be justifiable for the Construction Manager may be recoverable by the City from the Architect. Ultimately, the City wishes to determine if these issues will cause the project budget to be exceeded, and wishes to resolve the continuing delays in completion and occupancy of the facilities. The City also wished to resolve ongoing problems with the operation of the Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system and elevators in both the Municipal Services Building (MSB) and Police Headquarters Building (PHB), expedite completion of the PHB, enforce completion of MSB and PHB punchlists, and exert better control over the construction of the City Parking Garage (PG). The City interviewed competing companies qualified to address these concerns, and retained the services of High -Point Rendel as an independent expert for the purpose of confirming the status of cost and performance issues, and to assist in expediting the final completion of the project. 3.2 High -Point Rendel Assignment Initial services provided by High -Point Rendel included the following: • Provide owner representative services for the Municipal Services Building (MSB) and Police Headquarters Building (PHB) to include: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 20 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Rendel Review of contract documents and project records. • Review the Architect's punchlist and supplement as necessary. • Review the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), Construction Change Directives (CCD's), Change Orders (CO's), Value Engineering (VE), and other project cost information to determine appropriate assignment of cost and responsibility. • Provide its opinion with respect to contract entitlement and GMP application issues. • Determine the current value of the Guaranteed Maximum Price. • Identify items of a second cost nature • Assist in the coordination of the preparation and delivery of all final close -out documentation, and owner orientation, training, and other final services. • In addition to the above, High -Point Rendel is providing the following services on the City Parking Garage (PG): • Schedule review and analysis, with time impact analysis of changes as they may be presented after start of construction. • Correlation of the CPM schedule with the payment Schedule of Values and periodic Applications for Payment. • Confirmation of schedule reporting accuracy with respect to actual progress. • Participation in the regular progress meetings. The above initial services provided by High -Point Rendel have also been supplemented with progress meetings for the MSB and PHB, and review and response to contemporaneous correspondence when requested to do so. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 21 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel High -Point Rendel also participated in a series of meetings with the Construction Manager specifically to review project cost information, and achieve agreement on as many items as possible. The resulting analysis is the basis for the determination High -Point Rendel's opinion with respect to the pending Change Order #3, and provides a catalog of items agreed to by the Construction Manager and those items that remain in contention. 3.3 High -Point Rendel Assignment Personnel The High -Point Rendel personnel performing the activities described above are: • Andrew Civitello, Jr., Senior Construction Consultant, and • William Tait, Senior Construction Consultant. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 22 June 3, 1997 114411-Point Rendel 4. ANALYSIS 4.1 Overview The High -Point Rendel approach to determining the current value of the Guaranteed Maximum Price included a review of each available component of the project record. Performance by the City, Construction Manager, and Architect were also evaluated to the extent that they may have had an effect on the determination of project costs and time of performance. This analysis focuses on issues and entitlement. Unless there has been some obvious indication of an inappropriate value for a specific item, the specific value of each item was generally not evaluated. High -Point Rendel investigated: • The project delivery method and forms of agreement, including general and supplemental conditions. • The Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal, including the GMP and Phase 1 documents. 1 • The executed agreements between the City and the Construction Manager, and the City and the Architect. 1 1 1 1 1 1 • All available Construction Change Directives (CCD's) as they have been prepared and executed, along with varying amounts of available backup. • The October 1, 1996 proposed Change Order #3, with attachments. • The progress schedules for the Parking Garage (PG) submitted by the Construction Manager on October 24, 1996 and October 25, 1996 , and January 28, 1997. • Miscellaneous correspondence relating to project costs, responsibilities, and schedules. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 23 June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel • The Architect's proposals for additional fees. • The Contingency Adjustment Log dated March 7, 1997, as prepared by the Construction Manager and represented to contain the itemization of all actual construction costs to date, and estimated costs to complete the project. Items that have not been made available to date, and have not been evaluated by High -Point Rendel include: • Documentation necessary to substantiate the actual construction costs as presented by the Construction Manager. • Progress schedules and their updates for the Municipal Service Building (MSB) and the Police Headquarters Building (PHB). • Any documentation purported to substantiate delay in project completion to the 1 current projected date. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Explanation and supporting documentation for various items proposed as increases to the GMP value. • Explanation and supporting documentation for various items identified as design errors and/or document omission. The objective of the analysis is to: • Confirm the final Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) value, as contractually defined and as may be adjusted; thereby defining the upper limit of the City's financial exposure with respect to construction costs. • Identify the final actual construction costs experienced by the Construction Manager, exclude any costs that are not allowed under the terms of their agreement, and 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 24 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Rendcl compare the total to the adjusted GMP. This process will result in the determination of the actual financial commitment by the City to the Construction Manger. • Identify items of a second cost nature that may be the result of improper or incomplete design, or the manner in which the Architect's responsibilities were executed. • Determine possibilities of cost recovery that may accrue to the benefit of the City, that may be related to construction, time of performance, coordination, errors, and omissions. 4.2. Project Delivery Method The contract format and method of project delivery originally described to High -Point Rendel was "Design - Build." In such an arrangement, both the design and construction forces are placed within a single contracting entity; the Design -Build contractor. Owner program requirements are communicated to the Design -Build company, who maintains ultimate responsibility for total project delivery within the original program description. The major advantage with the Design -Build project delivery method is single -point accountability. Issues regarding division of responsibility between the constructor and design professionals are essentially eliminated with respect to changes and delays not associated with owner program changes. The major disadvantage with the Design -Build format is elimination of a meaningful watchdog mechanism that would otherwise act to enforce contract compliance and quality control on the part of the constructor. The City ultimately selected a fairly conventional Construction Management with Guaranteed Maximum Price (CM w /GMP) arrangement. A primary advantage in this method is the overlap of design and construction phases (thereby intending to reduce the total project duration), and preservation of better accountability through an Architect who serves as an Owner's agent throughout the process. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 25 June 3, 1997 lligh -Point Kendel The actual contract arrangements on the Project include separate Owner /Architect and Owner /Construction Manager agreements. Generally, these have both been prepared by the Architect to describe conventional relationships, but the customized forms have a number of important modifications. 4.3 Owner /CM Agreement 4.3.1 Form of Agreement The form of agreement between the City and the Construction Manager as prepared by Rowe Architects, Inc. entitled Agreement Between Owner and General Contractor is an agreement for Construction Management with Guaranteed Maximum Price. The term "General Contractor" is used throughout the documents, but the relationship is functionally described as a Construction Manager. Similarly, the term "GC" is used where the term "CM" would be more appropriate. The terms are accordingly to be used interchangeably; all to describe the functions of a Construction Manager, characterized to be "at risk." 4.3.2 Cost -Plus, Not -to- Exceed The Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) form of Agreement is functionally a cost -plus, not -to- exceed arrangement. In this structure, the GMP proposal is a not -to- exceed estimate for a 100% completed project based upon a design that is acknowledged to be "schematic" and partially complete. If final costs exceed the GMP, the Construction Manager is responsible to absorb the difference; and is therefore considered to be "at risk." If, however, final costs are less than the GMP, the City is to receive the benefit of the difference. The GMP may be adjusted to reflect changes in scope directed by the City or otherwise legitimately required by the project. Although the Architect may be 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 26 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Rendcl accountable to the City for design errors and omissions, the Construction Manager may be entitled to adjustment in the GMP for resulting corrections. Both scope changes and re -work can fall into this category. 4.3.3 General and Supplemental Conditions The agreement incorporates by reference Rowe Architects, Inc. Supplemental Conditions provided in the Bid Documents. Agreement Paragraph 2.2.2 incorporates AIA Document A201, 1987 as the General Conditions of the Contract. This is a form of general conditions prescribed for a conventional owner /general contractor form of agreement for a lump sum general contract. Because of this, the General Conditions of the Contract does not address many important issues specific to the construction management format, and leaves other issues subject to multiple interpretation. Examples of such issues include the notable lack of any procedure to clearly distinguishes between design instruction for work intended to be completed within the initial GMP and instruction to complete work intended as a change to the GMP. There is no specific contract procedure provided to clarify the correct application of contingency values, and how they should be applied for additive and deductive change orders. Even the contractual definition of "contingency" is not provided. These are just a few examples of the glaring failure to define fundamental and key contractual components that materially affect virtually every dollar expended on the project. In retrospect, it may have been more appropriate for the Architect to have instead at least provided AIA Document A201 CM as a more appropriate starting point for the project's General Conditions, because that document contains items and descriptions that directly address the construction management form of project delivery used in this case. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 27 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendcl In addition, greater care should have been taken to directly address the contract conditions itemized in Section 4.6 of this analysis. 4.4 Owner /Architect Agreement 4.4.1 Form of Agreement The Project Management Consultant (PMC) as originally proposed was a joint venture between Donnell Consultants, Inc. and Rowe Rados Hammer Russell Architects, Inc. (Donnell and Rowe). The final agreement for design services is between the City and Rowe Architects, Inc. The form of agreement is AIA Document B141 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect, 1987 Edition. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 28 June 3, 1997 114h -Point Rendel 4.5 Project Budget 4.5.1 Initial Project Budget The initial project budget for the purposes of this assignment as represented herein includes the renovation to the existing City Hall Building (valued at $500,000), which was eventually deleted by Change Order. The initial budget is identified in Attachment B to the Clearwater City Commission Agenda Cover Memorandum dated 1/3/95, and is included herein as Exhibit 6.1. It is summarized as follows: Adopted by Commission 6/16/94 (*) 1. Construction Costs (Incl. in GMP) a. City Office Building: $ 5,477,250 b. Renovation of Existing City Hall: $ 500,000 c.. Police Headquarters Building: $ 7,227,790 d. City Parking Garage: $ 2,725,000 e. Demolition of Existing Police Building: $ 250,000 f. TOTAL CONST. COSTS: 2. Furniture a. City Office Building: $ 700,000 b. Police Headquarters Building: $ 500,000 c. TOTAL FURNITURE COSTS: 3. Other Project Costs (Not Inc., in GMP) a. Tests /Inspections: $ 200,000 b. Utilities: $ 120,000 c. Landscape (City): $ 100,000 d. Moving Costs - Office Building: $ 79,000 e. Moving Costs - Police Building: $ 49,000 f. TOTAL OTHER COSTS: $16,180,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 518,000 4. Architectural Fees: a. All buildings: $ 1,500,000 5. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS: $19,428,000 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 29 June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel It is important to note that although there is a constructively defined GMP "contingency" within each project segment in the form of the "Detail and Pricing Allowance" (as discussed in Section 4.7 of this analysis), this type of contingency address CM risk within the GMP. It is not to be confused with a project funding Change Order Contingency, which is a value that is customarily added to a construction budget specifically to provide for the possibility of additive change orders that may occur during the life of a project. Such change orders increase the value of the contract; in this case, the value of the Guaranteed Maximum Price. In this project, there is apparently no such Change Order Contingency provided in the initial construction budget. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 30 June 3, 1997 Ili <hh -Yoint Bendel 4.5.2 Current Construction Budget Prior to the involvement of High -Point Rendel in the project, certain value engineering items have been incorporated into the contract, and two change orders have been executed that have changed the scope value of the Guaranteed Maximum Price. The results of these conditions are summarized in the The Construction Manager Project Estimate Recap Sheet provided in Exhibit 6.2, and compared to the June 16, 1994 budget as follows: 1. Construction Costs (Incl. in GMP) a. City Office Building: b. Renovation of Existing City Hall: c.. Police Headquarters Building: d. City Parking Garage: e. Demolition of Existing Police Building: f. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: 2. Change Orders: a. CO #1: Add Fiber Optic Telecom. System: b. CO #2: Delete City Hall Renovation: 3. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION BUDGET 1/16/94 Budget Revised GMP $ 5,477,250 $ 5,714,409 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 7,227,790 $ 6,659,243 $ 2,725,000 $ 2,665,348 $ 250,000 $ 336,000 $ 16,180,000 $ 15,875,000 $ 712,295 ($ 500,000) $ 16,180,000 $ 16,087,295 As with the initial project budget, this revised construction budget does not directly identify any value as a Change Order Contingency. 4.6 Construction & GMP Cost Categories The items identified in this section describe the various categories of costs included in the City's agreement with The Construction Manager. Each description represents High -Point Rendel's opinion of the manner in which each cost should be applied in the 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 31 June 3, 1997 ligh -Pour Rendel final calculation of the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and/or categories of expenses allowed by contract in the determination of the Construction Manager's actual costs. In each instance, available contract references are provided, along with additional information that may be appropriate to the respective item. Where inference has been necessary, the conditions of such determinations are also provided. 4.6.1 Preconstruction Fee The Preconstruction Fee of $15,250 is a lump sum; not subject to adjustment based on final actual project costs. No direct contract reference is provided with respect to the final determination of value, but the fee is for services provided prior to establishment of the GMP. The lump sum criteria is implicit. Accordingly, any actual costs identified by the Construction Manager for preconstruction activities that exceed the $15,250 established value should not be allowed in the total "actual cost" calculation as described in this analysis. 4.6.2 Construction Stage Fee The Owner /CM agreement contains multiple direct and indirect references with respect to the Construction Stage Fee that present a number of inconsistencies. In consideration of the various references and inferences, High -Point Rendel has concluded that the Construction Stage Fee of $492,729 is a lump sum value; not subject to adjustment based on final actual project costs. This determination is significant to the final reconciliation of the current GMP, and is the result of consideration of the issues that follow. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 32 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel Contractual Description of the Construction Stage Fee The agreement itself is silent with respect to a direct description of the Fee application. In the most direct reference, the Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 7.3.1 provides for "Adjustments (in the GC Fee) due to changes ... as described in the General and Supplemental Conditions of the Contract." Supplemental Conditions 7.3.10 then provides for an increase on behalf of the Construction Manger on added work performed by either the CM or its subcontractors "... equating to the Construction Fee percentage." Considered as an isolated reference, this language can appear to provide that the Construction Stage Fee is indeed subject to adjustment based upon changes to the GMP. Various additional references however, confuse and apparently contradict such a determination. They include the following: a. Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 6.3 describes the cost savings for the GMP to be calculated with a deduction for the "cost of the Work as defined in Article 8." b. Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 8.1 defines "Cost of the Work" specifically to exclude "General Conditions costs." c. Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 8.2.1 then excludes costs "provided under Paragraph 7.2." Paragraph 7.2 describes the "GC's Fee." The combination of references therefore appears to exclude at least the wage portion of the GC Fee, and possibly the entire GC Fee. In an effort to resolve the apparent inconsistencies, the contract language was then compared to the conduct of the parties; specifically, the manner in which the GC Fee was or was not applied in the various CCD's and change orders as prepared, presented, and executed. These considerations are important, because they would seem do clarify the genuine expectation of the parties. That is, the manner in which these key documents 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 33 June 3, 1997 liigh -Point Rendel were prepared and executed should define both parties' understanding of the manner in which the respective contract provisions are to be applied. Treatment of Construction Stage Fee in the Development of the GMP A compelling determination is that which results from the comparison of the Construction Stage Fee and General Conditions of the Contract Lump Sum as initially agreed to in the Owner /GC Agreement with the manner in which those values were treated as the GMP value developed. The initial $492,729 value of the Construction Stage Fee was agreed to on the August 24, 1994 date of the Owner /GC Agreement (Page 1, Item 2). This was prior to the establishment of the GMP, and applied to an anticipated construction value of $15 million (Page 1, Item 4). It is 3.28% of the anticipated construction value. In order to compare the value with subsequent GMP proposals and development, however, the Construction Stage Fee must be consolidated with the other fees, bond, and General Conditions costs, totalling the $1,394,356 value of the August 24, 1994 agreement. This consolidation is necessary for comparison, because the GMP documents also combine these values. Adding this value to the August 24, 1994 anticipated construction cost of $15,000,000, arrives at a total anticipated GMP at the time of the proposal of ($1,394,356 + $15,000,000) = $16,394,356. The December 21, 1994 GMP Estimate prepared by the Construction Manager initially presented at a total GMP value of $17,246,670. It was changed on the Construction Manager's Project Estimate Recap - Base GMP, further identified in Section 4.15.1 of this analysis. That document adjusts the total GMP though numerous Alternate and Value Engineering selections as further described in Sections 4.8 and 4.9 of this 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 34 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Bendel analysis. The resulting revised GMP of $15,875,000 includes the following comparative values: Item 26: Fees and General Conditions a. b. c. d. e. f. Municipal Services Building: Police Headquarters Building: Parking Garage: Central Plant: Renovation & Demo (Allowance): City Hall Renovation (Allowance): 699,358 478,819 212,483 0 0 0 TOTAL: $ 1,390,660 The above values are arranged for comparison as follows: Item Total GMP - Incl. Construction Fees & % of Fees & Cond. Cost Gen. Cond. Cost 8/24/94 GMP Proposal: $ 16,394,356 $ 15,000,000 $ 1,394,356 8.51% 12/21/94 Revised GMP: $ 15,875,000 $ 14,484,340 $ 1,390,660 8.76% The comparison of the two values identifies that although the cost portion of the initial GMP cost was reduced from the initially anticipated value by over $500,000, the Fees and General Conditions were held at the same absolute value; they were not correspondingly reduced in a manner "... equating to the Construction Fee percentage ..." as would otherwise be expected by Supplemental Conditions Paragraph 7.3.1 if the Construction Manager intended for that provision to apply to such changes in GMP scope. Note additionally that the estimated value of the Payment & Performance Bond would have been reduced from the $86,500, based upon the anticipated construction cost of $15,000,000 of the original GMP proposal to $84,009, based upon the revised GMP cost projection of $14,484,340. This can explain at least $2,491 of the $3,993 difference in presented Fees and General Conditions. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 35 June 3, 1997 High -Point Rendel Application of the Construction Stage Fee on executed CCD's The use of the Construction Change Directive (CCD) on the project is described in Section 4.11 of this analysis. The discussion here is limited to the treatment of the Construction Stage Fee on each CCD. On each Change Order Proposal (COP) forming the basis of each CCD, the words "Per GMP Contract" were routinely inserted in the location identified on each COP for the Construction Stage Fee. No dollar values were provided in those locations. The resulting CCD was then executed and presented by both the Construction Manager and the Architect to the City in the total agreed value of the COP; specifically representing the CCD value as the total cost for the respective CCD. No further qualifications were included either on the face of the CCD or in separate correspondence. High -Point Rendel has identified no other supplemental correspondence that would otherwise indicate any other qualification, treatment, or clarification that the CCD's presented under these conditions were subject to further increases. Treatment of the Construction Stage Fee on Executed Change Orders The inconsistency between the Supplemental Conditions Paragraph 7.3.10 and the issues above is compounded by the inconsistent approach applied to the two fully executed change orders, and one partially executed change order: a. Change Order #1 in the amount of $712,295 includes a "Fee" of 3.4 %, in the amount of 23,422.00. Although close, it does not match the 3.28% included in the initial GMP. Even considering the other fees and other expenses totalling $62,745 against the (Cost + Contingency) value of $636,805, the result is $9.85 %. This value is not consistent with the 8.76% presented in the GMP, and 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 36 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Bendel should therefore not be considered to be consistent with the requirements of Supplemental Conditions Paragraph 7.3.10. b. Change Order #3 deducted an Allowance value of $500,000. Although significantly reducing the scope of the total GMP, the Fees and General Conditions again were not correspondingly reduced. Specific treatment of such conditions regarding contract Allowances is not directly addressed in the Owner /GC Agreement. If left to consider only the Supplemental Conditions Paragraph 7.3.10 with none of the other issues raised above, the GMP should have been reduced by an additional 8.76 %; or $43,800. c. Change Order #3 as submitted to the City was prepared and executed by both the Construction Manager and the Architect on October 3, 1996. It contained multiple references to a large number of Construction Change Directives (CCD's), as further described in Section 4.11 of this analysis. As described above, each CCD had previously been presented to the City by both Rowe and the Construction Manager as the total value for the respective item. This is particularly relevant, because the proposed Change Order #3 - executed by both the Construction Manager and the Architect - then totals those CCD's and for the second time presents the results as the complete value of those respective changes - this time as a formal change order, subject to the clear requirements of the contract. It therefore seems clear that neither the Construction Manager nor the Architect ever intended that the Fee and General Conditions was subject to change because of these scope changes. For the reasons presented, it is apparent that the parties never intended for the Fee to be subject to adjustment based upon various change orders expected to occur over the life of the type of GMP arrangement used on this project. Neither the Construction Manager nor the Architect have ever previously submitted such proposed increases, have never Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 37 June 3, 1997 Ili <„ h -Point Rendel qualified any cost submission or otherwise alerted the City to any such pending increases to the GMP, and to the contrary have repeatedly represented to the City that these increases do not apply. Although it initially appears contradictory, the treatment of Change Order #2 is still not consistent with the alternative interpretation. It is accordingly considered in this analysis to have been given individual treatment due to its singularly high cost. 4.6.3 General Conditions of Contract Lump Sum The General Conditions of Contract Lump Sum of $799,877 is apparently a lump sum; not subject to adjustment based upon final actual project costs. In addition to being stated as a "lump sum." It is further qualified by: a. Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 6.3, which deducts the General Conditions Lump Sum from the final cost savings calculation. b. Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 7.5, which describes all costs that are "Included in the GC's General Conditions Lump Sum. The paragraph provides no guidance with respect to final calculation, or if the value is subject to change based upon any particular criteria. c. Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 8.1, which excludes "General Conditions costs" from the "Cost of the Work." Perhaps the most significant factors in the final determination of the General Conditions Lump Sum as not being subject to adjustment based upon changes to the GMP are the same constructive actions of the parties described in Section 4.6.2 above for the Construction Stage Fee. The arguments are transferable, because the treatment of the General Conditions Lump Sum and the Construction Stage Fee had been routinely combined by the Construction Manager and the Architect. That is, the treatment of the Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 38 June 3, 1997 Iligh -fount Rendel General Conditions Lump Sum on the (175) CCD's and three Change Orders demonstrates the intention of the parties that the value is a lump sum amount. 4.6.4 Performance and Payment Bond Premium The Performance and Payment Bond premium of $86,500 appears to be an allowance value; subject to adjustment base upon final actual project cost. The reasons include: a. Page 1 of the Owner /GC Agreement identifies the value to be apparently based upon "$15,000,000 Construction Cost." No other reference has been identified in the agreement that further describes the final value calculation. The Page 1 contract reference implies the allowance condition. b. In as much as the final GMP calculation is based upon actual costs, the actual bond premium will ultimately be paid to the Construction Manager by the City for bond coverages actually provided within the finally adjusted GMP. It is important to note that upon deletion of owner - purchased materials from the GMP by Change Order, as described in Section 4.10 of this analysis, the value of those materials may be deleted from the coverages provided by the Construction Manager's payment and performance bonds. To the extent that this may be confirmed to be true, the Construction Manager's bond premiums should therefore be adjusted accordingly. 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 39 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Bendel 4.6.5 Cost Savings Any Cost Savings that would accrue to the benefit of the Owner is defined by the Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 6.3 as: The GMP - GC Fee - Gen. Conditions Lump Sum - Expended Portions of the GC Contingency - Actual expenditure representing the cost of Work. The "Cost of Work" is defined in the Owner /GC Agreement Article 8. The relationship of the Cost of the Work to the GMP is such that if the Cost of the Work as defined by the contract is ultimately less than the current agreed GMP as my be adjusted by change order, the difference (Cost Savings) reverts to the City. 4.6.6 Changes to the GMP The Owner /GC Agreement Article 9 provides the basic change clause, supplemented with AIA A201 Article 7, and Supplemental Conditions Item 6.0. These documents provide a conventional change provision for use in a Lump Sum General Contract form of project delivery. Because these provisions are not written in a Construction Management format, they fail to specifically address the definition of "Guaranteed Maximum Price," "Contingency," and of a "change in the work" as a change to the GMP (and not a design clarification of the schematic GMP documents). For purposes of this analysis, HPR is therefore employing the definitions of "GMP" and of a "change to the GMP" that are customarily employed in the CM w /GMP format of the nature used in this project, because these customary definitions and applications have not otherwise been taken exception to in the Contract Documents. In consideration of the above, the test applied in this analysis to each completed design component and to each proposed change to the GMP is accordingly as follows Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 40 June 3, 1997 11igh -P"int Rendel (note again that the term "CM" is applied in this context to the term "GC" as used in the Owner /GC Agreement): a. The initial GMP for the project is based upon the the Construction Manager December 21, 1994 "GMP Estimate" as ultimately revised through Alternate and Value Engineering selection to $15,875,000. The undated document entitled Project Estimate Recap Sheet, Clearwater Municipal Complex, Clearwater, Florida, Base GMP with its attached Project Recap Sheets and Item Recap Sheets dated December 14, 1994 is considered to define the Alternates and Value Engineering selections included in the initial GMP. Refer to Sections 4.8 and 4.9 of this analysis for additional information. b. The GMP is considered to have accommodated the total cost of each construction item in its entirety. The November 4, 1996 GMP Documents (including the Phase 1 Bid Documents) are the basis of the GMP value. The GC (CM) is responsible to determine reasonable methods for completing each item conceptually described but not necessarily having a completed design at the GMP Phase. c. The GMP documents are acknowledged to be "schematic" in nature. The GC (CM) has been paid a reasonable fee ($15,250) to participate in (and become familiar with) all design development issues. The GC (CM) is therefore in good position to make such reasonable determinations specifically in order to provide for a complete project within the communicated design intent. d. The Guaranteed Maximum Price is therefore expected to represent 100% of the costs for a 100% completed project. The "Contingency" value in the GMP (identified as the "Detail and Pricing Allowance ") is included as recognition of possible cost increases resulting from items that may have been overlooked in the decisions and assumptions employed by the CM in the determination of the final GMP. The "Contingency" in this context, is therefore the Construction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 41 June 3, 1997 high -Point kendcl Manager's "risk" contingency that essentially allows the "Guarantee" of the "Maximum Price." Any unused Contingency reverts to the Owner. This application of these definitions is consistent with customary usage, and with the values provided as the "Design and Pricing Allowance" applied here as the "Contingency." Refer to Section 4.7 Contingency of this analysis for additional information. e. The cost for providing work included in the original scope that is represented in completed design details is first applied to the construction line item. If costs for the completed design exceed the line item, they are then applied to the Design and Pricing Allowance (Contingency). If the Design and Pricing Allowance is eventually exhausted through this procedure, the CM remains responsible to absorb all additional costs that fit within this definition. This is an important distinction that must be openly considered in the verification of "actual costs" ultimately presented by the Construction Manager. f. A "change" is a clear modification of the owner's original program. It is an item that alters the scope of work, and directly adjusts the GMP total. It represents the difference between the schematic representation of the design intent communicated to the Construction Manager in the Design Development Phase and in the GMP Documents, and the final directed design. Accordingly, for any items to be considered a "change," the CM must demonstrate the reasons why a completed design detail is materially different from the contemplation of the original GMP for the competed design of the item. Failing such a demonstration, the CM is responsible to complete the respective detail within the current GMP (including the current Contingency). 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 42 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Kendel 4.6.7 Construction Change Directive (CCD) The vehicle primarily used by the Design/Construction Team (DCT) to introduce both proposed changes and routine clarifications of the GMP design is the Construction Change Directive (CCD). The use of the CCD on this project has not been in accordance with the procedure described in the contract. Its constructive use for the practical determination of the manner in which costs are identified as either proposed changes to the GMP or as completion items within the GMP has also been inconsistent. The contract provides for the use of the CCD in those instances where: a. The subject work is being proposed as a change in contract scope; and as a change to the GMP, b. A price for the changed work cannot be agreed upon between the Owner and Construction Manager, and c. The Owner wishes to direct the Construction Manager to proceed with the work of the CCD while the final price is being resolved. ' Conversely, if the scope and price of a change to the GMP is agreed, the contract prescribed the use of a Change Order to memorialize the condition. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Neither the CCD nor the Change Order is prescribed in the contract to be used in any way to describe work that is to be considered as clarification that is to be completed within the GMP. The CCD, however, has been used for both conditions; those items of work that are proposed changes, and those that are acknowledged to be part of the contract scope of work. With the exception of a very few number of CCD's, the final value of the work was also agreed by the time the CCD was prepared. For these reasons, the manner in which the CCD has been used in this project contradicts the intention of the contract, and has unnecessarily created significant confusion with respect to the identification of proposed changes to the GMP. This 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 43 June 3, 1997 High -Point Retitle! confusion has been compounded by additional inconsistencies in the language used on the face of the CCD's. Finally, the use of the CCD has been further compromised through the introduction of items proposed by the DCT in the Changer Order #3 as originally submitted, that includes numerous items claimed as additions to the GMP that are not identified in any CCD. Refer to Section 4.11 CCD Evaluation of this analysis for additional discussion. 4.7 GMP Contingency 4.7.1 Description The complete description of "Contingency" or "Contingency Fund" as used in CCD's, change order proposals, and correspondence is not provided directly in any agreement or elsewhere in the Contract Documents. It is left to be implied. The basis for the application of the "Contingency" for the purposes of this analysis is as follows: • Contract Exhibit F, Page 1 Item A of the Elemental Cost Model Format identifies: a "... 7.5% (minimum) design and pricing allowance ... to provide for detailing expected to occur from the schematic design stage through ... completion/hand -over stages." • The word "Contingency" is used nowhere in the Agreement or its attachments, but the description of the "Design and Pricing Allowance" is consistent with the conventional construction management definition of "Contingency." 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 44 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Renck! • The December 21, 1996 GMP Estimate is arranged in the required Elemental Cost Format, and provides a "Detail/Pricing Allowance" consistent with the prescribed format; with the exception that the value provided is 5 %. • The January 13, 1997 Construction Costs Detail report prepared by the Construction Manager (Exhibit 6.6 to this analysis) refers to the values included in its December 21, 1996 GMP Estimate as the "Design and Pricing Allowance" as "Pricing Detail (Contingency)" in the Construction Costs Detail report. For these reasons, High -Point Rendel interprets the "Design and Pricing Allowance" referred to in the contract, and the corresponding "Detail/Pricing Allowance" provided in the GMP documents to be synonymous with both the "Contingency" and "Contingency Fund" applied in the context of this CM w /GMP form of agreement, and as referred to by the Construction Manager and the Architect throughout their correspondences. It is important to note that all discussions of "contingency" within each project segment as synonymous to the "Detail and Pricing Allowance" address the CM risk within the GMP. This is not to be confused with a project funding Change Order Contingency, that is a value customarily added to construction budgets in order to provide for the possibility of additive change orders that may occur during the life of a project. 4.8 Alternates 4.8.1 Description The December 21, 1994 The Construction Manager GMP Estimate includes Section 3: Project Management Consultants /Architect - Engineers (PMC /AE) Alternate Estimates. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 45 June 3, 1997 high -Point Kendel 4.8.2 Value and Scope Identification The undated document entitled Project Estimate Recap Sheet, Clearwater Municipal Complex, Clearwater, Florida, Base GMP declares that it "includes all alternates and value engineering accepted on December 21, 1994. The cover sheet of the document that summarizes all construction totals is included in Exhibit 6.2 to this analysis. The complete document includes Project Recap Sheets and Item Recap Sheets dated December 14, 1994. Apparently, all items included in the December 14, 1994 Recap Sheets were accepted on December 21, 1994, in as much as they total to the $15,875,000 identified as the correct value of the initial GMP. This document has not, however, been identified anywhere in the project documentation as a "Contract Document." Because these Alternates are selected prior to establishment of the GMP, no additional direct consideration is given to the value of specific Alternates in the GMP summary as it is presented in Section 4.15 of this analysis. 4.8.3 List of Selected Alternates The following Alternates are identified in the documents described in Section 4.8.2 above. The value components had been distributed throughout the Project Recap Sheets and Item Recap Sheets, and have been identified and consolidated in this Section for clarity: Alt. A Add Struct. Steel Supports for Roof Mounted Chillers & Screen Walls Alt. B COB (MSB) Sheet 5 $ 22,059 PHB Sheet 5 $ 22,059 TOTAL: Add Struct. Steel Support Syst. to Accommodate Precast Facing In lieu of Base Bid EIFS COB (MSB) Sheet 5 $ 6,714 PHB Sheet 5 $ 6,713 TOTAL: $ 44,118 $ 13,427 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 46 June 3, 1997 Ilig,h -Point Rcndel Alt D (3) Add Prefinished Metal Bldg. Panel Walls to Screen Roof Mounted Units COB (MSB) Sheet 6 $ 3,250 PHB Sheet 6 $ 3,250 TOTAL: ' Alt D Delete Chillers at Central Plant; Provide Individual Roof Mounted Chillers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 6,500 COB (MSB) Sheet 22 ($ 296,059) PHB Sheet 22 ($ 347,865) TOTAL: ($ 643,924) Alt F Add SGL Glazed Laminated Glass at Exter. Glazing (COB) COB (MSB) Sheet 8 $ 79,580 TOTAL: $ 79,780 Alt F Delete EIFS Syst; Add Precast Facing System (PHB) PHB Sheet 8 ($ 154,771) TOTAL: ($ 154,771) Alt G Add SGL Glazed Lam. Glass On exter. Glazing (PHB) PHB Sheet 9 ($ 42,032) TOTAL: ($ 42,032) Alt H Delete EIFS Syst. ; Add Precast Facing System (COB) COB (MSB) Sheet 9 ($ 116,757) TOTAL: ($ 116,757) Alt J Parking Garage (PG) PG Sheet 1 $ 34,541 Drs, Frs, Hdwre PG Sheet 10 $ 5,528 Furred Drywall PG Sheet 12 $ 6,556 VCT Floors /Base PG Sheet 16 $ 4,873 Acous. Ceil. PG Sheet 17 $ 7,308 Add Paint PG Sheet 18 $ 921 Plbg (Print Shop) PG Sheet 20 $ 10,950 F.P. (Print Shop) PG Sheet 21 $ 4,700 HVAC (Print Shop)PG Sheet 22 $ 24,250 Elect. (Print Shop) PG Sheet 23 $ 38,325 TOTAL: $ 137,952 TOTAL SELECTED ALTERNATES: ($ 675,707) Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 47 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Rendel 4.8.4 Effect on Determination of Initial GMP value Refer to Section 4.9.4 of this analysis for combined discussion with Value Engineering regarding the total effect of these identified values on the GMP. 4.9 Value Engineering 4.9.1 Description Value Engineering is described as a general concept in various sections of the Owner /GC Agreement. No specific Value Engineering process or accounting procedure is identified in the Contract Documents. For purposes of the Owner /GC Agreement, selected Value Engineering items are recognized as official changes to both the scope of work and the value of the GMP. Accordingly, the contract mechanism for incorporating into the GMP any Value Engineering items that have been accepted after the initial GMP has been established is the Change Order. Value Engineering items included in the Project have apparently been selected prior to confirmation of the initial GMP. There have been no Value Engineering items contractually incorporated into the Project after the establishment of the initial GMP, but new Value Engineering items had later become the subject of certain CCD's and the proposed Change Order #3. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 48 June 3, 1997 High -Point Retitle' 4.9.2 Value and Scope Identification The December 21, 1994 the Construction Manager GMP Estimate includes Section 4: General Contractor (GC) Value Engineering Possible Alternates for Consideration by Design/ Construction Team. The undated document entitled Project Estimate Recap Sheet, Clearwater Municipal Complex, Clearwater, Florida, Base GMP declares that it "includes all alternates and value engineering accepted on December 21, 1994. The cover sheet of the document that summarizes all construction totals is included in Exhibit 6.2 to this analysis. The complete document includes the Project Recap Sheets and Item Recap Sheets dated December 14, 1994. Apparently, all items included in the December 14, 1994 Recap Sheets were accepted on December 21, 1994 in as much as they total to the $15,875,000 identified as the correct value of the initial GMP. This document has not, however, been identified anywhere in the project documentation as a "Contract Document." No other document has been identified or provided to High -Point Rendel that itemizes any specific General Contractor Value Engineering Selections made at the time of establishment of the initial Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). No change order or other document has been identified that describes any Value Engineering items selected after the initial GMP was established. 4.9.3 List of Selected Value Engineering Items The following Value Engineering items are identified in the documents described in Section 4.9.2 above. The respective value components had been distributed throughout the Project Reap Sheets and Item Recap Sheets of those documents, and have been consolidated in this section for clarity: Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 49 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Kendel VE #1 Delete Porcelain Tile; Add Carpet COB (MSB) PHB TOTAL: Sheet 16 ($ 11,755) ($ 4,356) ($ 16,111) VE #3 Change Pedestrian Esplanade Paving to Concrete COB (MSB) Sheet 24 ($ 12,400) PHB Sheet 24 ($ 7,600) TOTAL: ($ 20,000) VE #4 Delete Trash Receptacles & Bike Racks COB (MSB) Sheet 24 PHB Sheet 24 TOTAL: VE #6 Delete Insulation @ Inter CW Piping COB (MSB) PHB TOTAL: ($ 10,100) ($ 8,200) ($ 18,300) Sheet 20 ($ 2,150) Sheet 20 ($ 2,150) ($ 4,300) VE #9 Delete Kynar Finish on Alum. Doors & Windows COB (MSB) PHB TOTAL: VE #10 Delete all Rubber Tile Stair Treads COB (MSB) PHB TOTAL: VE #11 Relocate Generators From Central Bldg to Building Sites Add Gen. Pad @ COB #11 (2) Add Gen. Pad @ PHB COB (MSB) PHB COB (MSB) PHB TOTAL: Sheet 9 Sheet 9 Sheet 16 Sheet 16 Plant ($ 20,000) ($ 9,500) ($ 29,500) ($ 2,611) ($ 16,443) ($ 19,054) Sheet 23 ($ 20,000) Sheet 23 ($ 40,000) Sheet 24 $ 1,500 Sheet 24 $ 1,500 ($ 57,000) VE #12 Change 2'x2' Ceiling Tile & Grid to 2'x4' COB (MSB) Sheet 17 ($ 14,953) PHB Sheet 17 ($ 14,366) TOTAL: ($ 29,319) VE #13 Change UG Storm from C.I.P. to Sched. 40 Sheet 20 ($ 1,050) Sheet 20 ($ 1,050) ($ 2,100) COB (MSB) PHB TOTAL: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 50 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Rendel VE #14 Delete Paging System @ COB COB (MSB) TOTAL: VE #15 Delete VCT in Elev. Mach., Elect., Jan., & Loading Dock COB (MSB) PHB TOTAL: VE #20 Reduce Access Floor Allowance COB (MSB) PHB TOTAL: VE #21 "J" Hooks in Lieu of Cable Tray @ COB COB (MSB) TOTAL: Sheet 23 ($ 38,200) ($ 38,200) & Comm. Rms. Sheet 16 ($ 2,000) Sheet 16 ($ 2,000) ($ 4,000) Sheet 16 Sheet 16 ($ 2,160) ($ 11,340) ($ Sheet 23 ($ 4,800) 13,500) ($ 4,800) VE #24 Delete Allowance for Architectural Lighting - PHB PHB Sheet 23 ($ 3,000) TOTAL: ($ 3,000) VE #26 Reduce Graphics Allowance - PG PG TOTAL: Sheet 19 ($ 2,500) VE #27 Delete Purchase of Landscape Materials COB (MSB) Sheet 24 PHB Sheet 24 PG Sheet 24 TOTAL: VE #28 Delete all Window Treatment COB (MSB) PHB TOTAL: Sheet 19 Sheet 19 ($ 2,500) ($ 24,800) ($ 12,800) ($ 4,200) ($ 41,800) ($ 42,985) ($ 27,618) ($ 70,603) VE #29 Use Strip Window Application in Lieu of Full Height Curtain Wall System COB (MSB) Sheet 8 $ 101,235 COB (MSB) Sheet 9 ($ 185,396) PHB $ TOTAL: VE #30 Match Windows at PHB to MSB PHB TOTAL: Sheet 9 ($ 80,000) ($ 84,161) ($ 80,000) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 51 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel VE #35 Delete Lightning Protection COB (MSB) Sheet 23 ($ 11,700) PHB Sheet 23 ($ 15,900) PG Sheet 23 ($ 13,600) TOTAL: ($ 41,200) TOTAL VALUE ENGINEERING SELECTIONS: ($ 579,448) 4.9.4 Effect on Determination of Initial GMP value The December 21, 1994 GMP Estimate Provided by The Construction Manager resulted in a "Total Base GMP" of $17,246,670. Applying the Alternate and Value Engineering totals as described above result in the following: a. 12/21/94 Total Base GMP: $ 17,246,670 b. Alternates: ($ 675,707) c. Value Engineering: ($ 570,448) d. Revised Total: $ 15,991,515 This revised total exceeds the established $15,875,000 GMP by $116,515. High -Point Rendel has not been provided with any other documentation that reconciles these values. It is therefore assumed that other changes have been made in the revised GMP breakdown that are in addition to the Alternates and Value Engineering items identified. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 52 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Rcndel 4.10 Tax Savings 4.10.1 Tax Savings Issue There has been disagreement among the Architect, Construction Manager, and City regarding the final disposition of tax savings resulting from the direct purchase of project materials by the City. Both the Architect and Construction Manager have indicated to the City that they believe the tax savings should be added to the Contingency. The City disagrees with this interpretation, and has requested High -Point Rendel to provide its opinion with respect to disposition of such tax savings. 4.10.2 Application of Tax Savings The City had exercised its rights under the Owner /GC Agreement to purchase certain materials directly from the material suppliers. Although its motivation for doing so may have been substantially to allow those materials to be tax exempt, this motivation by itself is not significant to the calculation of the GMP or the Contingency. The primary issue is that once the decision is made to purchase materials directly, those materials must be deducted from the scope and value of the GMP. The proper mechanism for accomplishing this is a deductive change order that directly reduces the GMP. The change order procedure is necessary to: Provide the authority for the direct purchase, Substantiate the tax exemption status of the materials, and Remove the cost redundancy that is otherwise left in the GMP representing materials that will never actually be purchased there. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 53 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Bendel 4.10.3 Value of Materials Deleted from the GMP The "Contingency" in the form of the "Detail and Pricing Allowance" is a value based upon 5% of the GMP cost items. It is assigned to accommodate the risk associated with purchasing the scope of items included the GMP. If scope of work is deleted from the GMP, the risk associated with the deleted scope is also deleted from the GMP. It is this relationship that is the basis for the conventional treatment of the contingency in a CM w /GMP format. That is; as items with estimates (as opposed to known costs or firm quotes) are added to the GMP, the contingency should be increased to accommodate the increased scope. Similarly, if items are deleted from the GMP, the contingency should be reduced to reflect the reduced risk to the Construction Manager. It is also important to note that the correct value of each material item to be deleted from the GM:P is the value of the line item estimate as included in the initial GMP (as distinguished from its actual cost), plus its respective portion of the 5% GMP "Detail and Pricing Allowance" (Contingency). It is not simply the actual cost of materials purchased, or the cost or materials plus sales tax. When that total value (Estimate + Contingency) is deleted by Change Order, the GMP is reduced accordingly. The City then assumes any risk associated with the material purchase, and becomes responsible to provide for the complete item for whatever it finally costs. If the City's final cost exceeds the Estimate - plus - Contingency, the City must make up the difference. If, however, the City's final total cost is below the Estimate -plus- Contingency, the City retains the total savings. If the mechanism for the total cost reduction is a tax exemption that is not otherwise available to the Construction Manager, that fact makes no difference. The initial Construction Manager Schedule of Values as presented in its Application and Certificate for Payment No. 1 did not isolate the material portions of the respective 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 54 June 3, 1997 Ili li -Point Rendel line item estimates. That additional detail was added contemporaneously, as the Project progressed, but only in the amounts of actual material costs plus tax value. The Construction Manager Application and Certificate for Payment No. 13 (the latest available as of this analysis) does include relatively complete material pricing detail; but at these actual cost values. ' The difficulty with simply considering the material items identified in the final Application and Certificate for Payment, however, is that it does not identify the original material estimates of the GMP; it only identifies the actual cost of the purchases. For this reason, it is not correct to consider the values of materials as listed in the various ' Construction Manager Applications and Certificates for Payment as the proper values to be deducted from the GMP. The document entitled City of Clearwater Municipal Services Complex Direct 1 Purchase P.O.'s as of January 17, 1997 is included in Exhibit 6.3 to this analysis. This is a document provided to High -Point Rendel by the City that summarizes the direct cost of ' materials originally included in the construction GMP that have been purchased directly by the City as of that date. The total cost of these material commitments is $5,703,115.66. Because this value includes no sales tax, a conservative estimate of the equivalent ' GMP value would be the (cost + sales tax). Note, however, that this simplified approach to the determination of the GMP value ignores any cost savings that may have resulted from the purchasing process itself. The resulting value is ($5,703,115.66 + 7 %) = $6,102,333.76. Finally, the respective portion of the 5% GMP Contingency must be added to this ' value, resulting in a net total deduction from the GMP of ($6,102,333.76 + 5 %) = $6,407,450.44. This value will be subject to change based upon additional material purchases. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 55 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Rendel 4.10.4 GMP Acknowledgment The Construction Manager's December 21, 1994 Guaranteed Maximum Price Proposal Section 7 describes "Sales Tax Savings Considerations." That section provides that "... it is not wise to use this probable (sales tax) savings in the calculation of the GMP." and "Upon the establishment of the final GMP and related scope a more accurate projection of possible sales tax savings shall be made." This language appears to be a way of saying that the Construction Manager is of the opinion that the City should, for the time being, leave the anticipated tax savings in the construction budget essentially as a change order contingency - as a prudent funding consideration. It does not speak to the tax savings as a GMP component. The Construction Manager Application and Certificate for Payment Continuation Sheets list various material deductions and associated "sales tax savings" in Column E Change Order. The items are deducted on a line item basis. The deduction becomes confused, however, on the face of AIA Document G702 Application and Certification for Payment by failing to list the total of these items in the Change Order Summary, and failing to adjust Item 3 Contract Sum to Date, and following calculation. There is no further discussion in the GMP proposal with respect to tax savings, or any ultimate disposition of such funds. There is accordingly no support for any contention that any tax savings should be applied to the GMP Contingency. 4.10.5 Determination Considered in the manner described above, it is clear that any savings achieved by the City through its direct purchase of material is the property of the City, and does not 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 56 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Rendel revert to the construction Contingency or GMP in any way. The fact that a component of such savings may be an exemption of sales tax is not material to this determination. 4.10.6 Current Procedure To date, the change order procedure described above for deleting from the GMP materials purchased directly by the City has not been followed on the project. In addition to confusion regarding the disposition of tax savings, another result has been incorrect representations of GMP values on the periodic Construction Manager's Applications and Certificates of Payment. The AIA Document G702 used in the Application for Payment process has regularly overstated the "Contract Sum to Date" (GMP) and "Balance to Finish Plus Retainage" because they continue to include the value of materials purchased directly by the City and constructively deleted from the GMP. The Architect's routine certification of these incorrect values has served to further confuse the current GMP. Accordingly, High -Point Rendel recommends the provision of a distinct Change Order to consolidate all direct material purchases in a clear accounting, in the value determined in Section 4.10.3 above. This new Change Order value is identified in the following Section 4.15 in item (7.b.). If agreed to by the City, the Architect should be directed to prepare a Change Order in the correct amount and presented to the Construction Manager for execution. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 57 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Bendel 4.11 Construction Change Directive (CCD) Evaluation 4.11.1 CCD Application The vehicle primarily used by the Design/Construction Team (DCT) to introduce both proposed changes to the GMP, and routine completion of the design within the original scope of the GMP is the Construction Change Directive (CCD). Certain observations and criticisms of the use of CCD's is provided in Section 4.6.7 of this analysis, are supplemented here. The use and procedure for the Construction Change Directive is defined in AIA A201 General Conditions of the Contract Paragraph 7.3. Strict interpretation of the provision, however, identifies an inconsistency with respect to the use of the CCD in a Construction Management with Guaranteed Maximum Price (CM w /GMP) project delivery format. Consider the following: a. Section 7.3 Construction Change Directives is a component of Article 7 Changes in the Work. The entire article directly addresses changes in scope of the original agreement, and does not directly address design clarifications in a GMP environment that are not to be considered as changes in scope. b. Paragraph 7.3.1 further provides that a Construction Change Directive: "... is a written order ... directing a change in the Work and stating a proposed basis for adjustment." The paragraph again refers to changes in scope, and ignores the design development condition of the CM format. In actuality, the Design/Construction Team used the CCD for most - but not all - design completions, clarifications, and corrections. CCD's have been used to describe both items that are proposed as changes to the scope of the construction agreement, and items that are acknowledged to be only clarifications of the final design. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 58 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Rendel Finally, note that the Architect has identified additional significant items proposed as changes (included in the proposed Change Order #3 discussed in Section 4.13 of this analysis), but are not presented in the CCD format. This second inconsistency has further confused the final GMP calculation. 4.11.2 Owner's Right to Revisit Executed CCD's The Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 6.4 requires a GC certification "... that all factual unit costs supporting the fee specified are accurate, complete, and current ... " and that "... fees that may be authorized in the future shall be adjusted to exclude any significant sums which the ... Owner determines the fee was increased due to inaccurate, incomplete, or non - current factual unit costs." This paragraph, combined with the inconsistent manner by which both scope changes and "Contingency" items are presented in CCD's as an adjustment to the "Contingency Fund" may support the City's right to revisit cost allocations and values as presented in CCD's which have been previously executed by the City. 4.11.3 CCD Analysis High -Point Rendel began an itemized review of all available CCD's with the intent to distinguish between those that should be applied to the initial GMP plus contingency, those that should be considered as a change to the GMP, and those that may contain items that are to be considered as second cost. For reasons described in Section 4.12 below, The CCD review was then confined to the analysis of the individual Construction Change Directives that were included in the proposed Change Order #3. Because the proposed change order included only additive Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB /PHB/PG Page 59 June 3, 1997 high -Point Rendel cost items, however, the CCD review was then expanded to focus on those CCD's that include items that may represent reductions in the GMP, but which have not been included in the proposed Change Order #3. During that process, however, it became apparent that such a procedure was not consistent with a number of other CCD treatments by both the Construction Manager and the Architect, and probably would not result in a final determination of all value categories. Because of this, the CCD review finally became part of a coordinated effort with the Construction Manager, conducted in a cooperative manner with the objective of reaching agreement on these determinations with the review of each respective CCD. The summary of these evaluations is presented in Exhibit 6.4 to this analysis. While the cooperative review process has resulted in numerous items of agreement, including approximately $300,000 of items newly identified as reductions in the GMP, there remains significant disagreement between the High -Point Rendel determinations and those of the Construction Manager as of the date of this analysis. In this consideration, the values presented in the Exhibit 6.4 to this analysis are those determined to be appropriate by High -Point Rendel. The value and category determinations have been made through the application of the various determinations as described throughout this analysis, and additional explanation provided in the Exhibit 6.4. 4.12 Proposed Change Order #3 4.12.1 Submission High -Point Rendel evaluated the proposed Change Order #3 as prepared by Rowe Architects, Inc. and executed by the Construction Manager on October 1, 1996. The basis for the Change Order Proposal is an October 1, 1996 cost itemization entitled Additional Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 60 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel Scope Items Added After Establishing GMP. This document is the current development of a previous itemization dated August 20, 1996. Because of the language of the proposed Change Order and the manner in which it was presented to the City, the proposed Change Order #3 as executed by both Rowe Architects and the Construction Manager was initially considered to be their statement of all changes to the GMP identified through October 3, 1996. Consistent with this interpretation, it was therefore considered that all CCD's not referenced in the proposed Change Order #3 and occurring prior to October 1, 1996 to be intended by both the Architect and Construction Manager as design development within the current GMP, and not adjusting the GMP value. In subsequent discussion with the Architect and Construction Manager, however, they both stated that other CCD's occurring since the beginning of the project and up to the October 1, 1996 date also represent additional changes to the scope of the GMP. No explanation was given as to the reasons why such additional "changes" were not included in the proposed Change Order #3 if their effects were known to both the Construction Manager and the Architect prior to their preparation of the proposed Change Order. Finally, although a number of significant reductions in scope and value to the GMP were known to both the Architect and the Construction Manager to exist, no such reductions to the GMP are represented by the Construction Manager or Architect in the proposed Change Order #3. High -Point Rendel addressed these issues in a series of meetings with the Construction Manager, and identified the scope and approximate values of these credits to the agreement of the Construction Manager. High -Point Rendel conducted the meetings with the Construction Manager with the objective of clarifying the various items subject to multiple interpretations, to identify those items that do not constitute a change and should be applied within the GMP, and to identify those items that should be considered as a change to the GMP. As part of the 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 61 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Rendel process, we attempted to confirm agreement on as many items as possible. Items remaining in contention can thereby be clarified and isolated. The result is the CCD Analysis presented in Exhibit 6.4 to this analysis, and further discussed in Section 4.11 above. 4.12.2 Observations of CO #3 as Submitted Initial review of the proposed Change Order #3 identified a number of errors and misapplication of costs to the contingency and/or GMP. These issues include the following: a. The face of the proposed Change Order form provides that the "... Owner Additional Scope items totaling $1,096,435 have been partially absorbed by the Contingency within the Guaranteed Maximum Price ... ". This is an incorrect application of scope changes to the contingency. Refer to Section 4.7 of this analysis for additional discussion. b. The same paragraph on the face of the proposed Change Order also provides that the "... Owner Additional Scope items ..." are to be "... partially absorbed by the ... savings in sales tax." This is also a misapplication of the Change Order. If the Owner ultimately chooses to use its sales tax savings as a funding vehicle for items of additional scope, that is a separate issue not directly involved with the valuation of the ultimate change to the GMP. Refer to Section 4.10 of this analysis for additional information. c. The "Additional Scope Items" include: i. CCD values that differ from those indicated on the faces of the respective CCD documents as originally prepared and executed. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 62 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Rendel ii. CCD lump sum values that are assigned to CCD's previously indicated "to be negotiated," with no description or support for the final presented value. iii. CCD items presented as "Owner Additional Scope," but are actually for work that is correctly included in the GMP contingency. iv. Numerous items indicated to be "Owner Additional Scope," with only abbreviated phrases describing the respective conditions. In these cases, no CCD is referenced, no explanation provided, and no support given for the value as presented. High -Point Rendel prepared an itemized list of all missing information that is necessary for analysis of the proposed Change Order, and presented it through the City to both the Architect and the Construction Manager. Refer to the High -Point Rendel letter dated January 21, 1997 and February 7, 1997 for the complete list of these items. Subsequent to multiple requests, the Architect repeatedly refused to provide any information at all, and to date has provided no requested information. After a number of months, Certain information regarding CCD's and cost summaries have been provided by the Construction Manager, but the support for the Construction Manager's actual cost summary remains outstanding. 4.12.3 Conclusion: CO #3 as Proposed Because the questions and concerns raised in this section have never been adequately addressed by the architect, or directly addressed by the Construction Manager, the Proposed Change Order #3 has never been finally reviewed in the form as originally presented. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 63 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel The "Change Order #3" as finally incorporated into the GMP calculation of Section 4.15 of this analysis is the result of the reconciliation of all CCD's directly between the City/High -Point Rendel and the Construction Manager, and is not a direct response to the October 1, 1996 C.O. #3 as it had been proposed. The Change Order as it is represented in Section 4.15 of this analysis does contain many of the items originally incorporated in the October 1, 1996 C.O. #3 submission, but it also addresses other CCD's that were not addressed in the Change Order submission as originally proposed. The CCD reconciliation resulting in the $608,363 value of Change Order #3 as it is presented in Section 4.5 is included in Exhibit 6.4 to this analysis. 4.13 Approved Reductions in the GMP 4.13.1 CCD and Other Items In addition to the CCD and C.O. #3 analysis described in section 4.12 above, High -Point Rendel also identified certain scope reductions known to both the Architect and the Construction Manager to have been incorporated into the work, but have never been presented by either party as an appropriate reduction to the GMP. High -Point Rendel raised these issues with the Construction Manager, who has agreed that they must be accommodated in the pending change order. These items were originally prepared separately, but have now been consolidated into the complete CCD analysis provided in Exhibit 6.4 to this analysis. Together, all items are identified that may have been program changes, alternates, and value engineering items that to date had not peen previously deleted from the initial value of the GMP. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 64 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Retitle! 4.14 Actual Construction Costs 4.14.1 All Work by Trade Contractors The Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 2.2 requires all work to be performed by Trade Contractors, with no work to be performed directly by the GC, without the Owner's written consent. There is nothing identified in the project information given to High -Point Rendel that provides any authorization to the Construction Manager to perform any of the work with its own forces. It has, however, been reported to High -Point Rendel that the Construction Manager has in fact performed work with its own forces. The costs for this direct work must therefore be included in the calculation of total actual construction costs. 4.14.2 Contractual Requirement to Provide Actual Cost Information The agreement between the City and the Construction Manager provides the following with respect to the Construction Manager's responsibility to furnish actual project cost information to the City: a. Paragraph 2.2.11: "Develop and maintain an effective system of project cost control which is satisfactory to the PMC /AE and the Owner. ... Cost Control reports shall be included as part of the project report ..." b. Paragraph 2.2.12: "The GC shall maintain a system of accounting consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. The GC shall preserve all accounting records for a period of four (4) years after final acceptance of the Work. The Owner shall have access to all such accounting records at any time during the performance of the Work and for a period of four (4) years after final acceptance of the Work." 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 65 June 3, 1997 High-Point Kendel These references provide the contractual authority to secure the actual cost information necessary to complete the "Cost Savings" calculation identified in the Owner /GC Agreement Paragraph 6.3. Paragraph 6.3 further provides that "The Actual Expenditure Representing the Cost of the Work" is to be deducted from the current GMP. The "Cost of Work" is further defined in the Owner /GC Agreement Article 8. Refer to Section 4.6.5 of this analysis for additional information. 4.14.3 Current Value of Actual Construction Costs A current accounting of total actual construction costs experienced to date on the Project has been requested from the Construction Manager. At the March 4, 1997 DCT meeting, the Construction Manager advised that it had been delivering its Contingency Adjustment Log each month to the Architect, and that the Log itemized all actual construction cost for the project. The City had never been given a copy of the information. On March 4, 1997, the City requested the Architect to forward a copy of the latest Contingency Adjustment Log in its possession to the City, but the Architect has refused to do so. At a meeting held on March 10, 1997 between High -Point Rendel and the Construction Manager, the Construction Manager delivered a copy of its latest Contingency Adjustment Log dated March 7, 1997 directly to High -Point Rendel. It is included in its entirety as Exhibit 6.5 to this analysis. The Construction Manager represented the Log to be an accurate representation of all costs assigned to the project as allowed by contract, with the following qualifications: 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 66 June 3, 1997 High -Point Rendel • The cost items include those materials acknowledged to have been purchased directly by the City, including their associated sales tax. • All CCD's ( #1 through #173) have been applied in the Log as "allowable" cost items against the GMP. • Estimates for additional items that have not been prepared as CCD's or otherwise submitted, and have not been reviewed by the Architect or the City are included. ' • An additional "GC Fee & General Conditions" item in the amount of $50,912, that was characterized as an estimate that may not be allowed by contract. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Given these considerations, the current actual cost as presented by the Construction Manager by this document is as follows: 1. Construction Manager 3/7/97 "Actual Costs to Date:" $ 13,671,540.35 2. Construction Manager 3/7/97 "Estimated Cost to Complete:" $ 3,022,413.98 3. SUBTOTAL: $ 16,693,954.33 4. Owner - Purchased Materials (Through 1/17/97) a. Material Cost: ($ 5,703,115.66) 5. TOTAL CURRENT PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $ 10,990,838.67 Although substantiation for the values presented in the Log have not been delivered by the Construction Manager, a review of the document has identified certain items that are apparently not allowed. A significant example is the General Conditions and Fee items included as actual costs. Section 4.6 of this analysis clarifies that those General Conditions and Fee items are considered to be lump sum values that are not represented as costs, which High -Point Rendel has determined are not allowed under the terms of the 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 67 June 3, 1997 IIi„ h -Point Rendel Owner /CM agreement. The Construction Manager's Log, however, includes such costs as follows: 1. Contractor Fee & General Conditions: a. COB /PHB (Page 4 of 14) $ 1,291,102 b. Parking Garage (Page 5 of 14) $ 212,483 c. "Contingency Deficit" (Page 13 of 14) $ 50,912 d. TOTAL $ 1,554,497.00 This value exceeds the original contract value for these items of $1,394,356 by $160,401 as of the date of the report. If it confirmed that the Fee and General Conditions items are indeed lump sum, the "actual cost" value presented by the Construction Manager must be reduced by this amount. Instead, however, the Construction Manager is continuing to apply ongoing actual costs in these categories to the completion of the project. This is an important example of the reason why it is so critical to eventually analyze the supporting documentation that will clarify the underlying basis of each item on the summary of actual costs as presented. In the interest of clarity, this item has not been applied at this time as a correction to the Construction Manager summary of actual costs as presented, because it is an isolated identification. Subsequent references in this analysis to the actual cost summary therefore refer to the summary as presented. It is understood that the actual cost summary will be subject to at least the correction described above, and to possibly additional corrections as they may be eventually identified. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 68 June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel 4.15 Current GMP 4.15.1 Description The value of the initial Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is established at $15,875,000. There is no formal document presented to High -Point Rendel that confirms the final selection of this value, or definitively identified any Alternates or Value Engineering items selected as of the establishment of the initial GMP value. Refer to Sections 4.8 and 4.9 of this analysis for the basis of factual determination and for related discussion. The initial value of the GMP as identified for the purposes of this analysis was established with Item #19 of the transcript of the January 3, 1995 City Commission Meeting; a copy of which is attached to this analysis as Exhibit 6.6. The undated document entitled Project Estimate Recap Sheet, Clearwater Municipal Complex, Clearwater, Florida, Base GMP declares that it "includes all alternates and value engineering accepted on December 21, 1994. The Project Recap Sheets and Item Recap Sheets dated December 14, 1994 are attached. Apparently, all items included in the December 14, 1994 Recap Sheets were accepted on December 21, 1994, in as much as they total to the $15,875,000 identified as the correct value of the initial GMP. This document has not, however, been identified anywhere in the project documentation as a "Contract Document." The complete document's cover sheet is included in Exhibit 6.2 to this analysis. The $15,875,000 value was then stipulated by all parties on Change Order #'s 1 and 2; both of which were executed by the City, Architect, and Construction Manager. 1 1 ' GMP is identified as follows: Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 69 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Rendel 4.15.2 GMP Summary Based upon the criteria detailed in Sections 4.6, 4.7, and 4.15.1 above, the current 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. INITIAL GMP CONSTRUCTION COSTS: a. (Including Construction Fees & Bond Costs) $15,875,000 2. CURRENT CHANGES TO THE GMP: a. Alternates (Included in 5.a.) $ 0 b. Value Engineering (Included in 5.a) $ 0 c. Changes to the GMP Construction Costs: i.. CO #1: Fiber Optic Tel. System $ 712,295 ii. CO #2: Delete City Hall Building ($ 500,000) iii. CO #3: Appr. GMP Changes $ 608,363* iv. CO #4: Delete Material ($ 6,407,450) v. SUBTOTAL Changes to the GMP ($ 5,586,792) vii. Bond Value allocated to Net GMP Deletions ($ 32,305) viii. TOTAL Changes to the GMP ($ 5,619,097) 3. CURRENT ADJUSTED GMP $ 10,255,903 * Current Estimate For reasons described in Section 4.3.2 of this analysis, because the value of the GMP as determined above is lower than the projected current value of the actual costs as presented by the Construction Manager, further described in Section 4.15.3 below, the City's commitment to the Construction Manager is limited to the above value of the approved GMP. 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 70 June 3, 1997 high -Point Rendel 4.15.3 Actual CM Cost Summary The summary of actual costs presented by the Construction Manager at the March 10, 1997 meeting are identified below. Note that the correction as discussed in Sections 4.14 above has not been applied: 1. Construction Manager's Actual Costs as presented: a. CM 3/7/95 Costs (including Fee 7 Gen. Cond.) $ 13,671,540: b. Estimated Cost to Complete: $ 3,022,414 c. SUBTOTAL: $ 16,693,954 2. City Direct Material Purchases ($ 5,703,116) 4. Total adjusted (unaudited) Construction Costs: $ 10,990,838 For reasons described in Section 4.3.2 of this analysis, because this value of actual costs presented exceeds the projected current value of the GMP, the City's commitment to the Construction Manager is limited to the value of the approved GMP as expressed in Section 4.15.2 above. 4.15.4 Current Projected Total Construction Cost In consideration of the simple comparison of the current projected GMP, and the actual costs as presented and corrected, the current projection of total construction costs is presented as follows, 1. Current GMP (per Section 4.15.2 above): $ 10,255,903 2. Direct Material Purchases by the City: ($ 5,703,116) 3. Total current projected construction cost: $ 15,959,019 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 71 June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel Note that this may be considered to be an intermediate calculation, because it does not consider the cost implications of the significant delay to the project further described in Section 4.16 of this analysis. 4.16 Progress Schedule 4.16.1 Significance to Final GMP Cost Calculation Determination of responsibility for the current delay to the J ro'ect completion is P p significant to the calculation of final value of the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). The Architect has submitted $567,264 to date as fees for additional services. Of this value, a considerable amount is attributed by the Architect to delay in the project. To the extent that any of those fees may be determined to be justified and reasonable, the party(ies) responsible for the cause(s) of the delay will correspondingly be responsible for the fees associated with the delay. 4.16.2 Progress Schedule Contract Requirements The Owner /GC Agreement provides the following requirements to be performed by the Construction Manager with respect to progress schedules: • Paragraph 2.1.7.2: "Develop a detailed Project Construction Schedule for all four buildings ... Develop a plan for phasing of construction." 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 72 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Rendel • Paragraph 2.2.8: "Regularly monitor and update the Progress Schedule ... identify potential variances between scheduled completion and probable completion dates ... and ... make adjustments in the schedule to meet the scheduled completion date." • Paragraph 2.2.8: "Provide summary reports ... and regular schedule updates and reporting ... as part of the weekly project report outlined in Subparagraph 2.2.16 ..." • Paragraph 2.2.16: "Record the progress of the Project. Submit written monthly reports to the Owner and the PMC /AE including information on the Trade Contractor's work, the percentage of completion, current estimating, computerized updated monthly Critical Path Method scheduling ..." • Paragraph 2.2.16: "Keep a daily log available to the Owner and the PMC /AE ..." The language on the face of CCD #79 dated June 4, 1996 further emphasizes the need for the maintenance of daily logs. • Agreement Exhibit D, Page 1 incorporates the attached The Preliminary Master Schedule into the Agreement. 4.16.3 Contract Time and Performance The Owner /GC Agreement provides the following with respect to Contract Time and Performance: • Paragraph 5.2: "The number of days for performance of the Work under the construction phase ... shall be established in the amendment to this Agreement which makes the final adjustment to the Guaranteed Maximum Price and confirms the scope." 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 73 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Renck! • The Preliminary Master Schedule attached and incorporated into the Agreement, which identifies the following dates of performance: • Begin Construction Phase: 10 -18 -94 • Substantial Completion of "PD and Office Building ": 11 -16 -95 • Start Demolition of Existing PD: 11 -16 -95 • Compete PD Demo / Start Phase IV (Garage): 12 -24 -95 • Complete Phase IV (Garage): 3 -24 -96 • AIA A201 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction Article 8, which requires; • 8.1.1: "Contract Time is the period ... for Substantial Completion." • 8.1.2: ' The Date of Commencement is the Date Established in the Agreement." 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 8.2.1: "Time limits ... are the essence of the Contract. By executing the Agreement the Contractor confirms that the Contract Time is a reasonable period for performing the Work." 8.3.1: "If the Contractor is delayed ... the Contract Time shall be extended by Change Order. 8.3.2: "Claims relating to time shall be made in accordance with ... Paragraph 4.3." 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 74 June 3, 1997 ligli -Puinl Rendel 4.3.3: "Claims ... must be made within 21 days after the occurrence of the event giving rise to such Claim, or within 21 days after the Claimant first recognizes the condition giving rise to the Claim, whichever is later. Claims must be made by written notice. 4.16.4 CM Compliance with Contract Procedures The remarks of this section are the result of the review of project materials as provided to High -Point Rendel, as supplemented by interviews with City Staff, and as experienced since the beginning of the High -Point Rendel assignment. Through this procedure, the following is apparent with respect to the Construction Manager's compliance with contractual scheduling procedures: • Paragraph 2.1.7.2: No "detailed Project Construction Schedule for all four buildings" has been made available. • Paragraph 2.2.8: Regular updates of the Progress Schedule and/or summary reports have not apparently been delivered to or reviewed with the City. If they had been prepared contemporaneously, they have not been made available. Mr. William Baird, of the City, has repeatedly requested of the Construction Manager since June, 1993 to provide schedule update information for the Municipal Services Building and the Police Headquarters Building. The Construction Manager has not responded. • Paragraph 2.2.16: Written monthly reports including a computerized updated monthly Critical Path Method schedule have apparently not been submitted to either the City or the Architect. • Paragraph 2.2.16: After many requests, only thirty -two (32) days of daily logs have been made available to the Owner. Daily logs for the major portion of the Project 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 75 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Mendel remain outstanding from the Construction Manager. The Construction Manager has stated in a January, 1997 DCT meeting that the balance of daily logs are not available, and do not exist. • The Construction Manager October 24, 1995 Parking Garage Schedule, revised on October 25, 1996, was revised again on January 28, 1997 in response to the Rowe Architects, Inc. letter of 1/14/97. Note that: • The schedule revision reflects the actual move -in of the Police Headquarters Building of January 6, 1997 to February 10, 1997, and results in a revised projected substantial completion date of October 1, 1997. • No explanation is offered by the Construction Manager as to the reasons why the current schedule requires approximately eight (8) months for completion of the demolition of the existing police headquarters and construction of the new Parking Garage, whereas the contract schedule originally provided four (4) months for this work. Since January, 1997 both the Architect and the Construction Manager have been repeatedly requested in correspondence and in DCT meetings to provide explanation for the discrepancy, but neither has offered any response at all. The April, 1997 Progress Report prepared by Creative Beers again offers the extended schedule with no justification provided. The City should accordingly compel the Construction Manager to provide a complete explanation for consideration by the Architect and the City, and/or require the Construction Manager to resubmit the schedule with a duration that complies with the Owner /GC (CM) Agreement. CPM is the basis of the SureTrak bar chart schedule submitted. It is not possible to evaluate activity relationships in the schedule as submitted, however, without either a time - scaled logic diagram or a predecessor /successor report to supplement the information. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 76 June 3, 1997 High -Point Rendel • This detail is not necessary at this time if the Construction Manger does not intend to use the schedule to substantiate any amount of delay to the project. If, however, the schedule ever becomes the basis for alleged delay, it will become necessary to analyze this detail. The Construction Manager has recently provided High -Point Rendel with the SureTrak project file, which can be analyzed as needed in the event of any new allegation by the Construction Manager for delays or extensions. 4.16.5 Notice of Commencement and Time of Performance The City of Clearwater letter dated January 6, 1996, included in Exhibit 6.7 to this analysis serves as the "Notice to Proceed" to the Construction Manger. It establishes the construction start date of "ten (10) days from January 4, 1995 to mobilize and commence actual work on the project." Note additionally the following: • Addenda #1 dated July 28, 1994 Item 1 includes: "If in the Bidder's judgement, any segment of this "preliminary schedule" (provided with the bid documents) is not achievable ... they should so qualify and modify their bid accordingly," and "Should 100% completion not be possible by 3/25/96 ... the bidder should so state and modify their bid accordingly." • October 18, 1994 is the construction start date provided in the Preliminary Master Schedule included in the Owner /GC Agreement, and no exceptions to the schedule were included by the Construction Manager as required by Addenda #1. • The Preliminary Master Schedule provides for a total construction duration (from October 18, 1994 to March 24, 1996) of 522 calendar days. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 77 June 3, 1997 ►ligh -Point Rendel • Adding 522 calendar days to the January 14, 1995 construction start date results in a Substantial Completion Date of June 22, 1996. 4.16.6 Approved Extensions to the Contract Time Section 4.16.3 of this analysis highlights the contract provisions and procedures necessary to effect extensions to the Contract Time. The correct vehicle to adjust the contract is the Change Order. In consideration of this, note the following: • Of (171) CCD's that are executed by the Construction Manager and the Architect and have been made available to High -Point Rendel, only three (3) CCD's acknowledge approved time extensions as follows: • CCD #7: 10 Calendar Days • CCD #9: 11 Calendar Days • CCD #16: 34 Calendar Days CCD #9, however, contains COP #12, which states that "Additional days ran concurrently with glass procurement delays submitted under COP #23 (CCD #16)." Accordingly, the concurrency does not allow the eleven (11) days of CCD #9 to be added to the total. The result is a total approved time extension of forty -four (44) calendar days. • All other CCD's affirmatively indicate "0" calendar days, and are executed by the Construction Manager with no further qualification. • Executed Change Order #s 1 and 2 both affirmatively state "0" calendar days, and an unchanged date of Substantial Completion. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 78 June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel • The proposed Change Order #3 submitted on October 1, 1996, and executed by both the Construction Manager and Architect, affirmatively states "0" calendar days, and an unchanged date of Substantial Completion. The result is an addition of forty-four (44) calendar days to the date of Substantial Completion established in Section 4.16.5 above of June 22, 1996; providing for in a revised approved Substantial Completion Date of August 5, 1996. 4.16.7 Current Schedule Performance The Contractor's revised progress schedule submitted on January 28, 1997 provides for a current Substantial Completion Date of the Project of October 1, 1997. Refer to Section 4.16.3 above for additional information. The difference between the August 5, 1996 current contract Substantial Completion Date as described in Section 4.16.6 of this analysis and the current Construction Manager Substantial Completion Date of October 1, 1997 represents a (422) calendar day delay. The Construction Manager has recently submitted its COP requesting compensation for their additional jobsite expenses associated with the extended completion date of the project. The Construction Manager, however, has continued to avoid providing its justification for the delay period. Accordingly, it is High -Point Rendel's opinion that the Construction Manager is not entitled to compensation for the delay, and the City is likely to be entitled to compensation for a least a significant portion of the delay. If the Construction Manager is ever able to present justification for delay, to the extent that such costs are attributable to design errors or omissions, they may be considered as second costs chargeable to the Architect. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 79 June 3, 1997 1Iigh -Point "del 4.17 Architectural Fees 4.17.1 Basic Services The Owner /Architect agreement provides the following with respect to compensation for basic services: • Article 11: Compensation for basic services is $1,500,000. • Paragraph 2.6.1: Basic services for the construction phase terminate at the earlier of the issuance of the final Certificate for Payment or (60) days after substantial completion of the work, unless extended pursuant to Paragraph 10.3.3. • Paragraph 10.3.3: "If and to the extent that the time initially established in Subparagraph 11.5.1 of this Agreement is exceeded or extended through no fault of the Architect, compensation for the additional services rendered during the additional period of time shall be computed in the manner set forth in Subparagraph 11.3.2." • Paragraph 11.3.2: Provides hourly rates. 4.17.2 Additional Services Compensation for additional architectural services is identified in Article 3 of the Owner /Architect agreement. The Professional Services Supplemental Authorization #1 dated November 2, 1995 has been executed by the Owner in the amount of $77,000. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 80 June 3, 1997 114411-Point Rendel Subsequently, the Architect has submitted invoices for additional services as follows: #36 1/16/97 Develop Options for City Hall Building $ 16,221 #37 1/13/97 Replacement of Lost City Files $ 5,378 #38 1/17/97 Additional Services for Printing $ 6,005 #39 1/16/97 Additional Services: "Sort out and re- inventory each work station at MSB due to "Midnight Requisitions," and time to acquaint Pat Greer." $ 43,645 #40 1/16/97 Additional Services for Graphics and Print Shop into Garage $ 20,663 #41 1/13/97 Gas Company's request for all gas powered equipment $ 3,229 #42 1/16/97 Gas Company's request for all gas powered equipment $ 1,040 #43 1/16/97 Conduit between and within buildings $ 8,398 #44 1/16/97 Exterior building for generator & F.P. $ 6,801 #45 1/16/97 Add a Reception Desk $ 1,166 #46 1/16/97 Room CE310 electrical & UPS connection for payroll CPU $ 485 #47 1/16/97 Electrical Connection to UPS $ 655 #48 1/16/97 Utilities Dept. Panic buttons and Locks $ 976 #49 1/16/97 Misc. Owner Scope Increases $ 678 #50 1/16/97 Add two shower rooms $ 540 #51 1/16/97 Add traffic control computer $ 8,517 #52 1/16/97 Television Studio $ 3,226 #53 1/16/97 Antenna Masts $ 1,359 #54 1/16/97 Antenna Masts $ 648 #55 1/16/97 Add CMU wall at West Property Line $ 2,601 #56 1/16/97 Add Generator additions - PHB $ 9,504 #57 1/16/97 Add Postal Mailboxes $ 1,802 #58 1/16/97 Add Bullet Resistant Glazing $ 867 #59 1/16/97 Increase quality of Holding Cell Area $ 7,866 #60 1/16/97 Add Holding Cell Desks $ 389 #61 1/16/97 Increase PBX Capacity $ 3,434 #62 1/16/97 Power Connection of PBX $ 805 #63 1/16/97 Add Power to Dictaphone $ 254 #64 1/16/97 Changes to EOC finishes & fixtures $ 1,005 #65 1/16/97 Drop computer floor 8" $ 440 #66 1/16/97 Misc. Owner Scope Increases - PHB $ 278 #67 1/16/97 Security Access System $ 22,325 #68 1/16/97 Add CCTV System - PHB $ 3,015 #69 1/16/97 Add Window Blinds (deleted in VE Session) $ 2,364 #70 1/16/97 Add Lightning Protection (deleted in VE Session) $ 4,175 #71 1/16/97 Misc. Owner Scope Changes $ 8,747 #72 1/16/97 Time Expended beyond Basic Services June 17, 1996 through December 31, 1996 $ 367,763 TOTAL: $ 567,264 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 81 June 3, 1997 high -Nuint Rendel 4.18 Potential Owner Cost Recovery (Damages) 4.18.1 Owner /GC Agreement Supplemental Conditions Paragraph 8.2.5 provides that: "Failure to complete the Project within the time fixed in the Agreement will result in substantial injury to the Owner ... the contractor shall pay the Owner liquidated damages for such delay the amount set out in the Agreement for each and every calendar day elapsing between the date fixed for Substantial Completion and the date such substantial completion shall have been fully accomplished." The Agreement then fails, however, to provide any value for liquidated damages. There is no indication in any documents provided to High -Point Rendel as to whether the lack of any value for liquidated damages in the Agreement is the result of an oversight or intentional omission. In either case, it is apparent that because damages contractually allowed to the Owner have not been limited or qualified by any liquidated damage value, the Owner is free to pursue actual damages associated with delay to the Project beyond its approved completion date. Note that liquidated damages provisions in construction agreements only serve to provide a stipulated sum for damages related to project delay. They do not address damages relating to any other breach of the Owner /GC Agreement. As such, recovery for any breach of contract not directly related to delay is based upon actual damages associated with the particular breach. Accordingly, potential actual damages associated with either project delay or other breach of the agreement may be recoverable from the Construction Manager by the City, and may include: • Valid architectural fees related to additional services caused by or associated with project delay. 1 Project Analysis: J a ysts: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG 1 1 Page 82 June 3, 1997 114;11-Point Rendel Costs incurred by the Owner for temporary power, utilities, parking, and all other direct costs relating to the Project which have been forced to continue beyond the current approved Project completion date of August 16, 1996. ' Costs for separate vendors and consultants engaged to perform services or complete items of work that are specified in the Owner /Contractor agreement; 1 including warranty and close -out activities. Any other costs experienced as result of failure by the Construction Manager to comply with any provision of the Agreement. 4.18.2 Owner /Architect Agreement Owner Performance ' In a conventional application of the Owner /Architect Agreement, performance by the Construction Manger is considered as performance by the Owner. Any failure by the ' Construction Manger to complete the Work within the time provided in the Owner /GC Agreement for reasons not attributable to the Architect is therefore considered for the ' purposes of this analysis as an Owner failure to arrange for the completion of the Work within the time frame provided in the Owner /Architect Agreement. As discussed in Section 14.18.1 of this analysis, the City may be entitled to recover Y ' its costs resulting from the failure of the Construction Manager to comply with the terms of the Owner /GC Agreement, but any failure by the Construction Manager does not by ' itself preclude entitlement to additional fees by the Architect. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 83 June 3, 1997 1ligli -Point Rendel Fees for Additional Services In addition to the provisions identified in 4.17.1 of this analysis, the Owner /Architect Agreement provides the following references with respect to additional costs and damages: • Paragraph 1.1.2: "... Time limits established by this schedule ... shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Architect or Owner." • Paragraph 2.6.1: "The Architect's responsibility to provide Basic Services for the Construction Phase ... terminates at the earlier of ... the final Certificate for Payment or 60 days after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work, unless extended by the terms of Subparagraph 10.3.3. • Paragraph 10.3.3: "If and to the extent that the time initially established in Subparagraph 11.5.1 of this Agreement is exceeded or extended through no fault of the Architect, compensation for the additional services rendered during the additional period of time shall be computed in the manner set forth in Subparagraph 11.3.2." • Note that to the extent that any delay is wholly or partially the result of the Architect, the Architect will not be entitled to fees associated with that delay or any other work by the Architect associated with resolution of the respective issue. Consideration of the Construction Management Format The invoices submitted by the Architect for additional services must be evaluated not only in consideration of whether those services are for items that possibly should have been included in the original design (and therefore should be part of basic services), but Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 84 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel must also be specifically considered in the context of the construction management format; that is, the expectation of continuing design and design coordination as part of the selected project delivery method. Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of this analysis identified the forms of agreement for both the Construction Manager and the Architect as traditional approaches to conventional lump sum general contract construction that have been modified to address the construction management project delivery format. Accordingly, the evaluation of additional services must be made in consideration of the design development process anticipated in the construction management format, tempered with the manner in which documentation has been managed on this project. Fees for items of a "value engineering" nature, for example, must be carefully considered with respect to the construction management method that anticipates a considerable amount of value engineering effort as part of basic services. Relevance of the Final Determination of CO #3 The evaluation of the Architect's invoices for additional fees must be coordinated with the final determinations made for the proposed Change Order #3 as it has been submitted. This is because a number of the invoices correspond with the items included in the proposed Change Order. Exhibit 6.4 to this analysis identifies those CCD and other items that High -Point Rendel considers to be properly included as part of the GMP, and not constituting any change in the Work. As such, any architectural fees associated with those items should not be allowed as additional services. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 85 June 3, 1997 11igh -Point Rendel Fees Associated With Project Delay The fees for additional services related to project delay will require an itemized evaluation of actual effort expended, and identification of any specific activities invoiced that might actually be the responsibility of the Architect; either as basic services or as correction to their own work. An example of this type of consideration includes fees associated with additional time spent on punchlist reviews. In these cases, time charged may actually be related to the Owner's identification of punchlist items previously confirmed by the Architect to be completed, but were in fact not. Beyond these observations, no specific evaluation of the Architect invoices for additional services is included in this analysis. Fees Associated With Corrections to Improper Design Certain issues have been identified on the Project which may possibly be related to design, or the apparent use of the CM and "value engineering" processes as methods to correct design errors. Examples of such items may include the design of exterior sealant configuration at the cylindrical columns, certain items relating to building security, improper "value engineering" efforts, and the final configuration of the HVAC systems. As an example; the Architect is submitting an invoice for additional fees relating to the reintroduction of window blinds "previously value engineered out." It may yet be confirmed, however, that the solar control provided by these blinds is necessary for the proper operation of the HVAC system. If so, "previous value engineering efforts" will have been improper. An additional example may be the configuration of the exterior sealant, which may ultimately lead to an unusual amount of future maintenance. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 86 June 3, 1997 114gh -Point Rendel These specific issues are not addressed in this analysis, but may ultimately become important in the comprehensive evaluation of the Architect's fees related to the total performance of the design function. 4.18.3 Architectural Second Cost Items The CCD review procedure described in Sections 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13 of this analysis revealed a number of items that can be considered as a second cost to the project, caused directly or indirectly by design issues These items fall into a number of categories, including: • Items that have been apparently acknowledged by the Architect to have been caused by design errors and/or omissions. • Items acknowledged by the Architect to be design related, but that have been taken exception to by the Architect as a design error or omission. • Design related items not identified by the Architect, but are incorporated within various CCD's as consolidated by the Architect. These new items have been identified by High -Point Rendel. The final total value of these items will be dependent upon the final agreement with the Construction Manager with respect to the total value accepted by the Construction Manager as a change to the GMP. In this process, all items agreed to by the Construction Manger as being absorbed within the GMP will not result in additional cost to the City, and will thereby not be chargeable to the Architect. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 87 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel It is also important to note that although certain items result in total cost increases to the City, any "second cost" portion of such items may be limited to the difference between providing the item in a properly coordinated competitive bid situation at the onset of the project, and the final cost in the context of a change being resolved out -of- sequence in an ongoing project. For these types of items, the bulk of the price may add value to the project that would have been added at the beginning of the project if the item had been identified during the initial design effort. There may, however, be other complicating factors for these kinds of items. An important example is the inability of the City to be able to evaluate the need during the project's design phase, and perhaps trade off costs for the needed items with some other portion of the project. And so even these type of "value added" changes may have still robbed the City of the ability to make its own decisions with respect to the necessity of these items, and have forced the City to spend additional money with no further option. Although highlighting these issues, this analysis does not apply these considerations to the final determination of second cost items. It only identifies the item. For the purposes of this analysis, the values and itemization presented in Exhibit 6.4 as those costs comprising the approved Change Order #3 (as further described in Section 4.12 herein) are considered. It is important to note that all values that follow are based upon the determination by High -Point Rendel of the final value for Change Order #3, which is significantly different from the value being maintained by the Construction Manager. As such, the values may be subject to change, depending upon the final outcome of the GMP determination. If the final total value of Change Order #3 allowed tothe Construction Manager increases for any reason, all values presented in the remainder of this section will be conservative to that degree, and will need to be adjusted upward. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 88 June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel Document Omission On the faces of certain CCD's the Architect has stated the reason for the respective CCD is "Document Omission." The values of these CCD's therefore represent items acknowledged by the Architect as those which should have been completed as part of the original design process. They are identified in Exhibit 6.4, and are itemized as follows: CCD CCD Value Value # Value Assigned Assigned to the to the GMP Contingency 24 $ 6,063 $ 6,063 28 $ 10,089 $ 10,089 36 $ 2,842 $ 2,842 38 $ 4,583 $ 4,583 $ 4,583 43 $ 7,589 $ 7,589 50 $ 26,831 $ 18,782 $ 8,049 53 $ 9,400 $ 9,400 54 $ 2,752 $ 2,752 57 $ 56,045 $ 13,415 $ 13,416 73 $ 3,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 80 $ 1,582 $ 1,582 86 $ 4,712 $ 4,712 88 $ 11,133 $ 11,133 94 $ 276 $ 276 100 $ 746 $ 746 101 $ 2,157 $ 2,157 117 $ 718 $ 593 $ 215 123.1 $ 1,423 $ 1,423 127 $ 2,775 $ 2,775 130 $ 978 $ 978 133 $ 4,228 $ 2,220 $ 2,000 134 $ 479 $ 479 141 $ 1,694 $ 1,694 TOTALS: $162,095 $100,620 $ 61,475 The Value Assigned to the GMP in the table above identifies those items that have been acknowledged by High -Point Rendel in its meetings with the Construction Manager to increase the GMP, and are agreed to by the Construction Manager. The Value Assigned to the Contingency identifies those items identified by High -Point Rendel that should be 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 89 June 3, 1997 lligh -Point Rendel included within the GMP despite the Architect's own assertion of being a document omission. Many of these items have been agreed to by the Construction Manager, and other remain in contention. In consideration of the "value added" discussion at the introduction to this subsection, it is recognized that although the City had been robbed of certain options in dealing with the added costs, the City has received the benefit of the additional scope of work. It is probable, however, that because of the intermittent, uncoordinated manner of discovery and introduction of such a large number of relatively small items in an ongoing stream of surprises, the total price to the City for these items would have been lower if they had been properly accommodated in the initial design phase of the project. Absolute precision in the final determination of these cost differences requires not only research in labor and material price differentials for each item, but detailed consideration of other complicating elements such as the out -of- sequence introduction of the new items, relatively uncompetitive nature of change order pricing, and efficiency loss caused by many factors. When such computations are possible, it has been common for such cost differentials to range between 15% to 30% of the final item cost. For purposes of this analysis, 20% has been assumed, and applied to the Values Assigned to the GMP. The resulting second cost value for the above document omissions is: $100,620 x 20% = $ 20,124 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 90 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Rendel Code Omission Certain CCD's have been identified by the Architect to be required as "code' items, but are characterized by the Architect as requirements by City permitting agencies that are in excess of those requirements actually needed for legal compliance. This is a controversial characterization for which the City should not be penalized if the subject requirements had been in place prior to the design and bid stage of this project. The CCD's reflecting these "code" items are itemized below. CCD #81.1 for the elevator warning lights in the amount of $2,200 has been excluded, because High -Point Rendel's had been advised by the Construction Manager that this CCD is the result of an elevator code change that occurred after the project was bid, and was not a City code requirement imposed on the project. CCD CCD Value Value # Value Assigned Assigned to the to the GMP Contingency 48 $ 1,392 $ 1,392 103 $ 1,973 $ 986 $ 987 121 $ 3,260 $ 3,260 148 $ 10,466 $ 5,233 $ 5,233 149 $ 725 $ 362 $ 363 151 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 152 $ 10,300 $ 10,300 TOTALS: $ 30,616 $ 24,033 $ 6,583 For reasons described in the previous subsections with resect to "value added," the resulting amount assigned as second cost is as follows: $ 24,033 x 20% = $ 4,807 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 91 June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel Additional Items The items in this category have been identified during the CCD review procedure. Certain values are more readily definable than others. In those cases where there has been insufficient cost information available to High -Point Rendel, an order -of- magnitude estimate has been provided. The corresponding summary explanations are provided at the end of this subsection: CCD CCD Value # Value Considered as Second Cost Note 6 $ 8,177 $ 8,177 1 8 $ 3,604 $ 3,604 2 12 $ 10,672 $ 10,672 3 16 $ 73,780 $ 73,780 4 22 $ 25,319 $ 7,596 5 23 $ 41,886 $ 12,566 5 25 $108,500 $ 32,550 5 26 $ 874 $ 175 6 27 $ 10,089 $ 2,018 6 49 ($ 21,550) ($ 6,465) 5 50 $ 26,831 $ 8,049 5 51 ($ 24,084) ($ 7,225) 5 52 $182,963 $ 54,889 5 55 $ 800 $ 160 6 56 $ 1,300 $ 260 6 61 $ 43,892 $ 13,168 5 62.2 $ 39,824 $ 11,947 5 63.1 $ 1,169 $ 351 5 67 $ 2,075 $ 415 6 69.1 $ 58,568 $ 17,570 5 124 $ 1,084 $ 1,084 2 139 $ 6,245 $ 1,249 6 157 $ 2,500 $ 500 6 159 $ 2,500 $ 500 6 166 $ 2,000 $ 600 5 167 $ 15,000 $ 4,500 5 C $320,826 $ 64,165 7 TOTAL ESTIMATED VALUE: $308,806 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 92 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Retitle! Current Total Estimate of Second Costs The total costs of the three categories presented above for estimated second costs are consolidated as follows: 1. Document Omission: 2. Code Omission: 3. Additional Items: 4. Total Estimated Second Costs: Note #1: $ 20,124 $ 4,807 $ 308,807 $ 333,737 The change in the PHB mechanical penthouse exterior wall dimension by 5" was necessary to fit the specified HVAC equipment, and is therefore the result of improperly coordinated design. Note #2: Coordinating the second floor drop to accommodate the computer access floor at the PHB with adjacent corridor flooring was not properly performed. Note #3: The original intent of the column design included no penetration of the steel connection plate through the exterior elevation of the column. Subsequent structural calculation required a small protrusion. The Architect then increased the sizes of the plates in order to create a new architectural appearance. Note #4: The entire value of the CCD is to compensate the Construction Manager for project delay caused directly be redesign of glazing. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 93 June 3, 1997 1ligh -Point Rendel Note #5: Many items proposed as changes to the GMP for electrical work involve Proposal Request #'s 17, 26, and 42. These documents identify numerous corrections of electrical work required by improper initial design. Much of the CCD value is associated rework, and adds no value to the project. The values applied here must be coordinated with the category assignment issues described in the Exhibit 6.4 to this analysis as it applies to the approved value for the proposed Change Order #3. Values assigned are general estimates of 30% of the CCD amount. Note #6: Items in this category are considered as value added items, subject to the evaluation described in the preceding subsections. As such, 20% of the total CCD value is assumed as second cost for the purposes of this analysis. Note #7: A significant value of the increase to the "drywall and acoustical ceiling" budget was the result of rework to the drywall required by the removal and replacement of electrical conduit, wire, and miscellaneous items because of the incorrect wire size specified. Discovery and resolution of resulting problems was made after a large amount of drywall had been installed; creating the need for removal and replacement of the drywall and acoustical ceiling work. For purposes of this analysis, 20% of the increase in the drywall and acoustical ceiling budget has been assumed to be caused by this rework. The "C" designation under the CCD# correlated with the item as identified in Exhibit 6.4 to this analysis. Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 94 June 3, 1997 high -Point Rendel 5. CONCLUSIONS The CM w /GMP contract on this project is a cost -plus, not -to- exceed arrangement. The GMP defines the estimated value for a 100% completed project at which the Construction Manager (CM) is determined to be "at risk." If the CM's actual construction costs exceed the GMP, the CM is responsible to absorb the difference. If, however, actual construction costs are lower than the GMP, the City is to receive the benefit. Applied in this manner, the GMP value does not necessarily determine the final cost to the City; it only defines the upper limit of payment obligation by the City, and corresponding risk assumed by the Construction Manager. Changes to the GMP are only related to changes in scope of work that have not been communicated to the Construction Manager prior to the establishment of the initial GMP. The GMP documents are acknowledged to be "schematic" in nature, the Construction Manager has been paid to participate in the design development process during the preconstruction phase of the Project, and the GMP proposal itself anticipates a 100% completed project. For any change to be valid, it is therefore necessary for the Construction Manager to demonstrate the reasons why a completed design detail is materially different from the assumptions and determinations made in the development of the initial GMP. Failing that demonstration, the Construction Manager is responsible to complete the construction within the established GMP (including Contingency). The contract arrangements between the City, Architect, and Construction Manager are fairly conventional in their Construction Management with Guaranteed Maximum Price (CM w /GMP) format with a few important distinctions. They have been unnecessarily confused through the use of contract forms originally designed for lump sum general contracting, that have been modified to accommodate the CM w /GMP arrangement in an incomplete and inconsistent manner. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 95 June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel High -Point Rendel has found that the Contract Documents lack clear definitions of certain costs which have major effects on the ultimate determination of the GMP. The final application of various Construction Manager fees and costs are either not explained or have conflicting treatments within the documents, and require inference. Items of major significance, such as the GMP "Contingency," are used throughout the Project correspondence, and are applied in the Project's cost accounting, but are not defined in the Contract Documents. Inconsistent conduct of both the Architect and Construction Manager with respect to these items, combined with Project correspondence that has confused GMP issues with Project funding issues, has served to complicate the determination of the final GMP value. The application of the City's right to purchase separate materials was also misinterpreted by the Design/Construction Team (DCT), and the procedure misapplied. Further, High -Point Rendel has found that formal contract management procedures intended to confirm key contract values, scope, and milestones are notably absent. Items such as any formal acceptance of the initial GMP, itemization of selected Alternates, and contractual identification of selected Value Engineering options are not available. Values and scope items are often left to be distilled from various sources. Applications and Certificates for Payment have routinely misstated the value of the current GMP, and were regularly "certified" by the Architect to include major material costs that had been constructively deleted from the GMP. The procedure may have compromised payment and performance bond coverage for those materials. ' When combined, the above issues have created a confused system of project accounting that has been misinterpreted and misapplied. 1 1 1 1 The Construction Manager is clearly entitled to compensation for items of construction that are beyond the scope of the initial GMP. The proposed Change Order #3 had been presented by the Design/Construction Team (DCT) to represent all changes to the GMP for Construction Change Directives (CCD's) and other items finalized as of 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 96 June 3, 1997 High-Point Rendel October 1, 1996. It also, however, included items that are not justifiable increases to the GMP, and did not include items known to the DCT to be reductions in the GMP scope and value (credits). Correcting for these deficiencies, and deducting the conservative GMP value for materials purchased directly by the City, this analysis has determined a current values of the GMP Construction Costs to be $10,255,903. This is valuation is based upon a number of important qualifications. Using this $10,255,903 value, the total to date for all construction costs currently 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 committed to by the City is: 1. Current GMP Construction Costs: $ 10,255,903 2. Cost of Materials Purchased Directly by the City: $ 5,703,116 3. TOTAL: $ 15,959,019 At completion of the project, the final value of the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is to be compared to the submission of all actual construction costs experienced by the Construction Manager as allowed by the contract. The information is required by contract to be submitted with each Application and Certification for Payment. To date, the Construction Manager has provided a summary of costs represented to be its actual expenses allowed by contract. A review of certain items in the cost summary has already identified apparent errors. No supporting information has been provided by the Construction Manager to justify the respective values. The required information has been requested of the Construction Manager, but remains outstanding. It is necessary to secure all supporting documentation prior to finalizing the determination of the final payment obligation of the City to the Construction Manger. The actual costs submitted by the Construction Manager to date significantly exceed the current projected value of the GMP. If subsequent review of the supporting 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 97 June 3, 1997 Iligh -Point Rendel documentation confirms this apparent relationship, the City's payment obligation is limited to the GMP value. The Architect's current recommendations to the City to increase project funding in order to finance GMP scope increases, without first securing the direct cost information from the Construction Manager, and without first confirming the proper value of the current GMP, is a rush to judgement based upon incomplete and conflicting information. In addition, High -Point Rendel's analysis has determined that it does not appear that additional funding for direct construction costs will be required, because of the upper GMP limitation. The original construction start date of October 18, 1994 had been extended to January 14, 1995 due to the design completion schedule. The date of Substantial Completion of March 24, 1996 (resulting from the January 14, 1995 construction start) has been extended by three (3) CCD's to August 5, 1996, although no change order for any time extension as prescribed by the contract has been prepared to date. Currently, the Project is projected by the Construction Manager to be Substantially Complete on October 1, 1997; representing a delay of (422) calendar days beyond the extended completion date. Included in this delay is a four (4) month increase in the duration of the Parking Garage. The four (4) month schedule for demolition of the existing police headquarters and construction of the new Parking Garage has been extended by the Construction Manger via a schedule submittal on January 18, 1997 to eight (8) months, without explanation. The overall delay to the project is considered by High -Point Rendel to be primarily the responsibility of the Construction Manager, with the possibility that a portion of the responsibility may also be with the Architect. The Construction Manager has been requested to provide its substantiation for the delay, but to date has not responded. The Owner /CM Agreement omits any liquidated damages value, and therefore is considered to provide for recovery by the City of its actual damages associated with unsubstantiated Project delay. Such damages can include justifiable Architectural fees, as well as all other direct costs experienced by the City related to the extended completion 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project Analysis: City of Clearwater: MSB/PHB/PG Page 98 June 3, 1997 High -Point Rendel schedule. The Construction Manager is currently submitting a request for additional compensation in an amount exceeding $400,000 for costs associated with the delay in project completion. These costs do not appear to be justified. The Architect has delivered invoices to the City totalling $567,264 in additional fees related to scope and delay issues. Preliminary review identifies errors in entitlement of certain fees as submitted, and apparent justification for other fee components. All Architect fees for additional services must be thoroughly investigated prior to finalizing decisions regarding their final dispositions. As part of this investigation, it will be necessary to determine if any portion of the project delay is related to design errors and omissions or active /passive interference, to the extent that such fees will not be chargeable to the Construction Manger. The response by the Construction Manager to the City's request to provide justification for the delay is necessary to allow this determination. The Architect has also apparently created added costs for the project through design error, document omission, and other actions. Certain items have been acknowledged by the Architect to have been caused by "document omission." The Architect has taken exception to other items placed in this category by High -Point Rendel. High -point Rendel has investigated and identified numerous items to be considered as "second cost" items; that is items that can be considered as design errors or omissions which may add value to the project, but do so at a premium. The increased cost is the result of their late, out -of- sequence introduction intothe project. Other items, however, simply added cost with no added value. High -Point Rendel has estimated the order of magnitude of the second cost to be $333,737. This calculation is further subject to change based upon the final agreement with the Construction Manager of total GMP costs to be included in the final determination of Change Order #3. In the determination of this order -of- magnitude estimate, High -Point Rendel endeavored to be reasonably conservative. The final value of such second costs is ultimately recoverable by the City from the Architect. C CO X W o= o ow N ow Nisi EN NE ow — me a me No so = um E 1 1 C: ATTAC11MEal As Proposed in Agenda Item of June 16, 1994 As Adopted by Coounission on June 16. 1991 1 70,000 GSF office building at S72/sf Upgrade Mechanical 5% Contingency 4% Cost Escalation Total Office Bldg. S5,040,000 475,000 275,000 215.000 70,000 GSF office building at 563 /sf . Upgrade Mocharical 5% Contingency 4% Cost Escalation Total Office Bldg. 54.550.000 475.000 251.250 20L000 S6,01.9,000 S5,477,150 77,000 GSF Police 77,000 GSF Police building at S90/sf S6, 930,000 building at S33/sf 56,391,000 6,000 GSF Common 6,000 GSF Common Spec at 340 /sf 240,000 Space at 140 /sf 240.000 5% Contingency 358,500 5% Contingency 331 ,550 4% Cost Escalation 286.800 4% Cost Escalation 265.240 Tots.' Police Bldg. 57,815,300 . Total Police Bldg. S7,2277.790 500 -car garage . 500-car garage at 55,000 /ar $2,500,000 at 15,000/ar 52,500.000 5% contingency 125,000 5% contingency 125,000 4% cost escalation _00.000 4% cost escalation 1!►?_401 Total Garage $2,725,000 Total Garage $2,725,000 Demolish Existing Demolish Existing Police Building S 250,000 Polite Building S 250.000 Renovate Existing Renovate Existing City Hall Bldg. S 500.000 City Hall Bldg. S 5J0.000 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: 517,315,300 . $16,130,000 (includes all contractor fees) (includes all contractor fees) Other Protect Costs not Part of Gu rante ed Maximum Price New Furniture Office Building New Furniture Police Building S 700,000 New Furniture Office Building New Furniture 500,000 Police Building Tests/Inspections 200,000 Tests/Inspections Utilities 120.000 Utilities Landscape (city) 100,000 landscape (city) Moving Costs Office Building Moving Costs 90,000 Office Building S 7C4.00i0 500.000 _70,000 17.0.030 R.V.00b 90.000 Moving Costs Moving Costs Police Building 60,000 Police Building 60.000 Architects Fees 1,180400 Architects Fees I _ten Total Other Costs 3,650,000 Total Other Costs 3.:70.000 Total Project Costs $20,965,300 Total Project Costs SI9..t 0.000 CD H m W • • MI • MI • • I MN MO • I • • MI • MO • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROJECT ESTIMATE RECAP CLEARWATER MUNICIPAL COMPLEX CLEARWATER, FLORIDA BASE GMP INCLUDES ALL ALTERNATES AND VALUE ENGINEERING ACCEPTED ON DECEMBER 21, 1994 CITY OFFICE BUILDING $5,714,409 POLICE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING 6,659,243 CITY PARKING GARAGE 2,665,348 CENTRAL PLANT _0- DEMOLITION ALLOWANCE (EXISTING PHB) 336,000 RENOVATIONS ALLOWANCE (EXISTING CITY HALL) 500,000 TOTAL GMP $15,875,000 M I— m W I= alem.............m......... - -- - - • - s - - - - - • • • - • City of Clearwater Page 1 of 2 Municipal Services Complex Direct Purchase P.O.'s As of January 17, 1997 Vendor P.O. 9 P.O. Amount Municipal Sery Bldg P.O. Amount Police HQ Building Total P.O. . Payments Municipal Sery Bldg Payments Police HQ Building Total Payments es of 1 -17 -97 Open P.O. Amount Municipal Sery Bldg Open P.O. Amount Police HQ Building 658.87 Total Open P.O. Amount Ewell industries 7369 118,969.00 147,381.00 266,330.00 108,104.58 146,702.13 254,806.69 10,884.44 as of 1 -17 -97 11,523.31 Quality Metals Quality Metals. varP.O.. gravid provwedbyCome 7371 72,930.00 98,014.00 170,944.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72,930.00 98,014.00 170,944.00 Void 7371 (72,930.00) (98,014.00) 1170,944.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 (72,930.00) (98,014.00) (170,944.00) Quincy Joist 7372 125,951.00 144,038.00 289,989.00 132,699.00 137,290.00 269,989.00 (6,748.00) 6,748.00 0.00 Consolidated Systems 7374 43,869.55 52,174.10 96,043.65 43,749.97 52,181.10 95,931.07 119.58 (7.00) 112.58 Jeffereys Steel 7378 21,688.78 20,885.80 42,572.58 21,886.78 20,885.80 42,572.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 - Universal Concrete 8157 226,469.00 242,515.00 488,984.00 230,639.00 238,345.00 468,984.00 (4,170.00) 4,170.00 0.00 Vistawall Architectural 8424 57,588.00 38,393.00 95,981.00 57,588.00 38,393.00 95,981.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dynatherm 8445 99,817.00 118,823.00 216,640.00 99,817.00 118,823.00 216,840.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Liebert Corp 8465 12,200.00 19,500.00 31,700.00 12,200.00 19,500.00 31,700.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Stan Weaver 8468 9,340.00 12,880.00 22,200.00 9,340.00 11,560.00 20,900.00 0.00 1,300.00 1,300.00_ Carrier 8487 92,810.00 92,610.00 185,220.00 92,810.00 92,610.00 185,220.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Florida Hydronics 8468 8,439.00 8,820.00 17,259.00 8,439.00 8,820.00 17,259.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Commercial Products 8469 6,666.00 13,334.00 20,000.00 6,868.00 13,334.00 20,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ewell Industries 8695 7,947.08 8,547.09 18,494.17 8,671.67 4,784.18 11,455.83 1,275.41 3,762.93 5,038.34_ Hughes Supply 8696 18,099.03 34,898.16 52,997.19 18,099.03 34,898.16 52,997.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Southern Precast 8897 11,348.50 11,348.50 22,697.00 10,585.50 11,194.50 21,780.00 763.00 154.00 917.00 Viracon 8698 71,797.81 62,885.07 134,662.88 71,797.81 62,865.07 134,662.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 Big "C" Steel 8699 30,085.00 30,848.00 60,933.00 30,085.00 30,848.00 60,933.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hughes Supply 8853 9,285.90 9,708.79 18,994.89 9,247.24 9,286.03 18,533.27 38.86 422.76 461.42 Stan Weaver & Co. 8854 57,140.00 50,765.00 107,905.00 57,140.00 50,765.00 107,905.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advanced Protection 8946 5,053.00 4,788.00 9,841.00 5,053.00 4,788.00 9,841.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cummins SouthEastern 8947 30,000.00 223,000.00 253,000.00 30,000.00 223,000.00 253,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Camber 8948 50,000.00 53,000.00 103,000.00 50,000.00 53,000.00 103,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Electric Supply of Tampa 8949 127,500.00 137,500.00 265,000.00 130,000.00 135,000.00 265,000.00 (2,500.00) 2,500.00 0.00 Hughes Supply 9343 3,718.80 5,262.92 8,979.72 3,718.80 5,262.92 8,979.72 0.00 0.00 0.00_ Quality Fabrication 9357 37,974.74 46,829.04 84,803.78 38,031.64 46,772.14 84,803.78 (56.90) 58.90 0.00 Hughes Supply 9359 3,396.24 5,891.88 9,288.10 3,388.63 5,891.88 9,280.49 27.61 0.00 27.81 Peerless Supply 9392 826.00 4,105.00 4,931.00 828.00 4,105.00 4,931.00 0.00 0.00 0.00, GULFSIDE SUPPLY 9427 28,954.98 33,990.80 62,945.78 28,954.98 32,891.51 61,848.49 (0.00) 1,099.29 1,099.29 TEMPACO 9502 1,384.78 3,488.72 4,833.50 1,364.78 3,468.72 4,833.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 ACOUSTI ENGINEERING 9505 103,523.00 158,928.00 260,451.00 103,523.00 156,928.00 260,451.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 COASTAL CONSTRUCTION 9508 19,000.00 11,000.00 30,000.00 14,490.56 0.00 14,490.56 4,509.44 11,000.00 15,509.44 FAIRBANKS MORSE 9611 23,395.00 23,395.00 46,790.00 23,395.00 23,395.00 48,790.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 QUINCY JOIST 9716 3,031.00 3,031.00 6,082.00 3,031.00 3,031.00 6,062.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NORTHWEST BUILDERS 9777 95,822.00 144,888.00 240,708.00 95,822.00 135,858.80 231,880.80 0.00 9,027.20 9,027.20 ALDOORS 9778 7,868.00 3,371.00 11,239.00 7,868.00 3,371.00 11,239.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BAY RESOURCES 9802 168,588.25 119,865.15 288,433.40 168,588.25 119,885.15 288,433.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 HUGHES SUPPLY 9978 1,590.00 1,272.00 2,862.00 1,590.00 1,272.00 2,862.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAYER ELECTRIC 10008 31,657.32 58,792.17 90,449.49 31,657.32 57,510.84 89,167.98 0.00 1,281.53 1,281.53 HUGHES SUPPLY 10010 4,460.00 6,179.27 10,639.27 4,460.00 6,179.27 10,839.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 ACOUSTI ENGINEERING 10112 33,845.00 25,015.00 58,860.00 33,845.00 25,015.00 58,880.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HGP GLASS 10117 1,700.08 1,133.39 2,833.47 1,700.08 1,125.82 2,825.90 (0.00) 7.57 7,57 HUGHES SUPPLY 10118 4,458.00 4,480.00 8,918.00 4,458.00 4,460.00 8,918.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HUGHES SUPPLY 10243 8,603.79 19,997.04 28,800.83 6,171.77 18,888.82 24,860.59 432.02 1,308.22 1,740.24 HUGHES SUPPLY 10297 3,848.80 5,871.73 9,520.53 3,848.80 5,671.73 9,520.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 MONTGOMERY KONE 10305 48,505.00 46,314.00 92,819.00 46,505.00 46,314.00 92,819.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HUGHES SUPPLY 10318 4,087.60 7,375.20 11,462.80 4,087.60 4,978.26 9,065.88 0.00 2,396.94 2,396.94 ACOUSTI ENGINEERING 10366 81,550.00 86,218.00 167,788.00 81,550.00 88,218.00 167,768.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 STAN WEAVER & CO 10589 13,090.00 15,284.00 28,374.00 13,090.00 15,284.00 28,374.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HUGHES SUPPLY 10841 311.43 5,574.79 5,886.22 174.93 5,574.79 5,749.72 138.50 0.00 136.50 M M . = • • = MI • MU OM NM NM • City of Clearwater Municipal Services Complex Direct Purchase P.O.'s As of January 17, 1997 111111 111111 11.11 Page 2 of 2 Vendor P.O. 1t P.O. Amount Municipal Sery Bldg P.O. Amount Police HQ Building Total P.O. . Payments Municipal Ssry Bldg Payments Popov HQ Building Total Payments as of 1 -17 -97 Open P.O. Amount Municipal Sary Bldg Open P.O. Amount Police HQ Building 0.00 Total Open P.O. Amount OVERHEAD DOOR CO 10642 2,813.00 13,749.41 18,382.41 2,813.00 13,749.41 16,362.41 0.00 as of 1 -17 -97 GULF TILE DISTRIBUTORS 10858 18,000.00 14,000.00 30,000.00 16,000.00 14,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ANDERSON ACCESS CONTROL 10881 1,400.00 86,250.00 67,850.00 1,400.00 68,250.00 87,650.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUN BUSINESS SYSTEMS 10884 2,900.00 5,000.00 7,900.00 2,900.00 5,000.00 7,900.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 THE DURKEE CO 10888 0.00 13,706.00 13,708.00 0.00 13,708.00 13,708.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GLIDDEN COMPANY 10949 8,810.00 14,850.00 23,460.00 8,810.00 14,850.00 23,460.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CUSTOM METAL 10950 5,232.00 5,232.00 10,484.00 5,232.00 5,232.00 10,464.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUNCOAST WINDOW 11184 9,247.00 6,273.00 15,520.00 9,247.00 8,273.00 15,520.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 List Industries 11505 0.00 25,705.00 25,705.00 0.00 25,405.00 25,405.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 Hughes Supply 11508 11,009.23 31,719.48 42,728.71 11,009.23 31,719.48 42,728.71 0.00 0.00 BAY RESOURCES 11507 9,270.00 9,400.00 18,670.00 9,270.00 9,400.00 18,670.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BAY RESOURCES 11508 14,824.83 10,804.63 25,429.46 14,824.83 10,804.63 25,429.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 ACOUSTI ENGINEERING 11509 4,518.00 4,950.00 9,466.00 4,518.00 4,950.00 9,466.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mill -Rite 11510 38,920.00 68,280.00 105,200.00 38,920.00 68,280.00 105,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Masterwork Sign 11511 8,424.47 12,932.24 21,358.71 7,453.12 10,980.89 18,414.01 971.35 1,971.35 0.00 2,942.70 Mosier 11612 7,738.00 0.00 7,738.00 7,738.00 0.00 7,738.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hughes Supply 11513 0.00 1,051.40 1,051.40 0.00 1,051.40 1,051.40 0.00 0.00 Bell Architectural Specialties 11708 0.00 3,644.85 3,644.85 0.00 3,644.85 3,644.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hughes Supply 11705 0.00 1,081.57 1,081.57 0.00 778.60 778.60 0.00 302.97 302.97_ Gulf Tile Distributors 11703 7,673.00 16,099.00 23,772.00 7,873.00 18,099.00 23,772.00 0.00 0.00 Bell Architectural Specialties 11704 3,029.00 4,543.00 7,572.00 3,029.00 4,543.00 7,572.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 e+ .e-+so.+r.+- -w- .+�.�so 11906 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 s^^^�^a..�.s,w- .�- ►- ..++.�a� >ro .Pe 11870 0.00 4,358.00 4,358.00 , 0.00 4,358.00 4,358.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hughes Supply - flagpoles 11992 5,160.00 5,160.00 10,320.00 5,160.00 5,160.00 10,320.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hughes Supply - phone booth enclosures 11991 4,858.00 11,895.00 16,753.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,858.00 11,895.00 16,753.00 Hughes Supply - plumbing (PD) 12184 255.70 255.70 0.00 255.70 255.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 Detention Equipment Services IPD) 12275 79,885.00 79,865.00 0.00 79,865.00 79,865.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coreslab Structures - Pkg Garage 13276 374,091.50 374,091.50 748,183.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 374,091.50 374,091.50 748,183.00 Total Material Purchase Orders Issued 250R _.62c 29 a 194 590 37 6 703 116 88 2 1 - -- - - - - - , . , 23,912.88 2,780,142. ,448.03 819,060.64 1 1 1 1 City of Clearwater Municipal Services Complex: PHB/MSB /PG Preliminary CCD Analysis High -Point Rendel June 3, 1997 File: 2700-1-1&2 CCD # Description Rowe Arch Creative /Beers HPR Estimate Note m 0 O N v O n a c m Changes to GMP Contingency Electrical Security Changes to GMP Contingency Electrical Security a 1 Lower Col. Footings 1R Mod. Perim. Spandrel Joists & Girders 2R Mod. Perim. Spandrel Joists & Girders X $4,444 $4,444 1 3 Excay. Unsuitable Material X $2,683 $2,683 Reinf. Steel dowels X $1,077 $1,077 Ground For Lightning Syst. X $450 $450 Reinf. Stl a Mech. Openings X $1,481 $1,481' 4 Extend PH Structure @ PHB X $5,911 $5,911 5 Extend COB PH / Add CLerestory X $16,538 $16,538 2 6 Change Exter. Wall Dimension X $8,177 $8,177 7 Steel Changes tt MSB/PHB X $39,926 $39,926 8 Drop 2nd Fl. for Computer Access Flooring X $3,604 $3,604 9 Drop 2nd Fl for CAF / Move Traffic Computer X $6,744 $6,744 10 Struct. Framing a PH Mech. Openings X $7,785 $7,785 11 Offset Girder Seat Connection X $485 $485 12 Exposted Steel Plates @ Eder Columns X $10,672 $10,672 13 Extend Joist Bottom Chord X $7,816 $7,816 3 14 Weld CCD #13 Chord Extensions X $2,042 $2,042 15 Extend COB PH / Add Clerestory a Lobby X $6,326 $6,326 16 Glazing Procurement Delay X $73,780 $73,780 4 17 Precast Conc. Window Jamb fins X $110,216 $110,216 5 18 Conc. /Masonry/Misc. Metal Shin - Ph.2 X $2,260 $20,343 $2,260 $20,343 19 Sandblasing Sample Mockup X $400 $400 20 Knockout Blocks a West Wall - PHB X $633 $633 21 liminate IRI gas train a RAYPAC Boilers X ($1,500) ($1,500) 22 Electrical Underslab Conduit X $25,319 $25,319 $12,600 $12,880 $12,880 10 23 Electrical Conduits for Furniture X $41,886 $41,888 $20,943 $20,943 $20,943 10 24 Add Steel for Windloading X $6,063 $6,063 6 25 Add Electrical - PR #17 X $108,500 $108,500 $54,250 $54,250 $54,250 10 26 Add Blocking for Furniture X $874 $874 27 Remove tree Stump X $252 $252 28 Revise Conc. & Mtl. Skin for enlarged Louver X $10,089 $10,089 29 Add Steel for Monumental Stairs X $5,490 $5,490 30 Delete Architect Job Trailer X ($2,750) ($2,750) 31 Drywall VE (See CCD #17) X ($129,445) ($129,445) 7 32 Mtl. Angles for added Louvers - Gen. Enc. X $178 $178 33 Conc. Esplanade & Bollard Installation X ($3,412) ($3,412) 34 Stain a Conc. Esplanade X $928 $5,000 $928 $5,000 8 35 Painted Stl. Ent. Canopies a COB/PHB X ($79,971) ($79,971) 9 36 Closure Angles a floor /precast - PHB X $2,842 $2,842 37 Precast Conc. Panel Seat Connection X ($7,078) ($7,078) 38 Conc. Beams above holding cell doors X $4,583 $4,583 39 Raied Curbs In Sally Port X ($4,492) ($4,492) 40 Conc. Slab for Emerg. Gen Diesel Tank - PHB X $3,085 $3,085 41 CMU Footing Rev. a PHB Holdingn Cell X ($2,781) ($2,781) 42 Add Antennae Mounts a PHB X $1,633 $1,633 43 PHB Service Counter X $7,589 $7,589 44 Change Vaccuum System X $322 $322 45 VOID 46 Delete Nonpotable Water - PHB/MSB X ($1,138) ($1,138) 47 Plumbing Revisions - PR #26 X $8,500 $8,500 48 Delete toilet/Add Lay - PHB X $1,392 $1,392 49 ElectricalVE X' ($21,550) ($21,550) ($10,775) ($10,775) ($10,775) 10 50 Security Conduit & Boxes X $28,831 $20,831 $20,831 $28,831'' 11 51 Elect. Revisions to COB/PHB X ($24,084) ($24,084) ($1Z042) ($12,042) ($12,042 ) 10 52 Elect. Revisions to COB /PHB - PR #26 X $182,983 $182,983 $91,482 $91,482 $91,482 10 53 Ent. Drive thru Canopy Glass X $9,400 $9,400 9 54 Add Insul Above Ceirs Loading docc/Sally Port X $2,752 $2,752 55 Receptacle & B- Circuit a PBX Rectifier X $1,023 $1,023 $614 $409 $716 10 56 Del Eyebrow Painting/Add Strair /Ceil Paint X $1,300 $1,300 57 Exit sign/Night Light Light Circuit X $56,045 $56,045 $28,023 $28,023 $28,023 10 58 VOID 59 Conduit/Boxes - Security X $778 $778 $778 $778 11 60 VOID 61 Updated Elect. Plans - PR #42 X $43,892 $43,892 $21,940 $21,948 $21,946 10 62.2 Updated Elect. Plans - PR #42 X $39,824 $39,824 I $19,912 $19,912 $19,912 10 63.1 Revise Circuits / Add Recept - COB X $1,189 $1,189 $585 $585 $585 10 64 VOID 65 VOID Page 1 of 3 1 1 City of Clearwater Municipal Services Complex: PHB /MSB /PG Preliminary CCD Analysis High -Point Rendel June 3, 1997 • CCD Description Rowe Arch Creative /Beers HPR Estimate Note v ti O 6' m ChGMP to Contingency Electrical Security ChGMP to Contingency Electrical Security 66 Change Mount Hwight PHB Lobby Fat. $0 $0 67 Add Antennae to COB/PHB X $2,075 $2,075 68 Add Gen. /FP Bldg eV COB X $14,846 $14,846 69.1 Revise MEP/FP - PR #17 X $58,568 $35,141 $23,427 12 70 Mtl Coping Cap & Wall Pane © Screen Wall X ($1,087) ($1,087) 71 72 CMU Grout/Infili t i Duct Penetration VOID X $1,213 $1,213 73 74 Elect. Revisions - PHB VOID X $3,000 i $3,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 10 75 REISSUED 76 REISSUED 77 REISSUED 78 REISSUED 79 Floor Outlets - COB X $4,000 I $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 10 80 Fire Dampers - COB X $1,582 $1,582- 81.1 Elevator Warning Lights - COB/PHB X $2,200 $2,200 82 VOID 83 Panic Buttons & Aux. Locks X $1,802 $1,802 $1,802 $1,802 11 84 Add Inter. Cameras & Cabling X $2,935 $2,935 $2,935 $2,935 11 85 Video System X $3,709 $3,709 $3,709 $3,709 11 86 Elect. Work for Security Access X $4,712 $4,712 $4,712 $4,712 10,11 87 Gen/FP Bldg CD PHB X $32,703 $32,703 88 Motor Starters for Outside Air - COB/PHB X $11,133 $11,133'' 89 VOID 90 VOID 91 VOID 92.1 Swap PHB Doors, Hdwre. Card Reader $785 $785 $785 $785 11 93 VOID 94 Strainer a PHB Roof Drain X $276 $276 95 VOID 96 VOID 97 VOID 98 VOID 99 Mount Exter. Trash Recept. $498 5498, 100 Add (2) Louvers - PHB Boiler Rm X $746 5746 101 Add Louvers - COB/PHB X $2,157 $2,157 102 Delete Circuits - COB Traffic X ($576) ($576) ($288) ($288) ($288) 10 103 Add fire Strobes/Homs - PHB X $1,973 $1,973 $987 $987 $987 10 104 Add Power for PBX CCTV $668 $668 $334 $334 $334 10 105 Conduit Change- PBX suppl./UPS/Rec -PHB ;,X $182 $182 $91 $91 $91 10 106 Relocate Outlets - PHB X $347 $347 $174 $174 $174 10 107 Add Steel Op Rooftop Mech. Screen X $31,503 $31,503 13 108 VOID 109 Provide (4) 4" Conduits - PHB X $3,730 $3,730 $3,730 $3,730 10 110 Credit - Incorrect Plastering X ($6,570) ($6,570) 111.1 Metal Roofing - COB X $2,387 $2,387 112 Locker Bench Revisions X ($220) ($220) 113 Add Desk 2 Juv. Booking - PHB X $3,154 $3,154 114 VOID 115 Coord. PHB Hardware - Security X $3,670 $3,670 $3,670 >,$3,670' 116 Security Access System X $8,189 $8,189 $8,189 $8,189 117 Mogul Key Switches - PHB X $718 $718 $718 $718 118 cut -in Telephone Boxes & Cable - PHB X $488 $468 $234 $234 $234 119 PHB PBX/UPS Room Revisions X $1,659 $1,659 120 Plaster Soffits/Jambs - COB/PHB X ` $2,277 $2,277 121 Toil ParVAccess - PHB X $3,260 $3,260 122 StI Angle Supports X $2,310 $2,310 123.1 Add Door Louvers - COB Generator Bldg X $1,423 $1,423 124 Add Raised CPU Floor - PHB X $1,084 $1,084 125 Delete Safety Track Bottoms - X ($288) ($288) 126.1 video Library Closets - PHB X $2,162 $2,162 127 Epoxy Coating - PHB Holding Cells X $2,775 I $2,775 128 VOID 129 Civil Plan Revisions X $4,891 $1,725 $4,891 $1,725 130 Computer Floor /Masonite X $978 $978 131 VOID 132 Shower Fl. Slab - COB X $290 $290 133 HVAC Revisions - COB/PHB PR #26 X $2,228 $2,000 $1,114 $1,114 12 134 Framing/DrywalVlnsul - COB/PHB X $479 $479 Page 2 of 3 1 1 City of Clearwater Municipal Services Complex: PHB /MSB /PG Preliminary CCD Analysis High -Point Rendel June 3, 1997 Page 3 of 3 ,110. 4, W -I -1014 CCD Description _ Rowe Arch Creative /Beers NPR Estimate Note # m O o n < Changes to Contingency Changes to v ti O a m GMP Electrical 1 Security GMP Contingency Electrical Security 135 Roofing - COB FP /Gen Building • X $1,089 $1,089 136 Add Antennae - COB/PHB Penthouses X $6,261 $6,261 137 Add Weatherstrip - PHB X $263 $263 138.1 Add Grilles - PHB X $755 $755 139 Sound Reduction @ Chillers X $6,245 $6,245 140.1 Supply Air - PHB X $351 $351 141 Drywall Calcifications X $1,694 $1,694 142 Glazing Changes X ($2,205) ($2,205) 143 Add HVAC Units - PHB X $10,843 $10,843 144.1 145 Emergency Gen. Exh. Piping VOID $5,926 $5,926 146 Add Pipe Susp. System - COB Studio X $11,918 $11 918 147R Change Caulk to Epoxy - PHB X $715 $715 148 Add Homs/Stobes - PHB X' $10,488 $10,486 $5,233 $5,233, $5,233 10 149 150 Add Emergency lights - PHB VOID X - $725 $725 $383, $363 $363 10 151 Stl. Angle Railings - PHB X $2,500 $2,500 Est. 152 153 Chiller Railings - PHB /COB VOID X $10,300 $10,300 Est. 154.1 Boiler Shut Down Alarm $948 ! $948 155R Bollards $4,200 $3,081 $4,200 $3,081 14 156 Wheel Chair Ramp - PHB Smoking Deck $578 $578 157 Acous. Ceil © Property Evidence rooms $2,500 j $2,500 158 Domestic Water Sensor- PHB j $2,041 $2,041 159 Stl Angle Railings - COB Penthouse $2,500 $2,500 160 Supply Air - PHB $2,311 $2.311 161 Tel/Com Backboards - PHB $467 $467 162 911 Transformer - PHB $1,726 $1,726 163 Window Header Steel - COB/PHB $6,725 $6,725 164 Card Readers - PHB $2,290 $2,290 165 Relocate amp. Sensors - PHB $1,000 $1,000' 166 Exit Light - COB $2 000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000° $1,000 10 167 Emerg. Light/Fire Alarm - COB $15,000 $15,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 10 168 PHB Masonry Screen Wall $19,506 $19,506 169 Shorten flagpols - PHB/MSB ($1,080) ($1,080) 170 Delete Conc. Bench - PHB $279 $279 171 Add recap. Desk - COB $750 $750 172 Glazing - RFP #22 ($10,582) ($10,582) 173 Inter. Galzing - Phase 6 $3,438 $3,438 174 Add'I Wiring © UPS $250 $250 175 Deduct 2/3 Dedication Paques ($723) ($723) PG-01 Asbestos Abatement X $5,080 $5,080 A. Delete Skylight @ MSB (See CCD #5) ($40,000) ($40,000) 2 B. Delete Plaster Fins « Windows (See CCD #17) ($123,000) ($123,000) 5,7 C. Add Drywall & Plaster Work (See CCD #31) (EST) $320,826 $192,496 $128,330 5,7 D. Delete Precast Replaced w /Plaster (See CCD #31) ($128,025) ($128,025) 5,7 E. Add Glazing at Exterior (See CCD # ) $28,275 $28,275 F. Window Blinds (Reinstate VE) $22.980 $22,980- - G. Security System $85,650 $85,650 $85,650 $85,650 11 H. Lightning Protection (Reinstate VE) $41,200 $41,200 I. Holding Cell Area Security Doors & Hardware $80,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 11 J. Phone Enclosures $19,425 $19,425 K. Acoustical Wall Panels $13,097 $13,097 L. Postal Boxes $13,381 $13,381 M. Penco Shelving $6,377 $6,377 N. Delete Floor Mats, Col. Covers & L. Dock Equip. ($22,100) ($22,100) O. Credit - Bad Tile ($5,000) ($5,000) 15 P. Credit - Sally Port Cracks ($ ?, ? ? ?) (U ?, ? ? ?)_ 15 Q. JB & Raceways for Phone/CPU /Security (30% Security) ($77 ?, ? ? ?) ($59,934) 10,11 R. Electrical GMP Adjustment (??% Elec. CCD's) ($ ? ?, ? ? ?) poet Above) 10,11 S. Schedule GMP Adjustment (422 C.D. Delay) ($ ? ? ?, ? ? ?) ($ 77,79 ?) 4 TOTALS $1,141,466 $166,574 $496,970 $199,779 $608,363 $637,743 $250,555 $199,779 Page 3 of 3 City of Municipal Services Complex: PHB /MSB /PG NOTES: Preliminary CCD Analysis High -Poini March 27, 1 ■ r Note C CCD R roe: ziuu -i -its, z 1 2 2R C Creative /Beers feels that no allowances were made in the GMP proposal (between schematic and completed desings) for: I la. Steel jb. Sitework c. Concrete work Because Rowe Architects advised C/B that those bid packages were complete as part of the Phase 1 documents. 2 5 5 W When COB Clerestory was added, the $40,000 skylight at the Lobby was deleted. No CCD has been prepared to delete the skylight from the GMP; this item is therfore being added to the GMP change List as New Item "A." ' 1 3 1 12 T The CCD provides extra costs for all plates at all building elevations at both the MSB and PHB - Not just the "Future Bearing Plates" as referred to on the CCD. 4 1 16 E Entire CCD is for (34) days delay to the schedule realted to delays in glazing procurement caused by design changes. The CCD is agreed to and executed by the Architect and the City. HPR therefore agrees that the cost for the approved time extension is therfore added to the GMP. HPR also advised C/B that if the value of the CCD is to remain in the final Change Order, corresponding values for any portion of the (14) months schedule delay that remains unjustified will also need to be addressed. 5 1 17 Precast Concrete Window Jamb fins are added scope to the precast concrete bid package. Value: $110,216. The GMP documents require Jamb Fins at each upper floor window mulllion to be made of Metal Studs and Plaster. The final Change Order to the GMP must therefore include a corresponding deduction for the Mtl. Std. /Plaster Fins 6 2 24 S Steel for Windloading" is a basic requirement of the GMP. Even if C/B allows a change order to its steel subcontrctor for tthe work, it is not a change in scope to the owner. 1 1 9 10 City of Municipal Services Complex: PHB /MSB /PG CCD ! Remarks NOTES: Preliminary CCD Analysis High -mini March 27, 1 File: 2700-1-1&2 31 Per Creative /Beers, "Drywall & Plaster" scopes were greatly increased during design development to include: a. Added Plaster at the MSB /PHB building exteriors b. Some additional interior drywall This is the reason why the "Drywall /Plaster" budget was exceeded by $320,826 in the buyout. The ($129,445) reduction was then Value Engineering to delete scope in order to reduce the effect on the project. HPR therefore considers that: a. The "Drywall /Plaster" line item should be increased to accommodate the reasonable value for the added scope. The order of magnitude to be used as the tentative increase to the GMP until better information is available is $320,826. This value is tentatively included as New Item "C." - and may be subject to further evaluation if the aparant adjusted GMP exceeds the project budget. b. The ($129,445) must then be deducted from the GMP as indicated in CCD #31. c. The Plaster Fins of the original GMP must also be deducted fromthe GMP as indicated in Note 5 above for CCD #17. A reasonable value is the value of the quote provided in CCD #17, if it is confirmed that the qute provides for the original quantity of fins detailed in the GMP. That value is $123,000, and is tentatively included as New Item "B." 34 Creative /Beers originally proposed a $25,000 Deduct Alternate for Esplanade finishes. During the Alternate selection process, the value deleted was limited to $20,000; specifically to leave $5,000 in the GMP budget as an alternate to provide some kind of essplanade paving treatement to be determined. The $5,928 actual final value is therefore applied to the $5,000 remaining alternate value; leaving $928 to be applied ias an increase in the GMP. 35 CCD #35 reduces the canopy scope; Canopy glass is then added back in CCD #53, and meal roofing in CCD #111.1 Several General Observation Regarding Project Electrical Costs: a. COB Electrical: ($546,560 + $27,328 contingency) = $573,888 = 10% of COB Construction GMP b. PHB Electrical: ($854,760 + $42,738 contingency) = $907,498 = 14% of PHB Construction GMP c. Average = 12% of (COB + PHB) 1,40 d. Addin $357,79 in electrical "changes" increases the average to 16% of (COB + PHB) The value considering the "changes" are within ranges to be expected for buildings of these types. Accordingly, if the adjusted GMP exceeds current construction budget, the afffected electrical CCD's may be revisisted to make final determination if any portion should have been assigned to the contingency, instead of the GMP. Estimated order of magnitude of value of electrical CCD's that may ultimately be attritutable to contingency may be in the range of 25 %. This must also, however, be coordinated with the JB /Racewa issue described in Note 11. Several GMP Specification Section 16700 A.2. requires that the Creative /Beers provide empty junction boxes and reaceways for owner - provided telephone, computer, and security systems. All Electrical and Security CCD's to date have all costs associtated with junction boxes and conduits included in those CCD's. Therefore, in order to maintain accuracy in the GMP, the costs for junction boxes and conduits should not be included in any GMP adjustment, and should be applied to the contingency. 2 1 City of Municipal Services Complex: PHB /MSB /PG NOTES: Preliminary CCD Analysis High -Point March 27, 1 1 3 File: 2700-1-1&2 Note CCD Remarks 12 Several For purposes of this analysis, most Plumbing & HVAC CCD's hav been included as changes to the GMP, without specific consideration for any cost items that may be more correctly applied to the contingency. Accordingly, if the adjusted GMP exceeds th current construction budget, the affected Plumbing and HVAC CCD's may be revisited to make final determination is any portion should be assignedto the contingency. P f -e A5q c cA tt i 53 z z z 2 u u • .r'.. `4 / 13 107 vne c,.►- CCD #107 adds $68,221 against Alternate "A" in the amount of $44,118, for a net add of $24,103. The balance ( #31,503 - $24,103) = $7,400. This is the added cost due to late design (Second Cost) 14 155 28 Bollards are shown in the GMP; 84 bollards are finally installed. 1 3 = • • • • • = • NM MI • I w • • • • 141.111 PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED ACTUAL GMP BUDGET DIFFERENCE REMARKS PHASE 1 Earthwork S/C 400,932.00 351,149.00 (49,783.00) Sales Tax Savings ( Earthwork) (5,000.00) 0.00 5,000.00 Concrete S/C _ 858,400.00 858,400.00 0.00 Sales tax savings (concrete materials) (12,685.00) 0.00 12,685.00 Structural Steel S/C 743,829.00 743,829.00 0.00 Sales tax savings (steel) (24,000.00) 0.00 24,000.00 Misc Forming & Concrete 3,991.00 3,991.00 0.00 Grouts/Elevator Sills 3,825.00 3,825.00 0.00 Misc Site - Set benches 873.00 706.00 (167.00) _ PHASE 2 Precast 490,580.00 618,615.00 128,035.00 Sales tax savings (Precast) (18,000.00) 0.00 18,000.00 Glass & Glazing 629,441.00 601,216.00 (28,225.00) Sales tax savings (Glass & Glazing) (16,710.00), 0.00 16,710.00 Roofing system 170,576.00 174,000.00 3 424.00 Sales tax savings (Roofing) (3,000.00) 0.00 3,000.00 Masonry / concrete tie beams / footings /pilasters / misc. metals 335,263.00 189,228.00 (146,035.00) Sales tax savings (Concrete & Masonry) (7,021.00) 0.00 7,021.00 PHASE 3 Mechanical (HVAC) 1,925,867.00 2,155,855.00 229,988.00 Sales tax savings (HVAC) (36,405.00) 0.00 36,405.00 Fire Protection 276,704.00 264,216.00 (12,488.00) Sales tax savings (Fire Protection) (8,553.00) 0.00 8,553.00 Plumbing 348,140.00 388,780.00 40,640.00 Sales tax savings (Plumbing) (10,000.00) 0.00 10,000.00 Electrical 1,540,716.00 1,401,320.00 (139,396.00) Sales tax savings (Electrical) (43,577.00) 0.00 43,577.00 I . I • • • • • I I • • • MI • • • • OM 2 0� 1'+ PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED ACTUAL PHASE 4 Metal pan fire &monumental stairs, excl.monmental railing Sales tax savings (Misc. Stairs) Monumental railing Sales tax savings (Misc. Stairs) GMP BUDGET DIFFERENCE REMARKS 78,288.00 (4,000.00) 35,948.00 (1,000.00) 78,288.00 0.00 41,782.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 5,834.00 1,000.00 GMP budget included with stair amount above PHASE 5 Elevators Sales tax savings (Elevators) (5,669.00) 179,000.00 160,000.00 0.00 (19,000.00) 5,669.00 PHASE 6 Doors, frames and hardware Sales tax savings (doors,frames,hardware) Doors, frames and hardware - Value Engineering Drywall / Plaster / Acoustical Ceiling Sales tax savings (Drywall / Plaster / Acoustical Ceiling) Toilet accessories Sales tax savings (toilet accessories) Fire Extinguishers and cabinets 299,833.00 (12,984.00) (15,061.001 (23,800.00) 1,235,307.00 297,290.00 0.00 0.00 914,481.00 15,124.00 0.00 35,845.00 (2,543.00) 12,984.00 15,061.00 (320,826.00). (735.001 0.00 23,800.00 20,721.00 735.00 delete - galvanizing & bitumastic std frms,5 3/4" Sales tax savings on fire extinguishers and cabinets Accordion and folding panel partitions Sales tax accordion and folding panel partitions) 3,562.00 4,500.00 938.00 (200.00) 0.00 200.00 21,240.00 (959.00) 20,400.00 0.00 (840.00) Overhead sectional doors Sales tax (overhead sectional doors) Louvers (package 5) Sales tax savings (Louvers) Joint sealants 959.00 (859.001 20,907.00 38,476.00 18,000.00 0.00 15,292.00 (1,702.00) 0.00 38,778.00 8,500.00 (2,907.00) 859.00 (23,184.001_ 1,702.00 (30,278.00) PHASE 7 Floor mats 0.00 5,200.00 5,200.00 See RAI memo 10/13, item not used • • • (♦ M • • MN • • • NM • PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION Column covers Corner Guards ESTIMATED ACTUAL GMP BUDGET DIFFERENCE 0.00 0.00 Loading dock equipment Window blinds Sales Tax Saving s blinds Toilet compartments Sales tax savings (toilet compartments Access flooring Sales tax savings (access flooring) Roof pavers Painting Sales tax savings (Painting) Interior tile Sales tax savings (Interior tile) Cabinetry Sales tax savings (Cabinet Carpentry Miscellaneous Metals 0.00 22,980.00 8,400.00 1,500.00 7,000.00 0.00 8,400.00 1,500.00 7,000.00 (22,980.00) REMARKS See RAI memo 10/13, item not used See RAI memo 10/13, item not used (1,031.00) 0.00 12,108.00 (681.00) 34,600.00 0.00 1,031.00 22,492.00 681.00 22,600.00 80,700.00 58 100.00 (380.00) 6,998.00 136,926.00 0.00 11,250.00 114,300.00 (1,642.00) 116,932.00 0.00 75,329.00 (2,585.00) 0.00 380.00 4,252.00 (22,626.00) 1,642.00 (41,603.00) 2,585.00 140,085.00 (4,935.00) 70,44 1.00 0.00 (69,644.00) 4,935.00 Includes, roof and window blocking 30,250.00 35,539.00 Sales tax savings (Miscellaneous Metals) Pedestrian Esplanades Sales tax savings (Pedestrian Esplanades) Marker and Tack Boards (package 10) Sales tax savings (Marker and Tack Boards) Signs (package 13) Sales tax savings (Signs) Acoustical Wall Panels (package 7) Sales tax savings (Acoustical Wall Panels) Flooring (package 8) Sales tax savings (Flooring) Lockers (package 14) Sales tax savings (Lockers) Locker Bases (1,457.00), 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 (30,250.00), (15,539.00) 1,457.00 (1,100.00) 0.00 11,169.00 0.00 (494.00) 27,546.00 0.00 26,000.00 0.00 ' 1,100.00 (11,169.001 (1,758.00) 13,097.00 (618.00) 204,195.00 (9,047.00) 46,270.00 (1,799.00) 2,457.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 308,166.00 0.00 32,100.00 0.00 0.00 494.00 (1,546.00) 1,758.00 (13,097.00) 618.00 103,971.00 9,047.00 (14,170.00) 1,799.00 See CCD #33 See CCD #33 GMP increased $6,000 for directory (2,457.00) Included in "Lockers" GMP , NIN 11111 11.11 11. MIN INE MN 1♦ • 4 ui 1 i{ PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07197 DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED ACTUAL GMP BUDGET DIFFERENCE REMARKS Miscellaneous Specialties Flag Poles 12,404.00 24,000.00 11,596.00 Sales tax savings (Flag Poles) (722.001 0.00 722.00 Phone Enclosures 19,425.00 0.00 (19,425.001 Sales tax savings (Phone Enclosures) (600.001 ` 0.00 600.00 Postal Boxes 13,381.00 0.00 (13,381.00) Sales tax savings (Postal Boxes) (791.001 0.00 791.00 Penco Shelving 6,377.00 0.00 (6,377.00) Sales tax savings (Penco Shelving) (405.001 0.00 405.00 Frameless Mirrors/Speaktroughs 5,100.00 0.00 (5,100.00) Projection Screen 1,526.00 0.00 (1,526.001 Wire Shelves 648.00 0.00 (648.001 TV Brackets 1,550.00 _ 0.00 (1,550.00) Holding Cell doors/hdw & Service Counter (package 5) 95,000.00 35,000.00 (60,000.00) Appliances 3,645.00 5,000.00 1,355.00 Bank Equipment 7,738.00 7,500.00 (238.00) PHASE 8 Security Access & Management System 85,650.00 0.00 (85,650.00) OTHER Entrance canopies (Allowance) 0.00 COP # 52.2,PR #25, CCD #35 COB/PHB FEE & GENERAL CONDITIONS Contractor Fee & General Conditions 1,291,102.00 1,291,102.00 0.00 PHASE 9 - PARKING GARAGE Parking Garage Bids 2,623,517.00 2,623,517.00 0.00 Sales Tax Savings (precast) (38,837.00) 0.00 38,837.00 Sales Tax Savings (other) (20,000.00) 0.00 20,000.00 Parking Garage Proposed VE (8,840.00) 0.00 8,840.00 Parking Garage Additional Projected VE (25,000.00)_ 0.00 25,000.00 _ . I' MI I • NM • M • • • PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 1.10 NNI NM • • MI M S cf. I4 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED Add Alternate Sand.Blast Finish 21,400.00 ACTUAL GMP BUDGET DIFFERENCE 0.00 Contractor Fees & General Conditions 212,483.00 212,483.00 (21,400.001 0.00 REMARKS Contingency GMP 0.00 117,964.00 Contingency on Bids 37,964.00 47,384.00 117,964.00 9,420.00 PHASE 10 - CITY HALL City Hall Renovations 500,000.00 500,000.00 0.00 CHANGE ORDERS (CO) CO #01 - Bay Resources Communication Subcontractor CO #01 - Contractors Fee/Bond/Insurance 585,440.00 649,541.00 64,101.00 COP # 54 62,754.00 62,754.00 0.00 CO #02 - Delete City Hall Renovations Allowance (500,000.00) (500,000.001 0.00 CONSTRUCTION CHANGE DIRECTIVES (CCD) CCD #01 - 0.00 0.00 CCD #02 - (revised) 4,444.00 0.00 CCD #03 - (COP # 1, 2, 4 & 9) 5,646.00 0.00 CCD #04 - PHB addtnl roof steel & deck col.lines 2 -3 & C -D. 5,911.00 0.00 CCD #05 -COB extend pnthse to col. 6 & add clerestory 16,538.00 0.00 CCD #06 - Change PHB ext wall dim. 1' -1" to l' -5" per A.SD.42 8,177.00 0.00 CCD #07 - Add steel channels & offset joists RFP4@ lobbies 39,926.00 0.00 CCD #08 - Changes to PHB strtl steel shop drwgs #05120 -02 -B. 3,604.00 0.00 CCD #09 - COB -drop structure 6 " @2- 3 &C- D /12 " @6- 7 &C -B3rd 6,744.00 0.00 0.00 OMITTED COP # 3.3 COP # 1,2,4 & 9 COP # 6.3 (16,538.00LCOP # 7.2 COP # 8.1 (39,926.00), COP # 10.1 COP # 11.1 COP # 12 CCD #10 - Mechanical openings @ COB 2 &3 floor core areas 7,785.00 0.00 CCD #11 - PHB girder @ G -6 offset seat connection to embed 485.00 0.00 (4,444.00), (5,646.00) (5,911.001 (8,177.001 (3,604.001 (6,744.00) (7,785.001 CCD #12 - Arch. plates added ext.colutnns per Phase 2. 1 0,672.00 0.00 CCD #I3 - Additional joist bottom chord extension(RFI #31 &49) 7,816.00 0.00 (485.001 (10,672.00) CCD #I4 - Weld prmtr long span joists to col stabilizer plates 2,042.00 0.00 CCD #I5 - COB penthouse perimeter bent plate 6,326.00 0.00 CCD #16 - Addtnl General Items Glazingprocurement delay. CCD #17 - Precast concrete window jamb fins CCD #18 - Revised skin desi:n ler Ph #2 Add 8,9,10 73,780.00 110,216.00 22,603.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (7,816.001 (2,042.001 (6,326.00)- (73,780.001 (110,216.00) (22,603.00) COP # 14 COP # 18 COP # 20 COP # 21 COP # 28 COP # 29 COP # 23 COP # 27, S includes sales tax savin s r $2,484 . •• • NM MI 111111 • • • • • • IIIIII • • M ot: t't PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: DESCRIPTION CCD #19 - Sandblast sample @ shearwall CCD #20 - CMU change @ PHB West wall CCD #21 - Eliminate IRI gas train @ boilers CCD #22 - Addtnl conduits per AEI Itr 8/22 & PR #20 CCD #23 - Addtnl underslab comm &power outlets CCD #24 - Additional steel tonnage for wind uplift. 03/07/97 ESTIMATED ACTUAL GMP BUDGET DIFFERENCE 400.00 0.00 633.00 0.00 (1,500.00) 0.00 (400.00) COP # 13 REMARKS (633.001.COP # 34 1,500.00 COP # 43 25,319.00 0.00 41,886.00 0.00 6,063.00 0.00 CCD #25 - Electrical scope changes per PR# 17 108,500.00 0.00 CCD #26 - Add blocking to accomodate furniture needs. 874.00 0.00 (25,319.00) (41,886.00) (6,063.001 (108,500.001 CCD #27 - Remove 10" tree stump @ PHB West prop. 252.00 0.00 CCD #28 - Revise ext. skin plan per PR 13 & 14. CCD #29 - Monumental stair landing framing. 10,089.00 5,490.00 0.00 0.00 (874.001 (252.001 (10,089.001 CCD #30 - Delete Architect job site trailer. CCD #31 - Drywall/ACT value engineering Phase 6 CCD #32 - Add misc. angles to PHB generator encl. (2,750.001 (129,445.00) 0.00 (5,490.00) 0.00 2,750.00 129,445.00 COP # 40.1, PR #20 COP #41.2 COP # 17.1 COP # 56.1, PR #17 COP # 69, PR #31 COP # 84 178.00 0.00 CCD #33 - Concrete esplanade/bollard installation buyout CCD #34 - Provide stain on esplanade concrete 46,256.00 49,668.00 (178.00_1 3,412.00 COP #30.1, PR# 13& 14 COP # 31 COP # 87 COP #73, PR #35 COP #39.1, PR #19 5,928.00 0.00 CCD #35 - Painted steel entrance canopies & drive thru canopy _ CCD #36 - PHB slab edge g_ap @ exterior wall /revised wall layout 52,629.00 132,600.00 (5,928.001 79,971.00 2,842.00 0.00 CCD #37 - Precast concrete panel steel seat connections @ col. CCD #38 - Additional concrete tiebeams @ PHB holding area (7,078.001 4,583.00 0.00 PHASE 7; DRAWING A1.4 DATED 1/17/96 COP #52.2, PR #25 (2,842.001. 0.00 CCD #39 - PHB Sallyport SOG revisions 2,120.00 6,612.00 7,078.00 (4,583.001 CCD #40 - Diesel fuel tank reinforced concrete slab - PHB 3,085.00 0.00 CCD #41 - PHB holding area wall footing changes per RFP #18 CCD #42 - Add antenna pipe mounts to roof @ PHB (2,781.001 1,633.00 0.00 '4,492.00 COP # 60.1 COP #24.1, PR #11 COP # 33.2, AS1 #13 COP # 59 (3,085.001 0.00 CCD #43 - PHB Service Counter masonry/concrete /studs 7,589.00 0.00 CCD #44 - Change vacuum system type due to noise reduction 322.00 0.00 2,781.00 (1,633.001 (7,589.001 CCD #45 - VOID (322.001. VOID COP # 79, PR #43 COP # 37, PR#18 COP #72, PR #34 COP # 81, PR #36, ASI #19 COP # 103 CCD #46 - Delete non potable water service COB and PHB CCD #47 - Plumbing revisions per PR #26 only (1,138.001. 8,500.00 0.00 0.00 CCD #48 - Delete toilet, add lavatory in PHB public bathrooms CCD #49 - Electrical Value Engineering per Aneco 6/20/95 CCD #50 - Security conduit & boxes excl. from COP #56.1 1,392.00 0.00 (21,550.001 0.00 1,138.00 (8,500.001 (1,392.001 21,550.00 26,831.00 0.00 (26,831.00) COP # 88 COP # 75, PR #26 COP # 100, PR #48 COP # 70, PR #32 COP # 78, PR# 17 .OM • • • OM • • • • • MO MI I MO • • • • • 7 of 1'. PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION I ESTIMATED CCD #51 - Electrical revisions to COB & PHB CCD #52 - Electrical revisions only to COB & PHB PR #26 CCD #53 - Entrance & Drive thru canopy glass excl. in COP #52` CCD #54 - Add insulation abv ceilgs of loading docks & sally -p CCD #55 - Receptacle /circuit for PBX Rectifier UPS in COB 1,023.00 CCD #56 - Delete eyebrow painting/add fire stair painting CCD #57 - Unswtchd emerg circt for exit & night lights (COB/P 56,045.00 CCD #58 - Replace 3 outlets in COB EG209A with twist lock 500.00 CCD #59 - Provide conduit, boxes, holes for security access(PH CCD #60 - Provide all labor & materials associated with PR #42 CCD #61 - Updated Electrical plans for previous PR & as -built CCD #62.1 - Labor for updated Electrical plans for previous PR CCD #62.2 - Labor for updated Electrical plans for previous PR CCD #63.1 - Revise circuits, add/relocate receptacles in COB CCD #64 - Electrical/communications adds in COB CE213 CCD #65 - Add fire dampers behind COB atrium return air louv CCD #66 - Change mounting hei_ht of PHB Lobby light fixture 500.00 CCD #67 - Add antennae to COB /PHB penthouses CCD #68 - Generator /Fire Pump enclosure ' COB CCD #69 - Revised MEP,FP plans coord w/ Architectural PR #17) CCD #70 - Metal coping cap & wall panel @ screen wall B3/A9.13 CCD #71 - CMU /grout infill duct penetrations shearwalls CCD #72 - Owner requested electrical outlet revisions in COB 3,000.00 CCD #73 - Owner requested electrical revisions in PHB 3,000.00 CCD #74 - Electrical outlet revisions in COB CE102 1,000.00 CCD #75 - Relocate outlets in Staff Asst. Room #AC220 (PHB) CCD #76 - PBX supplier, UPS and rectifier conduit change (PHB) CCD #77 - Provide 4 -4" conduits from PHB EG204A to EG 108. CCD #78 - Add light fixtures above counter in COB AC203 CCD #79 - Provide floor outlets in COB CE3 I0 4,000.00 CCD #80 - Add fire dampers behind COB atrium return air louv CCD #81.1 - Provide elevator warning lights in COB/PI IB lobbies 43,786.00 900.00 ACTUAL (24,084.001 182,963.00 9,400.00 GMP BUDGET' DIFFERENCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,084.00 (182,963.00) 2,752.00 0.00 1,300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 778.00 0.00 0.00 REMARKS COP # 71p PR #33 COP # 85, PR #26 (92400.001 (2,752.00) (1,023.00) (1,300.001 (56,045.001 0.00 0.00 (500.00) COP # 102 COP #119 COP #140; to be adjusted for actual cost SCOPE ADJUSTMENT COP #164.1; incl some CCD #62 costs COP #165 (778.00) 0.00 43,892.00 0.00 0.00 39,824.00 0.00 1,169.00 0.00 (43,892.001 (43,786.00 (39,824.00) 0.00 (1,169.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 (900.00) 2,075.00 0.00 14,846.00 0.00 58,568.00 0.00 5,413.00 6,500.00 0.00 COP #141, PR #68 REPLACED BY CCD #61 & 62 COP #98, PR #42; MATERIALS ONLY 1. PR #42;Labor prior to CCD #62;TBN COP # 162;PR #42;Labor after CCD #62;TBN COP # 121;PR #56 COP # 158 COP #159; SEE CCD #80 (500.00) (2,075.00) (14,846.00) (58,568.00) 1,213.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 1,087.00 (1,213.001 (3,000.001 (3,000.00) (1,000.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 1,582.00 2,200.0() 0.00 0.00 VOID (4,000.00) (1,582.00) (2,200.00) COP #127, PR #60; excl. install, electric, paint COP # 15, PR #7 COP # 38.3, PR #17 COP # 77 COP #80 COP #171; TO BE NEGOTIATED COP #172; TO BE NEGOTIATED COP #I73; TO BE NEGOTIATED COP #108.1; PR #50;replaced by CCD# 106 COP #107; PR #49; replaced by CCD# 105 COP #99; PR #47; replaced by CCD# 109 COP #I79; work not performed COP #180; TO BE NEGOTIATED COP #159, supercedes CCD# 65 COP it 170 PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED ACTUAL GMP BUDGET CCD #82 - Finalization of electrical work for Detention Hardwa In CCD 86 0.00 DIFFERENCE REMARKS CCD #83 - Addpanic buttons;add auxiliary locks (COB) CCD #84 - Add two interior cameras and cabling (COB) CCD #85 - Provide video system in CE 117,118,119 (COB) CCD #86 - Finalization of electrical work for Security Access S CCD #87 - PR #10 - Generator/Fire Pump enclosure @ PHB CCD #88 - Additional motor starters for outside air units(COB/ CCD #89 - Add fire alarm strobes/horns in PHB CCD #90 - VOID CCD #91 - VOID 1,820.00 2,935.00 3,709.00 4,712.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,703.00 11,133.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CCD #92.1 - Swap PHB doors AC328B & AC317, hardware, card rdr CCD #93 - Junction box extensions @ acoustical panels 0.00 785.00 0.00 CCD #94 - Provide Zum strainer @ PHB terrance drain. 0.00 0.00 Costs in COP #191, CCD 86 (1,820.00). COP #146, PR #69; excl drywall,paint,ceilin (2,935.00), COP #147, PR #70;excl drywall, paint, ceiling, electric (31709.00) COP #148, PR #71; excl drywall, paint, ceiling, electric (4,712.00) COP #191; To be negotiated (32,703.00) COP # 22.1, PR# 10 (11,133.00)..COP # 114; PR #53 VOID COP # 120; PR #55; replaced by CCC# 103 VOID Replaced by CCD #115 VOID Replaced by CCD #116 (785.00) COP #189.1; PR #84 CCD #95 - Add power for PHB CCTV monitors in CE217 276.00 0.00 VOID Included in contract 0.00 CCD #96 - Provide security bars in PHB CE I I2 & EG 103 windows CCD #97 - Provide TV wall -yoke mount in PHB AC 11 l CCD #98 - Add louvers not shown in louver schedule (COB /PH CCD #99 - Mount exterior trash receptacles to esplanades 0.00 0.00 0.00 CCD #100 - Provide 2 additional louvers in PHB boiler room wall 498.00 0.00 (276.001, COP # 90, RFI# 183 VOID Replaced by CCD #I04 VOID COP #168;PR #76;voided per RAI 9/16/96 VOID COP #136, PR #64;voided per RAI 9/16/96 VOID Replaced by CCD #101 746.00 0.00 CCD #101 - Add louvers not shown in louver schedule (COB /P CCD #102 - Delete circuits in COB Traffic AC317 2,157.00 0.00 CCD #103 - Add fire alarm strobes/horns in PHB CCD #104 - Add power for PHB CCTV monitors in CE217 CCD #105 - PBX supplier, UPS and rectifier conduit change (PHB) CCD #106 - Relocate outlets in Staff Asst. Room #AC220 (PHB CCD #107 - PR #8R - Mechanical screen wall enclosures CCD #108 - CCD #I09 - Provide 4 -4" conduits from PHB EG204A to EG 108. CCD #110 - Credit for incorrect plastering & texture coating (576.001 0.00 1,973.00 0.00 1,551.98 0.00 181.60 0.00 347.00 0.00 75,621.00 44,118.00 3,729.75 0.00 CCD #111.1 - Provide metal roofing at COB drive thru canopy; $3580 CCD #112 - Locker & bench revisions per approved submittals I CCD 11113 - Add counter desk to Adult & Juvenile Booking (P1113) (6,570.00), 0.00 (498.00),COP #174; PR #77 (746.00) COP #178;PR #81;alternate deduct accepted (2,157.001 COP #I45, RFI #208 ' 576.00 COP #139, PR #67 (1,973.00) COP # 120; PR #55; revised BY ANECO (1,551.981, COP #I22, PR #57;excluding drywall;disputed (181.60) COP #I07; PR #49 (347.00), COP #108.1; PR #50;revised BY ANECO (31,503.00), COP # 16.1, PR #8R COP #I52, PR #72 (3,729.75).COP #99; PR #47 6,570.00 COP #131.1 2,387.00 0.00 (220.00) 0.00 3,154.00 0.00 (2,387.00) COP #135, PR #63;Nu -Tec approved VE price 220.00 COP #166.I; painting existing lockers deleted (3,154.00) COI' //134.1, PR #6I, ser value en ineerin PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: DESCRIPTION CCD #114 - VOID 03/07/97 CCD #I15 - Coordination of PHB hardware for detention/security ESTIMATED • MO • • • • 9ac19- ACTUAL GMP BUDGET CCD #116 - Finalization of Security Access System CCD #I17 - Add two mogul key switches to PHB door CE124B CCD #118 - Add cut in boxes & telephone cable in 5 locations(PHB) CCD #119 - PHB PBX and UPS room revisions. CCD #120 - Plaster soffits/jambs @ OH doors (COB & PHB) CCD #121 - Toilet parts. & access PHB toilet revisions CCD #122 - Steel angle supports for interior curtain wall (PHB1 CCD #123.1 - Add door louvers in COB generator building CCD #124 - Add raised computer floor in PHB Corridor C 2 1 . CCD #125 - Delete safety track/bottom fixtures frm Sally Port C CCD #126.1 - Add video library closets to PHB 3rd floor. CCD #127 - Add epoxy sanded coating in PHB Holding Cell are CCD #128 - VOID 3,670.00 0.00 0.00 DIFFERENCE REMARKS 8,189.00 718.00 0.00 0.00 VOID Combined into CCD #I36 (3,670.00) COP #186; PR #82R (8,189.00) COP #187; PR #83 468.00 0.00 1,659.00 2,277.00 3,260.00 2,310.00 1,423.00 1,084.00 (288.00) 2,162.00 2,775.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CCD #I29 - Civil plan revisions • CCD #130 - Computer floor /masonite in CE206 & masonite in CCD #131 - CCD #132 - COB 3rd floor shower floor slab demo /rework CCD #133 - Mechanical HVAC only revisions COB & PHB CCD #134 - Add frming, drywll & insul above windows (COB/ CCD #135 - Roofing for COB generator /fire pump building 0.00 (718.00) COP # 192;_per approved shop drawings (468.001 COP #150, PR #73 (1,659.00) COP # 92, PR #40; Excludes mech & elec (2,277.00). COP # 109; PR #51 (3,260.00)COP # 113.1; PR #48 (2,310.001 COP #142 (1,423.001 COP #143; per approved submittals (1,084.00)_COP #144 288.00 COP #161 (2,162.001 COP # 97, PR #46 (2,775.00LCOP #160, Phase 6, Addendum I VOID Combined into CCD #I36 6,616.00 978.00 290.00 4,228.00 479.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CCD #I36 - Add antennae to COB /PHB penthouses(excl frm C CCD #137 - Add weatherstrip, shoe & t -hold to PHB door EG204 6,094.00 1,809.00 CCD #I38.1 - Add 15 R. A. grilles & revise grid layout in PHB CCD #139 - Sound reduction on Carrier Chillers per Bentzel letter 8/11/95 CCD #140.1 - Provide supply air to EG209A in PHB 263.00 755.00 6,245.00 CCD #141 - 351.00 CCD #142 - Glazing changes (delete flashing and add soffit trim CCD #143 - Add HVAC units in PHB (2,205.00). CCD #144.I - Emergency generator exhaust piping_ CCD #145 - Add ball valve & drain pipe to COB /PHB fire pumps 10,843.00 5,926.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 419.00 0.00 (6,616.00) COP It 47. I,PR#27, incl. Chiller plant credit $29,204 (978.00) COP #123.I COP # 83.1; includes COP # 126; PR #59 (290.00) COP # 105 (4,228.00) COP # 68.1, PR #26 ' (479.00) COP #I32 (1,809.00)._COP #149, PR #7; Nu -Tec apprvd reduction (6,094.001 COP# 151,156,177;PR #34.1 &60;disputed by Aneco (263.00), COP #203; PR #91 (755.00) COP #130, PR #62 (6,245.00)4C0P # 42 (351.00) COP #125 COP # 62, ASI# 15 2,205.00 COP # 57.2; per meeting 2/11/97 (10,843.001 COP #211; PR #97 (5,926.00) COP #I15; PR #54 (419.00) COP #199; PR #87 AIM MO MB UM NM NM I NM O MI MI MN I • 10 ova ict PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION CCD #146 - Add pipe suspension system to COB Studio CE329 CCD #147 - Upgrade caulking in PHB Holding Cell areas to epoxy CCD #148 - Add horns/strobes in PHB; relocate EPO CCD #149 - Add emer enc li ' hts in PHB CE115 & BD101 CCD #150 - Change lights, OH doors & fans to emergency pow CCD #151 - Add steel angle railings @ PHB penthouse duct cha CCD #I52 - PHB /COB chiller railings;intermed rail @ Smoking ESTIMATED ACTUAL GMP BUDGET 11,918.00 0.00 10,466.00 725.00 2,500.00 10,300.00 715.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DIFFERENCE (11,918.001 COP (715.00) COP (10,466.001 COP (725.00) COP 0.00 0.00 CCD #154.1 - Visual alarm to alert of boiler shut down in PHB CCD #155 - Installation of bollards per Rowe memo of 2/22/96 CCD #156 - Wheel chair ramp at PHB Smoking Deck CCD #157 - Add acoustical ceilings in Property Evidence Room CCD #158 - Add domestic hot water sensor in PHB CCD #159 - Add steel angle railings @ COB penthouse duct ch CCD #160 - Provide supply air to PHB S302;_ add plates to AH CCD #161 - Provide TeVCom backboards in PHB CE214 & EG204A CCD #I62 - Locate 911 transformer in Electrical Rm C204 (PH l CCD #I63 - Provide window header steel @ COB & PHB CCD #I64 - Add card rdrs @ PHB doors CE! 18A &B; change lock 1,000.00 2,000.00 15,000.00 CCD #168 - PHB masonry screen wall @ West property line (PR# 16) CCD #I69 - Credit for shorter flagpoles & sleeves at COB /PHB I CCD #170 - Add concrete bench deleted from Holding Cell CE 125 CCD #171 - Additions to COB reception desk & cashier counter' CCD # 172 - RFP #22 (Glazing changes per shop drwgs 08925 -02 -A) CCD #I73 - Interior Glazing per Phase 6 Documents 7/18/95 COP (2,500.00LCOP (10,300.001 COP REMARKS # 67.1, PR #30 #212 #220; TO BE NEGOTIATED #223; TO BE NEGOTIATED #225; Owner does not authorize work #226; TO BE NEGOTIATED #227; TO BE NEGOTIATED 948.00 0.00 578.00 2,500.00 7,281.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,041.00 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 CCD #165 - Relocate temperature sensor's in PHB CE208 & CE CCD #I66 - Add exit light in COB AC210 CCD #I67 - Add emergency lighting & fire alarm devices in CC 2,311.00 0.00 467.00 0.00 1,726.00 0.00 6,725.00 0.00 2,290.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,506.00 0.00 (1,080.001. 279.00 0.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 (10,582.00). 0.00 3,438.00 0.00 (948.001COP #229 (7,281.00) COP #167 (578.001 COP #228; TO BE NEGOTIATED (2,500.00) COP #230; TO BE NEGOTIATED (2,041.00) COP #232; TO BE NEGOTIATED (2,500.00) COP #234; TO BE NEGOTIATED (2,311.001 COP #218 (467.00) COP #153, PR #74, & owner request (1,726.001-COP #137, PR #65 (6,725.00). COP #224 (2,290.00) COP #214; PR #94 (1,000.001 COP #24I; TO BE NEGOTIATED '(2,000.00), COP #216; PR #99; TO BE NEGOTIATED (15,000.001 COP #I98; PR #86; TO BE NEGOTIATED (19,506.00), COP # 35.2, PR #16 1,080.00 COP #176; per approved shop drawings (279.001 COP #201; PR #89 (750.001 COP #194 10,582.00 COP # 36.1, PR #22 (3,438.00) COP # 45.1 PENDING CCDs / Contingency Adjustment Request (COP) Ph 6 - Drywall partition clarifications & scope changes l 1,694.00 0.00 (1,694 00) COP # 62, ASI# 15 •- 1.11 111111 In MO MI i♦ MO OM OM NM OM IM 11 ►'t PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION VE - Eliminate item # 2 ESTIMATED (223.001 ACTUAL GMP BUDGET I_ DIFFERENCE 0.00 223.00 Upgrade gas piping_from 3" to 4" PHB riser diagram 1,611.00 0.00 COB PBX and UPS room revisions. Dlt GWB wall @ shield storage, Add chain link fence. (445.00). 0.00 (1,611.001 445.00 (186.00).. 0.00 186.00 Revise steel support for folding/accordian doors(PHB) 817.00 0.00 PHB -stair chase wall & salllyport ceiling beams 2,860.00 0.00 Relocate outlets in PHB AC322 & AC2I3 1,919.00 0.00 Add wood blocking & stucco at Sally -port OH doors Wiring from battery compartment to UPS (PHB) Closures from CMU to deck at joist in PHB Cost to run elevator for owner supplied equipment Ceiling repairs due to previous PR work above ceilings Relocate furniture j -boxes in PHB AC308 Extend furniture poke- throughs in PHB CE207 Change HM door frames due to security hdwr change Regrade COB Pierce St. drive; too steep as designed Replace broken canopy glass at COB Communications changes COB /PHB;owner requests Power to PHB front counter furniture 469.00 0.00 (817.001 (2,860.001 (1,919.001 507.00 0.00 3,240.00 729.00 0.00 0.00 (469.00) (507.001 (3,240.00) 15,036.00 0.00 1,060.00 0.00 (729.001 (15,036.001 2,073.00 0.00 359.00 0.00 (1,060.001 (2,073.001 1,750.00 0.00 1,050.00 0.00 24,609.00 0.00 348.00 Deduct two thirds cost of dedication plaques CMU /grout infill duct penetrations @ shearwalls (PHB) (723.00), 722.00 0.00 0.00 (359.001 (1,750.001 (1,050.001 (24,609.001 (348.001 723.00 REMARKS COP # 62, ASI# 15 COP # 83.1; includes COP # 126; PR #59 COP # 91, PR #39; Excl. drywall, mech, elec COP # 96, PR #45 COP #112; PR #52 COP #133 COP #I52, PR #72 COP #154; pending PR from Rowe COP #163 COP #I69; RFl #206 COP #I82 COP #205 COP #206; PR #95 COP #207: PR #96 COP #209 COP #217; owner request COP #233 COP #235 COP #236 COP #237 0.00 Service call to clean COB fire pump strainer screen 220.00 0.00 ' (722.001 Provide cast floor boxes in PHB 2nd fir Computer Rm 3,137.00 0.00 Provide fire protection control wiring& smoke detectors 10,755.00 0.00 2 emerg/2 comm outlets in PHB CE2I0per J. Albright 736.00 0.00 (220.00) COP #238 COP #239 (3,137.001.COP #240 (I 0,755.001. Add floor tille outside COB Door C115 554.00 0.00 Rem /reinst PHB drs C209 & EG210A for owner UPS 828.00 0.00 Repair drywall at security system penetrations. 1,081.00 0.00 Fill depressed COB floor slabs where tile not used 709.00 0.00 (736.001 COP #242 COP #243 (554.001. (828.00) (1,081.00) Temporary by pass for PHB UPS Pipe power into PHB C208 communications rack Relocate lights & outlets in P1 1B EG207 & 208 609.00 0.00 324.00 0.00 177.00 0.00 COP #247 COP #248 (709.00), (609.00) (324.00) (177.00) COP #250 COP #253 COP #257 COP #258 COP #259 •- • • MI MO • MO • I • N IIIII 11111 111111 MO MN MN MN • 12 op PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED ACTUAL GMP BUDGET DIFFERENCE REMARKS ESTIMATES (EST) below this line represent "plug" numbers EST: Ice maker drain and CW connection @ COB dock. EST: Revised directional boring plan per CSX permit. EST: New diesel fuel tank location EST: Temporary locks & doors 780.00 0.00 4,000.00 0.00 166.00 0.00 EST: Addendum 7 floor finish changes EST: Gypsum board soffits under monumental stairs EST: Drywall/paint work excluded from COP 108 EST: Credit for closure angles on hollow metal frames EST: Credit for HM frames, glazing, hardware & doors EST: Raise outlets in COB AC 102 EST: Delete paint on property line side of PHB retaining wall EST: Relocate PHB ladder to chiller platform EST: Flooring repairs due to owner /vendors removal/damage EST: Credit to use Creative Ind. deal trays @ PHB counter EST: Provide TV platform mount in PHB Lobby ACI I I EST: Cut return air in wall between PHB CE205 & CE202 EST: Construct kneewall to support PHB pistol locker EST: Move VCR shelving in PHB EG207 & 208 EST: Rework flr outlets perphone enclosures requirements EST: Add sprinkler head in PHB vacuum closet EST: Run power into comm rack in PHB C208 per owner EST: Temporary bypass to power 911 until existing UPS move EST: Additional conduit for detention hardware @ Cell doors EST: Thicken south wall of PHB CE209 for electrical panel EST: Ceiling work for CCD #160 ductwork EST: Painting rework due to PR work EST: Conduit for Holding Cell area doors security wiring EST: Wire charger for Holding Cell area transformer backup EST: Relayout parking /curb a I'1-113 due to new plan 4,000.00 0.00 1,030.00 3,974.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (780.00) COP # 95, PR #44; reduced 'er RAI 9/16/96 (4,000.00) COP # 101 COP # 104 (4,000.001 COP # 110 (1,030.001 COP # 116 (3,974.00) COP # 124 (873.001_ 300.00 0.00 0.00 (524.00) 0.00 400.00 0.00 3,200.00 0.00 (137.001 0.00 700.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 510.00 0.00 550.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 324.00 0.00 609.00 0.00 410.00 0.00 224.00 0.00 334.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 405.00 0.00 (550.00) (5 900.00 325.00 0.00 0.00 (166.001 (300.00) COP # 128; PR #50; elec work in CCD #I06 COP #183; PR #79 COP #184; PR #80 COP #196 COP #202; PR #90 COP #204; PR #93 3,200.00) COP #208 COP #210 COP #213; PR #92 COP #215; PR #98 COP #219 COP #221; PR #100 (500.00) COP #222; ASI #37 (150.00)_COP #231 (324.001 COP #244 (609.00) COP #245 (410.001 COP #246 (224.001 COP #249 (334.001 COP #251 (5,000.001 COP #252 (405.00) COP #254 (900.00) 11 COP #255 325.0 COP #256 0.00 873.00 (300.00) 524.00 (400.00) 137.00 (700.001 (200.001 (510.001 ) • • I • • • • MI • r • = • PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED ACTUAL GMP BUDGET DIFFERENCE GC FEE & GENERAL CONDITIONS Based on Contingency Deficit Shown Below REMARKS 50,912.00 0.00 (50,912.00)_ • -- - - - - • - - I 1- •- PROGRESS REPORT 9. CONTINGENCY ADJUSTMENT LOG CLEARWATER CITY SERVICES CENTER DATE: 03/07/97 DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED , ACTUAL GMP BUDGET DIFFERENCE REMARKS - COLUMN GRAND TOTALS 3,022,413.98. 13,671,540.35 15,460,237.00 (1,233,717.33) REVISED CONTINGENCY AMOUNT: GMP ORIGINAL CONTINGENCY 12/21/94: LESS TOTAL OF DIFFERENCE COLUMN: REVISED CONTINGENCY AMOUNT: 627,058.00 (1,233,717.33) (606,659.33) OTHER AVAILABLE FUNDS PER ROWE ARCHITECTS: OWNERS CHANGE ORDER CONTINGENCY: RAI 1/30/96 ESTIMATE OF OTHER AVAILABLE FUNDS: ESTIMATE OF EOC GRANT FUNDS: ESTIMATE OF AVAILABLE FURNITURE CONTINGENCY: TOTAL: 305,040.00 200,000.00 10,000.00 3,652.00 518,692.00 TOTAL OF REMAINING FUNDS: REVISED CONTINGENCY AMOUNT: OTHER AVAILABLE FUNDS: REMAINING FUNDS: (606,659.33) 518,692.00 (87,967.33) CONTRACT VS. CONSTRUCTION COSTS SUMMARY: TOTAL OF GMP BUDGET COLUMN: GMP ORIGINAL CONTINGENCY 12/21/94: GMP THROUGH CHANGE ORDER #2: LESS TOTAL OF ESTIMATED & ACTUAL COLUMNS: REVISED CONTINGENCY AMOUNT: 15,460,237.00 627,058.00 16,087,295.00 16,693,954.33 (606,659.33) co I W OM • NM •=II M NM MO M r M MO U NM i- X- UM 'Printed from MCCO]A. 95 i/3/ 95 ITEM #19 - Approval of Municipal Service & Public Safety Complex Building Program IIThe City has executed two major contracts to accomplish the completion of its Municipal Services Complex project. The City Commission approved an agreement with Rowe Architects Inc. / Donnell Consultants Inc. providing for a full range of professional services for a lump sum of $1.5- million. The contract lump sum includes all architectural design, engineering, cost estimation, floor layout, geotechnical, project management, and all other services identified in the agreement. The City also has executed a contract with Creative -Beers Contractors . providing for collaboration with the Architect in the project's design, obtaining competitive bids from sub- contractors who will perform the work; supervising, administering, standing for sub - contractors who work under the Creative - Beers' contract; and providing all incidental and support services (field office, barricades, fencing, etc.). The contractor's fees total $1.39 - million and are changeable only upon an approved increase in the project scope. In this methodology, it is recognized that design documents may result in costs that exceed the owners' budget in spite of collaborative efforts of various parties. The agreement provides the Contractor (Creative- Beers) identifies a "Guaranteed Maximum Price" (GMP) at the time of receipt and examination of construction bids for the first phase of work. A competitively -bid price of $2,007,191 was received for Phase I work: site preparation; foundations; and building frames for the Administration and Police buildings. The contractor used these figures and other data to develop a GMP of $15,875,000 for the total project. The current approved budget for elements included in the GMP is $16,180,000. Had Creative - Beers been unable to provide a GMP within the approved budget, the City could have voided its agreement with them and engaged another contractor. IAssistant City Attorney Bill Baker noted the contract with the consultants require Rowe Architects Inc., Donnell Consultants Inc., and Creative -Beers I to collaborate to devise a GMP necessary to erect a building within the budget approved by the Commission on June 16, 1994. The Guaranteed Maximum Price is approximately $305,000 less than the approved budget. Mr. Baker referred to a list of items in which the Commission had previously ' expressed an interest. He indicated the GMP includes storm proofing by use of laminated glass of both the Administrative and Police buildings. ' He noted enlarging the garage's fourth floor would add 54 spaces to the II planned 498 and add $165,852 to the project's cost. He pointed out approximately 30 street spaces will be located in the vicinity. He suggested if the Commission approves progressing with the project as presented, he will come back for City Commission direction should it ' become evident that extra items can be included. Mr. Baker referred to the list and noted the gas air conditioning listed via a central plant and water cooled chillers for an estimated additional cost of $709,208 was a top of the line system. He noted the GMP includes electric air conditioners mounted on the roofs of the buildings, not from a central plant. He said staff will further examine if it is possible to install air cooled gas air conditioning on the ground level and will come back to the Commission if it is possible. Commissioner Thomas indicated there was a contradiction in the presentation. He pointed out Dean Rowe quoted the cost of upgrading the air - conditioning mechanicals at $475,000. He expressed concern the GMP should include the upgraded mechanical. Dean Rowe said the GMP includes roof mounted air cooled chillers which are not economy models. He said they were unable to include in the GMP a central plant with gas fired water cooled chillers. He said they have only hard bid the Phase I work which consists of the foundations, site work, and steel frame. The GMP was developed from documents that are estimates. He said they still have work to do before they bid the systems portion of the building. He indicated they will try to improve the quality of the building as they go through the bidding process. He noted a 5% contingency is included in the GMP. Commissioner Thomas indicated he and Mr. Rowe had a clear and concise conversation regarding air conditioning. He said he asked for, and the Commission approved, the inclusion of the best, most energy efficient, air - conditioning system. Commissioner Thomas said Mr. Rowe had indicated that upgrade would add $475,000 to the project's cost. Mr. Rowe agreed that was correct. Commissioner Thomas noted the City asked for the very best air - conditioning system and included its cost in the budget. He expressed concern that the GMP is not "apples to apples" based on what the Commission had adopted. Mr. Rowe noted the project adopted by the Commission was reduced by $1,135,000 from the one originally proposed. He said when the cost per square foot was reduced, he had indicated to the Commission it would be difficult to make that budget and keep the upgraded mechanical. He noted construction costs recently have increased dramatically and they are trying to come up with a GMP, get the construction started, and continue to work to upgrade the systems. Mayor Garvey questioned if the air - conditioning being proposed is energy efficient. Mr. Rowe said it was efficient and not an economy model. Commissioner Berfield questioned when the budget was increased by $475,000 for the upgraded air conditioning, she understood that was a gas air - conditioning system. Commissioner Thomas said he did not discuss how it would be accomplished during his conversation with Mr. Rowe. He said he had requested the very best, most efficient system and Mr. Rowe estimated its cost would be $475,000. Commissioner Thomas expressed concern that Mr. Rowe reduced the mechanicals to get to a cost of $65 /square foot. Mr. Rowe indicated approximately $1- million of contingency is included in the overall $16,180,000 cost. Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Rowe used the mechanicals of the building to reduce the square foot cost. Mr. Rowe said they had to deal with the budget. ' Commissioner Thomas expressed concern with the ro ect's air p j conditioning. He questioned if the savings the City would accrue by using gas to cool 11 the buildings would result in a payback of the $709,208 cost to upgrade. III Ron Macllvene of Architect Engineering estimated the life cycle savings from using gas would be just under $200,000. Commissioner Thomas Irequested that estimate be refigured and based on the City's cost for gas. Mr. Rowe indicated he will be meeting with Chuck Warrington, Managing Director of the Gas System. Commissioner Thomas noted spaces in the parking garage cost $5,000 each Iand noted 54 spaces could be added at a 400 reduction in that cost. Mr. Rowe agreed that would be a good bargain. He said the garage will not be built until August and indicated if the dollars are available then, the extra spaces will be added. ICommissioner Deegan referred to the new inclusion of the print shop for $ 139,621. He questioned if 3,000 square feet would reduce the 498 spaces. Mr. Rowe said 498 spaces results from this change and a loss of 16 spaces. 1 'Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to the $2- million bid for Phase I work that includes site preparation, foundations, and building frames for the administration and police buildings. He noted the garage is not mentioned and questioned if the garage is not included in Phase I. Mr. Rowe said Ithe garage is not in Phase I because it cannot be started until the present Police building is razed. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned if the $15,875,000 GMP includes the garage. Mr. Rowe indicated that price IIincludes all four elements: 1) the municipal services building, 2) the Police building; 3) the garage; and 4) upgrading City Hall. Commissioner Fitzgerald pointed out that is not the total cost because it does not 'include architecture fees. Mr. Rowe agreed and noted listed project costs not included in the GMP also include furniture, tests /inspections, utilities, landscaping, and moving costs. Commissioner Fitzgerald noted the GMP related to construction costa but does not cover all the other IIfees. He agreed with Commissioner Thomas' complaint regarding the air conditioning that the system was to have been significantly upgraded to include gas. Mayor Garvey thought the Commission had indicated they 'wanted the most efficient system but there is a limit on what the City can spend. Commissioner Deegan agreed. He did not recall the Commission indicating it wanted "the very best system possible." He suggested the ICommission had requested a system upgrade but not "the very best." Commissioner Thomas said the Commission had expressed concern about energy efficiency. Commissioner Deegan agreed with the need for an energy sufficient system but not the absolute best. IIAlan Bomstein of Creative -Beers said possible upgrades to the air - conditioning system would include an ice storage system or a gas system. Besides those two alternatives, the proposed system is pretty much a top - of- the -line, institutional quality, air - conditioning system with electric, 'high efficiency, state -of- the -art chillers and appropriate water tower cooling systems. He indicated the ice storage system was discarded because its economy requires the manufacturing of ice during the right I using lower priced power. As the Police Department is a 24 -hour operation, there is no efficiency in attempting to use low -cost evening pcwer. Mr. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bomstein indicated they reviewed the gas upgrade and will continue to look at it. He stated the upfront cost of gas air conditioning was so extensive that the City could not recover that expense through lower power bills. He noted other logistical problems with gas include a requirement for noise abatement and a remote location for the chillers. Mr. Rowe presented an updated model that includes the amount of glass that will be used and the configuration of the Police building. The exterior skin will be bid in late February. Commissioner Thomas referred to the parking garage and questioned if money is saved, the Commission could pick from a list of things to include. Mr. Rowe agreed. He said he has been working with City departments to pin down where fixed walls will be located, etc. He said that is going well. The City Manager indicated they are staying with the open office plan to allow for flexibility. Ms. Deptula invited the Commission and citizens to a ground breaking ceremony on January 17, 1995, at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Thomas said he would like to do the base approval before referring to the checklist. Commissioner Thomas moved to approve the Guaranteed Maximum Price of $15, 875,000. The motion was duly seconded. Commissioners Berfield, Deegan, Thomas and Mayor Garvey voted "Aye "; Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "Nay." Commissioner Fitzgerald said he has not agreed with the project all along. Commissioner Thomas moved that, based on savings available, the first area to be improved will be to fill out the garage because of the tremendous discount on the additional parking spaces. Commissioner Deegan recommended first discussing the costs included in the GMP. There was no second to the motion. Commissioner Deegan moved to ensure that the expense for stormproofing the police and administration buildings by using laminated gas is included in the GMP. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Deegan moved that locating the print shop in the garage be included in the GMP. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously Commissioner Thomas requested the City Manager make the decision regarding extra spaces in the parking garage if money is available. Commissioner Deegan recommended spending any savings on project costs not included in the GMP. Commissioner Thomas said the soft costs for furniture etc. are easier to stretch out. He noted hard costs, such as structural components, cannot be stretched out or postponed. Commissioner Deegan agreed that 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 would be important if it is a certainty that the extra parking spaces are as important as furniture or other soft costs. He suggested the Commission cannot choose priorities until "savings" are identified. Commissioner Thomas agreed it was not necessary to address this issue now. He requested information on the payback on savings that would result from an upgrade to the air - conditioning system. Commissioner Berfield questioned if the upgrade of $709,208 was in addition to the $475,000 budgeted for a mechanical upgrade. Mr. Rowe said the $709,208 is the additional cost to install a gas system with a central plant and water chilled coolers. Mr. Bomstein said $475,000 is included in the budget. Upgrading to the gas system would cost an additional $709, 208. Commissioner Thomas thanked everybody for their participation on the Municipal Services complex planning. NMI N• NM MN M MI OM OM - - • -- I MI NM MI MN 1 1 1 1 i Cry Manager C I T Y O F C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34318 -4748 1 1 1 January 6, 1995 Creative/Beers, A Joint Venture 620 Drew Street Clearwater, FL 34615 Attention: Frank Frallck/Alan Bornstein Re: Clearwater City Services Center GENTLEMEN: In accordance with Article 2.2.2 of the Agreement Between Owner and General Contractor for the referenced project dated August 15, 1994 please consider this letter your official Notice to Proceed as of January 4, 1995 and as approved by action of the City Commission at their meeting of January 3, 1995. The Guaranteed Maximum Price shall be as detailed in the Recommended Motions and Action approved at the above mentioned meeting and further delineated in the GMP Estimate Booklet prepared and presented by the General Contractor on December 21, 1994. As per the contract requirements, the General Contractor has ten (10) days from January 4, 1995 to mobilize and commence actual work on the project. ' Sincerely, • 1 William C. Baker Assistant City Manager cc: Mayor and City Commission Betty Deptula, City Manager Kathy S. Rice, Deputy City Manager Dean Rowe, Rowe Architects, Inc. "Equal Employment and Allirmally• Action Employer"