Laserfiche WebLink
June 18, 2007 (Regular Meeting) <br />(G-6) Ware Bonsall Contract Amendment #il <br />Page 476 <br />Mike Downs, Deputy County Manager, reported the Ware Bonsall contract <br />amendment #11 is to recapture costs associated with the longer than <br />anticipated review process with the State and the City of Concord. He said <br />Ware Bonsall is proposing to be reimbursed for the additional hours needed to <br />make design modifications to the original facility plans in order to meet <br />City requirements. The proposed contract amendment is for $75,600. <br />In response to questions from Vice Chairman Juba and Commissioner <br />White, Glenn Ware of Ware Bonsall Architects, reported changes in materials ' <br />and subsequent redesign of the project resulted from new conditions placed on <br />the project as a result of the Conditional Use permitting process with <br />Concord. He further reported Concord required the firm to complete and <br />submit all the construction documents in total before they would be reviewed. <br />He also identified every aspect of the architectural drawings that were <br />affected by changing .the exterior of the building from precast concrete to <br />brick. <br />Chairman Carruth asked if there was any consideration from the Board <br />for Amendment No. 11. <br />Commissioner White stated he was uncomfortable with agreeing to the <br />entire amount at thistime. <br />Vice Chairman Juba reported changing construction materials often <br />requires redesign to accommodate the new materials. She also commented that <br />time and money could have been saved if Concord had looked at the documents <br />early in the process. <br />John Day, County Manager, reported City staff was asked to review and <br />make suggestions about changes in materials, but was reluctant to do so not <br />knowing what might happen in the Conditional Use hearing. Inevitably, <br />Concord still required the construction drawings be'completed in order to <br />make considerations. <br />Commissioner White stated the need for additional information from the ' <br />firm. <br />Chairman Carruth recommended the Board table this discussion until the <br />July agenda work session. <br />UPON MOTION of Commissioner White, seconded by Vice Chairman Juba and <br />unanimously carried, the Board tabled its consideration of Ware Bonsall <br />Contract Amendment #11 until the July 2, 2007 agenda work session. <br />(G-7) Ware Bonsall Contract Amendment #12 <br />Mike Downs, Deputy County Manager, reported Ware Bonsall contract <br />Amendment #12 is to allocate more time and funding for on site construction <br />supervision which is being expended at an unexpected rate. The proposed <br />contract amendment is for $113,500.00 for 78 additional architect site visits <br />and 10 civil engineer site visits. <br />Glenn Ware, of Ware Bonsall Architects, explained the original contract <br />was for 29 months. At that time, he said the firm anticipated building the <br />entire project at one time and bidding the project to a single prime <br />contractor. However, the Board chose to use a Construction Manager at Risk. <br />He further explained the original contract contained a provision for a full- <br />time on site representative and 96 site visits. When the contract was <br />submitted to the Board, he said the full-time on site representative was not <br />approved. He went on. to explain what a site visit entails, the purpose of <br />the visits and how the construction on the project had started but the <br />construction schedule had slipped. He pointed out a notice to proceed was ' <br />received on May 18, 2006 for site development, the Annex and the tunnel. <br />However, he said the notice to proceed for the administration building was <br />not received until December 2006. To account for theslippage in the <br />construction schedule,. he reported six additional site visits per month are <br />needed to complete the project. He also pointed out the scheduled completion <br />date for the Administration building is November 2006 and their contract ends <br />on May 18, 2008. As a result, he said there is a six month period where the <br />architectural firm is not covered for site visits. <br />Mr. Ware responded to a variety of questions from the Board on quality <br />control, liability issues, etc. <br />