Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-30-1999 - 9dORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 30, 1999 Action Agenda Item No. 9-d SUBJECT: Value Engineering Consultant Selection DEPARTMENT: Purchasing & Central Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Scope of work statement from PES Cost proposal INFORMATION CONTACT: John Link, extension 2300 Paul Thames, extension 2300 Pam Jones, extension 2652 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Chapel Hill 968 -4501 Durham 688 -7331 Mebane 336- 227 -2031 PURPOSE: To consider authorizing County staff to complete negotiations on an agreement with Pacific Environmental Services (PES) to conduct constructibility reviews for two schools; and to endorse a second phase of the selection process for a value engineering firm. BACKGROUND: The desire of the County Commissioners to gain better control of resources associated with construction of County and school facilities is well documented. Value engineering was identified as a potential answer to this issue. As clarification, value engineering is a process whereby each and every aspect of a project is reviewed by an unbiased third party, in collaboration with the other key players, such as the designer and school and /or County personnel. In order to ensure that value- engineering resources were available for the school projects during the summer, the selection panel went through an intensive process with strident time constraints to bring forward a recommendation for Board consideration. The selection process was enlightening and brought new perspective about what a whole value- engineering program should be and what could be expected of a properly carried out program. The interviewing consultants supported what we have heard before, value engineering is most effective with it is begun early in project development. Since bidding for the middle school project in Chapel Hill and the elementary school in Orange County is imminent, these projects could not experience the full benefit of value engineering. If the Commissioners desire to pursue any functional elements of value engineering for these two projects, it is recommended that the Board consider retaining Pacific Environmental Services (PES) to conduct constructibility reviews for the projects. Though not a total value engineering process, constructibility reviews in these two projects can yield significant benefits, according to PES. The scope of work for the constructibility review is attached for your information. It would involve intensive review work for one week and would focus on items that would require minimum design change, but where significant cost savings could be expected. Additionally, the consultant indicates that this process fine - tunes the specifications, thereby avoiding conflicts with contractors when construction begins. This in turn prevents many change orders during the project. As you are well aware, change orders are usually costly and can add significant time to a project. The constructibility review would therefore minimize the entity's exposure to law suits and claims for additional money after the project is completed. The cost quoted cited by PES for this work is $39,295 per school. Although the cost is significant, PES indicates that each project will easily surpass the fee in the amount saved on the project and it will provide a good benchmark for us to more fully understand the benefits of the value engineering process. A complete report detailing the substance of the savings will be provided by PES at the end of the review process. We believe that there are other firms who we may want to consider in terms of the long term value engineering program established for County and school projects. Because of the ambitious schedule in which the selection process was carried out, it is possible that there are other value - engineering firms who might respond to our request if the timeframe were to be extended. It seems prudent therefore that a second assessment panel be convened in late summer -early fall to consider the results of a second solicitation. Assuming that the Board approves this plan to acquire value- engineering services, it is further recommended that the Manager communicate to the Superintendents the Board's desire to see value engineering incorporated into the earliest stages of development for any school. This would be particularly important as it respects the design development of the new high school for the Orange County system. FINANCIAL IMPACT: It is recommended that funds to cover costs for this work be appropriated from School Capital Project Fund Balance. Potential project savings will offset the cost of this appropriation. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board authorize County staff to complete negotiations on an agreement with Pacific Environmental Services to conduct constructibility reviews for two schools, whose total cost shall not exceed $78,590; authorize the Manager to sign the resulting agreement; to endorse a second phase of the selection process for a value engineering firm; and to direct the Manager to communicate to the School Superintendents, the Board's intentions for value engineering on future school projects. SCOPE OF WORK ORANGE COUNTY, NC CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWNALUE REVIEW A Constructability Review (CR)Nalue Review (VR) will be conducted by Pacific Environmental Services (PES) on the final design and shall consist of one team study by a multi - disciplined team of professionals meeting on consecutive work days. The team (hereinafter referred to as the CRT) will conduct a Constructability review, concentrating on the appropriateness of the design documents, based on the proposed materials, project location, and current standard construction practices, as well as an abbreviated value review where alternatives will be presented for consideration by the design team that enhance overall value on a life cycle basis (LCC). The CRT will provide specific recommendations for changes to contract documents to improve constructability, reduce cost without deteriorating quality or function and meet or exceed special scheduling requirements. The CRT shall accomplish the following. When observed, the team will: a. identify conflicts and ambiguities between drawings, plans, and specifications; b. identify redundant or excessive technical or administrative requirements; c. identify specifications or details that require further clarification; d. suggest substitution of simplified construction details, more common construction materials or products; e. propose value suggestions substituting equipment, materials, or design modifications for consideration by the design team; and f. identify special concerns and potential problem areas. The services shall be performed by an independent team of professionals, separate and completely independent from the original design team. The CRT shall be composed of persons having professional engineering/architectural registration, and all shall have a minimum of 5 years post registration experience in design, construction administration, or estimating. The typical team makeup will include: a. Team Leader /CVS- Professional Engineer b. Architect c. Structural Engineer d. Mechanical Engineer e. Electrical Engineer f. Construction Estimator g. Construction Administrator /Contractor h. Participation of Construction Manager supplied by the County of Orange Once a final schedule is established, a list of team members and their respective resumes representing the various disciplines to be covered shall be submitted for approval. Prior to commencing a study, Orange County will forward the following information to the team: a. One set of half -size drawings for each team member, and two full -size sets for the team; b. One set of specifications for each team member; 4 c. Detailed cost estimate (one copy) with one cost summary for each team member; d. Design Calculations (mechanical, electrical, etc.) (one set); and e. Boring Logs and Soil Reports (two sets). The CRT shall meet and work in an environment away from their normal workplace in order to avoid interruptions. The meeting room will be provided by Orange County. The follow room requirements are requested: - lighting and ventilation suitable for prolonged reading, writing, and studying - large table with cushioned chairs for each team member - telephone in the meeting room - provisions for FAX and photocopying services on the premises A CRT report will be prepared documenting the process and all recommendations developed by the CRT. In addition, one set of plans and specifications will be "red - lined" with any quality review comments /improvements noted by the CRT, and submitted as part of our deliverables. All reports will be assembled in an orderly fashion and will be short and concise, yet informative enough for decision making. Reports shall be prepared and submitted on 81/2" x 11" bond paper and bound under cover appropriately identified. Sketches may be 81/2" x 11" or fold -out. Pages shall be sequentially numbered in the lower right hand comer. In addition, we could be available for an optional post study implementation meeting with the design A/E and the County /Chapel Hill to discuss which ideas should be implemented into the project design. ORANGE COUNTY, NC COST BREAKDOWN CONSTRUCTABILITYNALUE REVIEW Cost for Each Project Study DIRECT LABOR Hours Rate Labor Cost Project Manager /CVS ** 96 $95 $9,120 Structural Engineer 44 $80 $3,520 Mechanical Engineer 44 $85 $3,740 Electrical Engineer 44 $85 $3,740 Architect 44 $95 $4,180 Civil/Cost Engineer 44 $80 $3,520 Senior Contractor /Construction Specialist 44 $90 $3,960 Typist 48 $45 $2,160 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR 408 $33,940 * *CVS Hours Breakdown Prestudy arrangements/coor. with subs 8 Project study /review 44 Report writing/proofing — CVS #1 28 Report editing — CVS #2 12 Post report response /follow -up 4 Total CVS Hours 96 OTHER DIRECT COSTS Cost/ Unit Uni Cost S t Meeting room rental — provided by County -0- -0- Communication at study — provided by County -0- -0- Ship study materials to CRT — number of copies 7 $50 $350 Copy/bind CRT report — total number of reports, 10 to 11 $50 $550 client, including shipping Communication — allow 1 $100 $100 In -house reproduction — number of copies 1,00 $0.08 $80 0 Travel Round -trip — Washington, DC- Raleigh — Airfare Local Rental - days Mileage: Norfolk to Chapel Hill 5 team members @ 500 miles each Per Diem 6 team members x 5 days Total Other Direct Costs PROJECT COST SUMMARY DIRECT LABOR OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 1 $200 $200 5 $60 $300 2,500 $0.31 $775 30 $100 $3,000 $5,355 $33,940 $5,355 $39,295 E