Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-01-1999 - 9hORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 1, 1999 Action Agenda Item No. ~_ SUBJECT: Request for Increase in Fees; Dixon/Weinstein Architects DEPARTMENT: Purchasing & Central Services PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: None Pam Jones, extension 2652 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider the request of Dixon-Weinstein Architects for additional design fees for the Skills Development Center project. BACKGROUND: Some time ago, the Board received a memorandum reflecting the request for additional fees of Dixon-Weinstein Architects for design work done at the Skills Development Center. The architect indicated that the scope of the work increased significantly after his contract was negotiated. While the design contract was not based on percentage of construction cost, there are several areas that might justify additional fees being paid to the consultant. First, the original scope of work called for roof monitors to be installed. The architect considered our roof survey done at purchase of the building and the visual inspection of the roof and expressed strong reservations about the ability of the roof to withstand the construction project. If the roof had failed in the midst of the project while the roof monitors were being constructed, it could have brought the project to a standstill and jeopardized the stability of the building as well. To avoid this, Dixon was asked to design the re-roof project as an add alternate to the project. Since bidders submitted costs for the re-roof project, we could have exercised the option and kept the project moving forward. Although the roof did withstand the construction project, the County may still use the specifications when the roof is replaced. The roof is on the replacement schedule within the next five years. Second, the original scope of work did not include substantial site work. The only requirements for site work were related to site utilities and the construction of the sprinkler vault. When the contract with Dixon was executed, the project had not gone through the Town's regulatory process. The Town's comments required re-design of the parking lot to accommodate a solid waste collection vehicle as well as screening requirements. The Department of Insurance comments required re-work of the area for handicapped parking and access. The third major area where additional fees might be warranted is the redesign to add a fifth classroom. There was one large classroom on the west side of the building. Based on discussions with the tenants of the building, including Durham Tech, and the Skills Development Center Advisory Committee it became apparent that a fifth classroom would be strongly advised for the best long-term usage of the facility. The architect split the classroom, which in and of itself is not significantly extra work. However, when the classroom was split, the Building Code required additional restrooms. The restrooms were added, but the engineering work to make that so was an extra expense to Dixon. Last, we experienced water problems along the east wall between the 501 and 503 properties. There had been an nn-going problem with water in one of the rented suites. The water was seeping through the area between the two buildings and creating a flooding condition with each heavy rain. When the restroom floors were removed in preparation for the renovation on the SDC side of the building, the water that had previously invaded the rental space found a new path of least resistance and flooded the SDC side. Dixon and his consultants in collaboration with the County Engineer and the contractor designed a solution that solved the water issue on both sides of the wall. It is likely that the County would have spent several thousand dollars correcting the problem on the rental suite side of the building, not to mention the dissatisfaction that would have been experienced by the tenant. Considering each of these circumstances, it appears that approximately 123 hours can be reasonably justified as unforeseeable additional work after the scope of work had been established. These hours have been valued at $10,455. The original design contract was approved for $38,675. The addition of the extra hours would bring the total design contract to $49,130, or 6.1 % of construction cost. Although considerable pro bono work was done by another architect during the design development phase of this project, this is at the low end of the fee scale that construction projects generally cost the County. There are funds within this project to accommodate this extra expense should the Board see fit to grant the request. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The County would pay $10,455 from the Skills Development Center project construction account. The remaining expense to be charged from this account is the pocket park, which will be bid during the summer, 1999. The construction cost for the pocket park has been estimated at $77,000. The Board in earlier action agreed to supplement this project fund by $25,000 from bond proceeds. Other action affecting the Skills Development Center project account is being considered as part of the June 1, 1999 agenda. Listed below is a synopsis of the financial impact if all actions are approved as recommended: SDC project funds available as of May 24, 1999 $58,168 Additional funds approved from bond proceeds for the construction of the $25,000 pocket park (if they are necessary) Increase fees for Dixon Weistein ($10,455) Increased fees for Wilkerson ($4,100) Total available for pocket park construction $68,613 Construction Estimate for pocket park is $77,000 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board amend the original design contract with Dixon-Weinstein Architects by approving increased fees in the amount of $10,455; and authorize the Purchasing Director to create the appropriate paperwork to ensure payment.