HomeMy WebLinkAbout7C - Waterfront Business Park
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
BACKGROUND:
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
7C
BRUCE LONEY, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO.1
PROJECT 93-11, WATERFRONT PASSAGE BUSINESS PARK
IMPROVEMENTS
JUNE 20, 1994
During the course of construction for Project 93-11, additional work
beyond the Contract was done by the Contractor and additional work
done by the City. A Change Order for this additional work and deduction
has been prepared and enclosed in the Agenda packet for Council
approval.
The contractor, Imperial Developers, Inc., and their subcontractors, have
performed additional work which was not included in the original contract.
The additional work is described and itemized costs are shown on the
enclosed Change Order form. Also on the Change Order is for an
extension of contract time of two weeks to complete the work scheduled
for this year. A total of seven (7) additional items and one (1) deduction
item are described with the total net cost of the Change Order being
$37,709.35.
Items 1-4 are associated with the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm
sewer systems and were necessary changes that were not in the original
contract. Item #1 was for increasing the sanitary sewer service system
from 4" to 6" for each potential building site. Items #2 and #4 were for
modifying standard hydrants due to a lowering of the street grade change
on Fish Point Road. Item #3 was recommended by City's Soil Engineer
that drain tiles be installed at the low points to keep the street subgrade
as dry as possible.
Project 93-11 was graded in September, October and November of 1993.
The spring and summer of 1993 was one of the wettest years on record
and thus the soil on the site had a higher than normal moisture content.
During the grading, areas of unstable soil needed to be removed in order
to construct the lot or street areas. These areas were not detected by the
soil borings on the project.
In order to minimize the amount of subgrade .excavation, a backhoe was
utilized to remove saturated soil. The added cost of excavation was
determined to be $1.65 per cubic yard for 10.322 cubic yards of
excavation after several negotiations with the contractor. This excavation
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPP6RTUNITY EMPLOYER
T . r T.
ALTERNATIVES:
operation was recommended by the City's Soil Engineer and his opinion
was that the amount of subgrade excavation was greatly reduced by
using a backhoe as the underlying soil layers would not be disturbed by
scrapers and dozers. If the areas would have been excavated with
scrapers and dozers, the additional cost of subgrade excavation, and
additional suitable backfill material would have been more than the extra
cost of Item #6.
During the course of grading the site, it was apparent that there would be
a shortage of good material which was available from the Fire Hall site
and there was a surplus of saturated material. In order to balance the site,
the contractor obtained granular material by over excavating boulevards
and setback areas and then filled these areas with less desirable
saturated soil. This excavation method was done to obtain a balance of
earthwork to build the Key-Land Home lot area and the necessary street
areas, and was less expensive than importing material.
To construct the streets within the development cost effectively, Item #5
was utilized which was for providing additional rock sub base. At the time
when the streets were constructed, the areas to obtain granular material
were depleted as much as possible. Utilizing the 3" minus aggregate sub
base limited the amount of subgrade excavation for the streets, this
making this alternative the most cost effective.
Item #7 was for the concrete valley gutters to serve the Fire Hall.
Key-Land Homes, and Becker Arena Ice Products sites. These valley
gutters were not known at the time of bidding.
The total amount of this Change Order is $37,709.35 with the original
contract amount being $789,693.00. The addition of Change Order No.1
represents a 4.8% increase in the original contract amount and the
contract amount total is now $827,402.35.
The contractor has signed the Payment Voucher and Change Order and
submitted a letter stating that this Change Order resolves all claims on
Project 93-11 from previous attached claim letters of February 14, 1994
and April 18, 1994. The contractor had a previous claim for soil
correction in the amount of $74,583.00. Staff had initially offered
$12,578.00 for soil correction. The balance of items were not part of the
$74,583.00 claim. The final negotiated amount is as shown in the
Change Order.
One deduction is included for the repair of street light lines which were
damaged by the contractor and paid by the City. Also an extension of
contract time of two (2) weeks has been asked for and included with the
Change Order.
The alternatives are as follows:
1. Approve a motion authorizing Change Order No. 1 in the amount
of $37,709.35 to Imperial Developers Inc. recognizing that this
payment releases the City from any and all claims made by
Imperial Developers Inc. in their letters of February 14, 1994 and
April 18, 1994. Imperial Developers Inc. has agreed to that
condition in their attached June 13, 1994 letter.
-2-
RECOMMENDATION:
BUDGET IMPACT:
ACTION REQUIRED:
CCA620.ENG
2. Disapprove the motion for a specific reason.
3. Table this item for a specific reason.
The recommendation is to approve Change Order #1 as the contractor has
completed the work and City staff feels the negotiated settlement is acceptable.
This amount will be paid from the Construction Fund and has been
included with this month's construction voucher. Sufficient funds exist to
pay for the additional cost from this Change Order.
Make a motion to appro)t'8 Change Order #1 for Project 93-11 authorizing
the Mayor an ity Manager to sign the Change Order.
C
-3-
T'
rr"
CHANGE ORDER
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E.
PRIOR LAKE, MN. 55372
DATE:
TO:
FOR:
June 1, 1994 CHANGE ORDER NO.1
Imperial Developers, Inc.
Project No. 93-11, Waterfront Passage Business Office Park Improvements
City of Prior Lake, Minnesota
You are hereby directed to make the following change to your contract dated Se;>tember 7. 1993 .
The change and the work affected thereby is subject to all contract stipulations and covenants. This
Change Order will increase the contract sum by:
Thirty Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred Nine and 35/100 Dollars ($ 37.709.35 ).
Add the following:
$ 927.50
Item 1:
$ 400.00
Item 2:
$ 1,905.00
Item 3:
$ 500.00
Item 4:
$ 13,799.11
Item 5:
$ 17,030.32
Item 6:
$ 3,638.00
Item 7:
$ 38,199.93
'lbtal Additions
Deduct the following:
$ 490.58
Item 1:
$ 490.58
Total Deductions
Change sanitary sewer services from 4" to 6". Cost increase is
$1.501L.F. of 545 L.F. pipe installed, plus $10.00 per 11
sanitary service each for the increased cost of the wye.
Change hydrants from 8'.0" bury to 8'.6" bury. Cost increase is
$50.00 per hydrant installed.
Add 4" Drain Tile. Cost for installation, including materials
and labor is $4.851L.F. of drain tile installed, plus $75.00 per
cut out required to connect to the storm sewer structures.
QUANTITIES THRU 6/1/94:
Drain tile = 300 L.F.
Cut outs = 6 Each
Install hydrant that was later removed. Cost is $500.00 for the
labor required to install and remove.
Labor, material and equipment for installing 2122.94 Tons of 3"
minus crushed Limestone @ $6.50/I'on as required to construct
the roadways.
Additional labor and equipment to excavate 10,322 C.Y. of
material @ $1.65/C.Y. by using a backhoe to remove the
material.
Labor, material and equipment for installing 909.5 square feet
of concrete valley gutter @ $4.00/SF at the Fire Hall, Key-Land
Home and Becker Arena sites.
Labor, material and equipment to repair damaged
electrical street wires at CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road.
1
I~
Amount of Original Contract
Additions approved to date (Nos.-L)
$789,693.00
$ 38,199.93
Deductions approved to date (Nos.-L)
<
5
490.58 >
Revised Contract Amount
5827.402.35
Amount of this Change Order (Add)
$ 37,709.35
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME
Original Contract Times ..................................................................... July 1, 1994 for the completion
of all work items except for the
bituminous wear course.
Net Increase of this Change Order .......................................................................... 14 Calendar Days
Contract Time with Approved Change Order .................................................................July 15, 1994
931102.ENG
DATE: June 10. 1994
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
TO: Imperial Developers. Inc.
FOR: Project 93-11, Waterfront Passaie Business Office Park
FOR: City of Prior Lake. Minnesota
Approved as to Form:
APPROVALS:
Approved CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Owner
By
CITY ATTORNEY
Mayor
Date
By
City Manager
Date
Approved Imperial Developers. Inc.
Contractor
U-- C'~ .
V tJv'- i.b~--
.
By
Title
eFV
931102.ENG
"tit
ate
Respectfully Submitted,
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
B&::do
Project Engineer
f
.'
II
IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS
INC
9001 Grand Avenue South · Bloomington, Minnesota 55420
Office 612.881'6464 Fax 612.881'8700
February 14, 1994
.Waterfront Park
Prior Lake
Increase in prices due to changed conditions.
*Topsoil stripping with backhoe
(+topsoil stripping in fills
should be paid as subgrade)
4827 cy @ add'] 1.84/yd
5500 cy @ add'l 1.84/yd
5500 cy @ 0.47
8,881.00
*Subgrade excavation with backhoe
10,120.00
2,585.00
*Pond Excavation - All had to be
done with backhoe.
22000 cy @ add'l 1.84/yd
40,480.00
*Dry & recompact material that
has heen placed in areas 4+6.
(This material was not compact-
able at the time of construction
due to weather conditions.)
5450 cy @ 1.95 10,627.00
*Move blackdirt and spread over areas
4+6 that the City wants compacted.
2100 cy @ 0.90 1,890.00
$74,583.00
The City has offered to pay $12,578.00 of this.
(26763 yds of borrow @ 0.47)
,'i?~ ','
, -,:::31/V
. \//3.~2~
~ ~
. ::.:;e'Ner . =,<cz;.
-'-:: ,.... ............
-' ._" -' .~,
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-'
FABYANSKE, SVOBODA, WESTRA, DAVIS & HART
A PRof:EssIorw. ASSOCIATION
L Co. IWIT
II. T. FAII'I'AHSICE
GERAlD L SI/08OOA
*'lit w. 'MSTlIA
llOIEIlT L OA VIS
.8EMIAH J. 1lEAII~
~ T. MOZER
Cl&toNS J. TAOOIEN
SCOTT WMl AIClEllSON
"AI.\. L IlA TULE
GlIIEGOllY T. SPAW
DEAN L TllOMSClN
GARY Co. EIDSON
DRAFT
CARRIE A. GREEN
0WlGMT G. AABUSE
ICYI.& E. ~RT
J\JOl1l4 E. J(JlOW
HOU.Y A. R. ~RT
STEl'HEN A. MELCHER
IIICHAAD G. .JENSEN
n<<:lMAS J. T\lCa
OWI~S Go CARPENTSR III
MARY SUi M. YOllBRICH
..04AiL J. KINZER
JOCELYN L ICNOU.
.A.U: A. ClOHERTY
1100 MINNEAPOLIS CENTRE
920 seCOND A VENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOlIS. MINNESOTA 55.&02
m.ePHONE 812-338-0115
TEL..ECOf'lER '12-338-3857
April 18, 1994
Glenn Kessel, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Prior Lake
4629 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Re: Waterfront Passage Business Park
Dear Mr. Kessel:
I represent Imperial Developers, Inc., in regard to its dispute with the City of Prior Lake
on the Waterfront Passage Business Park project. Imperial was the excavation and grading
contractor on the project, and has asserted five claims against the City for additional costs
arising as a result of changes in the work ordered by the City, as well as a differing site
conditionfdefective specification. I am writing to outline Imperial's position -regarding its
claims. I will address each claim separately.
1. Muck Excavation. Section 02105.2.03 of the specifications states that muck
excavation is the quantity of excavation material that is removed from below the natural ground
level of wetlands within the roadway embankment area. The City has refused to pay for the top
12 inches of such muck excavation on the basis that it should be treated as common excavation.
However. there is nothing in the specifications to suggest that the top 12 inches of excavation
should be treated as common excavation. If the City had desired to treat the top 12 inches of
muck excavation as common excavation, it could have provided for such treatment in the
specifications, as is sometimes done in project specifications. Since the City did not do so on
this project, the specifications unambiguously require that Imperial be paid the muck excavation
rate for all material excavated in the area designated as muck excavation. In submitting its bid,
Imperial was entitled to rely on the City's specifications.
2. Subsrrade Excavation. Sections 01025.C.5 and 02105.2.02 of the project
specifications provide that subgrade excavation is the quantity of excavation material below the
proposed subgrade elevations within the site to correct unstable areas or to remove topsoil for
embankment of roadways or lots as determined by the engineer. Any material below the class
5 aggregate is considered in the industry to be subgrade. Despite this fact, the City has paid
,
.'
Glenn Kessel, Esq.
April 18, 1994
Page 2
Imperial at the rate of common excavation for the top 12 inches of such subgrade material that
Imperial has excavated. There is no provision in the specifications that would support the City's
position that the top 12 inches of Imperial's subgrade excavation should be treated as common
excavation. The City could have specified that the top 12 inches of the subgrade excavation
would be treated and paid for as common excavation. Since the City did not do so, the
specifications unambiguously provide that Imperial shall be paid at the sub grade excavation rate
for all materials excavated in areas designated as subgrade excavation, including the top 12
inches of material.
The City has argued that page 4 of the plan drawings implies that certain excavation in
the areas designated as sub grade excavation would be treated as common excavation. However,
even if there was such an implication, where there is any inconsistency between the
specifications and the plan drawings, the specifications control. In submitting its bid, Imperial
was entitled to rely on the City's specifications.
3. Method of Excavation of Materials. The standard in the industry is to perform
excavation work with scrapers and dozers wherever possible because it is more efficient and less
costly than other methods of excavation, such as using a back-hoe. Imperial bid the project
based upon its intent to perform the excavation with scrapers and dozers, and did, in fact, begin
the work using this method of excavation. However, shortly after Imperial began the work, the
City's engineer prohibited Imperial from performing any further excavation with scrapers and
dozers. Instead, the City's engineer required Imperial to perform the excavation with a back-hoe.
The City did so in order to decrease its own costs by decreasing the amount of sub-cutting that
was required. However, the City's required method of performing the excavation substantially
increased Imperial's costs. By requiring Imperial to perform the work in a manner that is not
specified in the contract and is inconsistent with industry standards, the City changed the work
under the contract. Imperial is entitled to be compensated for its increased costs incurred as a
result of this change in the work.
4. Comoaction of Embankments. Section Ol025.C.4 of the project specifications
provides that excavated material shall be utilized on the site to the fullest extent possible, and
that unsuitable excavated material shall be disposed of as directed by the engineer. A substantial
amount of the excavated material consisted of silty, saturated material that was unsuitable for
use on the site. Such unsuitable material should have been disposed of as provided in the
specifications. However, the City instructed Imperial to spread the unsuitable material in areas
4 and 6, and has stated that it will require Imperial to return to the site in the spring to re-work
and dry the material in an attempt to incorporate the material into the embankments being
constructed on the site. The City's attempt to incorporate unsuitable material into the project
is inconsistent with Section 01025.C.4, and Imperial is entitled to additional compensation for
attempting to comply with the City's directives.
The City has argued that Section 02105.3.05 of the project specifications requires
Imperial, with payment of additional compensation, to re-work and dry the material in an
. ,
Glenn Kessel. Esq.
April 18, 1994
Page 3
attempt to make the material suitable for incorporation into the project. While that Section
provides that hnperial will not be paid additional compensation for drying soils to meet the
moisture content requirements of MnDOT Specification No. 2105.3F, it does not require
Imperial to engage in unreasonable effortS to use unsuitable material. Moreover, MnDOT
Specification No. 2105.3F, which is incorporated into the project specifications by reference,
specifies that construction shall not continue when the existing soil moisture content does not
allow for proper compaction of embankments. If the City desired to use the unsuitable material.
it should have shut-down the project until such time as the material became workable.
s. Excavation of Saturated Material. Before obtaining bids on the project. the City
obtained soil borings showing the subsurface conditions. including the water table and moisture
content. The results of the soil borings were included in the specifications, and hnperial relied
on those soil borings in preparing its bid on the project. However, after hnperial began work
on the project. it learned that the borings were materially incorrect in that the subsurface
material was substantially wetter than shown in the soil borings. As a result of the saturated
condition of the material. hnperial incurred increased costs in excavating and working the
material. This materially adverse change in the condition of the material constitutes a differing
site condition and a defective specification. for which hnperial is entitled to receive
compensation.
Section SC-4.2 of the specifications states that the actual water table and moisture
contents may vary at the actual time of constrUction, and that the contractor should take its own
soil borings to determine the water table and moisture content. The City argues that this
statement prevents hnperial from receiving any compensation for the added costs of excavating
and handling the satUrated material. However, it is well established under Minnesota law that
such a disclaimer does not prevent a contractor from relying on the soil borings contained in the
specifications. The relevant inquiry is whether the contractor reasonably relied upon the soil
borings. When reasonable reliance on the soil borings is shown. the contractor is entitled to
relief. In this case. hnperial had no reason to, believe that the soil borings contained in the
specifications were inaccurate. Imperial reasonably relied on the borings in submitting its bid.
As a result, Imperial is entitled to recover for the substantially increased costs that it incurred
as a result of the differing site condition and defective specification.
Imperial wishes to resolve the foregoing claims without the inconvenience of litigation.
Please contact me if you wish to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Jensen
RGJIhrh/26767.A
.
II
IMPERIAL DEVlLOPERS
INC
9001 Grand Avenue South · Bloomington, Minnesota 55420
Office 612.881'6464 Fax 612.881'8700
June 13, 1994
Mr. Bruce Loney
City of Prior Lake
4629 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Re: Waterfront Industrial Park
Prior Lake, MN
Dear Bruce,
The change order that the City has written on this project takes
care of all of the claims that we outlined in our notes of
February 14, 1994, and as listed in our attorney's letter of April
18, 1994.
Please call with any questions.
Sincerely,
IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS, INC.
~~
JDH/ar
Highway. Heavy · Water · Sewer . Excavating. Grading