HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.i. Approve Amendments to OSM Engineering Services for Shannon Parkway .
� • IT��
� � � � � k . �� �
**�*****��*�*******�t*********�r*�*�r****MEAtO****�t**�******�r****�*��t��**�*�'********
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1989
T0: r'IAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS
C/0 ADPiINISTRATOR JILK
FROPi: CITY ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORKS DIREGTOR HEF
RE: ITEriS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
CONSENT A�ENDA
A rove A�endments to OSM En ineerin Services Contract for Shannon Parkwa
Project 194
This item consist of approving an amendment to increase fees for engineerin
services provided by OSM & Associates for the Shannon Parkway project in the
vicinity of the new elementary school. This memo explains the reasons for the
request and recommended action for Council to consider.
When we first hired OSM Consultin En
for this project, we instructed them tonprepare itrformtheeentirebscope ofPthe
project. At that time it was to extend the street and utilities all the way up
to the Shannon Oaks Addition and also provide the most logical and eco:�onical
sanitary sewer route to service the area adjaeent to Shannon Parkway and the
elementary school, However the scope of services at that time did not include
lumping the total scope of the project into one contract for the following`
reasons. First, the school district did not indicate when they needed sanitary
sewer services to the school and we presumed that if we had service by August
1990 it would be sufficient. What we found aut as the project evolved was that
the school district intended on occupying the building by June 1, 1990. The
other reason was that U. S. Homes anticipated developing their fourth addition
late in 19Sg or early 1990. Because the sanitary sewer necessary to service
school runs through their property, we had anticipated that they would be ablehto
work us into their development. This did not transpire, requiring us to include
the sanitary sewer design and construction through the-ir property with our
contract.
OSPi Consulting Engineers are requesting that their fixed fee, which was amended
to include the sanitary sewer last spring to $44,400, be amended to $55,040.
Comparing this to a straight percentage cost from the American Society of Civil
Engineers Engineering Compensation Curve wouid result in a basic fee of 6.59% of
the contract, which was $771,810, or a basic fee of $50,860. The additional
$4,180 they are requesting are due to additionai engineering services that had to
be performed due to delays and changes of information from U. S. Hames engineers.
Ifl essence, subtracting the $4,400 and $4,180 from the $15,040 difference betwe
the original estimate and this reeent request would amount to $6,460. I would en
recommend that Council approve this re quest b ecause o f t he inclusion of the
sanitary sewer installation with the total contract. Had we gone out for bids to
order sanitary sewer separatelp, we would of had additional engineering basic
, A
� �
Page 2
Review for September 19, 1989 Council Meeting
services on that proje�t, that when added to the original groject would have been
the same or greater than what they are requesting at this point.
Recommended action for Council to consider is to amend the compensation for basic
services section of our contract with OSM Engineering to a not to exceed cost of
$55,040.