|
Agenda Item
ASR
Control 06-000005 |
||
|
MEETING DATE: |
03/07/06 |
|
|
legal entity taking action: |
Orange County Flood Control District |
|
|
board of supervisors
district(s): |
5 |
|
|
SUBMITTING
Agency/Department: |
Resources and Development Management Department (Approved) |
|
|
Department contact
person(s): |
David N. Marshall, (714) 567-7801 |
|
|
|
Hiram Downard, (714) 567-7812 |
|
Subject: Approve CCO #1/Accept Work-Aliso Creek
Ch. Repair
|
ceo Concur |
County
Counsel Review |
Clerk of the Board |
||
|
Concur |
Approved Agreement to Form |
Consent Calendar |
||
|
|
|
3 Votes Board Majority |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Budgeted: Yes |
Current Year Cost:
$65,622 Total cost this directive |
Annual Cost:
N/A |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Staffing Impact: No |
# of Positions:
|
Sole Source:
No |
||
|
Current Fiscal Year Revenue: N/A |
||||
|
Funding Source: Flood
400: 100% |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Prior Board Action: Minute
Order dated March 15, 2005 awarded the subject contract to Beador Construction Company, Inc. and authorized
execution of Agreement No. D05-018. |
||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
Acting as the Board of Supervisors for the Orange County Flood Control District:
|
1. |
Approve Contract Change Order No. 1 to Agreement No. D05-018 in the amount of $65,622.19. |
|
2. |
Accept the completed Aliso Creek Channel Repair from 120 feet upstream of the AT&SF Railway to 460 feet downstream of Jeronimo Road with a final construction cost of $411,807.19. |
SUMMARY:
Resources & Development Management Department requests approval of Contract Change Order No. 1 to Agreement No. D05-018 with Beador Construction Company, Inc. and acceptance of the Aliso Creek Channel Repair from 120 feet upstream of the AT&SF Railway to 460 feet downstream of Jeronimo Road.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The purpose of this project was to repair damage to the Aliso Creek Channel invert caused by sediment and debris during storm flows. This damage had occurred over several decades since the facility was originally constructed and repairs were necessary to preserve the structural integrity of the channel. Within the project limits, selected center sections of the invert were removed and reconstructed. The entire remaining surface was then prepared and capped with a layer of high strength fiber reinforced mortar. The completed repair should add many years of additional service life for this facility.
Removal and reconstruction of the damaged invert sections was completed on schedule and as designed. However, as the contractor proceeded with application of the high strength fiber reinforced mortar, it became clear that the Engineer's original quantity estimate for the product would fall substantially short of the actual amount required to complete the work. The specification for the product requires a flat finished surface and an application thickness of at least 1/2 inch at its thinnest point with no maximum specified. The quantity of this material for the Engineer's Estimate had been calculated by using the 1/2 inch minimum thickness over the area to be capped with no allowance for irregularities or normal application tolerances. The specifications, however, call for surface preparation prior to placement by high pressure water blasting to achieve an exposed and roughened aggregate surface. Given the 1 1/2 inch aggregate used in the channel invert, additional material was necessary to bridge the irregularities created by the water blasting. Indeed, the additional thickness necessary to maintain the 1/2 inch minimum and fill voids in the roughened surface calculated to approximately 3/8 inch (77% above the estimate) when application of the cap had been completed.
The final quantity for the high strength fiber reinforced mortar exceeded the Engineer's Estimate by 375 cubic feet at the bid unit price of $187.50 yielding an increased cost of $70,387. In addition, when any line item quantity exceeds 125% of the Engineer's Estimate, the County may be entitled to an adjustment in compensation for the quantity in excess of 125%. RDMD performed a cost analysis for this item and determined that a 10% cost reduction on that portion of the additional material was fair and reasonable. This resulted in a credit to the County of $4765 for a total cost of $65,622 for CCO No. 1. CCO No. 1 increases contract time by 30 working days to allow for manufacture, delivery and placement of the additional material.
The cost for CCO No. 1 is 19.9% of the contract award price. County Counsel has previously stated that “…the authority to modify the contract is limited by Public Contract Code Section 20137 to an increase of ten percent (10%) of the original contract amount, without having to bid the project (County Counsel Opinion 86-203). However, there is an exception to the competitive bidding statutes when ‘it is undesirable or impossible to advertise for bids for particular work.’ [Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. Long Beach (1930), 210 Cal. 348, 354].” In this situation, at the time the unanticipated conditions were encountered, the project was proceeding well and was nearing completion; and it would not have been in the best interest of the County or the public to rebid the remainder of the contract.
The contract was awarded to Beador Construction Company, Inc. on March 15, 2005 for the bid price of $327,737.50, which was budgeted and encumbered in County Fiscal Year 2004-05. CCO No. 1 will bring the new contract total to $393,359.69. The original termination date, based on 40 working days, was August 8, 2005. With 30 additional working days added by CCO No. 1, a new termination date of September 20, 2005 was established. Work was actually completed on September 20, 2005 and the Notice of Completion was recorded on December 16, 2005. Subsequent to completion of the work, and after compilation and verification of final quantities, the final cost of $411,807.19 was determined.
COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: The subject activity is not a project as defined by CEQA pursuant to Section 15378(5) of the CEQA Guidelines.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Sufficient Flood Fund funds are available to cover the cost of this Contract Change Order.
STAFFING IMPACT:
N/A
REVIEWING AGENCIES:
1. RDMD Environmental Planning (for CEQA clearance)
2. County Counsel (approval as to form)
EXHIBIT(S):
A. Contract Change Order No. 1 to Agreement No. D05-018
B. Location Map