Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 057-15RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Dayton Legal Blank, Inc., Form No. 30045 57 -15 Resolution No. Passed _ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH AND EXECUTE A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE AMENDMENT (GMP) WITH ELFORD INC., CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK, FOR THE JUSTICE CENTER CONSTRUCTION/ RENOVATION PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has selected Elford, Inc. as Construction Manager at Risk for the Justice Center Construction /Renovation; and WHEREAS, Elford, Inc. has completed the bidding process for the initial phases of construction and, together with City staff and the City's construction consultant have developed the Guaranteed Maximum Price for the initial phase of construction; and WHEREAS, City Council has determined that the Guaranteed Maximum Price of $2,191,093 is within the budget guidelines established for this project. NOW, THER FORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The Guaranteed Maximum Price negotiated between the City Manager and Elford, Inc. in the amount of $2,191,093 is accepted for the Justice Center Construction /Renovation Project. Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a construction agreement with Elford, Inc. for said project. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage in accordance with Section 4.04(a) of the Revised Charter. Passed this /oZUt day of _ 2015 J yor - Presiding Officer Attest: a, d45(-�� Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Mana Date: August 6, 2015 Initiated by: Brian Ashford, Facilities Manager Megan O'Callaghan, Public Works Director Summary Memo Re: Resolution 57 -15 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with and Execute a Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment (GMP) with Elford Inc., Construction Manager at Risk, for the Justice Center Construction/ Renovation Project Resolution 57 -15 authorizes the City Manager to execute a construction agreement with Elford, Inc., the Construction Manager at Risk for the Justice Center Construction /Renovation Project. The agreement establishes the first phase Guaranteed Maximum Price in the amount of $2,191,093.00 which covers the initial construction phase for the building addition. This includes the site work, concrete, structural steel, some HVAC equipment, and some administrative fees and contingencies. Elford completed its bidding process in late July and, working with City staff and our Owner's Representative, identified the best value sub - contractors to complete the first phase of construction. The total GMP amount for this initial phase is approximately $200,000 under the amount allocated for these items in the overall project budget. Approval of this initial GMP amendment will enable ground breaking for the 18,000 square foot addition to begin within a week and will enable construction of the project to remain on schedule. An amendment to the Guaranteed Maximum Price covering the second construction phase (architectural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing) associated with both the building addition and the renovation of the existing building is anticipated to be presented to City Council within the next month. Elford has issued bids for this second construction phase, and interest among potential sub - contractors appears to be strong. City staff and our Owner's Representative will continue to monitor Elford's bid process to identify the best value sub - contractors. As outlined in the attached May 14, 2015 memorandum, the overall budget for the addition and renovation is $10,640,000, and City staff will ensure that the full GMP amount is at or below budget. As outlined in the 2015 — 2019 Capital Improvements Program, funding for this project will ultimately come from the issuance of general obligation bonds, which is anticipated to occur in late September. In the interim, Staff will advance funds from the General Fund in order to enter into this construction agreement. The advance will then be repaid from the bond proceeds. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 57 -15 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Construction Agreement with Elford, Inc. including a Guaranteed Maximum Price for the first phase of the Justice Center Construction /Renovation Project. Please note that several information Memo re. Resolution 57 -15 - Contract and Execute a GMP with Elford Inc., Construction Manager at Risk, for Justice Center Construction /Renovation Project August 6, 2015 Page 2of2 memorandums discussing the status of this project and the Construction Manager at Risk model are attached for your reference. Attachments Office of the City Manager City of Dublin Phone Ernerald 61410 -4400y Fax: 614 -410 -4490 1090 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Man Date: May 14, 2015 Re: Project and Budget Update - Justice Center Renovation /Expansion Summary As a follow -up to a December, 4, 2104 and an October 23, 2014 update provided to Council, the following is a summary of the progress related to the Dublin Justice Center addition /renovation project. Also included is a revised cost estimate and information related to the need for the City's construction management company to pre-order two mechanical and one material component. This project is programmed in the 2015 -2019 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for final design completion in 2015 and construction beginning in 2015 and running through 2016. Currently the project is on schedule, with detailed design nearing completion and a construction start date planned for early August. An allocation of $9,585,000 is included in the 2015 CIP for completion of this project. As detailed below, a revised budget of $10,640,000 is now being anticipated. Construction Manager at Risk Delivery Method Due to the size and complexity of this project and the need for more dedicated construction management, staff spent significant time reviewing the various project delivery methods available under the Ohio Revised Code. After several meetings with the lead architect, the City's legal counsel and a recommended local owner's representative, staff concluded that the "Construction Manager at Risk" model (CMR) best met the needs and desired outcomes for this project. This is the first time this construction method has been used by the City. The Construction Manager at Risk method provides for selection of a construction manager through an RFQ and RFP process. This CMR is then brought into the process during the schematic design stage to work closely with the architect. During the construction document development stage and prior to bidding, the CMR would provide a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for construction that is agreed upon with the City. The CMR then holds the contract for the project, solicits bids from pre- qualified subcontractors and contracts with those subcontractors to build the project. While the City would work closely with the CMR and review all subcontractor bids, the City would not be responsible for bidding the project. In January, following an RFQ and RFP process, staff selected Elford as the City's Construction Manager for this project. In addition to hiring a Construction Manager, staff also contracted with an Owner's Representative. An Owner's Representative serves as an extension of the owner's staff, providing on -site representation to ensure that design and construction proceeds in accordance with contract documents and is completed on time and within budget, protecting the owner's interest at all times. Similar to the Construction Manager, the Owner's Representative is also brought into the process during the design phase, allowing them to provide guidance throughout the lifecycle of the project. Memo re. Justice Center Renovation /Addition Update May 14, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Staff worked closely with our construction management company, architectural firm and owner's representative to develop revised cost estimates for the expansion and renovation of the Dublin Justice Center. The total funding included in the 2015 CIP for this project was $9,585,000, which is expected to be funded through the issuance of general obligation bonds. Initial revised estimates showed the total project costs to be $2,053,000 above this originally budgeted amount. Following a thorough team review of all components of the project, this budget increase was reduced to $1,055,000. A portion of this cost is associated with the complete replacement of the facility's HVAC system, which was originally not anticipated. This system is now more than 20 years old and would soon be due for replacement. A more efficient building system will be installed as part of the renovation /addition, resulting in savings on utility costs. An owner's contingency of $500,721 remains in place as part of the budget. Staff will continue to work with the construction management team to pursue any additional possible cost reductions as detailed design and sub - contractor bidding is undertaken. • =v u'i Elford, the City's Construction Management firm, has identified the need to pre-order the following components in early June due to lead time and construction phasing needs: Structural steel $325,000 Air handling unit $125,000 Chiller $135,000 These pre- orders will be identified in the City's pre - construction agreement that is in place with Elford. Word will be responsible for purchasing the items and the City will then reimburse them for these purchases. Recommendation For information only. In July, staff will bring forward to Council Elford's Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for approval by resolution. Construction is planned to begin the first week of August. Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Michelle Crandall at 614 - 410 -4403 (desk) or 614206 -4886 (mobile). Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway 9 City 7of Dublin Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614- 410 -4490 1 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager Date: December 4, 2014 Initiated By: Michelle L. Crandall, Assistant City Manager Summary Memo Re: Justice Center Addition /Renovation — Update on Construction Manager At Risk Selection As a follow -up to the October 23, 2014 memo, responses to the RFQ/RFP for Construction Manager at Risk(CMR) are due today, December 41' and will be reviewed by a committee consisting of representatives from the City's Administrative Services and Police Departments as well as the architectural firm and the Owner's Representative, McCarthy Consulting, Inc. The Owner's Representative will assist the City from the CMR selection process all the way through design, construction and closeout for the Justice Center project. The Representative's duties will include assisting with contract negotiations, conducting constructability reviews, evaluating bid documents issued by the CMR for subcontracting work, and reviewing pay applications. The RFQ/RFP committee will select a CMR by early January, and the design development process will begin immediately. Once a final design has been completed and the guaranteed maximum price has been determined, a detailed package will be submitted to City Council for its consideration in late spring or early summer. The goal is for construction to begin by next fall. Recommendation For information only. If you have questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Michelle Crandall at 614 - 410 -4400 (desk) or 614 -206 -4886 (mobile). Attachment Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager. Date: October 23, 2014 Initiated By: Michelle L. Crandall, Assistant City Manager Memo Re: Justice Center Addition /Renovation — Construction Manager at Risk Model Summary The Justice Center addition /renovation project is programmed in the 2015 -2019 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for final design completion in 2015, with construction beginning in 2015 and running through 2016. Total project cost is estimated at approximately $9,940,000. Due to the size and complexity of this project and the need for more dedicated construction management, staff has spent significant time reviewing the various project delivery methods available under the Ohio Revised Code. After several meetings with the lead architect, the City's legal counsel and a recommended local owner's representative, staff has concluded that the '"Construction Manager at Risk" model (CMR) best meets the needs and desired outcomes for this project. This would be the first time this construction method has been used by the City. Attached is a table showing the various delivery methods provided under state law, with a brief description and advantages and disadvantage commonly associated with each. Typically the City has used the "General Contracting" method whereby the project is designed, bid and then built (also referred to as design- bid - build). Under this method, the company with the lowest and best bid is awarded the contract and the City holds a single contract with that general contractor. The construction management components of the project are then managed jointly by the architectural firm and City staff working with the general contractor. For smaller projects, this method has worked well. The Construction Manager at Risk method provides for selection of a construction manager through an RFQ and RFP process. This CMR is then brought into the process during the schematic design and design development stages to work closely with the architect. During the construction document development stage and prior to bidding, the CMR would provide a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for construction that is agreed upon with the City. The CMR then holds the contract for the project, solicits bids from pre - qualified subcontractors and contracts with those subcontractors to build the project. While the City would work closely with the CMR and review all subcontractor bids, the City would not be responsible for bidding the project. Advantages to this method include the following: • Construction Manager chosen based upon qualifications. • Construction Manager has input on design due to being brought in during the design phase, creating a collaborative design process between the CMR, architects and the City staff. Memo re: Justice Center — Construction Manager at Risk Model October 23, 2014 Page 2 of 2 • Reliance on the architectural firm to provide construction management is reduced significantly. • Reliance on the need for in -house construction management knowledge is addressed. • Gain earlier and better knowledge of cost and schedule. • Faster project delivery than traditional design- bid - build. • More control selecting subcontractors. Due to the fact that under this method Council would not be awarding a bid, staff would provide updates to Council once a Construction Manager is selected through an RFQ and RFP process and would bring forward a contract with the selected Construction Manager once a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for the project is established. In addition to hiring a Construction Manager, staff would also hire an Owner's Representative. Owners Representatives serve as an extension of the owner's staff, providing on -site representation to ensure that construction proceeds in accordance with contract documents and is completed on time and within budget, protecting the owner's interest at all times. Similar to the Construction Manager, the Owner's Representative is also brought into the process during the design phase, allowing them to provide guidance throughout the lifecycle of the project. Typical costs for a Construction Manager are in the range of 3 -5% of the total construction cost. This cost was assumed within the project budget included in the CIP. Typical costs for an Owner's Representative are in the range of 1 -1.5% of the total construction cost. This cost was not assumed within the project budget; however, staff believes this cost can be covered within the budgeted contingencies. Recommendation For information only. If you have questions regarding this memorandum, please contact Michelle Crandall at 614 - 410 -4400 (desk) or 614 - 206 -4886 (mobile). Project Delivery Method Comparison Guide Ohio Construction Reform Rev. 04.23.12 Description Advantages Disadvantages • Familiar delivery method • Linear process means longer Traditional approach in which the owner . Fully defined project scope schedule hires an A/E to fully document the project . Both designer and contractor • Limited control over contractor and criteria and design prior to bidding. Multiple accountable to owner subcontractor selection packages are separately bid and awarded to . Creates most prime bidding • No design or cost input from the lowest responsive and responsible prime opportunities (lowest bonding) contractor contractors. The owner holds all prime • Lowest Initial price •Lack of flexibility for change contracts and Is responsible for coordination . Good for simple projects that • Can be adversarial in nature W g during construction. are not schedule- driven and •Not good for complex projects that W not subject to change are schedule - driven a w a • Fully defined project scope • Adds level of bureaucracy J An owner's agent is hired through a . Supplements owner's staff • Limited control over contractor and M qualifications based selection . Independent professional services & subcontractor selection process during the design phase. expertise for owner • Owner still holds contracts for W The owner's criteria and full design • Creates most prime bidding construction Q is documented by a separate A/E. opportunities (lowest bonding) . Not suited for small projects The CMA provides estimates during •Drawbacks common to the 2 U design, assists with bidding and design- bid -build process coordinates prime contractors during construction. The owner bids and holds all contracts for construction. • Familiar delivery method . Sequential process means Z A linear design -bid -build process in which . Fully defined project scope longer schedule v the owner selects an A/E to fully document . Both designer and contractor .Limited control over contractor and the project criteria and design prior to accountable to owner subcontractor selection F9 bidding. The lowest responsive and • Simple procurement method • No design or cost input from O responsible GC (single prime) is awarded • Single contractor to manage g g contractor U the contract. The owner holds a single . Good for simple to moderately • Can be adversarial in nature 9 contract with the GC. complex projects that are not •Not good for complex projects that z schedule -driven are schedule -driven • Bonding requirements • Contractor input on design • Relationship changes during A contractor is hired through a best value . Selection of contractor based design to construction phase selection process during the design phase. qualifications and price • Increased contingency for Y The owner's criteria and full design is • Open -book GMP assumption of risk documented by a separate A/E. The CMR • Faster project delivery than . Difficult to determine if best price m provides a guaranteed maximum price prior traditional design- bid -build has been achieved to bidding. The CMR bids to prequalified • Provides flexibility o handle changes ty g •Bonding requirements U subcontractors and holds all subcontracts during design phase . Disputes if GMP scope not clear for construction. • Good for large or complex schedule -driven projects • More control selecting subs • Single point of responsibility • Owner has less control over selecting A single entity is hired through a best value for design and construction designer selection process to deliver a complete • Contractor selection based . Owner has less input in details project. The owner's criteria and design on qualifications and price . Over emphasis on price may o Intent is documented by a separate criteria . Fastest project delivery compromise quality architect. The design is completed by the Open -book GMP • Difficult to determine if best price has m DB entity and a guaranteed maximum price . No changes orders for design been achieved z is provided prior to bidding. The DB entity errors and omissions • Owner required to make quick � bids to prequalified subcontractors and •Good for new construction decisions LU C3 holds all subcontracts for construction. that is time sensitive and not • Changes difficult & expensive subject to change • Bonding requirements ' Disoutes if criteria not clear • Good for less complex projects . More control selecting sub's Ohio Construction Reform Rev. 04.23.12 s oo W V Z a H oC O a W J W V 4A 3 O J Project Delivery Method Selection Diagram Small PROJECT SIZE Large Low PROJECT COMPLEXITY High s ao N N W Z W U W W Z 3 J Ohio Construction Reform Rev. 04.23.12