HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 PROJ M-M032(004) 12-19-83AGENDA
OATE: DECEMBER 12, 1983
NEW BUSINESS
NO. 1
12-19-83
Inter-Corn
TO:
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: DALE WICK, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT:
MOULTON PARKWAY FAU PROJECT M-M032(004)
APPROVAL OF MAJOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council by minute order approve the attached
contract change order No. 10 for the Moulton Parkway FAU Project M-M032(O04).
BACKGROUND:
During the months of September, October and November of 1983 the contractor (SoCal
Constructors) for subject project has been importing fill material for the Myford
Road Bridge embankment. Toward the end of November we began to realize that it
appeared there was going to be a substantial quantity overrun on embankment
material since we were fast approaching the contract quantity and the roadway
embankment was far from complete. Consequently, we.ordered a survey of material
in place to determine material needed to complete the project. The results are
that an-unanticipated $421,000.00 + will be required to complete this item of
work, or an increase of 7.8% in th~ total contract amount.
Contract change orders are normally approved by staff but because of the magnitude
of this increase we felt that City Council approval should be obtained.
Also, because the overrun on this item of work amounts to an 83% increase of this
item, staff contacted the design consulting Engineer for an explanation for this
increase. The Engineers response is attached.
CalTraus has already approved this change order for 86.22% FAU participation and
in addition, a portion of the embankment lies within the City of Irvine. The
agency shares of the estimated $421,000.00 increase are as tabulated below:
CalTrans FAU Share
City of Tustin Share
City of Irvine Share
$362,960.00
39,200.00
18,840.00
TOTAL $421,000.00
The $421,000.00 figure is still an estimate, because contract specifications
require that in the event of quantity overruns in excess of 25%, the contract unit
price shall be adjusted.
MOULTON PARKWAY FAU PROJECT M-M032(004)
APPROVAL OF MAJOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
DECEMBER 12, 1983
PAGE 2
The contractor is presently looking for another source of material and the final
increase will depend on what he has to pay for the material at the new source plus
his trucking costs.
The bottom line is that basically this change order corrects an error in quantity
take-off. The overall cost increase to the project will be virtually nothing,
since the work was there to do, but due to the take-off error our projected total
project cost was too low.
Dale A. Wick
Assistant City Engineer
and Resident Engineer for
Moulton Parkway FAU Project
Attachment
VAN DELL and ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-LAND PLANNERS
17801 CARTWRIGHT ROAD, SUITE A
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714
AREA CODE 714 / 966-1100
December 6, 1983
Mr. Dale Wick
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Re: Moulton Parkway/Irvine Center Drive
Dear Dale:
In response to your November 17, 1983 letter the following
comments concerning the import imbalance are offered.
The basis for our estimate of import material was 105 lbs.
per cubic foot. The contractor is using material having a
unit weight of 130 lbs per cubic foot. The difference will
result in a 24% increase in tonnage.
The unit weight assumed for our estimate was discussed with
our soils consultant during plan preparation. Our consultant
indicated that the material may vary between 90 and 120 lbs
per cubic foot and the mid-range, 105 lbs per cubic foot, was
utilized for estimating purposes.
The more dense material being used by the contractor will
improve the R-value. Consideration may be given to reducing
the structural section for the roadway since it was designed
using an R-value of 10.
A review of the backup calculations for the earthwork has
been made. The fill requirements for the Myford Road
embankment north of the railroad were omitted from the
earthwork summary. There are approximately 38,000 cubic
yards in this fill or 54,000 tons at 105 lbs per cubic foot.
trust that this explanation will aid in resolving the issue.
Sincerely,
VAN DELL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Johnnie Freeman, P.E.
Project Engineer
JLF: vb
cc: Jim Castles, Pacific Soils
CITY OF TUSTIN
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. I0
CONTRACTOR ~ 0c::,4 (_
DESCRIPTION THIS CCO
CHANGE IN CONTRACT ITEMS
INCREASE (OECREASE)
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY
AHOUNT
4 20, cy4 ,.
~' AOOITI'ONAL' WORK (NO ~ONTRACT ITEM)
TOTAL
$
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NET CHANGE
SUH~ARY OF CONTRACT COST STATUS
PRECEDING CCO CHANGES - INCREASE ~ DECREASE ~ - ................ ~---
THIS CCO CHANGE - INCREASE X OECREASE
ACCEPTED~
SUBMITTED BY: '~4L~'
APPROVED: City Eno n~ee~
NEW ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST
APPROVAL RECOI~'I4ENOED: ~