11222011 CHESAPEAKE BEACH FIRE STATIONChesapeake Beach Fire & EMS Stati
on
City Council Briefing
•
November 22, 2011
1
Chesapeake Beach Fire & EMS Station
Project Timeline
?
Aug. 12, 2011 –Request for Proposals issued
?
Sept. 22, 2011 –Proposals due
?
Oct. 10, 2011 –Notice of Intent to Award
?
Nov. 10, 2011 –City Council Information Packet
?
Nov. 22, 2011 –City Council Briefing
Dec. 6, 2011 –Council Agenda Item
?
January 2012 –Award contract/Issue NTP
?
July 2013 –Project Complete
?
2
Chesapeake Beach Fire & EMS Station
3
Chesapeake Beach Fire & Rescue Station
4
Chesapeake Beach Fire & Rescue Station
5
Chesapeake Beach Fire & Rescue Station
6
Chesapeake Beach Fire & EMS Station
Alternatives Deducted Value of Work per the Round off in
Lump-SumProposalFrom ProposalsRFP($millions)
P.G. Harris
$ 3,199,995.92 $529,112.00$ 3,729,107.92 $ 3.7
Chesson
$ 3,772,430.55 0.0$ 3,772,430.55 $ 3.8
Ritchie-Curbow
$ 3,851,144.00 0.0$ 3,851,144.00 $ 3.9
Sauer
$ 3,709,650.00 $257,000.00$ 3,966,650.00 $ 4.0
Virtexco
$ 4,184,250.00 0.0$ 4,184,250.00 $ 4.2
Clancy & Theys
$ 4,192,555.50 $533,743.50$ 4,726,299.00 $ 4.7
7
Chesapeake Beach Fire & EMS Station
Proposed AlternativesAdded BackAccepted
1 -Change to fire pole$ -$ 17,475.00
2 -Auto flush/faucet valves$ 5,126.00
3 -Ceramic showers$ 2,340.00
4 -Use 30-year shingles$ -$ 40,930.00
5 -Use parapet wall$ -$ 74,820.00
6 -Use 3-ply roof system$ 29,125.00
7 -Use manual partitions$ -$ 1,864.00
8 -Provide compressor$ 9,436.50
9 -Install geothermal HVAC$ 197,512.94
10 -Provide galv. Steel channels$ 12,815.00
11 -Use porcelain tile$ 32,817.75
12 -Use 3/4" raceways$ 20,970.00
13 -Provide copper wiring $ 16,310.00
14 -Provide full emergency power$ 34,950.00
15 -Provide panel, switch, etc for egress lighting$ 13,980.00
16 -Provide dimming only in day/training room$ -$ 18,640.00
Total$ 375,383.19
$ 153,729.00
8
Chesapeake Beach Fire & EMS Station
Energy Saving Features
Install the geothermal HVAC $197,513
Upgrade to LED Exterior lights$10,500
Upgrade to parabolic interior lights$8,400
DDC controls & energy recovery ventilators$112,238
Lighting Auto Controls$7,500
Building overhangs for passive shading$39,106
Subtotal$375,257
5.6%Design $21,014
5% Contingency$19,814
Total$416,085
9
Staff Recommendation
City Council authorizes transfer of Energy
•
Performance CIP #3-140 funds to the
Chesapeake Beach Fire Station CIP #3-244 in
the amount of $416,085 so as to fund the
energy saving LEED work items within the
project and to add-back contract items
designated for deletion due to proposal costs.
10
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Procurement Strategy:The City has been very successful with the design-build
•
Memo to City Mgr
construction delivery method.Our experience with design-build is as follows:
Completed Projects
–
Sandler Center for the Performing Arts
•
Police Dept. Helicopter Hangar
•
Grommet Park Restrooms
•
Animal Shelter, VB Animal Care and Adoption Center
•
Currentlyunder contract:
–
Large Vehicle Repair Shop
•
Williams Farm Rec Center
•
In the RFP/Contract Award phase:
–
Chesapeake Beach Fire Station
•
Town Center Fire Station
•
Police Special Ops/Forensics/Evidence Complex
•
Lessons Learned:
•
Four successfully completed design build projects
–
All delivered on time and budget
–
No disputes or post construction litigation
–
Owner not responsible for design errors and omissions
–
Use both best value selection and acceptable proposal/low price selection methods
–
What are the implications as to the under pricing of the CIP?We assume this to question our
•
government estimate as to what the project might cost. Looks like the range of $264 -$300 per sf
(design build) indicates the cost of construction is returning to pre-recession levels. For this project
11
we estimated a design build cost of @$230/sf.
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Listing price was $1,495,000
•
Acquisition Cost:$1,359,500.75
•
Closing: Nov, 2008
•
12
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Expended on A&E support:
•
Our architect was paid for development of the RFP in the amount of
$90,000.We are not aware of any industry benchmarks for design build, but the $90,000 is 2.8 % of $3.2
million design build budget. This amount is within our anticipated range of bridging document preparation
costs.
The AE delivered IAW the agreement:
•
Four parts of the five part RFP.Staff provided the Part One which
are the contract agreement documents (boilerplate).
The four parts prepared by the AE are:
–
Part 2 –The Project Program and Description, a narrative defining the scope of the project.
•
Part 3 –The General Requirements addressing the contractor’s responsibilities for contract administration.
•
Part 4-the Technical Specifications.
•
Part 5 –The drawings, floor plans, elevations, site plans.
•
Other engineering expenditures totaling $45,268 in supportof project included:
–
hazards material report (asbestos, lead, etc.)
•
geotechnical subsurface investigation (soils report or structural analysis)
•
environmental assessments, Phase I and II
•
geothermal conductivity test report
•
Design: $300K
ground water sampling
•
Acquisition: $1.6M
additional specifications for contaminated soils
•
Construction $2.7M
VPDES Permit, for discharge of any contaminated ground water
•
FFE: $261K
Soils and ground water testing during construction
•
Topographic site survey
•
Contingency: $263K
13
Exceed budget: No. The Budgeted Amount is $5,248,800
•
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Standard footprint to minimize A&E expenses:The
•
design and footprint of the building are driven by the
configuration of the parcel and by the size of the
building.However, in the case of fire station projects,
the First Landing Station has become the model for
functionally, adjacencies, and material
selections.Those design features were used in
developingthe Chesapeake Beach
project.Additionally, the City has different design
guidelines depending on location.The Chesapeake
Beach station is following the Shore Drivedesign
guidelines and the Town Center station will follow the
Pembroke Central Business District design guidelines.
14
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Breakdown of the $3.2 million for the design
•
build contract:
•
Design:$300,000
–
Construction:$2,700,000
–
Contingencies:$200,000
–
15
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
No –we did not extract soil samples cores to evaluate
•
for contaminated soils
When the City acquired the site, a Phase I Environment
•
Site Assessment was provided by the broker. Research
indicated that there had been leaking underground
storage tanks.However, those tanks were closed
(removed) by the previous owner and verified by the
DEQ.Though detectable levels of petroleum
contamination was left on site, the DEQ issued a “no
further action” findings.
16
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
If Yes: Not applicable
•
17
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
No, the presence of contaminated soils was known at time of
•
site acquisition. We acquired the parcel for $150K less than
the listing price.
In preparing the RFP for this project, we have taken a very
•
conservative approach in mitigatingthis contingency.We
have provided specifications for handling and disposal
ofcontaminated soils and handling contaminated ground
water, if those conditions are encountered.We have included
contingency allowances, established unit price work, and will
have test agencies on site during construction to monitor
contractor operations during this phase of the work.
Essentially, we have planned for the worst case.
$100,000 for the unit price work (line item allowance)
–
$50/cy undercut & excavation
•
18
$55/ton treatment and disposal
•
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Unsuitable soils focuses on the structural integrity of soils encountered at
•
the design depths of excavations.In Virginia Beach, it is typical to
encounter unsuitable soils.While we provided soil boring information, it
is still very possible to encounter soils unsuitable for construction.To
manage this contingency, weinclude an allowance for the cost, if
incurred, and established the unit price for the work.
Unsuitable soils: From the same $100,000 allowance for unit price work:
•
a. Machine excavation and disposal off site –$20.00/cy
b.Hand excavation & disposal off site -$50.00/cy
c.Compacted select backfill –$20.00/cy
d. Compacted Stone backfill –$25.00/cy
e.Machine excavation and disposal on site -$6/cy
f.Hand excavation & disposal on site –$40.00/cy
19
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
CIP3-244 (page 3-10) reflects:
•
FFE at $261,000
–
Contingencies as $362, 500
–
The $550,000 retained outside of the design-build contract are for:
•
Furniture and Fixtures at $225,000
–
Phones, computers, radios (equipment, service, installations)at $75,000
–
Contingenciesat $250,000
–
No trades were made to affect this reduction. Once the construction
•
scope was developed the additional budgeted amount for the FFE and
contingencies, along with the unused acquisition costs, were added to
the amount available for construction.
The design and construction amount was raised to $3.2M. The CIP
•
reflects Design at $300K and Construction at $2.7M
20
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
The total cost of ownership was not calculated.We do not typically
•
perform those types of analysis for replacement facilities other than to
evaluate changes in positions , operating and maintenance costs. As we
have established the need to replace this fire station our intent is to
design and construct a facility that has proven functionality and
incorporates reasonable energy efficiencies. No additional personnel are
planned for this new station.
As the current City policy is to achieve a basic level of LEED certification for
•
new City buildings over 10,000 sf we incorporate geothermal and efficient
lighting as our principal savers. For planning purposes we use a 13 year
and a 5 year ROI respectively.
We also incorporate requirements of our Building Maintenance Division
•
for such items as roofing, exterior & interior surfaces, flooring, plumbing
and electrical. We incorporate our City’s Building Maintenance Design
Standards within our RFPs so that our preferred materials and equipment
are included in the project.
21
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Why did not the City approach Chesson to see what price
•
they would quote for the revised requirement?A
requirement of the RFP was that proposals would not
exceed $3.2 million.If the proposal did exceed that limit, it
would be considered non-responsive and would not be
evaluated.With the concurrence of the Purchasing Agent
and the City Attorney’s Office, P.G. Harris offered the only
RFP compliant proposal and would be the only firm forthe
City tocontinue with negotiations.
22
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Ceramic vs. fiberglass showers:While fiberglass
•
showers are suitable for residential use, due to
the heavy utilization in a fire station and the need
for durable surfaces, it is recommended that
ceramic tile be used in the shower areas.
Warranty on fiberglass showers is 10 years for
•
residential and 3 years commercial.
Ceramic tile will last 20 years.
•
The service life of a fire station is 40 years +.
•
23
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Porcelain Tile:According to the square footages on the room sheets,
•
there is a total of 4677 SF that was to be covered in porcelain floor tile,
including lobbies, corridors, kitchen/dining and the laundry.P.G Harris
proposes to use Vinyl Composition Tile in these areas for a savings of
$32,818, or about $7/SF.
Not affected by this would be any of the toilet or shower facilities:
•
porcelain tile would remain in the three small public toilet rooms, and all
of the private toilet rooms have mosaic tile instead of porcelain
tile.Depending upon type, size and thickness, the estimated cost for
provision and installation of porcelain tile ranges from about $10/SF to
$11.50/SF; VCT ranges from $2 -$4/SF, for a difference of about $7.50 -
$8/SF, not far off from the square foot savings proposed by P.G.
Harris.This cost information is from the 2012 RS Means Building
Construction Cost Data.
FD requested the use of porcelain tile for its durability and is essentially
•
maintenance free. Using VCT requires stripping and waxing of the floor
which requires time—cleaning of the station is done by firefighters—
which is not done by cleaning contractors as done throughout the city.
There is an “economy of scales” by saving wax, floor stripper, and labor
costs by using porcelain tile over the life cycle of the station.
24
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Roofing Systems:There are two types of roofing included in the
•
project: flat roof and mansards. The City standard for flat roofs is
the 3-ply membrane cold-applied system.The alternative was to
use a single-sheet membrane system.It was recommended that a
3 ply built-up roof be utilized for the flat portion of the roof on the
fire station rather than a single membrane roof.This is alternative
#6.The expected life of a 3 ply built-up roof is 20 to 25 years and
the expected life of a single ply roof is 8 to 10 years.The 30 year
shingles were recommended on the sloping mansard roof and the
overhangs in lieu ofa standing seam metal roof.While the shingle
roof and the standing seam metal roof have similar expected life
periods, the shingle roof is easier to maintain and repair. As such,
we accepted that alternative at a savings of $40,930.00.
25
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
26
Staff Responses to #16
As the October Bid Report from the City Manager reflected, our Engineer’s Estimate for
•
the Crab Creek Dredging was $360,000, the low bid was $242,500.
The difference between $360K and $242.5K is $117,500.The Engineer’s Estimate is not
•
the “amount budgeted”. It reflects the amount that must be available in the
appropriate accounts before we bid the project. This is an estimation of the potential
quantities needed to be removed and the possible construction costs to accomplish it.
CIP 8-004 Various Minor Dredging Projects had $248,326 added in the FY12 budget.
This is a unit price, per cubic yard, contract –Because the work is not complete the final
•
cost cannot be determined until the last of the hydrographic surveys are performed
and the volume dredged is calculated.The $117,500 difference between the Engineer’s
Estimate and the low bid is still, in part, in play.
The Crab Creek Channel is dredged every year under the Various Minor Dredging CIP
•
#8-004.Any savings that occur with this year’s contract just reduces the amount
needed in future appropriations to this CIP project.This is an on-going maintenance
project, which is distinctly different from one-time construction projects like buildings
or roads.It should be noted that our Coastal maintenance projects (Rudee, Lynnhaven,
Beach Replenishment, Various Minor Dredging) are funded cumulatively, that balances
are carried forward purposefully. and fund balances are combined with new
appropriations to allow the letting of the new years maintenance contracts.
27
Staff Responses to #16 continued
As for using CIP# 3-244, Energy contracts to assist in providing our established top
•
energy savers: Lighting, and Geothermal we feel are legitimate contributors to creating
energy efficient buildings. The ROI’s we use in planning for these are @ 5 and 13 years
respectively so in a 40 year + building we see this as a fiscally sound strategy.
Here are comparables on the payback for geothermal.
•
Sandbridge FS uses 57 KBTUs/s.f./year, which has a geothermal system
–
Princess Anne FS uses 109 KBTUs/s.f./year, which does not have a geothermal system
–
Both stations are 14,000 s.f.
–
The delta is 52 KBTUs/s.f./year which equals 15 KWH/s.f. –year
–
15 KWH/s.f./year X 14,000 s.f. (the new CBFS ) = 210,000 KWH saved per year.
–
At $0.08/KWH = $16,800/year.
–
The cost to upgrade (buy back) the geothermal is $197,513.
–
That cost divided by the savings per year = a 11.7 year payback
–
That would be a good investment for a 40 to 50 year life on a typical City building.Further,maintenance
–
and replacement over the years would be for the equipment, and not the geothermal piping in the ground.
Using our road program or coastal program does not seem applicable. Recently we
•
reviewed with Council all excess/unused funds in the roads program and moved the
majority to fund additional road work.
28
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
The reliability of Auto Flush devices have
•
significantly improved in recent years.
Due to sanitary concerns toilets and urinals
•
with manual levers arefrequently treated as
“foot levers” to keep from touching the levers
with people’s hands.The result is a higher
amount of service calls due to leaks created by
the pipe connections becoming loose from
persons kicking the levers.
29
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Ceramic tile showers can either be sealed or
•
we can use an epoxy based grout that
eliminates the need for grout to be sealed.
In either case the firefighters clean the
•
showers on a daily basis due to usage in a
manner similar to other industrial type
buildings like hotels.
30
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
The specifications required the compressor air piping and
•
other components for the air compressor, with the City
providing the compressor. The contractor offered an
alternative to provide the compressor.We accepted that
proposal and want to buy it back.
This proposal was provided by the contractor in a competitive
•
bidding market.He offered alternatives that could be deleted
to meet the financial objective of $3.2 million.
He was the low bidder, with and without these alternatives.
•
We are adding back some of the alternatives at the same cost
•
he deleted them. As such, we are of the opinion that the cost
for the alternatives were provided in a competitive market and
provide a fair and reasonable price.
31
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Copper wiring –The specifications required copper wiring. The
•
alternative was to use aluminum wiring for the service feeders and
copper everywhere else.Aluminum is still allowed by the building
code.The issue with aluminum is the range of expansion and
contraction of the metal, that will cause connectors to become
loose over time and create a maintenance issue.Building
Maintenance prefers the copper for that reason.
This proposal was provided by the contractor in a competitive
•
bidding market.He offered alternatives that could be deleted to
meet the financial objective of $3.2 million.He was the low bidder,
with and without these alternatives.
We are adding back some of the alternatives at the same cost he
•
deleted them. As such, we are of the opinion that the cost for
$16,310 copper alternative for the feeders alternatives were
provided in a competitive market and provide a fair and reasonable
price.We feel buying this alternative deletion back is a long term
cost effective investment.
32
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
Dimming in the day/training room –The
•
alternative was to just provide the dimming
capability in the day/training rooms.We
accepted that alternative for a savings of
$18,640. This is not a buyback.
33
John Moss
15 Nov 2011
Memo to City Mgr
The exterior LED lights were not an alternative that was deleted.This is
•
one of the energy savings features we felt could be funded by the energy
performance CIP.
This is not a buy back.Our specifications require LED lights to be used
•
when mounted on the building and pole mounted in the parking lot for
site lighting.Since LED lights save energy, it was one of the energy saving
features included in that list. A different contractor offered a savings of
$10,500 to change those LED exterior lightsto compact fluorescents.We
used that number to document the value of the LED upgrade as an energy
saving feature to be funded by the energy performance CIP.The quantity
of exterior LEDs is not determined, but having 10 of them on this site is a
reasonable estimate.
On a comparable basis we paid $14,000 for the animal shelter LED site
•
lighting. We have installed 13 pole mounted lights in the parking lot at
approximately $1080/head. Building Maintenance is spending about that
at the oceanfront for LED heads on poles.We checked with PACE
Collaborative and they confirmed this to be the going rate.
34
Staff Recommendation
City Council authorizes transfer of Energy
•
Performance CIP #3-140 funds to the Chesapeake
Beach Fire Station CIP #3-244 in the amount of
$416,085 so as to fund the energy saving LEED
work items within the project and to add-back
contract items designated for deletion due to
proposal costs.
With Council permission an ordinance item will
•
be placed on the December 6 Agenda for formal
vote.
35