Skip to main content
header-left
File #: 2742-2018    Version: 1
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
File created: 9/26/2018 In control: Public Utilities Committee
On agenda: 11/5/2018 Final action: 11/7/2018
Title: To authorize the Director of Public Utilities to renew an existing engineering agreement with Smoot Construction Company for Professional Construction Management Services for the Lockbourne Intermodal Subtrunk project; to authorize a transfer within and an expenditure of up to $4,129,954.75 from the Sanitary Sewer General Obligation (G.O.) Bond Fund; to amend the 2018 Capital Improvements Budget; and to declare an emergency. ($4,129,954.75).
Attachments: 1. Ord 2742-2018 Director's Legislation Information Sheet (491.6 mod 2), 2. Ord 2742-2018 Subcontractor Utilization Form PCM R#2, 3. Ord 2742-2018 DAX Financial Form 650491-100006
Explanation

1. BACKGROUND: This legislation authorizes the Director of Public Utilities to renew (Renewal #2) an existing engineering agreement with Smoot Construction Company for the Professional Construction Management (PCM) Services for the Lockbourne Intermodal Subtrunk project, CIP 650491-100006. This is the second planned modification/renewal of this agreement. To date, the CMT (construction management team) has assisted with the value engineering efforts, bid document evaluation, public meetings, public outreach, bidding process, and construction management and inspection services. Under this contract modification, the Smoot team will continue to provide all construction management, inspection services, startup coordination, reporting, budgeting, scheduling, document tracking, and other related tasks required per the attached scope. This work is being completed in the Rickenbacker planning area.

1.1 Modification Information: Amount of additional funds $4,129,954.75

Original Contract: $1,075,778.00
Design Modification #1 $5,031,441.43
Design Renewal #2(Current) $4,129,954.75
TOTAL $10,237,174.20

1.2 Reasons additional goods/services could not be foreseen:
This is the second of two planned modifications/renewals.

1.3 Reason other procurement processes are not used:
Re-bid of the project will likely result in a higher project costs as much of the project history would be lost and would need to be rediscovered by another consultant unless the new RFP were won by the same consultant. In such a case, we would have missed significant time in acquiring and evaluating the new proposals without significant benefit. Also, the project is currently in construction and there would not be sufficient enough time to secure a contract with another firm without delaying construction or creating a lapse in management coverage.

1.4 How cost of modification was determined:
Costs were negotiated between the Division of Sewerage and Drainage...

Click here for full text