City of Columbus - File #: 1765-2015

• File #: 1765-2015
• Version: 1
• Type: Ordinance
• Status: Passed
• File created: 6/24/2015
• In control: Public Utilities Committee
• On agenda: 7/27/2015
• Final action: 7/30/2015
• Title: To authorize the Director of Public Utilities to modify a professional engineering services agreement with EMHT Inc. for the Blacklick Sanitary Intercept Sewer, Section 6, Parts B&C; to authorize the appropriation and transfer of funds from the Sanitary Sewer Reserve Fund to the Sanitary Sewer General Obligation (G.O.) Bond Fund and to authorize the expenditure of $1,714,133.90 from the Sanitary Sewer General Obligation (G.O.) Bond Fund. ($1,714,133.90)

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result
7/30/2015	1	CITY CLERK	Attest
7/29/2015	1	MAYOR	Signed
7/27/2015	1	COUNCIL PRESIDENT	Signed
7/27/2015	1	Columbus City Council	Read for the First Time
7/27/2015	1	Columbus City Council	Waive the 2nd Reading	Pass
7/27/2015	1	Columbus City Council	Approved	Pass

Explanation

1. BACKGROUND: This legislation authorizes the Director of Public Utilities to modify (Mod #1) an existing engineering agreement with Evans Mechart Hambleton & Tilton (EMHT) Inc. for the Blacklick Sanitary Intercept Sewer, Section 6, Parts B&C for the Division of Sewerage and Drainage. The design consultant shall provide all engineering services during construction including, but not limited to: attendance at all construction kickoff, progress, and disputes review board meetings, submittal review, response to requests for information from contractors, preparation of requests for proposals, claims and change order review, coordination of well dewatering response plan, and record plan production.

Project Modification Data: Amount of additional funds to be expended: $1,714,133.90

1.1 Original Contract $2,137,198.16
Modification # 1 $5,706,025.31
Current Modification #2 $1,714,133.90
TOTAL $9,557,357.37

Future Modification $3,000,000.00
Future Modification Total $12,557,357.37

1.2 Reasons additional goods/services could not be foreseen:
Contract modification was planned and anticipated, and so stated in the original contract's legislation.
It should be noted that the “Future Proposed Contract Modification” amount referenced in the previously executed legislation modifying this contract was in error by not including all future contract modification dollars known at that time.

1.3 Reason other procurement processes are not used:
Given the highly technical nature of the project and the specialized knowledge of the project area required to complete the services, it would be more costly to solicit proposals for completions of the services by other parti...