header-left
File #: 1428-2019    Version: 1
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
File created: 5/16/2019 In control: Public Utilities Committee
On agenda: 6/10/2019 Final action: 6/14/2019
Title: To authorize the Director of Public Utilities to renew an existing engineering agreement with DLZ Ohio, Inc. for the Lower Olentangy Tunnel Phase 1 & 2; to transfer within and expend up to $5,482,693.30 from the Sanitary Sewer General Obligation (G.O.) Bond Fund; and to amend the 2019 Capital Improvements Budget for the Division of Sewerage and Drainage. ($5,482,693.30)
Attachments: 1. Ord 1428-2019 Director's Legislation Information Sheet (1-23-2019), 2. Ord 1428-2019 DAX Financial Form LOT P 1&2, 3. Ord 1428-2019 SWIF LOT Ph 1&2
Explanation

1. BACKGROUND: This legislation authorizes the Director of Public Utilities to renew (R #2) an existing engineering agreement with DLZ Ohio, Inc. for the Lower Olentangy Tunnel Phase 1 & 2, CIP 650724-100000. The work for this project will include reviewing of existing information, preliminary field investigations, preliminary geotechnical investigation and preliminary design report have been completed under the original contract. A large portion of the detailed design, final geotechnical investigation, survey, and easement preparation were completed under Renewal No. 1. Completion of detailed design, production of specifications and bidding related services will be completed with Renewal No. 2. Future contract modifications will include engineering services during construction.

Planning Area: the project is located within the Downtown, Near North/University and the West Olentangy community planning areas.

Renewal Information:

1.1 Amount of additional funds to be expended: $5,482,693.30
Original Contract $5,488,356.00
Renewal No. 1 $5,402,729.00
Modification No. 2 $5,482,693.30
CURRENT PROPOSED TOTAL $16,373,778.30

1.2 Reasons additional goods/services could not be foreseen.
This modification was anticipated

1.3 Reason other procurement processes are not used:
Substantial information and knowledge has been developed by the consultant through work performed during the first three years of work on this engineering agreement. If the work to be performed under this Renewal was to be bid out separately, tasks already completed would be performed repetitively causing significant delays and incurring additional cost. Also delays would put the City at risk of missing consent order deadlines.

1.4 How cost of modification was determined:
A scope of services, consistent with the original proposal and contract, was developed and fee was negotiated between the City and consultant.

2. PROJECT TIMELINE: This renewal work is s...

Click here for full text