header-left
File #: 1222-2023    Version: 1
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
File created: 4/18/2023 In control: Public Utilities Committee
On agenda: 5/15/2023 Final action: 5/18/2023
Title: To authorize an amendment to the 2022 Capital Improvement Budget; to authorize a transfer of cash within the Sanitary General Obligation Bond Fund; to authorize the Director of Public Utilities to enter into a contract modification with Prime AE Group for the Intermodal Sanitary Subtrunk Extension Project; to expend up to $1,065,568.19 from the Sanitary General Obligation Fund to pay for the project; and to declare an emergency. ($1,065,568.19)
Indexes: WBE Participation
Attachments: 1. ORD 1222-2023 Accounting Template, 2. ORD 1222-2023 Utilization, 3. ORD 1222-2023 Informtion
Explanation
1. BACKGROUND
This ordinance authorizes the Director of the Department of Public Utilities to enter into a contract modification with Prime AE Group, Inc., for the Intermodal Sanitary Subtrunk Extension project, CIP #650491-100007, in an amount not to exceed $1,065,568.19.

This will provide engineering services during the extension of the Intermodal Sanitary Subtrunk along Rickenbacker Parkway and Airbase Road from 3329 Thoroughbred Court to County Road 237. Phase 1 will construct approximately 7,500 feet and the majority of the installation will be a 54-inch diameter sewer constructed by tunneling methods. Phase 2 will extend sanitary sewer service further into the Rickenbacker service area by constructing a new 24" sanitary subtrunk sewer from the planned terminus of phase 1 easterly along Wright Road and adjacent fields to the eastern service boundary near Walnut Creek. To date the consultant has provided the master planning, detailed design, specifications, contract documents and other reports required for the construction of the Intermodal Sanitary Subtrunk Extension.

The Community Planning Area is 99 - Citywide.

1.1 Amount of additional funds to be expended: $1,065,568.19

Original Contract $ 2,477,083.44 (ORD 1312-2017; PO072924)
Current Modification $ 1,065,568.19
CONTRACT TOTAL $ 3,542,651.63

1.2. Reason other procurement processes are not used:
Re-bidding of the project would likely result in a higher costs since much of the project’s history would have been 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.

1.3. How the cost of modification was determined:
The cost es...

Click here for full text