HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-81-0202RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTAIN CHANGES UNDER
CONTRACT OF OCTOBER 24, 1979 WITH FRANK J. ROONEY,
INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CITY OF MIAMI/UNIVERSITY
OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER,
INCLUDING CHANGES TO ADD $2.7 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE
GUARANTEED MAXIMUM COST, EXTENDING DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL
COMPLETION TO APRIL 27, 1982, AND ACCOMPLISHING CER-
TAIN OTHER MODIFICATIONS PERTAINING TO FUTURE CHANGES
AND OPERATIONS UNDER ThE CONTRACT; AND FURTHER AUTHOR-
IZING A RESERVE FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.8 MILLION
DOLLARS TO MEET CERTAIN OTHER CONTINGENCIES IN CONNEC-
TION WITH CONSTRUCTION 01! SUBJECT PROJECT; AND FURTHER
PROVIDING THAT THE SOURCE OF THE AGGREGATE OF $4.5
MILLION DOLLARS BE THOSE FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE CITY
FROM THE SALE OF THE INTERAMA PROPERTY. ���-,s -- ry ;-at J►�
WHEREAS,by previous Commission acts, the City heretofore on
October 24, 1979 authorized a Contract which was made with Frank J.
Rooney, Inc. for construction of the City of Miami/University of Miami
James L. Knight International Center, which contract was amended by
certain Change Orders; and
WHEREAS, since the time of the original bid submission there have
been additions and changes to the architectural plans; and
WHEREAS, said changes in the Plans and certain events have arisen
affecting the Date of Substantial Completion, which have resulted in
the necessity to increase the Guaranteed Maximum Cost under said Con-
tract by amount of $2,700,000, a portion of which is allocated to
Contractor's Fee, and to extend the Date of Substantial Completion, and
it appears to be in the best interest of the City to make certain other
modifications of provisions under the Contract relating to future changes
and operations; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for an additional reserve in amount of
$lt800,000 to be made available to cover possible future changes and
other costs pertaining to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the aggregate of all funds requested herein is $4.5
MILLION DOLLARS and such amount is available from funds received by
the City from the sale of the Interama Property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA:
t
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
MAC' 1 7
RESOLUTION NO ......................
REIAARKS: ............................
4
Section 1. The City Commission hereby authorizes the changes
in the Contract of October 24, 1979 with Frank J. Rooney, Inc., by
increasing the Guaranteed Maximum Co6t by $2.7 Million Dollars, extending
the Date of Substantial Completion to April 27, 1982, and accomplishing
the other changes, all as more particularly set forth in Change Order No.
27, the substantial form of which is attached to this Resolution and is
authorized to be signed on behalf of City; and further authorizes
establishment of a reserve fund of $1.8 Million Dollars to be used
exclusively for meeting future contingencies arising in connection
with construction of said Project, to be allocated and spent as desig-
nated by the City Manager, upon recommendation of the Project Director,
from time to time without requiring further action of the City Commission.
Section 2. The source of the herein additional authorized $4.5
MILLION DOLLARS is the funds received by the City for the sale of the
Interama Property.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17 day of MARCH , 1981.
MAUR10E A. FERRE
M A Y O R
ATTEST:
SAL H G.,eoftGlt, CITY CLERK -
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
ROBERT F. CLERK
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
-2-
CHANGE
Distribution to:
ORDER
OWNER
❑
ARCHITECT
❑
AIA DOCUMENT C 01 CONTRACTOR
❑
•
FIELD
❑
OTHER
❑
PROJECT:
Citv of Miami/University of Miami
(name. address)
James L. Knight International Center
70 (Contractor):
7
Frank J. Rooney, Inc.
2600 Douglas Road
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
CHAN'GE ORDER NUMBER: 27
INITIATION DATE: March 17, 1981
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: G-7565
CONTRACT FOR: The City of Miami
CONTRACT DATE: October 24. 1979
X>na:,�:x>s �cft>ti�t �� xec x:Ka:;�t�e,�boc�:x:rx>es i.�: �:s aCxx-x�aotx
OWNER and CONTRACTOR, upon signing hereof, hereby agree that the CO::TRACT be
and the same is hereby modified and amended as more particularly set forth herein and in
the RIDER annexed hereto and made a part hereof. Said RIDER sets forth details which
pertain to changes made by this Change Order No. 27, including changes pertaining to the
Guaranteed Maximum Cost,. Date of Substantial Completion and other matters concerning
the administration and operations under the CONTRACT.
The Guaranteed Maximum Cost under this CONTRACT is increased as set forth below,
and within said Guaranteed Maximum Cost, the CONTRACTOR'S fee through this Change
Order No. 27 is now $ 2,008,836.00.
Except as expressly modified hereby, the CONTRACT between OWNER and
CONTRACTOR remains in full force and effect as written.
1-7
t.ut %shd unlii .rcncd !tY both the Owner and Architect. --'�• -`
S,gnjioit, tit the Crrnir.lclor Ind-cales his aEreEmeni herewith, including ant, ad)usiment I-. the Contract SL:rr. or ConitJct Time.
The ow
gin,;l (Guaranteed W.aximum Cost) v.-as ........................... 5 26,700,000.00
Net chan;:c by previously authorized Change Orders ................................... 5 6,850,057.00
The (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) prior to this Change Order was .......... 5 3 3,55 0,057.00
The )m)wKxxSxxx(Guaranteed ).Maximum Cost) will be (Increased! (decreased) (unchanged)
by this Change Order......................................................... 5 2,100,000.00
The new 00C.Y•xxeca5X= (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) including this Change Order ",III oe ... 5 36,250,057.00
The Contract Time will be (Increased) (. XX%X0CkXX=tXKgeck b� Eighty- f ivt-- •( 85 ) Da}
The Diie of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is : April 27, 1982.
FERENDINO, GRAFTON, Authorized:
SPILLIS CANDELA, AIA FRANK J. ROONEY, INC. THE CITY OF 1?IANII
.TRAC70R Ov.. "ER
$6b "Bouglas Road �$00 Douzlas Road flem1. Florida
Address Adoress
Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 -
BY AuthorizeAuthonzed bignatory BY Authorized Officer City Manager
DATE As of March 17, 1981 DATE As of lurch 17, 1981 DATE As of March 17. 1981
AIA DOCUMINT C-01 • CHANGE ORDER APRIL 15'b EDt710-% AIA* C 197b
1HE .\\tLj:IL N% Or ARCHITECTS, 1735 SlW YORK AVE . \ V.. W n(HING1n, D C ?Uuri G701 —19
8� • ; 02
RIDER TO CHANGE ORDER NO. 27
CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF MIA'19I, AS OWNER, AND FRANK J. ROONEY,
INC., AS CONTRACTOR, PERTAINING TO CITY OF MIAMI/UNIVERSITY OF mIA! 1,
JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL CENTER, MIAIN?I, FLORIDA.
The OWNER and CONTRACTOR agree as follows pertaining to the CONTRACT:
A) Time Extensions.
1) All requests for extensions of time under the CONTRACT heretofore
made by CONTRACTOR are merged into the new Date of Substantial
Completion of April 27, 1982, and are therefore waived by
CONTRACTOR, including claims for extensions of tine for delays in
performance of work to date under the Steel Contract, subject to the
clarifications, exceptions and/or reservations next provided which
survive said merger and waiver:
(a) Although CONTRACTOR has merged herein and weived
its claims for extensions of time for all time delays
heretofore requested relating to the Steel Contract,
CONTRACTOR shall still be entitled to have and claim,
and shall be granted, future time extensions as follows
pertaining to the Steel Contract:
6) Time equivalent to the time required beyond
May 8, 1981 for substantial completion of all
work under the Steel Contract, other than
work for Area Nos. 6 And 7;
(ii) Time equivalent to the time required beyond
forty-two (42) days (six (6) weeks) that
FLORIDA STEEL takes to complete its work
for Area Nos. 6 And 7, and for such time as
may be reasonably necessary due to the
impact upon Date of Substantial Completion
under the CONTRACT of delaying the steel
work applicable to Area Nos. 6 And 7.
(b) For all claims for extensions of time heretofore made in
writing by CONTRACTOR based upon causes other than
those relating to delays in time under the Steel Contract,
the CONTRACTOR reserves the right to claim up to a
maximum of thirty (30) days, notwithstanding the above
recited merger and waiver, without requiring further
documentation thereof to be submitted at this time.
t
(c) The CONTRACTOR reserves, and does not waive. its.
right to claim for and receive the extensions of time for
all causes hereinafter arising which would entitle the
CONTRACTOR thereto as provided under the
CONTRACT.
2) Requests for time extensions for all of the causes which may
hereinafter give rise to the same shall still be timely filed and
properly documented by the CONTRACTOR to the OWNER.
However, all requests which remain pending, and which were not
waived as expressly set forth above, and all future requests for any
time extensions, without prejudice to the CONTRACTOR. or OWNER,
shall be reserved for determination at a future time which shall be at
or about the actual Date of Substantial Completion of the work under
the CONTRACT. Should the CONTRACTOR and OWNER not then in
good faith agree upon the necessity for, or the extent of, any
extensions of time and anv related General Conditions and Fee
allocable to such General Conditions, then either party shall be
entitled to have any unresolved claims for extensions of time, and
any accompanying requests for recoupment of General Conditions and
Fee allocable to such extensions of tune, determined by appropriate
court action.
3) Pending determination as to entitlement of CONTRACTOR to any
time extensions, the OWNER shall not withhold payment from the
CONTRACTOR of any sums which the CONTRACTOR would
otherwise be entitled to receive from the OWNER, inelucing final
payment, subject to the understanding that such payments by OWNER
to CONTRACTOR, and acceptance thereof by CONTRACTOR from
OWNER, are v:ithout prejudice to any rights of the CONTRACTOR.
and OWNER.
4) The CONTRACTOR and 0WNER agree that no further changes of
substance in the Plans and Specifications by the 01ti NER and its
Architects/Engineers are contemplated if the new Date of
Substantial Completion is to be achieved.
E) Ratification of Prior Change Orders. OWNER and CONTRACTOR hereby ratify,
confirm and approve all prior Charge Orders made between them under the
CONTRACT which includes Change Orders Nos. 1 to 20, both inclusive, and 22 to
26, both inclusive, there being no Change Order No. 21.
C) Status of CONTRACT through Change Order No. 26.
1) The aggregate value of Change Order Nos. 3 to 20, both inclusive,
and Change Order Nos. 22 to 26, both inclusive, is 5284,562.00 which
includes an addition to the CONTRACTOR'S fee of c.48,148.00, and
said aggregate of G284,562.00 reduces the amount available in
Contingencies as next set forth (rather than increasing the
Guaranteed Maximum Cost). Therefore, through Change Order No
-2-
B1 --: (o9
26, the Guaranteed Maximum Cost is $33,550,057.00, and within said
Guaranteed maximum Cost the CONTRACTOR'S fee is
$1,648,148.00.
2) Within the Guaranteed Maximum Cost, there were included
Contingencies as follows: $850,000.00 allocable to the work other
than work under the Steel Contract and the VIP Lounge; $150,000.00
for .cork under the Steel Contract; and S300,000.00 for the VIP
Lounge. After all Change Orders through Change Order No. 26, the
amount remaining in contingencies available under the work are the
following: $565,438.00 allocable to the work other than work under
the Steel Contract and the VIP Lounge; $150,000.00 for work under
the Steel Contract; and $300,000.00 for the VIP Lounge.
D) Possible Impact of Claims of certain Subcontractors due to extension of the Date
of Substantial Completion to April 27, 1982. It is possible that certain of the
subcontractors may be entitled to a claim for the impact of the above extension
of the Date of Substantial Completion to the extent that such subcontractors can
properly justify entitlement thereto, and the amount thereof. Although OWNER
and CONTRACTOR vrill fully cooperate to hold any such claims to the bearest
minimum, it is understood that where such claims are properly justified and
substantiated, and are reduced to appropriate Change Order between the
CONTRACTOR and any such subcontractor, the OWNER will reimburse
CONTRACTOR therefor by a Change Order to this CONTRACT. The same may
be paid out of Contingencies.
E) Execution of Certain Change Orders. Without requiring approval of the Cityi
Commission, Change Orders on behalf of the 0WNER may be signed by the Citv
, ,anager, Assistant City Tanager or Project Director, which shall be binding
upon the OWNER, covering all changes in the Scope of the 1',ork (including
additions or increases in value and deletions or decreases in value) where the
same will be paid for or affect any of the Contingencies now or hereafter
available under the CONTRACT, and as may be applicable under any subcontract
(including the Steel Contract). Thereby, Change Orders will only have to be
approved by the City Commission whenever there shall be hereafter involved anv
increase in the Guaranteed Maximum Cost or any further formal approval of
time extensions.
F) Effect of Chance Order No. 27.
1) Change Order No. 27 adds $2,700,000.00 to the Guaranteed Maximum
Cost, and within said sum there is included $360,688.00 for additional
CONTRACTOR'S fee, thereby bringing the Guaranteed Maximum
Cost, and CONTRACTOR'S fee included therein, to the amounts set
forth on the face page of Change Order No. 27. A Breakdown of the
Items included within the $2,700,000.00 is annexed as Schedule "A"
hereto.
2) The Scope changes under the CONTRACT included within the amount
of $1,397,241.00 on Schedule "A", other than those pertaining to the
Steel Contract, are set forth in Schedule "B".
-3-
$1--)012
3) The Scope changes within the Steel Contract included within the
amount of $750,000.00 on Schedule ^A", including clarifications of
any prior disputes under the Steel Contract as to Scope thereof, are
set forth on Schedule licit.
-4-
81
'T
10k
SCHEDULE "A"
BREAKDOWN OF $2,7002000.00
Scope under Steel Contract (Schedule "C")
Contractor's Fee on Steel Contract Amount
General Conditions to Contractor for
Extension of Time (2/1/82 to 4/27/82)
Contractor's Fee on General Conditions
Scope under Contract (other than Steel
Contract) (Schedule "B")
Contractor's Fee on above Contract Amount
LESS: from Contingencies
TOTAL
750,000.00
112,500.00
238, 7 94.00
35,819.00
1,397,241.00
212.369.00
S2,746,7123.00
46,723.00
S2.700.000.00
Contingency of S565,438,00 referred to in Paragraph C) 2) of this RIDER will be
reduced by $46,723.00 to S51P.715.00 by the above.
•
1 i . E t%
_— �...!—\..lil V� Vey ��.I �'1— �✓-J-�
•
--- .,,
�—�
- a - _
� � ��
�� � C r� 3 0_
off` _ _
.':�
CI�� GQ
!
i O"
—I G —
c
<JL
r.,',j �.
G^'
^:chi ^��` r
Lr'''3—
► ^'
—Z, &_L—
Kll
(
cL L--..a_l cl.�� — 577 i
gib^ I; r
'C ! 1
7
sl
SCHEDULE "C"
THE SCOPE OF THE STEEL CONTRACT
The Contract Price under the Steel Contract now existing, increased by $750,000.00
authorized herein (subject to a satis-factory Change Order being entered between
CONTRACTOR and FLORIDA STEEL), includes all steel work described and included
in the following Documents:
The original Steel Contract dated December 10, 1979;
Armendment thereto represented by Cite of I:iami Resolution No. 80-434
dated June 19. 1280, and the Florida Steel Letter of March 28, 1980 based
upon which said Resolution was passed, said Florida Steel Letter including
four pages plus scope definition of two pages; and
Revisions included in 1C*Q Nos. 46 through 77, plus ICM No. 85, to the
extent that the same pertain to the Structural Steel work.
By the foregoing, for example, the Scope of the 11;ork now includes all steel stringers
for concrete stairs and all continuous curbing angles.
. i ��. f F '•T
V � f
FUG
. U
CHANGE ORDER NO. 27
Signatures (Continued):
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM do CORRECTNESS:
CITY PROJECT DIRECTOR CITY ATTORI\EY
IVIA.Ml1 CENTER AGSOCIATES, INC.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
t
CHANGE
Distribution to:
ORDER
OWNER
CJ
ARCHITECT
[t
AIA DOCU,1? NT C 01
CONTRACTOR
n
FIELD
OTHER
[1
PRO)ECT: City of Miami/University of Miami
tame. addressl James L. Knight International Center
Tn (Contractorl:
Frank J. Rooney, Inc.
2600 Douglas Road
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
r
CHANCE ORDER NUMBER: 27
INITIATION DATE: March 17, 1981
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: G-7565
CONTRACT FOR: The City of Aiiami
CONTRACT DATE: October 24, 1979 •
Xr..x:� i< �t:k kit K c! x rs acxa:,� t�+�fi�+;ack)i'raz�.aga s i.�: li s: s �fxxlc�aot x
OWNER and CONTRACTOR, upon signing hereof, hereby agree that the CONTRACT be
and the same is hereby modified and amended as more particularly set forth herein and in
the RIDER annexed hereto and made a part hereof. Said RIDER sets forth details which
pertain to changes made by this Change Order No. 27, including changes pertaining to the
Guaranteed Maximum Cost, Date of Substantial Completion and other matters concerning
the administration and operations under the CONTRACT.
The Guaranteed Maximum Cost under this CONTRACT is increased as set forth below,
and within said Guaranteed Maximum Cost, the CONTRACTOR'S fee through this Change
Order No. 27 is now C 2,008,836.00.
Except as expressly modified hereby, the CONTRACT between OWNER and
CONTRACTOR remains in full force and effect as written.
nut %aird untrt ..ened 1)� both the ONner and Architect.
Srl;n.jlurr• rtl rhr. Crinir.ulor ,nd.cates his aEreement herewith, including am adjustment in the Crintrar Sur- or Contr;,ct Time
Thc Orr;rr,:,lXXkTi�tir?EdCn (Guaranteed Maximum Cest) was ........................... S
Net change h1 prcviously authorized Change Orders ................................... S
The 0)9hYXXKS:XXE (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) prior to this Charge Order „•as .......... S
The )L%J"K,YASxxx(Guaranteed Maximum Cost) will be (increased, (decreased) (unchanged)
by this Change Order......................................................... 5
The new a=..XXM)5X= (Guaranteed Maximum Cost) including this Change Order win Lit S
The Contract Time will be (increased) Cex=xq=—XxxtxRgock b) Eighty- five--
26,700,000.00
6,850,057.00
33,550,057.00
2,700,000.00
36,250,057.00
• ( 85 ) Days
The Ditc of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is : April 27, 1982.
FERENDINO, GRAFTON, Authorized:
SPILLIS, CANDELA AIA FRANK J. ROONEY, INC. THE CITY OF MIAN11
11 1.0 QNTRACIOR Off'.'NER,
fiou las Road .$ Douglas Road 97tamt. Florida
1rut,1•., Address Acoress
Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Coral Gables, Florida 33134
BY tY
Authorized signatory By Authorized Officer City 'Manager
DATE As of March 17, 1981 DATE As of March 17, 1981 D;IE As of March 17. 1981
AIA DOCUh1LwT G'01 • CHANC,E ORDER APRIL 197b E011-10*% AI4t C 19%b
1HE .1,101 :IL Ik% 11.51OU'1E OF ARCHITECIS. 1735 ~;E1v YORK AVE. N 1+A,,w c'.n1 , DC 201", G701 — 19i
RIDER TO CHANGE ORDER NO. 27
CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF MIAMI, AS OWNER, AND FRANK J. ROONEY,
INC., AS CONTRACTOR, PERTAINING TO CITY OF MIAMI/LNIVERSITY OF 111Aml,
JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL'CENTER, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
The OWNER and CONTRACTOR agree as follows pertaining to the CONTRACT:
A) Time Extensions.
1) All reouests for extensions of time under the CONTRACT heretofore
made by CONTRACTOR are merged into the new Date of Substantial
Completion of April 27, 1982, and are therefore waived by
CONTRACTOR, including claims for extensions of tirr e for delays in
performance of work to date under the Steel Contract, subject to the
clarifications, exceptions and/or reservations next provided which
survive said merger and waiver:
(a) Although CONTRACTOR has merged herein and v:aived
its claims for extensions of time for all tine delays
heretofore requested relating to the Steel Contract,
CONTRACTOR shall still be entitled to have and claim,
and shall be granted, future time extensions as follows
pertaining to the Steel Contract:
Q) Time equivalent to the time required beyond
May 8, 1981 for substantial completion of all
work under the Steel Contract, other than
work for Area Nos. 6 And 7;
(ii) Time equivalent to the time required beyond
forty-two (42) days (six (6) creeks) that
FLORIDA STEEL takes to complete its work
for Area Nos. 6 And 7, and for such time as
may be reasonably necessary due to the
impact upon Date of Substantial Completion
under the CONTRACT of delaying the steel
work applicable to Area Nos. 6 And 7.
(b) For all claims for extensions of time heretofore made in
writing by CONTRACTOR based upon causes other than
those relating to delays in time under the Steel Contract,
the CONTRACTOR reserves the right to claim up to a
maximum of thirty (30) days, notwithstanding the above
recited merger and waiver, without requiring further
documentation thereof to be submitted at this time.
it
W The CONTRACTOR reserves, and does not waive, its
right to claim for and receive the extensions of time for
all causes hereinafter arising which would entitle the
CONTRACTOR thereto as provided under the
CONTRACT.
2) Requests for time extensions for all of the causes which may
hereinafter give rise to the same shall still be timely filed and
properly documented by the CONTRACTOR to the OWNER.
However, all requests which remain pending, and which were not
waived as expressly set forth above, and all future requests for any
time extensions, w thout prejudice to the CONTRACTOF. or OWNER,
shall be reserved for determination at a future time which shall be at
or about the actual Date of Substantial Completion of the work under
the CONTRACT. Should the CONTRACTOR and OWNER not then in
good faith agree upon the necessity for, or the extent of, any
extensions of time and anv related General Conditions and Fee
allocable to such General Conditions, then either party shall be
entitled to have any unresolved claims for extensions of time. and
any accompanying requests for recoupment of General Conditions and
Fee allocable to such extensions of time, determined by appropriate
court action.
'
3) Pending determination as to entitlement of CONTRACTOR to any
time extensions, the OWNER shall not withhold payment from the
CONTRACTOR of any sums which the CONTRACTOR would
otherwise be entitled to receive from the OWNER, including final
f
payment, subject to the understanding that such payments by 01%NER
to CONTRACTOR, and acceptance thereof by CONTRACTOR from
it
'
OWNER, are :ithout prejudice to any rights of the CONTRACTOR
and OWNER.
:.•,
4) The CONTRACTOR and OWNER agree that no further c1.anges of
substance in the Plans and Specifications by the 0111'NER and its
Architects/Engineers are contemplated if the new Date of
Substantial Completion is to be achieved.
B) Ratification of Prior Change Orders. OWNER and CONTRACTOR hereby ratify,
confirm and approve all prior Change Orders made bets een them under the
CONTRACT which includes Change Orders Nos. 1 to 20, both inclusive, and 22 to
26, both inclusive, there being no Change Order No. 21.
C) Status of CONTRACT through Change Order No. 26.
1) The aggregate value of Change Order Nos. 3 to 20, both inclusive,
and Change Order Nos. 22 to 26, both inclusive, is S284,562.00 which
includes an addition to the CONTRACTOR'S fee of $-48,1418.00, and
said aggregate of $284,562.00 reduces the amount available in
Contingencies as next set forth (rather than increasing the
Guaranteed Maximum Cost). Therefore, through Change Order No
-2-
r
26, the Guaranteed Alaximum Cost is $33,550,057.00. and within said
Guaranteed Maximum Cost the CONTRACTOR'S fee is
$1,648,148.00.
2) Within the Guaranteed Maximum Cost, there were included
Contingencies as follows: 5850,000.00 allocable to the work other
than work under the Steel Contract and the VIP Lounge; $150,000.00
for work under the Steel Contract; and $300,000.00 for the VIP
Lounge. After all Change Orders through Change Order No. 26, the
amount remaining in contingencies available under the work are the
following: $565,438.00 allocable to the work other than work under
the Steel Contract and the VIP Lounge; $150,000.00 for work under
the Steel Contract; and 5300,000.00 for the VIP Lounge.
D) Pos_ible Imoaet of Claims of certain Subcontractors due to extension of the Date
of Substantial Completion to April 27, 1982. It is possible that certain of the
subcontractors may be entitled to a claim for the impact of the above extension
of the Date of Substantial Completion to the extent that such subcontractors can
properly justify entitlement thereto, and the amount thereof. Although OWNER
and CONTRACTOR will fully cooperate to hold any such claims to the bearest
minimum, it is understood that where such claims are properly justified and
substantiated, and are reduced to appropriate Change Order between the
CONTRACTOR and any such subcontractor, the OWNER will reimburse
CONTRACTOR therefor by a Change Order to this CONTRACT. The same may
be paid out of Contingencies.
E) Execution of Certain Change Orders. Without requiring approval of the City
Commission, Change Orders on behalf of the OSINER may be signed by the City
�%:&nager, Assistant City Manager or Project Director, which shall be binding
upon the OWNER, covering all changes in the Scope of the Work (including
additions or increases in value and deletions or decreases in value) where the
same will be paid for or affect and of the Contingencies now or hereafter
available under the CONTRACT, and as may be applicable under any subcontract
(including the Steel Contract). Thereby, Change Orders Neill only have to be
approved by the City Commission whenever there shall be hereafter involved any
increase in the Guaranteed Maximum Cost or any further formal approval of
time extensions.
F) Effect of Change Order No. 27.
1) Change Order No. 27 adds $2, 700,000.00 to the Guaranteed Maximum
Cost, and within said sum there is included $360,688.00 for additional
CONTRACTOR'S fee, thereby bringing the Guaranteed Maximum
Cost, and CONTRACTOR'S fee included therein, to the amounts set
forth on the face page of Change Order No. 27. A Breakdown of the
Items included within the $2,700,000.00 is annexed as Schedule "A"
hereto.
2) The Scope changes under the CONTRACT included within the amount
of 51,397,241.00 on Schedule "A", other than those pertaining to the
Steel Contract, are set forth in Schedule "B".
3) The Scope changes within the Steel Contract included N-:ithin the
amount of $7150.000.00 on Schedule "A", including clarifications of
any prior disputes under the Steel Contract as to Scope thereof, are
set forth on Schedule "C".
-4-
If !
SCHEDULE "A"
BREAKDOWN OF $2,700,000.00
Scope under Steel Contract (Schedule TV) S 750,000.00
Contractor's Fee on Steel Contract Amount 112,500.00
General Conditions to Contractor for
Extension of Time (2/1/82 to 4/27/82) 238.794.00
Contractor's Fee on General Conditions 35,819.00
Scope under Contract (other than Steel
Contract) (Schedule "B") 1,397,241.00
Contractor's Fee on above Contract Amount 212,36MO
S2, 7 46, 7 23.00
LESS: A'-o-n Contingencies 46,71 23.00
TOTAL 52. 00.000.00
Contingency of 5565,438,00 referred to in Paragraph C) 2) of this RIDER will be
reduced br $46,723.00 to S51E,715.00 by the above.
m
•
i
v_.
_
I
-
SCHEDULE "C"
THE SCOPE OF THE STEEL CONTRACT
The Contract Price under the Steel Contract now existing, increased by $750,000.00
authorized herein (subject to a satisfactory Change Order being entered between
CONTRACTOR and FLORIDA STEEL), includes all steel work described and included
in the following Documents:
T'he original Steel Contract dated December 10, 1979;
Amen'ment thereto represented by Cite of 1liami Resolution No. 80-434
(fated June 19. 1980, and the Florida Steel Letter of March 28, 1980 based
upon which said Resolution was passed. said Florida Steel Letter including
four pages plus scope definition of two pages; and
Revisions included in ICI Nos. 46 through 77, plus ICtiI No. 85, to the
extent that the same pertain to the Structural Steel work.
By the foregoing, for example, the Scope of the 11.ork now includes all steel stringers
for concrete stairs and all continuous curbing angles.
C14ANGE ORDER NO. 27
Signatures (Continued):
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM & CORRECTNESS:
CITY PROJECT DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY
I:IAMII CENTER AGSOCIATES, INC.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
IV E
CITY OF "111Mi. VLO'71Dn ,
INTER•OFK1L1 ,.:rlEMO,R.i(Dl9vi: t
Richard L. Fosmoen
City Manager
March 5, 1981
.,3. Conference/Convention Center
Additional Funding
R EFF.NF'�S
s ' st_a�tri93't Manager
The magnitude of the Convention Center project becomes more appar-
ent every week. We are faced at the present time with two major
problems. In essense, these problems are time and money.
The time problem is critical because in all likelihood we will not
be able to complete the Convention Center by February 1, 1982.
The money problem is going to require additional funds to supple-
ment what has already been provided by the Bond Issue. It is im-
portant to keep in mind that the project was bid in mid 1979;
however, construction did not really get seriously under way until
after August 1980 when the bonds were sold. Delay was one reason
for the increase in cost. The omissions, additions and changes
in the architectural plans since they were originally bid up to
this date were the major causes for the increase in cost.
Before the Revenue Bond Issue was sold, the City had committed a
little over $17.7 million dollars for the project. At the time
of the bond sale we had spent a little over $15.3 million dollars
of that total. During the process of developing costs to complete
the project for the bond sale, it was determined that the City
would have to supplement the Bond Issue by a little over $3,500,000.
The balance from the $17.7 million dollars was used for part of
this deficit. The additional funding came from other City sources
and amounted to a little over a million dollars.
It must be kept in mind that the $60 million dollars from the
Revenue Bond Issue was not all available for construction. In
fact, a good portion (almost $20 million dollars) had -to go into
reserve and bond service accounts, cost of issuance and insurance
premiums.
Our money problem can be summarized as follows. Out of the total
amount of funds available to the City, we had remaining after the
bond sale slightly over $51 million dollars to complete the proj-
ect. Contracts that we have awarded from this amount total al-
most $46 million dollars, $15 million of which is for the Garage.
That leaves an approximate balance of $5 million dollars to com-
plete the project. Listed below are items that are required in
order to complete the project and their dollar magnitude.
Richard L. Fosmoen -2- March 5, 1981
Budget allowance for furniture and fixtures $2 million
Special Convention Hall equipment, including
seats, stage, rigging, curtains and dividers,
etc. $1.3 million
Reserve for pre -opening expenses, consulting
fees, legal fees and administration $2.5 million
$5.8 million
As you can see these items alone exceed the funds available by
$800,000. In addition, we have requests for change orders right
now in the amount of $2.7 million dollars, which we will have no
choice but to pay. Based on the history of changes, I do not feel
comfortable that we can go through the next year of construction
without other changes. I strongly suggest that at least $500,000
be provided for items which have not been anticipated. I also sug-
gest that an allowance of $500,000 be provided for overtime in the
event it is necessary.
In summary, this would require that the City allocate for the Con-
vention Center $4.5 million dollars to complete the funding for
the project to include all of the above items.
$ 800,000 Required for items listed above
2,700,000 Changes since award
500,000 Possible additional changes
500,000 Possible overtime premium
4,500,000
Of the $4.5 million dollars, the amount of $2.7 million for changes
is necessary right now. We do have time before the remaining $1.8
million dollars is provided. It is set forth here to alert the Com-
mission of the possible extent of the money problem and give the
Commission the option of providing all of the funds needed or just
the essential portion at this time.
The problem of time is complex. I stated earlier that the project
probably would not be completed on February 1, 1982. I cannot at
this time state when the project will be complete. The key to the
problem of completion really evolves around the permanent loan. If
Massachusetts Mutual, the permanent lender for the Hotel, doesn't
withdraw its commitment for the mortgage of the Hotel for failure
to complete on a date certain, then there would be no potential lia-
bility to the City or to any other party involved in this project.
The Developer has stated that it is his opinion there will be no lia-
bility to the City, nor to anyone, if the project is substantially
complete on or before May 1, 1982. The wording "substantially com-
plete" is unfortunately subject to a great deal of interpretation.
• t
Richard L. Fosmoen -3- March 5, 1981
The Construction Manager has had prepared and submitted to the Con-
tractor a schedule which indicates that the project can be completed
before the end of March, 1982, even though a major element of the
project (the steel erection) has been delayed. Unfortunately, the
Contractor does not accept this schedule. The Contractor's contention
is that he needs a year to complete his work once the steel erection
is complete. Even this statement tends to oversimplify the problem
of the steel erection because a portion of the steel erection cannot
take place until the Contractor relocates certain utilities and com-
pletes the foundation for the connection to the Garage. This area
of work is presently the main access to the site. This relatively
small portion of the project is so surrounded by "ifs" that it makes
an exact completion difficult to determine.
The solution to the problem of time would take on a different ap-
proach if the liabilities for failure to complete on time were re-
moved. Therein lies the dilemma. More efforts are being made to
protect against potential liabilities than, unfortunately, are be-
ing made to get the project complete.
Almost all the problems regarding the structural elements of the
job have now been resolved. The Architects, the Construction Manag-
er and the City Project Director are working very hard to resolve
the anticipated problems of the mechanical, electrical and finish of
the project. It must be assumed from past experience that some of
the same problems we have experienced with putting the structural
elements together will also happen with putting the remaining por-
tions of the project together.
Not all of the solutions will require additional money or time, but
enough of them will to give the Contractor a reason from his point
of view for further extensions of time and a deepening of our di-
lemma. At this time we have no specific guaranteed solution for
time. I feel it is important that the Developer bring the permanent
lender in so that the magnitude of this problem can be openly dis-
cussed and a solution reached. Without the participation of the
permanent lender, it is my opinion that the City's efforts with the
Contractor will not eliminate the concerns of liability.
cc: R. Clark, Acting City Atty.
A. Poms, Project Director
A. Werner, MCAI
D. Cather, Dir., Public Works
D. Rosenberg, Esq.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE COST
OF THE CONTRACT WITH FRANK J. ROONEY, INC., DATED
OCTOBER 24, 1979, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2.7 MILLION
DOLLARS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI/
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL
CENTER; FURTHER AUTHORIZING A RESERVE FUND TO BE
ESTABLISHED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.8 MILLION DOLLARS
FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF MEETING FURTHER CONTINGENCIES
ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID CENTER; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE SOURCE
OF THE HEREIN AUTHORIZED $4.5 MILLION DOLLARS BE
THOSE FUNDS RECEIVIED BY THE CITY FROM THE SALE
OF THE INTERAMA PROPERTY.
WHEREAS, by previous Commission actions, the City has awarded
a contract to Frank J. Rooney, Inc. for the construction of the
City of Miami/University of Miami James L. Knight International
Center; and
WHEREAS, the original bid was submitted in 1979; and
WHEREAS, since the time of the original bid submission there
have been additions and changes to the architectural plans; and
WHEREAS, said changes in the plans have resulted in an
increased cost requested by the contractor in the amount of $2.7
Million Dollars; and
WHEREAS, additional reserve for possible future changes and
other costs are required in the amount of an additional $1.8 Million
Dollars; and
and
WHEREAS, the above are in addition to the funds that have been
WHEREAS, the additional amount of $4.5 Million Dollars is
available from funds received by the City from the sale of the
Interama property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Commission hereby authorizes an increase
in the cost of the contract with Frank J. Rooney, Inc, dated
October 24, 1979, for the construction of the City of Miami/Uni-
versity of Miami, James L. Knight International Center, by $2.7
in
Million Dollars and further authorizes a reserve fund of $1.8
Million Dollars, which funds are to be used exclusively for meet-
ing future contingencies arising in connection with the construc-
tion of said Center.
Section 2. The source of the herein additional authorized
$4.5 Million Dollars is the funds received by the City for the sale
of the Interama property.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March, 1981.
ATTEST:
RALPH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
ROB RT F. CLARK
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
M A Y 0 R
0
�� F I A
I� CITY OF MIAMi. rLUt?IDS
INTER•OFW1:=I M, .EM4Rr I DlR+1' '
ro Richard L. Fosmoen
City Manager
FR0V
<�'ernt E.
�� �Nia
^ATE March 5, 1981 r1L.E
Conference/Convention Center
Additional Funding
9 FFF P F. N:: 1,5
The magnitude of the Convention Center project becomes more appar-
ent every week. We are faced at the present time with two major
problems. In essense, these problems are time and money.
The time problem is critical because in all likelihood we will not
be able to complete the Convention Center by February 1, 1982.
The money problem is going to require additional funds to supple-
ment what has already been provided by the Bond Issue. It is im-
portant to keep in mind that the project was bid in mid 1979;
however, construction did not really get seriously under way until
after August 1980 when the bonds were sold. Delay was one reason
for the increase in cost. The omissions, additions and changes
in the architectural plans since they were originally bid up to
this date were the major causes for the increase in cost.
Before the Revenue Bond Issue was sold, the City had committed a
little over $17.7 million dollars for the project. At the time
of the bond sale we had spent a little over $15.3 million dollars
of that total. During the process of developing costs to complete
the project for the bond sale, it was determined that the City
would have to supplement the Bond Issue by a little over $3,500,000.
The balance from the $17.7 million dollars was used for part of
this deficit. The additional funding came from other City sources
and amounted to a little over a million dollars.
It must be kept in mind that the $60 million dollars from the
Revenue Bond Issue was not all available for construction. In
fact, a good portion (almost $20 million dollars) had -to go into
reserve and bond service accounts, cost of issuance and insurance
premiums.
Our money problem can be summarized as follows. Out of the total
amount of funds available to the City, we had remaining after the
bond sale slightly over $51 million dollars to complete the proj-
ect. Contracts that we have awarded from this amount total al-
most $46 million dollars, $15 million of which is for the Garage.
That leaves an approximate balance of $5 million dollars to com-
plete the project. Listed below are items that are required in
order to complete the project and their dollar magnitude.
rla
Richard L. Fosmoen -2- March 5, 1981
Budget allowance for furniture and fixtures $2 million
Special Convention Hall equipment, including
seats, stage, rigging, curtains and dividers,
etc. $1.3 million
Reserve for pre -opening expenses, consulting
fees, legal fees and administration $2.5 million
$5.8 million
As you can see these items alone exceed the funds available by
$800,000. In addition, we have requests for change orders right
now in the amount of $2.7 million dollars, which we will have no
choice but to pay. Based on the history of changes, I do not feel
comfortable that we can go through the next year of construction
without other changes. I strongly suggest that at least $500,000
be provided for items which have not been anticipated. I also sug-
gest that an allowance of $500,000 be provided for overtime in the
event it is necessary.
In summary, this would require that the City allocate for the Con-
vention Center $4.5 million dollars to complete the funding for
the project to include all of the above items.
$ 800,000 Required for items listed above
2,700,000 Changes since award
500,000 Possible additional changes
500,000 Possible overtime premium
4,500,000
Of the $4.5 million dollars, the amount of $2.7 million for changes
is necessary right now. We do have time before the remaining $1.8
million dollars is provided. It is set forth here to alert the Com-
mission of the possible extent of the money problem and give the
Commission the option of providing all of the funds needed or just
the essential portion at this time.
The problem of time is complex. I stated earlier that the project
probably would not be completed on February 1, 1982. I cannot at
this time state when the project will be complete. The key to the
problem of completion really evolves around the permanent loan. If
Massachusetts Mutual, the permanent lender for the Hotel, doesn't
withdraw its commitment for the mortgage of the Hotel for failure
to complete on a date certain, then there would be no potential lia-
bility to the City or to any other party involved in this project.
The Developer has stated that it is his opinion there will be no lia-
bility to the City, nor to anyone, if the project is substantially
complete on or before May 1, 1982. The wording "substantially com-
plete" is unfortunately subject to a great deal of interpretation.
Richard L. Fosmoen -3- March 5, 1981
The Construction Manager has had prepared and submitted to the Con-
tractor a schedule which indicates that the project can be completed
before the end of March, 1982, even though a major element of the
project (the steel erection) has been delayed. Unfortunately, the
Contractor does not accept this schedule. The Contractor's contention
is that he needs a year to complete his work once the steel erection
is complete. Even this statement tends to oversimplify the problem
of the steel erection because a portion of the steel erection cannot
take place until the Contractor relocates certain utilities and com-
pletes the foundation for the connection to the Garage. This area
of work is presently the main access to the site. This relatively
small portion of the project is so surrounded by "ifs" that it makes
an exact completion difficult to determine.
The solution to the problem of time would take on a different ap-
proach if the liabilities for failure to complete on time were re-
moved. Therein lies the dilemma. More efforts are being made to
protect against potential liabilities than, unfortunately, are be-
ing made to get the project complete.
Almost all the problems regarding the structural elements of the
job have now been resolved. The Architects, the Construction Manag-
er and the City Project Director are working very hard to resolve
the anticipated problems of the mechanical, electrical and finish of
the project. It must be assumed from past experience that some of
the same problems we have experienced with putting the structural
elements together will also happen with putting the remaining por-
tions of the project together.
Not all of the solutions will require additional money or time, but
enough of them will to give the Contractor a reason from his point
of view for further extensions of time and a deepening of our di-
lemma. At this time we have no specific guaranteed solution for
time. I feel it is important that the Developer bring the permanent
lender in so that the magnitude of this problem can be openly dis-
cussed and a solution reached. Without the participation of the
permanent lender, it is my opinion that the City's efforts with the
Contractor will not eliminate the concerns of liability.
cc: R. Clark, Acting City Atty.
A. Poms, Project Director
A. Werner, MCAI
D. Cather, Dir., Public Works
D. Rosenberg, Esq.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHOftt2tNC AN INCREASE IN THE COST
OF THE CONTRACT WITS# PRANK J. ROONEY, INC. ,- DATED
OCTOBER 24, 1979, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,l MILLION
DOLLARS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI/
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI JAMES L. RNIOHT INTERNATIONAL
CENTER; FURTHER AUTH0RtZINC A RESERVE FUND TO BE
ESTABLISHED IN THE AMOUNT OF $i,$ MILLION DOLLARS
FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF MEETING FURTHER CONTINGENCIES
ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID CENTER; FURTHER FROVIDINO THAT THE SOURCE
OF THE HEREIN AUTHORIZED $4.5 MILLION bOLLARS RE
THOSE FUNDS RECEIVIEb BY THE CITY FROM THE SALE
OF THE INTERAMA PROPERTY,
WHEREAS, by previous Commission actions, the City has awarded
a contract to Frank J. Rooney, Inc. for the construction of the
City of Miami/University of Miami James L. Hnight International
Center; and
WHEREAS, the original bid was submitted in 1979; and
WHEREAS, since the time of the original bid submission there
have been additions and changes to the architectural plans; and
WHEREAS, said changes in the plans have resulted in an
increased cost requested by the contractor in the amount of $2.7
Million Dollars; and
WHEREAS, additional reserve for possible future changes and
other costs are required in the amount of an additional $1.8 Million
Dollars; and
and
WHEREAS, the above are in addition to the funds that have been
WHEREAS, the additional amount of $4.5 Million Dollars is
available from funds received by the City from the sale of the
Interama property;
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Commission hereby authorizes an increase
in the cost of the contract with Frank J. Rooney, Inc, dated
October 24. 1979. for the construction of the City of Miami/Uni-
versity of Miami, James L. Knight International Center, by $2.7
Million bdiiara and further authori2es a reserve fund of s1.8
Million baiiara, which funds are to be used exclusively for meet-
ing future cantingencies arising in connection with the canstruc-
tion of said Center.
Section 2. The source of the herein additional authorised
$4.5 Million Dollars is the funds received by the City for the sale
of the lnterafma property.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of Marth, 1981.
ATTEST:
RALPH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
x 4� I.
ROB RT F. CLARK
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
m
M A Y O R
Olaf dItY OP MIAMI, (-LdlltbA
td Richard L, Ponwen 0A,tE March St 1981 OfLE
City Manager
3 Jf3Jt .:` fonf erence%Convention Center
Additional Funding
kFkOM r�
an
L' � � REFERENCES
t Y,r
Manager c�
ENCLOSU. FS
The Magnitude of the Convention Center project becomes more appar-
ent every week. We are faced at the present time with two major
problems. In essence, these problems are time and money.
The time problem is critical because in all likelihood we will not
be able to complete the Convention Center by February 1, 1992.
The money problem is going to require additional funds to supple-
ment what has already been provided by the Bond issue. it is im-
portant to keep in mind that the project was bid in mid 1979,,
however, construction did not really get seriously under way until
after August 1980 when the bonds were sold. belay was one reason
for the increase in cost. The omissions, additions and changes
in the architectural plans since they were originally bid up to
this date were the major causes for the increase in cost.
Before the Revenue Bond Issue was sold, the City had committed a
little over $17.7 million dollars for the project. At the time
of the bond sale we had spent a little over $15.3 million dollars
of that total. During the process of developing costs to complete
the project for the bond sale, it was determined that the City
would have to supplement the Bond Issue by a little over $3,500,000.
The balance from the $17.7 million dollars was used for part of
this deficit. The additional funding came from other City sources
and amounted to a little over a million dollars.
It must be kept in mind that the $60 million dollars from the
Revenue Bond Issue was not all available for construction. In
fact, a good portion (almost $20 million dollars) had -to go into
reserve and bond service accounts, cost of issuance and insurance
premiums.
Our money problem can be summarized as follows. Out of the total
amount of funds available to the City, we had remaining after the
bond sale slightly over $51 million dollars to complete the proj-
ect. Contracts that we have awarded from this amount total al-
most $46 million dollars, $15 million of which is for the Garage.
That leaves an approximate balance of $5 million dollars to com-
plete the project. basted below are items that are required in
order to complete the project and their dollar magnitude.
Richard t, rosmoan ft2- March S, 1901
Budget allowance for furniture and fixtures $2 million
Special Convention fall equipment, including
seats, stage, rigging, curtains and dividers,
etc. $1.3 million
Reserve for pre -opening expenses, consulting
fees, legal fees and administration $L.5 million
$5.8 million
As you can see these items aloha exceed the funds available by
$800,000. In addition, we have requests for change orders right
now in the amount of $2.7 million dollars, which we will have no
choice but to pay. Sased on the history of changes, 1 do not feel
comfortable that we can go through the next year of construction
without rather changes. I strongly suggest that at least $500,000
be provided for items which have not been anticipated. I also sug-
gest that an allowance of $500#000 be provided for overtime in the
event it is necessary,
to summary, this would require that the City allocate for the Con-
vention Center $4.5 million dollars to complete the funding for
the project to include all of the above items.
$ 800000 Required for items listed above
2#700#000 Changes since award
500#000 Possible additional changes
500,000 Possible overtime premium
r4 , 50# 000
Of the $4.5 million dollars, the amount of $2.7 million for changes
is necessary right now. We do have time before the remaining $1.8
million dollars is provided. It is set forth here to alert the Com-
mission of the possible extent of the money problem and give the
Commission the option of providing all of the funds needed or just
the essential portion at this time.
The problem of time is complex. I stated earlier that the project
probably would not be completed on February 1, 1982. 1 cannot at
this time state when the project will be complete. The key to the
problem of completion really evolves around the permanent loan. If
Massachusetts Mutual, the permanent lender for the Hotel, doesn't
withdraw its commitment for the mortgage of the Hotel for failure
to complete on a date certain, then there would be no potential lia-
bility to the City or to any other party involved in this project.
The Developer has stated that it is his opinion there will be no lia-
bility to the City, nor to anyone, if the project is substantially
complete on or before May 1, 1982. The wording "substantially com-
plete" is unfortunately subject to a great deal of interpretation.
0
ii Richard t, Rosmoen it3ft March S, 1981
P
The construction Manager has had prepared and submitted to the Con-
tractor a schedule which indicates that the project can be completed
before the end of March, 1982, even though a major element of the
project (the steel erection) has been delayed. unfortunately, the
Contractor does not accept this schedule. The Contractor's contention
is that he needs a year to complete his work once the steel erection
is complete. Even this statement tends to oversimplify the problem
of the steel erection because a portion of the steel erection cannot
take place until the Contractor relocates certain utilities and com-
pletes the foundation for the connection to the Garage. This area
of work is presently the main access to the site. This relatively
small portion of the project is so surrounded by "ifs" that it makes
an exact completion difficult to determine.
The solution to the problem of time would take on a different ap-
proach if the liabilities for failure to Complete on time were re-
moved. Therein lies the dilemma. More efforts are being made to
protect against potential liabilities than, unfortunately, are be-
ing made to get the project complete.
Almost all the problems regarding the structural elements of the
job have now been resolved. The architects, the Construction Manag-
er and the City project Director are working very hard to resolve
the anticipated problems of the mechanical, electrical and finish of
the project. It must be assumed from past experience that some of
the same problems we have experienced with putting the structural
elements together will also happen with putting the remaining por-
tions of the project together.
Not all of the solutions will require additional money or time, but
enough of them will to give the Contractor a reason from his point
of view for further extensions of time and a deepening of our di-
lemma. At this time we have no specific guaranteed solution for
time. I feel it is important that the 'Developer bring the permanent
lender in so that the magnitude of this problem can be openly dis-
cussed and a solution reached. Without the participation of the
permanent lender, it is my opinion that the City's efforts with the
Contractor will not eliminate the concerns of liability.
cc: R. Clark, Acting City Atty.
A. Poms, Project Director
A. Werner, MCAT
D. Cather, Dir., Public Works
D. Rosenberg, Esq.
OR