Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-75-0627• RESOLUTION NOs 7g4 A RESOLUTION AUTHORInNt AND WRECTINO THE CITY MANAtER TO PAY PANCCAST ARCHITECTS, INCs ET AL THE SUM OP $8,591sO0 POR THE EXTRA WORK ON THE CHANCE OP THE DESIGN OP THE MIAM/ MODERN POLICE HEADOUAR1ER8 bUILDINO, ALLOCATINO THE SUM OP $8,91.00 PROM THE ACCOUNT ENTITLED "MIAMI POLICE HEADOUARTERS AND CRIME PREVENTION PAC/LI TI ES s WHEREAS, Resolution 73..853 authorized PancOast Architect to design and provide architectural and engineering services for the Miatni Modern Police Headquarters Building; and WHEREAS, during construction of the building it was found that certain changes to the construction were necessary due to modifications by the Police Department which affected the headquarters building; and WHEREAS, these changes in design and construction of the building were not a part of the original agreement with Pancoast Architects, Inc. et al; and WHEREAS, these changes are to be considered as EXTRA WORK under the aforesaid agreement and the City is therefore required to make an additional payment to Pancoast Architect Inc. et al for this work; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay Pancoast Architects, Inc. et al the sum of $8,991.00 for the EXTRA WORK performed on the Miami Modern Police Headquarters building. "DOCUMENT INDEX IIn TEM CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUL 1 71975 moingN •, • WE' Mi MM MW MM Section 2. The amount o $8,951.00 be, and it is hereby, allocated from the account entitled "Miami Police Headquarters and Crime Prevention Facilities." PASSED AND ADOPTED THiIS. 17 _day of J uL y 1975 PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:* Mikele Carter Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: ohn S. Lloyd City A orney Honorable i e fibers of the City Co liseion P. W. Andrews City Manager CM? MIAM14 VIAlt1$A 14,CaPPICR MEMORANDUM bAt&: §UBJEtt: FtEt'Et7tNtt5: thCLbSURtS: 1 I WWWS Police bui .ding r'lbor Flan pevisibns The basic design of the new police building was completed over one year ago. The construction drawings were essentially a detailed refinement of basic design decisions that were made 12 to 15 months prior to April, 1975. Construction drawings were completed it August, 1974, and an award of bid for the building was made in October, 1974. Since October, 1974, major events have occurred which have significantly impacted upon and changed both the administration and operations of the Police Department. These changes, needless to say, could not have been anticipated in the January to April, 1974, period when the basic design decisions were made. Since Garland Watkins has been appointed to the position of Chief of Police, some modifications have been made in the or- ganizational structure of the Police Department with a conse- quent effect upon certain functional relationships. Although these modifications were limited in scope, they were signifi- cant enough to require some adjustments in the building plans. The organizational modifications were made in March, 1975. These modifications were then assessed to determine their impact upon the building plans. Time was of the essence be- cause the construction of the building was proceeding rapidly. If changes were to be made in the plans --particularly as it affected partitioning for the rooms on the various floors -- they had to be accomplished immediately. If the changes were not made quickly, then some of the interior construction work that would have been done would have to be torn out and re -done; or, the construction would have to stop. Neither alternative was desirable. Therefore, the decision was made to forthwith revise the floor plans and institute change orders for the contractor. Thus, the construction work with respect to the interior of the building could proceed on the basis of the revised plans and the work would not have to be re -done, there- by avoiding a very costly process. With these considerations in mind, the architect was requested table }e7ttbers of the City Commission tt evaluate the revisions that were required. tt Was mated that the additional cost to the City to have the con.. tractor construct the ihterier of the building bn the basis of the revised plats would be modest enough to be handled through the "cash allowance" provision of the general contract. The cash allowance 18 a sum set aside specifically to hafdle change orders such as this and is included ih the overall allocation Of Monies for the award of bid for the building. Because the construction costs related to the floor plan re- visions would come from the cash allowance, the overall con.- structioi-i cost of the building would_ not be ihcreased. The exact construction costs due to the revised floor plans could riot be obtained from the contractor until he had the revised plans from which he could calculate the precise costs. Thus, the architect had to revise the floor plans and provide the contractor With the appropriate new construction drawings. This work the architect needed to do was not a part of the original agreement between the City and Pancoast Architects; therefore, the plan revisions had to be considered ''extra works" Payment for this work when completed would have to be approved by the City Commission. Because time was a critical factor due to the rapid construction schedule, Pancoast Archi- tects agreed, via a letter to the City Manager on 9 April 1975, to perform the work to revise the plans fully understanding thatpayment depended entirely upon the approval of the City Commission. The plans have been revised, change orders instituted, and pre- cise costs have been obtained. The actual construction cost due to these plan revisions is $33,295. and will be taken out of the cash allowance for the police building. These costs were for the additional partitioning, electrical, air condition- ing, fire sprinkler, etc., materials needed to accomplish the plan revisions, and for the contractor and subcontractors' labor and supervision expenses. The architect estimated that the work to be performed to revise the plans would require 486 manhours of effort and cost $8,991. He advised that if in fact the work was more than estimated, he would nevertheless stand by his estimate. The actual work involved to revise the floor plans was 577 manhours for a cost of $10,6741.50. However, the architect, standing by his commit- ment, is requesting approval for payment of $8,991. for the services rendered and work completed. The plan revisions were more of a major task for the architect than the construction work based on theplan revisions will be for the contractor. To accomplish the changes requested by the oftbra1.e Members of the City Commission P iioe part ieiit s the architect Was required to rep1th sever al areas on four floors of the building, die had to prepare a 11ew set of atchiteotutal l electrical 3 nechanioal s rid air- otiditibning world ig draWlhgs. Further, he had to replan and redraw the furnishings and furniture plans affected by the changes s and he had to negotiate these into a final Change order form with the contractor. Lased upon the foregoing information it is recommended that the CityComnuissiot authori e. the City Manager to pay pancoast Architects the sum of $8i991. for the ettra•work performed by him for:.these plan revisions; and, that $9091. be• allocated From police bond funds for that payment. The La'w• bepartment hasbeen requested to prepare a Resolution to accomplish this action for your consideration at the 17 July 1975..City Commission meeting.