Rolling Oaks MC-CS090910
(4/28/2010) Michael Garza - Re: Fwd: Rolling Oaks Memorial Center: Additional ServicesPage 1
From: Brad Reid
To:Michael Garza
Date: 9/10/2009 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Rolling Oaks Memorial Center: Additional Services
Mike,
In looking over the AIA Document B151-1997, Abbreviated Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner
and Architect that the city entered into with J. Stuart Todd, Inc, it appears that the city is likely
responsible for the additional fees as outlined in the description below. In the instance of the charges
related to Change Order Number 3, Section 3.3.3 of the Agreement stipulates that the time and effort
expended by the Architect would be considered a Contingent Additional Service, and would qualify for
additional fees.
In the case of the Handicap Curb Ramp Construction, the Architect seems to be correct in assessing fees
for this item per 3.3.1.2 and 3.3.6 of the Agreement. Although it seems that the architect likely spent an
inordinate amount of time researching this item with the State agencies, he was proceeding on good faith
under the direction of the city. This is an extra fee that we may be able to share with the contractor as it
was the contractor's mistakes that caused the entire situation in the first place. They followed neither the
ramp designs in the Contract Documents, nor the City Standards, as instructed, causing the architect to
incur the additional involvement.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Brad
>>> Michael Garza 9/10/2009 2:49 PM >>>
Brad,
This is the explanation for the additional services on the previous invoice received. Is this not part of the
original construction administration? I do not believe this is extra work, the architect gets 7% of the contract
amount, the contract amount has not increased, they are also getting the 7% of contingency. I am not familiar
with AIA but this does not make sense to me. They are asking for 25 hrs. @ $150.00/hr for a total of
$3,750.00. However, I do agree with the service they provided but I do not believe it is extra work. Please let
me know how to proceed.
Thanks,
Mike
>>> On 9/1/2009 at 9:43 AM, in message
<C940AD62F69663498DD96D51BF23AAAF5CC5C7@jstsrv03.jstdom01.local>, "Ken Baxter"
<kbaxter@jstarchitects.com> wrote:
Mike,
We received your inquiry concerning the additional services invoiced recently. The time involved for
the services of this scope of work are as follows:
1.Change Order 003: request issued by Owner directly to contractor for changes/additions to
the contract documents.
a.Time spent on analyzing past history concerning when directions were issued by Owner, time
frame when dirt work was performed, time frame when grass seeding was provided, what new
costs were generated as a result of any delayed actions by request made by Owner, cost generated
(4/28/2010) Michael Garza - Re: Fwd: Rolling Oaks Memorial Center: Additional ServicesPage 2
by time frame achieved by contractor in association with original contract documents scope of
work.
b.Review of new work and associated cost requested (new grass sod areas and irrigation).
c.Independent site visits (owner attended one) had to be undertaken in association with
analyzing the facts which included a team meeting.
d.Negotiating acceptable costs between Owner/Contractor.
e.Reviewing Application for Payment and generating Change Order documentation.
f.Independent site visits to review and verify the work had been completed.
2.Handicap Curb Ramp construction:
At a team meeting called by the Owner in June to review project progress status it was discussed
that as a result of the direction of City officials instructing the contractor to construct all handicap
curb ramps per City of Coppell construction standards in lieu of following the construction
documents the site review and report generated by the state handicap inspector noted all ramps as
being in violation of state construction guidelines. In lieu of removing and reconstructing all curb
ramps in order to save time and money the request was made by the Owner that JST pursue a
state architectural barriers board variance request.
There was a great deal of time spent to analyze the requirements, alternatives and associated costs
in order to make a viable conclusion that a state variance would be a more time/cost effective
direction of which included:
a.Discussions/consultation with state architectural barriers design consultants and inspectors.
b.Independent site verifications of as-built ramp construction (dimensions/material
placement/etc.) to include within the variance descriptions.
c.Conclusion revealed ramps had not been consistently constructed in accordance to City of
Coppell standards and therefore lessened the chance of a variance request being acceptable based
on the utilization of local Municipality Construction standards. This would greatly increase the
chance for additional impacts to time and cost.
d.The decision was negotiated with contractor to remove and replace all ramps to be in
accordance with state architectural barriers construction guidelines at no additional costs.
e.Independent site visits made to verify work had been proceeding in the right direction.
We hope this description helps in the understanding of our time spent on work performed outside
of the original contract scope of services. We have tried to be as efficient as possible while
maintaining the quality of services to be expected.
Let us know if we can be of any further assistance.
Thanks,
Ken Baxter
Senior Project Manager
J. Stuart Todd, Inc.
Architecture/Interiors/Planning
2919 Welborn
Dallas, Texas 75219
214-522-4033
214-522-7988 fx.