ST9302-CS010710 T H E C I T Y 0 F'
COPP-ELL
Robert Weber, Project Engineer ~ s . ~
Ed Bell Construction
10605 Harry Hines Blvd.
P.O. Box 540787
Dallas, TX 75354-0787
Re: Sandy Lake Road Project # ST 93-02
Dear Mr. Weber:
This letter is written in response to your July 7, 2001 letter conceming the 21-inch PVC sanitary sewer
line that was included as part of Change Order #5 as approved by City Council on May 9, 2000. Your
letter states that Ed Bell Construction Co. was directed to maintain existing contract prices for pay items
that were included in the original contract. You further state that Ed Bell Construction Co. was directed
to distribute price increases to other new bid items. Your letter then goes on to state that Ed Bell
Construction Co. distributed $37,264 in cost not associated with the 21-inch PVC sanitary sewer in the
line item for the 21-inch PVC sanitary sewer line.
On February 10, 2000 the City of Coppell received your estimate for work associated with the
MacArthur/Sandy Lake Road intersection. The value of the work on your itemized list was
$1,320,157.07. Typically when a change order is executed for a project, items that were included in the
original contract are included in the change order at the same unit price. In my review of your itemized
list, I noted that there were numerous pay items on the itemized list which were not included in the
original contract. These were noted in my February 14, 2000 letter to you.
They were as follows:
#8 - remove guardrail
#9 - remove concrete flumes
# 10 - remove brick/stone wall
# 11 - remove electrical box
#20 - 6" type D HMAC curb
#25 - concrete header
//26 - metal beam guardrail
#27 - laydown terminal
#33 - 10" PVC sewer
#34 - 21" PVC sewer
#46 - 33" type C headwall
#47 - adjust existing sanitary sewer manhole
#48 - adjust existing water meter valve boxes
#50 - 2" PVC conduit (direct buried)
The other bid items not noted above were included as part of the original contract.
My letter also stated that there were several items in the original contract which you had provided
different pricing for.
255 PARKWAY ~- P O BOX 478 *' COPPELL TX 75019 ~ TEL 972/462 0022 3¥ FAY, 972/304 3673
Those were:
Mobilization: The contract very clearly stated this should not exceed five percent of the total value of the
work. Based on my calculations, your mobilization should have been $51,758, not $285,000.
Right-of-way preparation: Based on my calculations, it should have been closer to $9,000, not $60,000.
Field office: This was originally bid at $20,000 for the entire project, but was subsequently bid at
$24,000 for only a portion of the project.
Traffic Signal installation: There were three in the original contract ranging from $88,000 to $110,000.
However, the traffic light for this intersection was $220,000.
Temporary roadway: In my opinion this should have been closer to $6,000 not $50,000.
Storm Water Pollution Plan: This should have been closer to $3,000, not $20,000.
Pavement Markings: This should have been closer to $5,000, not $22,000.
So, while it is generally understood that a change order that includes the same items should also include
the same unit price, the items listed above were provided with difference unit prices. Your original
submittal to the City included the 21-inch PVC sanitary sewer at $140/per foot for a total value of
$76,720.
After some discussion, the Mobilization was lowered from $285,000 to $226,000; the Field Office was
lowered from $24,000 to $10,000; the Traffic Signal was lowered from $220,000 to $210,000; the Storm
Water Pollution Plan was lowered from $20,000 to $12,500; and Pavement Markings were lowered from
$22,000 to $17,500. There was no adjustment for the fight-of-way preparation or the temporary roadway.
To the best of my recollection there was never any discussion concerning the 21-inch PVC sanitary sewer.
It was originally submitted as $140/per foot and it was subsequently submitted for the change order at
$140/per foot. The total change order was reduced from $1,320,157.07 to $1,211,687.07.
Your July 7, 2001 letter states that Ed Bell Construction Co. was directed to distribute price increases
associated with the increased difficulty in the intersection to the new bid items. This is difficult to
understand as previously stated in this letter there are numerous bid items from the original contract that
were raised substantially from what, in my opinion, they should have been based on the nature of the
original contact and this change order.
There will not be any adjustment to future change orders for $37,264. If you should have any questions or
need additional clarification please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Ke~eth M~~ rTt~ (/~~
Director of Engineering/Public Works