ST9302-AG040430AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM CAPTION:
COl'FELL
Dr.r I: r~nglneerlng toept.
DATE: April 30, 2004
ITEM #:
Consider approval of Change Order #9 to the Sandy Lake Road Project #ST 93-02 to Ed Bell Construction
Company, to meet ADA requirements for the completion of the project ($85,227), to include additional conduit
for electrical feeds ($1,800), and to pay for concrete collars for various reinforced concrete pipes ($7,885) in a
total amount of $94,912; and authorizing the City Manager to sign.
IIII
GOAL (S): ~
,4 PP£ 0 I/ED
BY
CiTY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: DA T E _.d2~t~ -' 0_~
This change order will resolve all outstanding issues to allow for the completion and acceptance of the project.
Staff will be available to answer any questions at the council meeting.
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/04 Document Name: //Sandy Lake Chan//e Order-lAG
PROJECT:
CONTRACTOR:
0 IlO, ER:
CIL4NGE ORDER:
CITY OF COPPELL
CHANGE OR EXTRA WORK ORDER
SAAD Y LAKE ROAD PROJECT # ST 93-02
ED BELL C03/STRUCTIO.T COMPANY
CITY OF COPPELL
#9
DA TE: 04/30/04
~ltem i Ouantitv i L'ntt t Descrtptton
ADD: ADA Modifications
! ] ~-~ ~.3.7 Accessible Romes; Slope
T i ILS 4.7.2 Curb Ram~p_~SI~)pe
~ J 1 ~LS I 4.7.4 Curb Ra~.ps/Surface
I 1 LS i 4'27 2 Clear Floor Space
] 1 LS I Barricades, Signs & Traffic Handling/i 0 Days
__~ ~ ~ LS 7MessaaeBoardsforRework2~l mo
~_ _~ ~ I~S ~Stakmg, Layout Slope Yenficat~on ,40 hrs
Subtotal
ADD: Concrete Collars for connections between ~*torm sewer lines
Unit Price i Total Price
T 4'614'78 i $44,614.78 J
8,769.72i 8,769.72_~
17,100.00 ] 17,100.00
53000 [ 530.00
500/per [
5,412.50l 5,412.50
95 'hr 3,800 00
5,000.00
8 ! EA ~ Concrete Collar for21"RCP --'
~E~-~ Concrete Collar for 24" RCP
L _~ 1
I
EA 7 Concrete Collar For 36" RCP
ADD: Conduit £or TXU Electrical Feed~
~- ~!)___~ Et: , Bore Conduit (TXU Feed~
$3200.00,
Subtotal [ L _
4 1g.75-~
--Y6o.c) o
Subtotal ]
$1,500 00
300.00
$1,800.00
Net Increase ] ~-
TOTAL CHANGE ORDER #9 iI i $94,912.~
Previous Contract Amount
Total Change Order #9
Re'~ised Contract Amount
Net Increase in Contract Time of Completion
Revised Conlract Time of Completion
$9,917,162.70
$94,912.00
S10,012,074.70
N/A
1067 Days
The contractor hereby accepts this contract adjustment as a final and complete adjustment in
full accord and satisfactioa of all past and future liability ori~inatins under a,v clause in the
Contract by reason for this revision to the Contract. - ~ "
ngineer
Acc~O,'by City of Copp~
Date
Date Agreed
I)~ Colltractnr
Date
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
To:
From:
Date:
RE:
Mayor and City Council
Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., Director of Engineering/Public Works
April 30, 2004
Consider approval of Change Order #9 to the Sandy Lake Road project #ST 93-
02 to Ed Bell Construction Company, to meet ADA requirements for the
completion of the project ($85,227), to include additional conduit for electrical
feeds ($1,800), and to pay for concrete collars for various reinforced concrete
pipes ($7,885) in an total amount of $94,912; and authorizing the City Manager
to sign.
Since April 2001, the City of Coppell has been working with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.,
the design engineer for Sandy Lake Rd., Accessology, a consultant to the Texas Dept. of
Licensing and Regulations (TDLR), Ed Bell Construction Company, the contractor for Sandy
Lake Rd. and several other people that work for TDLR concerning the accessibility issues
associated with Sandy Lake Rd.
In April 2001 as the project was nearing completion, I inquired about thc status of the review for
accessibility compliance of Sandy Lake Rd. It was then discovered that the plans had never been
submitted to the State for accessibility review. In May 2001, the construction plans were
submitted to TDLR for review. On July 3, 2001, the City receixed co~Tespondence from TDLR
stating various areas of the plans which did not appear to be in compliance. Because the project
was already substantially complete, it was not a simple matter of changing the plans. In February
2002, Kimley-Hom responded to the City concerning the review by 'FDLR. It was Kimley-Hom's
opinion that there were several misunderstandings by TDLR and that we should wait for the actual
walk-thru to address some of the issues. Kimley-Horn also noted in their response letter of
February 7, 2002 that the City's details were more than likely not in compliance with TDLR
requirements. On December 8, 2002, the City received correspondence from TDLR stating that
an inspection was due on thc completed project of Sandy Lake Rd. My attempts to convince
TDLR that it was not yet complete were unsuccessful, as TDLR classifies completion as ~vhen the
project can be used for its intended purpose.
The City of Coppell utilized an option provided by TDLR to obtain a locally approved firm to
provide an inspection of the project. On April 16, 2003, the City of Coppell received lhe
inspeclion report from Accessology along with notice that lhe Citv had 90-days to correct any and
all deficiencies. On July 23, 2003, an extension was granted that }¥as set to expire on October 23,
"CI]YOFCOPPEi.i ENGINEERING- EX(iEE1 EN('E B'~ DESIGN"
2003. On October 9, 2003, I responded to Accessology's inspection report from April 16, 2003.
My response xvas that while there were still outstandiug issues to be corrected on the original
contract my goal was to retain the services of Accessology, independent of their revie~v for the
State, to provide a thorough one on one walk lhru with me on the project to convey the exact
incthod to correct the deficiencies. My argument tl~roughout the preceding months with
Accessology was that existing development adjacent to Sandy Lake Rd. precluded a reasonable
resolution of the deficiencies.
Because Accessology could not meet within the timeline of the second extension, a third
extension was granted on October 29, 2003. The third extension expired on January 29, 2004.
On November 10, 2003, a representative of Accessology, Garreth Campbell, project inspector,
and myself walked the entire project making note of every referenced deficiency and the method
to correct that deficiency. I then summarized that meeling in a letter back to Accessology on
Novcnrber 21, 2003. In that letter I requested a variance for numerous items associated with the
original review. I did not receive any response from Accessology. It was my impression that they
were working for TDLR and could rule on variances. It was only later that I discovered that any
xariance request takes a different format directly thorough TDLR for review. It was also at that
time that I discovered that there were no more available extensions for the project and the file
would be turned over for enforcement on January 29, 2004.
During the preceding months, I had been reviewing the law associaled with the Texas
Accessibility Act from the early 1990's and it was my opinion there was a requirement on the
design engineer's part to submit plans for review. The plans were never submitted to the State for
review in the early 1990's and were only submitted to the State for review when I inquired about
the status of the reviexv in 2001. I then began meeting with representatives of Kimley-Hom
concerning their responsibility in not subnfitting the plans. Their initial response was that it was
the City's responsibility in 1991 and that it did not become a design engineer's responsibility until
early 2000. The cxecutive vice-president for Kimley-Hom quoted excerpts from ttouse Bill 39,
as approved in the 2''d called session of 1991, as documentation that he was correct that the plans
should have been submitted by the City, not by the consultant. He also stated that it did not
become the consultant's responsibility to submit plans until Senate Bill 484 was approved in
2001.
Because he was only quoting excerpts from approved house bills, I contacted the State of Texas to
obtain the actual House Bill 39 as approved in 1991. House Bill 39, from I991, required the
design consultant to submit plans to the State for review, not the City. Specifically, House Bill 39
stated that plans and specifications should be submitted to the department by the architect or
engineer who has overall responsibility tbr the design of the constructed or reconstructed building.
The same house bill states also that the only time the owner shall submit plans and specifications
to the department is if there is no architect or engineer with that responsibility, i again contacted
Kimley-Horn to state that it was my opinion that they had responsibility in this issue. Kimlev-
Horn's representative then tried to convince me that I was the design engineer for the project a~d
as such it was my responsibility. Once agaim the State of Texas confirmed that the design
engineer or the engineer for the overall responsibility for the project is the person that seals the
plans not the person that has oversight over the project. The plans were designed and sealed by
"CITY OF COPPEIL ENGINEERING - EXCELI ENCE BY DESIGN"
Kimley-Hom, therefore, they were the design engineer and they were responsible for submitting
plans to the State.
Once we got past that issue, Kimley-Hom was much more agreeable to meet to discuss financial
responsibility on the project. Several of the deficiencies on the project were out right design
errors and several were problems with our details for curb ramps. After several telephone calls
with representatives from Kimley-Honr, they have committed to contributing $35,000 to this
project to correct the deficiencies. Also, the original contractor Ed Bell Construction Company
has looked at the deficiencies and reviewed their work in the field and has noted several locations
where they have committed to remove and replace constructed ramps at their cost.
There is still a cost to the City to bring about this completion and a portion of that cost is driven
by our incorrect details from the early 1990's and the fact that the ramps need to have
differentiation in color from the adjacent streets and sidewalks.
While it seems that there has been a long time elapsed from the beginning to nearing conclusion
of this resolution, there have been meetings, telephone calls, letters, and research to get to this
point. The point we are at today is that on March 19, 2004 the TDLR issued their final letter
stating that the City had 90-days to correct all deficiencies or this would be turned over to
enforcement. The 90-days expires on June 16, 2004. While enforcement may have the ability to
grant some variances or relax some rules and regulations, they also have a right to begin issuing
fines from day one.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of Change Order #9 to the Sandy Lake Road project !~ST
93-02 to Ed Bell Construction Company to meet ADA requirements for the completion of the
project. Staff will be available to answer any questions at the Council meeting.
"CITY OF COPI'EI~L ENGINEERING - EX( EEI.ENCE BY I)ESI(;N"
and Associates, Inc.
April 27, 2004
~ 7a Facs'imile and :!,lail
972-3 04- 7041
Keimeth N4. (Sriffin, P,E.
Direclor oF Engineerh~g/Public '~Vorks
City of (oppell
P.O. Box 9478
Coppell, TX 75019
Re: Sand3 Lake Road ~\ccessibilit) Issues
[)cai- Mr
'l']le purpose of this letter is to COllfil111 tl~e agreement you and I reached
yesterda5 regarding the resolution of all accessibility issues associated x~itb the
Sandy l,ake Road pr~tiect We ha~e agreed that Kimle)-Horn will pay $35,000
m exchange lb~ a f'ttll release o/all liabilit) ti'Ol]1 the CJI3 rdated lo any costs or
[iabilil3 the City may bane in COlmeClJOn with auy accessil0ilit)' issues on this
pr%jeer We will prox ide you with a proposed release iu 1he ilC~ll' l'lHu~e
lfthisletterisnotconsistentwith?urunderstandingol'ourag~eement pJeaselet
me know immediatcI5.
'hah < ye ~ for yotu assistance ill gelling this ma~ter i'eso[xcd.
Sincerely,
K1ML~-ItORN· AND.~*,SSOCIATES,' ~ INC.
[ xecutixc Vice President
I)I ,B,'drh
[]
State 1800
12700 Park Central Drive
Dallas, Texas
75251
[]
TEL 972 770 1303
FAX 972 239 3820
TELEPPONE 214-358-6581 FAX 214452-3201
April 21, 2004
ED BELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
POST OFFICE BOX 540787 10605 HARRY HINES BLVD
DALLAS, TX 75354-0787 DALLAS, TX 75220
Mr. Kenneth 5,'1. Griffin, P.E.
Director of Engineenng and Public Works
CITY OF COPPELL
City of'Coppel] Town Center
255 Parkway Boulevard
CoppelI, TX 75019-4409
RE:
Sandy Lake Road Reconstruction
Coppell Project #: ST 93-02
Barrier Free Ramps Issue Resolution
Dear Mr. Griffin;
Attached please find a proposal for the resolution of the issues associated with the ban'ier free ramps and
accessible routes on tine referenced project.
We propose to begin thc items of work within one calendar x',eek of ibc effective date of an executed
agreement. We will prosecute thc ~tems to be paid for, as ,,','ell as the ~tems we have assumed
responsibility for, on a daily basis until completion. We anticipate meeting your Mid-June deadline but
are unable to contractually commit to that deadline.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
ED BELl.
'STRUCTION COMPANY
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
TELE?HONE 214-358-6581 FAX 214-352-3201
April 2], 2004
ED BELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
POST OFFICE BOX 540787 10605 HARRY HINES BLVD
DALLAS, TX 75354-0787 DALLAS, TX 75220
Mr. Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E.
Director of Engmeenng and Public Works
CITY OF COPPELL
City of Coppcll Town Center
255 Parkx,,ay Boulevard
CoppelI, TX 75019-4409
RE:
Sandy l.ake Road Reconstruction
Coppcll ProJect #: SI' 93-02
Proposal for Constructmn of Barrier Free Ramp Corrections
We propose to furnish the nccessaD, labor, eqmpment, tools, materials, and incidentals required to
complete the modifications to ex,sting construction for the Sandy Lake Road Project as delineated in the
attached letter of resolution dated February 17, 2004, and m accordance xvith the attached schedule of
values for payment. Items with a blank in the cost column are being assumed by EBCC.
Payment shall be made at the completion of the v, ork, estimated to occur in the month of June,
2004. Coppell agrees to make payment for said ~ork within 21 calendar days of notification of
completion by EBCC pcrsonnel and approval by' the Engineering Department.
Item 7a of 4.3 Accessible Routes (4.3.7 Slope), Items 3 and 4 of 4.7 Curb Ramps (4.7.2 Slope),
and Item 19 (East) of 4.7 Curb Ramps (4.Z4 Surface) are quoted as unit price,xork, as well as
all of the items in 4.27.2 Clear Floor Space. Each location shall be measured, agreed upon and
constructed. Measured quantities will be billed at the unit price slated (February 17, 2004 letter).
In our proposal, 'o,e have excluded the following items of work: I. Relocation or support of existing utilitics.
2. Night, weekend or overtime work.
3. Removal or remediation of"hazardous materials".
4. Pa?lent of inspection fees or testing costs for this work.
Ste,, en Pr~
President
April 20, 2004
)NSTRUCTION COMI'ANY
The eflbctive date of this agreement shall bc:
CITY OF (?()PPELL
By: .......
Iitle:
Date:
EQUAL OPPORTUNI~YEMPLOYER
0
5
Z
o 8
o oo
s
°
°~
o
o
o
0
o
o
So°
o
0
o
a8
o~
o o
~>