Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-21 e-packet ~'t\l s::w B (0 (') >- .... ~ ~ v 0 C' :-.~ :4lIFOp..~ - SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21,2006 7:00 P.M. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Thursday, the 21 51 day of December, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda 4. Study Session a. Water Transit Authority Update b. Orange Memorial Park recreation building project bid results and construction options 5. Motion to declare Housing Authority Commissioner Jim Lineberger's position vacant due to change of residency 6. Adjournment ~7f2 Cit;-&-- WATER TRANSIT AUTHORITY ~llI!ol!. J:!~:Jll~ .""",."-n ~-.Ai~f~Li~.~ - ..""... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WTA AGENDA ITEM # 4 a MEMORANDUM TO: Barry Nagel FROM: Steve Castleberry DATE: 12/11/2006 RE: South San Francisco Ferry Service Barry - per your request, following is a status report on the SSF Ferry project for update to the Council. The WT A Board of Directors certified the environmental document for the project earlier this month. The certification of that document is a major milestone and its completion is a precursor to final design, permitting, and construction. The environmental document clears the location of the ferry terminal in the Oyster Point Marina. The environmental review and conceptual design work to date has focused solely on the Oyster Point marina location. In Fall 2005, our design firm, Roma Design, looked at a number of configurations within the marina and developed one that had the least impact to the existing marina facilities. The final configuration requires the removal of two of the existing boat docks (Docks 9 and 10) as shown in Attachment A. Since January 2006, we have been discussing with the City and the Harbor District the impact and cost of removal of those two docks. Negotiations with the Harbor District have centered on the effect that ferry service will have on the marina operations. The Harbor District requested payment for a number of mitigations. In August, the Harbor District clarified their request, which is for approximately $3,770,000 to support the following items: Q :::t.. f~i L& ~9 ~~~ 1."'"'1 ,;;.;:j (;',':1 !11L6d: r:~:] MEMORANDUM Page 2 Element Cost to be Responsibility Other Terms paid by for Cost WTA Increases Breakwater $450,000 WTA WTA would reimburse the design Harbor District for actual costs billed by COE. Breakwater $550,000 WT A (20% of WTA would pay local match construction to construction based on invoices from COE. $750,000 costs) Docks 9 and 10 $250,000 WTA This work would be included in dock and gate the construction contract for the demolition ferry terminal. West basin $340,000 Harbor This payment would be made at dredging (from District the completion of the dredging 6' to 8') project. Reconfiguration $1,380,000 Harbor WT A would make this payment of Dock 11 District at a date agreed by both parties, sometime in the Spring of 2007. Additional Loss $600,000 Harbor Payment would be contingent of Revenue District on putting 10 vessel berths between the float and the shoreline. Of these items, $250,000 for Docks 9 and 10 has already been factored into the cost of building the terminal, leaving a net increase in expense related to this mitigation of approximately $3,520,000. By September of this year, we were unable to balance the project and mitigation costs with the budget, and therefore considered an alternative location for this project. The new site considered is commonly referred to as "The Slot" and is located about a half mile northwest of the Oyster Point Marina site (see Attachment B). The slot was formerly used by US Steel to build ships. The site was initially thought to be too contaminated to be a possible location for the ferry terminal. Subsequent discussions with resource agencies indicated that impacts from the ferry to the capped contamination might be minimal and could be mitigated. While the site held some promise, the site is controlled through a covenant to US Steel, who is the "responsible party" for contamination at the site. They have spent several million dollars remediating the site. While we believed careful engineering could eliminate the possibility of disturbing capped contaminants in the area, US Steel believed the risk was too great and rejected our proposal to locate a ferry terminal site at that location. 120 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94111 415-291-3377 (F) 415-291-3388 MEMORANDUM Page 3 In October, we revisited the current project costs, including the Harbor District request, and project funds available to date. SSF Construction Costs . CostltelTl Environmental and Design Vessels Terminal Waterside Landside Harbor District Request Total Cost Cost $3,400,000 $17,000,000 $22,700,000 $3,800,000 $3,520,000 $50,420,000 Funds Available for SSF RM 2 General RM 2 - SSF Specific Federal Earmarks - SSF Vessels Federal Earmarks - SSF Terminal San Mateo Measure A Total Funding $2,204,800 $3,961,900 $19,000,000 $40,566,700 These tables show that the estimated project costs exceed funds available by approximately $10 million. The WT A has investigated several ideas that could close the funding gap as described below. Idea Potential New Funds/ Cost SavinQs $5 million additional project funds 1. The WT A could contribute an additional $5 million to the project from our $10 million Federal allocation ($2.5 million annual allocation over 4 years). This money was originally anticipated for use for the Berkeley service. 2. Major landside improvements could be deferred until the City pursues redevelopment of the site. At that time, the City could include landside improvements in their redevelopment project. Up to $2.4 million cost savings 120 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94111 415-291-3377 (F) 415-291-3388 MEMORANDUM Page 4 3. WT A could investigate deferring or omitting the breakwater improvements. WT A's maritime staff have investigated the current configuration and believe the breakwater opening is currently adequate to provide ferry service. Up to $1.2 million cost savings 4. WTA could continue to evaluate vessels specifications and areas to reduce costs. Up to $1 million cost savings In November, WTA, Harbor District, and City staff met again to discuss the deferral of improvements (ideas 2 and 3 above). The Harbor District agreed that deferring the landside improvements might be prudent given that future redevelopment of the site could require removal of improvements built as part of this project. However, the Harbor District would like to continue to pursue the breakwater improvements, leaving a budget deficit (if all the other ideas were successfully pursued) of $1 million. At the December 21,2006 Council meeting, I will review the current project configuration and the implications of changes to the project scope. ***END*** 120 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94111 415-291-3377 (F) 415-291-3388 MEMORANDUM Page 5 Attachment A DRAFT PRELIMINARY SITE DESIGN CONCEPT _.::~.:::::m:_ o 501 IDol l;<.Or, South San Francisco Ferry Terminal - Oyster Point Marina Prtpar,',IJor t}" Sail Fru.'J(i.~", &)' IJn:a r-Vuur Tran.fit .Aut&'ri~)' by ROMA Dwgll Croup 111 ass.viari..'If with Mc1f.1lt (_ Nidx,! 120 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94111 415-291-3377 (F) 415-291-3388 MEMORANDUM Page 6 Attachment B 120 Broadway, San Francisco, CA 94111 415-291-3377 (F) 415-291-3388 1 Costs and Funding Cost ~em Envlronmentel and Design Vessels Terminll W."'Rllde l.andslde Harbor Dislrict T Olal eost Source RM 2 General RM 2 SSF Specific FedeRlI Earmarks - SSF V....1s Federal Earmark "';SSF Terminal SIIn Mateo-,M..sureA Total Funding Amount $3,400,000 $17,000,000 522,700,000 $3,800,000 >>,520,000 $50,420,000 Amount . $3,400,000 $12,000,000 $2,204,800 . >>,981,900 $19.000,000 540,588,700 2 Costs and Funding Cost "em Environmental and Design Vessels Terminal Wlter1llde Landllde HlrborD!ltri<:t Totel eost Source RM 2 General RM 2 SSF Specific Federal Elnnsrko - SSF San Costs and Funding Cost Item Environmental and Design Vessels Terminal Waterside Landslde Harbor District Next steps: Costs and Funding Cost Item Environmental and Design Vessels Terminal Wlterslde Landslde Harbor District Amount $3,400,000 $17,000,000 Costs and Funding Cost "em Environmental and Design Vessels Terminal Waterside Landside Harbor District Total Cost Source RM 2 General RM 2 SSF Specific Federal Eannlrks - SSF. Vell.is Federal Elnnart< - SSF Terminal San MltaoMelSure A TotelFundlllg 3 - ~'t\\ s!lN S ~ . ~\.j.\ (0 n l>-< C;; I t:l ~ v 0 C41~~~ Stuff ReQort AGENDA ITEM # 4 h DATE: December 21, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sharon Ranals, Recreation and Community Services Director SUBJECT: Orange Memorial Park Recreation Building Project No. PB-05-1 Study Session Review of Bids Received for Group B and Construction Options RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council be apprised of the bids received on November 9, 2006 for the Orange Memorial Park Recreation Building Project, Bid Group B, which were approximately $2 million higher than the engineer's construction estimate. The Orange Memorial Park Recreation Building Sub-Committee, comprised of Councilmembers Matsumoto and Fernekes, and Parks and Recreation Commissioners Bush and Greenwald, have held several meetings with staff and project consultants to consider options that might yield more favorable results for the project. They are scheduled to meet again on December 19, 2006 with the goal of reaching consensus in making a recommendation to the City Council study session on December 21, 2006. BACKGROUND: As the City Council is aware, it was a long-standing goal to replace the antiquated Recreation Building at Orange Memorial Park, which was not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and was only marginally programmable. Identified in the 1990 Orange Park Master Plan, replacement of the facility was given a high priority by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The project remained unfunded until competitive and per capita grants were obtained through Proposition 40, and required local matching funds became available through park-in-lieu fees from new residential development. The scope includes replacement of the recreation building, relocation and fencing of two new basketball courts, a separate restroom building, lighting and site improvements. Funding in the amount of $4.3 million was approved in the Capital Improvement Program for 2006/07. Structured as a multi-prime contract arrangement, the city advertised for teams comprised of an architecture firm partnered with a construction management firm. Mary Wong and Donn Logan Architects were selected to design the building and site improvements; they were coupled with RGM Construction Management, contracted to provide cost estimation and constructability review from Staff Report Subject: Orange Memorial park Recreation Building Project December 21, 2006 Page 2 design development through the preparation of construction documents. The construction manager (CM) is responsible for working with staff and the architects to produce bid packages, conducting job walks for potential bidders, and coordinating the award of bids. The CM schedules the various trades, ensures coordination and work flow, evaluates progress against contractor billing statements, monitors quality and compliance, maintains documentation, and resolves construction issues as they arise. There were several objectives in selecting a multi-prime approach. The administration fees charged by a general contractor toward his or her own business profit can be extracted and paid instead to an independent construction management firm looking out for the city's best interests. The method offers more flexibility in being able to pick and choose the lowest subcontractor bids. In public work environments, where the lowest responsible bidder must be awarded the contract, general contractor bidding can result in "low-ball" bids from companies who are awarded the contract, then engage in strenuous change-order efforts to increase the profitability of the job at the expense of the quality ofthe project, and potentially the budget. In the multi-prime structure, it is also easier to terminate and replace one trade contractor whose performance is unsatisfactory, as opposed to being "stuck" with one contractor for the entire project when performance becomes an issue. Following the multi-prime approach, the demolition of the old building and preparation ofthe site were bid independently. A contract for Package A, which came in below the engineer's estimate, was awarded in September for $688,900. Preparation of the site is nearly complete; additional site work is included in this contract to be performed after Package B -the building's construction - was completed. As listed on the following bid summary, sixteen (16) different trade packages were advertised as Package B. Clearly the key to getting the best prices in any bidding process is to get as much competition as possible. Toward that goal, extensive outreach to the various trades was done in an effort to solicit as many bids as possible. Based on disappointingly low turn-out of potential bidders at the mandatory pre-bid job walk, the bid date was extended by two weeks and additional job walks were held in the hopes of getting more bidders. However, on bid day only 28 bids were received for the sixteen (16) separate bid packages, with no bids received for two packages. Staff Report Subject: Orange Memorial park Recreation Building Project December 21, 2006 Page 3 Orange Memorial Park Recreation Building Project Engineer's Construction Estimates vs. Low Bids - November 9, 2006 I. BASE BIDS # Bids Estimated Low Bid Received Cost Package A 1. Site Work (Awarded) 4 741,000 688,900 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Package B 2. Concrete 2 113,000 289,000 3. Masonry 1 220,512 280,044 4. Structural Steel 0 77,280 no bids - insert estimate 5. Carpentry 5 649,785 1,631,430 6. Plumbing 2 103,287 181,000 7. Roofing 2 73,239 131,675 8. HV AC/Sheet Metal 4 153,735 260,061 9. Electrical 1 279,595 345,000 10. Fire Sprinklers 2 30,686 34,000 11. Insulation combined with carpentry 12 Metal Stud/ Gyp Board 0 34,984 no bids - insert estimate 13. Painting 2 47,547 59,000 14. Ceramic Tile 1 ~9,163 33,194 15. Glass/Glazing 1 212,925 475,431 16. Casework combined with carpentry 17. Acoustic Ceiling 1 14,135 39,191 18. Flooring 2 58,118 37,992 19. Kitchen Equipment (install) 1 23.751 107.560 Total (Package B) 2,141,742 4,016,824 Difference from Engineer's Estimate (Base Bids): $1,875,100 II. BID ALTERNATES Estimated Cost Low Bid 1. Trash Enclosure 2. Outdoor Barbeque 3. Lockers/Hallway 4. Operable Partitions 5. Restroom Building Total (Bid Alternates) 21,420 20,000 6,800 25,000 175.000 248,220 19,071 17,226 6,500 52,000 334.937 429,734 Staff Report Subject: Orange Memorial park Recreation Building Project December 21, 2006 Page 4 Difference from Engineer's Estimate (Bid Alternates): $181,514 Total Estimated Cost Package B and Alternates Difference from Engineer's Estimate: 2,389,962 4,446,558 $2,056,614 DISCUSSION: Although several of the trade packages in Group B were at or below the estimated cost (flooring, fire sprinklers, ceramic tile), most of the trades were extremely high. This outcome resulted in extensive discussion and analysis on the part of staff and the consultants first as to the cause of the discrepancy between the estimate and the bids, as well as detailed consideration of every option for addressing the shortfall. A variety of factors were identified as contributing to the disappointing outcome: . V olatile bid market resulting from too much work currently on the market for too few contractors; too few bids were received to yield good competition; . Global market forces on material costs had a negative impact on the number of bidders who submitted proposals, and drove up the estimates of those who did submit; . Timing of the project going out to bid was not favorable, as contractors were busy in the fall with work delayed from a rainy season earlier in the year; . Other agencies in the Bay Area reported that the bid climate was not favorable for getting competitive bids. Staffhas engaged in several weeks of very critical analysis of methods and strategies that might be employed to get better prices and move forward with getting the project completed. Factors oftime (schedule); quality (potential reductions and substitutions in materials); budget (obtain more competitive bids or increase funds available for the project); legal contract requirements that must be observed; and potential risks of various alternatives have been creatively and aggressively explored with participation from staff from engineering, public works, the City Attorney, and recreation, as well as our consultants in order to articulate several viable options to the Sub-Committee. Construction Options: Definitions from current Uniform Cost Accounting Procedures: $125,000 and up: $30,000 to $125,000: Up to $30,000: Major, formal contract Minor, informal bidding Purchase Order, informal bids Option #1: Re-package the Project for General Contractor . Rej ect all bids . Incorporate Value Engineering (VE) Staff Report Subject: Orange Memorial park Recreation Building Project December 21, 2006 Page 5 . Repackage for General Contractor (GC) bidding . Advertise for GC . Reduce RGM contract to GC management only; increased cost of GC unknown. Pros: Simpler structure that protects the city the most from legal challenge; more risk delegated to the contractor. Cons: Possible 2-4 month delay in schedule; cost implications unknown, likely costs will be higher; how good the general contractor is critical to the project, have to work with the one contractor - not easy to dismiss without affecting the schedule (low-ball contractor/change order potential). Option #2: Multi-Prime (Re-bid Concrete) . Continue project with informal Uniform Cost Accounting Procedures . Reject bid packages: Concrete, Masonry, Carpentry, Plumbing, Roofing, MechanicallHV AC, Electrical, Painting, Storefront and Glazing, Acoustic Ceiling, Kitchen Equipment . Hold the following bid packages: Fire Sprinkler, Tile, Flooring . Incorporate Value Engineering . Re-bid these packages as maior construction contracts: Concrete, Masonry, Structural Steel, Carpentry, Plumbing, MechanicallHV AC, Electrical, Storefront and Glazing . Re-bid these packages as minor construction contracts: Roofing, Metal StudlDrywall, Painting, Acoustic Ceiling, Kitchen Equipment. Pros: Less delay than Option 1; Probable cost savings by using multiple prime delivery system; possible cost saving by using informal procedures of Uniform Cost Accounting act could be significant (better bid coverage for sub-trades); savings from Value Engineering Cons: 45 day delay to start; cannot begin the foundation until re-bid concrete - more delay than Option 3; reliance on CM for coordinating contractors; more administrative cost for re-bidding; city assumes more liability for project, and assumes some risk of claims re: splitting the job to avoid competitive bid process; to work with Attorney's office to minimize. Option #3: Multi-Prime (Award Concrete with Change Order) . Continue proj ect with informal Uniform Cost Accounting Procedures . Reject bid packages: Masonry, Carpentry, Plumbing, Roofing, MechanicallHV AC, Electrical, Painting, Storefront, Acoustic Ceiling, Kitchen Equipment . Hold the following bid packages: Fire Sprinkler, Tile, Flooring . Negotiate/Award Bid Package: Concrete . Obtain Council 4/5 approval to use own labor for electrical and plumbing for the slab only; Informal bids for Structural Steel, Metal Stud/Drywall, Painting, Kitchen Equipment; Use own labor if bids come in too high Staff Report Subject: Orange Memorial park Recreation Building Project December 21, 2006 Page 6 . Alternatively perform the foundation related electrical and plumbing through PO (below $30K each) . Incorporate Value Engineering . Re-bid these packages as maior construction contracts: Masonry, Carpentry, Plumbing, MechanicallHV AC, Electrical, Storefront and Glazing . Re-bid these packages as minor construction contracts: Roofing, Acoustic Ceiling Pros: Schedule benefit - can begin foundation immediately, several month advantage; probable cost savings by using multiple prime delivery system, probable cost saving by using informal procedures of Uniform Cost Accounting procedures; savings from Value Engineering. Cons: Possibly pay more for foundation work; reliance on CM for coordinating contractors; more administrative cost for re-bidding; city assumes more liability for project, and assumes some risk of claims re: splitting the job to avoid competitive bid process; to work with Attorney's office to minimize.. FUNDING: The project is funded from the following sources: Grants: Urban Park Act (competitive) Per Capita Bond Act Roberti-Z'Berg 2,340,000 268,000 165,000 Developer Fees: Residual in Zone IV Stonegate (16 units @ Hillside) Fairfield (2,898.400 total to be paid) Total project budget: 357,000 419,000 750,000 $4,299,000 As noted above, $2.9 million in park-in-lieu fees will be collected from the Fairfield project, of which only $750,000 have been earmarked for the Orange Park Recreation Building project. $1.065 million will be collected in park-in-lieu fees from the SummerHill project, which have been earmarked as a "match" toward the grant funding that the city has received for Centennial Way. Unless construction costs for the Linear Park see a dramatic increase beyond the estimated cost (similar to the escalation seen for the recreation building); there should be sufficient developer fees from these two sources for the match for both projects. It should be noted that developer fees from these two projects are to be used only for parks and recreation amenities in Zone IV - East ofEI Camino. Certainly desirable parks and recreation improvements and amenities can be identified in Zone IV, such as those being suggested in the Orange Park Master Plan process just underway, however no cost estimates have been developed. No specific Staff Report Subject: Orange Memorial park Recreation Building Project December 21, 2006 Page 7 projects in Zone IV beyond Centennial Way, which includes the dog park, the Orange Memorial Park Recreation Building, and the Orange Park Master Plan, have been identified by the Parks and Recreation Commission. CONCLUSION: Staff is recommending Option #2 to the Sub-Committee for their consideration. This option is to follow-through with the multi-prime approach, using a combination of formal re-bidding for packages over $125,000, informal bidding for packages under $125,000, and purchase orders for some packages under $30,000, as allowed under Uniform Cost Accounting Procedures. The recommendation is based on projections that the bidding climate will be more favorable in January (less so as the year progresses); the city can hold the favorable bids from November 9,2006 for 120 days; ifbetter prices are obtained on those packages that are rejected and re-bid in January, all the bids can be awarded at the same time when a bottom line can be determined without any further commitment of funds; contacts made by the consultant indicated that some of the key packages, including the concrete package, will get more bidders the second time around; lessons learned from the first round can be incorporated into the second round of multi-prime bids to save money, such as eliminating costly mock-ups, and showing some costly material substitutions as add-alternates so that we can better evaluate their value. Regardless of the bid method selected, the reality is that to accomplish the project a combination of strategies and sacrifices will have to be made: Acknowledge that the delay caused by the need to re-bid all or parts of the project will mean that the building will not be completed in time for Day in the Park 2007, and not until early 2008; Identify additional funding, and seek City Council authorization to increase the project budget; Implement "Value Engineering" to reduce costs, but preserve quality, as much as possible; Make every possible effort to get better bid coverage to obtain better prices; In spite of the best efforts, there is no guarantee that a lower project cost can be accomplished; further evaluation and additional options will need to be explored if this is the case. Approximately $1.7 million in design, utility connections, and site work has been expended or encumbered in the project to date, in addition to significant time and effort trying to make the most of the multi-prime bidding method. The course of action discussed above does not further commit city funds toward the project, except for the cost ofre-bidding, until further effort is made to maximize the investment that has already been made. Staff Report Subject: Orange Memorial park Recreation Building Project December 21, 2006 Page 8 ,...-.....-, ;: . '~" ( , VI . By: ~ Ur- ~./~~...~ Sharon Rana1s Director of Recreation and Community Services AGENDA ITEM # 5 City of South San Francisco Inter-Office Memorandum DATE: December 21, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City Clerk Sylvia M. Payne ~ ~ FROM: SUBJECT: HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSIONER JIM LINEBERGER At the special meeting of November 15, 2006, there was a consensus from Council to postpone the Housing Authority interview/appointment process for an unspecified period of time in order to continue the recruitment period for a current commission vacancy. Also at that meeting, Councilwoman Matsumoto suggested Housing Authority Commissioner Lineberger be appointed member emeritus as he has been unable to attend commission meetings since March 2006, due to a serious health problem. As a follow-up to this direction, contact was made with the Housing Authority and it was confirmed that Mr. Lineberger is now residing in San Mateo in an assisted living facility and his apartment in South San Francisco has been vacated. Therefore, it is with regret that the appointment of Mr. Lineberger as member emeritus can not be considered, that his commission appointment be terminated as Mr. Lineberger no longer resides in South San Francisco, and that the current recrui tment process include filling Mr. Lineberger's unexpired term, ending March 31, 2009. If Council concurs with this request, a motion is required to terminate Mr. Lineberger's appointment as Housing Authority Commissioner.