D001164CJ
_ - City Clerk
_ - Finance Dept.
_ - Dept. Accounting (Civic Cenrer)
_ - Engineer (I-IGA)
_ - Contracror
_ - Project Manager (CPMn
CITY OF SAINT PAUL - OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
for
CONTRACT CHANGE AGREEMENT NO. CPA1.8
•
CJ
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, Whereas, additions which proved to be necessary to che Improvement described
as Saint Paul Civic Center Expansion CP-1 Demolition Excavation & Bridge Cons[ruction-Parking Ramg
known as Contract L- Ciry Project No.014440 Edward Kraemer & Sons, is composed of the following:
I. Provide epoxy anchors per Construction Change Directive (CCD) $C1.9.
Reason: Groundwatec caused wet conditions.
2. Fill tucu�el at north side of ramp per CCD #C1J.
Reason: AET required fill to stabilize soils.
3. Change in schedule and work conditions per EKS letter 5-13-96.
Reason: Groundwa[er higher then expected.
4. Equipment charges for groundwater work.
Reason: Schedule extended from November ro January due to groundwater.
5. Changes in work per Contractor Proposals 1.9, 1.SA, 1.14, 118 including excavation,
additional engineering, shotcrete wall tolerances and adjustment of top of shotcrete
wall per EKS letters dated 1-22-96, 9-23-96 and Ii-5-96.
Reason: Shotcrete watl changes due to site conditions.
6. Changes to shotcrete wall due to groundwater, sofr soils, site conditions, overtime
and winter concrete per EKS letters dated 1-22-96, 11-6-96.
Reason: Differing site conditions.
7. Changes ro shotcrete by CP-4 contractor to north wall, plywood strip forms per
Field Orders #426, 427 and 4.28.
Reason: Shotcrete had to be redone due to out of tolerance.
8. HGA evaluation of shotcrete changes.
Reason: Sho[crete out of tolerance.
9. Soil solidification at column 4JB.81.
Reason: Column bearing adjacent.
No. ��� I ( ��
Date �,�_ . '�
Total
$600.00
3,950.00
62,27221
6,112.50
3,738.00
154,571.00
(1,779.00)
(1,342.73)
0.00
$228,121.98
This constitutes full and final settlement of all changes and claims submitted to date and the Contractor waives any and all
rights for any additional claims for this project with the exception of the work associated with Change Order #1.17
(Science Museum Turnaround).
PAGE 1 OF 2
•
ORDERED, That the Ciry of Saint Paul, through its Mayor, approves the foregoing additions made in accordance with the
CITY OF SAINT PAUL - OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
for
CONTRACT CHANGE AGREEMENT NO. CPAl.
�
•
specifications in the sum of $ 228.121.98 said amount to be added to the lump sum consideration named in the
contract, known as contract L-
and which amount is to be fmanced from:
�o. C�� I I �a�-1
Date ^ t � .-
147-76009-0739-68050
AP� P� AS TO�M
/ e% � � �
Assis�ity Attorne�
Head
City oASaint Paul (PED)
Z� Z� 19_�/�
��7 �9 g7
c�` ��/J i o ��
Edward Kraemer & Sons
Conuactor
By �� �1�1�
� `' v �
Administrative Assistant o the Mayor
/�
Architect
L� �
PAGE 2 OF 2
�
`�f� � ( �j �I
��.���
����N��� Z �T�'�°g GREEN S� ., � . .. ,
CON7ACT PEASON & PHONE INRIA INRIAI/DATE
/ � DEPARTMENT DIRECTOFi CITY COUNdL
��� �,� Q �� `" �� N Y P FOR CRV ATTORNEY CRY CLERK
T BE ON COUNCILAGENDA BV DATE) qOUTING O BUDGET DIRECTO FIN. & MGT. SEflVICES DIR.
OP�EP � MpVOR IOR ASSISTAtJn � D
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTIO� E5Tr�v-i.Q !!� LA����� �Y/�^�'� �� J
� ��y ��
lJ d
� C P.9 1 . � �'���P �,-, ��P �'�
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) orlieject (R) pERSONAL SEFiVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOILOWING UUESTIONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE fAMMISSION �� Has this personttirm ever worketl untler a contract for this department?
_ CIB COMMITTEE _ YES NO
_�,� 2. Has Nis personttirm ever been a ciry employee?
— YES NO
_ DIS7RIC7COUR7 — 3. Does this personttirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry employee?
SUPPoRTS WHICH QOUNpL O&IECTIVE? VES NO
Explain ell yes answers on separate sheet and ettaeh to green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, What, When, Whera. Why): �
� 1 C /�-�„-� C�,��, ,- �, ���� � «.� cl.�� �
..,��
� � — �% —� �� �� �-�°—
�P .-� �� � �-zo�-� --�-E-�.
NTAGES IFAPPFOVED:
! � ' "" 1 ` ��/EA'%�/� G'�^ � /' "� �'f � C�
RECEIVED
MAR 41997
� �;rrv c�ER� �
DISA�VANTACaESIFAPPRO�!jQ 7 , ��TY �
r � A�Y � �������
�i2l3Y� 1�11�
L66L b�W FE8 21 1997
a3n����� �$�� �� ������1�
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED: '
�� c:e���-w�C=� ;,rc-� � �e G.�r
TOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION$ ��� �� COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIBCIEONE) ES NO ��
FUNDIWG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER � 7 �"� �[9 QD /� lS �.��— CO "—
PINANqAL INFORh5AT10N: (EXPLAIN)
� t�t� f i � �-�I
CONTRACT STATUS
•
•
PROJECT: Saint Paul Civic Center
Expansion Project
Saint Paul, Minnesota
CONTRACTOR Edward Kraemer 8 Sons
1020 West Cliff Road
Burnsville, MN 55337
OriginalContractAmount: $1,026,000.00
CO No.
CPA1.1
CPA�.2
CPA1.3
CPA1.4
CPA1.5
C PA1.6
C PA1.7
CPA1.8
Subtotal
Deduct Add
223,687.46
6,469.77
3,199.00
52,895.00
34,698.00
9,790.00
6,653.00
228,121.98
00 $565.51421
DATE ISSUED: 8 January 1997
CONTRACT NO.: CP-1
CONTRACT TITLE: Demolition, Excavation &
Bridge Constructio�
CONTRACT DATE: 29 March 1995
Net Amount of Contract
including this Change Order: $1,591,514.21
r� L
ST. PRUL CIVIC CENTEk Fax:612-224-1142 Feb 10 '97 1�:05 P.02/02
.
•,
• �
CIViC C�,�1TER AUTHORITY
nF TI�E
CI"I'Y' OF SAC�T P-1L�[:
Ai;THOTttTY TtESOLUI7
^I�� f l � �
LCA?1U. ��123
WH�REAS, cost pzoposals ha�-e beeu submitted Uy Edward K-�aezT'er and Sons for
cniscellaneous changes inelud'uig chan�es in schedule and �°ork conditions dues ta greund�tater;
channes to shoicrete due to sof soils tunnels, other site conditions; o�'zr[ime ar.d ��'iJat�r
eoncrete: charges to the contractor for shocerete tolerances rework and redesign £or the parlana
ranzp as Palt of the Civic Cencer expa�LSion project at a cost of �?Z�;� � i•� ��l
VVHEI2�AS, b" Resolution i014 thz Civic Center Authorit;° must appivve all changes o�•cr
g1p(),�0{) related to ths pro]zct, an1
���AS, sufficient ftimds have Ueen reserved in the fiinancial Status Report fox this «�ork and
R��g,Z21,qg is availaUlc in the Construcrion Coutingency.1Y0�'V TH�REFOT� BE TT
�g,�()�VED, upon the reconuliendation of the Expansion Coordinating Conunirtee the C���ic
Center Autliority hereby authoii2es issuauce of a change order for the above addition�.1 «"ork to
Fd��Ard Kr2e,ner a��d Sons at a cost not to exceed �228,121•98 �'hich is tlie proposed price
suh�nitted hy Ldward K��acn�er and 5ons.
?ORV1 APPRO�JED BY
,^,IT"Y ATT012NE1'
BY: ����
A1'PRO�']=D II�I CCA
DA'l'�; _1,��Z .
AY: i ��%j v f�u""__
(:hair a[� CA
�
C�
•
•
L��C I��-I
CP11111
c/o Saint Paul Civic Center
I.A. O'Shaughnessy Piaza
143 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102-1299
672/298-5409
PROJECT: SAINT PAUL CIVIC CENTER
EXP ANSION COORDINATING COMMITTEE
SUMMARIZED MINI
Dick Zehring
Joe Rid
Chris Hansen
Jim 0'Leary
Greg Haley
Paui Oberhaus
Susan Jones
"15 JANUARY '1997
�-'f
These minutes will be held as part of the permanent records for this project unless amended in
writing within seven (7) days.
'I.0 PRESENT
* Partial Attendance
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1
2.2
2.3
�
ECC
City of Saint Paul
Saint Paul Civic Center
City of Saint Paul
HGA
CPMI
CPMI
A meeting will be held 14 January 7997 to review Eagle Street. O'Leary and Jones will
attend.
O'Leary is finalizing information for kitchen equipment financing. It is anticipated this will
be on the City Council agenda 22 January 1997.
The final change order for Edward Kraemer & Sons was discussed.
• Jones and 0'Leary met to review ramp changes. With 0'Leary's approval Jones
met with Jerry Volz of EKS and negotiated final changes for both bridge
construction and parking ramp. The attached memo lists the two values and the
items which were reviewed. The final cost for bridge construction is 524,774.75.
The final value for the parking ramp is $228,121.98. Since the value for the ramp
is more than 5100,000 the Expansion Coordinating Committee must recommend
this for CCA approval. 0'Leary moved both change orders be approved and the
$228,121 .98 be recommended to the CCA. Hansen seconded, it was approved. ,
2.4 In September, the ECC was advised that underground feeders at the Arena Lobby had to be
lowered 4' due to the ramp between the Arena and new building. This was an unknown
site condition. It was estimated the work would be approximately S72 K. Actual costs
have been provided from Gephart Electric and total $73,148. Reid moved approval.
O'Leary seconded,it was approved.
SAlNT PAUL C!V/C CENTER EXPANS/ON M/SS/ON STATEMENT
Ou� team ope�ates in a professiona/ atmosphere of quality workmanship, reciprocal trust, and open
communication. We will design, construct and equip an oufstanding multi-pu�pose facility on time
and under budget which is disti�ctive in desrgn, practical in its functionality and user f�iendly.
�i.�h I f ��
CP11111
•
8 January "1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Expansion Coordinating Committee
FROM: CPMI
RE: Saint Paul Civic Center Expansion
CP-1 Demohtion, Excavation & Bridge Construction
The changes and claims submitted by EKS have been evaluated and negotiated with EKS.
Attached is a log of the final disposition of the items.
• With the work for the bridge, the final change value is 524,774.75.
$1'OOt000,�thefExpansPonkCoo danaPing Co'mmitteenmust recomme d th s90 the
Authority.
These changes have been reviewed by CPMI, HGA, City of Saint Paul bridge department, and
mo�nthsA Ifeyouswould like add tional backup nfor on nit hs ava'lablelthrough CPMIts for several
Please review and advise. Thank you.
cc: Chris Hansen
Greg Haiey
Paui Oberhaus
3225-111
L�
��ll��
�
�
�
�
�
Q
J
U
�
W
�
U
d
U
�
w
�
z
w
U
U
>
U
J
�
�
z
a
�
r �� i 1 W %
•
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 20 December 1996
23 December 1996 Finalized with Jerry Volz, Edward Kraemer & Sons
TO: Expansion Coordinating Committee
FROM: CPMI
RE: Edward Kraemer & Sons (EKS)
Parking Ramp - Changes in the Work
Attached is the CP-1 Parking Ramp Changes/Claims Log which lists the remaining changes in the work.
EKS has submitted detailed information. There are essentially four categories:
• Groundwater Claim - Work by EKS, Ames
• Shotcrete Wall - Work by EKS, Ames, LHB
• Shotcrete Wall - Work by Graham Construction
• Backcharges to EKS due to shotcrete tolerances
CPMI has reviewed each item in detail with our records. CPMI has listed the recommendation for the
work under "CPMI Recomm." CPMI has the attached comments.
•
•
I
�� �! �f-�
MEMORANDUM
Expansion Coordinating Committee
• EKS Changes in the Work
20 December 1996
A. GROUNDWATER CLAIM - WORK BY EKS, AMES
Groundwater at a higher level than expected was found on 25 October 1996. It was approximately
13' higher than expected.
This consists of the following:
ITEM DESCRIPTION
A1 Equipment Charges 59,961.88
A2 Delay Claim
A. House & Heat Shotcrete-Labor 24,336.41
B. House & Heat Shotcrete-Material 6,990.80
C. House & Heat Shotcrete-Equipment 12,840.00
D. Subcontractor Costs 30.356.16
Subtotal A2 (A+B+C+D)594,422.40
A3 Epoxy Anchors 600.00
A4 Tunnel Fill 10.290.00
Total All Above 5105,312.52
Item A1 Equipment Charges - 59.961.88
• EKS's subcontractor Ames Construction requested compensation for idle time for equipment since there
were periods when the equipment could not be used. It could not be moved to other locations.
CPMI reviewed the request and verified all hours except 11/28, 11/29 and 4 hours on 11/30/95. Ames
was moving soil for all or a portion of these days. Foreman hours are not all additional work.
Demolition at the NSP vault and pedestrian tunnel and other excavation was ongoing. Steve Karvala
was involved in ground water review for approximately 6 hours (not 28.5).
CPMI recommends an add to EKS of 56,772.50.
•
2
�� I { � `{
MEMORANDUM
• Expansion Coordinating Committee
EKS Changes in the Work
20 December 1996
Item A2 - Delay Claim
�
This is for work caused by the change in schedule for the shotcrete. It includes housing and heating
the shotcrete, and subcontractor costsfor winter concrete and excavation in frozen ground.
EKS requested compensation for the following items:
A& B House & Heat Shotcrete - Labor S24 336.41 and Materials 56.990 80
Work occurred from 18 December 1996 through 22 January 1996. This was for shotcrete on
lower walis due to the groundwater and also for the East Wall. Timesheets were submitted to
CPMI as the work occurred and EKS's calculations were verified.
CPMI concurs with the work for the groundwater. When work resumed on the shotcrete in
December, the weather required enclosure for the work. The schedule for the work was impacted
by three items: the delay on Phase 1 due to NSP ductbank; groundwater; and a three week time
period in August when work did not start.
The schedule for the excavation and shotcrete was impacted first by the NSP ductbank on Phase I.
Phase II stared 23 June 1996 instead of 1 June 1996. with this, the completion date of the ramp
was to be mid-October 1996.
Due to some other occurrences, in September EKS requested the date be extended to 3 November.
On 25 October, the higher groundwater was discovered
CPMI reviewed the schedule and considered a three week time period in August in which the
shotcrete did not start (for no apparent reason). The dates of the actual work versus if the three
week delay had not occurred are shown below (Phase I delay incorporated):
ITEM
Start Shotcrete
Complete Shotcrete Installation
Discover High Groundwater
Start Shotcrete Elevation 18'
Start East Wall
Complete East Wall
ACTUAL ORIGINAL
DATE DATE
09/06/95 07/07/95
01 /29/96 10/06/95
10/25l95
12/18/95
12/01 /95
01 /22/96
EKS started housing and heating on 2 November, but did not charge for this until 18 December
1996.
Average temperatures in October and November are 25 - 30 degrees. November, 1996 was
average, and even with the three week delay, winter conditions would still be warranted.
L�
Part of the additional cost is for the East Wall. This wall was the last scheduled for work due to
the restrictive tolerances in this loadbearing wall. It was delayed by the original groundwater
discovery.
CPMI recommends an add to EKS for $31,327.21 .
3
�� €���
MEMORANDUM
. Expansion Coordinating Committee
EKS Changes in the Work
20 December 1996
C. House & Heat Shotcrete - Equipment S'12.840
This is for equipment which was on site after 18 December 1996. EKS was do�e with all other
work and this is part of delay. Equipment would have been gone, except this issue.
CPMI recommends an add to EKS of 512,840.
D. Subcontractor Costs - 530.356.16
This consists of two requests: 521,755.13 for Ames Construction and 57,155.50 for Graham
Construction plus 51,445.53 mark-up by EKS:
Ames Construction - S22.842.89
The groundwater caused difficulty for the finishing of the north wall and lower interior 12" walls.
CPMI reviewed Ames' request and compared to field reports. It appears Ames is requesting
compensation for eight (8) days of work for finishing north wall/moving ramp and two (2) days for
lower interior 12" walls.
CPMI concurs with the work for the lower interior 12" walls, but not all of the ramp work. No
foreman costs should be allowed, as has been explained frequently to Ames/EKS. Work on 9
• January 1996 was for work at southeast/south walls and final 10' of north wall. It should also be
noted the remaining soils were left in the hole at the discretion of Ames. CPMI recommends
$14,481 for this work. See Attachment A2.D and A2.D2. Per meeting with Jerry Volz, some
foreman time is acceptable since they were on site only for this issue by December(January.
$18,105 acceptable.
Graham Construction Winter Concrete - 57.513.28
This is included in Item 3C As listed in Item A and B above, the groundwater caused a delay in the
installation of shotcrete. However, Graham has requested winter concrete beginning 2 November
1996, not 18 December 1996 as EKS did for housing and heating.
In addition, Graham requests winter concrete for the claimed total concrete (claim per Item C1).
CPMI estimates the disputed concrete amount from 1 December 1995 through 29 January 1996 is
643 cy.
CPMI recommends the following:
1,330 cy Total
-643 cy (Disputed Quantity 12/95-1/96)
-107 cv (1 /2 of Quantity 11 /2-11/14)
580 Cy @ $5.35 = $3,103 + 5°/a = $3,258
CPMI recommends an add to EKS for both items of 518,000. 521,258 acceptable per meeting
12/23/96 with Jerry Volz.
• Total Recommended for Item A2 (A+B+C+D): $31,327.21 + $12,840 + 518,105 = $62,272.21
0
������
MEMORANDUM
• Expansion Coordinating Committee
EKS Changes in the Work
20 December 1996
Item A3 Eooxv Anchors - $600.00
This is for epoxy anchors at the groundwater Iocation. HGA indicated this should have been base bid,
but this was not clarified in Summer, 1995. A field order was issued for this work. CPMI recommends
the work of the field order be honored.
CPMI recommends an add to EKS of 5600.00
Item A4 Tunnel FiII - 510.290.00
This was rejected in a letter to EKS dated 22 December 7995.
CPMI recommends no additional cost be approved. 33,950 acceptable per meeting 12/23/96 with Jerry
Volz. EKS filled tunnels based on direction from AET. Compensated Time & Material Only.
C�
•
5
�J6���I
•
MEMORANDUM
Expansion Coordinating Committee
EKS Changes in the Work
20 December 1996
B. SHOTCRETE WALL - WORK BY EKS, AMES, LHB
This consists of the following:
ITEM
61
62
63
B4
65
DESCRIPTION
Shotcrete Wall - Excavation Claim
Shotcrete Wall - Engineering Claim #1
Shotcrete Wall - Engineering Claim #2
Revisions To Qty./Shotcrete Tolerances
Extra Work/Removal
Total
Item 61 Shotcrete WaII - Excavation Claim S'1.034.00
S 1,034.00
326.29
7,922.40
10, 282.00
12.815.54
532,380.23
This is for work associated with the lower two 12" shotcrete walls. These were issued as changes on
RFP #C1.8. EKS was paid 5214,002 for the changes associated with the final design of the shotcrete
walls per Change Order #C1.A1 in November 1995. In January, 1996 they sent a claim for an
additional $1,034 for excavation.
Three comments on this:
1. The RFP's are supposed to include all costs associated with the changes. This should have
• been submitted with the Contractor Proposal in September, 1995. The Contract Documents
require notice within 21 days after occurrence of event for claims. EKS indicated in their letter
that Ames noted in their letter of 5 July 1995 there was "no way to determine the time and
cost impact".
2. The base bid documents show the sloped excavations. The exact levels of excavation were
changed, and shotcrete was added. But the base bid excavation should have accommodated
this change.
3. In EKS's Groundwater Delay Claim (Item A3, 574,523.37) Ames Construction requests
$21,755.13 for this work. Per CPMI's field reports, Ames started excavation on 4 January and
completed the work on 27 January. There were five (5) days specificaily on this task. CPMI
recommends this amount not be awarded and consider the extra due to "frozen ground".
CPMI recommends this not be accepted.
C �
J
�� I ��
MEMORANDUM
• Expansion Coordinating Committee
EKS Changes in the Work
20 December 1996
Item B2 Shotcrete Wall - Engineering Claim #1 326.29:
and B3 Shotcrete Wall - En ic�neering Claim #2 7,922.40
Engineering Claim #1 requests compensation for LHB Engineers & Architects for engineering services
for RFP #C1.9. EKS was paid $214,002 for the changes associated with the final design of the
shotcrete walis per Change Order #C1.A1 in November 1995. In January, 1996 they sent a claim for
an additional $326.29 for engineering. As stated in Item 61, this should have been included in the
Contractor Proposal cost. In EKS's letter of 4 November 1996, they concur engineering costs
associated with change orders are included in contractor's markup.
Engineering Claim #2 requests compensation for LHB Engineers & Architects for engineering services
for RFP changes C1.8, C1.9, C1.13, C1.14; weekly site visits, and groundwater. Some of these are
acceptable costs: for grou�dwater and some changes during weekly visits.
In their letter of 4 November 1996, EKS concurs engineering costs associated with change orders are
included in contractor's markup. The $2,835 from June, 1995 and work for the East wall should not
be an additional cost. These are all related to change orders.
Weekly site meetings should not be additional. Per Section 02405 an experienced
Contractor/Engineering firm was to provide waVl design and field supervision. The additional site
meetings on the groundwater are an extra. CPMI calculates an add of $3,738 for this work. See
Attachment B2.
� CPMI recommends an add to EKS for $3,738.
Item B4 Revisions to Qty./Shotcrete Tolerances 58.586.00
EKS requested additional compensation for the more strict 12" shotcrete wall tolerances which were
issued in RFP #1 .8. EKS was compensated $34,698 per Change Order #CPA1.5 in March, 1996.
They indicated there was an error in their cost and are requesting an increase based on actual
quantities per the unit price cost for the work.
CPMI reviewed EKS's actual quantities of shotcrete and concurs. However, based on Change Order
#C1.A1 in November 1995 (5214,002) this change order should be reduced by 517,275. See
calculations attached on Attachment B4. With this, both the claim for this work and for Item 65
should be paid from this difference.
CPMI recommends no cost change for this work.
Item 65 - Extra WorklRemoval $12.815.54
This is for redoing the edges of the top of the shotcrete wall. During the design changes, the top of
the shotcrete walls were reduced from Top of Wall at Elevation 75' to 70'. However, the
detail/excavation was not recognized and overspray was installed. This had to be removed to install
the work of CP-4. In addition, the walls were out of tolerance in several places and had to be shaved
back. The thickness of some of these walls resulted in a much harder task than would have occurred if
the contractor had met the specifications.
• CPMI recommends both the claim for this work and for Item 65 should be paid from the shotcrete
quantity difference per Change Order #C1.A1 in November 1995 ($214,002). (See Item 64).
CPMI recommends no cost change for this request.
���� ���
MEMORANDUM
• Expansion Coordinating Committee
EKS Changes in the Work
20 December 1996
C. SHOTCRETE WALL - WORK BY GRAHAM CONSTRUCTION
EKS submitted a claim for Shotcrete Overages and Productivity Losses on 6 November "1996. They
indicated the following items had an impact on the shotcrete quantities and scheduled production:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
•
�
Delays i� award and plan approval
U.S. West Tunnel
Numerous unmapped tunnels
"Soft soils" or uncemented soils
Sanitary tunnel repair by Lametti
Tolerances on east wall and lower finished walls
High water table
Design changes and site conditions did affect the scope of the work. However, numerous change
orders were issued for the majority of the changes. Change orders have already been issued for the
following:
Item Change Order # Amount
Shotcrete Wall Design Changes C1.A1 5214,002
4th Street Tunnel Stabilization (Lamettil C1.A7 9,685
Grout Fill Tunnels CA1.4 52,895
East Shotcrete Wall Tolerance CA1.5 34,698
Concrete Fill at Poor Soils CA7.6 9,790
CPMI has done a cursory investigation of EKS's claims on the six reasons for impact and offers the
following:
1. Delays in award & plan approval
1.1 The award was not made until 15 June, 1996. However, EKS had proceeded with
design in May, 1995 per their letter, 3.B.a. On their construction schedule they listed
76 June 1996 as excavation started "Milestone - Late Start of Ramp Alternate". This
was met.
1.2 The City's structural engineer required additional information and clarification before the
building permit was issued. This was part of the permit process, not related to Owner
requirements. The building permit was issued 27 July 1995. However, excavation for
parking ramp did not start until 25 August 1996. In several meetings, EKS indicated
Atlas would start anchor installation on 14 August. In the weekly meeting on 22
August 1995, Jones inquired why it had not started and what was wrong - EKS had no
response.
1.3 EKS's original schedule indicates they will start shotcrete on 3 August 1996. Shotcrete
started on 6 September 1996.
2. US West Tunnel
2.1 This issue is not acceptable as part of claim.
2.2 The US West tunnel was shown on Sheet C405A and mentioned in Section
02405.2.1.F. EKS indicated they did not know it had fiber optics and fed the
downtown. This should not have mattered. The contractor did raise their concerns and
several meeting were held. The contractor must use means and methods to proteci
existing/adjoining structures.
2.3 In addition, the final design of the ramp by LHB accommodated the tunnel per EKS letter
8/29/95. See Attachment 3bf. This was issued as Change Order #C1.A7.
8
��Il��
MEMORANDUM
. Expansion Coordinating Committee
EKS Changez in the Work
20 December 1996
3. Unmapped tunnels
3.1 The site did have numerous tunnels. EKS was issued Change Order CA1.4 in the
amount of 552,895 for this work.
3.2 Filling of tunnels was an extra, per unit costs, to bulkhead & fill. The quantity of
shotcrete should have been minimal at locations where tunnels were perpendicular to
the excavation. AET thought most of the bulkheads were within 6"-1" of the shotcrete.
3.3 AET has provided map of tunnels found during construction. There were 15 which
were perpendicular to the excavation.
4. Soft soils/uncemented soils
4.1 The site did have some unusual soft soils/uncemented areas.
4.2 There are two distinctions:
• Large areas which sloughed off and caused problems in large areas (west & south
sidesl. West Side: Change Order #CA1.6 was issued to reimburse EKS for concrete
which was installed at the west side. Overspray from the shotcrete in this area has not
been reimbursed and is an acceptable cost. South Side: The cost for additional
shotcretein these areas would be acceptable.
• Outside corners - contractor methods caused sloughing. The contractor designed the
shotcrete system and determined the excavation methods and sizes of areas to be
shotcreted. Soil borings indicated the type of soils which would be encountered.
. The manner in which EKS calculated the additional is reviewed in more detail in Item C1.A
below.
5. Sanitary tunnel repair
5.1 The tunnel at Fourth Street was repaired due to unstable conditions as EKS excavated
for new invert.
5.2 Change Order #CA1.1 for 59,685 was issued. A bulkhead at the tunnel entrance wa:
the only impact to shotcrete quantities.
6. Tolerances on east wall and lower finished walls
6.1 RFP #C1.31 changed tolerances.
6.2 Change Order #CA1.5 for 534,698 was issued in March, 1996. Any varied shotcrete
quantities are related to excavation, not tolerances.
6.3 For example, at the lower 12" walls, overage of 54.6 CY claimed on 42.4 calculated
CY. This makes the walls 30" thick. Per AET test cores, they are not more then 17.4"
- which would be an additional 18 cy, not 54.6.
7. High Water Table
7.1 A higher water table encountered 25 October, 1995
7.2 The higher water table did impact the schedule and cause work to be done in more
winter conditions, but the impact on additional quantities is difficult to calculate.
7.3 EKS requested 594,422.40 for housing and heating, idle equipment excavation at lower
interior walls, relocating the ramp and winter concrete. See Item A Groundwater Claim
- Work by EKS, Ames.
� 8. Other
8.1 It seems unexplainable that the project used 73% more shotcrete than originally
calculated. This means all walls have to be 10-40" thick. Per AET core drilis, most
walls are within 25% of goal.
�
�! ��`t
MEMORANDUM
• Expansion Coordinating Committee
EKS Changes in the Work
20 December 1996
The claim consists of the following:
ITEM DESCRIPTION
C1 Shotcrete Overages
A. Extra shotcrete
B. Rebar/Forming Cost
C. Production Losses/Cold Weather
Sub 5% OH&P
Subtotal
C2
•
Overtime
Item C'I .A Extra Shotcrete $'159.367.78
6,129.54
This is for additional concrete used. Based on Cemstone concrete tickets, EKS evaluated the work
to determine where they considered additional concrete was used.
EKS provided a very detailed breakdown of how 2hey arrived at the overages.
There are several valid reasons for overages.
1 . Unusual soft soils.
2. Additional shotcrete at tunnel openings.
3. Additional shotcrete at lowest level of perimeter wall (due to frozen groundwater and frozen
soilsl.
However there are several other factors to be considered:
1. Responsibility of excavator.
2. Design of lifts and contractor means and methods as related to working in cemented and
uncemented sandstone.
3. Core drills of actual thickness.
•
CPMI calculated an acceptable quantity of shotcrete overage per Attachment C1.A.
CPMI recommends an add to EKS for 889,444.
Item C1.6 Rebar/Forming Cost - 57.217.40
EKS is requesting this for forming at the elevator shafts, and additional lifts and steel at the US West
tunnel.
Both of these issues were identifiable on the base bid documents.
CPMI recommends no cost change for this request.
S� 59,367.78
7, 217.40
74,254.25
9.041.97
S 189,881.40
10
��� i��
MEMORANDUM
. Expansion Coordinating Committee
EKS Changes in the Work
4 December 1996
Item C1.0 Production Losses/Cold Weather - 514.254.25
EKS is requesting compensation for water table related delays due to short lifts, multiple set ups and
production losses.
This is a reasonable request, although somewhat difficult to determine the exact cost. EKS is
requesting compensation due mostly to production loss (511,3901 based on 2 hours lost per day for 34
days for a crew of 5.
If EKS is willing to partner the shotcrete overages, CPMI recommends this in full. If not, closer review
of daily work is warranted.
For Item C1A, B and C CPMI recommends a total of 5103,698.25. 5150,000 acceptable per meeting
with Jerry Volz 12/23/96.
Item C2 Overtime - S6.'129.54
EKS requests compensation tor overtime in September, October, November and December 1995. This
is for EKS, Graham Construction and Atlas.
EKS's request indicates this was verbally approved by CPMI. CPMI has no record of this, but some
• Saturday work in September was probably warranted due to the numerous tunnels discovered at the
start of the project.
CPMI would recommend the overtime with the following deletions: no approval on 9/23, 9/30, 10/07,
or 10/14. On Atlas's cost breakdown, these are referred to as DJ Graham cost. They should be
defeted from EKS and Graham. Also, overtime work in January by EKS was not authorized.
CPMI recommends an add to EKS for $3,109. $4,571 acceptable per meeting with Jerry Volz
12/23/96.
•
il
�� ! � �`�t
MEMORANDUM
• Expansion Coordinating Committee
EKS Changes in the Work
4 December 1996
BACKCHARGES TO EKS DUE TO SHOTCRETE TOLERANCES
This consists of the followi�g:
ITEM
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
DESCRIPTION
Shotcrete Excess FO#4.26
North Wall Add'I Rebar FO#4.27
Plywood Strip/Form FO#4.28
HGA Additional Services
East Wall Out of Tolerance
5326.00
S 787.00
$ 646.00
1,342.73
Total deduct of $3,121.73 for all items acceptable to Jerry Volz per meeting 12/23/96.
OTHER
At the southeast corner of the excavation, soil solidification had to be performed by the stair. LHB had
not included the footing for a column in their calculations for the shotcrete wall in this area. In lieu of
redoing the shotcrete wall, soil solidification was provided. EKS requested 513,640 for the work,
stating this was not in original cost of wall or Change Order #C1.A1. Per meeting with Jerry Volz
12/23/96, this item was withdrawn by EKS.
•
` J
12
:.;
�t
C�
�
AMES CONSTRUCTION, INC.
14420 COL3NTY ROAD 5
} gURNS�-LE, MINNF.SOTA 55306
(612) 435-7106 • FAX 435-7142
December I1, 1995
Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc.
1020 West Cliff Road
Bumsville, Minnesota 55337
�7T�'� �.v r
Attention: Jerry Volz, Regional Manager
Subject: Stand-by Due to Water Problem at Ramp
Saint Paul Civic Center Expansion
CP-i Demo, Excavation & Bridge Construction
Dear Jerry:
��l��
4�
� ,.�� '�'
(�/
IWd�
466t z z c�ar
o�nia���
We have incurred some additional cost due to the groundwater problem in the proposed parking
ramp. 'I'he summary below includes the previous cost, also. As agreed with CPMI, the standby
time is an extra cost which must be paid by the owner. We have been forced to cease excavation
below elevation 19.0 due to the groundwater problem encountered. This unforeseen condition has
prevented excavation in other areas of the ramp while we aze waiting for the anchor installation on
the east wall. Since access is cut off at the ramp excavation, the backhoe and operator aze caprive
in the hole where no other work is possibie.
This tabulation below summarizes the total cost for work done on a time and material basis as
verified by CPMI. Please find attached the field work order for this work. f �
Labor & Eauut 11/13 11/14 11/15 11/16 i l/17 Total Rate Extenston
CAT 235 Backhoe 2.0 7.0 6.0 6.0`'�� 7.5 �� 28.5 $125.00 $3,562.50(
Foreman � ( 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 28.5 $50.00 $1,425.00 �
�/x't�5 oF Subtotal $4,987.5�
T$M 5+�� ._�� �I�28 11/Z� E��3o I?�1
Labor & Eaunt 11/27 Ll�'3"6 .1�12 1�Y Total Rate Extension
CAT 235 Backhoe 6.0 e� 6.0 -8:0 8.0 0'`� 3b.0 $125.00 $4,500.00
� �� `�'�OK- Subtotal �4,500.00
fSr�
G
��
�
B �
�I�o �S
�
� ��� Total with 0% Mark-Up $9,48750
It is our request that a change order be issued for this amount. Please call with any questions. `'�
SincerelY, il/13-11/i'1 �3,`�02.
- � (o x 50� �oo °°
i � S �",� �x�n
�
Michaei Moeller If�27- 12!! (0 � 12� 2 � 2 !
Project Manager. ��� �� 2 50
M Fqua[ OPPa'�^�iY �P�r :
OFFICES IN: DENVER, COLORADO • PHOENIX, ARIZONA •�
.
�
�t�A��NT �2. D
Page 2
January 29, 1996
Additional Cost Due to Water Problem at Ramp
Following is out cost for this additional work..
D W�,i O �
Labor & Eauot 1/8 1/9 I/10 1/l l
CAT 235 W/Hammer 8.0 � 8.0
CAT 953 Loader
Foreman 8.0 8.0 8.0
4
:1
:1
1
��t����
C9 �W � iz' w�.0 �y�,a;,.,
� M� ��
� �urr`- M Gow��-�P.Tid�
!z�L- �rt �„_v iz ��;�.:,I ey.���zx<<.,,
i�s
rJ
1/13 Total
8.0 40.0
8.0 16.0
8.0 40.0
Rate
$175.00
580.00
'$s�68 -
Subtotai
.
��� ��
:1 11
�.:� 5,q
. 1 :1 11
cPmi
Reia„nisi%�-
� � �oo
�� 280
/�� N Ta
U�' �tt Ei�✓. �
1/IS I/16 I/17 I/l8 I/19 I/20 Total Rate
CAT 235 W/Hammer 8.0 �S g.p NoT oN 5 `� 24.0 $175.00
Foreman 8.0 8.0 8.0 24.0 .�
Subtotal
CAT 235 Backhoe
Foreman
Mova sandibnt
Q T° e'°serar (� �j
1(22 Il23 U2� I/26 1/27 Total Rate
No �evr £`�' 9.5 9.0 S� 5 �+�, E ,�d I 8.5 $ L 25.00
9.5 9.0 18.5 �8..
Extension
$4,200.00
�
$5,400.00
Extension
$2,312.50
�4
2 .312 `'
Subtotal $3,237.50 �
'��/, 992. So
� = : 5 i�
Total with 15% Mark-Up $21,755.13
�1a��9i, °o
�- �y_�--
.�
It is our request that a change order be issued for this amount. Please call with any questions. �
Sincerely,
� �' '���� CjDC� C, L��r ��v �� r�.�
MichaelMoeller — �_¢ �N��r��s.�r�
Project Manager.
"1 � �; �O � �A'GG�7�3'�f
��- !�� l2�2� f9�
2 � 800
-�}-�-G u��,�..,,� �� rJ a-- � I ���
�
�
PARKING RAMP GROUNDWATER DELAY CLAIM
A). LABOR TO HEAT & HOUSE SHOTCRETE WALLS ----------------- � 24,336.41
( see attached worksheets )
B). MATERIALS TO HEAT & HOUSE SHOTCRETE WALLS ----------- $ 6,990.80
( see attached worksheets )
C). EQUIPMENT TO HEAT & HOUSE SHOTCRETE WALLS ----------- $ 12,840.00
1) For period 12/18/95 thru 1/26/96
a). 966-c loader @ $4950.00/mn
b). HS-P 80-40 linkbelt crane @$ 7740.00/mn
c). 3/4 T pickup @$ 150.00/mn
$12840.00/mn
D). SUBCONTRACTOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER PROBLEMS
1) Ames letter of 1/29/96------------------- ----------------------------------- `� -r ' 1 � - '
�. -, , «�
2) D.L. Graham winter concrete costs ------------------------'------------- • �
�--r-��
m�o ni n c2
��
� 5% O&P °� 'a�
TOTAL $�4,��'
�IS� �o�
��v2- 272, 2 �
MOVv� � `J�C'Xe�� tJ�a.�-�. �S 6 �aFxtm
Gp mt �� e 3
�
J
,
I1
LJ
June 26 120
June 31 8.5
�1�'�-G�;'r�.=�✓.` B, Z I������
RATEI TaTALI ��N
1.00 $1,094 H re afed changes to rawmg
$8� _00 $972 HGA related d'ien9es to drawing
SS�.00 S77o HGA relatea changes to arawing
I� ,- P�c-c-�.x^� �
HGA relaYed drawing changes inctuded tevisions to bottom of ramp with new
12" walls added and siopes changing, incorporating coordirtate corrections and/or
mad'�caEions, eGmirlation of stair core at Witkins, etc.
Sept 12
Sept 18
Sept 20
Sept 25
Sept 27
Oct 13
� I,3 �
•
�
Oci 24
Oct 26
Oct 27
Ocf 31
Nov 02
Dec 05
Dec 19
Dec 22
Jan 2
TOTALS
5.0 $81.003G� �495 weekly site mtp & additional eng
2.0 581.00 5162 visit site, discuss proposed flx
1.5 S81.d0 $122 ca(cufafions & sketches
1.0 $81.00 $81 calculatians & sketches
2.5 $81.00 � weekly sife mtg .
$81.00
$Si.00
$81.�
581.00
S81.Q0
$81.00
b.0
3.0
2Q
4.0
3.Q
2.0
5405 notified of wster table elevation
g243 prelim calcs for high H20
$162 coord with AET
$324 s3te visit regarding high H20
�243 write reports � field coordination
5162 sife visif regarding Fi20 resoluBon
2.5 $81.00 $203 site visit - H20 & east walt eoorcl.
2.5 581.00 � site vtsit - Esst wall coordination �
1.0 $81.00 � �e T�Po�$ �
3_0 $81.00 � site visit - East wall finishes /
S.0 ��
s�t.o � 3, 095
��.�-� a�..� 4�, s ��
\S�Io � �
�
�3�5�0 °
l � � � �iC S
1 i /05/96
�3,� 3� -
( � �i � �' ,,�
�' . r.S
��� �� �
_. s
-�
�I�la�.�t�n��,��.�
,
�
-'���' ����� 1�1 C��-�
--= v .�;
: ;�.,::
�..-�� ' � �tt���7�dv�° �_%9-
.
ST PAUL CIVIC CENTER SHOTCRETE PLACEMENT OUANTITIES
COMPLETED SQUARE FOOTAGE QUANTITIES PER AS BUILT DRAWINGS
DESCRIPTION
upper east wall
upper cant wall
upper notth wall
upper west wall
east wall
east wall
north wall
south wall
west wall
lower west wall
lower east wall
THICKNESS
3"
6"
6"
�h y e . �o�,
12"
16"
g ��
6"
6"
12"
12"
AREA
SOlsf ✓
453sf ✓
2,249sf ✓
523sf v
6,978sf ✓
2,656sf - ¢" + rz" ,�
12,705sf ✓
14,075sf -�
6,207sf ✓
512sf✓
528sf ✓
. TOTALS BY THICKNESS eo
a7' D(� �
3" SO1SF✓ �20 = 2i9 x ��r. _ ��,3BO
4" 3179SF� 23�0 +859. x los = 9,oao'_,
6" 23,507SFt� 25,voo -1,493 x IDq =�I�a� 3o�F )
8" 12,705SF l3,zao - 495. x i4 , 33 = L7,o93'�
12" 1Q674SF 10,�0o t�4 x t7. = 1,31'1
�E � �'d— wars iNCwoeo �a 4 � (���
U Nc �T�MS - co sr =� 2l ¢ � l 2o z�0�°
��t'rou�� BE t(l - S�,,iN�s aF 2�g35
C
��� - 453
22��(
l4,�75
l�, Zo �7
22�qSQ-
��
�0 � 523
2 _--
12"- l0478 4�� 2,(os�
2�l05(0
5�2
528
�0,��4
( � l4 49p-
C 2, S 35 �
C��r o�
� �-�,Z�s
CPMI
�
- '�JUM
� tt�u�vr,�Nr C I , A
�€ 6��
�A� i -
�� 2�1 '�I�C � -
__��-
�
/, �hIoTGP-�T� � (��-5 �v�0 (o G y
- - 2, o ��� � T�° 4 � _
—� --- -
�J• lu�n�l� � G`,.
�-, �So�s� �-7 G� _
- -
. - CoCo �-y
_ ._ _
. _ �
� �� __ __ . . _ . _ _ _.. _ . _ .
_ _ . �. �G�?�VL�.�IN _-�I�o..�.- -- — � ' � . - - � --
�, I�t 5 W251"
Cl
C , �,�_ �ui..b-Cs�—
� _._ _ .. __� _ � — —
� x �Ya �% ��c��,.v�� . _ _ __ ; __
. ,
; _ . : _ _ _ ' . .._ . 4 ' , y _ _ � _ __ . _
_, . . ._ _ .�_ __ : . . .
. . _ .._____.. _ _ . '_' , . :,— _ ..__. . _ . .;- _ -__ .. _ . __
'
- � --zr,� _ �,'_�- �� !�Iz._
,�._ � __ _. _
r---
( 23�9� - �.� � j
� � R '`�`� - �`
- ---- _ _ _ r _
_. -
- a�t �/50.� �D_�, - - ___ -
a� .�����` — : � ! � �I; -�s �! - �" � � 2 �s, � _ .�19� 1 ��, �s
�
_ � ��'
�
'� �Q'�yr/j i -Q"vi..! V �� I-!
D� _ �i— <� i, . r -r�,-.n �'3
U_,t)4 ��' - --- .--
1 ' `�� G _ __' _ . _
VV� iJJP.�„u - (�" sP�_
--- C4 ��`Z ° _ _
- c,•�� ���'ti xl1 .x.33 =2,223=27}= `7'{_ cy +
+4u
_. . . . .
�•'� �
_ _-_. __- _
Q No�± w�w -; 8" �P�_ _ _
-
�_�- �4? � x �� w X:.2� _ � � �- = � - � � � t
�� � i
�-� eu�'� Q ( S7 N x. f 24 v� x:o 125 �41. � 2� � = 2(0 ..
� � : -- -�- � - __-- -- � - - _ �- ' --
�F�T I1�PR.ti - 12��, r }��� SPEG_ � - �ve�'-,PV�x�� -__ _
- . _�Q�`� our� .33� - 5�1'1-k_ x 12-7' x .'33 =_ 2 -; Z . = �('j`� c-r .
- �. , -- -- _ __ ___ _
Q �J' oUTTi I t�aS.t.. _. _ . _ _
. . _ �P__ `V.QEC� _.---- --- >._-- - ---, . . - --
. ,. __.__.. _ . --
�`�" our�.o'a3 ! �i.�S��N x 2�d x 3.'a) i 2�4�-� ; 2"1 . _; FQ 4`� .
__._ , __ ,___.. __ ..; ___ , , _
_,
�y�--... �/J_P�tA..�a_. .-_� 2�� : �'��.. _. :— � --
-- , _ ' __ _ _ _ --
. . ' e�J __ ._ _.. �. �Fu.J_5.��'.� '"_ ��,-.?'..�� ___ .. "._ �S_ � -__._ _.--'---
__._ . .
��v �t3�rs � - 12." �P� _', _ _ _ . � ; ,
�;{�-a._�t��o;���j = ._'�_ �'_l' x5?.�`_xo83=251g �, z'i -. 94 �`f
_. . .
C lo" osrt'�.,83' _ ,
Mone cc,l.le� �se_� ��,�e. - rr,�fz`d�^�� ��z:. ..n���me
•
- 31� �
L2s5 Vo � D �re�i,c
�(�����fi(�°xg)=�� � .5=z� _ ���� )
� �'� �
CPMI
�__
�v���- � T
�s 4i r
_ _- ,
_ ,
�� ;
�� � � 4.5
I�IJt � I � � - -
��� 3 - ___
� e�F� �.�- av� (� " �G, �� x �5 �i� � -
- ,�� /'
_ --- - CSoriZ4-r_ i17±2;0� = _( i 2`'i0 : G�7 ` "�`�o.GY--
_ � /-
�O, t�
g' �
�
_ __ - ,
�X"f`�a.. _V'Jc�vf� C.'- - _ . ; _ - - - -
�J. �'il.r.✓. gh�- _ ; ._ _ _ ��5 _ ,
,
g. Gf 5 Gt��' , ; _ O
��
- -�C._r -- _:-- ..___� _ . -
,� , ,
I � h�o lu,�orf �D� �'�dL �s�=.� cr--
�'�`�' ._. -a - - , w — --- -
-- _-- - —
; �.4� :h�- -; ��- �'G.�:S_ �'r��.�'� !� ;
._
,
�� < < � ;
;
,
; . -
�