My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 02-26-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 02-26-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:32 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:36:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
194
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />"I' <br />r <br /> <br />Mr. Joe Lynch <br />February 9. 200 1 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />the rebid phase of the project. Per our discussions, we have agreed that the fee to rebid the project In 2000 <br />shall be identical to the $8.125 fee we were paid in 1999 even though the construction budget has changed <br />since our fee was established in 1998 based on a $1,887,500 construction budget. <br /> <br />ReollP.St for Acl.ciitional C:onstmdion Administrntion Fep: <br /> <br /> <br />Article 11.2.1 of our contract stipulates that our basic services fee will be adjusted as mutually agreed if the <br /> <br />City agrees to change the construction budget. <br /> <br />Our Basic Services fee of $162,500 was established in 1998 at 8.6% of an estimated construction budget of <br />$1,887,750. The City has decided to proceed with a $2,942.000 construction project. <br /> <br />In our March 8, 2000 letter, we indicated that we would request an adjustment of our fee based on the <br />accepted construction budget less the cost for the extension of the utilities and the $65,000 budget allocation <br />for the basement. The basis for our fee request therefore is: <br />Accepted Construction Budget <br />Less Utility Woll< <br /> <br />Less Basement Allowance <br />Fee Basis <br /> <br />$2,942,000 <br />(166,000) <br />(65 (00) <br />$2,711,000 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Technically, we believe that it is justified to request an adjustment of our entire basic services design fee <br /> <br />based on the increased construction budget. ff we used the same percentage that our current fee is based on, <br /> <br />then our total basic services fee would be $233,146 (8.6% of $2.711,00), an increase of $70,646 over the current <br /> <br />$162,500 basic services lee. Although we are significantly 'in the hole" on the overall basic services fee for the <br /> <br />project and greatly would appreciate an adjustment based on the actual construction budget for all phases of <br /> <br />the project, we realize that such an adjustment may not receive City approval. However, we do need to <br /> <br />request an adjustment in basic services fee for the construction administration phase 01 the project, because <br /> <br /> <br />we are administering a much larger constl\lction value than we are under contract to do. Ourwoll< effort is <br /> <br />greater in many areas, including the need to coordinate and review shop drawings for the stone cladding of <br /> <br />the new facility. The basic services fee for the construction administration phase equates to 20% of the total <br /> <br />fee. We are requesting the following adjustment based on the $2.711,000 adjusted construction value: <br /> <br />a. 20% of 8.6% of 2,711.000 <br />b. Less 20% of 8,6% of 1,887,500 <br />c, Additional Construction Administration Phase Fee <br /> <br />$46,629 <br />(32 465) <br />$14.164 <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.