Laserfiche WebLink
Jeff Evenson <br />February 13,2004 <br />Page 3 <br />any consultant to take over complete responsibility since the contractor is the one actually <br />doing the work which needs to be documented. Mr. Edwards suggested that the any bidding <br />specifications and contract documents require the contractor to accept fizll responsibility if any <br />of the requirements for receiving settlement compensation have not been met. There are <br />paragraphs in the deck specification language which give an example of how this wording may <br />look. This appears to be sound advice since the City would not want to be required to make <br />full payment to the contractor if the City does not receive settlement compensation due to a <br />contractor's error. <br />Mr. Edwards also suggested that when writing the specifications for the deck <br />replacement, the City consider including in the specifications the per square foot unit prices <br />that th� City will be receiving under the terms of the class action settlement. An example of <br />th�s language is also found in the decking specifications. His rationale for having these in the <br />specifications was to let the bidding contractors know what the City would be compensated for <br />under the settlement and what would necessarily be out of pocket costs to the City. <br />Finally Mr. Edwards noted that if the City is going out for public bid on the re-roofing <br />project, we should let him know and he will let his contacts in the construction industry know <br />so that they are aware that the opportunity to bid exists. Also, he indicated that PhenCon does <br />do additional detail management and proj ect monitoring for settlement purposes. He stated <br />that if the City is interested in hiring a consultant to work with a contractor, PhenCon would be <br />interested in doing this. Mr. Edwards indicated that their typical consulting fee is 1'/z% of the <br />total project cost. <br />In our meeting of February 5, we discussed that the 25¢ per square foot interior <br />protection compensation amount provided the settlement was very low in comparison to the <br />City's needs. As I mentioned in our conversation on February 12, I went back and reviewed <br />the court documents approving the class action settlement. Within these court documents, the <br />judge approved interior protection compensation in the amount of 25¢ per square foot for the <br />total area of nieiai roof deck which is in direct or indirect contact with the phenolic foam <br />insulation. This 25¢ per square foot is a fixed amount which is provided to any building owner <br />eligible to receive compensation under the settlement regardless of the type of building. The <br />City is free to add any type of interior protection it would like to the Roseville Ice Arena; <br />however it will only be compensated up to 25 ¢ per square foot. <br />Within the course of my conversation with Mr. Edwards, I discovered the official <br />settlement calculation for the Roseville Ice Arena ("Exhibit A") had apparently not been <br />received by the City. Mr. Edwards faxed a copy of Exhibit A to me, and I have faxed a copy to <br />you. Exhibit A sets forth the roof replacement compensation, the interior protection <br />compensation, and the per square foot unit prices for deck replacement, deck overlay, deck <br />cleaning and painting, and painting the underside of the deck. The underside paint for the deck <br />