My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 01 20
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2015 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 01 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:08:08 PM
Creation date
1/23/2015 10:11:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
7A4
Record Series Code
45.010
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2015 01 20
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
446
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 6 2015 <br />Page 10 of 15 <br />• A new firm would not always be able to interpret the intent of drawings and <br />specifications, as they did not produce the design. <br />• A new firm would require substantial time to review, validate assumptions, and <br />confirm design directions for the City, recreating work that was previously <br />performed by Dewberry and City staff. <br />• The timeline to advertise for and hire a new consultant, then bring that firm up to <br />present knowledge would tighten the project timeframe. If major issues are then <br />encountered during bidding or construction, the project may not be completed by <br />CDPHE's deadline. <br />Water Resources Engineer Tepo explained the construction management costs are not <br />driven by the engineering consultant but by the construction contractor. The <br />construction management costs are for overseeing the contractor. If the contractor is <br />performing well and on schedule the engineering company is able to keep the <br />construction management cost down. He noted the reason construction management <br />was not included in Dewberry's original design scope was because it was difficult to <br />estimate the final number without a design. When Dewberry was awarded the <br />Wastewater Treatment Master Plan in 2012, construction management was one of the <br />items they were evaluated on. <br />Staff recommended the City Council award the Construction Management Service <br />Agreement to Dewberry Engineers for $1,557,080 and authorize staff to contract <br />addenda up to $45,000 for additional work and project contingency. <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS <br />Council member Loo voiced her appreciation for the additional information. She <br />commented although she was not in favor of sole source contracts, she felt the <br />additional information provided enough data for her to support the request. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Dalton noted Council has requested sole source justification be made in <br />the Council communication. He felt it was not adequately done this time. He requested <br />the City Manager ensure the necessary justification for sole source contractors are <br />included in the City Council communication. <br />Council member Loo suggested in such cases the Water Committee review the sole <br />source contract before it comes before Council. <br />Mayor Muckle agreed with the suggestion of boards or commissions reviewing sole <br />source contractor requests. He shared the concern over sole source contracts, but <br />observed in large project management in the last 5 -10 years, it is more efficient to work <br />through the entire project with a single contractor. <br />Council member Leh was satisfied with the information provided in the Council <br />communication. Mayor Pro Tem Dalton agreed, but felt it should be provided upfront. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.