HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-25770 Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-25770
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROPRIATING FUNDS,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $160,000, FROM PARKING REVENUE
FUNDS, FOR A CHANGE ORDER TO TARAFA CONSTRUCTION,
INC., (REQUEST FOR CHANGE ORDER NO. 54), FOR
ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS AND TIME EXTENSION
COSTS ON THE 42ND STREET PARKING GARAGE, AND
APPROVING FINAL CLOSEOUT OF THE PROJECT AFTER
COMPLETION OF THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
FOR THE FACILITY.
WHEREAS, on June 5, 1996, the City Commission authorized the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute an Agreement with the firm of Ramp & Associates
(RAMP), to provide professional services for the design and construction of the
42nd Street Parking Garage Renovation (the Project); and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 1997, the Mayor and City Commission
appropriated funds, in the amount of $3,700,000, for the Project's construction
and design services; and
WHEREAS, on April 8,1998, the Mayor and City Commission approved
the award of the construction contract for the Project to Tarafa Construction, Inc.
(Tarafa), pursuant to Bid No. 7-97/98; and
WHEREAS, during the course of the construction, there were a number of
unforeseen events and additional costs which exhausted the available
contingency for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project was granted a Temporary Certificate of
Completion (TCC) on July 21, 2000, and the City obtained beneficial occupancy
and use of the facility; and
WHEREAS, in April 2000, Tarafa submitted Request for Change Order
(RCO) No. 54, requesting additional compensation for extended general
conditions due to compensable delays on the Project; and
WHEREAS, this RCO was initially rejected by both the City and RAMP
because it lacked proper substantiation and support material; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the rejection, Tarafa submitted a response
outlining the reasons for the request and providing support and substantiating
material, including a detailed timetable of events on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the new materials submitted and has
held several meetings and discussions with Tarafa regarding the delays, the
reasons for the delays, and the substantiating material for the request; and
WHEREAS, after the meetings and an extensive review of the records, as
well as an exhaustive evaluation of the materials submitted by Tarafa, the City
has now revisited its previous decision and determined that the RCO submittal is
valid; and
WHEREAS, the final RCO No. 54 submittal, in the amount of $177,211,
has been further reduced during the discussions and negotiations due to an effort
made by the City on behalf of Tarafa to obtain the Certificate of Final Completion
and Final Closeout on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City recommends the final RCO No. 54, in the amount of
$160,000, be approved and that an appropriation, in the amount of $160,000,
from the Parking Revenue Bonds Fund be made in order to make final payment
to Tarafa; and
WHEREAS, Tarafa completed all of its contracted work and all of the
installations required by its contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND
CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the
Mayor and City Commission appropriate funds, in the amount of $160,000, from
Parking Revenue Funds, for a change order to Tarafa Construction, Inc.
(Request for Change Order No. 54), for additional general conditions and time
extension costs on the 42nd Street Parking Garage, and approving final closeout
of the Project after completion of the Final Certificate of Occupancy for the
facility.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 1ih day of J
ATTEST:
~ rAA~
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
CITY CLERK
T:\AGENDAI2005\Jan1205\Regular\42nd Street Garage Closeout Reso.doc
Pale
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
m
Condensed Title:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $160,000, FROM PARKING REVENUE BOND FUNDS,
FOR A CHANGE ORDER TO TARAFA CONSTRUCTION, INC., (REQUEST FOR CHANGE ORDER NO.
54 FOR ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS AND TIME EXTENSION COSTS ON THE 42ND STREET
PARKING GARAGE.
Issue:
I Should the City Commission adopt the resolution?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
On April 8, 1998 the City Commission awarded a construction contract with Tarafa Construction Inc. (TCI), in
the amount of $3,248,452, pursuant to Invitation to Bid No. 7-97/98 entitled "42nd Street Municipal Garage
Improvements". In June of 2000, the contractor informed the City that the garage was ready for final
inspection. City inspectors observed additional items not consistent with their interpretation of the various
codes and the City directed the contractor to comply. Some of these items were not shown on the contract
documents and were not noted at the time of plan review and approval. Nevertheless, the Building Official
issued a Temporary Certificate of Completion (TCC) on July 21,2000. Request for Change Order (RCO) No.
54 by TCI, requesting compensation due to excusable, compensable delays was presented on April 2000.
This RCO was initially rejected by RAMP after a long period of review due to insufficient substantiating
information. It was also rejected by the CIP Office, for similar reasons on October 9, 2002, after RAMP
issued their recommendation. Subsequent to the rejection, TCI submitted a response letter outlining their
position on the matter. They also submitted a substantial number of documents and a timetable in support of
their request. This timetable and the submitted documents, as well as our own files and records form the
basis of the CIP recommendation presented herein. There were numerous delays on the project progress,
especially during the period of late 1998 through the summer of 1999. At this time, the City obtained
beneficial use of the Parking Garage. Further analysis shows, that while the delays did occur, most of them
were as a result of a lack of teamwork by all parties including TCI but also as a result of poor contract
documents, poor administration by RAMP during construction, and poor coordination by the Special
Inspector retained by RAMP to oversee the structural repairs of the project. TCI did not close out the project
in a timely fashion and failed to timely complete the necessary documents for the Final Certificate of
Completion (CC) and needed assistance from City personnel to complete these tasks. The Final CC was
obtained on December 17, 2004. The cost of the City personnel involved has been reduced as part of this
recommendation. This time extension requested by TCI on RCO No. 54 is not unreasonable and is
recommended for approval. The total amount requested in RCO No. 54 is $177,211. Staff recommends a
final amount of $160,000 to account for the involvement of Property Management, the Building Department,
and the CIP Office in the closeout and Final CC process.
Adviso Board Recommendation:
The Ci Commission's Finance & Ci ide Committee recommended ado tin the Resolution.
Financial Information:
Source of
Funds:
Approved
Finance Dept.
AGENDA ITEM C 7 A
DATE /-/.;l~(JS-
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
From:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez ~~
City Manager O' 0
Date: January 12, 2005
To:
Subject:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $160,000, FROM PARKING REVENUE BOND FUNDS, FOR
A CHANGE ORDER TO T ARAFA CONSTRUCTION, INC., (REQUEST FOR
CHANGE ORDER NO. 54) FOR ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS
AND TIME EXTENSION COSTS ON THE 42ND STREET PARKING
GARAGE, AND APPROVING FINAL CLOSEOUT OF THE PROJECT
AFTER COMPLETION OF THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
FOR THE FACILITY.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution.
FUNDING:
Funds are available from Parking Revenue Bonds Fund 481.
ANALYSIS:
On February 20, 1996, at the request of the City, a study was performed by Urbitran/Ramp
(RAMP), for an analysis of the overall existing conditions present at the 42nd Street
Parking Garage. It was stated in the report that the facility needed corrective action to
preserve the structural integrity of the building.
On June 5, 1996, the Mayor and City Commission declared a public emergency existed
and waived the competitive bidding process for professional architectural and engineering
services. The 'Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to execute an amendment to the
existing professional services agreement with RAM P for the renovation of the 42nd Street
Garage to include Phase II preparation of detailed construction drawings, contract and bid
documents, and technical specifications. On October 8, 1997, the Mayor and City
Commission appropriated and authorized $3,700,000 from Parking Revenue Bond Fund
481 for the 42nd Street Parking Garage Renovation to fund the cost of the construction
contract. After the approved construction bid was received for a lower amount than
estimated, some of these funds were used additional services to RAMP.
On April 8, 1998 the Mayor and City Commission approved the award of a construction
contract with Tarafa Construction Inc. (TCI), in the amount of $3,248,452 pursuant to City
Tarafa City Commission Memorandum
January 12,2005
Page 2 of 5
of Miami Beach Invitation to Bid Number 7-97/98 entitled "42nd Street Municipal Garage
Improvements". This contract amount included the total cost of supplying all labor,
materials, equipment and supervision necessary to complete the renovation of the 42nd
Street Parking Garage. The bid proposal also included a contingency allowance, in the
amount of $200,000, which was to be used to fund unforeseen conditions and other
additional costs, which could arise out of the renovation of the existing facility. This
represented approximately six (6%) percent of the Contract amount. This amount, by
industry standards, is extremely low for a renovation project of this nature. It is common to
have a ten (10%) percent to fifteen (15%) percent contingency in place on a renovation
project.
During the course of the project, additional work in the amount of $200,000 was identified.
The reasons forthis needed work varied from unforeseen structural problems, to additional
electrical work required by the poor condition of existing installations, to changes requested
by the City. The $200,000 contingency allowance was used for these costs. On March 15,
2000, by Resolution No. 2000-23840, the Mayor and City Commission approved $100,000
to cover additional construction costs for work required by regulatory agencies, further
structural corrections and additional work requested by the City. This amount of $1 00,000
was added to the project funding at that time, and raised the overall contingency amount to
nine (9%) percent, which is still low for a renovation project.
In June of 2000, the contractor informed the City that the garage was ready for final
inspection. City inspectors observed additional items not consistent with their interpretation
of the various codes and the City directed the contractor to comply. These items included
additional pull stations and emergency lights, additional parapet gap plates, additional fire
protection work, man proofing panels, stairwell lighting fixtures, conduit & cable to the new
transformer vault, and a rewired communication system. Some of these items were not
shown on the contract documents and could have been considered errors by the
consultant. However, the items were not noted at the time of plan review and approval.
Nevertheless, the Building Official issued a Temporary Certificate of Completion (TCC) on
July 21, 2000.
The above described changes generated Requests for Change Orders in the amount of
$64,871.82 for additional work performed by TCI in order to obtain the TCC. An additional
correction to the emergency voice communication system requested by the Fire Marshall,
estimated at $30,000, was also required and completed, and paid to Tarafa.
Request for Change Order (RCO) No. 54 by TCI, requesting compensation for additional
overhead and general conditions due to excusable, compensable delays during the 42nd
Street Parking Garage Project was presented on April 2000. This RCO was initially
rejected by RAMP, the consultant of record, after a long period of review and discussion
due to insufficient substantiating information. It was also rejected by the CIP Office, for
similar reasons on October 9, 2002, after RAMP issued their recommendation.
Subsequent to the rejection, TCI submitted a response letter outlining their position on the
matter. They also submitted a substantial number of documents and a timetable in support
Tarafa City Commission Memorandum
January 12, 2005
Page 30f5
of their request. This timetable and the submitted documents, as well as our own files and
records form the basis of the CIP recommendation presented herein.
There were numerous delays on the project progress, especially during the period of late
1998 through the summer of 1999. This resulted in a request for time extension by TCI
from January 2000 through May 2000 for delays in the completion date for the project
which was initially February of 2000. As noted above, Substantial Completion was not
obtained until July 2000 and the TCC was not issued until July 21,2000, four months after
the initial contract date. At this time, the City obtained beneficial use of the Parking
Garage.
It is also fact that there were delays regarding the completion of the man proofing
installation during the period of June 22, 2000 through August 14, 2000. Some of the
delays occurred after the TCC and are therefore not applicable for compensation. TCI is
only requesting a time extension of eighteen days for this work. Initially, the City, under the
advice of RAMP, understood that the delays were mostly caused by TCI due to several
factors, such as a lack of manpower at the site and delays in the submittal of necessary
materials for approval.
Further analysis shows, that while the delays did occur, most of them were as a result of a
lack of teamwork by all parties including TCI but also as a result of poor contract
documents, poor administration by RAMP during construction, and poor coordination by
the Special Inspector retained by RAMP to oversee the structural repairs of the project.
Many of the issues related to lack of manpower were directly related to slow responses on
the part of RAMP to Requests for Information and to Requests for Proposals from TCI,
especially those related to the corrections to the structural slab. The detail shown on the
contract documents for the slab repair was not possible to implement due to existing
conditions of the slab and the reinforcement. There was also an extended period where
the consultant and the contractor could not agree on the repair methodology and on
whether the new methods were compensable under the Agreement.
The Special Inspector frequently acted as the site observer from RAMP and sometimes
interfered with the contractor's performance by commenting on means and methods or by
requesting scope of work not shown on the contract documents. In some instances, the
Special Inspector directed TCI subcontractors to stop work or directed them to do
additional work in order to maintain the project schedule. Frequently, the directions given
were not in accordance with the scope of the contract documents and added or deviated
from work specified on the drawings or specifications.
For example, the Special Inspector once directed TCI to use a different size and weight
sledgehammer than that being used for the demolition work. In another occasion, the
Special Inspector directed TCI to use a different method and sequence of installation for
the materials specified for correction of the existing structural cracks. Both of these
examples have to do with means and methods which are not the prerogative of the
consultant or of the Special Inspector but of the contractor. The confusions due to the
performance of the Special I nspector arose from the fact that often, Construction Services
Tarafa City Commission Memorandum
January 12, 2005
Page 4 of5
ofthe Palm Beaches (CSPB), the company performing the special inspections, also acted
as the field observer for RAMP, even though both services had been contracted separately
and separate fees had been paid for both. In this type of Project, the Special Inspector
reports to the Building Official per statute and the Field Observer reports to the consultant
per contract. These two services were frequently mixed up and confused by the
representative of CSPB in the field.
The most significant delay was incurred in resolving the condition discovered when the slab
demolition began, which prevented TCI from adhering to the requirements of the through
slab repair shown ion the documents, because it was found in the field that the work as
detailed could not be performed. This dispute was not resolved promptly because TCI
claimed the detail on the documents could not be implemented and RAMP insisted that
TCI perform the work as detailed. TCI contributed to the delay by not promptly agreeing
with RAMP on an alternative method of repairs, but it was still the responsibility of RAMP
to identify the alternative and to issue directives on how to achieve the expected results in
a different manner from that shown on the documents. Eventually, the method of slab
demolition and restoration was changed by RAMP and a Change Order was recommended
for approval by the consultant and paid to TCI for a different method of construction
detailed by RAMP. The Change Order was approved without any time extensions at the
insistence of the City.
There were also numerous delays in reviewing and responding to Requests for Information
(RFI) and Change Order Requests (COR) submitted by TCI to RAMP or the City or both.
Some of these delays were submittals related to the through slab repairs, structural crack
epoxy injections and slab water proofing which was part of the critical path of the Project.
RAMP took as long as 267 days to respond to some of the RFI's.
On the other hand, TCI did not close out the project in a timely fashion and failed to
complete the necessary documents for the Final Certificate of Completion (CC). TCI
needed assistance by City personnel to complete these tasks. Several permits were found
to be open due to lack of final inspections; additional coordination was done by City
employees with TCI subcontractors to obtain such finals. The cost of the City personnel
involved should be deducted from the RCO value and this reduction is part of this
recommendation.
Additional costs were incurred when Property Management became involved to adjust Exit
signs and Emergency lights and repairs to the fire alarm were performed. Even though
these additional costs were agreed to be done by the City due to the amount of time the
Parking Facility had been operating under the TCC, it would not have been required if TCI
had done it correctly the first time. This City time is also deducted from the amount TCI is
requesting.
Based on the above stated and on other events on record, the time extension requested by
TCI on RCO No. 54, which is the subject of this Commission Memorandum, is not
unreasonable and is recommended for approval. The daily cost for General Conditions
and Overhead and Profit are in line with industry standards and since amounts are not
. .
Tarafa City Commission Memorandum
January 12, 2005
Page 5 of 5
specifically noted in the Contract Documents they became a matter subject to negotiation.
After such a long period of time and in an attempt to reach a final resolution of this matter,
the costs are recommended for acceptance, with a fair reduction for the latest costs
incurred by the City in completing the final CC process. TCI has agreed not to request
reimbursement of the interest on the monies retained even though by statute, as well as in
accordance to their Agreement, they may be entitled to do so.
This item was initially presented to the City Commission at its December 8, 2004 meeting.
During the discussion of the item, the Commission made the decision to refer the item to its
next Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Meeting. The item was presented at the
December 14, 2004 Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Meeting. The project and
its history were discussed in detail between the Committee members, staff, and Tarafa.
The Committee recommended approval of the item.
The total amount requested in RCO No. 54 is $177,211. Staff recommends a final amount
of $160,000 to account for the involvement of Property Management, the Building
Department, and the CIP Office in the closeout and Final CC process. Staff also
recommends an appropriation, in the amount of $160,000, from Parking Revenue Bonds
Fund 481 to complete Final Payment to TCI and obtain Final Closeout of the Project. All
required deliverables and closeout documents have been received, reviewed by CIP and
RAMP, and approved. Final Certificate of Completion was obtained on December 17,
2004. TCI has completed all of their contracted work and has completed all the installations
required by contract.
Attachment
T:\AGENDA\2005\Jan1205\Regular\42nd Street Garage Closeout.doc
ff
. ',}/AAFA CONSTAUCTIOI
/~
I
/
..
::'
c.
,
054448347'j
'Sel
-02 12 :41 PMj
Page 3/13
I
./
/'
,0 TARAFA CONSTRUCTION,
INC.
G ENE R A L
CONTRACTOR
151 MAJORCA AVENUE. SlJITE C . COAAl. GABLES. FL 33134 . TEL.: (305) 444-8337 . FAX: (305) 444-8347
September 3, 2002 (Revised)
April 3. 2000 (Originally Submitted)
URBfTRAN/RAMP Associate.
71 W..t 23rd Street, 11th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10010
Ait: Brian J. Bartholomew, Regional Director
Re: Parking Syetem Improv8IMnts
42nd Street Parking G8~e, Miami Beach, Florida
AlE Cornm. No. 9<C32RA, Owner's Project No. 7-97198
Sub].: Reo 54 "CI,lm for the Adjustment of the Contract TIme and Sum"
We l'e$pectfully submit tor your review our REVISED claim in the amount of $177,211.10 for those cC8ts and expenses
incurred during the extended time associated wIIh the administratiOn and I11IiInagement costs of the Project covering the
time period from January 31, 2000 through May 30, 2000. Additionally, as part of the revised adjustment to the Conlract
Time and Sum we are including the additional costs and expenses Incurred during the review, and approval for the
manprooflng panels and associated Installation, which amount to approximately 144 man-hours c:overlng the time period
from June 22.2000 through August 14. 2002.
Our claim is based on the time overrun createcl by reasons beyond our control that extended the Contract completion
lime tIlus Increasing our overhead on the project. For your convenience and reference, we are herein including our
summation letter of those delays that impacted the timely completion of the Work. dated and submitted to City oIMlami
Beach Public Works Department on January 31. 2000.
Tarafa Construction, Inc. is submitting this clSim request balled on our position that we are duly entitled tD an equitable
adj\Jslment of the Contract Time and Sum based on reasonable compelleation for the expenses associated wIIh the
construction time overl\ln. It Is our intent that based on the goOd faith effort of all parties Involved that this contract ean
be successfully closed out with a settlement satisfactory to all.
Work by Tarafa Construction, Inc.
($1,159.00 x 121 + 18 days)
Profrt at 10%
SUMMARY OF WORK
$161,10100
516110.10
$177,211.10
TolBl Amount this Claim
Sincerely.
Tarafa Construction. Inc.
Nestor Marrero
Project Manager
cc: Robert M. Tarafa, R.A. President
end's: January 31,2000 letter
Elchealy Formula Calculations
56
/AFA CONSTRUCTIi
r
I
I
I
I
'/
I
ONC;
05444834'7;
s
1-02 12:41PMj
Page 4/13
TARAFA
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
j:
,
GENERAL
CONTRACTOR
151 ~CA ^VENUE. SUITE C . CORAl GABLES. Fl33134 . TEL.: (305) .&44-8337 . FAX: (305) """.83-17
January 31, 2000
The City Of Miami Beach
Dept. Of Public Works
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Fl. 33139
Atto: Mr.Walter Reddick, Construction Manager
-
Re: 42nd Street Municipal ParkinK Garage
. Project No. 9432RA
Subj: Request for Extension of the Contract Time
...
. ..
Dear Walter,
As yOll aware throughout the course of the project Tarafa Construction, Inc. through
o correspondence, updated schedules, meetings, etc. has presented their position that additional
time is owed due to excusable delays beyond our control. As you arc the third Construction
Manager assigned to this project, and you have requested a meeting to discuss this very isS\1C.
We thuughl it might be beneficial, prior to the mecting, to hcrein recapitulate those previously
documented delaYlllhrough the followiug brief overview ofhislorical evt:nts and selccted
C(ltTcspondence to familiarize: you with the project delays, prior to your involvement. A full
presentation, inclusive of all supporting documents, ,..ill be assembled and presented for your
review as soon as possible.
The basis for this project's ulltimely completion, lik~ necessarily that of All)' other project, is
impact to the schedule's critical path. On this project the critical path is the thru-slab
demolition/restoration process. The thm-slab restoration is the de~facto predecessor to a litany of
successor work which by definition cannOI bc staned, or at the very least (if one where 10 wurk
out ()fthc proper sequence, as we've been forced to do) cannot be completed until the
prede\~e5S0r work is complete. A partial list of this work would includ~; Painting, WatcIproofing.
Trame markings, Speed bumps. and Electrical work (refer to Superior Electric letter dated 2-26-
98 ).
*'"
By way ofa brief historical overview Ihe thru-slab repair began with demolition on August
17.19Y8 which was complt:lcd by September 25.1998. During this time frame. and pursuant to a
field inspection nn Seplt:mbcr 11,1998 by Joe Wagner, problems were being perceived with the
restor:lli()n aspect ofthru-slab rl!pair work owing to the relative thilUless ofthc:: ~xisting ramp
. $Iab. This situation led to a number llf back and Ionn corr~spoI1Jencl!, Rfi' s, a rt!quest lor u stop
work order and various sketches, all ol'which finally culminated in sketch "5K-10" issued by
57
- ~~:;l~~~:f;1~~r~f~:~r'~~r::{~,7,.~~~~~r.~: ."'.
_':;-;':"Y'-05:444B347; 'co Se~ -02 12 :41 PM;
Page 5/13
UTbitran/Ramp and dated January 11,1999. Our cost proposal for the additional work involved
was tendered on February 16, 1999 and after negotiations and the issuance of some supplemental
"TS" designated sketches a change order was issued on April 16.1999.
At this point (from 9-2.')-98 to 4-16-99) 205 calendar days had elapsed lhat \\.-e were not able to
proceed with the restoration work of the lhru-slab. On top of these 203 days it also has to be
considered thallhe demolition work, previously completed, had to be commenced anew prior to
scheduling any concrete restorative work_ allowing for just a very reasonable (30) calendar days
to mobilize the demolition contraclor and to accomplish the new wo~k brings the tally of days
impacted in the schedule to 235. Moving ahead in the chronology to time reCC1'll we experienc:ed
the slab cracking issue, which again prevented the completion of this work for yet another (7S)
calendar days (refer to Tarafa memo dated 1-17-00). Total tally onays impacted to date by just
the thru-slab issue ",'ou1d now be 310 calendar days accounting for Qver 50% ofthe total conlnlcl
time available! -
Through the first few months of 1999 we c:autioned at meetings and throu-'orrespondence that
without an expedient solution to the thru-slab dilemma, the time being lost \\--as going to prove to
be irrecoverable. The inexplicable response from New York, virtually on a weekly basis. was that
the project was tailing behind schedule, to increase the manpower levels and to bring the project
back on schedule. At any rate in attempting to commence or complete other activities outside of
the lhru.slab work in the lime period o(approximate!>' December 1998 to April 1999. conflicts
.....ith field conditions or ambiguities in the constnlction documents were encountered either
requiring Rfi responses and/or change order approvals. If you refer to the" Responses to Rfi's"
or" Responses to RCO's .. pol1ion ofa letter wc drafted in June of last year (enclosed) you will
note that either/o!' was lIveraging substantially over 100 calendar days tum-lItOUIld time. Please
note that we proactively pursued the needed responses by advising the Engineer via
correspondence (refer to letters daled December 7, 1998 and January 4, 1999) of the outstanding
issues requiring their attention and further flagged the impact that they were having on the
project's schedule. And yet during this time wc continued 10 gel barraged with letters demanding
to know why the project wasn't moving forward as PCI' the schedule! Requests fO!' time
extensions fell on deaf ears and we were told to find ways to mitigate the time 1051. As a ca.'le in
point we were informed at the ti!ne of executing your Change Order No.4, ( thru-slab) b)' Mr.
David Cates that the ollly way the City would appro\'ed this change order would hi: without any
addilionatfime as the Garage had to be delivered on time re2ardless. Given all these
. -
circuIIIslances as we've de~cribed herein we prell) much concluded that there wasn't any
signilicant difference in dialoguing with either thl:: City or the Engineer as there would be in
talking to the proverbial ostrich with it's head in the s~nd.
As a peripheral issue. but one worth menlioning due to iL" detrimental encel on the project's
momenlum. would be that ofthc Project's Special inspI!ctor intcrfcrencc with our ability to
prosecute and adminislrate lhe Work. Thou!!h r beli<:\"c uur working relatiollship t(l finally he
harmonious. ::.is was ddinilely nol the ca5i: tiS we attempted to gear the project ba~k up after the
thnl-slab issue was "reso!\'cd" by Chang~ Ord.:r appr.:l\'al in April or 1 ')yo;.. Dj' wa;- of i\Iumation
I have enclosed two kttcrs, one dated M<lY 28, 1999 and the other June: 2 l.l 999. Both leners ilre
2
1;" '.~.\.t:~-:'\ A.'~~;:.!t :.::T': C . CO:?..\: G:.::.~~S. c... ~.:':,:. . -:_ ~;O~' .:.:.:.:.::' . ~.\X: cr;~;- .~.~.~-.;J..n'
58
1(
/~AAFA CONSTRUCTIO. IC;
054448347;
Sl 1-02 12:41PM;
Page 6/13
//
.'
#"/
,.
to:'
..f
iI:)f
'-:'
'I
self-explanatory and demonstrate unnecessary interference to the process of the Work created by
your representative.
<,:
What has to be recognized at minimum, that as a consequence of the these situations which were
not of O/l/" doing, and now past the point in time that the project was to have been completed, that
we arc noW confronted v.ith a project that is being administrated out of the as-planned and as-bid
sequenc~, and still not even complete with the Division 3 work! In addition to the S 1 00,000
dollars or additional thru-slab repairs that have and are being pcrforn,\ed we ha\'e perfotnled over
$20,000 of additional epoxy injection to the ramp slabs ()'our C.O. No.7) and are now
perfom1ing over $30,000 of additional ramp slab prep work (EM-loo) prior to the application uf
the deck membrane coatina work. In other words you simply camot expect to delay a
Contraclor's work by several hundred da)'s, add substantial additional work on top of those
dela)'s, throw the work out of the correct and proper sequence and then expect the contractor In
the (60) + days that you propose to extend the Contract by to clean-up the mess created by others
and finish.
Walter. we appreciate the frustration that your department. the Parking Department and the
Board of Cummissioners must be experiencing in not comprehending why this project could not
have been completed on time. Certainly, we met "it" some of officials/directors of these
departments particularly during the difficult first (6) months of 1999 and while were courteously
and professionally received, pretty much their only question andlor response was when would ~
bring more manpower on the project to complete on time without regard or appreciation that all
the manpo...ver in South Florida would not make a difference as long as we could not get answers
and continue with the work of the thru-slab.
Accordingly, and based on the preceding Tacafa Construction. Inc. respectfully requests that an
E",tensi,m ofThc Contract Time of Performance of no less than 235 calendar days be granted to
restore the time period In~t between September 25. 1998 and May 16. 1999. During this time no
work on the critical path could proceed for reasons beyond OUr control. Tarafa Construction, Inc.
would be well justified in requesting additional time for other delays experienced and
documented, (not time concurrent with these 235 days and including such things as unusual
weather delays, elc.). however at this point in time notwithstanding any unforeseeable
problel}fs7issuel>.of consequence no time beyond that requested is anticipated to be needed.
Paul E. Martinez
Project Manager
cc: Rob,'n l'vl Tllmfn. R.A.. Pr~sidenl
3
i!,l M'!'-'O~CA ,~','E~";l':. s_:~: :.~ . ':':'G.-:':". r;~~!.:s ri. 3;.!.~.:' ~:,_ ::~:~ ~~.:t,.';~:7 . :~'t "::'5.\ AJ1.:.eY7
59
/. /
. . /. ,ARAFA CONSTRUCTIC
,
,../
~Cj
054448347;
S.
1-02 12:42PM;
TARAFA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
EVISION
RCO: 54
DATE:
31~ar.oo
PROJeCT NAME 421'ld STREET PARKING GARAGE. PROJECT NO. 8432RA
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: DIRECT JOB COST DURING EXTENDED CONTRACT DURATION
Page 7/13
1
2
3
.
5
&
7
a
9
.
10
11
CONTRACT BILLINGS
TOTAL BILLINGS
181.03
$8.58
S6-53
$4.13
1e.74
$6.58
S2.85
sue
$2.30
sue
$411.01
$4.20
$280.51
TOTAL OVERHEAD C~ST 'CONTRACT PERIOD}
X TOTALCONTRACTDURAT~N
53,248,000
$13,154,069
52.373.301
---x 6&7
24.&9%
X 53,558
S878.59
60
, ;"ARAFA CONSTRUCTION
,.
I.
'.
: . ~
"
'.
054448347;
Se~
-02 12:42PM;
Page 8/13
.:/,.
Ii
j/
TARAFA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
..
151 MAJORCAAV!NUl!. SUITE C CORAlGA8LI!S, FL 331~ TeL.: (3ll5) 4~-<<337FAX: l305l444-8347
REQUEST for CHANGE ORDER
DATE:
03.SEP.02
Reo I:
54A
PROJECT:
TO:
RE:
Parking System Improvement / 42nd Street Parking Garage. Project No. 7-97/98
Mr. Water Reddick. Projec;t Manager
Additional Management and Admlnlstratlon Time for Mll'lprootlng Panels
1!i ~ i!;:; :F~:::H U ~i:;: ib:: :;: :~: 1 : ~ ~ ~ :1 ~ 1: .;::: ~ 1:;:~:;:~; ~:!:: /: !:J:::::" ~ ~t i:: ~1 ;;!~~;; ~:;:i~;! ~11 ~!~h:1;; j~;: ~;i; ~;;:\ :~:b:i:~::;;! 1:;:;:;:;: j::: ;;:~ h ~ i~ imE ::;;H: ~:hH:m1::~! ;;:;;: i i i i; ~F:;;;;;;; /; i~;: L;: 1;::: :;~;: ;!! H:::! :~~ ;:~:iP? :: ;~~:~
DESCRIPTION:
Below please find the cost for the additional admini5traUon. coordination and supeI'Ylslon beyond Tel's contractual requirements for
the Inslalhltion of the manproofing panelS, due to delays associated will! the approval of Ule manproofing Shop dr8WIngs and
approval of chenge order for the menprooting price iocr_e. Note that thiladclttlonal ame is compenseble. TIIeretore, we willldd
this coat to our Cllim for the adjustment of the Contract Time and Sum. Excluded from this proposal is any unfore_ or addition"
work encountered durtng the saqUlOl:e of this work. along with any other Items not speclncally Indicated In this request for change
order. Thh. proposal must be lIccepted within 30 days of the above data, aft.. which time it I1l8Y be subject to Mcalatlon. If not
accepted within the stated time frame this proposal will automatically expire. Please proeeed immediately and issue a wrttl8n
change order accepting this proposal 50 that we can proeeed with this work. /110 work will be performed without an official _uted
chsn e order to our cOlltracl.
IIOTI: T1IIO _ ._..IIIlal..... .111...... d"trl..... _n, and _ "'" IMlud' _ _ _ _ -1lIe8IIlI ~ or wry __Is far ..._........ Ia
A_..,.......'" ~ ........... ..~. ...._ ............ ___n._ _.__ .._........ _ T1:I_....... riII~t. .......
-.. 01.... tIor _""" In..... rol_ _ -- -. .....oIt...,y _ -1IIiIIII- __.... 10., -JIIalIlI" 1lII. ...Ioion.. dol'..
.. RmII ..........1 at 1111. I;MtrML AhO M MeIVIIh. .. C.....'III ................'-~. . ...... w.rk.
AttHluMnb:
. Tel INC. LABOR
. (_ """"'-I_I analy.i.)
$ 6.567.84
EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL
(...welled;OS! alllllY1'ls)
SUBCONTRACTS
(_ aIlIoCIlecl _I analysis)
GENERAL CONDITIONS 0.0%
(Adminislratian of Change Order)
209.~
SUBTOTAL 6,777.88
Tel OYertIeaa & Pro" (0 12'1 813.32
SUBTOTAL 7,591.00
IIonII ancI UiIIlility CoIl I>> 1.5% 113.87
TOTAl THIS ReO $ 7.704.87
. ........
...........
..... .................
...........................
.....................
...... . .......
....................
.......\...:.
..,............
......................
.=:.:;::::::::.:.: ::':':.', ".: ~
Tlra" Conatructic~. Inc. Nestor Marrero. Prolect Manager
Name SignahJre
TOTAL OF THIS CHANGE O~OER REQUEST (Addj
The Contract Time w," be (Changed) by
Owner !nspeeto,:
Oatoo
s
7.7004.87
18 days
Nama & Tille
Mr. W.t8r Reddick, Owner ReplMentati..
Neme & TIlle
Signature
OllIe
Owner
SlgnIIture
c..
~
61
",~~",,",!,, "~'~,1'"'''''~'"'''''''''''J,.,.""c",(~J~ \'~"-:r"9/1'3
St.. /1 ;02"12:42PMj , ,',' . pege
AAFA CONSTRUCTI,
NCj
054448347;
TARAFA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
"
1$1 MAJORCA AVENUE, SUITE C CORAL GA8~ES, FL. 33134 TEL.: (30~) +14-8337 FAX; (305) 444-8347
COST ANALYSIS
0.0. TE:
03,SEP.02
Reo AI:
54A
PROJECT: Parking System Improvt!t'llonl/42nd Street Parking Garage, project No. 7-97/98
RE: Additional Management and Administration Time for Manprooftng'Panels
:;t_~t;.il;""'mWMimli$II"~''''''~Y~~~l'l:f"S''f'3U!j!:m1Jj:,~~iIl:_~~_'Wi<I:IoZ!I:''';JI!~~'~_:""~
~"'_~;;:ua~, ~i~~~~;!~i;~~$:~I~RtMD' , . , . .:tIJiIW'4R<<~' .-; ";
LABOR" '" , " ,
oescRlP nON:
1) Management Direct Cost
2)
3)
4)
5)
8)
7)
B)
9)
6.567.114
LaborTota"
8,567.84
EQUIPMENTIMATERlALS
1) Material Direct Cost
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
1)
B)
209.114
equlpJMat. Total..
209.114
SUBCONTRACT
1)
2)
3)
4)
Subeontract Total:
SUBTOTAL
Subtolllloo
6.117 68
ORAND TOTAL
s
l,n7.18
.~
62
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Building Department
1700 Convention Ctr Drive, 2nd Floor
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Inspections: (305) 673-7370 Office: (305) 673-7610
Certificate of Occupancy
Certificate Number:
BC003265
Status:
APPROVED
Issued By:
BUlLFERC
Site Address: 400 42ND ST MBCH
Parcel #: 32220010550
Applied: 05/30/2003
Issued: 12/17/2004
Extended:
To Expire:
Tenant: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 CONVENTION CENTER DR.
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
Property Owner:
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 CONVENTION CENTER DR.
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
Class Code: B
Issued For: CO Impvnts to Parking Garage & New Office.
Temporary Expiration Date:
Current Use: Existing Parking Garage & Office
Previous Use:
OCCUPANCY INFORMATION
Building Permit #: B9701059
Occupancy Group: B
Maximum Occupant Content
Zoning Ordinance Number: 89-2665
Zoning Use District: RS-5
Construction Type:
Minimum Number of Exits:
SS # or Taxpayer ID#:
This is to certifY that the above tenant, whose address is noted above, has filed for premission to use the property
located at the address noted avove, and said proposed use or uses being in comformity with the provisions of the
zoning ordinance 89-2665 and the Building Code of the City of Miami Beach, a Certificate of Occupancy is hereby
granted to use said building for the purpose described below, subjectto any special condition(s) detailed in this
document.
Any unauthorized additions, alterations or change in use of this property will void this Certificate of
Occupa,!cy.
This Certificate of Occupancy is valid only if there is an APPROVED Status and a Building Official Signature.
[CERTOCCPj
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1700 CONVENTION CENTER DR
2ND FLOOR - CITY HALL
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
(305) 673-7610
COMPLETE DESCRIPTION
JOBSITE ADDRESS:
400 42ND ST MBCH
CONTRACTOR:
TARAFA CONSTRUCTION
OWNER:
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DESCRIPTION
CO Impvnts to Parking Garage & New Office.
[BDESCDOC]
DATE: 12-17-2004
PERMIT NUMBER: BC003265
STATUS: APPROVED