HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-25812 Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 25812
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, REALLOCATING FUNDS, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $65,000, FROM SERIES 2000 STORMWATER
BONDS, FROM THE NAUTILUS NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT
CONTINGENCY, TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO
REYNOLDS SMITH AND HILLS TO COMPLETE THE DESIGN OF
THE NAUTILUS NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE AGREEMENT WITH REYNOLDS SMITH AND HILLS TO
MEMORIALIZE THE ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED.
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2001, the City entered into an Agreement with the
firm of Reynolds Smith & Hills (Consultant) for Architectural and Engineering
Services for the Nautilus Right of Way Infrastructure Improvements Project (the
Project); and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2004, the Consultant submitted a request for
additional services, in the amount of $105,087, for modifications and additions to the
storm water design; and
WHEREAS, the City and City's Program Manager, Hazen and Sawyer,
evaluated the request and, on October 12, 2004, informed the Consultant that the
scope and amount requested were not acceptable; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2004, the Consultant resubmitted a similar
request for a reduced additional services amount of $90,237; and
WHEREAS, on November 17,2004, the City, through its Program Manager,
once again informed the Consultant that the request remained unacceptable; and
WHEREAS, a meeting was subsequently held on January 12, 2005, during
which the City and the Consultant negotiated the scope and value of the subject
request for additional services; and
WHEREAS, as a result of that meeting, an agreement was reached which, if
hereby approved by the City Commission, would provide compensation to the
Consultant in the amount of $65,000, for the subject additional services; and
WHEREAS, these services will allow the incorporation of two new and two
existing outfalls into the design to accomplish the necessary disposal of storm water,
and the addition of two new pump stations and the related injection wells to service a
low lying area within the Nautilus neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Administration recommends approval of these additional
services to the Consultant to complete the design of the Project.
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 hereby approve the reallocation of funds, in the amount of $65,000
from Series 2000 Stormwater Bonds, from the Nautilus Neighborhood project
contingency, to provide for additional services to Reynolds, Smith and Hills to
complete the design of the Nautilus Neighborhood Project; authorizing the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute an amendment to the Agreement with Reynolds Smith and
Hills to memorialize the additional services to be provided.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 2 5.
JZ:r PwtL
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
2,.... 1.. ~t
Data
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
~
Condensed Title:
A resolution reallocating funds, in the amount of $65,000, from Series 2000 Stormwater Bonds, from the
Nautilus Neighborhood Project contingency, to provide for additional services to Reynolds Smith and Hills
to complete the design of the project.
Issue:
Shall the City of Miami Beach reallocate funds, in the amount of $65,000, from Series 2000 Stormwater
Bonds, from the Nautilus Neighborhood Project contingency to provide additional services to Reynolds Smith
& Hills to complete the desian of the Proiect?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
On May 16, 2001, the City entered into an Agreement with the firm of Reynolds Smith & Hills (RSH) for
Architectural and Engineering Services for the Nautilus Right of Way Infrastructure Improvements Project.
On October 1, 2004, RSH submitted a request for additional services, in the amount of $105,087, for
modifications and additions to the storm water design in the Project. The modifications included the
incorporation of two new outfalls into the design in order to accomplish the necessary disposal of storm
water. They also included the addition of two pump stations and injection wells to meet regulatory
requirements and to account for a low lying area within the neighborhood. These changes required the
addition of at least fifteen contract documents to the scope of services. The above described improvements
are considered additional to the original scope of services and necessary to provide a proper design for the
Project and to obtain the proper improvements to the storm water disposal in the neighborhood.
On October 12, 2004, the City and the City's Program Manager, Hazen & Sawyer informed RSH that the
amount requested was not in accordance with the modifications to the scope of services and that the request
would have to be reformulated. On November 10, 2004, RSH resubmitted the request with new
documentation and additional substantiation and lowered the amount to $80,393. On November 17, 2004,
the City once again informed RSH that the request was still not acceptable and that it contained items for
which the City would not compensate RSH.
Several negotiation sessions were held in order to reach an acceptable value for the recognized additional
services. On January 12, 2005, the City and RSH met again to complete negotiations on the scope and value
of the request. After the discussion, City staff reached an agreement, which, if approved by the City
Commission, would compensate RSH in the amount of $65,000 for the subject services. The administration
recommends approval.
Adviso Board Recommendation:
This item was heard at the Februa 17,2005 Finance and Cit ide Committee meetin .
Financial Information:
Source of
Funds:
I I
Finance Dept.
Ci Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin :
Mauro Burgio, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator
T:\AGENDA\2005\Feb2305\Consent\Nautilus Add Services to RS&H - COVER.doc
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
C7!3
J.tJ-3 -o~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez~ ~
City Manager /,AI'" 0
A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, REALLOCATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$65,000, FROM SERIES 2000 STORMWATER BONDS, FROM THE
NAUTILUS NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT CONTINGENCY, TO PROVIDE FOR
ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO REYNOLDS SMITH AND HILLS TO COMPLETE
THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT.
Date: February 23, 2005
Subject:
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution.
FUNDING
Funding in the amount of $65,000 from Series 2000 Stormwater Bonds is available, and
has been previously appropriated for the Project.
BACKGROUND
On May 16, 2001, the City entered into an Agreement with the firm of Reynolds Smith &
Hills (Consultant) for Architectural and Engineering Services for the Nautilus Right of Way
Infrastructure Improvements Project (the Project). On October 1, 2004, the Consultant
submitted a request for additional services, in the amount of $105,087, for modifications
and additions to the storm water design, (a copy of the original request is attached as
Exhibit 1).
The City and City's Program Manager, Hazen and Sawyer, evaluated the request and on
October 12, 2004, informed the Consultant that the scope and amount requested were not
acceptable (a copy of the letter sent to the Consultant is attached as Exhibit 2). On
November 10, 2004, the Consultant resubmitted a similar request for a reduced additional
services amount to $90,237 (a copy of that revised request is attached as Exhibit 3). On
November 17, 2004, the City, through its Program Manager, once again informed the
Consultant that the request remained unacceptable; as it contained items for which the City
would not compensate the Consultant (a copy of the letter sent to the Consultant is
attached as Exhibit 4).
Several discussions ensued between the Consultant and the City on this issue, and a
meeting was subsequently held on January 12, 2005, during which the City and the
Consultant negotiated the scope and value of the subject request for additional services.
As a result of that meeting, an agreement was reached which, if approved by the City
City Commission Memorandum
February 23, 2005
Additional Services for RS&H - Nautilus Neighborhood
Page 2 of 2
Commission, would provide compensation to the Consultant in the amount of $65,000 for
the subject services and amend the Agreement, (a copy of the revised request is attached
as Exhibit 5). These services allow for the incorporation of two new and two existing
outfalls into the design to accomplish the necessary disposal of storm water. In addition,
the services also include the addition of two new pump stations and the related injection
wells to service a low lying area within the Nautilus neighborhood.
The current estimate of cost for the stormwater system improvements within the Nautilus
Neighborhood as provided by Consultant is $9,877,043. This figure exceeds the original
Basis of Design estimate and construction budget of $6,601,773 by $3,275,270. This
difference is attributable to several factors, including a significant increase in cost of
materials; an overall increase in construction costs in the South Florida area due to greater
activity, and the time lapsed between the original and current estimate. In addition, the
topographic information that was available to the Consultant during planning was less
detailed than the information currently available, necessitating the use of new and existing
outfalls, as well as two pump stations, to meet stormwater Master Plan flooding criteria
restrictions.
As the estimated construction cost escalated beyond the available budget, CIP and Public
Works are reviewing potential value engineering options that would reduce the estimated
construction cost. Some of the value engineering opportunities include the use of different
pipe material, revision of minimum design standards, and the use of different drainage
systems than what is currently proposed. It must be noted that value engineering cost
reductions will not completely eliminate the $3,275,270 estimated cost construction
difference between the current cost estimate and the original basis of design estimate.
The potential shortfall in storm water funding is identified only as a possible future funding
issue. An overall City wide review of storm water systems indicates that a small number of
neighborhoods may be faced with this issue, however, City wide it may be possible through
a variety of value engineering steps to fund all of the currently funded projects with
available resources. Some unfunded projects, such as West Avenue may still experience
storm water system funding shortfalls. As the system design and cost estimating proceed
and become more precise, the Administration will advise the Commission on the system
design and any projected funding issues.
Implementing the above noted value engineering alternatives would not significantly affect
the additional funding request of $65,000 for additional design effort. This request will
allow the design to proceed independently of any determinations made as to the value
engineering options.
The Administration presented this item to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee on
February 17, 2005.
JMG/RCM/TH/JECh
T:\AGENDA\2005\Feb2305\Consent\Nautilus Add Services to RS&H - 02-23-05 MEMO.doc
EXHIBIT 1
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 23,2005
ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO RS&H FOR
NAUTILUS NEIGHBORHOOD
BSIl
Architectural, Engineering, Planning and Environmental Services
REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, INC.
6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200
Miami, Florida 33126
Tel: 786.388.0234 Fax: 786.388.8108
RECEIVED
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
Miami Beach. Florida
OCT 0 4 200~
October 1, 2004
Mr. Suresh Mistry, PE
Engineering Coordinator
Hazen and Sawyer, PA
975 Arthur Godfrey Road, Suite 211
Miami Beach, Florida 33140
Job No.
RE: Request for Additional Design Fees
Neighborhood No.7: Nautilus - ROW Infrastructure Improvement Program
RS&H Project No.: 11120537000
Dear Mr. Mistry:
The purpose of this letter is to request additional fees for design services performed outside the current scope of
work for the subject project. The services consist of additional design associated with the proposed water
distribution system, and stormwater system improvements. The total fee requested for the additional services is
$105,087, as shown on the attached Fee Schedule Summary Sheet. The following is a description of the additional
services:
Water System Improvements
Following the development of the 60% Design Documents for the water main, we were advised that the existing
specialty material driveways (brick pavers, stamped concrete, or stones) should not be impacted by proposed
improvements. Due to this requirement, the alignment of the proposed water main will be substantially modified
and the associated profile views will need to be redeveloped accordingly. As shown in the 30% submittal of the
Design Documents, the proposed water main was going to be installed in the swale areas in an effort to facilitate
the implementation process and minimize the amount of roadway reconstruction. The breakdown of the effort
associated with the additional water distribution system design services is shown on the attached Fee Schedule
Summary Sheet.
Stormwater System Improvements
The attached letter from our subconsultant, RJ Behar & Company, provides a more comprehensive description of
the additional services provided to comply with various design and funding constraints. In addition, RS&H is
expanding a substantial amount of effort to coordinate the services and implement the changes in the design
documents. The breakdown of the effort associated with the additional stormwater system design services is
shown on the attached Fee Schedule Summary Sheet.
X:\p\Miami Beach\NAUTlLUS MB\Admin\Memos\Nautilus SW WM Add Design lOOlQ4,doc
Mr. Suresh Mistry
Page 2 .
October 1, 2004
As always, if you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me
at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, INC.
Stanley Fardin, PE
Project Manager
Cc: Jeff Easley / RS&H
Sam Gonzalez / RS&H
Richard Bolt / RJ Behar
!l
....
5~ HI
~.. u
,. ~ ~
c:i!i!liilll
ZelUz
e~m~
8z~HI
zt::ce
a:zz~
illlzZ
zvrio
~9 E
zO e
IIlZ e
~~ c
III
.c
~
~
! i ! Iii I II I ! ! !
! II I II! i I I I
10 . 0 !o 0 ~O!O'O'O' 0
101>,5:1 OI>IOI>!OI> ''''''''I'''''''',5:!I'''j
,II 'I"" I
, ; I, II ii, ,
I i I I i I i I I
I' i I II Iii 1II1
" I!, I I
!,O!OI 0 IT 1010100nol
I Iii II II
! I I I,'! I i
1010 0 100 10 olT~lo
II)
II:
:;)
i
~
~
I
u
I 00 0 00 000000
00 0 00 000000
00 0 00 000000
00
0001000
0100
i
I
I 00 0100 000000
~~t
II 00 0 00 000000
I Igg
1'1:5 ~ I'ii
!Z :0; ,0::',0:: I
i I~ I~II~,~
III :j 'II i~I,I~i~ 'I i
, I I~ d 1~II~i~ I I
I I I :~ ~ !~ I~I~III I
I I !a::!' =>, I::!I,::! I
' >f--I ::! 00 '"
III 'I 'w i8 ::! "'10'0 E'z
Ie I ,~~ 'gig, I ;<I'~!'" lrl
, < ZI 'x 10:: >IC> 01
... C>,C>en M:'o::?'" BoZo.
:~,~~ <Bi:o::'~1 ,lrl>-It;; ll!!
',. IW,Z:Z ~wIQ,!52 'Ol!:: Wlzl
m~;~~~~I[I~1 i[t~:~~
~.tfwlfrl ~~ (/)C)/ ,cr:::j Iw1w
5'<;>0::0:: f---IC>(jj IZO::I'>lo
ffi:~I~IW ~~I~i~1 1~18:~1~1
ml~gli5 ~!a~'~I' :~!~'...J!a
~'f-- ~'I- ~I?'::! z i 'ILIOI~I~
z &l'''',&l zO'3:'=>1 I ,0'3:,QllXli
%1-' <(1-' ffil~I~12 1~1~1t:..J1
S ~,~ ~ ~1:'Gj,~1 ~ Gj:gl~1
1L,~~~;a.~;~t~~t~t;::f-N~~!-~~~
lito. '''':'''':i...:H''':I'''::u:i1u:i1...:,'...:H''":,
c -I i I !. j i....T-i j !~i
....z I! i i: i ' : ! : i I
(
i I1II i II i i ; i i i : i ii, i I i Ii! I i I !~IJ&11 III i ! I II i~i
i5:'I5:!5:I5:II5:15:i5:!5:I, 1115:15:i5:l5:i5:15:!5:7Ii 115:15:115: i,5: [5:15:15:1., I 'ti,~I,~I" : !~I~lllls! II'
i.! I HtH-11! I! I i I i II Ii I ,i i ILI"f, j""! i 1 ,I II i 1:1;1
ii, ii' I -I- I Ii' I i -i-t-t--i' -t i UlulUlU
III II' I IIllT1 i II I 11ll!:! i! T: II i 1111 UJ II
0000 ++11 'tl+ +011 o!J 0 I 0 10H,o'I i;!i~!~1 II II IIIII~I I
II 11111i!1 +1,111:11 I ! i
I !I TI !!!I I
00000+0 100000010 010 0 0 0010 '0+11 I . I~
i
I
~
..
~
o
..
00000000
00....
1O<D~
II)
... ..,
= ~
...
g
ID u;
:;;
..,
... (I)
... ~
.
II)
i CD
,.:
0
;;
'"
~ ...
on
'"
;;
II)
"l
co in
0000000
00 0 0 000
000000010
00 0 0 000
01110
0000000
00000000
~o&l
'"
0000000
00 0 0 000
00000000
CD",'"
..........~
0000000
00 0 0 000
00000000
"'''''''
~..,....
0000000
00 0 0 000
,
00000000
o 000
1000
0000000
00 0
'"
IQ ~ I i
I~ W
~ [3 .
I!: en I I
I' I~ g 1 I
II I! II' i I!! III ii ~ I~ II i i I II
~ III :i I i~1 1 II I II~ ~ ISi~I~len i I IJ II I I
Ii= II=> '0::1 I I III m 0 U I~I>IO Ul III I II
;~ 13: I~II I '8 11!z1 1 I I~ jg 1 ~ 1~I~i5:~ J~ I~ I
Ig ,wl ii= 'Z 1 ~I I I I II: '''''~ I m I lliizi!ilffi 1 ~'", I 1i=1 i
11c> '> ,w, 1152 1 =>1 I' i 1 I III ~i~,o ~:31 .,521< en i + I~ ' 1< I '
!~IIll! I~I iffll l:llg, I' I :~ ;...lm,i=lz Ii ~ I~ffl ,15:~I~I~ I '~Ig I '~I I
'm Z ~ '3:1 ,0 UfO I I 'Z '15 O::I~'o I- 13: 0 ~I i=,iij !!!j izlo::' I
i 1)(,\2::; I!!! ,IL, :~Iti >- I I i~ IlEllJ:! ::!Ii= en ~I,> ,~Iz,:!!l!l Iffll~ Igl~ I
: I;I~I~ l~i~I",:~ i~'g:~:~1 : I !g' '~,8t~!~ ! ~ I~~!lj Igj:~:~i~1 i '~!~I ;3'5 Iw!
!:llII~II~,~ !~I~I~I~ ~181~1!~I~II~lt lii~I~I~ 15 :o;:~i~ i~:9,8'~1 Im:!lj:~I,I~I~ I 'ii
u< ''''I'''W>WZ ~IZll-w'<'ZI<'< 'IZjOf--O:: 0:: 1~'<Ul w'W1' 01 wZ,=> -'10 i i=1
'5'0'~I~'z 0 ll!10::'~1 '<,0 Z ILliil'Q,3:,o:: 0,:>''''10 I 0 I>'~ 'mO:: 0::10 -'IQ,en 5 zl m m
15i~logl~'I'~:1-1~151 1~1t;1~15i!aI~I~:!z l!i!~ ~i~ --' ~ ,~iffiI51 ;~'~'~:"'i ,~ti~!i,C) Zlsl !i1:::1..
Imlffilol-lii:zmi=:"'1 c'=>I=>:0'<3:og '::>'~10'1- (.) I- l"'I~If--1 Z::!'3:'O::, ::1'15'< ~1:r'l3 OIIU'~
1~I~i~'~I~I~,~1~15i 1~I~ig,1il ~'~lgiQI,~!g ~;~ g ~ '~Ig &l '~'ffi'~i~1 'iil'~lul,~i~lffi! ,31~1~
1ii51~1~!(jj,~ ~Igla:: ~'I g:~i~'w ~j~'51~ ~lwl::tl,o::1 0 IOlujjo Q'!<IO,cg !'o..l~]O::,OIOI 1:!':!,5
r'l!h::~'~lo o'o'lf < iij1u iIjl[,Q iIj'ol~1 ulg:i3: ~ ~ ll! ['iL'[ '~ii::li;:ii!~ l:! ll!: 1-: iil ~ ~ ,~,~' ~
F. " . g ,-. -+ , ~ l' . "'- r .- - - '--'--r,+-+--1~ - ~ +'j-r . 'T;' r' ---'-+-"-'-+--11- c [
.....,NM1V,1I) (D.......,CDI .....INIM ""'111),<<> """I ..... N, M I "It LO'W...... -INIM I .....INI('f) ""'111) I I
I N1N1N1N r.r;IN'N N! I 1(")I,r?t"I("') M MIMI I "":1""',"'" I ..; V ''O'j".rj 11)111) U')I I "":UJ1u) cD (Q : I
,NI I 1,1 I I ;, ,'"'I I , ' ii, ."1 I I I I I, I "'! I: '...1 I I : I ' I I: '
1 i' I I !!!!; i ! i ' : i i I ! i Ii' i i i i !: I!!, i i !! I
z
l:!
~
~
I
:l:::l" -btW -./0/6 1
{
p.4
f!/l. R.J. Behar U Company, Inc.
J 1'- - - En9in~rs-: Pian-;;er~ -
September 30, 2004
Mr. Stanley Fardin, P.E.
Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc.
6161 Blue Lagoon Dr., Suite 200
Miami, Florida 33126
Subject: Nautilus Neighborhood Project
Stormwater Design
Additional Services Fee Request
Dear Stanley:
We respectfully submit this Request for Additional Services for the above referenced project in
the amount of $80,393.00. During the course of advancing the project to the near 60% submittal
stage, we performed a number of additional selVices beyond the scope of the original contract.
Although we proceeded to perform these services without prior written authorization, in the
interest of not delaying the schedule, the City was advised on a number of occasions that we
considered the work to be additional. These additional selVices are as follows:
I. Additional Modelin2 Based on Actual Data
During the planning stage (BODR) certain assumptions had to be made regarding
elevations and outfall locations because the sUlVey data was not yet available. Also, our
fee was based on using the outfall locations as identified in the City's Stormwater Master
Plan (SWMP). Elevations obtained with the survey were lower than the assumed
elevations, therefore requiring considerable re-modeling time. The re-modeling was
required because the lower ground elevations resulted in less head available for
conveyance and water quality treatment.
2. Revise Modelin2 for Bud2et Alternatives
After completing the 30% design submittal, it was determined that the estimated cost was
considerably above the construction budget. We explained during subsequent discussions
and meetings that an engineering solution meeting the requirements of the SWMP criteria
could not be provided within the construction budget. It was requested that we examine
various options and materials, including possible phasing of the system to be constructed,
and provide additional estimates in an attempt to proceed with a viable project to the 60%
stage within the construction budget. A considerable amount of re-modeling effort was
required in order to examine the various alternatives and provide the requested estimates.
Our proposed alternative solution to meet allowable flooding and quality treatment
criteria for Basins 92 & 97 is to design two stormwater pump stations with pressurized
injection wells (one for each basin) in combination with gravity wells. The proposed
pump station design has not yet been performed and is listed separately below.
3. Revise Modelin2: & Lavout to Include Existine Outfalls
After completing the 30% design submittal, we were requested to explore the possibility
of using the existing. outfalls in addition to the proposed outfalls in order to try to
minimize the size of piping in the system. Note that during the BODR and the 30%
6861 S. w.: 196 Avenue, Suite 302 · Pembroke Pines, FL 33332 . Tel: (954) 680-7771 . Fax: (954) 680-7781
-........"" , i U.L
p.:;:)
design stage, we were proceeding based on the City's SWMP that indicates new larger
diameter outfaIls to replace the existing outfalIs. We have also advised the City of the
need to inspect and video the condition ofthese outfalls. We have continued to proceed to
the 60% submittal under the assumption that these outfalls will be able to be re-used. Re-
modeling the stonnwater network to include use of the existing outfalls and downsizing
of pipe sizes required additional effort. Use of the existing outfalls also required
additional time for coordination of the surveyor. This coordination included providing the
surveyor with location sketches, obtaining quotes, insuring the proper datum was used
and incorporating the outfall infonnation with the overall survey.
4. Revise ModeliDf! & Lavont to Modifv Alif!oment
The BODR, the 30% design and the current (near 60%) design have the proposed
stonnwater system located within the swale areas as much as possible in order to
minimize the amount of roadway reconstruction required. We have since been requested
to revise the layout and locate the proposed system beneath the roadway as much as
possible in order to minimize the impact on landscaped swale areas and specialty material
driveways (pavers, stamped concrete, etc.). This will require a considerable amount ofre-
modeling time and additional time to revise the layout of the system. This work has yet to
be performed.
5. Additional Onalitv Control for eaeh Additional Task
The additional modeling, calculations and revisions of the layouts required additional
independent quality control.
6. PurnD Station Plans and Calculations (Basins 92 and 97)
As indicated above, we are proposing a combination of gravity wells and stonnwater
pump stations and pressurized injection weIls for each Basin 92 and Basin 97. This is
required in order to meet the City's SWMP criteria for allowable flooding and required
quality treatment. This appears to be the only cost feasible solution and is a result of the
combination of low ground elevations, the high water table and the long pipe runs
necessary to reach the outfall locations from the furthest most points within the basins.
Design of the pump stations will require re-modeling of the system network within each
basin and revising the system layout, along with the actual design of the pump stations
and pressurized injection wells. The current layout for each basin will have to be divided
into two layouts with downsizing of pipes and possible re-routing of the pipe runs. The
pump stations will also require additional permitting effort. This work has yet to be
performed. Preliminary analysis indicates that a pump station with approximately 4
injection wells, combined with gravity wens will be required to reduce the flooding
problem in Basin 97. For Basin 92, a pump station with approximately 5 injection wells
and gravity wells will be required. A preliminary estimate of the cost of the pump stations
and injection wells is $300,000 for each pump station and $75,000 for each injection
well. We have reviewed possible locations for the pump stations in each basin and offer
the following suggested locations. For Basin 92, the preferred site would be the parking
lot at the north comer of Alton Rd. and Lenox Ave. A secondary site would be
somewhere on the Nautilus Middle School site, which would probably require an
easement. For Basin 97, the preferred site would be the comer intersection of Nautilus
Dr. and Nautilus Ct. A secondary site would be the parking area on W. 48th S1. across
from the hospital. A third possible location would be in the swale area at the northeast
comer of Nautilus Dr. and W. 44th Ct.
Attached please find our fee request for the additional work effort outlined above.
In ad~ition, we request a~di~ion,al survey information for the outfalls as follows:
1. Basin 92: Existing 36" outfan to Biscayne Waterway along N. Meridian at approximate
Sta. 505+90. Invert elevation at the seawalllheadwall and elevation of the top of the
seawalUheadwall.
2. Basin 92: Topographic survey and soundings for the proposed new outfall at the north
side of the W. 41st St. (Arthur Godfrey Rd.) bridge. We need survey of the area between
the parking structure and the north right-of-way of 41st St. from N. Meridian to the
Biscayne Waterway. At the waterway, we need elevations of the top of the seawall andlor
bank and the water surface. Additionally, we need soundings of the bottom of the
waterway on a 10-foot grid for a length of 30 feet minimum from the face of the
bulkhead and a width of 30 feet centered on the proposed outfall location.
3, Basin 97: Existing 24" outfall to Surprise Lake along N. Meridian at approximate Sta.
528+50 rvv. 46th St.). Invert elevation at the seawalllheadwall and elevation of the top of
the seawalllheadwall.
4. Basin 97: Topographic survey and soundings for the proposed new outfall at the north
side of the 47th St. bridge. We need survey of the area between the parking structure and
the north right-of-way of 47th St. from N. Meridian to the waterway. At the waterway, we
need elevations of the top of the seawall and/or bank and the water surface. Additionally,
we need soundings of the bottom of the waterway on a 10-foot grid for a length of30 feet
minimum from the face of the bulkhead and a width of 30 feet centered on the proposed
outfall location.
5. Basin 99: Existing 21" outfall to Surprise Lake along W. 48th St. at approximate Sta.
539+20. Invert elevation at the seawal1Jheadwa11 and elevation of the top of the
seawalUheadwall.
6. Basin 99: Topographic survey and soundings for the proposed new outfall at the north
side parking area to the north of the hospital. We need survey of the area from W. 48th St.
to the waterway. At the waterway, we need elevations of the top of the seawall andlor
bank and the water surface. Additionally, we need soundings of the bottom of the
waterway on a 10-foot grid for a length of 30 feet minimum from the face of the
bulkhead and a width of 30 feet centered on the proposed outfa1llocation.
With respect to schedule we offer the following:
The pump station design and completion of the 60% submittal plans can be accomplished in ten
(10) weeks following receipt of the requested survey data and approval of this additional services
request.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (954) 680-7771.
Sincerely,
R..J. BEHAR & COMPANY, INC.
,~;:2&tr
Richard L. Bolt
Proj ect Manager
Cc: File 01026, B. Behar, J. Vazquez
F:\#O] 022\Contrac( Fi le\RSH-Nautilus-addl-scrvicc-rcqucst-9-30-04.doc
EXHIBIT 2
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 23,2005
ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO RS&H FOR
NAUTILUS NEIGHBORHOOD
HAzEN AND SA\WER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Hazen and Sawyer, P,C.
975 Arthur GOdfrey Road
Suite 211
Miami Beach, FL 33140
305 532 -9292
Fax: 305 534-8887
October 12, 2004
Stanley Fardin, P.E.
Project Manager
REYNOLDS SMITH AND HILLS, INC.
6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200
Miami, Florida 33126
-Fax'd This Date-
City of Miami Beach
Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvements Program
Neighborhood No.7: Nautilus
Request for Additional Services: Water and
Stormwater Improvements
Dear Mr. Fardin:
We are in receipt of Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. (RS&H) request for additional services dated
October 1, 2004. As discussed during the meeting between the City I RS&H I Hazen and Sawyer
(H&S) on October 7, 2004, the City's response to RS&H's request for additional services is as
follows:
1. Water System Improvements
The Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) Office has determined that sufficient justification
has not been provided to support this request for additional services. The City expressed
concern with the routing of mains within existing swales in the 30% design review
comments. RS&H responded that the proposed utilities would be routed to cause minimum
interference with existing landscaping. The City believes that the installation of the proposed
watermain and stormwater improvements in the roadway would be far more economical and
practical. This would avoid extensive conflicts with existing driveways and landscaping. The
City welcomes the opportunity to visit the site and allow RS&H to present its argument for a
swale based system. However, at this time, the request for additional services is rejected.
2. Additional Modeling Data Based on Actual Data
The CIP Office has determined that sufficient justification has not been provided to support
this request for additional services. In accordance with Task 2.2 of the Scope of Services,
the City considers this work to be part of the base Scope of Services. Hence, RS&H's
request for additional services is rejected.
3. Revise Modeling for Budget Alternatives
The CIP Office has determined that sufficient justification has not been provided to support
this request for additional services. In accordance with Task 2.4 of the Scope of Services,
the City considers this work to be part of the base Scope of Services. Hence, RS&H's
request for additional services is rejected.
Page 10(3
MB: 4007L094
New York, NY . Armonk, NY . Ramsey, NJ . Detroit. MI . Philadelphia, PA. Raleigh, NC . Charlotte, NC . Fairfax, VA . Atlanta, GA. Hollywood, FL. Boca Raton, FL . Fort Pierce, FL. Jacksonville, Fl . Miami, FL' Sarasota, FL. Tampa, FL
HAzEN AL"D SA~'\'ER
Stanley Fardin, P.E
October 12, 2004
4. Revise Modeling and Layout to include Existing Outfalls
The CIP Office has determined that sufficient justification has not been provided to support
this request for additional services. In accordance with Task 2.2 of the scope of services, the
City considers this work to be part of the base scope of services. Hence, RS&H request for
additional services is rejected. With respect to the need to inspect and video the condition of
the existing outfalls, RS&H was advised to proceed towards the 60% submittal under the
assumption that the outfalls are in good condition. The contract documents are to reflect that
the Contractor is to inspect and video the existing outfalls during construction, The
Contractor is to evaluate the video and determine whether the outfalls need to be
repaired/replacedllined.
5. Revise Modeling and Layout to Modify Alignment
As noted under Item 1, the City believes that the installation of the proposed watermain and
stormwater improvements in the roadway would be far more economical and practical. This
would avoid extensive conflicts with existing driveways and landscaping. The City welcomes
the opportunity to visit the site and allow RS&H to present its argument for a swale based
system. However, at this time, the request for additional services is rejected.
6. Additional Quality Control for each Additional Task
The CIP Office has determined that sufficient justification has not been provided to support
this request for additional services. In accordance with Task 2.8 of the Scope of Services,
the City considers this work to be part of the base Scope of Services. Consultant is required
to maintain a Quality Assurance / Quality Control Program to verify and ensure the quality,
clarity, completeness, constructability and biddability of its contract documents. Hence,
RS&H's request for additional services is rejected.
7. Pump Station Plans and Calculations {Basins 92 and 97}
The CIP Office has reviewed this request and advises as follows:
· Pump Station Plans and Calculations. The CIP Office may consider this request for
additional services. Please submit a list of additional drawings that would be required for
the design of the pump stations and associated wells, as well as, existing drawings that
are required to be modified.
· Re-modeling of the System Network. The CIP Office has determined that sufficient
justification has not been provided to support this request for additional services. In
accordance with Task 2.2 of the Scope of Services, the City considers this work to be
part of the base Scope of Services.
8. Additional Survey Data
We are in receipt of RS&H's request for additional services dated October 6, 2004 regarding
the collection of additional survey data to proceed with the design of stormwater
improvements. The City is currently reviewing this request and will advise accordingly.
Page 2 0'3
MB: 4oo7L094
HAzEN A~D SAWYER
Stanley Fardin, P.E
October 12, 2004
As always, should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our
office.
Very truly yours,
SAWYER, P.C.
~~
uresh Mistry, P.E.
Engineering Coordinator
c: T. Hemstreet
J. Chartrand
M. Burgio
C. Hastings
C.Bennett
B. Vidal
File No. 4007/1.4
Page 3 0'3
MB: 4007L094
EXHIBIT 3
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 2005
ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO RS&H FOR
NAUTILUS NEIGHBORHOOD
B~H
Architectural, Engineering, Planning and Environmental Services
REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, INC.
6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200
Miami, Florida 33126
Tel: 786.388.0234 Fax: 786.388.8108
RECEIVED
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
'Miami Beach, Florida
November 10, 2004
NOV 1 8 2004
8;YV\ 0l~
:JOll No. J+\) 'J~
Mr. Suresh Mistry, PE
Engineering Coordinator
Hazen and Sawyer, PC
975 Arthur Godfrey Road, Suite 211
Miami Beach, Florida 33140
RE: Request for Additional Design Fees (Rev. -1)
Neighborhood No.7: Nautilus - ROW Infrastructure Improvement Program
RSltH Project No.: 11120537000
Dear Mr. Mistry:
We are in receipt of your letter dated October 12, 2004 regarding our request for additional fees related to the
design of water and stormwater improvements for the Nautilus Neighborhood. As discussed at the Progress
Meeting of November 9, 2004, RS&H has decided not to pursue the additional fees associated with the relocation
of the water main, from the swale to the pavement, even though we strongly disagree with the reasons stated in
your letter for rejecting our request. However, we believe that work outside of the scope of services was
performed in order to meet the design criteria established in the City's Stormwater Master Plan and the
Construction Budget. As per your letter, we are also resubmitting our fee proposal for the design of the pump
stations in Basin 92 and Basin 97. The attached letter from our subconsultant, RJ Behar, provides a summary of
the additional services provided and the scope of work associated with the design of the pump stations. The total
fee requested for the additional services is $90,237, as shown on the attached Fee Schedule Summary Sheet.
As always, we are available to meet with you and the City to review this request at your earliest convenience.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, INC.
5/._/--, LL.:
Stanley Fardin, PE
Project Manager
Cc: Jeff Easley / RS&H
Sam Gonzalez / RS&H
Richard Bolt / RJ Behar
X:\p\Miami Beach \ NAUTILUS MB\Admin\ Memos \ Nautilus SW WM Add Design 1110Q4,doc
!
"u 10
5Z u
!~ i
c:ii~z
ZCl:z:1t
ClZlIIB
1~5Cl
ilf~
iiutiill
1il9 e
:g Cl
~ Cl
... c
.c
001010000 I or 0
I I I I I
0,00100)010 I oooro,oo 010 0
I I I i I I
i liiilglllii~I8t1 !~I~I.I.I.I ~
I I T I II~it;, iOr ! I ~
I i I
I ri
z
...
~
..
..
I
,0;
. I:
~ I~
N I~
~
. ~
..
,I I~
o 000
o ~I~
'"
lR ~
Oil 52
I I I
o oiool 10"1"1
!! ~
;;;;
z
i
~
I
(
If.. R.J. Behar 8 Company, Inc.
JI'- - - En9in;rs-: P~n;e'; - - - - -
November I, 2004
SC'4-680-7781
(
p.2
Mr. Stanley Fardin, P.E.
Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc.
6161 Blue Lagoon Dr., Suite 200
Miami, Florida 33126
Subject: Nautilus Neighborhood Project
Storm water Design
Additional Services Fee Request Revision 1
Dear Stanley:
We respectfully re-submit thisRequ~st for Additional Services for the above referenced project
in the amount of $80,393.00. In response to the letter of October 12, 2004 from Suresh Mistry,
PE (Hazen & Sawyer) to Stanley Fardin, PE (RS&H) we offer the following;
1. Additional Modeline Based OD Actual Data
The way this project was set up and negotiated, the modeling for the stonnwater system
was to be done during the BODR pIaaming phase with the expectation that we would
have to make minor revisions to the modeling during actual design. This modeling was
necessary in order to determine the budget cost estimate for the planning phase. We were
also advised by the.City negotiator that there was a Stonnwater Master Plan (SWMP) for
the City which was to be foIlowed and defined the work to be done therefore requiring
less design effort. Elevations obtained with the sUIVey were lower than the elevations
assumed during the planning phase, therefore requiring considerable re-modeling time.
The results of the additional modeling effort indicated that the City's SWMP flood
criteria could !lot be met as planned due to the very low existing elevations. Task 2.2 of
the Scope of Services does not call for remodeling, modifications to the modeling or re-
calculation of the complete stonnwater system. Rather the scope only identifies tl~e
preparation of drawings and construction details at 30%, 60% and 90%. It is not
reasonable to expect to have to re-model the stonnwater system 'an indefinite amount of
times because it would not be feasible to estimate the effort involved. We therefore
understand that the remodeling efforts are outside the scope of services as defined in Task
2.2.
2. Revise Modelin~ for Bud~et Alternafives
On a meeting in March 10, 2004 we discussed with the City the need to reduce the cost aJ.f
the neighborhood projects by studying several alternatives. At the meeting we advised
the City that the altematives would require remodeling in order to assess if they wouU
meet the SWMP criteria regarding flooding, etc. At that meeting it was indicated that
additional remodeling would be considered justification for supplemental design funds.
Task 2.4 of t1le Scope of Services indicates that based on the opinion of probable cost at
60% and 90 % the City would advise ifportions of the project need to be deleted, phased
and/or bid as altemate bid items. Task 2.4 does not include the analysis of altemativcs in
order to reduce improvement costs, rather the City would advise what portions would
need to be deleted. The altematives evaluated included the avoidance of water quality
6861 S.W: 196 Avenue, Suite 302 · Pembroke Pines, FL 33332 . Tel: (954) 680-7771 . Fax: (954) 680-7781
--11111.... ~ L.ou.
$""4-680-7781
(
(0.3
weirs and utilizing the latest rainfall maps per the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) rather than the outdated data in the City's SWMP. In addition to the
remodeling efforts in order to assess if some of the alternatives would be perminable, we
also had to contact Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource
Management (DERM). Also we had to research with the SFWMD the infonnation
regarding the applicable rainfall amounts. None of this work is required by Task 2.4 of
the Scope of Services. We therefore understand that the remodeling and coordination
efforts are outside the scope of services as defined in Task 2.4.
3. Revise ModeIiD!! & Lavout to Include ExistiD!! OutfaIls
After completing the 30% design submittal, we were requested to explore the possibility
of using the existing outfalIs in addition to the proposed outfalJs in order to try to
minimize the size of piping in the system. Including existing outfaIls in the design is an
additional alternative requested by the City in order to reduce construction cost. The
condition of the pipe, invert at the outlet and outIet condition is to this date unknown.
The City's SWMP indicated that these outfalls were undersized and should be replaced
Under the replacement scenario it would not be necessary to investigate the condition,
size, invert, etc. of these pipes. As stated before neither Task 2.2 nor 2.4 include the
development and analyses of alternatives, rather the City would advise what portions
would need to be deleted. We therefore understand that the remodeling efforts are outside
the scope of services as defined in Tasks 2.2 and 2.4.
Regarding the need to inspect the outfaIls and the survey information, it would not be
possible to assure that the project meets the SWMP criteria in tenns of flooding, etc.
without this infonnation. The City is again requesting that the design proceed without
the inspection of the existing outfalls. It is evident that in many locations the existing
outfalls could not be replaced in-kind due to the lack of space for construction. Leaving
this for determination during construction is an invitation for a construction claim. We
. ,
have proceeded as instructed by making assumptions in order to complete the plans to
this stage. Additional modeling or re-design based on these assumptions being wrong
(wrong elevations, size, not being able to use the outfall, etc.) ,'vill be considered outside
the scope of services.
4. Revise Modelio!! & Lavout to Modifv Alienment
The BODR, the 30% design and the current (near 60%) design have the proposed
stonnwater system located within the swale areas as much as possible in order to
minimize the amount ofroadway reconstruction required. We have since been requested
to revise the layout and locate the proposed system beneath the roadway as much as
possible in order to minimize the impact on landscaped swale areas and specialty material
driveways (pavers, stamped concrete, etc.). The drainage inlets have to be located in the
swale area to collect the runoff. Normally the inlets are then connected to each other
which mean that the pipe normally is running under the swale. In order to avoid the
swale area and to avoid removing trees would mean that the pipe would have to be
located under the roadway. Locating the pipe under the roadway means that the cost of
pavement reestablishment increases, as well as the need for additional manholes in order
to connect the inlets to the trunk line nmning under the pavement. Each additional
manhole could cost as much as $3,000 to $4,000. In addition the additional structures add
...._11111' \: f."U.
~l:'4-S80-7781
(
p.4
(
minor heads losses to the system which in an area as critical as Miami Beach may mean
the use of additional weIls to compensate. Therefore the cost savings of avoiding the
swale area are upset by the costs outlined above. This then becomes an item which is
based on the preference of the client. This work will require a considerable amount of re-
modeling time and additional time to revise the layout of the system. This work has yet to
be perfonned and is considered outside the scope of services.
s. Additional Quality Control for each Additional Task
The additional modeling, calculations and revisions of the layouts of items 1 thro 4 will
require additional independent quality control.
6. Pump Station Plans and Calculations (Basins 92 and 97l
As indicated previously we are proposing a combination of gravity wells and storm water
pwnp stations and pressurized injection wells for each Basin 92 and Basin 97. This is
required in order to meet the City's SWMP criteria for allowable flooding and required
quality treatment. This was the concept originally proposed at the outset of the project.
The concept was changed at the request from the City Public Works Department which
requested that pump stations be avoided. It is anticipated that 15 additional sheets would
be required for the design of the pump stations as shown in the attached breakdown. This
is the final design alternative in order to meet the City's SWMP flooding criteria The
60% design cannot be completed until we are able to incorporate the pump station
elements, which will require a re-modeling of the system. As stated before neither Task
2.2 nor 2.4 include the development and analyses of alternatives, rather the City would
advise what portions would need to be deleted. We therefore understand that the
additional design and remodeling efforts are outside the scope of services as defined in
Tasks 2.2 and 2.4.
, .
Attached please find a breakdown of our fee request for the additional work effort outlined
above.
To date we have cooperated with RS&H by continuing the design effort as directed and working
at risk before the additional fees were approved. We respectfully' request Liat RS&H further
pursue this request for additional funds.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (954) 680-7771.
Sincerely,
R.J. BEHAR & COMPANY, INC.
~~ /:-
" ~.
~c.-~: V- "-
an Vazquez, B. ~'. 717
Vice President
Cc: File 01026, B. Behar, R. Bolt
F:\#OI 022iConlraCI File\RSH-Nnlllilus-addJ-scrvicc_rcqucst_1 f -OJ -04,do~
TASK LIST
R.J. BEHAR & COMPANY
Nautilus Basin 92 & 97 Pump Stations
ACTIVITY: ADD'L SERVo #6 PUMP STATIONS FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
1 Data Collection & Field Reviews LS 24 24 Includes 2 field reviews
2 Hydraulic Calculations EA 2 60 120
3 Drainage Report EA 2 8 16
4 Structural Calculations & Plans EA 2 12 2 24 (1 sheet each pump station>
5 Site Plan & Cross-section EA 4 12 4 48 (2 sheets each pump station>
6 Miscellaneous Details EA ,2 8 2 16 (1 sheet each pump station)
7 Electrical: Site plans EA 2 10 2 20
Control anel details & calcs EA 2 10 2 20
Control wiring schematics EA 2 10 2 20
Service E ui . details & notes EA 1 12 1 12
8 FPL Coordination L.S. 1 12 12
9 Specifications LS 32 32
10 Cost Estimates L.S. 12 12
11 Permitting LS 48 48 DERM and FDEP
12 Quality Control LS 21 21
13 Review of Shop Drawings & LS 4 4 16
Bid Assistance
14 Coordination meetings EA 4 4 16 With City & Permitting Agencies
TOTAL 15 477
EXHIBIT 4
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 23,2005
ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO RS&H FOR
NAUTILUS NEIGHBORHOOD
IIAzEN AND SAWYER
Environmental Engineers & Scientists
Hazen and Sawyer, PC,
975 Arthur Godfrey Road
Suite 211
Miami Beach, Fl33140
305 532-9292
Fax: 305 534-8887
November 17, 2004
Jorge Chartrand
Assistant Director
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Capital Improvement Projects Office
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
City of Miami Beach
Right-of-Way (ROW) Infrastructure Improvement Program
Neighborhood No.7: Nautilus - Resubmittal of Request for
Additional Services: Associated with Stormwater
Improvements
Dear Mr. Chartrand:
As discussed during the meeting between the City I Consultant I Program Manager on October 7,
2004, the City rejected a request for additional services regarding water and stormwater design
efforts on the subject project. This rejection was subsequently formalized via correspondence from
the Program Manager (PM) to the Consultant on October 12, 2004. Attached is a copy of the letter
for the reader's convenience. The Consultant has subsequently advised that it disagrees with the
City's position and has submitted additional information to our office on November 10, 2004 for City
consideration. A copy of this correspondence is also attached.
We have reviewed the new correspondence and offer the following observations:
1. Additional Modeling Data Based on Actual Data
As called out to the Consultant's attention in the correspondence of October 12, 2004, the
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Office has opined that sufficient justification does not
exist to support this request. Hence, the City considers this work to be part of the base Task
2.2 - Scope of Services. In response, the Consultant has submitted additional reasoning as
to why it believes the work to be out of scope. Note that PM Team observations follow each
item, as applicable.
· The Consultant states that it assumed that the majority of stormwater system
hydraulic modeling efforts were to be completed during the planning phase of the
project, with only minor adjustments I modifications to such being required during the
design phase.
· In response, please note that review of the Scoping Session meeting minutes of
October 12, 2001 state that it is the intent of the planning effort to identify problem
drainage areas and perform preliminary calculations to provide stormwater
improvement recommendations. Nothing in the scoping session minutes can be
inferred to require that the Consultant perform the majority of its modeling effort
during the planning phase. It is reasonable to assume that preliminary calculations
must be supported by complete analyses during final design.
Page 10'5
MB: 4007L097
New Yorle, NY' Armonk. NY . Ramsey. NJ . DetrOIt. MI . Pn'ladelpnia. PA . Raleign. NC . Cnarlotle, NC . Fairfax. VA. Atlanta. GA . Hollywood, FL' Boca Raton. FL' Fort Pierce, FL' Jacksonville, FL . Miami, FL' Sarasota. FL' Tampa, Fl
f .
HAzEN A1~D SAlWER
Jorge Chartrand
November 17, 2004
· The Consultant states that City representatives advised during the Project
negotiation that the Stormwater Master Plan layout was to be implemented as the
definitive system orientation.
· In response, review of the scoping session meeting minutes referenced above
indicates that no such representation was made to the Consultant. As is the case
with all ROW Projects, Stormwater Master Plan data is provided to Program
Consultants for general information purposes. However, Consultants retain full
responsibility for the proper design and permittability of their respective proposed
stormwater system improvements.
· The Consultant states that results of the topographic survey completed after the
stormwater layout was developed yielded varying elevations than those it assumed
during planning, subsequently indicating that the system would not meet the City's
stormwater criteria. This caused the Consultant to revisit its stormwater model and
make adjustments during the design phase. According to the Consultant, the Scope
of Services does not require adjustments and I or remodeling during the design
phase, only the preparation of construction documents. Hence, the Consultant
presents this as justification for additional services.
· In response, it is unclear why such work would qualify as an additional service.
Design of a permittable system in accordance with City stormwater management
guidelines is the full responsibility of the Consultant. The "final" modeling of a system
during planning, when the Consultant has not yet completed its survey effort, would
appear to be the result of the Consultant choosing to assume the risk for any
subsequent revisions required because of actual survey data and field conditions.
Hence, adjustments and re-calculations made necessary to meet final survey
requirements would be a part of the base Scope of Services.
· The Consultant states that it is not reasonable for the City to expect an "indefinite"
number of system remodeling efforts.
· In response, it is unclear why the Consultant would consider it unreasonable that the
City anticipate the Consultant to demonstrate due diligence by performing requisite
modeling and adjustment efforts based on actual topographic survey and field data,
as necessary to meet field conditions, permitting requirements, and pre-established
budget parameters.
2. Revise Modeling for Budget Alternatives
As called out to the Consultant's attention in the correspondence of October 12, 2004, the
CIP Office has opined that sufficient justification does not exist to support this request.
Hence, the City considers this work to be part of the base Task 2.4 - Scope of Services. In
response, the Consultant has submitted additional reasoning as to why it believes the work
to be out of scope. Note that PM Team observations follow each item, as applicable.
Page 20(5
MB: 4oon097
· The Consultant states that during the meeting of March 10, 2004 they advised City
representatives that the current design was over budget, and that the development
and analysis of alternatives to bring the estimated cost back to within specified
HAzEN AND SA\WER
Jorge Chartrand
November 17, 2004
budget parameters would result in additional services. As a point of clarification,
please note that review of the subject meeting minutes indicates that the referenced
meeting addressed the La Gorce neighborhood. The Nautilus stormwater budget
overage issues were discussed during the June 24, 2004 Monthly Design Progress
Meeting.
· In response, note that during the referenced meeting, the Consultant presented
estimates and provided reasons why the proposed stormwater design was -57%
over budget ($11 million versus a $7 million budget). Since this overage exceeded
the +30% 1-15% accuracy level requirements identified under Task 2.4 of the Scope
of Services, the Consultant was advised that any work required to result in a
permittable design within established budget parameters was considered a part of
the base scope of services. In addition, the Consultant was reminded that Article 4.2
of the Agreement states that if base bids exceed the estimated cost by 5%, the
Consultant is required to implement revisions as many times as reasonably
requested by the City at no additional cost to the City. To this end, as a means of
avoiding further schedule impacts associated with redesign, it was deemed
reasonable by the City to require that the Consultant address the budget overage at
the 60% design completion stage due to the current magnitude of the overage.
· The Consultant states that all services associated with the evaluation of altematives
to address construction cost budget overages represent additional effort. In support
of its contention, the Consultant notes that it interprets Task 2.4 of the Scope of
Services to require the City to direct the Consultant as to which portions of the
original design are to be deleted to meet budget requirements, without need of the
Consultant developing alternatives for its consideration.
· In response, it is unclear how the City would be able to direct such deletions without
the Consultant developing alternatives that identify respective cost impacts, while
continuing to result in a permittable design that meets City stormwater standards
(even if phased implementation is required).
· The Consultant states that it has complied with City direction to proceed with the
development and evaluation of a variety of alternatives, including varying rainfall
event intensities, deletions of portions of the proposed system, and alternative
routing scenarios. However, the Consultant notes that all of these efforts are
considered to be additional services.
· In response, the City considered the Consultants recommendations during the June
24, 2004 meeting, and then provided direction to proceed with a 7.5-inch rainfall
event based system design that requires a pump station. At the meeting, the City
voiced the opinion that it may consider the pump station work to be an additional
scope item, and requested that the Consultant submit a design proposal for the
inclusion of a pump station in the Project scope. This proposal was to include a
listing of additional drawings that the Consultant felt were necessary to add the
pump station. Unfortunately, this latest correspondence fails to properly address
this request, so the City is unable to commence review and processing of this item.
Page 3 of 5
MB: 4007L09r
HAzEN AND SAWYER
Jorge Chartrand
November 17, 2004
3. Revise Modeling and Layout to include Existing Outfalls
As called out to the Consultant's attention in the correspondence of October 12, 2004, the
CIP Office has opined that sufficient justification does not exist to support this request.
Hence, the City considers this work to be part of the base Task 2.2 - Scope of Services. In
response, the Consultant has submitted additional reasoning as to why it believes the work
to be out of scope. Note that PM Team observations follow each item, as applicable.
· The Consultant states that after the 30% design completion stage, the proposed
stormwater system required reassessment to explore the possibility of utilizing
existing outfalls to augment disposal capacity. The Consultant considers the
inclusion of such outfalls in the design as an additional work item outside of the
scope of the original contract.
· In response, note that it is the City's understanding that the reason the proposed
system required reassessment after the 30% design completion stage was because
the Consultant identified low lying areas within the drainage basin as a result of its
topographic survey. Combined with the estimated -57% cost overage, this required
the Consultant to consider alternatives to meet performance and permit
requirements, as well as bring the project design back to within established budget
parameters.
· The Consultant states that existing outfalls need to be inspected and surveyed
before the design can be finalized, and that the City has requested that design
continue even though the collection of such information is outside of the scope of
services. In addition, the Consultant states that completing design and proceeding
to construction without required design data on existing outfalls will Minvite" a
construction claim. The Consultant further adds that due to the lack of available
information on the existing outfalls, they have proceeded on design, as directed by
the City, using their best judgment However, any additional clarifications and
adjustments to assumed values made necessary by the forensic evaluation results
will be considered an additional service.
· In response, the City agrees that forensic work on existing outfalls is necessary is
an additional service. However, it is important to note that the City requested a
proposal for this work from the Consultant during the May 27, 2004 design progress
meeting. A response was received on October6, 2004, and is now under review by
the City. This represents a five-month delay to the project design directly instigated
by the Consultant. With the 60% design submittal originally due on December 23,
2003 postponed to November 30, 2004 while the Consultant analyzes the system
and develops strategies for meeting budget parameters, it was imperative to avoid
further delays caused by untimely submittals of requested proposal. To this end, the
Consultant was advised that the City anticipated compliance with the agreed to
November 30, 2004 submittal date. Hence, the Consultant was expected to
continue working towards its established 60% submittal date by utilizing educated
assumptions, pending availability of the actual data, as it is not in the City's best
interest to allow a Consultant to dictate the design schedule through the delay of
timely proposal submittals.
Page 4 of 5
MB: 400n097
H~EN A.~D SAWYER
Jorge Chartrand
November 17, 2004
4. Revise Modeling and Layout to Modify Alignment
As called out to the Consultant's attention in the correspondence of October 12, 2004, the
City is of the opinion that the installation of proposed watermain and stormwater
improvements as currently designed by the Consultant are not buildable, as the amounts of
existing improvements within the swales that would require removal are not practical. The
City suggested that the Consultant attend a visit site to allow the ROW Team the opportunity
to reach consensus on this issue. However, the Consultant has chosen not to partake of this
meeting, instead requesting additional services to relocate proposed underground
improvements from the swale to the roadway. It remains unclear how the Consultant
proposes to address the practical aspects of reclaiming the massive number of removals
required by its proposed design.
5. Additional Quality Control for each Additional Task
As called out to the Consultant's attention in the correspondence of October 12, 2004, the
CIP Office has opined that sufficient justification does not exist to support this request.
Hence, the City considers this work to be part of the base Task 2.8 of the Scope of Services.
The Consultant is required to maintain a Quality Assurance I Quality Control Program to
verify and ensure the quality, clarity, completeness, constructability and biddability of its
contract documents. In this case, it would appear that additional services of this nature
would only be applicable to design efforts that are deemed outside of the scope of services
(see Item 6 below).
6. Pump Station Plans and Calculations (Basins 92 and 97)
As called out to the Consultant's attention in the correspondence of October 12, 2004, the
CIP Office has reviewed this request and noted that it might consider it appropriate for
additional services. However, the Consultant was requested to submit a listing of additional
drawings that would be required for the design of the pump station as well as existing
drawings that are required to be modified. Such requested materials were not provided with
the recent correspondence.
At this time, we suggest that the most effective way to address this issue may be a face-to-face
meeting between the CIP office, and the Consultant's management staff. We are available to attend
at your direction. As always, please advise should you have any questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
/ . (0 Jrb--
Bert Vidal, P. .
Program Manager
c: T. Hemstreet
M. Burgio
K. Mizell
S. Mistry
C.Bennett
File No. 4007/1.4
Page 5 of 5
MB: 4007L097
- '
EXHIBIT 5
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 23,2005
ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO RS&H FOR
NAUTILUS NEIGHBORHOOD
BIHL
Architectural, Engineering, Planning and Environmental Services
REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, INC.
6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200
Miami, Florida 33126
Tel: 786.388.0234 Fax: 786.388,8108
February 1, 2005
Mr. Suresh Mistry, PE
Engineering Coordinator
Hazen and Sawyer, PC
975 Arthur Godfrey Road, Suite 211
Miami Beach, Florida 33140
RE: Request for Additional Design Fees (Rev. - 2)
Neighborhood No.7: Nautilus - ROW Infrastructure Improvement Program
RS&H Project No.: 11120537000
Dear Mr. Mistry:
As per the negotiation meeting held on January 12, 2005, this letter is to submit a revised request for
additional fees related to the design of stormwater improvements for the Nautilus Neighborhood. The services
consist of additional work performed outside the scope of work in order to meet the design criteria
established in the City's Stormwater Master Plan and the construction budget. This request also includes the
fee proposal for the design of the pump stations required in BaSifl 92 and Basin 97" The attached letter from
our subconsultant, RJ Behar, provides a comprehensive description of the additional services provided and
the scope of work associated with the design of the pump stations. The total fee requested for the additional
services is $65,000, as shown on the attached Fee Schedule Summary Sheet.
As always, we are available to meet with you and the City to review this request at your earliest convenience.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, INC.
Stanley Fardin, PE
Project Manager
Cc: Jeff Easley I RS&H
Sam Gonzalez I RS&H
Richard Bolt I RJ Behar
X:\pIMiami BeachlNAUTILUS MBlAdmin\Memos\Nautilus SW Add Design 020105 doc
3tJ III
Ez v
~~ ~
6!i!lJ
Zco"'w
co~ili5
g~ico
jai~~
if ~
!5 ~
.c
lili
l~ogJg~ liUli!liliJ+ I ~I.I..!.~. I i'~I.I....
] l-+', tl'J'--
, I .
0000000,0 lolalcoo'oo 00 0 0 000
I r'+
ooootH
~~ !~..!.
!J
..
~
~
N
I~ fJ11
1000000
I
1000000
~
I~ lii
N
..
'"
! ~
~
co ~
eO
....
'"
! ~
si
<II
= III
S!
..
:. ;;;
eO
~
tot
.
0 '"
~
I
- ooo~oo:J
00 0 0 000
00
000000 00000000 OOOOQOO 00 0 0 000 !ll~
-- -......... ~o
00 000000 00000000 QOOOOoo 0 0 000 0>0
. --. - ~.. - ._. _.' ~- -'-.-
000000 00000000 00000'00 00 0 0 000 oii
'"
00000000
0000000
00 0 0 000
o>!
000'000 0
0000000
00 0 0 000
<O~
~'"
000000
00000100
00
00 0 0 000
uJ
.....
=>
"
uJ
:r
o
m
II:
~
~
Ii;
o
o
z
o
>=
g
II:
I-
m
z""
8
~
f3
o
z
~
J~
w_~__i
., ..
.. ...
,
..
I
a
!II
I
January 31, 200~
MI, Stanley Fardin, PE.
Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc,
6161 Blue Lagoon Dr, Suite 200
Miami, Florida 33126
Subject: Nautilus Neighborhood Project
Stormwater Design - Additional Services Fee Request (Revision - 2)
Dear Stanley:
We respectfully submit this revised Request fO! Additiomtl Services for the above referenced
plOject in the amount of $60,000,00 As discussed at the negotiation meeting held on January 12,
2005, additional services are required beyond the scope of the original contract to comply with
the City's cIiteria fOI flood level and water quality protection services In addition, it is neceSSaIY
to design 2 stOImwater pumping stations and pressurized injection wells in order for the
proposed stOImwater system to meet criteria established in the City's StOImwater Master Plan
based on actual site conditions. The additional services included in this request aI'e as follow:
1. Revise Concept to Include Existin2 Outfalls & Add New Outfalls
The OIiginal design concept in the planning phase (BODR) for the Nautilus neighborhood
assumed a gravity based stormwater disposal system via three new outfalls, one new
outfall in each of the three stormwater basins (Basins 92, 97 & 99) However, as a result
of final topographic survey findings and modeling the system with this data, the
extremely large size of the required outfalls would have resulted in vaIious
constructability issues, In order to reduce the requited sizes, the three new outfalls were
integrated along the three existing outfalls into the proposed system layout.. 1his
combination is required to provide the necessary disposal capacity in order to meet the
City's Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) criteria
2. Coordination for' Easements for Two Proposed Outfalls
As available couidors for the lOuting of the two of the three proposed new outfalls were
limited because of existing implOvements in the neighborhood, we were required to
coordinate our effOIts with the Miami Heart Institute (MHI), to facilitate the execution of
easements for the two plOposed stormwater outfalls, The outfall for Basin 99 will be
located on the west side of the parking area adjacent to the Alton Road Bridge at W 48th
Street.. The other outfall, fOI Basin 97, will be loeated at the south side of the MHI
between the parking structure and the W 47'h Street Bridge
3. Pump Station Plans and Calculations (Basins 92 and 97)
During the course of our design development and modeling effOIts, it was determined
that the Nautilus neighborhood has "low lying areas" in two of the priority basins (Basin
92 & 97) that will require two pump stations and presswized injection wells, combined
with the originally planned gravity wells, The "low lying ateas" were discovered upon
review of the completed topographic survey fOI the neighbOIhood. The gravity system
originally proposed could not eliminate the significant level of flooding in those meas
due to the lack of available driving head The two pump stations (one per basin) are
necessary in Older to meet the City's SWMP criteria for allowable flooding and required
quality treatment The design of the pmnp stations and presswized i:Qjection wells
(including calculations and plans) and revision of the system layout to incOlporate the
pump stations and presswized injection wells was not included in ow base ~cope of
services We estimate that the pump station plans and presswized injection wells will
require an additional 15 plan sheets as shown in Attachment A
Attached please find a breakdown of our fee request for the additional work effort outlined
above,
We respectfully request that RS&H pwsue this Iequest for additional funds.. If you have any
questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (954) 680-7771
Sincerely,
R.J. BEHAR & COMPANY, INC.
Juan Vazquez, P.E
Vice President
Cc: File 01026, B. Behar, R. Bolt
F:\#O I 022\Contract File\RSH-Nautilus-addl-service-requcst-l- 31-05 doc
In
I I 0
-
I .-4
I en 0
z -
I N
0
I i ! i=
I <(
I 19 G
ll..!
!z' z ~i
: I
'0' 0 :J'
~ I!;:! i=! ll..
<( I
t; 1-' 1-1 I-
~\ il 0
jo..[ al:
I~i :J' '~I
ill..! 0..' iLL.
j
Ii I I-
<..> <..> llil
'USI US c(
W Ii
tij I- tij en:
IW iW
UJ iW, Wi il- .
I J:: J:: tj
(/') (/') enl
.:~ .....
I ; I
<<It , 1 !
:) I
... .
I=U<<It '<t N ,N N N 11).
:)z... l
"'IU
CC .. IU
z~:c
.......<<It
CC ....Z
,O:C"
...ZOJool
ZOzU) I I
IUOCCIU
::EO:CO I , i
:c:ct:;~
U":::EU) I
egU)cl
c:Cui'Z
"00
......s
1U0
ZZO
IU>O
IUIUC
u...::
IU
I
C
en
z
0
'~, en
,W'
:J II-
<..> 0
..J Z
,< en ol.l
<..> 0 en
ol.ll Ii= ....I
en 'e(' ,~
....I :E
enl ;;( W W
'1- I C
..J W 0 I- ,
;;( C en z I
I- en' it'>, W
'W ....I ,:E
C W z' e
0:: 10-
en z 5 I
:J ,~ ~ I III
0 0 :z:
W ..JI Z ..J ..J W en
'z ~I 1:5, II! 01 W: i Q
:5 0::, 0' I ~
~I 1-
....I' ~I I~ I~ ~
Wi ~
,~I iO
fWI III
1..J1 I 0, ca
i:E, Wi ! r t-J ~