LTC 072-2005 Status Report on the 41st Street Bridges Project
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Manager
Letter to Commission No. 072-2005
m
To:
From:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. GOnZalezJ ~~
City Manager 0
STATUS REPORT ON THE 41ST STREET BRIDGES PROJECT
Date: March 17,2005
Subject:
Pursuant to a recent request for information regarding the status of the 41 sl Street Bridges
project, please find the following.
The 41 sl Street Bridges project (Project) includes planned improvements as follows: new
sidewalks, new bridge lighting and decorative lighting, architectural handrail improvements,
decorative tile installations, paving and markings. The Project has been delayed repeatedly
because of differences between the available budgeted funds and the consultant cost
estimates, as well as the bid amount provided by the sole contractor who responded to Bid
Invitation No. 22-03/04. The initial cost estimate provided by the consultant, Consul Tech,
Inc. (Consul Tech), in January 2003, in the amount of $605,776, was the basis for the initial
budget but was proven to be much lower than the market cost of the Project at the time the
bid by Ric Man International, Inc. (Ric Man) was received.
Because only one bid was received on the Project, in the amount of $969,845, the City
entered into negotiations with Ric Man in an attempt to reach an agreement that would be
close to or within the established funding. This attempt included a thorough evaluation of
the bid, a comparison with the consultant's estimate, and some value engineering. After
several areas were identified by Ric Man and the City where costs could be revisited, the
contractor provided a final revised cost in the amount of$1 ,274,500, which was higher than
the original bid provided by Ric Man. The justification from Ric Man for this higher amount
was that significant time had passed from submittal of the original bid to the submittal of
the revised bid, and that costs had escalated during that time. This cost still exceeded the
budget significantly.
Subsequently, the City initiated a pricing exercise with a contractor available through the
City's Job Order Contracting Program (JOC). The cost estimate submitted by F&L
Construction (F&L), in the amount of $1,180,750, while slightly less than the last proposal
submitted by Ric Man, still far exceeded the initial budget amount. Because the City still
had concerns about the accuracy of the pricing received both from Ric Man and F&L,
Consul Tech was asked to update their previous estimate which was now approximately
two years old. The new estimate provided by Consult Tech is in the amount of$1 ,045,213,
which places it reasonably close to the costs submitted by both the bid contractor and the
JOC contractor but above the original budget.
41 st Street Bridges Status Report - LTC
March 17, 2005
Page 2 of 3
After evaluating the revised estimate provided by the consultant, the Administration has
decided to exercise the right of rejection of a single bid, pursuant to City Code Section 2-
367, and has issued a letter to Ric Man informing them of the bid rejection and that the City
does not intend to pursue this Project with them any further. This letter was issued by the
Procurement Division on March 2,2005.
In order to try to expedite construction, the City has decided to pursue the Project with the
JOC contractor and to not issue a new Invitation to Bid (ITB). F&L stated in late February
2005 that they were still interested in the Project and that they would provide a final firm
price within six weeks. This new price should be available in April 2005 and the Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) Office will make every effort to try and expedite it further if at
all possible.
Because of the time that has transpired since the documents were first completed in
December 2000, Consul Tech was asked to review the documents, update them to current
codes and resubmit them for permitting to the appropriate agencies. The electrical
drawings will be resubmitted to the City's Building Department for approval next week. The
documents will also be resubmitted to the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) because the
previous approval has expired. The Planning Department has stated they will assist us
with the application in order to simplify it and expedite it given that there was a previous
Order. The Building Department review is expected to be completed by the end of March
2005. The HPB presentation will be made at the May 2005 meeting.
The City's Public Works Department (PWD) has also asked to review the documents again
and is currently doing so. Because work will be performed in the Right of Way, PWD wants
to review a Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plan and has asked for a possible phasing of the
project. PWD is scheduled to complete their review by the end of March 2005.
An issue that has caused some previous confusion has been a clause which was placed
on some permit documents stating that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
would not allow construction to be performed during the City of Miami Beach's main
season. This clause has also caused delays in trying to implement the Project since often
the window of opportunity has been missed while negotiating with the contractors regarding
the submitted proposals. FDOT has now stated that this clause on the permit actually was
requested by City personnel. At this time, the Administration has not been able to verify
how this request came about and therefore has asked FDOT whether they would issue an
extension to the permit without the seasonal restriction and FDOT has stated they could do
so, since the Project has not changed in scope or content. The letter formally asking for the
new permit to be issued without the seasonal restriction will be sent to FDOT as soon as
PWD and CIP have come to an understanding of the project permit issues.
Additional funding will need to be identified as soon as the final cost from F&L is received,
reviewed, and compared to available funding. Because of the time sensitive issues, in
order to expedite the Project, and to avoid further delays, CI P intends to prepare a phasing
plan where one of the bridges, possibly the Indian Creek Bridge, is constructed first so that
disturbance to 41 sl Street is lessened, and to avoid conflict with major events or with
important City activities.
41 st Street Bridges Status Report - LTC
March 17, 2005
Page 2 of 3
As soon as the first bridge is completed, the second bridge construction timeline will be
established and Notices to Proceed (NTP) will be issued. F&L has estimated that they
could substantially complete the first bridge within four months and the second bridge
within two months. Adding the time for final completion and a possible lag time between
construction of both phases, it is expected that the total construction period will be
approximately one year from the start. If the lag period can be shortened, depending on
City needs, the project may be completed in a shorter timeframe. This places completion of
the Project at around June 2006. A final schedule will be submitted after the first NTP for
review and approval.
Once the final cost submitted by F&L is found to be acceptable, CIP will present an
additional appropriation request before the City Commission, which at this time is
anticipated to be in May 2005. If approved, the City could proceed with issuing first NTP in
June 2005 to begin mobilization and contract finalization, and possibly the second NTP in
early July to begin construction of the Project. At that time a decision on whether to phase
the Project or whether to proceed with full construction will have been made. During this
period, CIP will continue working with the regulatory agencies to finalize the permit
requirements.
If you have further questions or require additional information please let me or Jorge E.
ch~a~~fcting Director CIP Office, know.
JMG~EC
c: Tim Hemstreet, Acting Assistant City Manager
Robert C. Middaugh, Assistant City Manager
Fred Beckmann, Public Works Director
Jorge E. Chartrand, Acting CIP Office Director
F:\CAPI\$all\chartrand\41 St Bridges L TC.doc
, J 0
,"."U_
U1 AJ
_..' :J:
, - ]:::,. in
:::0 (')
-i~"
co f"n
, '8,
" ;:::- <t-'\"........
(J) --:... -
~
c.::i rn
",,"f 0
..,., 0
U1
(")
rrl