HomeMy WebLinkAbout523-2006 RDA Reso RESOLUTION NO. 523-2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF
THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA),
RATIFYING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
RELEASE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE TOWER
GROUP IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT AND
RELEASE OF ALL CITY CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
AGAINST BOTH ENTITIES FOR THE SCOPE OF WORK
FOR THE REGIONAL LIBRARY PROJECT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF ~ $150,000.00, AND FURTHER
APPROPRIATING $150,000 TO THE CITY FOR SAID
SETTLEMENT, FROM CITY CENTER REDEVELOPMENT
AREA FUNDS.
WHEREAS, The Tower Group (TTG) was issued a contract by the City of Miami
Beach to construct the new City Regional Library, within the Collins area, in the City Center
Redevelopment Area; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2002 Notice to Proceed (NTP) was issued; and
WHEREAS, the contract schedule of 426 days was established with a projected
completion date of July 6, 2003; and
WHEREAS, Substantial Completion was not achieved until June 10, 2004; and
WHEREAS, TTG attributed the delays to change orders initiated by both the City
and Miami-Dade County and submitted a construction delay claim to the City on December
23, 2004; and
WHEREAS, a claim presented by TTG included a list of 15-items that it stated were
beyond their control and requested a contract time extension of 434 days, with additional
compensation totaling $518,670; and
WHEREAS, an initial review of the documents submitted by TTG was carried out to
assess the claim's validity; and
WHEREAS, City staff determined that TTG had the basis for a construction delay
claim and proceeded to direct URS Corporation (URS) to conduct an in-depth analysis of
the claim and prepare a report of its findings; and
WHEREAS, following the City's initial review of the documents submitted by TTG, an
in-depth detailed analysis of all available documentation associated with the claim was
conducted by URS Corporation; and
WHEREAS, Comparison of the City's project documentation to TTG's claim confirmed
that TTG had indeed sustained construction delays; and
WHEREAS, URS' analysis established that 162 days of delay could be attributable
to items for which TTG had little or no control; and
WHEREAS, In consideration of the justifiable construction delays, the limited
change order percentage, and The Tower Group's total cooperation with the City, in
negotiating a reasonable settlement and expediting the project to final completion a
provisional settlement amount of $150,000 was offered by the City, subject to approval by
the Mayor and Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Administration's offer was subsequently accepted by TTG in its
letter, dated December 14, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director hereby recommends that the Chairman and
Members ratify the attached Settlement Agreement and Release, and jointly approve and
authorize the appropriation of $150,000 from City Center Redevelopment Area funds for
said settlement.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FLORIDA that the
Chairman and Members hereby ratify the attached Settlement Agreement and Release
between the City and The Tower Group, in full and final settlement and release of all
claims for damages against both entities for the scope of work for the Regional Library
Project, in the amount of $150,000; and further appropriate to the City for said Settlement,
$150,000 from the City Center Redevelopment Area funds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of J a/¢ja~
/
A.r:.]-ES~.: .. ·
Robert" P&rcher David Dormer
~.~<OVED AS TO
~OR~ & tAN~UAGM
~ p ~t^~ ., ~
T:~GENDAL?.006\jan1106\Regular\Tower Settlement Agreement-RLibrary-RESOL.2006 1.11.06 jsp .doc
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency appropriating funds for a Settlement Agreement between
the City and The Tower Group for the Regional Library, in the amount of $150,000.00, from the City
Center RDA fund.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
I Ensure well-designed quality capital projects.
Issue:
IShall the Redevel°pment Agency (RDA) B°ard appr°priate the funding f°r the settlement with TheTower Group on the Regional Library project?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
Following the execution of the construction contract in the amount of $7,195,069, The Tower Group (TTG)
was issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP) on May 6, 2002. A Contract schedule of 426 days was established
with a projected completion date of July 6, 2003. As a result of delays attributable to numerous change
orders, the project was not certified as Substantially Complete until June 10, 2004. The Contractor
attributed the delays to change orders initiated by both the City and Miami-Dade County and to unforeseen
conditions and submitted a construction delay claim to the City on December 23, 2004. The claim
presented by TTG (Exhibit B.) included a list of fifteen items that TTG stated were beyond their control and
requested a contract time extension of 434 days, with additional compensation totaling $518,670.
An initial review of the documents submitted by TTG was carried out to assess the claim's validity. Of the
fifteen delay items submitted, the ADA compliance issues significantly impacted the schedule, as Miami-
Dade County added to their initial list of requirements on two separate occasions. Consequently, City staff
determined that TTG had the basis for a construction delay claim and proceeded to direct URS
Corporation (URS) to conduct an in-depth analysis of the claim and prepare a report of its findings.
Independent of URS' analysis, City staff reviewed and categorized each of the project's construction
change orders (COs) in terms of what triggered the need for the CO. It was determined that - of a total of
fifteen (15) construction change orders representing $1.1 Million in additional construction costs -close to
75% of the new work was due to changes and/or additions to the original contract scope resulting from
Owner Requests (City of Miami Beach and Miami-Dade County ). Examples of these additional Owner
Requests included: expanding the project scope to include a $509,953 streetscape component; $84,765
for a data and voice installation; and additional ADA revisions totaling approximately $85,000. The change
orders submitted by TTG, resulting from unforeseen conditions and design errors and omissions,
accounted for only $201,241 of the project's $8,298,056 construction cost, or 2.4% of the total. Examples
of these change orders include the removal of underground storage tanks and the soil monitoring required
as a result of the removal, and the removal of an existing ficus tree. In consideration of the justifiable
construction delays, the limited change order percentage, and TTG's total cooperation with the City in
negotiating a reasonable settlement and in assisting with the final completion of the project, the
Administration recommends that the RDA Board appropriate $150,000.00 from the City Center RDA Fund.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I N/A
Financial Information:
Source of . Amount Account Approved
Fund~/ 1 $150,000 City Center RDA
OBPI ~'~ Total $150,000 City Center RDA
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
I
Sign-Offs:
[ r~~lntDirect°r I ~s~:[a'~tyManagerj~//f~ TH ~ ~_~ City Manager
MIAMIBEACH
~ DATE
MIAMI BEACH
Ci~ ~! ,~i~i I~¢~¢h, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: January 11, 2006
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000, FROM THE CITY
CENTER RDA FUND FOR A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BE'rWEEN THE
CITY AND THE TOWER GROUP, IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT AND
RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FOR THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR
THE REGIONAL LIBRARY.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
HISTORY
On September 23, 1998, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 98-2904,
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement with the firm of Robert A.M.
Stern Architects (Stern) for the architectural and engineering design of a Regional Library, a
400 space Parking Garage and Park and Streetscape Improvements in the area surrounding
Collins Park.
On January 6, 1999, the Mayor and City Commission authorized appropriation of the funding
necessary to implement the Agreement with Stern and authorized an amendment, which
reflected a change in scope, deleting the Parking Garage and adding the surface lots. This
Agreement, as part of the Master Plan, the demolition of the existing library, once the new
building was occupied.
On November 2, 2001, the Regional Library documents were advertised for bid. Six bids
were received on December 19, 2001. On April 10, 2002, The Mayor and City Commission
accepted a recommendation from the Administration and adopted Resolution No. 2002-
24828 awarding the construction contract for the Project to The Tower Group (TTG).
On May 13, 2002, TTG was given Notice to Proceed and Construction began on the new
library. At that time, it was expected that a Final Certificate of Occupancy and Substantial
Completion would be secured for the new library by the end of August 2003. Numerous
delays and schedule extensions were experienced during construction due to several
factors. Some schedule extensions were due to City requests, such as the inclusion of the
Streetscape construction around the new library building. This was initially envisioned as a
stand alone project, however, it was later deemed more efficient to add it to the TTG
Agreement. Other schedule extensions were caused by unforeseen conditions, such as the
discovery of abandoned underground tanks at the former Fruit Stand site.
Commission Memorandum
January 11, 2006
Regional Library - Tower Group Settlement
Page 2 of 4
Some delays were related to other issues such as document errors and the contractor was
compensated for time extensions as change orders were approved. The City diligently
worked with both the consultant and the contractor to expedite completion of the Project. A
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) was secured on June 8, 2004 which allowed
building occupancy and is a prerequisite for Substantial Completion, and the Substantial
Completion Certificate was obtained by June 10, 2004. Construction work was completed
and a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was issued in November, 2004.
Despite the completion of the Project, TTG continued to work with the City in order to
address the issues raised by Miami-Dade County and their regulatory agencies as well as
other items that were found to be in need of modification by library staff. This process has
taken over nine months to complete. These items included ADA adjustments; installation of
an additional drain at the entrance canopy; re-caulking of windows considered by the City to
be a warranty issue; and handrails requested by library staff in the entrance ramp, which
were not required by code.
ANALYSIS
Following the execution of the construction contract in the amount of $7,195,069, TTG was
issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP) on May 6, 2002. A Contract schedule of 426 days was
established with a projected completion date of July 6, 2003. As a result of delays and
schedule extensions attributable to the change orders, the project was not certified as
Substantially Complete until June 10, 2004. The Contractor attributed the delays to change
orders initiated by both the City and Miami-Dade County and submitted a construction delay
claim to the City on December 23, 2004. The delay claim presented by TTG (Exhibit B)
included a list of fifteen items that it stated were beyond their control and requested a
contract time extension of 434 days, with additional compensation totaling $518,670.
An initial review of the documents submitted by TTG was carried out to assess the claim's
validity. Of the fifteen delay items submitted, the ADA compliance issues significantly
impacted the schedule, as Miami-Dade County added to their initial list of requirements on
two separate occasions. The addition of the Streetscape work also added a significant
amount of time to the initial schedule. Both of these scope changes were not within the
control of TTG. Consequently, City staff determined that TTG had the basis for a
construction delay claim and proceeded to direct UP, S Corporation (URS) to conduct an in-
depth analysis of the claim and prepare a report of its findings (Exhibit A).
URS proceeded to evaluate all available documentation for each of the items submitted by
TTG and transferred the data to a baseline construction schedule of 473 days. The baseline
construction schedule is the initial schedule established at the time of contract award. This
is the schedule that is used to assess contract delays and evaluate time extension claims. It
is also used to track progress on the project. It should be noted that the 473-day time
extension extrapolated from the baseline schedule using TTG's data, differs from the 434
days presented in their official claim.
The reason for this difference is that the baseline schedules developed by URS for their
report used "Early Start" and "Early Finish" dates, based on when the activities should have
started, as per the original baseline schedule, as opposed to an "As-Built" schedule. The
"As-Built" schedule is a schedule that reflects the actual events in the Project construction
and differs from the baseline schedule in that it contains the delays encountered and
adjustments made in the prosecution of the work. The baseline schedule was used to
compare initial scheduling data submitted by TTG with project management records
Commission Memorandum
January 11, 2006
Regional Library - Tower Group Settlement
Page 3 of 4
maintained by URS. Comparison of the City's project documentation to TTG's claim
confirmed that TTG had indeed sustained construction delays and schedule time
extensions. URS' analysis established that 162 days of time extensions could be
attributable to items for which TTG had little or no control.
The difference in the number of days established by URS and the 434 days submitted by
TTG was addressed through a series of negotiations between the administration, URS and
TTG. The validity of each item presented as a delay or schedule time adjustment, as well as
its impact on the project's critical path was carefully scrutinized. In consideration of the
justifiable and compensable time extensions, the cost of prospective litigation, and the fact
that TTG continued to work with the City in addressing additional Project modifications, a
provisional settlement, in the amount of $150,000, was offered by the City, subject to
agreement by TTG. The offer was subsequently accepted by TTG, without the need for
mediation or litigation, in their letter dated December 14, 2005 (Exhibit C).
Independent of URS' analysis, City staff reviewed and categorized each of the project's
construction change orders (COs) in terms of what triggered the need for the CO and any
impact it may have had on the Project's schedule. It was determined that of a total of fifteen
(15) construction change orders representing $1.1 Million in additional construction costs,
close to seventy five percent (75%) of the new work was due to changes and/or additions to
the original contract scope resulting from Owner Requests (City of Miami Beach and Miami-
Dade County ) or unforeseen conditions. Examples of these additional costs included:
expanding the project scope to include a $509,953 Streetscape component; $84,765 for a
data and voice system installation; and additional ADA revisions totaling approximately
$85,000. The change orders submitted by TTG, resulting from other issues and from design
errors and omissions, accounted for only $201,241 of the project's $8,298,056 construction
cost, or 2.4% of the total. The removal of underground storage tanks and the soil monitoring
required as a result of the removal, in addition to the removal of an existing ficus tree,
account for some of the change orders resulting from unforeseen conditions and design
omissions.
The City previously addressed a claim by Stern for additional services which was eventually
negotiated to account for their errors and omissions and for the delays that were caused by
inconsistencies in the documents. Nevertheless, in these instances, the contractor is usually
entitled to compensation for the additional costs as well as for time extensions where
applicable. The TTG claim settlement takes into account these issues as well as the
additional scope issues previously explained. City staff as well as URS has determined that
a number of justifiable and compensable delays are appropriate, and the value of the claim
which is being recommended already takes into account those time extension requests and
claims for delays which the City deems not applicable. In accepting the settlement offer
made by the City, TTG has accepted this assessment of the Project's time extensions and
the amount of the compensation offered by City staff.
Considering that projects typically allow a contingency of at least ten percent (10%) of
construction costs to account for unforeseen conditions and other possible change orders,
speaks well to TTG's performance on the Project, since the total amount of these types of
change orders represents only 2.4% of the total project cost which is well within the
acceptable range. It is important to note that during the project's duration, TTG never
adopted a confrontational or adversarial position; on the contrary, the contractor was
instrumental in helping to complete the project without further unnecessary delays.
Remedial work was done expeditiously; the change orders resulting from additional ADA
Commission Memorandum
January 11, 2006
Regional Library - Tower Group Settlement
Page 4 of 4
work requested by the County were negotiated at competitive prices and completed in a
timely manner; and TTG collaborated with the CIP Office and URS in resolving a number of
design-related issues with the Consultant to expedite final completion.
CONCLUSION
In consideration of the justifiable and compensable construction time extensions, the limited
change order percentage, and The Tower Group's total cooperation with the City, in
negotiating a reasonable settlement and expediting the project to final completion, the
Administration recommends approval of the $150,000 settlement offer to TTG, and
recommends that the Redevelopment Agency appropriate funds, in the amount of $150,000,
from the City Center RDA fund.
T:~,GE N DA~2006\jan 1106\Regular\TowerSettlement Ag reement-RLibrary-MEMO.doc
REGIONAL LIBRARY
REVIEW OF "THE TOWER GROUPS"
DELAY CLAIM
THE CITY of MIAMI BEACH
by
URS CORPORATION
INDEX
I. Introduction
II. Summary
III. The Tower Group's Claim (Summary Letter)
IV. Reconstruction of Base Line Schedule Using
The Tower Group's Data
V. Reconstruction of Base Line Schedule Using
URS' s Data
VI. TTG's Claim (Details)
Introduction
_
The Tower Group (TTG) was issued a contract to construct The City
Miami Beach Regional Library. On May 6, 2002 an NTP was issued.
The Contract schedule of 426 days established a projected completion
date of July 6, 2003. Substantial Completion was not awarded until
June 10, 2004, 340 days late. The Contractor attributed the delays to
the City and submitted a claim to the City on December 23, 2004. A
claim presented by TTG listed 15-items that it stated were beyond
TTG's control and claimed 434 days of compensation for a total
value of $518,670.
An initial review of the documents submitted by TTG was carried out
to assess the claim's validity. Determining that TTG had a basis for a
claim a series of meetings was held between the administration, URS
and Mr. Tony Burke, President and CEO of TTG. A provisional
settlement offer, subject to the approval of the Mayor and City
Commission, of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand ($150,000) Was
subsequently made to and accepted by TTG.
Summary
Initial review of the TTG claim illustrated that TTG had been
impacted by delays for which they had no or little control over. In
order to try and resolve the claim without incurring, what would be
substantial litigation fees, meetings were held with TTG in order to
gain the order of magnitude of a settlement fee that would be
acceptable to both the City and TTG. Each delay item was discussed
as to its merit, impact on the projects schedule and the actual cost
impact to TTG. TTG maintained that should they be forced to seek
compensation through litigation they would ask for the full 917 days,
or the equivalent of $1,095,815, as stated in their claim letter of
December 23, 2004. With the City still holding retention exceeding
$200,000 the saving in not litigating the case and the fact that TTG
continued to work in completing the' project a provisional settlement
amount of $150,000 was offered and subsequently accepted, subject
to ratification by the Mayor and Commission, by TTG.
Subsequent to the initial review of the documents submitted by TTG
an in-depth detailed analysis of the claim was carried out. The
analysis included review of all documentation available and
transferring, to a project Base Line schedule, first the data as
submitted by TTG and second that obtained from the files by URS in
order to see the overall impact in each case. The results identified that
TTG had sustained some delay for which they were not responsible.
The extent of that delay was determined as between 162 days
($150,000) based on URS data and 473 days ($518,670) based on
TTG data.
The variation in the delay assessed for each scenario is due to two
factors. The validity of each item presented as a delay and their
impact on the project's critical path.
It should be noted that the delay extrapolated from the baseline
schedule using TTG's data, 473 days, differs from that presented in
their official claim of 434 days. The reason for this difference is that
the baseline schedules included in this report are not "As-Built"
schedules but use "Early Start" and "Early Finish" dates based on
when the activities should have started based on the original baseline
schedule.
In addition the Days Delayed, as shown in the spreadsheet titled "The
Tower Group's Delay Claim," are the result of the dates provided by
TTG (1120 days) producing "The Tower Group's Position" versus
using data in the project files, such as correspondence, RFI's etc., to
produce .the position representing the ("Facts in Evidence"). The
delay days for each of the items (activities) are cumulative and are not
meant to represent the actual impact to the overall schedule but only
the delay to the individual activity.
A brief description relative to each item within TTG's claim follows:
Item 1. Three unforeseen underground storage tanks:
Three abandoned underground fuel storage tanks where encountered
during excavation. The plans provided the contractor made no
reference of the tanks and required a remediation report be prepared
by the Architect and approved by DERM before work could continue.
Item 2. Two unforeseen underground piles:
Two abandoned underground concrete piles where encountered
during construction of the buildings foundation. Contractor's work
incurred delay until direction was provided by the Architect.
Item 3. Unforeseen Conflicts with existing underground footings:
Abandoned underground concrete foundations were encountered
during construction delaying work until resolution by the Architect.
Item 4. Incorrect survey document:
The survey drawing provided the Contractor did not provide the
property boundaries or indicate dimensionally the project limits
delaying layout of the work until a revised survey could be provided
by the Architect.
Item 5. Tree Conflict:
An existing Ficus tree not identified on the project drawings.
Contractor's work incurred delay until a resolution could be provided
by Architect.
Item 6. Missing Structural Drawings:
The Contractor was not issued at the time of contract award a set of
structural drawings approved by the Building dept. Contractor's work
incurred delay until the issue could be resolved by the Architect.
Item 7. Independent Testing Laboratory:
The contract with the Contractor called for the City to provide the
services of an independent testing laboratory. Contractor's work
incurred delay until the city hired an independent testing laboratory.
Item 8. Independent Threshold Inspector:
The contract with the Contractor called for the City to provide the
services of an independent threshold inspector. Contractor's work
incurred delay until the city hired an independent threshold inspector.
Item 9. ADA Compliance Inspection:
The first ADA compliance inspection identified certain corrective
work. After completion and upon the second ADA inspection a
significant number of additional items were requested. Contractor's
work incurred delay until the issue could be resolved by the Architect.
Item 10. FDEP Storm Drain Requirements:
The Contractor was advised that an on-site independent
environmental monitoring company was required to address potential
contamination concerns. Contractor's work incurred delay until the
issue was resolved by the Architect
Item 11. Fire Safety:
The first fire compliance inspection identified issues with the number
of sprinkler heads which reSulted in a revision to the working
drawings. Contractor's work incurred delay until the issue was
resolved by the Architect.
Item 12. As-Built Drawings:
The Contractor provided the City's Building Dept. with a set of As-
Built drawings in accordance with the contract. The City's Building
dept. subsequently requested that they be provided with a set of
Signed and S~aled As-Built drawings. Contractor suggests that this
was not a contractual requirement and as such he incurred a delay
achieving final completion.
Item 13. Emergency Lighting:
The first fire compliance inspection identified a deficiency in the
lighting design levels. Contractor's work incurred delay until the
issue was resolved by the Architect.
Item 14. Fire Dampers Access:
Duct rough-in was not approved initially by the City's Building
department. The Building department requested that the Architect
provide a letter stating that the dampers were preset and did not
require local access. Contractor's work incurred delay until the issue.
was resolved by the Architect.
Item 15. Special Reading Room- Ducting:
Modifications were required to the duct layout and lighting to
accommodate the light cove. Contractor's work incurred delay until
the issue was resolved by the Architect.
Of the 15-delay items submitted, the ADA compliance issues (item-
9), proved to be significant with the County adding to their list of
requirements on two separate occasions, Not all of the items were
code requirement and work carded out 'by County employees on the
window frames rather than being remedial in nature is contrary to the
manufacturer's specifications. Also, last minute changes required by
the County including the exterior ramp handrail have only just been
completed.
TTG has provided a letter, a copy of which is included herein, stating
that their delay claim encompasses all issues of time on the project
from inception through to Final Completion of the project.
TTG Letter No. 0207 - 00234
December 23, 2004
lOWER
ROUE Mr. Mauro Burigo,P.E.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
'- 1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL. 33139
~ Genera~
Contractors
"-' Reference: Miami Beach Regional Library
Construction City of Miami Beach Project No. 9802
:~l Management
--~ Subject: Request for Compensation Regarding Extended Field Conditions
Based on Changes to the Project
I Construction
~, Dear Mr. Burgio
~ l As you are aware, this project has endured many significant delays as a result of changes
..-,' Design-Build to the work, unforeseen obstructions, and changes by jurisdictional departments.
Pursuant to your direction, we have summarized the following items of work which had
the most severe impact on the project. This schedule allowed for the quantification of
Planning time lost as a result of these impacts. Attached hereto, is a spreadsheet depicting the
time allocations for the extended field conditions for which TTG is basing this request
for compensation. Each Activity ID represents a corresponding section of the request
~[~ Site Development documentation to further substantiate the entitlement for each occurrence as follows:
Item 1. Three Unforeseen underground storage tanks and corresponding handling of
~1 ~ro~meture contaminated material on site. The total duration of this extra work was 277 days from
-J the date of notification to the completion of the work.
Comumng Item 2. Two unforeseen underground piles impacting the installation of the footers for
- the library structure. The total duration for this unforeseen condition was 27 days from
the date of notification until the crew was able to regain its current position prior to the
Estimating underground discovery of the piles.
Item 3. Unforeseen conflicts with existing underground footings impacting the
$chedultng installation of the new footers for the library structure. The total duration for this
unforeseen condition was 115 days from the date the obstructions were discovered until
the subcontractor was able to continue with the work.
Value Engineering
~ Item 4. Delays associated with an incorrect survey provided as part of the contract
documents. The duration for this unknown condition was 20 days from the date of
po~ Construction notification until the issue was resolved.
~ Item 5. A Ficus Tree within the foot print of the new library had to be removed. This
CGCA38309 tree was to be removed by the City prior to Notice-to-Proceed to the Tower Group. The
duration of the unplanned event was 25 days from the date from notification until the
tree was removed. A tree removal permit from DERM was required and is responsible
for a significant portion of the time involved.
,.
405 S.W. 148th Avenue * Suite One * Davie, Florida 33325 * Tel: 954.476.3200 * Fax: 954o474.3111
7601 S.W. Lost River Road · Stuart, Florida 34497 * Tel: 772-287.7525 · Fax: 772.287-7524
9440 Philips Highway, Suite#5 · Jacksonville, Florida 32256 * Tel: 904-292-1811 · Fax: 904-292-4865
TTG Letter No. 0207-00234
December 23, 2004
Page 2 of 3
Item 6. The contract documents did not contain the necessary structural drawings.
These drawings were still with the Building Department at the time the Notice-to-
proceed was issued. TTG acquired these drawings after 27 days.
Item 7. Pursuant to the contract documents, the Owner is to hire an independent testing
laboratory to perform the field testing. The Owner was notified by TTG that one had not
been appointed prior to June 12, 2002. After 14 days, LAW Engineering was present
and the construction continued.
Item 8. Pursuant to the contract documents, the Owner is to provide an independent
engineering firm to be the Threshold inspector of record. On June 20, 2002, TTG was
refused inspection by the City's building Department. The City quickly responded to
this request for corrective action to mitigate the time loss to 6 days.
Item 9. TTG Complete the project in accordance with the contract documents.
However, during the first ADA compliance inspection, four items required corrective
action. Subsequently, during the re-inspection, a significant number of items which
required corrective action were added. These items have been quantified with respect to
the cost of the work in Change Order No. 14. The duration of these changes by the
building department was a total of 102 days.
Item 10. The storm drain revisions were the result of a request by the Department of
Environmental Resources. TTG was provided with revised permitted drawings and the
subcontractor, which demobilized at the start of this issue, returned on February 23,
2003. The total impact of this revision was 19 days.
Item 11. TTG Complete the project in accordance with the contract documents.
However, during the first Fire compliance inspection, several items required corrective
action. 'Most importantly, the designed quantity of fire sprinklers did not meet the
neceSSary coverage. Subsequently, the building was re-evaluated and a redesign resulted
in order to meet the fire marshal's requirements for approval. The duration of these
changes by the fire department was a total of 99 days.
Item 12. TTG supplied the owner with a complete set of Red line as-built drawings as
required by the contract documents. The redline drawings were put into Auto-CAD
format and submitted to the City Building Department. These drawings were rejected
because they were not signed and sealed as required by the Building Department. After
almost five months, TTG hired a registered professional engineer to evaluate the
drawings and issue a signed and sealed version to the building department in order to
minimize any further delays.
Item 13.. TTG Complete the project in accordance with the contract documents.
However, during the first Fire compliance inspection, several items required corrective
action. Most importantly, the designed quantity of emergency lights did not meet the
necessary coverage. Subsequently, the building was re-evaluated and a redesign resulted
in order to meet the fire marshal's requirements for approval. The duration of these
changes by the fire department was a total of 159 days.
TTG Letter No. 0207-00234
December 23, 2004
Page 3 of 3
Item 14. TTG Complete the project in accordance with the contract documents.
However, during the first duct rough-in inspection, the inspection was declared a fail by
the building department due to failure to have access to the cut damper controls. The
building department requested a letter from the design professionals stating the dampers
are preset and locked in place. This letter was provided in a timely manner. However
the sequence of construction for this change was significant and unplanned. The
balancing of air flows, without the ceiling being installed or the electrical circuits being
terminated and complete, created a hardship for the subcontractor. This unplanned
change created inefficiencies in th~ performance of his scope of work. The total impact
resulted in a net 38 day time impact to the project.
Item 15. The duct work was modified to accommodate the light cove in front of the
Special Reading room Entrance. The Architect was quick to provide a solution and
redesign of the duct work in order to minimize the delays. The ceiling height was
adjusted, the duct size was reduced, and the light fixtures were changed to accommodate
this situation. The total impact of this redesign was 42 days.
Although each item contains a period of time which was impacted by the
aforementioned changes, many of these time impacts are concurrent compensable days.
The Tower Group bid this project with a planned field condition cost for four hundred
twenty-six (426) days. The duration of the project exceeded Nine hundred seventeen
(917) days. TTG has been compensated for most of the cost related to the actual
changes in the work. On each occasion, we have reserved the right to request additional
compensation for extended field (general) conditions.
Pursuant to the attached cost breakdown, The Tower Group respectfully submits this
Request for Compensation in the amount of $518,670.00and a contract time extension of
434 days. We will gladly meet with you to discuss the components of this document.
Similarly, we are confident you will agree with the entitlement and amount of this
request.
TTG stands ready to assist in anyway possible to bring closure to this issue and complete
'this very important project. Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen Decker
Division Manage~---~
Cc: Mr. Jim 13~fi:elli, B&A
Mr. Jorge Chartrand, CMB
File
General December 14, 2005 Fax: 305-884-:~665
Construction Stephen Baumai
Management Construct/o~ Manager
URS Com. o~o~
7650 Corporate Center Drive
Suite//401
Cons~ucuon Miami, Florida 33126-1220
Oe~ign-~uild
Dear Steve:
I~nning
The purpose of this letter is to inform you and The City of Miami Beach, that Tower
Group will not be seeking any additional damages, overhead, profit or funds beyond the
s~ ~velo~ent settlement agreement that the parties have accepted ($150,000.00).
fn~rammaum Thank you for your assistance in settling this matter and we look forward to closing om
the project.
E~timMingCOnmulting ~
~ony J. Burke, CEO
,8cheduli~
Value Engineering
Post Constru~on
405 SW 148u~ Avenue · Suite One · Davie, Florida 33325, Tel: 954.476.3200 · Fax: 954.474.3111
7601 S.W. Lost River Road , Stuart, Florida 34497 , Tel: 772-287-7525, Fax: 772.287.7524
9440 Phillips Highww, Suite ~ , Jacl~onville, Flodda 32256 , Tel: 904.292.1811 , 904.292.4865