Laserfiche WebLink
2. Right -of -Way coordination and sketches <br />Our original proposal was predicated on <br />information which indicated that all of the <br />right-of-way required for these projects <br />would be in hand and that no effort on our <br />part would be required. As it turned out <br />we were involvr_d in the resolution of the <br />right-of-way on Lundberg Road, in the prep- <br />aration of right-of-way sketches for both <br />87th Street and 101st Avenue. <br />3. Permits <br />Our original proposal included :an item for <br />the sketches roquired iii the submittal cit <br />application to the D.E.H. .arta others for <br />permits. In order to facilitate tho acquis- <br />ition of permits of various kinds, we propared <br />the applications, submitted them to the D.E.R., <br />and followed up with the right-of-way iflid- <br />avits and other administrative work. <br />4. Quantity booklets <br />This item was required by the. Department of <br />Transportation and is not normally required <br />for construction jobs of this nature. The <br />item was not included as a part of our proposal <br />due to our understanding that such booklets <br />would not be required. <br />5. Design revisions after 1st and 2nd phase review <br />As we pointed out in the opening paragraph of <br />this communication, our proposal was based on <br />avoiding phase review •-ntirely due; to the com- <br />pressed schr.dule: for eie;livery of these plans <br />to the Department of Transportation. As it <br />turned out phase reviews were required. In <br />itself this presented no difficulty. However, <br />after receiving pavcmcnt design approval and <br />typical section approval, the Tallahassee; <br />office insisted that certain changes be made <br />after the plans were completed. The changes <br />resulted in some alternate pavement design <br />work, as well ars grade: changes on Hobart Road <br />due to an increase in design speed. <br />The total additional effort amounts to: <br />Direct labor charges of $ 8,545.63 <br />to which has bet -rt added: <br />lU8°ro for overhead which is -9,212e.3.28 <br />f; 27% for f r i nqe bt.-tief i is - 2 , 307.32 <br />which totals to - $ 20,082.23 <br />plus operating margin f <br />of 10% - - $ 2,008.22 <br />which makes it Grand Total / <br />of extra work - $ ' 22,0eJU.45 <br />Once again as a part of our proposal we anticipated <br />that we would be required to design a small- bridge on <br />Hobart Road which as it turned out was not required, The <br />total included in the original proposal for the bridge <br />design including overhead,'fringe benefits, and operating <br />margin amounts to $11,451.00. Credit is allowed due to <br />the fact that no work was -performed on this item. The <br />balance then for extra work less the credit for bridge <br />design not required, is $10,639.45. <br />BOOK 40 - PAGE 210 <br />MAY 9 1979 <br />