4/19/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 13, 1988 Mr. Charles P. Balczun County Administrator Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida, 32960 FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS - 2140 103 LIST PgcW 1 , Shat -b" rct, DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Administrator Attorney Personnel Public Works RE: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SAIL PHASE 3 Community Dev. SECURITY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING FEES Utilities Finance Other The following is an estimate of the design fees for the Systems as discussed in the April 12, .1988 Commissioners Dear Charles, Bufford Goff Associates fee (rounded) ECSI Phase 2 design fee ( included in construction cost) - (12,000) W. R. Frizzell fee (hourly) to revise Phase 1 security documents for Phase 3 '( 7,200) Increase in hard costs to Owner to use Bufford Goff Associates 1;�1 $13,000 The County expended some $20,000 in additional A/E fees in Phase 2 due to the Security Systems contractor running substantially past the contractual completion dates. It is our contention that utilizing Bufford Goff Associates to produce =a .detailed specification and proprietary drawings indicating specific _and complete system design in lieu of repeating the Phase 1•documents with revisions ( a "performance specification" approach ), that the County will not incur such additional expenses in Phase 3.' This is based on the theory that the detailed approach will eliminate control of system engineering. .by _ subcontractors, eliminate questions of quality of materials,' and control maintenance costs. By controlling the design more, one controls the construction process with greater precision. - Frizzell Architects does not maintain the specialists• on Staff to design the security systems in such detail, hence the recommendation to retain the consultant. Frizzell Architects is, however, professionally capable of designing the systems based on the "performance specification" approach. If the County does not elect to retain the Services of Bufford Goff at a cost not to exceed the $32,220 cap quoted by Bufford Goff Associates, we will be pleased to proceed without this consultant and modify the Phase 1 documents within the 6% cap of our Agreement. With the revisions to the "performance specification" documents per our Agreement and with incorporation of pre -qualification of bidders and major subcontractors, it. is our opinion that the delays encountered in Phase 2 may avoided. If the County elects to utilize the suggested consultant, it is our belief that'such delays will most likely be avoided and that the, cost of construction will be reduced by more than the amount saved by not paying for sub -contractor design fees. Note that neither the 1.1 multiplier applicable to reimbursable expenses per Article 11.4.1 nor the 1.5 multiplier applicable to Additional Services of Consultants per Article 11.3.3 of our Agreement have been applied to the Consultant's fee. We will handle the coordination and costs of administering the contract with the Consultant within the 6% cap of our Agreement. $32,200 Security Meeting. 15 APR 19 1988 BOOK 72 PACE 96