My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/18/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
12/18/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:47 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:03:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/18/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
EG <br />It should be remembered that significant savings on a construction <br />project are made during the design phase and through value <br />engineering. Value Engineering is defined as qualified engineers <br />evaluating the various systems during design in a building <br />project and making a determination which type system will function <br />best in that environment with less cost from both short and long <br />range projections. This is a very effective, recognized method of <br />cost reduction in any building project. <br />A project such as this calls for a tremendous amount of staff time <br />with land acquisition, design, construction, etc. A P/CM will have <br />the resources and time to coordinate the various phases of design and <br />construction of this project. At the same time the P/CM maintains <br />control along with checks and balances through the team approach. <br />Based on the project size, cost, staff involvement required and <br />type facility it is recommended that the construction management <br />concept be adopted. <br />DATE: December 14, 1990 <br />TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners <br />THRU: James E. Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />FROM: H. T. "Sonny" Dean, DirectQ o <br />SUBJ: Indian River County Courthouse Project <br />Delivery System Estimated Cost <br />The Master Plan as submitted, indicated an Architect and <br />Engineering fee of $1,060,708 predicated on 10% of their <br />estimated judicial building cost, but not the parking <br />requirements. Staff recalculated the A & E fees using <br />a estimated percentage of 8% on all construction cost, <br />and included a 5% figure for the Program/Construction <br />Manager. The results of these calculations, as shown in <br />the attachment, indicate an amount more than was allowed <br />in the various concepts of the Master Plan. <br />While investigating the various delivery systems for this <br />project, it was common knowledge throughout the industry <br />that a Program/Construction Manager's fee will be recovered <br />through savings in design, value engineering, change <br />orders, etc. However, rather than reflecting the P/CM <br />fee as a "wash", the attached chart indicates the worst <br />case scenario rather than project savings. <br />52 <br />� � r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.