7/2/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. Originally the project was 16,300 L.F. of 8" PVC, and 726 L.F. of 12" PVC. The 726 L.F. of 12" was eventually installed as part of the original change order with Owl. The final bid quantity of 8" PVC was reduced to 10,600 L.F. The reduction occurred due to the removal of the line running from the entrance of the landfill to the correctional institute septic system and the removal of the line running from the entrance of the landfill to the landfill lift station. The correctional institute had expressed interest in connecting to County utilities (water and sewer); therefore, it was included as part of the original scope of work. They later opted out of sewer connection at this time. All or portions of the landfill lift station upgrade and on-site transmission main construction may be handled by utility field crews. (The on-site landfill portion may be added back in, depending on what lift station modifications at the landfill must be done and how soon.) Had the project been awarded with the original quote, the scope of work would have been modified during construction to reflect what was eventually put out to bid. Also due to the reduction in length the fittings cost will be reduced from $26,000.00 to approximately $16,000.00. 3. The elimination of one jack and bore at $6,300.00 each (we were able to open cut). 4. A reduction in seed and mulch also resulted, originally 15,700 L.F., final 10,000 L.F.; a cost difference of $2,850.00 (based on original cost). Total cost of original project with final quantity adjustments is as follows: Construction, plans, as-builts/total final cost: $127,200.00 of project, per change order (after reduction in scope) Total cost of final project as bid is as follows: Engineering plans and bidding cost Construction and as-builts Total Overall savings are as follows: Total original cost with final quality adjustments Minus total cost of final project as bid Save approximately $28,365.00 $ 12,000.00 86,835.00 $ 98,835.00 $ 127,200.00 -98,835.00 28,365.00 Director Pinto did agree with Commissioner Scurlock that engineering in-house has merit and because of this, we have changed some of our in-house procedures. With bad there comes good, and he assured the Board that they do not take criticism lightly.- In any event, he did think this is a good project and an important one. Commissioner Eggert inquired about the $12,000 in engineer- ing fees; it was noted that was in-house expenses; and Director Pinto further noted that, as stated in his memo, he.looks at the $12,000 as being equal on both sides. Commissioner Eggert stated that she is just trying to grasp the total cost of the project. 15 BOO F'A�E 7 a J U L 21991