Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. MANAGERS REPORT 05/20/2008 Mount Prospect Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: ALGONQUIN-BUSSE-DEMPSTER PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL PROJE RECOMMENDATION TO fiRE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT - $48,246.37 TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: MAY 14,2008 Backe:round The three intersections that make up the Algonquin-Busse-Dempster triangle are closely spaced and the traffic signals are part of a single system. There is currently only one leg at one of the three intersections that has a marked crosswalk and pedestrian signals. Working together, the Community Development Department and Public Works Department have identified a need in this area for additional pedestrian signals. The combination of multi-family housing and shopping leads to a lot of foot traffic. Unfortunately, many pedestrians are crossing these busy roads without the protection of pedestrian signals. To increase pedestrian safety in the area, the Village applied for and received approval for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). This reimbursable grant is expected to fully pay for both the design and construction of pedestrian signal and sidewalk improvements. Work will include upgrading and adding LED countdown pedestrian signals at the three intersections. Filling in missing sidewalk segments, constructing sidewalk ramps and adding painted crosswalks will also be part of the project scope. Design will take place in 2008 with construction expected to take place in 2009. The project includes work at the following three intersections (shown on attached map): . Algonquin Road & Busse Road . Algonquin Road & Dempster Street . Busse Road & Dempster Street Reauest For Proposal In order to accomplish the design phase of the project, the Village needs to retain the services of a company with expertise in traffic signal design. Also, because the intersections involve State and County roads, we need a company with experience working with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the Cook County Highway Department (CCHD). Therefore, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent to four engineering consulting companies to solicit their interest in the project. The consultants were to provide Staff their experience on similar projects, qualifications of their personnel, their design approach, and an anticipated project schedule. They were also asked to provide a cost to complete the tasks outlined in the RFP. The Engineering Division received four proposals. They were divided into two parts: Intersection Design Studies (IDS) and Plan Preparation. Because the three intersections are part of a single system, IDOT is expected to require an IDS for each intersection to make sure the addition of pedestrian signals will not have an adverse effect on the current signal timing. Once the IDS has been approved by IDOT, the page 2 of3 Algonquin-Busse-Dempster Pedestrian Signal Project May 14, 2008 consultant will then be able to prepare the engineering drawings. The prices from low to high are as follows: Company Gewalt-Hamilton Associates Inc. V3 Consultants Ltd. Civiltech Engineering Inc. Ciorba Group Inc. IDS Cost $12,232.36 $13,979.67 $25,821.00 $32,217.30 Plan Preparation Cost $18,500.87 $20,731.49 $21,740.00 $29,305.20 Total Cost $30,733.23 $34,711.16 $47,561.00 $61,522.50 Staff interviewed representatives from both Gewalt-Hamilton Associates and V3 Consultants. Staff prefers the proposal from Gewalt-Hamilton Associates because of their knowledge of the traffic signal system, their ongoing working relationship with IDOT and the CCHD, and their previous experience with pedestrian signal design. Based on the interview, we are confident they can provide a quality project, meet all requirements ofIDOT and the CCHD, and complete the work on time. One additional item that was included in the proposal from Gewalt-Hamilton Associates was Topography & Surveying. When performing an IDS for an existing traffic signal system, typical practice is to use the original design plans as a base map and simply field verify existing conditions. This is acceptable to IDOT. In cases where one is designing a new traffic signal system or an existing system is old and/or there are significant slopes along the road, mOT may require topography and surveying work. IDOT has indicated to Staff in a recent phone conversation that this additional work will most likely not be required. However, to account for this potential work, Gewalt-Hamilton Associates provided a price of $17,513.14 making their total cost to be at $48,246.37. This contract is for design services only. Once the project is ready to go to construction, it is anticipated that a separate construction engineering contract will come before the Village Board of Trustees for approval. It is difficult, however, at this point to determine the amount of a construction engineering contract until the project's scope is refined and the design is complete. Should the consultant meet the Village's expectations during the design phase, we plan to negotiate a construction engineering contract with the same company. This will allow for a smooth transition into the construction phase and enable the field personnel to work closely with their own design team. Discussion Gewalt-Hamilton Associates has not worked for the Village for many years. However, in recent years, they have submitted proposals to us for various transportation-related projects but have not been chosen though they are a qualified company. They specialize in transportation engineering design and 65% of their work last year was for governmental agencies. They have experience with completing similar projects including traffic and pedestrian signal improvements in the Village of Northbrook. A staff planner for the Village of Northbrook said they have worked with Gewalt-Hamilton Associates on a regular basis for over 10 years and their work has been acceptable. Their experience with IDOT and the CCHD is also an advantage in that they will be able to streamline the permitting process with these agencies. Finally, the engineer that would be the Project Manager for this project designed the traffic signal changes at Route 83 and Prospect Avenue while working for another company. Those changes brought about safety improvements at the Route 83 railroad crossing several years ago. With respect to the additional price for Topography & Surveying, Staff is confident that this work will not be necessary. Should, however, mOT require this additional work, Staff would like to be prepared and make sure it is accounted for in the contract. The cost to perform topography and surveying work for this project would be similar for each consultant and, therefore, each proposal's cost would increase approximately $15,000 - $20,000. Since this additional work is simply part of the data collection portion of the contract, Gewalt-Hamilton Associates would still be Staffs preferred choice because of their page 3 of3 AIgonquin-Busse-Dempster Pedestrian Signal Project May 14,2008 knowledge of the system and previous design experience. Further, they have said that should the topography and surveying work not be required by mOT, it will be eliminated from the contract and it will not affect the costs for the other services. There are sufficient funds to cover all of the engineering design services (if necessary) and any unused funds will then be used for construction and construction engmeenng. Recommendation It is my recommendation that the proposal submitted by Gewalt-Hamilton Associates, Inc. of Vemon Hills, TIlinois for engineering design services be accepted with a not to exceed amount of $48,246.37. This expenditure has been allocated in the 2008 Village Budget. Please include this item on the May 20th Village Board Meeting Agenda. I concur with the above recommendation. Attachment: Map h: \engineering\traffic\signals \pedestrian \a-b-d\vb _ consultanCrec .doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ALGONQUIN / BUSSE / DEMPSTER PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Mount Prospect Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: ENGINEERING ASSISTANT DATE: MAY 15, 2008 SUBJECT: 2008 POND REHABILITATION PROJECT KENSINGTON BUSINESS PARK - POND #7 ENGINEERING DESIGN RECOMMENDATION - $26,871.00 Background As part of the Kensington Business Park development in the 1980's, the Village of Mount Prospect entered into an agreement with the park's management company that requires the Village to maintain certain aspects of the 11 retention basins within the park. While the park's management company provides routine maintenance such as algae removal, the Village is responsible for dredging work so that the water depth of the ponds conforms to the design requirements. In addition, the Village maintains and repairs the inflow and outflow structures in each of the ponds and provides bank stabilization. In 1992 a comprehensive study of the condition of all the ponds was completed, in part to identify needed repairs and establish a priority ranking for these repairs. In 2002 and 2006, the Village rehabilitated ponds #4a and #3, respectively. Funds have been allocated to rehabilitate the next pond on the priority list, pond #7. Pond #7, as shown on the attached map, is on the north side ofFeehanville Drive and east of Kingston Court. Design will take place this summer with construction to begin in October. The project should take approximately six weeks to complete. Engineering Design Proposal The Village solicited proposals for engineering services for the design of the Retention Basin Dredging Project Pond #7. Engineering firms were asked to submit as part of their proposal the following information: 1. A summary ofthe firms approach to the project. 2. A staff hour estimate for major phases of work. 3. A maximum, not-to-exceed fee for design of the project. 4. A project schedule. page 2 of2 2008 Pond Rehabilitation Project May 12, 2008 Three engineering firms replied to the Village request for proposal: Ciorba Group, SEe Group, and Civiltech Engineering. Civiltech informed the Village that they did not "possess the necessary qualifications for all aspects of the project." Both Ciorba Group and SEC Group submitted comprehensive proposals. Tasks that were identified to be performed by both firms included: 1. Topographic survey 2. Preliminary design 3. Final plan preparation 4. Bidding assistance 5. Attending meetings 6. Obtain necessary permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, and the Soil and Water Conservation District. This contract is for design services only. Once the project is ready to go to construction, it is anticipated that a separate construction engineering contract will come before the Village Board of Trustees for approval. It is difficult, however, at this point to determine the amount of a construction engineering contract until the project's scope is refined and the design is complete. Should the consultant meet the Village's expectations during the design phase, we plan to negotiate a construction engineering contract with the same company. This will allow for a smooth transition into the construction phase and enable the field personnel to work closely with their own design team. Discussion Based on qualifications, previous work experience and references, both Ciorba Group and SEC Group are capable of completing the project at hand. Ciorba Group has previously completed engineering services for retention basin dredging projects for the Village. In addition, Ciorba Group has also provided services for the Village on street light, traffic signal and bridge rehabilitation projects. With each of these projects in the Village, their work has been acceptable. Design fees submitted by the two firms are as follows: Ciorba Group: SEC Group: $26,871.00 $34,096.40 page 2 of2 2008 Pond Rehabilitation Project May] 2, 2008 Recommendation It is Staffs recommendation that the proposal submitted by Ciorba Group, Inc. for engineering design of the 2008 Pond Rehabilitation Project be accepted for a not to exceed amount of $26,871.00. There are funds appropriated in the 2008 Budget for this proposed expenditure. Please include this item on the May 20th Village Board Meeting Agenda. ,',.-......-, i " / i.J/ <--. .''-... /.- ,/) i / .' ,./ / ./ )( c~jL>'~ I F Dan Randolph I concur with the above recommendation. 4ffi./~ Glen R. Andler, rector of Public Works Attachment: Map H:\Engineering\Ponds\k-bc _ basin#7\design Jec _ memo.doc ~ t' I-~ uZ w- "'Jm 0<( ~m n.1 [!J~ z~ -<( [!Jn. em woo ~w cz - zoo -:J mm <( mz zO 01- _[!J I-z z- wOO I-Z ww ~~ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Mount Prospect ~ Village of Mount Prospect Fire Department FROM: FIRE CHIEF, MICHAEL J. FIGOLAH TO: VILLAGE MANAGER, MICHAEL E. JANONIS DATE: MAY 12, 2008 SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNOUT GEAR BID RESULTS General Bid Information May 12, 2008, at 10:00 am sealed bids were received for fire department turnout gear. At this time, the sealed bids were publicly opened and read aloud. The fire department currently maintains ninety-two (92) sets of turnout gear on the department. Seventy-two (72) sets are for full-time personnel and twenty (20) sets are for paid-on-call personnel. Turnout gear is worn by fire department personnel for structural firefighting and the Standard for this gear is governed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFP A). This gear provides protection during firefighting, hazardous materials, vehicle accidents, and various other incidents encountered by department personnel. The turnout gear bid consists of pants, coat, and suspenders as part of the bid. The recommended replacement of turnout gear per NFP A is six (6) years, but based on the condition of the gear its replacement can be extended. Bid specifications were mailed to five (5) vendors and advertising was placed in the local newspaper. Summary of Bids Received Two vendors submitted bids: Air One Equipment Inc., and Viking Life Saving Equipment. The remaining three (3) vendors did not to submit bids even though they contacted us regarding the bid documents. Bid tabulations are as follows: Bidder Viking Life-Saving Equipment Air One Equipment Inc. Unit Price $1184.00 per set $1475.00 per set Bid Recommendation Subject: Fire Department Turnout Gear Bid Date: May 12, 2008 Page 2 of 2 I recommend award of the contract to Viking Life-Saving Equipment in an amount not to exceed $23,680 for up to twenty (20) sets of turnout gear based on the condition of existing gear. Viking Life-Saving Equipment has provided excellent references and has met all requirements of our specification. Budget Authorization Funds for this purchase have been allocated in this year's budget on page 181 in account number 0014202-670016. The remaining funds in this account will be used to purchase firefighting helmets, gloves, hoods, and boots. MF / jm c: \Documents and Settings \djarosz \LocaI Settings \ Temporary Internet Files \ OLKBl \JM- Turnout Gear Bid-Village Manager.doc Mount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: FIRE CHIEF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ASSIST ANT VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: MAY 14,2008 SUBJECT: ARCHITECT CONTRACT - PHASE I PROPOSED CONSTRU On March 25, 2008 staff and Jake Davis, from SRBL Architects, presented information regarding the process to hire a Construction Manager (CM) for the proposed Phase I Facility Study projects. These projects include 1) a new Fire Station 14, 2) an expanded Public Works facility to accommodate maintenance of fire department vehicles, and miscellaneous work at various Public Works facilities and 3) a new Emergency Operations Center. At the April 1, 2008 Village Board meeting, the Board granted permission to enter into negotiations with SRBL Architects for architectural services for the Phase I proposed construction projects. Many meetings have since taken place between staff and SRBL Architects to develop a contract for architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, civil engineering, telecommunications, landscape architecture, and interior design services. Attached is a cover letter from SRBL Architects that provides an overview of the fee structure and specific services to be provided. Separate fee breakdowns for each of the construction projects are provided for both the low and high construction estimates, based on the Phase I Facilities Study. Each project fee is then further broken down by the various interim design phases. Ultimately, the architectural fees will be based upon a percentage of actual construction costs with a defined" do not exceed amount." At this point, however, the fees through the Design Development phase are only estimates, as actual construction costs will remain unknown until the Construction Documents are developed and we receive project bids. Once actual construction costs are established, the fees paid through the Design Development phase will be totaled and the remainder of the fee, up to the" not to exceed limit," will be a lump sum allocated through Construction Administration. This fee structure is very similar to the method used to design the Village Hall and parking deck. Staff feels that the proposed fee percentages are competitive and acceptable. Using this method, the 11 do not exceed amount" will be $806,946 on the low end and $904,747 on the high end. Architect Contract - Phase I Proposed Construction May 14, 2008 Page 2 Two additional services are included as options in the contract for services: Furnishings Design and Procurement and LEED Certification. Furnishings Design and Procurement involves using one of SRBL's consultants to handle the design and purchasing of furnishings for all of the proposed construction projects. It is highly advisable to include this consultant as this area of design has become highly specialized over the years. These consultants are familiar with multiple manufacturers and will become familiar with the best design, quality, and price for our projects. Additionally, these consultants work closely with the architect during the design process to ensure that items such as electrical outlets and communication jacks are located such that they will complement the furnishings. This can ultimately save the Village additional expenses from having to move utilities through change orders. Staff recommends inclusion of the $38,500 for the furnishings consultant. The other option is an additional service fee for LEED /Sustainability Consulting and Commissioning for the proposed projects. LEED is a green building rating system that promotes sustainable site planning, safeguarding water and water efficiency, energy efficiency and renewable energy, conservation of materials and resources, as well as indoor environmental quality. The LEED certification fees illustrated in SRBL's cover letter are for all three proposed projects. Staff, however, only recommends pursuing LEED certification for Fire Station 14. The EOC and vehicle maintenance additions are a very small portion of the entire Public Works building, thus making the certification impractical for these projects. As you can see in the fee proposal, there are two levels of LEED certification: Certified/Silver and Gold/Platinum. These levels of certification are based on a point system with the four levels being Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum from lowest to highest. Unfortunately, if LEED is pursued the ultimate level of certification will not be known until construction is complete and a thorough analysis of the project is performed. At this point, it is recommended that the Board decide only whether some level of LEED certification is desired for Fire Station 14. It is not recommended to select a specific level of certification as the building's form should primarily be dictated by function and programming, with LEED components incorporated into the design. The final building's design should prescribe the level of certification that is appropriate given its operational necessities. If the Board decides to seek LEED certification, a fee not to exceed $127,650 should be authorized. This amount includes the consulting and commissioning costs for a LEED Gold or Platinum certification. Should the building only reach the Certified or Silver level, however, a lower fee of $111,000 will be charged by the architect. Architect Contract - Phase I Proposed Construction May 14, 2008 Page 3 In an effort to find ways to offset the additional costs of LEED consulting and construction, Staff recently met with a representative from the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation and learned of available grant funds for LEED certified public safety buildings. If the Village applied for this grant, the foundation's representative stated that we would likely receive $100,000 for a Silver certified building and $135,000 for Gold or Platinum certification. Included in SRBL's LEED consulting fees is assistance in applying and completing all necessary paperwork for grants such as this one. Should we obtain this grant, all or a majority of the LEED design and consulting costs would be offset by the grant proceeds. Staff recommends Village Board approval to enter into a contract with SRBL Architects for architectural services for the Phase I proposed construction projects in an amount not to exceed $1,070,987. This amount includes the high end estimate of fees for base architectural services as well as the two optional service packages. Staff and Jake Davis of SRBL Architects will be available at the May 20, 2008 meeting to answer any questions. Michael J. Figolah Glen R. Andler J. David Strahl MF/GA/DS/mf Attachment C:\Docurnents and Settings\djarosz\Local Settings\ Temporary Internet Files\OLKBl\ VB Memo - Architect Contract - Phase I Proposed Construction (S-14-08).doc SRBL ARCHITECTS LTD. I. ..~\. 'II . .' . S~BL - A~CHITEcrS ",. 1161-11 lake Cook Rolld. Deerfield. Illinois 60015 USA lei 84])72.9500 fa~ 847272:9510 www.srblarchitects.com ~YH'~1f Ie::.' The:. rowc.y ,of rl'omi(e{ (ce.rt. " .', ') j May 20, 2008 ' .' I I' Mr. MichaelJ. FigoJah. . .Fire Chief. .'_ ~iUl~ge of Mount Prospect ; . 112E;'Nort.hweSt Highway . · Mount: Prospect, It 60056. R~:' 'ViflagebfMount Prospect ~. Pha~e I Projects Fi~eStat!on 14.,' . ' ',' . .." . . ' 'A(:/~itif'ns and Remode/at PUblic Works. Facilities. ~m~rgency 9pera,tion~ ,Center, . ~ . Conttactua/BuS1ness 'PoInts . , 'SRBL- Proj~ct Nos.D810S. ah(l 081Q6 ... ( / " (' De~r Chief FigoU;l~-,. . < (. . . Moyrrfg,forw~r~with the Fire Station 14, PutJlJ,; Works. ~hd t~~. Emerg~ncy op~ra~()ns Cer)t~r, isqf greatslgnlflca'nce for botli the Village ,of M6unt Prospectand.SRBL Architec~..,WeSi~cerelyenjoy our '. 'long. worklng'relationshipwiti1-' Mount .'::Prospect ancflook forward to' further 'burniShlng, that , relationship'by rea,lizing tbe viSion forth,ese ,three,~xcitii:lgproJects, Careful plannlng, expertise arid, " .. ,design"~fin create ,and/or underscore a:bn':lnd for,yC?,ur-,municipality and propel the 'operations,of the_- ,Fire Department, PiJblic .Wor~ 'Department and the way that Mount- Prosp~ct responds to' emerg,,~,n'cies to a new-s~andarct that the entir~ community will yalue anq neighboring peers will envy. , " . . .., ,c', ,-':. . '.... '. . ,/ . " ,', ',.,~': ,. '. ." . " ',,::'- .'As-parr'otourongoing discussions; we discuSsed th'e~-proJect; propos'~d fees', and 'construction project .d~Hvery. rriethods. 'We ijndersfand' that; the Village would 'like'8 'p~r.ceti~ge fee that will<col)Vert toa IUff.lp pum fee".a.i our.mutueil agree.roent' at the .end. of, the;d.esign" de,velopment -phase. W~:also. "understandthat the Village has chosern:onstructionm13nagementat riskas'the constructio'n delivery method;: We areple'ased tobeas$istingt~e VillagewiltHhe,'CM selectio,n serVices.. . . " ." .'. ~...' . ',~ \ Up.onthe"l'esolution of the terms, wewill execute anAIAB141 CM contract form and be ready to peYform begin design work for eaGh of these e)tcitihg projects. ' . .., ,..-" "'.."... '01'." .... ..... . I' . . TIme Schedule. .' , , , . " . -.. .' ". ." ~ " . thetim~sc~elil.ule for the' project is such that assuming thatSRBL'QeginstheprOjects in May 2008. . We"es(imat~ that the Jhree p'rojec~ tog~ther will. take. a'pproximately 8"to 11~m6n"ihs to complete . 'SchEimiatid . Design, ,Design' Develor:>rr~ent,'an~. Construction Oocyment 'Phas.es:Jhis time frame a$sUmestirrlelyVillci'ge approvaJs a'nd:'move.tJl~nt tl:uolJgh the Plan;CommlssiOn', and viflageBoard, des.igo'approvat 'The. Bidding Ph~seJ Con~racts. ~nd Site Moolll~ation Will' t~kej:!n addltiQQal-two mont~anc:l therefore' with. a successfUl. May ~008 start, the Vljlage' can anticlpate brea.king gro!Jnd on th~ Fire Station in Fall 2.008 and-PiJblic WorkS.and EOC in wjrt~~ 20Q8/spring of 29.09. Tlie start , of anew year is. an ,excellent time to bid tt)e proJ~cts and receive' good constrliction. cOS1::prlcing. The Qonstructron Administration Phase' will take approximately'"S " 1.0 months for the 'Public Works and EOC proj~ots and '~1-13' monthS 'for Fire Station 14. This ,time scheduie will allow the building to '\ , \ .' .~.~ r~' 1._ ". P~ge 2 Vi'lIage of Mount Prosp~ct SRBL Projects # 08105 and Q8106 .' " ;'" . ,. , easily move through any winter construction months u'nencumbered by tf'ie weathet-and allow the move in for all the facilitiesinthe first half of 2010. . \ Scope of SeN/ees and Project . Team .' . . .-" . . $R~L wj.J1 provide ArqhltectuFal, Structural, Meqhanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Flr~ Protection, arid Civil Engin~ering, Teje~ommunici;ltiohs,. Security, Lands9ape Arqhitecture' .and Interior Design for the project described above. -. . .. i ,. . . .".. I . -,' , SRB~wouldirecOm{Ylendb;i-weekly consti"1JQtiQn meetings wj~h weekly"'site visits. .". 'I...... ... .. ,. ...... . '..). ~.'.' '.. /'. ..' ". ' TheSRBL Project Teatnselectedferthis;pfOiect WIII.~e: '.: . RayLee,J.ic~ns.ed'.Ar:chite~t; .~E.ED AP' . . .PrinclpalihCharge' . Jake Davis,.licensadArchitect, LEEDAP _' Project:Manager T . t::6uise'KO,wa1ciYk;,Uce.n$ed Architect; .Le:ED AI:' ' Project Designer . . . '-.Ann"abella Orlando,r . Technical Specialisf"- Fir-eStation 14 Kyin Eversz ' . " T.~ChnicaISpeciaii!?t - Public Works..and EOe ,Ca~ol Sentedustomer Satisfaction . SRBI:'Archite6ts"Will.be the: archilectandprime"qQn.sultant .coordiA~tirig all the disciPline?'Jor this "proJ~ct;We will :provide ArchitectY.re,lnterior Design, and'Ponst"ruction ManagemeritSelection serVices With our'ifl~~oJse team as w~lIas a' pcirtionofth~'LEED Design arid C~rtifi.ca~ion Seivices,' .C" . . ..... ..... Th~'Con'sultin~Team 'sele9ieC:J forthlsprolect'wil(be:' tvlcCloskeyErtgiofiering, ~aper"ille' ..... '. COi'l$ql.idate.dConsu.lting Engineers,Wheeli rig G&G'.'Gon.'$.l.lItlngEn~ineers, Des.pJ~ines ,.' '. 3Dp~sign G~6~p, 'Grayslake " .' ". . . Exe~utlve Workspace-Consultal')ts, Arlington Heights CorreCt:Elebtronics, Naperville.. tlJKesslerASsoQiate$, Inc., Chicago E-CU'be; 1~~:,'C~icago ,,/ . , . ." Strl,Jctura.1 Engineering . . <.M1EIP aha: fire. protection Engineering 'CivilEhgi~ee.ring . La Adscape Architecture . . . FurhishJngs :Design and Procurement '. Sec:urjty.Consultant . . . _,,;.' LEED Consuitant. ~ . Corrmission.iri~ ~gent - ~ . .". , - '. . . Th'ej)wner's'prolectTeam will be: . .' '.. T~e c5wnE!r has assembled :~ DesigM~ornmittee. w~ic~ WIll incLude !'JIike Figolah Fir~ Chief. . .' GI~1:l Andler Director at Public Works / r, 1:. / '-'~ - ,.~!k'. -- .~, ~ " -' /, , , I ' , . '., . -: \ , Page:? - . Village of Mount Prospect 5RBLYrojects # 084,0.5 and 98106 , ' I SRaL's Fee Proposal .' . . . JO provide the Scope of Servi,ces Iis~ed above, SR6L. prOP9ses a fee based on a. percentage of, corstructioncost W,hi~h at ,mutual agr~ement will COfwe)tto9 .Iump sum at the. end of the design, df:)v.e1opment phase, when the exact scope and nature of .the work is known.. The breakdown by"'" projecj is as folloWs:' ., . ..' . .... . ). percentageofConstructiohCost Fees byProiect: . , . Fire Station 14 .', ..' ." "': '. ' 8;5% fef:). .Adc:liti~n~ 'c;lndR~mOdelatPubli(Works Facilities 9.-75'% Fee .Ernerg,e~cy oper~~ion~ Cen~er,' 15. 5,% Fe's -, .. '. ,~ . , . . ..- . . . . -... :Ba~ea: on' the current e~timate~cost Qfconstructi6h foreach,projest, the ree percentages Iiste,d .' 'a~ove e.qu~te.tothe following fees f.oreach project, given for both low and high ran'ges wj(hin eac,l;} " .'....... . , , ' I estimate and broken down by phase: " " Fire Stati0l114 L()w'l~ange Estimate . Fe,e broken down byphas,e , Sc,hematic D~sign 'Design Devel~prnent' ,G;onstn.Jction Doc,:=,ments ' Bidding' ' \,), . "Construction Administration . ., 8.5% of $6,297,449 = Fee of $486,621- , . , $72,9~3 $97,324 ." '$170,317 . $?4,331 . $121,655 ~, . _,High Range ~tim~te. Fee broken' down by phase SChep,atiq Design , De~ign ,Developrnent Construction Documents" . . ~ Bidding - ' C~>nstructionAdmin.istration , . 8.5:0 of $6,963;972 == F,ee of$538,125 " -', '$ 86,7"3.,9 $107,625 $188,.344 $~6;9b6 . $134,53'1 . ,. ~~.''; "'-, Additions. and Remodel at Public Works' Facilities: ' L6vyR~:ingegstimate " . 9.75% of.$1,p47,393 ~ Fee of $1,37,808 F~e. broken down by phase Schematic Desi,gn Design DeveloPn:e.~t Cpnstruction Documents Biddil1g Construction Administration >' - - $20,671 . . $27;592 $48,233 ,'$ 6,890 $34.452 , -- \ ~ ....... I I' ; \,' Page 4 Village of Mount Prospect SRBL:..projects #,08105 and 08106 ., I High Ra.nge Estil:nate, '. 9.75% of ~1,~25,568 = Fee of $171,488 'fee broken down D~ phase ...S~liematic Design -..Design Development ;,1 . .., . Construction Documents . aidding Construction Administration - .. . .. ( . -Emergency Operations Center"" '", . ,L;QwR~.ngeEstimat~ . - 15.5% of $1:,428,611 = Fee of $20,1,304 Feebrok.en d6~~by phase S.chem~tic DeS!gJi D'esign'.Development. ..Constr,uction. pocuments . Bid~ing qonstr\Jctiofl- Adm.inistration " ..... $.25,723 $ 34,298 $ 60;02'1 '$. . 8,574 . $42,872 " '. $ 30,'196. ., /" $~0,261 $ 70,457 '$10,065 ,.. . $ '50,326 . H@i R-angeftstimate Fee brokenc;Jown by phase; .\. . . . .'~Che~ati~. Design .Design. Development . .' . ~ ConstfuctionOocuments Biddihg . . .'" .. Cpn'struction Administration - . ' '. 15.5% of $1,587,890= Fee of $22~,748' $ 33,562 $ 44, 7.?O $ 18,312 $~1,187 $ 55,937 " I' r Our fee includes standard Basic Services: such as Architectu~e; Struct~raland.M/E/P Engineerin'g. SRB~ha~al~o included what would typical be AdditionalServjces into, our Basic Service tee,. these servlces.inclu'de Civil Engineefil1g, Landscape Archi,tecture, lI;terior Desi~n,A(V De~.ign, and Security. 9.~!1sultlng. . .- . ;,' . .. I " . "--:--:.~ " . , . The above percentage fees and fee breakdowns, provided are continge~t 'on.the current construction .. cost .:estimates, ,minus' any cons,tru9tion contingenCies. . E'stirri.a~e' CQst$ 'provided -for comparison' . purposes and do not include' the Villa~e's choice to pt:lrsue high Gold o~ Platinum LEEO'certificat~o,n. . ' :..-'. . .~. . .. . . . . . I . . . . Th~ Village has reguested some Additional.Seryices at the start of the project that are outside. the scope of SRBL's Basic Services fee; , . ." .- .\ ", ,.. .I.....~. II : . . Page 5 . , Village of Mount Prospect SRBL Proj~cts # 08105 and 08106 ".~7. These Ad'pitionaJ Services and their fees are: Furnishings Design and Procurement Forall thr~eJil(ojects , $38,5pO.qO r- .' LEEDfS~stcllnablli1;~i ConSuJtin~and Commissianing If,t\1e Village ~e~ks'Ceitified or Silver Certification If the Village S'e~kSGold. or Pl'atihum Certification. :Recard Drawin'gs _ 'lftheVillage seeks electronic ~ecord drawings \ . $ 140,00Q.00 $16:1,0.00.00 . . " $10,000.00 ), . . . . . Totai Ac,taiti(mal Services'Requested ., .$18'8,50Q.OOt~ $209;500' Reimb~rsabJe itern~ are charged in addition to the project fe~sfo~ Items, '~uCh asblueprrnting,.soil. testing; materialt~sting, etc., Such rei m bursa ble:servipes, will b.e charged/at,their actual.cost times ~O%.toaccounf for pre-payment of s,?rliices and administrative tl"1e. If the 'villa,ge wishes to, pay fOr' . any reili)biJrsat)Ie item directly, they can do. sa thus eliminating SRBL's 10%mark-yp.. SRBL dQes not charge the Owner for lacal arlang'dlstance phan~ calls maaeih relatjon to. thepraject/trf.,lvel far, de$ign meetings or to. theconstructian site, faxes arinterrially made phatoc.apyirig. These types af . e~perises are all cave red in SRBL's averhead.~' - . .. ~. 'Errors &:Omlss/ons .Phf/ospphy" " . '.' / I. _ ....:'. ,~' SRf:3L tCikespride inour Quality Cantrol effarts and takes everyprecau,tian t6':reduce the possibility af . Errars al1d'Omlsslans in SRBL's and .aur cansultants' corist.fuction dacuments.,! We, have a formal Q\:,IalityCon,'rol pragram.that In~ludes each' st~ff member ~king persan(;1l.?lccau~tabilityfar the . quality aftheir bwndacu'ment preparatian; our Techn'icalSpeclalist ~eviewlng the documents at the completion oieach Pl1ase, and an SRBL Associate ar abqye ,(someone 'nat involved in the pioject'f~r a' fresh set of eyes) reviewing the documents far 25 to.' 40 haurs at 95% campletion af the Canstruction Da~ument Phase. ")', " ~ :~ . '-. . However;. SRBl ,and our-team are human and therefore mistakes do occur. -ourphilosaphy when a '. mistake oc~urs, is to. promptly inf6nTl the: Owner, 'wark collaboratlvely With the. Constnktion Manager to. correctthemistake r~gardless'af whaserespansibilltyitis,and ifJt is $RBL'S, mistakerto' pravide ~n desig~ tirileta carreCt~he mistak,e (Error and Om'issians)at no. additiq.nal charge to. the Owner. , , '-. ~ ..... ," ~ ., . . Regarding the Canstructian Cast of a mistake,if the, mistake is an "Error", tli,en SRBL~pay~ 100% of . th~ . cal!lstructian cast to. remove ~~d replace the' ,ErrQr. . Jf the mistake is an "OmisSian", then SRBL pays 10%i af the canstruction cost of the Omissian to caver any passlble pr-emium charge from the subcontractor for the missed item ~hat wauld' narmally be bid a,t a more campetitive price at the start af the co'nstructian. ',1 L .'=I..~' I. '. .. .Il Page 6 . Village of M()unt Prospect SRBL ProjectS #'08105 and 08106 . .J / .\ , " ... I', - tnfoim~tfon from Village In order to start 'thet>.roJe~, SR~L would require a: . .~ecuted ,c<>,ntract ,.' .. Plat of Survey and Topographic Surveyforbottiw~je,ct srtes Phase I e,hvironmeAtal report for both project~ites .' . Existing,constructiorf.Ci'rawings of.the Public Wo~k.s .Facility . ,'/" .1 . . . . ," .' .A.. .... We'hOpethisletter seryes toilh..iminf;lte, the key busjneSSpeints of our ,contract. 'F~el free to pall witl1 . . anyadditio.o~1 questions tnat, thisdoc(.!meot m~y .'gt:m'erate(&RBLArchitect$js working dil!gentlyto- become the ,premier Public safety Archltect'in illinois, and will work I ardently to 'bring ol,lr wealth of ,. experienceito your projects. We look fo!'War.d toc911~60ratlrfg to desigi;l and conS~(uc.t 'truly unique, faqilities that the Village olrvtount 'Prospect arid 'entire 'community will point to with pride' for many, , many years; '. (, . '. . Sincerely,...... .... J ..~ DAVIS, AlA, tEED AP. Projec~M;:J,n~ger ..... . '.... '\ .. . " _,r_ ,. "