Loading...
02. Award or Reject Bid - City Hall Remodeling Project.... .. . . .... . ... .. .. ..... .............. .. ...... . .. ...... ........................ .... .......................... ..........:.....::.:.:::::::-:::: ....... .. ......... ::_- :> '. __ :_ _ r_Ci'oKall"spell __-___ __- -_� . _ _ - 40 755-7758 -- ....... --- ---- 9 lis ll Montana 59�3- 997 Telephone 40 755-7�4 Fax f -- - _ - -- -- Post (]i�iee Box l � 7 a - - ----_ - Pe eP REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: James H. Patrick, City Manager SUBJECT: City Hall Bid Opening MEETING DATE: December 4, 2006 BACKGROUND: In 2000 the City commissioned a space needs study which reflected a need for approximately 20,000 additional square feet of office space to meet City staff needs. At the same time, City Council set a City Manager goal to "Resolve Space Needs" for City offices. Council desired to "get out of leased space," "stay downtown," and "find a solution for the Police Department space needs." Last year the City was approached by Wells Fargo who owned a 20,000 square foot bank at the corner of 1st Ave. E and 2nd Street, one block away from current City Hall. Council purchased the wells Fargo downtown bank building for $1.1 million. It had been appraised for $1.7 million two years before. Since the bank needed to sell in a short amount of time, architectural plans and estimates were not possible at decision time. Grover/Cole and Russell were selected as the architectural team to design and plan the renovation. They have modified the plans several times to insure the most economical design that still meets staff s needs. Council requested that options be presented to phase the project or eliminate aspects of the project. Originally it was anticipated to do this project in phases, but due to the annual increase in construction costs and the inconvenience to the customer and staff, staff and the architect recommends proceeding with the entire project. while this is more costly, it is cheaper overall and better for customer service and less work disruption. Alternate one bid is for windows in the west wall of the first floor ($4,500). This option could be eliminated. Should Council decide to phase the remainder of the project, the first floor would be completed first and administrative offices from current City Hall would be relocated to make room for the Police Department. This would leave Planning, and Parks and Recreation in leased space, and require locating leased space for Building. Council asked about cost savings if Council chambers remained in the current location. The cost of the new Council chambers is approximately $93,840. However, there are expenses associated with leaving the Chambers at the current location and redesigning the bank building to move office space into the planned chamber area (demolition, refurbishing current Council chambers, cost of redesign, etc.). The true cost savings would be between $20,000 and $25,000. There are difficulties leaving Court and Council chambers colocated. Court security requires increased security measures that can be intimidating to the public attending a Council meeting. This includes metal detection equipment, shield (glass screen) between the Mayor and public, jury box, and different technology requirements (one example is the video arrangement equipment). There would be a degree of inconvenience bringing or retrieving material from the new office complex to Council Chambers. The architect has reduced costs by designing six foot high walls on cubicles, reduction in the amount of doors, elimination of the sky light, and reduction of hall space. Five bids were received ranging from $1,210,000 to $1,3 64,000 (excluding three alternates). As above, Alternate one is for windows on the west wall, alternate two is contingency and was consistent on all bids, and alternate three was for Council chambers audio visual system. The Architect's letter of Recommendation of Award for Construction Contract is attached. You will note his recommendation to not award option 3 and have that as a separate project. The other non -bid items are phone service and technology. Staff can subcontract the technology and also perform some of the cable runs to reduce cost. Staff has been evaluating the current costs for phone and spoke with the consultant used by the County to upgrade and expand their phone system. The consultant improved the phone service to the County and insured a payback in two and a half years from the reduced phone charges. The total cost (property purchase and remodeling) will be approximately $2.4 million or $120 per square foot. New office construction is running in the neighborhood of $200 to $250 per square foot. A recent appraiser's opinion on cost of land in the downtown corridor is $10.50 per square foot for property one block off of Main Street. The land casts for new land would be the same as the City paid for the building and parking areas. Council requested cost estimates on the renovation and expansion of the Police Department. The architect has not had a chance to fully evaluate the space and develop a plan with cost estimates. However, the improvements requested by the Court and Police, he feels, should be approximately $150,000 to $200,000. Council requested Staff to recommend ways to finance the renovation. Council discussed Board of Investment loan, Bank loan, and other options. Staff has been working with the Board of Investments but at the time of this writing the BOI has not completed an analysis of the loan request nor committed a dollar amount. Additional information will be forwarded as soon as pass'b e. RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the budget amendment and award the bid to Oswood Construction Company. FISCAL EFFECTS: This recommendation is the most fiscally prudent course of action that still accomplishes Council's goals of resolving space needs, getting City Staff out of leased space, and keeping City Hall downtown. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, es H. Patrick, City Manager ARCHITECTURE MASTER PLANNING INTERIORS GRAPHIC DESIGN November 27, 2006 Mr. James H. Patrick, city Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 312 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Recommendation of Award for Construction Contract for: "Kalispell city Hall Renovations" Dear Mr. Patrick: It is my pleasure to recommend award of the Contract for construction for the Kalispell City Hall Renovations. I have reviewed all of the bids received by the City and found Oswood Construction Company submitted the low Ease Bid. I have personal experience working with Oswood Construction Company and have talked with both Doug and Nicholas Oswood regarding their ability to complete this project on time and within their bid. Both have assured nee they are ready to complete the project per the Contract Documents on time and for the bid amount submitted. I have also talked with Steve Larson at Flathead Valley Community college about his current experience working with Oswood Construction. He spoke favorably of his experience and noted that OCC always had the College's interests in mind. Based on my experience and in reviewing Oswood Construction Company's bid, it is my recommendation to award the Construction contract to them. I would recommend the City include in the award Alternate #1 and Alternate #2. The total Contract amount would be$ 1 ,294,300.00. 1 would not recommend awarding Alternate #3 for several reasons. First is out of the five bidders on the project two did not submit a bid. The other three bids ranged from $25,000.00 to $350,000.00. In talking with several bidders there was a lot of confusion on what was to be bid. I also talked with the person who supplied a bid for roughly $25,000.00 and he has told the General Contractors that he did not submit a legitimate bid and wishes to withdraw his subcontractor bid. So even though the City may have a "good" number I do not feel it is in the City's best interest to award Alternate #3 as there is some room for interpretation in the specification and this could result in some change orders during construction to make sure the City receives what it is looking for in the Council Chambers. So it is my recommendation that this part of the project be re - GROVE R + COMPANY 307 SPOKANE AVE, SUITE 202 WHITEFISH, MT 59937 P: 406.862.8152 r: 406.862.8153 evaluated and bid out as a separate contract to be coordinated with the selected General contractor. Should you have further questions regarding the award of this contract please feel free to give me a call to discuss. Sincerely, f Chad E. Grover, AIA Grover + company, PLLC Cc: Dave Johnson, Cole + Russell Architects File CITY HALL REMODELING PROJECT BID SUMMARY BIDDER BASE BID ALTERNATE #1 ALTERNATE #2 TOTAL Bid Wave Construction $19314.724.00 $69417.00 $809000.00 $19401,141.00 Bigfork Hammerquist Caselegno $193499312.54 $49364.00 $809000.00 $11)4339676.54 Kalispell Kramer Enterprises $193649000.00 $6,300.00 $809000.00 $1,4509300.00 Kalispell Qswood Construction Co. $192099800.00 $4,500.00 $8%000.00 $19294,300.00 Great Falls Swank Enterprises $19286,000.00 $115400.00 $809000.00 $19377,400.00 Kalispell