HomeMy WebLinkAboutContract 25754 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT
FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES
RENOVATIONS TO JAMES GUINN SCHOOL
STATE OF TEXAS
CITY SECRETARY CONTRACT NO. --1.5q54_
COUNTY OF TARRANT
WHEREAS, The City of Fort Worth and Komatsu Architects, Inc. (Architect) made and entered into City
Secretary Contract No. 23886 (The Contract)which was authorized by the City Council by M&C C-16736,
the 21 st day of April, 1998; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1 was incorporated earlier to provide for preliminary design of the Medical
Incubator area, and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 was incorporated earlier to provide for the development of a concept plan
for the renovation of the Elementary School Building, and
WHEREAS, further amendment is necessary to reimburse the MEP subconsultant for increased personnel
costs and design interruption costs during the course of the design of the Middle School, and
NOW THEREFORE, City and Architect, acting herein by and through their duly authorized
representatives, enter into the following agreement which amends the Contract:
SECTION V COMPENSATION TO ARCHITECT
Add Paragraph 5.1.5 as follows:
"5.1.5 Increase the fees for design of the Middle School by $9,410 to compensate increases in costs to
the MEP Subconsultant."
All other provisions of this Contract which are not expressly amended herein shall remain in full force and
effect.
EXECUTED this theh day of 2000, in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas.
i
By: By:
r1 omatsu, AIA resident Ramon Guajardo
Komatsu Architects, Inc. Assistant City Manager
Recommend Approval:
/Jan B r, Program Manager, CMO
By: " APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
DiogWr of Transportation and
Public Works By: A, of
Asst om City Attorn
By:
1&aetai
ecreta
Contract PUthorization LO
(u4U U '41�lhfr�,`� rdC�U
Page 1 of 1
DatO
Wendy Lopez & Associates, Inc.
engineering • environmental • surveying • construction services
October 26, 1999
David McCord, AIA
KOMATSU Architecture RECEIVED
530 Bailey Avenue Suite 102
Fort Worth, TX 76107 0 C T 2 8 1999
Subject: Guinn School Complex —Adaptive Use KOMATSU ARCHITECTURE, INC.
KA Job No. 7152; WLA Project No. 98019.00
Reference: Architect and Consultant Agreement dated January 26, 1999
Dear Mr. McCord:
A recent internal review of the subject Project discovered that the current actual
performance period has significantly exceeded the estimated planned schedule and
therefore warrants consideration for a reasonable, equitable and justifiable adjustment in
the total amount of$9,410.00. Please consider this letter as a Claim for an appropriate
adjustment in compensation in accordance with Subparagraph 5.1.2 of the referenced
Agreement.
The attached document, CLAIM RATIONALE IN SUPPORT OF A REASONABLE,EQUITABLE AND
JUSTIFUBLE ADJUSTMENT IN FEE,details the rationale in support of this Claim. If
additional information is needed to assist you in approving this request, please do not
hesitate to notify the undersigned in writing and a prompt response will be presented to
you. It is our intent to resolve this issue in the most expeditious way possible so that we
may continue to maintain our mutually beneficial business relationship.
A supplement to the Architect and Consultant Agreement dated January 26, 1999
reflecting a fee adjustment in the total amount of$9,410.00 is requested within thirty (30)
days from the date of this letter. If you should have any questions regarding this Claim
please do not hesitate to call the undersigned at (214)741-7777. Your kind consideration
and assistance in this matter is sincerely appreciated.
Very truly yours,
9,
Sy . Retsky
Contracts Consultant
cc: Karl A. Komatsu, President - KA
Douglas C. Mikeworth, Vice President - WLA
Thomas K. Mayer, Project Manager - WLA
1825 Market Center Blvd. • Suite 510 • Dallas, Texas 75207 • (214) 741-7777 • FAX (214) 741-9413
CLAIM RATIONALE
IN SUPPORT OF A
REASONABLE, EQUITABLE
AND
JUSTIFIABLE ADJUSTMENT IN FEE
For
Guinn School Complex — Adaptive Use
WLA Project No. 98019.00
KA Job No. 7152
October 26, 1999
Important Note: This Claim does not address nor does it include the CONTRACT
(CONSTRUCTION)ADMINISTRATION SERVICES (Paragraph 4.5) phase of this Project
which,as of the date of this Claim,has not started.
SJR 0004 ]
10/26/99
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chronological Summary of Significant Documents
Wendy Lopez & Associates, Inc. Proposal Letter dated January 30, 1998
Komatsu Notification of Intent to Award Letter to WLA
WLA Project No. 98019.00
Kick-Off Meeting Memorandum
Komatsu Master Plan/Conceptual Design Package
Komatsu initiating final Subcontract Agreement Review
WLA's Return of Subcontract Agreement to Komatsu with changes
WLA File Notes
Design Development Presentation and Cost Estimate KA Job No. 7152
Meeting Notes dated December 22, 1998: David McCord &Tom Mayer at WLA
WLA File Notes dated January 19, 1999
WLA returns signed Subcontract Agreement to Komatsu
WLA transmits 50% Drawings to Komatsu
Komatsu distributes 50% Design Set dated 8 Feb 99
WLA Memo dated September 23, 1999
WLA transmits 95% Design Submittal (MEP)
Subcontract Agreement Paragraphs and Subparagraphs relative to Claim
Prime Consultant Agreement Sections relative to Claim
Basis for Claim Amount
Contract (Construction) Administration Services
SJR 0004 2
10/26/99
Chronological Summary of Significant Documents
01/30/98 WLA original Proposal Fee $69,930.00
03/12/98 FAX: Komatsu to WLA - Fee reduced from $69,930.00 to $67,100.00
03/16/98 Komatsu Notification of Intent to Award Letter to WLA
03/17/98 WLA Project No. 98019.00 Start Date
04/22/98 Kick-Off Meeting Memorandum
08/12/98 Komatsu Master Plan/Conceptual Design Package
09/01/98 FAX: Komatsu initiating Subcontract Agreement Review
09/03/98 FAX: WLA's response with changes including Scope of Services
11/17/98 WLA file notes: "95% Completion end of Feb. `99"
12/11/98 Design Development Presentation and Cost Estimate KA Job No. 7152
12/22/98 Meeting Notes: David McCord & Tom Mayer at WLA
01/19/99 WLA file notes
01/29/99 WLA returns signed Subcontract Agreement dated January 26, 1999
02/09/99 WLA transmits 50% Drawings to Komatsu
02/24/99 Komatsu distributes 50% Design Set dated 8 Feb 99
09/23/99 WLA memo: Conversation between T. Mayer and D. McCord
10/08/99 WLA transmits 95% Design Submittal (MEP)
NOTE: Copies of any of the above documents are available from Wendy Lopez&Associates.
SJR 0004 3
10(26!99
Wendy Lopez & Associates, Inc. Proposal Letter dated January 30, 1998
Estimated Planned Proposed Schedule for Topographic Survey and Platting Task:
Notice to Proceed
Topographic Mapping 3 weeks
Preliminary Plat 2 weeks
Review 3 weeks
Final Plat 2 weeks
10 weeks total for Survey
ESTIMATED PLANNED SCHEDULE vs.CURRENT ACTUAL SCHEDULE
SURVEY
CNIL ENGINEERING
MECHANICAL,ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING(MEP)
ESTIMATED PLANNED SCHEDULE:39 WEEKS
CURRENT ACTUAL SCHEDULE TO DATE: 84+WEEKS
TOTAL NUMBER OF WEEKS TO DATE IN EXCESS OF ESTIMATED SCHEDULE:45+WEEKS
The actual period of performance from March 17, 1998 through October 26, 1999 is
eighty-four plus (84+) weeks, a significant difference from the estimated planned
schedule of thirty-nine (39) weeks. During this eighty-four plus (84+) week period WLA
experienced two (2) salary increases of approximately 3% and 6% respectively which
significantly increased the 1999 costs for this Project. Because these salary increases
were beyond the estimated planned schedule of nine (9) months for this Project, these
increased costs were not anticipated and therefore not included when the pricing was
prepared for the January 30, 1998 proposal which reflected 1997 labor rates.
NOTE: The KA Job No. 7152 Design Development Presentation and Cost Estimate
dated December 11, 1998 targeted the midpoint of construction as the winter
of 1999. As of the date of this Claim, construction has not started.
Komatsu Notification of Intent to Award Letter to WLA dated March 16, 1998
Pending approval by the City of Fort Worth and Notice To Proceed. WLA has no record
of receiving a formal written Notice To Proceed from Komatsu. Since WLA's start date
of March 17, 1998 was known and accepted by Komatsu without question, this then has
to be considered the start date for this Project.
WLA Project No. 98019.00 Start Date March 17, 1998
Task Number .00 Survey
Task Number .01 Civil Engineering
Task Number .02 MEP
NOTE: Estimated Planned Schedule was thirty-nine (39) weeks.
SIR 0004 4
10/26/99
Kick-Off Meeting Memorandum dated April 22, 1998
No schedule had been finalized; Komatsu was to outline the work plan and update the
schedule.
Komatsu Master Plan/Conceptual Design Package dated August 12, 1998
Current Project Status: "...Unfortunately the hazardous materials and debris clean up
contract by the City is delayed, preventing the A/E team from entering the complex and
initiating its existing conditions assessment survey, the basis for further adaptive use,
stabilization, rehabilitation, and interior design activities. Originally scheduled for
completion August 15, 1998 to enable team access, the 60 day performance period of the
contract has not been started to date."
Komatsu Initiating Final Subcontract Agreement Review dated September 1, 1998
Requested WLA to review and return with corrections via fax by noon the next day with
the mailing of a hard copy contract the next evening for WLA's signature execution.
WLA's Return of Subcontract Agreement to Komatsu dated September 3, 1998
WLA returned Subcontract Agreement to Komatsu with following changes or notes:
1. Changed date of Subcontract Agreement from June 1, 1998 to September 4, 1998.
(NOTE: Final signed Agreement is dated January 26, 1999)
2. Changed Consultant's Designated Representative from Marvin Hecht to Tom Mayer.
3. Article 1 Description of Scope: Added "See attached Scope of Services dated
January 30, 1998".
4. Paragraph 13.2 Compensation for Other Services (Subparagraphs 13.2.1 and 13.2.2):
Written comment stated "If these are not used,suggest eliminating from document or
redlining out. Could reference Paragraph V of Prime contract with owner." Did not
address Paragraph 13.4 Additional Provisions (13.4.1) that covers extension of
services and additional compensation if the completion of the Agreement was delayed
through no fault of the Consultant. (FAX Cover Sheet Remarks: "2. If Paragraph
13.2 is not used then either delete it or redline it out. If it is needed, reference Section
V of the prime contract and state that our total multiplier for overhead and profit is
3.3.").
5. Article 13.5 Insurance Coverages: Noted "See Section 1X of Prime Contract with
Owner."
SJR 0004 5
10/26/99
WLA File Notes dated November 17, 1998
"95% Completion end of Feb. `99". (Actual transmittal was October 8, 1999).
Design Development Presentation and Cost Estimate dated December 11, 1998
Design Development Costs: "...Costs shown in this estimate are those to be expected in
the spring of 1999, with an estimated 10% cost escalation to the midpoint of construction
which is targeted as the winter of 1999....". (% factor for the cost escalation of Claim).
Meeting Notes: David McCord & Tom Mayer at WLA dated December 22, 1998
"Mid-March '99 final design". (Actual transmittal was October 8, 1999).
WLA File Notes dated January 19, 1999
KA will finalize contract.
50% Drawings to Komatsu 02/08/99.
95% Design Submittal (MEP) 03/15/99. (Actual transmittal was October 8, 1999).
WLA Returns Signed Subcontract Agreement to Komatsu on January 29, 1999
Incorporates Prime Contract dated May 18, 1998.
Incorporates WLA Proposal dated January 30, 1998 (Scope of Services).
WLA transmits 50% Drawings to Komatsu on February 9, 1999
This was in accordance with WLA File Notes dated January 19, 1999.
Komatsu distributes 50% Design Set dated 8 Feb 99 on February 24, 199
This was the 50% Drawings WLA transmitted to Komatsu on February 9, 1999.
WLA Memo dated September 23, 1999
Summarizes conversation between Tom Mayer and David McCord. Tom committed to
finishing by 10/22/99 for the 98% submittal incorporating comments and complete 100%
CD's. Also one interim coordination submittal to Komatsu on 10/07/99.
SJR 0004 6
10/26/99
WLA transmits 95% Design Submittal (MEP)on October 8, 1999
WLA file notes dated January 19, 1999 shows March 15, 1999 as the planned submittal
date.
Subcontract Agreement Paragraphs and Subparastraphs relative to Claim
Subparagraph 3.1.4: "The Consultant's services shall be coordinated with those of the
Architect and other consultants for the Project in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the
orderly and sequential progress of the Architect's or other consultants' services."
WLA's Position: WLA has experienced unreasonable delays through no fault of
the Consultant and is entitled to a reasonable, equitable and justifiable adjustment.
Subparagraph 3.1.10: "The Consultant's services shall be performed as expeditiously as
is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project. The
Consultant shall submit for the Architect's approval a schedule for the performance of the
Consultant's services which may be adjusted as the Project proceeds. This schedule shall
include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner and Architect's review and
for approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Time
limits established by this schedule and approved by the Architect shall not, except for
reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Consultant or Architect. The Consultant shall not
be responsible for delays beyond the Consultant's control."
WLA's Position: In WLA's Proposal dated January 30, 1998, a detailed
estimated schedule for the Topographic Survey and Platting Task was included
which satisfied the requirement of this Subparagraph. Since the Architect did not
reject this schedule,WLA's position is that the schedule was accepted and the
Architect acquiesced its responsibility to request another schedule if the one
previously submitted was not acceptable. The schedules for the tasks following
the Topographic Survey and Platting Task were contingent upon the completion
of the topographic mapping.
Subparagraph 5.1.2: "If any of the following circumstances affect the Consultant's
services for the Project, the Consultant shall be entitled to an appropriate adjustment in
the Consultant's schedule and compensation:"
5.1.2.3 decisions of the Owner not rendered in a timely manner;
5.1.2.4 significant changes in the Project including, but not limited to, size,
quality,the Owner's schedule or budget, or procurement method;
5.1.2.7 failure of performance on the part of the Owner, the Owner's
consultants or contractors;
WLA's Position: This Claim is warranted in consideration of events that
occurred in accordance with the above that were beyond the Consultant's control.
SJR 0004 7
10/26/99
Paragraphs 6.1; 6.2; and 6.4: These three (3) Paragraphs under Article 6 Architect's
Responsibilities include "...in a timely manner..." which implies that there is a
requirement to complete this Project within a particular timeframe.
Subparagraph 7.1.2: The wording "...the Cost of the Work for This Part of the Project
shall include the cost at current market rates of labor and materials..." recognizes that
rates change over a period of time which is the reason for this Claim.
Paragraph 10.3: This Paragraph addresses suspension of the Project for more than 30
consecutive days and further states "...The Consultant's fees for the remaining services
and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted." when the Project was resumed.
WLA's Position: While WLA acknowledges that no formal notice of suspension
was ever issued, the Project was in an "ipso facto"status of suspension as evidenced
by the Current Project Status reported in the Komatsu Master Plan/Conceptual Design
Package dated August 12, 1998. WLA has actually experienced three (3) periods of
"suspensions"for more than thirty (30) days each during the to date current actual period
of service. These unanticipated "suspensions" forced WLA to remobilize its Project Staff
each time at an estimated additional cost of$900.00 per"stop"and "start" stage for a
total of$2,700.00 which is included in this'Claim.
Paragraph 12.2: "The Architect shall disclose to the Consultant, prior to the execution
of this Agreement, contingent or other special provisions relative to compensation that
are included in the Architect's understanding with the Owner or in the Prime Agreement."
WLA's Position: In the unlikely event that the Architect was aware of conditions that
could possibly delay the Project beyond a particular and reasonable period of service (i.e.
approximately 9 months), the Architect had the responsibility to disclose this information
to the Consultant prior to Agreement execution as this directly affects the Consultant's
compensation due to changes in costing factors.
Paragraph 12.4: "If and to the extent that the time initially established in Subparagraph
13.4.1 of this Agreement is exceeded or extended through no fault of the Consultant,
compensation for services rendered during the additional period of time shall be
computed in the manner set forth in Paragraph 13.2."
WLA's Position: WLA acknowledges that Subparagraph 13.4.1 and Paragraph
13.2 of this Agreement were "deleted" in response to WLA's return of the Subcontract
Agreement to Komatsu dated September 3, 1998. However, a close review of the return
Fax Cover Sheet shows that only Paragraph 13.2 Compensation for Other Services was
addressed for possible deletion and not Subparagraph 13.4.1. Subparagraph 13.4.1
incorporates the provisioning of additional compensation to the Consultant(in
accordance with Subparagraph 13.2.2) in the event that the Project is not completed,
through no fault of the Consultant, within a specified period of service. While WLA
accepts the deletion of Subparagraph 13.2.2 as to the methodology of calculating the
additional compensation, it does not accept that compensation adjustments cannot be
mutually agreed to since the intent of this Subparagraph is to provide for additional
compensation for such reasons as detailed in this Claim.
SJR 0004 g
10/26/99
Prime Consultant Agreement Sections Relative to Claim
Section 2.2: "Architect agrees to commit the personnel to each assignment as necessary
in order to complete the assignment in an expeditious manner."
WLA's Position: WLA accepted this provision by starting on March 17, 1998
and immediately assigning personnel and other resources to the Project.
Section 5.2.2.3: The verbiage "...employee's yearly compensation in effect at the time of
the invoice..." indicates that the parties recognize and acknowledge that the "yearly"
compensation is paramount and that in the event the period of service extends beyond the
initial year, adjustment to the rates for ensuing years should be made if rate changes
occurred during the applicable time frame.
Section 7.1: WLA acknowledges that no formal Notice To Proceed was offered by the
Architect to WLA. However, the Architect acquiesced to this provision by working
directly with WLA as of the Project start date of March 17, 1998 and thereby waived the
requirement for a formal Notice To Proceed.
Basis for Claim Amount
In acknowledging that the deletion of Subparagraph 13.2.2 was accepted as to the
methodology of calculating the additional compensation, other methodology can be used
so that reasonable, equitable and justifiable compensation adjustments can be mutually
agreed to in order to fairly address and comply with the intent of Subparagraph 13.4.1.
Since both the Subcontract Agreement and the Prime Consultant Agreement are silent
relative to the methodology of calculating compensation adjustments, the following
rationale is offered as the basis for the Claim amount:
YEAR COST FACTOR % AMOUNT CLAIM
1998 Final negotiated Subcontract Agreement Fee $67,100.00
1999 Estimated cost escalation* 10% $6,710.00
`98/'99 Three (3) periods of"suspensions" @ $900.00 each 2,700.00
TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT $ 9,410.00
*Design Development Presentation and Cost Estimate dated December 11, 1998:
Design Development Costs: "...Costs shown in this estimate are those to be expected in the spring of
1999, with an estimated 10%cost escalation to the midpoint of construction which is targeted as the
winter of 1999....". As of the date of this Claim,construction has not started.
Contract (Construction)Administration Services
This Claim does not address nor does it include the CONTRACT(CONSTRUCTION)
ADMINISTRATION SERVICES(Paragraph 4.5) phase of this Project which, as of the date
of this Claim, has not started.
SJR 0004 9
10/26/99