My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:086
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:086
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2006 11:27:35 AM
Creation date
5/12/2006 11:10:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
5/16/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:086
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
<br />Staff also discussed with ELS factors which contributed to the high construction bid. It is their <br />conclusion that this is a highly unpredictable construction environment, and that the limited <br />interest in the project (2 bids) most likely minimized bid incentives. Taking those factors into <br />account, the previous assumption by ELS that the entire project could be completed for $290,000 <br />has proven to be incorrect. <br /> <br />As a result of the higher than anticipated cost of the project, staff suggests a number of <br />alternatives: <br /> <br />Alternative 1 - Reject all bids and rebid the project. While this may result in a lower bid price, <br />based on ongoing energy and materials costs, it seems impractical to assume that a rebid will <br />result in any significant savings. If the bids were rejected, staff could also explore modular <br />facilities. Based on recent discussions with a vendor in this field, however, a modular building <br />would not result in significant cost savings since much of the work is related to water and sewer <br />infrastructure, fixtures, site preparation and materials which are consistent with a designed <br />building. <br /> <br />Alternative 2 - Issue a contract for the base bid only. This would result in a project cost of <br />$382,959, plus a contingency of $35,500 (less $27,000 for landscaping work to be completed at a <br />later date). Without the benefit of add alternatives AI, A2, and A3, however, the project would <br />have limited design interest and be inconsistent with the goals of the project. <br /> <br />Alternative 3 - Issue a contract for the base bid and a limited number of alternatives. This <br />option allows the facility to be constructed as soon as possible and assures that it meets design <br />goals and the needs of the public. Staff's recommendation reflects this option. <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br /> <br />Included as Attachment B is a project budget detailing available funding and projected expenses. <br />As detailed in the budget, staff is recommending that $61,914 be transferred from the <br />Downtown Specific Plan Reserve (CIP 028006) to meet project costs. Use of this funding is <br />consistent with the goals of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Master Plan for the Downtown <br />Parks and Trails System, which recommended a restroom at this location. The reserve was <br />established to fund projects consistent with these plans. With this transfer, the reserve would <br />have a project balance of $686,086, with an additional $400,000 to be allocated in FY 2006/07. <br />To date, no specific project has been earmarked for this reserve. In addition, if the Council <br />concurs with the staff recommendation, landscaping work to be completed by City staff would <br />be funded from the Park Renovation Fund. <br /> <br />SR 06:086 <br />Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.