-$~1. COUNTY OF GRANDE PRAIRIE NO. 1 AGENDA ITEMS

COUNTY OF

I Date of Memorandum: August 26, 2011 I GRANDE PRAIRIE N0.1

Meeting: I Council Meeting Date: I August 29, 2011

Agenda Item No: I I Confidential: I Yes I NoX

Topic:County Building Expansion & Tender Award

Modernization Phase 2

Originated By: I Herb Pfau Title: I Superintendent of Public Works

BACKGROUND: I Ref. Page No: I' I File No: I

The following bids (in the order they were received and opened) for the construction of the new building and shop expansion were as follows: 1) Binder Construction Ltd. (initial bid) $ 8,460,000.00 2) KT Construction Services (initial bid) $10,000,000.00 3) KT Construction Services (revised bid) $ 7,872,000.00 4) Binder Construction (revised bid) $ 7,745,100.00 5) Chandos Construction $ 7,114,000.00 6) Del nor Construction Ltd. $ 7,740, 900.00 7) Jen-Col Construction Ltd. $ 7,393,400.00 8) Fillmore Construction Management Inc. $ 7,053,514.00

DISCUSSION:

There was funding in the amount of $4,900,000 included in the 2011 budget for this project. The estimated costs for work approved to date are: Phase 1 - Tender $ 557,000.00 A teo $ 40,000.00 Eng/ Architecture s 340,000.00 Total Estimated Costs to Date $ 937,000.00 Remaining funds $3,963,000.00

OPTIONS:

1. Accept lowest tender with project not fully funded (please note the County has 45 days to accept current tender).

2. Refer the tender back to the Building Committee to determine how to decrease costs and then bring back budget numbers to fund project in 2012 budget.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Building Committee Chairperson recommends referring this tender to the Building Committee to determine how to decrease costs and bring back proposals for consideration in the 2012 budget with a possible tender call in January 2012 and occupancy in November 2012. This would allow for the reduced cost of summer construction.

~/ ORIGINATOR SIGNATURE: ~~~ DISTRIBUTION TO: council: ;y I I Other: I ADMINSTRATORS COMMENTS/FOLLOWUP: I

Alberta Saskatchewan

Partners:

Robert M. Roblnovitch M. Arch. M.A.AA. M.SAA .. M.R.AI.C.

David J. MacGregor M. Arch., M.AAA .. M.S.A.A. M.R.AI.C.

David H. Christie c. Arch. Tech .. AAA LE ED• N'

Morley K. Workun. (Refired) Paul Garrick. [Retired)

Associates:

Edwin H. Oram M. Arch .. M.A.A.A., M.R.A.I.C.

Gregory Anderson

Tristan P. Hawryluk

Brett Woodrow

Suite 1200 101 1 7 Ja sper Avenue Edmonton. Alberta T5J 1W8

1: 780 428 1575 F: 780 428 0326 E: moil@workungarrick.com W: www.workungarick.com

~THE WORKUN GARRICK PARTNERSHIP Arch it ec t ure and Int e r i o r Des i gn In c .

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Mr. Herb Pfau County of Grande Prairie No. 1 Public Works Department County Administration Office and Maintenance Shop 10001-84 Avenue CLAIRMONT, AB TOH OWO

RE: MAINTENANCE SHOP EXPANSION AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RELOCATION TENDER REPORT

Dear Mr. Pfau:

We respectfully submit the following Tender Report for the subject project.

A total of Eight (8) sealed tenders or tender amendments from six respective General Contractors were submitted prior to the specified time of 14:01 hours Wednesday, August 24, 2011 . A 'public opening ' commenced at 14:01 hours in the County of Grande Prairie "Gallery" Board Room. Representatives of the County of Grande Prairie No. 1 and the Workun Garrick Partnership were present to oversee the tender opening proceedings.

The bids (in the order they were received and opened) were as follows: 1) Binder Construction ltd. (initial bid) $ 8,460,000.00 2) KT Construction Services (initial bid) $ 10,000,000.00 3) KT Construction Services (revised bid) $ 7,872,000.00 4) Binder Construction (revised bid) $ 7,745,100.00 5) Chandos Construction $ 7,114,000.00 6) Delnor Construction ltd. $ 7,740,900.00 7) Jen-Col Construction ltd. $ 7,393,400.00 8) Fillmore Construction Management Inc. $ 7,053,514.00

Notes regarding the bids:

1) The bids were complete as per the terms of the specifications. The bids submitted by Binder Construction ltd. and Fillmore Construction Management Inc. did not include a Consent of Surety; but this document was not requested in the specifications. Section 00200 (Instructions to Bidders) , paragraph 21 .1 states "the Owner may after the bid submission and before contract award, require a Bidder to submit evidence of the Bidder's ability to provide security in the Bid Documents". The omission of the Consent of Surety (by Binder Construction ltd., and Fillmore Construction Management Inc.) does not constitute an incomplete bid. The lowest compliant base bid was therefore Seven Million Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fourteen Dollars (7,053,514.00) as submitted by Filmore Construction Management Inc.

2) There is minimal variation between the submitted bids. The bid submissions represent a competitive tender that reflect current market construction costs in Grande Prairie:

Contractor Fillmore Construction Management Inc. Chandos Construction Jen-Col Construction ltd. Delnor Construction ltd. Binder Construction (revised bid) KT Construction Services (revised bid)

Bid $ 7,053,514.00 $ 7,114,000.00 $ 7,393,400.00 $ 7,740,900.00 $ 7,745,100.00 $ 7,872,000.00

Variation from Low Bid(%)

1.01 % 1.05% 1.09% 1.10% 1.12%

The lowest base bid is considerably higher than the estimate prepared by the Architect in March, 2011 . We believe the following factors have (in part) contributed to this bidding and budgetary disparity:

a) Current Grande Prairie market conditions. We have been advised that since February, construction costs have increased approximately 5.0%. Costs are expected to increase another 15% - 25% before March, 2012 due to subtrade shortages resulting from escalated oilfield activities, recent Provincial Infrastructure announcements, and the "rebuilding" of homes and buildings in Slave Lake, Alberta.

b) "Non-local" Trades. Based from the list of bidders above, it appears there was no "bid-interest" from local General Contractors. We have been advised that the recent (2008-201 0) recession caused many of the "non-local" G. C.'s to leave the area to pursue work elsewhere. As the market is now escalating , "non-local" General Contractors face a premium to remobilize to the area.

c) The budget was based from unit rate figures for "standard construction and modernization" in the Grande Prairie area. The rates, which were obtained from an independent cost consultant, did not reflect inflationary issues (as noted above) , and did not reflect various design decisions (e.g. crawl space, structural slabs, etc.), and features resulting from as-built conditions, building detail parameters, and design meeting discussions.

Recommendations -We foresee there are several options we can pursue:

1) Option One - Work with the Owner to reduce the budget to the current $4.8M figure . It will be a difficult task however to remove $2.2M from the current design without grossly affecting the building's size, appearance, quality, and scope. This process would involve a new round of design sessions, and would likely be re-tendered (either traditionally or via Construction Management) in the Spring of 2012. Please be advised project prices in 2012 may be affected by the inflationary factors noted in Item (a) above.

2) Option Two - Maintain existing facility appearance and scope. Reduce facility quality by re-specifying less expensive finishes I equipment. This exercise would likely reduce the overall budget by approximately $750,000.00. The documents would be modified and the work would likely be re-tendered (either traditionally or preferably using a Construction Manager) in late 2011 (November). A list of potential budget reducing items for Owner consideration may include:

Office Addition : i) Downgrade design and materials (appearance) of connecting link to existing

Administration Building. ii) Eliminate individual heating and cooling controls in each office space. iii) Reduce complexity of facility lighting and controls system. Replace top-quality

light fixtures with less expensive types. iv) Eliminate exterior lights at exterior column locations. v) Replace architectural finishes: linoleum, millwork, countertops, porcelain I

ceramic with less expensive finishes . vi) Delete stone pilasters at exterior columns, or replace with economical "Cultured

Stone" product. vii) Eliminate glass quantities at front entrance fac;:ade. viii) Eliminate crawl space, and basement wall construction . ix) Eliminate 50% of electrical floor boxes in Reception area. x) Replace in-floor heat with less expensive system. xi) Replace specified spandrel glass at exterior windows with alternate (spandrel)

material. xii) Replace wood soffit material (specified to match existing building) with pre-

finished perforated metal soffits. xiii) Reduce size of exterior patio. xiv) Reduce extent of specified sidewalks at south building face. xv) Reduce quality of exterior roof shingles. xvi) Eliminate structural sidewalk at front entrance.

Shop Expansion & Addition : i) Eliminate new two-storey Shop-Office addition (maintain 3-Bay addition). ii) Eliminate existing shop washroom renovations. iii) Eliminate new elevator. iv) Eliminate new drainage grates and trenches in Maintenance Bay #1 . v) Eliminate existing shop-bay lighting retrofit. vi) Replace (two) 300mm thick x 9.0 m high x 31 .0m long masonry (sound

attenuation) walls with "regular" non-attenuating metal wall construction . vii) Reduce quality of specified ventilation equipment in new Welding Bay. viii) Delete new car-plug in receptacles.

General : i) Waive Phase Two building permit costs. ii) Waive bonding costs. iii) Phase Two landscaping by owner. iv) Phase Two gravel supply by Owner. v) Reduce Phase Two Unforeseen Cash Allowance (from $200,000.00) to

$150,000.00. vi) Reduce Phase Two landscaping scope.

3) Option Three - Maintain existing Office facility appearance, quality and scope. Eliminate Shop expansion and modernization component. The documents would be modified and the work would likely be re-tendered (either traditionally or preferably using a Construction Manager) immediately. This exercise would likely reduce the overall construction budget by approximately $2,000,000.00.

We believe the three recommended scenarios above provide a good cross section for the Owner's review and consideration. On this basis, we recommend that you present these options to Council to obtain instructions regarding next steps, etc. In the meantime we will continue to review the documents to determine additional (tender) cost reduction items.

I trust the above is satisfactory, however, should you require any additional information please do not hesitate to call .

Yours truly,

THE WORKUN GARRICK PARTNERSHIP Architecture and Interior Design Inc .

•

David J. MacGregor, M.R.A.I.C. Partner DJM:shd