Skip to main content

AgendaQuick™

View Agenda Item

10.A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:
10/16/2012
From:
Tiffin Miller, Project Manager

Information

TITLE:

Consideration and Approval of Change Order No.  1:  Coconino/Elden/Humphreys 2010 Bond Improvements 

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

    
Approve Change Order No. 1 with Eagle Mountain Construction Co. in the amount of $102,671.16.   

Policy Decision or Reason for Action:

Approving this change order will authorize the contractor to repair substandard roadway and construct full depth asphalt pavement on Elden Street between Route 66 and Birch Avenue and on Coconino Avenue from Wilson Street to the west end. 

Financial Impact:

The project is funded by general obligation bonds from the 2010 Bond Improvement Program in a principal amount of $16,500,000.  This increased contact amount does not affect the overall delivery of the 2010 Bond Improvement Program. 

Connection to Council Goal:

Maintain and deliver quality, reliable infrastructure.

Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This:

This project is included in the Council adopted FY 12/13 Budget.  The Council approved the construction contract for this project on July 17, 2012.

Options and Alternatives

Option No. 1 - Approve Change Order No. 1. This work includes removal of substandard base materials and construction of 4 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of aggregate base course in accordance with the current Engineering Standards.  This option is designed for a 20 year pavement life and will add 11 calendar days to the contract.

Option No. 2 - Deny Change Order No. 1 and direct the contractor to continue working in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.  This option includes a 2 inch asphalt overlay on top of the existing milled pavement.  Staff does not recommend this option because the pavement would likely fail with a few years and then require a full depth pavement replacement soon thereafter.  This option would likely cost more than Option No. 1 considering future pavement replacement costs and additional mobilization.

Background/History:

The original scope specified milling the existing asphalt pavement and a construction of a two-inch asphalt overlay.  After the milling operation was completed, it was evident that the remaining pavement and subgrade were in extremely poor condition.  This was unexpected as the borings from the geotechnical report did not indicate this condition.  

Key Considerations:

The existing substandard materials will be removed and replaced with new full depth pavement designed to meet a minimum 20 year life in accordance with the current Engineering Standards. 

Expanded Financial Considerations:

The new pavement will last much longer, minimize future maintenance costs and minimize impacts to the neighborhood.   

Community Benefits and Considerations:

INFORM - Construction progress updates have been provided to residents and property owners during this project.

 

INVOLVE - In April 2012, a letter describing the project and the schedule was sent to all property owners along Coconino/Elden and Humphreys requesting their cooperation in the project.  Several property owners contacted Staff to discuss their concerns and the plans were revised to meet many requests.

 

EMPOWER -  Voters authorized up to $16.5 million in general obligation bonds in November 2010.  The bonds are to fund street and utility infrastructure replacements.

Community Involvement:

Option No. 1 - Approve Change Order No. 1. This work includes removal of substandard base materials and construction of 4 inches of asphalt over 6 inches of aggregate base course in accordance with current Engineering Standards. This option is designed for a 20 year pavement life and will add 11 calendar days to the contract.

Option No. 2 - Deny Change Order No. 1 and direct the contractor to continue working in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. This option includes a 2 inch asphalt overlay on top of the existing milled pavement. Staff does not recommend this option because the pavement would likely fail within a few years and then require a full depth pavement replacement soon after. This option would likely cost more than Option No. 1 when considering future pavement replacement costs and additional mobilization.

Attachments

Form Review

Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Engineer rbarrett 10/10/2012 03:50 PM
Purchasing Director rcompau 10/10/2012 04:03 PM
Legal Assistant lburke 10/11/2012 04:26 PM
Form Started By:
tmiller
Started On:
10/05/2012 09:25 AM
Final Approval Date:
10/12/2012