8.1. SR 11-16-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BKVic; Il.J AICc,HIII'=t I J It I_' IVIEIRItrIC I.1ESI(;rN L ^IVI.)SCAI I_UI1CIHIII C,IUIHI'= I NGINI"I"RINC;, Brandon Wisner City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 October 15, 2020 Dear Brandon, It is not BKV Group's philosophy to ask for additional fees after the start of a project, unless there is valid justification for the request and a substantial amount of time needed for any changes or additional work. Our objectives are to provide excellent professional services and develop a project that that satisfies the City's needs and services the first responders for a reasonable and appropriate cost. However, the scope of work for the Elk River Public Safety Building Expansion and Fire Station #3 project has changed significantly enough from what we based our proposal on that we are requesting a fee adjustment of $1 12,600. BKV Group proposed a fee of $558,000 when we submitted our proposal. Our understanding of the scope of work showed that the project was based on the information referenced in the study in the RFP. In addition, we made a number of standard assumptions on topics where final information was not available. Below is a summary of changes that have created the additional work that was not anticipated in our proposal. • We assumed that the City would provide a site survey for each site with their own consultant, as is common. It was decided that it would be easier for the design team to provide this. • We assumed that the City would have the Construction Manager on -board soon after the architect. This is important for cost estimating, value engineering, coordinating scopes, and constructability reviews. BKV Group took on extra responsibility for these tasks, plus we spent a lot of time into organizing and coordinating the CM selection process. • We assumed that the stormwater at both sides was accommodated within existing basins. Unfortunately, the City was unable to find documentation that the Fire Station #3 site was planned for within the stormwater calculations during the subdivision design process, and changes in the amount of stormwater that is deemed acceptable to empty into Lake Orono meant that a detention basin to serve as much of the City Campus as possible was added to the design on the Public Safety site. • We assumed that the wetlands area at Fire Station #3 was formally defined, but it was not. The wetlands delineation was added to the project scope. • The opportunity to use the wetlands for stormwater at Station #3 will save on construction costs significantly, but that added scope to the design phase to move through the permitting process. • There was no indication of a future ERMU Well in the initial RFP, but this has been a significant constraint on the design process and added meetings and discussions to the scope. • The Study referenced in the RFP indicated that the fire station scope was a building addition to the south of the bays. In discussion with the client group, we modified that scope to comply with national best practices in cancer prevention. This resulted in an 222 N 2nd Street, Suite 101 1 Minneapolis, MN 55401 1 612.339.3752 1 www.bl<vgroup.com