5.6b ERMUSR 08-09-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 Thanks for the reply. My apologies for the delay on getting back to you. We needed to dig into the all the details more. There were vacations and COVID that got in the way as well. In review of the two quotes, as you identified, they are not the same and there are discrepancies between them. The Brenteson quote does not include several items of work that were necessary to be performed and also did not include unit pricing for some items listed in the quote to allow for proper comparison. The original quotes from both contractors are estimates that were used to approximate what work may be necessary related to the watermain based on incongruent assumptions and not the actual work performed, as it should be. The quotes were nothing more than approximations should not be used as a basis for payment. My comment during our meeting was whether these were apples to apples and if so, there is validity to look at the two and to do some comparison of sorts. The installed quantities were reviewed and approved by ERMU staff or their consultant and there was concurrence by all parties to the work performed as it related to the watermain. However, what is of importance in looking at the Brenteson quote is that this is a proposal that identified ERMU’s willingness to participate in that amount. That number was $220,000. Additionally ERMU Board approved $261,000 for the work. What was omitted from the Brenteson quote, were approved items by all parties as part of actual construction of the watermain which were needed to be performed. The items omitted in the Brenteson work included mobilization and superintendent, proof rolling, leak detection, exploratory excavation and removal of a valve box and fittings. This total is $20,483.07. Being that the Brenteson quote is the basis of what you were willing to participate in by having Brenteson perform the work, the total expected participation would have been $240,483.07 with the approved additional work not provided in the Brenteson estimate. As noted here and below is all items specifically related to watermain are 100% ERMU. I have provided a cost calculation sheet that utilizes the Brenteson quote for a visual on an analysis that includes the Brenteson unit pricing when provided and actual installed quantities. Where there was no Unit price provided by Brenteson, I utilized the unit price provided by NL. The Brenteson quote excluded items related to insulation, so NL quantities and unit pricing were used. Also, included is a cost calculation at the bottom of the sheet that includes a sharing of the discrepancy. Based on the idea that the total change order for the watermain work ($212k) is less than the original Brenteson quote plus omitted items ($240k), we feel that the amount of $212,985.56 is reasonable for ERMU to pay. We all know this work was necessary as a result of watermain conflicts that were not identified during design and not further explored during the early stages of construction. In review of Lee’s values, conceptually he did a comparison of the total quotes. The analysis is suggesting a proposed cost share that included watermain items that would be 100% ERMU responsibility and not shared. In the sheet attached, I utilized the Brenteson unit pricing for Watermain items if provided, so a calculation and comparison of discrepancies between Brenteson and NL unit pricing does not apply. The NL provided unit prices were used by Lee if a Brenteson Unit price was not provided in his latest analysis. The only item in question remaining is street restoration and as per Lee’s calculations, the difference is split. When adding items that were omitted from the Brenteson quote, the calculations would indicate that the ERMU cost would be greater than the $212,985.56 when separating 100% ERMU watermain items so it is reasonable for ERMU to pay the full amount. Simply wanted to touch back on Lee’s analysis and it being higher as well. I would be happy to sit down with you and go over the details with you. Let me know about the meeting and dates that may work for you. Thank you. 92