My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.1.B. SR 10-16-2006
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2006
>
10/16/2006
>
7.1.B. SR 10-16-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:36:39 AM
Creation date
10/13/2006 11:25:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
10/16/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />October 12, 2006 <br /> <br />Bill Maertz <br />City of Elk River <br />13065 Orono Parkway <br />Elk River, Minnesota 55330 <br /> <br />Subject: <br /> <br />Elk River Library <br />0606-1159-21 <br /> <br />Dear Bill: <br /> <br />The purpose of this memo is to summarize the approach we discussed in dealing with the <br />project budget having received bids for the Elk River Library. As you are aware bids came in higher than <br />anticipated, yet after adjusting dollars with in the current project budget, we are with in 10% of our <br />Estimated Construction Cost. By making these adjustments we are able to maintain the high level of <br />quality that you as the owner desire and your community expects with in the 10% range. <br /> <br />The adjustments, as seen on the attached Project Summary Worksheet, are as follows: <br /> <br />. We have adjusted the Contingency from 10% to 6%, still an amount we feel very comfortable <br />with for a new facility, this puts 104,000 back into the building. <br /> <br />. We have reduced the FFE budget from $164,000 to $86,000. This will require us to reselect on <br />some of the furnishings within the revised budget, or look for additional furnishings to reuse, but <br />still leaves enough to provide new quality furnishings in areas of focus. <br /> <br />. We have received a letter from KFI, Mechanical Engineers for your project, and they have <br />received and approved the product from Econar. The only concern they have is there is no <br />experience or history with this new product for Econar. The conditions for acceptance as <br />outlined by Econar would also need to be approved. The Architectural and Engineering would <br />be reimbursed for any necessary redesign should the submitted product change. The value of <br />this donation, as estimated in previous e-mailsis$50.000.This amount has been added back <br />into the construction budget. <br /> <br />There are several ways in which we could further reduce the differential. We can within the law engage <br />in a contract with Merrimac, the apparent low bidder, and work with them to Value engineer up to 10% of <br />the construction cost out. This would put those items that represent the high level and expectation of <br />quality at risk. A detailed, in depth list can be developed if this is the direction you or council wishes to <br />go. <br />Alternates could be accepted, the total of these alternates is minor, and the value of them in the project <br />adds greatly. <br /> <br />We were very pleased with the interest the project has gotten as represented with the 15 General <br />contractor who did bid. People want to be apart of this exciting project. The project was bid with <br />Prevailing wage requirements, which we believe adds a value to the local economy as well. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.