Loading...
Item D24BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: February 19 2003 Division: Public Works Bulk Item: Yes X No Department: Engineering/ConstructionManagement Hur-MIJA 11 tM WUHDING: Approval to award bid and execute contract with D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $2,829,600.00 for the renovation of the Old Mariners Hospital. ITEM BACKGROUND: On September 12, 2002, the bids were received for the Old Mariner's Hospital Renovation project. The four bids received were as follows: F&L Construction Inc.; $2,480,000.00; D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc.; $2,898,439.00; Hewett -Kier Construction Inc.; $2,862,000.00; McTeague Construction Co., Inc.; $2,313,396.00. Due to various bid deficiencies, all bids were rejected and the project was rebid. On January 16, 2003, three bids were received for the re -bidding of the Old Mariner's Hospital Renovation project. Bids were as follows: McTeague Construction Co. Inc. $2,567,500.00; F & L Construction Inc. $2,344,000.00; D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc. $2,829,600.00. Recommendation was given by the project's architect, Bender & Associates, to award bid to D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $2,829,600.00. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: This project is included in the Capital Improvements Plan. On February 21, 2001, BOCC approved a contract with Bender & Associates Architects for design services. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval as stated above. TOTAL COST: $2,829,600.00 BUDGETED: Yes X NO 304-26500-560620-CG9820-560620 COST TO COUNTY: $2,829,600.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Infrastructure sales tax REVENUE PRODUCING: YES_ NO X AMOUNT PER MONTH YEAR APPROVED BY: C unty VAOMB/Purchasing Risk Management Item Prepared By: dwStephanien Manager Dave S. Koppel, P.E., County Engineer DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Dent Pierce, Division Director DOCUMENTATION: Included To follow X Not required. DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # AGENbA ITEM WITH LATE ©OCUMENTATION DIVISION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering/Construction Management SUBJECT Approval to award bid and execute contract with D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $2,829,600.00 for the renovation of the Old Mariner's Hospital DATE ITEM WILL BE AVAILABLE 1/6/03 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: February 19, 2003 Division: Public Works Bulk Item: Yes X No Department: Engineering/ConstructionManaaement AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to waive purchasing and policy procedure, award bid and execute contract with the high bidder, D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc., in the amount of $2,829,600.00 for the renovation of the Old Mariners Hospital. ITEM BACKGROUND: On September 12, 2002, the bids were received for the Old Mariner's Hospital Renovation project. The four bids received were as follows: F&L Construction Inc.; $2,480,000.00; D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc.; $2,898,439.00; Hewett -Kier Construction Inc.; $2,862,000.00; McTeague Construction Co., Inc.; $2,313,396.00. Due to various bid deficiencies, all bids were rejected and the project was rebid. On January 16, 2003, three bids were received for the re -bidding of the Old Mariner's Hospital Renovation project. Bids were as follows: McTeague Construction Co. Inc. $2,567,500.00; F & L Construction Inc. $2,344,000.00; D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc. $2,829,600.00. Recommendation was given by the project's architect, Bender & Associates, to award bid to D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $2,829,600.00. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: This project is included in the Capital Improvements Plan. On February 21, 2001, BOCC approved a contract with Bender & Associates Architects for design services. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval as stated above TOTAL COST: $2,829,600.00 BUDGETED: Yes X NO 304-26500-560620-CG9820-560620 COST TO COUNTY: $2,829,600.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Infrastructure sales tax REVENUE PRODUCING: YES_ NO X AMOUNT PER MONTH YEAR APPROV BY: Coun OMB/Purchasing Item Prepared By: Stephanie Coffer, Construction Manager /7 DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROV Dent Pierce, Division Director Risk Management pel, P.E., County En ineer DOCUMENTATION: Included 7(- To follow Not required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # February 4, 2003 f Revised February 11, 2003 Q" ZI) o 3 Ms. Stephanie Coffer, Dir. of Planning & Constr. Monroe County Construction Management The Historic Gato Cigar Factory 1100 Simonton Street Key West, FL 33040 Re: Mariners Bid Recommendation Dear Stephanie: Bender/ LAA R C it ll I T ale 'C T S, This letter modifies my previous recommendation for bid award, transmitted to you on February 4, 2003. In the past week, I have met with Bill Sprague, the construction manager representing Sheriff Roth and discussed these bids with Sheriff Roth. As you are aware, the majority of the funding for this project is being provided by the Sheriff from money recovered from his participation in drug enforcement. Those funds are required by law to be used for construction and infrastructure only. They cannot be used for general budget operating expenses and their use does not impact other budget line items. In addition to the above, I have independently reviewed the bids submitted for the Old Mariner's renovation by F&L Construction, McTeague Construction and D.L. Porter Constructors. My recommendation gives consideration to the B.O.C.C. directive to ensure that projects are adequately funded, bidders are solvent, able to complete the project and are qualified. I have received Qualification Statements, AIA Document A305, from all bidders and am forwarding them for your use separately from this recommendation. Additional information that I reviewed include the contractors bid breakdown and worksheets. 6.3 AWARD OF CONTRACT 6.3.1 The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all Bids or any part of a bid, to waive the right to disregard all non -conforming, non -responsive or conditional bids. 6.3.2 In evaluating Bids, the Owner may consider the qualifications of the Bidders and whether or not the Bids comply with the prescribed requirements in the Bid 410AngeIaStreet ► Key West, Florida 33040 Telephone (305)296-1347 Facsimile (305) 296-2727 Florida License AAC002022 Mariner's Revised Bid Recommendation February 11, 2003 Page 2 of 7 Instruction. If requested by the Construction Manager, Bidders shall submit a properly filled out and executed Contractor's Qualification Statement after submission of bid, and prior to the Bid Clarification Meeting. An AIA Document A305-1986 is to be completed for this purpose. 6.3.3 The Owner shall have the right to accept alternates. The alternates will be accepted only in the order they are listed; alternate number one will be accepted first, alternate number two, second, and so on. 6.3.4 The Owner may consider the qualifications and experience of subcontractors and/or other entities (including those who are to furnish materials, or equipment fabricated to a special design) proposed for each of the principal portions of the Work. If requested by the Construction Manager, Bidders shall submit their listing of subcontractors after submission of bids, and prior to the Bid Clarification Meeting. A Proposed Subcontractor Listing Form supplied by the Owner is to be completed for this purpose. 6.3.5 The Owner may conduct such investigations as he deems necessary to assist in the evaluation of any Bid and to establish the responsibility, qualifications, and financial ability of the Bidders, proposed subcontractors, and other persons or organizations to do the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents to the Owner's satisfaction within the prescribed time. The Owner has the right to conduct Bid Clarification Meetings with any Bidder to determine if Bidder has bid the scope of work in its entirety. Bidder shall be required to attend Bid Clarification Meetings, as necessary. 6.3.6 The Owner reserves the right to reject the Bid of any Bidder who does not pass any such evaluation to their satisfaction. 6.3.7 If the Contract is awarded, it will be awarded to the Bidder whose evaluation by the Owner shows him to be responsible and has indicated to the Owner that the award will be in the best interest of the Project. I have worked previously with D. L. Porter and consider them to be a reputable firm, who will provide a good project. They have a long history of successfully completing projects in Monroe County. They were the contractor for the Gato Building for both the State Department of Health and Monroe County contracts. They took over the Monroe County portion after Lodge Construction abandoned the project during the concrete restoration portion of the work. Although I have not previously worked with McTeague Construction, their references are good Mariner's Revised Bid Recommendation February 11, 2003 Page 3 of 7 and I believe they are a reputable firm that will also produce a good project. F& L Construction received positive recommendations from John Junkin, Architect, although he noted that they can have a hard time with deadlines, and from Jerome Filer, Architect. Both architects had not worked with them recently. My estimate of construction cost for Mariners was $3,410,000. Bids were originally scheduled to be received on June 4, 2002, and postponed several items. During this period, we witnessed a downturn in the economy and anticipated a favorable bidding climate, but not to the extent experienced with the low end of the bids received. The high bid, at $2,829,600, is approximately 15% below our estimate. The low bid at $2,344,000 is approximately 31% below our estimate, and the spread from low to high is about 25%. Because of these discrepancies, I compared the bidders spread sheets and noted the following: RE -BID RENOVATIONS TO OLD MARINERS RESPONDENT TOTAL BASE BID McTeague Construction Co, Inc. $2,567,500.00 D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc. $2,829,600.00 F&L Construction, Inc. $2,344,000.00 McTeague F&L D. L. Porter General Conditions (w/out insurance) 203,500 232,400 243,473 Builders Risk/w/windstorm 205,500 107,970 (23,600 + 84,300) 200,521 Concrete Repairs/Reinforce Walls 234,396 132,100 347,695 Insulating Concrete 71,500 41,000 88,000 Roofing (included Demo) 171,600 155,000 171,600 Cabinets 118,000 115,000 121,252 French Drains/Injection well 110,704 65,200 71,100 Site work Total 432,804 209,000 325,867 Mechanical 143,000 13 5, 900 I�13 5, 900 Mariner's Revised Bid Recommendation February 11, 2003 Page 4 of 7 Plumbing Electrical 90,200 I 8 8, 400 I 93,900 3662532 I 3 50, 000 I 3 75, 000 When this project was previously bid, McTeague was the low bidder. His line item bid is unchanged except for the additional site work and increased costs for insurance, as required by the Risk Management and clarified with the rebid package. D. L. Porter's bid is marginally lower, primarily due to reduced overhead and profit. Porter has also clarified that the insurance costs carried on his bid are for a twelve month project. A firm quote for the eighteen month project was received by Porter on January 28, twelve days after the bid date, and totals $280,787.09. (McTeague's insurance quote and Porter's insurance quote were transmitted to you previously.) The eighteen month construction time was established during the first bid at the request of F&L Construction, who felt the stipulated twelve month period was not adequate. The line item areas of each bid where I have the most concern are insurance, concrete repairs, lightweight insulating concrete and site work. The lightweight insulating concrete is a function of the roof system and manufacturers warranty. The specified lightweight concrete is compatible with the specified Siplast roof system. Both Porter and McTeague are using the same roofer and the specified Siplast Roof. F&L is using a different roofer who is using a Firestone System listed in the specification as an approved equal to the Siplast System. Verification of what lightweight . systems F&L is planning on is required in order to ensure the roofing warranty. I expected the concrete repairs to exceed $300,000 or possibly $350,000, which puts McTeague's price at about $100,000 low and F&L at $200,000 low. I expected the total sitework costs to be around $300,000 to $350,000 which would put F&L about $100,000 low and McTeague $100,000 high. McTeague has confirmed his insurance quote on a per annum basis was adjusted for the eighteen month period. It is my belief that F&L did not have an insurance quote at the time of bidding and simply used a number that he believed was reasonable. I requested a copy of his insurance quote and received a letter from his insurance agent, which doesn't indicate the period or terms of coverage. Therefore, Porter has under bid the insurance requirement by about $75,000 and F&L has underbid it by $100,000 to $150,000. Mariner's Revised Bid Recommendation February 11, 2003 Page 5 of 7 Summary: My recommendation is made with consideration given to all of the above and is summarized as follows: 1. Bill Sprague, Sheriff Roth's representative, is a construction manager who has extensive construction experience in Monroe County. My professional relationship with him dates to 1994. He was the construction manager's field representative employed by Brown and Root Construction on the Florida Keys Community College reconstruction project. He has gained extensive experience on the problems and pitfalls of construction in the Florida Keys, including cost estimates and scheduling. I have confidence in him as a construction manager and value his opinion. He has recommended D.L. Porter. 2. Sheriff Roth is the primary tenant of this building as it replaces the Plantation Key Substation. He purchased the building and is providing the majority of the construction funding. In discussing this project with the Sheriff, he has expressed to me that he has confidence in D.L. Porter based on his past experience with them and he has confidence in Bill Sprague to act in the best interest of the Sheriffs Office and Monroe County. 3. The project is substantially under the Architect's estimate and within budget. 4. F&L Construction has not sufficiently funded the project to complete it in accordance with the bidding documents. 5. I had concerns that McTeague's first bid was underfunded. He has now had a chance to confirm all of his numbers and adjusted for insurance and the added landscape and site requirements. However, he has not adjusted, either up or down, any of his other line items. I concur with Bill Sprague's opinion that McTeague has not adequately funded the project. 6. On the Gato Building, the low bidder was bypassed because of problems with his bid. Additionally, his bid was substantially below the second bidder, Lodge Construction. Early in the project, during concrete restoration, Lodge abandoned the job. Also during this time, his payment applications were not sufficient to cover his monthly expenses. His line item for concrete repairs was about half that of the other bidders. 7. The project scope increased and clarification of insurance requirements added to the Mariner's Revised Bid Recommendation February 11, 2003 Page 6 of 7 project costs, yet F&L construction lowered their bid. I compared their first bid to their second bid with the following differences noted. FIRST BID REBID INSURANCE Umbrella $10,000 Wind 0 Builder's Risk 60,000 Subtotal Insurance 70,000 18,000 84,300 23,600 125,900 Supervisor 64,000 60,000 Site Paving Water Sewer 165,000 132,000 Building Demo 65,000 60,000 Exotic Removal 0 8,000 Asbestos Abatement 0 14,000 Lightweight Insu. Concrete 46,000 41,000 Hurricane Shutters 80,000 60,000 Ceramic Tile 38,000 38,400 Painting 58,000 50,000 Lockers/Benches 465 4,465 Plumbing 119,000 85,900 HVAC 153,000 133,400 350,000 Electric 400,000 Subtotal 1,258,465 1,163,065 212,925 OH&P 252,535 Recommendations: Based on and with consideration to all of the above, I recommend awarding to D.L. Porter, Constructors for the base bid amount of $2,829,600, as the most responsive and responsible bidder. Mariner's Revised Bid Recommendation February 11, 2003 Page 7 of 7 The Board of County Commissioners has the right to waive irregularities in the bids and the bidding should they deem it to be in the best interest of Monroe County. Please call if you have any questions. I will forward this recommendation to the three bidders to allow them the opportunity to respond or challenge this recommendation, and to allow them time to prepare for the B.O.C.C. meeting if they so choose, as we discussed. Sincerely, Bert L. Bender, Architect BLB:swm cc: Dent Pierce Dave Koppel Bill Sprague Sheriff Roth Mike WTeague Julio Batista, Jr. Crary Loer r•= B.W. Sprague, Inc. Comoowe ox managar AXWC 019195 325 Duval Street, Key West, n 33040 REVISED LETTER 2-10-03 February 10. 2003 Ms_ Stephanie Coffer, Director of Planning & Construction Monroe County Construction Management 110 Simonton Street Key Wc;st, Fl, 33040 Re: Mariner's Hospital Renovation PrgJect / Bid Review & Recommendation Bear Stephanie, In representing the Monroe County Sheriff Office as Construction Manager, l have reviewed Bert Bender's, of Bender & Asrioeiates Architect, letter dated February .4, 2003. 1 further requested to review the Contract Bid Documents rcrerred to in Bender's letter, specifically the following. I . Contractor's Qualifications 2. Recent Completed Projects &, values 3. Contacts made by Bender and Associates After reviewing these dements I found the: following: • Me Teague Construction Company, Inc. I . Currently have 4 projects urtdcr construction► in the last 12 months with 2 projects 9V1,6 completed and working on the remaining projects. The largcst project is less than 3 million dollars. 2. No prior work performed ip Monroe County 3. Pricing schedule of values seems quite low for Monroe County but not to the extent of F & I, Construction, Inc. a F & I. Construction, Inc. I . Referenced projects were listed as projects complete by individual employees not as a company. This questions how long mach crnrloyee has bc-en with this company and how long has it been that these projects have been completed. No project listed as completed or as work in progress the last 12 months. 2. No total cost or description of current projects_ 3. No work poribrmed in Monroe County Office: (30.9 292-"7 I A NK W, %kV tolbwn Cell: (305) 797-8676 Fax: (30) 29S-6"l BW.VRAGtIF.Cd1('oe,po�wcvr.carn r• 5. Upon reviewing the Architect call to refer ices, observed contractor can complete project for costs but has hard time nweting scheduled deadlines. D. L. Porter Construction, Inc. I. Listed several past and present projects, all completed in Monroe County and several in the same price range as this Project 2. Supplies local Monroe County References 3. Projects completed on time and in scope budgets In reviewing the Bid Document Proposal Totals I observed the following: 1. F & 1, Construction, Inc. $2,344,000.00 2. Mc Teague Construction Company, Inc. $2,567,500.00 3. D. L. Porter Construction, Inc. $2,829,600.00 Dollar ditfcrer►oc between low bid to middle bid: $223,500-00 Dollar diffemcnee between middle bid to high bid: M2,100.00 Dollar difference between low bid to high bid: $495,600.00 All bids fall below the Ar+c hitca's & Owner's Budget. I personally do not know of or have prior knowledge of Me Teague Construction Company, Inc. or r & L Construct -ton, Inc. I love and am prescntly working on projects for Florida Keys Community CollcM' Public Saicty Annex Addition, and Monroe County Sheriffs office, Marathon Hager, that D. L. Porter is the prime Contractor. I have found their pricing to be very competitive in Monroe County and their work farce to he very cooperative. In summary I have rmommending to Sheriff Richard D. Roth & staff that D. L, Porter Construction, Inc. is my selection for the contractor of this Project, even though D. L. Porter Construction, Inc. presented the highest dollar bid proposal- I feel their pricing is accurate. If I can be of any further assistmtcc please call. r#N�fflj'' �Wqntp , CC: R-Roth IVICSo B.Bender BA&A Lf M('M(-Stop Ior"3 2 2/10/200.1 -'EB-11-03 15=28 FROM. MCSO ADMINISTRATION ID PAGE 2 Sheriff . �t1,11„IYIIICII �Uui; 1'Ih t 44•11QIlr 6uatluul, IJ I ulYn u 151 240 7071 A 140S) A-i ;,w I ul,xlnilrlale; u•1•wan SuhLbpnel u�l r iti IIN•I A%I Rh 1.1, 116I •d:'Ih'nl lmlaLulnn II I Ilei•I LI'AL I1111 .".uhlul. I I t unu IN !k'1 !•I In A 111 IN 'NV J•1'll anlruad•: iuhSLtlhg1 11N1thrILr,1411:•5. auul.IJa, I•I I II14, INN I ln? .\ I It1Yl N5 t') I I. 4i.4 i n.l 'ill(q,,lulili 1111•1, 11. 1111111 tl XN1 I.III t i it)%) II'. eldlvu Ccnlell. Wprl I lt•I (rnn'� I t'1'Ilel�l• Ra.nl Wert, 19 I Ifllfl 1 1i! I 1 uxl nhnn Uel I•aellu, (Irr,u, Ir•nnce nhnn, I') i illill 1'MU IJ fll '� (Jyl'1'xllfllli '1(XI07N Ilan, 1'I 11uSu !Hu 24III 101) JNU ?•1'1N February 11, 2003 Monroe C.'ou r1 t J .Slie1YYs owice Wkharrf'I..). oth, SFeiijj.. 5525 Caffege 5W Vy Wrst,FCod& 33040 (305) 292-7000 YAX (305) 292-7070 1-800-273-CY•r.1Ps *Wu.6#uo. net Ms. Stephanie Coffer County Engineer C/O Monroe County Construction Management 1100 Simonton Street Key West, Florida 33040 Dear Ms. Coffer: M"R6WN490ag FEB The Monroe County Sheriffs Office has currently budgeted $2,000,000 in Federal Asset Sharing monies and Impact fees for the construction project at Mariner's Hospital. Upon receipt of pay applications from the contractor, the Sheriffs OffiCe will affect payment directly to Monroe County_ If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (305) 292-7090 or online at mrice@keyssQ.net. Sincerely, Michael Rice Chief, Bureau of Administration is cc:Sheriff Richard Roth Mariner's Hospital File s �, "tt a-,tI .1, � MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONTRACT SUMMARY Contract with: D.L. Porter Constructors, Inc. Contract # N/A Effective Date: 02/19/03 Expiration Date: Contract Purpose/Description: Approval to award bid and execute contract with D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $2,829,600.00 for the renovation of the Old Mariner's Contract Manager: Stephanie Coffer 4468 Eng/Construction Management (Name) (Ext.) (Department/Stop #) for BOCC meeting on 02/19/03 Agenda Deadline: 02/05/03 CONTRACT COSTS Total Dollar Value of Contract: $2,829,600.00 Current Year Portion: $2,829,600.00 Budgeted? Yes® No ❑ Account Codes:----304-26500-560620-CG9820-560620 Grant: $ N/A County Match: $ N/A 31005 — SLAB z 0 ADDITIONAL COSTS Estimated Ongoing Costs: $/yr For: N/A (Not included in dollar value above) feu mnintPnanna CONTRACT REVIEW Changes Date In Needed Division Director o //8 l0 3 Yes No[" Risk Management �l///��3 YesO No O.M.B./Purchasing yes No❑ County Attorney O I10-3 Yes[:] Nog/ Comments: , r OMB Form Revised 2/27/01 MCP #2 Date Out ,�)/ A _3 2 z11g,10 Section 00500 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor where the basis of payment is a STIPULATED SUM AGREEMENT made as of the Nineteenth day of February the year of TWO THOUSAND THREE (In Words, indicate day, month and year.) BETWEEN the Owner: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (Name and address) 500 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 and the Contractor: D. L. Porter Constructors, Inc. (Name and address) 6574 Palmer Park Circle Sarasota, FL 34238 For the following Project: Plantation Key Sheriff's Substation & Public Defender's Office at the Old Mariner's Hospital Building (Include detailed description of project, 50 High Point Road location, address and scope) Plantation Key, FL 33073 Scope of work includes but not limited to: site work, installation o utilities, lighting, landscaping, grading, paving, drainage; restoration of concrete structural shell; new interior partitions and finishes of gypsum board, metal studs, hollow metal frames, doors, aluminum windows, hardware, carpet, vinyl and ceramic tile, sports flooring finishes; complete new plumbing and electrical systems. The Construction Manager is: Stephanie Coffer (Name and address) Monroe County Construction Management 1100 Simonton Street Second Floor — Room 2-216 Key West, Florida 33040 The Architect is: Bender and Associates, P.A. (Name and Address) 410 Angela Street Key West, FL 33040 The Owner and Contractor agree as set forth below. 2/11/2003 9:49 AM AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR 00500-1 ARTICLE 1 The Contract Documents The Contract Documents consist of this Agreement, Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary and other Conditions), Drawings, Specifications, Addenda issued prior to execution of this Agreement, other documents listed in this Agreement and Modifications issued after execution of this Agreement: these form the Contract, and are as fully a part of the Contract as if attached to this Agreement or repeated herein. The Contract represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. An enumeration of the Contract Documents, other than Modifications, appears in Article 9. ARTICLE 2 The Work of this Contract The Contractor shall execute the entire Work described in the Contract Documents, except to the extent specifically indicated in the Contract Documents to be the responsibility of others, or as follows: Scope of Work as specified in the Project Manual for this project, Section 00300. ARTICLE 3 Date of Commencement and Substantial Completion 3.1 The date of commencement is the date from which the Contract Time of Paragraph 3.2 is measured, and shall be the date of this Agreement, as first written above, unless a different date is stated below or provision is made for the date to be fixed in a notice to proceed issued by the Owner. Unless the date of commencement is established by a notice to proceed issued by the Owner, the Contractor shall notify the Owner, through the Construction Manager, in writing not less than five days before commencing the Work. 3.2 The Contractor shall achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work not later than (Insert the calendar date or number of calendar days after the date of commencement. Also insert any requirements for earlier Substantial Completion of certain portions of the Work, if not stated elsewhere in the Contract Documents.) �548I Five Hundred Forty Eight Days calendar days from date of Commencement. subject to adjustments of the Contract Time as provided by the Contract Document (Insert provisions if any for liquidated damages relating to failure to complete on time) ARTICLE 4 Contract Sum 4.1 The owner shall pay the Contractor in current funds for the Contractor's performance of the Contract the Contract Sum of Two million Eight Hundred Twenty-NineThousand Six Hundred Dollars /100 Dollars ($2,829,600.00), subject to additions and deductions as provided in the Contract Documents. 2/11/2003 9:49 AM AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR 00500-2 4.2 The Contract Sum is based upon the following alternates, if any, which are described in the Contract Documents and are hereby accepted by the Owner: NONE (State the numbers or other identification of accepted altemates. If decisions on other alternates are to be made by the Owner subsequent to the execution of this Agreement. Attach a schedule of such other alternates showing the amount for each and the date until which that amount is valid.) 4.3 Unit prices, if any, are as follows: 1. Unit price for each additional square foot of slab area. $185.00 2. Unit price per lineal foot of beam. $135.00 3. Unit price per lineal foot of column. $185.00 4. Unit price per lineal foot of crack. $23.00 ARTICLE 5 Progress Payments 5.1 Based upon Applications for Payment submitted by the Contractor to the Construction Manager, and upon Project Applications and Certificates for Payment issued by the Construction Manager and Architect, the Owner shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Sum to the contractor as provided below and elsewhere in the Contract Documents. 5.2 The period covered by each Application for payment shall be one calendar month ending on the last day of the month, or as follows: 5.3 Provided an Application for Payment is submitted to the Construction Manager not later than the First day of a month, the Owner shall make payment to the Contractor not later than the Twenty-first day of the Same month. If an Application for Payment is received by the Construction Manager after the application date fixed above, payment shall be made by the Owner not later than Twenty days after the Construction Manager receives the Application for Payment. 5.4 Each Application for Payment shall be based upon the Schedule of Values submitted by the Contractor in accordance with the Contract Documents. The Schedule of Values shall allocate the entire Contract Sum among the various portions of the Work and be prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the Construction Manager or Architect may require. This schedule, unless objected to by the Construction Manager or Architect, shall be used as a basis for reviewing the Contractor's Applications for Payment. 5.5 Applications for Payment shall indicate the percentage of completion of each portion of the Work as of the end of the period covered by the Application for Payment. 5.6 Subject to the provisions of the Contract Documents, the amount of each progress payment shall be computed as follows: 5.6.1 Take that portion of the Contract Sum properly allocable to completed Work as determined by multiplying the percentage completion of each portion of the Work by the share of the total Contract Sum allocated to that portion of the Work in the Schedule of Values, less retainage of Ten percent (10%). Pending final determination Of cost to the Owner of changes in the Work, amounts not in dispute may be included in applications for Payment. The amount of credit to be allowed by the Contractor to the Owner for a deletion or change which results in a net decrease in the Contract Sum shall be actual net cost as confirmed by the Construction Manager. When both additions and credits covering related Work or substitutions are involved in a change the allowance for overhead and profit shall be figured on the basis of net increase, if any, with respect to that change. 5.6.2 Add that portion of the Contract Sum properly allocable to materials and equipment delivered and suitably stored at the.site for subsequent incorporation in the completed construction (or, if approved in advance by the Owner, suitably stored off the site at a location agreed upon in writing), less retainage of Ten percent (10%): 5.6.3 Subtract the aggregate of previous payments made by the Owner; and 2/11/2003 9:49 AM AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR 00500-3 5.6.4 Subtract amounts, if any, for which the Construction Manager or Architect has withheld or nullified a Certificate for Payment as provided in Paragraph 9.5 of the General conditions. 5.7 The progress payment amount determined in accordance with Paragraph 5.6 shall be further modified under the following circumstances: 5.7.1 Add, upon Substantial Completion of the Work, a sum sufficient to increase the total payments to Ninety percent (90%) of the Contract Sum, less such amounts as the Construction Manager recommends and the Architect determines for incomplete Work and unsettled claims; and 5.7.2 Add, if final completion of the Work is thereafter materially delayed through no fault of the Contractor, any additional amounts payable in accordance with Subparagraph 9.10.3 of the General Conditions. 5.8 Reduction or limitation of retainage, if any, shall be as follows: (If it is intended, prior to Substantial completion of the entire Work, to reduce or limit the retainage resulting from the percentages inserted in Subparagraphs 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 above, and this is not explained elsewhere in the Contract Documents, insert here provisions for such reduction or limitations) ARTICLE 6 Final Payment Final payment, constituting the entire unpaid balance of the Contract Sum, shall be made by the Owner to the Contractor when (1) the Contract has been fully performed by the Contractor except for the Contractor's responsibility to correct nonconforming Work as provided in Subparagraph 12.2.2 of the General Conditions and to satisfy other requirements, if any, which necessarily survive final payment: and (2) a final Project Certificate for Payment has been issued by the Construction Manager and Architect: such final payment shall be made by the Owner not more than 20 days after the issuance of the final Project Certificate for Payment, or as follows: ARTICLE 7 Miscellaneous Provisions 7.1 Where reference is made in this Agreement to a provision of the General Conditions or another Contract Document, the reference refers to that provision as amended or supplemented by other provisions of the Contract Documents. 7.2 Payments due and unpaid under the Contract shall bear interest from the date payment is due at the rate stated below, or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate prevailing from time to time at the place where the Project is located. (Insert rate of interest agreed upon, if any) (Usury laws and requirements under the Federal Truth in Lending Act, similar state and local consumer credit laws and other regulations at the Owner's and Contractor's principal places of business, the location of the Project and elsewhere may affect the validity of this provision. Legal advice should be obtained with respect to deletions or modifications, and also regarding requirements such waivers.) as written disclosures or 7.3 Temporary facilities and services: (Here insert temporary facilities and services which are different from or in addition to those included elsewhere in the Contract Documents.) 7.4 Monroe County's performance and obligation to pay under this contract is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners. 7.5 A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for public entity crime may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on leases of real property to public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity, and may not 2/11/2003 9:49 AM AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR 00500-4 transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section 287.017, for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. Special Conditions,. if any are detailed in Section 01000 of the Project Manual for this Project ARTICLE 8 Termination or Suspension 8.1 The Contract may be terminated by the Owner or the Contractor as provided in Article 14 of the General Conditions. 8.2 The Work may be suspended by the Owner as provided in Article 14 of the General Conditions. Article 9 Enumeration of Contract Documents 9.1 The Contract Documents, except for Modifications issued after execution of this Agreement, are enumerated as follows: 9.1.1 The Agreement is this executed Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor. 9.1.2 The General Conditions are the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. 9.1.3 The Supplementary and other Conditions of the Contract are those contained in the Project Manual dated and are as follows: Document Title Pages As listed in Table of Contents, Section 00001 of the Project Manual for this project. 9.1.4 The Specifications are those contained in the Project Manual dated as in Subparagraph 9.1.3, and are as follows: (Either list the Specifications here or refer to an exhibit attached to this Agreement.) Section SEE EXHIBIT A Title Pages 9.1.5 The Drawings are as follows, and are dated on each individual drawing unless a different date is shown below: (Either list the Drawings here or refer to an exhibit attached to this Agreement.) Number Title SEE EXHIBIT B 9.1.6 The Addenda, if any, are as follows: Number 1 2 Date Date Pages 12/19/02 2 01/06/03 11 Portions of Addenda relating to bidding requirements are not part of the Contract Documents unless the bidding requirements are also enumerated in this Article 9. 2/11/2003 9:49 AM AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR 00500-5 9.1.7 Other documents, if any, forming part of the contract Documents are as follows: (List here any additional documents which are intended to form part of the Contract Documents. The General Conditions provide that bidding requirements such as advertisement or invitation to bid. Instructions to Bidders, sample forms and the Contractor's bid are not part of the contract Documents unless enumerated in this Agreement. They should be listed here only If intended to be part of the Contract Documents.) This Agreement is entered into as of the day and year first written above and is executed in at least four original copies of which one is to be delivered to the Contractor, one each to the Construction Manager and Architect for use in the administration of the Contract, and the remainder to the Owner. (SEAL) Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk in Deputy Clerk Date (SEAL) Attest: am Title: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA X Mayor/Chairman CONTRACTOR M Title: END OF SECTION 00500 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICI BY ANnNE A. TTON DATA oal? 2/11/2003 9:49 AM AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR 00500-6