HomeMy WebLinkAbout908 AND 912 WEST MAIN ST BUILDING RENOVATION_UNKNOWNASKINS & ASKINS, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
702 W. FAIRMONT PARKWAY
P.O. BOX 1218
LA PORTE, TEXAS 77572-1218
KNOX W. ASKINS
CLARK T. ASKINS
May 14, 2007
Ms. Martha A. illett
City Secre ry
City of a Porte
City A.,1
La orte, Texas
RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 2007
PLANNING DEPT.
Re: New Life Christian Fellowship Property
Dear Martha:
gb�h1Z
telephone 281.471.1886
teleo0pier 281.471.2047
kaskins@houston.a.com
ctaskins@swbell.net
RECEIVED
MAY 17 2007
ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER'S OFFICE
I enclose herewith the original Deed from New Life Christian
Fellowship, to the City of La Porte, on the property described
therein. This is the building on Main Street in La Porte.
The corrected version of this Deed was recorded on April 30, 2007,
under Harris County Clerk's File No. 20070257674.
Please place this Deed in the City's permanent real estate records.
Your v ry truly,
Kn x W. Askins
City Attorney
City of La Porte
KWA:sw
Enclos es
CC: V. r. John Joerns
Interim City Manager
Ms. Kathy Powell
Tax Assessor Collector
Ms. Debra Brooks Feazelle
Consultant
Ms. Debra Dye
Main Street Coordinator
�v P
This original instrument is being rerecorded for the sole purpose
of correcting the executed date and the notary 20a�7w_:2C,127Y
ackrowlegement date.
04/l]4l2007 fF3 224.00
American Tille Co. -DP
GF# 608102-U
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
200702 7674
04/30/2007 FP2 $24.00
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF HARRIS §
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A NATURAL
PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION FROM THIS INSTRUMENT BEFORE IT IS FILED FOR
RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
OR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER.
That NEW LIFE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor"), for and in
consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 ($10.00) DOLLARS and other good and valuable
consideration to it in hand paid and caused to be paid in the manner hereinafter stated by CITY OF LA 1
PORTE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"), the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged and confessed, has GRANTED, BARGAINED, SOLD and CONVEYED, and by
these presents does GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY unto the said Grantee, all of the following
described real property, together with all improvements thereon situated (collectively, the "Property"), said
property being described as follows, to -wit:
Tract 1:
Lots 20 and 21, in Block 52, of TOWN OF LA PORTE, an addition in HARRIS
County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof, recorded in Volume 57, Page 320
of the Deed Records of HARRIS County, Texas, SAVE LESS AND EXCEPT that
portion of the above said lots (if any) and the interest therein, deeded to or condemned
by governmental entities for the widening of West Blain Street or for right of way
purposes, and further described in instrument recorded in Volume 4569, Page 499 of
the Deed Records of HARRIS County, Texas.
Tract 2:
Lots 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19, in Block 52, of TOWN OF LA PORTE, a
subdivision in HARRIS County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof, recorded
in Volume 57, Page 320 of the Deed Records of HARRIS County, Texas, SAVE AND
EXCEPT that 0.002 acre tract thereof, more or less, more particularly described on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and SAVE AND EXCEPT that portion of said lots, if
any, conveyed for right-of-way purposes as described in that instrument recorded in
Volume 4569, Page 499 of the Deed Records of HARRIS County, Texas.
Initia s/A�
VN
4.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property, together with all and singular the rights and
appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging, unto Grantee, its legal representatives, successors and assigns
forever, and Grantor does hereby bind itself, its legal representatives, successors and assigns to WARRANT
AND FOREVER DEFEND all and singular the Property unto Grantee, its legal representatives, successors
and assigns against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof,
subject, however, to the matters herein excepted.
This conveyance is made and accepted subject to all exceptions, covenants, conditions, reservations,
easements, mineral conveyances and leases affecting the Property, and to all other matters shown of record
in the County Clerk's office where the Property, or any part thereof, is located, and to rights of parties in
possession, if any.
Ad valorem taxes and maintenance fees, if any, have been prorated between Grantor and Grantee as
of the date hereof, and Grantee assumes the obligations to pay same as they become due and payable
subsequent to the date hereof. �/ ay of
DULY executed the 1 `dl t 1'u'i+-7 / tw �� 2007.
NEW LIFE) CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
By: GREGORY L. HOLLEY astor
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARMS
Mi mentX i as acknowledged before me on this the �FE Cday of
C� 2007 by GREGORY L. HOLLEY, Pastor of NEW LIHRISTIAN
on behalf of same.
jfJJ I
LESL! rJf�r
Stit sF0"l y NOM11RCcJ/ sNS7AR OF DEN
SION Ee0 EXAS
d f�, JA, N I ^ RES S Notary -Public in and for the _
f'r1„/�.�lllf 1 0. 207j �S State of TEXAS
J
Address of Grantee:
W4 Pv,,j
After recording, return to:
��)Yt,5 5,
T.o ��)q�
I. PlAtJk . 'All
Deed 2
M
0
A.
EXHIBIT "A" D o
z a
w
<rr„ �w = J
�z
m�C p
D W
_-, SAVE AlZD EXCEPT'tltal 0.b0.2-acre trat of land, more or less, out
Lot )4 .and 15,.Block'S2, To\vrt of.Lororte, a subdivision.of'a portion of the
Johnson Hunter Surve)'; 'Abslr.act No. 35 in life Town' of LaPorte, I'irrris County'
Texas, .aceording'to, a .rrfap of 'said subdivision of .record in' Voluinc.G7, paEe 196,
Deed Records of l•iarris Cound)'i Texas, said -Lois 14 and 151 Bftr_-I< 32 tver'e conveyed
to Joseph J. Holland, ct al., by .Mirris:Count), Probate Court. Caasc No. 497R6,
Hatris .Co-inly, Texas, m
"sald 0.002-;fore' tract., of !and, ore or less, 'a I'M.MW'
particularly dcscrib.cd by metes and bounds as fo910"Is:
r
CO6116ENCING at the Soulheasl Corner 'of. 11)e abodcanrntioned Slrr_k 52;
THr_NCE Snuth £6 dcg.'.5G'min. Westi along 11'e South line of BIo-k. 57, same being
the North'right-of-way line of LSain Street, a distance'•of 156.0 feel to life .POINT
OF HF%I\NI\�Gof the tract lhcrcin riescribcd;
THENCEcontinuing Smith 96 ric•g. 56 ,nfin: Wesi along life South.l!tic of ,Block 52, a'"
disiance.of 37.0.fre1 to the r'ornc•r of -Lot .14, Block 52, same being the
$nuthwcsl corner of life• iraet herein deserjI,cd;
THENCE North 03 dt•g. 04:min.'\hest `along the West fide of 1-6114, a distance of .
6.41 feet to.a point.on a curve;
THENCE in a Soull-icasterly direction-aipng a 'curve to thefelt having a radius of
110.0 feet and a ceniral angle of l9 deg. 39 ruin. 20 seb. a dirt inee o1 37.74 feet to.
the POINT OF If,r_GIN.N'ING. prraaaswre�nya6rtansttsyEartxw aaEo m cu
RECORDER'S MEMORANDUM:
t was
At the time of recordation, s
for the best photographic
APR - 4 2007
found to be Inadequate
reproduction because of illegibility, carbon or
photo copy, discolored paper, etc. All blockouts
additions and changes were present at the urns
the instrument was filed and recorded.
�Fd """*,✓g
its W1ARI5 CAUN7Y, TFirAS
NOTE: THE COMPANY DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THE ABOVE
ACREAGE OR SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS ARE CORRECT.
r
urc�,�I rwI MUInE sut � «usf arn+Eoaom� �
nHE STATE OF tTDLAS ax�surxnxour uwlH�eatwr.
wuMr w IMS
Iha01 Nf6 MuMn RID a 6 utr5�graa b ddt rd d in
h�Kr1w1pImo, Ybmupo Xci O WIR"dHd
Caiqkw
APR 3 0 2007
CoWMCLERK
HAMS COVMY TEXAS
908 West Main
Request for Qualification Statements
The City of La Porte is accepting qualifications statements from interest parties interested
in a Design/Build Contract for the Phase I Renovation of 908 West Main. Interested
parties shall submit a qualification packet addressing the following format and criteria:
• General Project Approach — describe the process or project approach that was
used in the past to successfully complete a similar project. Describe a design/build
project schedule including dates for major milestones
• Experience & Qualifications — submit brief documentation of your firm's recent
work, include reference contact information; demonstrate your firm's ability to
successfully complete this project.
• Certification — Certify the team architects and /or engineers were selected based
on demonstrated competence and qualifications in the manner provided by
Section X254.004, Government Code
• Vitae -Provide individual resumes for key personnel that shall staff this project
• Performance & Payment Bonds — demonstrate your firm has the ability to be
bonded
Qualifications will be reviewed by the City Of La Porte Selection Committee. The
Committee will identify the contractor whose response best demonstrates the competence
and qualifications needed to perform the renovation. The Committee shall use. the above
criteria to evaluate the statements.
Depending on the number of responses received, the Selection Committee shall qualify a
maximum of five offerors to submit additional information and, if the City so chooses, to
interview for final selection. Contract negotiations shall begin with the top applicant, if a
satisfactory contract is not negotiated and after providing written notice to the top
applicant terminating negotiations, the City shall begin negotiations with the next highest
ranking applicant, so on and so forth until a satisfactory contact has been achieved.
Scope of Work
In general this project consists of the partial renovation of an approximately 5,000 square
foot building, including but not limited to new HVAC units, total restroom renovation,
and new roof. Over-all the project will be conducted in three phases with the first phase
having a budget of approximately $80,000.
A site visit has been scheduled fore
o ay 14 @ 10 am for those interested parties to
observe the building.
Please direct concerns and /or questions to Reagan Mc Phail at 281-470-5065
908 WEST MAIN
Scope of Work
(5/1/07)
I. Re -roof building. Existing roof is a built up roof; may entertain a retrofit with a
Duro-Last roofing system (approximately 50 squares)
11. Design and install air conditioning and heating system; incorporate existing
plenum and air ducts into new system.
III. Bathrooms
A. Bathrooms located at the rear of the building are to be totally renovated to
adhere to the American Disability Act Standards (ADA), including
fixtures
B. Install a step to the bathroom with the built-up floor
C. Interior walls shall be cement backer board
IV. Contractor shall provide and absorb costs of Energy Code and ADA inspections
V. Electrical contractor shall provide a building load analysis on new equipment;
determine existing circuits and identify locations within the electrical service
panel
VI. Repair awning at the entrance; refinish underside and repair fascia
VII. Refinish front doors
VIII. Repair/replace front windows, stop water intrusion
IX. Modify floor elevation changes to comply with ADA standards
X. Demo existing walls and replace per plan. Install surface mounted lighting,
salvage and reuse existing doors and hardware, and flooring under existing walls
is unknown; match flooring with like kind
XI. Lighting to be designed equivalent to what is required for an office
MI. All work shall adhere to the codes currently adopted by the City of La Porte
XIII. Treat the entire complex for termites (908 & 912)
XIV. Relocate hot water heater
XV. Lunch Room
A. Stainless steel double sink with one side deeper
B. Delta faucet with double flap handle and spray nozzle
C. Millwork
1. Formica counter top
2. Quality hardware
3. Pull drawers
4. Under counter storage with doors
5. No particle board
XVI. Walls
A. Studs may be of wood or metal construction
B. Gypsum board
C. Kitchen and utility closet shall have fire rated walls
D. Walls shall be smooth finish with flat latex paint except for kitchen and
utility, which shall have a semi -gloss paint
XVII. Doors shall have a fire rating within fire rated walls
XVIII. The project shall require performance and payment bonds for construction.
Bonds for design are not required
M. The Building Permit shall be paid by the City of La Porte along with any
additional fees required (with the exception of specific craft permits which shall
be the responsibility of the subcontractors)
XX. Communications?
XXI. Install top step on stairway
XXIJ. Exterior re-route downspout at electrical panel; install bends on all downspouts to
discharge water away from building
XXIII. Required Contractor Insurance — shall name the City of La Porte as an additional
Insured; General Liabilities $1M; Auto Liability $1M; Umbrella $1M; Waiver of
Subrogation
908 WEST MAIN
BUDGET
$ 80,000.00
$ 46,920.00)
DUROLAST ROOF
$ 21,910.00
BONDS
$ 2,677.00
GENERAL CONDITIONS
$ 12,000.00
AIE
$ 8,568.00
ENERGY CODE INSPECTION
$ 600.00
BUILDING PERMIT
PLAN REVIEW FEES
A/C
$ 35,000.00
FRONT DOORS
$ 10,000.00
COUNTER TOPISINKICABINETS
$ 4,560.00
J
TERMITE TREATMENT
$ 3,000.00
COMMUNICATIONS
PAINT
$ 250.00
NEW WALLS ONL`(
RESILIENT TILE FLOORING
$ 710.00
RESTROOMS ONLY
AWNING
$ 6,000.00
MISC ELECTRICAL
$ 11,670.00
PLUMBING
$ 7,000.00
GYPSUM BOARD
$ 2,975.00
$ 126,920.00
�F'G�T1c�To
���w C��"o•�
SCALES 1' = 10'
908 WEST MAIN
4poseo A70,04 Awn
SMGLE LIGHT SWITCH s
DOUBLE LIGHT SWITCH S'
TRIPLE LIGHTS ITCH $�
DUPLDCOUTLET B
TELEPHONE
BREAKER BOX 0
SCALE, 1' = 10'
908 WEST MAIN
SCALE, 1' = 10'
908 WEST MAIN
'Zee r
Nw.. WIC.. awK
IT-
New lunch room - - T'- —
�
H
F
r II i
New ADA restrooms
_I __________7�// c__;
UINew utility room
O11 I 1`dl'I
0
w. aoa
Lp
nwv cv.ia mu
xz- f
908 West Main St. • La Porte, TX
SUNBELT SCALE: None DRAWN BY: R.S.K.
COMMERCIAL
BUILDERS. INC.
DATE: 2-1-07 CHECKED BY:
..o ..+isw we v mns .«o rt� a<xr. ro w�mana as rw mornr w o�v.nna a.m
nw� r^m�unrornror newrtrauavmvrixaur ewrrwrtr�xmruxrsuw�ir 11650-H JONES ROAD - HOUSTON. TEX 77070
2814 781 FAE06+d 7116 PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN DRAWING #: Al —B
:om�c,.o�'vnAro wi�n`w.�o r�w�rm`�`a. •u".uru.• `�mw�ernnr`�on•wim�se
ww ur a mwr .rw m a<F r. w wwmmra n ria ooavFr a mw.ra n.Fr
wawi+nw wm.Fm �� ro.Fr Frw1 c.Fn s.uw.m wrxour rxc nu wnu mvuFr a mm�r
C(YLICMI W�DCp. FC.
908 West Main St. • La Porte, TX
SCALE: None DRAWN BY: R.S.K.
COMMERCIAL
BUILDERS, INC. DATE: 2-1-07 CHECKED BY:
11M-H JOKES ROAD - HOUSTON, TFJ n070
2814 781 Fro 2814a 7116 PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN DRAWING # :
(Ac4zo/511?LE EAAZj'a5ul�')
Tr
nsnw,w wn rwxwn�wn. m.nwnwcat.a�rzwcw«.m,.no•
r,oncrrouaamnwnnuwrw Munnrtuowrwwnomorurs rwmeaaww
w w�axK me w mer,vo m aar.rq wrmicicx w+wooarwrw�rvm,wrm�
rrw.m1 c«ru,m,co, ro,wr onm+rwm �.u+w.m xnxort+„a rra wmw mmw+w uwnr
S poi ��Tv IZNbi�'
SUNBELT E
908 West Main St. • La Porte, TX
COMMERCIAL SCALE: None DRAWN BY: R.S.K.
BUILDERS, INC. DATE: 2-1-07 CHECKED BY:
++aso-N E7Dano7oM 6FAXUo-7116 PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN DRAWING #: Al
W l.Yll�p ppOs[M U,p ML [II11UM
..o.,.mruao mas.+amni�nrwra rtunmcivo,wwva.aaw.,ov.vn
wrw.m� wn.am ucmw m uv a,w..V m. ww.m rn,w,r rw snw wurrw mvw, a unm,
mvxixeuaxu.nc.
908 West Main St. a La Porte, TX I
SCALE: None I DRAWN BY: R.S.K.
COMMERCIAL
BUILDERS, INC. DATE: 2-1-07 CHECKED BY:
11650-H JONES RO-HOUSTON, TE MIG
8814E 781 FM181 711e I PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN I DRAWING # :
CORPORATE OFFICES
908 WEST MAIN
7
v-wk
-Olt
CORPORATE OFFICES
908 WEST MAIN
I ZONE I REV I DESCIDPIION I DATE I APPROVED
1r-P er-tD'
THRIFT STORE
D t J CAD DESIGNS
EA POWL TOM 77671
TEL 1 SD2-1484
FAX 1 471-2920
PROPOSED PROPERTY
SUPER FAMILY THRIFT STORE #3
912 WEST MAIN
Le. Porte. Texas
la I ID I DMO NO. REV
c rrE cr-GE.H c7+s-oo1 A
SCALE Va 1 00.01.18 1Sim a OF a
I„slNa „flW tl.19I1M ,I,Xt
IiB1,pVfl ,Il%1
Neloc0le elar.IlicAl as ,tt Aell Ne,nnvfl wi.knvs Reh,cale iltls aervx:fl HeW wr Mni
�J Iin,.Wa,n,.H,nt.nr
eee
—�
II
Janitor
New ADA resirfioms
JII ^d
New Lunch Room II i I' I I 11
L. — .l 1 .nw-
14. UAYXa U.y,
IIR1rO��II
F V
a �
If
908 West Main St. • La Porte, TX
SUNBELT
COMMERCIAL SCALE: None DRAWN BY: R.S.K.
THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED BY SUNBELT COMMERCML BUILDERS. INC. AS A COURTESY BUILDERS, INC. DATE: CHECKED BY:
TO THE CITY OF LA PORTE AND IS MADE AVAILABLE TO T I IE CITY FOR ITS USE AS IT SEES FrL 11050-II JOKES ROAD- I IOUSTON, TE XAS 77070
21114 M701 FAX291-0 7116 PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN DRAWING n: Al -E
Relocate door Rim 2' �Waler healer ahnve reiliny nb. wla wim war 4xwnr
n.xxwb .nxlbwl ne,x»x,ex,..x»b w.+wml aal�
� rr-
// bl �
Ali/r
G
New ADA ieslrnems 1
\ II
II
I lbw IXna�41}a
_ I1�y'rO—II1 C •v
1T
P»�w4x� v..b.b 4 b.aq
I4v. 4.1 by
908 West Main St.
• La Porte, TX
SUNBELT
SCALE: None
DRAWN BY: R.S.K.
COMMERCIAL
IHIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED BY SUNBELT COMMERCIAL BUILDERS. INC. AS A COURTESY
BUILDERS, INC.
DATE:
CHECKED BY:
TOTHE CITYOF LAPORTE ANDIS MADE AVAILABLE TOTHECIFYFOR ITS USE ASIFSEESFIT.
1106B_II (ONES ROAD- I IOUSTLIN, TEXAS 77070
2814w lal FAXIa"w-THa
PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN
DRAWING $1 Al
Relocale door alm 2' Waler healer above ceiling rlew ww vnw wnr vcnv
nr.�.we �x... � xnd wm wxlcxxr
e e I =
If
P Mlb wPrmrneiq J
a Janller
O
I'
New ADA Iestrooms I 1,
I , " I I •�
L � II II
d•
u
rmw u.X�w, un
qlg' 'v
rlew mu ..r a..
15)
6n
908 West Main St. • La Porte, TX
SUNBELT
SCALE: None DRAWN BY: R.S.K.
VVNI COMMERCIAL
TI 119 PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED BY SUNBELT COMMERCIAL BUILDERS, INC. AS A COURTESY BUILDERS, INC.
TO THE CITY OF LA PORTE ANO IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY FOR ITS USE AS IT SEES FI L II650-II JONES ROAD- I IOUSTON. TEXAS 7/070
DATE: CHECKED BY:
PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN DRAWINcn: Al-C
WY0.nm
_ 281dY1A1 FAXx612
Ilex wM eViM1 wM ettmu
Now lunch rlwnl O
F II
M
New ADA lOelrtwm9 I � Fj IIOytII
_ I
I 11 II
11 ii
- New ulilily room
z ry� u
ed "d
Ne. try
V�1'�V Iyed
908 West Main St.
• La Porte, TX
SUNBELT
SCALE: None
DRAWN BY: R.S.K.
COMMERCIAL
THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED BY SUNBELT COMMERCIN. BUILUERS. INC. AS A COURTESY
BUILDERS, INC.
DATE:
CHECKED BY:
TO THE CITY OF LA MR IE AND IS MAOE AVAILABLE TO IHE CITY FOR I TS USE A9 IT SEES FI T.
II6W- I I"ES ROAD- I IOUSTON, TERAS aa0a0
PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN
DRAWING if : Al
28141 w7a1 FAX281490-7118
�ll�ofo�
t
908 WEST MAIN
Scope of Work
I. Re -roof building, existing roof is a built up roof, may entertain a retrofit with a
Duro-Last roofing system approximately 50 squares
U. Design and install air conditioning and heating system; incorporate existing
plenum and 'duct into new system.
III. Bathrooms ��-p a) - �
A. Bathrooms locate at a rear o the building are o be total y renovated to e"
adhere to the American Disability Act Standards (ADA) including fixtures
B. Install a step to the bathroom with the built-up floor
C. Interior walls shall be cement backer board
IV Contractor shall provide and absorb costs of Energy Code and ADA inspections p e
+o V Electrical contractor shall provide a building load analysis on new equipment; Roke 713-15
4�I determine existing circuits and identify locations within the electrical service - Po —4E -vm.Gr;
panel virAwa Fo�it
VI Repair awr t, e entrance, refinish underside and repair facia L4'" tom'•
IZefieish front od o`rs - w ILL R�Rui E �t 15T�'U'�^ t7E (t 101 oK � &G tk 06mw)
I11 Repai/replace front windows��dif Nrusion
D{ Modify floor elevation changes to comply with ADA standards
X emo existing walls and replace per plan; install surface mounted lighting;
salvage and reuse existing doors and hardware; flooring under existing walls is
unknown match flooring like kind 4-
XI Lighting to be designed equivalent to what is required for an office ? lk..)
XII . All work shall adhere to the codes cu!rr�gtly adopted by the City of La Porte
XIII Treat fof to 'tes the entire compleZ9 & 912 (,��
XIV Relocat�f ter Heater -Zt . r; U tic
XV l tmVh Room `0 - A e, t
s ess steel double sink with one side deeper
B. Delta faucet with double flap handle and spray nozzle
C. Millwork
1. formica counter top
2. quality hardware - Cak"e—A � ,�- � � -bl c ��
3. pull drawers
4. under counter storage with doors
5. no particle board
XVI walls
A. studs may be of wood or metal construction
B. gypsum board
C. kitchen and utility closet shall have fire rated walls
D. walls shall be smooth finish with flat latex paint except for kitchen and
utility which shall have a semi -gloss paint
XVII Doors shall have a fire rating within fire rated walls
XVIII The project shall require performance and payment bonds for construction
Bonds for design are not required
XIX The Building Permit shall be paid by the City of La Porte along with any
additional fees required with the exception of specific craft permits which
shall be the responsibility of the subcontractors
—XXI Communications ?1�
XXII Install top step on stairway
XXIII Exterior re-route downspout at electrical panel; install bends on all
downspouts to discharge water away from building
I 1 �2,
Page 1 of 1
Dye, Debra
From: Dye, Debra
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:11 PM
To: Jan Lawler Qan@allianceportregion.com)
Cc: Joems, John; Sabo, Wayne; Wilmore, Debbie; McPhail, Reagan
Subject: 908 Board Room
Importance: High
Jan,
Due to the inquiry made by the Alliance last week, we are exploring the possibility of installing an ADA compliant
bathroom elsewhere in 908 W. Main Street in order to save space in the garage for the board room. We met
with a contractor last week and he is going to work up 2-3 options for us to consider. Having said that it is
important to note that the contractor roughly estimated it would add approximately $20,000 to the project. In
visiting with John, we determined this would fall in the scope of the garage/board room, thus making this
additional expense fall primarily on the shoulders of the Alliance. Is this something the Alliance is able to cover or
get in -kind contributions for? We will need to iron this out very soon so the scope of work can be completed and
sent out for bids. If you would like to discuss this or have any questions, please give me a call.
Thanks,
Debra D. Dye
Main Street Coordinator -Revitalizing La Porte's Historic Downtown
City of La Porte
City Hall: 281-471-5020
Office: 281-470-5017
Fax: 281-842-1259
E-mail: dyed@laporteb(gov
Website: www.laportetx.gdv . _
Address: 604 West Fairmont Parkway
La Porte, Texas 77571
4/30/2007
7-16-199S 7:57AM FROM HULL AND HULL INC. 1+713+6992581 P.1
INC. Cen-era I l.ontractore SiNCE1940
WILLIAM C. HULL, Pres.-C.E.O.
DEBORAH A. HULL, Vice Pres.
JONNA TOWERY, Secty -Tress.
April 26, 2007
City of La Porte
604 W. Fairmont Parkway
La Porte, Texas 77571
Attention: Wayne Sabo / Reagan McPhail
Subject: Up coming Projects Out for Bid
2223KELLEY
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77026
(713)699-2577
F A X (713) 699-2581
Fax:281-470-5005
Please keep us in mind on.any and all upcoming projects for the City of La Porte re out
for bids soon. We'd like to work with you again.
Thank you for your continued courtesies.
B.H/j.it
Sine ,
Bill Hull
President/CEO
D
908 and 912 WEST MAIN STREET
BUILDING RENOVATION
4/9/07 -100
ST I
1 PRIOITY W
To protect the exterior of both buildings from the elements, to repair the areas identified
by the inspection reports to minimize building deterioration and to repair/replace items
associated with life safety concerns. Items that need immediate attention to prevent
water intrusion are, but not limited to the following: repair the EIFS along the west
wall of 912; new roof for 908; replace doors and windows; paint facia, siding and
block; make necessary improvements/corrections to the electrical system.
2nd PRIOITY
To renovate building 908 to accommodate the prospective tenant the renovations are to
include but not limited to new HVAC units with heating capability, construction of
handicap accessible restrooms, reconstruction of interior walls, to bring the electrical
system up to standards and apply new finishes paint and flooring.
PROJECT OUTLINE
I. Exterior 908 & 912
A. New roof 908
B. Develop detailed scope of work to repair exterior
C. Create elevation plans and show repair areas
II. Building 908 interior
A. Develop a detailed existing floor plan
1. Show light locations
2. switch locations
3. electrical outlets (identify gang), identify 110 or 220
4. show exact locations of wall and their widths, lengths and heights
5. show exact location of doors
6. show location of electrical panel and main disconnect; take picture
of electrical panel and designated circuitry
7. show exact location of plumbing fixtures
B. Photograph interior
Ill. 908 proposed floor plan
A. Provide copy of existing floor plan to Ms. Dye, for identification of
renovation areas
B. Design restroom to meet ADA Standards
C. Develop door, hardware, window, finish, and flooring schedules
v
D. Show proposed mechanical, electrical, plumbing, carpentry, etc
E. Communications determine phone and data outlets
F. Fire Alarm system - if there is an existing one or is one required
OLG. Show area of asbestos removal'
H. Submit to staff for review
I.. Submit for ADA plan reviewer
J. Submit for Energy Code plan review"
W. Cost Estimates
A. Permits
B. Review Fees
C. Front Foot Fees
D. Inspections
1. ADA inspection
2. Energy Code inspection
3. Roof
E. Construction Estimate with a 10% construction contingency
V. Construction Method
A. Construction Manager — Agent
1. Municipality fiduciary capacity only
2. Shall be procured by the same method as an engineer/architect (A/E)
3. City must hire A/E to prepare construction documents
B. Construction Manager at Risk (CM)
1. Assumes risk for the project at a contract price as a general contractor
2. Provides consultation to the City During the deign and construction
Phases
3. City procures an A/E to prepare contract documents
C. Design — Build (DB)
1. City designates an A/E to oversee project
v2. DB procures professional consultants
3. DB furnishes City an approved set of construction documents with seal
if necessary.
D. Procurement of the various construction methods is found in Chapter 13
2003 edition of the Contracting and Bidding Laws
908 and 912 WEST MAIN STREET
BUILDING RENOVATION
4/9/07
1ST PRIOITY
To protect the exterior of both buildings from the elements, to repair'the areas identified
by the inspection reports to minimize building deterioration and to repair/replace items
associated with life safety concerns. Items that need immediate•attention to prevent
water intrusion are, but not limited to the following:, repair the EIFS along the west
wall of 912; new roof for 908; replace doors and windows; paint facia, siding and
block; make necessary improvements/corrections to the electrical system.
204 PRIOITY
To renovate building 908 to accommodate the prospective tenant the renovations are to
include but not limited to new HVAC units with heating capability, construction of
handicap accessible restrooms, reconstruction of interior walls, to bring the electrical
system up to standards and apply new finishes paint and flooring.
PROJECT OUTLINE
I. Exterior 908 & 912
A. New roof 908
B. Develop detailed scope of work to repair exterior
C. Create elevation plans and show repair areas
II. Building 908 interior '
A. Develop a detailed existing floor plan
1. Show light locations
2. switch locations
3. - electrical outlets (identify gang), identify 110 or 220
4. show exact locations of wall and their widths, lengths and heights
5. show exact location of doors
6. show location of electrical panel and main disconnect; take picture
of electrical panel and designated circuitry;
7. show exact location of plumbing fixtures
B. Photograph interior
III. 908 proposed floor plan
A. Provide copy of existing floor plan to Ms. Dye, for identification of
- renovation areas
B. Design restroom to meet ADA Standards.
C. Develop door, hardware, window, finish, and -flooring schedules
D. Show proposed mechanical, electrical, plumbing, carpentry, etc
E. Communications determine phone and data outlets
F. Fire Alarm system — if there is an existing one or is one required
G. Show area of asbestos removal
H. Submit to staff for review
I. Submit for ADA plan review
J. Submit for Energy Code plan review
IV. Cost Estimates
A. Permits
B. Review Fees
C. Front Foot Fees
D. Inspections
1. ADA inspection
2. Energy Code inspection
3. Roof
E. Construction Estimate with a 10% construction contingency
V. Construction Method
A. Construction Manager — Agent
1. Municipality fiduciary capacity only
2. Shall be procured by the same method as an engineer/architect (A/E)
3. City must hire A/E to prepare construction documents
B. Construction Manager at Risk (CM)
1. Assumes risk for the project at a contract price as a general contractor
2. Provides consultation to the City During the deign and construction
Phases
3. City procures an A/E to prepare contract documents
C. Design — Build (DB)
1. City designates an A/E to oversee project
2. DB procures professional consultants
3. DB furnishes City an approved set of construction documents with seal
if necessary.
D. Procurement of the various construction methods is found in Chapter 13
2003 edition of the Contracting and Bidding Laws
Page I of 4
Dye, Debra
From:
Joems, John
Sent:
Monday, April 02, 2007 1:57 PM
To:
Dye, Debra; 'Debra Brooks Feazelle (dbf@houston.rr.00m)'
Cc:
Lantos, Melisa; Sabo, Wayne; Barr, Stephen
Subject: RE: 908 Move & Update
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Ok —Debra
I see lot's of questions —set up some time Tuesday with Melisa
I would like Wayne Sabo there and Stephen Barr -will focus on securing the building and the possible roof leak?
From: Dye, Debra
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:54 PM
To: Joems, John; Debra Brooks Feazelle (dbf@houston.rr.com)
Subject: FW: 908 Move & Update
Please read the summary below that I wrote up Sunday about New Life's move on Saturday.
Thanks,
Debra D. Dye
Main Street Coordinator - Revitalizing La PorWs Historic Downtown
City of La Porte
City Hall: 281-471-5020
Office: 281470-5017
Fax: 281-842-1259
E-mail: dyed@laoortetx.gov
Website: www.laportebc.gov
Address: 604 West Fairmont Parkway
La Porte, Texas 77571
From: Debra Dye
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:43 AM
To: Dye, Debra
Subject: 908 Move & Update
All in all things went fine on Saturday when New Life was moving out of 908 W. Main Street.
Things were a bit tense and uncomfortable in the morning, but got better in the afternoon. The
representatives from the church that 1 knew were Gayla Holly (she was there only in the
morning), Carolyn Love, and Sean (Holly's son-in-law). I think there were others from the
church, but I did not know them. They had about 11 community service workers for a few
hours in the morning.
I arrived about 10:00am due to the bad thunderstorms we had and left for the day close to
5:00pm. I figured they would be getting a late start due to the weather; Carolyn and I were not
4/3/2007
Page 2 of 4
able to speak to each other long enough on the phone to find out from one another what was
going on (probably cuz my city phone doesn't work very well). They apparently started around
9:OOam and already had a tremendous amount of things packed up when I arrived. Below are
a few notes from the day's events:
KEYS
. Front door— Carolyn gave me the key she had for it. Currently you are notable to enter
the building from outside because of the interior locks that are needed to secure the
door. Who do I need to give the key to? C -l�Cc�
a �
. Back door— combination is #1254. Carolyn was told they have used Tommy's Lock and
Key in the past to change the combination, but no one could remember who he was or
ow to reach him. LJ W J�, nA( e l&� 6,t_1 G,`Z� {—.)
. Garage door —Apparently they don't have garage door openers, and may never have
had any. It is programmed into Bishop Holly's and Gayla's car though. She said we
would need to have someone reprogram it. 'j�L �����
. Bishop Holly's office — There are two ways to enter this office. One is with a key, but V l
no one knows where it is. Sean said a locksmith should be able to replace the lock in it
though. The second method to gain access is via a combination on the door.
� Currently the combination is #3833. This one is battery operated, to replace the
batteries you pull the cover off on the back side of the door, which is the same place
you go to change the combination. Sean gave the following instructions to change the
combo:
1. Push the "program" button once (beneath the batteries)
s¢J 2. Punch in the new combination (may allow for as many as 6-8
numbers)
3. Push "lock" on the front side of the door (center button)
V> 4. New combination completed
��M !✓ If the battery goes out, and there is not a key to get into the office, I'm not sure how you
would get into it! In visiting with Carolyn, it sounds like that happened to them once, but
she wasn't sure how it was resolved. Apparently you should be able to tell when the
batteries need to be changed because it locks more slowly as the batteries become
drained.
. NOTE: Due to the exterior combination lock and garage door being programmed in the
Holly's cars the building may be accessed by people other than City or Alliance
employees. When does access to the building need to be secured, and who is the go -to
person for this?
MISCELLANEOUS UPDATE
. I need to do a thorough walk through now that they are out and compare what is left with
the photographs to see if I missed anything on Saturday when they were moving out. I
4/3/2007
Page 3 of 4
think things are fine though.
. BH had the workers bring over all the books they had in the thrift store to help fill in the
bookcases of the library area, so they wouldn't look so sparse when they removed their
personal collection. I thought this was a very nice gesture on his part.
. They left approximately 4 colossal copiers in the back storage area that were donated to
n' UtP 1#�em. Carolyn said BH is donating them to the City=or Alliance. He thinks they were
upposed to be working when they were donated to_them. Should we see if the Alliance
iyants them, and if not haul them off or what do you want to do? 6�p"
� I dY-� r. They left a few items in the garage (recliner, coffee table, worktable, etc.), but might take
•� 1 ry, them over to the thrift store if given the opportunity. I think they were all getting tired by ,�,�-'
the end of the day. They may prefer for us to throw them away, bcause they aren't in `�
�,�'`✓ great condition^
. There were some wide wooden slats, like what is on some of the walls and ceilings
's throughout the building, that were stored upstairs. They loaded up most of them. I recall
�n seeing some of the narrow slats upstairs, which may be what he meant they left, but will
need to double check this. When I asked Sean if they were important to them to take
and stressed that it seemed like they should remain with the building he said BH wants to
use them to finish out some of the church. I inquired from Carolyn about them too. I was
in hopes that one of them would recognize they should stay with the building, but neither
of them budged. Seems like there was enough remaining that it could possibly be used
on a small section of the renovation of the building to tie the existing portion in with the
new, but I didn't force the issue. I took John's advice and decided to just make a note of
it, and it could be addressed later if we decide to tackle it.
. Toward the end of the day, as I was in the foyer area, all of a sudden I heard water
nning and dripping! When I turned around, water was pouring down from the ceiling, to
the balcony area of the library, down to the floor. I ran to the back of the building where
the guys were upstairs moving things and asked them what they just did because water
was pouring from the ceiling. Sean showed me in the attic where he was trying to get to
metal bucket and apparently tipped it over and it had water in it. I asked him and
aP-,.a Carolyn if water had ever leaked in this area before, and if the bucket was there due to a
leak, etc. They stated they were not aware of it having occurred before or it leaking but
0 ° weren't real convincing. They did not state any reason why they thought a bucket was
there with water in it. The only thing that makes sense to me is if it was placed there to
catch water from a leak. We may need to send someone over there right away to check
' it out. It is in a shallow area, which is kind of hard to reach.
o
NEW ITEMS
Utilities — When do these need to be changed over? Will the City need to have them all
J, put in our name, or can the Alliance arrange to have them put in their name, pay their
deposits, etc. and the City pay for them while we are renovating the building? Who is
�Ir sponsible for taking care of these details?
Al P
r � 4/3/2007
Page 4 of 4
. Mayor stopped by in the afternoon and had a really cool idea! He came up with the idea
for the Alliance to consider putting epic art on 1-2 walls of the foyer (where they had
numerous pictures hanging). It would look incredible!
sv' �
eOnce the renovations are completed, the office space needs a deep cleaning to get the
�a musty smell out. I think even the furniture and rugs need to be shampooed. Not sure if
that will be an expense the City needs to incur or the Alliance.
Seems like someone in the City needs to take inventory of the furniture and other items
5 left behind and tag them before the Alliance moves in. I don't think the furniture was
mentioned in their lease agreement. Does something need to be put in writing with the
Alliance as to the arrangement for them to utilize the items left behind and what is to
happen with them when they move out
. After spending several hours in the building on Saturday, upon your approval I'd like to 't'^
recommend we include a few additional items in the scope of work for the renovation of
this building. The front doors are already part of the plan, and in the building inspection ,
report it is stated that the front windows need some work. Since they are in bad -L
condition and only have single pane glass I think it is worth considering replacing the
windows completely and consider using the existing windows elsewhere in the building.
Pi` Both fumes and noise are transferred into the building from this wall of windows. Since
�9 the goal is to turn this into a class A building, replacement of these windows to make t
them more air tight and quiet would be a wise investment, and be considered an asset.
Y�� 0 ebra F. has already pointed out we need to add painting the interior walls to the scope.
nJ' v_J okay to request that Wayne, Reagan, Debbie, and Susan add these items to the
scope of work?
If you have any questions or need clarification, please let me know.
Thanks,
Debra
4/3/2007
Wayne 1. Sabo
Planning Director
PJ4-�n Ivt
a,�
0", P�--T
1
i
th
UA l `
T
v
r
MAIN STREET DEVELOPMENT
Back Up Documentation
3-14-07
APPRAISAL
1. Summary Appraisal
INSPECTIONS
2. Property Inspection Report
3. Texas Official Wood Destroying Insect Report
4. Live Oak Environmental Consultants — asbestos, mold & mildew report
5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment — Executive Summary & Addendum to
Executive Summary
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment — complete report in separate binder
ESTIMATES
1ST
6. Sunbelt Commercial Builders, Inc. —General Scope of Work Estimates
7. City of La Porte — Parking lot and landscaping estimates
8. Barrett's Heating & Air Conditioning Job Estimate
9. Pfeiffer & Son Estimate
21VD
10. Hull & Hull _ Pro Forma Budget Proposal for Repairs & Renovations — in
separate binder
WORKING DOCUMENTS — comparing In & 2"d opinions, etc.
11. Main Street Breakout — Estimate Summary
12. Electrical
13. HVAC
14. Renovations
15. Parking Lot
16. Extras
PROPERTY INSPECTION REPORT
Prepared For: City of La Porte
(Name of Client)
Concerning: 908 & 912 W. Main, La Porte, Texas 77571
(Address or Other Identification of Inspected Property)
By: if 4 02.21.07
Carter P. Roper, Inspector, TREC License #4043 (Date)
John E. Hollister, Professional Inspector, TREC License #2817
This inspection is subiect to binding arbitration — In the event of a dispute between the parties relating to this inspection, the parties will meet promptly in
an effort to resolve the dispute amicably. Upon the request of any party to this inspection, all unresolved disputes relating to this inspection and not
barred by the applicable limitations period, shall be submitted for binding arbitration in accordance with the Better Business Bureau Rules of Arbitration,
and then neither party shall have a right to bring suit in court. 'CHI' assumes no liability and shall not be liable for any mistakes, omissions, or errors in
judgment of the inspector and actual damages for any mistake, omission, or error Is limited to the amount of the inspection fee. This limitation shall
include and apply to all consequential damages, bodily injury, and property damage of any nature. In the event a complaint arises regarding the
inspection, the Client agrees to notify 'CHI' in writing within ten (10) days of the time the Client discovers the basis for the dispute in order to give 'CHI" a
reasonable opportunity to re -Inspect the property. The Client further agrees that 'CHI' can either conduct the re -Inspection itself and/or employ others
(at its own expense) to re -inspect the property. If the client institutes any legal action concerning this inspection, and fails to prevail on all courses of
action alleged, the client shall be liable to 'CHI* for all of its attorney's fees incurred in such action. The Client, by accepting the report or relying on it in
any way, expressly agrees to these conditions.
TREC has established a real estate inspection recovery fund for reimbursing aggrieved persons who suffer actual damages by reason of certain acts
committed by a duly licensed inspector. Contact TREC at P.O. Box 12188, Austin, Texas 78711-2188 or call 1-800-250-8732 for more information.
All 'non-functioning or items in need of repair' observed during the inspection are listed in the report with items of major concems in the opinion of the
inspector shown in bold.
Observations are made as if someone was standing at the front of the building.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte
SITE
• Public sidewalk running in front of 908 does not provide for cross slope of less than 1:50 as required by TAS.
• Public sidewalk running in front of 908 and 912 does not provide for an accessible route as required by TAS —
transition between 912 and 908 has a raised barrier.
• Parking Lot @ 912 does not provide for required accessible parking as required by Texas Accessibility Standards
(TAS) - existing parking lot consists of 31 parking spaces, per Table 2 of TAS, 2 accessible spaces with 1
designed "van accessible" is required, along with proper pole mounted signage.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 2 of 16
• Sidewalk approach at parking lot to front of 912 does not provide for an accessible route as required by TAS —
surface is decayed and does not provide for a smooth passing.
II. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
A. Foundations
• Foundations for both 908 and 912 appeared to be performing their intended function. No evidence of significant
distress was observed. Minor cracks and missing concrete in areas such as the transition between the main
foundation at the 912 package area and addition are normal for a building of this age.
• The 912 rear addition foundation has mild settlement towards the rear of the building. This condition is of minor
concem.
Roof Covering
• The 908 roof is nearing its end -of -life. Repairs most likely will not provide for the most cost effective solution. I
recommend consideration be given for complete roof replacement.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 3 of 16
• The 908 awning roof has failed causing water damage to soffit and fascia. Structural condition could not be
determined.
• Both 908 and 912 roofs have foreign debris thrown about them. Le. HVAC used parts, tar buckets, etc. I
recommend these items be policed.
• The roof of 912 appears to be relativity new with some water ponding due to lack of proper slope. No corrective
actions are recommended.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of la Porte Page 4 of 16
• The Efis fascia at 912 is damaged along the left side of the building. This condition will allow water to penetrate
into the foam board and cause further internal decay. I recommend repairs be accomplished.
• Fascia trim along the back of 912 at the addition is unfinished. I recommend a coating be applied to prevent
decay in the future.
C. Roof Structure & Attic
• Even though the roof of 908 is nearing the end of its life, roof decking as seen from the attic looks very good with
little water staining and no observed decay.
• Attic access of 908 is lacking handrail and is missing small section flooring at the top of the stairs.
• Observed abandoned HVAC flex duct in attic space of 908.
• Roof decking as seen from the attic looks very good with little water staining and no observed decay for 912.
Attic of 912 is littered with old roof debris and abandoned HVAC duct work.
• 1 observed an unknown black substance on the wall near the left rear comer in the attic space of 912. No
moisture was detected. If required, bleach and paint with Kilz.
• I observed in the attic of 912 some damage to exterior brick wall at point of HVAC duct work passing through to
outside. Monitor location and accomplish repairs when needed and after HVAC evaluation.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 5 of 16
D. Exterior Walls
• Several bends around the building were missing from the bottom of the downspouts. These bends along with
Splashblocks direct water away from the foundation. This helps prevent uneven moisture in the soil around the
perimeter of the building. Uneven soil moisture can cause foundation damage. I recommend they be installed.
• The right rear downspout for 908 is completely clogged.
I observed a previous repaired block -wall crack above the roll -up door and near the right rear corner of 908. In
my opinion, these cracks do not indicate significant foundation movement and no corrective action is
recommended.
• Paint along the back of both 908 and 912 is failing. Long term plans should call for exterior block -wall painting.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of la Porte Page 6 of 16
I observed the lower portion of downspout missing from the back of 912 near the electrical panels. This
condition is dumping roof water directly on to some components of the electrical distribution system. I
recommend correction action be taken immediately.
Efis surfaces along the left side of 912 is damaged in several locations. These conditions will allow water to
penetrate into the form board and cause further internal decay. I recommend repairs be accomplished.
• I observed previous repaired block -wall cracks above the roll -up door on the left side of 912 and along the back of
the addition. In my opinion, these cracks do not indicate significant foundation movement and no corrective
action is recommended.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 7 of 16
• I observed the downspout missing from the scupper located on left side of 912 near the front of the building. Wall
staining was observed nearing the ground.
E. Interior Walls
• In 908, right rear office 3, installation of panels is incomplete and of amateur quality.
• In 912, wall installation in the rest room hallway is incomplete.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 8 of 16
• Observed damage to sheetrock wall in the front right corner of 912. This condition is most likely caused by lack of
downspout bend just outside this location. No moisture was detected at this location. Repair most likely is a 30" x
30" area.
• 1 observed an unfinished appearance to the front wall of 912. This condition is due to amateur quality work.
• 1 observed an unknown black substance on the wall between the package area and storage area of 912. No
moisture was detected. If required, bleach and paint with Kilz.
F. Windows
• Decayed wood window trim was observed around all windows along the front of 908. 1 recommend corrected
action before this condition can cause damage to interior walls.
• Decayed wood window trim was observed around some windows along the left side of 912. 1 recommend
corrected action before this condition can cause damage to interior walls and the Efis wall system.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 9 of 16
• The metal window frame at the rear of 912 is decayed. I recommend this widow be replaced before this condition
can cause further damage to interior walls.
G. Exterior Doors
• All components for the motorized overhead roll -up door for 908 were found to be in satisfactory condition on the
day of the inspection.
• Both sets of front main entrance doors for 908 are showing signs of heavy wood decay. Wood surfaces do not
appear to be salvageable, however glass inserts appear to be re -useable.
• The threshold for the front main entrance door of 912 is not accessible as required by TAS. Threshold height is
greater than 1/2".
• The parking lot (left side) entrance doors to 912 are showing signs of decay. Doors and wood frame members
were factory primed but finish coating was never applied. I recommend wood surface be replaced and proper
coating be applied.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 10 of 16
• The housing for the non -motorized overhead roll -up door for 912 is damaged, however this condition did not affect
operation on the door.
• Hardi-board trim at the roll -up door on 912 is damaged.
I. Interior Doors
• Installation of several interior doors in 908 is of amateur quality. In some cases, causing sheetrock cracking
above door.
In 908, the door between garage and right rear office 3 has minor damage at its bottom.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 111 of 16
• Restroom doors for 912 do not provide the 18" interior clearance required by TAS on the handle side of the door.
• The cased opening between the rest room hallway and public space in 912 is missing its trim.
J. Ceilings
• Even with the condition of the roof of 908, little or no damage to ceiling was observed.
• Water damage ceiling observed in several areas 912 appears to be from before roof replacement and are not
active.
L. Floors
• Change in level of floors in 908 are non -compliant with TAS.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 12 of 16
A.
Tile floor crack observed running
significant foundation movement.
corrective action is recommended.
down the middle of 908 from front to back does not in my opinion, indicate
It appears the was improperly installed over foundation expansion joint. No
• 1 observed the floor sloping away from the tile in Public Area of 912. This condition was intentionally caused
by floor installer to prevent tripping hazard at transition between tile and carpeting.
• I observed an existing 1" to 2" trench running along the left side of 912. This appears to be a mis-poured
brick ledge. Floor installer can easily fill if required.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
Service Entrance and Panels
• 1 observed two circuit wires attached to one 20 Amp breaker in Panel 1 of 908.
• I observed a filler panels missing from the inside cover (dead front) of Panel 2 in 908.
• 1 observed improper sized wires used with several breakers in Panel 2 of 908.
• The service panel for 912 is rusted most likely from before roof replacement.
• Proper access was not provided as required at service panels in 912.
• I observed two circuit wires attached to one 20 Amp breaker in 912 sub -panel.
• 1 observed the main overhead service drop for 912 appeared to be only 14' over the public alley. Service
drop that cross public alleys must be 18'.
Branch Circuits
The use of Romex was observed in the garage restroom of 908, along with non -secure light switch box.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 13 of 16
• Insulation on wiring providing power for the make -shift a/c unit on the roof of 908 is damaged and should
be addressed.
• Power supply for the abandon roof mount unit for 912 has been improperly terminated. Wiring is hot and
laying exposed on roof.
• 1 observed numerous joint boxes missing their covers with exposed hot wires. This condition exist at
both 908 and 912.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 14 of 16
• 1 observed duplex outlet covers and light switch covers missing in areas of both 908 and 912.
IV. HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS
• Due to the condition of the HVAC system at 908, 1 recommend the air conditioning system be serviced by a
licensed air conditioning and heating technician.
• It does not appear 908 has heat. Previous heat was provided by gas through the roof mount unit. This
service has been improperly disconnected. Recommend action be taken to properly gas cap line.
• It appears cooling for 908 is being provided by a make -shift roof mounted unit. Cover for controls
including hot wires is missing. Recommend action be taken to correct this safety issue.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 15 of 16
• Abandoned roof mounted unit for 912 remains.
• 1 recommend the HVAC systems for both 908 and 912 be studied in detail by a MEP Professional Engineer
working along side a licensed air conditioning and heating technician to ensure the piece mill systems perform.
V. PLUMBING SYSTEM
A. Water Supply System and Fixtures
• The rest room of left office 3 in 908 is not accessible due to the step up required to enter. Not only is this not
accessible, this condition is unsafe because the step is greater than 7 '/2". Function flow in the shower is
insufficient to properly use the shower. The shower faucet handle is not properly attached. The water closet tank
is loose and not properly attached to its base.
• The garage rest room of 908 is not compliant with TAS. Overall size does not allow for accessible use.
• The rear hallway rest room of 908 is not compliant with TAS. Overall size does not allow for accessible use. The
water closet is loose at the floor flange.
• Neither rest room of 912 are compliant with TAS. No accessible water closet. Water closets that are provided do
not provide the required 18" clearance. Size of rest rooms or interior stalls do no allow for the required 5' turning
radius. Neither sinks nor entrance doors comply.
B. Water Heating Equipment
• All components for the water heater in 908 were found to be in satisfactory condition on the day of the inspection.
This confidential report is prepared exclusively for the City of La Porte Page 16 of 116
CL
02/22/2006 15:24 128126le452 LIVE OAK PAGE 02
y� Live Oak Environmental Consultants
2714 CYPRESS POINT, SUITE C - MISSOURI CITY, TEXAS 77459 - (281) 499-6709 - FAX (281) 261-0452
February 21, 2007
Ms. Susan Kelley
Purchasing Manager, City of LaPorte, TX
604 W. Fairmont Parkway
LaPorte, Texas 77571
Phone 281-470-5017
Fax 281470-5127
Re: Asbestos Inspection Report
Commercial Property
908 & 912 West Main Street
LaPorte, Texas 77571
Dear Ms. Kelley:
LOEC#07-1023
On February 19, 2007, Live Oak Environmental Consultants conducted an inspection for
Asbestos Containing Building Materials (ACBM) on the Commercial Properties located at 908
& 912 West Main Street in La Porte, Texas. The purpose of the inspection was to identify and
collect samples of suspect asbestos containing material(s) from accessible areas within the fixed
structures on the site that may be disturbed as a result of future renovation/demolition activities.
The results of this investigation are contained in the attached report.
This Asbestos Inspection was limited to five suspect materials (three samples each) from 912
West Main Street (the west building) and three suspect materials from 908 West Main Street
(the east building) from areas which may be disturbed as a result of renovation activities on the
premises. A limited number of random samples of the materials were collected and analyzed by
an accredited laboratory. None of the sample groups from :.912 West Main tested positive for
the presence of asbestos; one of the materials from" 968 West main tested positive. The
laboratory results are consistent with the likelihood of the presence of asbestos for buildings of
this age and type of construction.
07-1023 Asbestos Inspection Report Commercial Property 908 & 912 West Main Street,
LaPorte, TX 77571
•IWiiif'�
Initially, a set of samples of joint mud/texture (Samples 007 A-C) were collected from the
"Bishop's Office" which is located in the east building. This room was in excellent condition and
appeared to have been remodeled in the recent past. Live Oak subsequently learned that there
were no remodeling plans for this office, therefore the samples were not submitted for analysis.
07-1023 Asbestos.Inspection Report Commercial Property 908 & 912 West Main Street,
LaPorte, TX 71571
3
12812610452
Limitations of Assessment:
LIVE OAK
01"W J
The findings and scope of this Limited Phase II Asbestos Inspection are limited to the items and
areas expressly covered. This Report is prepared for the sole benefit of the involved principals
and may not be relied upon by any other person(s) or entity without prior written authorization
of all principals.
Live Oak Environmental Consultants has used information obtained from secondary sources;
personal interviews; laboratory analysis; and a physical inspection by Live Oak personnel.
Unless specifically set forth in this Report, Live Oak Environmental Consultants has made no
independent investigation as to the accuracy or completeness of the information obtained from
secondary sources, the laboratory, or personal interviews, and has assumed such information to
be accurate and complete.
Asbestos containing building materials were (and to some extent still are) used in over 3000
products. Attempts to locate and identify "all" asbestos in a building is both impractical and cost
prohibitive. The most cost effective strategy is to initially collect a limited number of the most
likely sources of asbestos based on homogeneous areas, (similar colors, types of materials,
textures, etc.) and investigate further only if the presence of asbestos is confirmed.
The asbestos .inspection described herein is limited to the areas and topics cited and is not
intended to address all concerns and problems not specifically within the scope o£ this
inspection. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations set forth in this Report are based
on available data, findings and circumstances as they existed when this Report was prepared
This inspection represents all significant sources of asbestos containing material on the property
that could be directly observed, taking into account the condition and accessibility of the subject
building, Therefore, changes in any material fact or undiscovered circumstances may similarly
affect the findings, conclusions, and recommendations outlined in this Report. Non-payment by
the contractual parties shall cause this Report to be null and void.
07-1023 Asbestos Inspection Report Commercial Property 9.08 & 912 West Main Street,
LaPorte, TX 77571
12812610452
PRINCIPALS:
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
LIVE OAK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
402KIV I
PAGE 05
This asbestos inspection was conducted in accordance with principles and practices of those
conducting professional asbestos inspections and environmental investigations without prejudice
toward any of the parties (buyers, sellers, lenders, occupants, adjacent land owners,
representatives of government or regulatory agencies) who may have direct or indirect interest
in the property. It is not feasible to warrant that all factors will be discovered. No warranty is
expressed, implied, made or given as to the completeness or accuracy of this work. Findings
presented herein are based upon observations of current conditions and may not be indicative of
future conditions or operating practices at the property.
Sincerely,
Live Oak Environmental Consultants
DepatErneut of State Health Seivices'(DSHS) Asbestos Management Planner Organization
DSHS License No. 20-0052
' 1
Gary W. Martens, P.G.
President
DSHS Licensed Asbestos Inspector/Management Planner
DSHS License No. 20-5328
07-1023 Asbestos Inspection Report Commercial Property 908 & 912 West Main Street,
LaPorte, TX 77571
4
ON- t±T.7disSM
Building Inspection and Findings:
LIVE OAK
The purpose of this inspection was to determine the possible presence of asbestos in building
materials expected to be disturbed as a result of future renovation/demolition activities within
the two buildings. Texas Department of State Health Services (ASHS) regulations require an
asbestos inspection prior to the issuance of a building permit and commencement of any
renovation/demolition activities within a public building. Further, the DSHS regulations also
require the filing of a 10 working day notice prior to commencement of asbestos abatement or
demolition activities. The subject properties consisted of one story structures used as a thrift
store (912 West Main, the west building) and offices (908 West Main, the east building). The
suspect materials in the west building that may be disturbed as a result of renovation activities
consisted of Fxl' floor tile & glue, old & new sheetroek joint compound (wall mud), ceiling
texture, and casement window glazing. The suspect materials in the east building consisted of
joint mud and 2'x4' suspended ceiling tile (present in both buildings).
The bulk samples. were collected at random in quantities sufficient in the opinion of the
inspector to determine presence of asbestos, if.any, _in each suspect, material from the identified
homogeneous areas. Sample locations were chosen at the convenience of the inspector, where
accessible and from damaged areas (if present) based on the condition at the time of the
inspection. The samples were analyzed for asbestos using Polarized Light 'Microscopy by an
EPA approved NVLAP laboratory utilizing EPA Method 600/R-93/116, or 40 CFR_ Part 763,
Subpart F, as appropriate.
Thrce samples of each suspect material were collected. The sample locations and sample
numbers follow:
k.
07-1023 Asbestos Inspection Report Commercial Property 908 & 912 West Main Street,
LaPorte, TX 77571
s
C
12812610452
912 West Main Street (the west building)
LIVE OAK
PAGE 07
n
Location
Lab Results
Tile -White w/
To.
Under Carpet -Sales Floor -west side
ND
Tile -White w/
Under Carpet -Sales Floor
ND
001C
1'xl' Floor Tile -White w/
Under Carpet -Sales Floor -south side
ND
flecks
002A
Wall Joint Mud old
South Wall of Building
ND
002B
Wall Joint Mud (old)
2nd Column front South, west side of
ND
Building
002C
Wall Joint Mud (old)
1st Column from North, west side of
ND
Building
003A
Coil' Tcxture
Fast of bathroomsin ball
NA
003E
Ceiling Texture
East of bathrooms in Hall
ND,
003C I
Ceiling Texture
East of bathrooms in Hall
ND
004A.
Wall Joint Mud new
North w di ad'. to bathrooms in Ball
ND
004B
Wall Joint Mud new
North wall adi. to bathrooms in Hall
ND
004C
Wall Joint Mud new
North wall ad'. to bathrooms in Hall
ND
005A
Casement Window Caulking
Casement Window, North Wall
4_9o/,
Cbr sotile
005B
Casement Window Caulkin
Casement Window North Wall
NT
005C .
Casement Window Caul '
Casement Window North Wall
NT
07-1023 Asbestos inspection Report Commercial Property 908 & 911 West Main Street,
LaPorte, TX 77571
.0
r
12812610452
N
results are attached at the end of this, report.
908 West Main Street (the east building)
Sample
No.
Description
Location Lab Results
006A
Wall Joint Mud
North Wall of Budclout just
ND
South of the rear door
006B
Wall Joint Mud
North Wall of Buddout-just
ND
South of the rear door
006C
Wall Joint Mud
North Wail of Buildout just
ND
South of the rear door
007A
Wall Joint MudlrA. t,.
Bisho 's Office
NT
007B
Wall Joint Mud/Texture
Bisho 's Office
NT
007C
Wall Joint Mud/Texture
Bisho 's Office
NT
008A
2k4' Suspended Ceiling Tile
East Office (tile present in
ND
both buildin s
008B
2k4' Suspended Ceiling Tile
East Office (tile present in
ND. .
both buildings)
008C
2'x4' Suspended Ceiling Tile
East Office (tile present in
ND
both buildin s
..a 1. Vllc KwGwu 1V 1�1Vpi rerun
Minimal sampling strategy, based on the condition, dates of construction, the lack of highly
suspect friable materials, and homogeneous areas, was employed. The results are consistent
with expectations for buildings of this age and type of construction.
The laboratory analysis of the bulk samples resulted in asbestos material in excess of one
percent being found in the casement window glazing samples. Copies of the laboratory analysis
07-1023 Asbestos Inspection Report Commercial Property. 908 & 912'West Main Street,
LaPorte, TX 77571
7
s .0
12812610452
LIVE OAK
Based on the results of the asbestos inspection for the subject property, it appears that the
materials represented by sample groups 001 through 004, 006 and 008 will not require
abatement prior to disturbance by renovation activities. As such, a ten day notice to the
Department of State Health Services for abatement and construction activities will be not
required. If the casement window is removed from the building intact, a notification is not
required. However, if any of the broken glass panes are scheduled to be replaced, the glazing
should be removed by licensed peisonnelto prevent fiber release.
Glazing disturbance of quantities less than 160 square feet, 260 linear feet, or one cubic yard are
less than reportable quantities under the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants MSHAPs)
1f demolition activities are planned, a 10 day notice to the DSHS will be required (demolition is
defined as disturbance or removal of a load bearing structure).
If additional suspect asbestos containing materials are discovered in the course of future
renovation activities, additional sampling will be required to determine asbestos content, if any.
A complete copy of the results of this asbestos survey is required to be maintained on the job
site during any renovation activities. If a DSHS inspector requests a copy of the survey for on.
site review and it is not readily available, fines/penalties may be imposed.
07-1023 Asbestos Inspection Report Commercial Property
LaPorte, TX 77571 P nY 908 & 912 Wesi Main Street,
e
02/22/2006 15:24 12812610452 LIVE O—AK
PAGE 10
LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT
A 1,8 Environmental Services, inc.
10100 East Reeway, suite 100
Houston, Texas 77029
NVLAP ID # ; 101793-0 TDH LICENCE # :3o-oow
Client; Live Dalk Environmental Consultants
Contact Qry Martens
Address : 2714 Cypress Point
Missouri City, Texas 77459
A Sk 5 Labs has analyzed the following samples ...
D01A No
4:n.
ODIC NO
M
1029 No
IPA. NO
1113C NO
... ........ .
10413 No
105A yes
Phom:713-453-6060
Page I of 2
Report Date : 2/20/2007
Total No of Pages: 9
P.O.#. :
07-1023 W. main
Sample Collected By:
GWM
Date Received :
02/19/2D07
Sample Received By:
Stones
88081-01A
n.
e. .. .....
88081.03A
.A wa
88MI.07A
89081.09A
MOW
SM1.11A
Chr/sotile 4-9% 88081.13A
—Ablabsxom
02/22/2006 15:24 12812610452 LIVE OAK PAGE 11
LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT
A lk B Environmental Services, Inc,
10100 East Freeway, suite xoo Report Date 2/20/2007
Houston, TOM 77029 Total No of Pages 9
NVLAP ID =793-0 7DH LICENCE # 3o-0080
Client Live Oak Environmental Consultants P.O.*. 07-1023 W. Malt,
Contact Gary Martens Sample Collected By eiwm
Address 2,714 Cypress Point Date Received - 02/19/2007
Missouri City, TeXaS 77459 Sample Received By: Stones
A e. 9 Labs has analyzed the following samples ...
WN
NO
01114 MIN— 10" 11 1-w—wim" ons. im
105C Not Analyzed ......
awal.15
V........ . .�^ U
a.
1068 NO
U081.17A
IWA NO W!
• ... . ... 88081.19A
:AF
-R-
108C No 8801.21A
rr
Thank you for choosing A & 8 Labs.
Approved By: Robert VW1filft
Title: Environmental Services AnalM;
Director
Phone--713453-6060 Page 2 of 2 wwwAblaba.cm
02/22/2006 15:24 12812610452
LIVE OAK
PAGE 12
I
Sob ID:
FI�'1::i1
Ghent Project ID:
07-1023 W. buin
1. Analysis Rea* Summary ....... I ....................... 4
2. Chain of Custody ....................
3. Sample Condition Checldlst .......... , . 9
Page 1 of 1
2/20/2007
02/22/2006 15:24 12812610452
LIVE OAK
PAGE 13
TEST REPORT FOR BULK ASBESTOS By PLM
A&B Job ID 88081 Date: 02/20/2007
Client Name: Live Oak Environmental Consultants Date Received: 02/19/2007
Project ID: 07-1023 W. Main Date Analyzed: 02/20/2007
Analyst Initial: HA
8Brs&l.62.' :.:E1oor'TW 004 :'
• : ; caanulai � ... .
Wong as
001.8 .. . '9ra+?jf:GfdYfYellpw
Vinyl
88 C041. JoinF Myfi.. Vie[:
'Celkilcetr1.10%' Binder
. raotila¢: ... 'GfessRbei3:f.i0% carbonate
E806L04Ji Hoiita'gen"M--
102q '7'an].iNFiite:.:.': .. Mkrr}:Frags
.. •• paint
layer'%. or Togl ;1b0%
BB6&1:W, :iojt kn d:.
Layer %of Total Awn. .. .
Page 1 of 3
GdAOk+se :l .i0% Binder
CaflropY
krid f
Faint
02/22/2006 15:24 12812610452 LIVE OAK PAGE 14
TEST REPORT FOR BULK ASBESTOS By PLM
0 A&B Job ID 88081 Date: 02/2op007
Client Name: Live Oak Environmental Consultants Date Received; 02119/2007
Project ID: 07-1023 W. main Date Analyzed: 02/20/2007
AIAI,,5,jn "10AI: HA
Mn;
Bindei
Carbdqate
kinri Frogs
Point
Lay.er%of:T,Aa1:x
Carbonate
Mind 11rags.
1040.
Point
Layw%:ofT*WkW0%
4110 CarbwaW
04C '.TanMind Frogs
Point
Lff0r%*FToW::=M
1058
Page 2 of 3
02/22/2006 15:24 12812610452
LIVE OAK
PAGE 15
{ TEST REPORT FOR BULK ASBESTOS BY PLM
1 A �"� -
ARB Job 1D 88081 Date : 02/20/2,007
n »
Client Name: Live Oak Environmental Consultants Date Received: 02/19/2007
Project 1D! 07-1023 W. Main Date Analyzed: 02/20/2007
88081.16.A " Carbonate
yy Mind Frays
106A
Gilnt
layer:% of.robl do. 0%
*ova&," ��...•�.-,�� �: - Cd4'lkise:l-3fly6 Binder
Granylar
88081.18:A koma9enwus Cerhonale
Mlnnfrgs
Point
Layer%bFTOW:100.% - ..
"99140 Gelliogne,
Aurdue/4",,lar
1088B[ovmJGrey:
Layer % of Total :t00%
Pape 3 of 3
. �tlulo3e:50=909& Battler
Carbonate
f�iue
Paint
02/22/2006 15:24 12812610452 LIVE OAK PAGE 16
A 8 B Environmental SaMces, Inc.
10100 East Freeway, Suite 100,
Houston, TX 770Z9 Page 1 of
713.453-6080 Fax 713-453-6091 4
shestos Bulk Sam le Chain-of-Custod
A&U.Jobto: _ X $OIR .
TAT (Check oner Immediate
_ (24 hour)
Report to.
Company:
Address: -`—
Company.
Address:
Contact:
'Phone:
Contact:
Fax.-
Phone:
I Fax:
Email: Jtir{I L (iD I f t�'tyi,(�f{/f,�L
Email:
POK;
Protect Namem D%lpa3 1��,(� IV
Sampler's Name b ,
Company;_
hojr
Regular (3.5 o kin "sh4 days)
9 ys) '
Invoice to:
Glt/
Method ol'Shiomant rbellw
02/22/2006 15:24 12812610452 LIVE OAK PAGE 17
A & B Environmental Services, Inc.
10100 East Freeway, Suite 100
Houston, TX non
I/ 713-453-6060 Fax 713.453.6091
t A & B Job ID: r�$0$i
3
T
Page 2 of-�N-
02/22/2006 15:24 12812610452
LIVE OAK
.., Sample Condition Checklist
Date : 2/19/2007
-- i __•••c••• •••. o.a.a to appropn ve comain4rte).
Ix
10. 1 All samplm wets logged or labeled,
i X
31. I Sample ID lahela match C-O� ID's
x
12. Bottle count on C-O-C matehea bottles found.
i
'
x
13. I Sample volume Is sutfldene for analyses requested.
!
�.
X
14. i SaMpMs were recelved within the hold time, - -
1S- VOA vlale complately filled. I X
'
26. i Samplt accepted. ; N(A
!
x
Comments: Include ectin..v hlf nen .e..,r..�.c_____--____,
!
'
Rccdved by; Storres
'IV . /LJ-1JD
Check in by/date : Sturres / 2/19/2007
w .eblab5xarrr
' p TEXAS OFFICIAL WOOD DESTRO NG INSECT REPORT
/Y(�r,,,
Impacted Address Cly
Pape 1 of 2
-»s7i
ZJp Code
•�1 SCOPE OF INBPECTION
— A This covers; orgy the mufiHamily structure, primy dwelling or place of business. Sheds, detached pampas. Ilan-tos, fences, guest houses or any
other structure will not be Included In this Inspection report unless sped caW noted In Section 5 of M repot
B. This Inspection Is limited o those parts of the structure(s) that she vbible and accessible at the Um of the Inspection. Examples Of Inaccessible areas include
but ere not limited to (1) areas concealed by wall coverings, furniture, equipment and stored articles and (2) any portion of the structure In which Inspection would
mcesiltate removing or defacing any part of the structure(s) Onduding the wrists appearance of the structure). Impaction does not cover any condition or
damage which was not visible In or on the structure(s) at dma of Impaction but which may be revealed In the course of repair or roplacament work.
C. Due to the characteristics and behavior of various wood destroying Insects, It may not always be possible to determine to presence of Infestation withad defacing
or removing pans of the structure being Inspected. Previous damage to trim. was surface, eta, is frequmily repaired prior to the Inspection with putty. spackling,
tape or other decorative devices. Damage that has been concealed or repaired may not bovislble except by defacing the surface appearance. The WDI
Inspecting company cannot guarantee or determine that wont perforated by a prevloui Past control company, as Indicated by visual evidence of
previous Imatment; halt rendered the pesgs) Inactive.
D. If visible evidence of active or previous Infestation of listed wood destroying Insects Is reported, It should be assumed that some degree of damage la present.
E. If visible evidence la reported, it does not Imply that damage Should be repaired or replaced. Inspectors of the Inspection company usually are
not engineers or bustlers qualified to give an opinion regarding the degree of structural damage. Evaluation of damage and any corrective action should be
performed by a qualified expert.
F. THIS IS NOT A STRUCTURAL DAMAGE REPORT OR A WARRANTY AS TO THE ABSENCE OF WOOD DESTROYING INSECTS.
G. If termite treatment (including pesticides; baits or other methods) has been raommanded, the treating company must provide a diagram of the structure(s)
Inspected and proposed or treatmenL Label of pesticides to be used and complex details of warranty Of any). At a minimum, the warranty, must specify which
areas of the structure(3) are covered by warranty, renewal options and approval by a'oeNlied applicator In the tomite category. Inforrmtion regarding treatment
and any warranties should be provided by the party contracting for such services to any Iumpective buyers of the property. The Inspecting company has no duty
to provide such Inonmt in to any person other than the contracting party.
H. There are a varety of xmtlx control Options offered by pest control companies. These Options will vary In coat, efficacy, areas treated, warranties, treatment
techniques and renewal options.
I. There ere some specific guidelines as to when it Is appropriate for corrective treatment to be recommended. Corrective treatment may Only be recommended If
(1) there Is visible evidence of an acute Infestation In or on the structure, (2) there Is visible evidence of a Previous infestation with no evidence of a prior treatment.
J. If treatment Is recommended based solely on the presence of conducive comfillo a, a preventive treatment or correction of conducive conditions may be
recommended. The buyer and seller should be aware that there nay be a variety of different strategies to correct the conducive conditon(s). These corrective
measures can vary greatly in cost and effectiveness and may or may not require the services of a licensed pact control operator. There may be Instances wham
the Inspector will recommend correction of the conducive conditions by either mechanical alteration or cultural changes. Mechanical alteration may be In some
Instances the most economical method to correct conducive conditkua. If this inspection report recommends any type of treatment and you have any questons
about this, you may contact the Inspector Involved, another Licensed pest control operator fora second opinion, andlor the Structural Past Control Board.
A
Name of Impaction Company V SPC8 Business License Number
cP&) 44;7 i W36
//�' Address of Impaction Company City Slate ZJp Telephone No.
2 `Jit' yy. ln,(: (check anti): J
"*M 1.E CeNfied Applicator p
-- Name of Inspector ( sass, Prim) t( �'Technkian ❑
2. 3._ ✓ ��fJ� �7
Case Number (VAIFMOther) Inspocuon Date
., t Sell& Agent Buyer Cl Management Co.❑ OtarO
Name of Person Purchasing Inspection
4B. j
Owmrnlelxr
4C.REPORT FORWARDED TO: TIOe Company or Mortgagee ❑ Purchaser of ServicaX Steller ❑ Agenl ❑ Buyer ❑
(Under the Structural Pest Control regulation only the purchaser of the sm ce Is requped to receive a copy)
The structure(s) listed below were Inspected In accordance with the official Inspection procedures adopted by the Texas Structural Post Control Board. This report la made
sub)ect to the conditions listed under the Scope of Impaction. A diagram must be attached Including all structural, Impacted.
5.
List structure(s) Inspected that may Include residence, detached garages and other structures m the property. (Refer to Part A Scope of Impaction)
6AWere any arena of the property obstructed or Inaccessible? Yes 01 No ❑
(Refer to Part B d C. Scope of Inspectlon) [('Yes- specify In 68.
6B.The obstructed or Inaccessible areas Include but are not limited to the p: bhowin
Attic ❑ Insulated Area of Attloo Plumbing Area° d Planter Box Abutting Structure ❑
Deck ❑ Sub Floors p' Slab Joints je Crawl Spats ❑
SOIL Grade Too High F Heavy Foliage ❑ Eaves ❑ Was
phctes ❑
Other ❑ Specify.
i
:Conditions conducive to wood destroying Insect Infestation: Yes ja No ❑
tRefo to Part J. Scope of Inspection) If -Yee specify In 78.
B.Conduclve Conditions Include but are not limited to:
�- Wood to Ground Contact (G) ❑ Foraaosrds Len In Pum 0) . ❑ Excessive Moisture (J) Or Heavy Foliage (N) ❑
Debris Under or Around Structure (K)- ❑ Footing Too Low or Soil Line Too High (L),' Wood Rot (M) X
Planter Box Abutting Structure (0) ❑ Wood Pile In Contact with Structure (0) ❑ Wooden Fence In Contact with the Structure (R)............. ❑
Insufficient Ventilation (T) ❑ Other (C) ❑ Spedry:
8.ImPedlOn reveals visible evidence in or m the structure: Active InfesxUon Previous Infestation
BASubternmem Termite,
Previous Treatment
Ya.O No ❑ Yea ❑ No(d
8B.Drywood Tertnitea Yea ❑ No yy Yes ❑ No X
Yea ❑
Yea ❑
No Ar'
No A
8C.Fomosan Termites Yea ❑ No i r Yes ❑ Nop
Yea ❑
No Jp
BD.Carpenxr Ants Yea ❑ No a Yea ❑ Nora
Yea ❑
NoCB
8E.Olher Wood De lmyng Insects Yea ❑ No A ` Yes ❑ No a
Yes ClNot,
Specify:
,��: Exphmton of signs of previous treatment Onclut ing pesticides, baits, edstin ins a am or other methods) Identified;
- SG.Visible evidence of: 71P qyyL has been observed In the following area:
If there Is vlalde evidence of active or previous Infestation, It must be rated. The type of Insect(s) must be listed In the first blank and all Identified Infested areas of the
Property impacted must be noted In the second blank: (Refer to Part D, E It F. Scope of Inspection)
Licensed and Regulated by the Structural Put Control Board
P.O. Box 1927 : I
Austin, Texas 78767-1927
SPCBfT-4 (Rev. W6103) (512) 305.8250
Buyer's Initials
rtEln taPGe a10.1 pYrYr h a..t'au.x ron.,..rwu. ter�],aexr0. Orlr., TX '
•
•I•
■W t■■N■tt■t■■■Y■■tt■N■■■■■■■nn■YY■■n■■■■■Y■■■Y.t■■■■N■n■
■W■■■W■■■■■■■Yt■t■■nr■■ttt■YN■NNt■■■■■■■■■Y■W ttn■■O■O■
•W t■■Y■■■nt■■N■■■■.Y■tt■■■■n■n■nn■■■■■■■■■tn■W■■ t■qtn■
•n■■t■N■,■nt■■N■■,■aPJnr�77 t4■w■■tnn■t 7 ■0sprov ■■n■tn■n
■■■t■t■■■■■t■■tt■n■■,�\f:TI�'�Plu■A■w■nqp�n�w1ty anunl/%/!/. ■■nt■n•YC
C■tt■t■■t■nnY■n■C,/. ■Lfin�lfj�7At■n■n IlfPpA r wia■WNYYN■n
W■■Y■ pq■NY■ II w►*•,VVII� ldompt9/ur■,{�{IC■w,Y■tw■■n■■q■wC
Cw■„■,■Cwq,ww a Ld4ir■C■■■yv�swn, ■ttt■■■w ■■q,■n,■q■wC
W■■■■•Cn■,n■n'shit■■■■■■su in■nnttn■,■■■,■■,■n■Gn■■Y■Y
■■n■■■■■ fs■NY a.■■tt ■t■■ SNN■ ■■■■■■■■■■■Y■1■n■■ n..n.n■
■W■■■■■r■■.■■9■17IC■ttY■6i■■••nn.nY,■wttttt,n■q■ttnt■q■Y■
■W■■ ■■■pp■■■•p /lJ■t■ ■■■■ ■■■t■t■O ■nN■■Y■■■■■W■Wt■n■■ ■ ■
■Wt■r�■ B■ti■LN■'r■ ■t■ttttt■nn■ra.n..O■■■■t■Y■W■■n■■Y■n■
urn.. rOtn�A■. :/tt■■tt■t■■ws olt■■■■■■■■■q■W■■w■, ■w■
CgW,CC• su ia.;�`:C:::uunn:. :Qs..n:::.C GGGGGCCa.
ta■■tt ■
CW■t. ■Ip■t...w■■t■,■■■■■■■■■gNtnn■■qt■■■■■W. ■ wtaw■w
q■■■■ ■ tt■tWw■■t■■■■■■t■tttnntwnt■n■■■■■,n■G■■■un■tw■w�
Wt■■ ■ MNWnt■ttatt■■■■■t■YWN ■ nttttt,t!■ nt n..n■n
C■Y■'■C•at" nCGnuuu•nu..tilt11sismYttat■■■■ttrun.nnnnttY■t■,■,nttlIlt■ N■■w■YCn■■■■ imN .n.n.ut■t■,■■■ ■■■t■wtgq■■w■■■■■tm Y■■un■,nO■■■■N■ ■,n■nw■ ■■,■■■,■ t■tttntwwt■n■t■■■■B■� ■ n■nq■w
• t■■■ it ■Y■NY■ tt■■N■■■ W■WYN■tYtt■ t■■■■ Y■■ ■ /,.Y
.p�i�.� Ctgrwq■Cggqw■CWq■tYn■■wY,C■■a■ a1��a ��.Sf'�
I' ant\■■,■�I■tn■■■q,■■lard■tt■n■nnNw■tYtt■t■ttnaRH/l ([iab■O■
aN■■nn■tnw■t■YttA-\■N■■■ ,t■NNn -qtt■ tt■■IG rtN 1tmM
C a'GCC.!G i. uund:�!;!;,G�CCC sn..:A•i t a.GC000�G u•• : GnGo'
i MW■w ■ �biL■t■nll�� b.mw■ rWt,81 ais�-.p .Yn■s■■annwn■n
14 W■q'C■ n,■n■I!■ ►,■w■■■` w■Yg1 _■t►4Y■■w■BO■Y■■n■,0■n
E■Wtn... ' ■N,CCa_duaU•nlllmm lfl*s•CCC:CGGG-CI�GGn••nuaB
CriC'w'CCCCiunuuC:CC:CCYNCCCC'OCCCCC::nnu ..--.nuuuuun■nC
an■■■■r�C■q■■■wr■w■■w■■■■wunnnwn■■■nuu..n,�su•nusnunu
■Wnt i ■n■t■n■tn■■Yt ■Nfnnnnn■nn■ttl■
■Wt■■W un ■Y■■■n■■■■■■O■■■G ■W ■n
N■W■NNNn■N■■■N■■Ii..Gnn.CN.nC
■ ■■. ■■■■■■Y■..■r■N■Y Y■ nnna ■■■■■.■
Cnun. tN■■■n•,■■■■Nt■ ■n. unnnq■Yttww■ ■■n■■q■Y
Y■n■ ■w■■■wrr■,■,■nt■C■o,w.nanw■W■gn� ■�� ■n■n�
CCCC'■G:! nnn.auu•u itnin•.nii■mionnCGC ii■Ctt't O C CCnGCC!■
CY.n iar ■ntnnn■■t■■■,n■ B '1t■nnn.nngW■ ■ n•unun■
WRMIC `CC■w■■,w■,,,,■■�7■■■ .1a■annn■un••n■•fl■CN■W,w■
C•Y■n■1 Itt■tn■■■n■Gtt■ttl�t'■ttL'■gtY NN N■■■t tt W■•Ott■n■■N■nG
p■■ ■•Wn■■■ ■M••.r ' E■,tll■■■.....■o.gwN■t•C! ■■.a■r■■tY
WY■ EN ...v■.ii■■■t■N■t■■o.i.�►'�■■WI■■■■■Gnttq■nG
Wn■w C!.■■■��u•Ltijs,Tirn7�7t■t■w■n. .nau�■■■■,■,■Y■■N■t ■w■
q■,■■■■n■■■1.■■■ L�7rY■�■1111I.7■ninnrf7■/■■t■•■,t II BA■ ■.A �!1 I
tWN■Yt1.Ytt■wG■tt■ttte'i/!/(•f!•?•rS,C47/,..l p(.����lt ✓Y/%Il/�✓.i■II'� J)A'�■!TIP"IN
WY■n■ tYNtY•■■■ant■ttrN■td■� ■i /IV@ 1! �� 2010,1.,(nmunr
■Y■Y■ ■n■t■N■■■■■■ttttt■t,■■N■w,tt� i■■n■■n.■ ■ 1. w
■n:�oC ::�:aC: oCC C:CCCuCadd:CC:n_.m:0niMEwm
/ n dIfl
e/ % .
ilt 1
Main Street Breakout - Estimate Summary
CITY PROJECTION Immediate Staggered
1st 2nd
Electrical (908 & 912) $16,635 $14,570
Sub -Total $16,635 $14,570 $14,570
HVAC (908 & 912)
Electrical
Sub -Total
$36,400 $67,736
$18,600 $2,050
$55,000 $69,786
Renovations (908), ADA bathrooms, break room, general repairs
RR, Breakrm, ADA rer $74,000 $45,061
Sub -Total $74,000 $45,061
Parking Lot
Asphalt $26,000,
Landscaping $1,500
Sub -Total $27,500
Extras (908 & minimal on 912), items from bldg insp
�. Roof $20,000
Items from Bldg Insp $20,470
Sub -Total
TOTAL
Plus
Grand Total
$40,470
$173,135 $169,887
$63,290 $27,500
$236,425 _ $197,387
ALLIANCE & CITY PROJECTION
Board Room (908)
Garage to BR 545,000 $14,130
Sub -Total $45,000 $14,130
$55,000
$45,061
$1,500
$20,470
$90,470
$127,975
$26, 000
$20,000
$3,320,'
$23, 320
$49,620
$14,130
PFEIFFER + y' 'SON
EkcWca! - Fiber Optic - Telecommunication Cfl><rtradors
February 23, 2007
City of La Porte
1322 S. Broadway
LaPorte, TX 77572
RE: 908, 912 East Main St Electrical Report
A=: Susan Kelly
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service at the above referenced locations.
On 2/22/07 we met on site with Debra Dye to review the condition of the electrical for both addresses. We
found the following conditions dining this inspection:
• The metered service for both locations (908-912) are 120/240 volt, 3-phase 400 amp.
• The electrical service looks to be original equipment (approx 50 years old) and in working
condition.
• The building wiring is copper, installed in steel conduits.
The above items are in fair condition.
The items of concern are as follows:
• Service panels missing panel fillers (open holes).
• Electrical bones missing covers with wires sticking out
A few circuits have.mider sized.
_ ..... wnmgoa�over sized brealjyrs:' '' • ' .
• Several grounding problems need coirecting.
• A fewwire taps need cgaecting.
• Some circuits are double lugged.
All broken conduity need repairing.
• (2) Romea and (2) S.O. cords should be removed and replacedwith approved wiring.
• A few electrical boxes need replacing and or remounted
• Exit hghitin&flnoresceut h htmp add outside lighhng need lacing or repairs.
• SomE conduits -ra to be sukp'6 W near panels and equipment
• Wiling inattic needs support nlunchon bokes'are missing.
• Rot, x wiring m bathroom Goat gam should bb'rcplactd
• A/C and heatin cincitits ` d t ` b d
g , nee o e size . properly.
We have included photo examples for some of the ibovq items.
11eu1?tcd by the texas i)cpaco
Pb Box 12157 Ail t IX 7871'1
�. ~ R„YNCmSE'S
..� . AdaRteii A�istiatrve litilrs: 73.51(Cj E
'} PHONE:. (281) 471 4222_-•
PO sOX-.1ls►tts
LA.PORfE ,
sfv8 �a �
06)803 4i (5r2j463-s59eoa9
Ch1tu} L t "y}.,i
. %Aa�3 stef9 o'1l+oO.nbt7lfia
aX,2s14473sss
�,,16u�STREET `''
0 i ll.
SON
Electrical FiberO { /Telecommunication t 1 I ; It
For health and safety reasons the above items need correction prior to a name change. our estimated cost:
• Labor $13,760.00
• Materials $2,875.00 /
• A/C & heat circuits (if changed to electrical heat) $18,600.00 V
• A/C & heat circuits (if gas heat is used) $14,950.00 �L
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (281)471-4222.
A �-
Paul Schaider
Pfeiffer and Son Ltd
Regulated by the Teas Department of licensing and Regulation
PO Box 12157; Austim, TX 78711; (800)803-9202; (512)463-6599
w Jiccnse.state.ix.us
Adopted Adnrinis ve Rules: 7351(c) Electrical Contractors Responsibilities
PHONE: (281) 471-4222 FAX:1281) 471-6856
P.O. BOX 1116. 116 N. 16 ..STREET
LA PORTE, TEXAS 77572
40 i. FEIFFER t& SON - *
Electrical --Fiber Optic • Telecommunication Contractors
RECEIVED .
February 23, 2007 FEB 2 3 200
City of La Porte '
1322 S. Broadviay
La Porte, TX 77572
RE: 908,912-ast Main St. Build Out Conference Room and Break Room
1J
ATrN: Debra Dye
Thank you for meeting with me to discuss your electrical p{oject for the above location. We
propose to famish the necessary labor and material as outlined below:,
Labor $6,800.00.
Materials $2,248.00
-
..
.'. RGgula(ed by lfic Tens .4.afii
.�9a1 0 lic'rnsng'and Regulation,.:
.
P6 Box 12157;'Amtii, TJC 7$711;'(800))803,�9202; (512).463-6599
- '
'..�!' . �:. W W W 11CCIi5CSfilC.IJt W 1 �',:
l
.'�
Adopted Administmtivc Rules 7331(c) Elmtrbcal Contractors Rctponsbilitk:.
PHQNE: (281) 471-4222 •FAX '
(281) 4,71-6856
P O . BOX 11 f6 ; i'18 N.' 16.,
;
LA PORTS .TEXAS`. 572''`'
7777
r�
.fv tl'
III: EL-ECT,RICAL SYSTEMS
A_ Service Entrance and. Panels
• I observed two circuit wires attached to one 20 Amp breaker in panel 1 of 908.
I observed a filler panels missing from the inside cover (dead front) of Panel 2 in
908.
I observed improper sized wires used with several breakers in Panel 2 of 908.
• The service panel for 912 is rusted most likely from before roof replacement.
Proper access was not provided as required at service panels in 912.
• I observed two circuit wires attached to one 20 Amp breaker in 912 sub -panel.
B. Branch Circuits
• The use of Romex was observed in the garage restroom of 908, along with non -
secure light switch box.
Insulation on wiring providing power for the make -shift A/C unit on the roof of
909 is damaged and should be addressed.
• Power supply for the abandoned roof mount unit for 912 has been improperly
tenWnat6d- Wiring is. hot and, laying exposed on -roof. -
• I observed numerous junction boxes missing their covers with exposed hot wires:
This condition exists at both 908 and 912.
• I observed duplex outlet covers and light switch covers missing in areas of both
908 and 912.
The following is the breakdown based on the electrical system report above:
A_ Service Entrance and Panels.
L All work shall be performed at normal working hours (7:00 to 3:30 pm).
2. Isolate two c it fits oh o15e b?ei&& b-A We' o'tv`n tirr akers b panel 1 of 908
$150.00
3. Install blank fill ers on dead front of Pane# 2 in 908. .$50A0
4. Replace breakers that are improperly sized to match the wire size. $500.00
5. Replace rusted service panel In'912. $1,00.0.00
Pie .pargd, by: Hull & Hull, Inc. on March k 2007,
Prepared for. City. of La Porte
�i
C.`
4
6.. Improper access at seivice panel in 912 is unclear. We exclude this item.
7. Isolate two circuits on one breaker on their own breakers in. sub -panel in 912.
$150.00
8. For the overhead drop to be moved up to 18 feet, the service risers and the
point of attachment will have to be replaced. $5,000.00
B. Branch Circuits
1. Replace romex cable in the garage restroom in 9M. Secure light switch box
2. Install outlet and switch covers that are missing in 908 and 912. $150.00
- C' i HVAC Systems
1. HVAC system in 908 has no heat If electric heat is going to replace gas heat,
a new circuit will have to be installed to feed the heaters. The unit will have
to match existing voltage: ., ... $1;000.00
.
2. Replace bad wire on a/d unit on roof of 908. $500.00
t; . ' 3. '�Repaii'poWer temiinafions to roof-tdp unit for 912 azid install the wiring
':,layjngFon'i00%,-pioperly:
r. "I - $400.00
4. Install covers on junctign boxes:that are missing. $150700
------
n>:,,D',.;. '"NewWoikon908'" 50
;r.,:: ,.;;crn ; :.. Ii6tFumish and install 2x4 layins uiqhe kitchen and confeierice room ,
f�
' , , . 2 7 Furnish and install 2'x 2 layins athroomsc ; �+
iuthe b
'(ill
t' ' �' I> �`�3 Relocate panel`agd install a new NCR discgttuect to acco
mnigdat�'a GouRfe"r
.tovfor.thekitchen.':::r
Fumisli and install fthYswitches in conference -room; bathrooms aiid kitchen.
"• ' _,ijk:E:i"Z $5,520.00
ExcliYSiorisii;r:AiltJtilityfees. ... ,
Telephoncwiring; connections and plywood
,
Prepared by: Hull & Hull, Inc. on March 8, 2067 Page' 52
Prepared for: City of La Porte
02/;2/2007 14:06 2814711140 BARREM
1
PAGE 01/02
BARRETT'S
HEATING &AIR CONDITIONING
JOB
�{ C��j�1
208 P O. BOX Tog
el L
US �
A PMAIN'ORT
LA PORTS, Tx 77572
,(
-
(2811471-1T18
FAX 1281) 471-1140
vNoue:
T 22-07
To 'CITY .OF LA PORTE
'OBN
W.
' P.O. Box ills
'MAT7v
LA PORTS TX 77S72
-------------
JOB DESCFWMN:
908.'W, MALN - FRONT A/C
(PLACE EXISTING S S WI
S TON460-23.0 V L'CRQUD pAs pnCK
.15= ItF7 'HEATS CODE APPROVED $7500.00
'MAIN - BACR A/C
iTALL 15 HE IN E ISTIN SELF CONTAINED .
IT 400 0
_S TON RQUD SELF oNR'A
D Q1V q' r,+i a 20 W T L C
.00
SELF CONTAINED:GAS.UNITS UP To
CODE. POSSIBLY
ATE BOTH QNIT3 TO ROOF OR :HAVE
...._ NEW LARGER PLAT1
sd by.
. of Licensing
'trafion
12.157
78711
79202
7NO THE JOB AS, DE
J AND DOES NoT IN,
1L LABOR AND mATF
ESTIMATED
JOB bouT
ESTIMATED
BY
02/22/2807 14:06 2814711140
PAGE 2
(( BARRETT'S
l HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING
208 E. MAIN P.O. BOX 748
LA PORTS, Tx 77872
(2811471-1118
FAX (281) 471-1140
TO
PA(3E 02/82,
JOB ESTIMATE
ogre
me wueEi t.ocAlwec
J09 DESCWPTIpPt
TO REPLACE EXISTING DUCT BOARD DUCT WORR.W3TH
-%SET.F'nANT1s7Rn.+n •nir.n .. -
-inm or nnn nn
jSTXWNEW-3,-TON RUU
_;;'go,
Regulated by.
Aff :The le?as'Dept, of Licensing
F
......... egistrad6n
12157
:'
Austri;'TX
78711
1=800-803-9202
DUCT, .FOR
FOR NEW OONFERENCE RCOM $6'000 000
ESTIMATED
JDB:GDST
ESTIMATED
By BRIM STRINGER
02i22/2007 12:58 2814711140
PAGE 01/04
BARRETT'S
l HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING
208 E. MAIN P.O: BOX 748
LA PORTE, TX 77572
(281) 471-111$
FAX (281) 471-1140
TO CITY OF LA PORTE
-0 BOX 1115
LA PORTE. TX 77572
JOB
INSPECTION OF 908 E. MAIN -FRONT A/C
1 ,;: GAS, HA;
2 :ORIGIM
SELF CONTAINED
TO.IR
JOB FISnMATIE
PHONE; DATE •.
2-22-0`7•,
JOS NALO LOonnoN:
ATTN: DEBORAH DYE
UNIT
HAS BEEN.TOTALLY BYPASSED
SELF
3 M
..'SO_EONE HAS INSTALLED 5•370N CONDENSOR 010 ROOF COMBINED WITH.
S.TON RSSIDENTAI. AIR HANDLER, NOT DESIGNED FOR OUTDOOR OPERATION
.`.. .i(ILLEGAL INSTALLATION)
DESIGNED:FOR THIS INSTALLATIC
1NGER• FROM TgIS l
& AIR HANDLER A
DUCTWORK SHOULD BE SHEET METAL
rirl�Pln;'rs J.5 MISSING.... .. ..
S LEFT ON 1200E 8; SHOULD BE REMOVED
.BEING SUPPLIED POWER BY SAME
lAL AIR HANDLER INDOORS IF
AP IN DRAIN LINE CONDENSA'
v Regulated by.
The Texas Dept. of Licensing
ahii Registration
`P.O Box 12157. .
;Au'stin; TX 7871.1
1 800-803-9202
.11iIS_'ESTIMA7'E IS FOR COMPLETING THE JOB AS DESCRIBED ABOVE ESTIMATED
4"..9ASEDON OUR EVALUATION D DOES NOT INCLUDE MATERIAL JOS COST _
;GE INCREASE$ OR ADDM NACLABOR AND MATERIALS WHjCH
REQUIRED SHOULD UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS OR ADVERSE ESTIMATED
WEATHER'CONDR70NS ARISE APTER THE WORK MAS 6TAR7ED. • BY
02/22/2007 12:58 2BI4711140
PAGE 2
(� BARRETT'S
HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING
208 E. WAIN P.O. BOX 748
LA PORTE, TX 77572
(281) 471-1118
FAX (281) 471-1140
TO
JOB DESCRIPTION:
10:.-.SYSTEM NOT INSTALLEE
4 TN ELECTRIC
lit—
CtL....; !.i' ...;
NZRING NOT IN CONDUIT
2.'; SYSTEM I9 LOW ON FREOI
f:.::.a■
PAGE "02/04
k
JOB ESTIMATE
OATB
JOB NAME/ LOCATION: '
NTAINED UNIT
QF4T/Tl�C� TTTTTTf T•�`��'�'fA� Y<itt$ ,
' '.•DRAIN' -DOES NOT TERMINATE PROPERLY
Th*¢TAL r ErT IN MgTT
4
<912`E; MAIN - FRONT A/C ._:FRONT A/C IS, SEL CONTAINED UNIT T,c,
'NO�NG USEDJ.ELECTRICAL BAS'BEEN.DISG`ONNECTED & IS EXPOSED
YI-QN'ROOFdp]TTR WIRE NLIT AN TRFq
NORTH MOST'SELF CONTAINED UNIT IN
V..
BACK, 'OF"]BUILDING
co
1f� FI;EX DIICT BROKEN WHERE IT ENTERS. BUILDING
N . SHEET METAL'
C
.: Regulated by:
—TheTexas'Dept. of Licensing
Registration.
Austin,:TX 78711
- 1=800=803-9202
TH13,ESTIMATE 13 FOR COMPLETING THE JOB AS OESCRIBEDASOVE
`13 EASED. ON OUR EVALUATION AND DOES NOT INCLUDE MATERIAL
ESTIMATED
i10E:INGREA5ES.OR:ADDITIONAL LABOR AND MATERIALS WHICH
JOB C63T
rAAYBE REOUIRED SHOULD UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS OR ADVERSE
WEATi1Efi CONDITIONS ARISE AFTERTH2 WORK
ESTIMATED
HAS STARTED. "'
BY
02/22/2007 12:58 2814711140
PAGE 3
lBARRETT'S
HEATING St AIR CONDITIONING
208 E. MAIN P.O. BOX 748'
LA PORTE, TX 77572
(281) 471-111a
FAX (281) 471-1140
TO
JCBDESCRIPTION;
NO GAS. SHUT OFH
HEAT IS OPERATI
4: cELECTRICAL FROM
NEEp .2,SEPERATE.
- �15l1T1TL7^ MAST 2lx nn ,
• '•.r.
••e s
JOB ESTBUTE
drone ��
Joe NALM LOCATION;
UNITS ARE ON SAME PLATFORM. SOUTH UNIT IS
A1V6SHOULD BE RELOCAT D
s2 DUCTWORK SHOULD BE RAN IN SHEET;METAL.TO PROTE
`' "' i;'G7EATHER & RODENTS
SELF+CONTAINED UNIT ON GROUND IN BACjC.O$..BUILDING
^1 SERVICE DISCONNECT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE
fated by
apt: Of. Licensing
gistrafion
o`x 1.2157
TX 78711
303-9202
IPLETINO.TN£JOB AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. ESTIMATED-
ATION AND DOES NOT INCLUDE MATERIAL JOB COST'
TIONAL LABOR AND MATERIALS WMICH
LMFORESEEN PROBLEMS OR ADVESk ESTIMATED
IE AFTER THE WORX HAS STARTED. - BY
FROM
02/22/2007 12:58 2814711140 BARREfTS PAGE 04/Q4
PAGE 4
TO
BARRETT'S
HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING
208 F. MAIN P.O. BOX 748
LA PORTS, TX 77572
(281) 471-1118
FAX (281) 471-1740
��uauon
12157
K 78711
JOB FdSTIMAH
' rNONs: DATs
JOB NAMFj LOCATION:
THE JOB AS DESCRIBED. ABOVE ESTIMATED
D DOES NOT INCLUDE MATERIAL JOB COST
IBORAND MATERIALS WHICH"
TEEN PROBLEMS OR ADVERSE ESTIMATED
THE WORK HAS STARTED BY. . BRIAN . STRINGER
r •'
IV. HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDMONING SYSTEMS
c r
• Due to the condition of the HVAC system at 908, I recommend the air conditioning
system be serviced by a licensed air conditioned and heating tecbnieian
It does not appear 908 has heat Previous heat was provided by gas through he roof
mount unit This service has been improperly disconnected Recommend action be taken
to properly gas cap line.
It appears cooling for 908 is being provided by a make -shift roof mounted unit Cover for
controls including hot wires is missing. Recommend action be taken to correct this safety
issue.
r Abandoned roof mounted unit for 912 remains.,
I recommend the HVAC systems for both 908 and 912: be.studied,irl detail by a MEP
Pro€essional Engineer. working along side a licensed.air conditioning and heating
technician to ensure the piece mill systems perform,
908 W: Main -Demo existing Roof Top Unit with make shift tint added Install new; 6 ton, 5
ton and 4 ton.roof [op,unifsi .curb,, outside. air; electric heat, reconnect a duct work, rk, add
plenums to complete work contractor air alance, contractor controlsi rework existing 4 ton
unit duct work; control and check umitvise gatage.to.conference room designed for 50
people maximum load during daytime hours. Add 5 ton unit for conference area All' labor,
,warranty, startup; adjustments; and permits for. a• complete and operable HVAC system
$34-,496.00 .
912 W. -Main Demo existing Roof Top Unit, demo 3 existing units at, end of building,,agd,
install 2 new rooftop units on roof, new 6 ton and 7.5 to with curbs; outtside air and. electiic
heat. New duct work, grills, controls, smoke detectors, new ceiling and ceiling insulation by
others, I retumm air in cr'lino for each omit, labor, warranty, star tup,.adjustments, and permits
for a complete and operable HVAC system,
$36,990.00
Prepared by: Hull &Hull, Inc: on March 8,:200.7 Page 53?
Pmpared for. City of La Porte
.r
S14
DHJONESiLOAb .ff4;1St01+1 ik�is1S3707b
(287) 890 4787 fi4X{1141) 890.T17d' '
beheral Scope of Work .
908 W. Main Project
Rev; January 3.1, 2007
4
Phase t. General Re f s L .Accessbili ' estimated cos}"of 7�r 000
Rest Rooms fflCo4 tjuct Pest rooms ohe.men's and one Women', rile torture restrooms Removeng id9h virali� and ceilings, and restroom$irhjres Fteta{n as much einsdng
plumbing FDc ute rou h In PIPttt9 m reslrooin comrndn. waq Ord Boor as ble
posab�e ; r , �oss..y that is Cbe
o °�n ng ie"s rp in ,aOg nil doors to make rest ropm layout and cues uu
+grr'Phanceti fr hanr�r'r {ZPed Od Codeiequfremghts. Fmfsh it -40
►gsf MID
�PP�?d�1a%1y 5cg itr s¢e a5 f andcapP. a�ssrble, single fr turp rest s ` � to
ft18 ast r s rh 11 aegd t01?e by way of an Wded short a
halts`mrJe}fifsresO�tp}oK,oh+has g h lYextefisionfrom{fiemain
o @ ove tfi a throir h the Gvage-
o I 1 bit rt - R dbbr o e Ga[age �s rt will rML P rest room wall construction -
1ng'#ioigrdl rafiachmeIiK nevi:31ugi mg top out p,p,hg,.trentsfalck
copper > old i gilt "i prpdq$,> 7 ,
1r�hting end install new eirhast flrhs Qrovide 1 GFI reoe�tade
° °F ,suit,"�9trelhi 0 alroh elec c hot water . 'eater b " x 4
r __ boYQ rest room and provjde
l a%jcjms Awm C ngecthot�aterp,pfngt4Piastjrtghotwaterpipinf
a...L � Pr !lg e?uSP 4 L nq Code piping a� n
tlo eessaryto•pnirdehotwjterothng
�SpPttr�n�,� sfr�, r Y twater. • :F.i ,:.,:r::,:,
o Insfaif �#jandra �" I ;
apes rrtrouhted commode and one cefamm yitall mounted latot ' AIJ pbrpPtau! �4 igsf for
o Pl�pfYt�ta�,WAj8ce fs� room finrsfies;. hzraitilc6 flo6i�s1nd walls gtt�fity
Stmisteettolr{efs and Wafeesr
fa � - t�P, ,°9�ti•bers'mirrors oiler'
o cre paT :t-pGni','"-�` g' je�tal vnndoyv iramtnIT
g ,
Coffee Bar—t jj{ or r` t f CORI lea n y�
st �! _ 4 h h norfh wajl and part of the hal vmip ail, f the e
RSa;eDOR?o glow n5lrlrhon of the ended hest rdoms "an8 """
5 �vlcfeHall #MrP an �acent
be ed „N 1er geroeM and the resl fdorrts She north ( 'U nnt[ n g i to
"f'k►t OY ward the south to 3 omplish this The store room will
e hS�rri�rtirs nsrallorlc
o t;eR)ovego hpa}erandpon bode complir,nt piping from existing ear room in
ngtftrst oo�r�er'of Cl►Ity f g
r i itre inside of the west wall to a height of apx. 8' to fury orif and cone��ttle,bng surfacenotinted ptumbtny Imes and ,to provide cabyget �ourthng
stru � u
D Con`a�tf4ltfyroorn,nnth mop sink in this sarrre area,.layout to be detejrrnne s to
t'f<orn rektoa�geoom .,.
o Provade Ac and'tteaf {o tfirs area which -is presently not climate controltled, t ib AI; sjrerrt'in
the aijjaceptslore roDrra ixrt appear to'be large enough fo serve t{»s area. -A 'newAC
systfer n wll need tQ by -_ jlgd rn'this area. ;
' 0 1'rovideripperattd lowgr mets, corRmerciai grade factory made custom, cabinets on the
1 �tg Wap rrfC{udtng Sfatnte steel kink cabinet Nayout needs to consider the ex'.1i tivmdowontheriiirthwalt':`nq
i
r• 908 Main Street Project
heneial Scope of work
Rev. January 31, 2007
Page 2of3
Z.
o ...Now vinyl file floor coverings or commercial, carpet floor coverings to be provided in this
remodeled area inclydin6lfle hall ways. ;
o Wall firiishe's to be'qualrty paint materials. ;The cabinet back splash area to`be ceramic f+7e .
o. ,Install GFI electrical outlets "and added circuits at coffee bar . ,
..-'MA AcceBsibltlp lierrts
Create iWo'marked handicapped Pariang spaces and 16MO required NC pal r)q "rtis west ` 1of the building can thg ewsting patkmg iot, and stripe the access=way at the n s
indicabn a cessery, Parse 9 .Paces ; ;
9 ?. Accessible Route.:Mq e. ne' re 1 fo the broken up asphalt Brea at
ilia sidewallt transi4orj and hecessery repairs fo'the conorete'rampjerea atte ale won "
oq the public srtiewalk ,
o replace and/or fit type locksets�bn al( Poors regwred,to tie accessible. '
o fjlstall extruded aluminam sloped;traYrsihons at all tloors where Boo} eleiratioils changes
lgreater than
o Install a sloped tamp 2#the location Df the ,bhck floor covering in the pan atier
h removal of thra door Rehiovat of the rigor simplifies the acces$bdity lssdes at jhis h '
' and a(ows flits a oleo to ad a
" ,,� ' >:cessibje rh the rh¢st eEonOritrcalintay s : ' '
a The rem
rgs(rOojKsyuillbeiieslghed n'dpbnstivctedtoa si¢i ",sJ 'lords . r
a Provide accasibiilr plans titan rev%jwril(tited lns ctio
I�fOI through the State o71 exas dreh g ns ProJ!e9�sifa(ipn`forlhs
debttirW errrgrslirocegs: r,.e
General Repairs
4 .' .,, f
o Rb01ace the two 87t18 § old wood front dRuble�oors'vgitlj 3'.yvide aaVood rJ'opr aril 117m.Uni s
cu...... thade �n{o the'ty) ng opemt)gs when �hQAttl door.pOds ate Ferrtoved.
Pr rihte�r trim. ap s fP be WE)(' an so yyhl not be F�loded ! r t t
fu(nished Wfltr required hardware fitr 'holds ah l3hon`s to be
t
o R+firi�h aII woQoi1 th 'orT the t !otter shiQpury 4
caul fifj aOd.W tit e rAh replace broken lass p
Pre
/rp�jn y _ ,- g make•re nib
airs.
5�RYf MKiYIr rn , a ;
n x y .1" p g
,Pecft i� call' >rd checfciecTrfi Gsage {moo tle ne it the'
w�heiot,tjgtadesjdoe(oalloyvforaidedelectricafloadofnew
,h: tq fig $rldadded A< 4eaiilnlis
o Pll IlurllrrtaL,ed�� fiac�cttP, Pt sl9fls�rr8 em8rgenc Tess jig tutg pie .
�4l ewf i, ai t r t s r YRg , ,how r ,d on floor
ote.Y arJd refiRishte? x -
rte8grood'soffi4 fascia boarr'1s ari�tnm w"fierEiiArtfeil atfgonttif
bpikimg Roof repairs are needed as rairnvatet`is coming . roilgJ �hdt--J lted out
apehmys� however roof repairs are unknown,`.and condition of frammg materjals is unknown.
-El 'abV 1l Remodel of garage area into hi finish conference room (estimateii'costofVIM
General-13epairsand Renovaoti .
o Level fbor to commercai floor standards vi%th self leveluf tLii' ei °stem
this:(ormer ara a area slo es a gyps , lev Y Floor ip
g, 9 P PProXitrfately 3 from soufhwestto"northeast and needs to
leveled before�ffi j he cons ctidn �'
o Provide5wa11fgpagso'eiiigbngtheettockwalls
o Corisjrtict a heyvrrrsulatedshot tuck wa�F across the{pom at ttte north end to cpYer.the
etpslvrg 92` X ti? roJL.1P
Hoer }\ddfiorially, f!?ay be tiiost pracBpj to reittoVe #his olil roll up
dodr Tod close ifie well npenmg WiH%0 cemerjt block.to patch the.ekisfing binding
strudpre In eitliercaseaftewwallVvtlfberequired s
o Construct a new entry`door from main hat( wa"jr'toward the sorith end of Ill loom,
i o Install a new suspeftded ceihirg aystein. rid Ill— rig Lighbr q to indude both general .
illumiriahon and vdali a Vaster fights for towel o Ilaigtihng levels duryjpnstalwrongfrimtadriurmeraeaod resenfatrohs
digital PniJecpoq egaipmeni"
908 Main Street Project
General Scope of -Work
Rev. January 31, 2007
I >Page3of3
t ..
.o Provide an electrically operated projection screen, or alternate 'teflective wall sgce, on the
north wall for presentations: '
o ' Provide added electrical circuits receptacles fight sAc:hes e)dt lights and emergi ncy .
egress lights for .this loom : '6 V
o . Construct a complete AC and heat systeip for this mom as . Is presently not dtmafe 44— .
bontrblled.
p Firimbes to include beaded yv000,''tamed and sealed wamscot �rW W1.hir k to match ether .
wood work in the office areas. ; Vlfall finishes gepEialty to be vinyl VvaU coxenngs above the
wainscot. =
o Design, configurationand-feati]tesofthispobrrilnID-[teedtbbe
Poo rdirfatedwrththe
. _
, organ¢atioo that will use this room {
rig
o Install cotnmercial cafpetand wood shoe [no at vvafl t?ase
, , s • # , .
Protect Cost Allocation Costs estimated;it"e ere.on gttrmp Suter V'rth all Nroltc being
oogstructed as one work effort to econbm¢e prr fob mobT¢ahgh costs arldPpced costs of constructon
VNefiave alfMmul the following costs to each'wbrk item Identified for customer's evaluation as shown
betotnrTl , ..
• " ...... ar, u4Uty tooter rglat worjc $18,400
�'ADq repairs and fitotrl $i 1,¢60 '
Geh l Repairs $11;a
' £ggversron bf gafage inio.conferenceioom $d5;6o6
EXdBsrohs and landing Conditions_
rl�tfiatrsllesaib daboveistobeconstrugtedpsone.HiorkeffortyvPbile,"biriza—bon
.
i mated sbsis are bss 'd on working in the rem ling area'oq ail ugatxlrlrret{ jrasis° - •f
• �r8oji and adequacy of the existing elednpl ce �s thtlsriouyn and§yjgrFieiibn of the
proPodi9h� �n iwQ new air conddionrng ileahp� �,C x s tyre egg fin$
N Rtioh rh;�yi tb be r�{aeed t#ast3'a rplaV'cenit ttre eteptriEt� Rd !n
�siribrsndtrndydeEf , tz iP �L
• Some plum4rng prpmg'nit plrjtnbg.9 system; ata not in compliance w tH pras>;ht tiilr i�rg'dodei s
71i�eY{ate aboveVO
?tdGdes Feptaceinerlt o hor�Coiie plumbing only in the
�r onerepiacemgntnFdatingirotmduded bN�`do
q ptor rg tQ ngn Odg'vomPrght efee$ cal, liVAC or other building f. yes tr,a{'fr,ay
{ . rtemoed, retslficed orFgarjal7ged to allow construction of the prof�dsed work will be
1 • J6e Chiral condt6ons of the irvri woa" cano wood structure, trim and canopy
#, t py,: py roof, 'Witions
�ti0# lmewq The work deschbed'hove is based on cosmetic repairs only Mofe than likely
? ,paus iM be needed but since they are unkhown at this tune, nc obst4bstimate for those
pm
■ In nor pd4&g and finishing is included for wplls and doors affedecj b)lremodeling work described
Tfoemainteiiance paii5png or;other 1'inrshing work.to ewstng walls brrrrr is included.
S ,
Prepared by Sunbelt Conimerglal, Builders, tee.,
flo131�assen. - - _
r`
^Y
Z ..n
e
_ - -.� Y`t• y a� ..t Y3..ej
�
.j vi A
AL
• Y
� x
V �I
••" :' :.I NOW IUOOh roRrtl.m 4�~��' �
1 r� �
0 a N
r.
L >^ee dd@W�AteaG'o0nts. • 1� c _< r r }
.. :,..� f'••` �, 3e'• S`. z l� twee s%i
Tl
17 IA � ' 7 Nsy.�gamy .
• ... 4W�7tlllt� f �, ,.
(/��\) r n - � r "P!dh944?eHUM0.'+•eeY�,Q�Y '• r n
f
.p
.. n a � iJ •�Y: •..l µ t � t r Yi YS, 1
.. s v a z;J�+ea Nrr,Hab;Lpa.�'
77,Al ,
3?._908 West Main St: • La Porte, TX '
l{►1BC,
.• rxu eur nne ecexmo'nm erourvr¢rmuv.cxaeinnwr ew:enxxcauow,lfox„woa. .. ..
SCALE None DRAWN EY
raorzmro uxoracavanxruwe er2xsuxnw e2arra or.weaaAriue mouuexruwarxeeavuuraGCMMERCIAL —.. R.S.K.
uro wreax.¢ueror rteso ervomcur>tr.xoarraeovonorvottxieooewutrogoieewxenox ormv. " pWILQERS�'INC! DATE: 2-1.07 CHECKED 8Y.
rnwroxuew ra Gvvoixw>Mxie Mlgw9GNI1MW4TUaNXwMf¢I WIfeM.NeVtlLLS
mew,wo., 77 ,
r. ,
, PARTfALFLOOR PLAN ,DpiAVyJNG
:'• - 1`
v
V. PLUMBING SYSTEM
A. Water Supply System and Fixtures
The restroom of left office 3 in 908 is not accessible due to the step up required to
enter. Not only is this not accessible, this condition is unsafe because the step is
greater than 7'/2". Function flow in the shower is insufficient to properly use the
shower. The shower faucet handle is not properly attached The water'.closet tank
is loose and not properly attached to its base.
• The garage rest room of 908 is not compliant with TAS. Overall size does not
allow for accessible use.
• The rear hallway:restroom of 908 is not compliant with TAS. -overallsize does
not allow for accessible use. The water closet is loose at the floor flange.'.`
• Neither restroom of 912 are compliant with TAS:. No accessible water closet.
Water closets that are provided da not•provide the required 18"clearance. Size of . -
restrooms or interior stalls do not allow for the required T turning radius. Neither
sinks nor entrance doors comply-
B. Water Heating Equipment
• All components for the water heater in 908 were found to be in satisfactory
condition on the day of the inspection.
908- 2 ADA Water Closets
2 ADA Lavatories
1. Bar sink
Move Water heater
Reuse, if possible; water heater and existing water piping
Excludes gas piping and back flow.equipment
912 - 2:if
Closets
2n
1r
1ry
Rb water pipingEiping and back flow equipment
$6,826.00
Prepared by: Hull & Hull, Inc. on March 8 2007 Page 54
Prepared for: City of La Porte
i
SITE
• Public sidewalk running in front of 908 does not provide for cross slope of less than 1:50
as required by TAS.
Public sidewalk running in front of 908 and 912 does not provide for an accessible route
as required by TAS - transition between 912 and 908 has a raised barrier.
All sidewalk rehab 100' x 8' = 800 sq ft @ $15.00 = $12,000.00
Prepared by: Hull & Hull, Inc. on March 8, 2007
Prepared for. City of La Porte
P4g T.
0
• Sidewalk approach at parking lot to front of 912 does not provide for an accessible route
as required by TAS - surface is decayed and does not provide for a smooth passing.
$1,500.00
PTepaied by: Hull & Hull, Inc. on March 8, 2007 P4e.3
Prepared for City of LaPorte
IN
• The 908 roof has failed.causin water
awning g damage,to soffit and fascia Structural
condition could not be determined -
Remove and Replace soffit - 80' @ $75.00 $6 000.00
Prepared by: Hull & Hull, Inc.. on March 8,c2007':Page 7 '
Prepared for: City of La Porte
r 'Windows: ; : W •::::.; ..... .
• Decayed wood window trim was observed around all windows along the front of 908. I
recommend corrected action before this condition can cause damage to interior walls.
4 ea double windows - remove and replace $1,500.00
Prepared by: Hull.& Hull, Inc. on March 8, 2007
C ' Prepared for. City of La Porte
Page 32'
• Both sets of front main entrance doors for 90$ are showing signs of heavy wood decay. / ?�
Wood surfaces do' not appear, to be salvageable; however glass inserts appe to' be re —
useable.
Remove and replace 2 ea sets 5'0" x 87 French Doors with transoms .$6,400.00
Prepared by. Hull & Hull, Inc. on March 8, 2007 : w ' ' Page,36` .
�. Prepared for. City. of La Forte
m
Floors;
• Change in level of floors in 908 are non -compliant yvith TAS.
Provide access throughout building $7,500.00
Prepared. by: H"4.&,HUIL Inc. on Page.,AT
Prepared for. City of La Porte
C, I
CITY OF LA PORTE-PLANNING DEPARTMENT
604 W. Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, TX 77571
www.d.la-oorte.bcus
Phone: (281) 471-5020 / Fax (281) 470-5005
Memorandum
DATE: January 30, 2007:
TO: Debra Dye, Main Street Coord.
FROM: Masood Mali1S'City Planner
CC: Wayne Sabo, Planning Director.
SUBJECT: 908 W. Main Sheet
The cost estimates for the resurfacing of parking lot and landscaping is as follows:
Parking Lot (asphalt)
14 472 S.F. (154/95 F) = 160854
`160854 (110#/54 in) (2") / 2,000#Aon 175 tons
475'tons ($130hon) + 15"/o (striping, mobilization etc.) = $26,000
Live Oaks (20 gal.) — 6
-WM of CM — Wax Myrtle or Crape Myrtle (20 gal.) — 4
JapaneseBlack Pine (10gal) —8
RT = Red Tip Photenia (10 gal) — 6
0.,- Oleanders (15 gal) — 6
LG _Magnolia "Little Gem" (15 gal) 8
Total = $1,000 - $1,500
" •if`you require any additional information,, please contact meat (281) 470-5058. Thank you.
;.
• The EIFS fascia at 912 is damaged along the left side of the building. This condition will
allow water to penetrate into the foam board and cause further infernal decay. I recommend
repairs be accomplished.
Remove and Replace with conventional plaster 118' @ 100 $11;800.d0
Prepared by: Hull & Hull, Inc. on March 8, 2009' Page 10
Prepare&for. City -of ImPorte
D. Exterior Walls
• Several bends around the building were missing from the bottom of the downspouts.
These bends along with splash blocks direct water away from the foundation. This helps
prevent uneven moisture in the soil around the perimeter of the building. Uneven soil.
moisture can cause foundation damage. • I recommend they be installed.
$2,500 00
d
(� Prepared by: ,Hull & Hull, Inc. on March 8, 2007 P.age:I9a
Prepared for City of La Porte
�,A
r The right reardownspout for 908 is completely clogged
$300.00
Prepared by: Hull &Hull; Inc. on . March 8; 2007 _ : s'.Page 20'.
Prepared for: City of La Porte
I
141
I observe(tthe lower portion of.downspout =Zmg from the back of 912. near the electrical
panels.. This cond.iti6" dumping roof watex direcoy on to some components of the
electrical distribution system. I recommend correction action betaken immediately.
$450.00
Prep by: Hull, &Hull, Inc. on Mar-ch 8;'2007 Page 23',
Prepared for City of La Porte
• EMS surfaces along the left side of 912-is damaged in seveig.locations.- These conditions .
will allow water to penetrate into the form board and cause furdLer internal decay:
recommend-repaits 66 accoiihplishecl-
$1,970.00
Prepared by: Hull & Hull, Inc. on Maich 8; 2007
Page
P"14
Prepared for. City of La Porte
I
• I observed the downspout missing from the scupper located on left side of 912 near the front
of the building.. Wall staining was observed nearing the ground.
$450.00
I
Prepared by: Hull & Hull, Inc.- on March 8,.-2007 -Page 26
Prepared for: City.of La. Porte
• Decayed wgodmindow trim was observed around some windows along the left side .of 912. I
recommend corrected action before this condition can cause damage to interior- walls and the
EIF$ wall system
4 ea slA0.00
Prepared by:. Hull & H on March 8,,200`7: . -( R?Pp Page33
c• Prepared for. City of Itia l?pj�e
\ )_
• The metal window "frame at the rear of 9l2 is decayed: I recommend this window:be
replaced before this condition can cause further damage to,interior walls- ,
2 ea
$1;500..00
((� Prepared byr Hull & hull, Ina on March 8,• 2007 ' Page 34'
C Prepared for - .City of La Porte : ` ` . ,
Roofing Covering � .
• The 908 roof is nearing its end -of -life. Repairs most likely will not provide for the most cost
effective solution. I recommend consideration be given for complete roof replacement.
Remove & Replace Roof - 100 x 50 = 5,000 \ 100 = 50 squares @ $400 per square
$20,000O
f
C .
Prepared by:. Hull & Hull, Inc. on. March 8, 2007 Page.6: .
Prepared for: City of La Porte
M
• Both 908 and 912 roofs have foreign debris thrown about them. Le. HVAC used parts, tar
buckets, etc. recommend these items be policed.
$1,200.00
Prepared by: Hull & Hull, Inc. on March 8; 2007 Page g
Prepared for:. City of La Porte
F
a
• Fascia trim along the babk of 912 at the addition is unfinished. I recommend I- � ommend a coating be 7
applied to prevent decqy in the future.
Set nails and paint - 25'@ $20
- I :
$506.00
Prepared by: Hun - &Hnn, Inc. on Marcli.8,200 .
Page:14:
Prepared for. City of La -Porte.
• Attic access of 908 is lacking handrail and is missing small section flooring at the top of the .
stairs.
Add handrail and repair steps $1,500.00
�( Prepared by: Hull & Hull, Inc. on . March 8;;2007
�`` Prepared for: City of La Porte
• Observed abandoned.HVAC flex duct in attic space of 909. .
N
$120.00
`C Prepared by: Hull & Hull, Iuc_ on March 8; 2007:
Prepared for. City of La Porte ;::,
• .
. ,
HULL & HULL, INC.
!9ene:af eonhacto,u
2223 KELLEY
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77026
(713) 699-2577 • FAX (713) 6W2581
WILLIAM C. HULL
PRESIDENT
-p-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Delivery for
Governmental Entities
(Cities, Counties, & River Authorities)
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
2
Project Delivery Methods
4
Management Assistance
12
Recommended Guidelines for Procurement
16
Competitive Bidding
18
Competitive Sealed Proposals
21
Construction Management at Risk
25
Construction Management, Agency
32
Design/Build
37
Bridging
43
Job Order Contracting
45
Illustrations
Competitive Bidding
5
Competitive Sealed Proposals
6
Construction Management at Risk
7
Construction Management, Agency
8
Design/Build
9
Bridging
10
Job Order Contracting
1 1
Comparison Matrix
14-15
I
bnnnh„ ,,,,,I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
INTRODUCTION The 77" Legislature through Senate Bill No. 510 authorized
certain Governmental Entities to utilize several different
methods for the procurement of certain facility construction
contracts. (Local Government Code 252.022, 252.043, 262.023
as described in Subchapter H, Chapter 271.)
513510 defines a "Governmental Entity" only as a city county or
river authority. (Local Government Code-27 1.111(10)).
513510 defines a "Facility" as buildings, the design and
construction of which are governed by accepted building codes.
The term does not include:
(A) highways, roads, streets, bridges, utilities, water supply
projects, water plants, wastewater plants, water and
wastewater distribution or conveyance facilities, wharves,
docks, airport runways and taxiways, drainage projects, or
related types of projects associated with civil engineering
construction; or
(B) buildings or structures that are incidental to projects that are
primarily civil engineering construction projects
The statute provides specific definition of each delivery
method, and the process and procedures for procurement.
Construction, however, is a complex process wherein many
variables affect the final outcome. The drive by industry and
owners to deliver projects faster, spend less money, improve
quality, reduce litigation and create less conflict has com-
pounded this complexity. As Governmental Entities deliberate
which project delivery method provides "best value," a number
of factors must be evaluated. There is no single "best" method.
Each delivery method has certain advantages and disadvantages.
It is not the intent of this document to endorse any specific
method, but to provide a better understanding of the most
common delivery methods including basic definitions, relative
merits and limitations of each method, insight to the typical
issues inherent in each method and recommend procurement
guidelines.
1
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 2 September /. 2001
buruducuna
This document is the product of a collaborative effort by own-
ers, architects, engineers, contractors, design/builders, construc-
tion managers, attorneys and many other volunteers. It is their
hope that users find it beneficial and that it contributes to the
improvement of the building industry. It is also recognized that
the construction process is an evolving process. As this evolu-
tion takes place, supplements and revisions to this document
will be issued to keep users current with industry trends.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 3 September 1. 2001
P:n/ert Deli rr�'� 11rth,,.:•
PROJECT DELIVERY Industry currently recognizes seven project delivery methods.
METHODS These methods principally differ in three ways:
• The number of contracts held by a Governmental Emit.:
• Assistance by the builder in the design phase; and
• Governmental Entity participation in subcontract awards.
The seven delivery methods are:
(1) Competitive Bidding
(2) Competitive Sealed Proposals
(3) Construction Management, Agency
(4) Construction Management at Risk
(5) Design/Build
(6) Bridging
(7) Job Order Contracting
Construction Management, either Agency or at Risk, are
procured under the "request for proposals" provision. Bridgine
is a form of design/build.
Some Governmental Entities engage the services of "Project
Managers," "Program Managers" or a "Construction Mmia iger.
Advisor" to assist or augment their staff in the management of
their construction programs. These "service" roles are not
recognized as delivery methods. Any of the seven common
project delivery methods, however, may be used in conjunction
with these management services.
The definition, characteristics, relative merits, phasing and limitations
of these common delivery methods are presented to assist
Governmental Entities in determining which method provides
"the best value to the Governmental Entity."
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities
Septemher /. )Uu:
l 'r, i,, . l I,
Competitive Bidding
.. 1h,fillilioll
c itItIII1 , L ;I (1CII%'CI'N' nlevhod tcherein
yt 11'tO'limcnm I I'III itvscleclstIll: Archileo/h)pinecr
. '•rlr� _;;Ihchntircl. Oncrconsu'ucliondocunlcnls
Vol 111)[VI .Illc(im CI'11111CII 1;11I.; I1111V rctilicsis
1!I11 ;II'lii, hI1911 i11Cr;11 l'171111';ICI(11"s to hel'-
„I m the ttl,rh. lylcetlon oI the General ('ontl'arlor
cd oll the irINC51 I)l'Icc suhnlill;ll ;Intl aw;lyd i.
- ..r:i •".I ,nl_li enllll';I CIItI',
( 7/ uru(l(ri s tic .s
Subcontractors
I In ticlit cry 114.Illo l is knots It ;is the "Irldiliolml" nlclhod and is the nlclhod tcilll tt hlch 1110.1 Ittlhh;
r, Iy .1 y the No>I I;Imili;lr. Known ;Is an open-Ixice aggrrssire dclivery nlrlhod.
Ih lit cn �chcdulc I. Ihrcy linear 11h;lses rrsulline in 111r loilLCs1 limy dw;nion:
Design
Bc'\l .Sllifed
111111 ;II'C Ilttl � llcdtllc sellsll lt'e
'""' �lllgiil Its ItUlCllI I;II cI1;IIICC.
"M 1 I 7r:ffiPu a�.
Leav Suited
( olliple.s lu'ojccls Ihlu arC scyucncc or'VIlVd-
ulc sensilive. Projects suhjecl to polcmial
chancy.
.., l ,.r l,.....r'nnp'r 11111 /!Will,"
a
r
ti
S
4
1
1
1
Competitive Sealed Proposals
Definition
Competitive Sealed Proposal is a delivery method
similar to competitive bidding in that the Governmental
Entity selects an Arch itect/Engineerto design the project.
Once consu'uction documents are fully completed, the
Governmental Entity solicits proposals from contractors
to perform the work. Selection is generally based on a
combination ofprice and other factors that the Govern-
mental Entity deems in its best interest, such as project
earn personnel, schedule, contractor's past experience.
etc.
Characteristics
Subcontractors
Pr,gr,, rl, 1,,, I,, .
,,,, G.....,,,,,,,.:.:: :...... .
Similar to competitive bidding, but this delivery method allows flexibility to select a cun!ractur on :,
basis of specific selection criteria which includes factors oilier than price. Does not necessarily rr,ul! n?
lowest price.
Delivery Schedule is three -linear phases resulting in longer time duration than other methods:
Best Suited
New projects that are not schedule sensitive
nor subject to potential change.
Construct
Least Suited
Complex projects that are sequence or
schedule sensitive. Projects subject to p,nen-
tial change.
Prujeci Delnvry For Gurernmenml Enri,ies
6 Sep,.•,unrr ln,.
ti
4
y
1
4
ti
ti
4
i
i
M1
4
Construction Management at Risk
1)(Jillitioll
( oll�tu:uon \lanacctncnl at Risk is it delivery mclhod
Mhercut the governmental entity selects an Architect:
I n__mccr u) de<ien the project and separately selects it
( On'nu:uon Manaeer at Risk to serve as the General
( )nt'acu)r. The Construction Menagcr aSSumCS the risk
:M* :nn<Iruction guaranteed price and provides dcsisn
t)hd>c consultation in evaloming costs, schedule. impli-
nr,a• rf altcrnati)c designs and SystcmS and malcri-
, Jurtn„ and after design of the facility. Selection is
ha>cd on criteria that combine gtalificationS, expericncc.
,Ind ma) imolce fcc and general conditions.
C 'hurcic teristics
Subcontractors
I It,: C \I at Risk contracts directly with the trades or Subcontractors and has single point of responslhiht%
;Or III: dcli)rn of the projccl. The CM at Risk is normally selected al the sane time. or shortly after. the
\rchucel f:npincer and providcS assistance in evaluating costs. Scheduling and const'uclibilk\. The ('\1
16,11 pm) idc> it Guarantccd I\'laxinuun price (G;\IP) to fix the cost and competiticcly bids or rccen:>
hrnlu)sal: Front the u;ulcS and Subcoolnictors. The owner can speed construction by starting elements ,:
!hc :on<trucloll prior to design being complete.
1)('li)cr) schedule is three phase non -linear:
Select
tic Nl Suited
Construct
Least Suited
Lw-,cr nc)c nr renovation projects Thal arc Schedule Smaller projects.
;n.uoe. difficult to dcfinc. or Subject to change.
. /6 hr rrr/_.„r(;„rrrunn anul l:hririer
7
Seplrwho I ."If,
HULL & HULL, INC.
Omz%af eonhactau
2223 KELLEY '
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77026
(713) 699-2577 • FAX (713) 699-2581
WILLIAM C. MULL
PRESIDENT
C
k
ti
1
1
Design/Build
i)( i„ilia„
\ nr; lh„d a here a single cnlily is conu;tcicd W provide bosh
c 'n ;ind cnn:u'uclion. The Design; Build Icant consists of
uilder.:irehilMand cgincer. The DesignBuildcrcnnlracls
Jirccll, „ilh the suhconu'aclnrs and is responsihle for
ncn of file pr0jccl. scleclioll is hascd on Ilse proposal
lcrmc the hr>I ,aloe tolhc(ioycrnmcnlal Linlily.
C harucleristics
Subcontractors
I Li, ntcdtod reyoires the Ciovernmenlal I=miry to he more knowl-
lccahlr:nul imolvcd in the process. Keyclentcnl IoSIICCesS is
Iro,i hcn,ccn (immillicnlal 1{111ily. Con(t'aelnt:s. an(Inrchilccl/
I m_mccr.
DCIi, cn tiehe(Ill IV is l,tll nOn-IiIlei,I. Ses:
Design Construct
1
' 8c.\1 Spited
\., nr renoyalioit projects Iltal arc schedule
1
Least Suited
Projects Ihat are dill'icull lu del'ine and ;u'e
less schedule sensitive.
' ,::: /4'/n rrr l,rr Ur n'rr'ruur+rl,rl F.nli/ir :r O
.irplrrgArr 1. 'RUi
HULL & pH/JULL, INC.
2223 KELLEY
HOUSTON, TEXAS "M
(713) 899-2577 • FAX (713) 699-2581
WIWAM C. HULL
PRESIDENT
r
Project Deliren A/edw.l,
6
1
r
r
a
r
r
1
ti
Bridging
Definition
Bridging is another form of Design/Build where the
Governemental Entity hires its A/E to prepare a "design
criteria package" which is more comprehensive and en-
ables the Govemmental Entity to receive competitive
sealed proposals from Design/Build teams. The Design/
Builder is selected on either a competitive bid process or
on a combination of qualifications, experience and price.
The DesigrtBuilder completes the construction documents
and performs the work.
Characteristics
Subcontractors
Architecd£ngineer
prepares a
comprehensive de.wgn
criteria package
Involves two Architect/Engineerteams. One to prepare the Governmental Entity's detailed design criteria pack-
age and one to prepare final design for the Bridging Design/Build team. Trust is a major element to success.
Delivery Schedule is three partially -linear phases:
Design Criteria
Best Suited
Larger new or renovation projects that are
schedule sensitive and difficult to define.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 10
Least Suited
Smaller projects and those projects to change.
September 1. 2001
HULL & HULL, INC.
t
OEnEeat eonhactoai
2223 KELLEY
HOUSTON, TEXAS "M
,
(T13) 699-ZM • FAX (T13) 699-Ml
WILL IAM C. HULL
PRESIDENT
Job Order Contracts
l)r/inilion
\111011MIlly del inal within the indusu'y. Job Order Conlracline is a
;11,;C-, I�al.olli aclirr_ fin-Ihr minorconsiruclion. repair. rrhabilita-
",n. „r ahcrauon of lacilkics when the work is 01'❑ lecula'ing nature
I'm the deliver\ linos. lypc. and quemilies of work required are
;n,ki'Innc. OI-dcl's are priMl 1XISed substantially upon pre -described
.nul prc-pnced to>ks contained in a Gocernlental Entity specified
:m Pelee Book. The prime conu'aclor bids a "Coefficient-- ur nnll-
:;pilcr \%Im11 I? applied to Ihcse unil prices to determine the actual
:Mc, Sciccloin i> based upon the con)hinaiion of expericnce.
yuallfle;ulon>. paSl perlrownlanec.lcchnical ability, himuleiul suability.
c lwtauon. ;Ind price \\ hich provides the overall "bell \aloe...
(7) am rlr'ri.rlicv
Employee Crews
parlllcring rehmionship bemcen the Governmental Entity and (lie .1OC' con raclor.
I he eonlracl has it filly utmi-anlecd minimum volume of work and it high, bill realistic maximum.
-I he contract normally has la base lel-111111 I101 less Illall six I11011I1's. Ivor more than two _years U'III) [Ile
im ernnlental 13nily h;Il int! the option to renew it faronc to f'our additional leans.
I he IoI, cu;uantcr. Comhinrd vvilh the poiclllial for subslanlial volume and Oplional renewals. providC> it
.iron,-, lncenlilr for the conlractor to deliver high (1u;lliry, responsive service.
l art paces bates) ve I'i.ccd for the base term and adjusled. ifoplions are exercised, by using it construclion
1011 index or. if':) commercial Unit Price Book is spccil'ied. using the latest edition.
I he 111-in)c conlraclor uses local small businesses as subcontraclors. with limited self-perlinnuulcc.
PI -lied, arc accomplished by the issuance of individual delivery orders.
I a>l rc>pon>c Is pussihlc because of the reduced up -front admlinisu-alive and design requircmcnls.
I)L.II\ Ir1', Schedule fur each pmjecl consists of nvo non-lincar phases:
i .mint Planning: delernlinalion ill the scope of wOrk. design and permit requirements, construction detai6.
Ind ,Ily,hc;lhlC unn prices and quantities to pruducC a Iixcd price lump sum delivery: and
F.veeuliolc dcsiat. construction. demolition. repair. rel laccmenl. alteration, renovation.
Rrtc/ .S'nilrrl
chcdulc ?C n:n I C. II)ul li-IrOLIC. minor Wits lruC-
n. rcpcur. ;Illcnuion. (ir rellMaliom projects
l.ral.q .Suited
Single trade simple projects Or very
small Or yery large projects.
1 I",,;l,; l)rhrrrrl'rn Gorrnunrluullinlilies I I .Squemhrr 1. 'Una
Management Assi.smnrr
MANAGEMENT There are distinct differences between Project Delivery Meth-
ASS/STANCE ods and Management Assistance. Project Delivery is the actual
design and construction of facilities whereas Management
Assistance does not entail the actual design or construction but
is an advisory role. There are three basic approaches a Govern-
mental Entity can choose in obtaining management assistance:
(1) Construction Management, Advisor
(2) Project Management
(3) Program Management
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT,
ADVISOR A Construction Manager, Advisor is an additional consultant a
Governmental Entity may wish to engage to provide advice on
matters of project scope, cost, schedule, quality,
constructibility, and project delivery. The Construction Man-
ager, Advisor serves as an independent resource providing
continuous management services through design, bidding and
construction phases. The authority and responsibilities of the
Construction Manager, Advisor varies as may be defined by
the Governmental Entity. The Construction Manager, Advisor
does not assume the responsibilities nor replace the traditional
roles of the architect/engineer or contractor.
The Construction Manager, Advisor may be brought on board
at any point in the process but is normally hired at the begin-
ning of the design phase. A Construction Manager, Advisor
may be appropriate when a Governmental Entity has neither
sufficient nor knowledgeable staff to manage larger, complex
projects.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 12 September /. !UU/
Management Assistance
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
A Project Manager is similar to the Construction Manager,
Advisor in that the Project Manager is also an additional
consultant providing advice on project scope, cost, schedule,
quality, constructibility, and project delivery.
The Project Manager also does not assume the responsibilities
nor replace the traditional roles of the architect/engineer or
contractor. The essential difference between the Project Man-
ager and Construction Manager, Advisor is services. The
Project Manager is typically hired early in the process and
provides pre -design and post -construction services. These
services may include demographic and financial studies, site
selection, architect/ engineer selection and other such services
as the Governmental Entity may determine.
u
A Project Manager is also appropriate when a Governmental
Entity has neither sufficient nor knowledgeable staff to manage
larger, complex projects and may need specialized services.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT A Program Manager is also an additional consultant providing
similar services provided by a Project Manager. A Program Man-
ager addresses a program of multiple projects where the Project
Manager is focused on a single project.
A Program Manager is very appropriate for a Governmental
Entity with a large bond program where they have neither
sufficient nor knowledgeable staff to manage the program.
7
r.,
4 Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 13 September /, 2001
i
MATRIX OF
PROJECT
Ea
DELIVERY
METHODS■�■
Subcontractors
Subcontractors
Suoconuactors
Legislative Term"15rf
Competitive Bidding
CompetitiveSealed
kcttuc,l lux
Proposals
<''.'•tx.
gl�rytit .T
Industry�e ^'
w jt 't
t,
Traditional Process,
Hard Bid Lump Sum or
�a itionalProcess,
rt .
Har`B7Q^ymp Sum or
Cun,urut li,ut�I:,u,'_.
Stipulated Surf)
P, %� F tl +r4ch
SLIP<u�l�ted;Sum
al Itt,
IDef Oit1W0`�FY}? '
A Jclrvcry method ,vhcrrin the
A dellvery'method similar [0
n :.'.• ! . . .
hLis; py3 „•_
Govenumrntel l'nuty >rlrrts an
compeutl�C bidding: The Govem-
l':='•.. ..
�iYs`rl±ttu}�
architect. cngmaet It) Jr.,gn :uul
mental Entjtysglects an architect,
develop construction documents
engineer to design and develop
from which the Gm ernmental Entity
construc4on'doStlmeol5: Once
-, , gIL ,
,olicus lump sum hid.. Selection I,doctrrnepts
are;fully complete the
based tin the lct cst responsible hill
Governtnehtal Entity solicits sealed
psis,..: • .:
l ' - ""i'''•t'Y"
:• q•s/ '
and the comraetor .<erw, :is a single
is based on a
point ufrespunsibilitplor
combmau000fprice,andother
construction
factors tllai.the Govenunental Entity
°.^•.Pi�,i.<,.:;�
- deems:pro,YidQ,beri value.
't<.1 -
Pros
Familial dehvery n,ethoJ
Selection flexibility
Defined prnirrt scope
Defined project scope
I,. • -
-
Single point of rc.pune,hility
Smglo'point of responsibility for
,• .-
``'"'";^�i!P"
Ior construe on
construction-.
."21�'4..
Upon. aggrcoivv huldnB
No design phase assistance
Longer;schedule duration
�•
COnS or ;:-i?u'^,
,No design phxac assw:mce
" .Price not established until design
Longer schedule duration
Is complete ..
..•.....
fr. (`v ii
Price inn established until
Adversanal relationship
v<ttt i"1'zr-.
bidding is complete
AJccrsnrial relationship
,.:
.• •-
.
':^"c
Lack of llesibilny for change
` IW
<v 4
Best Swted ,?u «l�;
New projects that are not schedule
New projecLthat are not schedule
n:.• .
sensitive our subject to proemial "sensaUve
..
aor„$u'ject to potential
list , r. •.....
ch:mgc.
.. ,.. :.,, .. ..:.✓rare,,
Least Suited; c I°+s':'
Complex projects that arc sequence
.. •; ... .. . .... :,.•.,., ...
Complex prcjects•that are sequence
im.:!l;: r:.• :,'
a• ,t S ti ,
or schedule sensmve Projects
or schedule'sbnst6ve. Projects
v;a -
. J4....
subicc[ to potential chan_c
subject to Polcnnal change.
.. ..
14
GovemmeMel
a �r
ArcMteef/
Enghwu
NONE
•d_p,we Pr,me Contra Rors
Subcontractors
Subcontractors
Subcontractors or
Employee Crews
--- Ursi,�n/I;uil(1 De§ign/Bu d �C4 'Jot) Order Cones tin_
Request for Proposals iu, rlro�e
�., r
,•, 'i' ,'Irlf ,. 'arild(,g�+iynr,g,Ft'
I)cliecn Order
onstructionManagementDesign/Build
:kg
ens ' �. =,ear �Sa {'ik , i FeslI r;!c6 Con,lrucnun. \\„rl.
, Order R(•yuircn!cnt, (unu ael
Leihc•d where an Architect/ \ milhnJ MICIc a zmeli ;�?•A' foriri.d(de3!gn/btli�d,W tCB �_ loh lhdrl l lm;ra;tins
' CoIIIIAC u1_ IJr ❑IC Inlr
Iginccr develops construction rnun �, cnnvuctld w °: ,the Governm�ntal£gtit,'q '
currents and the construction .', i.' inn..le both design :unl `BCItCiS,an;erChl{ Cl, en$; - lChob'dw,11011 a; L,,e' ••.
'G.vgcr serves as an again (or the .�,,, <131lcuon hhe Design {�to'prepare thpe,;?deSlAlc CrilC,HE `•hen Ihr ,:or . .
Ga•e••rnenlal Entity providing pre ... ' Blild le.nn uuI,IH, ul BekBge WNC}111 d1 hul the dr6, s unr ,:..
PSL'uctionarld construction services 'f' Im Y.1 r3.� �,� Q, ' 1,apliUia ill ,.,,n r..,, ...
c„twee for ,inhnrcl and :� eompte�llenste.Ht>d �lf9 6 8 ,r ( q
lieu of a general contractor. The ,/, r. f r y(ai
'lunsn,ction Manager, ant rovidls a,gun•cr The Dcsttm (�p\'ernmtntal nutty' i Indefinite
6 6 P Buddies onllJC L: Jlncdv -` teeelve Corn ehtl t � 81 .IT
jirsign phase assistance but holds'no'; 1?
`-Mommcts nor provides project':.: ",Ih the �ubtonimctor,.ind a >Banthe�D'ess)' ' NO i"
iding for the consuuctlon ,.: The,,• I, re,potl ,IblC i�,r dcln Cn �jSrjyi
,,uhiple trade contracts are held by the ofilic pralcct Sdcau,n is 7 7 �1e r v f°F a ,'` % f :.
Go.anuliental Entity. Selection is based bald on the proposal
is he proposal otftering the but value „0?nnu the he.l ,Jluc in
ne Governmental Entity. .., Tile(,o`ermncmal PnWv loess,
'SfcorY'
Selection flexibility .....
rdeDeign phase assistance, r�.r!
I a.I c.n• ,•i
tuSb �pr}squ�hon, e Ite ei...
I'a,tu schedule delivery 1"Im 4 Faster.,.. ile eli4e , a Redo.
n::•nt, .. ..
Inl de•.,u, .,nJ con. uuw n Enhanced scope detimhonM "t - .
C hangs flexibility
Non -adversarial relationship: P:nli, .e hcdule Jc6e cr.•.;:,�Buitder/a[cbitect/engitjeeq'-•f+.q
,teem reletlOA4s'ht
pal 1J1lae.6: ., ..
:\'o single point of Ln.. of check :uld balance r IbiS,. 't .EC R. [b-A-
Moreti Perception of cue.:; .
xt'yr;
\tole'lh lhli till 101Coe ern dlfflchlt met6'od r 3: ••e or+ ,
. •c.,ponsibllit)' ,• •rr + aP I
No guaranteed price . - %, mm�l,,l Prim. to non IEe <<� � Jnenega yyt a(iyS,�,e !{; Reyvin I - 1
r. Pn0.•nual dJvur,ana AdVe al it atl0n�}up 4a \dcd u'une p
Governmental Entity,must - nnnySSS ..
;: re :it
bctorrnbetwe n�
manage more contracts' C{n`i rnn,cmal Fmnv andEnhtyh;aici>If�''n'ginat+ I - -
xo. ,dcJ
$p�� Jl
.. De•iCn HmJar Desl$d/Blnld,fltdhlleo W
\ ,. a, erring at,on uo e:L :l.flf of neN'bCfCr10 8h011 fo{OCtS�`0i S:Ileuuli
:rger Ill„ or reno<ation projects c I I gar , Y 6i , , *q✓
Ien
,hat are schedule sensitive, difficult �li.t .ire .,hcdulr sensmec : thalrare schedule SenSltjV �iEtlt�rn g , u..I:Ii t.n i. n • . ..., ...
�f e ,.
:difficult to tleflne; ;'a xd
d•iine or subject to change � ' ; ..a.. :,.5; ry,�, ;��•
ir.�al!r; n;o ect5 IR,gi el, thei .Ire Jill lcuh to :;SMallerprojeClS,flhd tnoig is Sm"le trade
anall
Jet u,r. u,d arc li" xhedulr rsub)ect to change.y ' I n1
ne.i.
5
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
ti
M
1
1
1
1
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES Even with the procurement requirements of Senate Bill No.
FOR PROCUREMENT 510, the building industry has seen a variety of procurement
processes. Many are well thought out and done very profession-
ally. Others have caused confusion, cost time and created
difficulty for both Governmental Entities and industry in
finalizing a selection and contract. These recommended guide-
lines have been prepared to help eliminate some of the confu-
sion, streamline the process, enhance the Governmental Entity's
opportunity to achieve "best value" and improve industry
practices.
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION Before starting the selection process, the Governmental Entity's
board should determine which of the methods specified will
provide "the best value to the Governmental Entity" The
Governmental Entity should consider:
• The size and complexity of the project
• The time allocated for the construction of the project
• The competitiveness of the currentAocal construction market
• The flexibility desired
• The availability of contractors and subcontractors in the local
market
Whatever the factors, it is recommended that the Governmental
Entity evaluate the various methods and formally adopt the method
that they deem "best value."
Regardless which method the Govemmental Entity selects, there are
two key provisions to which the Governmental Entity must
adhere:
• Advertisement
• Bonding
ADVERTISEMENT Local Government Code-271.112 Applicability; Other Law
(d) For a contract entered into by a municipality or river
authority under any of the methods provided by this
subchapter, the municipality or river authority shall
publish notice of the time and place the bids or
proposals, or the responses to a request for
qualifications, will be received and opened. The notice
must be published in a newspaper or general
circulation in the county in which the municipality's
central administrative office is located or the county in
I
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 16
September 1. 2001
4
1
1
ti
1
1
ti
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ti
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
which the greatest amount of the river authority's territory
is located once each week for at least two weeks before the
deadline for receiving bids, proposals, or responses. If there
is not a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in that countyt the
notice shall be published in a newspaper ofgeneral
circulation in the county nearest the county seat of the
county in which the municipality's central administrative
office is located or the county in which the greatest amount
of the river authority's territory is located. In a two-step
procurement process, the time and place the second step
bids, proposals, or responses will be received are not
required to be published separately.
(e) For a contract entered into by a county under any of the
methods provided by this subchapter, the county shall
publish notice of the time and place the bids or proposals,
or the responses to a request for qualifications, will be
received and opened. The notice must be published in a
newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the county once each
week for at least two weeks before the deadline for receiving
bids, proposals, or responses. If there is not a newspaper of
general circulation in the county, the notice shall be:
(1) posted at the courthouse door of the county; and
(2) published in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the
nearest county.
69 A contract entered into or an arrangement made in
violation of this subchapter is contrary to public policy and
is void. A court may enjoin performance of a contract made
in violation of this subchapter. A county attorney, a district
attorney, a criminal district attorney, a resident of a count),
that enters into a contract under this subchapter or of a
county in contract under this subchapter or of a county in
which a municipality or a river authority that enters into a
contract under this subchapter is located, or any interested
party may bring an action for an injunction. A party who
prevails in an action brought under this subsection is
entitled to reasonable attorneys fees as approved by the
court.
BONDING Texas Government Code, Chapter 2253 requires bonding for
contracts for construction, alteration, or repair of a public building or
completion of any public work:
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities
(1) performance bonds for all construction in excess of
$100,000;
(2) and payment bonds for all construction in excess of $25,000
17
September 1, 1001
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Competitive Bidding
NCOMPETITIVE BIDDING
N
The first delivery method authorized is Competitive Bidding.
(Local Government Code 271.113(a) (1)). If a Governmental
Entity determines that this method provides the best value then
the Governmental Entity "must comply with the competitive
bidding procedures stated in chapter 271, subchapter B of the
Local Government Code. The following Procurement recom-
mendations are traditional and are consistent with industry
standards and good business practices.
DEFINITION Competitive Bidding is a delivery method wherein the Govem-
mental Entity selects an Architect/Engineer to design the
project and develop construction documents from the Govern-
mental Entity solicits lump sum competitive bids. Selection of
the contractor is based on the lowest responsible bid and the
contractor serves as a single point of responsibility for con-
struction.
CHARACTERISTICS This delivery method is known as the "traditional" method and
is the method with which most public agencies are the most
familiar. Its three phases, design -bid -construct, are linear and
thus result in the longest time duration of all the methods. This
method is the easiest to understand and manage and does
provide an open aggressive competition. The architect/engineer
and contractor each have separate contracts with the Govern-
mental Entity. The architect/engineer assist the Governmental
Entity in managing the contractor's contract. This method has
been used on a variety of project types, however, it is best
suited for projects that can be fully defined and are not se-
quence nor schedule sensitive.
PROS The advantages of this delivery method stem from its long and
widespread use and the clear roles of the contractor, architect/
engineer and Governmental Entity:
• Its an easy method to understand and manage and is famil-
iar to all Governmental Entity.
• The project scope is fully defined prior to construction.
• The Governmental Entity has a single contractor respon-
sible for the construction.
• Contractors are familiar with this method which enables
open, aggressive Governmental Entity has a check and
balance between the architect/engineer and contractor.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 18 September 1. 2001
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Competitive Bidding
CONS The disadvantages of this method include:
• The Governmental Entity and architect/engineer do not
receive the contractor's advice on constructibility and cost
during design.
• The linear phasing results in the longest delivery schedule
of all the methods.
• The final price is not established until the bids are received.
• Adversarial relationships and the potential for litigation can
develop between the contractor and architect/engineer due
to separate contracts and the difficulty of achieving a
perfect set of documents and the contractor's need to protect
their costs.
• With contractor selected on the lowest bid, any changes that
may occur must be priced, reviewed and approved. This
process does not always result in the lowest cost for a
change and reduces the flexibility for the Governmental
Entity to make changes.
PROCUREMENT The procurement process for contractors is based on the lowest
responsible bid. A bid is deemed responsible when submitted
on time and in the format required by the bidding documents.
Additionally, qualified bid bond, payment and performance
bonds must be provided.
The Governmental Entity may consider the factors listed in section
271.113(b) in determining which bid to accept.
Industry recommends that when Governmental Entities utilize this
method the principal selection criteria be lowest price. If Govern-
mental Entity determines that other factors have equal or greater
importance, then it is recommended that the Competitive Sealed
Proposals method be utilized.
Any architect/engineer contracted to provide design shall be
selected on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifi-
cations in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 2254,
Government Code.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 19 September 1, 2001
Recommended Procurement Guideline.,
Competitive Bidding
I
RECOMMENDATIONS It is industry's general recommendation that competitive bid-
ding should be an open process. Many Governmental Entities,
however, do pre -qualify potential bidders. If the Governmental
Entity elects to pre -qualify, it is recommended that the pre -
qualification process:
Pre -qualifications (1) Be conducted as soon as possible to allow notification and
adequate time for potential bidders to prepare their bid. A
minimum of 14 days should be provided.
(2) Not be restrictive in the number of bidders allowed. All
potential bidders deemed qualified should be allowed to
bid.
(3) Not be exhaustive in its content. All potential bidders who
demonstrate:
• Financial capability
• Comparable project experience
• Satisfactory references should be allowed to bid.
When bids are received after a pre -qualification process, award
should be made to the lowest bidder.
Projects Over Budget When all the bids received are over budget, there are several
approaches to reducing costs. Each approach involves evalua-
tion of alternative materials, methods or scope modifications.
The process works best when the Governmental Entity selects
its apparent low bidder and works with that single contractor to
evaluate cost saving alternatives. This maximizes cost leverage
with subcontractors and maintains clarity of scope. If the
apparent low bidder is unable to achieve satisfactory reduc-
tions, then the Governmental Enitity should move to the next
lowest bidder.
RECOMMENDED CONTRACT A standard contract agreement prepared by the American
FORM Institute of Architects, AIA A 101 is recommended.
Modifications and cost reductions to bring the project in budget
should be documented and incorporated in the contract through
a formal change order.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 20 September 1, 2001
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Competitive Sealed Proposals
COMPETITIVE SEALED Another method authorized by Senate Bill No. 510 is "Com-
PROPOSALS petitive Sealed Proposals" (Local Government Code 271.113
(a) (2)). The specific procurement requirements are outlined in
the Local Government Code 271.1 16. The following are addi-
tional recommended guidelines believed to be both consistent
with the statute and industry standards as well as good business
practice when a Governmental Entity determines that this
delivery method provides the best value to the Governmental
Entity.
DEFINITION
Competitive Sealed Proposal is a delivery method similar to
Competitive Bidding. The Governmental Entity selects an
Architect/Engineer to design the project and once construction
documents are fully complete solicits sealed proposals from
contractors to perform the work. Selection is based on a combi-
nation of price and other factors that the Governmental Entity
deems provide best value. Factors typically include schedule,
proposed personnel, creativity in approach, safety record and
past experience.
CHARACTERISTICS
Competitive Sealed Proposals have the same characteristics as
Competitive Bidding but provide Flexibility in selecting the
contractor. The Governmental Entity still has a single contrac-
tor with responsibility for construction, a three-phase linear
process and separate contracts with the architect/engineer and
contractor. Like Competitive Bidding, this method has been
'
used on a variety of project types; however, is best suited to
projects that can be fully defined and may be more sequence
and schedule sensitive. This method does not necessarily result
in the lowest price.
PROS The advantages of this delivery method are:
• It provides flexibility in selection of a contractor based on
specific criteria factors other than price.
• The project scope is fully defined prior to construction.
• The Governmental Entity has a single contractor respon-
sible for the construction.
• The roles of contractor, architect or engineer and Govern-
mental Entity are clearly defined.
• The Governmental Entity has a check and balance between
the architect/engineer and contractor.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 21 September 1, 2001
1
I
1
1
1
1
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Competitive Sealed Proposals
CONS The disadvantages of this method include:
• The Governmental Entity and architect/engineer do not
receive the contractor's advice on constructibility and cost
during design.
The linear phasing results in a longer delivery schedule.
• The final price is not established until the bids are received.
• Adversarial relationships and the potential for litigation can
develop between the contractor and architect/engineer due to
separate contracts and the difficulty of achieving a perfect set of
documents and the contractor's need to protect their costs.
• Contractor selection is more difficult and requires the
Governmental Entity to prepare and select from definitive
selection criteria.
• Any changes that may occur must be priced, reviewed and
approved. This process does not always result in the lowest
cost for a change and reduces the flexibility for the Governmen-
tal Entity to make changes.
PROCUREMENT The procurement process for contractors can be a single step or
a two-step process. If a two-step process is selected, the first
step is a general Request for Qualifications from which the
Governmental Entity would qualify potential proposers. The
second step is the request for competitive sealed proposals. The
Governmental Entity's advertisement must clearly state the
selection criteria and the Governmental Entity must evaluate
and rank all proposals against the published criteria.
Any architect/engineer contracted to provide design shall be
selected on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifi-
cations in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 2254,
Government Code.
Oualification Phase In a two-step process, the first step is a request of potential
proposers general qualifications to determine their overall capabili-
ties. Cost -related or price -related questions should not be asked
in this step. Suggested questions, which the Governmental
Entity may consider, include:
• How substantial is the contractor's recent experience in the
construction of projects of comparable size and complexity?
• How substantial is the contractor's experience in construction
of educational facilities of comparable size and complexity?
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 22 September 1. 2001
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Competitive Sealed Proposals
• Is the contractor knowledgeable about or have recent or
current experience in the Governmental Entity's geographi-
cal area?
• Has the contractor worked for the Governmental Entity in
the past? If so, was that work satisfactory to the Govern-
mental Entity?
• How long has the contractor been in business?
• Does the contractor's organizational structure, licensing and
financial information indicate that the firm is capable of under-
taking the project?
• Did the references provided (both owners and architects)
have a favorable experience with the organization? Would
they work with them again? How comparable was their
project to the one proposed?
Prequalification may not be a conclusive determination that a
proposer offers the Governmental Entity the best value and a
prequalified proposer may be rejected on the basis of subsequently
discovered information. If proposer fails to qualify for a specific
project or opportunity, that failure can not bar that proposer from
future projects.
Proposal Request The request for competitive sealed proposals should require the
potential contractor's specific proposal to perform the work and
must clearly identify the selection criteria from which selection will
be made. A minimum of three weeks should be allowed for offers to
prepare their proposals.
Selection Criteria The Governmental Entity's selection criteria should reflect
those factors that the Governmental Entity deems of significant
importance. Such factors may include:
• Schedule: The contractor's ability or commitment to deliver
or sequence delivery by a specific date(s).
• Personnel: The specific capabilities and number of person-
nel proposed.
• Approach: The project plan or approach proposed.
• Price: The quoted price or cost methodology, alternatives
proposed and markup for changes.
• Safety: The contractor's safety record and safety plan for
this project.
• Quality Program: The contractor's approach to quality.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 23 September 1. 2001
I
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Competitive Sealed Proposals
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
Public Opening Proposals are to be received, publicly opened and read aloud by
of Proposals the Governmental Entity. A public opening is a fair process
and clearly establishes the price, if required, of each proposal.
The other criteria for selection, however, generally requires
some degree of evaluation and therefore the proposal that
provides best value may not be readily apparent. The Govern-
mental Entity needs time to evaluate the proposals against the
selection criteria and determine which proposal offers the best
value. The Governmental Entity must within 45 days of open-
ing the proposals evaluate and rank each proposal using the
published selection criteria. It is recommended that rankings be
publicly released after evaluations are completed.
Proposal Reviews After proposals are received, evaluated and ranked, the Govern-
mental Entity may elect to work with the highest ranked offer
to reduce costs through the evaluation of alternative materials,
methods or scope modifications. If cost objectives cannot be
reached with the top ranked offer, the Govemmental Entity
must move to the second ranked offer and then other offers in
turn until the cost objectives are met or all proposals are re-
jected and the project is re -competed.
Recommended Contract A standard contract agreement prepared by the American
Form Institute of Architects, AIA A 101 is recommended. Modifica-
tions and cost reductions to bring the project in budget should
be documented and incorporated in the contract through a
formal change order.
' Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 24 September /. 2001
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Construction Management at Risk
CONSTRUCTION Another method authorized by Senate Bill No. 510 is "Con -
MANAGEMENT AT RISK struction Management" (Local Government Code 271.113 (a)
(4)). The specific procurement requirements for Construction
Management at Risk are outlined in the Local Government
Code 271.1 18. The following are additional recommended
guidelines believed to be both consistent with the statute and
industry standards as well as good business practice when a
Governmental Entity determines that this delivery method
provides the best value to the Governmental Entity.
DEFINITION Construction Management at Risk is when the Construction Man-
ager serves as the General Contractor providing administration and
management services in the performance of the project. The CM at
Risk contracts directly with the subcontractors and is responsible
for delivery of the project in the most expeditious and economical
manner consistent with the interest of the Governmental Entity.
CHARACTERISTICS The CM at Risk provides a single point of responsibility for con-
struction while providing consultation during the design phase. The
CM at Risk is normally selected at the same time as the architect/
engineer or shortly thereafter and provides assistance in evaluating
cost, recommends sequencing and scheduling of the work, evalu-
ates the implications of alternative designs, systems and mate-
rials. The CM at Risk provides the district either a Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP) to fix the cost or a Cost Plus Fee and
competitively bids or takes competitive sealed proposals from
the trades and subcontractors. The CM at Risk can speed
construction by starting elements of the work while design is
being completed.
PROS Advantages with this delivery method include:
• Flexibility in selecting the construction manager that
provides the Governmental Entity best value.
• Assistance during the design phase in evaluating costs,
recommending sequencing and phasing of the construction
schedule and evaluating alternative designs, systems and
materials.
• The Governmental Entity has a single contractor respon-
sible for construction.
• The roles of the construction manager and architect/engi-
neer are clearly defined and there is a working team rela-
tionship in the design phase.
qProject Delivery For Governmental Entities 25 September 1. 2001
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Construction Management at Risk
1
1
I
1
r
1
4
5
y
a
4
• Starting certain elements of the work before design is
complete can reduce the project schedule.
• Scope changes can be made easier offering the district
greater flexibility.
• The Governmental Entity has check and balance between
the architect/engineer and construction manager.
• The GMP can be established earlier.
CONS Disadvantages of this delivery method are:
• Once the guaranteed maximum price is established there is
a potential for an adversarial relationship.
• It is difficult for the Governmental Entity and the Govern-
mental Entity's architect/engineer to evaluate the guaran-
teed maximum price and assure it is not inflated.
PROCUREMENT The procurement process for CM at Risk can be a single step or a
two-step process. If a two-step process is selected the first step is
the Request for Qualifications from which the Governmental
Entity would qualify potential proposers. The second step is the
request for proposals. The Governmental Entity's advertisement
must clearly state the selection criteria and the Governmental
Entity must evaluate and rank all proposals against the published
criteria. Some Governmental Entities, after evaluating the propos-
als elect to interview a select number of the firms proposing to
gain a more comprehensive awareness of their capabilities. From
these interviews the final selection is made. Many Governmental
Entities elect to omit the interview if they feel they have sufficient
information from the proposals to make an informed selection.
Any architect/engineer contracted to provide design shall be
selected on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifi-
cations in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 2254,
Government Code.
Request for Proposal The Request for Proposals should contain the following:
A description of the project, the submission requirements
and the selection process schedule.
A questionnaire to be completed by prospective Construc-
tion Managers. The questionnaire should be based on the
AIA Contractor's Qualification Statement (A305) with
additional questions related to construction management at
risk and the special requirements of the project. A request
of fees and general conditions is optional.
4 Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 26 Jeptemoer t, ruut
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Construction Management at Risk
I
11
[l
1
1
1
1
f]
1
1
[]
t
• Information describing the project scope including as
available (program requirements, drawings, outline specifi-
cations, and opening date).
Selection CriteriaThe Governmental Entity should use the following criteria
when considering information submitted in response to the
Request for Proposals by prospective construction managers.
Experience (2) The Reputation of the vendor and of the vendor's good or
services;
(3) The quality of the vendor's goods or services;
(S) The vendor's past relationship with the Governmental Entity;
• How substantial is the construction manager's recent at risk
experience in the construction of projects of comparable size
and complexity?
• How substantial is the construction manager's at risk experi-
ence for educational facilities of comparable size and
complexity?
• Is the construction manager knowledgeable about or have
recent or current experience in the Governmental Entity's
geographical area?
• How substantial is the construction manager's recent experi-
ence in providing pre -construction services for projects of
comparable size and complexity.
• Has the construction manager worked for the Governmental
Entity in the past? If so, was that work satisfactory to the
Governmental Entity?
Governmental Entity's Needs (4) the extent to which the goods or services meet the Governmen-
tal Entity's needs;
• Does the description of pre -construction services provided
by the construction manager evidence both his understand-
ing and capabilities?
• Does the construction manager appear to have the capabil-
ity to meet the Governmental Entity's schedule objectives?
' Cost Issues, Fees (1) the purchase price;
(7) the total long-term cost to the Governmental Entity to acquire
the vendor's goods or services;
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 27 September 1. 2001
1
1
1
1
1
1
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Construction Management at Resk
• Is the format and nature of cost estimates prepared by the
firm during the design phases informative and useful for the
Governmental Entity and architect/engineer? Are the initial
and final estimates consistent in nature and format?
• Are the fees for all the pre -construction services clearly
defined?
• Is there a separate fee for the pre -construction and construc-
tion services? How are the fees calculated? How much?
When are fee payments due?
• If savings are realized during construction, what percentage
of those savings is returned to the Governmental Entity?
• What is the construction manager's concept for the disposi-
tion of any unused contingency included in the project cost?
• Is the construction manager agreeable to sharing all con-
struction cost data with the Governmental Entity and
architect/engineer throughout the pre -construction and
construction phases?
Organization, Licensing, (8) any other relevant factor that specifically listed in the request
Financing Information, for bids or proposals.
Personnel, References
• How long has the firm been in business providing construc-
tion management services?
• Does the construction manager's organizational structure,
licensing and financial information indicate that the firm is
capable of undertaking this project?
• Do the personnel proposed for the project appear to have
the appropriate experience and capabilities?
• Did the references provided (both owners and architect/
engineers) have a favorable experience with the organiza-
tion? Would they work with them again? How comparable
was their project to this project?
RECOMMENDATIONS The Construction Manager can provide the best value when
selected at the start of design. Selection should be concurrent
When to Select with the selection of the architect/engineer or shortly thereafter.
a CM at Risk Early involvement enables confirmation of budgets and sched-
ule realities that can avoid revisions and lost time.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 28 September 1, 2001
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Construction Management at Risk
Fee and General Conditions Construction management fees are individually stated for pre -
construction and construction services and will vary based on
size, complexity and duration of the project. Fees for pre -
construction services are normally a stipulated sum or a mul-
tiple of direct labor expense and actual reimbursable costs.
Fees for construction services are normally stated as a percent-
age of the cost of the work and include overhead, profit and
home office labor and expenses.
General conditions normally include items such as equipment,job
trailer, bonds, insurance bonds, utilities, etc. and on -site field
management and administrative personnel.
Both fee and general conditions can widely vary between construc-
tion managers depending on what each typically includes or ex-
cludes. Care should be taken to request the detail that each
potential construction manager includes or excludes in their fee
and general conditions.
Self -Performance of Work Many construction managers are capable of performing some
of the work with their own forces. In many cases this can
provide a Governmental Entity with lower costs than can be
obtained from the subcontract bidding process. Self -perfor-
mance can also raise questions regarding the competitive cost
development for such work. Under certain conditions, it may
be in the best interest of the Governmental Entity to allow the
construction manager to self -perform. Careful consideration
should be given in determining whether to allow self -perfor-
mance of work. If a Governmental Entity chooses to allow
self -performance, the construction manager must submit his
cost in a competitive process with all other subcontractors.
Recommended Contract Form Standard agreement AIA A 121/CMc and AGC 565 or AIA
A 13I/CMc and AGC 566 have been prepared by the American
Institute of Architects and the Associated General Contractors
of America for CM at Risk. These contracts clearly delineate
services, define costs and address the Construction Manage-
ment at Risk process.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 29 September 1, 2001
URecommended Procurement Guidehne,
Consimction Management at Risk
Contingency
There should be two contingency funds. A contingency in the
construction manager's guaranteed maximum cost to cover
unanticipated costs, which might arise during construction and a
contingency in the total project budget for use by the Govern-
mental Entity to address issues regarding scope. The construction
manager's contingency should decrease as the design progresses
and the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) is established.
What is a GMP?
A Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is the amount that the C!\1 at
Risk guarantees (the sum of the Cost of the Work and the construc-
tion manager's fee,) he will not exceed. This maximum is subject to
additions and deductions due to changes in the scope of work. A I I
cost which exceed the GMP and are not approved by change order
are paid by the CM at Risk.
When Should the GMP The GMP should be established when the design is sufficiently
Be Established complete. The GMP may be established as early as the completion
of design development or as late as completed construction docu-
ments. Establishing an early GMP speeds construction while
waiting increases certainty of costs and reduces contingency.
Subcontractor The Construction Manager at Risk is responsible for develop-
Pre-Oualltication ing subcontractor interest in the project and determining prior
and Bidding to receipt of bids the qualifications of subcontractors to per-
form the work. The construction manager should evaluate the
subcontractor's experience and technical competence, capabil-
ity to perform, financial strength, personnel, past performance
and other factors as appropriate to determine qualifications.
The Governmental Entity and architect/engineer should have
the opportunity to object to any subcontractor or supplier.
When the drawings and specifications are sufficiently com-
plete, the construction manager will publicly advertise and
solicit competitive bids or competitive sealed proposals from
subcontractors and suppliers from the pre -qualified list. Bids
must be received and opened by the Construction Manager and
the Governmental Entity. The Construction Manager at Risk
and the Governmental Entity then determine with advice of the
architect/engineer which bids will be accepted.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 30 September i, 2001
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Construction Management at Risk
In the event the Construction Manager at Risk recommends a bid
or proposal from a trade or subcontractor yet the Governmental
Entity determines another bid or proposal should be accepted,
the Governmental Entity must compensate the Construction
Manager at Risk for any additional cost, risk or schedule that
may occur because of the Governmental Entity's requirement.
Opening of Proposals All subcontractors bids or proposals must be received and
opened in a manner that does not disclose the content of the bid
or proposal during the selection process. Bids and proposals of
subcontractors generally require some degree of evaluation and
therefore the lowest responsible bidder may not be readily
apparent. A private opening allows time for the construction
manager and Governmental Entity to evaluate the bids. Propos-
als privately opened must be publicly released within seven
days of final selection.
Shared Savings or Incentives If at the completion of the project, the actual cost of the work
plus the construction manager's fee is less than the GMP as
adjusted by change order, savings result. In the private sector,
the Construction Manager may share in these savings as an
incentive to work diligently to reduce costs. A Governmental
Entity should weigh the benefit of an incentive or determine if
all savings should return to the Governmental Entity.
' Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 31 September 1, 2001
7
►�
Recommended Procurement Guideline,
Construction Management. Agent
I
CONSTRUCTION A second construction management delivery method is Con -
MANAGEMENT, struction Management, Agency. The specific procurement
AGENCY requirements are outlined in the Local Government Code
271.117. The following are additional recommended guidelines
believed to be consistent with statute and industry standards as
well as good business practice when a Governmental Entity
determines that this delivery method provides the best value to
the Governmental Entity.
DEFINITION Construction Management, Agency is when the construction man-
ager serves as an agent for the Governmental Entity and provides
administration and management services during construction and
consultation during the design phase. The Construction Manage-
ment, Agent holds no subcontracts nor provides project bonding.
The work is performed by multiple contractors who contract
directly with the Governmental Entity for their specific portion
of the work.
CHARACTERISTICS Construction Management, Agency serves in lieu of a general
contractor, which provides the Governmental Entity an advo-
cate who is not at risk. The Governmental Entity assumes the
risk by holding all contracts. The CM, Agent is normally
selected at the same time as the architect/engineer or shortly
thereafter and provides assistance in the design phase in evalu-
ating costs, schedules, alternative designs, systems and materi-
als. The Governmental Entity can speed construction by start-
ing certain elements of work prior to the completion of design.
PROS Advantages with this delivery method include:
• Flexibility in selecting the construction manager that
provides the Governmental Entity best value.
• Assistance during the design phase in evaluating costs,
recommending sequencing and phasing of the construction
schedule and evaluating alternative designs, systems and
materials.
• A non -adversarial relationship because the Construction
Manager, Agent is not at risk.
• The roles of the construction manager and architect/engi-
neer are clearly defined and there is a working team rela-
tionship in the design phase.
• Starting certain elements of the work before design is
complete can reduce the project schedule.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 32 September 1. 2001
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Construction Management, Agenq
• Scope changes can be made easier offering the district
greater flexibility.
• The Governmental Entity has check and balance between
the architect/engineer and construction manager.
CONS The disadvantages of this delivery method are:
• The Governmental Entity does not have a single entity with
the responsibility for construction.
• The Governmental Entity does not have a guaranteed
maximum price and the project cost is not established until
all bids are complete.
• The Governmental Entity assumes the risk and responsibili-
ties of the multiple prime contracts.
PROCUREMENT The procurement process for Construction Manager, Agent
(CM, Agent) is also normally a two-phase process. The first
phase is the Request for Proposals issued by the architect/
engineer or Governmental Entity. In the second phase the
Governmental Entity, after evaluating the proposals, interviews
a select number of the firms proposing to gain a more compre-
hensive awareness of their capabilities. From these interviews a
selection is made. Many Governmental Entities elect to omit
the second phase if they feel they have sufficient information
from the proposals to make an informed selection.
A Construction manager -agent shall be selected on the basis of
demonstrated competence and qualifications in the same
manner as provided for the selection of engineers or architects
under Section 2254.004, Government Code.
Request for Proposals The Request for Proposals should contain the following:
A description of the project, the submission requirements
and the selection process schedule.
A questionnaire to be completed by prospective construc-
tion managers. The questionnaire should be based on AIA
Contractor Qualifications (A305) with additional questions
related to construction management and the special require-
ments of the project.
Information describing the project scope including as
available (program requirements, drawings, outline specifi-
cations, and opening date).
' Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 33 September 1. 2001
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
LJ
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Comtmcdon Management, Agency
Selection Criteria The Governmental Entity should use the following criteria
when considering information submitted in response to the
Request for Proposal by prospective construction managers.
Experience (2) The Reputation of the vendor and of the vendor's good or
services;
(3) The quality of the vendor's goods or services;
(S) The vendor's past relationship with the Governmental Entity;
• How substantial is the construction manager's recent
experience in the construction of projects of comparable
size and complexity with multiple prime contracts?
• How substantial is the construction manager's experience in
providing construction services for educational facilities of
comparable size and complexity?
• Is the construction manager knowledgeable about or have
recent or current experience in the Governmental Entity's
geographical area?
• How substantial is the construction manager's recent
experience in providing pre -construction services for
projects of comparable size and complexity?
• Has the construction manager worked for the Governmen-
tal Entity in the past? If so, was that work satisfactory to
the Governmental Entity?
Governmental Entity's Need (4) the extent to which the goods or services meet the
Governmental Entity's needs;
Does the description of pre -construction services provided
evidence both the understanding and capabilities of the
construction managers?
Does the construction manager appear to have the capabil-
ity to meet the Governmental Entity's schedule objectives?
Cost Issues, Fees (1) the purchase price;
(7) the total long-term cost to the Governmental Entity to acquire
the vendor's goods or services;
Is the format and nature of cost estimates prepared by the
firm during the design phases informative and useful for
the Governmental Entity and arch itecdengineer? Are the
initial and final estimates consistent in nature and format'?
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 34
September 1. 2001
1
1
1
1
Organization, Licensing,
Financial Information,
Personnel, References
RECOMMENDATIONS
When to Select a cm,
Agency
Fee
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Construction Management. Ageny
Are the fees for the pre -construction services clearly defined?
Is there a separate fee for the pre -construction and con-
struction services? How is the fee calculated?
(8) any other relevant factor specifically listed in the request for
bids or proposals.
• How long has the firm been in business providing the
Construction Management, Agency services sought by the
Governmental Entity?
• Does the construction manager's organizational structure,
licensing and financial information indicate that the firm is
capable of undertaking this project?
• Do the personnel proposed for the project appear to have
the appropriate experience and capabilities?
• Did the references provided (both Governmental Entity and
architects/engineers) have a favorable experience with the
organization? Would they work with them again? How
comparable was their project to this project?
The Construction Manager, Agent can provide the best value
when selected at the start of design. Selection should be
concurrent with the selection of the architect/engineer or
shortly thereafter. Early involvement confirms cost and sched-
ule realities that can avoid revisions and lost time.
Construction management fees are individually stated for pre -
construction and construction services and will vary based on
size, complexity and duration of the project. Fees for pre -
construction and construction services are normally a stipu-
lated sum or a multiple of direct labor expense and actual
reimbursable costs. Fees for construction services can be
stated as a percentage of the cost of the work and include
overhead, profit and home office labor and expenses.
'Project Delivery For Governmental Entities
35 September 1, 2001
I
1
1
Recommended Procurement Guideline,
Construction Management, Agenc,
Reimbursable expenses normally include items such as job
trailer, computers insurance, etc., and on -site field labor.
Recommended Contract Standard agreements AIA B801 or AGC 510 have been prepared
Form by the American Institute ofArchitects and the Associated General
Contractors ofAmerica for Construction Management, Agency.
Contingency There should be a contingency for use by the Governmental Entity
to address issues regarding changes in scope. The contingency
should decrease as the design progresses and the prime contracts
are ready for bidding.
Contractor Pre -Qualification The construction manager is responsible for developing sub -
and Bidding contractor interest in the project and determining prior to
receipt of bids the qualifications of subcontractors to perform
the work. The Governmental Entity, construction manager and
architect/engineer should evaluate the subcontractor's experi-
ence and technical competence, capability to perform, financial
strength, personnel, past performance and other factors as
appropriate to determine qualifications. When the drawings and
specifications are complete, the Governmental Entity will
obtain bids from multiple prime contractors and suppliers from
the pre -qualified list. Bids will be delivered to the Governmen-
tal Entity and the arch itect/engineer.
Public or Private Opening Either public or private opening of the contractors bids is
of Proposals deemed acceptable. A public opening clearly announces the
apparent low price but the bids of contractors generally require
some degree of evaluation and therefore the lowest responsible
bidder may not be readily apparent. A private opening allows
time for the construction manager and Governmental Entity to
evaluate the bids. Proposals privately opened must be publicly
released within seven days of final selection.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 36
September 1. 1001
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Design/Build
DESIGN/BUILD
A final method authorized by Senate Bill No. 510 is "design/
build"(Local Government Code-271.111 (a) (3)). The specific
procurement requirements are outlined in Local Government
Code-271.119. The following are additional recommended
guidelines believed to be both consistent with the statute and
industry standards as well as good business practice when a
Governmental Entity determines that this delivery method
provides the best value to the Governmental Entity.
DEFINITION
Design/Build is a delivery method where a single entity is contracted
to provide both design and construction. The Design/Build team
consists of contractor, architect and engineer. The Design/Build
Team contracts directly with the trades/subcontractors and the
architect and engineer and is responsible for delivery of the project.
The architect and engineer members of the Design/Build Team
are the architect/engineer of record for the project.
CHARACTERISTICS
This delivery method has the most complex selection process
and generally requires the Governmental Entity to be more
knowledgeable regarding delivery methods and an ability to be
more involved in the process. The DesignBuild Team must
conform to a "design criteria package" developed by the Gov-
ernmental Entity or their architect/engineer that establishes the
requirements of the project. The most attractive element of this
delivery method is the speed with which projects can be deliv-
ered. The schedule is a non -linear, two-phase process that
enables early construction start of many elements of the work.
'
A key ingredient of this method is trust. The Governmental
Entity and DesignBuild Team must work very closely together
and must have a great deal of trust in each other.
'
' PRO'S
The advantages of this delivery method are:
• Flexibility in selecting the Design/Build Team that provides
the Governmental Entity best value.
A non -adversarial relationship between the contractor and
'
architect/engineer which work in a team relationship.
• Starting certain elements of the work before design is
'
complete can reduce the project schedule.
• A single point of responsibility for design and construction.
I
' Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 37 September /, 2001
1
' CONS
1
1
PROCUREMENT
1
' REQUEST FOR
QUALIFICATIONS
1
1
1
1
1
1
SELECTION CRITERIA
Experience
1
The disadvantages of this deliv
• A loss of the check and balar
the contractor and the archite
• A more difficult selection t
method for the Governmen
• A potential adversarial relat
tal Entity and Design/Build
• Roles of the contractor and
clearly defined
The Governmental Entity shall
Design/Build firm in two phas,
qualifications" and phase two i
Selection is based on the propc
the Govermental Entity.
A request for qualifications is pr
Entity that may include general i
project scope, budget, special syt
other information that may assist
submit proposals.
Recommended Procurement Guideline,
Design/Build
method are:
that independent contracts with
:ngineer normally provides.
management delivery
Entity.
ship between the Governmen-
im regarding scope and costs.
:hitect/engineer are no longer
valuate proposals and select
. Phase one is a "request for
a "request for proposals"
al offering the best value for
by the Governmental
ttion on the project site.
selection criteria and anv
tial design/build teams to
The Governmental Entity evaluates each offer's experience,
technical competence, and capability to perform, the past perfor-
mance of the offer's team and members of the team, and other
appropriate factors submitted by the team or firm. Cost -related or
price related evaluation factors are not permitted.
Any Architect/Engineer
selected on the basis of c
tions in accordance with
ment Code.
The Governmental Entity qualifies
to submit additional information sc
mentation, and cost methodologies
proposals based on the "design crit
Suggested criteria when conside
response to the request for quali
(2) The Reputation of the vendor
services;
(3) The quality of the vendor's got
(5) The vendor's past relationship
to provide design shall be
:d competence and qualif ica-
r A, Chapter 2254, Govern -
more than five potential often
as technical approach, imple-
response to a formal request for
a package"
information submitted in
ions include:
of the vendor's goods or
or services;
,h the Governmental Entity;
1
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 38
September 1. 2001
I
1
1
1
t
1
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Design/Build
• How substantial is the design/build team's recent experi-
ence in the design and construction of projects of compa-
rable size and complexity?
• How substantial is the team's experience in providing
design/build services for educational facilities of compa-
rable size and complexity?
• Is the team knowledgeable about or have recent or current
experience in the Governmental Entity§ geographical area?
• How substantial is the team's recent experience in provid-
ing design for projects of comparable size and complexity.
• Has the team or its members worked for the Governmental
Entity in the past? If so, was that work satisfactory to the
Governmental Entity?
Governmental Entity's Needs (4) the extent to which the goods or services meet the Governmen-
tal Entity's needs;
• Does the description provided'by the firm of design/build
services evidence both understanding as well as capabilities
as it applies to this specific project?
• Does the design/builder appear to have the capability to
meet the Governmental Entity's schedule objectives?
Cost Issues (7) the total long-term cost to the Governmental Entity to acquire
the vendor's goods or services;
• Is the format and nature of cost estimates prepared by the
team during the design phases informative and useful for
the Governmental Entity? Are the initial and final esti-
mates consistent in nature and format?
Organization Licensing, (8) any other relevant factor specifically listed in the request for
Financial, Personnel, bids or proposals.
References
• How long has the firm been in the business of providing
design/build services?
• Does the firm's organizational structure, licensing and
financial information indicate that the firm is capable of
undertaking this project?
• Do the personnel proposed for the project appear to have
the appropriate experience and capabilities?
• Did the references provided have a favorable experience
with the firm? Would they work with them again? How
comparable was their project to this project?
1
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities
39
September 1, 2001
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Request for Proposal
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec nmendedPfwurememGuideltnr
Lisgn/Build
A Govemmental Entity prepares a request for proposals which
includes a "design criteria package" that provides sufficient
information so as to permit design/build teams to prepare a
response.
The design criteria package may include criteria for the project such
as: the legal description of the site, when appropriate, survey infor-
mation concerning the site, interior space requirements, special
material requirements, material quality standards, conceptual criteria.
special equipment requirements, cost or budget estimates, time
schedules, quality assurance and quality control requirements, site
development requirements, applicable code and ordinances, provi-
sions for utilities, parking requirements, or other requirements
as applicable.
The Govemmental Entity evaluates proposals on the basis of
demonstrated competence and qualifications; considerations of
safety and long term durability of the project; the feasibility of
implementing the project as proposed; ability to meet sched-
ules; costing methodology; and other factors as appropriate.
Contract Form The designibuild delivery method can take many forms in
contract approach. A lump sum amount, a guaranteed maximum
price similar to the CM at Risk or a cost plus a fee.
The Governmental Entity should carefully consider which
approach provides the best value prior to issuing the request for
proposal. The lump sum amount approach can be determined
prior to or after completion of design. If prior, the design/
builder must use a higher contingency in his price to accommo-
date design changes or limit the design to match the price.
Fees and Conditions When a GMP or Cost Plus Fee approach are used, Design/Build
fees are individually stated for design and construction services
and will vary based on size, complexity and duration of the
project. Fees for design services are normally a stipulated sum
or a multiple of direct labor expense and actual reimbursable
costs. Fees for construction services are normally stated as a
percentage of the cost of the work and include overhead, profit
and home office labor and expenses.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 40 September /. 2001
4
1
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
' Ds;gn l atald
General conditions normally include items such as equipment,
t job trailer, bonds, insurance, utilities, etc. and on -site field
labor.
t
t
I
t
1
1
1
Both fee and general conditions can widely vary between design/
builders depending on what each typically includes or excludes.
Care should be taken to request the detail that each potential
design/build team includes or excludes in their fees and general
conditions.
Self Performance of Work In the lump sum Design/Build approach, the DesignBuilder is
able to self perform all portions of the work they so choose. In
the GMP or Cost Plus Fee approaches self performance of
work is at the discretion of the Governmental Entity. Many
firms are capable of performing some of the work with their
own forces. In many cases this can provide a Governmental
Entity with lower costs than can be obtained from the subcon-
tract bidding process. Self -performance can also raise ques-
tions regarding the competitive cost development for such
work. Careful consideration should be given in determining
whether to allow self -performance of work. If a Governmental
Entity chooses to allow self -performance, the DesignBuilder
should submit his cost in a competitive process with all other
subcontractors.
Recommended Contract Form Standard agreements AIA A191 or AGC 410 for lump sum or
AIA A491 or AGC 415 for Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
have been prepared by the American Institute of Architects and
the Associated General Contractors of America for Design/
Build.
Contingency If the Governmental Entity elects a GMP contract there should
be two contingency funds. A contingency in the design/
builder's guaranteed maximum costs to cover unanticipated
costs that might arise during construction and a contingency in
the total project budget for use by the Governmental Entity o
address issues regarding scope. The design/builder's contin-
gency should decrease as the design progresses and the GMP is
established. In a lump sum contract only the Governmental
Enity's contingency for scope issues is needed.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 41 September 1, 2001
Recommended Procuremeni Guideline,
Design/Build
Subcontractor In the GMP or Cost Plus Fee contract approaches the Design/
Pre-Oualiflcation and Bidding Builder is responsible for developing subcontractor interest in the
project and determining prior to receipt of bids the qualifications of
subcontractors to perform the work. The Design/Builder should
evaluate the subcontractor's experience and technical competence.
capability to perform, financial strength, personnel, past perfor-
mance and other factors as appropriate to determine qualifications.
The Governmental Entity and architect/ engineer is provided the
opportunity to object to any subcontractor or supplier.
When the drawings and specifications are sufficiently com-
plete, the Design/Builder will publicly advertise and solicit
competitive bids or competitive sealed proposals from subcon-
tractors and suppliers from the pre -qualified list. Bids must be
received and opened by the Design/Builder and the Govern-
mental Entity. The Design/Builder and the Governmental Entity
then determine with advice of the architect/engineer which bids
will be accepted.
In the event the Design/Builder recommends a bid or proposal
from a trade or subcontractor yet the Govemmental Entity
determines another bid or proposal should be accepted, the
Governmental Entity must compensate the Design/Builder for
any additional cost, risk or schedule that may occur because of
the Governmental Entity's requirement.
Opening of Proposals All subcontractors bids or proposals must be received and
opened in a manner that does not disclose the content of the bid
' or proposal during the selection process. Bids and proposals of
subcontractors generally require some degree of evaluation and
therefore the lowest responsible bidder may not be readily
' apparent. A private opening allows time for the Design/Builder
and Governmental Entity to evaluate the bids. Proposals pri-
vately opened must be publicly released within seven days of
' final selection.
Shared Savings or
' Incentives If at the completion of the project, the actual cost of the work
plus the design/builder's fee is less than the GMP as adjusted
by change order, savings result. In the private sector, the
' Design/Builder may share in these savings as an incentive to
work diligently to reduce costs. A Governmental Entity should
' weigh the benefit of an incentive or determine if all savings
should return to the Governmental Entity.
' Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 42 September 1. 2001
'
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Bridging
BRIDGING
Bridging is another form of Design/Build subject to the same
procurement requirements of Local Government Code 271.1 19.
The principal difference is the depth and scale of the "design
criteria package" prepared by the Governmental Entity's architect/
engineer.
' DEFINITION Bridging is a form of design/build where the Governmental
Entities architect/engineer develops the "design criteria pack-
age" which is more detailed and comprehensive and enables a
Governmental Entity to reduce the opportunity for miscommu-
nication and enables a Governmental Entity to receive defini-
tive price proposals.
CHARACTERISTICS
With bridging, the Governmental Entity has two contractual
'
relationships. First the Governmental Entity contracts with an
architect/engineer, if the Governmental Entity doesn't have
architects and engineers on staff, to develop a "design criteria
'
package" This design criteria package which is more compre-
hensive enables the Governmental Entity to obtain proposals
'
that are more definitive to the scope of the project. The Design/
Build Team still has an architect/engineer as a member of its
team who is responsible for the final design for the project. The
'
schedule is a three-phase linear process that reduces the oppor-
tunity for faster project delivery while enhancing the opportu-
nity to achieve the scope requirements.
PROS
The advantages of this delivery method are:
Flexibility in selecting the Design/Build Team that provides
the Governmental Entity best value.
A non -adversarial relationship between the contractor and
'
architect/engineer which work in a team relationship.
• Starting certain elements of the work before design is
complete can reduce the project schedule.
• A single point of responsibility for design and construction.
• Enhanced definition of the requirements and scope of the
'
project through a comprehensive design criteria package.
CONS The disadvantages of this delivery method are:
• A loss of the check and balance that independent contracts
' with the contractor and the architect/engineer normally
provides.
' Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 43 September 1, 2001
Recommended Procurement Guideline,
Bridyrne
• A more difficult selection and management delivery
method for the Governmental Entity.
• A potential adversarial relationship between the Govern-
mental Entity's architect/engineer and Design/Builder's
architect/engineer.
• Roles of the contractor and architect/engineer are no longer
clearly defined.
PROCUREMENT
The process rocess is the same as that outlined under the
P
design/build section except that the design criteria package
development effort may require an architect/ engineer selection
for the district.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Conflict of Liability
With the Governmental Entity's architect/engineer performing
a significant portion of the design, there is a potential for
conflict and confusion regarding design liability. It is recom-
mended that the Bridging Design/Builder's architect/engineer
be the architect/engineer of record for the project and have the
design liability.
Contract Form
The bridging design/build delivery method can still take differ-
ent contract forms. A lump sum amount, a guaranteed maxi-
mum price or cost plus fee although best suited for lump sum.
The Governmental Entity should carefully consider which
approach provides the best value prior to issuing the request for
'
t
proposal.
'
Self Performance of
Work
If the bridging design/build firm is selected from lump sum
'
competitive bidding, the bridging design/build firm should
have the right to self perform all portions of the work they
deem appropriate. If the selection process is based on providing
'
a GMP then same provisions as outlined under design/build
apply. Careful consideration should be given in determining
1
whether to allow self -performance of work.
'
Standard Contract
Standard contracts for bridging have not as yet been developed
by AIA or AGC.
1
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 44
September /, 2001
JOB ORDER CONTRACTS
' (JOC'S)
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Job Order Controning
Job Order Contracting is a delivery system for providing
responsive construction services under a long-term prime
contract for an indefinite quantity of multiple projects. It is
used extensively in the Department of Defense and other
Federal agencies. It is beginning to be used more in school
districts and local government agencies. The specific procure-
ment requirements are outlined in the Local Government Code
271.120. The following are additional recommended guidelines
believed to be consistent with statute and industry standards as
well as good business practices.
'
' DEFINITION
As normally defined within the industry, Job Order Con-
tracting is a process for contracting for the minor construc-
tion, repair, rehabilitation, or alteration of facilities when
'
the work is of a recurring nature but the delivery times,
of work required are indefinite. "Mi-
type, and quantities
nor" as applied in most JOCs is the applicable statutory
limit for Operations and Maintenance funding versus single
'
project appropriations. "Recurring" refers to the fact that
the JOC is intended for a series of multiple projects rather
than a single project.
' CHARACTERISTICS
The contract normally has a base term of not less than
six months, nor longer than two years, with the Govern-
mental Entity having the option to renew it for one to
'
four additional terms.
• Unit prices (rates) are fixed for the base term and
adjusted, if options are exercised, by using a construc-
'
tion cost index or, if an annually updated commercial
Unit Price Book is specified, using the latest edition.
(e.g. MEANS)
'
• A "coefficient" or multiplier is bid to be applied to the
unit prices to provide the actual rates.
The contract has a low guaranteed minimum volume
'
and a higher, but realistic maximum.
• The potential volume and optional renewals provide a
t
strong incentive for the contractor to deliver high
responsive service. Projects are accomplished
quality,
by the issuance of individual delivery orders.
Fast response is possible because of the reduced up-
'
front administrative and design requirements.
• Normally most work is subcontracted to local small
'
businesses.
' Project Delivery For Governmental Entities 45 September 1. 2001
Recommended Procuremenr Gndedim-,
'
lob Order Convurring
PROS
Done successfully, provides a long term "win - win'
'
partnering relationship between the Governmental
Entity and the JOC contractor.
• Fast response
'
Reduced changes
• Reduced "up -front" time and cost
• Incentive for higher quality
'
Puts more money in local businesses
• Up -front involvement of the contractor facilitates
concurrent performance of design and execution.
'
' CONS Perception of threat to "in-house" work force or local
businesses.
• Requires teamwork to reach potential.
' Need trained personnel on Governmental Entity staff, or
provided by a consultant, to best administer contract.
' PROCUREMENT
Job Order Contracts are procured using competitive sealed
proposals. Selection is based upon the combination of experi-
ence, qualifications, past performance, technical ability, finan-
cial stability, reputation, and price (coefficient) which provides
the overall "best value" to the Governmental Entity. The intent
is to provide a positive, long-term, "win -win' partnership
'
between the Governmental Entity and the successful contractor.
The selection criteria should be clearly stated in the Request for
Competitive Sealed Proposals(RFCSP). Goals, such as the
'
minimum percentage of work to be subcontracted to small
businesses, as well as, minimum response times; use of stan-
dard materials and equipment; and other Governmental Entity
requirements should be addressed in the RFCSP's selection
criteria and considered in the evaluation of the proposals.
tThe
Statement of Work should indicate the contractual minimum
(normally a nominal amount used only to establish a "consider-
ation" and applicable only for the base term); an anticipated annual
volume (a realistic appraisal of the amount of work available if the
contractor provides outstanding performance, (but neither a "cap"
'
nor a "guarantee")); the number, location, type, and square footage
of facilities covered in the contract; and whether the contractor has
any design responsibility.
'
Any Arch itectjEngineer contracted to provide design shall be
'
selected on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifi-
cations in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 2254, Gov-
ernment Code.
Project Delivery For Governmental Entities
46 September 1. 2001
Recommended Procurement Guidelines
Job Order Controciing
Proposal preparation instructions and the Governmental Entity's
evaluation criteria should be covered in a separate section.
AIA Documents A 101 and A202 provide a base for the Contract
' and the General Conditions.
They are usually supplemented by Supplementary and Special
' Conditions to tailor them to the specific policies and needs of the
Governmental Entity and the JOC process.
' If a large number of proposals are received, an initial "shoe list"
is established of those best qualified to perform the work. After
the short list has been established, oral presentations by the
' finalists' project teams may also be helpful in the evaluation
process. After establishment of a technical "order of merit;' the
price proposals of the finalists are reviewed to determine the
' offeror which provides the Governmental Entity the best combi-
nation of technical capability. Award is made to the contractor
offering the overall best value in accordance with the Governmen-
tal Entity's evaluation criteria and plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS The value used as the "anticipated value" should be carefully
' determined as most contractors will price their coefficients
upon this value. If too low, the Governmental Entity's cost
' will be too high. If too high, the contractor will have bid too
low and will have a difficult time delivering the service
needed. The intent should be to provide the contractor a
' realistic incentive to become your preferred provider of
construction services.
• The costs of mobilization, clean-up, supervision, overhead,
' general conditions, and profit should be in the coefficient.
This should be clearly stated in the RFCSP.
• Some provision should be made for pricing items not found in
' the Unit Price Book. One of the best methods is to ask for a
separate coefficient which can then be applied to the actual
cost of the labor and material.
' To comply with State law regarding public facilities, a regis-
tered engineer and/or architect should be available to oversee
the program and its work. He can be on the staff of the
' Governmental Entity, the staff of the contractor, provided by
subcontract through the contractor, or provided by contract
through the Governmental Entity. (Any engineer or architect
' contracted by the district to provide design shall be selected
on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications
in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 2254, Government
' Code.)
• If change orders are required, they are normally priced using
the Unit Price Book.
' Project Delivery For Governmentol Entities 47 September 1. 2001
I
1
1
1
1
1
For more information contact:
Texas Building Branch - AGC
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 950
Austin, TX 78701-2443
512/478-5629
512/478-1618 FAX
www.agctbb.org
Texas Society of Architects
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 970
Austin, TX 78701
512/478-7386
512/476-0528 FAX
www.tsaonline.org
' Texas Council of Engineering Companies, Inc.
400 West 15th Street, Suite 820
Austin, Texas 78701
' 512-474-1474
512-474-1490 FAX
www.cectexas.org
ij
,2� �- �T - 2m_ WS.
®� -�