HomeMy WebLinkAboutC2015-453 - 12/15/2015 - Approved City of Corpus Christi
$----'
Capital Programs
Change Order COfD Capirp
Programs
' CHANGE ORDER NO.: 16 CHANGE ORDER DATE: 8/10/2015
PROJECT: Runway 17-35 Runway Extension/Displacement and Connection Taxi Way PROJECT NUMBER: EI 1046
CONTRACTOR: Berry Contracting,LP dba Bay,Ltd. CONTRACT TIME: 365 CD
ENGINEER: KSA Engineers
Make the following additions,modifications or deletions to the work described in the Contract Documents:
The amount of$270,000 for this change order is for a settlement between the City of Corpus Christi and Bay LTD.,the Contractor,for equitable
compensation for two claims submitted by Bay Ltd namely the Claim for Extended Overhead and the Claim for Excessive Milling of asphalt surfaces.
The Contractor's initial claim letter is dated August 30,2013 and is included herewith as Attachment A. The Contractor's second claim letter revising
the claim amounts is dated January 19,2015 and is included herwith as Attachment B. Also included as Attachment C is the Resume of Negotiations
with a Findings of Fact attached thereto. The Contractor hereby agrees that the amount of$270,000 and a time extension of 197 calendar days is fair
and equitable compensation for the costs incurred resulting from the aforementioned claims and further agrees that Bay Ltd has no further claim for
damages of any kind whatsoever under this contract. The City hereby agrees that no Liquidated Damages will be assessed.
Why was this Change necessary: Claim Settlement
How can similar changes be avoided in the future? Improve Geotech Investigations during design.
The compensation agreed upon in this Change Order is full,complete and final payment for all costs the Contractor may incur as a result of or relating to this
change whether said costs are known,unknown,foreseen or unforseen at this time,including without limitation,any cost for delay,extended overhead,ripple or
impact cost,or any other effect on changed or unchanged work as a result of this Change Order.
Original Contract Amount S 12,841,419.r-40
Previously Approved Change Order Amount $ 2,519,602.30..
Proposed Change Order Amount $ 270,000.00"
Revised Contract Amount $ 15,631,021.3rr.3,/_ ft)%4
Percent of Total Change Orders(including this CO) 21.72% 1L�
Previous Change Order Contract Time 19 CD
Additional Time on This Change Order 197 CD
Revised Contract Time 581 CD
Recommended by Approved by
(CONSULTING FIRM] p-i,r)._
(CONTRACT! '
B .0c.a4-.. Q. By'h, T.-14- (5yE�C / Date
CITY OF C I ' 'USC ISTI )42°1- .751140,...„ U l t1UlL‘INA •
r
/s/ �� 8'db/S'
Recommended by: / / / ST COUNCIL....1.2454.E.
Philip L.Bo,*,P.E. Date
Act' ons 9• ip ngineeor
tgagy: ��14:
9�3,S r,,,,,,,,.�a 1,�: SECRET .r L,
efferey Edmonds,P.E. D e Valerie H.Gray,P.E. 1 Date
Direc r of C pital Progr s (�// / Executive Director of Pu.li."or ..
Recommended by: 9�P / ApA*o'�bT'
Eddie Houlihan Da Gustavo q i' E. Date
Bu et and Finance Assit ty k • ager
Recommended by A- Z4 j' 'I-LS : • • • ,
anet Kellogg Date lirald L.Olson Date
City Attorney ity Manager
12--3/,
DEPARTMENT ATTEST:
APPROVALS: — Operating Department(CCIA) REBECCA HUERTAI�
Fred Segundo CIRECEIVE
Director CLIA / it
Bay Change Order 16 j�•' 9/11�y
AU Account Activity Account Amount AUG 18 2015
__ -,,,,."^^,^,r1C 50910 $243,000.00
2015-453 C 50910 27,000.00 PO
12/15/15 By;
M2015-140 INDEXED
Bay Ltd.
P.O.Box 9908
1414 Valero Way(78409)
- ' M y
Ltd. ® Corpus Christi,Texas
® 1110 78469-9908
._BERRY Company Bus: (361)693-2100
August 30,2013
Robert Jutton P.E.,RPLS
KSA Engineers Inc.
Corpus Christi International Airport
1000 International Drive
Corpus Christi,TX 78406 -
Re: Project Nos.E11046,E11122,E11123
Owner: City of Corpus Christi,TX
Location: Corpus Christi International Airport Runway 17-35 Extension
Subject:Milling Change order
Dear Robert,
This letter is in referenced to the extra milling that was performed on the referenced
—
,I project. We've had many discussions and meetings to address the excessive overrun of
millings that took place where the bid SY calculated 4357 tons at 2"of removal and
actual was 33,373 tons milled &hauled a huge difference. We have minimized our cost
where possible going from$738,346.40 to$408,616.85 less payment received to date for
$ 103,006 with a remaining balance totaling$305,610.85 for this proposal,please submit
this to FFA for payment request.
Listed below are some milestones that lead up to this point:
1. Bid documents on the bores information provided indicated 2"thickness(Bore
Attached)
2. On July 12,2012 an email was sent asking for clarification on the milling depth.
(Email Attached)
3. A response was sent on July 23,2012 mentioning the thickness varies, and old
drawing would be provided to the contractor.
4. Bid date was July 25,2012—still no drawings so we bid the plan information. .
5. Milling began mid;November 2012 and A/E Nyz.notified of the additional
depths
6. November 21,2012 an RFI was submitted requesting additional compensation.
7_ A/E responded to RFI milling stating depth of existing pavement"varies"
8. March 28th 2012,Bay submitted a request for payment$ 637,774 for the extra
milling work performed.
Safety 111 Quality ■ Productivity ATTACHMENT A
The Winning Combination
9. PFA general provision 20-06 didn't have all the bore data needed to illustrate the
proper pavement thicknesses,(Attached is the bore log for this referenced project
and the bore log for the same vicinity received on a project that was bid on
August 21,2013,had this information be provided on July 2012 we could have
bid appropriately to cover all associated cost.
10. Milling sub quoted 2"-4"—(Quote attached).
11.Bid items : Base bid- 2"of milling /Actual=4.16"
12. Alternate Bid—2"of milling/Actual=21.29"
13.A/E was asked a specific question regarding the existing pavement section
thickness during the pre-bid period. This question would have been answered had
the old drawing been provided as agreed by the A/E. They were not provided
therefore the Contractor was left to bid the milling item with the only available
information that was provided showing 2"of pavement thickness.
14. Bore log attached for both projects showing a huge difference for accurate
information on existing pavement thicknesses.
15.Attached with this proposal is documentation showing responses,bore logs
,RFI's,Bid estimates,trucking cost,and actual quantities performed. The two
different boring logs illustrating existing hot mix thicknesses throughout the
project was sufficiently different which impacted our budget cost for the project.
16.Revised payment request attached for$305,610.85
Thank you and please feel free to call if you have any questions.
nSincerely,
t'rank Whiteaker
Highway Division Manager
FW/bl
Encl -<
P.O.Box 9908(78469)
1414 Valero Way
• BArtd. YkARs Corpus Christi,Texas 78409
•111111.111111.10 (361)693-2100
A BERRY Company www.bayltd.com
January 19,2015
Felix H. Ocanas,Jr.,P.E.
ECMS
Engineering&Construction Management Services
5001 Oakmont Drive
Corpus Christi,TX 78413
Dear Felix,
This letter is in response to the Executive Summary that you had given me several weeks ago. Let me address some of the
issues you raised in your Executive Summary report,I will address the extended overhead claim and milling separately.
EX1 NDED OVERHEAD CLAIM
Attached is a excel timeline of the project(Exhibit 1)which illustrates the critical problems that arose and affected the
completion date of the project. In(Exhibit 5)Project timeline will illustrate the timeline of our Baseline schedule showing
8 months in yellow for construction and ended up with 20 months in blue for substantial completion due to the additional
change orders 6-14 and in (Exhibit 8)will show the RFI's and revised drawings that took place after CO5 was approved.
We understand that SP B-8.4 requires that overhead be included in CO's submitted to City. That is exactly what was done
for CO 5(Exhibit 2). In CO 5,a separate line item was specifically created for Overhead to account for the additional
Overhead cost and time through October 15,2013. The change order was accepted by FAA and paid by the City.
Our overhead calculations for CO 5 were based upon a project completion date of 10-15-13 and the City's commitment to
provide approved submittals/RFI's within two business days(Exhibit 3). It is safe to say that the City and Bay considered
October 15,2013 being the new project completion date. However,as you know,almost immediately additional changes
began arising which created additional CO's.Not only was the performance of CO 5 extended beyond Oct 15,2013 but
the new changes necessitated further extended completion time of the project. Based solely on CO 5 we believe we're
entitled to additional overhead past Oct 15th,as a result of constant changes by FAA and failure of the City to timely
provide us the information needed to complete the project by October 15th 2013. However,the new changes that were
implemented after CO 5 pushed the schedule further into 2013 and into 2014(i.e.,CO 11 (T3)extended the project to
April 24,2014). Bay did not attempt to quantify the additional time necessary,and thus the additional overhead,because
of the uncertainty of the additional CO's which were being proposed.
The additional overhead costs were addressed on several occasions and noted in an email dated Feb 27,2014 addressed to
Victor Gonzales,Bob Jutton,Dan Biles,Albert Pardo and Fred Segundo,a copy which is attached(Exhibit 4).The City
asked us to push the CO's through in order to complete the project and it was agreed that the extended overhead and
additional days would be addressed in CO 12 or in the final CO. Based upon this agreement we did not calculate
overhead in any CO beyond CO 5.
The City has requested that Bay provide information proving delays to the project. The attached Project timeline schedule
(Exhibit 5)shows that changes were made to the plans as late as July 11,2014. These changes required submittals and the
ordering and delivery of new materials. In reality,this project turned into a design build project. However,Bay is not
Safety s Quality s Productivity
The Winning Combination ATTACHMENT B
•
seeking additional overhead beyond the mutually accepted substantial completion date of June 9,2014.Bay is requesting
192 days of extended overhead at the same per diem rate of$3,945 as requested and paid in CO 5.
MILLING CLAIM
Bay bid$2.60 per square yard for the Cold Milling item(A1-1.03). The bidders were provided geotechnical data showing
only two borings depicting two and four inches of existing asphalt. Bay requested additional information on the milling
thickness and Bob Jutton replied that the thickness varies but that Engineering would provide old drawings depicting
existing pavement sections. Those drawings were not provided. Bay disagrees with the statement that we were offered
the opportunity to conduct boring at the site prior to bidding. Regardless,had such opportunity been presented,it is
unreasonable to have expected Bay to perform boring on an active runway.
Attached is our subcontractor's summary establishing the actual depth milled(Exhibit7). At some locations the milling
depth reached 30"(in some areas,multiple passes were necessary to achieve the necessary depth). The average milled
depth was 14.5"over the surface area.
15,686 CY/39,086 SY= 14.5 IN (See calculation below)
Converting Cubic Yards to Cubic Feet 15,686 CY x 27=423,522 CF
Converting Square Yards to Square Feet: 39,086 SY x 9=351,774 SF
Dividing SF into CF to get the Depth in Feet: 423,552 CF/351,774 SF=1.21 Feet(Depth)
Converting Feet to Inches: 1.21 FT x 12 Inches=14.5 Inches(Depth)
An actual thickness of 14.5"compared to the 2-4"depicted in contract documents is not a reasonable expectation of
varying depths. Bay expended an additional$295,616.30 to remove the additional depth. See attached summary of actual
costs incurred above and beyond the$2.60 per square yard as bid.
Bay is seeking to be appropriately compensated for completion of the milling items to depths far beyond what could
reasonably be expected by any contractor.The request for compensation on the$295,616.30+ 103,006 received to date
totals to the amount of$398,622.30 which comes to$10.06/SY for the milling. As a comparison,see attached TxDOT
Statewide Average prices for similar milling depth cost. Bay's actual cost is below Txdot averages in(Exhibit 6).
Bay values its relationship with the City and seeks an amicable resolution to these claims. As we have in the past,Bay
has attempted to complete the project in a timely manner before change orders were approved to keep the project moving
forward. We look forward to discussing and meeting if necessary with you and the City to resolve this matter.
Sincerely,
•
Frank Whiteaker
Highway Division Manager
Safety;s Quality■Productivity
The Winning Combination
Performance Equipment (Sub) CCIAP/510972 Project 12/11/2014
Depth/SY Measurements
Milled Area Average Depth Volume
Apron 10,408.00 SY 0.83 FT 10.00 IN 2,891.11 CY
A-1 5,214.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 1,738.00 CY
A-1 3,074.00 SY 0.50 FT 6.00 IN 512.33 CY
A-2 6,863.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 2,287.67 CY
A-2 4,278.00 SY 0.42 FT 5.00 IN 594.17 CY
A-2 177.00 SY 1.08 FT 13.00 IN 63.92 CY
A-3 6,909.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 2,303.00 CY
A-3 5,474.00 SY 0.50 FT 6.00 IN 912.33 CY
A-3 194.00 SY 0.75 FT 9.00 IN 48.50 CY
A 4,800.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 1,600.00 CY
A 2,956.00 SY 0.50 FT 6.00 IN 492.67 CY
A-2 Short 4,849.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 1,616.33 CY
A-2 Short 4,849.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 1,616.33 CY
A-1 Tie In 881.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 293.67 CY
A-1 Tie In 82.00 SY 0.42 FT 5.00 IN 11.39 CY
A-2 Tie In 922.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 307.33 CY
A-2 Tie In 82.00 SY 0.42 FT 5.00 IN 11.39 CY
A-2 Tie In 255.00 SY 1.08 FT 13.00 IN 92.08 CY
A-3 Tie In 877.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 292.33 CY
A-3 Tie In 41.00 SY 0.42 FT 5.00 IN 5.69 CY
A-3 Tie In 759.00 SY 0.25 FT 3.00 IN 63.25 CY
A-4 Tie In 911.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 303.67 CY
A-4 Tie In 77.00 SY 0.42 FT 5.00 IN 10.69 CY
L Tie In 190.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 63.33 CY
L Tie In 488.00 SY 0.42 FT 5.00 IN 67.78 CY
Run Up Pad Tie In 178.50 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 59.50 CY
Run Up Pad Tie In 76.50 SY 0.42 FT 5.00 IN 10.63 CY
TWY Q Tie In 87.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 29.00 CY
TWY QTie In 37.00 SY 0.42 FT 5.00 IN 5.14 CY
Blast Pad Tie In 75.00 SY 1.00 FT 12.00 IN 25.00 CY
Blast Pad Tie In 32.00 SY 0.42 FT 5.00 IN 4.44 CY
Blast Pad 4,400.00 SY 0.17 FT 2.00 IN 244.44 CY
49,494.00 SY 18,577.13 CY
Only the 'footprint'surface area
is calculated in the above total.
(Taxiway Footprint, etc.)
i lajacL.
Cv
t)s C. .mak A4_ be-I--
pis boa, b(-1 JAv►M1as ,u.1-414a2,) P,,k e„,,,,„ - I j„vilt„.S 5ktu ce-, b -1-viG6t- is/ )7Z -- 1-,)_J3
Notes: b-, C ) 02.-) -- t DiSb 1 10 II
1 hy.; 1_ A,1 -- 5'zrcl sy - r z”
- csD-N Sci - Cot
fix;wAi___ - 4,21,. .3__ - iv
Liz-2s si - S”
f i7) 6,7 -- 2"
"
7 ; 4x1•w4-3 (.090.3 s y — iZ"
Sei 7l/ 5y --- Le" -
-� 1e .sy - 4' . . -
It x;1,,',A ' q' " o 1t
1s� s,- - `.
Tl�x,wa1 /4-Z s11bn4- q Y 9 6,1 - 2"
I Li
1i-1 +1e-/ ;0t Li 121
SZ s� -C"
(-Z 776- 1A3 9ZZ A i- - rag
' ii �� w S 1r
1 Z S^-5- S•1 — 1 ?j s ti
1
0-3 176- i..J Pr 2 si_ - r z" ---
To DO: ; 751 si -- 3" -
,,:iP-4 TF I,u9_11_,,,t_____:__.- ±Z"
77 s.1 _ 5" .
"L.1.` 77E 1u l q D 51 - )2"
L188 s.I 511
F upPiir? 17c 178.5 - 1Zit
j :.
74W-�"� - S "
3 t,1f "776.- mi 87 3't - 1 Z 1r
1 37 511
1 a ksr P,4d Tcd '-J 7S - 121'
1. VA - ?Ad- 4 400 - a ''
•
x ,An y A, 1-1
r1 J
\ IZ" S2tsy
\ 3up
v �{ s
•
/
TsX 1 'v\1av A 7 X 1s 1 irn0 ,
4 5 4 y %/
i
/
1 I
7 tP v 1, 5i1 3 / ,
' ' S'I 447£3 sl
it' - `1 v`i 5 sy !� 1 3" 77 s
_ 1Li / '
I [ ,J
% %.
/
I
I / /
/ /
/ J
il
! /
5453 s ;�
a _ \AIElV 42 ( EX _ s 1I 1q )
ti
H
— 1 2 II - ()WO s�
- - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - -, c 25sip51
I
\\\,\,
ho)
-
00,06,? - „2 ,,5 / �
\\
Z� x
u �
'JD
• RESUME OF NEGOTIATIONS
CONTRACTOR: Bay Ltd
PROJECT NO: E11046, E11122 AND E11123
PROJECT NAME: Corpus Christi International Airport
Runway 17-35 Extension/Displacement
and Connecting Taxiway
REFERENCE: Findings Of Fact by ECMS, LLC, attached hereto.
Preliminary discussions and negotiations were conducted between Mr. Frank Whiteaker, Highway
Division Manager for Bay Ltd, and Felix H.Ocanas,Jr., P.E. President/CEO of ECMS LLC,Advisory
Consultant for the City of Corpus Christi on construction contract issues and claims. These discussions
occurred between the period of September 2014 and March 2015 at eight separate meetings with no
agreements reached but both sides clarified their positions.See Findings of Fact attached hereto.
Final negotiations were conducted between Mr. Edward Martin, President/CEO of Berry Contracting,
Inc. and Mr.Jerry Shoemaker P.E.,consultant for the City as Assistant Director of Capital Programs and
Ms.Valerie Gray, P.E., Executive Director of Public works.
The initial offer by the City was$200,000 as recommended in the Reference above. After a short of
period consideration, Mr. Martin countered with an offer of$500,000. After a short period of
consideration,the City proposed an offer of$250,000. After about 3 week Mr. Martin made a final offer
of$270,000.
This final offer was accepted by the City after coordination with CCIA staff who coordinated with FAA
officials.
Prepared by:
Felix H.Ocanas,Jr., P.E.
Pres/CEO-ECMS, LLC
Advisory Consultant
ATTACHMENT-C
1
FINDINGS OF FACT
CCIA, BAY LTD CLAIMS FOR
EXTENDED OVERHEAD AND MILLING
CONTRACT NO. E11046 RUNWAY 17-35
EXTENSION/DISPLACEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXTENDED OVERHEAD CLAIM:
The original request for extended overhead was$1,258,455 (319 days at$3,945 per day),and later
corrected to$757,440 to reflect 192 days at$3,945 per day. This is the period from the end of the 365-
day contract period to the day when the contract was declared essentially complete on June 9,2014. It
was explained to Frank, Highway Division Manager for the Contractor,that if Bay's overhead is based on
extended time due to change order work,each change order amount or unit price indicates total cost,
including overhead,SP B-8.When the quantity is increased by more than 25%or decreased by more
than 75%,either party upon demand shall be entitled to revised consideration for the quantity above
125%or below 75%. Bottom line,the overheads are included in the price for each change order.
It was explained to Bay that to show delay damages during change order work performed after the
original contract period,the estimated time for each change order must be established,and then show
how the City delayed Bay past that particular time frame for each change order.That period of delay
days would be the period of consideration for extended overhead for each change order. That was
never presented. Also, if the claim includes delays in finishing the basic contract work,that has to be
proven. This was not done.
Bay claims that during the negotiations for each change order, when Bay requested additional time, KSA
and Airport staff told Bay that the City Construction Engineer would negotiate any justifiable time at a
later date. Basically, Bay has not shown that it was delayed beyond the original completion date of 365
days nor shown that Bay was delayed on the change orders issued by the City beyond a reasonable
expected time frame for completion of each change order.
At the last meeting on March 4,2015, Bay stated,for the first time,that KSA and the City's airport staff
instructed Bay not to include any overhead on any future changes after Change Order number 5. It was
recognized at that time,that the 15%markup that Bay was including on all change orders was
considered by Bay to be profit only.
It was concluded that perhaps this claim could be settled if the City were to offer an additional percent
of overhead to all the new changes made, i.e.,those not part of the original schedule. It was decided to
attempt to negotiate a 5%increase to the new items amount.The offer would be$96,650.
CCIA-RUNWAY 17-35, BAY,CLAIMS EXT OH, MILLING
2
•
MILLING CLAIM:
Bay's basis for this claim is Boring B-5 of the Rock Engineering Geotechnical Report showing asphalt
depth of 2 inches. The Rock report states that this information is not for bidding purposes but for design
and was not intended to reflect the depths of asphalt for milling estimating for all milling areas.
Bay asked at the pre-bid meeting, according to information provided by Bay,what the depth of milling
was, and the answer was that it"Varies",which it does,from 2 inches to 12 inches with some small
areas at 14 and 21 inches as shown by Bay's subcontractor measurements and confirmed with photos
and interview with the KSA inspector. Bay's alleged assumption is not a reasonable one especially since
Bay has done much of the previous work at the airport. SP-54, Physical Data,states the subsurface
geotechnical reports are not part of the contract documents and that the City disclaims responsibility for
the interpretation of that data by bidders.The Contractor's final claim submittal shows an average
depth of 14.5 inches. It was decided that while it is not reasonable for the contractor to assume 2
inches it is also not reasonable to expect a bidder to prepare a good bid without more information than
was provided on the drawings. It was further decided to offer the Contractor to split the difference;the
Contractor accepts the bid price for seven inches and the City pays for an additional 7 inches at the
contract bid price. The figure for this offer would be$107,041.
The total recommended offer for settlement would be$203,691,which would be rounded off to an
offer of$200,000.
The contractor's first counter offer was$500,000 and his final counter offer was$270,000 for both the
Extended Overhead and the Milling Claims.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
EXTENDED OVERHEAD CLAIM: Original Claim was$1,258,455, later corrected to$757,440(192 DAYS
@$3,945 per day) by letter dated January 19, 2015,see Attachment B.The Contractor claims that
because the project was declared essentially complete on June 9,2014, 192 days after the 365-day
contract period, Bay is owed$3,945 per day extended overhead.
MILLING CLAIM: Original claim was$738,346.40, revised to$305,610.85 in letter dated August 30,
2013,and later revised to$295,616.30 in letter dated January 19,2015,see Attachment A.
The Contractor claims that because he assumed the milling depth of existing asphalt pavement to be 2
inches as shown on Core Boring#5 on the contract drawings,and the average depth for the various
areas of milling turned out to be 14.5 inches, he is owed damages for milling far more depth than he had
estimated.
CCIA-RUNWAY 17-35, BAY,CLAIMS EXT OH, MILLING
3
DISCUSSIONS WITH CONTRACTOR
We met with Bay representatives eight(8)times.The dates of the meetings are as follows with a brief
statement of what was discussed. The Contractor's representative is Frank Whiteaker, Highway Division
Manager who is the author of the claim and the negotiator.The lead City's representative was Felix H.
Ocanas Jr., P.E.,advisory consultant to the City.Other representatives were Albert Pardo, City's
Construction Engineer, Kent Powers, P.E., construction management consultant to the City,and Jerry
Shoemaker, P.E., consultant to the City as Acting Director of Capital Programs at the time.
1.Oct 3,2014, met with Frank at his request. I listened to his case and pointed out that the
application of extended overhead is for cases of delays or suspension of work. No agreements reached
at this meeting. Regarding the milling claim, I agreed to research the records to determine if there was
merit to this claim. Frank requested that he be given time to provide additional information on the
extended overhead claim.
2.Oct 8,2014, met with Frank,at his request, (Albert Pardo present). We listened to his
arguments on delays,and also discussed the milling claim. No proof of delays were presented. Listened
to arguments for the milling claim, but stated that assuming a 2"thickness of asphalt to be milled was
unreasonable and that the claim for milling, as presented, cannot be accepted as having merit. No
agreements. Frank again requested additional time to prepare additional arguments and proof as we
requested.
3. Oct 23, 2014, met with Frank and his staff at his request(Albert Pardo present). They
presented charts showing dates of RFI's submitted and dates of responses which allegedly created
delays but did not connect the dots with any critical path schedule nor presented evidence of their dates
on the charts. No agreements.They agreed to provide copies of RFI's and copies of responses.About 2
weeks later they provided three binders containing about 3,000 pages of correspondence without
identifying any particular document as being applicable to the claim. I informed Frank that I would not
go thru 3,000 pages of correspondence to make his claim. Frank again asked for more time to get the
proof and justification we kept requesting.
4. Nov 5, 2014, met with Frank at his request.Same discussion on milling depths and extended
overhead. Nothing new was presented. No agreements. Again, he asked that we give him more time.
5. Nov 24, 2014, met with Frank at his request,and Jesse Wong.Again, same discussions on
additional charts provided which did not connect the dots. No agreements.Again,they asked for more
time to present new information.
6. Dec 22,2014, met with Frank and Kevin stone,another Bay executive, at Frank's request.
They wanted to know the status of our decision on the two claims. I informed them that we could not
find merit on either claim as they were submitted. I mentioned the possibility of an offer of$200k for
settlement for both claims.They said they would not accept such an offer if made. No agreements.
Frank again asked for more time to prepare additional information.
7. Feb 18, 2015, met with Frank at his request,and his staff where they presented more charts.
Still no proof of delay. Did not discuss the milling claim at this meeting. No agreements.Again, Frank
asked for additional time to present a final argument.
CCIA-RUNWAY 17-35, BAY,CLAIMS EXT OH, MILLING
4
8. March 4,2015, Kent Powers and I met with Frank and his staff at his request. Bay went over
more charts. At this last meeting Bay again tried to explain delays with Gant charts. When we realized
that they were not trying to prove delays but to provide more charts with dates without providing
documents to prove those dates and without attempting to show how the critical path was impacted we
asked that they stop barking up the same old tree. Again,we discussed what overhead is:There is the
standard overhead rate normally used in change orders and then there is extended overhead rate only
applicable when delayed. Frank stated,for the first time,that he was told by KSA and the airport staff to
not include any overhead on the changes after change order number 5. We asked how Bay could show
that it did not include any overhead at all on the change orders. For ease of discussion we wrote on the
board as an example:
labor....materials....equipment....overhead...profit
Bay's estimator wrote on the board
Labor....materials....equipment....markup 15%
We pointed out that what they call markup is what we call overhead and profit. And they said the 15%
was for profit only. What they are actually saying is that Bay did include overhead and profit of 15%, but
did not include extended overhead.
We requested that they give us copies of their detailed estimates used on the change order proposals so
we could review and confirm that there were no other overheads included.They agreed to provide their
files on the estimates, and on March 10, 2015,we received an email with a sampling of documents
showing the typical markups of 15%to all change order proposals.
Seeing that change order proposals estimates included a 15%markup, I asked via email,what does
markup include? The answer was"it is our proposed profit".
I responded that the industry standard for profit is 6%to 12%; 6%with no risk involved,which is the
case here, and overhead is somewhere in the 15 to 20%range, recognizing that not all firms are the
same in their overhead.
CONCLUSION
1.The Contractor's extended overhead claim is based on the fact that the time to complete the work
went 192 days past the contract completion date due to change orders and RFI's.
2.The City has the right to issue changes, negotiate a price with the Contractor,and grant time
extensions as justified.Only 19 days were granted for change orders 1&2.The City told Bay, after CO-5,
that all additional time needed would be negotiated towards the end of the project.
3. Extended overhead is applicable when owner delays the Contractor past the completion date.The
Contractor has not proven delays nor has he shown how alleged delays would have affected the critical
path schedule.
4. Each change order price carries overhead and profit. Contractor claims that the 15%mark-up on
every proposal is for profit only and does not include overhead.
CCIA-RUNWAY 17-35, BAY,CLAIMS EXT OH, MILLING
5
• RECOMMENDATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE EXTENDED OVERHEAD CLAIM:
Use the following approach;the change orders included 15%markup and we call that overhead and
profit. But we are willing to increase that to 20%overhead and profit.We can take the total of all of the
"new-items"from all change orders issued ($1,932,990) and apply an additional 5%for overhead and
profit for a total of 20%for overhead and profit.This gives Bay the benefit of doubt concerning delays
that Bay has not been able to prove.The City's offer for settlement is$96,649.50, (5%of$1,932,990).
RECOMMENDATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE MILLING CLAIM
Present the offer to the Contractor;that if we agree that the"depth varies" is not reasonable to assume
as sufficient information for a contractor to prepare a good bid and if he agrees that 2 inches is not a
reasonable depth to use in a claim for damages,the offer could be to split the difference 7" and 7",
approximately. Let's agree that Bay should have assumed at least 7 inches for bidding purposes. Bay
claims the average depth encountered was 14.5 inches. Bay has been paid$107,041 as follows based on
square yards of milling, regardless of depth:
15,214 SY @$2.60/SY=$39,556
26,986 SY @$2.50/SY=$67,485
Total $107,041
Our best and final offer can be an additional$107,041 over what Bay has been paid.
Total settlement offer for both claims would be$203,690.50;$96,649.50 for additional overhead&
profit and$107,041 for milling over-depth, rounded off to$200,000, and a time extension of 173 days
(192 minus 19 days granted with change orders 1 and 2).
PREPARED BY:
FELIX H.OCANAS,JR., P.E.
PRES./CEO, ECMS LLC
Consultant to City on Contract Issues.
CCIA-RUNWAY 17-35, BAY,CLAIMS EXT OH, MILLING
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
AS OF August 31, 2015
Run: 09/04/2015 at 10:20 AM
3026 -Apt 2012 CO
Expenditures (Includes Expenditures (Current
Project Description Budget Beginning Balance) Year Only) Encumbrance Unencumbered
500030 573.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 573.10
E12178 Taxiway F Reconfiguration 326.44 326.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
G47E11046 E11046 3026 CONSTRUCTION 855.00 855.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
G47E11046AE11046A 3026 DESIGN 505.00 505.00 290.00 0.00 0.00
G47E11047 E11047 3026 DESIGN 500.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
G48E10075 E10075 3026 CONSTRUCTION 1,145.26 1,145.26 0.00 0.00 0.00
G48E13062 E13062 3026 CONSTRUCTION 214,048.54 16,202.65 598.48 0.00 197,845.89
G49E11046 E11046 3026 CONSTRUCTION 1,656,727.79 1,515,258.67 60.203.19 20,874.32 120,594.80
G49E11046AE11046A 3026 CONSTRUCTION 100,522.77 93,648.00 34,407.48 0.00 6,874.77
G49E11046BE11046B 3026 CONSTRUCTION 49.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.81
G49E11047 E11047 3026 CONSTRUCTION 184,678.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 184,678.76
G49E11122 E11122 3026 CONSTRUCTION 115,807.14 115,134.84 5,780.57 304.24 368.06
G49E11123 E11123 3026 CONSTRUCTION 41,988.08 41,191.37 2,370.71 150.17 646.54
G50E11046BE11046B 3026 CONSTRUCTION 5.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.45
G50E11047 E11047 3026 CONSTRUCTION 2,804,471.64 1,201,095.74 854,912.30 51,144.90 1,552,231.00
G50E11048 E11048 3026 CONSTRUCTION 36,272.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,272.57
G50E12156 E12156 3026 DESIGN 72.28 36.14 0.00 0.00 36.14
G50E12156BE12156B 3026 CONSTRUCTION 487,921.16 217,708.92 198,687.99 22,059.45 248,152.79
G50E13062 E13062 3026 CONSTRUCTION 378.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 378.94
G51E11047 E11047 3026 CONSTRUCTION 18,901.24 0.00 0.00 7,550.76 11,350.48
G51 E11048 E11048 3026 CONSTRUCTION 72,222.20 30,840.38 30,840.38 18,729.04 22,652.78
G52E11047 E11047 3026 CONSTRUCTION 178,668.06 159,766.84 159,766.84 9,450.61 9,450.61
G52E11048 E11048 3026 CONSTRUCTION 72,222.21 29,420.79 29,420.79 26.134.77 16,666.65
TOTAL FUND 5,988,863.44 3,423,636.04 1,377,278.73 156,398.26 2,408,829.14
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
AS OF August 31, 2015
Run: 09/04/2015 at 9:42 AM
3020 -Apt CIP Grants
Expenditures (Includes Expenditures (Current
Project Description Budget Beginning Balance) Year Only) Encumbrance Unencumbered
G47E11048 E11048 3020 DESIGN 76,186.20 76,186.20 0.00 0.uu 0.00
G48E10075 E10075 3020 CONSTRUCTION 3,122,248.26 3,122,248.26 0.00 0.00 0.00
G48E13062 E13062 3020 CONSTRUCTION 316,114.74 315,782.24 12,864.83 0.00 332.50
G49E11046 E11046 3020 CONSTRUCTION ` 14,547,559.33 13,608,600.29 541,897.45 207,996.23 730,962.81
G49E11046AE11046A 3020 CONSTRUCTION 589,389.35 561,364.91 28,024.44 0.00 28,024.44
G49E11046BE11046B 3020 CONSTRUCTION 486,151.77 3,569.77 3,569.77 0.00 482,582.00
G49E11047 E11047 3020 CONSTRUCTION 1,950.21 1,950.21 0.00 0.00 0.00
G49E11122 E11122 3020 CONSTRUCTION 1,038,951.48 1,035,909.08 51,720.97 3,042.40 0.00
G49E11123 E11123 3020 CONSTRUCTION 374,548.30 370,722.24 21,336.69 3,826.06 0.00
G50E11046AE11046A 3020 CONSTRUCTION 712,338.97 170,803.70 170,803.70 0.00 541,535.27
G50E11046BE11046B 3020 CONSTRUCTION 22,814.10 4,351.50 4,351.50 18,044.10 418.50
G50E11047 E11047 3020 CONSTRUCTION 23,513,403.52 11,181,118.08 7,797,278.65 482,770.42 11,849,515.02
G50E11048 E11048 3020 CONSTRUCTION 326,453.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 326,453.09
G50E12156 E12156 3020 DESIGN 108,945.00 108,945.00 17,595.00 0.00 0.00
G50E12156BE12156B 3020 CONSTRUCTION 3,081,315.92 1,936,691.86 1,788,191.86 198,535.06 946,089.00
G50E13062 E13062 3020 CONSTRUCTION 5,264.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,264.79
G51E11047 E11047 3020 CONSTRUCTION 2,037,829.09 2,037,650.02 1,673,789.42 0.00 179.07
G51E11048 E11048 3020 CONSTRUCTION 4,462,170.91 2,968,096.79 2,490,265.79 372,436.70 1,121,637.42
G52E11047 E11047 3020 CONSTRUCTION 1,571,602.85 1,571,602.85 1,571,582.28 0.00 0.00
G52E11048 E11048 3020 CONSTRUCTION 3,428,397.15 2,004,704.39 2,004,704.39 385,213.19 1,038,479.57
TOTAL FUND 140,356,744.33 121,542,664.27 18,230,313.01 1,671,864.16 17,142,215.90
Change Order
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
AS OF August 31, 2015
Run: 09/04/2015 at 9:42 AM
3020 -Apt CIP Grants
Expenditures (Includes Expenditures (Current
Project Description Budget Beginning Balance) Year Only) Encumbrance Unencumbered
101067 Grt40 Airfield Perimeter Rd 2008 166,293.33 166,293.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
101068 Grt40 Equipment Maint Facility 200 103,569.99 103,569.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
101069 Impry Drng Area VI Ph2 - Grt41 2,051,456.69 2,051,456.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
101070 Rehab Taxiway System -Grt 42 2,073,067.54 2,073,067.54 0.00 0.00 0.00
101071 Grt43 Airfield Equipment and Maint 490,265.63 490,265.63 0.00 0.00 0.00
101073 Modify ARFF Bldg. Const.Grt.44 253,229.38 253,229.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
101074 Const.Maint Eq Bldg PH2 Grt 42 726,932.46 726,932.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
101075 Const Maint Eq Bldg - PH2 44 712,983.62 712,983.62 0.00 0.00 0.00
101076 Const Perimeter Rd -Ph2Grt 41 94,830.01 94,830.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
101077 Const Perimeter Road -Ph2Grt40 1,768,104.47 1,768,104.47 0.00 0.00 0.00
101078 CCIA Terminal Building Addition of 217,327.19 217,327.19 0.00 0.00 0.00
101079 Terminal Roof Replmt Grt 45 169,528.10 169,528.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
101080 Grt45 Terminal Bldg Rehabilitation 487,415.05 487,415.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
101082 Grt45 Const Peri Rd -Ph2 33,018.29 33,018.29 0.00 0.00 0.00
101083 Const Maint Eq Bldg-PH2 Grt 45 376,584.18 376,583.54 0.00 0.00 0.64
500030 33,387.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 33,387.38
E09082 Grt43 Wildlife Hazard Assessment 92,215.67 92,215.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
E09083 Grt43 CCIA Rehabilitate Electrical - 71,367.99 71,367.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
E09084 Grt43 Airport Layout Plan 40,439.53 40,439.53 0.00 0.00 0.00
E10076 Grt41 Runways 31/35 &Taxiway A 6.96 6.96 0.00 0.00 0.00
G41101083 101083 3020 CONSTRUCTION 151,414.50 151,414.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
G41 E09046 E09046 3020 CONSTRUCTION 384,971.74 384,971.84 0.00 0.00 (0.10)
G43101073 101073 3020 CONSTRUCTION 27,974.65 27,974.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
G43E09046 E09046 3020 CONSTRUCTION 172,939.53 172,939.53 0.00 0.00 0.00
G45E09046 E09046 3020 CONSTRUCTION 483,752.84 483,751.96 0.00 0.00 0.88
G45E09082 E09082 3020 CONSTRUCTION 19,083.30 19,083.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
G46E09046 E09046 3020 CONSTRUCTION 2,461,957.51 2,461,934.46 0.00 0.00 23.05
G46E09082 E09082 3020 CONSTRUCTION 15,488.81 15,488.81 0.00 0.00 0.00
G46E09084 E09084 3020 CONSTRUCTION 25,586.35 25,586.35 0.00 0.00 0.00
G46E10076 E10076 3020 CONSTRUCTION 229,922.60 229,922.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
G46E11122 E11122 3020 CONSTRUCTION 46,930.00 46,930.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
G46E11123 E11123 3020 CONSTRUCTION 22,942.50 22,942.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
G46E11135 E11135 3020 CONSTRUCTION 91,749.49 91,749.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
G47E10076 E10076 3020 DESIGN 33,165.44 33,165.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
G47E11045 E11045 3020 DESIGN 413,640.11 413,640.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
G47E11046 E11046 3020 DESIGN 1,126,147.11 1,126,147.10 0.00 0.00 0.01
G47E11046AE11046A 3020 DESIGN 10,870.05 10,870.05 5,510.00 0.00 0.00
G47E11046BE11046B 3020 CONSTRUCTION 42,569.48 42,569.48 42,569.48 0.00 0.00
G47E11047 E11047 3020 DESIGN 931,544.18 894,213.62 4,256.79 0.00 37,330.56
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
AS OF August 31, 2015
Run: 09/04/2015 at 9:42 AM
3020 -Apt CIP Grants
Expenditures (Includes Expenditures (Current
Project Description Budget Beginning Balance) Year Only) Encumbrance Unencumbered
100999 Runways 1331 and 1735 End Drair 720,000.00 720,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
101000 ATCT Tower-Demolition Grt 34 54,413.80 54,413.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
101014 Improve Terminal Bldg-Grt 35 25,732.92 25,732.92 0.00 0.00 0.00
101016 CLIA Gate 7 Demolition 445,962.17 445,962.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
101017 Rehab. Runway 13/31,Ph1,Grt35 508,575.31 508,575.31 0.00 0.00 0.00
101018 Customs/Boarder Patrol Off-34 421,683.38 421,683.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
101019 Customs/Boarder Patrol Off-35 538,131.81 538,131.81 0.00 0.00 0.00
101020 CCIA Master Plan Update 587,839.60 587,839.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
101021 Rnwy13-31 Ltg & Cable Rep1(36) 40,190.04 40,190.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
101022 Rehab.Runway 13/31-Ph1-Grt 36 6,867,107.26 6,867,107.26 0.00 0.00 0.00
101023 CCIA Airfield Drainage Imp. Ph3 172,188.85 172,188.85 0.00 0.00 0.00
101024 CCIA Runway 13 Localizer Relocat 38,118.75 38,118.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
101026 ARFF Vehicle -Grant 36 512,933.50 512,933.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
101028 CCIA Apron Phase 2 -Westside 19,038.08 19,038.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
101029 CCIA Runway 13/31 Drainage Ph 3 1,109,394.51 1,109,394.51 0.00 0.00 0.00
101030 CCIA Runway 17/35 Improvements 301,179.10 301,179.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
101031 Rnwy 13/31 Localizer Reloc(37) 150,678.96 150,678.96 0.00 0.00 0.00
101032 CCIA Drainage Improvements (Pha 237,714.35 237,714.35 0.00 0.00 0.00
101033 Apron Rehab/Expansion (37) 25,218.52 25,218.52 0.00 0.00 0.00
101036 CCIA Gate 7 Demolition (35) 19,970.79 19,970.79 0.00 0.00 0.00
101040 CCIA Runway 17-35, Shoulders, Li! 5,434,256.22 5,434,256.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
101041 CCIA Apron Rehabilitation Project 218,597.28 218,597.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
101042 CCIA West General Aviation Rehat 4,135,561.97 4,135,561.97 0.00 0.00 0.00
101043 Rehab R/W 17/35 (38) 3,390,272.85 3,390,272.85 0.00 0.00 0.00
101044 CCIA Runway Sweeper 142,006.00 142,006.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
101050 Airport Drain.Imp.Ph5Design(38 112,521.80 112,521.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
101051 Drainage Impts. Ph5 Grt 39 56,823.30 56,823.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
101052 CCIA Drainage Improvements Pha: 682,968.27 682,968.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
101053 Drainage Imp.PhVI Const.Grt.39 1,223,687.20 1,223,687.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
101057 Runwayl7-35CommAprPavRepGrt 537,946.16 537,946.16 0.00 0.00 0.00
101058 Benefit Cost Analysis Grt38 68,796.29 68,796.29 0.00 0.00 0.00
101059 CCIA Taxiway System Rehabilitatic 67,629.38 67,629.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
101060 WestGA.Recon-Ph2 ApronGrt39 2,379,167.45 2,379,167.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
101061 CCIA Airfield Drainage Improvemer 168,801.68 168,801.68 0.00 0.00 0.00
101062 CCIA Taxiway System Signage/Lig' 77,908.52 77,908.52 0.00 0.00 0.00
101063 WestGA-Recon.Ph2-Apron Grt 37 529,646.34 529,646.34 0.00 0.00 0.00
101064 Rehab.Taxiw.Sys.Ph2Grt39 7,825.85 7,825.85 0.00 0.00 0.00
101065 Rehab Taxiway Sys Ph2 - Grt 40 18,947.22 18,947.22 0.00 0.00 0.00
101066 Grt40 ARFF Building Renov 2008 177,430.99 177,430.99 0.00 0.00 0.00
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES
AS OF August 31, 2015
Run: 09/04/2015 at 9:42 AM
3020 -Apt CIP Grants
Expenditures (Includes Expenditures (Current
Project Description Budget Beginning Balance) Year Only) Encumbrance Unencumbered
100010 Terminal Improvements 1995, Pha: 884,519.00 884,519.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
100050 Elec Imps/Sweeper/Lift 19 1,562,914.88 1,562,914.88 0.00 0.00 0.00
100060 Commercial Apron Rehabilitation 420,676.89 420,676.89 0.00 0.00 0.00
100070 Terminal Space Study/Plan 580,016.57 580,016.57 0.00 0.00 0.00
100080 ARFF Facility (19) 1,378,403.73 1,378,403.73 0.00 0.00 0.00
100105 Airfield Access Road 69,636.00 69,636.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
100106 Airfield access roads-Grant3l 57,868.42 57,868.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
100110 TW G Pav & Ltg/W Ga Apr 20 1,179,558.28 1,179,558.28 0.00 0.00 0.00
100120 Art Museum of South Texas Emerg 400,000.00 400,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
100130 Terminal Construction Program 19. 729,875.17 729,875.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
100160 Terminal Building Asbestos Abaterr 217,200.78 217,200.78 0.00 0.00 0.00
100180 Automated Access Control System 526,025.23 526,025.23 0.00 0.00 0.00
100190 Terminal Building Roof Structure Ar 163,515.42 163,515.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
100200 West GA Apron Drainage and Taxi\ 476,180.33 476,180.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
100700 Taxiway F Extension (21) 898,064.75 898,064.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
100701 CCIA Taxiway B4 Widening betwee 523,511.15 523,511.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
100710 ARFF Truck (20) 311,127.66 311,127.66 0.00 0.00 0.00
100711 ARFF Vehicle Replacement (30) 558,552.00 558,552.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
100720 Airfield Ltg Monitor Sys(22) 7,185.65 7,185.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
100725 Airfield Lighting Improvements 550,113.27 550,113.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
100726 Airfield Light Ctrl Syst-Grt32 29,471.27 29,471.27 0.00 0.00 0.00
100730 ARFF San Sewer Imps (19) 36,878.51 36,878.51 0.00 0.00 0.00
100740 TW G/Arff Access Rd (19) 40,106.30 40,106.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
100750 R/W 17-35 Pavement Rehab(23) 570,643.44 570,643.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
100760 R/W 13/31 Repair/Drg 24 591,186.01 591,186.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
100770 Term/Canopy/Generator 24 89,851.37 89,851.37 0.00 0.00 0.00
100900 Commercial Apron Rehabilitation - 225,000.00 225,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
100930 New Terminal Bldg(25) 1,674,401.12 1,674,401.12 0.00 0.00 0.00
100931 New Terminal Bldg Grant (24) 545,932.37 545,932.37 0.00 0.00 0.00
100960 New Terminal Bldg (22) 373,298.19 373,298.19 0.00 0.00 0.00
100966 Terminal temp facilities-Grt24 836,477.48 836,477.48 0.00 0.00 0.00
100967 CCIA Temporary Facilities of Termi 428,892.65 428,892.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
100968 Modify Terminal Bldg (28) 7,416,897.00 7,416,897.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
100970 Terminal Apron Improvements 200( 1,226,175.31 1,226,175.31 0.00 0.00 0.00
100971 Terminal Apron Improvements 200( 1,716,342.46 1,716,342.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
100972 Apron Lighting(PBL) Grt32 204,392.70 204,392.70 0.00 0.00 0.00
100980 High Reach ARFF Equipment(27) 127,314.00 127,314.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
100997 Access Control (34) 222,261.90 222,261.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
100998 CCIA Terminal Const Program 200( 3,801,101.92 3,801,101.92 0.00 0.00 0.00
Brenda White
From: Norma Ortiz [Airport]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 9:13 AM
To: Melinda Cantu-Martin; Brenda White; Lynda Herndon
Cc: Mario Tapia;Victor Gonzalez
Subject: RE: Change Orders
Funding will as follows
Bay Change Order 4
AU Account Activity Account Amount
3020-274 550910 E110471503020C 50910 $ 67,063.43
3026-274 550910 E110471503026C 50910 7,451.50
Bay Change Order 16
AU Account Activity Account Amount
3020-274 550910 E110462493020C 50910 $ 243,000.00
3026-274 550910 E110462493026C 50910 27,000.00
Norma
From: Melinda Cantu-Martin
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 3:22 PM
To: Brenda White; Lynda Herndon
Cc: Norma Ortiz [Airport]
Subject: RE: Change Orders
Brenda & Lynda,
FYI Airport is checking with Budget to find out if we can continue to route these change orders with "anticipated"
funding
Basically, Airport can provide us a funding account, but the funds will not be in there as the item still needs to go to
Council.
Regards,
Melinda Cantu-Martin
Finance and Resource Management Superintendent
Capital Programs
City of Corpus Christi
361-826-3777 phone
MelindaCM@cctexas.com
From: Melinda Cantu-Martin
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 8:15 AM
To: Norma Ortiz [Airport]
Cc: Brenda White; Lynda Herndon
Subject: RE: Change Orders
Good Morning Norma,
Lynda is out today, but I'll have Brenda send you the information.
Lynda can you please forward a copy of the two change orders.
Thanks
Norma
From: Lynda Herndon
Sent:Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:52 AM
To: Norma Ortiz [Airport]
Cc: Melinda Cantu-Martin
Subject: Change Orders
Importance: High
Norma,
I have two Change Orders that need funding sources.
1. Runway 13-31 Runway Extension—Change Order#4 in the amount of$74,514.93. This is for adding drainage
to edge light cans, Runway 31 MALSR cable,video taping runway 13-31 storm water systems and crack sealing
taxiways D and E.
2. Runway 17-35 Runway Extension—Change Order#16 in the amount of$270,000. This is for full, complete and
final payment to the contractor for this project as a result of extra milling and project delays.
Please provide funding sources.
Thanks