The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWK September 23, 2002 CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755,5100 Flu\: (763) 755-8923 . W\'VWCI.ANDOVERMN.US CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY\YMCA PARTNERSHIP ISSUES COMMUNITY CENTER WORKSHOP CONFERENCE ROOM A September 23,2002 - 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Agenda 3. Partnership Discussions with the YMCA a. Occasional Use Memberships b. Family and Single Membership Rates c. Facility Lease Commitments d. Anticipated Facility Use Projections e. Membership Programming vs Occasional Public Use f. r'MCA Facility Design Issues g. Other Partnership Issues 4. Project Budget Estimate Comparisons (presented at Meeting) 5. Updated Project Cash Flow Analyses (presented at Meeting) 6. Project Management Approach - (Attachments) 7. Other Business 8. Adjourn (f) / \ CITY OF ANDOVER '- / , 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NoW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755,5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.cJ.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Project Management Approach - Comparative Analysis DATE: September 23, 2002 INTRODUCTION Attached, please find information received from Tom Durand, Director of Administrative Services for the Anoka-Hennepin School District on the two construction management approaches currently allowed under state law for public facility construction. The information is directly related to traditional Design-Bid-Build vs. Construction Management (CM). I believe this information should be helpful to Council and others in understanding the key differences between general contracting and construction management approaches. \ DISCUSSION ) The School District utilized a construction management approach in the building of the new Andover High School, as did the City of Coon Rapids in the construction of their new City Hall/Police Station/Civic Center facility in 1996. Council should be aware that the attached literature is from companies that advocate the construction management approach over the traditional general contracting approach. I would agree with Tom Durand that the attached information offers a succinct description of the two building delivery approaches currently in use. Based on personal professional experiences and in discussions with Tom Durand and City Engineer Scott Erickson, the following key points should be emphasized: . Public bidding is required in both approaches whether through a total project bid by a general contractor or through individual bid packages prepared and administered by the CM. "Low" bids in either process are generally required to be accepted by the City unless there is a legally bona fide reason for rejection. Public bidding is controlled by state statute and the City is required to observe statutory requirements on public bidding. . A CM approach is an added-value service above the traditional role of a general contractor. Consequently, the cost for this added value service is not free and is charged as part of a percentage of total construction costs through a professional consulting contract service. . A CM will charge for their services in both preparing/administering individual bid packages and serving in the role of the general contractor on the site. Typically, fees for a CM to serve , as a general contractor on the site are similar to what a general contractor will charge as part \ ) of their bid in coordinating on-site subcontractors and monitoring project completion. Both approaches are profit driven in terms of the services provided. , . Under the CM approach, working direcdy with as many as 20 to 30 individual J subcontractors on a project can be more challenging, time consuming and complex as the City, through the CM serves to select individual subcontractors. Issues such as union vs non- union contractors or sub-contractors who have never worked together on a major project can result in time delays and miscommunication. Tom Durand indicated that their experiences with a CM approach relative to subcontractors were generally more challenging and complex than a General Contractor approach. . A General Contractor typically selects subcontractors based on the previous work experience of the subcontractor and usually avoids subcontractors that are low quality or problematic. A CM approach requires the City to select sub-contractors based on the lowest qualified bid, unless there is a legally bona-fide reason for rejection, making it more difficult to avoid troublesome subcontractors in the process. . Under a CM approach, decisions typically made by the General Contractor on selecting sub- contractors are shifted to staff adding additional time and paperwork attributed to the public bidding process. . With respect to building warranty issues, it can be more challenging for the City to go after individual subcontractors as opposed to working with a single general contractor who is responsible for the entire facility warranty and all related building systems. The highlights above should not be interpreted to suggest that a CM approach is problematic or that my office is opposed to a Construction Manager, but is provided to offer Council a balanced perspective on the pros and cons associated with the two approaches. The attached literature \ provides a very positive view of the CM approach as it relates to project management. \. ) ACTION REQUIRED For Council discussion and review. Staff is willing to offer a recommendation on the preferred construction management approach if requested. \. \. > ) CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755,8923 . WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Project Budget Estimates DATE: September 23, 2002 INTRODUCTION Attached, please find information regarding project budget estimates for the proposed Community Center. DISCUSSION Firms contacted by my office were asked to provide facility budget estimates to enable the validation of previous preliminary project budget estimates and to establish a project budget that is reflective of current market conditions. All firms were provided with the same direction regarding facility components and were asked to provide square footage costs on each individual component, anticipated fees; furniture, fixture and equipment (FFE) estimates; and a recommended project contingency. All firms were told the City was looking to construct a facility with modest architectural details, pre-cast construction with limited brick accenting and a very cost-effective building design mass. Several of the firms contacted had experience with full-scale community centers, stand-alone ice arenas, with some firms have limited or no recent experience with aquatic facilities. The architectural firm of Ankeny-Kell had the most recent experience with full-scale community centers similar to what Andover is proposing in the cities of Inver Grove Heights, Chaska, Monticello and Maple Grove. StaW Construction and TKDA are currently involved in the construction of the Eagan Community Center, that facility includes a gymnasium/ field house and meeting rooms, but does not include an aquatic center. Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik (BRA) also had very recent experience with aquatic centers ~10nticello) and is completing an ice arena project for the City of Austin. In review, staff believes that the majority of project budget estimates received reflects an accurate picture of costs the City will most likely encounter in constructing the proposed Community Center. ACTION REQUIRED For Council information and discussion. ""'P'~- i!LE= City Administrator ~ Bonestroo Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates. Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals; Otto G. Bonestroo, PE. . Marvin L. Sarvala, P.E. . Glenn R. Cook, PE. . Robert G. Schunjcht. r.E. . ., Rosene Jerry A. Bourdon, PE. L'1il RilU ; IN Anderti/< & Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, PE. . Joseph C. Anderlik, p.E. . Richard E. Turner, P.E. . Susan M. Eberlin, c.P.A. Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E. . Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. . Richard W. Foster, PE. . David O. L05kota. P.E. . .. Associates Mark A. Hanson, P.E. . Michael T. R(lutmann, PE. . Ted K. Field, P.E. . Kenneth P. Anderson, F':E. . Mark R. Rolfs. PE. . David A. Bonestroo. M.B.A. . Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. . Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. . Allan Rick Schmidt. P.E. . Engineers & Architects Thomas W. Peterson, PE. . James R. Maland. PE. . Miles B. Jensen, PE. . L Phillip Gravel III, P:E. . Daniel J. Edgerton, PE. . IsmaeJ Martinez, P.E. . Thomas A. Syfko. PE. . Sheldon J. Johnson. Dale A. Grove, P.E. . Thomas A. Roushar, PE. . Robert J. Devery, PE. Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud. Rochester and WilImar, MN . Milwaukee. WI . Chicago, Il Website; www.bonestroo.com August 26, 2002 John Erar City Administrator City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd NW Andover, MN 55304-2612 Dear John, It was a pleasure to have you visit our offices recently and discuss the upcoming community center project taking shape in Andover. We understand that the Task Force has completed its charge and that further advancement of the project will come through the city staff/council. \ We wanted to follow up with you to confirm cost figures discussed at our recent meeting. We understand ) your concerns that the construction cost estimates currently being used may be low. Based on developing more realistic numbers, your desire to have the council consider 1) increasing the budget, or 2) reducing the scope, certainly seems appropriate. As a general basis for budgeting, we understand your overall design criteria to mean that the proposed building must: 1. Be aesthetically pleasing 2. Harmonize with the context of the existing city hall campus site 3. Be complementary to the existing city hall architecture 4. Have distinguishing features, but at a reasonable cost We understand the primary components to be: . Field house; gynmasium . Ice arena . Indoor aquatic facility Our recent experience may be of assistance to you in budgeting construction costs. As mentioned at our meeting, bids were just recently received for a new ice arena for the City of Austin. Bid costs for this 36,430 sq. ft. facility, including sitework, came in at $3,585,500, or $98.42 / sq. ft. This project is currently under construction. Senior Architect Gunnar Unger was the project manager/architect for the Monticello community center a few years ago, while employed by others. That facility's cost, which also included site work, was $124/ sq. ft. We believe the estimate currently carried for the aquatics portion of your program-$15 1.72 / sq. ft.-is on the very low end of the cost range for this type offacility. A figure of$180 / sq. ft. is more in line with current costs for the facility you contemplate. 2335 West Highway 36 . St. Paul, MN 55113 . 651-636-4600 . Fax: 651-636-1311 City of Andover August 26, 2002 '\ Page 2 I "Soft costs" include project development costs other than the construction cost - design fees and construction administration/surveillance; site surveying; materials testing; and city legal and accounting costs. These costs can be budgeted at an additional15percent. The costs of furnishings, furniture and equipment (FF&E) are generally in addition to construction costs. The level of anticipated expense can vary greatly, depending on the quality and on the items that may be provided by the user groups. For example, might the School District provide fitness equipment? For budget purposes, these costs can be estimated at 3 to 5 percent. Summing up, your project-specific program and estimated costs are conservatively reflected below. Component Size (SF) Sq. Ft. cost Cost Totals Field house / gymnasium 59,000 $80.00 $4,720,000 Ice arena 37,500 95.00 3,562,500 Indoor aquatic facility 14,500 185.00 2,682,500 Parking lot / access / landscaping 500,000 Subtotal $11,465,000 Contingency (a'J 20% 2,293,000 Totals 111,000 $13,758,000 /\ FF&E (a'J 3% 412,700 ) Development costs (a'J 15% 2,063,700 Total estimated project cost $16,234,400 For a preliminary schedule, 9-10 months for design and a month for bidding is a generally adequate timeline in "normal" situations and will require prompt review and decision-making by the City's representatives. City review works best in the form of a design committee totaling no more than 5 to 7 people, where only one person is empowered to convey instructions and city decisions to the architect. On large projects like this, an Owner's Representative is sometimes employed to fill that role. For example, while we were retained by the National Sports Center in Blaine for design and construction administration of the four-sheet Schwan's Super Rink, we enjoyed working with Don Poss, who had been hired as the Owner's Rep. In Andover's case, we understand that the school, YMCA, hockey association and four other user groups will be stakeholders. It will be important for the design committee and architect to efficiently and timely consider the issues and interests of these groups. Such efforts may well result in extending the design timeline. We do believe it is important for conceptual drawings and cost estimates to be completed before initiating your capital campaign. Renderings can be created to help you and your consultant communicate the vision of the facility to the community. Preliminary costs based on an actual program and floor plan will give your budgeting and funding picture needed credibility. I' \, / City of Andover August 26, 2002 / Page 3 All in all, this project will be an exciting addition to the City of Andover. We would be honored to be a part of its development and look forward to helping you in any way as you move forward. Please feel welcome to call me at (651) 604-4759 or the head of our Architectural Group, Morgan Markoe at (651) 604-4784 any time you have any questions or would like some specific information. Sincerely, B NESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. J,m, RMr:~ Ass iate Principal efRecreational Facilities Engineer , John Erar From: Duane A. Kell [dakell@ankenykell.com] A n kt~ Illf - J(;JJ 1ent: Friday. September 20, 2002 3:00 PM fo: John Erar (E-mail) Cc: "Ron Ankeny" Subject: Community Center Costs l!J ATHLETIC FACIL_sCcosts.xls John, We have taken an historic, analytic approach to the cost questions for which you had requested information. We have broken out costs on three different recent projects which have use components similar to your proposed community center program. The costs may vary somewhat because of scale, but we believe them to be the most reliable source of information since these are competitively bid and built projects. Also, with regard to the field house, this is truly a field house with 4 basketball courts on the infield and a running track on the perimeter with divider curtains. The floor is a multi-use surface by Mondo, a very high quality floor surface. The Andover Model Field house is large enough for three basketball courts on the infield and a perimeter track based on the program area. Please give me a call next week if you have questions. I will call to review the cost information with you next week. Thank you. Duane Duane A. Kell, FAIA Ankeny Kell Architects, P.A. g21 Raymond Avenue, Suite 400 3t. Paul, MN 55114 Voice: (651) 645-6806 Fax: (651) 645-0079 Direct: (651) 632-5201 www.ankenykell.com dakell@ankenykell.com (W(/W AM ~ r~~ . TJ,;, ~~ VV\ : . '>>~ ~ · In,;rnM: ~ . . T t\ VVI' ()..v1tM, tlui~ , ~!r-g... . ).t. &~ V~ 1 John Erar From: Duane A. Kell [dakell@ankenykell.com] (----\! Sent: Monday, September 23,200212:49 PM \ / To: John Erar (E-mail) Subject: Andover CC Project Budget l!J ATHLETIC FACIL_sf_costs.xls John, Reflecting on our discussion, I have attached a new document which adds project costs. Please be aware if the question arises ". ..can it be built less expensively... " the answer is yes. However, until the process of program verification and design commences, this would be a reliable budget. As I mentioned the CM fee could be considered included in the construction cost figures of $111.00 per sq ft since these are actual bid amounts which included general conditions and contractor overhead and profit. The fee for a CM would be in the range of 6%. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Duane Duane A. Kell, FAIA Ankeny Kel1 Architects, P.A. 821 Raymond Avenue, Suite 4DO St. Paul, MN 55114 Voice: (651) 645-6806 Fax: ( 651) 645-0079 Direct: (651) 632-52D1 / '\ www.ankenykell.com J dakell@ankenykell.com ; '-, / 1 SUMMARY OF HISTORIC COSTS. Ankeny Kell Architects, St. Paul, MN I MODEL PROGRAM 1999 Aquatics Cost $163.26 IsI IGH 33.538 SF $5,47S.442 1999 Fitness and Support Cost' $113.02 IsI IGH 37,211 SF $4.205,680 1999 Field House Cost $77.82 IsI MSU 63.860 SF $4.969.761 2001 Ice Arena Cost $78.87 IsI BUF 41.295 SF $3.256.879 $101.80 175,904 SF $17,907,762 ANDOVER MODEL PROGRAM. Spring 2004 BID/CONSTRUCTION Aquatics Cost $189.26 Isf IGH inflated to 2004 14,500 SF $2.744.329 Fitness and Support Cost $131,02 Isf IGH inflated to 2004 25,000 SF $3,275.601 Field House Cost $90.22 Isf MSU inflated to 2004 34,000 SF $3.067,409 Ice Arena Cost $86.18 Isf aUF inflated to 2004 37,500 SF $3.231.819 $110.98 111,000 SF $12.319.158 $15.1S1.394 , Includes Lobby/Entry. Aerobics. Fitness. Running Track. Racquetball, banquet/meeting. and offices. This is an estimate for good quality spaces. With the blend 01 space the Andover program includes. .~(.o the average cost per square foot can be anticipated to be $111 per sf for 2004 bid in a normal construction climate. C, \ (~ Note that the parking lot cost lor 150 cars is included in the IGH cost per square foot lor both aquatics and fitness. / ~fJ No contingency is incliuded. The Project should carry a 10% contingency at the planning and design phase. {lO Other Estimated Project Costs ~~I ~p 1 Site Acquisition Lump Sum NA 2 Site Demolition Lump Sum NA ~\ 3 Bond Issue Costs I Fees (No Capitalized Interest) 2% of Project costs 80,~00 i!-f~ 4 Construction Contingency (at Bid date) 5% of Canst. Costs 615,958 ~ rr s Furniture Fixtures and Equipment (FFE) Lump Sum 350.000 / 6 Professional Fees (Arch, Eng. Speciality', and Reimb exp) 8% of Const. Costs 985,533 / 7 Special Inspections I Testing o.s% of Const. Costs 61.596,j , ) 8 City Administration Costs (Owner rep costs. Bid set printing. etc.) 1% of Cansl Costs 123,192.1 9 Owner Contingency 5% of Canst. Costs 615,958 2,832,236 Total 18.69% Total Project Cost $15.151.394 .p~:';':" t S#O,~ . Speciality engineering includes Aquatics, Ice Refrigeration, kitchen, etc. WgLU ~~~~:;,; ~ m' I" III Ili !: L August 9, 2002 I' 305 ST. PETER STREET CITY OF ANDOVER ST. PAUL., MN 55102 John Erar 651.227.7773 651.223.5646 FAX City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW 25 SOUTH GROVE AVE. Andover, Minnesota 55304 SUITE 500 ELGIN, IL 60120 Re: Proposed Community Center 847.608.2600 847.608.2654 FAX 901 TOWER DRIVE, Dear John: SUITE 325 TRey, MI 4809B We have been asked to comment on potential costs for the Community Center which 248.879.9888 248.879,9S84 FAX the City is studying. We understand a fieldhouse, indoor pool, and ice arena are being considered. We have reviewed costs for these components and can provide WWW.WDLDAE.CDM experience and research which will provide insight for the city's preliminary MAIL@?vIOLDAE.COM budgeting. Fieldhouses - These facilities can vary in cost due to the exterior walls and ) qualities of floor finishes such as wood or synthetic as well as the underlayment of concrete or bituminous. Additional issues relate to activity dividers between program uses and exterior finishes. We believe a target cost of$98 psffor construction beginning late 2003/early 2004 is appropriate. The estimated average as listed in Means Building Construction Cost Data, 2002 Edition is $83 to 106 psf. We have completed fieldhouses in Hastings and South St. Paul, with local School Districts, and a fieldhouse for the City of Redwood Falls Community Center which support these costs. Ice Arenas - These facilities can vary in cost due to exterior walls and qualities of finishes and systems mostly related to year-round usage versus Fall/Winter/ Spring. Sufficient humidification is an important requirement for summer usage. We believe a target cost of $114 psf for construction late 2003/early 2004 is appropriate. The estimated average as listed in Means Building Construction Cost Data, 2002 Edition is $85 to $116 psf. We have recently completed an ice arena with the Redwood Falls Community Center which supports these costs. Indoor Pool/Aquatics Center- The costs of the equipment portion of these facilities is approximately $750,000 which includes pool filtration, pool, slides, and miscellaneous. The facility to house the indoor pool costs approximately $85 psf. This creates a psf cost of approximately $141 psf. . . . . . - '\ Letter to John Erar Page Two The estimated average as listed in Means Building Construction Cost Data, 2002 Edition is $131 to $183 psf. We have recently completed indoor pools in Savage, River Falls, Eagan, Winona, and Apple Valley which support these costs. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS The resulting total project budget utilizing the previously outlined conceptual square foot costs and factoring in what are sometimes called "soft costs", would create the following: Fieldhouse ($98 psf x 59,000 sf) $ 5,782,000 Ice Arena ($114 psf x 37,500 sf) $ 4,275,000 Pool/Aquatics ($141 psf x 14,500 sf) $ 2,044,000 Site costs $ 500,000 Subtotal $12,601,000 F '\ Contingency $ 650,000 FF&E $ 150,000 All Design fees including testing $ 1340,000 TOTAL $14,742,000 The above construction cost of $12,601,000 is approximately $113.50 psf. New High Schools are currently $122 psf or more. We believe the costs outlined are basic and adequate, but contain no "frills." However, should the budget be less than we've outlined, several options exist to meet a lesser budget such as reducing areas, reducing components, etc. Any of which we would be vel)' willing to discuss the approaches and results. We understand the City is studying Community Center feasibility. Please let me know if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS / " I ;' CK/9999/aug02 1'0 u SEP. 23. 2002 9: 15AM STAHL CONSTRUCTION NO. 1893 P. 1 STAHL Stahl Construction Company - 5900 Rowland KOild. Mmnctonkil. Minneso\C\ 55.343.952.931-9300. fax 952.931-\19'1] construction September 23. 2002 miJnClgement design/ilulld Mr. John Erar preconstruction City Administrator ~crvice, City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW QenE'cr~1 Andover. MN 55304 oontrecting Re: Andover Community Center - Estimates Dear Mr. Erar: Thank you again for taking time to meet with us last week. Based on the information you shared with us, we have compiled a project cost estimate that should aid you in your efforts to educate the City Council on current market costs for a facility that will meet the needs of the citizens of Andover for years to come. Keep in mind, this is a conceptual buaget estimate. When you establish the owner/architecVconstruction manager team, a I more refined budget can be developed based on defined materials and systems that are specified for the facility. If you have any further questions or need more information, please give me a call. Thank you again for your time and we look forward to receiving a RFP for construction management services for this exciting project. Sincerely, STAHL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ~M~~ Cathy M. Schmidt Vice President I The Difference Is Measured In Pciformance www.stahlconslructJon.com I\n 1IJ1ilmativc Action, .equal Opportunity Employer r,n ~~ ~nn~ n~.~~ 1:::1-'0"<100111 PQ('".;t= lA1 SEP. 23. 2002 9: 16AM STAHL CONSTRUCTION NO, 1893 P. 2 CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BUDGET CITY OF ANDOVER COMMUNITY CENTER '\ ANDOVER, MINNESOTA DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT SUBTOTALS TOTAL PLANNING PRICE COST/SF COMMUNITY CENTER - 111,000 SF I 14.900,000 I 134 I Fees and Services 1 Is 950,000 950,000 FFE 1 Is 1,000,DOO 1,000,000 , Contingency 1 Is 1,000,000 1 ,000,000 2,950,000 Site Development 1 Allowance 500,000 500,000 Field House 59,000 sf 100 5,900,000 : Ice Arena 37,500 sf 90 3.375,000 Community Pool 14.500 sf 150 2,175,000 11,950,000 , I ..... / PREF>ARED BY STAHL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1 0912312002 SEP 23 2002 09:22 6129319941 PAGE. 02 E & V C<9NSUL T ANTS C<9NSTRUCTI<9N lvtANAGERS , September 23,2002 Mr. John Erar City Administrator City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 RE: Andover Community Center Conceptual Budget Dear John: Enclosed is the conceptual budget for the community center based on the information you provided. The following are comments regarding the budget. . The budget assumes a construction start of 2003. . Administrative costs associated with the project are those items normally provided by the owner over and above design fees and construction costs. . Design fees and reimbursables are assumed to be 7.8% of construction cost. This is a middle ofthe road budget. We have seen fees range from as low as 5.5% to as high as 9.0% for new construction of this type. '\ ) . The construction costs include a $500,000 site budget as we discussed. The square foot costs for the building components are based on experience from past projects. In addition, the costs were validated with RS Means, adjusted for Andover. They assume a mid-range quality of construction. . The furnishings budget is based on 2.5% of the construction cost. This number can very widely from project to project depending on the level of furnishings desired by the City. . The technology budget is assumed to be 0.5% of the construction cost. It assumes voice and data systems for the facility. Technology budgets can very depending on the sophistication of the systems desired. . We have assumed a construction contingency of 5%. This should be adequate for a new facility being constructed on a site with suitable soils. If you have any questions regarding the budget please contract me. We would be willing to discuss the budget requirements in person with you and your committee. Very truly yours, E&V CONSULTANTS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS Barry Badinger Vice President Enclosure / cc: Bob Struve - E& V E& V Consultants and Construction Managers OWNER: CITY OF ANDOVER DA TE_: 20.Sep~2~J PROJECT: NEW COMMUNITY CENTER REV#_: 9:59 AM := / " LOCATlON: ANDOVER, MINNESOTA PROJ#_: TInE: PREUMINARY BUDGET OUTLINE FILE# AndowfBud2 E&V~"':',..".. NEW SQ. FT. 111,000 2003 Construction Start Assumed flclllty size: (gross squire feet) Field House / Gymnasium 59,000 SF Ice Arena 37,500 SF Indoor Aquatics ParK 14.500 Total Gross square footage 111,000 SF UNE COSTI BUILOING COST SUB PERCENT NO. DESCRIPTION BUILOING SF SF TOTAL TOTAL 1 100 ADMINI$TRA TION 111,000 $ 1.36 $150,500 0.99% 2 ADMINISTRATION (INCLUDES THE FOLLOVVlNG) $ 150,500 3 SITE SURVEYS ANO TOPOGRAPHY 1 ALLW $ 4,000 4 GEOLOGICAL TESTING (SOIL BORINGS) 1 ALLW $ 4.500 5 PLAN REVlEW FEES 1 ALLW $ 21,000 6 MATERIAL TESTING 1 ALLW $ 35,000 7 BUILDER'S RISK INSURANCE 1 ALLW $ 26.000 8 DOCUMENT PRINTING 1 ALLW $ 60.000 9 10 200 FEES 111,000 $ 12.21 $1,355.280 8.87% 11 DESIGN FEES AND REIMBURSA8lES 1 ALLW $ 995,280 $ 995.280 12 CONSTR MANAGEMENT (incl. site supervision) 1 ALLW $ 360,000 $ 360,000 13 14 15 300 CONSTRUCTlON 111.000 $ 114.95 $12.760.000 83.54% 16 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 17 FIELD HOUSE /GYMNASIUM 59,000 SQFT $ 100 $ 5.900,000 18 ICE ARENA 37,500 SQFT $ 100 $ 3.750.000 19 INDOOR AQUATICS PARK 14.500 SQFT $ 180 $ 2,610.000 20 SITE Vv'ORK 1 ALLW $ 500,000 $ 500,000 21 22 400 FURNISHINGS 111,000 $ 2n $307,000 2.01% 23 LOOSE FURNISHINGS I EQUIPMENT 1 ALLW $ 307,000 $ 307,000 24 25 500 TECHNOLOGY 111,000 $ 0.58 $64,000 0.42% 26 TELEPHONE/DATA 1 ALLW $ 64,000 $ 64.000 27 28 600 CONTINGENCY 111.000 $ 5.75 $638,000 4.18% / '\ 29 DESIGN CONTINGENCY (0%) 1 AllW $ , $ 30 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (5%) 1 ALLW $ 638.000 $ 638.000 31 32 700 FINANCING 111,000 $ $0 0.00% 33 FINANCING COSTS 1 AllW $ , $ 34 , 35 36 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 137.61 $15.274,780 100,00% '\ I Page 1 ;TKDA TOL TZ. KING. DUVALL. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES. INCORPORATED ENGINEERS. ARCHITECTS. PLANNERS '500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55'01,2140 PHONE: 651/292-4400 FAX: 651/292-0083 September 20, 2002 ~ IE IEI'U~ Mr. John F. Erar SEP 2 3 2002 V City Administrator City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW CITY OF ANDOVER Andover, Minnesota 55304-2612 -- Re: Andover Community Center Dear Mr. Erar: This letter is written in response to your request for General Budget information for construction of the types offacilities to be included in the Community Center proposed for the City of Andover. We have considerable experience with sports and recreation facilities, and are also the architects and engineers for the New Community center for the City of Eagan, which is presently under construction. The budget information provided is based on this background and experience, and on typical per square foot costs for these types of facilities. Our background with your specific project, however, is limited at this time, so the information provided is very general. More specific cost information will be developed as the design / of the project progresses. We have experience with all forms of project delivery systems, including design!bid/build, design!build, and construction management. It is our opinion that the Owner has most control with the traditional design-bid build approach. The Contractor has most control with a Design/Build approach. The City of Eagan has retained a construction manager for their community center; however, the Owner holds 36 separate contracts with contractors, which has required more design coordination during the construction phase. There is no simple answer, and much depends on the specific contractor or construction manager. We would recommend that the basic design be completed prior to contractor involvement, so the Owner has design and quality control, but we also see the advantage of negotiating with a general contractor early in the process offers better cost control. We hope the attached information will be helpful to you. We are very willing to meet with you at any time to discuss all of this in more detail. We look forward to the opportunity to submit a proposal to work with you on this project. WJAlmas Enclosure j Dean Johnson, TKDA cc: Kathryn Poore-Larson, TKDA An Equal Opportunity Employer or \ City Of Andover/Community Center ) Preliminary Budget Fieldhouse/Gvmnasium Buildinl!: $100/sfnational avg Add 10% for Minnesota Construction $100/sfx 1.1 MN = $lIO/sf 48,000 sf x $11 O/sf = $5,280,000 Add $1 O/SF for Fixed Equipment 48,000 sf x $120/sf = $5,760,000 Support Facilities, lockers, etc. 59,000 - 48,000 = 11,000 sfx $ 130/sf = $1,430,000 Furnishings, and Equipment $200,000 $6,430,000 to $7,390,000 Say $6,500,000 to $7,500,000 Budget Ice Arena Buildinl!: $120/sf - National Average Add 10% for Minnesota Construction $120/sfx 1.1 MN = $132/sf 32,000 sfx $ 132/sf = $4,224,000 Add $1 O/SF for Fixed Equipment 32,000 sfx $ 142/sf= $4,544,000 Support Facilities, lockers, etc. 39,500 - 32,000 = 7,500 sfx $ 130/sf= $975,000 Furnishings and Equipment $200,000 $5,719,000 Say $5,000,000 to $5,700,000 Budget AQuatics Buildinl!: , , $173/sf x - National Average add 10% for Minnesota Construction $173/sfx 1.1 MN = $190/sf 11,500 sf x $190/sf = $2,185,500 Add 10% for Fixed Equipment 11,500 sf x $200/sf = $2,300,000 Support Facilities, lockers, etc. 14,500 - 11,500 = 3,000 sfx $150/sf= $450,000 Furnishings and Equipment $200,000 $2,662,500 to $2,950,000 Say $2,600,000 to $3,000,000 Totals Say 14,000,000 to $16,000,000 Site Land/survey /utilities/ gradinglparkingllightingllandscaping/signage Budget $500,000 We also recommend that you implement the following. Assume 10% for Fees and proiect administration And add a 10% Continl!:encv to the proiect total Also add 3% inflation for each Year after 2002 For comparative purposes, the Community Center is costing $ 145/sf without site work and /- '\ furnishings. , I Basic Ice Arenas are costing $ 130/sf. .,!. ---- M.310 I Gymnasium ~r'\ ~^ 0V"v- x' 1) ""''l:.-, ~p ~'~:y~') ~I> . \ " , Il . t~ III . . . ;~ - -. - --=:.- ~--- ----------=- - Costs per .square foot of floor area . )12000 16000. i2oooo>25000' . 30()()()' 1'.35000 ,')40000.i.A5000/! 50000];Q . . .. - '.". "-.' ,.... .. ",' : :':.c': ;>' ,','. ":",,::,, i.--':~',~'~, l.:,,_,',. :":', W ',446 520 ,600 700 708>' 780 ':841 '>410 '" 197..90'\." C lam. Wood Arches 107.95 103.80 101.30 99.30 96.30 95.15 94.10 93.45 92.90 - Reinforced .. ~ Concrete Block Rigid Steel Frame 106]5 102.55 100.10 98.10 95.10 93.95 92.90 92.25 91]0 - Z lam. Wood Arches 125.20 119.05 115.40 112. 107.40 105.60 104.00 102.95 102.10 Q Face Brick with ::!, Concrete Block Bock.up Rigid Steel Frame 123.95 117.85 114.20 11 1.25 106.20 104.40 102.80 101]5 100.90 . ) Melal Sandwich lam. Wood Arches 104.25 100.55 98.30 96.50 93.95 92.90 92.00 91.40 90.95 eft Panels Rigid Steel Frame 99.35 97.10 92.75 89]0 103.05 95.30 91.70 90.80 90.20 Perimeter Adi., Add or Deduct Per 100 LE 4.55 3.40 2.75 2.20 1.85 1.55 1.35 1.20 1.10 Slory Hgt. Adj., Add or Deduct Per 1 Ft. .65 .55 .50 .50 .40 .35 .35 .35 .35 Basement-Not Applicable The above costs were calculated using the basic speciFications shown on the lacing page. These costs should be adjusted where necessary For design altemanves and owner's requiremen~. Reported completed project cos~, lor this type of struc1ure, range From $47.95 to $ 143.20 per SF. Common additives Description Unit S Casl Description Un~ SCasl Bleachers, Telescaping, manual lockers, Steel, single tier, W' or 72" Opening 131.227 To 151ier Seat 79.110 2 lier, 6fJ' or 72' 10101 Opening 74.125 16-20 tier Seat 161.196 5 tier, box lockers Opening 42.62 21.30 tier Seat 171.206 locker bench, 10m. maple top only LE 19.50 For power opera lion, add Seal 31.4B Pedestals, steel pipe Each 63 Gym Divider Curtain, Mesh top Sound System Manual ralJ.up SJ 9.45 Amplifier, 250 wa~s Each 1675 Gym Mats Speaker, ceiling or wall Each 147 'l' nougahyce covered SJ 3.45 Trumpet Each 275 2' n0an SJ 5.15 Emergency lighting, 25 watt, bottery operated 1.1/2'wall pods SJ 6.80 lead bottery Each 227 1" wres~ing mats SJ 4.62 Nickel cadmium Each 660 Scoreboard Basketboll, one side Each 2775. 17,500 ,Basketball Backstop J Wall mid., 6' extended, fixed Each 1675.2150 Swing up, wall mid. Each 1875.2B25 138 Important: See the Reference Section for Location Factors Vlodel costs calculated for a 1 story building Nith 25' story height and 20,000 square feet ,f floor area \ / A. .. SUBSTRUCTURE 1010 1030 2010 2020 B. . SHELL B 10 Superstructure 1010 I FloorConsfrucfion I N/A - - - 18.0% 1020 Roof Construction Wood deck on laminated wood arches SJ. Roof 13.63 13.63 820 Exterior ~nclosur~ 2010 I Exterior Walls I Reinforced concrete block lend walls included) 90% of woll SJ. WolI 8.77 5.92 2020 , . E.xterior Windows Metal horizontal pivoted 10% of woll Each 312 2.34 11.3% 2030 Exterior Doors Aluminum and glass/hollow metal, sleel overhead Eoch 1085 .33 83!) Roofi~g Roof Coverings Roof Openings Partitions Concrete block ~ Interior Doors Single leaf hollow metal fittings Toilet partitions Stair Construction N/A - - - 20,8% III Wall Finishes 50% paint, 50% ceramic tile a. Floor Finishes 90% hardwood, 10% ceramic tile t Ceiling finishes Mineral fiber tile on concealed zee bars 0 D. /SERVICES Z - . PI O. Conveyi~g IICII f~\ .. 1010 I Elevators & li~s - I - - - \ / l020:.,.E:~alato~~.&Moving Walks ::a - - - - m 020 . pl~";!>ing I Toilet and service fixtures, supply and droinoge I Fixturel515 S.F. Floor I 2010 I Plumbing Fixtures Eoch I 2065 4.01 2020 Do_m~SliC Water Distribution Electric water heater SJ. Floor 2.43 2.43 2040 R?in W'?ter Drainage N/A - - 030 HVAC 3010 En~rg)'S~pply N/A - - - 3020 Heat Generating Systems tncluded in D3030 - 3030 Cooling Generating Systems Single zone rooftop unit, gas heating, electric cooling SJ. Floor 9.72 9.72 3050 Terminal & Package Units N/A - - 3090 Other HVAC Sys. & Equipment N/ A - ..... .D40. Fire Protection I Welpipe sprinkler system 4010 I Spnnklers .. SJ. Floor 4020 Stondpipes, N/A - 050 Electrical 5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 400 ampere service, panel board and feeders 5020 lighting & Branch Wiring Fluorescent fixtures, receptacles, switches, AC. and mise, power 5030 Communications & Security Alarm systems, sound system and emergency lighting 5090 Other Electrical Systems Emergency generator, 7.5 kW E:. EQUiPMENT & FURNISHINGS .'"",-",', ;'.-C'-,,:'. ,>.:;,;.,.,~ ...~',~'" 1010 Commercial Equipment N/A 1020 Institutional Equipment N/A 1030 Vehicular Equipment N/A 1090 Other Equipment Bleachers, sauna, weight room F.' SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION & DEMoLITION'.'.' -' , .- ,-.-': ) :'-"'~""''- ";,,C..;. ..-.~_ ",. ;~" .,~;'.';- '.~ ." ';...; :," "; .",.,....-;, 1020 Integrated Construction N/A 1040 Special Facilities N/A G......BUILDINGSITEy"OIU( .- , N/A ) , Sub-Total 75]3 100% CONTRAOOR FEES (General Requirements: 10%, Overhead: 5%, Profit: 10%) ARCHITECT FEES 7% Total Building Cost - M.SSO Rink, Hockey flndoor Soccer / i31 i! :Ii ~, ,IIIIIi .. I!'- . - - - Costs per square foot of floor area .,; !i.F. ,/10000 15000;26000250(0). 30000i. '46060/' 45000, sqoOtf 50(): " 600\ "700 740; '1891)', '920: 966 . W ,.~ '. C Steel Frome 135.00 122.55 118.60 116.25 112.85 110.20 108.40 107.20 - Face Brick with Concrete .. ~ Block Back-up lam. Wood Truss 137.60 125.65 121.85 119.65 116.35 113.80 112.10 110.95 - Z Steel Frome 133.30 125.90 123.45 122.00 120,00 118.45 117.40 116.75 )0 Concrele Block lam. Wood Truss 121.70 114.30 11 1.85 110.40 108.45 106.85 105.80 105.15 - :I "CII Galvanized Steel Siding . Steel Frome 128.30 120.90 118.45 117.00 115.00 114.1 113.40 112.40 111.70 In eft Metal Sandwich Panel SteelJoisfs 134.15 125.25 122.35 120.60 118.15 116.25 115.05 114.15 Perimeter Adi., Add or Deduct Per 100 lJ 9.25 6.15 4.65 3]0 3.10 2.65 2.30 2.05 1.85 Story Hgf. Adj., Add or Deduct Per 1 Ff. 1.40 1.05 .95 .85 .BO ]5 .70 .65 .65 Basement-Not Applicable The above costs were calculated using the basic speciFications shawn on the lacing page. These cos~ should be adiusted where necessary lor design altemanves and owner's requiremen~. Reported completed project cos~, for this type of structure, range From $ 44.35 to $ 13790 per SJ Common additives Description Un~ SCosl Description Unit S Co~ Bar, Front Bor LF. 287 Rink Back bar LF. 229 Dosher boards & lop guard Each 152,000 Boo~, Upholstered, custom stroight LF. 145.265 Mo~, rubber SJ 16.70 "[" or "U" shaped lJ. 150.252 Score Board Each 11,000.32,100 Bleachers, Telescoping, manuol To 15 tier Seat 79.110 16-20 tier Seal 161.196 21.30 ner Seat 171.206 For power operolion, odd Seat 31.48 Emergency lighting, 25 watt, bo~ery operated lead battery Each 227 Nickel codmium Each 660 lockers, Steel, single tier, 6fY' or 72" Opening 131.227 2 tier, 6fJ' or 72" lotal Opening 74.125 / 5 tier, box lockers Opening 42.62 locker bench, lam. maple top on~ l.F. 19.50 Pedestals, steel pipe Each 63 - 186 Important: See the Reference Section for Location Factor! - Model costs calculated for a 1 story building Rink, Hockey/Indoor Soccer with 24' story height and 30,000 square feet \ of floor area A/ SUBSTRUCTURE' Standard Foundations Slab on Grade Basement Excavation Basement Walls 1010 Partitions Concrete block 1405.F. Floor/LF. PortiNon S.F. Portilion 6.07 .52 1020 Interior Doors Hollow metal 2500 5.F. Floor/Door Each 537 .21 1030 Fittings N/A - - - lit 2010 Stair Construction N/A - - - 5.5% III 3010 Wall Finishes Paint SJ. Surface 16.68 1.43 a. 3020 Floor finishes 8m~ rubber mal, 20% paint 50% of floor area SJ. floor 4.76 2.38 r= 3030 Ceiling Finishes Mineral fiber tile on concealed zee bar 10% of area SJ. Ce;ling 3]} .37 ~ D. z- , - \ D 1 0 Conveying Co. / ... 1010 I Elevators & lifts - - - - 1020 Escalators & Moving Wolks 0.0% ::t - - - a:I D20 Plumbing I Toilet and service btures, supply and drainage 20 J 0 I Plumbing fixtures 1 Fixfure/1070 5.F. Floor I Each 2332 2. J 8 2020 Domeslic Water Distribution Oil fired water healer S.E floor 1.24 1.24 3.8% 2040 Rain Water Drainage N/A - - - D30 HVAC 3010 Energy Supply Oil fired hot water, unit heaters 10% of area S.E floor .52 .52 3020 Heat Generating Systems N/A - - - 3030 Cooling Generating Systems Single zone, electric cooling 90% of area S.E floor 11.66 11.66 13,6% 3050 Terminal & Package Units N/A - - - 3090 Other HVAC Sys. & Egu ipment N/ A - - - D40 Fire Protection 40 J 0 I Sprinklers I - - - 4020 Standpipes SJ. Floor - - DSO Electrical 5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 600 ampere service, panel board and feeders 5020 Lighting & Branch Wiring High intensity discharge and Auorescent fixtures, receptacles, switches, AC. and misc. power 5030 Communications & Security Alarm systems, emergency lighting and public address 5090 Other Electrical Systems Emergency generator E.EQUIPMENT& FURNISHINGS 1010 Commercial Equipment N/A 1020 Institutional Equipment N/A 1030 Vehicular Equipment N/A 1090 Other Equipment N/A F. . SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION & DEMOUTION 1020 Integrated Construction , 1040 Special Facilities ) / : G. IIUILDING. SITEWORK CONTRAGOR FEES (General Requiremenls: 10%, Overhead: 5%, Profil: 10%1 ARCHITEG FEES ~ M.650 Swimming Pool, Enclosed ._...,...~"'______-':7'-;mlii.~ . 20000 260001 28000/.30000 . 32000 '. W 600 673 706 740/ 737 C Wood Truss 157.30 156.05 154.95 152.00 151.05 150.30 148.30 - .. ~ Precasf Cone. 1 B3.1O 181.60 180.30 176.65 175.55 174.65 172.20 - Z Metal Sandwich Panel Wood Truss 165.55 163.30 162.30 161.50 159.35 158]0 158.10 156.65 0 , , Precast Concrete Panel Precast Conc. 173.30 170.65 169.45 168.50 165.85 165.00 lM30 162.55 . '" -' Painted Wood Frame 176.45 166.35 lMIO 163.15 162.35 160.25 159.55 159.00 157.60 In eft Concrele Block Precast Cone. 188.00 175.15 172.40 171.20 170.20 167.45 166.60 165.B5 1 MOO Perimeter Adj., Add or Deduct Per 100 lJ. 11.45 7.15 5.75 5.20 415 4.40 4.10 3.85 3.60 Story Hgt. Adj., Add or Deduct Per 1 Fl. 1.10 1.05 1.00 .95 .85 .85 .B5 .80 The above costs were colculated using the basic speciFications shown on the lacing page. These cos~ should be adjusted where necessary lor design alternatives and owner's requirements. Reported completed projed cos~, lor this type of structure, range ~om $ 67.80 fa $ 199.35 per S.F. Common additives Description Unit S Cast Description Unit S Cas! Bleachers, Telescoping, manual Sauna, Prelabricated, complete To 15 tier Seat 79.110 6' x4' Each 4825 16-20 tier Seat 161.196 6' x6' Eoch 5625 21.30 tier Seat 171.206 6' x9' Each 5550 Far power operation, add Seat 31.4B 8' x 8' Each 6525 Emergency lighting, 25 wa~, bottery operoled 8' x 10' Eoch 7225 lead bottery Each 227 10' x 12' Each 9475 Nickel cadmium Each 660 Sound System lockers, Steel. single tier, 6(j' or 72" Opening 131.227 Amplifier, 250 watts Eoch 1675 2 tier, 6(j' or 72" Iotal Opening 74.125 Speaker, ceiling or wall Each 147 5 tier, box lockers Opening 42.62 Trumpet Each 275 locker bench, 10m. maple top only 1.F. 19.50 Steam Bath, Complete, to 140 c.F. Each 1325 Pedeslal, sleel pipe Each 63 To 300 CJ. Each 1500 Pool Equipment To 800 CJ. Each 4825 / Diving stand, 3 meter Each 6975 To 2500 C.F. Each 5125 1 meter Each 4425 Diving board, 16' aluminum Each 1875 Fiberglass Each 1475 lifeguard chair, fixed Each 1675 Portable Each 1900 lights, underwater, 12 volt, 300 watt Each 1175 206 Important: See the Reference Section for Location Factors - )del costs calculated for a 1 story building Swimming Pool, Enclosed th 24' story height and 20,000 square feet floor area - \ , SUBSTRUCTURE 10 Standard foundations .30 Slab on Grade >10 Basement Excavation 120 Basement Walls SHELL B 1 0 Superstructure ) 10 I Flcor Construction I N/A - - - 10.8% )20 Roof Construction Wood deck on laminated wood truss SJ. Roof 12.63 12.63 820.. Exterior Enclosure I Face brick '~ith concrete block backup ) I 0 I Exterior Wolls 80% of wall S.E Wall 21 12.21 )20 Exterior Windows Outward projecting steel 20% of wall Each 32 4.74 14.9% )30 Exterior Doors Double aluminum and glass, hollow melol Each 1514 .38 830 Roofing )10 Roof Coverings Asphalt shingles with floshing; perlite/EPS composite insulation )20 Roof Openings N/A cj,.__,,,_> . 010 Partitions Concrete block 100 S.F. FfoorILF. Portifion SJ. Partition 6.00 .60 020 Interior Doors Single leaf hallow metal 1000 S.F. Floor/Door Each . 537 .54 030 Fittings Toilet partitions S.E Ftoar .15 .15 en 010 Stair Construction N/A - - - 15]% III 010 Wall Finishes Acrylic glozed coating SJ. Surface 15.80 1.58 Do 020 Floor Finishes 70% terrazzo, 30% ceramic tile SJ. Floor 15.11 15.11 == 030 Ceiling Finishes Mineral fiber tile an concealed zee bars 20% of oreo S.F. Ceiling 1.60 .32 ~ SERVICES Z - 010 Conveying a I ... , 010 I Elevators & lifts I N/A - I - I - I - 020 Escalafors & Moving Walks N/A 0.0% ::t - - - m 020 Plumbing I Toilet and service fixture" supply and drainage !010 I Plumbing Fixtures 1 Fixfure/210 5.F. Floor I Each I 1816 I 8.65 I :020 Domestic Water Distribution Gas fired waler heater 51 Floor 1.37 1.37 8.6% ~ ~040 Rain Water Drainage N/A - - - 030 HVAC lO10 Energy Supply Terminal unit heaters J 0% of oreo S.F. Floor .52 .52 3020 Heat Generating Systems N/A - - - 3030 Cooling Generating Systems Single zone unit gas heating, electric cooling SJ. Floor 11.66 11.66 10.5% 3050 Terminal & Package Units N/A - - 3090 Other HVAC Sys. & Equipment N/ A - 040 Fire Protecrion 401 0 I Sprinklers . I Sprinklers, light hazard I S.F. Floar I ~Ol .90 I 0.8% 4020 Standpipes N/A - - D50 Electricol 5010 Electrical Service/Distribution 400 ampere service, panel board and feeders 5020 lighting & Branch Wiring Fluorescent fixtures, receptacles, switches, A.c. and mi5C. power 6.2% 5030 Communications & Security Alarm systems and emergency lighting 5090 Other Electrical Systems Emergency generator, 15 kW :. EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS " 1010 Commercial Equipment N/A 1020 Institutional Equipment N/A 1030 Vehicular Equipmenf N/A 1090 Other Eguipment Swimming pool .. SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION 1020 Integrated Construction N/A 1040 Special facilities N/A \ G.. BUILDING SITEWORK / Sub-Total 100% CONTRACTOR FEES (General Requirements: 10%, Overhead: 5%, Profit: 10%) 25% ARCHITECT FEES 8% Total Building Cost + 207 9 -cJ 3- OtL I!()EA/~!t R OPUS~ OPUS NORTHWEST, L.L.c. 10350 Bren Road West ~ Minnetonka, MN 55343 'IE OPUS GROUP phone 952-656-4444 ^ R CHI TEe T S Fax 952-656-4529 C () N T R ^ C T () R S www.opuscorp.com () EVE L () PER S September 18, 2002 Mr. Michael Knight City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. Andover, MN 55304 Re: Andover Athletic Center Dear Mr. Knight: Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Edina Public Library / Senior Center we recently completed for the City of Edina, which was delivered using a Construction Manager-at-risk approach, On that project, the City of Edina retained Opus to provide professional services for architectural and engineering work plus construction management. The professional services were procured using qualifications based selection (QBS) procedures. As part of the CM agreement, Opus was "at-risk" for the total cost of design and construction on the project. The City of Edina was able to secure the , benefits of single source responsibility project delivery and an accelerated schedule while respecting the public sector procurement laws. Public bidding of the construction work was conducted at the subcontractor level by the CM (Opus, in this case), Based upon recent estimates we have completed for similar facilities in Mound and Alexandria and the preliminary information you provided on the Andover Athletic Center (Fieldhouse- 48,000 sf, Ice Arena - 38,000 sf, Aquatic Center - 16,000 sf), I would expect that a very nice facility could be delivered under the CM-at-risk approach for under $9.5 million, with beneficial occupancy of the facility in late 2003. I've enclosed a copy of our City of Edina CM-at-Risk agreement for your review and I would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you or the City staff might have regarding the CM-at Risk process. Please call if you have any questions or comments, or would like additional information. Opus would be very interested in submitting our credentials to the City should you elect to select the CM-at-Risk delivery system for proposed new facility, Respectfull y, Alkntown. Atlanta. Austin. Chicago. Columbus. Dallas. Denver. Fort Lauderdale. Houston -Indianapolis. Kansas City. Los Angeles. Miami. Milwaukee. Minneapolis Orange County. Orlando. Pensacola. Philadelphia . Pho~nix . Portland. Sacramento. San Francisco. San Jose. Seattle. St. Louis. Tampa. Vlashington, ne. . Memorandum , TO: Anoka-Hennepin School Board and Superintendent Giroux FROM: Tom Durand Director of Administrative S DATE: December 8, 1999 RE: Construction Delivery Options and Implications As you requested, the following is a comparison of the two main building delivery processes available to us. We are considering the general contractor (single prime) approach and the construction manager approach. You may be aware of other approaches such as design build and construction manager at risk; however, these two approaches are not available to school districts under current law. As you recall, the general contractor approach is where the architect designs the facility and we bid \ out that design to a single entity (low-bidder) who then gives us a fixed price and coordinates the work of the sub-contractors. In the construction manager approach the construction manager is hired / prior to the design and has input into the design. The construction manager then works with the district to bid out the various prime contractor work (low-bid). The construction manager then works with the contractors to schedule their work and assure the quality of the work. The general contractor would, of course, include overhead, profit and general conditions in their bid price and the construction manager would charge a fee for overseeing the project. These costs vary from firm to firm, but it is likely that the construction manager costs could be somewhat lower. There are obviously advantages and disadvantages in each approach and, ultimately, the quality of the firm providing the service has a large impaCt on the cost and quality of the final product. Assuming that the process works as desired, the construction manager should be in a position to identify potential problems in the design prior to bidding, which minimizes the potential for change orders. Further, because the various prime contractors would be bidding their work directly to the District, there are some sales tax savings on certain materials. As you recall, this approach requires the District to process multiple bidders for the various building components. Besides the following comparison, I have attached a document done by a construction management firm which I think pretty succinctly describes the current thinking on these two building delivery approaches. Traditional Design-Bid-Build using a General Contractor . Owner contracts with multiple architects and/or engineers following a qualification-based / selection process. . Owner contracts with specialized consultants who have specific expertise in areas such as technology, geotechnical and environmental. . . Memorandum Anoka-Hennepin School Board and Superintendent Giroux December 8, 1999 Construction Delivery Options and Implications . Owner contracts with a single general construction (GC) firm. Bids are received following a competitive bid process and awarded to the lowest, qualified bidder. . Owner assumes management role of entire program and becomes referee over inevitable disputes between designers and constructors. . GC has no involvement in the design process, therefore their expertise in cost and constructibility does not benefit the Owner. . GC does not represent, or act on behalf of, the Owner. . Architects provide construction administration role with no real management responsibility for construction. . Sequential process (design-bid-build) may take longer. . Bid price from the GC may not be the final price - change orders can add on to the cost of the final product. . Adversarial relationships can develop between Owner, architect(s) and general contractor(s). Construction Management - Agency . Owner contracts with multiple architects and/or engineers following a qualification-based selection process. . Owner contracts with specialized consultants who have specific expertise in areas such as technology, geotechnical and environmental. '. , . Owner contracts with construction manager (CM) following a qualification-based selection , / process. The CM works with the architect, engineers, etc. , assists with the bidding of work to multiple contractors and oversees the project schedule and contractors work. . Owner directly contracts with multiple prime contractors (mechanical, electrical, general trades, masonry, etc.). Bids are received following a competitive bid process and awarded to the lowest, qualified bidder for each trade category. . CM potentially brings construction expertise to the design process in the following areas: - cost estimating - value engineering - scheduling and phasing for total program vs. individual projects - constructibility review - procurement of long-lead time items . CM represents the Owner during construction phases: - coordinates and manages the work of each prime contractor - manages program schedule - monitors claims and change orders from prime contractors - full-time, on-site management as Owner's representative - manages some of general conditions costs . Owner assumes management role of entire program as in traditional design-bid-build approach, but role is reduced somewhat due to assistance from CM. . Fast-track construction process can be implemented to shorten individual project duration. . Owner is referee over inevitable disputes between designers and constructors. If you have questions please contact me at 506-1175. Enclosure J. . " . . ~ I: J I ! WHAT IS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT? I I J I I I ~. , . / EDUCATION GROUP Barton Malow c Oil ~t rud ioniSl:nin:s . . Barton Malow PAGE # i - ; CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT DEFINED - I CONSTRUcnON MANAGEMENT SERVICES - i - I FREQUENTLY AsKED QUESTIONS , - / I BENEFITS OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT - I I . - I I CM vs. GC POINTS OF DISTINcrION , I I Barton I Malow I Construction/Services CONrAcr PERsoN I SHERYL B. MArBACH BARTON MALOW COMPM"Y 27717 FRANKLIN ROAD SUITE 800 I . / SoUTHFIEl..D, MI 48034 (313) 351-4500 I , Barton MaJow J In orderto tightly control the construction process I construction program is management. The and get the most for their money, school districts , program must be actively managed and across the country are choosing construction I controUedinordertoavoidthepitfallsofprojects management (CM) as their building method in i which are over budget and off schedule, order to tightly control the process. Educational i facilities construction is complex and requires i ConstructionManagementisabuildingdelivery full-time management by school construction method in which the owner, architect and CM experts. You cannot afford to train a novice on I work together as a team, from the beginning of your important project. which is under scrutiny design through completion of construction. By by the public and press. serving as an agent of the owner, the CM is able I to give the owner greater control over the project Becauseall public projects haveestablished budget to ensure successful completion. limits and schedules which must be adhered to, control of the building program is a high priority. This becomes even more critical during school renovation work. The key to a successful I - , ~ I I - r~ 'i ......... Barton Malow .I School facilities are special facilities. They must i TheCM acts as a check and balance in the design be safe and functional, as well as provide food : phase to avoid cost overruns. The CM makes service, auditorium, administrative and I recommendationswhichoftenleadstocostand/ recreational space. A construction manager can : ?r time savi~gs. The C~ also provid~s insi~t help provide expertise in these different areas ; mtoaltemativetechno~~esand matenalswhich and assist the architects during design. I can be. used to maXlInIze cost and schedule ; adherence. i Design Phase service contribute to an efficient I In order to maximize local subcontractor project ~d provides continuity once you enter I participation, the eM: should competitively bid construction - as a team. i out all of the trade construction work. It is a i conflict of interest to manage the construction !tis easier and less expensive to change things on I process and self perform subcontracting work. paper during the design process, than in the I field during construction. By adding the CMs I Following is a list of services a Construction construction experience during the design phase, I Manager performs. Th7 s~rvices <;an be tailored the team is able to work through potential I to the needs of each.buildmg project. problems in design while they are still on paper, I ) to avoid costly redesign during coostruction. ~ . MAsTER PROGRAM ScHEDULING . CONS1RucnON COORDINATION . DESIGN CooRDINATION AND REVIEW . COST CONTROL/PROJECT ACCOUNTING . V AWE ENGINEERING . CONrRACT DocuMENTATION i . EsTIMATING . SUBCONTRACTOR FIELD MANAGEMENT I . BUDGET DEvELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS . QUAUTY CONrROL . CASH FLOW ANALYSIS . PERFORMANCE DOCUMENTATION . LlFE-CYQ.E COSTING . EQUIPMENT &FURNISHINGS PROCUREMENT . LONG-LEAD PROCUREMENT . OPERATIONS / MAINTENANCE MANuALS . QUAUTY CONrROL PROCEDURES . FAClUTY START-UP . SAFETY PLAN . WARRANTY COORDINATION . BID MANAGEMENT . STAFF TRAINING PROGRAMS . CONSlRucnON Pt.ANNING . CLAIMS MANAGEMENT These seroices rely on the management and technical abilities of the construction manager. Through the construction manager's expertise, theawner can berelieued fram most oftheadministrative burdens associated with construction. - Barton Malow / FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS "WIU HIRING A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER "WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADD TO MY CONSTRUCTION COSTS? : THE OWNER AND TIlE CM?" i No. Crnstructienmanagementallowstheownerto ! The construction manager provides a realize maximwn savings through rompetitive i professional service, and acts as an agent of the bidding of each trade package. The anstruction I owner. The CM provides recommendations for manager bids out all trade work to qualified i the owner's decision on matters of scope and subrontractors. This way the 0M1e1' avoids the I budget, and directs the overall construction genera1contractors'mark-up. I process. It is the construction manager's I responsibility to assure that the design and It is a construction manager's job to find every I construction phases are coordinated, that all opportunity for savings in the project. Savings I services are provided for, and that the owner's which are realized in the design review and I interests have been upheld. value engineering process should more than I cover the cost of hiring a construction manager. I "CAN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SAVE Because the construction manager provides I TIME AS WELL AS MONEY?" continuous on-site supervision, savings are generated through tight control and planning of I Yes. Phasingtheconstru.ction programinvolves the project. Savings realized are returned 100% I bidding portions ofa project as design develops, to the owner. before the entire building design is finished. / I nus involves simultaneous construction and "DOES CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT I design over non-amflicting areas of a project. It DUPUCA TE THE SERVICES AN AlE applies to both new construction and renovation PROVIDES?" work, and OII\ signifiOlI\tlyreduce the time frame for the whole project. Since time is money, time No. A aJnStruction manager provides professional savings OII\ result in cost savings. 5elVices to complemnt lOOse provided by design professionaIs. The CM provides independent "DOES CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT i estimating and sd1eduIing services to complerrent REDUCE COMPETITIVE BIDDINC?" theAIE'sdesignfunction. Valueengireeringduring thedesignphaseisanaddedbenefit.. 1l-ea:nstructicn No. Construction management increases manager reviews the designs as an independent competitive bidding process through multiple party and rerommends rost saving alternatives. bid packages. Consequently, more trade - ArchilEclsmayvisitthesiteandobserveanstructioo; contractors are allowed to bid. The CM tailors however, it is the CM who provides rontinuous en- bid packages to the available trades in order to sitemanagementand supervision of construction. maximize local and minority involvement. The result is the lowest prices for each bid package. In summary, the owner realized great~ C?st savings while providing local and IDmonty contractors a greater opportunity to participate in the program, -- ,.".:,....~~(":':~.r:: - :".;::->:-.:;:.:.-:,>: ~ . :.. S:.t '_: t .~ ~ l;. Barton l;' """,, f. Malow " ) ;'.'--.." i;;:.'.::"::.;.;o' ::,~:.:. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT . .~:., .... ..... .' SPEEDS Ur CONSTRUCTION :;'..;;;, ':.,.. ~: . --. '},,<.. \ / · DESIGN PHASE INPUT · COST CONTROL . CONTINUIlY BEIWEEN DESIGN AND . SCHEDULE CONTROL CONSTRUCTION · COST SAVINGS . MAXIMUM LOCAL SUBCONTRACTOR AND MINORITY PARTICIPATION · QUAUTY CONTROL · FAST TRACK CAPABILITY · FULL DISCLOSURE REPORTING · DETAILED EsTIMATING In conclusion, construction management has become the preferred construction delivery . CHANGE ORDER CONTROL system for educational facilities. It gives the owner an ability to control the building program / . LOWEST AGGREGATE BIOS and receive the most fadlity for the money within prescribed budget and time constraints. l - .' ;,~ f~t "-ii~ . ' Barton Malow J G F.:\; E R" 1 B.\RTO,MALOW CONSTRUCTION . All savings to general · All savings to owner. SAVINGS contractor. REIMBURSABLES . General contractor · T earn derides general condition GENERAL interprets general ilEms. CONDITIONS condition items. · Items completed at cost, no mark- SAVINGS . Allsavings/unused up. items to general · All savings/unused items contractor. retained by Owner. I SCHEDULE - EARLY. Entire design must be · Co~tructi~n can be phased COMPLETION complete before bid out durmg ~eslgn to speed up to a general contractor completion. I OWNER CHANGES · Limited by contract · Co~~~ts structured for / items. fleXlbility. I TEAM CHEMISTRY · Potential for adversary · "Checks ~ B~ces" with open relationship. commurucations. I TOTAL PROJECT · Determined only when · N~t-to-exceed fee. determined COST job is complete. pnor to construction. I · Change orders can J enhance contractors fee and greatly add to the project's cost. f I PtA.."lNING AND · No input · ~gn P?ase inpu~, value I DESIGN PHASE · No value engineering engm=enng analySlS and INPUT Constructabilityreviews. I · 80% of all savings take place during the design phase. I PRIORITIES 1. Profitability 1. Quality ~onstruction r 2. Reputation 2. Reputation 3. Quality construction 3. Budget/schedule control I REPORTING/ · Limited orno reporting · Monthly written Project Manager's COMMUNICATION Report , · Full Disclosure Reporting I / ;:'" - ~.w.. ;r:f~ :~~~r.; ~ Barton , Malow < ~ I , , G E " E R ..\ l BARTO"MAlOW I PROJECT . General contractor selects . Based on credentials. project personnel. . Owner selects project PERSONNEL personnel. SaiOOL . Low bidder gets the job. . School construction specialists. CONSTRUcnON . May have no school EXPERTISE experience. I DECISION MAKING . General contractor makes . Team (owner, AlE, CM) decisions about: makes decisions about: - subcontractors - su~ontractors - supervision - supervision - sequence of - sequence of construction \ construction - occupancy , - occupancy I CHANGE ORDERS . 7'10 mark-up on . Barton Malow does not charge subcontractors changes. an additional fee for managing . 15% mark-up for change orders, regardless of overhead and profit the amount I FEES . Set by market conditions . Pre-determined and fixed prior andnucrnberofchange to the start of construction. orders. I COMPETITION . Limited by availability of . Limited by school construction bonded contractors. expertise. ! , 1 ~ / -,. I . . . . 1.__ Z f;I) . J ~ ,..,. "t:S I. Q) = U"t:S Q) r........, C1,) 0 Q) Q) :... ~ .s:;: = .& :... .~ :... ~ ~ U 0 J.c'.~ C1,) ~ a,) 0 I ~ I:: ::s ,..,. .- ~ Q) ~ ;;:; (I.) "...., ...... ~ U ...... "...., I:: 0 J.c.~ U ~ ..= C1,) U .::: ~. C';S J.c .~ ...... ::s ~ (I.) .~. ::s U ...... .::: ~ _ = J.c I. ,..,. = 0 ..= Q)::S U (I.) 0. a,) ~ ~ . (I.) U 0 ~ (I.) ~ 0. Q). 0. e = ~ ~~ u ,..,. =.::: = ~~::s a,) 0 I rJl Q):E (I.) Q) I:: (I.) = 0 OJ) ~ C';S = 00 OJ) U r........, .& C.) 1: (1.)..8 ~ Q) U ;;; a,) = C';S -- ca ~. J.c J.c ca ca,..,..- ~ = ~ (I.) C';S :... (I.) = "t:S t-\. ~ ...... '..c:: ~ (I.) l:4 __ ca ~ C';S J.c ca a,) ,.....~- . J.c Q) Q) O..c:: Q) U I ~ Q) C1,)::S~ ::sQ.>:;: ~~ ~=~ = --(1.)0,...., --Q) 0"'-'-' a,) ~ 0. 0.. = ...... ~ :... 0 .... - = ,..,. ,..,. ~ (I.) ._ :;: :0 0 OJ) Q) > 5 0... OJ) U (I.) e ~ I - - u 13 = = = = e .- ~ Q) = .-. 0. U ::s = Q) 0 ~ J-oC Q) 0 ~ Q) .:: J-oC ..:s ~ I ~.~ z~o ~U~ZQ U~ .. ... .. -.. .. I \ (I.) . / = 8 Q) I Q) 0 .-- ....... ~ ..:s,.Q Q) ...... u~ Q) u"t:S ca . · Q.. = e~ 8 8 == I .:... ~ Q) ,..,. fFt ._ C1,) U ca I Q);;:; e ~ E-i ~.Q) > Z Q) UO Q) 0 a "t:S Q)= ~ ~ l r........,.5 ..e: U.::: ~ = C';S ~ ~ i )IIiIII( OJ) ~\;) 0 Q) E-i U 0 ~ U 0 ~ ::: Ii,;}..... > - a,) ~ ca (I.) ...... ~~g .ssa~~~t.s~~~ ~ ~ ~ = J.c :0 .- ~ ~ "t:S ....... ;>, OJ) "t:S ..= Q) (I.) 0 Q) U rn ._ = ,..,. _ .... = ,..,. OJ). - = ::s ......s (I.) (I.) ~ C';S := .... . .- 0 ~ .- = ...... :> ~ U ,..,. Q) :...._ 0 ~ c-" .:::. - ca ~ ,..,. Q) ~ OJ) e ~ ..c ..= OJ) U rJJ. ~ ~ s 0 ~ .~ u a ::l ::s ~ 00 .5 ~ r........, < e ~ "t:S 0 ~ ,..,. ..c:: rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.Q )IIiIII( Q) Q ...... ~ U Q) ~ U 0.. a,) .::: ..c:: Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 .8 ~ ~.& ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = U c;j~~:3zoo~~~c;j~~ ~ / ~............ . - f' --. r I~I' '\ / l!~ COST COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT vs. GENERAL CONTRACTING The attached page illustrates a key difference between Construction Management and General Contracting in the Public Sector. When opting for the General Contracting method, the Owner, as a public entity is required to accept the lowest responsible bidder on a single bid package for the General Contract. Three to Five bids from three to five contractors each taking sub-bids from trade contractors. The General Contractors solicit bids from whomever they wish and are not required to take the low bid for each trade, and may also preclude the use of local contractors. When the Owner receives the bids and determines the "low bid," one cannot be sure that this low number represents the lowest responsible bid for each trade, it is merely the lowest compared to the other General Contractors. Construction Management provides an opportunity to have an open bidding process which encourages local contractor involvement, plays no favorites, and increases competition which \ favors the Owner. The Construction Manager prepares multiple bid packages. The Owner is / able to review and select the lowest responsible bid for each and every trade. The attached sheet highlights several projects for which Bossardt has acted as Construction Manager. In the examples, we compare actual-bids received by small general contractor's bidding on several of a project's bid packages with actual low bids received by individual contractors for the same packages. The savings as shown in the column at right highlights that the savings is significant even for just several bid packages. When this is viewed in light of a project having 30-60 bid packages, depending on complexity, the resulting savings achieved with Construction Management is difficult to ignore. ) Bossardt Corporation Page 10f2 " ~ , r nr~ all.li~ .~ COST COMPARISON CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT vs. GENERAL CONTRACTING Low General CM Individual Contractor Cost CM Bids Bid Savings . Willmar High School Grading/Site Preparation $496,000 Combination Bid Storm Utilities 168,500 listed below Sanitary/Sewer Utilities 122,000 $786,500 $819,000 $32,500 . Owatonna Junior High and Wilson Elementary Cast-in-Place Concrete $337,600 Combination Bid Miscellaneous Metal Install 13,025 listed below Carpentry 173,373 Drywall/Plaster 218,400 $742,398 $1,135,000 $392,602 / . Triton Public Schools Concrete - $566,000 Combination Bid Masonry 570,000 listed below Steel Erection 178,545 Carpentry/Demo 234,200 $1,548,745 $1,635,000 $86,255 . Crookston High School Building Excavation $343,200 Combination Bid Concrete 535,092 listed below Masonry 1,474,082 Structural Steel Supply 607,000 Structural Steel Install 410,000 $3,369,374 $3,767,800 $398,426 . Mower County Government Center Bituminous Paving $60,733 Combination Bid Selective Demo/Concrete/Masonry 243,733 listed below Carpentry 93,600 Gypsum Board Systems 185,733 / $583,799 $670,333 $86,534 Bossardt Corporation Page 2 of 2 ./