RF'F"'RO'JFaI_ TO RUTHORI~E COUNTI` 4?RCHITECT TO REDESIGN F'I-iRSE T I I OF THE KERR COL.INTY COURTHOUSE RENOP,EI_ING On thi<.~ day the C_7th day rrf October, 1'3S'? ~..tpor, motion made by Commissioner Let z, seconded by Commissioner Oehler, the Court unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-0, to ~~-tthor-i~e Coy-tasty Glrchitect, Mir_heal Walker, to rt~des'iyn F'ha~e IIL of the Kerr Co~_mty Coy-v-tho~-tse Remodel.i.ny with a maxim~_tm salary of '.615,000.@@ and an hn~_tr•ly rate after that. 1 e \ "~.~ ARCHITECT October 22, 1997 MICHAEL The Honorable Jonathan Letz 1VEAI. Commissioner Precinct 3 WAI j~ Kerr County Commissioner's Court Kerr County Courthouse 700 Main Street Kerrville, Texas 78028 Re: Phases II and III -Kerr County Courthouse and Annex Renovations Our Projects KCC/KCT/KC2 Summary from our meeting of 3:55 to 6:15 p.m., October 21, 1997 at Coumoom. Present: Mike Walker, Christina Hams from Architect's Office; Rolf Lux, Ed Thompson from Lux Engineering Dear Commissioner Letz; This letter is to confirm our discussion on issues which arose at the above meeting and our tour of the abandoned jail and rooftop. Phase 1: 1. In we clarified our position on cost: Our firm missed the original estimate by about $10,000 out of $338,200 or 2.9% on a remodel (detail famished). We will also famish the Owner a detailed report after winter operation to indicate how much the County has saved in energy costs by allowing us as your consultants to recommend revisions to the originally famished DSA schematics. 2. Relative to the questions of our capability raised at the October 14 Commissioners' Court Meeting, our firms assured Commissioner Letz that we were the County's advocate in trying to hold costs down; but because of the piecemeal way the projects were assigned to our firm, it resulted in surprises in scope, thus fees (Phase lA and 1B explanation was famished). Phase 2 and 3: 3. We are to provide Basic Services For the County on Phase 2 and 3 in a dovetail fashion, so as to be more certain of what should be removed in Phase 2 which will not increase cost or inconvenience to the County in Phase 3 and beyond. Owner-Architect Agreements were not famished to Cmn. Letz; therefore we have attached same. Since DSA Architects programmed the scope of the project and performed the Schematic Phase for Courthouse Annex Renovations, it is therefore important that it be certain that the facilities aze optimal for the occupants and the budget. We noted several contradictions in the Court-approved version and the CADD drawings famished via Judge Denson. Plans were famished. 4. Attached is an approval form for Additional Fees, should same be required for re-programming or re- design which is not included in our Basic Services. Also find the State mandated Guidelines which sets out this scope project at 7% Fee, plus 1/3 for remodel = 9.3% Fee x 80% (our estimated percentage for an assumption project without Schematic Design) = 7.5%. Our Fee is only 6.75% for all 3 Phases. If the Owner anticipates major revamping of the remaining Phases, we are willing [o negotiate a new Maximum Fee, or we can continue under the existing fee structure with Additional Fees for revisions. Please advise. 1303 VESPER LANE • KERRV ILLE, T'E%AS 78028 • (830) 895-ARCH • FAS (830) 895-FAXS • E-mail mkwalker@hilconet.com Commissioner Jonathan Letz October 22, 1997 Summary of Meeting Page 2 5. If re-programming and re-design are required, we need to begin the process as soon as possible to help minimize construction costs and ensure delivery of services to the public with the least amount of operational interruption possible. Our schedule allows us to act for the County immediately. Judge Denson put this project on the Commissioners' Court Meeting Agenda for October 27. Cmn. Letz will handle any revision to this schedule. We want to be as prepared as possible. We do not want to present information before it is thoroughly prepared and appropriate. Please advise. 6. We must have clear lines of authority and dissemination of factual information, if this professional effort is to be as free from conflict and confusion as possible. Our firm is to report to directly to Cmn. Letz, including any inputs from the affected parties for the new spaces. 7. Cmn. Letz agreed that we do not need a Notice to Proceed letter from the Court for which Phase(s) to address and the timing for each. We are covered by Court Order to begin Phase 2 and 3 at the direction of Cmn. Letz and/or the Court. 8. Cmn. Letz will arrange conferences with affected parties on a number of possible revisions to the Phase 3 Plan, including coordinating a final review with affected department heads prior to commencing with Phase 3 Design Development Drawings or any re-design required. 9. A possible alternate solution to the expense and difficulty of getting approval for the "second bridge concept" is to combine with existing second floor bridge, shortening the existing District Coumoom (lose 24 seats) to allow an alternate corridor to a widened bridge. 10. We recommend evaluating and identifying all the potentially related projects for renovation or improvement prior to commencing any drawings, for which we included a very Preliminary Estimate of Probable Cost. 11. The roofing and rooftop conditions were reviewed with the likely need to remove or replace all existing equipment and roofing at the same operation. We also discussed necessary dampproofing and possible aesthetic alternatives for the often-criticized visual problems of the Annex. 12. The deteriorated condition of the 1926 Courthouse roof was made known to Cmn. Letz (as it has been to every county Judge since 1989). Leaks are becoming evident in the existing District Clerk's Office. 13. We recommend generating Phase 3 Design Development Documents, particularly Mechanical and Electrical, prior to releasing Phase 2 for bidding, as there is much potential for budget and time savings. 14. Cmn. Letz will look into salvage or after-market contractors for the jail, mechanical, electrical or other equipment. Potential equipment to be salvaged was reviewed, but at this point that is not our firms' responsibility to pursue same. I5. Method of contracting for each Phase (Lump Sum, Cost Plus Fee, etc.) will be determined after the scope of Work and the phasing of same is determined. The Second Floor of the 1926 Courthouse will require additional ADA/TAS accessible restrooms, if renovated. Regardless, restrooms are needed, probably in a portion of the existing District Clerk's Office. Commissioner Jonathan Letz October 22, 1997 Summary of Meeting Page 3 16. Our firm is preparing an overlay for rearranging/reducing the toilets, preserving existing electrical and fire alarm for cost reduction study, as requested by Cmn. Letz 17. Our firm does not intend to charge extra fees for normal one each, preliminary and final ADA/TAS review submittals (except application fees). However, if the State TDLR rejects any of the existing DSA Schematics, we shall be entitled to Additional Fees. If the design is modified, we will be totally responsible for re-submittal time and our fees, provided that our recommendations for accessibility are followed. Please review the above, make any corrections or additions, and return a copy to our firm for our files and direction in our actions. es~p~e~c~tf~u(l'lyr s/yu~ itt~,~~ VwVW""~ ACCEPTANCE: After Owner's review and indicated acceptance or corrections of the above provisions and statements, the undersigned hereby authorizes the Architect to proceed with further Programming and Revised Schematic Design Documents. Owner's Exceptions: Accepted: cc: Honorable Robert A. Denson, County Judge Lux Engineering Vordenbaum Engineering Attachments for the Owner Date: file:kc21tr.003 ARCHITECT October 22,1997 MICHAEL TO: Kerr County Commissioner's Court Kerr County Courthouse 700 Main Street Kerrville, Texas 78028 ATTN: The Honorable Jonathan Letz, Commissioner Precinct 3 RE: Written authorization for Additional Services Kerr County Courthouse Renovations -Phase 2 and 3 Gentlemen: WALKIIt Pursuant to the terms of our Architect/Owner Agreements of May 6, and June 11, 1996, I herewith submit a request for written approval for Additional Services to be rendered by the Architect described approximately herewith as: Provide Programming and Schematic Design Services for Phase 3 of the above Project, as requested by Commissioner Letz, October 21, 1997. made necessary by Through no fault of the Architect, but as a result of changes in the Owner's programmed needs for the above Phase of Work, which differ from the Schematic Design Documents prepazed by Di Stefano/Santopetro, Architects, on January 8, 1997, and approved by Commissioners' Court. and for the approximate amount of Architect estimates that the Fees based on scheduled hourly rates for Additional Services shall range from $1,000.00 to 2.3% (maximum) of the Construction Amount. Architect will verify the approximate amount of Additional Services Fees accumulated on a weekly basis with the Owner. The actual amount will be reflected in the Architect's monthly invoice immediately following. Respectfully su 1 itted,~ M~hae~~alker ~`v~l Approved file:kc2zfee.001 Title Date 1303 VESPER LANE • KERRVILLE, TEXAS 78028 • (830) 895-ARCH • FAX (830) 895-FAXS • E-mail mkwalket@hilconet.com Waivers may be granted for specific periods of time and any contiacts for services obtained under waives shall not extend beyond the ezpiraticn date of the waiver. State agencies and institutions of higher education thaz use the Ccrtcr'shall do so under contract with the DIl2: The DIR is ftather audrorized to collect fees for these services is amolau which offset the ditt:et and inducer costs of providing snch services. The DIR may request assistance froth the State Auditors Office regarding the bi]Iing system focmttla for offsetting servir_cam- The DIR is further directed to work with the Council on Competitive Government on issues concerning crate data anus consolidations and provide information mlating to the rue of the Center as a location for one of the state's consolidated data caters. Ice evaluating a bieaaial operating place sabtniaed for review by a state agency, DIR shall consider whether the goals of any, proposed projects in the plan could be aaompiished at lower costs by using the services and/or egainmeat of the Canter, and may m4virs the agency to seek a bid from tha Ceatrs to aceomplish the purpose of the project Sec. 46. Cattslruetien.Staridards. All agencies. depamaents and iastimtiom coveted by this Act sha]I ascenain that the standards and spedficauons for bew construction, repair and rehabilitation of existing structures and facilities ate in accordance with the State Purchasing cad General Services Ace (Subtitle D, Title 30. Government Codej. A statement shall be filed with the Compttoiler of Public Accounts to show compliance with this Section Sea 47. Construcflon'ProjedAnerlysis Required. None of the funds appropriated by this Act, eztspt for funds appropriated W ittstimtions of higher edncmion, maybe expended for capital eonsauction pmjear that ate subject to project analysis provisions of Chapter 2166, Government Code, unless the agenry, department or instimdon has complied with those pmvisiotri aced completed the project analysis proceu. Prior to expenditure of coy funds subject to this section for capital coastrttetion• projects, a completed project analysis must be filed with the I,cgislative Budget Boatel, the Governors Office of Budget and Punning, and the Camptroiler of Public Accounts. ' Sec. 48. Prime Design Professional Fees. The prime design professional maybe either a registered architect or a registered professional engineer. Fees paid to the prime design professional from funds appropriated by this Ace shall be governed by the following schedule cad provisions: 1. The schedule of basic fees to be paid a prim e desiga'professibnalfcr all pmfessiona! services az set out below, based on the total cast of the work shall not ezaed: 'Dormitories, Classroom, Health, ]teaearch. Construction Garages, and Office cad Special Education Cost of Proje.^t: Warehouser OtherBldgs. Facilities Over 515,000,000 6.09e 6.0% ` 6.090 .3200.000 to 515,000.000 ~~.__ __ 6.590 i\ 7_090 i - 7.590 Up to 5200,000 7.5°a 8.090 8.5°'0 Basic fee for remodeling and alteredons shall'be one-third grtater than scheduled above. Alterations and remodeling is'defined az any ehang`e, ~taatral, sancarral, meehanicai or elecaical, made to as e~dsting structure and'ineiudes portions of that suvctute changed as a result of additions or ezrensians to a structure. 2. When one building design is used in two or more locations within the same pmject,'the fees m be paid shall be: A09E-S12-Ot-01-P01 JX-77 OS-24-97 - a For the first building of such design, a basic fee calrnlated aeeording to the sctredule above. b. For the second and subsequent buildings atilizing such design, the bade fee shall be reduced 35.°0. Such fee shall include changes mgtrired by site condidons ineiuding foundation redesign; partition chances; mechanical and electrical changes; necessary program changes; other architectural or eagiaeedng services normal under loch circumstances; and inspection of the coastmction. 3. Prime design professional fen shall include: a The necessary conferences, and the preparation of ptellminary studies and final designs. b. The production of complete atehitecnrral and engineering dmwings and specifications, iacIndiag their proper botrelarion. c. Construction rnnnact artmitusaaCOn and ail other normal professional services. d. Payment of all fees to consulting ~gineets, archirecu and latrdseaoe architects for their services is conaecdoa with the building design and consimcrion when employed by the prime design professional. . 4. The prime desi~r professioaa! shall inspect the consttue:ioa of the work to rueh an extent as may be aca55ary CO ascertain Wlrelher d7e Wodt 35 being excelled in coafo[miry with his woridng drawings or specifrcatzans or ditecdons; make rG,rotnmendadons on materials and equipmea~ check and zeport oa contractofs proposals in rnnaectioa'with changes ,in the rnntract; and approve certificates of payment. When eocrinuous field rupervisioa or a clerY of the wodrs is deemed necessary by the stain, the cast of such supervisory personnel shall 6e borne by the state m addidoa to the bade fee. 5. The maximum fee spedfied shaII include the cost of sll pmfrisional services tendered by atetatect5 or engineers, and the a; :elate rnatract price for services Tendered by a consulting architect and consulting eaginea shall never exceed the applicable fen limitation except as set forth in sub-section 4 heteo£ 6. The state will fumisli the pane design professional a limited cotisultirig service consisting of a complete survey, soB analysis, and a program of the wade oudinirrg ia.detaiI the span requirements, their general relationships and the sisndards of types of caostructioa Sec. 49, Construction Policy. Na state entity reuiviag an appropriation under this Ad may establish a tale or polity wlticit is inconsistenc with the legislative intent thaz funds appropriated beaein lflt' eonscuctioa projects be expended only pursuant to state entity polices wtrirlt provide the greatest eompeddve advantage to the craze stlowab[e under Chapter 1258, Government Code. See. 50. Lunitatlon on Use of Fvnds for Personal Residences. Out of apptaptiations raede by this Act, no expenditures ezaeding an aggregate amount of 525,000 for the biennium beginning on. September 1, 1997 shall be trade for purshadng, remodeling or repairing of a personal nsidena or living quarters unless the expenditures are I) required by court order, it7 will insult In increased safety, significant net east savings or prevention of substantial waste, or iii) ale spedfically identified in a Capitol Budget in this Act prior to nay such expenditure in excess of 525,000, the Govemor and Legislative Budget Board mast approve the ezpenditum under authority gmntrd pursuant to Article XVI, Section 69, of the Texas Constitution. In the evetit of an emer;eary or in~the absence of a meeting by the Legislative Hudget Boatel within 30 days of the request. the Direemr of the L,egisladve Budges Board, after consultation with the Board members, rosy take acdoa is conjunction with the Governor on the request The General Services Commission shall report all ezpenditutss for this purpose to the Legisladve Budget Board. R09E•S12-O t -O t -P01 IX-78 OS-Z¢g7 ARCHITECT August 22, 1996 The Honorable Robert A. Denson, County Judge MICHAEL Kea county commissioners court NEAL Kea County Courthouse WALKER Kerrville, Texas 78028 Re: Estimate of Probable Cost -Kea County Courthouse Renovations First Floor- County Auditor, Justice of the Peace 1, County Commissioners' Offices Deaz Judge Denson: Please fmd the attached Estimate of Probable Cost for the above facility. Please note that the Fees for estimating services are not provided in Basic Services, as outlined in ourAgreement as amended; therefore there will be a modest hourly fee for Additional Services. Construction category Est. Cost General Requirements $ 24,900 Demolition including boiler, piping, radiators, not asbestos pre-constniction 7,500 Concrete cutting and patching including basement 2,500 Patching masonry and plaster 1,900 Miscellaneous structural steel reinforcement of cut concrete wall 1,800 Finish carpentry 5,900 Millwork and shelving 5,500 Doors & glazing - 5 new, 22 minor refiubish, rework one exterior window sash 7,400 Hazdwaze allowance 2,000 New metal stud partitions and furring gypsum wallboazd 6,600 Flooring repair of terrazzo and ceramic the 1,800 Carpet - 5,600 Ceiling including replacing existing ceiling removed temporarily in Basement 4,900 Painting including Electtcal/Telephone Equipment Room 15,500 Kitchen Unit _ 2,700 Mechanical - HVAC 14 tons- including balancing, heating second floor, basement 38,800 Plumbing - I sink 1,800 Electrical -power and lighting, including demoliton 26,900 New power distributon with ground fault system 23,700 Fire Alarm, security, and emergency lighting 20.000 Subtotal 207,700 Contractors Fee ~ 15% 31.200 Subtotal - -~ 238,900 Contingencies (10%) _ - 23.900 TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST -PHASE Ir1. 5262,800 PHASE IB -Under contract 58,900 Offlcescape separate contract estimate 16.500 TOTAL -Except fees, furnishings, etc. 5338,200 t~3 VESPER LANE KERRV[LLE, TES 78os8 (uo) 895-ARCH Page 2 . Kerr County Estimate 1 8-22-96 QUALIFICATION STATEMENT The above estimates do not include the cost of moving offices, all furnishings, new window covering, or other specialized equipment. The Costs are approximate, based on the Architect's current knowledge of the construction industry and the comparative open market costs for similar types of construction. The Architect is not a contractor and these are not guaranteed costs, as the Architect has no control over mazlcet conditions and what contracting situations the Owner may elect I await your call if we can clarify a~ questions wnceming this proposed estimate. cerely, Sb:kmraool ~ C RECOi~t;ytENDATIONS - PHASE I Add Fee Est Cost Related to DSA Est. 1. Consolidate Fire Alarm System: Tota13 Phases Maximum $49,000 Phase I estimate $ 20,000 Additional Fee now (balance of 6.75% is in Phase IIn $ 1,700 2. Exit and Emergency Lighting System- uncertain crrcuitry, keep emergency generator, delete battery packs specified- 3 Phases ($ 10,500). This Phase: 600 (4,000) 3. Main Electrical Sen~ice: Specified not practical; revise to 120/208V total Phase I-III $19,500 ('Convert Boiler to Electrical Room) This Phase Basic Fee 12,500 4. Ground Fault Protection- Transfer from Phase III to Phase I Basic Fee 12,500 ('Convert Boiler to Electrical Room) 5. Air Conditioning- Decision on boi]er ('Convert Boiler to Electrical Room) _ Reduce electrical load further by substituting heat pumps for heat strips Basic Fee "4,000 6. Heating- ('Convert Boiler to Electrical Room) Add heat strips to Existing Second Floor units Move work from Phase III to Phase I Basic Fce 12,000 Total Construction Cost Phase I change from DSA Estimate 57,000 Total Construction Cost Phase II-III change from DSA Estimate 5,000 Net Fce revision for Additional Services Phase I (of which 1,100 is spent to date) $2,3000 Total Fce change on $83,000 Q 7.25% for Phase 1 ,. . flit is not decided to convert the Boiler Room to Electrical and energy management functions, then we will need some guidance on the alternatives, if any. "Add another $5,000 if the 22-year-old A/C unit which serves the Commisioners' Court Room should need __.. .. replacement in addition to adding heat. _ r~ rt-~-i ~-~-~-~-~--qi---®,--v--®- ~-~ ~-ilk -i ~ j - - ~_ ~- --.,.-....~n..~...,w.. oo~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ _ ~~ ~~ -~fR COI.NI'Y Di SlffANO / SANIOPEfRO ARQIITECI3, INC ~.+ ~ ~ ~ COUR7t10U5E ROdOVATiON ~ .ucwrzcruae • • • • • • • • ewawa /atNl[ 7F1fA7 tw wemwu wm ,wnnuiah,,vu rw nw.m maw .n, n, wn Order No. 25087 Approval to authorize CountyArchitech to Redesign Phase III of the Kerr County Courthouse Remodeling October 27, 1997 Vol V Page 455