My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Change Order No 1 - WWTP Compressor Building Masonry Impr. Proj No. 121-046 - Slatile Roofing
sbend
>
Public
>
Public Works
>
Board of Works Documents
>
2024
>
Change Orders
>
Change Order No 1 - WWTP Compressor Building Masonry Impr. Proj No. 121-046 - Slatile Roofing
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2024 1:34:14 PM
Creation date
7/23/2024 1:34:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board of Public Works
Document Type
Projects
Document Date
7/23/2024
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br />Explanation of Exceedance of Change Orders above 20%: <br />The subject change orders exceeded the 20% change order threshold by $4,050.00 (approximately <br />0.9%). All change orders required for this project were necessary to complete the project scope of <br />work to secure the building envelope and address unforeseen conditions that were encountered <br />during the construction phase that could not have been reasonably foreseen during the design <br />phase of the project. <br /> <br />PCO#1: Plumbing / Drain Modifications <br />During construction, the contractor encountered plugged drainpipes that were deteriorated with <br />interior section loss and leaking and corroded pipe joints that were only visible after the removal of <br />toilets in the process of installing new toilets. Upon review of the project engineer and architect, it <br />was determined that the drain issues needed to be addressed immediately to avoid further <br />deterioration or leaking of municipal sewage into the basement of the Compressor Building. <br /> <br />PCO#2: Lintel Replacement <br />The condition of steel lintels (steel angle / steel beam above windows and doorways) are often <br />covered by masonry block infill and or limestone and the level of rusting jacking and corrosion due <br />to water entering behind the block masonry is not always visible to the architect or engineer during <br />visual inspection. During construction, limestone lintels were removed, and one lintel was replaced. <br />Unit pricing was provided with Bid Pricing so that there was a defined cost for each lintel <br />replacement. Lintels support masonry above windows and doors, and lintel replacement was <br />necessary to maintain adequate load transfer to the block and foundation below. In the lintel <br />replacement had been neglected and left in place, mortar joints would have continued to crack <br />around the window openings and further corrosion would result in rust jacking or “lifting” of the block <br />around the opening. <br /> <br />PCO#3 Glass Block Seal and Tuckpointing <br />During a heavy rain event, water was observed seeping through the glass blocks at one of the <br />Mezzanine Windows and seeping out the brick at the bottom of the glass block openings. After <br />engineer and architect visual inspection of the second-floor glass block window, it was determined <br />that the mortar joints between the glass blocks were heavily deteriorated and, in some instances, <br />had completed eroded away with non-bonded, open joints and fractures. To avoid further water <br />penetration or damage, the glass block joints needed to be tuckpointed with a softer, more flexible <br />silicone mortar joint rather than a cementitious mortar joint. This was necessary to help seal the <br />building envelope of the Mezzanine / Second Floor from water infiltration. <br /> <br />PCO#4 2,300 Additional Brick Replacement <br />At the time of scoping, the amount of brick replacement in the base bid was 1,000 units. During <br />construction, additional bricks were determined by the project engineer and architect to be cracked <br />or broken and required replacement. In some cases, sections of brick had to be removed and rebuilt <br />resulting in an additional 2,300 bricks that were replaced during the project. The square footage of <br />walls that were impacted by microcracking and broken bricks were much higher than originally <br />expected. With the contractor mobilized and scaffolding in place, neglecting the broken brick <br />replacement work would have resulted in additional costs. With unit pricing available, project <br />engineer and architect determined that it was in the best interest of the City to address the brick <br />replacement work through the Unit Pricing provided for the project. It is worth noting that unit pricing <br />received for additional brick replacement work was the same between the contractors that provided <br />bids for the project. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).