File #: 23-182    Version: 1
Type: Resolution Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 10/23/2023 In control: Finance Committee
On agenda: 12/7/2023 Final action:
Title: Napoleon Facility Rehabilitation Amendment Request to CDW Services Contract (Lead Paint Abatement)
Attachments: 1. 2023 10-30 Lead Paint on Trusses Approved Change Order Routing Sheet, 2. ICE and Project Manager Estimate, 3. Napoleon Facility Rehabilitation Amendment to CDW Services Lead Paint Abatement
Related files: 21-146, 22-010, 23-183, 23-181
title
Napoleon Facility Rehabilitation Amendment Request to CDW Services Contract (Lead Paint Abatement)
end
DESCRIPTION: Requesting Board Authorization to Amend CDW Services contract for Lead-Paint Abatement
AGENDA NO: Click or tap here to enter text.

ACTION REQUEST:
? Approval ? Review Comment ? Information Only ? Other

RECOMMENDATION:
recommendation
Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to amend the CDW Services contract for an additional amount of $139,725.50 for lead paint abatement.

end
ISSUE/BACKGROUND:
body
Upon removal of the existing roof at the Napoleon Facility, it was discovered the top side of the roof trusses contained lead paint. Lead-paint abatement testing revealed the level to be at 4.1% by weight, however, the regulatory limit is 0.5%. Based on the test results abatement was required. CDW Services was directed to proceed to minimize delays to the overall construction schedule.
end
DISCUSSION:
CDW Services was directed to move forward with the abatement to minimize delay to the overall construction schedule as the discovery was made after the demolition of the existing roof. The abatement need was only revealed when the original roof came off during construction and well after abatement had occurred on the exposure surfaces of the rafters. On-site, independent environmental testers collected samples throughout the project and once tests came back positive for lead on these newly exposed rafter paint samples, abatement had to be completed before any work could continue. Had RTA stopped work in order process the funding request at that time, the contractor would have been able to issue a delay claim per General Conditions in contract in an amount up $3,200 for daily operations, not including additional costs for re-mobilization for the roofing subcontractor. If work had stopped for 30 days, it would have cost over $75,000; at 60 days, the delay costs would have well exceeded the value of the change order.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:...

Click here for full text