Legislature(2013 - 2014)Anch LIO Conf Rm
07/31/2013 07:30 AM Senate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JULY 31, 2013
7:34 AM
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Alternate
MEMBERS ON TELECONFERENCE
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Alan Austerman, Alternate
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator John Coghill
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Kevin Meyer
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Bill Stoltze
Senator Dennis Egan
AGENDA
OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS
SPEAKER REGISTER
LAURA PIERRE, Staff to Senator Fairclough and Project Director
for the Legislative Audit Remodel
TANCI MINTZ, State Leasing and Facilities Manager, Division of
General Services, Department of Administration
KAMI WILSON, Contracting Officer III, Division of General
Services, Department of Administration
WAYNE JENSEN, Jensen Yorba Lott, Inc., Architects
PAM VARNI, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency
7:34:06 AM
I. CHAIR MIKE HAWKER called the Legislative Council meeting to order
at 7:34 a.m. in room 220 of the Anchorage Legislative Office
Building. Present at the call were Representative Hawker;
Senators Micciche and Hoffman (alternate). Participating via
teleconference were Representatives Chenault, Johnson, P. Wilson
and Austerman (alternate); Senators Coghill, Meyer, and Stevens.
Members who joined the meeting via teleconference shortly after
roll call were Representative Pruitt and Senators Huggins,
McGuire, and Stevens.
Chair Hawker noted that there was a quorum to conduct business
and alternate members Senator Hoffman and Representative
Austerman were not needed and would not be called upon to vote.
II. OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS
a. Legislative Audit Remodel: Change Order #3
LAURA PIERRE, staff to Senator Fairclough and the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee, stated that Change Order #3 is for
the following items: (1) dimming controls to automatically adjust
the level of natural light in the amount of $2,916; (2) the final
design layout for electrical engineering resulting in additional
costs in the amount of $33,558; and (3) additional costs of
$45,738 related to air monitoring for asbestos removal, which
came in higher than anticipated. In addition to the above
amounts, there is a 2% charge for the Division of General
Services (DGS) administrative fee in the amount of $1,644,
bringing the total amount of Change Order #3 to $83,856.
SPEAKER CHENAULT asked who was responsible for the
underestimation of the number of monitoring hours required for
asbestos abatement. He understood there was a certified
contractor who bid on this project and $45,000 seemed fairly
steep for unanticipated monitoring.
TANCI MINTZ, State Leasing Facilities Manager, asked that Wayne
Jensen, the principal at Jensen Yorba Lott, Inc., who is
providing that service through his subcontractor address the
question.
WAYNE JENSEN, Jensen Yorba Lott Architects, said that when the
estimate by Carson Dorn, Inc. was provided for monitoring the
construction, it was intended for a certain number of weeks. The
contractor's work took a lot longer, increasing the time that
Carson Dorn, Inc., needed to monitor the air so that accounts for
the extra amount. It is for the consultant's, not the general
contractor's, costs. The general contractor schedule was longer
than what was originally estimated by the monitoring agency.
SPEAKER CHENAULT asked if that money should not have been back-
charged to the general contractor for delay of the project. He
further asked if there were any stipulations in the contract on
the general contractor being able to finish the job on time to
allow the subcontractors to finish their work on time without it
all being back-charged to the State. In response to Ms. Mintz
outlining who could best answer his question, he said he wanted
to cut to the chase and asked if the delay was the fault of the
State or the fault of the general contractor.
MS. MINTZ said it was neither; that it was unforeseen
circumstances. With remodels there are always unknown conditions,
something that doesn't happen with new construction; that
happened with this project. Normally, a contingency is built in
to address unforeseen conditions but, in this case, no
contingency factor was built into the contract. When DGS comes
back to the Council for increases in costs, it's for those
unforeseen conditions. Specific to this one, she asked that Kami
Wilson or Wayne Jensen respond.
KAMI WILSON, Contractor with DGS, said that when the ceiling was
opened to start the abatement process, they found ACM
fireproofing overspray inside the actual ductwork (ACM
fireproofing overspray is "hot" asbestos). This was definitely an
unforeseen circumstance. They had to get approval to remove all
the contaminated ductwork in the ceiling. Getting the approval,
removing the contaminated ductwork and replacing it with new
ductwork resulted in about a five week delay and additional air
monitoring costs - all completely unforeseen.
MS. MINTZ said that the ductwork to which Kami referred is hard
ductwork installed in the original construction. The conditions
inside the ductwork were not visible until they started the
demolition.
CHAIR HAWKER said he did not believe that Speaker Chenault's
question had been answered, and that what he was hearing was that
DGS did not provide in this particular contract any contingency
component for such circumstances that are certainly expected to
occur in a construction process. There was no cushion in the
contract to accommodate such things and that it was the intent of
DGS in issuing the contract that the contractor would be coming
back to the State if they encountered such things for an
additional appropriation.
MS. MINTZ said that was correct. The project budget that DGS is
managing, which includes Jensen Yorba Lott, professional
consultants, and the general contractor, provided Council with
the direct costs that were bid on the project and did not include
any contingency factor. Instead, DGS has provided the known costs
versus inflated costs each time an unforeseen condition comes up.
In response to a question from Representative P. Wilson about the
dimming switches, Ms. Mintz said they are not a necessity; they
are an elective that provides the ability to dim the lights in
certain areas of the room when occupied versus having the lights
on full time at 100%. In response to a follow-up question by
Representative P. Wilson, she said that motion sensors would turn
the lights off if there was no movement in the suite or that the
lights would be on the building automated lighting system so that
the lights would come on and off a certain times of the day. In
this case, the switches provide the added flexibility for
dimming. She said this request was not a contractual request and
that it came through Legislative Audit.
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, said that this was not a
request from Legislative Audit but that it was brought up from
the contractor's side of things. It was her understanding that
the dimming switches were a standard component that gets added
when this type of lighting is installed. It automatically adjusts
for the level of natural light that's in the building. The level
of light provided adjusts to fit the circumstances of the day
and, she assumes, would make it a much better work environment.
MR. JENSEN, at the request of Ms. Mintz, provided additional
information that the lighting being installed is LED lighting, a
newer type of lighting. The opportunity for the dimming is both a
comfort level and an energy savings opportunity since the lights
will only be at the level needed depending on the amount of
natural light present. Typical fluorescent lighting cannot be
dimmed without special modification equipment; LED lighting
allows the opportunity for dimming to the level appropriate for
the space.
MS. MINTZ noted that it was not a requirement for Legislative
Audit to have LED lighting. Standard fluorescent lights can be
installed.
CHAIR HAWKER asked if there wasn't a previous change order
request which was already approved by Council to install the LED
lighting.
MS. MINTZ confirmed that was the case and had resulted in the
added requirement now to have the dimming switches.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE, in response to a comment by Representative
P. Wilson, said that lighting technology has changed dramatically
than what we're used to in a typical office setting. Dimming
controls are sort of atypical these days for LED, but for the
thousands of dollars saved on LED technology versus incandescent
or fluorescent, it will be a fairly significant savings in the
long term. The office will be able to use the amount of energy
they need in order to light adequately.
CHAIR HAWKER said that the LED lighting was approved and accepted
on its merits for the cost savings and flexibility that it
offered, and he believed the dimming switches should have been
part of that initial approval. They were an integral part of
that package and for whatever reason were not included, noting
that the oversight was a cost of $2,916. He did not receive a
response to his inquiry for confirmation of his understanding.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE said the he didn't like change orders and
didn't like spending money that wasn't planned for but that was
the reality of projects. He said that had any of these charges
been for someone underestimating the cost of sheetrock, for
example, something they should have known from the beginning,
then he would have a different thought process, but that,
unfortunately, this is the reality of projects and project
economics. He said he would like to move on and support this if
the body is ready for the motion.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said that while he wouldn't be voting
today as an alternate, he does have concerns. He said we're back
to basically having open-ended contracts where anybody can come
in at any point in time and ask for a request because the
contracts have not been tied down. When he reads the memo
regarding Change Order #3, it talks about $33,000 for the
electrical and that the final design led to the increase in cost.
He said that the memo states that "the increase was generally the
result of running electrical from the ceiling rather than the
floor…" - a determination was made by somebody that they would
prefer to run it from the ceiling rather than the floor even
though it was going to cost $33,000 more. They come back to the
Legislature and just get the money because there is an open-ended
contract. He said it was basically the same thing with the
asbestos abatement. As long as there is an open-ended contract
then costs are going to increase and be out of hand, similar to
some of the other work we've done. He is frustrated that we
continue to have these open-ended contracts.
CHAIR HAWKER noted that Council had the option of tabling this
and having the Division of General Services and the Legislative
Affairs Agency do a better job of convincing Council that it's
appropriate.
SPEAKER CHENAULT responded that he thinks Council needs to move
forward. He does not know how we better do it, but if the numbers
are correct, he said there is $1.4-1.5 million tied up in this
project. This remodel has cost so far about $267 per square foot,
which may be a little better than building new, so he guessed it
was okay. Like others, he is frustrated at the continual
additions for things that aren't thought of, contingencies that
weren't planned for. This is not the first time that we've been
into the duct system in this building so we should have known
what we had whenever we started this project. He said he would
vote for this change order but is frustrated at the way we
continue to do business at the State because we as the
Legislature apparently have an open checkbook that people like us
to write checks from.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council approve Change
Order #3 in the amount of $83,856 for costs for electrical
engineering, lighting dimming controls and asbestos air
monitoring on the Legislative Audit State Office space remodel
project RSA with the Department of Administration from existing
legislative funds authorized by the Council Chair.
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Coghill, McGuire, Stevens, Chenault, Johnson, Pruitt,
Micciche, Hawker
NAYS: Huggins, P. Wilson
Change Order #3 for the Legislative Audit Remodel was approved by
a vote of 8-2.
CHAIR HAWKER, specifically addressing Legislative Affairs Agency
staff, said this was his first time chairing this committee and
he has watched repeatedly these problems with legislative
construction projects. He said he didn't know quite what we were
going to do about it but we need to change how we're doing
things. He said he was putting this specifically on the record
and that we need to find a way to improve the quality of our
management or we need to start changing the people that are in
charge of it. He said to take that very seriously.
Responding to a comment from Senator Micciche, Chair Hawker asked
that Legislative Affairs provide Senator Micciche a comprehensive
analysis and history of the requests and change orders on the
Legislative Finance Building project.
PAM VARNI, Executive Director of the Legislative Affairs Agency,
said she had a spreadsheet she would provide Senator Micciche as
well as all of the change orders for the Legislative Finance
Building.
There being no further business before the committee, the
Legislative Council meeting was adjourned at 8:02 a.m.
8:02:45 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2013.07.31 Agenda.pdf |
JLEC 7/31/2013 7:30:00 AM |
|
| Legislative Audit Remodel Change Order 3.pdf |
JLEC 7/31/2013 7:30:00 AM |