My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-23-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
02-23-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 8:52:34 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 1:20:52 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
357
PDF
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
/:4® <br />.#^%e^r}V - - ‘ ’ ‘ <br />Constructive Ideas, Inc. <br />901 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300 <br />St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 <br />(651) 225.4740 • Fax 225-»741 <br />Project: Long Lake Fire Station <br />Orono, Minnesota <br />Response to Items Shown as "Open" by Rochon Corp. <br />Description <br />Architect: BKV Group <br />Minneapolis, Minnesota <br />Rochon <br />Item _________________uescripiion <br />steel erectors Installed 16 rooftop (fames lor tiie roof drains <br />18 from underside Ihe decking <br />19 Additional cost to widen Ihe gale at the mezzanine <br />Fabricate and install 2-line rail around the air handling unit <br />Rail to be consirucled ol 1 1/2" x 1 1/2" lube. 3'-6‘ high <br />20 painted safely yellow ' <br />Cost to extend sanitary manhole 137 two feet. This cost is <br />associated with PRSi pr*m explicitly gave direction to install <br />24 manhole 137 at an elevation of 998' <br />Cost to rent a 3-inch pump with suction and discharge hoses <br />for two months. This was due to the unusu.'illy wet site <br />26 conditions <br />Amount Action Remarks <br />1.698.00 Rejected <br />2.098.00 Rejected <br />Refer to detail 4/S-5. Angle frames were a requirement at all <br />mechanical roof openings. <br />This was not accepted and the work was not done. <br />1,328.00 Rejected This was not accepted and the work was not done. <br />Add 22 SF of retaining wall to base bid Add base material <br />and labor for ext» xJing retaining wall • 50 LF Add for <br />additional excavation for extension of the retaining wall and <br />31 spreading Ihe excess material on <br />Install a four-inch storm sewer line with a yard drain cover In <br />the grass area and day-lighted out of Ihe curb per discussion <br />In the field with United Water. Bill Wolters and Rochon Coro, at <br />34 the north side of office <br />Furnish and install two coals of solvent based epoxy finish lo <br />36 the floors in rooms 120. 121, 123. 123A and 124 <br />2.146.00 Rejecled This was not accepted and the work was not done. <br />2.428 00 Rejected This proposal was not accepted and the vyork was not done. <br />Extra cost lo remove water for utility work that was not <br />43 included in original proposal request <br />Epoxy floor coating on mezzanine and mam level rooms, a <br />lotaJ of 2.500 SF This cost supersedes Miscellaneous Cost <br />45 «I40 that was submitted January 22 <br />Cost lo install timer switch lo inlerlock with exhaust fan f^3 that <br />51 was not shown on the plans <br />Cost lo provide one disconned for Make-UP Air Unil - refer lo <br />bo PR tfS <br />Extra costs assoaated with removing existing class 5 base <br />61 ar>d areas <br />11,153 00 Rejecled <br />An allowance was accepted In miscellaneous cost No 26 for <br />pumping due to the wet construction season. This claim wasn't <br />made for dewatering bur for controlling rainwater and wasnT even <br />mentioned for for six months after the utility work was done <br />1,328.00 Rejected <br />Split costs With city on dyring out, demo and repair work of <br />63 interior. <br />606 00 Rejected <br />128.00 Rejected <br />25.538.00 Rejected <br />3,114,00 Rejected <br />The agreement w/ Kirby Thompson was according lo miscellaneous <br />cost No. 40, and that item is being included m Change Order No. 7. <br />Please see explanation from "Approved Equal Co." regarding this <br />timer and whether it should have been on EF-3 or EF-6 <br />This should have resulted in a credit from the mechanical and an <br />add to the electrical See PR #9. <br />Tlus^ was pre-approved at $6,305 and that amount .s being <br />included in Char>ge Order No 7. ^ <br />The City has rw responsibility for these cos^ <br />1 025 00 Reiecled f'eid before the manhole wasKeiecled installed. There was no extra for this work <br />Approved in <br />Change order <br />2.058,00 #5 This is item No 1 on Change Order No. 5 dated Janu.iry 14. 2003 <br />This change was rejecled. and Ihe cost to modify the modular block • <br />1 187 00 Rninrina Rochon’s Contract under miscellaneous ' <br />1.187.00 Rejected 'lem No. 33. This was included in Change Order No 5. <br />■ rwi la‘> ^Aiitii iaiAi.Ilb-ai
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.