Laserfiche WebLink
�D Estimate lst draft 2/7 : $22 ) 558 , 278. <br /> nd Draft:: , 069 , 202 . There was a miscalculation in the <br />,toren water drainage system and agreed to reduce markup from g to 7% . <br /> rd Draft: $21 ; 7937976 , This reflects sA' s detailed <br />-e iew of the estimate . After review the following changes were rade <br />;eneral conditions - $164 � 000 <br /> site work -- $195 , 000 <br /> Iasonry + $2107000 <br /> I1sc + $183 , 000 <br /> lal ance $207970 ; 000 <br /> 823 , 9760 <br /> fhy was the estimate at the end of the last phase different from this one? <br /> kt the end of the last phase SMMA proposed 600,000 worth of reductions , <br /> rhe committee took $1 , 800 , 000 . They did not get the full value of those <br />`ed uct i ons . <br />'here is an i ncrease in stormwater drainage +$100 , 000 , landscape and site <br /> m rovements +$1140000 . change from brick to concrete block was less of a <br />%)avings than estimated , $120 , 000 less . Roofing is $84 , 000 more, because of <br /> i miscalculation . Lab ease work, $100, 000 more . <br /> rete r asked how much the savings is for masonry instead of brick? <br />;230 , 000 total . <br />)ro osed action . There is a $620 , 385 cost overrun . SMMA has proposed <br /> Shan es amounting to $509 , 690 , changed which don't effect the program of <br /> � a � <br /> he <br /> building , leaving an overrun of 110 , 695 . They are proposing to go to <br />)Id with that and have an alternates list. <br />=d said they don ' t take pride of authorship of these lists . Any other <br /> 3,uggesti ons will be welcomed . <br /> Raul said he has been studying the estimate . The site work is still $2 . 8 <br /> n i 1 1 i on it has gone up $3 . 00 per sq foot yet most of the cuts were in the <br />� 'te work . The committee made drastic cuts in site work , where did it go9 <br /> Joel said $958 , 000 was voted to be deleted from the site . <br /> Dau 1 asked where it went, if we took $900 a 000 out, the estimate should be <br /> Down but i t is u . Where did the deductions go? what happened. <br /> 3h i l had a summary from Brian Lawlor who reviewed the site on a line by <br /> line basis identifying where the differences are, They anticipated a <br />� 1 7 000 savings for changing the track surface but it is only $59 , 000 , for <br /> example , <br /> a u l said he has been fuming since he got this estimate , At the last <br /> "� <br />::st i mate meeting , in carob r i dge , he said he did not think these numbers were <br />,gal i d . The committee said It then and are saying it now. They would not <br /> lavep roceeded with the design if they knew thea they were really $4, 5 <br /> n i l l i on over! Then the format of the estimate was switched so the <br />}omen i ttee cannot compare the two ! It is the best sandbagging job he has <br /> Seen in years . <br /> This CommIttee cut and cut and cut from this project, They spent many <br /> iou rs trying to cut costs only to find out they did not come near to <br /> enough . SMMA already took the $300 , 00 anticipated savings from the <br /> utt� ng g this . <br /> STP so the project i s really 1 m i 1 l i on over '.'. He i s e ry upset about h� <br /> s . <br /> 3 <br />