Page | 0
City of Visalia
Fleet Building Settlement Project
Project Manager - Mike Porter Assistant Project Manager - Jaklin H. Rowley CC: Renee Nagel Nick Mascia Frank Senteno Joe Cote Date: 07/11/2022 Figure 1: Vicinity Map - Fleet Maintenance Building
Page | 1
Contents
Table of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary and Background ................................................................................................. 2 Possible Project Solutions/Alternatives .......................................................................................... 2 Alternative 1: Award Project Bid as Proposed ........................................................................... 2 Alternative 2: Leave the Building as is and Allow Settlement to Continue ................................ 2 Alternative 3: Re-Bid the Project ................................................................................................ 3 Alternative 4: Award a Portion of the Bid - Only to Lift the Building........................................ 3 Alternative 5: Alter the Scope of Work to Remove and Replace the Interior Slab ..................... 4 Overall Cost Estimates for Each Alternative .................................................................................. 4 Fiscal Impact for Each Alternative ................................................................................................. 7 Staff’s Recommendation ................................................................................................................. 7 Appendix A: Eagle Lift Reference Projects .................................................................................... 9 Appendix B: Letters of Reference/Recommendation ................................................................... 12 Appendix C: Supporting Figures .................................................................................................. 16
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map - Fleet Maintenance Building .................................................................... 0 Figure 2: Less Invasive and Cleaner Work Site Compared with Alternate Methods ..................... 9 Figure 3: Changes in Level at door Frames before Polymer Injection ......................................... 10 Figure 4: Floors Brought Back to Level After Polymer Injection ................................................ 10 Figure 5: Letter of Reference 1 ..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6: Letter of Reference 2 ..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7: Letter of Reference 3 ..................................................................................................... 14 Figure 8: Letter of Reference 4 With Project Pictures .................................................................. 15 Figure 9: Construction Cost Increases - 4 Creeks Estimate .......................................................... 16 Figure 10: Lidar Scan - First Floor Facing west ........................................................................... 17 Figure 11: Lidar Scan- First Floor Facing East ............................................................................ 17 Figure 12: Concrete Area to be Replaced to Correct Drainage .................................................... 18 Figure 13: Stairs to be replaced .................................................................................................... 19 Figure 14: Improper Door Closing from Settlement..................................................................... 20 Figure 15: Buckling of Siding Due to Settlement ......................................................................... 21 Figure 16: Examples of Shear and Stress Cracking in the Building ............................................. 22 Table of Tables
Table 1: Alternative 1: Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Alternative 2: Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 5 Table 3: Alternative 3: Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 5 Table 4: Alternative 4: Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 6 Table 5: Alternative 5: Estimate Summary ..................................................................................... 6 Page | 2
Project Summary and Background
The Fleet Maintenance Building is located near the west entrance to the Corp. Yard (see Figure 1). More than 4 inches of settlement has occurred at the west end of the Fleet Building which was identified through survey and confirmed through LIDAR scanning (see Figures 10 & 11). The greatest settlement can be seen at the west entry door to the building. The settlement has caused the need for multiple repairs including door jams, floors, plumbing, footings, building slab, stairs, stairwells, roof, and metal siding (see Figures 12,13,14,15 &16). The excessive settlement has occurred due to poor soil compaction, excessive moisture content, and the presence of organic material in the subgrade as noted in the Geotechnical Investigation.
Possible Project Solutions/Alternatives
Alternative 1: Award Project Bid as Proposed
Key Points:
Project will begin after bid is awarded by Council at the August 1st meeting o Lift will Begin in November by the subcontractor (Eagle Lift) No guarantee this will permanently fix the foundation
Discussion:
This project option is projected to lift and stabilize the building slab and perimeter footing as recommended in the geotechnical report. As per the Geotechnical Engineer’s recommendation the slab and perimeter footing will be lifted and supported through polymer injection and “push piers”, Polymer shall be injected through a series of 5/8 inch holes drilled through the concrete slab in approximately a 4’ grid pattern. The actual work plan, including the size and depth of the holes and the spacing of the grid pattern, shall be determined by and stamped by a licensed Structural Engineer (to be determined). The existing exterior concrete shall be saw cut, removed, and hauled off by the contractor. All utilities, underground pipelines, or other underground structures will be protected in place during the removal of the exterior concrete. The limits of concrete removal and replacement will be verified by the contractor before starting work. In conjunction, the exterior landscaping and irrigation along the west end of the building will be removed and capped to reduce water retention around the foundation. The remaining irrigation shall remain functional. Additionally, the existing out-of-compliance wooden stairway is to be removed and replaced with a new exterior-grade steel stairway.
Alternative 2: Leave the Building as is and Allow Settlement to Continue
Key Points:
Additional settlement will occur
Repair and Maintenance costs will rise
Potential liability for the City
Potential seismic hazard (due to potential rolling of joists)
Page | 3
Discussion:
The city will reject the bid and let the building settlement continue. The geotechnical investigation advises that additional settlement will continue to occur. It is not possible to predict the precise amount of additional settlement that may occur, but it may exceed several inches over time and reduce the buildings structural capacity/strength. This alternative is not recommended if the City wishes to continue to use this building, the condition will likely get worse, and the costs of repairs and maintenance will continue to rise.
Alternative 3: Re-Bid the Project
Key Points:
Bids are increasing and it is unlikely that a new bid would be less Materials are on backorder and rebidding the project may cause further delay This process will take multiple months and additional staff time More settlement may occur
Discussion:
The city would send the project back out to advertise and accept new bids for the required work.
This option is not recommended as there is a high potential of receiving bids that are higher than the current bid. The city is seeing a continued increase in construction costs. Bids from suppliers and subcontractors are being issued with a one-week guarantee of price in many cases; in conjunction, the city has received notification from industry professionals that they are increasing their bids by 30% from 2020/2021 for work that will be done within the next two years (Figure 9). It is unlikely that rebidding the project will bring in lower bids and it is also a possibility that the city may receive no bids at all.
Alternative 4: Award a Portion of the Bid - Only to Lift the Building
Key Points:
This would reduce the current bid by $70,000
Remaining work would need to be re-bid
o There is no guarantee that the new bids would be less than $70,000 The remaining work includes staircase replacement and concrete work. A Temporary barrier will need to be installed at the second-floor door.
Discussion:
Award the Polymer injection, push piers and associated saw cutting, concrete removal, and stair removal, but do award the concrete replacement or stair replacement. This would reduce the amount of the award by approximately $70,000.00. This would require a separate quote be obtained for the stair replacement, and separate quotes or a separate bid for the concrete work. This alternative is possible if we can use an informal process to complete the staircase replacement and concrete work.
Please note that their will be an additional cost to barricade the second-floor door while the stairs are out of commission.
Page | 4
Alternative 5: Alter the Scope of Work to Remove and Replace the Interior Slab
Key Points:
The minimum estimated cost for the construction of this alternative is $316,000 Project will be re-bid for the new scope of work
This will also increase the project duration
Discussion:
Remove and replace the interior slab. This option requires removal of the building slab in the affected area, shoring of the building, overexcitation of the underlying soils, replacement of the concrete slab, replacement of interior features such as walls and plumbing, and hiring a structural engineer to design the concrete slab and building shoring during construction. The estimated cost of construction for this alternative is $316,000.00 (minimum). This alternative is not recommended due to the high cost, lengthy project duration, and extensive disruption of ongoing activities during construction.
Overall Cost Estimates for Each Alternative
Please note that CP0250 is a shared CIP number and multiple projects pull from this fund. This cost analysis was based off an initial project cost estimate of $150,000.
Table 1: Alternative 1: Estimate Summary
Budget Summary: Alternative 1 – Award Bid as Is
Construction Cost $198,225.00
Construction Contingency (5%) $9,911.00
Plumbing Contingency (5%) $19,823.00
Construction Surveying (3%) $5,947.00
Construction Inspection (1%) $1,982.00
Construction Management (5%) $9,911.00
Material Testing (3%) $5,947.00
Total Estimated Project Costs $251,746.00
Project Budget $150,000
Project Fund (CP0250) $2,000,000
Project Deficit $101,746.00
Page | 5
Table 2: Alternative 2: Estimate Summary
Budget Summary: Alternative 2 – No Associated Costs
Construction Cost $0.00
Total Estimated Project Costs $0.00
Project Budget $0
Project Fund (CP0250) $2,000,000
Project Deficit $0.00
Table 3: Alternative 3: Estimate Summary
Budget Summary: Alternative 3 – Estimated 30% Construction Cost Increase
Construction Cost $257,692.50
Construction Contingency (5%) $12,884.63
Plumbing Contingency (5%) $12,884.63
Construction Surveying (3%) $7,730.78
Construction Inspection (1%) $2,576.93
Construction Management (5%) $12,884.63
Material Testing (3%) $7,730.78
Total Estimated Project Costs $314,384.85
Project Budget $150,000
Project Fund (CP0250) $2,000,000
Project Deficit $164,384.85
Page | 6
Table 4: Alternative 4: Estimate Summary
Budget Summary: Alternative 4 – Award Portion of Bid
Construction Cost $128,225.00
Construction Contingency (5%) $6,411.25
Plumbing Contingency (5%) $6,411.25
Construction Surveying (3%) $3,846.75
Construction Inspection (1%) $1,282.25
Construction Management (5%) $6,411.25
Material Testing (3%) $3,846.75
Total Estimated Project Costs $156,434.50
Project Budget $150,000
Project Fund (CP0250) $2,000,000
Project Deficit $6,434.50
Table 5: Alternative 5: Estimate Summary
Budget Summary: Alternative 5
Construction Cost $316,021.20
Construction Contingency (5%) $15,801.06
Plumbing Contingency (5%) $15,801.06
Construction Surveying (3%) $9,480.64
Construction Inspection (1%) $3,160.21
Construction Management (5%) $15,801.06
Material Testing (3%) $9,480.64
Total Estimated Project Costs $385,545.86
Project Budget $150,000
Project Fund (CP0250) $2,000,000
Project Deficit $235,545.86
Page | 7
Fiscal Impact for Each Alternative
Alternative 1:
This alternative is funded by the Measure N Building Maintenance Fund 142, (No. 1420-72000/CP0250-999). The cost to complete construction exceeds the original estimate by $101,746.00. There are sufficient funds available in CP0250 to complete the construction phase of the project.
Alternative 2:
This alternative will have a delayed fiscal impact. The longer the building sits the more repair and cost the building will accumulate. Ultimately the building will need to be stabilized; down stacked, stabilized and rebuilt; or removed from service.
Alternative 3:
This alternative would be funded by the Measure N Building Maintenance Fund 142, (No. 1420-72000/CP0250-999).
The cost of this project is expected to increase. The city has received estimates that have specifically noted there is a 30% increase in construction costs for projects constructing within the next two years (Figure 9: Construction Cost Increases – 4 Creeks Estimate). It is also worth noting that many materials are on backorder and rebidding the project may cause further delays or an additional increase in material costs. There are sufficient funds available in CP0250 to complete the construction phase of the project.
Alternative 4:
This alternative is funded by the Measure N Building Maintenance Fund 142, (No. 1420-72000/CP0250-999). The cost to complete the portion of construction to stabilize the building will exceed the original estimate by $6434.50 plus the additional cost of barricading the second-floor door. It should be noted that the remaining construction must be bid separately, and additional funds will be required to cover these costs. There are sufficient funds available in CP0250 to complete the construction phase of the project.
Alternative 5:
This alternative would be funded by the Measure N Building Maintenance Fund 142, (No. 1420-72000/CP0250- 999). The cost to complete construction exceeds the estimate created by staff for the push pier installation and polymer injection by $235,545.86. There are sufficient funds available in CP0250 to complete the construction phase of the project.
Staff’s Recommendation
Should the City wish to continue using the Fleet Building, it must be stabilized, and repairs made to the stairs/concrete, and the roof will need to be replaced (the roof is being replaced with a separate CIP project). Staff originally estimated the cost to repair the Fleet maintenance building to be $150,000 including staff time, in which the engineer’s estimate for the construction cost was $132,400. Staff believes the bid received for the project was high for several reasons, including an escalation in costs since the time of the original estimate, the fact that only one bid was received and the contractor’s markup on the subcontractor’s (EagleLIFT) portion of the contract. It is important to note that since the original cost estimate was created, by staff, building costs have seen a significant increase; in some cases, city staff has seen up to a 30% increase in construction costs from 2020 & 2021 (Figure 9). It should also be noted that additional items were incorporated into the project after the engineer’s estimate was completed (Concrete work and Stair repair).
City staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Caliber Contracting Services Inc despite the increase in the cost originally estimated for the project. It is important to note that there is no guarantee that the push piers and polymer Page | 8
injection will be a permanent solution, though it is predicted to expand the life of the building. It is also important to note that the city has not previously used this method of construction, and there is a potential/probability of exacerbating the current cracking and movement of the building causing structural damage during the lift. Past projects done by the sub-contractor (Eagle Lift) have successfully lifted and stabilized buildings with settlement and unstable soil due to liquefaction.
Eagle Lift specializes in push pier and polymer injection to lift and stabilize buildings and is one of the very few companies that are qualified for this method of engineered lifting. Eagle lift provided both references and letters of referral to verify their work and project success. Two project references were submitted for jobs similar in scale to the project we are doing (the projects Eagle Lift works on are usually much larger and more complex). Eagle Lift also provided four letters of recommendation/reference from other projects they have worked on within the last five years.
A follow-up phone interview was done with the two references and the city did confirm the success of the projects and the satisfaction of Eagle Lift as a subcontractor. Each of the projects was successful according to the references and Eagle Lift was clean, efficient, on schedule, and quick to respond. Each of the references was more than satisfied with the work done by Eagle Lift and would use them again for future projects. See Appendix A for a summary of the phone interviews and Appendix B for a copy of the letters of recommendation/reference. The project references and contact are below.
1. Company: Geo-Engineering Solutions
a. Contact: Eric J Swenson
b. Phone: 925-433-0454
c. Email: [email protected]
2. Company: Williams Homes, Toll Brothers
a. Contact: Tom Laine
b. Phone: 760-532-9385
Engineering staff has performed a cost-benefit analysis, evaluated alternate means of repair, and determined the submittal from Caliber Contracting Services Inc is the most economical option for the project at the time the analysis was done (June/July 2022).
Page | 9
Appendix A: Eagle Lift Reference Projects
1. Geo-Engineering Solutions – Eric J Swenson (Phone Interview)
a. What is a description of the project you were working on and why did you choose to go with a push pier and polymer injection method?
i. The Z hotel in Oakland
ii. The project footings were on soil that was experiencing liquefaction. There was a large concern that an earthquake would cause a significant loss in bearing capacity. The project utilized the push pier and foam injection method to do ground improvement under the footings.
b. Was the project successful?
i. Yes, the project was successful in improving the ground beneath the footings. The project method also saved the owners hundreds of thousands of dollars.
c. How long ago was the project completed?
i. The project was completed in April of 2022
d. Has there been a noticeable settlement since?
i. No, and the ground is expected to remain stable based on CPT testing performed during and after the project. (CPT is Cone Penetration Testing)
e. Were there problems that arose due to the push piers or polymer injection (namely structural damage)?
i. None that was recorded, it is recommended that strain gauges be attached to the building to monitor the structure as it is lifted. The concern when lifting the building this way is mainly cosmetic. Stucco buildings often see a lot of cracking in the stucco after lifting.
f. Would you use this method again to correct a settling building? i. Yes, and GEO has used eagle Lift for other projects to stabilize other buildings.
g. Project Photos:
Figure 2: Less Invasive and Cleaner Work Site Compared with Alternate Methods Drilled holes and polymer
injection site
Page | 10
Figure 4: Floors Brought Back to Level After Polymer Injection Concrete floor has been
brought back to level at
the door frames
Figure 3: Changes in Level at door Frames before Polymer Injection Changes in Level at door
Frames before the
Polymer Injection
Page | 11
2. Williams Homes – Tom Laine (Phone Interview)
a. What is a description of the project you were working on and why did you choose to go with a push pier and polymer injection method?
i. This project lifted 4 homes and 1 swimming pool over the course of a year in the Santa Clarita area. The homes were approximately 2000 square feet and two stories, each had up to 5 inches of settlement at different corners of the homes. The project used both the push pier and the helical piers to lift the homes/pool and inject the polymer (helical piers have a different installation method and are used for loads that move side to side, such as water in a swimming pool). Eagle lift was clean and efficient throughout the project and provided quick responses with updated approaches, when necessary, that were approved by their engineers. This was the first time this company had used this method and it was a test of the functionality of this method which was successful.
b. Was the project successful?
i. The projects were successful in lifting the homes and the pool and they have been stable since. Before and after survey was conducted to show that the buildings had been lifted back their designed elevation(s).
c. How long ago was the project completed?
i. This project started in October of 2019 and was completed in December of 2021
d. Has there been a noticeable settlement since?
i. There has not been any recorded or noticeable settlement since the completion of the project.
e. Were there problems that arose due to the push piers or polymer injection (namely structural damage)?
i. There was no structural damage recorded but there was surface/cosmetic damage to the stucco on the building. There was cracking that occurred in the stucco however it was less severe than the contractors had been expecting from a building that had settled 5”.
f. Would you use this method again to correct a settling building? i. Yes, they would use eagle lift and this method again.
g. Project Photos?
i. Cannot be released due to ownership.
ii. It should be noted that Tom did specify that the photos did not truly show just how big of a difference the lifting of the buildings made. It was difficult to see the change through photos alone; it was very noticeable in-person to those who had been to the homes before and after the project.
Page | 12
Appendix B: Letters of Reference/Recommendation
Figure 5: Letter of Reference 1
Page | 13
Figure 6: Letter of Reference 2
Page | 14
Figure 7: Letter of Reference 3
Page | 15
Figure 8: Letter of Reference 4 With Project Pictures
Page | 16
Appendix C: Supporting Figures
Figure 9: Construction Cost Increases - 4 Creeks Estimate
Page | 17
Figure 10: Lidar Scan - First Floor Facing west
Figure 11: Lidar Scan- First Floor Facing East
West
Entry
Door
West
Entry
Door
4” of settlement as
per topographic
survey and
confirmed by Lidar
Majority of
settlement found at
west entry door
Page | 18
Figure 12: Concrete Area to be Replaced to Correct Drainage Page | 19
Figure 13: Stairs to be replaced
Page | 20
Figure 14: Improper Door Closing from Settlement
Page | 21
Figure 15: Buckling of Siding Due to Settlement
¼” lags torn from
wood studs
Buckling can be seen on
the South and West side
of the building
Page | 22
Figure 16: Examples of Shear and Stress Cracking in the Building Page | 23
Page | 24