budget. Of more concern is the split between the sanitary and water
portions of the work. Our estimate provided for a cost of $110,000.00
for water and 300,000.00 for sewer. Without contingencles, but
including the materia! already ordered, the costs for watermain In
this contract would be approximately $183,000.00 and for sewer
approximately $213,000.00 thus the water budget will show a large
over-expenditure and the sewer budget will show a large under-
expenditure. This distribution of costs Is pecullar fo the flow tender
as the other two tenders are split In approximately the same
proportions as our estimated prices. It ts possibly due to the
contractor loading a larger part of his common costs to the watermain.

The contract Is a untt price contract and, although we have

estimated the number of units quite carefully, Council! should be aware
that the actual amount pald to the contractor at the end of the
project willl be the sum of al! his unlt prices bid multiplied by the

actual measured quantity of work.

One of our concerns with the low bid and relatively

inexperienced contractor Is that we will have to do a great deal more
inspection to ensure a good product. Our Inspection schedule Is
already very tight with all the new development taking place. We

foresee the need for a third Inspector for two of three months during
this construction pertod. We recommend that a temporary Inspector be
hired tor the duration of this project and that his salary be taken
from the sewer development cost charge fund for this project. The
$124,000 saved by going to a less experienced contractor easily
justifies the extra $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 cost of an extra

ff ble

: F.E. Peters
City Engineer

FEP/kIn