Fire Station #1 gets approval despite cost increase

By VERNON ROBISON

The Progress

The Mesquite City Council voted last week to continue forward in its current course to build a new fire station on Mesquite Blvd., despite a significant increase to the construction cost projections for the project.

In a meeting held Tuesday, Sept. 13, the Council voted to employ federal American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) funds to make up a $5 million difference in what was originally allocated for the project.

In March, the Council approved a city-owned parcel at 105 Mesquite Blvd., just south of the public library branch, as the site for the new station. At that time, the cost projections for construction were between $6.6 and $7 million.

The council decided then to fund the station using Redevelopment Authority (RDA) money. This would allow the city to employ a Construction Manager At Risk (CMAR) technique thought to be the most economic and quality-driven method. At that time, it was thought that the use of federal ARPA would not allow CMAR projects.

But in a presentation before the Council at last week’s meeting, Mesquite Public Works Director Travis Anderson said that many things had changed since last March.

He explained that the city had entered into pre-construction services with CORE Construction as the designated CMAR. CORE had run preliminary cost estimates and come back with a total of $12 million for the project, nearly double the original allotment.

“As you know, we are seeing a sharp uptick in prices, supplies, labor, all kinds of things,” Anderson said. “That is just due to the way the world is right now. So I decided to come back and get direction from Council on the options going forward.”

Anderson said that the city could make up the cost difference by pulling from its allotment of ARPA funds for the station.

“Before, we were instructed that we couldn’t use the federal funding for a CMAR project,” Anderson said. “But we have since done a lot of research and there are projects in Carson City and Fernley that do allow that.”

If that was determined to be the solution, there would be additional paperwork to do, Anderson said. The city would have to cancel the current contract with CORE. Then a new Request for Qualifications would have to be released with specific language divulging it as a federally-funded project, Anderson said.

“Then we would re-advertise it and go through the qualification period again,” Anderson said.

This option would likely be the fastest way to get the project completed. he added.
“I could have that CMAR on board by the middle of November,” Anderson said. “Then they could start to evaluate the plans and order the generators, steel and other things that have long lead times right now.”

The other option before the Council would be the more conventional sealed bid method. In that case, there would be time involved to put it out to bid and eventually accept the bid, Anderson said. In that scenario, contractor would probably not be selected before March 2023. Only then would those long-lead-time items be ordered.

“It is going to add 6-8 months to the project,” Anderson said.

Another factor to consider in the decision would be quality. Using a CMAR, the construction manager is highly qualified for that type of construction, Anderson said.

The CMAR also works with the architect from the very beginning to bring the best final product at the best possible price.

“That is an advantage of CMAR is that we are able to work and collaborate together with the architect, the fire chief and the city staff to make this as efficient as possible from the very beginning,” said CORE Construction Executive Vice President Mark Hobaica who was at the meeting.

Hobaica added that the CMAR process would be transparent in determining cost. The CMAR would provide a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the process. The project could then not exceed that price.

In a traditional closed bid process, the contractors might exploit weak spots in the drawings to bring the bid in lower and then file change orders that can bring the actual cost up significantly.

“Under this scenario, the city takes on the risk to take care of all the change orders from the human error of architects or engineers not including everything in the drawings; and then you pay for that,” Hobaica said. “With CMAR we take that risk.”

In the end, both Anderson and Mesquite Fire Chief Jayson Andrus recommended using the CMAR process for the project.

Some Council members were reticent about this idea.

Councilman Brian Wursten was astonished at the huge cost overrun. He noted that when the topic of a new fire station was first brought up, about a year ago, the cost estimate was at $4 million.

“I’ve got to tell you, I have a really hard time with that,” Wursten said. “It makes me really feel like I want to go with the sealed bid process.”

Councilman Wes Boger agreed. He pointed out that the city was in need of yet another fire station in the Sun City area and plans were already being made for that.

“I just don’t see us being able to build that second fire station if we spend all of our money on this one,” Boger said. “That is an important station as well. I just feel like we are not doing our due diligence if we are not putting it out to bid.”

Councilman George Gault said that he had watched the methods of the public works department for many years and he trusts them to select a qualified contractor for the project at a fair price in the sealed bid process.

But Trobaika suggested that conditions in the market were significantly different than the recent past.

“I’ve been in this business for 31 years and I’ve never seen a market as volatile as this,” Trobaika said. “If you decide to go with a sealed bid, you just are not able to circumvent the market. There is no way to guarantee that you get a lesser price in a sealed bid, or that the price you are given in the beginning will stay less.”

Councilwoman Karen Dutkowski commented in favor of CMAR. “It seems to me that if we are going to build it, we need to build it right,” she said. “This method will build the efficiency in and ensures that qualified builders will do it.”

Councilwoman Sandra Ramaker expressed concern about spending all the money available to the city on the one project. But she believed that it would provide the best value.

“I believe very much in what you pay for is what you get,” she said. “That has been a hard thing to learn over the years. But I found that its good to be picky about who gets the job and how it is done.”

In the end, Wursten spoke up to make the motion. He moved to follow the recommendation of staff and move forward with the CMAR project.

“But Mark, you be a good steward of our money!” he urged.

The motion passed with a 4-1 vote. Wursten, Gault, Dutkowski and Ramaker voted in favor. Boger was opposed.