Office of Financial Management
Washington State Major Project
Status Report
June 30 , 2008
Agency Number : 0699
Agency: Shoreline Community College
Project Number: 06-3-021
Project Title: Student Union Building Renovation (Pagoda Union Building)
Shoreline Community College
Bill Reference: Sec 903, Chapter 488, Laws of 2005
Contact: Bob Roehl 206 546-4514 broehl@shoreline.edu
Project Description: (This is an alternative financing project…COP)
The college has demolished the old 900 Building (Pagoda Student Union Building) to its foundation and is rebuilding to meet current and future demands for student programs and services. The new student union building will centralize student social program space.
The building will accommodate change, both as the college grows and as technology and programs evolve. The space is being designed as flexible and multi-purpose to allow for change without significant future cost. By adding an additional floor to the existing foundation, an increase of approximately 13,000 gross square feet will be realized.
The current Pagoda Union Building is approximately 39,000 gross square feet and that will increase to approximately 52,000 square.feet.
Project Total Cost:
Phase
Predesign
Design
Construction*
Biennium Appropriation Amount
2004-05 Local funds 170,200
2005-06
2006-07
Local funds 2,117,904
15,878,561
817,086 Other (contingency, equipment, artwork
Tax, contract admin, etc.)
Total
* MACC = Maximum Allowable Construction Cost
18,813,551
1

Schedule:
Predesign Complete
Budget Schedule
April 05
Actual/Forecast
April 05
Start Design
Bid Date
Notice to Proceed
50% Complete
April 05
Feb 06
April 06
Dec 06
April 05
May 06
June 06
January 07
Substantial Completion
Final Acceptance
Aug 07
Sept 07
April 08
Aug 08
Project Status and discussion of Critical Path for Construction:
Variance (wks)
0 wks
0 wks
+10 wks
+7 wks
+3 wks
+34 wks
+48 wks
Project’s initial bidding process was not successful, with only one bidder and that one being excessively high. After some design and scope changes the project was re-bid and
Berschauer Phillips Construction Company was the successful bidder. The COP was issued at the end of June 2006, with construction beginning in earnest on June 27 th
2006.
The excessive rain, snow in November and wind in December caused some delays. Latent conditions caused significant additional delays and the contractor has also accepted responsibility for some delay time. The campus was without a Student Union Building for about 21 months. The building was scheduled to open in Mid September 2007, in time for the 2007-08 academic year. However, due to delays in construction, the initial opening of the building actually occurred on April 2, 2008, with temporary occupancy permitted.
Currently, we are in the final stages, working with the City of Shoreline, to be permitted for permanent occupancy of the building. We anticipate this happening before August 1,
2008.
Contract Award History
A/E Agreement
Amendments
Pending Changes $ 0
Original Agreement $ 659,098
$ 1,105,337
Total
Current Design
Contingency
$ 1,764,475
Construction Contract (excl. sales tax)
Bid Award Amount $ 13,766,722
Change Orders
Pending Changes $ 0
Total
Current Construction
Contingency
$ 1,505,336
$ 15,272,008
$ 0
2

Potential for Project Cost Overruns/Claims
The construction schedule had to be modified throughout the project due to latent conditions, some scheduling issues in the work, and delays due to inclement weather. As a result, the project will incur some cost overrun claims.
Discussion of Project Quality
The project has been designed to implement sustainable practices, material uses and meet state energy code requirements. The construction will meet all industry standards for this type of construction. Several discoveries during demolition and preparation of the structure for fitting of new components reveal deteriorated utilities infrastructure (high voltage conduit) and installations from earlier projects that were poorly documented. These discoveries have revealed dangerous conditions, which required correction, and diverted project funding to correct.
Generally, the completed project quality was high. The final product has shown a few problem areas that are being addressed where feasible.
Project Photographs
3

4