Full Text
www.WoolZee.com EXHIBIT ANALYSIS, REPORT Date: 8/10/2017 Attn: Aaron M. Laing, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Mr. Laing, At your request, I have examined Applicant’s Exhibit #8 (Applicant’s Construction Budget & Quotes/Invoices) as well as Applicant’s Exhibit #10 (Applicant’s “Redline” of TWC Construction Cost Estimate). On Wednesday, August 9, 2017, I had a 15-minute phone call with you (Mr. Laing), in which you summarized testimony from several witnesses that testified after I left the hearing on Friday, August 9, 2017. I cannot verify that the summary of the testimony is accurate, but I understand that there is a recording that can be used by the Hearing Examiner to confirm the testimony. I have accepted the summary of the testimony you provided for purposes of my responses below. GENERAL COMMENTS ON APPLICANT’S EXHIBITS #8 AND #10 Applicant’s Exhibit #8 is undated and shows a running total of invoices paid from March 2, 2017 through July 1, 2017, with a total of $110,288. The line items appear to track the items in Applicant’s Exhibit which TWC reviewed and addressed in the July 31, 2017 Cost Estimate Analysis Report I submitted and testified about at the hearing. Applicant’s Exhibit #8 also identifies total costs to-date (including taxes) as $118,719.70 and estimates additional costs to complete the approved improvements at $97,100 without taxes (assumed to be $106,810 with 10% WSST). Without adding in state sales tax, Applicant’s Exhibit #8 suggests that the total cost of completing all approved work per ---PAGE BREAK--- www.WoolZee.com the May 19, 2017 building permit is $215,819.70; with WSST, the cost would be $225,529.70. The Applicant has supplied Quotes/Invoices (attached to Applicant Exhibit for portions of several relevant work packages shown in the approved plans. Based on my professional experience and knowledge of the current costs in the relevant market (Redmond, WA), several of these Quotes/Invoices appear to be incomplete in their assumptions of the described, approved Scope of work based on the May 19, 2017 revised building permit, and they do not provide realistic or complete estimates to complete the full scope of improvements per the approved permit. Here are some comments on the four attached estimates: • The March 30, 2017 Viking estimate for electrical work does not include the approved light fixtures shown on the plans and listed in the fixture schedule (the estimate was prepared nearly two months before the permit was issued, so that may be one reason it omits this cost). The March 30 estimate says it was “given without any drawings to work off just info covered on walk through” and also says “Install all furnished by owner light fixtures interior and exterior.” It’s not known how many fixtures, lights and other items were discussed during the walk-through, whether Viking has been hired to do the work or whether Viking has changed its estimate based on the approved plans. Based on TWC’s estimate, all electrical work, including lighting, is estimated to cost $73,080. TWC estimated the electrical service and distribution alone would cost $7,000, and the Applicant’s March 30 estimate allots $10,000 for the service and distribution (an increase of $3,000 over the TWC estimate). • I understand that the Applicant testified that the June 13, 2017 estimate of $43,397 from Cedar River Glass for the storefronts and doors is from the manufacturer and that is why it is low, as there is no middle-man markup on the materials. The estimate excludes items that are part of the TWC estimate and does not appear to be based on the approved plans but some after-the-fact revision as it references ---PAGE BREAK--- www.WoolZee.com an excluded opening. The estimate is significantly lower than the July 5, 2017 Pacific Glass & Door estimate ($72,138) and Pacific Window Systems Inc. estimate ($93,207.39) as well as the TWC estimate of $65,615. However, even assuming it is a true apples-to-apples estimate for the approved work, the delta between the TWC estimate and the Cedar River Glass estimate is only $22,218, not the $60,853 delta shown in Exhibit #10. • I understand that the Applicant testified that the HVAC system that will be installed is different from the one identified in the attachments to the Applicant’s Exhibit the October 26, 2016 proposal from The Metalsmiths, Inc. I understand that the Applicant’s general contractor, Mr. Worley, testified that the Applicant’s HVAC subcontractor held a pre-application meeting with the City on Monday, July 31, 2017 and that he was not aware of the cost or be responsible for the scope of work that would be reviewed and approved by the City. I understand that The Metalsmiths, Inc. estimate was prepared in October 2016 prior the Applicant’s purchase of the building and prior to preparation of the building permit plans for the original permit or the approved revised permit. I’m not certain that The Metalsmiths, Inc. contractor viewed the interior or exterior of the building or any plans, and it appears that the estimate assumed the entire inside of the building other than a “storage area” would be a single “rental space” as opposed to the three spaces that are shown on the approved plans. Dividing the building into multiple spaces will require additional ducting, controls and materials. Based on my review of the approved plans and my cost estimates, which are current and not nearly a year old as with The Metalsmiths, Inc. proposal, I remain confident that the TWC estimate of $40,200 is accurate and would make no adjustment based on this document. • July 7, 2017 estimate from Price Busters Plumbing for bathroom work for “rough in only. No tri, out. (sic)” This estimate more or less tracks the TWC estimate for the bathroom work, which includes the finish work excluded from the Price Busters Plumbing estimate. I’m not aware of any testimony from the Applicant or other ---PAGE BREAK--- www.WoolZee.com witnesses challenging the TWC Plumbing estimate, other than the $900 hose bib cost, which I’ve addressed below. I understand that the City’s Building Inspector Mr. McCleod testified that about 30%-40% of the approved work on the Applicant’s building has been completed and that only 10%- 20% of the approved exterior improvements have been completed. Assuming that the running total of actual costs incurred per Applicant’s Exhibit #8 is $118,719.70, then this is 30% of a total Project Cost of $395,733 and 40% of a total Project Cost of $296,798. As noted in my conclusion below, even were one to accept the Applicant’s costs and estimates as true (where there is sufficient documentation and an apples-to-apples comparison can be had), the total costs to complete the approved project without tax is ~$307,000 and ~$338,000 with tax. It is worth pointing out that $118,720 is 35% of $339,200, which is consistent with Mr. McCleod’s testimony about the amount of work done as well as the TWC revised estimate using the Applicant’s figures. With regard to Applicant’s Exhibit #10, it appears to be a redline of the TWC’s June 8, 2017 Construction Cost Estimate based on the plans approved by the City on May 19, 2017. I understand that the Applicant’s representative Mr. Miller testified that he prepared Exhibit #10. I will address his redlines in the order they appear in the exhibit by subject. Project Subtotal (General Requirements, GC Overhead & Profit). It is my understanding that the Applicant and his contractor testified that the general contractor (Wayne Construction) is being paid on a time and materials basis with an hourly rate of $35 to $40 and no markups on subcontractor invoices. Because I cannot verify these statements, for purposes of my response, I will accept them and use the TWC’s June 8, 2017 estimated Project Total Bare Costs of $378,336 plus WSST of 10% ($37,834) (Project Total of $416,170) for comparison purposes. Demolition. I understand that all demolition work has been completed and invoiced at a cost of $16,500 plus tax. As I testified, the TWC estimate was conservative and was $15,409 for the demolition work called for on the plans. I understand that the Applicant believes that two lines should be removed from the estimate: line 6 (Demo concrete SOC ---PAGE BREAK--- www.WoolZee.com at select) and line 8 (Demo portions of existing CMU for new openings). The approved plans call for this work, and I understand that the portions of the building for the new windows have been demolished and the windows framed in. It’s unclear to me why the Applicant is suggesting these items are not applicable. It turns out that the actual cost of the demolition work, pre-tax, exceeded my estimate by about $1,000. Based on the Applicant’s stated demolition costs, the TWC Project Total Bare Costs should be increased to $379,836, not reduced by $10,645 per the Applicant’s Exhibit #10. Siding. I understand that the Applicant testified that no stucco would be put on the building; however, stucco is repeatedly called for and referenced on the approved plans, including details about the installation, so stucco is properly part of the estimate of the cost of the approved scope of work. However, for comparison purposes, I provide a Project Bare Cost figure with and without the stucco work in my conclusion below. Windows. As noted above, I understand that the Applicant testified that the June 13, 2017 estimate of $43,397 from Cedar River Glass for the storefronts and doors is from the manufacturer and that is why it is low as there is no middle-man markup on the materials. The estimate excludes items that are part of the TWC estimated and does not appear to be based on the approved plans but some after-the-fact revision as it references an excluded opening. The estimate is significantly lower than the July 5, 2017 Pacific Glass & Door estimate ($72,138) and Pacific Window Systems Inc. estimate ($93,207.39) as well as the TWC estimate of $65,615. However, even assuming it is a true apples-to-apples estimate for the approved work, the delta between the TWC estimate and the Cedar River Glass estimate is only $22,218, not the $60,853 delta shown in Exhibit #10. For purposes of this response, I will reduce my running Bare Project Costs estimate from $378,836 by this delta to $357,118, though I believe the TWC estimate (which is lower than the other two estimates), to be more accurate. This Bare Project Costs figure becomes $392,830, after taxes are applied. Wall Finishes. I understand that the Applicant’s architect Mr. Morris stated that Level 4 drywall finish is for museums and not a finish level for commercial uses, that Level 2 or ---PAGE BREAK--- www.WoolZee.com Level 3 is appropriate for commercial applications and that the Gypsum Wall Board (GWB or “Drywall”) estimate is too high due to the increased labor. Mr. Morris is only correct in that higher levels of finish require more labor. Here is a brief description of the various levels of finish: • Level 2 would result in a light coat of joint compound over rough joint taping. If you have ever been in an unfinished garage this is the condition of the GWB that Level 2 finish buys you. Wall board hung with joints that are largely visible to any occupants. • Level 3 would result in slighter better coverage of the GWB joints, it essentially buys you one more skim coat on the joints. Level 3 is common in situations where a wall texture will be applied to the GWB after the Drywall process, covering up the less than fully finished GWB joints. For this reason, you will almost never see GWB Level 3 Finish in a Commercial Application- as wall texture is rare in the commercial building world. • Level 4 is what TWC’s estimate assumes, it is the base finish level designed for commercial grade smooth finish walls. TWC assumed this level of finish because out of 300+ projects we see each year, 200+ of which are Commercial Construction in nature- we have never seen a level of finish below Level 4, in any occupied Commercial Space. Beyond all of this, the cost of the added level of finish between one level and another is extremely marginal. For instance, the average cost for GWB Level 4, installed, is $2.50 per square foot. The average cost for GWB Level 3, installed, is $2.35 per square foot. For the total 4,600 square feet of GWB required for this project this represents a delta of $690. The Applicant references a $10,000 bid (about $2.17 per square foot) but does not provide the bid or any documents scoping the work. While $10,000 may cover the work in the first line item under Wall Finishes (TWC estimated it at $11,500), I am not aware of testimony or documents that address the remaining three items under Wall Finishes. I believe my estimate is correct and make no adjustment for this item (and even if I ---PAGE BREAK--- www.WoolZee.com adjusted my estimated down by $1,500, it’s only a net $500 change considering the added demolition costs). Blinds. I understand that the Applicant has stated the blinds are not on the approved plans and will not be installed, so an additional $5,525 may be removed from my running Bare Cost estimate, bringing it to $351,593 ($386,753 with tax); shelves, however, are shown on the approved plans and therefore are properly part of the estimate (even removing them, though, only reduces the Bare Costs to $345,493). Fire Suppression / Hose Bib / Fire Line. I understand that the Applicant and the City’s Building Inspector Mr. McCleod testified that no fire suppression (sprinklers or service line) were required, so I have removed the Fire Suppression costs ($12,750) and Fire Service Line from Utilities ($3,500) as well as the Hose Bib ($900) from Plumbing my estimate, which reduces the pre-tax estimate to $333,443, or $367,888 with taxes. HVAC. As noted above, I understand that the Applicant testified that the HVAC system that will be installed is different from the one identified in the attachments to the Applicant’s Exhibit the October 26, 2016 proposal from The Metalsmiths, Inc. and that it will be a heat pump and allow heating and A/C, per the approved plans. I understand that Applicant’s general contractor Mr. Worley testified that the Applicant’s HVAC subcontractor held a pre-application meeting with the City on Monday, July 31, 2017 and that he was not aware of the cost or be responsible for the scope of work that would be reviewed and approved by the City. I understand that The Metalsmiths, Inc. estimate was prepared in October 2016 prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the building and prior to preparation of the building permit plans for the original permit or the approved revised permit. I’m not certain that The Metalsmiths, Inc. contractor viewed the interior or exterior of the building or any plans, and it appears that the estimate assumed the entire inside of the building other than a “storage area” would be a single “rental space” as opposed to the three spaces that are shown on the approved plans. Based on my review of the approved plans and my cost estimates, which are current and not nearly a year old as with The Metalsmiths Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- www.WoolZee.com proposal, I remain confident that the TWC estimate of $40,200 is accurate and make no adjustment. Lighting. I understand that the Applicant testified that the approved lighting fixtures will not be installed and that, instead “chandeliers” purchased “on-line” will be installed. I cannot comment on whether this is accurate, but the TWC estimate is based on the approved plans, including the approved fixture count and schedule of fixtures, which is required to meet Energy Code. I also understand that the Applicant’s architect Mr. Morris testified that the approved lighting fixture schedule items may be less expensive than the July 19, 2017 quote from Sea-Tac Lighting & Controls or TWC estimate. The Brands specified seldom effect the total estimated project cost because across most items, within most construction projects, the Specified standard is already considered the Industry Standard. This means that a professional cost estimator will already be assuming what is within the specifications. Phrased a different way, the construction industry is filled with Standards, these standards become the Averages, estimators estimate Average construction costs. If a contractor was allowed to use a fixture—that is, a light, a toilet, a door, etc. – that was less expensive than the Industry Standard (or the “Average”) it would still not affect the work item cost to a great degree, and it would certainly not translate into a substantial decrease in overall project cost. The reason for this is that the Material cost of any given work item is only 40% (on average) of the total cost of that work item, the other 60% is Labor. Any savings found within the Material side of a work item would be watered down when you add back in the static Labor costs. To prove this out, TWC’s estimate accounts for a total overall cost for Lighting, installed, of $35,000. This number was compiled assuming Industry Standards and Averages. If the Applicant could source sub-standard Light Fixtures for 30% less than the assumed Standard Fixtures, it would not result in a 30% decrease in overall lighting costs. The Material portion of the $35,000 figure would be $14,000 (40% of $35,000), the Applicant ---PAGE BREAK--- www.WoolZee.com would then realize a total savings on this Material of $4,200 (30% of $14,000) making his assumed Material cost for Lighting Fixtures, alone, $9,800 ($14,000 - $4,200). Adding this number to the unchanged Labor costs (installation) results in a new total Lighting cost of $30,800 ($21,000 + $9,800). This means a 30% reduction in Quality on the Material side translates into a 12% reduction in overall Lighting cost. In this way, it is extremely unlikely that the Applicant could provide the level of Lighting that this project requires per the approved plans and per the Energy Code for the $18,300 figure listed in Exhibit #10—this figure is about 50% less than the Industry Standard estimate. Even assuming the Applicant’s March 30, 2017 electrical service estimate from Viking is accurate, the Viking estimate accounts at most for the items in lines 1 (Service and Distribution for $7,000) and 4 (Devices for $4,900) and possibly some of the line 5 Basic Materials. There is no reference in the Viking estimate to the items in lines 6 (Communications and security for $5,460) and 7 (Fire alarm system for $4,200), so these items should remain. As noted above, the Viking estimate was not prepared based on approved plans and pre-dates the approved plans by nearly two months. All told, the Viking estimate accounts for about $12,000 of the line items in the TWC estimate. While the Viking estimate could not be as reliable or accurate as the TWC estimate without the actual plans, I have reduced the running TWC Project Bare Cost estimate by $2,000 ($10,000 per Viking versus ~$12,000 in TWC) and $15,000 for the difference between the Sea-Tac Lighting & Controls bid and the TWC estimate for the fixtures- for a total reduction of $17,000. This brings the TWC Project Bare Costs estimate to $317,443, or $349,118 when the required State & Local Taxes are applied. CONCLUSION In sum, even were one to accept the assertions and documents in Applicant’s Exhibits #s 7, 8 and 10 as true (where an apples-to-apples comparison can be made), at most the Project’s pre-tax Bare Project Costs could be reduced to $317,443 ($291,943 without the stucco), including $87,428 for all approved/required Exterior Improvements without the ---PAGE BREAK--- www.WoolZee.com stucco. With tax, the actual total project costs based on the approved plans and using the Applicant’s proposed reductions is $349,118 ($321,138 without the stucco). In my professional opinion, there is no possible way to complete the approved work per the May 19, 2017 building permit plans for less than $250,000, and the approved exterior improvements will cost at least $96,171 with tax (and excluding the stucco). Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding these findings. Thank you. Respectfully, Matthew M. Woolsey, Owner/Principal The Woolsey Company, LLC ---PAGE BREAK--- www.WoolZee.com DATE: August 10, 2017 A/ E: WPDC Cleveland, LLC ESTIMATE: Construction Documents Estimate SPECIFICS: Various Tenant Improvements at Existing Commercial Space CSI Div. DIVISION TITLE TOTAL 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS $16,409 3 CONCRETE $12,375 4 MASONRY $1,650 5 METALS $0 6 WOODS, PLASTICS & COMPOSITES $10,583 7 THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION $37,858 8 OPENINGS $74,635 9 FINISHES $32,455 21 FIRE SUPPRESSION $0 22 PLUMBING $12,630 23 HVAC $40,200 26 ELECTRICAL $56,080 31 EARTHWORK $7,420 32 EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS $6,250 33 UTILITIES $8,900 PROJECT TOTAL Bare Costs $317,443 Estimate Contingency 0% $0 PROJECT SUBTOTAL $317,443 General Requirements 0% $0 PROJECT SUBTOTAL $317,443 GC Overhead & Profit 0% $0 State & Local Taxes 10% $31,744 PROJECT TOTAL $349,188 FACILITY SERVICES SUBGROUP FACILITY CONSTRUCTION SUBGROUP SITE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBGROUP WPDC CLEVELAND, ORIGINS TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (REDLINE ADJUSTED) This is an Opinion of Probable Cost ---PAGE BREAK--- CSI # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Extended 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS DEMOLITION 1 Demo existing doors 1 Allow 200.00 $200 2 Demo all siding, cladding & trim from CMU exterior 3,800 SF 0.15 $570 3 Demo scupper & downspout 1 EA 50.00 $50 4 Demo all wall fittings at interior 3,800 SF 0.05 $190 5 Demo concrete ramp 185 SF 4.25 $786 6 Demo concrete SOG at select 1,100 SF 3.95 $4,345 7 Demo select wood framed wall portions 80 SF 3.50 $280 8 Demo portions of existing CMU for new openings 1,050 SF 6.00 $6,300 9 Temporary structure for CMU openings 1 Allow 750.00 $750 10 Demo metal coping at parapet 215 LF 2.50 $538 11 Roofing, left in place, assumed 1 Allow 0.00 $0 DISPOSAL 1 Load/haul demo'd material 1 LS 900.00 $900 2 Disposal charges 1 LS 500.00 $500 - ADD For Parity With Applicant's Costs 1 Allow 1,000.00 $1,000 DIVISION 2 TOTAL $16,409 3 CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS 1 1'-4"X1'-3" continuous footing, reinforced 4 CY 450.00 $1,800 2 1'-10"X0'-8" continuous footing at select existing 5 CY 525.00 $2,625 3 2'-5"X2'-5"X1'-3" spread footing at select 1 CY 400.00 $400 WPDC CLEVELAND, ORIGINS TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (REDLINE ADJUSTED) This is an Opinion of Probable Cost ---PAGE BREAK--- CSI # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Extended WPDC CLEVELAND, ORIGINS TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (REDLINE ADJUSTED) This is an Opinion of Probable Cost SLABS 1 4" slab on grade, at patched SOG 1,300 SF 4.75 $6,175 2 Base aggregate at SOG 25 CY 55.00 $1,375 DIVISION 3 TOTAL $12,375 4 MASONRY 1 Infill CMU wall at select exterior openings 30 SF 55.00 $1,650 DIVISION 6 TOTAL $1,650 5 METALS 1 New metal canopy, Not In Contract 1 Allow 0.00 $0 DIVISION 6 TOTAL $0 6 WOODS, PLASTICS & COMPOSITES WALL CONSTRUCTION 1 2X4 stud framing at select interior walls 1,100 SF 1.75 $1,925 2 2X6 stud framing at select interior walls 1,225 SF 2.50 $3,063 3 Sheathing at select shearwalls 700 SF 1.95 $1,365 4 LVL 1-3/4"X11-7/8" headers 15 LF 14.00 $210 STORAGE CONSTRUCTION 1 LVL 1-3/4"X11-7/8" at 16" OC at storage framing 400 SF 4.25 $1,700 2 Sheathing at subfloor 400 SF 1.75 $700 ---PAGE BREAK--- CSI # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Extended WPDC CLEVELAND, ORIGINS TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (REDLINE ADJUSTED) This is an Opinion of Probable Cost ROOF CONSTRUCTION 1 8X8 posts, throughout 60 LF 12.00 $720 2 3X12 at new roof openings 15 LF 24.00 $360 3 PT 6X6 columns at select 60 LF 9.00 $540 DIVISION 6 TOTAL $10,583 7 THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION SIDING 1 Clean existing envelope surface 3,000 SF 0.40 $1,200 2 Stucco system, over existing, full system 3,000 SF 8.50 $25,500 3 Trim at all new wood cladding 450 LF 6.25 $2,813 4 Flashing & sealing at all new wood cladding 3,000 SF 0.15 $450 ROOFING 1 No new roofing, assumed 1 Allow 0.00 $0 2 New metal coping at parapet 220 LF 25.00 $5,500 INSULATION 1 Rigid insulation at new SOG perimeter 200 SF 3.50 $700 2 Sound batt insulation at 4" walls 1,100 SF 0.65 $715 3 Sound batt insulation at 6" walls 1,225 SF 0.80 $980 4 No other new insulation, assumed 1 Allow 0.00 $0 DIVISION 7 TOTAL $37,858 ---PAGE BREAK--- CSI # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Extended WPDC CLEVELAND, ORIGINS TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (REDLINE ADJUSTED) This is an Opinion of Probable Cost 8 OPENINGS DOORS 1 6070 Storefront door 4 EA 4,100.00 $16,400 2 3070 HM door & frame, flush 1 EA 1,400.00 $1,400 3 3070 SC WD door & frame, flush 5 EA 1,325.00 $6,625 4 Wood casing trim at wood doors, both sides 175 LF 6.50 $1,138 5 Interior door hardware 5 EA 325.00 $1,625 6 Exterior door hardware 9 EA 450.00 $4,050 WINDOWS 1 New storefront windows, exterior, throughout 650 SF 85.00 $55,250 2 New storefront windows, interior, throughout 125 SF 80.00 $10,000 3 Flashing & sealing at new SF windows 730 SF 0.50 $365 - DEDUCT For Parity With Applicant's Costs 1 Allow (22,218.00) ($22,218) DIVISION 8 TOTAL $74,635 9 FINISHES WALL FINISHES 1 5/8" GWB taped & finished, level 4 4,600 SF 2.50 $11,500 2 Prime all GWB 4,600 SF 0.40 $1,840 3 Paint all GWB, 2 coats 4,600 SF 1.20 $5,520 4 No other wall finishes, assumed 1 LS 0.00 $0 ---PAGE BREAK--- CSI # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Extended WPDC CLEVELAND, ORIGINS TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (REDLINE ADJUSTED) This is an Opinion of Probable Cost FLOOR FINISHES 1 Patch & level existing concrete 1,700 SF 0.20 $340 2 Seal all concrete 2,800 SF 0.35 $980 3 Wood base trim, throughout 425 LF 6.00 $2,550 CEILING FINISHES 1 5/8" GWB taped & finished, level 4 250 SF 2.50 $625 2 Prime all GWB 250 SF 0.40 $100 3 Paint all GWB, 2 coats 250 SF 1.20 $300 4 Clean existing wood ceiling 2,800 SF 0.25 $700 FITTINGS 1 Restroom accessories package 1 EA 350.00 $350 2 Drop down ladder & access hatch at Roof 1 EA 650.00 $650 3 Ladder & access hatch at Storage 1 EA 900.00 $900 4 Blinds at all windows 650 SF 8.50 $5,525 5 Storage shelves 400 SF 14.00 $5,600 6 Other fittings & accessories 1 Allow 500.00 $500 - DEDUCT For Parity With Applicant's Costs 1 Allow (5,525.00) ($5,525) DIVISION 9 TOTAL $32,455 ---PAGE BREAK--- CSI # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Extended WPDC CLEVELAND, ORIGINS TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (REDLINE ADJUSTED) This is an Opinion of Probable Cost 21 FIRE SUPPRESSION 1 Riser assembly 1 LS 1,750.00 $1,750 2 Fire department connection 1 EA 1,200.00 $1,200 3 Fire sprinkling, throughout, full system 2,800 SF 3.50 $9,800 - DEDUCT For Parity With Applicant's Costs 1 Allow (12,750.00) ($12,750) DIVISION 21 TOTAL $0 22 PLUMBING PLUMBING 1 Water closet, rough & finish, to 10' 1 EA 1,650.00 $1,650 2 Lav sink, rough & finish, to 10' 1 EA 1,400.00 $1,400 3 Hose bibbs, rough & finish, to 10' 2 EA 450.00 $900 4 Floor drains, rough & finish, to 10' 4 EA 600.00 $2,400 5 Water heater, rough & finish, to 10' 1 EA 2,250.00 $2,250 6 Shower assembly, rough & finish, to 10' 1 EA 2,500.00 $2,500 7 Piping & fittings 1 LS 1,850.00 $1,850 GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT 1 New scupper at roof 1 EA 400.00 $400 2 New downspout at roof 20 LF 9.00 $180 - DEDUCT For Parity With Applicant's Costs 1 Allow (900.00) ($900) DIVISION 22 TOTAL $12,630 ---PAGE BREAK--- CSI # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Extended WPDC CLEVELAND, ORIGINS TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (REDLINE ADJUSTED) This is an Opinion of Probable Cost 23 HVAC 1 New HVAC equipment, throughout 2,800 SF 9.00 $25,200 2 New HVAC distribution, throughout 2,800 SF 4.50 $12,600 3 New HVAC controls, throughout 2,800 SF 0.50 $1,400 4 TAB 1 LS 1,000.00 $1,000 DIVISION 23 TOTAL $40,200 26 ELECTRICAL 1 Service & distribution 2,800 SF 2.50 $7,000 2 Lighting 2,800 SF 12.50 $35,000 3 Emergency lighting 2,800 SF 0.65 $1,820 4 Devices 2,800 SF 1.75 $4,900 5 Basic materials 2,800 SF 5.25 $14,700 6 Communications & security 2,800 SF 1.95 $5,460 7 Fire alarm system 2,800 SF 1.50 $4,200 - DEDUCT For Parity With Applicant's Costs 1 Allow (17,000.00) ($17,000) DIVISION 26 TOTAL $56,080 31 EARTHWORK 1 Excavate spoiled fill at demo'd slab, with care 250 CY 23.00 $5,750 2 Excavate for utilities work 35 CY 12.00 $420 3 Base agg bedding at utilities work 10 CY 55.00 $550 4 Backfill at utilities work 25 CY 8.00 $200 5 Other minor earthworks 1 LS 500.00 $500 DIVISION 31 TOTAL $7,420 ---PAGE BREAK--- CSI # Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Extended WPDC CLEVELAND, ORIGINS TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (REDLINE ADJUSTED) This is an Opinion of Probable Cost 32 EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS 1 Demo select existing concrete sidewalks 100 SF 3.25 $325 2 Demo select existing road asphalt 250 SF 2.75 $688 3 Demo select existing parking asphalt 250 SF 2.65 $663 4 Patch demo'd conrete sidewalks 100 SF 6.50 $650 5 Patch demo'd asphalt at road 250 SF 3.85 $963 6 Patch demo'd asphalt at parking 250 SF 3.85 $963 7 Traffic control for utilities work 1 Allow 1,500.00 $1,500 8 Other minor site improvements 1 LS 500.00 $500 DIVISION 32 TOTAL $6,250 33 UTILITIES 1 New water service to building 125 LF 24.00 $3,000 2 New fire line service to building 125 LF 28.00 $3,500 3 New waste service from building 125 LF 14.00 $1,750 4 Meters, structures & fittings 1 Allow 3,500.00 $3,500 5 Other minor utilities work 1 LS 650.00 $650 - DEDUCT For Parity With Applicant's Costs 1 Allow (3,500.00) ($3,500) DIVISION 33 TOTAL $8,900