Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.788 Amendment (4)1 REVISED SCOPE OF WORK AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES AND BROWN AND CALDWELL, INC. PROJECT 06 -01 RELATING TO: COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW PROJECTS 11 TIME OF PERFORMANCE The work for all Tasks shall be completed by October 30, 2008. 111 MAXIMUM COMPENSATION THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 is made and entered into this 20th day of March 2008, by and between THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES, a non charter code city of the State of Washington, (hereinafter called the "CITY and Brown and Caldwell, Inc., a California Corporation (hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT WHEREAS, the CITY entered in to an AGREEMENT with the CONSULTANT on July 5, 2006, (the AGREEMENT) and WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT amended the AGREEMENT on February 21, 2007, and May 9, 2007 and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to amend the AGREEMENT again to amend the Scope of Work, Budget, and Time of Performance. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the representations and the terms, conditions, covenants and agreements set forth in the original AGREEMENT and this AMENDMENT, the parties hereto agree as follows: The amended scope of professional services to be performed and the results to be achieved by the CONSULTANT pursuant to the AGREEMENT shall be amended to read as shown in the attached Exhibit A to Amendment 3. The Scope of Work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the work. The CONSULTANT'S total compensation and reimbursement are stated in the attached Exhibit B to Amendment 3. Current billing rates are reflected in the attached Exhibit C to Amendment 3. The budget for any Task may be further adjusted by mutual agreement without an amendment to the Agreement, as long as the maximum compensation amount of $1,847,500 is not exceeded. Amendment No. 2 to I3rown and Caldwell Agreement, 06 -01 Page 1 of 2 IV SIGNATURES Except as modified herein, the original Agreement and Exhibits A through D shall remain in effect. In WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF PORT ANGELES: CONSULTANT: TITLE: r APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: Amendment No. 2 to Brown and Caldwell Agreement, 06 -01 Page 2 or 2 EXHIBIT A To Amendment 3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 06 -01 SCOPE OF SERVICES RELATED TO PHASE 1 DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE PORT ANGELES CSO IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Brown and Caldwell (BC) has prepared this Scope of Services for Amendment 3 to the referenced services agreement in order to fund several unanticipated elements of work critical to the design effort. The additional work required is described below with reference to the task structure presented in Amendment 2 (Phase 1 Design Services); cost of service estimates are reported in Exhibit B. Task 5.7 (Response to DOE Phase 1 Review): Background. The Predesign Phase of this project culminated in the development of a report that defined the specific Phase 1 projects as well as recommended rescheduling of projects in order to meet the performance requirements of a DOE order in 2010. The report was intended to provide more detail of the Phase 1 projects and clarity around the long -term CSO control strategy. In the case of the latter, the report provided information, based on updated flow modeling, beyond that included the DOE approved Facility Plan and DOE requested additional analysis to enable them to select a preferred option that best fit their management of the state's CSO program. Basis for Request. This task was included in the Design Phase contract to fund the additional evaluation requested by DOE. We included an amount of $6840, as task 5.7 in Amendment 2, to address series of questions raised by DOE. Because DOE had not anticipated that overflows might occur from the control system at the plant, the analysis became substantially more involved than first expected in order to gain DOE support. In addition, because the program was being rescheduled and would require funding to accelerate to earlier years of the City's program, a series of workshops or presentations with City staff and the City Council were also conducted beyond the scope on the task included in Amendment 2. It was agreed that charges for work beyond scope would continue to be applied to this task and funded specifically at such time as any additional amendment might be warranted. At the present time, no further related work needs to be performed and therefore the costs incurred to date beyond the original task budget ($7335) is the amount to be included in Amendment 3. Task 6. (Preparation of Contract Documents for Phase 1 Improvements): Background. Amendment 2 defined the design and preparation of contract documents in terms of the improvements as described in the Engineering Report (subsequently titled Amendment to the 2006 CSO Reduction Facilities Plan for consistency with DOE process). That Plan defined a variety of pipelines to manage combined sewer flows exceeding plant capacity including a new parallel outfall and connection to the existing Rayonier outfall diffuser. The design concept adopted for pipelines was based on minimizing the risk to encountering buried cultural materials. This concept included placing above ground (and covering with a berm fill) or routing new pipelines to follow previous trenching and excavations. Recently the City discovered that any excavation, especially north of the bluff line, may have a higher risk of encountering cultural materials. At the same time, the City has been in engaged in formalized archaeological review with state agencies as required to qualify for state funding programs. As a consequence, the City determined there may be an advantage to minimizing risk if certain existing, but abandoned, Rayonier pipelines can provide the additional required outfall capacity. This amendment will fund a determination of suitability for using an existing Rayonier pipeline and, if so, incorporate that into the project improvements and .contract documents. The Corps of Engineers was requested to make a jurisdictional determination with respect to an identified wetland near a sensitive location of the proposed new pipelines. Upon a site visit by the Corps of Engineers to resolve this question of jurisdiction, an additional wetland was discovered near Francis Street Park. While COE proposed regulation is generally favorable to the project, this wetland has introduced an additional parameter to be taken into account in the design at this location. The design already presents difficult siting of several major pipelines, existing and new paved pathway and now a wetland. Scope of Work. The proposed pipeline is depicted on Rayonier as -built drawings as a 42- inch diameter Fiberglass Reinforced Pipe (FRP), a pipe material common to industrial applications. An initial analysis (hydraulic and routing) has been performed to determine the feasibility of using this pipeline. That analysis has helped to define a larger scope of work required to determine condition and material adequacy, construction requirements and the effort to incorporate a new design approach into the Phase 1 contract documents. The various sub -tasks required to complete this new approach includes the following; the budget estimate is included in Exhibit B. 1. Condition Assessment. The material and condition adequacy of the existing 42 -inch FRP pipeline must be determined. This work will include an internal CCTV inspection, where entry will occur from the valve vault adjacent to the Rayonier foam tank (City forces will obtain necessary approvals and disassemble the existing piping as necessary for the inspection equipment access). Brown and Caldwell will also research FRP to develop a current understanding of the performance and expected service life of this material. This information will also be used to determine if any rehabilitation of the FRP line, such as cured in place lining, might be required. 2. Existing City outfall location. The design of new City CSO- related will still assume alignments adjacent and parallel to the existing City outfall. Because there is conflicting locations presented by various sources of existing information, the outfall must be located and accurately mapped onto the contract drawings. This task will be performed using pipe entry equipment and, possibly, low impact probes (air) to make physical location and depth measurements. 3. New outfall design. This approach still requires an initial length of new gravity sewer to be trenched. Our initial analysis determined that a new alignment (versus the current Phase 1 design) will be required. The new alignment will require a shift in 3 other new pipeline that link the new diversion structure to the storage tank. Connecting structures will be required to link new pipelines to the existing 42 -inch line and possibly to accommodate lining the existing 42 -inch pipe if that is found necessary. A method of connection of the 42 -inch from the location of the valve vault through the foam tank and to the 48 -inch Rayonier outfall must be developed. 4. Pipelines and Pathway Re- Design at Conflicting Wetland. The proposed cross -over valve and related piping must be shifted east and the pathway alignment on top of the pipeline berm re- aligned and graded to pass between conflicting wetland and valve vault. 5. Preparation of Exhibits for Permitting, Archaeological and Property Owner Reviews. We anticipate that specific exhibits such as base maps, aerial photo mapping, etc that are beyond the contract document requirements will be needed. We have assumed an allowance additional staff time to provide specific drawings and exhibits as this requirement might arise. Products. The new outfall design will be incorporated into the contract documents in the form of drawings and specifications. The design and documents will be developed to accommodate reviews at completion levels of 60% and 90% as described in Amendment 2. Schedule. The current Phase 1 design effort is nearing the 60% delivery milestone at end of February, 2008. The work described under Amendment 3 requires certain approvals for site access as well as budget authorization. Based on a Notice to Proceed with Amendment 3 work by end of February, new milestones will be required to accommodate both new work and additional agency review processes identified by the City. An updated schedule is provided as Exhibit D. The new milestones will be as follows: 60% Document Review begins by May 1, 2008; 90% Document Review begins by August 1, 2008; Bid Ready Documents provided by October 1, 2008. TOTAL EXHIBIT B To Amendment 3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 06-01 Budget Estimate Table 1 Summary of Budgets For Amendment No. 3 Task 5.7 DOE Support Task 6.0 Design Pipeline Condition and Locations New Outfall Design ReDesign for Wetlands Conflict Permit Exhibits Table 2 Summary of all Agreement Tasks and Budgets Through Amendment No. 3 Task $7,400.00 $28,400.00 $48,000.00 $9,900.00 $9,000.00 $102,700.00 Approved Amount Through Amendment Amend. No.2 No.3 1. Project Management $115,000 2. Survey and Base Mapping $110,600 3. Cultural Resources Consultation $23,000 4. Geotechnical Engineering $145,000 5. Permitting and Environmental $136,800 $7,400 6. Preparation of Contract Documents, including Design $1,041,100 $95,300 7. Bidding Assistance $35,300 8. Additional Alternatives $21,100 9. Plant Flow Management $109,100 10. Additional Cultural and Geotechnical Work $8,000 Subtotals $1,745,000* $102,700 Total Contract Amount Through Amendment No. 3 $1,847,700 EXHIBIT C To Amendment 3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 06 -01 Consultant Labor Costs Staff Name Warburton, Jack O'Neal, Mike Kumataka, Gregory Dave McCleary Anderson, Gary Cutter, Jean Warford, James Duevel, Nancy Lubke, Linnea Morris, Melvan Matthews, James Snowden, Donald Paulson, Joel Rogers, Scott Vestergaard Hansen, Bo Ian Frank Leavitt, Arthur Pena, Michael Kimball, Kelly Sandy Redsteer Wagner, David Hamilton, Ada Williams, Heather Kramer, Lynn Deaterla, Damion Jacquemart, Joseph Adkins, Una Kreider, Tiffany M Wilcox, Shirley Job Title Sr. Vice President Managing Engineer Managing Engineer Managing Engineer Managing Engineer Principal Engineer Prinicpal Construction Engineer Supervising Engineer Supervising Engineer Supervising Engineer Supervising Construction Engineer Supervising Construction Engineer Senior Engineer Senior Engineer Engineer III Engineer III Engineer III Engineer II Engineer II Engineer II Engineer I Geologist/Hydrogeologist I Principal Designer Senior Designer Senior Drafter Drafter Project Coordinator II Project Coordinator II Word Processor IV Non salary Reimbursable Costs Hourly Rate $241.60 $198.26 $200.44 $198.69 $188.94 $148.87 $163.38 $198.69 $172.84 $159.38 $185.70 $176.34 $144.44 $134.26 $124.67 $119.05 $116.90 $104.44 $103.87 $100.14 $95.91 $92.70 $119.54 $110.02 $72.90 $67.44 $89.79 $73.13 $85.49 Brown and Caldwell does not maintain pre- determined charge -out rates for direct, non salary project costs. As these costs are incurred on a project as services rendered and charged by invoice they are billed to the client in accordance with contract terms. Project related travel using company -owned automobiles is billed at $.60 per mile; personal vehicles are billed at the current rate allowable by IRS and rental vehicles are billed at actual cost.