Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.554 Original Contract r gn so AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17 BETWEEN THE THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES AND BROWN AND CALDWELL RELATING TO: WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND PLANNING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 17 ay of October, 2000, 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 desires engineering consulting assistance in wastewater and stormwater system engineering and planning; and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a qualified consulting firm to perform the scope of work as detailed in Exhibit A, and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that it is in full compliance with the statutes of the State of Washington for professional registration and /or other applicable requirements, and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that it has the background, experience, and ability to perform the required work in accordance with the standards of the profession, and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT represents that it will provide qualified personnel and appropriate facilities necessary to accomplish the work; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above representations and the terms, conditions, covenants and agreements set forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows: I SCOPE OF WORK The scope of professional services to be performed and the results to be achieved by the CONSULTANT shall be as detailed in the attached Exhibit A and shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the work. The CITY may review the CONSULTANT'S work product, and if it is not satisfactory, the CONSULTANT shall make such changes as may be required by the CITY. Such changes shall not constitute "Extra Work" as related in Section XI of this Agreement. The CONSULTANT agrees that all services performed under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the standards of the profession and in compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws. The Scope of Work may be amended upon written approval of both parties. II OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Upon completion of the work, all documents, exhibits, photographic negatives, or other presentations of the work shall become the property of the CITY for use without restriction and without representation as to suitability for reuse by any other party unless specifically verified or adapted by the CONSULTANT. However, any alteration or reuse of the documents, by the City or by others acting through or on behalf of the City, will be at the City's sole risk. City of Port Angeles October, 2000 III DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Each party shall designate its representatives in writing. The CONSULTANT'S representative shall be subject to the approval of the CITY. IV TIME OF PERFORMANCE The CONSULTANT may begin work upon execution of this Agreement by both parties and the duration of the agreement shall extend through June 30, 2002. V PAYMENT The CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT as set forth in this section of the Agreement. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed, services rendered, and all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment shall be on the basis of the CONSULTANT'S cost for actual labor, overhead and profit plus CONSULTANT'S direct non -salary reimbursable costs as set forth in the attached Exhibit B. 1. Labor costs shall be based on the hourly rates shown in Exhibit B. Hourly rates shall be based upon an individual's hourly wage, times the total number of hours worked, times a multiplier of 3.364. The multiplier shall include overhead, CADD, computer, and profit. General clerical time shall be considered an overhead item, except where specific work items are involved that require one hour or more continued effort, in which case time will be charged on the basis of hours worked. 2. The direct non -salary reimbursable costs are those directly incurred in fulfilling the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, travel, subsistence, telephone, reproduction and printing, supplies and fees of outside services and consultants. No percent (0 overhead and profit may be added to direct non -salary reimbursable costs. B. The CONSULTANT shall submit invoices to the CITY on a monthly basis. Invoices shall detail the work, hours, employee name, and hourly rate; shall itemize with receipts and invoices the non -salary direct costs; shall indicate the specific task or activity in the Scope of Work to which the costs are related; and shall indicate the cumulative total for each task. C. The CITY shall review the invoices and make payment for the percentage of the project that has been completed less the amounts previously paid. D. The CONSULTANT invoices are due and payable within 30 days of receipt. In the event of a disputed billing, only the disputed portion will be withheld from payment. E. Final payment for the balance due to the CONSULTANT will be made upon the completion of the work and acceptance by the CITY. F. Payment for "Extra Work" performed under Section XI of this Agreement shall be as agreed to by the parties in writing. VI MAXIMUM COMPENSATION Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties, the CONSULTANT'S total compensation and reimbursement under this Agreement, including labor, direct non -salary reimbursable costs and outside services, shall not exceed the maximum sum of $368,658.00. City of Port Angeles October, 2000 VII EMPLOYMENT Employees of the CONSULTANT, while engaged in the performance of any work or services under this Agreement, shall be considered employees of the CONSULTANT only and not of the CITY, and claims that may arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the CONSULTANT'S employees while so engaged, on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the CONSULTANT. In performing this Agreement, the CONSULTANT shall not employ or contract with any CITY employee without the City's written consent. VIII NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT shall conduct its business in a manner, which assures fair, equal and non discriminatory treatment of all persons, without respect to race, creed or national origin, or other legally protected classification and, in particular: A. The CONSULTANT shall maintain open hiring and employment practices and will welcome applications for employment in all positions, from qualified individuals who are members of minorities protected by federal equal opportunity /affirmative action requirements; and, B. The CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of applicable federal, state or local laws or regulations issued pursuant thereto, relating to the establishment of non discriminatory requirements in hiring and employment practices and assuring the service of all persons without discrimination as to any person's race, color, religion, sex, Vietnam era veteran status, disabled veteran condition, physical or mental handicap, or national origin. IX SUBCONTRACTS A. The CONSULTANT shall not sublet or assign any of the work covered by this Agreement without the written consent of the CITY. B. The CONSULTANT will be using the firms submitted with its proposal as subcontractors. Subcontractors other than those listed shall not be permitted without the written consent of the CITY. C. In all solicitation either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by the CONSULTANT for work to be performed pursuant to a subcontract, including procurement of materials and equipment, each potential subconsultant or supplier shall be notified by the CONSULTANT of Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, including the nondiscrimination requirements. X CHANGES IN WORK Other than changes directed by the CITY as set forth in Section I above, either party may request changes in the scope of work. Such changes shall not become part of this Agreement unless and until mutually agreed upon and incorporated herein by written amendments to this Agreement executed by both parties. XI EXTRA WORK The CITY may desire to have the CONSULTANT perform work or render services in connection with this project, in addition to the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit A and minor revisions to satisfactorily completed work. Such work shall be considered as "Extra Work" and shall be addressed in a written supplement to this Agreement. The CITY shall not be responsible for paying for such extra work unless and until the written supplement is executed by both parties. City of Port Angeles October, 2000 XII TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. The CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time upon not less than ten (10) days written notice to the CONSULTANT. Written notice will be by certified mail sent to the consultant's designated representative at the address provided by the CONSULTANT. B. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to the completion of the work, a final payment shall be made to the CONSULTANT, which, when added to any payments previously made, shall compensate the CONSULTANT for the percentage of work completed. C. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the work, documents that are the property of the CITY pursuant to Section II above, shall be delivered to and received by the CITY prior to transmittal of final payment to the CONSULTANT. XIII INDEMNIFICATION /HOLD HARMLESS The CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify the CITY from any claims, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees and litigation costs, arising out of claims by third parties for property damage and bodily injury, including death, caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT employees, affiliated corporations, officers, and subcontractors in connection with the work performed under this Agreement. The CITY agrees to indemnify the CONSULTANT from any claims, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees and litigation costs, arising out of claims by third parties for property damage and bodily injury, including death, caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY, CITY's employees, or agents in connection with the work performed under this Agreement. If the negligence or willful misconduct of both CONSULTANT and CITY (or a person identified above for whom each is liable) is a cause of such damage or injury, the loss, cost, or expense shall be shared between the CONSULTANT and the CITY in proportion to their relative degrees of negligence or willful misconduct and the right of indemnity shall apply for such proportion. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the CONSULTANT and the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the CONSULTANT'S liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the CONSULTANT'S negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the CONSULTANTS waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. However, the CONSULTANT expressly reserves its rights as a third person set forth in RCW 51.24.035. XIV INSURANCE The CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The CONSULTANT shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and, City of Port Angeles October, 2000 2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products /completed operations; broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground (XCU) if applicable; and employer's liability; and, 3. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence. Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the CONSULTANT. The CITY shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of the endorsement naming the CITY as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The CITY reserves the right to review a certified copy of all required insurance policies in the CONSULTANTs office. The CONSULTANT'S insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The CONSULTANT'S insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY, and the CITY shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. XV APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, and in the event of dispute the venue of any litigation brought hereunder shall be Clailam County. XVI EXHIBITS AND SIGNATURES This Agreement, including its exhibits, constitutes the entire Agreement, supersedes all prior written or oral understandings, and may only be changed by a written amendment executed by both parties. The following exhibits are hereby made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A Scope of Work Exhibit B Project Budget Exhibit C Project Schedule In WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF PORT ANG LES CONSULT NT Ae fAr MAYOR TITLE: (JAL /*f'i n' APPR ED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: 444.1 CRAIG KNU ON, CITY ATTORNEY BECKY UP CI CLERK N.\PROJECTS120- 25B &C \00AGRM1 WPD City of Port of October, 2000 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PORT ANGELES WASTEWATER PROJECTS EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PORT ANGELES WASTEWATER PROJECTS This agreement covers the consulting engineering services anticipated to occur generally between November 2000 and July 2002. Individual task descriptions are included below. Task 1.0: Project Management and Coordination, Scope Development Objective. To manage, administer, and provide ongoing coordination for the project. This task includes technical and financial management of the contract; liaison with the City, operational staff, and design team. Approach. Major activities include: 1. Prepare a project management plan that covers all work. The plan would define the personnel, project schedule, scope of services, project control reports, method of estimating completion of work, invoicing, records storage, project filing, and calculation filing. 2. Utilize the program schedule prepared under Item 1 above to monitor the progress of the work in relation to established time and budget constraints. Update and coordinate schedule revisions with the City. 3. Prepare monthly progress reports for submittal with progress payment invoices with backup as required by the City. Progress reports will identify budget status, progress status, major activities of the previous month, out of scope work, upcoming activities, and issues or complications that could prevent meeting milestones. 4. Assumes that work will be spread over a 20 month period. 5. An allowance for scope development of subsequent work phases. City Responsibilities. 1. Timely review of products and decisions on issues critical to scheduled progress. 2. Identification and involvement of appropriate City staff. Work Products. The Consultant will deliver the following products: 1. Project Management Plan (PMP), including initial CPM schedule in MS Project in electronic format. Exhibit A —Page 1 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc 2. Summary of key meeting issues. 3. Monthly invoices. Task 2.0: Continuing Collection System Activities Objective. This task covers continuing work activities related to collection system modeling, the roof drain disconnection pilot study and drafting the final roof drain disconnection ordinance. Collection System Modeling. The collection system modeling covered in this task will incorporate updated flow information collected during Winter 2000 and 2001, and newly verified pipe data to provide final calibration for the SewerCAT hydraulic model of the collection system. The calibrated hydraulic model will then be used for analytical work in other tasks. For example, the model will be used to establish baseline overflow frequency and volumes for the existing system and all of the CSO reduction alternatives under consideration in Task 5.0. Additionally, the completed model can be a valuable tool for evaluating the impacts of future expansions of the sewer system, growth within the current service area, and new industrial sources. Roof Drain Disconnection Pilot Study. Task 2.0 also covers completion of the inflow removal /roof drain disconnection pilot study through and including post construction results monitoring at the end of Winter 2002. To date, the roof drain disconnection pilot study has involved identifying a suitable pilot study area, characterizing the topography and land use in the area, and installing flow monitors at the outlet of the pilot rehab and control basins. The next phase of this project will involve calibrating an I/I model for the pilot area to estimate the contribution of various types of 1/I sources, smoke testing to identify the connected roof drains, determining how roof drains are to be rerouted, updating cost estimates for roof drain disconnection, and completing the rehabilitation construction. After the rehabilitation is complete, the reduction in flow attributable to roof drain disconnection in the pilot area will be estimated using post rehabilitation flow monitoring data, and 1/I modeling analysis. The cost effectiveness of the pilot study will be evaluated by comparing the rehabilitation costs to the flow reduction. These results will help determine the applicability of city- wide roof drain disconnection program, and possible exceptions to the roof drain ordinance. Roof Drain Disconnection Ordinance. Our previous analysis of 1/I and the 1960's smoke testing data suggested that roof drain disconnection would be cost effective, regardless of other CSO mitigation strategies the City chooses to implement. As such, Brown and Caldwell researched ordinances adopted by other municipalities, and began drafting an ordinance for Port Angeles. A draft ordinance, in narrative format, was delivered to the City in March, 2000. The draft was based upon some city input, but also required Brown and Caldwell to make assumptions on city preferences for funding and implementation. New work under this contract will produce the final draft ordinance for City use. This finalization will occur in 2002 when the results from the inflow pilot study are known. The final draft will incorporate technical and format comments from the City on the first draft, city feedback on finance and implementation preferences, effectiveness data from the inflow pilot project, and exclusions as recommended in the inflow study. The ordinance will detail requirements for new construction as well as how rehabilitation at existing dwellings is to occur, funding for the work, and conditions under which residents would qualify for an exemption. Exhibit A —Page 2 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc Approach. This task covers three ongoing or continuing work areas which are fairly independent. The approach for each of these areas is identified below. Collection System Modeling. The Consultant will: 1. Acquire from the City and review the processed flow data and precipitation data from Winter 2000 and 2001. We will prepare the flow and precipitation data for use with Brown and Caldwell modeling programs. 2. Refine our estimates of contributing sewered area and number of connections upstream of each flow monitor using the sanitary sewer and land parcel GIS coverages. 3. Calibrate Brown and Caldwell's I/I model to the Winter 2000 and 2001 flow monitoring data. Perform comparisons with previous calibrations. Use parcel maps to verify previous flow allocation assumptions. 4. Final collection system facilities verification. May need some additional information on CSO weirs and diameters of specific pipes. Will request information as needed. Number of requests should be small. 5. Compare SewerCAT hydraulic model simulated flows to flow monitor data and plant flow data. Check to see how closely the model predictions of when overflow events occur correspond with CSO monitor data. 6. Compute CSO frequency and volume using updated I/I model and SewerCAT hydraulic model calibrations for the current condition (i.e. year 2001) and the one- year storm event. Also, investigate potential bottlenecks in the collection system. This information will help form a baseline for the facilities planning effort. Roof Drain Disconnection Pilot Study. The Consultant will: 1. Use results of I/I model calibration for the pilot rehabilitation basin to estimate the contributions of various I/I sources. (I/I model calibration performed in Approach Item 3, above.) 2. Assist the City in preparing source detection /smoke testing field study. Begin with public notification process and obtaining access to private property (outside homes). Let residents know that if their roof drains are directly connected to the sanitary sewer, they may be in violation of proposed ordinance and that City will disconnect roof drains, free -of- charge, during the pilot study. Assist City in deciding what types of roof drain rerouting would be acceptable. Prepare work plan, schedule smoke survey with City field staff, and rent smoke blowers and auxiliary equipment (by City). When field work schedule is finalized, notify police and fire of the smoke testing dates. 3. Source detection/smoke testing field study. Conduct smoke testing throughout pilot rehabilitation basin. For each source, note the defect type (e.g. roof drain, catch Exhibit A —Page 3 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000scope4.doc basin), drainage pattern in the vicinity of the source, and approximate contributing area. For positive roof drain tests, note the roof drain configuration and determine how roof runoff could be rerouted. All information should be recorded on prepared field study data sheets. 4. Compile all smoke testing information in a database for transfer to the City. Information will include field notes, diagrams and digital photographs. 5. Perform analysis of field data. Revise our estimate of the number of connected roof drains. Our previous estimate used 20+ year old smoke testing data. Using the method of disconnecting roof drains and rerouting runoff recommended at each location, prepare a revised estimate of the rehabilitation construction cost, and an estimate of the expected reduction in one -year inflow for the pilot basin. 6. Compare I/I model estimated inflow with the results of the smoke testing survey. Identify the implications of the results. 7. Based on observed construction issues and cost estimates, assist City in determining which connected roof drains should be removed. (It is possible that some of the roof drains in the pilot area would be particularly difficult or costly to remove; the City may choose not to disconnect under these circumstances.) Begin drafting conditions for exemptions to include with ordinance. Notify the residents with connected roof drains of the City's intent to disconnect. Notify residents of method of disconnection, project schedule and potential level of disruption. 8. Assist City with plans for rehabilitation construction. Our participation could include help with design of rehabilitation methods. 9. Help City prepare for Winter 2002 (post- rehabilitation) flow monitoring. Based on monitoring results from Winter 2000 and 2001, determine whether any program changes are necessary. 10. Acquire the processed Winter 2002 flow monitoring data for the control and rehabilitation basins, and the Winter 2002 precipitation data from City. We will prepare data sets for use with Brown and Caldwell modeling programs. 11. Calibrate Brown and Caldwell I/I model to the post construction (Winter 2002) flow data for the rehabilitated basin. Run I/I model for the control basin using the Winter 2000 and 2001 calibration and Winter 2002 precipitation data. Comparing the predicted and observed Winter 2002 flows for the control basin is a test that provides confidence that the I/I model accurately captures the hydrologic behavior of the basin. 12. Once it is verified that the I/I model is accurately reproducing local hydrology, we will run two long -term I/I model simulations of the rehabilitation basin. The first model run will simulate pre rehabilitation conditions and the other will simulate post rehabilitation conditions. The two long -term simulations will each produce a long time series of hourly flow projections. We will perform a partial- duration, Exhibit A —Page 4 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc statistical analysis of the flow projections to estimate the reduction in the once per year peak flow resulting from the roof drain disconnection pilot program. 13. Produce a memorandum that summarizes each aspect of the pilot program: choosing pilot area, pre rehabilitation flow monitoring, source detection/smoke testing, construction, post- rehabilitation flow monitoring conclusions about the effects of roof drain disconnection, and implications for city -wide roof drain disconnection ordinance. Roof Drain Disconnection Ordinance. The Consultant will: 1. Prepare a final draft of the roof drain disconnection ordinance. This draft will incorporate feedback from the City attorney and the results of the pilot project rehabilitation. It will include an updated set of exemptions, and construction requirements. Port Angeles Responsibilities. Provide the following: 1. Supply Winter 2000 and 2001 processed flow monitor data. Supply precipitation data from the Port Angeles automated weather station for a period beginning at least two months prior to the installation of the flow monitors and continuing through the end of the wet season. 2. Provide the land parcel GIS coverage in ESRI's ArcView shape file format. 3. Have staff prepared to respond to requests for field verification of collection system facilities. Typical requests might include the elevation difference from the manhole lid to pipe invert, the configuration of overflow weirs, and /or pipe diameters. Requests would be similar to those made in January, 2000, and should be infrequent. 4. Supply flow data collected at the influent to the treatment plant and at the CSO sites during Winter 2000 and 2001. These data will help with calibration/verification of the SewerCAT hydraulic model. 5. Prepare field work and public notification plans (with assistance from Brown and Caldwell, as necessary). Schedule the availability of key City staff to participate in source detection/smoke testing field study. 6. Provide two City staff members to assist with field work. 7. Decide upon acceptable roof drain disconnection and runoff rerouting methods. Costs will vary widely among different rerouting methods. However, we need to know which methods will be considered acceptable prior to planning /designing rehabilitation construction methods. 8. Determine which roof drains in the pilot area will be disconnected and by what method (with assistance from Brown and Caldwell, as necessary). Notify residents whose homes will receive roof drain disconnection. Exhibit A —Page 5 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp \PA2000Scope4.doc 9. Plan for and coordinate rehabilitation construction activities for Summer 2001, either by City or private contractor. 10. Review and comment on draft roof drain disconnection ordinance. Work Products. The Consultant will provide the following: Collection System Modeling. 1. Memorandum summarizing I/I and hydraulic modeling activities. We will indicate areas of high I/I as determined from the flow monitoring data and our subsequent analysis. We will estimate the overflow frequency and volume at each of the CSO locations for the current condition (i.e. year 2001). Along with the memo, we will produce a color coded map showing capacity limitations within collection system. The map will indicate gravity pipes that flow at least 90 percent full during the one- year storm. Additionally, we can provide a color coded map that would indicate the return period storm that would result in pipes flowing more than 90 percent full. For example, pipes surpassing this threshold for the one -year storm would be red, those more than 90 percent full during a 10 -year storm could be shown in blue, and pipes that would not be 90 percent full during the 10 -year storm could be shown in green. We will await City input for final map products. Roof Drain Disconnection Pilot Study. 1. Database with the information collected during the source detection/smoke testing field study. The database will include the number of types smoke sources, our notes of the study area, and all digital photographs taken. 2. Memorandum at the end of the pilot study (Spring 2002). The memorandum will summarize each of the elements of the pilot study, including choosing the pilot area, pre rehabilitation flow monitoring, source detection/smoke testing, construction, post rehabilitation flow monitoring conclusions about the effects of roof drain disconnection, and implications for city -wide roof drain disconnection ordinance. Roof Drain Disconnection Ordinance. 1. Final draft of the roof drain disconnection ordinance. We will incorporate City comments on the interim draft that is currently being prepared to produce the final draft. Task 3.0: CSO Treatment Technologies Objective. When the previous facilities plan was prepared in 1988, there were relatively few options for controlling CSOs. Attenuating peak flows in the sewer system with storage facilities, followed by conveyance and treatment at the plant was generally the most practical solution at the time. In the past decade, however, there have been numerous advances in CSO treatment that make treatment a far more feasible, and in some cases, less costly solution. These advances include a variety of Exhibit A —Page 6 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc automated, small- footprint treatment systems, such as ballasted sedimentation and high -rate filtration. In this task, we will conduct a review of available CSO control technologies and their applicability to the Port Angeles collection system. The information gathered about CSO control methods will be used by the City and consultant during collection system facilities planning to help formulate and evaluate various alternatives. Approach. The Consultant will: 1. Review existing Brown and Caldwell reports and files on CSO control methods. We will compile a list of candidate CSO control technologies that could be applicable to the City. 2. Contact vendors as necessary to get updated information. 3. Prepare a brief description of each technology, and construct summary tables for the purpose of comparing CSO control methods. Technologies will be compared on the basis of treatment process, potential costs, level of automation /operations and maintenance requirements, treatment effectiveness and stability, footprint, and applicability to Port Angeles. 4. Prepare and deliver a presentation to Port Angeles staff summarizing available CSO control technologies and their potential application in Port Angeles. 5. Prepare a memorandum containing background information used to create the slide presentation, and summary comments and feedback from presentation attendees. City Responsibilities. Provide the following: 1. Help facilitate and schedule CSO Treatment Technologies presentation. Work Products. The Consultant will provide the following products: 1. A one to two -hour presentation about CSO control technologies and their applicability to the Port Angeles collection system. 2. A supplementary memorandum that summarizes our research, and contains comments from the presentation. Task 4.0: Gap Analysis for Federal Programs (ESA, NPDES Phase II Stormwater, GASB 34 Accounting) Objective. In 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed numerous salmonid species as threatened or endangered throughout the Pacific Northwest under the provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). These listings affect all jurisdictions along the coast of Washington, in the Puget Sound region, and throughout the majority of eastern Washington. The listings require NMFS to protect salmonids and their habitat from any takings which is not incidental to an Exhibit A —Page 7 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc approved program or activity. The Tri- Counties of Pierce, King, and Snohomish have been working with NMFS and the Washington State Departments of Ecology (DOE) and Fish and Wildlife (WDF &W) for the past 18 months to develop an alternative to a strict no -take prohibition which will allow jurisdictions to continue to conduct necessary governmental functions without significant risk of violating the ESA. Further, many northwest jurisdictions have been identified as Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permittees under the Federal Clean Water Act. Phase I was implemented in the early 1990's with jurisdictions over 100,000 population having to come into compliance with new regulations and requirements for storm water. The NPDES permit program is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and delegated to the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). Port Angeles is slated to be a Phase II permittee and as such will be required to adopt specific actions and ordinances relative to storm water controls and protection. Both of these federal actions will require jurisdictions evaluate their current methods, regulations, programs, and policies to determine if activities they undertake or permit will result in violations of federal law. In the case of the ESA, a provision exists under section 4(d) whereby jurisdictions can obtain coverage from incidental take by following specified actions or programs. This task will evaluate current City programs, policies, regulations, and activities to identify gaps where they are not compliant with the draft 4(d) rule published on January 3, 2000 and to also compare them to the Tri- County 4(d) rule provisions anticipated to be finalized by April 1, 2000. Further, the Consultant will identify programs and policies anticipated to be required by the Department of Ecology in the general permit provisions for Phase II permittees. It is recognized that both the Tri- County 4(d) rule and the Phase II permit requirements have not been finalized, however, timelines for completion of the activities necessary for 4(d) compliance and permit obligations are in the range of 2 years. Other jurisdictions which have obtained Phase I NPDES permits have reported lead times in excess of three years. Additionally, the proposed 4(d) rule includes timelines for various activities that require actions within six (6) months. It is necessary for the City to undertake this review of its activities, programs, and policies now in order to be situated to meet its legal obligations under both the Endangered Species Act as well as the Clean Water Act. Approach. The Consultant will: 1. Provide project management for the review and evaluation of existing City ordinances, regulations, policies, and practices. 2. Collect and review existing City ordinances and regulations for: Critical areas Sensitive areas Development regulations stormwater design standards, buffer protections, vesting regulations, erosion and sediment controls, enforcement capability, etc. Street design regulations /standards Maintenance regulations Wetland regulations Exhibit A —Page 8 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc Illicit Discharge regulations solids and liquids Source Control regulations Public Education Groundwater Protection regulations Shoreline protection regulations Solid Waste Management Plan Training programs for City staff relative to ESA and CWA compliance issues. 3. Review existing maintenance practices for: Street maintenance street sweeping, overlays, chip sealing, snow plowing, herbicide applications, etc. Stormwater facility maintenance timing, practices, erosion and sediment control measures undertaken, requirements for private owners, etc. Stormwater conveyance maintenance pipeline cleaning, swale maintenance, vactor waste disposal, tailings disposal, etc. Breakwater maintenance timing, materials, etc. 4. Review existing programs for activities violating 4(d) requirements: Acquisition programs floodplains, conservation futures, etc. Annual capital improvement programs ranking criteria, biological assessment provisions, fish friendly practices, etc. Growth management land use planning evaluation of impacts to habitat, etc. Watershed Action Plans voluntary or mandatory, enforcement, participation, etc. On -Site Sewage System requirements Permitting of structures within floodplains or floodway Development regulations Diversion of flows from basins or habitat Development regulations Industrial Inspection Programs Source Control Programs 5. Recommend programs and ordinances which the City will need to have in place in order to obtain a Phase II NPDES municipal stormwater permit. 6. The results from tasks two through five will be used to develop a matrix identifying gaps in existing City programs ordinances /regulations /activities compared to that required for NPDES permittees and for ESA 4(d) compliance. The matrix will be developed to reflect the problem category, cause(s), identification of the driving regulatory tool (ESA or CWA), the City program it falls under, the program gap (s), the means to address the gap, specific recommendations, identification of the lead /support department, priority, timeframe and comments. Based on this evaluation, the Consultant will recommend alternative approaches for addressing any identified deficiencies. Working with City staff, the Consultant will work to integrate any recommendations into existing City programs and regulations as opposed to creation of new ones. 7. The matrix will be developed to reflect the problem category, cause(s), identification of the driving regulatory tool (ESA or CWA), the City program it falls under, the Exhibit A--Page 9 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc program gap (s), the means to address the gap, specific recommendations, identification of the lead /support department, priority, timeframe and comments. Based on this evaluation, the Consultant will recommend alternative approaches for addressing any identified deficiencies. Working with City staff, the Consultant will work to integrate any recommendations into existing City programs and regulations as opposed to creation of new ones. 8. In conjunction with the gap analysis of existing City programs, activities, and policies, the Consultant will make recommendations as appropriate for City activities such as infrastructure records and asset reporting procedures necessary to be compliant with Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB 34). This will not be a separate task but will be folded into the other tasks as appropriate. GASB 34 requires Cities to conduct comprehensive asset management processes on all capital assets including stormwater facilities. Stormwater infrastructure typically has evolved through development- related activities or as a side function of City street construction activity or through agriculture land conversion. Thus, the infrastructure is not typically well inventoried nor included in asset management accounting. In the final recommendations, the Consultant will identify processes and time lines the City should adopt to enable it to meet the July 1, 2002 deadline for prospective reporting of all capital and infrastructure assets. City Responsibilities. The City will: 1. Provide copies of the necessary regulation/ordinances /policies/ and documents for consultant review. 2. Provide access to City staff for interviews of actual practices of street maintenance activities, stormwater maintenance activities, solid waste activities, development permitting practices, enforcement practices, etc. 3. Assist Consultant in clarifying ambiguities in City code or practices. 4. Provide organization charts for City departments. 5. Provide copies of any informal review sheets used in reviewing development submittals. 6. Provide workload assessments of existing City staff, i.e., number of permits reviewed per staff per year. Work Products. The Consultant will deliver the following products: 1. A draft matrix identifying gaps in existing City programs and policies relative to the requirements of Phase II NPDES obligations and anticipated ESA 4(d) programmatic requirements. 2. Recommendations for changes to existing City programs and policies along with any new activities the City must undertake to obtain both protection from take Exhibit A —Page 10 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc prohibitions under ESA as well as those necessary to meet the anticipated general Phase II NPDES permit requirements from the DOE under the Clean Water Act. 3. Recommendations for programmatic changes or new activities to be undertaken so as to be ready for the reporting requirements of GASB 34 in July of 2002. Task 5.0: CSO Reduction Alternatives Evaluation Objective. To identify collection system problems with CSOs, evaluate alternatives for CSO reduction, and develop a timetable for system upgrades to minimize CSOs. Task 2.0 looks at the "existing" system's CSO related statistical performance. Preliminary alternatives for reducing CSOs were presented to the City in a letter dated December 22, 1999. The city determined that CSO reduction alternatives to be evaluated under this agreement would include a new "base of improvements" in which key collection system reliability improvements were made, as well four alternative means of reducing future CSOs. The base case will consist solely of detailed definition of elements and features that are common to and included in all of the subsequent alternatives. A cost cannot be associated with the base case (it is not a base alternative) because, for instance, the size and cost of replacement Pumping Station 4, will vary depending upon the alternative. Assumptions for the analysis, improvements included in the base case, and the four alternatives are described in the approach below. For each alternative, analysis will include determination of available outside funding sources. Approach. 1. Financial and population assumptions for evaluating CSO reduction alternatives. a) Planning period 20 years, January 1, 2003 December 31, 2022. b) Present worth year 2003 c) Gross discount rate 7.0% d) Inflation and energy escalation rates, similar 3% e) Population growth and distribution will be based upon population zones as described in the City's transportation planning reports. However, population growth projections from the transportation studies will not be used, rather, a population escalation rate of 1% /year will be used as directed by the City. 2. General assumptions or issues. a) The following issue will be discussed with WDOE. If several existing overflow sites are collected to one new storage and overflow location, is the city allowed one or several overflow events per year at the consolidated Exhibit A -Page 11 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc location? BC believes the answer will be that for one consolidated site, only one overflow would be allowed. b) Alternatives will initially be evaluated assuming that inflow reduction throughout the city through roof drain disconnection by ordinance implementation has not yet occurred (draft report). The CSO Reduction Alternatives Evaluation Report will be bound in 3 -ring binders. Final adjustments to alternative's evaluation sizing will be made after the second year of pilot project verification flow monitoring for I/I reduction effectiveness is complete. Impacted pages of the report will be updated at that time. c) At the treatment plant, costs will be segregated to show costs for secondary treatment capacity expansion, and CSO /stormwater treatment. d) It is assumed that the outfall from the former Rayonier mill is available for discharging treatment plant effluent. 3. Features of the "base case" which will be included in all future alternatives. a) Planned or anticipated service area growth, especially lands east of Morse Creek will be included as part of the service area for all options. BC will assume "new construction" I/I levels when adding flow contributions from these areas. b) Pumping Station (PS) 1 can probably be eliminated by gravity flow to PS 3. This will be confirmed with the hydraulic model and constructability issues for the replacement sewer will be examined. If replacement is feasible, then BC will assume this is part of the base alternative. For all alternatives, PS 3 will be conservatively sized to pass all projected flows downstream to PS 4 (no storage at PS 3 and no overflows). c) Determine design capacities for PS 3 and PS 4. Analysis of smaller community lift stations not included. Replacement of PS 3 and 4 will be an assumed part of all alternatives. PS 4 will be considerably larger than the existing, incorporating dual force mains, high quality flow metering and where required, a wet well integrated with PS 4 CSO storage. 4. The four alternatives list below will be modeled using the calibrated I/I and transport models from Task 2.0. a) Alternative 1 Convey and Treat. The existing system will be run at future flows and locations of collection system bottlenecks will be noted. Increased conveyance needs throughout system will be documented so that all flows up to the once per year level can be conveyed to the plant. Once- per -year overflows will be allowed at existing overflow locations. All flows in the upstream collection system up to the once per 20 years level will be conveyed to the existing overflow locations. Basin 10, terminating at the elevated Exhibit A —Page 12 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc plateau at Francis Street could always flow by gravity to the plant if a large enough pipe were provided. All Francis Street flow will be routed to the treatment plant in a new pipeline that is independent of PS4 force main(s). New PS3 and PS4 will be included. PS4 will be sized to pass up to the once per- year storm. At the plant, a new technology CSO treatment facility will be sized, a cost estimate developed including connection to the Rayonier outfall. b) Alternative 2 Distributed Storage. In this option, the modelers will recommend where "fat -pipe" segments should be installed throughout the collection system to meet the one per year overflow criteria at existing overflow sites. The once per 20 years overflow criteria would be maintained upstream of the existing CSO locations. No large storage at Francis Street or at PS 4. There are no CSO treatment facilities in this option. Use of the abandoned 48 -inch Rayonier water line for storage will be examined. c) Alternative 3 Storage at PS 4 and Francis Street. Increased conveyance needs throughout system will be documented so that all flows up to the once per 20 -year peak flow can be conveyed to the waterfront. At Francis Street and at PS 4, sufficient storage facilities will be provided to limit overflows from the system to the once per year level at each respective site. Storage at Francis Street can hopefully operate solely by gravity due to elevation differences between it and the plant. PS 4 will be sized to pump 2.25 times AWWF for secondary treatment. Tributary flows above that rate will be provided storage to limit local overflows to the once per year event. Storage at PS4 will be deep enough that all overflows along Railroad Avenue can be routed to it. The cost of intercepting the overflows are a part of this alternative. There are no CSO treatment facilities in this option. Use of the abandoned 48 -inch Rayonier water line for storage will be examined. d) Alternative 4 Storage at Francis Street Only. Since storage site availability appears greater near Francis Street than near PS 4, another alternative will be developed that conveys flow from PS 4 and Francis Street into a common holding tank at Francis Street. PS 4 would pump all flows up to the once per year overflow level to the Francis Street holding tank. Gravity flows from Francis Street tributary area would also flow to the tank. Flow out of the tank, to the treatment plant would be controlled to a maximum of 2.25 times AWWF, with any excess beyond storage limits becoming a CSO at Francis Street. There are no CSO treatment facilities in this option. The proposed means for controlling flowrate from storage to the plant will be described. Use of the abandoned 48 -inch Rayonier water line for storage will be examined. 5. A report will be prepared detailing the existing collection system problems with CSOs, base case improvements for system reliability which are included in all reduction alternatives, the CSO reduction alternatives, modeling results, cost estimates, recommendations and a timetable to perform upgrades to minimize CSOs in the collection system based on the recommended alternative. Exhibit A -Page 13 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc City Responsibilities. Provide the following: 1. Flow data collected the winter of 1999/2000 and 2000/01. Work Products. The Consultant will deliver the following products: 1. Draft CSO Reduction Alternatives Evaluation Report including identification of potential outside funding sources three ring binder format, three copies. 2. CSO Reduction Alternatives Evaluation Report incorporating the City's comments on the draft report. three copies. 3. Updated sizing tables for the report generated after the inflow pilot program post construction flow monitoring results are available. Task 6.0: Financial Framework to Implement Preferred Alternative Objective. To provide a basis for implementing and staging potential I/I and CSO control projects, a review of the utility's financial capacity to fund additional capital projects will be undertaken. Approach. From review of the 2002 (or latest) budget and 2001 (or latest) utility data, the utility's current cost structure will be identified. Key information will include the number of equivalent residential customers, current operational cost, annual debt payment, capital funding sources and revenue surpluses (if any). From review of current debt status and current capital program obligations, annual principal and interest debt service, projected annual committed capital expenditures and reserve accounts will be identified. Based on interviews with utility management, proposed rate increases (if any) will be identified, projected new hook ups and hook up fee revenue will be identified. Based upon the above information, the utility's ability to support additional bonds, or State loans or pay -as- you -go financing will be identified. The impact of charging equivalent customer rate and fee increases for capital funding options will be identified. From the above information and input from utility management, alternative capital funding will be developed to provide the engineering team a financial framework for the phasing and implementation of potential capital projects. City Responsibilities. Provide for the consultant the latest year's budget and utility cost data. Work Products. The Consultant will deliver the following products: 1. A memorandum identifying alternative funding programs, including projected rate and hook up fee impacts, available debt capacity, and a recommended capital program cost and implementation schedule. Exhibit A -Page 14 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc Task 7.0: Collection System Modeling Directing Services The City has established a budgeted amount of $15,000 to model special "what if" collection system scenarios not otherwise covered by specific tasks of this agreement. These "what if" scenarios could include items such as impacts of a potential new upstream industry or load on the collection system. Such services shall be undertaken only when so directed by the City. Task 8.0: General Directed Services The City has established a budgeted amount of $40,000 for special services not otherwise covered by specific tasks of this agreement. Such services shall be undertaken only when so directed by the City. 141 Id p a sk 9.0: Detailed Design of Septage Receiving Facility C tD Obje 've. Port Angeles has decided to construct a septage receiving facility to accept truck uled septage m Clallam County. A feasibility study determined that a single Lakeside ty septage receiving u .•t in a narrow two -story building could be fitted into the area next to t e existing primary sedi tation tank without impeding access of haulers to the plant's hea. orks grit and screening box. structure is to be a permanent structure constructed to matc e appearance of other existing site st ctures. The building shall have odor control for the e re structure, it shall equalize flow from at st three haul trucks, it shall have card reading faci ies to track and charge haulers, a hypochlorite ing station for odor control, a downflow rbon scrubber, and an electrical room which is spa onditioned to prolong the life of elect nics. Hypochlorite shall be taken from the existing Chlorina 'on/Dechlorination Building. T scope includes an allowance for printing bid documents but does •t include assistance duri. bidding or assistance during the construction phase of the project. Approach. The Consultant will prepare iddable ocument set that is budgeted based upon production of the following drawings: General Drawings Index of Drawings Vicinity, Location a Site Maps Symbols and Desi• ations Abbreviations Design Dat d Process Quantities Civil Drawin: S Layout and Demolition utside Piping 1 Outside Piping 2 Miscellaneous Vaults and Details 1 Exhibit A -Page 15 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc e rocess and Instrumentation Drawings Piping and Instrument Symbols and Abbreviations Piping System and Equipment Identification eptage Receiving Station S tage Sump Pumps Hy ochlorite System 1 Hyp hlorite System 2 Odor duction System Architectural D wings General Arch ectural Notes Code Analysis Architectural S ndard Details Doors, Windows, Louvers Architectural Sta ardd Details Flashing, Roofing Ve eer Schedules Doors, indows /Louvers, Finish Septage Building 1st 2nd Floor Plans Septage Building Roof "Ian Septage Building Exterio Elevations (4) Septage Building Sections Septage Building Wall Sectio s Details Miscellaneous Architectural -tails Structural Drawings General Structural Notes Typical Concrete Details 1 Typical Concrete Details 2 Typical Concrete Details 3 Guardrail Stair Details Grating Coverplate D ails Typical Framing Detail Septage Building Fou dation and 2nd Floor Frain' g Plans Septage Building R. f Framing Plan Septage Building ections Septage Buildin; Foundation Details Septage Build' g Truss Elevations and Detail Septage Bu ing Truss Connection Sections and Details Mechanical D wings enetrations D ain and Cleanout Details umbing Details Utility Station and Miscellaneous Details Pipe Support Details HVAC Details 1 HVAC Details 2 and Miscellaneous Details Exhibit A —Page 16 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\ A2000Scope4.doc echanical Drawings, continued 77 Septage Building Lower Plan .tage Building Upper Plan Se... ge Building Sections 1 Septa: Building Sections 2 Septage ilding Details Hypochlo e System Plan and Section Hypochlorite stem Sections and Details Septage Sump and Section Air Flow Schemat and Control Diagram Electrical Drawings Symbols and Abbreviations Symbols Construction Details 1 Construction Details 2 Construction Details 3 Single Line Diagram Raceway Diagram Site Electrical Plan Control Diagrams 1 Control Diagrams Control Diagra I 3 Power and Co trol Plan 1 Power and ontrol Plan 2 Power Control Plan 3 Lighti Plan 1 City Responsib ties. Provide for services during bidding and help determining an -built condition of e sting plant piping and utilities. Work Pr ducts. The Consultant will provide the following products: 1. Biddable documents for the construction of a septage receiving facility. Task 10.0: Assistance with Stormwater Permitting Objective. To assist the City in setting up a stormwater utility. Approach. The Consultant will assist the City as requested in helping to set up a stormwater utility. Budget assumes 150 hours of labor. Possible activities may include determining rate impacts for various levels of service, prioritizing work for the utility to perform, assisting with hiring of utility personnel, coordinating requirements for new service as identified by the Gap Analysis under Task 4.0, and other miscellaneous services as directed by the City Engineer. Exhibit A —Page 17 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc City Responsibilities. Help identify the areas where assistance is required. Work Products. As required for requested services. Exhibit A —Page 18 of 18 October 9, 2000 p: \15865 \wp\PA2000Scope4.doc ss EXHIBIT B PROJECT BUDGET CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PORT ANGELES WASTEWATER PROJECTS r f. A- Port Angeles Wastewater Projects 2000 Summary Other Direct Sub Task Description Direct Labor Indirect Labor Costs (ODCs) Consultants Fee Task Total ck Task 1 Administration and Coordination 15,850.30 30,719.63 1,095.00 6,752 64 54,417.57 54,417.57 Task 2 Continuing Collection System Activities 23,996.94 46,508.72 525.00 10,223.32 81,253.98 81,253.98 Task 3 CSO Treatment Technologies 1,887.66 3,658 49 260 00 804.19 6,610.35 6,610.35 Task 4 Gap Analysis for Federal Programs 9,521 85 18,454 39 885.00 4,056 55 32,917 79 32,917.79 Task 5 CSO Reduction Alternatives Evaluation 28,695.45 55,614.95 960.00 12,225.01 97,495 41 97,495.41 Task 6 Financial Framework to Implement Preferred Alternative 5,601.30 10,855.95 555.00 2,386 30 19,398 55 19,398 55 �l� Task 7 Collection System Modeling Directed Services 4,212.12 8,163.55 825.00 1,794 47 14,995 13 14,995 13 /C Task 8 General Directed Services 11,915 92 23,094 37 555.00 5,076 49 40,641 78 40,641.78 Task 9 Detailed Design of Septage Receiving Station p•�:< _0 Task 10 Assistance with Storm Water Permitting 6,047.13 11,720.01 584 00 2,576.23 20,927.37 20,927 37 Total 167,818 325,309 10,114 -257099 74;998 692,279 602,279 —4)- Io-1,12% 2 lo 244 -et 4 c)(04 3co4la 3c..q,,(059 602,279 Brown and Caldwell 2000 Rate Table 2000 Employee Title Rate Grade Aspinall, Dave Principal Designer $30.09 G Dubin, Tony Associate Engineer $20.95 F Hoeidjaja, Ivonne Accountant 111 $20.29 F Johnson, Gene Supervising Designer $33.91 I Jones, Lori Senior Engineer $29.28 H Kumataka, Greg Managing Engineer $46.75 K Lapeyrouse, Ray Engineer $25.00 F Lindstrom, Nathan Project Coordinator I $13.00 D Melcer, Henryk Managing Engineer $49.79 M Merrill, Steve Executive $51.00 M Miller, Larry Sr. Eng. Technician $29.34 G Molseed, Art Principal Engineer $35.67 I Persich, Bill Managing Engineer $45.65 K Piccolo, Steve Eng. Technician $24.45 F Plancic, Steve Principal Designer $30.83 H Sanders, Dan Computer Drafting Oper. $16.88 D Schneider, Doug Supervising Engineer $44.94 J Speir, Mike Records Mngmnt. Asst. $12.00 D Stevens, Michael Senior Illustrator $24.04 E Tam, Patricia Engineer $25.44 F Tofteland, Melissa Sr. Acct. Clerk $13.39 D Tulley, Jim Technical Writer $18.79 F Vandenburgh, Scott Engineer $24.21 F Westbrook, Kristina Associate Engineer $20.47 F Wilcox, Shirley Word Processor 1V $18.98 E Wolstenholme, Philip Supervising Engineer $44.99 J Rates are adjusted at the end of December each year. Tentatively, new rates will go into effect on December 22, 2000. EXHIBIT C PROJECT SCHEDULE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PORT ANGELES WASTEWATER PROJECTS t Pod Angeles Weeds Motes 20011 2002 ■N star Deamrta MIN= LW MINC"METIMIMIME E MOita 'Older Deambe MIIIIMIlmarch MIME= TasirName 3fM' ©m19 N© Omm�'.�^ DOm'� 6 MME3 10 mmonm'om©mmm© 9 16 'ZMOmMCM• Omm 9 1B g 6 m '!g© C�'_�• ©m 19 meni6 '8- No0te13Rood 1 :Mete 5days Cofedon *km biting 65 day, ken are levetrkwkla 10 drays a ir Peke L4 model tem 5days CatteC4yrndeId use; 9 boo rocs 15 days .1°111111111111111 Ideally reedstreps1 rdo 15 days Fred ad and ree d hed model 35 days cc 10 drys r Regan mmiormidm 10 days bbwP9dShdy 260 da Egoist pkdNbymucagpeedV 15 days 3 hoe 4430ball data rem* 31 days t 4 Sr*1esttg 5days t i Fell day Otiose 5days 4 2 Antra dMIdffi 5days t 1 Gagers Nmoddprgeolareb fold d nays t 9 Assist detonate etch drams bnm 10 days t 9 Rehab =Acton pkumg 10 days 0 Preps 10 days III 1 Pepe and process 20029Pa4erd3ta 10 days 2 Pea ntli odd, pml+dslb Mg illiiii 3 NmlorgbmsmJabans ila 4 R4 14 meneandso 10days 5 III Rod Dan OemetedaiOdom SE i CSO hatred ixleabgies 35 days 1 r. Evokelredtdmbges 20 days 5 Resettle bdedy 5days 3 Prepare mmnaa 1 n 10days d Sap Wyss h Faisal Pragans 45 days 1 CSORedldarAAmnaN+nEyeli dal 210 drys I 2 r. buck* 15 days 3 liM ii Dmdoprepateta 2drys 4 Re glades 10 days 5 Saes Rem 10days 5, Dodo? base or* 10days 1 Dmebpabrebl 10days d II Ibddabrw3 15 days 3 ii Derelop dame 2 10 days 1 Made sterile 2 15days I, Devdopdeo*3 10days 1 Ibddabrek3 15 Os 3, Dmdopaknele4 10days 4 Ibkl dent 4 15days s Codeshrebn 20 days 3 Deft repot 2) days 1 Fret regal 10days ill 3 Eil Postpid payed apdabdties Sdrys ill. j 5 Fiendat West bbpls*Prddtm 33days 3 El Cade System Ilodekg• Waded Sera 30days 1 s Grave arced Sexes 90 days 1MgeksYlasbs31000Y3001 Task *sae Poled Up Task P.akdUpprogess MIMI bine Tasks x M4 E+ Wesbne enardWel rRd10y4D0 Progress MMII•111 Sassy fil, ✓bdadlpweskme 0 spa Sivaw 1 iMin Wille P1