Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 94-107 - Approve entering into an agreement for Consulting Serv by & between the COR & Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. to prepare engineering feasibility study for widening of the Cypress Ave Bridge RESOLUTION NO. 94-JO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDDING AND MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. , NOT TO EXCEED $85,172.00, TO PREPARE AN ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE WIDENING OF THE CYPRESS AVENUE BRIDGE; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Redding hereby approves entering into the above-mentioned Agreement for Consulting Services with Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. , not to exceed $85,172. 00, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Redding is hereby authorized and directed to sign said Agreement and all other necessary documentation in connection therewith on behalf of the City; and that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest the signature of the Mayor and to impress the official seal of the City of Redding thereto. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced, read, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 19th day of April , 1994 , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: R. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, Murray and R. Anderson NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Mayor , ROBERT C. ANDERSON City of Redding A ST: FORM PROVED: CONNIE STROHMAYER ity Clerk RANDALL A. HAYS, City Attorney AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ARTICLE I PARTIES AND PURPOSE Section 1.1 Parties THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of this day of this day of 199 by and between the CITY OF REDDING, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "CITY"), and Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., (hereinafter "CONSULTANT"). Section 1.2 Purpose CITY wishes to enter into an agreement with CONSULTANT to prepare an Engineering Feasibility Study for the widening of the Cypress Avenue Bridge over the Sacramento River (hereinafter "PROJECT"). ARTICLE 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES Section 2.1 Scone of Services CONSULTANT, for the benefit and at the direction of CITY, shall perform the scope of services as set forth in Exhibit 'A" attached and incorporated by this reference. Section 2.2 Time for Commencement and Completion of Work CONSULTANT shall commence work within ten (10) days of executing this agreement, and complete work under this agreement within six (6) months. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for delays caused by the failure of CITY staff or agents to provide required data or review documents within the appropriate time frames. Section 2.3 Meetings CONSULTANT .shall attend meetings as needed, to be determined by CITY in consultation with CONSULTANT. Section 2.4 Personnel a. The CONSULTANT represents that it has or will secure, at its own expense, all necessary personnel required to perform the services under this contract. Such personnel shall not be employees of or have any contractual relationship with agencies providing funds for the project. b. All of the services required hereinafter shall be performed by the CONSULTANT or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in performing the services are to be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under State and local law to perform such services. All professional personnel, including subconsultants engaged in performing services for the CONSULTANT under this contract, are to be indicated in the personnel listing contained in the CONSULTANT's proposal attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. - 1 - c. Except as hereinabove agreed, no other portion of the services nor any right, title, or interest hereinunder this contract shall be assigned, transferred, conveyed, or subcontracted without the prior written approval of the CITY. d. Any changes or substitutions in the CONSULTANT's personnel as set forth herein must be made known to the CITY's project director; and the CITY's project director shall execute a written approval before said change or substitution can become effective. Section 2.5 Assignability The CONSULTANT shall not assign any interest in this contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation) without the prior written approval of the CITY provided; however, that claims for money due to become due or to the CONSULTANT from the CITY under this contract may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution, or to a trustee in bankruptcy, without such approval. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the CITY. Section 2.6 Conflict of Interest The CONSULTANT agrees that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of its services hereunder. The CONSULTANT further agrees that, in the performance of the agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed. Section 2.7 Status CONSULTANT, in accordance with his status as an independent CONSULTANT, covenants and agrees that he will conduct himself consistent with such status, that he will neither hold himself out as nor claim to be an officer or employee of the CITY, and that he will not make any claim, demand, or application to, or for any right or privilege applicable to an officer or employee of the CITY, including, but not limited to, worker's compensation coverage, unemployment insurance benefits, social security coverage or retirement membership credit. ARTICLE 3 COMPENSATION Section 3.1 Compensation CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT, for and in consideration of the performance of the Scope of Services attached as Exhibit "A", the maximum fee of $85,172. Section 3.2 Method of Payment CONSULTANT may invoice CITY every month based on a time and materials basis in accordance with CONSULTANT's Fee Schedule. Such billing will clearly state the number of hours worked by respective positions, the rate assessed therefor, and such other supporting information as may be required by CITY. In the event an invoice is not approved, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT of any disputed portion of the invoice within ten (10) days of receipt of invoice. CITY and CONSULTANT shall make reasonable efforts to settle disputed amounts in a timely manner. CITY shall pay undisputed amounts within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice. - 2 - Section 3.3 Role of Payment The hourly rates shall be as set forth in Exhibit "B", attached and incorporated by reference. The Schedule of Fees in Exhibit "C" is only an estimate of the number of hours each position will work. This estimate may be changed by the CONSULTANT with the concurrence of the Public Works Director. Section 3.4 Auditing Upon CITY's request, CONSULTANT shall allow CITY access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the CONSULTANT and/or subconsultants which CITY deems to be directly pertinent to the project for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions. ARTICLE 4 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 4.1 Nondiscrimination In performing services under this agreement, CONSULTANT shall not discriminate in the employment of its employees or in the engagement of any subconsultants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, or any other criteria prohibited by law. Section 4.2 Insurance Requirements A. Evidence of Maintenance Required The CONSULTANT shall, at all times, maintain in full force and effect the insurance required by this section. Certificates of insurance and necessary endorsements evidencing required coverages or policies shall be filed with the Risk Management Office at least ten (10)'days prior to the beginning of work. B. Qualifying Insurers All required insurance policies shall be issued by companies which hold a current policy holders alphabetic and financial size category rating of not less than A:VII according to the most recent issue of Best's Insurance Reports. C. Insurance Required General liability, professional errors and omissions liability, automobile liability and workers' compensation insurance shall be maintained as follows: 1. General Liability Insurance Commercial General Liability Insurance for bodily injury (including death), personal injury, and property damage which provides limits of not less than one million ($1,000,00) dollars general limit per occurrence and two million ($2,000,000) dollars general aggregate limit. - 3 - The commercial general liability insurance, and the automobile liability required below, shall also include the following endorsements, copies of which shall be provided: a. Inclusion of the City of Redding, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insured as respects services or operations under the contract. b. Cross liability and severability of interest clauses providing that the insurance applies separately to each insured except with respect to the limits of liability. c. Stipulation that the insurance is primary insurance and that neither the CITY nor its insurers will be called upon to contribute to a loss. 2. Professional Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance, in an amount not less than one million ($1,000,000) dollars. Architects and Engineers coverage is to be endorsed to include contractural liability. 3. Comprehensive Automobile Liability for bodily injury (including death) and property damage which provides total limits of not less than one million ($1,000,000) dollars combined single limits per occurrence, applicable to all owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles. 4. Statutory Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance shall bebe provided for all employees engaged in services or operations under the contract. The Employer's Liability insurance shall provide limits of not less than one million ($1,000,000) dollars per occurrence. Both the Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability policies shall contain the Insurer's waiver of subrogation in favor of the CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. D. Claims Made Coverage If general liability or professional errors and omissions insurance is written on a "claims made" basis, the certificate of insurance must clearly so state, and the following additional information must be provided: 1. Whether defense coverage is included in the policy limit (yes or no). 2. All aggregate limitation including: D General aggregate, and ii) Products/Completed Operations Aggregate. 3. The retroactive date. 4. The length of time for extended reporting period. 5. Any limitations on invoking the reporting period (other than nonpayment). 6. Whether a "Notice of Circumstances" is allowed (yes or no). - 4 - • E. Other Insurance Provisions 1. The requirements of these Standard Specifications as to types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by the CONSULTANT, and any approval of insurance by the CITY, are not intended to, and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the CONSULTANT or pursuant to the contract, including, but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnifications, not preclude the CITY from taking any other action available to it under any other provisions of the contract or law. 2. Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party except after thirty (30) days prior written notice to the CITY. 3. The CITY reserves the right to withhold any progress payments to the consultant in the event of noncompliance with any insurance requirements. Section 4.3 Ownership, Publications, Reproductions. and Use All finished documents and materials prepared pursuant to this agreement are the property of the CITY. The CITY shall have the unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any finished reports, data, or other materials prepared under this agreement. The CONSULTANT is not liable for any claims, liabilities, or losses arising out of the modification or misuse of these documents and materials. Section 4.4 Verbal Agreement or Conversation No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent, or employee of the CITY, either before, during, or after the execution of this contract, shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations herein contained, nor shall such verbal agreement or conversation entitle the CONSULTANT to any additional payment whatsoever under the terms of this contract. Section 4.5 Indemnification CONSULTANT hereby covenants and agrees, jointly and severally, that the CITY, its elected officials, agents, employees, and volunteers shall be free from any liability, actions, causes of action, damages, costs including attorney's fees and loss of service on account of, or in any way growing out of personal injuries and property damage to the extent resulting from negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CONSULTANT or its employees, contractors, subconsultants, and all others acting for or on behalf of CONSULTANT, arising out of and during the performance of this agreement, including claims of each of them and their respective heir, executors, administrators, representatives, successors, and assigns; and that they, and each of them, shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY, its elected officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from any liability, loss, or obligation on account of or arising out of any such injury, death, or loss, regardless of the nature or character, in any manner whatsoever, to the extent resulting from negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CONSULTANT or its employees, contractors, subconsultants and all others acting for or on behalf of CONSULTANT, arising out of and during the performance of the agreement, unless such be caused by the negligence of the CITY, its elected officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. - 5 - • • Section 4.6 Attorney's Fees In the event any dispute between the parties arises under or regarding this agreement, the prevailing party in any litigation of the dispute shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees from the party who does not prevail as determined by the court. Section 4.7 Successors and Assigns CITY and CONSULTANT each bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to this agreement without the written consent of the others. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this agreement without the prior written consent of CITY. Consent to any such transfer shall be at the sole discretion of CITY. Section 4.8 Notice s Any notice required to be given by the terms of this agreement shall be deemed to have been given when the same is personally served or sent by certified mail or express or overnight delivery, postage prepaid, addressed to the respective parties as follows: TO CITY: City of Redding Attention: Gary Gordon 760 Parkview Avenue Redding, California 96001 TO CONSULTANT: Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. Attention: Timothy R. Fleming 530 Bercut Drive, Suite C Sacramento, California 95814 Section 4.9 Cooperation of CITY CITY shall cooperate fully in a timely manner in providing relevant information that it has at its disposal. Section 4.10 Changes The CITY may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of the services of the CONSULTANT to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the CONSULTANT's compensation which are mutually agreed upon by and between the CITY and the CONSULTANT, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this contract. Section 4.11 Terminations of Contract for Cause If through any cause, the CONSULTANT fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner his obligations under this contract or if the consultant violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice to the CONSULTANT of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five days before the effective date of such termination. In such event, all documents, program specifications, and work papers prepared for the CITY by the consultant becomes the CITY's property. The CITY shall pay CONSULTANT a reasonable amount for any work performed up to the stated effective termination date subject to verification by the CITY that said work was satisfactorily performed. - 6 - Section 4.12 Force Majeure The CONSULTANT shall not be in default by reason of any failure this agreement in accordance with its terms (including any failure by the CONSULTANT to make progress in the performance of the work hereunder which endangers such performance) if such failure arises out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT and its subconsultants. Such causes may include, but are not restricted or limited to, acts of God, or of the public enemy, acts of the government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, fire, floods, epidemics, quarantine, restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, and unusually severe weather, but in every case, the failure to perform must be beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT and its subconsultants. Section 4.13 Severability The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this agreement. Section 4.14 Captions The captions of the sections and subsections of this agreement are for convenience only and shall not be deemed to be relevant in resolving any question of interpretation or intent. Section 4.15 Entire Agreement This agreement represent the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by CITY and CONSULTANT. Section 4.16 Applicable Law This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Section 4.17 Contract Terms Prevail All exhibits and this agreement are intended to be construed as a single document. Should any inconsistency occur between the specific terms of this agreement and the attached exhibits, the terms of this agreement shall prevail. - 7 - Section 4.18 Authority The undersigned hereby represents and warrant that they are authorized by the parties to execute this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this agreement as of the date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF REDDING, a municipal corporation By: By: CITY CLERK "CITY" APPROVED AS TO FORM: MARK THOMAS CO. Dated: By: Its: Vice-Pr it CITY ATTORNEY Timothy R. Fleming_ (Pr' ted Name) By: By: ti CITY ATTORNEY Its: President 4 Sam J. Zullo (Printed Name) "CONSULTANT" Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A", Scope of Work 2. Exhibit "B", Charge Rate Schedule 3. Exhibit "C", Estimate of Hours - 8 - EXHIBIT "A": PROJECT APPROACH PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing Cypress Avenue eastbound and westbound bridges over the Sacramento River were constructed in 1949 and 1969, respectively. The existing 1000 feet long structures are steel girder superstructure with eight spans of approximately 125 feet. The older structure is riveted steel girder construction, and the newer structure is welded steel girders. Each bridge currently carries two lanes of traffic with four foot outside sidewalks and no significant shoulders. The project will review the feasibility of widening to three 12 foot lanes in each direction, with six foot shoulders and five foot sidewalks. This study will review the possibility of the possibility of widening the existing structures to provide the required traveled way, shoulders, and sidewalks, or the need to replace the entire bridge, or portions thereof, to obtain these lanes. o Structure Considerations The key structural consideration for this project will be the ability to utilize the existing piers. The hollow piers appear vulnerable to seismic forces and may require significant retrofitting. Any additional piling will require a tremae seal within the river. Using the existing piers will minimize the environmental impact as well as reducing cost. Other structural considerations will include constructibility, aesthetics, economics, and the remaining useful life due to corrosion and fatigue due to cumulative truck loading for the last 45 years. o Environmental Considerations As described above, the primary environmental consideration will be the ability to use existing piers and eliminate in-channel construction activity. Additionally, there appears to be some environmentally sensitive areas (possible jurisdictional wetland, habitat) adjacent to the existing eastern abutment; bridge approach fills may impact these areas. This project will not include environmental documentation, biological studies, or record searches, but will include discussion regarding observed areas that may be of some concern. o Traffic Considerations The City of Redding wishes to maintain two lanes of traffic in each direction at all times during construction. Our review will include feasibility of shifting lanes with reduced widths, versus specifying work periods for lane closure. By utilizing strategic construction methods the impact on traffic and lane closure can be reduced significantly. This work will require close coordination with City staff for review of traffic counts and identification of possible work periods where lane closure would not adversely impact traffic. o Geometric Considerations The bridge widening must be coordinated with widening of the roadway approaches; if there are limitations for roadway widening near the bridge, the Exhibit "A" Page 1 options for bridge widening will be limited as well. In particular, the north side of Cypress Avenue between Hartnell Road and the eastern abutments is limited by an existing office building. The building will be field located, and will serve as a limit to widening on the north side. The roadway alignment must also be coordinated with the Hartnell Intersection and with future widening to the west of the bridge. A condition of federal funding for this project will be that the project have independent utility and be a complete project; the widening must be planned from the existing 6 lane section east of Hartnell to S.R. 273. o Geotechnical Considerations The key geotechnical consideration for this project will be to establish actual load carrying capacities of the existing pile foundations for the piers. Our review will include the feasibility of using the existing piers to accommodate the additional loads from the widening. o Hydrology/Hydraulic Considerations A Hydrology/Hydraulic Evaluation will be prepared to assess any impacts the project may have on the 100 year water surface elevation, and to confirm that the widening will not adversely affect the ability of the existing structure to pass design floods. o Hazardous Wastes We are not proposing to include investigation for hazardous waste (i.e. Initial Site Assessment) at this time. However, our roadway plans will acknowledge that on the south side of Cypress Avenue, immediately east of the bridge, are a gasoline service station and a transmission repair facility, both of which could have contamination. Any roadway widening in the area should be planned carefully to avoid these sites, if possible. SCOPE OF WORK This project will entail a staged approach to evaluation of the bridge widening. The purpose of this approach is to develop the structure alternatives interactively with City and Caltrans, as well as with the Geotechnical, Traffic, and Civil Support members of the team. The purposes of this approach are (1) to develop a consensus for the reasonableness of the solutions, (2) to respect other considerations that may impact structural decisions, and (3) take advantage of the wealth of knowledge of the project team. The specific work tasks, which are somewhat different than as described in the Request for Proposal, are described as follows: Task 1: Evaluate Existing Structures The purpose of this task is to gather any available existing plans, reports, and correspondence, review the bridge in detail, and determine and deficiencies or discrepancies between record information and field conditions. 1.1 Data Collection Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. has already obtained As-builts and inspection records Exhibit "A" Page 2 for the bridges. Additional information will be obtained such as maintenance records, roadway As-builts, utility mapping (especially waterline details near the western abutment), and related Caltrans project correspondence. 1.2 Site Visit MT&Co staff, with the project team, will visit the project site for an initial field review. MT&Co staff will also conduct a detailed structure review at the same time, which will include access from the top of piers under the bridge decks to review general condition of girders, underside of deck slab, cross bracing, bearings, piers, and utility supports. The structure elements will also be reviewed for general conformance to As-built plans, with appropriate notations made. The existing bridge decks will be reviewed for general condition, cracking, spalling, and surface wearing. Based on our initial site visit in preparing this proposal, the girders and underside of the decks appeared to be in good condition, and the cracking on the surface appeared to be temperature related and probably not a structural concern. The cracking will be reviewed with the project team in more detail, however. The deck condition may be assessed (mainly for voids and deterioration) by dragging chain on the deck. We do not anticipate underwater inspections, geotechnical exploration, X-ray inspection, or materials testing of the existing bridge. 1.3 Field Surveys Del Terra will perform limited field surveys, primarily to define bridge location at the abutments, locate the existing building on the north side of Cypress Avenue at Hartnell, define required fills at structure approaches, and locate major utility facilities. 1.4 Prepare Records of Visit MT&Co will compile photographic records of the visit, plus videotape of the existing structure. Task 2: Foundation Evaluation The purpose of this task is to review the adequacy of existing foundations to accept additional loads imposed by structure widening and current seismic engineering practice. 2.1 Background Information The downstream bridge was constructed in 1947, upstream in 1969. "As-built" plans are available for both structures, including boring data made for the upstream crossing and some information on pile installation. Additional information that may be available and pertinent could include construction, maintenance and bridge inspection reports from Caltrans and City files. For the downstream bridge, base of tremie seal for pier footings is shown on as-built plans at elev. 435±; average tip elevation of 10BP42 piling is about elev. 422±. Presumptive pile loading for this structure is 37 tons. The as-built plans Exhibit "A" Page 3 indicate average tip elevations, but do not include any boring logs or pile driving logs. For the upstream bridge, base of tremie seal for pier footings was specified at 10-f t below ground surface -- at and above elev. 440±; 10BP42 steel piling was specified to penetrate to elev. 425 and to have 45 ton formula bearing at final penetration. Borings were made by Caltrans in 1957 for use in design of the second (upstream) bridge and as-built plans include driving logs of selected piles. No borings have been made in the channel for the 600± from Pier-2 to Pier-6 and greatest boring penetration was to elev. 436, more than 10-ft above specified pile tip elevation. Construction reports indicate that piles for this structure were reinforced at the tip owing to very difficult driving in coarse alluvium. 2.1 Provide recommendations/"Design Criteria" Initial evaluation of existing bridge foundations will be based on review of available documents and a review of surface exposures and site conditions. Preliminary review of as-built plans and foundation data from Caltrans foundation section files indicates significant gaps in data for present study purposes, i.e. borings do not penetrate to or below pile tip elevations, there is a large horizontal gap between borings and construction data for the 1948 bridge may be very sparse. Additionally, we do not know of data on current or projected scour around the existing piers. The report of initial study evaluation will summarize what is known about existing foundations and conditions, discuss uncertainties in available information and evaluate existing foundation capacity and condition. The report will also incorporate a discussion of anticipated criteria for new foundation construction. 2.3 Subsurface Investigation The need for supplemental subsurface investigation will be evaluated based on results of initial study by this office and others. It is assumed that this investigation will be required. For evaluation purposes, information on subsurface materials and conditions -- particularly existing scour and bearing materials -- is expected to be obtained y means of two sampled test borings to 40-50± ground penetration, supplemented by two shorter identification and/or selectively sampled borings. Borings would be located immediately adjacent to at least two of the existing downstream pier footings. Borings are visualized as being made from existing bridge deck (although over-water barge work could be technically feasible) requiring a lane closure and, probably, weekend or restricted (perhaps nighttime) working hours. Borings would be made by rotary drilling method, using casing to control and re-circulate drill fluid to a "mud tank" on the deck. Such operations will require coordination with the City and a Fish and Game permit. For subsurface study, laboratory testing would be expected to be limited to moisture content-dry density, unconfined compressive strength and grain size determinations. The written report will include the results of field and Exhibit "A" Page 4 laboratory soils testing, a Log of Test Borings drawing and will address issues of existing foundation security and bearing conditions/capacity as well as providing a basis for preliminary evaluation of foundation criteria for new structure. No hazardous materials are evident or indicated to be present at the site. If hazardous materials are encountered during field exploration, the client and the City will be notified and a modified scope of services may be required. Task 3: Identify Rehabilitation/Widening Strategies The purpose of this task is to brainstorm alternative methods for widening the existing bridge, plus reasonable scenarios for superstructure replacement, for evaluation of alternatives. 3.1 Evaluate existing footings MT&Co will review the existing foundation loading (live and dead loads) versus the preliminary design criteria developed by Taber. MT&Co will then identify the additional loading imposed by widening plus any required adjustments for seismic loading; if the loading is slightly excessive, the design will be reviewed (lane widths, shoulder widths, sidewalk locations, etc.) to see if loads can be reduced to an acceptable level so that the existing piers can be used. If the existing or additional loads are excessive, and additional piers or footing retrofits are required, the City and Caltrans will be notified immediately, so that strategy for further study can be refined. 3.2 Evaluate outside widening versus combination median/outside widening One option envisioned by City staff for this widening would be to deck the median between the existing bridges, iri addition to outside widening. This section would be relatively compact, provide for smooth transitions from roadway approaches to the bridge, and eliminate barrier/guard rail transitions at the abutments. However, there are some potential disadvantages as well: (1) the traffic volumes for a six lane roadway will probably meet AASHTO requirements for a raised median, (2) provision of a raised median will require an additional two foot "shyaway" for the inside lanes (reducing the amount of lane width obtained with the median deck), and (3) the additional cost of the "median girder" may offset any deck savings in deck width from outside widening. During this stage, MT&Co would review the possibility of leaving the median gap as is', except that the existing railings would be replaced with current standard barriers. Because only two new girders would be required (rather than three as above), this option may be less expensive to construct. However, wider girder spacing will require thicker decks, adding to the dead load of the piers which are vulnerable. Other potential disadvantages of this alternative would be (1) additional expense for loner bent caps, (2) possible additional eccentric loading on piers, and (3) more difficult roadway approach transitions, including guard rail/barrier transitions in the median. 3.3 Prepare alternatives for widening and rehabilitation Exhibit "A" Page 5 Besides the options for widening entirely outside versus a combination of outside and median widening there are alternative structure treatments as well. In developing these alternatives there are two main structural concerns. a) The portion of the existing structure that is retained, along with all it's components, should be able to withstand the maximum credible earthquake without any major collapse - limited damage is acceptable. b) The additional service loads, dead and live, from the widening are to be transferred from the new girders to the foundation without overstress. Two preliminary alternatives for the load transfer have been identified - both involve a new pier cap spanning the two existing pier walls and cantilevering out on each side. The alternatives would include a reinforced concrete pier cap and a structural steel cap. If the various alternatives reviewed overload the existing foundation, the existing heavy concrete decks can be replaced with a lightweight concrete deck, thereby reducing the deck dead load by approximately 3001o. The reinforcing details in the hollow pier walls do not meet current seismic standards - thus, either the pier walls should be upgraded or the seismic loads transferred to the pier wall should be minimized. MT&Co proposes to do the latter by replacing the existing rocker bearings (which will probably need to be replaced anyway) with special PTFE (teflon) bearings which are basically low friction, sliding bearings. The bearing replacement can be done without any temporary support by using stay-in-place flatjacks. This will also expedite the construction process. MT&Co has recently retrofitted a similar bridge across Santa Ana River using these bearings. 3.4 Prepare Report of Preliminary Findings The alternatives described above, and additional alternatives if appropriate, would be summarized in a letter-type report with a matrix analysis of the various advantages and disadvantages of each. The alternatives would be compared in general terms as to relative cost, construction methods, environmental impact, traffic impact, approach roadway alignment, and aesthetics. With only the various combinations of options described above for median-outside vs. ouside only widening, concrete pier cap vs. structural steel pier cap, and deck replacement vs. no deck replacement, there are potentially eight different alternatives for this project. The intent of this phase of work is to narrow options to the two or three most promising alternatives. The various options would be compared with a decision matrix, similar to the following comparison of pier cap alternatives: Item: Concrete Cap Steel Cap 1. Foundation heavier, could be problem lighter, better 2. Construction: fabrication- formwork difficult pre-fabricated Exhibit "A" Page 6 installation- easier to fit in field fitting more difficult time reqd.- longer quicker 3. Aesthetics: OK good 4. Maintenance: lower costs more maintenance 5. Useful Life: longevity not a problem welds may fatigue 3.5 Preliminary Meeting with City and Caltrans After preparation of the report on alternatives, these alternatives would be reviewed with the Project Development Team. Refinements and changes could be made through type selection or strategy meeting, as required. The intent of the meeting is assure the City and Caltrans that the alternatives are feasible, and that MT&Co will proceed only on the most reasonable alternatives. Task 4: Civil Engineering/Traffic Management The purpose of this task is to define how traffic will be accommodated in the short term and long term, including the anticipated level of service at adjacent intersections. 4.1 Data Collection Data collection for this phase will include roadway As-builts, including Hartnell signal plans, plus related traffic information (24 hour traffic counts, City-wide traffic model). 4.2 Lane Closure/Work Hour strategies CCS Planning and Engineering, working with City staff, will use the traffic counts versus assumed single lane capacity through the construction zone to identify appropriate hours for lane closures. Construction activities will be limited outside of these hours to activities not requiring lane closure. Night construction is probably not a viable alternative, due to proximity of a mobilehome park. 4.3 Cypress Avenue Planline As described above, the road alignment should be reviewed to identify required improvements for smooth approaches to the structure widening, and to provide a complete project with logical termini (i.e. Hartnell to Route 273). it is anticipated that a planline from Hartnell to the eastern abutment will be prepared. On the western side of the bridge, a plan line from the bridge to a "standard" cross section will be prepared, assuming a reduction in lane widths west of Athens Avenue. Additionally CCS will review intersection approach geometrics for level of service, and determine appropriate lane configurations. For example, there are two eastbound through lanes at Hartnell, plus a dedicated right turn lane; Exhibit "A" Page 7 CCS will review the possibility of using the right turn lane as a mixed through-right turn lane, which would eliminate the need to widen into the gasoline station property. Our review of the Cypress Planline will also include a discussion of possible lane width reductions on the structure. Eleven foot wide lanes may be appropriate (especially if required due to structure concerns), assuming adequate offset to barriers and sidewalks. There has been talk within Caltrans of reducing mandatory lane widths with metrification, with the new standard of 3.5 meters (11.4 feet); AASHTO allows for 11 feet as well. The review will also include a discussion of safety benefits/considerations of widening in the median versus outside widening only. For example, leaving the median as is will leave the awkward guard rail transitions at each end of the bride, which can create a traffic hazard during icy conditions. Additionally, median widening may provide a smoother transition at roadway approaches. Bike lanes and sidewalk access must be maintained on both sides of the road, for policy reasons as well as federal funding requirements. The bike lane could be reduced to as little as 5 feet, if required. 4.4 Park Marina Drive Considerations We are concerned about Park Marina Drive for several reasons. As mentioned in the Request for Proposal, there is only 14 feet vertical clearance at the eastbound structure, which will be reduced with structure widening. Options include a reduction in structure depth for the widening girder, or reconstruction/lowering of the roadway. Reconstruction of a portion of Park Marina Drive may appear to be a severe solution, but the City may wish to consider it for other reasons as well. Currently, there is minimal sight distance for southbound traffic as they pass the bridge abutment, and the line of sight will be lessened with the abutment widening; this sight distance issue appeared to be a significant problem in our observations because of the excessive speed of local traffic. Additionally, the existing overhead pole and guy anchor in the median south of the bridge could pose a safety hazard. Consequently, this project could be seen as an opportunity to correct some potential safety hazards on Park Marina Drive in addition to providing greater vertical clearance. in our study, we will review these options for the City. Task 5: Hydraulic Evaluation The purpose of this task is similar to the traditional Hydrology Report prepared for bridge design projects for Caltrans. The intent is to identify Hydrologic design criteria, and address how the structure will accommodate the design flows. In this case, there is an existing structure on a regulated channel; the flood flows are well documented, and record flood data is also available with the existing structure in place. 5.1 Data Collection We propose to review available bridge maintenance records for historical flooding (date and depth of flooding), any scour problems, or other indications Exhibit "A" Page 8 of hydraulic capacity of the existing span. This review will also include field surveys of the high water marks. This data will be reviewed with the Division of Structures Hydraulics staff, and the work scope refined as appropriate. 5.2 Flood Summary It is anticipated that a detailed backwater analysis will not be required. MT&Co will review record flood data, plus available FEMA documentation. The proposed design alternatives will then be evaluated for potential encroachment into the base flood, or for a reduction in freeboard. Based on review of record flooding elevations and structure elevations, as shown on the As-builts, there is sufficient freeboard for widening as proposed, including bent caps. This information will be summarized in a concise report including the following information: o Base Flood as determined from existing FEMA documentation and Caltrans record information in the area. o Other important items to be addressed qualitatively include minimum required waterway (horizontal and vertical), drift potential, scour potential, and impacts of bridge skew. 5.3 Water Quality Considerations Additionally, the Hydraulic Evaluation will include a brief discussion for water quality considerations during and immediately after construction, specifically for erosion control and control of sediment from construction, staging, and storage areas. The following information will be addressed: o Topographic map with discharge points o Site Map showing: - Areas of soil disturbance - Areas designated to store soils o Discussion of possible methods for erosion control - Silt fences - Hydroseeding Task 6: Develop Bridge Strategies Based on input from Task 3, plus supplemental information on traffic and hydraulic considerations, more detailed analysis of alternatives will be made. The intent of the analysis is not to design the structure, members, or connections. Rather, the intent is to define the proposed method for widening, rehabilitation, or replacement in sufficient detail so that (1) a determination can be made as to the technical feasibility can be made, and (2) a reliable construction cost estimate can be prepared. 6.1 Method of Analysis The various options and preliminary alternatives discussed earlier will be checked for feasibility from the non-structural perspective - roadway alignment, right of way, environmental, utility, hydraulic, geotechincal and even political to name a few. This will help us narrow the focus and concentrate on only the reasonable alternatives. These alternatives will then be developed further to the extent of approximate member sizing and design Exhibit "A" Page 9 of some strategic connection details. THis will involve preliminary dead load and live load analysis for each alternative using PCLINKS, a computer program routinely used by Caltrans. The seismic analaysis will be perfomed using SEISAB EI mic Analysis of Bridges)m which is particularly suited for this structure. THese programs will allow a quick and reliable structural analysis of the alternatives, and assist to identify the option and construction methods that will address the City's concerns best. Following a construction cost estimate an extensive comparison matrix will be prepared. The preferred technical alternative(s) will then be recommended. 6.2 Alternative 1: Inside and Outside Widening This alternative will minimize the out-to-out width of the bridges using three additional steel guiders and modified pier caps.. The existing steel bearings are vulnerable seismically and should be replaced with PTFE friction - controlled sliding bearings. These bearings should be used for the new girders as well. The pier cap modifications can be done without any long term lane closure. Minimizing the out-to-out width of the two bridges should also minimize the amount of pier and footing modification. Footing modifications, if necessary, will require expensive tremae seal and involve construction under and around the existing structure. 6.3 Alternative 2: Outside Widening This alternative is our attempt to reduce the construction cost by using only two rather than three girders. With a 2-foot barrier and 2-foot wide shy-way lanes on both sides, the savings in deck width are not really significant. However, this will result in larger over hangs for the pier cap and more eccentric loading on the piles. Once again, if the existing piles are not capable of handling the additional load - as may well be the case - expensive channel work will need to be done. This alternative will also require the PTFE bearings. 6.4 Alternative 3: Deck Replacement This alternative envisions replacing the heavy concrete deck entirely with a light-weight deck system. The construction will require closing one bridge at a time. This alternative should be used as a last resort. PTFE bearings should be used for this alternative as well to minimize the seismic loads transmitted to the piers. 6.5 Construction Methods and Staging For each alternative, a qualitative analysis will be made for cons tructibility. This analysis will include discussion on anticipated type of construction equipment, how that equipment will be used (i.e. access from existing bridge deck, some from shore, etc.), and anticipated storage/staging areas. Construction staging discussion will also be qualitative, and will incorporate suggestions and discussions from Task 4 above for limitation of work hours. Alternatives for construction barriers will be discussed, such as cones, K-rail, barricade, or water-filled barriers. The intent of this section is to confirm that there are feasible means to handle traffic, and to estimate what the reasonable cost for those methods may be. We anticipate that final concepts for traffic Exhibit "A" Page 10 0 handling would not be developed or approved until final design, after public input is received. 6.6 Prepare Preliminary Findings The alternatives, as developed above, would be summarized in a letter-type report with a matrix analysis of the various advantages and disadvantages of each, similar to the report in Task 3. Because more detailed knowledge would be available, this report would be more definitive as the to technical feasibility of the alternatives, with rough sizing and layout of design elements. The alternatives would be compared in general terms as to relative cost, construction methods, environmental impact, traffic impact, approach roadway alignment, and aesthetics. 6.7 Strategy Meeting with Caltrans After preparation of the report on alternatives, these findings would be reviewed with the Project Development Team, hopefully with general acceptance that the alternatives developed are feasible (again, no design is expected to be performed at this stage). The intent of this meeting is to agree on a strategy that can be used as a basis for cost estimates in Task 7. Task 7: Preliminary Engineers Estimate As described above, the purpose of this task will be to develop engineering estimates for the replacement of the structure, plus two alternatives maximum for widening the existing structure. These estimates will be prepared in accordance with State and Federal guidelines to establish proposed project funding. 7.1 Upgrading/Widening Existing Structure This task will consist of estimating the cost for widening the existing structure, with the method(s) as agreed in Task 6. 7.2 Replacing Existing Structure This task will consist of estimating the cost for partial or complete replacement of the existing structure, with the method(s) as agreed in Task 6, including salvaging and reuse of components where possible. Task 8: Value Analysis The purpose of this task is to evaluate and define as possible the long term economic consequences of the alternatives. Specifically, the initial construction cost of widening the existing structure will be significantly less, but the anticipated life span may be less than that of a replacement structure. This task will assign a Present Value to the various alternatives. 8.1 Estimate Useful Life The useful life of the widened structure and the replacement structure will be estimated and reviewed with Division of Structures staff. This step will be complicated in that the useful life of the replacement structure may be limited by any existing components reused in the replacement. Exhibit "A" Page 11 • 8.2 Estimate Maintenance Costs To the extent that maintenance or future rehabilitation costs are different between alternatives, they should be quantified approximately; these life-cycle costs would be included in the present value analysis. 8.3 Estimate Present Value Using an agreed upon value for rate of interest, the Present Value of construction costs plus long term maintenance would be estimated for the various alternatives. Intangibles, such as differences in safety, cannot be estimated. Task 9: Feasibility Report This report will summarize the study methods and findings, and recommend further course of action. The previous reports submitted will form a basis for the final Feasibility Report. The report will be submitted in a Draft and Final version, with reduced plans included within the report. The Feasibility Report must answer the following questions: o Is the project Technically Feasible? o Is the project Economically Feasible? o Is the project Politically Feasible? Specifically, we propose that the report address the following items: 1. Reason for Study - Existing traffic considerations - Projected Growth/traffic generation under General Plan - Alternative routes - Project priority (compared to others) 2. Alternatives Considered - No project - Replacement structure - Widening existing structure, with alternatives 3. Other Technical Considerations - Environmental Impact - Traffic impact (long term and short term) - Hydrologic/hydraulic concerns - Constructibility 4. Economics - Initial construction costs of project alternatives - Life Cycle costs - Proposed project funding, including amount and source of City obligation Exhibit "A" Page 12 5. Recommendations for Project Implementation - Preferred alternative - Future work activities - Geotechnical follow-up - Anticipated Permitting - Anticipated right of way acquisition - Anticipated utility coordination/conflicts Exhibit "A" Page 13 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. - Manhour Estimate Cypress Dr. Bridge Study for City of Redding 4/14/94 ...................................................... ....... ........ ........................ page 1 .......... ............ ........ ................. . .... ... ........... .......... W. . ......... . .............. . . ..... .. . Meow .......... ...... i.k.AWW . ............ ..... 1.Evaluate Existing Structures 1.1 Data Collection 2 4 12 8 ... 8....................................................................... Visit ................... 1.2 Site 28 .»...._.._...»..................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ..................... 1.3 Field Surveys ............................................................................................... .................... 1.4 Prepare Records of Visit 2 4 16 2 2 26 ............................. ................... ..........................»...»...................._._............................... .................................................................................................................. 2.Foundation Evaluation Initial Records/Review ............................................................................................................ .................................................................................................................................................. Field Borings,lab,results ............................................ ........ 3.Identify Rehabiliation/Widening Strategies ....................... ............................................................................................................................................... ................. 3.1 Evaluate existing footings 4 8 12 ....................................................................................................... ............................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................... 3.2 Outside vs.median widening 2 4 12 18 ................................................................................................... .............................»....... ......................................................................................................... _..........»...».. 3.3 Prepare alternatives for widen/retrofit 2 12 16 30 ................ ............... ... 3.4 Prepare report of findings 2 8 4 4.._...............2 20 ..................... 3.5 Preliminary Meeting (city and Caltrans) 4 48 .................................................. .................................................................................................................................................. ..................... Civil Engineering/Traffic Management X t2i 4.1 Data Collection 4 2 6 ...»......».............................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................... ..................... H 4.2 Lane Closure/Work Hours ._............».»........................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................... ..................... 4.3 Cypress drive pianline 2 8 8 12 30 ..................................................:.............................................................. .......................................................................................................................................................... ..................... .4 Park Marina Drive reeview 2 8 8 1230 ............................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................... .................... 5.Hydraulic Evaluation 5.1 Data Collection 4 4 ........................................................................................ ....................... ...................................................................................................I...................................................... ..................... 5.2 Flood Summary 2 8 4 2 16 .............................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................................................................... ..................... 5.3 Water Quality 2 2 2 6 ................................................................................................................ ..............I........................................................................................................................................... ..................... 6.Develop Bridge Strategies 6.1 Bridge Alternatives 16 24 120 32 192 .Wi........................................................................................................ .......................................................................................................................................................... ..................... Construction methods/staging 2 8 16 4 30 • ................................................................................................................ .......................................................................................................................................................... ..................... 6.3 Preliminary Findings 12 12 16 4 2 46 ................................................................................................................ .......................................................................................................................................................... ..................... 6.4 Strategy Meeting 4 4 12 12 32 ................................................................................................................ .......................................................................................................................................................... ..................... 7.Value Engineering Analysis 12 8 16 ................................................................................................................ .......................................................................................................................................................... ..................... 8.Feasibility Report 8.1 DraftReport 4 12 24 24 24 4 ................................................................................................................ ...... 8.2 Final Report 4 8 16 4 24 12 68 ................................................................................................................. ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 16 20 .... ..................... ................................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................................... Project Management SubTotaJ3 16 116 148 294 22 136 2411 622 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. - Fee Estimate Cypress Dr. Bridge Study for City of Redding 4/14/94 -::. :.::.:.....:. . - 9 2 :...... .............. :;:::::..r:::::;::::>:::::::...:.......:....... :..: . :. ::s�it�1��:.;::::..::.;:.; _... � _........._..................::::;:,::: .:::1t. .::::;..:::.>:;: E. .....:::::.:;.::.; :::.:;:;;:.::::.:..::.:::..................:::::;::;;;;::;;:...::......::........ ::.::::::::::::::.::.:::::::::::::.::::::.::. coag iR <'> _::::.... :....:.............................::::.::::::::::::::::.... ..........::::::::.::::::.::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::.::::::::.::::.............:::::::::::::: :: . :::::::::, :::::::::.se�nlnc..� Aawtu.Et>�t.::::::::!4+��!':::::;:<:<.:::.::: 1.Evaluate Existing Structures 1.1 Data Collection 236.00 292.00 200.00 728.00 »... _ .._ »»....». ._............._..»......_..................._..._.....................__.._.........._....._......._ _.......». _................»._............_...............................................__»......._................... ........ _..._.»».... 1.2 Site Visit 1,416.00 784.00 584.00800.00 3,584.00 1.3 Feld Surveys _ ».»»..»..._....»»... _.................._............_............._............... _._....._.__....._....._....»...».._.._ .................................................... ».................»............». ...... ......._....._........ 1.4 Prepare Records of Visit 236.00 392.00 1,168.00 74.00 76.00 100.00 2,046.00 »...... .._ ... ........_.............................................................___.._ Foundation Evaluation Initial Records/Review Feld Borings,lab,results »..__......». _...........»». »............................_.............................»........_......._..__....._..............._ 3.Identify Rehabiliation/Widening Str 3.1 Evaluate existing footings392.00 584.00 976.00 _._....»...»»»__........._.__........ ............................................_..........._...._........................................._....................................................................................._......»............................ ......................... 3.2 Outside vs.median widening 236.00 392.00 876.00 80.00 1,584.00 ........... _.. »._.__ _».___.........................................................»..»......._._......................._........................._............................................... ..._...._.. .........»...........».......... ._...._............_.. 3.3 Prepare alternatives for widen/ret 236.00 1,176.00 592.00 120.00 2,124.00 _...._.» .». __.._..»»_....... ....................................................._...»._....___....................._._.......____..»..._....................................._....................._..........._.................1.20...00 »....................... 3.4 Prepare report of findings 236.00 784.00 292.00 148.00 76.00 120.00 1,656.00 ».....__..._...».....__. ....»»..»......................................................................._...._....................................».........».................................................................................._........................... ......................... 3.5 Preliminary Meeting(city and Cal 472.00 392.00 ...................... ...._............80... . ........... 00 944.00. .. »....__........__.....»..» ............................................................_..._......................................................._.................................................................. .... .... ........... 4.Civil Engineering/Traffic Managem 4.1 Data Collection292.00 74.00 ..........60... . ........... 00 426•. . .. ........._........................................................................................................._.........._......................................................................................................................................... .... .... .......... 4.2 Lane Closure/Work Hours ................................_........_...................................................................................................................................._.............................................................................................................. ......................... 4.3 Cypress drive planline 236.00 584.00 464.00 444.00 .80.00 80.00 1,888:00 ................................................_......................................................................._............................................................................................. ......................... 4 Park Marina Drive reeview 236.00 584.00 464.00 444.00 ...........................80:00 40.00 ......1:848.00 ......_......._._............................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................... . 5.Hydraulic Evaluation 5.1 Data Collection 292.00 ..........................................40'.. . ........... 00 332'00. .. .........................................._................................................................................................................................................................................................ .... .... ........... 5.....Flood Summary...................................................................236.00.....................................584.00 232.00 .....7600....................................20:�. ..........�:�.. .................. . . .......................................................... 5.3 Water Quality 236.00146.00 ..........116.00.. ................................................................................................. ...........498•. . .. ......................................................................................................................................................................... ......... .......... 6.Develop Bridge Strategies 6.1 Bridge Alternatives 1,888.00 2,352.00 8,760.00 ..............................1;184.00 400.00 14,584.00 .................................................................................................................................................................... ................................ ......................... • 6.2 Construction methods/staging 236.00 784.00..........1.,.1.68-0.0....................................1.48:0.0 ......................................80-0.0........................ .......2.,.416.00............. .............................................................................................................................................. ............ ......... ......... .. . 6.3 Preliminary Findings 1,416.00 1,176.00 1,168.00 148.00 76.00 80.00 320.00 4.384.00 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .............. 6.4 Strategy Meeting 520.00 472.00 1,176.00 876.00 ..................................................... .......3..044.00. .. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .............. 7.Value Engineering Analysis 784.00 1,168.00 ....................... .......1.,.952.00. . .. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . . .......... 8.Feasibility Report 8.1 Draft Report 2,352.00 1,752.00160.. 320...00 4,584.00 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................00................... ..... ......................... 8.2 Final Report 520.00 944.00 1,568.00 292.00 888.00 456.00 .600.00 5,268.00 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... .... ......................... 8.2 Final Report 520.00 1,888.00200.00 2,608.00 ....................................................................... . . otals 1,560.00 10,856.00 14,504.00 21,462.00 1,276.00 4,144.00 760.00 960.00 3,100.00 58,622.00 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. - Fee Summary Cypress Dr. Bridge Study for City of Redding 4/14/94 ........... page 3 . ....................................................... .......... ......... .. ........ ... ................... ......................................... ............................-............... ... ..............**........ om....... ...................................... ................. *".**'*......,.....�...�......................-.-.-.-.-"-�����i- to.W. . .............. ....... ..... ........................................ ........ ................. .... ............. .............. .. ....... .............. .......-............................ :.....-*.....**"'"*'** ..... *,,,,*, d,.T :: -, . ......................... .... ....... ............. .................... ........... .... . ... .. 7- O.T T W ........... .. A-L ... ................ ....... ....... ...................... ........................ ...... .... .. 1.Evaluate Existing Structures 1.1 Data Collection 728 ..._.....»._................................................................ ..................... ........................ ..................... ............................................. .......................... ..................... ....................... 1.2 Site Visit 3,584 _........_........».......».»»................................................. ............................................. .................... ...................... ..................... ........................ ................... ....................... -1.3 Field Surveys 2,500 1.4 Prepare Records of Visit 2,046 ............................... .............................................. ..................... ....................... .................... .......................... ............................................. 2.Foundation Evaluation Initial Records/Review 3,500 .......................... ............................................ ..................... .......................... ..................... ......................... ..................... ........................ Field Borings,lab,results 15,000 ....................... ............................................. ..................... ......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ....................... Identify Rehabiliation/Widening Strategies ....................... .......................................... ..................... ......................... .................... .......................... ..................... ....................... 3.1 Evaluate existing footings 976 ».»»...».»».»........»...»................................................. ............................................. ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 3.2 Outside vs.median widening 1,584 ......................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 3.3 Prepare alternatives for widen/retrofit 2,124 ...................... ............................................ ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ....................... 3.4 Prepare report of findings 1,656 ............ ......................... .................... ........................ 3.5 Preliminary Meeting(city and Caltrans) 944 ................... ............................................ .................... ......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 4.Civil Engineering/Traffic Management 4.1 Data Collection 4261,200 ........................................................................I........... ............................................... ..................... ......................... ..................... .......................... .................... ........................ 4.2 Lane Closure/Work Hours 3,800 ....................................................................................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 4.3 Cypress drive planline 1,888 ....................................................................................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 4.4 Park Marina Drive reeview 1,848 ....................................................................................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 5.Hydraulic Evaluation 5.1 Data Collection 332 ....................................................................................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... .................I... .......................... ..................... ........................ 5.2 Rood Summary 1,148 ..................................................................................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 5.3 Water Quality 498 ....................................................................................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......I.................. ..................... ........................ 6.Develop Bridge Strategies 6.1 Bridge Alternatives 14,584 ....................................................................................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 6.2 Construction methods/staging ..............2,416 • ....................................................................................... ....................... .......... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 6.3 Preliminary Findings 4,384 ....................................................................................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 6.4 Strategy Meeting 3,044 ....................................................................................... .................................I............. ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 7.Value Engineering Analysis 1,952 ....................................................................................... ...I........................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 8.Feasibility Report 8.1 Draft Report 4,584 ....................................................................................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 8.2 Final Report 5,268 ....................................................................................... ............................................... ..................... .......................... ..................... .......................... ..................... ........................ 8.2 Final Report 2:608 ....................................................................................... ...................... .............. .....................f......................... .....................I..........................t-1--l-1-11-11...................... 11Subtotal 58,6221 1 18,500i 1 2,5001 1 5,0070 ISubconsultant Markup 5501 1 1 1 1 1 I EXHIBIT "B" MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. CHARGE RATE SCHEDULE HOURLY CHARGE RATES PROFESSIONAL AND_OFFICE Principal/Project Manager $ 130.00 per hour Engineering Manager 118.00 per hour Structural Manager 118.00 per hour Resident Bridge Engineer 108.00 per hour Senior Engineer III 105.00 per hour Senior Engineer II 98.00 per hour Senior Engineer 1 92.00 per hour Associate Engineer II 77.00 per hour Associate Engineer 1 64.00 per hour Assistant Engineer II 56.00 per hour Assistant Engineer 1 51.00 per hour Junior Engineer 47.00 per hour Senior Design Technician 77.00 per hour Associate Design Technician 70.00 per hour Computer Technician 37.00 per hour Engineering Draftsperson 62.00 per hour Technical Writer 60.00 per hour Clerical/Typist II 53.00 per hour Clerical/Typist 1 38.00 per hour Messenger 25.00 per hour FIELD 2 Person Field Party and Vehicle $ 131.34 per hour MISCELLANEOUS COSTS Printing and Materials - Cost plus 5% Mileage - $.26 per mile Mileage not separately charged for field crews CADDNango and AutoCADD Computer - $8.00 per hour Outside Consultant Fees - Cost plus 5% Effective January 1, 1994 Revised March 10, 1994 EXHIBIT "C" Work-hour and Fee Estimate: Following this page are detailed man-hour and fee breakdowns by task and subtask, including reimbursable costs. The summary of fees is as follows: 1. Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. Base Fee $58,622 Subconsultant Markup (2.1%) 550 2. Taber Consultants 18,500 3. CCS Planning & Engineering 5,000 4. Del Terra, Inc. 2,500 Total not to exceed $85.172 This work would be completed on a time and material basis not to exceed the amount noted without prior written authorization. The hourly charge rates will be from the enclosed Exhibit "B".