HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2005-134 N.C.S. 08/01/2005 ~eSO~U~1011 NO. 2005-134~.~~s.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO ENGINEERS FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF C®NSTRUCTION OF THE ELLIS
CREEK WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
WHEREAS, in 1938, the original wastewater treatment processes were constructed at
950 Hopper Street; and,
WHEREAS, to meet the community's needs and changing regulatory requirements,
various upgrades and additions to the wastewater treatment plant were conducted through the
1960s; and,
WHEREAS, in 1972, the oxidation ponds were constructed at 4400 Lakeville Highway
to provide additional treatment capacity; and,
WHEREAS, in 1988, with influent flows exceeding 75% of the permitted capacity of the
wastewater treatment facility, and necessary upgrades to the facility to increase treatment
capacity and continue to meet the needs of the community were determined to be too costly, the
City determined to replace the existing wastewater treatment facility; and,
WHEREAS, in 1991 the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding with
Envirotech Operating Services (EOS) to design, build, construct, own and operate (20 years) a
new wastewater treatment facility (Resolution No. 91-107 N.C.S.); and,
WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991, EOS submitted an application to the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) seeking an exemption from CPUC regulation under the California
Local Government Privatization Act of 1985; and,
WHEREAS, on October 21, 1991., Administrative Law Judge Ramsey determined that
the MOU did not meet the requirements of the Public Utilities Code and ordered that "the
application is denied without prejudice to refiling after amendment"; and,
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S.
WHEREAS, in February 1992 EOS and the City mutually agreed to rescind the MOU;
and,
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1994, following a report prepared by Ernst and Young, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 94-156 N.C.S., which directed that the Service Agreement
Approach (privatization) be utilized for procurement of a new wastewater treatment facility; and,
WHEREAS, on June 17, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-163 N.C.S.,
which certified the Final EIR documents, Resolution No. 96-164 N.C.S., which approved the
Project, and Resolution No. 96-165 N.C.S., which approved and authorized issuance of the
Request For Proposal; and,
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1996, the RFP was issued to five pre-qualified vendor teams;
and,
WHEREAS, in January 1997, the City received proposals from Montgomery United
Water (MUW) and US Filter/EOS; and,
WHEREAS, the Citizens' Wastewater Advisory Committee considered the proposals on
May 28, 1997, June 3, 1997, June 4, 1997, July 2, 1997, October 20, 1997, October 30, 1997.,
November 4, 1997, November 18, 1997, and on December 3, 19.97; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposals on July 7, 1997, September 8,
1997, September 15, 1997, September 22, 1997, September 29, 1997, October 6, 1997,
December 3, 1997, and December 8, 1997; and,
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-11 N.C.S.,
which selected MUW for contract negotiations; and,
WHEREAS, negotiations with MUW on technical, legal and agreement issues began on
January 27, 1998 and proceeded through spring 1999; and,
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 2
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the City Council, recognizing the need for
development of a public alternative to the proposed privatization project, approved preparation
of the wastewater treatment facility master plan; and,
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-188
N.C.S., which terminated the privatization process and established City ownership of the new
wastewater treatment facility. Reasons cited for this determination included, among others:
1 Risk of Change Required Over 30-Year Contract Term. Changes in the City's
needs may occur during the 30-year life of the contract. The City is at a disadvantage
by being able to negotiate with only one party for changes in the facility's capacity.
1 Requirement of Fair Market Value Purchase. In order for MUW to retain tax
ownership, the City's option to purchase the facility at the end of the contract term
would have to be at fair market value. The price of the facility could not be fixed in
the contract, but would depend on the value of the facility at the time of the exercise
of the option, thereby putting the City and ratepayers at risk of having to pay for part
of the plant twice.
9 Lack of City Approval of Design. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership,
Section 4.8.1 of the agreement limited the City's participation in the design process.
Third Party Services. In order for MUW to retain tax ownership, Section 5.2.4
would allow the Company to provide services to others (in addition to the City) at the
Project Site.
Inability to Agree On Contract Language. After extensive negotiations between
the City and MUW, specific contract language on the above and other critical issues
could not be agreed upon.
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-189
N.C.S., which approved the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, with the understanding that the
Master Plan's recommended project would be further reviewed to address questions asked by the
City's independent wastewater professionals; and,
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 3
WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for
engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater treatment
facility); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-66 N.C.S. on Apri13, 2000,
which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo
Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 -Project Report of the Water Recycling
Facility Project; and,
WHEREAS, five alternatives for the new water recycling facility were presented at a
Public Forum at the Community Center on June 14, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council heard a discussion on the criteria for evaluating the
alternatives on September 5, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the results of the analysis and comparison of the alternatives were
presented at a Public Forum at the. Community Center on November 8, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered and discussed the Draft Water Recycling
Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2000) on November 20, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-214 N.C.S. on December 11, 2000,
which approved the Water Recycling Facility Project Report (Carollo Engineers, November
2000), selected Alternative 5 -Extended Aeration as the preferred alternative for the new water
recycling facility, and identified Option A -Wetlands as the preferred alternative for algae
removal over Option B - DAFs; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 00-215 N.C.S. on December 11, 2000,
which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo
Engineers for professional engineering services in support of Phase 2 -Project Development of
the Water Recycling Facility Project; and,
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 4
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Water Recycling Facility Project and the
Draft Water Recycling Facility Predesign Report (Carollo Engineers, November 2001) on
November 14, 2001, November 28, 2001, December 17, 2001 and January 7, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-012 N.C.S. on January 7; 2002,
which approved design parameters for the preferred alternative for the water recycling facility
project and authorized completion of the environmental impact report; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements
Draft EIR (April 2002) and distributed it to the California State Clearinghouse and to all
responsible local, state and federal agencies involved in the Project and made it available for
public review; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held noticed public hearings on May 13, 2002, and May
20, 2002, during which all interested persons were provided an opportunity to comment on the
adequacy of the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft EIR began April 15, 2002, and closed
May 29, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City prepared Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements
Final EIR and Response to Comments (July 2002), which responded to comments received on
the Draft EIR. The Final EIR did not identify any new significant impacts that had not been
previously evaluated in the Draft EIR.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2002, to
consider the Final EIR; and,
WHEREAS, after due consideration, the Petaluma City Council adopted Resolution
2002-135 N.C.S. certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Water Recycling
Facility and River Access Improvements Project and made the following findings on August 5,
2002.
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 5
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
2: The documents referenced below constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report
and were presented and considered along with both written and oral comments
received during the public review period on the Project and environmental
documents:
a. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Draft Environmental
Impact Report, in two volumes (Apri12002).
b. Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Final Environmental
Impact Report and Response To Comments (July 2002).
3. The City Council, as the decision making body of the City of Petaluma,
independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the information in the Final EIR
and found that the contents of the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the
City of Petaluma
4. The Final EIR was published, made available and circulated for review and comment.
WHEREAS, the Project certified in the Final EIR included locating a portion of the
treatment plant at 4400 Lakeville Highway, the current site of the City's oxidation ponds (APN
0680-010-025, 032 and 024), with polishing treatment wetlands located at 4104 Lakeville
Highway (APN 068-010-026, and 017-170-002); and,
WHEREAS, the City completed approximately 50% design of the facility in November
2002; and,
WHEREAS, through the value engineering effort conducted in December 2002, it
became apparent the alternative of locating the water recycling facility at 4104 Lakeville
Highway and preserving the oxidation pond site for its current function warranted further
evaluation; and,
WHEREAS, to construct the water recycling facility at the oxidation pond site would
require the removal, drying and disposal of sludge from the aerated lagoon and oxidation pond
no. 1, construction of a pipeline to deliver influent to oxidation pond no. 2, the construction of
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 6
aerators in oxidation pond nos. 2 and 3 to maintain and improve treatment capacity, and require
the placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of imported fill in the oxidation pond no. 1;
and,
WHEREAS, a feasibility study determined that locating the water recycling facility at
4104 Lakeville Highway was feasible and yields many benefits; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2003-196 N.C.S. on August 18,
2003, which authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services
agreement with Carollo Engineers for engineering services in support of locating the new
treatment plant at 4104 Lakeville Highway; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized acquisition of approximately 262 acres of land
in the 4000 block of Lakeville Highway for construction of the Water Recycling Facility and
development of the Petaluma Marsh Acquisition, Enhancement and Access Project on September
8, 2003 through Ordinance No. 2161 N.C.S. for the purchase of real property described as
Sonoma County Assessor's Parcel Nos. 06$-010-026 and 017-010-002; and,
WHEREAS, the City acquired Parcel Nos. 068-010-026 and 017-010-002 in February
2004 with the assistance of grant funding from the California Coastal Conservancy and the
Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District; and,
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access
Improvements EIR was prepared to evaluate potential changes to the environmental affects of
the Project due to the proposed Project revisions; and,
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR
remain valid for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have new
significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant
effects, or otherwise meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 1.5162 which outlines
the standards by which subsequent EIRs are required; and,
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 7
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum was published on April 15, 2004 and was available for
public review at the City of Petaluma City Hall, Petaluma Library, Petaluma Community Center,
Petaluma Senior Center, and the Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma campus; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-101 N.C.S. Re-certifying
Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact
Report Addendum, and Adopting Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
Adopting Revised Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program on June 7, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-092 N.C.S. Authorizing the
City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Covello Group for
Construction Management Services Task 1 and Task 2 for the City of Petaluma Ellis Creek
Water Recycling Facility Project on June 7, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-156 N.C.S. Authorizing
General Contractor and Electrical Subcontractor PrequaliEcation for the City of Petaluma Ellis
Creek Water Recycling Facility Project on August 16, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approved the Project on
November 18, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Petaluma Planning Commission considered the Project and the
proposed land use designations at 4104 Lakeville Highway on December 14, 2004, and
recommended the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment to the land use
designation of Public/Institutional, prezoning to Planned Community District (PCD) and
rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Community District, and annexation to the City of
Petaluma; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility on
February 7 and 28, 2004 and directed the Department of Water Resources and Conservation to
complete the contract documents for Alternative lA -Full Project With Bid Alternate for the
Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility and issue the contract documents to the following
prequalified contractors for solicitation of bids for construction:
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 8
General Contractors
• Slayden Construction
• Kiewit Pacific Company
• Monterey Mechanical
• Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc.
• Walsh Pacific Construction
• ARB, Inc.
Electrical Contractors
• Mass Electric
• Contract Costa Electric
• HGH Electric
• Blocka Construction
• Con J. Franke Electric
WHEREAS, the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project ("Project") is included in
the Department of Water Resources and Conservation Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Capital
Improvement Program Budget; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Article X of the City of Petaluma Charter, the Petaluma
Municipal Code, California Public Contract Code Section 20162 and other applicable law, the
City of Petaluma solicited bids for the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the Project bids were received on July 14, 2005, and opened in accordance
with California Public Contract Code Section 4105.5 and other applicable law; and,
WHEREAS, the apparent lowest bid for the Project was the bid of Kiewit Pacific
Company in the amount of $.106,250,200 for the Base Bid and $4,078,800 for Bid Alternate No.
1, for a total bid of $110,329,000; and,
WHEREAS, Kiewit Pacific Company was prequalified on December 15, 2004 to bid for
the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying the 2005 Construction
Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements EIR as modified by
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 9
the Apri12004 Addendum and Adopting Findings of Fact and Adopting Revised Mitigation
Measures and Monitoring Program on August 1, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the 2005 Construction Addendum to the Water Recycling Facility and
River Access Improvements EIR concluded that the determinations of the Final EIR remain valid
for the revised Project in that none of the Project modifications will have new significant impacts
or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects, or otherwise
meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines the standards by
which subsequent EIRs are required; and,
WHEREAS, on October 29, 1999, the City issued a Request For Proposal for
engineering services in support of the water recycling facility project (new wastewater treatment
facility); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-66 N.C.S. on April 3, 2000,
which authorized the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Carollo
Engineers for engineering services in support of Phase 1 -Project Report of the Water Recycling
Facility Project; and,
' WHEREAS, Carollo Engineers delivered Phase 1 the Project Report to the City Council
on December 11, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, for Phase 2, Carollo Engineers created 740 drawings and over 1,500 pages
of detailed specifications and delivered them for bid on Apri126, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, professional engineering services are required during construction for a
myriad of services, including review and response to contractor requests for information, review
of equipment and material submittals, review of design changes, and provision of design services
in support of project changes; and,
WHEREAS, Carollo Engineers is recommended for professional engineering services
during construction for the following reasons:
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 10
1. The firm provided exceptional service to the City over the past five years through
Phase 1 -Project Report and Phase 2 -Project Development.
2. The firm has extensive experience with engineering service on water recycling
facility projects of similar magnitude and complexity as the City's Ellis Creek Water
Recycling .Facility.
3. The firm has provided engineering service on a new $96 million dollar water
recycling facility for the City of Roseville.
4. The firm has committed to provide a qualified engineering team with over 312 years
of combined experience.
5. The firm is known for being proactive and solution orientated when addressing
construction related engineering issues.
6. The firm's core values are based on teamwork.
NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City
Council of the City of Petaluma.
2. The City Manager is authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with a
contract not-to-exceed amount of $4,354,075 with Carollo Engineers for Engineering
Services as described in the scope of work that is attached to and hereby made a part
of this Resolution as Attachment A on terms that are based on the City of Petaluma
standard professional services agreement and modified as appropriate to implement
the scope of work, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
3. Subject to available funds for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility Project, the
City Manager is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Petaluma
amendments to the Agreement Scope of Work, and to the not-to-exceed amount, so
long as such amendments in the aggregate do not increase the original Agreement
not-to-exceed amount by more than 15%.
4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
5. All portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual component of
this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent
jurisdiction, then the remaining Resolution portions shall be and continue in full. force
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 11
and effect, except as to those Resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid.
The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would have adopted
this Resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other
portion hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section subsection, clause
sentence, phrase or other portion may be held. invalid or unconstitutional..
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the. foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the s to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) (Special) meeting o m
on the .........1.5` day of ........~ugusL................................., 20.05., by the
following vote:
City Attorney
AYES: Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Vice Mayor Harris, Healy, Nau, O'Brien, Torliatt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None ,
ATTEST:
City Clerk .Mayor
Council File
Res. Nn........2005-134........N.C.S.
ATTAC~IIVIENT A
SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
ELLIS CREEK WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION
CAROLLO ENGINEERS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Scope of Services is to provide engineering support services during
construction, startup, training and operations manuals for the Ellis Creek Water Recycling
Facility. The scope of services outlined herein recognizes that the construction management
services will be performed by The Covello Group (TCG) construction management (CM) firm.
The budgets herein are based on a construction contract period of 42 months from the
Construction Contractor's Notice to Proceed to substantial completion which includes a six (6)
month startup period.
PROJECT COORDINATION
All work related to this scope of work shall be coordinated through the City's Project Manager,
Margaret Orr.
KEY PERSONNEL
Engineer's personnel assigned for this scope of work shall consist of the following individuals:
G. William Knopf Partner in Charge
Douglas Wing Project Manager
Lyn Gomes Project Engineer
Design Consultant, or City if necessary, shall provide written notification requesting changes in .
project staffing. Key personnel shall not be changed without mutual agreement of the Design
Consultant and City.
SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 1 -CONSTRUCTION PHASE
1.1 Pre-Construction Conference:
a. The Design Consultant will attend the meeting and address design issues.
1.2 Partnering:
a. Design Consultant will attend and participate in the initial daylong partriering
session, including Project Manger and Project Engineer.
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 13
b. Design Consultant will. attend and participate in the follow-up partnering sessions;
approximately two sessions a year (8 total).
1.3 Construction Administration Services:
a. The CNC will provide construction management services. The Design Consultant
will be responsible for providing any design input and support.
b. Document Tracking System: The CM will establish, implement, and maintain a
system for tracking the construction project correspondence and documents
using Microsoft Access. Design consultant will use a copy of the same data base,
updated on a weekly basis, by the CM.
1.4 flAeetings:
a. The Design Consultant will attend the weekly progress meetings. (Three and one
half years).
1.5 Submittal Review:
a. The Design Consultant will review initial design-related submittals including
reinforcing steel and mill test reports. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that
a total of 1,000 submittals will be reviewed at an average of six (6) hours per
submittal.
b. The Design Consultant will review subsequent design-related submittals
including reinforcing steel and mill test reports. For budgeting purposes, it is
assumed a total of 400 resubmittals will be reviewed at an average of four (4)
hours per submittal.
c. Factory Witness Tests. The Design Consultant shall witness factory tests of
certain mechanical and process equipment. Budget allows for two (2) factory
tests assuming two (2) days per test. Travel expense budget is included. Factory
test may include: horizontal aerators and VFDs greater than 250 HP.
1.6 Value Engineering Proposal Review:
a. The CM shall screen all value-engineering (VE) proposals from the Contractor for
merit. If the CM determines the proposal is worthy of further review, it shall be
reviewed by the Design Consultant for impact on design intent only. Budget
includes review of five (5) VE proposals at an average of twenty (20) hours per
proposal.
1.7 Request for Information/Clarification Review:
a. The Design Consultant will review design related RFIs and provide design
responses. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed a total of 1,400 RFIs will be
reviewed at an average of four (4) hours per RFI: In addition, if is assumed that a
total of 400 CM generated RFIs will be reviewed at an average of four (4) hours
per RFI.
b. The CM will review the Design Consultant's response and verify acceptability of
response. If the response materially affects the design, it will be reviewed with
the City and/or the Design Consultant, as necessary, to verify that it is required. If
it is~required, CM will issue a change request.
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 14
1.8 Change ®rder Preparation, Rlegotiation & Processing:
a. The Design Consultant will prepare design details for change order requests. For
budgeting purposes, it is assumed a total of 500 change order requests will be
prepared at an average of four (4) hours per change order, and a total of 50
change order designs at an average of 24 hours per design.
1.9 Field Alteration Redesign Services:
a. In instances where the Construction Contractor has constructed facilities not in
accordance with the Contract Documents, the Contractor is required, per the
contract documents, to correct the alteration or to provide a redesign to
adequately incorporate the alteration into the entire project. Such occurrences
will require the Design Consultant's review of the redesign or necessitate that the
Design Consultant perform the redesign. Design Consultant shall provide field
alteration redesign services up to a maximum of 138 hours.
1.10 EIR Conformance: The CM will coordinate and schedule the work of their
environmental consultant for conformance with the EIR and the Contract Documents.
a. CM will hold akick-off meeting with the Design Consultant and environmental
subconsultant to review environmental mitigation requirements, and agree on
construction management inspection and management actions, and role of
Design Consultant and environmental subconsultant related to environmental
mitigation process.
1.11 City Council Meetings: Design Consultant will attend City Council meetings when
requested by the City to assist the City staff in updating the City Council on construction-
related issues. For budgeting purposes, assume attendance at two (2) council meetings
by Partner and Project Manager (2 meetings total). In addition, Design Consultant will
provide support for City staff and CM including graphics and other presentation materials
for City Council presentations, up to 120 hours of graphics support.
1.12 Specialty Field Inspections: As directed by the CM, Design Consultant will provide
specialty field inspections for mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, geotechnical, civil,
structural, architectural, environmental artist, and landscaping. For budgeting purposes,
it is assumed 50 specialty inspections will be conducted at an average of six (6) hours
per inspection.
1.13 Safety: Design Consultant will comply with appropriate regulatory, project and City
regulations regarding necessary safety equipment or procedures used during
performance of Design Consultant's work and shall take necessary precautions for safe
operation of Design Consultant's work, and the protection of Design Consultant's
personnel from injury and damage from such work.
Neither the professional activities of the Design Consultant, nor the presence of the
Design Consultant's employees orsub-consultants at the construction/project site, shall
relieve the Contractor and any other entity of their obligations, duties and responsibilities
including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, sequence, techniques or
procedures necessary for performing, superintending, or coordinating their work in
accordance with the contract documents, City regulations, and any health or safety
precautions required by any regulatory agencies. City agrees that the Contractor is
solely responsible for job site safety, and that City shall provide in the Contract
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 15
Documents that Design Consultant and its subconsultants shall be named as additional
insureds iri general liability insurance coverage provided by the Contractor, and that the
Design Consultant and its sub-consultants shall be named as indemnities under the
obligation of the Contractor to defend and indemnify City, to the same extent as the
obligation pertains to City. The Design Consultant and its personnel have no authority to
exercise any control over any Contractor or other entity or their employees in connection
with their work or any health or safety precautions
Design Consultant will follow the City's confined space procedures, if required to enter
into any existing Confined Space areas.
1.14 Record Drawings: Design consultant will provide CAD manager to consult with City on
update of Record Drawings. City will complete record drawing update on a regular basis.
Design Consultant shall provide CAD manager services up to a maximum of 96 hours.
TASK 2 -START-UP PHASE
2.1 Start-Up:
a. Design Consultant will develop general plan of operation for Process start-up.
The plan shall be a brief listing, which summarizes operating modes and
equipment settings and provides a listing of major equipment. Plan shall be
prepared within 24 months of Contractor Notice to Proceed.
b. Design Consultant shall provide design assistance during the startup and testing
operations. Assistance shall include data review, process control
recommendations, and general oversight of equipment startup.
2.2 Corrective Work Item List: _
a. Design Consultant will provide input on design related issues for items on
Corrective Work Item. list.
2.3 Final Inspection and Punch List:
a. .The Design Consultant will provide design input on final inspection items.
2.4 Project Closeout/Record Drawings:
a. The Design Engineer will furnish any additional project closeout information to
the CM and City.
TASK 3 -PROGRAMMING SUPPORT/REVIEW
The purpose of this Scope of Services is to provide engineering support services during
programming development, and start-up of the Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility
3.1.1 Process Control Workshops:. The Design Consultant will attend the process control
works (14 workshops).
3.1.2 Request for Information/Design Clarification: The Design Consultant will review
programming related RFIs and provide design responses.
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 16
3.2 Testing and Start-Up Assistance: The Design Consultant will provide instrumentation
engineer and programmer to participate in factory, plant test and to assist in trouble
shooting during functional testing, process testing and start-up as noted on the attached
table.
TASK 4 -PROJECT MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATION
Design Consultant to provide administrative functions for the orderly execution of the. work and
tracking and reporting of work progress, project meetings, status reports, and management of
subconsultants.
4.1 Budget Tracking/Status Report: Prepare and submit a written monthly progress report
to City staff which shall show the percentage of work completed and the percentage of
contract billed, summarize the work completed during the month, and summarize the
work to be completed during the following month.
4.2 Monthly Progress Meetings: The Design Consultant will attend monthly management
team meetings with the City and the CM, including Project Manager and as needed
Partner-in-Charge.
TASK 5 - SUBCONSULTANT MANAGEMENT
5.1 Management of subconsultants: This ongoing activity shall be performed throughout
the project. Activities shall include the following: provide information on project issues;
review/approve. work product; integrate work produce with Carollo work effort; mitigate
construction-related design issues, which arise between Subconsultant/Carollo/City;
.control subconsultant budgets, and schedules. subconsultants scope to be included
during the construction phase include:
a. Fugro West - Geotechnical. The geotechnical subconsultant shall review site
shoring and dewatering issues, import fill and onsite fill materials submittals for
conformance with the geotechnical report and contract documents. The.
geotechnical subconsultant will answer RFIs related to site geotechnical
conditions.
The geotechnical subconsultant shall be responsible for the following
environmental mitigation and monitoring measures (from. the Project EIR
Addendum dated April 2004, the final EIR dated July 2002, and the draft EIR
. dated April 2002);
PD-7 -Groundwater Monitoring and Mitigation -The geotechnical subconsultant
shall monitor groundwater conditions at MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 (draft EIR
Figure 4.4-1 Sampling of the three monitoring wells bordering the existing
facility on the Lakeville site shall be supplemented by the addition. of a fourth well,
located downgradient from the proposed wetlands area. The geotechnical
subconsultant shall install MW-4, and all four wells shall be sampled prior to
. construction of new facilities. Following construction, the four wells shall be
analyzed annually. Samples shall be analyzed for the constituents listed in Table
4.4-1 of the draft EIR. Additionally, any constituents that are detected above the
NPDES limits in the facility effluent should be added to the monitoring well
analyte list. Monitoring shall include water level measurements.
b. ZAC Landscaping -Landscape Architect. The landscaping subconsultant shall
review shop drawings, contractor's irrigation, and planting plans, RFIs, and
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 17
change order requests for the landscaping areas of the plant. Provide site
inspections (five planned) and attend site meetings when .required.
c. Burks Toma, Inc. -Architect. The architect subconsultant shall review shop
drawings, RFIs, and assist with change order requests for the
Operations/Laboratory Building.
The architect subconsultant shall make periodic inspections (six) and attend
construction meetings to help resolve conflicts (six).
The architect subconsultant will respond to the building inspection issues.
d. Ingraham DeJesse and Associates -Structural Engineer O&M Building. The
structural subconsultant shall review shop drawings, RFIs, and assist with
change order requests for the Operations/Laboratory Building.
The subconsultant shall make periodic inspections (four) and attend construction
meetings to help resolve conflicts. The subconsultant will respond to the building
inspection issues.
e. Hansen Slaughter, Inc -Electrical Engineer O&M Building. The electrical
engineer subconsultant shall review shop drawings, -RFIs, and assist with change
order requests for the Operations/Laboratory Building.
The subconsultant shall make periodic inspections (four) and attend construction
meetings to help resolve conflicts. The subconsultant will respond to the building
inspection issues.
f. Larkin and Associates -Mechanical Engineer O&M Building. The mechanical
engineer subconsultant shall review shop drawings, RFIs, and assist with change
order requests for the Operations/Laboratory Building.
The subconsultant shall make periodic inspections (four) and attend construction
meetings to help resolve conflicts. The subconsultant will respond to the building
inspection issues.
g. URS -Wetlands Biologist. Fran Demgen will assist with inspection of wetlands
planting, wetlands construction and start up issues and specialty site inspections
(~o)~
h. Bob Gearheart -Hydro Resources. subconsultant will assist with wetlands
construction and start up issues and specialty site inspections (one).
I Patricia Johanson -Environmental Artist. subconsultant will assistwith
landscape and wetlands construction and start up issues and specialty site
inspections. subconsultant will visit site up to 4 times to review conformance with
design intent.
j. DKS-Traffic. The traffic subconsultant will review temporary access
improvements and Contractor's Traffic Control Plan.
TASK 6 -CONTINGENCY
The purpose of Task 6 is to provide the City with flexibility based on the overall progress of the
construction project. It is important to note that the level of effort for construction support
services are driven by a .number of factors, most of which the Design Consultant or the City
have no control over. They include: (1) dealing with an aggressive contractor (aggressive
relating to RFI submittals, negotiations of changes, etc.); (2) submittal review of equipment not
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 18
listed in the specs, and partial submittals; (3) working style of the third party CM team; and (4)
unforeseen site conditions. We provide services at the discretion of the owner and the third
party CM. Therefore the City may authorize all or some of the budget included under this
contingency task.
6.1 Submittals: The Design Consultant will review an extra 100 design-related submittals.
For budgeting purposes, it is assumed 100 submittals will be reviewed at an average of
six (6) hours per submittal.
6.2 Request for Information/Clarification Review: The Design Consultant will review an
100 additional design, related RFIs and provide design responses. For budgeting
purposes, it is assumed a total of 100 RFIs will be reviewed at an average of four (4)
hours per RFI.
6.3 VE Proposals: The Design Consultant will review up to 2 additional VE proposals for
impact on design intent only. Budget includes review of two (2) VE proposals at an
average of twenty (20) hours per proposal.
6.4 Environmental Coordination: The Design Consultant will coordinate with the
Environmental Coordination firm as needed, at the request of the City.
6.5 Meetings: The Design Consultant will attend an additional 6 months of weekly progress
meetings.
6.6 Unforeseen Conditions: The Design Consultant will address issues that are uncovered
or raised that were not considered during design, including changes environmental
conditions.
6.7 Claims Support: The Design Consultant will provide limited claim support on a major
claim at the request of the City and CM, Limited to 200 hours of Design Consultant time.
6.8 Record Drawing Assistance: Design consultant will provide additional time for CAD
manager to consult with City on update of Record Drawings. City will complete record
drawing update on a regular basis. Design Consultant shall provide CAD manager
services up to a maximum of 88 hours
6.9 Operation Assistance: Design Consultant shall provide additional design assistance
during the startup and testing operations. Assistance shall include data review, process
control recommendations, and general oversight of. equipment startup.
6.10 Council Meeting Support: Design Consultant will attend additional City Council meetings
when requested by the City to assist the City staff in updating the City. Council on
construction-related issues. For budgeting purposes, assume attendance at one (1)
additional council meetings by Partner and two (2) additional meetings by Project
Manager. In addition, Design Consultant will provide support for City staff and CM
including graphics and other presentation materials for City Council presentations, up to
40 hours of graphics support.
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 19
i
DELIVERABLES
The following shall be the deliverables:
Construction:
Submittal reviews.
RFI responses.
Change order responses.
.SERVICES NOT INCLUDED
Services not provided under this Scope include:
1. Claims avoidance activities.
2. Claims resolution activities, beyond that addressed herein.
3. Litigation assistance.
4. EIR Mitigation. Measure PD-20 -Services of a qualified, professional archaeologist, if
subsurface archaeological or historical remains are discovered during construction.
5. EIR Mitigation Measure PD-9 -Phase II Site Assessment at Hopper Street.
6. EIR Mitigation Measure PD-10 -Monitor soils and groundwater during
demolition/construction for evidence of hazardous waste at Hopper Street.
7. Environmental Mitigation Measure PD-11 -Test suspected and properly dispose of
contaminated soils and groundwater at Hopper Street.
8. Environmental Mitigation Measure PD-12 -Inspect and test for lead-based paint and
asbestos containing material for any buildings at 950 Hopper Street that will be
demolished.
9. Environmental Mitigation Measure GW-1 -Drinking water well protection program.
10. Environmental Mitigation Measure TR=1 b -Install signage to reroute employee and
visitor trips.
11. Computer based O8M Manual.
Any such additional services, if required, shall be requested by the City. Compensation shall be
on a time and materials basis.
Design consultant shall not provide for supervision of construction contractor work, CM work,
operation of the treatment facilities, or safety of any construction workers or operators employed
or working on the plant site.
Resolution No. 2005-134 N.C.S. Page 20