Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/18/2003, C2 - STEELHEAD PASSAGE RESTORATION ON COON CREEK-A MITIGATION FOR THE WATER REUSE PROJECT council M fi gD� 2/ 18/03 j acEnba uEpoat C& CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Moss,Utilities DirectoiaterMjects Prepared By: David Pierce, Manager SUBJECT: STEELHEAD PASSAGE RESTORATION ON COON CREEK— A MITIGATION FOR THE WATER REUSE PROJECT CAO RECOMMENDATION Approve the award of a contract to TRC in the amount of$120,000 for Engineering Services to design a steelhead passage restoration project as mitigation for the Water Reuse Project and authorize the mayor to sign the contract. DISCUSSION The biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the Water Reuse Project contains several terms and conditions for the incidental take permit to be effective. One of these mitigation measures requires the City to offset project action effects on habitat by acquiring and preserving in perpetuity instream habitat or creating instream habitat. Working with the California Department of Fish and Game and PG&E, City staff identified the replacement of plugged culverts on Coon Creek about a half-mile from the ocean as a mitigation measure which would make approximately 5.6 miles of stream accessible to steelhead. On September 3, 2002, the City Council approved a request for proposals for design services and authorized the CAO to award a contract for up to $50,000. Proposals were received from 8 fines. These proposals were reviewed by Jay Walter, City Engineer; Michael Clarke, City Biologist; and David Pierce, Water Projects Manager. Based on the proposals, TRC was selected as the firm that was best suited for providing the services desired by the City. (Attachment 1 is a proposal evaluation summary.) Subsequent to the selection of TRC, City staff met with a team from TRC to refine the scope of work so that the City's Natural Resource Manager and City Biologist would provide the biological assessments and take charge of the permitting process. At this meeting TRC bridge designers proposed that the most cost effective solution for the stream crossing would likely be a built in place slab bridge. Other options will still be evaluated. This is expected to increase design costs but reduce the construction costs. TRC provided a letter dated February 4, 2003 incorporating these changes into a scope of work and compensation (Attachment 2). The proposed contract includes $20,000 of special biological and engineering services that can be authorized by the Utilities Director or his designated project manager. This will provide funds that could be used to hire biologists with special skills to perform protocol surveys or additional engineering services that may be required should unforeseen conditions be encountered during the investigation and design of this project. The fill includes several culverts and some concrete. The original work is old and there are no records of the design. ca- � i.. Water Reuse Project-RFQ`laor Construction Management Services Page2 The existing design contract is significantly higher than originally anticipated. Staff had expected this project (design and construction) to cost between $300,000 and $500,000. The design for such a project would typically be around $50,000. The location, out of the way in a very controlled environment, and dealing with the accumulated sediment results in a higher design cost. During a site visit prior to the meeting to discuss the revised scope of work, the consultant was asked to discuss the total project cost during the scope review meeting. The consultant's bridge engineers said that they were comfortable with a statement that the design and construction costs for this project would still remain below$500,000. CONCURRENCES The Natural Resource Manager and City Biologist and the City Engineer concur with the recommended action and the scope of work as amended. FISCAL IMPACT Cost of Design Services $120,000 Through FY 2002-03 a total of $1,070,000 has been budgeted for mitigation measures for the Water Reuse Project CII'. There is currently an available balance of$678,000 in this account to support this project (FY 2001-2003 Financial Plan Appendix B page 106). ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposal Evaluation Summary 2. TRC Revised Scope of Work and Compensation 3. Agreement \\879_MORRO\SYS\GROUPS\U rIL\Council Agenda Reports]\WRP_COONCREEK_DESIGN AWARD_CAP-doc I Attachment 1 Summary of Proposals Design of Steelhead Passage Restoration on Coon Creek Specification No. 99124.90557A. On January 16, 2003, eight proposals were received in response to the City's RFP for Design of Steelhead Passage Restoration on Coon Creek, Specification No. 99124.90557A. After reviewing the proposals, the selection panel consisting of Jay Walter, City Engineer; Michael Clarke, City Biologist; and Dave Pierce, Water Projects Manager, met on January 27, 2003 to select one to three firms for further consideration. After discussing the proposals the panel decided to recommend TRC without further interviews. The RFP provided the option for proposals to provide full service or to provide the engineering design with the City using staff or on-call consultants to provide the environmental input. Costs varied from $51,000 to $300,000. EDA $51,000 City to provide all environmental TRC $113,000 City provide survey& geotechnical Questa Engineering Corp. $137,000 Less if City provides biological services Northwest Hydraulic Consultants $169,000 Cannon Associates $77,470 First Phase (see comment below) Tetra Tech $179,946.50 Padre Associates, Inc $197,356 Moffatt & Nichol Engineers $300,000 While there were differences in the scopes of work proposed by the various firms, there did not appear to be any added value that would justify dealing with the five most expensive firms. Cannon was included as one of the five most expensive firms because the $77,470 was for phase 1 of 3. The description of the three phases compared to the plans proposed by Tetra Tech,TRC, and Padre. The total cost of an agreement with Cannon would therefore be similar to the total compensation proposed by the other three. The proposal from EDA stated that no structural engineering was included in the proposal. While this may work, it is likely to limit the options that will be evaluated. The proposal did not provide enough information about the coordination with the providers of biological and environmental information and about the evaluation of options for dealing with the sediment upstream of the plugged culvert. When all of these are added the cost will be similar to that proposed by TRC. TRC proposes a single firm (although several offices) that will provide a local project manager and local environmental staff who are familiar with the area. Their discussion of permitting indicates that they have had experience working in the area. This may be the most critical issue which will drive the timing and the cost of the project. Attachment 2 rac Customer-Focused Solutions February 4,2003 Mr.David Pierce City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 879 Morro Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Re: Amendment to TRC Proposal,Design of Steelhead Passage Restoration on Coon Creek, Specification No. 99124.90557A Dear Mr.Pierce: In follow-up to our meeting on Friday, January 31, 2003, and pursuant to your request, TRC is pleased to present this amendment to our proposal for work related to the Design of the Steelhead Passage on Coon Creek. The amendment is necessary as a result of our working meeting and initial evaluations conducted by TRC. The goal of the amendment is to account for changes in scope that were discussed to minimize costs to the City for the overall project(from field studies to construction completion). The suggested amendments affect the following aspects of our proposal: ♦ Biological Assessment ♦ Permitting ♦ Bridge Design and Engineering The suggested amendments are described in detail below. Portions of our proposal not discussed herein remain unchanged from our January 16,2003 proposal. Biological Assessment During our January 31, 2003 meeting, City staff indicated that they would take the lead to complete biological studies and a Biological Assessment for the project. This eliminates the Biological Assessment from TRC's proposed scope of work. The scope of this item was described on pages 1-5 and 1-6 and Appendix A of our January 16, 2003 proposal. With the City in the lead role for this item, TRC's proposed scope for the Biological Assessment is limited to coordination with City staff and review of documents prepared by the City. We suggest a budget of$2200 for this coordination and review,reducing this line item of our proposal by$12,800. Permitting During our January 31, 2003 meeting, City staff indicated that they will take the lead to complete the permit applications and coordinate the permitting. This eliminates permitting from TRC's proposed scope of work. The scope of this item was described on pages 1-6, 1-7, 1-8 and Appendix A of our January 16, 2003 proposal. With the City in the lead role for this item,TRC's proposed scope for the permitting is limited to coordination with City staff and review of documents prepared by the City. We suggest a budget of $4,500 for this coordination and review,reducing this line item of our proposal by$25,500. Bridge Design and Engineering During our site visit on January 30, and our meeting on January 31, 2003, we discussed preliminary design concepts developed by TRC to minimize construction costs and environmental disturbance. As discussed, without having completed the full analysis of design alternatives (which is part of the scope of work), at this time, we believe that the most cost effective and environmentally beneficial alternative may be a cast-in-place bridge in contrast to the prefabricated bridge assumed in our January 16, 2003 proposal. As described in Appendix A to our 975 Osos Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Telephone 805-546-1860 • Fax 805-546-1863 60 04-4 — Attachment 2 Mr.David Pierce February 4,2003 Page 2 proposal, we estimated that a cast-in-place bridge alternative could increase the design work by as much as $70,000. Based on the cast-in-place bridge concept we developed during our preliminary work, we anticipate that the design and engineering costs will increase only about$20,000 over the estimate provided in our proposal. As discussed at our meeting, and consistent with the cost estimate provided in our proposal, we anticipate required ground survey work and geotechnical borings will be completed by another contractor under an on-call service contract with the City. Preliminary Feasibility Assessment As discussed with you on Tuesday,January 28,2003, TRC recommended early work to maximize the potential to meet the City's proposed goal to construct the bridge this year. Part of this early work included field reconnaissance by our bridge engineers on January 30,2003,and development of conceptual alternatives discussed at our working session on January 31,2003. The cost for this additional scope item is approximately$5,400. This task was not conceived at the time of our January 16,2003 proposal. Revised Cost Estimate The overall estimated cost to complete TRC's scope of work as described in our January 16,2003 proposal and as modified above,is summarized below. PHASE ORIGINAL REVISED ESTIMATE ESTIMATE Project Management $ 17,000 $ 17,000 Develop Design Alternatives $ 30,000 $ 50,000 Evaluate Sediment Removal Options $ 11,000 $ 11,000 Biological Assessment $ 15,000 $ 2,200 Permitting $ 30,000 $ 4,500 Bidding&Construction $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Preliminary Feasibility Assessment -- $ 5,400 TOTAL $113,000 $100100 Closing Thank you for the opportunity to present these refinements to the proposed scope of work for this project. We hope that the revisions described in this letter are responsive to your needs. Sincerely, Joseph L.Stenger,R.G.,R.E.A. Senior Project Manager JLS/RS:rs rac Customer-Fo used Solutions i Attachment 3 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made on this day of February , 2003, by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation and charter city, San Luis Obispo County, California (hereinafter called the City); and TRC,(hereinafter called the Consultant). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on September 9, 2002, City requested proposals for the performance of consulting services per Specification No.99124.90557A;and WHEREAS,pursuant to said request, Consultant submitted a proposal which was accepted by City for said services. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations, and covenants hereinafter contained,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said services. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by providing to the other party,in writing,thirty (30)days advance notice of said intent. Consultant shall be paid, in accordance with Paragraph 4 herein, only for work completed by the consultant prior to the effective date of said termination. In this event, all information, documents, maps, and materials shall be given to the City. 2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. 99124.90557A, Consultant's proposal dated January 16, 2003, and Consultant's letter dated February, 4, 2003 revising the scope of work and compensation are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. 3. SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES. Not all the work can be defined in detail at the time the agreement is executed. Protocol surveys or other biological service may be needed that cannot be performed in a timely manner by City staff and engineering services may be required to respond to conditions encountered during the investigation and design of the project. Such work shall be classified as special biological and engineering services and shall be authorized by the City's Project Manager. A total sum of$19,900 shall be available for these services. 4. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing the services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay and Consultant shall receive,therefore,compensation in a total sum not to exceed$120,000.00. 5. CONSULTANT'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Consultant agrees with City to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specifications. 6. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification, or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Council of the City. ca-LP Agreement:Specification No. 1.90557A Attachment 3 i 7. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding, or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 8. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City Public Works Department City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Consultant Joseph L. Stenger TRC 975 Osos Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 9. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Consultant do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Municipal Corporation: ATTEST: Mayor David F.Romero Lee Price,C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT: Gilbert A.T o TRC Acting City Attorney Printed Name&Title