HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORK ORDER - RFP - P1044 CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (20)EXHIBIT "A"
WORK ORDER FORM
PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND
ICON Engineering, Inc
DATED September 15 2011
Work Order Number: SB- 2011-4
Purchase Order Number: 9[15710 Charge * 504-50452811 521130 3
Project Title: Alternatives Analysis for Fossil Creek MP update
Commencement Date: September 19 2011
Completion Date: December 30 2011
Maximum Fee: (time and reimbursable direct costs): 35 655.00
Project Description: Complete an Alternatives Analysis of proposed improvements for the Fossil Creek Basin Master Plan
update
Scope of Services: See attached scope of work
Service Provider agrees to perform the services
identified above and on the attached forms in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained
herein and in the Services Agreement between the
parties. In the event of a conflict between or ambiguity
in the terms of the Services Agreement and this work
order (including the attached forms) the Services
Agreement shall control.
The attached forms consisting of three (3) pages are
hereby accepted and incorporated herein by this
reference, and Notice to Proceed is hereby given.
CC: Purchasing
Service Provider:
By"ti%`�h�*,ff L Date:
City of Fort Collins:
Submitted By:
Project Manager
Date: 9 /5—.-0/
Reviewed By:� C.
SW Master Planning & FP A in. Mngr.
Date: 1.�
Reviewed By:_
Water Eng. and Field Serv. Mngr.
Approved By:
Approved
Date: Z!
/,�
Utilities General Manager
Date:
Dir Purchasing & Risk Mgt
Date:
((Q
ENGINEERING, INC 8100South AkronStreet Suite 300.Centennial. CO80112-Phone (3031221-0802/Fax(303)221-4019
Exhibit A
Master Drainageway Plan Update
Scope of Work
Water Quality Improvement Analysis — Feasibility Analysis
1. Alternatives Feasibility Analysis
A. Following acceptance by the City of the best alternative plans, the Professional will
proceed with the more detailed evaluation described in the following sections of this
Agreement.
B. Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis — For each conceptual water quality alternative
determined as part of the initial phase, or selected to be added during the associated
Focus Group Meetings (FGMs), a TBL analysis shall be completed by the professional
during a meeting at the City offices.
C. Alternative Ranking and Additional Alternatives - Following the TBL analysis, the
professional shall complete the following:
a) The preferred BMP alternatives shall be ranked in a table;
b) The preferred BMP alternatives shall be presented on a conceptual level map
for review and contributing basin area for each alternative shall be shown;
c) Additional BMPs shall be added as needed to achieve uniform treatment
throughout the watershed, if possible;
d) Alternatives will be presented by flow path or basin reaches, as appropriate;
e) Conceptual Map shall follow template styles provided by City staff,
f) The conceptual level map shall be reviewed by City staff prior to completing
the next phase of the project.
D. Engineering Investigation — For each conceptual alternative selected as part of
previous task items, the professional shall complete the following engineering task
items:
a) Quantify the water quality capture volume (WQCV) used for evaluating the
feasibility of the alternative. This shall include, at a minimum, the
computation of WQCV following procedures outlined in UDFCD Volume III;
b) General hydraulic calculations to develop and evaluate the best alternative
plans, including sizing and geometry dimensions and determination of the
approximate capacity of proposed structures, including pond outlet structures.
If the BMP is proposed to be used in conjunction with existing and/or master
planned flood control facilities, the estimated effect of the BMP on the 100-
year storm event shall also quantified. Hydrologic routing may be required to
evaluate the alternatives on a case -by -case basis. The professional shall be
cognizant of the outfall and conduit systems entering and exiting the proposed
water quality facilities in evaluating each facility. Similarly, the professional
shall be cognizant of estimated elevations for any proposed diversion inflow
systems associated with the Selected Plan.
c) Documentation of known utility conflicts, as coordinated with City staff.
d) Determining the cost of each BMP treatment, including operation and
maintenance expenses and costs related to acquisition and right-of-way for the
facility. All costs shall be coordinated with City Staff.
e) Potential water rights needs/issues through qualitative discussion.
In evaluating each alternative the consultant shall follow the outline of "Just
Enough" Engineering Analysis, prepared by Ayres and Associates (Attached)
as a general rule in work effort for each alternative.
E. The Professional shall be generally cognizant of the soil characteristics and water
table of the basin(s) and shall consider the hydrologic soil groups in evaluating each
alternative. Hydrologic soil groups shall be used as identified by the regional USGS
soil survey maps.
F. Criteria and Regulatory Changes - the Professional, where appropriate, shall provide
recommendations concerning modifications to the existing relevant water quality
regulations and ordinances of the City relating to the drainage basin.
G. Open Space and Preservation Areas — Professional shall document open space and
preservation areas, as identified during the Focus Group Review of the conceptual
alternatives. If costs are required, the costs associated with the preservation areas shall
be documented.
H. Regional City Planning Areas — Regional City planning areas, as identified during
the Focus Group Review of the conceptual alternatives, shall be considered for each
associated feasibility analysis.
I. Written Report - The Professional shall prepare a written report to discuss the BMP
evaluation and selection process for the basin. The report will state clearly the
preferred plan of improvements, as recommended by the Professional. The information
in the report will be sequential and orderly. The report shall be considered part of the
total Technical Appendices for the basin Master Plans. This report will include:
a) A written description clearly describing the alternative plans by improvement
areas. Discussion of the alternatives feasibility study and the Professional's
recommendation as to the plan to be adopted, rationale for arriving at the
recommendations, and recommendations regarding the appropriate sequence of
construction of the improvements in the basin.
b) An elaboration on operation and maintenance aspects of the alternative plans.
c) An elaboration on the constructability aspects of the alternative plans.
d) An discussion regarding adopted water quality criteria and any recommended
changes to the criteria
e) Any deviation from City recommendations or requirements;
f) Final Water Quality Improvement Map at an appropriate scale, clearly
depicting the best alternatives. The map shall clearly present BMP coverage
before and after the implementation of the best alternatives.
g) The report will be contained in three-ring binder(s). The first part of the report
shall contain the written summary for all alternatives. The second part will
contain a narrative description of the recommended alternative plan and
drawings reduced to 8.5" x I1" or I I" x 17", and the third part will contain
reference material (Technical and Backup Information).
h) Two (2) draft copies of the report will be submitted to the City for review
purposes.
11. Schedule
A. The schedule for the completion of this work is indicated below:
Notice to Proceed: 9/15/2011
Draft Report Section: I 1 / ] 5/2011
Final Deliverables: 12/15/2011
Definitions of "Just Enough" Engineering for Alternatives Analysis
I. Extended Detention — New pond or retrofit
a. Determine volume requirement based on Urban Drainage
b. Determine if you can grade in the required volume in available space at
reasonable depth
c. Determine if you can retrofit existing outlet structure or construct new
outlet structure
d. For new pond, who owns land and what is approximate cost
e. Can water quality be added to existing pond without impacting hydraulic
function of detention
f. Review infall analysis and make recommendations if diversions are
required.
II. Infiltration Pond/Bio Swales/Porous Pavements
a. Do existing soil types allow for infiltration, if not can (d) be satisfied
b. Is area large enough to provide required filtration strata
c. Who owns land and what is approximate cost
d. Is there an outfall location for sub -drain; combined with over excavation
and replacement of material
III. In -Line Treatment
a. What are the treatment requirements (cfs) and is there a proprietary
devise that will meet that
b. What device (manufacturer) is recommended
c. What is the cost
d. Is there room to construct the device and tie it in to existing storm sewer
system
e. Are there hydraulic impacts of the treatment system
IV. Maintaining or Creating Disconnected Impervious Areas
a. Is there developed property available and what is the approximate cost
b. Is there un-developed property available that could be maintained as
native? If so what is the cost
c. Do existing soil types allow for infiltration, if not consider the cost of
modification
V. Buying Existing Properties and Constructing BMP's
a. What is the cost of the property
b. Questions in sections I, II and III would need to be answered depending
on the BMP being proposed
VI. LID
a. Needs to be criteria driven, is there no other option?
ICON ENGINEERING, INC.
PROJECT ESTIMATING SHEET
PROJ£CTNME: F^uNCmk Basln WOFwlNlly
CUENn C?YDFFORTCOLUNS- SOane9oyle
PREPAREDBY: W
Pmdwi
FW..1mal
% .6:.l
E^A^eer
GtldGIS
Mmn
PmpC
Survv,
MISc,
CHECKED BY: WW
Elm.'
En".,II
pe5gnar
Sweym
Cmr
Dlrof
w T[aS-n
SimEll0
$IEI
$90
bi
S58
E75
E:<T
Cwn
D%Sm b^
Hwn
H..
Hours
H..
H.
Hwrs
Mwn
Ibun
TOTALS
1
Meetings and Correspondence
a. Project Meeting (1 Assumed with Other Meeting)
2
2
1
$30
$612
b. TBL (1 Assumed with Other Meeting)
1.25
$15
$178
c. Field Review of Alternative Areas
4.00
8
$40
$1,520
2
TBL Documentation
a. Meeting Summary
2
$260
b. Tabular Rankings
2
4
$10
$750
c. Alternative Summary Map
1
6
6
$20
$1,362
d. Additional BMPs
2
8
4
$10
$1,558
e. Coordination and Revision with City Staff
1
2
1
$20
$472
3
Engineering Investigation
a. WOCV Determination
3
18
6
$20
$3,062
b. Hydraulic Analysis for Alternatives
3
15
83
15
$45
$13,575
c. Utilties
3.75
1
$15
$585
d. Alternative Cost Estimates
7.50
18.75
$13
$3238
4
Criteria Verification I Modifications
2
2
$10
$510
5
Open Space Documentation
2
4
2
$904
6
Regional Planning
2
4
$10
$750
7
Report Updates
a. Develop Chapter to Master Plan Report for WO Alternatives
3
4
18
2
$10
$3,256
b. Final Water Quality Improvement Map
1
2
4
2
$10
$1,064
C. Pertinent Figures and Tables
4
$10
$490
d. Review and Revisions
2
8
2
2
$10
$1,510
7
58.50
193.25
0
40
4
0
0
298
$35 655
E1,050
E7 605
E23190
$0
E3 280
$232
$0
EO
E298
E35,fi55