Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout117704 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - PURCHASE ORDER - 9120540Fort Collins eF� G11iK,_f Planning, D elopment Transportation Transportation Planning 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 835220580 970.221.6805 970.221.6378,- fax Change Order Form PROJECT TITLE: - Enhanced Travel Corridor -Master Plan, Harmony Rd. ETC PROJECT NUMBER: 901013 CONTRACTOR: Felsburg Holt & Ullevjg (PO #9117087) CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 1 n preparing change orders show in order as separate numbered paragraphs the . o ng: 1. Reason for change. 2. Description of change. 3. Change In contract cost. 4. Change In contract time. 1 &2. See attached sheet for detail. 3. The contract cost will Increase by $ 50,OWA 4. There Wit be no change in contract time. ORIGINAL CONTRACT COST $139.914.00 TOTAL APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS $0.00 TOTAL PENDING CHANGE ORDERS $0.00 TOTAL THIS CHANGE ORDER $50,000.00 TOTAL % OF THIS CHANGE ORDER 35.74% TOTACC.O. % OF ORIGINAL CONTRACT 35.74% ADJUSTED CONTRACT COST $189,914.00 (Assuming all change orders approved) ACCEPTED BY: 1 DATE: I-ZLI-IZ (Cont i R r ntalive) SUBMITTED BY: DATE: (T ep Pion Pia , ing) APPROVED BY: DATE: (Depkiffient Head) APPROVED BY: DATE: . (Purchasing Agent over $60,000) - ee: Contractor Purchasing . Project File . Fee Estimate for Additional Work on Harmony ETC for AA C ...b., 30. 2011 -�— 'TASK1'=PN nrN�Yulllc'nTlv_—___-�'�"r :-•-1F;S"^.. �. u..... J:., -�.. ...._ I VO oTCll{n ..._.. .....,..J�.J'.•.L'hJ3�'NGSS�i�6'.':EA.9S ^^e'Sv""T�+''S-a�S�.3"."J''.���,'{n M...:,:�`4�y/ �'�: '^.-" 2 Z` mfvir �! , 1._..Y.f"_.=._...:Ltr_a�iaeNa...:v...p(.'Je(WS4�1. Z�' y 3+F' i"J:l�' Sr`. 'i:SMA{Y - Qi.+� .11TN�K _•...�.�.. T. h 1 IY" . Y i` Y W .NM1. kN.4.Ye4v.. ..Llu ..r. �TA51(3. CoirlQor lJlWorslanEing a'_`.a ..ak �n"SIY. _ ... .. _.._.. 44..iSl.-,`' .,,, .... � 2.hi,.G:.. ,.. ... /'"r'^n z�c��..._�._ .a,?ai;^z a -'Li:.ecnf : 9..wonw i°'. .... �n�v.. a.,_:.Y� -s .env. c:.?'`.e. %,fir : � 1r.Wd.£,5., r '?: •+15M ..ras...a,,. 2 c. r r .• oo0oa0000�o■�om 000000000®0©0©© TASN4.-Maelo,_Pl.ul Duv bPmontti,^ ✓'..%^;''5..16..,..i_.if.�-i'v....^.r....w'7. .--.. cus.4.%�d-v+z,{{vrc4 m--.:,.'�.�t:..wa.^.✓6Z"a,'uti.S.,..D.:tt1,c>,tt5:..C� ¢??; ,a::cn rm+r-- n- v,aJ•-:.a�m�az"- 1__..n. .�: �i..R...��smki...±Y�.l4�v�.1'.W.'rw'r ✓-�.N.*�A?. r rr'^ya.msN sY.k Pl'e!x.!. SASK 5 lmplamanmdon Dbnff .:i. ����� �^�m �_. �.:.:f:L...i.x��ID1�u�l .�^���`�,..�e.�,Y�y"i.F�'_E£ '2'"�.c.Y�kP aSv'"F : � ��. ? � , J° l�1?•��r: a '�� d .: _ 000�o�0000®omom0 T�6'YI AdoOtToNOo�cuuontaiwnT3[.,.;,;.[./4.J.Sf..,C.:-��,........r.„w.u....,c....ew...wSY_.:F....,_...:.:Awl'.,✓..+'3.!.....:.m4:!:<~..�.Y..tuis+st..„:vm : k /NZIE ?roJoct YoLN�tE �s.'s'+:2pys"I+?,�r,'�++iy �P.�c...�j.�%'.iY�'�w�`�P'irFrw':,.��T,yyj'-�"'$t.,„�'�^„�„,'.'.�v'.{�,.�,',�r�, y�r�s..,.d!:..SdS!77D �ri�.5xv�?:?SidOi::•-�wc°+3.:_ :;1: 537en7�lisi[n nnnPF_'. Scope of Work Harmony Road Alternatives Analysis January 17, 2012 SCOPE OF WORK - HARMONY ROAD ETC MASTER PLAN AND ADDITIONAL TASKS FOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This scope of work represents the additional tasks needed to turn the Harmony Road ETC Master Plan scope of work (dated November 9, 2011) into a the Harmony Road Alternatives Analysis, consistent with FTA's guidelines for Small Starts projects. The tasks identified are in addition to or modify those identified in the original scope of work. Task 1: Project Management and Public Involvement Project Management It is anticipated that completing the Alternatives Analysis will require six additional months to complete. The Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) team will provide project management for six additional months. Tasks will include: monthly progress reports with invoices, and participation in bi weekly conference calls with the City's project manager and the City's project team (as needed). Under this scope, the team will prepare for and conduct one additional meeting with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for a total of seven meetings. A description of each meeting is described below: a TAC Meeting #1—TAC roles and responsibilities, corridor understanding, project Purpose and Need m TAC Meeting #2 — Corridor visioning workshop (establish vision, goals and objectives) at TAC Meeting #3 — Baseline, TSM and Tier 1 alternatives development and evaluation criteria workshop ® TAC Meeting #4—Tier 1 evaluation and screening a TAC Meeting #5—Tier 2 evaluation and screening ® TAC Meeting #6 — Locally Preferred Alternative ® TAC Meeting #7 — Phasing and funding, Draft ETC Master Plan Public Involvement Under this scope, the team will work with City staff to prepare for and conduct one additional public meeting for a total of four meetings. The FHU team will prepare displays and materials for the public meetings as well as attend. All four of the public meetings are outlined below: ® Public Meeting #1— Present corridor understanding; solicit input on the Purpose and Need, vision for the corridor, and ideas for alternatives ® Public Meeting #2 — Present and solicit input on Tier 1 Alternatives (as described in Task 4) and preliminary evaluation and screening results ® Public Meeting #3 — Present and solicit input on Tier 2 alternatives and preliminary evaluation and screening results (as described in Task 4) ® Public Meeting #4 - Present and solicit input on the Locally Preferred Alternative and Implementation Plan The FHU team will be responsible for summarizing public comments received during the additional public meeting. Responding to public comments/questions through the duration of the planning process will be the primary responsibility of City staff; the FHU team will support City staff in responding to the public as needed. 1 Scope of Work Harmony Road Alternatives Analysis Task 1 Deliverables a 6 additional monthly progress reports ® 1 additional TAC meeting summary n Content for 1 additional public meeting e Summary of public comments received during public meetings for 1'additional public meeting Taslc 2: Corridor Understanding Additional environmental tasks have been identified for completion of the alternatives analysis. These are described below. Environmental The FHU team will collect more detailed environmental data to support the Alternatives Analysis effort. The following environmental resources are considered "red -flag" resources and thus evaluation of impacts to these resources is expected to be required for this Alternatives Analysis. This list is not all-inclusive and may change based on meetings with project stakeholders. ® Noise analysis a Air quality o Historic resources • Park and recreation resources (Section 4(f)) a Hazardous Substances • Biological resources a Right of way ® Water quality and floodplains It is anticipated that the City will provide irrigation ditch locations along the corridor and will support the environmental effort by providing identification of and eligibility information on historic resources. FHU will obtain data and take baseline measurements as appropriate for the other "red -flag" resources, using data from the North 1-25 EIS where applicable. Task Deliverables No additional deliverables are anticipated under this task however, both the Corridor Understand Summary Paper and the Existing Conditions Technical Paper will contain information obtained on the environmental resources as appropriate. Task 3: Corridor Vision No additional tasks are anticipated under this task. Task 3 Deliverables No additional deliverables are anticipated under this task. Task 4: Master Plan Development The alternatives development and screening effort under this task has been modified to more closely follow FTA's Alternatives Analysis guidelines. While there are no changes anticipated to Step 1, Steps 2 through 4 have been modified and therefore are described in their entirety below. The primary additions to the scope include: 2 Scope of Work Harmony Road Alternatives Analysis • Starting with a broad range of alternatives under Tier 1 • Documentation of why Harmony Road is the preferred alignment • Tier 1 fatal flaw analysis including documentation of alternatives not feasible due to financial limitations • More comprehensive development of two Tier 2 alternatives including details about bus transit operations, opportunities to incorporate sustainability, into the design and other environmental mitigation measures • A segment by segment evaluation of Tier 2 alternatives • Evaluation of Tier 2 alternatives consistent with measures used to evaluate FTA Small Starts projects • Additional development of Locally Preferred Alternative • Support for development of forecasting documentation for FTA • Definition of Alternatives Technical Reports Step 1: Define the TSM Alternative —There are not changes to the scope of work at this step in the process. - Step 2: Development of Tier 1 Build Alternatives — Initially a broad range of reasonable alternatives will be identified and documented. They will be developed with input received from the Project Team, the TAC and other stakeholders. The following elements will be defined for each of the alternatives: • Road Network —The initial set of improvements may consider changes to the number of lanes, lane use, access control and signal spacing to meet the desired mobility needs of the corridor. • Transit System —The Tier 1 transit alternatives will consider a wide -range of modes along Harmony Road. Assumptions will be made about general characteristics such as frequency, headways and station spacing to make equitable comparisons between modes and alignments. During this step, the team will also document why Harmony Road is the preferred alignment using information provided from previous studies (including the process for establishing Harmony Road as an Enhanced Travel Corridor) and data about the existing travel patterns and network. • Bike and Pedestrian Improvements — This could include both on -street and off-street improvements to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel along the corridor. Bike/pedestrian improvements could extend onto parallel routes. Each of the alternatives will be defined and graphically illustrated. Cost ranges will be prepared for the major elements of each design alternative in a high/medium/low format for comparative purposes. Screening of Tier 1 Build Alternatives — This task will focus on screening out improvements that cannot meet the project's Purpose and Need, would cost substantially more than another comparable alternative, would have more impacts to environmental and community resources than other comparable alternatives, or are not considered feasible due to financial limitations. The screening will be a high-level fatal flaw analysis intended to document the range of alternatives considered and the reasons a select set of alternatives were retained for further consideration. Following the screening process, we will combine the results in an evaluation matrix that will present the relative results for each alternative. In collaboration with the TAC, and considering stakeholder input, we will use the results to develop a short list of two alternatives for more detailed analysis. Step 3: Development of Tier 2 Build Alternatives — The most promising alternatives (assumed to be two BRT alternatives plus the TSM alternative) will be developed with more detail. Road, transit, bike/ped improvements, and environmental resource impacts/enhancements will be refined to convey additional project features. 3 Scope of Work Harmony Road Alternatives Analysis a Road Network —Design will include horizontal alignments and cross -sections in enough detail to understand ROW, requirements and develop capital costs. Roundabouts will be considered as a potential intersection treatment, as appropriate. ® Transit System —Additional details about the transit alternatives will be developed including typical station area design concepts, capital bus needs, queue jump locations, signal prioritization locations and an operating plan. An assumption about typical station spacing will be used to identify general station locations. Specific locations and design will be identified during a subsequent NEPA process. 'It is assumed that a more comprehensive evaluation of station locations will occur during the subsequent NEPA process. e Bike and Pedestrian Improvements — Additional information will be provided about how bike and pedestrian improvements would connect to the transit system and to existing and future land uses along the corridor. ® Environmental resources — Mitigation measures will be developed to address impacts. Outreach to agencies to obtain input/concurrence on impacts may occur as needed. In addition, the project team will assist Fort Collins in identifying sustainable components for each of the alternatives. Opinion of probable construction costs will be prepared that will include major items such as: removals, pavement, structures, drainage facilities, retaining walls, traffic signals, etc. Percent allocations will be added to account for other design elements such as environmental impact mitigation, erosion control, mobilization, traffic control, signing & striping, engineering, utility relocations, etc. Construction costs will be developed at a conceptual level, i.e., based on an approximate 10% design level. We will rely on City and Transfort staff to provide information relative to the typical operating and maintenance costs associated with new transit facilities and for new capital infrastructure. Evaluation of Tier 2 Build Alternatives — Under this task, we will evaluate the Tier 2 alternatives on a segment by segment basis to determine which best meet the project's purpose and need, have the least potential for environmental impacts, have the potential to be phased and are the most cost effective. Screening criteria will include a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures that will be directly tied to the project vision/goals and objectives. During this step, we also recommend conducting a land use sensitivity analysis to better understand how altering land uses in the corridor might impact transit ridership and the resulting transit analysis. This sensitivity analysis will look at increasing density at key transit stations and is likely to be conducted outside of the City travel model process. This scope assumes that each alternative will be modeled by the City to provide fundamental information such as ridership, and travel time. It also assumes that the City will conduct the land - use sensitivity analysis. FHU will work closely with the City to update and enhance the model to generate the most realistic results and provide FTA with the documentation necessary to approve the model changes for use in the AA process. The alternatives will be evaluated on the following sample criteria: ® Purpose and Need — Performance measures derived from the refined travel demand model such as ridership, travel time, transit mode share captured and resulting roadway and intersection operation. Other purpose and need evaluation criteria could include reliability, economic development potential, and connectivity to alternate modes. These measures will be consistent with those used by FTA to evaluate Small Starts projects. Analysis related to economic development impacts will be completed by the City. 4 Scope of Work Harmony Road Alternatives Analysis a Phasing — Each alternative will be evaluated based on its ability to be constructed in phases. Alternatives that can be phased may be easier to fund and construct. a Cost —Alternatives will be evaluated on their capital, operating costs, cost effectiveness, and user benefits. a Environmental — Environmental impacts for each alternative will be evaluated and compared. Discussions will occur for each resource impact to determine whether the impact can be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Similar to Tier 1, we will combine the evaluation information into a matrix that will present the relative results for each alternative. In collaboration with the TAC and input from stakeholders, we will use the results to identify the Locally Preferred Alternative. The Locally Preferred Alternative could be either of the Tier 2 alternatives evaluated or a hybrid of the two. Step 4 Refinement of the Locally Preferred Alternative During this step, the team will work with Fort Collins to refine the elements of the Locally Preferred Alternative. Refinements will include: ® Road Network— Refinement of horizontal alignments and cross -sections as needed to refine capital cost estimates. ® Transit System — Refinement of typical station concepts, transit technologies, fare collection, and operating plan. Refinements of capital, operating and maintenance costs. a Bike and Pedestrian Improvements — Refinement of bike and pedestrian improvements and their connectivity to the transit system and key activity centers along the corridor. Refinement of capital costs. a Environmental resources —Mitigation measures will be refined to address impacts associated with the Locally Preferred Alternative. It is assumed that the City will complete an air quality analysis of the LPA. The team will also work with Fort Collins to finalize a list of sustainable components that could be included as part of the LPA. Task 4 Deliverables a Support development of forecasting documentation for FTA B Definition of Alternatives Technical Report (including three versions: Conceptual, Detailed, and Final) e Methodology Memorandum Task 5: Itnplenientation Plan No additional tasks are anticipated under this task. Task 5 Deliverables No additional deliverables are anticipated under this task. Taslc 6: Plan Adoption/Report The FHU team will work alongside City staff to present the Alternatives Analysis in a manner consistent with FTA's desires. Task 6 Deliverables Draft and Final Alternatives Analysis and Executive Summary 5