The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRau & Associates, Inc. 2014-11-06; Amendment 1 2015-03-12 �z;i;t� /lr,� 6��i/S -1�l� _/�l CITY OF UKIAH AMENDMENT 1 TO CONTRACT 1415149 BETWEEN RAU AND ASSOCIATES,INC. and THE CITY OF UKIAH This Amendment No. 1, entered on March 12, 2015, revises the Agreement for Prafessional services dated November 6, 2014 between the City of Ukiah and Rau and Associates, Inc. for professional consulting services related to preparation of schematic design tasks (Phase 1 Engineering) for the Railroad Center property at 309 East Perkins Street. This Amendment No. 1 adds additional scope of services and an additional not-to-exceed cost of $16,500, as per attached E�chibit A. Additionally, schedule to complete this additional work will be 4 weeks from formal authorization to proceed. As a result,the revised total contract amount is not-to-exceed $47,344.00 �xcept as expressly amended by this Amendment, all other terms remain unchanged and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE: RAU AND ASSOCIATES, INC. BY: ,�\ - �f�_; ,__ , ��:.�-- DATE: � � � '� " �j/:� GEORGE C. RAU, PRF:SIDENT CI'1'Y OF UKIAH BY: O DATE: ! Z lJ CHAMBERS, CITY MANAGER ATTEST � . . , / BY: , f� y '�t._ �G �� 'i''� DATE: .��?II�S KRISTINE LAWLER, CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A February 19, 2015 City of Ukiah Atfn: Shannon Riley 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Job No. R11003.3 RE: AMENDMENT#1 TO AGREEMENT 1415-149 TO PREPARE SCHEMATIC DESIGN TASKS (PHASE 1 ENGINEERING) FOR THE RAILROAD CENTER PROPERTY AT 309 EAST PERKINS STREET; ADDITIONAL WORK TO COMPLETE HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS OF GIBSON CREEK Dear Ms. Riley: This is to request an amendment to our agreement to provide some conceptuai engineering for infrastructure to support the proposed development of the Railroad Center Property at 309 East Perkins Street. The request is due to unforeseeable complications with the hydraulic model of Gibson Creek from insufficient precision in baseline mapping and delays in obtaining information from FEMA concerning their original stream flow model. Mapping Discrepancy Additional topographic mapping tasks were required along Gibson Creek because of insu�cient precision on the City of Ukiah Base Map. We initiated the work with detailed mapping of approximately 2400 linear feet of the channel of Gibson Creek from just upstream of the Perkins Street Culvert to a point approximately 300 feet downstream of the Orchard Avenue Culvert. We extended the mapping to Perkins Street and into the Orchard Shopping Center on the north side of Gibson Creek, and to Leslie, Peach, and Orchard Streets on the south side of Gibson Creek in order to cover the flood zone on the FEMA maps. It was discovered that City Mapping was approximately 1 foot higher than actual elevations (within mapping tolerances for the two foot contours on the City Map, but not good enough for the stream model). Our original plan was to map the stream channel precisely, confirm a few outlying elevations at the edges of the required mapping area and then compile the City Map into our base map to avoid duplicating prior mapping expense. Because of this discrepancy, additional mapping had to be done to confirm the actual elevations and thereby prove the discrepancy. Then, additional check points had to be surveyed and the City Map adjusted to conform to the spots which were field surveyed. Shannon Riley.February 19,2015 Pag�2 FEMA Model Configuration The model for Gibson Creek was important to complete in order to�determine the amount of fill needed to construct Courthouse Drive and to raise any small portion af the land being cansidered by the Judicial Council of California or JCC (formerly known as the AOC) so that it will be out of the flood plain. This information was critical to establish the cost estimate for the project, which was on the critical path for the JCC in their defiberations about the site.The subconsultants conducting the hydrology study and hydraulics analysis of Gibson Creek, GHD,Inc., developed a preliminary stream flow model as soon as we had delivered the adjusted the topographic mapping with cross-sections ex#ending perpendicular to the channel as is normally done in such studies. The initial study found that Gibson Creek would overflow at the inlet of the Leslie Street culvert and flow southerly down Leslie Street to Gobbi. This differed from the mapping of FEMA. Early in the process (within a day or two of approval of the study by the City Council), GHD had ordered the original model from FEMA, knowing that eventually they would have to match cross- section configurations of the original FEMA Maps in the area. Unfortunately the FEMA modei information was delayed in delivery until after the preliminary model was developed by GHD in trying to meet#he timeframe desired by the JCC. When The FEMA model arrived, it was discovered that FEMA had made a judgment that part of the flow was ponding water and had wrapped the flood water contours around in a particular configuration to end on the subject parcel. This will require GHD to change their model to conform substantially to the FEMA model. In order to do that, RAU must change their cross-section configuration to match the FEMA model, and transmit the re-arranged cross-sections to GHD for them to use in revising their model. As the work to deliver the necessary information to JCC progressed, more specific information was required in order to establish a more precise cost estimate. An appropriate structure to cross Gibson Creek, to be determined in considering cost, environmentai impacts, and aesthetics, and similar in size to others within the same reach, must be considered to evaluate its effect on the watercourse. Two alternatives should be considered to compare them for an eventual selection. The a{ternatives wilE meet standards which could be permitted by the resource agencies with authority to permit the work on Gibson Creek. GHD must adjust their stream flow model to add the two configurations as constraints to the model and aid in the selection of the best alternative for the creek crossing. GHD must also adjust the creek channel configuration upstream and downstream of the new structure in order to evaluate the effects of the structure on the Base Flood Elevation. The cost of this additional work is approximately$16,500, including approximately$7,500 for the tasks to be performed by GHD. Scope af Additional Services 1, Provide supplemental survey mapping to rectify the ambiguity in the City Mapping . 2. Revise cross-sections to reflect actual elevations and re-configure them to match the hydraulic model developed by FEMA. 3. Revise the hydraulic model to match the one developed by FEMA. 4. Include two altemative structures in the "post-construction" model to aid in selection of the type of stream crossing. Shannon Riiey,February 19,2015 Page 3 5. Adjust the hydraulic model to show stream channel reconfigurations into the structures. Deliverabies: The mapping will consist of four 24" by 36" sheets. The adjusted topographic map of the area in the hydraulic s#udy will be at a scale of 1" = 100'. There will be three sheets of cross-sections, conforming to the configuration of the FEMA model. All of the sheets will be suitable for reduction to 11" by 17" haif scale. It will be delivered to the City in hard copy and as a pdf electronic submittal, as weA as to GHD. The Technical Memorandum from GHD will summarize the results of the drainage analysis using the FEMA model, including the elevation of the Base Flood with two different stream crossing structures compared to the un-obstructed flow, and provide recommendations about the reconfiguration of the stream channel and type of structure to cross it. Proposed Maximum Not-to-Exceed Fee We propose to complete the tasks included in the amended scope of engineering services described for an additional Not-To-Exceed Fee of $16,500, which will amend the agreed Not- To-Exceed Fee of$30,844 to a total�Not-To-Exceed Fee of$47,344. The schedule of fees and the basis for estimating the engineering costs for this amendment is unchanged from the original agreement. Pra�osed Schedule We anticipate that GHD will be able to adjust their model and complete their work in appraximately three weeks from authorization to proceed. We anticipate completing the remaining deliverables within same time frame. Assumptions and Exclusions: This proposal is based upon the following assumptions: • There will be only one review and comment process, involving the City of Ukiah Staff and a representative of the NCRA, before the work product is final. Thank you for this opportunity to be of servic�. Very truly yours, _ �`�';.t�'i_E:S,;�~"- . �� .--,:r`CJ�;,`:;,, (�. i�� =��a�� , �`�y��t�;;�. 1 ' ,� .rF�.El� !r� ��', ;�.'i �/��}{"� �Y , CJ' f'7 � r� �'�_ 4{r3 ��".�� ITI�:�. � "' George C. Rau, President ::�. cx,�.09•3t;�'�I=�:. '�,�� r;{;� Rau and Associates, Inc. -�-°�;�;.. crv;�L. :,�:';<ti•�� Registered Civil Engineer 21908 ''``'S`.>� Ji=�'." Expires 09-30-2015 ,=;�:� , Attachments: Task Hour Breakdown- Rau and Associates Fee Schedule 31 �ANU ASSUClATE5,[NC qv�aac'�s•tp.rIDSUiNEVORs 100 NIXiTN PNE STRffT-UlQV1.GA KIB2-(NII I@-06E FA%1N11 fmZ/7H Job No. R11003.3 Job Name: Court house Project pate: February 12,2015 PHASES AO UH UM � Add To a Cross Sections Add Anaf sis hrs! firs! hrs! hrsl Rate/Cost cost total cost total cost Eota1 cc�st tatal Registered Civil Engineer Principai 162 2 $ 324 2 S 324 3 $ 48B $ - Senior Registered Civil Engineer 145 $ - � $ - : � $ - $ . Associate Civil Engineer 120 �fi $ 1 920 `_ 18 $ 1 920 8 $ 86ff $ - Projsci Manage� 102 2 $ 204 $ - �J $ _ $ . _ Licensed Land Surveyor 86 $ • 's $ - � $ - $ Senior Environmental Planner 95 $ - � $ $ $ Lab-Survey AAanager 112 ffi - � $ $ - � Staff EngineedStaff Surveyor 94 4 $ 3TB � $ � $ $ - ^ Technician IV 72 $ - � $ - $ - $ Techniaan ill 66 $ � $ � $ $ - Technician II 54 $ - $ $ � Technician I 38 S - $ - $ $ Water Pollution Control Manager(PV1n 140 S - $ � $ - $ QSD/QSP Specialist(non PYV) 11 D $ - $ $ - $ Instrument Operator(PV1� 104 10 g 1 040 $ - $ - $ - Rodman(PV1� 92 t0 $ 920 $� `� $ _ $ �' Materials Tester(PV1!}(Regular) 116 $ - $ - $ g Construction Inspector 128 � $ - $ $ $ Administration 48 $ - $ $ $ - Vehide Use(miles) 0.55 $ - $ $ _ RTK GPS Equipment(per day) 600 � $_ $ � - $ - Lab Unit Pnces D ' $ - $ - $ $ - Computer Hours 10 �� $ - $ - S - � $ Permit Fees 0 � S $ - 5 - $ Backhoe and Operator 100 � $ - $ • � S • $ - Outside 8ervioe Over 1,Ut�-G�iD cost+ 5% $ - �_ 2,500 $ 2,625 5,000 $ 5,250 $ - Outcide Service under�,OU� cost+ t5% $ - � $ • $ Reimbursables $1 0% $ $ - $ 1b1 $ - BUDGET FOR PHASE aa $ a,+8a 1s $ 4,869 Z� ; s.8�7 9 p $ - a PW=Prevai{ing Wages Total Sheet 1 $ 16,500 (1) Title Report= (2) Map Checking Fees= (3) Recording Fees= �4) Monuments= Subtotal 0 Worksheet Page 1