HomeMy WebLinkAboutGHD, Inc. 2021-10-13; Amendment 2 2023-01-19CITY OF UKIAH
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT 2122118
BETWEEN
GHD INC and THE CITY OF UKIAH
This Amendment No. 1, entered on January 19, 2023, revises the Agreement for
Consulting Services for preparing the plans, specifications and estimate for the Great
Redwood Trail Phase 4 (GRT 4) Project dated October 13, 2021 between the City of
Ukiah and GHD Inc, as follows.
1.Add additional environmental studies and permitting to the Scope of Work, per
attached Exhibit 1.
2.Revising the guaranteed maximum dollar amount by an additional $61,958.00 for
professional consulting services related to the design of the GRT 4, for a revised,
total contract amount not-to-exceed $424,267.00
Except 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:
GHD INC
BY: DATE:
PRINT NAME:
CITY OF UKIAH
BY: DATE:
SAGE SANGIACOMO, CITY MANAGER
ATTEST
BY: DATE:
KRISTINE LAWLER, CITY CLERK
Matthew G. Kennedy, PE
January 20, 2023
COU No. 2122-118-A2
Jan 27, 2023
Kristine Lawler (Jan 27, 2023 08:51 PST)
Kristine Lawler Jan 27, 2023
The Power of Commitment
GHD Inc. 12557341
City of Ukiah Ref: COU No. 2122118
Our ref: 12557341
November 7, 2022
Tim Eriksen
Public Works Director / City Engineer
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, CA 95482
RE: Great Redwood Trail Phase 4: Amendment No. 2 for Additional Design and Environmental
Services
Dear Mr. Eriksen:
This letter proposal is submitted based on our additional efforts to complete the project and address
changes to the design which resulted from the alignment of the trail shifting from being located along the
centerline of the tracks as originally proposed to being offset to the east of the tracks. The decision to shift
the alignment to the east side of the tracks was based on the City’s concern should railbanking not be
approved by the California Utilities Commission (CUC).
The result of shifting the trail to the east of the tracks introduced a number of additional design and
environmental requirements. These issues are generally related to grading, drainage, structural, tree
removal and wetlands. These issues are interwoven with the environmental and resource agency
permitting. Addressing environmental and resource agency permitting was added to the project by
Amendment No. 1, but coordination efforts and requirements from the resource agencies have been
greater than anticipated.
Below is a summary of the tasks and efforts we have that are in addition to the original approach, scope of
work and the amendment for environmental and permitting:
1. Bridge and Abutment Designs: The Scope of Work assumed the existing bridges and foundations
could be reused with minor modifications for the trail, such as replacing the decks.
o Shifting the trail to the east of the tracks meant designing two new bridges, including efforts
to coordinate the bridge foundations and related grading with existing nearby utilities.
2. Retaining Wall Designs: The Scope of Work assumed no new retaining walls would be required
since the alignment was to be on the track alignment.
o Shifting the trail to the east of the tracks meant designing cast-in-place concrete and
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls as part of the trail cut/fill grading.
3. Parking Lot Design at the Animal Shelter. Design “off-site improvements” would not have been
needed if the trail alignment was along the rail alignment.
o Shifting the trail to the east of the tracks impacted the parking lot at the animal shelter on
Plant Road. The design includes demolition of the existing parking lot, and new paving and
parking layout to accommodate the trail to the east of the tracks.
4. Impact analysis for moving the trail back on the rail
o We did an analysis and cost estimate for this scenario, but it was abandoned and we
returned to the current alignment
5. Earthwork and Grading Design: Design of grading, cuts and fills was expected to be minimal with
the trail alignment along the tracks. Some minor fill was expected to address the proposed width of
the trail and shoulders.
o Shifting the trail east of the tracks resulted in significant additional design efforts related to
grading, trail profile, trail alignment, and earth retaining systems (previously summarized).
This effort included:
Design of trail alignment offset from track centerline.
Design of new cuts and fills for a smooth trail profile.
EXHIBIT 1
12557341 | Proposal for Environmental Studies and Permitting 2
Designing to minimize/balance the earthwork (cuts and fills).
Designing to avoid mapped wetlands (to the extent possible/practical)
6. Additional Environmental and Permitting:
o Amendment 1 assumed no field review meetings with resource agencies would be needed.
We attempted to consolidate these to one site visit for both RWQCB and CDFW, but it
didn’t work with the agencies’ schedules. To date we have coordinated and attended two
field meetings for wetlands with the RWQCB and CDFW. Additional coordination efforts
and confirmation of mitigation is still expected. It’s possible that USACE may also ask for a
site visit.
o In February 2022, when Amendment 1 for environmental support was submitted to the City,
a federal district court had in the fall of 2021 rescinded the Trump-era Pre-filing Rule for
Water Quality Certifications with the Regional Board. In April 2022, after the Amendment
was approved, the Supreme Court struck down the District Courts ruling thus re-instating
the Pre-filing Rule. GHD’s scope of work did not include support for the Pre-filing process
which we are currently navigating with the RWQCB.
7. Wetland Mitigation Design: Wetlands will be impacted by the trail alignment east of the tracks, and
design of wetland mitigation measures was not included in the original Scope of Work or
Amendment 1.
o We assumed mitigation in the form of enhancement and restoration would suffice. While
proposed enhancement and restoration has been deemed acceptable for the fill impacts to
Waters, the RWQCB has requested creation of new wetland areas for the impacts to
existing wetlands.
o GHD prepared wetland mitigation design along the west side of the rail, including new
wetland grading, detailing, specifying seed mix, etc.
o The culvert extensions have triggered more detailed permit review by the CDFW, resulting
in more coordination and design efforts.
8. Tree Impacts: Few to no impacts to existing trees were expected when the trail was on the rail
alignment.
o Moving the trail alignment east of the tracks required that additional detailing in accounting
of tree impacts and protection measures and reflecting them on the plans.
9. Base and Alternate Bids: Development of base and additive/deductive bid alternates was not
included in the Scope of Work. Shifting the trail alignment east of the tracks has increased the cost
of the project.
o The City requested GHD formulate the bid to specify a base bid from Commerce Drive
south to Norgard Lane, and an additive bid alternate from Norgard Lane south to Plant
Road. The segment of trail south of Plant Road was removed from the project due to cost.
This effort included creating a base and additive bid alternate schedule and adding notes
and callouts to the plans to indicate the limit of base and alternate bid item work.
10. Landscape Redesign: Alta Planning + Design needed to redesign areas of landscaping to address
waters mitigation requirements that were discovered after the jurisdictional delineation effort
associated with Amendment 1. Planting locations and species choices had to be adjusted to
balance both the needs of the grant as well as waters enhancement mitigation.
11. Revise Permit Applications: The initial draft applications included the original 1.9-mile trail segment.
This was later revised after the portion of the project south of Plant Road was removed. GHD went
back through the applications to remove references to that portion of the proposed trail south of
Plant Road.
The design is essentially complete, pending any comments from the City. Work remaining to finalize the bid
package includes additional resource agency coordination and permitting, bridge and culvert hydraulic
analysis and finalizing the design, finalizing the base and alternate bid items, and finalizing the technical
specifications, bid schedules and bid package. Per City direction, this amendment request does not include
the additional hydraulics analysis required for the bridge design due to the 100-yr floodplain. If the bid
alternate is awarded to the Contractor GHD will need additional approval from the City to proceed with the
hydraulic analysis prior to construction.
FEE ESTIMATE
12557341 | Proposal for Environmental Studies and Permitting 3
The Amendment 2 budget is attached, which covers our current budget overrun of approximately $52,000,
and finalize the design for bidding. GHD proposes a time-and-materials fee not to exceed $61,958 without
written authorization from the City. See attachment for breakdown of the estimated fee. We appreciate the
City’s consideration of this proposal and are very motivated to complete the design so the City can prepare
the project for bid advertisement. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
GHD Inc.
Erik Fanselau, PE
Project Manager
Cc: Kristine Gaspar, Matt Kennedy, PE, Principal
Attachment: Fee Estimate
Attachments:
1. GHD Amendment 2 Fee Proposal
Attachment 1
Project Name:Great Redwood Trail Phase 4: Amendment 2 Client:City of Ukiah
Prepared by:Matt Kennedy Date:
Job Number:12557341
LABOR CATEGORY >Proj.Proj.Civil H/H Struct.PW Field Surveyor Env Staff CAD WP PA TOTAL Sub-TOTAL
Prncpl Mngr.Eng.Eng.Eng.Survey Scientist Env Designer HOURS con-
RATE >$315 $235 $195 $195 $190 $225 $195 $235 $158 $195 $135 $135 sultant(s)FEE
Task / Item /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr /Hr
AMENDMENT 2 TASKS
1. Bridge and Abutment Design 1 4 50 8 63 $409.50 $12,564.50
2. Retaining Wall Design 1 4 50 8 63 $409.50 $12,564.50
3. Parking Lot Design 6 16 22 $143.00 $4,433.00
4. Impact Analysis - Trail Alignment Shift 2 4 6 $39.00 $1,289.00
5. Earthwork and Grading Design 1 20 20 41 $266.50 $8,381.50
6. Additional Environmental & Permitting 32 32 64 $416.00 $12,992.00
7. Wetland Mitigation Design 8 2 6 16 $104.00 $3,304.00
8. Tree Impacts 2 2 2 6 $39.00 $1,289.00
9. Bid Alternate 1 2 2 1 6 $39.00 $1,409.00
4 4 $26.00 $966.00
6 8 14 $91.00 $2,765.00
4 4 50 0 100 0 0 46 40 61 0 0 305 $1,982.50 $0.00 $61,957.50
4 4 50 0 100 0 0 46 40 61 0 0 305 $1,982.50 $0.00 $61,957.50
*OTHER DIRECT COSTS include printing, photocopies, shipping, vehicle mileage and other miscellaneous direct expenses.
SUBTOTAL AMENDMENT 2 TASKS
PROJECT TOTALS
11. Revise Permit Applications
GHD - PROJECT FEE ESTIMATING SHEET
November 7, 2022
LABOR COSTS FEE COMPUTATION
*OTHER
DIRECT
COSTS
10. Landscape Redsign
11/7/2022 Page 1