CC 2014-05-27_08.k. Amendment to Agreement Quincy EngineeringMEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BY:
TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JILL MCPEEK, SENIOR CONSULTANT ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSULTANT
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.
DATE: MAY 27,2014
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
1. authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Quincy
Engineering, Inc. for Phase I -Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Clearance
work on the Bridge Street Bridge project; and
2. Appropriate an additional $50,000 of Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP) grant
funds in the FY 2013-14 capital improvement program budget for the Bridge Street
Bridge project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The City was successful in securing an additional $50,000 of Local Highway Bridge
Program (HBP) funds for Phase I of preliminary Engineering work on the Bridge Street
Bridge project. No local match is required. It is anticipated that $43,500 will be used for
the consultant contract and $6,500 will be used for City staff time, costs of copies and
exhibits, and consultant contract management and quality assurance. Although the
majority of staff work will be performed by contact engineering staff that is covered by
the grant, additional in-house time will be required for staff management, public
participation, and environmental review.
BACKGROUND:
In May 2012, the Council approved a consultant services agreement with Quincy
Engineering, Inc. to refine feasible alternatives, provide visual displays and conduct
public review, perform necessary engineering and environmental studies (Phase 1), and
prepare plans, specifications and estimates for the preferred alternative (Phase II). The
project is currently in Phase I and most technical studies are complete. As a result, the
consultant team has developed three replacement alternatives, one retrofit alternative,
and a no-build alternative.
Item 8.k. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.
MAY 27,2014
PAGE2
These alternatives have been presented twice to both the community and the
Stakeholder Group established by the Council on June 11, 2013. During the course of
these meetings, how much of the rehabilitation alternative would be eligible for funding
through the Local Highway Bridge Program (HBP). City staff believes this is a question
that will need to be answered in order for Council to select a preferred alternative(s).
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The City's consultant team has been informed by CaiTrans Headquarters that they
cannot determine funding eligibility of the rehabilitation alternative without additional
analysis and more detailed cost estimates. It is estimated that this analysis, which will
consist of multiple loading analyses combined with the existing supplemental truss and
historical evaluation, will cost about $50,000. Therefore, this analysis, and the Council
cannot make a decision without an answer from Caltrans HQ, it is imperative that this
analysis be performed now in order to proceed with the process.
Should the Council choose the rehabilitation alternative, this analysis would normally be
part of Phase II-Detail Design PS&E and Permitting. However, since the analysis is
needed to select an alternative(s), it will need to be an amendment to the consultant
team's Phase I agreement. If the rehabilitation alternative is cho'sen, there may be a
$50,000 savings in Phase II.
Earlier this month, City staff submitted a request to the Caltrans Local Assistance office
requesting an additional $50,000 to conduct the analysis in order to provide Caltrans
Headquarters the needed information. On May 20, 2014, Caltrans Local Assistance
notified the City that their request had been approved. Staff is recommending the
analysis be performed by the current Bridge Street Bridge project consultant team.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff's recommendations to appropriate funding and Amendment No. 1
to the agreement with Quincy Engineering, Inc.;
• Do not approve staff's recommendations to appropriate funding and Amendment
No. 1 to the agreement with Quincy Engineering, Inc.;
• Approve staff's recommendations to appropriate funding, but do not approve
Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Quincy Engineering, Inc; or
• Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Approving appropriation of the HBP funds will allow the City to request 100%
reimbursement for the additional rehabilitation analysis for the Bridge Street Bridge
project. Using the current consultant to perform the analysis is the most cost effective
Item 8.k. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.
MAY 27,2014
PAGE3
and will ensure consistency. The analysis will provide valuable information to assist the
Council in selecting preferred alternative(s) that will be best suited for the community.
DISADVANTAGES:
The Bridge Street Bridge project will require some time and effort of existing City staff.
In addition, if Preliminary Engineering work is not completed in a timely manner, it is
possible that the grant funding could be deobligated by Caltrans or that 100% funding
for construction may not be available due to other projects in the State completing their
projects first. However, staff believes this is unlikely.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Preliminary Engineering work being requested in this staff report includes
environmental studies and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval with
Caltrans as the lead agency. The City will be the lead agency for California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approval and an environment determination will be
presented to Council at the time of the selection of the preferred alternative.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 22, 2014. The Agenda
and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, May 23, 2014. No public
comments were received.
Item 8.k. - Page 3
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 1
This First Amendment ("First Amendment") to Consultant's Services Agreement ("CSA")
by and between the CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE and QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.,
is made and entered into this day of May 2014, based on the following
facts:
WHEREAS, the parties entered into a CSA dated May 22, 2012, for preliminary
engineering work on the Bridge Street Bridge project; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify the CSA as set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. To include the additional services at the increased cost as specified in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions set forth in the CSA,
as amended, shall remain unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this First
Amendment the day and year first above written.
QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.,
By: _____________ _
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
By: _____________ _
TONYFERRARA,MAYOR
Item 8.k. - Page 4
EXHIBIT A
')QUINCY
ENGINEERING
BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE (49(-0196) OVER ARROYO GRANDE CREEK
Quincy Engin.eering Inc. (QUINCY) is providing the following additional scope of work to the City of Arroyo Grande (City) for the on-going Bridge Street
Bridge project:
PHASE 1-PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING TASKS
The purpose of this additional scope is to better understand the viability and costs for rehabilitation of the existing historic and supplemental truss, as well
as the consideration of a new supplemental truss in lieu of full replacement. This analysis will consist of evaluation of the existing historic truss without
rehabilitation and possible rehabilitation alternatives that would be acceptable and not endanger the historic eligibility. Cost estimates will be generated
for all rehabilitation alternatives.
TASK 1 -Rehabilitation of Historic Truss without
Supplemental Truss
This task involves dead and live load analysis of the existing historic truss
without the supplemental truss. Rehabilitation options to be considered
include deck replacement, protective barrier installation, approach span
analysis and associated costs.
Task 1.1 -Historic Truss Feasibility Analysis (Dead/live Load
Analysis)
QUINCY will develop a model using SAP to analyze the demands on the
existing truss without the supplemental truss. It is assumed the existing
supports will be replaced/repaired to support the truss. The loads to be
considered will be self-weight of the structure as well as AASHTO HS20
and Legal truck loading to determine the maximum demands on the
existing truss components. The evaluation will consider both one and two
lanes on the bridge. The demands will be compared with specific truss
member capacities to determine the existing truss vulnerabilities and
overall load carrying capacity. Load Factor Design (LFD) code will be used
for all checks. Once the live load analysis is complete, QUINCY will assess
all vulnerabilities discovered during the analysis and determine the most
cost effective rehabilitation strategy. Rehabilitation measures could
include deck replacement, painting, and member strengthening or
replacement. The effect of all rehabilitation measures on the bridge
Sufficiency Rating will also be evaluated. The rehabilitation measures
considered will attempt to maintain the existing historical features of the
bridge. QUINCY will be available to attend a conference call to discuss the
rehabilitation/strategy meeting with Caltrans Local Assistance to obtain
concurrence on the proposed strategy.
Task 1.2-Evaluation of lighter Deck Replacement
QUINCY will evaluate the replacement of the existing concrete deck with
embedded steel floor beams and AC overlay with a lighter more efficient
reinforced concrete deck slab. The lighter deck is expected to reduce the
overall self-weight of the structure and improve the live load carrying
capacity of the bridge. The effects of the lighter deck will be analyzed to
determine the maximum live load carrying capacity of the bridge. This
will determine whether additional retrofits will be required to increase
the load carrying capacity of tile historic trusses. The extent of the
additional retrofits required will determine the viability of reusing the
historic truss without the use of supplemental trusses.
Task 1.3-Develop Protective Barrier
QUINCY will evaluate a protective barrier system to protect the trusses
from vehicular impact. It is imperative to choose a barrier which has
minimal width, provides adequate protection from vehicular impact, and
is visually non-intrusive. It is anticipated a metal tube type railing can be
used and mounted to the concrete bridge deck. The railing chosen will
have a minimum crash tested rating ofTL-2.
Task 1.4-Approach Span Analysis
QUINCY will evaluate the existing approach span to ensure it has at least
as much load carrying capacity as the historic truss span. Based upon the
analysis possible rehabilitation could include deck replacem~nt,
repainting, and the installation of new railings.
Task 1.5-Develop Rehabilitation Costs
QUINCY will develop preliminary quantities for the rehabilitation items
and generate associated costs. The costs will then be compiled and
compared to rehabilitation costs for the other alternatives.
TASK 2-Rehabilitation of Historic Truss with Supplemental
Truss
This task involves dead and live load analysis of the existing historic truss
with a new supplemental truss. Rehabilitation options to be considered
include deck replacement, protective barrier installation, approach span
analysis and associated costs.
Task 2.1 -Historic Truss Feasibility Analysis (Dead/live Load
Analysis)
QUINCY will develop a model using SAP to analyze the demands on a
new supplemental truss. It is assumed the existing supports will be
replaced/repaired to support the new supplemental truss bearings. The
loads to be considered will be self-weight of the structure (including the
historic truss) as well AASHTO HS20 and Legal truck loading to determine
the maximum demands on the supplemental truss components. The
evaluation will consider both one and two lanes on the bridge. The
~Piaigie~~·l iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii"i' •. .. dcvt.-!opins: VOUR.vhion l tt.o!i,..,ri!;'!! .YOVWII'Oie<:t
Item 8.k. - Page 5
demands will be compared with specific truss member capacities to
determine the required member sections and provide the required load
carrying capacity. Rehabilitation measures could include deck
replacement, replacement of the existing supplemental truss, painting,
and specific member strengthening or replacement. The effect of all
rehabilitation measures on the bridge Sufficiency Rating will also be
evaluated. The rehabilitation measures considered will attempt to
maintain the existing historical features of the bridge. QUINCY will be
available to attend a conference call to discuss the rehabilitation/strategy
meeting with Caltrans Local Assistance to obtain concurrence on the
proposed strategy.
Task 2.2-Evaluation of lighter Deck Replacement
QUINCY will evaluate the replacement of the existing concrete deck with
embedded steel floor beams with a lighter more efficient reinforced
concrete deck slab. The lighter deck is expected to reduce the overall self-
weight of the structure and optimize the live load carrying capacity of the
bridge. The effects of the lighter deck will be analyzed to determine the
maximum live load carrying capacity of the bridge.
Task 2.3-Develop Protective Barrier
QUINCY will evaluate a protective barrier system to protect the trusses
from vehicular impact. It is imperative to choose a barrier which has
minimal width, provides adequate protection from vehicular impact, and
is visually non-intrusive. It is anticipated a metal tube type railing can be
used and mounted to the concrete bridge deck. The railing chosen will
have a minimum crash tested rating ofTL-2. This task will be completed
in Task 1.3.
Task 2.4-Approach Span Analysis
QUINCY will evaluate the existing approach span to ensure it has at least
i QUINCY
ENGINEERING
as much load carrying capacity as the historic truss with supplemental
truss span. Based upon the analysis possible rehabilitation could include
deck replacement, repainting, and the installation of new railings. This
task will be completed in Task 1.4.
Task 2.5-Develop Rehabilitation Costs
QUINCY will develop preliminary quantities for the rehabilitation items
and generate associated costs. The costs will then be compiled and
compared to rehabilitation costs for the other alternatives.
TASK 3-Reconstruction of Existing Support.
Task 3.1 -Complete Bent Replacement with Layout
QUINCY will complete a layout for a replacement bent to replace the
damaged existing pier which supports the steel girder approach span and
supplemental truss span.
Task 3.2-Super Bent Option
It may be necessary to consider a "super-bent" type support for the
intermediate support. This and other alternatives will be evaluated to
determine the most appropriate solution.
Task 3.3-Develop New Support Costs
QUINCY will develop preliminary quantities for the new support and
generate associated costs. The costs will then be compiled and added to
rehabilitation costs for the other alternatives.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii"i_ii_ •. <IL"V.,Ioping VOUR vi~lon 14d.l'-"'riJ1S Yot.'R.'proj~:
Page 12
Item 8.k. - Page 6
QU
I
N
C
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
,
IN
C
.
TA
S
K
S
I
No
.
I
ln
l
b
o
i
H
o
U
f
l
y
H
o
t
o
l
Ta
s
k
1:
Ro
h
a
b
l
l
l
t
a
t
l
o
n
of
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Tr
u
s
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
Su
p
p
l
o
m
o
n
t
a
l
Tr
u
s
s
1.
1
I Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Tr
u
s
s
Fe
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
an
d
do
e
d
l
l
i
v
e
lo
a
d
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
1.
2
!E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
of
li
g
h
t
e
r
do
c
k
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
1.
3
ID
o
v
o
l
o
p
Pr
o
t
o
c
t
i
v
o
Ba
r
r
i
e
r
to
pr
o
t
e
c
t
eg
i
a
n
s
t
Vo
h
i
c
u
l
e
r
_
!
_
f
!
!
P
O
_
_
_
!
;
I
1.
4
IApp
:
_
o
_
!
I
~
!
!
_
~
_
Q
o
n
Ana
l
~
i
s
1.
5
ID
e
w
l
o
p
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
s
Ta
s
k
2:
Ro
h
a
b
l
l
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Tr
u
s
s
wi
t
h
Su
p
p
l
o
m
o
n
t
a
i
Tr
u
s
s
2.
1
IS
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
a
l
Tr
u
s
s
Fe
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
en
d
de
e
d
/
l
i
v
o
[o
a
d
ana
l
y
_
~
i
s
2.
2
I
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
of
li
g
h
t
e
r
de
c
k
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
2.
3
IO
e
v
o
~
P
r
o
t
o
c
t
i
v
o
Ba
r
n
o
r
to
pr
o
t
e
c
t
aQ
i
a
n
s
t
Ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
Im
p
a
c
t
(c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
in
Ta
s
k
1.
3
2.
4
I
Fe
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
of
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
Q
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
Tr
u
s
s
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(n
o
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
)
2.
5
I
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
Sp
a
n
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
(c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
in
Ta
s
k
1.
4
)
2.
6
ID
e
v
o
l
o
p
_
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
s
IT
as
k
3:
Re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
s
fo
r
Ro
p
l
a
c
o
m
o
n
t
Su
p
p
o
r
t
s
3.
1
I Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Be
n
t
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
La
y
o
u
t
3.
2
IS
u
p
o
r
Be
n
t
Op
t
i
o
n
3.
3
I
Be
n
t
Co
s
t
s
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
-
Ho
u
r
s
po
t
At
HO
U
R
S
Ar
r
o
y
o
Gf
•
n
~
»
A
m
M
1
d
m
M
1
1
•
t
10
1
4
0
5
2
1
. .r
:
l
u
Q
E
I
H
R
S
5n
'
1
/
2
0
1
4
2
.5
~
t~
2
il
'
.
,
u
~
.5
u
c
g-
·
e
1i_
"
w
a
.
·o
ll
.2
~
&
...
~~
0:.
Jo
h
n
Qu
i
n
e
Ma
r
k
Re
n
o
Gr
o
Q
Yo
u
n
•
$7
4
,
3
1
$1
4
,
3
1
$~
8
06
24
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Na
m
e
:
BR
I
D
G
E
ST
R
E
E
T
BR
I
D
G
E
RE
H
A
B
I
L
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
ST
U
D
Y
•
2
~
I
"
~ :t
i~
~]
~
·~
...
.
;;
m
w
-~;
[
. ~
~
Ji
.
.
0
~ 0
!:
'0
w
...
~
r
•
~ i
2
g>
1
[
ii
i
J
~i
~
W
U
>
w
w
il
l
:t
-~i
2
~
·g
&
-
u
.
c
. 2
"'
C
.5
Q
~
.Q
0
..
j ~
~~
~
~;
E
~~
H
~
~
P
:
g'
<!
"'
"
'
<
n
O
0
Br
e
n
t
De
n
n
y
Sc
o
t
t
Mi
k
e
le
m
o
n
Ma
r
t
i
n
Po
h
U
Mo
s
s
m
a
n
Mc
C
a
u
l
e
y
An
d
y
Ch
o
u
Sa
n
c
h
e
z
Ji
m
Fo
s
t
e
r
St
o
f
f
St
a
f
f
StaH
$7
4
3
7
10
0
5
0
$5
1
8
f
$4
1
1
8
1
$3
2
.
0
0
$5
6
0
0
$1
4
3
/
$3
0
0
0
$2
0
0
0
$76001
I
I
I
I
I
I
40
561 12
16
24
20
60
66
16
24
24
24
16
24 12
44
24
48
14
8
20 2021 Quincy Engineering, Inc. Item 8.k. - Page 7
City of Arroyo Grande
BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE REHABILITATION FEASIBILITY STUDY-AMENDMENT #1
QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.
CONTRACT No.
SUB CONSULTANT:
DIRECT LABOR
Name
John Quincy
Mark Reno
Greg Young
Brent Lemon
Martin Pohll
Danny Mossman
Scott McCauley
Andy Chou
Mike Sanchez
Jim Foster
Staff
Staff
Staff
INDIRECT COSTS
Overhead
Fringe Benefit (Included in OH)
QUINCY ENGINEERING, INC.
Classification
Principal in Charge
Project Manager
Senior Engineer-
Bridge Project Engineer
Senior Engineer-
Roadway Project Engineer
Senior Engineer-Bridge
Specialist
Senior Engineer-Bridge
Associate Engineer-Bridge
Assisstant Engineer
Senior Engineer-Roadway
Senior Engineer-QA/QC
Engineering Detailer
Office Support Staff
Admin
General & Administrative (Included in OH)
FEE
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Travel Costs
Photocopies
Overnight Service
Graphic Presentation Boards
Subcontractor Costs
Total Contract
(10.00%)
0%
Ran9e
$60-$75
$60-$75
$45-$70
$60-$75
$55-$70
$45-$70
$32-$55
$25-$40
$45-$70
$60-$75
Initial
Hours Hourly Rate
0 $74.37
4 $74.37
24 $58.06
0 $74.37
44 $66.50
24 $51.87
48 $48.81
148 $32.00
0 $56.00
0 $0.00
0 $74.37
0 $30.00 .
0 $20.00
0 $28.00
292
Subtotal Direct Labor Costs
Anticipated Salary Increases
Rate
173.10%
0.00%
0.00%
173.10%
(FIXED)
0@ $0.56
1 @ $20.00
4@ $250.00
CONSULTANT COST PROPOSAL
May 8, 2014
Total
$0.00
$297.48
$1,393.47
$0.00
$2,926.00
$1,244.88
$2,342.88
$4,736.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12,940.71
$0.00
TOTAL-Direct Labor
Total
$22,400.37
TOTAL -Indirect Costs
TOTAL-Fee
Total
$ 20.00
$ 1,000.00
TOTAL COST
s
$ 39,895.19
$12,940.71
$22,400.37
$3,534.11
$1,020.00
$39,895.19
Item 8.k. - Page 8