HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-Public Works
----~
From:
CIY.~ OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
FilE' No. 1.7091
Authorization to Execute Agree-
ment for Professional Engi-
neering Services - Bridge
Evaluation - Mt. Vernon Avenue
at Santa Fe's RAR Yard ---
DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON & MENDENHALL,
ROGER G. HARDGRAVE
Subject:
Dept:
Public Works
Date:
04-24-97
ORIGINAL
INC.
ADOlIN.. OFH~'b4_96
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Approval given to submit requests for authorization of
funds, under the Federal-Aid Highway Bridge Replacement
and Rehabilitation (HBRR) PrograM, for the lIt. Vernon
Avenue Bridge over Santa Fe's "A" Yard, between Second
and Fourth Streets.
Expenditure of $20,000 for preparation of a conceptual
plan approved.
03-04-96 -
I MAY 97 II: 10
Recommended motion:
Adopt resolution.
cc: Fred Wilson
JiM Penman
Contact person:
Gene R. Klatt
Staff Report,
Resolution & Aqreenent
Phone:
5125
Supporting data attached:
Ward:
1 & 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $20,000 (SB 300 Fund)
Source: (Acct. No.)
131-372-5504-7091
Acct. Descri tion
Mt. Vernon
ara-
tion at Santa Fe's "A" Yard
,
Finance:
Council Notes:
Res 97- I J 7
sll9l9L
75-0262
Agenda Item NO.J.3>
,
-.,.
Clrf OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Requests for letters of interest, for preparation of a
conceptual plan for replacement/rehabilitation of the Mt. Vernon
Avenue Grade Separation, were sent to the 41 civil engineering
firms within the City limits.
Letters of interest were received from 11 firms. These
letters of interest were reviewed by a team with representatives
from the Mayor's Office, Council Office BN/SF Railroad, and
Public Works Department. The following five (5) firms were
selected by the team to receive Requests for Proposals:
l. URS/Griener, Inc.
2 . DMJM
3 . HNTB
4 . Dokken Engineering
5 . McDaniel Engineering
These five (5) firms were interviewed on 3-03-97, by a
selection committee comprised of representatives from:
1. Council Office
2. BN/SF Railroad
3. SANBAG
4. Public Works Department
After carefully reviewing the proposals and interviewing
members of these firms, the conni ttee deternined that DMJM was
the best qualified at this time to provide the necessary
services.
The proposed agreement. provides, in general, that m1J~1
will prepare a conceptual plan for replacement/rehabilitation of
the Mt. Vernon Avenue Grade Separation Structure, with
appropriate estimates of cost. This report will be used to
develop a scope of the project and to apply for funding. Con-
pensation for these services will be actual costs incurred, not
to exceed $20,000.00.
All costs incurred for these services will be charged to
the $20,000.00 allocated under Account No. 131-372-5504-7091.
We recommend that the Agreement be approved.
04-24-97
75-0264
e
EXHIBIT "A"
AGREEMENT POR PROPESSIONAL SERVICES
This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
, 1997, by and between the CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, California, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred
to as the "CITY" and Daniel. Mann. Johnson. & Mendenhall, Inc., a
California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEER."
WIT N E SSE T H
WHEREAS, city desires to obtain professional services to prepare
plans, specifications, estimates and construction documents for the
bridge evaluation of the Mt. Vernon bridge over the Burlington
Northern/Santa Fe "A" yard. .
WHEREAS, in order to develop a concept, estimates and report
documents, it is necessary to retain the professional services of a
qualified engineering and consulting firm: and
- WHEREAS, Engineer is qualified to provide said professional
. services: and
WHEREAS, San Bernardino City Council has elected to engage the
services of Engineer upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set
forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed, as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Engineer shall perform those services specified in "Scope of
Services"and as contained in the proposal dated February 14, 1997, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and incorporated as
though set forth in full.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The services of Engineer are to commence within thirty (30) days
after the city has authorized work to start by issuance of a Notice to
Proceed. The scheduled completion dates specifically set forth in
Exhibit "2" attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth
in full, will be adjusted by Engineer as the city authorizes the work.
Such adjustments shall require City approval prior to commencement of
performance of each phase. This Agreement shall expire as specified by
_ the Exhibit "2" schedule unless extended by written agreement of the
. parties.
e
e
e
3.
STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE
Engineer shall complete all work product and design in conform-
ance with Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green-
book) most curent edition, Caltrans Bridge Design Standards and the
City of San Bernardino's Standard Drawings.
4. CHANGES/EXTRA SERVICES
A. Performance of the work specified in the "Scope of Ser-
vices," is made an obligation of Engineer under this Agreement, subject
to any changes made subsequently upon mutual agreement of the parties.
All such changes shall be incorporated by written amendments to this
Agreement and include any increase or decrease in the amount of compen-
sation due Engineer for the change in scope. Any change which has not
been so incorporated shall not be binding on either party.
B. No extra services shall be rendered by Engineer under this
Agreement unless such extra services are authorized, in writing, by
city prior to performance of such work. Authorized extra services
shall be invoiced based on Engineer's "Schedule of Hourly Rates" dated
throuah 12-31-97, a copy of which is attached, hereto, as Exhibit "4"
and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
5. COMPENSATION
A. The City shall reimburse the Engineer for actual costs
(including labor costs, employee benefits, overhead, profit, other
direct and indirect costs) incurred by the Engineer in performance of
the work, in an amount not to exceed $20.000.00. Actual costs shall
not exceed the estimated wage rates and other costs as set forth in
Exhibit "3", attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set
forth in full.
B. Said compensation shall not be altered unless there is
significant alteration in the scope, complexity or character of the
work to be performed. Any such significant alteration shall be agreed
upon in writing by City and Engineer before commencement of performance ,
of such significant alteration by Engineer.
Any adjustment of the total cost of services will only be
permitted when the Engineer establishes and city has agreed, in
writing, that there has been, or is to be, a significant change in:
1. Scope, complexity, or character of the services to be
performed;
2. Conditions under which the work is required to be performed:
and
3.
Duration of work if the change from the time period speci-
fied in the Agreement for Completion of the work warrants
such adjustment.
e
e
e
C. The Engineer is required to comply with all Federal, state
and Local laws and ordinances applicable to the work and which are in
effect as of the date of the notice to proceed. The Engineer is
required to comply with prevailing wage rates in accordance with.Calif-
ornia Labor Code section 1770.
6. PAYMENT BY CITY
A. The billings for all services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement shall be submitted monthly by Engineer to city and shall be
paid by City within twenty (20) days after receipt of same, excepting
any amounts disputed by city. Dispute over any invoiced amount shall
be noticed to the Engineer within ten (10) days of billing and a meet
and confer meeting for purposes of resolution of such dispute shall be
initiated by the city within ten (10) days of notice of such dispute.
Interest of 1-1/2 percent per month (but not exceeding the maximum rate
allowable by law) will be payable on any amounts not in dispute and not
paid within thirty (30) days of the billing date, payment thereafter to
be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principal unpaid
amount. On disputed amounts, interest shall accrue from thirty (30)
days of the invoice date if the amount in dispute is resolved in favor
of the Engineer. All tasks as specified in Exhibit "I" shall be
completed prior to final payment.
B. section 9-1.10 of the Ca1-Trans Standard Specifications is
hereby specifically waived and not applicable to this agreement. The
parties hereto otherwise agree not to be bound by any other require-
ments for arbitration of any dispute arising hereunder. Disputes shall
be resolved by agreement of the parties, or upon the failure of such
agreement, by direct application to the Courts.
C. Should litigation be necessary to enforce any term or
provision of this Agreement, or to collect any portion of the amount
payable under this Agreement, then all reasonable litigation and
collection expenses, witness fees, and court costs, and attorney's fees
shall be paid to the prevailing party.
7. SUPERVISION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICES
A. The Director of Public Works of city, or his designee, shall
have the right of general supervision over all work performed by
Engineer and shall be city's agent with respect to obtaining Engineer's
compliance hereunder. No payment for any services rendered under this
Agreement shall be made without prior approval of the Director of
Public Works or his designee.
B. The Office of the Administrator may review and inspect the
Engineer'S activities during the progress of the program.
8.
COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS
Engineer hereby certifies that it will not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color,
e
e
e
religion, sex, marital status or national origin. Engineer shall
promote affirmative action in its hiring practices and employee
policies for minorities and other designated classes in accordance with
Federal, State and Local laws. Such action shall include, but not be
limited to, the following: recruitment and recruitment advertising,
employment, upgrading, and promotion. In addition, Engineer shall not
exclude from participation under this Agreement any employee or
applicant for employment on the basis of age, handicap, or religion in
compliance with State and Federal laws.
9. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. This agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty
(30) days' written notice in the event of substantial failure of the
other party to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
Each party shall have twenty (20) days following date of such notice
within which to correct the substantial failure, giving rise to such
notice. In the event of termination of this Agreement, city shall
within thirty (30) days pay Engineer for all the fees, charges and
services performed to city's satisfaction by Engineer, which finding of
satisfaction shall not be unreasonably withheld. Engineer hereby
covenants and agrees that upon termination of this Agreement for any
reason, Engineer will preserve and make immediately available to City,
or its designated representatives, maps, notes, correspondence, or
records related to work paid for by the City and required for its
timely completion, and to fully cooperate with City so that the work to
be accomplished under this Agreement may continue within forty-five
(45) days of termination. Any subsequent use of such incomplete
documents, other than their originally intended use, shall be at the
sole risk of the City, and the City agrees to hold harmless and
indemnify Engineer from any claims, losses, costs, including attorney's
fees and liability arising out of such use. Engineer shall be
compensated for such services in accordance with Exhibit "4".
B. This agreement may be terminated for the convenience of the
City upon thirty (30) days written notice to Engineer. Upon such
notice, Engineer shall provide work product to City, and city shall
compensate Engineer in the manner set forth above.
C. Following the effective date of termination of
Agreement pursuant to this section, the Agreement shall continue
all obligations arising from such termination are satisfied.
this
until
10. CONTINGENCIES
In the event that, due to causes beyond the control of and
without the fault or negligence of Engineer, Engineer fails to meet any
of its obligations under this Agreement, and such failure shall not
constitute a default in performance, the city may grant to Engineer
such extensions of time and make other arrangements or additions,
excepting any increase in payment, as may be reasonable under the
circumstances. Increases in payment shall be made only under the
"changes" provision of this Agreement. Engineer shall notify city
within three (3) days in writing when it becomes aware of any event or
~circumstance for which it claims or may claim an extension.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Engineer shall act as an independent contractor in the perfor-
mance of the services provided for under this Agreement. Engineer
shall furnish such services in its own manner and in no respect shall
it be considered an agent or employee of city.
12. ASSIGNMENT OR SUBCONTRACTING
Neither this Agreement, nor any portion thereof, may be assigned
by Engineer without the written consent of City. Any attempt by
Engineer to assign or subcontract any performance of this Agreement
without the written consent of the City shall be null and void and
shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. All subcontracts
exceeding $10,000, shall contain all provisions of this contract.
13. NOTICES
All official notices relative to this Agreement shall be in
writing and addressed to the following representatives of Engineer and
~ City:
ENGINEER ~
DMJM
275 West Hospitality Lane
suite 314
San Bernardino, CA
92408
Mr. Roger Hardgrave
Director of Public
Works/city Engineer
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA
92418
14. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES
A. The Engineer may reasonably rely upon the accuracy of data
provided through the city or its agents without independent evaluation.
B. The City shall pay all costs of inspection and permit fees.
Charges not sp~cifically covered by the terms of this Agreement shall
be paid as agreed by the parties hereto at the time such costs arise;
but in no event shall the work to be performed hereunder cease as a
consequence of any unforeseen charges unless by mutual written agree-
ment of city and Engineer.
C. All tracings, survey notes, and other original documents are
instruments of service and shall remain the property of Engineer except
~ where by law, precedent, or agreement these documents become public
property. All such documents or records shall be made accessible to
city. Engineer shall maintain all records for inspection by the City,
State, or their duly authorized representatives for a period of three
(3) years after final payment. Engineer shall stamp and sign all
~ specifications, estimates, plans and engineering
where appropriate, indicate registration number.
data furnished, and,
15. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
A. Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Engineer
represents his judgment as a design professional and is supplied for
the general guidance of the City. Since Engineer has no control over
the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market
conditions, Engineer does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions
as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to the City.
16. COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEE
Engineer warrants that no person or selling agency has been
employed or retained to solicit or secure this Agreement upon an
agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or
contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established
commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Engineer for the
purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this
warranty, city shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in
~ accordance with the clause permitting termination for cause and, at its
~ sole discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration,
or otherwise recover, the full amount of such commission, percentage,
brokerage or contingent fee.
17. HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSE
A. Engineer hereby agrees to hold City, its elective, and
appointive boards, officers, and employees, harmless from any liability
for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death, as
well as from claims for property damage, to the extent such are
proximately caused by Engineer's negligent acts, errors or omissions
under this Agreement.
B. Engineer shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless
the City, its officers, and its employees from all claims, damages,
costs, expenses, and liability, including, but not limited to, attor-
ney's fees imposed upon them for any alleged infringement of patent
rights or copyrights of any person or persons in consequence of the use
by city, its officers, employees, agents, and other duly authorized
representatives, of programs or processes supplied to City by Engineer
under this Agreement.
C. The prevailing party in any legal action to enforce or
interpret any provisions of this Agreement will be entitled to recover
e from the losing party all reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, and
necessary disbursements in connection with that action. The costs,
salary, and expense of the City Attorney, and members of his office, in
connection with that action shall be considered as attorneys' fees for
the purposes of this Agreement.
e
18. INDEMNITY
A. Engineer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless city from
and against any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, proceedings,
judgments, losses, damages, injuries, penalties, costs, expenses
(including reasonable attorney's fees), and liabilities, of, by, or
with respect to third parties, which arise solely from Engineer's
negligent performance of services under this Agreement. Engineer shall
not be responsible for, and City shall indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless Engineer from and against, any and all claims, demands, suits,
actions, proceedings, judgments, losses, damages, injuries, penalties,
costs, expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) and liabilities
of, by, or with respect to third parties, which arise solely from the
City's negligence. With respect to any and all claims, demands, suits,
actions, proceedings, judgments, losses, damages, injuries, penalties,
costs, expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) and liabilities
of, by or with respect to third parties, which arise from the joint or
concurrent negligence of Engineer and city, each party shall assume
responsibility in proportion to the degree of its respective fault.
B. Neither party hereto shall be responsible for special,
incidental, or consequential damages, except to the extent that such
damages are awarded in an action by a third party, other than the
~ Contractor on the Project, against the CITY and arise out of ENGINEER's
~negligent acts, errors, or omissions.
19. LIABILITY/INSURANCE
A. Engineer'S liability insurance for J.nJury or damage to
persons or property arising out of work for which legal liability may
be found to rest upon Engineer other than for professional errors and
omissions, shall be a minimum of $1,000,000. For any damage on account
of any error, omission, or other professional negligence, Engineer'S
insurance shall be limited in a sum not to exceed $50,000 or Engineer'S
fee, whichever is greater.
B. The City will require the Engineer to provide Workers
Compensation and comprehensive general liability insurance, inclUding
completed operations and contractual liability, with coverage suffi-
cient to insure the Engineer'S indemnity, as above required; and, such
insurance will include the City, the Engineer, their consultants, and
each of their officers, agents and employees as additional insureds.
C. Engineer shall provide evidence of insurance in the form of
a pOlicy/certification of insurance or other acceptable evidence, in
which the city is named as an additional named insured (except on
Worker's Comp) to the extent of the coverage required by this
Agreement.
~ D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the
~Engineer and its subconsultants and specialty consultants shall have no
responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal, disposal
of or exposure of persons to hazardous materials in any form at the
~ different sites of the Project including, but not limited to asbestos,
asbestos products, polychlorinated biphenyl (pcb) or other toxic
substances except for any such substances brought to the site by the
Engineer or subconsultants or used by same in the performance of their
work.
20. VALIDITY
Should any provision herein be found or deemed to be invalid,
this Agreement shall be construed as not containing such provision, and
all other provisions which are otherwise lawful shall remain in full
force and affect, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are
declared to be severable.
21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement
between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous
negotiations, representations, understandings, and agreements, whether
written or oral, with respect to the subject matter thereof. This
Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both
parties.
~///
~
e
AGREEMENT FOR: Professional Engineering services for Bridge Evaluation
Mt. Vernon Bridge over Burlington Northern/Santa Fe "A"
Yard.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
to be executed on the date written above by their duly authorized
officers on their behalf.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
BY:
Tom Minor, Mayor
ATTEST:
e
Bv:
Rachel Clark, City Clerk
Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall
By:
President
Approved as to form
and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN
city Attorney
By: a-.~ 1.uL-.
eO
Daniel. Mann. Johnson. & Mendenhall
.l::.^.rl..l.'o.L.J. .L
..
~l
. i
- .-ii
')::. .......-.<;,;;"~
- .,
~._ . ,.0"'- ";
~
..".
....
'-;;;"";.;",-.'
,...~~titigDesign Services
~'~'JtJ;"'J~~tff~~~~.fj::'" .
)~~~,,~,:'?~:ation for Mt.Vernon
i:~;if'~i~'-._.
1~: '",:~-.BurlingtQr)
.:,>amtaFe Rail Yard
j;fJll~( . ... ..
To: CityotSan Bernardino'
t _._O.P
..--;"~-- ---
----- ----
..- -------
February 14, 1997
DMJM
50\' f. ^ 1\ S
e
e
e
50 YEARS
0166.00
S9702013.BA
February 14, 1997
Mr. Roger G. Hardgrave
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of San Bemardino
300 North '0' Street
San Bel:"ardino, CA 92418-0001
Subject: Proposal to Perform Professional Engineering Services
Bridge Evaluation Project - Mount Vemon over the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad Yard
Dear Mr. Hardgrave:
On behaU of DMJM, I would like to express our thanks to the City of San Bemardino for positively considering
our earlier submitted qual~ications for this project and inv~ing us to participate in the next step of the C~'s
selection process. It is always exciting to work on a project that involves a facil~ which in some ways is
unique ~in a commun~. Certainly the Mount Vemon bridge is representative of such a unique facil~ and
a very interesting project to be involved with. The bridge is long; ~ is mu~ispan, parts of it are concrete; parts
of it are composite; it has an assortment of structural depths and configurations; it affects the BNSF's major
transcontinental line and intermodal yard; it affects the Metrolink's terminus trackage and station/parking
amenities; it is functionally obsolete; and for all practical purposes structurally obsolete - long ready for
something to be done. Four views illustrating some of the existing cond~ions and amenities can be seen in
the attachment to this letter. As an entity d1edicated to the enhancement of transportation as well as a local firm
having a vested interest in the betterment of the City of San Bemardino, we are delighted to provide this
proposal to perform the engineering evaluation services for this bridge that the C~ is seeking.
We see the end product of our services being a report document that serves as a springboard into follow-on
phases. These phases could include e~her a more comprehensive and advanced study, or a preliminary
engineering effort, or Fmal PS&E, or some combination of all three. Albeit at a conceptual level, the document
needs to address the basic issues such as existing cond~ion; retrofrt requirements; retrofit feasibility; the
graphic alignment of a new replacement structure; constructibility and construction scheduling issues; cost
comparisons; what happens at each end of the bridge vis a vis the roadwaylintersections; how to avoid
impacting the historic BNSF smokestack at the northern end; how to maintain ongoing BNSF and Metrolink
operations; and other critical issues. The C~ will be making important decisions based on the findings and
recommendations of this report. Consequently, the end product has to have input from high-level
expertiselknowhow; our approach will actually dictate staff assignments. To that end we envision in~ially a staff
group performing comprehensive data gathering that would include collecting any as-bui~ plans; site
reconnaissance; visual inspection of the bridge; understanding site amenities/operations; and obtaining any
general guidelines/criteria the C~ and the users/owners of the rail facilities might impose. This information
of "What's out there and what needs to be done' will be assembled under the direction of our proposed project
manager, Bedros Agopovich. Agopovich will then use this information as a basis for a 1-2 day DMJM in-house
'symposium" where he will assemble a panel of DMJM in-house experts to discuss/debate/review all the basic
issues and arrive at conclusions and recommendations. In addition to Agopovich, this panel will include:
D......I:::~ \:~". V HV;O...._ J, \U....:JE....H-\..L
275 WEST HOSPlnUTI LA~E. SL'ITE 314, SM<l BERNARDI:'IlO. CALIFORNIA 92408
(9091 380-6:"00' F.....x (909) 888.4302
e
e
e
Mr. Roger G. Hardgrave
February 14, 1997
-Page 2
John Corven:
Mr. Corven is the firm's "Principal" for bridge design with worldwide project
experience on virtually all types of bridges. He is very frequently called on by
DMJM Divisions to consu~ and provide guidance on such projects.
Robert Clevenger:
Mr. Clevenger is DMJM's Denver Division Manager. He is the former Colorado
DOT Chief Engineer. Steel and compos~e bridges are commonplace in that state.
Sam Nathan:
Mr. Nathan is the Chief Bridge Engineer in the firm's Los Angeles Headquarters.
He is an authority in California on Seismic Retrofit design. Sam recently was the
recipient of an award for the seismic retrofit of the historic Macy Street bridge in
Los Angeles.
Raymond Branstetter:
Mr. Branstetter is the Chief Railroad Engineer in the San Bernardino Division
office. He is a former 35 plus year railroader with the Southern Pacific Railroad
and has also spent the last 5 years of his career in the consu~ant industry. He
has been involved in the Metrolink track and station improvements at the San
Bernardino terminus; he is also the DMJM project manager on the preliminary
engineering for Metrolink's extension to Redlands.
Kendall Crosby:
Mr. Crosby is a former Santa Fe Railroad Bridge Supervisor.
Francis 'Obie' Weeks:
Mr. Week has recently completed his assignment as DMJM's Construction
Manager on the Oceanside-San Diego Commuter Rail program. He is the former
chief engineer for the Alaska Railroad and is also a Registered Engineer in
California.
The findings and recommendations of this panel would then be elaborated on and presented in a conceptual
report to the City. The report preparation would be led by Agopovich w~h staff help.
Bedros Agopovich is a 37 -year veteran of the transportation industry. His experience encompasses Highways,
Roadways, Bridges, Railroads, and Rail Trans~ and all associated civillinfrastructure. He is both a civil and
structural engineer. He is registered in the state of Calnomia. He has been a full-time resident in the firm's San
Bernardino Division since its inception 10 years ago and has managed and/or overseen all the projects
performed from this division. He is well known to the City by virtue of his involvement in City contracted
projects such as Central City South, E-Street Studies, Orange Show Road Extension and Pioneer Cemetery
Expansion, soon to start Kendall Bridge; as well as projects in the City such as the Metrolink Extension to
Redlands and Improvements (both Landside and Airside) at San Bernardino International Airport, both
performed for other agencies.
For the purposes of this study and especially given the project approach we perceive, we do not see the need
for subconsultant assistance. However, if the need should arise during the performance of the work,
preference will be given to consultants local to San Bernardino.
DMJM has a significant amount of relevant experience on projects of this type which will undoubtedly greatly
beneM this assignment. Besides California, we have performed relevant projects in Arizona, Utah, Colorado,
Texas, Nebraska, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland and Vermont. A tabular summary of our California
experience is included in Section 1 of our proposal. One Southern California project (completed in 1995) is
particularly worthy of mention. That project is the seismic retrof~ of the historic Macy Street Bridge in the City
of Los Angeles, where DMJM, under Sam Nathan's leadership, performed a seismic analysis, developed a
retrof~ scheme and prepared the final PS&E. Recognized for ~ historic significance (built in 1924) this 120Q-ft-
long bridge consisted of three distinct structural systems: a west approach with 24 spans and six expansion
joints, consisting mostly of tee-beam and slab superstructure supported on multi-column bents; a 261-foot main
arch spanning the Los Angeles River; and an east approach with two spans consisting of box girder
\) '.' '.1,,, '- ." \\. _'".r '-" ~~.
e
e
e
Mr. Roger G. Hardgrave
February 14, 1997
Page 3
superstructure supported on multicolumn bents in the middle. This project was honored this year with an
award for engineering excellence.
As on all past projects, it is our continued desire to provide the City DMJM staff participation of the highest
quality and extensive experience; and certainly that should be evident from the project manager and
'symposium' panel we have proposed. We believe this collective level of intelligence and knowhow will be
a real benefit to the City on this sensitive project.
We look forward to the opportunity to continue to serve the City of San Bernardino.
Very truly yours,
D IEL MANN, JOHNSON, & MENDENHALL
O......IEl. .\\........., ,ow..50'" _;" '.\[-"Of'H...lc
e
J f
.
I it
, I
~t
\ f
~ J
r !
..
Gl
Gl
..
..
fIl
". 'E
..,
-
'C
C
N
E
o
"~ ...
II.
Gl
Dl
'C
'l:
III
Gl
~
....
...
o
c
o
Iii
t
iii
,.~--
.
;';'
.'
~
..
~
o
fIl
Gl
~
....
E
o
..
II.
Gl
Dl
'C
'l:
III
Gl
~
....
Dl
c
'6
c
Gl
u
III
C
III
Gl
U
:c
~
.~ I,:
,rJ.i
e
1.>./.,;'
'/ i/ ,~.
/,..//i'
1/,._/
('f't
.! CD
Dl
'C
'l:
III
Gl
~
....
..
Gl
.'C
C
.::l
Dl
c
'0
Cl
Gl
U
-;
..
Gl
fIl
fti
a:
fti
..
c
Gl
" c
;::
c
,0
U
III
C
III
F
,II.
.;'.' !2
';m
. ,
e
e
e
For this bridge evaluatlion project, DMJM brings to the
City extensive highway/roadwaylbridge experience
. derived from projects performed nationwide. These
include projects in the states of California, Nevada,
Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska,
Louisiana, Florida, Maryland, and Vermont. However,
given the locale and the nature of the effort required for
this particular bridge, despite the extensive relevant
experience in other states, our California highway/ road-
waylbridge projects experience should be considered
the most relevant to these projects. Consequently, in
Figure 1-1 we have listed 34 such projects performed by
the firm in the last six years alone. As you will note,
they collectively cover virtually the full spectrum of pro-
ject types/elements/activities one could expect on such
projects. Regarding this listing we would like to empha-
size the following:
1. We have worked for a wide range of clientele.
2. On virtually all these projects, we have worked
under direct contract to a particular Caltrans District
or under a particular District's oversight.
3. Virtually every project has involved one or more
bridges consisting of new bridges; widenings/exten-
sion/replacements of existing bridges; and seismic
retrofit of existing bridges. All in all, the 34 projects
have involved 76 bridges with approximately half
falling into the first two categories.
4. This project will be done from the firm's San
Bernardino Division. We are proud to point out that
about one half of the projects listed in Figure 1-1
have been performed from this Division.
We would be pleased to provide more detail on anyone
project should the City so desire.
Section I:
Relevant Experience
J
J J J J J J J J J J e
-
~ ~ n ~ ~ . . ~ 8 ~ ~ . 11 ~ . ~ . .
~ 8 8 i i 8 8 << ~~l~8"i=~ ~ 8 8
.
"' <Ii .. "' "' "' .. ~ . .. ... - " ,.
i
I j j i I I I il · .
. I ~ ~
J t . ~ .- '-1- i~ ti ",,,! 'E ~ = ,"
- - lit jiR (; Il J . n ~ ~ j f ~ If , if
j~ 1~ j~ ~ j j JI H I II j j j~ j~ I j 8 .
!
U'; I) iJ o~.. .Ig 1 ,.
II II d If i i d IJ IJ I i J II II J i I ~ ~~~'8~8. ~ ~-
pJ. I i~~nJm'Hdi . .1
() JI 5 8...! ~ U 0 o:!.... ~~,: d' !,!
..........., . . . . . .
~"l""""'<:l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...', . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3t$dlVUlj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-, . . . . . . . . . . . .
- . . . . . . . . . . e
... . . . . . .
~'M . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... . . . . . .
- . . . . . . . . .
..... . . . . . . . . . . . .
1"DOn/u.ptM
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
qlllletl . . . .
...., . . . . . . .
_M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~t ! ;;
j f ll~f I .
f i i f i ~ ~
~ J~~i j ~ .
- 3 ~ 1 I
. J J ~ ! j )l~.!p, P 0 0
. .
- . a ,
p i t i i · i ~i.~ Ii mj !
. .. I ! 31h s J ~r ~ oS I
- . ~.lfJ . ~ w
::I ~ i ! f I I !' ;; j~ r; ! . n j h J~bi! t ;
:n 0 i i ~ N II I 0 ~ ~ 1~1~!i E &
~ J Ii: Jii ~ ' .
- . 8 - i . .. 1
j2~,~ ~ M ~ ; ;! * i~i~~;; g . ~ UiU J HH I
;: ~ ~ !
0 ~ 5! a: a: ~ ~ ~ ~ a: ci: It' a: _! _ ~
. :;: 14.. ..\. III III . . . " . . In III ..I.. .l. . :;: .
,
e
--- - '-- ........ - L- -- - L.. --.J '- '--~ L......J - '-- --I ........ -
e
e
e
The commitment of key personnel on an assignment of
this nature is pretty much dictated by how we propose to
. implement the work. Our approach to implementing the
work will be as follows:
1. An initial support staff group will gather all available
data regarding this bridge. This will include as-built
plans, previous studies, criteria and guidelines, utility
information, rail operation requirements, vehicular
traffic requirements, and the like. This data gather-
ing will be supplemented by site reconnaissance and
visual inspections. The effort will culminate in a
"what's out there and what can be done" assess-
ment. This phase of the work will be led by our pro-
posed Project Manager, Bedros Agopovich with staff
(to be identified in Section 2) support.
2. Using this information as a basis, Agopovich will
conduct a 1-2 day in-house "symposium" to discuss!
debate/review all the relevant issues and arrive at
conclusions/recommendations. He will assemble a
panel of experts within the firm for this purpose.
This panel, which should be considered as key staff
will consist of the following:
John Corven: Mr. Corven is the firm's .Princlpa/.
for bridge design with worldwide project experience
on virtually all types of bridges. He is very frequent-
ly called on by DMJM Divisions to consult and pro-
vide guidance on such projects.
Robert Clevenger: Mr. Clevenger is DMJM's
Denver Division Manager. He is the former
Colorado DOT Chief Engineer. Steel and composite
bridges are commonplace in that state.
Sam Nathan: Mr. Nathan is the Chief Bridge
Engineer in the firm's Los Angeles Headquarters.
He is an authority in California on Seismic Retrofit
design. Sam recently was the recipient of an award
for the seismic retrofit of the historic Macy Street
bridge in Los Angeles.
Raymond Branstetter: Mr. Branstetter is the Chief
Railroad Engineer in the San Bernardino Division
office. He is a former 35 plus year railroader with
the Southern Pacific Railroad and has also spent the
last 5 years of his career in the consultant industry.
He has been involved in the Metrolink track and sta-
tion improvements at the San Bernardino terminus;
he is also the DMJM project manager on the prelimi-
nary engineering for Metrolink's extension to
Redlands.
Section II:
Key Personnel
Bridge Evaluation Project
Mt. Vernon BrJdgeOver Burlington
Northefnlsante Fe Rail Yard
e
e
e
Kendall Crosby: Mr. Crosby is a former Santa Fe
Railroad Bridge Supervisor.
Francis .Obie" Weeks: Mr. Week has recently
completed his assignment as DMJM's Construction
Manager on the Oceanside-San Diego Commuter
Rail program. He is the former chief engineer for the
Alaska Railroad and is also a Registered Engineer
in California.
3. The findings/recommendations will then be incorpo-
rated into a conceptual report to be submitted to the
City. This effort will be led by Agopovich with staff
assistance.
Bedros Agopovich is a 37-year veteran of the trans-
portation industry. His experience encompasses
Highways, Roadways, Bridges, Railroads, and Rail
Transit and all associated civiVinfrastructure. He is both
a civil and structural engineer, and is registered in the
state of California. He has been a full-time resident in
the firm's San Bernardino Division since its inception 10
years ago and has managed and/or overseen all the
projects performed from this division. He is well known
to the City by virtue of his involvement in the City con-
tract projects such as Central City South, E-Street
Studies, Orange Show Road Extension and Pioneer
Cemetery Expansion, and soon to start Kendall Bridge
Widening; as well as projects in the City such as the
Metrolink Extension to Redlands and Improvements
(both Landside and Airside) at San Bernardino
International Airport, both performed for other agencies.
His resume follows.
Section II:
Key Personnel
Bridge Evaluation Project
Mt.V_mon.Bridge Over Burlingtoll
North"tr1ISlIntB J'e Rail Yam
tlDROS M.
OPOVICH, P.E.
ject Manager
Education:
M.S., Civil and Structural
Engineering. (Stanford
University)
B.S., Civil and Structural
Engineering, (Robert College)
Registered Civil Engineer:
California: # Cl7718
Florida: # 26781
Georgia: # 8205
Maryland: # 11327
New Jersey: # 26601
New York: # 44854
e
e
Mr. Agopovich began his engineering career in
1959 as both a civil and structural engineer.
The last 32 years of his career has been exclu-
sively devoted to the full-spectrum of trans-
portation projects which have included light
rail, metro rail, people mover, highway, road-
way, bridge, and busway transportation sys-
tems. He has served in many different capaci-
ties ranging from Project Engineer to Project
Manager, Agency Coordinator, Program
Manager, Project Director, Project Principal,
part of a Peer Review Team, and even as a
DMJM Consultant to international transporta-
tion clientele. His ability to manage/direct
programs involving multiple issues, multiple
disciplines, multiple subcontractors, and to
effectively coordinate such efforts with a large
number of affected/regulatoryl participatory
agencies is an important asset. Particularly, in
Program Manager and Project Director roles,
he involves himself in preparing and overview-
ing overall program costs and financial plans,
maintaining and/or reallocating programmed
budgets, forecasting trends, and cost tradeoffs.
Most important, he insists on a hands-on
involvement to ensure that all resources are
made available in a timely manner and such
programs are completed successfully and to
the satisfaction of the clientele he is serving.-
A summary of his transportation experience
effected under one or more of the roles identi-
fied earlier is presented below.
. HighwayslRoadwayslBridgeslBusways
The 1-15/1-40 Interchange in Barstow; the
Lenwood Drive Interchange reconfigura-
tion including modifying 6 crossings in
Barstow, the Highway 71 widening pro-
ject, the Highway 74 widening in
Riverside County, the 1-15/1-40 Rehab pro-
jects in San Bernardino County, the 1-
10IWashington Interchange reconstruction
in Riverside County, the SR-125 project in
San Diego, Segment VII of the SR-30 pro-
ject in Fontana, a Measure A freeway seg-
ment in Fresno County, the Strawberry
Creek and Fillmore Street bridge replace-
ment projects in Riverside County, the
North-South arterial study for the City of
San Bernardino, the Central City South
Assessment District project in San
Bernardino, the Parsons Avenue widen-
ing/extension project in Merced, the
Orange Show Road Extension project in
San Bernardino, New York Cross County
DIVIJM
Parkway, two highway interchanges in
Honolulu, the Atlanta Busway, and the
Ashby Street Bridge in Berkeley.
.
Commuter Rail/Railroad Projects
Oceanside to San Diego Commuter Rail,
USAF Peacekeeper Rail Garrison; Salt
River Southern Pacific main line relocatior
project; Rockwell Rail Car Assembly Yard;
undergrounding a 6-mile segment of the
Taiwan National Railroad; the Taiwan
Nankang-Shulin Commuter Rail Study; the
new Taipei Main Central Station; Parsons
Avenue grade separation in Merced;
Lomas Santa Fe Avenue grade separation
in Solana Beach; Western Waste-Trash
Haul By Rail; Alameda Corridor Rail; Eight
Union Pacific (Metrolink) Railroad Grade
Crossings; Ventura County railroad corri-
dor studies; Various projects for the
Southern Pacific Railroad; miscellaneous
industrial spurs and a large number of rail.
road relocation/realignment tasks resultant
from constructing various Metro and Light
Rail programs. Railroads whose facilities
have been affected include the Santa Fe,
the Southern Pacific, the Union Pacific,
the Baltimore and Ohio, the Chessie, the
Western Maryland, and the British
Columbia Hydro Railroads. A majority of
these projects have encompassed highway,
roadway, or railroad bridges.
Light Rai I/Metro Rail Projects
San Diego MTDB, Vancouver British
Columbia Sky train, Taipei {Taiwan)
Medium Capacity System, Buffalo NFTA,
San Francisco BART, Atlanta Marta,
Baltimore Metro, Washington WMATA,
Venezuela Caracas Metro, Brazil Sao
Paulo Metro, Singapore Metro, Taiwan
Taipei Metro, Miami Metro Rail, and the
NYCTA Maintenance Facility
Modernization Program. He has also
served as an in-house DMJM consultant
on the LA Metro Red Line and the early
phases of the Houston Metro. Again, a
majorityof these projects have involved
bridges.
.
Supporting Bedros Agopovich will be the following per-
sonnel:
e · For Civil work:
. Douglas Goodman
e
e
. For Bridge work:
. George Skillman
Resumes of both are included in this section of the pro-
posal.
The DMJM San Bernardino Division has numerous
additional support personnel, both at the Engineer and
the TechnicianIDrafter level that can amply support the
project as needed. The Division is equipped with 19
CADD Stations encompassing both AutoCAD as well as
Intergraph/Microstation.
Bridge Evaluation Project
MtNemon Bridge Over u .
aUGLAS L.
WODMAN, P.E.
Civil
Education:
B.S., Civil Engineering
(California State Polytechnic
University)
Registered Civil Engineer:
California: # C28500
Colorado: # 16519
e
e
Mr. Goodman has over 23 years' experience
in the civil engineering field. As a DMJM
Senior Civil Engineer, he is responsible for
PS&E on several projects. He has maintained
close contact with advancements in the engi-
neering profession by attending seminars and
courses on topics of relevancy. He is comput-
er literate and proficient in the application of
CADD and COGO programs to project design,
and spreadsheet and word processing pro-
grams to project documentation. During his
career, Mr. Goodman has provided a wide
range of services to both the private develop-
ment community as well as the public sector.
His previous positions include Project
Manager, Branch Manager, and principal for
other small and medium sized
engineering/surveying firms in the Inland
Empire. Project categories include all land
development type projects, master planned
communities, master sewer plans, master
water plans, master storm drain plans, street
and highway design, and commuter rail sta-
tions and appurtenances.
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE:
. MCAS Miramar, San Diego, CA - Lead
Civil Engineer on three construction pack-
ages totaling over 1,500 sheets. With a
combined construction budget of about
$40 million for facilities which required
design and coordination of the following
improvements: 29 buildings of various
sizes, 25 acres parking and access includ-
ing over one mile of sidewalks, 7,000 LF
of new streets, new sewer & water sys-
tems, new storm drain systems, service
and maintenance facilities, mobile van
pads, and utility coordination. Project
requirements included Basis of Design
reports, Specifications, Calculation reports,
Response to Review Comments and
QNQC coordination. Responsible for
leading the team towards successful com-
pletion of all deliverable items and inter-
facing with all disciplines involved in the
project.
. Lomas Santa Fe Drive Grade Separation,
for the North Country Transit District,
Solana Beach, CA - Senior Civil Engineer
for the preliminary and final design of
6,000 1.F. of depressed track, 6,000 1.F. of
shoofly track, 1,000 1.F. platform and 500
l. F. temporary platform, 40,000 S.F. of
sculpturedlplantable walls, new Lomas
DM.IVI
Santa Fe Bridge over two main line tracks,
Lomas Santa Fe Detour, two temporary
and permanent pedestrian bridges, side-
walks, curbs & gutter on all major streets,
crossing signal gates, linear Park and
Pacific Coast Highway coordination with
the City of Solana Beach, major storm
drain pipe and Pacific Ocean outfall,
300,000 c.Y. of sand replenishment, cont-
aminated soil remediation, draft and final
Environmental Impact Report, storm
drainage, and utility coordination.
Pedestrian bridges had capacity for carry-
ing whities. Handicap - accessible ramp
spanned 30 vertical feet. Linear Park has
serpentine pedestrian and bike path with
aesthetic and nature/education focal
points, park furniture and bus shelters.
. La Sierra Commuter Rail Station, Riverside
County Transportation Commission,
Riverside, CA - Design Engineer responsi-
ble to develop conceptual plans for station
facilities with several drainage issues to
resolve. Site included coordination with
large scale master community plans for
surrounding private developments.
Project included sidewalks adjacent to
parking and platform access.
. Orange Show Road Extension, City of San
Bernardino - Design Engineer responsible
to prepare improvement plans for 1.7
miles of a 4-lane major arterial from
Arrowhead Ave. to Tippecanoe Ave.
Project includes coordination of two
bridge structures, traffic signals and inter-
connects, many utility crossings, and
3,300 feet of new 16" water main. Dual
sidewalks over entire length.
. Realignment of Pine Avenue, City of San
Bernardino - Project Manager for prelimi-
nary and final design of 0.6 miles of four-
lane divided highway from Belmont
Avenue to Kendall Drive. Project includes
coordination with MWD facilities (10'
diameter trans. main) and right-of-way.
Pine avenue has sidewalks for its entire
length.
. The Lakes, Pennhill - Radnor, City of
Upland - Engineering Management
Consultant for 530-acre master planned
community. Provided management and
direction to all sub-consultants in prepara-
tion of concept design, environmental
documents and conflict resolutions- The
~UGLAS L.
ODMAN, P.E.
ge 2
e
e
DM.IVI
project had to address a wide variety of
issues including future freeway access
and alignment, ground water replenish-
ment, regional storm drain facilities,
regional circulation facilities, biological
resource mitigations and geotechnical
instability issues.
. Northwest Rialto Specific Plan, City of
Rialto - Engineering consultant to aid in
the conceptual development of a 300+
acre master planned community.
Participated in laying out the conceptual
pedestrian and vehicle circulation,
drainage and grading plans. Also provid-
ed engineering review services to City of
Rialto to review the Specific Plan Storm
Drain system, hydrology and hydraulic
reports.
. General Street & Highway, Inland Empire
_ As Project Manager and Engineer of lit-
erally hundreds of land development pro-
jects of all sizes, Mr. Goodman has
designed and coordinated agency pro-
cessing for many miles of road and side-
walk improvements including common
area parks and pedestrian / bikeways. He
has handled many designs of entirely
new streets and c.rculation systems as
well as extensive expansion and widen-
ing of existing improvements. Projects
have been located in most every Inland
Empire city and county and have includ-
ed state highways.
...ORGE I SKILLMAN,
.ge
Education:
B.S., Civil Engineering
(University of Colorado)
Registered Civil Engineer:
California: # C49722
Colorado: # 16368
e
e
Mr. Skillman has more than 21 years of experi-
ence. He designs bridges as well as supervis-
es design teams for bridge projects. Recent
project experience includes:
. Greater New Orleans Mississippi River
Bridge No. Two, MS. Project Engineer for
the design of this 2,2S0-foot-long, $20
million section of approach structures.
Designs included four lanes of highway
and two lanes of light rail with curved
composite steel plate girder/stringer, com-
posite plate girder and continuous pre-
stressed girder systems. Coordinated con-
sultant contracts to develop workable con-
struction packages.
. 1-2S/Lincoln Avenue Interchange, Douglas
County, CO. Project Engineer for the
design of a two-span, composite steel box
girder structure over 1-25. Staged con-
struction was required to maintain traffic
at all times.
. 1-70 Tower Road Interchange, Aurora, CO.
Project Manager for design of this urban
interchange. Design upgraded the existing
diamond interchange to projected needs .
and maintained traffic during construction.
. Strawberry Creek Bridge Replacement,
Idyllwild, CA. Bridge Designer for the
replacement of a structurally deficient
wood superstructure and guardrail with a
completely new bridge. The hydrology
study indicated the 21-foot span bridge
would withstand a 2S-year flood prior to
overtopping and surcharging the structure.
. West 13th Avenue Bridge over the Platte
River, Denver, CO. Project Engineer for
design of a three-span, cast-in-place, post-
tensioned, concrete structure and
approach roadway over the Platte River.
. Union Pacific Railroad Bridge, Salt lake
City, UT. Project Engineer for the design
of a three-span, curved composite steel
plate girder structure over the Union
Pacific Railroad.
. 1-225 Bridges, Aurora, CO. Project
Engineer for preliminary design of four
bridges on 1-225 in Denver. Included a
1,100 foot curved composite steel box
girder f1yover structure; a curved, cast-in-
place post-tensioned concrete box girder
structure; and two continuous precast,
prestressed girder structures. Designs
DMJM
allowed for an HOV lane in the median.
Structures were designed to carry the stan-
dard light rail vehicle.
. Oceanside to San Diego Commuter Rail,
CA. Included light and heavy rail prelimi-
nary bridge design, pedestrian station
designs, and retaining wall designs.
. C-470 Bridges, CO. Project Engineer for
the design of six bridges on C-470.
Includes four continuous prestressed gird-
er structures and widening of an existing
concrete T-beam overpass.
. Oregon Department of Transportation
Bridges, OR. Project Engineer for the
design of two widenings for the Oregon
DOT. Included continuous spans of
AASHTO prestressed girders and compos-
ite welded plate girders over the BN
Railroad.
. Arizona Canal Bridge, Phoenix, AZ.
Project Engineer on the design of a two-
span continuous prestressed girder struc-
ture and a one span temporary detour
bridge over the Arizona Canal.
. Route 8 Bridge, Derby, CT. Bridge
Engineer for design of a two-span 377-
foot-long composite steel and steel plate
girder structure on Route 8 over Route 34.
. Inspector of over 500 Railway Bridges.
Evaluated existing railway bridges within a
30-mile radius of 11 air force bases for the
Rail Garrison Program.
Mr. Skillman spent six years with the Colorado
Department of Highways in the bridge design
department. His broad experience in design,
computer programming, rating and supervision
of construction for highway bridges included:
. A three-span continuous steel girder struc-
ture over the D&RGW Railroad near
Wiggins, CO.
. A four-span curved parabolic T-beam
widening over 1-70 near Cliff ton, CO.
. A four-span, 213-foot concrete slab and
girder bridge over Running Creek in
Elizabeth, CO.
. Widenings on 1-76 including a 4S0-foot,
nine-span concrete slab and girder bridge
and a 4S0-foot, nine-span steel girder
bridge.
e
e
e
For the purposes of this evaluation study and especially
given the project approach we perceive, we do not see
.the need for subconsultant assistance. However, if the
need should arise during the performance of the work,
preference will be given to the consultants local to San
Bernardino.
SectIon IV:
.......-...'........--..............',...-
Subconsultant Participation
Bridge
\iMt. Vernon
N~mlSanta Fe
;:.,;,.,.
e
e
e
We believe this evaluation study can be performed for
about $20,000 with the understanding that any end
products including components of end products are at a
conceptual level.
It is not practical to divide the study into a number of
tasks and subtasks. However, with reference to the
approach we outlined in Section 1, the $20,000 cost can
be segregated into the three activities as follows:
. Data gathering and "what's out there"
assessment $5,000
. In-House "symposium" $8,000
. Concept report $7,000
We note that these activities are only estimates and
may vary depending on the prosecution of the work.
EXHIBIT #3
~.~, ;Ji
I~' ~ Eveijfeu.:..:.l;..\'. ,'~< ~ ~
< Mt.~onlldd~ ~~~; n~.4
%lI" .." !fe Riili.tatdt it" .. ~Z ~
, "~""'?'%'}"'.l.' '" ,."'*
, ,. .., F '" ". . .."- ..""
':,.:.,;;;.<;::: ., " "t*:;::k.,.:;:::::::)~f,::::;t';::"::::::'" . -..:::>l;i<:-..,k..,.;:;;: ,..*.,'~
e
e
e
It is prudent to be a little bit on the conservative side
when it comes to implementing this type of assignment.
. We have projected a twelve (12) week period from
Notice to Proceed. We have allowed the following inter-
im periods.
. Data Gathering/Assessment
. Symposium/Evaluation
. Agency Review (including on-board)
. Concept Report
We will obviously strive to complete it earlier.
The durations are illustrated in Figure VI-1.
4 weeks
2 weeks
3 weeks
3 weeks
EXHIBIT 2 - Page 1
SJlctJonVI;
Time Chart
'lie
Bridge EvalilatlorProject
Mt. Vernon Bridge Over Burlington
.NQrthem/SantaFe Rail Yard
e
e
e
EXHIBIT 2 - page 2
Figure VI-1
Time Chart: Bridge Evaluation Project - Mt. Vernon Bridge
Over Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Rail Yard
t
7
8'
9 10 11 1
2
3'
4'
5'
6
Notice To Proceed
Data Gathering
In-House
Symposium and
Evaluation
Agency Review
Concept Report
e
EXHIBIT "4"
SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES FOR AUTHORIZED EXTRA SERVICES
PROJECT: ~T. VERNON AVENUE GRADE SEPARATION
A. The City shall compensate the ENGINEER for any authorized extra services in
accordance with the following schedule of fully burdened hourly rates.
bfbor Classification HourlY Rate
Project Director $172.00
Project Manager 102.00
Senior Bridge Engineer 132.00
Bridge Engineer 93.00
e Senior Civil Engineer 93.00
Civil Engineer 83.00
Civil Designer 60.00
CADD Technician 56.00
Administration 44.00
Project Controls 113.00
8. The hourly rates indicated In "".. above are effective through December 31,
1997. Thereafter, for planning purposes, a 5% across the board average increase
should be assumed, commencing the first day of each successive calendar year.
C. For the use of any labor classification not identified In "A" above, but requested
by the City, the ENGINEER will obtain the City's prior approval of the applicable fully
burdened hourly rate.
e