HomeMy WebLinkAbout12- Public Works CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT . . IGINAL
From: Nadeem Majaj, Director Subject: Resolution authorizing execution of
Amendment No. 4 to Professional Services
Dept: Public Works-Engineering Agreement with AECOM Technical Services,
Inc. to provide Engineering Services for the
Date: March 15,2011 Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge
Repair(SS07-14).
MCC Date: April 4,2011
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
12/20/04 Adopted Reso. No. 2004-391 awarding a contract to Gwinco Construction and Engineering, Inc., for Old
Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Replacement(SS05-11)in the amount of$141,991.76.
05/15/06 Adopted Reso.No. 2006-145 approving Agreement for Professional Services in the amount of$224,621.00
with LAN Engineering Corporation to provide Engineering Services for the Design of Old Waterman
Canyon Bridge Replacement(SS07-14).
08/07/06 Adopted 5-Year CIP for FY 2006/11,which included funding for design and construction of Old Waterman
Canyon Bridge Replacement(SS07-14)
11/06/06 Adopted Reso. No. 2006-376 approving Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with LAN Engineering for
Services in the amount of$25,916.94 for additional environmental services for the Design of Old Waterman
Canyon Bridge Replacement(SS07-14).
05/07/07 Adopted Reso. No. 2007-135 approving Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Services in the amount of
$8,000.00 for Initial Site Assessment (ISA) for the Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement
(SS07-14).
08/06/07 Adopted Reso.No.2007-316 approving Amendment No. 3 to Agreement in the amount of$3,650.00 for the
Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement(SS07-14).
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
Signature
Contact Person: Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer Phone: 5203
Staff Report, Reso., Amendment to
Supporting data attached: Agreement Ward: 4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $ 160,793
Source: (Acct.No)242-160-5504-7671-0025
Acct.Description: Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Repair
(SS07-14)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No. 1612-�
t�`1 d q
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Resolution authorizing execution of Amendment No. 4 to Professional Services Agreement with
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. to provide Engineering Services for the design of Old
Waterman Canyon Bridge Repair(SS07-14).
Background:
On August 7, 2006, the FY 2006/11 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was adopted,
which included a project to replace Old Waterman Canyon Bridge (SS07-14). This bridge is
located on Old Waterman Canyon Road, approximately one mile northerly of Waterman
Avenue (State Route 18). The bridge was severely damaged in a flood that occurred on
December 25, 2003. Funding for repair of the bridge was approved by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) under disaster declaration FEMA-1498-DR; however, before
repairs could be started, a second flood event occurred on January 10, 2005, and further
damaged the structure.
A federal disaster declaration (FEMA-1577-DR) was made for the San Bernardino area
subsequent to the January 10, 2005 storm. FEMA reviewed the condition of the bridge and
determined that repair of the bridge was not feasible and allocated funding for its replacement.
Funding in the amount of$505,000 was allocated for the project, 75 percent of which was to be
reimbursed by FEMA and the remaining 25 percent by the State Office of Emergency Services
(OES), which is now known as the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA).
On May 15, 2006, an Agreement for Professional Services in the amount of $224,621 was
approved with LAN Engineering Corporation (currently known as AECOM Technical Services,
Inc.) to provide Engineering Services for the Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge
Replacement (SS07-14). On November 6, 2006, Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for Professional Services in the amount of $25,916.94 was
approved, authorizing Jones & Stokes, an environmental subconsultant to AECOM Technical
Services, Inc., to proceed with focused surveys for six sensitive species that may inhabit the site.
Five of the special-status species are plants and one is an animal (Merriam's Kangaroo Rat).
During preparation of the biological, cultural and water quality technical reports, the need for a
hazardous materials Initial Site Assessment (ISA) was identified by the environmental
consultants. This assessment was not included in the initial scope of work with AECOM
Technical Services, Inc., in the original Agreement or in Amendment No. 1. On May 7, 2007,
Amendment No 2 in the amount of $8,000 was approved, authorizing AECOM Technical
Services, Inc. to proceed with preparation of the ISA. Additionally, on August 6, 2007,
Amendment No 3 was approved authorizing an additional $3,650 for the preparation of a
hazardous material survey to determine if asbestos was present at the site in order to meet Air
Quality Management requirements. No asbestos was found at the site.
The estimated cost for the bridge replacement was $2,700,000, which is substantially higher
than the $505,000 approved by FEMA. Staff presented this estimate to Cal EMA and FEMA
and requested confirmation that the total cost would be reimbursable. FEMA denied the City's
request to fund the full replacement, but admitted that the FEMA team that responded to the
disaster in 2005 had made an error in the application of the"50-percent" rule, which provides
€ 2
i
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT—Continued
that replacement funding can be approved if the repair cost exceeds more than 50 percent of the
replacement cost. In this case, the FEMA team used an unrealistically low replacement cost
estimate in determining that the bridge should be replaced. FEMA also declined a request for
reimbursement of funds that the City had previously expended in preparing designs for the
replacement bridge. See attached letters from Cal EMA, dated September 24, 2010, and
FEMA, dated September 10, 2010, for more details.
Although FEMA denied the City's request to reimburse the total replacement cost, they
indicated that they approved a total of$500,001 toward the repair of the bridge. These repairs
will consist of replacing a girder on the north side of the bridge damaged by rocks, replacing the
bridge guardrails on both sides, repairing undermined downstream wingwalls and hardening of
the downstream channel to reduce erosion.
1
The FEMA allocation should be sufficient to repair the bridge. After the repair has been
completed, the bridge will be adequate for light traffic volumes, subject to load limits for trucks.
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. was requested to submit a proposal to design the repairs caused
by both disasters. The design will include updating environmental studies sufficient to obtain
permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, State Department of Fish and Game and the Water
Quality Control Board. The fee for the work is $160,793.44.
Financial Impact:
The breakdown of funding for the AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Agreement and Amendments
is as follows:
Description Amount
Original Agreement $224,621.00
Amendment No. 1 $ 25,916.94
Amendment No. 2 $ 8,000.00
Amendment No. 3 $ 3,650.00
Amendment No. 4 $160,793.44
Total $422,981.38
Adequate funding to cover cost of this amendment in the amount of$160,793 is available in the
FY 10/11 CIP budget for Project No. SS07-14 (Account No. 242-160-5504-7671-0025)
"Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Repair." The cost of the amendment will be
reimbursed as follows: FEMA 75 percent and Cal EMA 25 percent.
Account No. 242-160-5504-7671-0025 Account Budgeted Amount: $2,390,100
Balance as of. 04/04/2011: $2,359,653 Balance after approval of this item: $2,198,860
Please note this balance does not indicate available funding. This budgeted amount reflected
the estimated cost for bridge replacement. Given that the funding agency changed the scope of
the project from replacement to repair, this budgeted amount will be reduced in next year's
Five Year Capital Improvement Program.
3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT—Continued
Recommendation:
Adopt Resolution.
Attachments:
1 —Letter from Cal EMA, dated September 24, 2010.
4
I
ARNULI)SCHWARTI?NI:CiCit:R MAM1EW R. BETTE•NHAUSEN
GOVf,RNOR Cal EMA SECRL•TAR},
CAL11ORNIA EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
September 24, 2010
Mr. Charles E. McNeely
City Manager
City of San Bernardino
300 North"D" Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
Subject: Rcsponse to First Appeal -- PW 2473
FEMA-1577-DR, 2005 January Winter Storms
Cal EMA ID: 071-65000 FEMA ID: 071-65000-00
Subgrantee: City of San Bernardino
Cal EMA Log: 496246.2 FEMA Log: 306255.1
Dear Mr. McNeely:
On September 15, 2010, the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) received
the enclosed letter dated September 10, 2010, from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). The purpose of the letter is to inform the city of San Bernardino (city) that
FEMA has partially approved the first appeal of Project Worksheet (PW) 2473. FEMA
approved PW 2473 to fund bridge repairs to Waterman Canyon Bridge (bridge)and roadway for
damage that occurred from both the FEMA-1498-DR and FEMA-1577-DR events.
After discussions with FEMA and the city, Cal EMA supported the city's position to request
reimbursement of its design costs for the estimated amount of$254,000, which was incurred as a
result of FEMA's initial determination to apply the 50 percent rule to replace, not repair, the
damaged bridge. Cal EMA agreed that the 50 percent rule would not apply in this circumstance
due to the more accurate replacement cost of the bridge. However, the city has chosen to move
forward with separating its contract work and costs under separate disasters; therefore, Cal EMA
supported the city's decision to move forward with repairing the bridge and claiming its costs
under FEMA-1498-DR and FEMA-1577-DR. Cal EMA also supported the city's request for a
time extension to August 4, 2011, to complete the necessary repairs under PW 2473 (1577) and
PW 981 (1498).
After review of the city's first appeal, FEMA has denied the city's request for reimbursement of
5254,000 for the engineering and design of the new bridge. FEMA stated the city was advised
and aware of the requirements of eligible work and cost under the PA program. In accordance
with Title 44 of the Code o1*Federal Regulations (44 CFR), Section 206.223(a) and
Section 206?26(2)(d) and(4)(1), it cannot be reasonably concluded that the subgrantee would
continue }with design and engineering of a new bridge after realizing the cost of a replacement
bridge equaled more than 500"0 of the cost of repair.
Mr. Charles E. McNeely
September 24, 2010
Page Two
FEMA has approved the revised estimate of$500,001 for repairing the bridge and has obligated
PW 2473-1 in the amount of 5145,677 to reflect its approval. The city's request to conduct
closeout of this project under one disaster event is also approved. All project management and
financial reconciliation activities will be conducted under FEMA-1577-DR.
In telephone conferences with FEMA during the city during the week of August 23, 2010, the city
stated that a time extension to October 15, 2011, would be more appropriate than the requested
anticipated completion date of August 4, 2011. This would allow the city to complete the work at
the end of its typical road construction season and would help assure that another time extension
request would not be necessary. In accordance with 44 CFR, Section 206?04(d)(2), the city has
demonstrated due diligence in pursuing completion of this project, while experiencing delays
beyond its control. Therefore, FEMA has approved the time extension to October 15, 2011, for
PW 2473. Please refer to the enclosed letter for additional information.
If you do not agree with FEMA's determination, please be informed that in accordance with
44 CFR, Section 206.206, you have the right to appeal FEMA's decision. This second and final
appeal must be submitted to Cal EMA within sixty (60) days from the date of this letter. Federal
regulations also require that appeals contain documented justification to support your position
including the monetary figure in dispute. Also, as a second appeal, you must provide additional
or new information which documents why FEMA's first appeal decision was in conflict with
federal laws, regulations, or policy.
If you require additional information regarding this correspondence, please contact
Mr. David Rogers, Disaster Assistance Program Specialist, at (916) 845-8235 or
Ms. Pamela Rarick, Area Analyst, at (916) 845-8239.
I
Sincerely,
MICHAEL BALDWIN
State Public Assistance Officer
Enclosure
Pr
U.S.Department of Homeland Security
Region IX
1 111 Broadway,Suite 1200
Oakland,CA 946074052
ofrearys
1y FEMA
\�ND SE'J
SEP 10 2010
�GENCY
Mr. Tom Maruyama RECEryD
Governor's Authorized Representative SEP -+'
Office of the Secretary 9r 1 5 2010
jCalifornia Emergency Management Agency y
3650 Schriever Avenue No
Mather, California 95655
Reference: First Appeal—Project Worksheet 2473
FEMA-1577-DR-CA, P.A. ID: 071-65000-00
f Subgrantee: City of San Bernardino
Cal EMA Log: 496246.1; FEMA Log: 306255.1
Dear Mr. Maruyama:
This is in response to your letter dated July 9, 2010, forwarding and supporting a first appeal and
time extension request from the City of San Bernardino (Subgrantee) for Project Worksheet(PW)
2473. On June 30, 2010,the Subgrantee appealed the denial by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for a time extension, and
supplemental funding for the Waterman Canyon Bridge project as addressed with PW 2473.
On July 5, 2005, FEMA approved PW 2473 for an estimated cost of$505,000 to fund
replacement of the Waterman Canyon Bridge. Though damages from the 1577 event were
estimated at $140,000, the bridge had been previously damaged by flooding and debris flows on
December 25, 2003 (DR-1498-CA). On April 16, 2004, FEMA approved PW 981 under DR-
1498-CA with an estimate of'$185,000. Since damage from both the 1498 and 1577 events was
F estimated at $325,000, 1n accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §
206.226(f) FEMA applied the "50% rule". Consequently PW 2473 was approved to replace
rather than repair the bridge.
On June 30, 2009, the Subgrantee requested a time extension and change in scope of work
(SOW) and supplemental funding in the amount of$2,195,000, for a total cost of$2,700,000 to
replace the bridge. FEMA denied the request with a letter dated March 3, 2010, stating that the
cost for replacement now far exceeded the replacement threshold, therefore the request was
denied. FEMA also noted that a time extension request would not be evaluated until the
Subgrantee informs Cal EMA and FEMA which course of action they will take on this project.
wwN.fema.gov
Mr. Maruvama
First Appeal-- PK'# 2473
FEMA-1577-DR-CA, P.A. ID: 071-05000-00
Page 2 of 3
The Subgrantee's most recent May 11, 2010, correspondence states their intention to repair
rather than replace the bridge. The Subgrantee's appeal is for a time extension until August 4,
2011, and for supplemental funding in the amount of$254,000 to reimburse for funds spent on
design and engineering a replacement bridge. Subsequent to their appeal,the Subgrantee provided
a revised estimate to complete repair of the bridge in the amount of$500,001, resulting in a total
supplemental funding request of$399,677. Currently$354,324 is obligated for this project. The
Subgrantee also requested the opportunity to reconcile this project in one disaster event rather than
two.
As detailed in the attached analysis, and in accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) § 206.202(d)(1) the Subgrantee's request that FEMA accept a revised
estimate of$500,001 for repairing the bridge and obligate additional funding in the amount of
$145,677 is approved. However in accordance with Title 44 CFR § 206.223(a) FEMA has
idetermined that the Subgrantee was advised and aware of the requirements of eligible work
and cost under the Public Assistance program. In accordance with Title 44 CFR §
206.226(2)(d) and (4)(f) it cannot be reasonably concluded that the Subgrantee would continue
with design and engineering of a new bridge after realizing the cost of a replacement bridge
equaled more than 500% of the cost of repair. The Subgrantee's request for supplemental
funding in the amount of$254,000 to reimburse for design and engineering of a new bridge is
denied.
FEMA has prepared PW 2473 Version 1 for an additional $145,677 to reflect the obligation. The
revised total estimated funding for this project is now$500,001. The Subgrantee's request to
conduct closeout of this project under one disaster event is also approved. All project management
and financial reconciliation activities will be conducted under DR-1577-CA.
In telephone conferences with the Subgrantee during the week of August 23, 2010, the Subgrantee
stated that a time extension for the project through October 15, 2011, would be more appropriate than
August 4, 2011, as requested with their appeal. The additional 10 weeks would bring them through
the end of their typical road construction season, and would help to assure that another TE request
would not be necessary.
In accordance with Title 44 CFR § 206.204(d)(2) the Subgrantee has demonstrated due
diligence in pursuing completion of this project while experiencing delays beyond their ability
to control. Therefore, FEMA approves additional time to complete this project in accordance
with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations § 206.204(d). The deadline to complete this project is
now October 15, 2011.
The Subgrantee may appeal any of these determinations to the Assistant Administrator,
Recovery Directorate, at FEMA Headquarters. If the Subgrantee elects to appeal, the appeal
must: 1) contain documented justification supporting the Subgrantee's position, 2) specify the
monetary figure in dispute, and 3) cite the provisions in federal law, regulation, or policy with
which the Subgrantee believes the initial action was inconsistent. A final appeal must be
submitted to X10w office by the Subgrantee within 60 days of the Subgrantee's receipt of this
Mr. Maruyama
First Appeal-P # 2473
FEMA-1577-DR-CA, P.A. ID: 071-65000-00
Page 3 of 3
determination. Your evaluation of that appeal is required to be submitted through my office to
FEMA's Assistant Administrator, Recovery Directorate, within 60 days of your receipt of the
Subgrantee's letter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at(510) 627-7100 or your
staff may contact Terrie Zuiderhoek, Acting Director of our Recovery Division, at (510) 627-
7250.
Sincerely,
Karen E. Armes
Deputy Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Enclosure
cc: Robert G. Eisenbeisz, P.E.
City of San Bernardino
Developmental Services Department
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
First Appeal Analysis
Log 306255.1
City of San Bernardino
FEMA-DRs 1498 & 1577-CA
P.A. ID: 071-65000-00
Project Worksheets 981 (DR-1498); 2473 (DR-1577)
Background:
Heavy rains and flooding of West Twin Creek damaged the Waterman Canyon Bridge on December
25, 2003 (DR-1498-CA). Before permanent repairs could be made, the bridge was damaged again
by severe storms and flooding that occurred between December 27, 2004 and January 11, 2005 (DR-
1577-CA). During both events debris flows plugged the bridges 10 feet high by 20 feet wide
j concrete box culvert forcing water and debris to overtop the bridge deck.
i
r
The first event resulted in damage to the girders supporting the deck,erosion and undercutting of the
abutments, loss of all guardrails, and significant damage to the 10 feet high by 20 feet long grouted
rock wing wall on the southeast side of the structure. The second event exacerbated these damages
as well as eroding the remaining wing walls, and washing out 150 feet lineal by 31 feet wide of
asphaltic roadway and approaches. After each event, the City of San Bernardino (Subgrantee)
requested Public Assistance reimbursement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's
Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) to address repair of the facility.
On April 16, 2004, FEMA approved Project Worksheet (PW)981 under Disaster 1498 as a category
C PW for an estimated cost of$185,000 to effect repairs by clearing debris, back-filling erosion,
j repairing and recasting damaged girders, and replacing the guardrails. On July 5, 2005, FEMA
approved PW 2473 under Disaster 1577 as a category C PW inclusive of both the damages and
scopes of work (SOW) from the 1498 and the 1577 events. The total combined estimated cost to
repair the bridge from both events was $325,000. At the time it was believed that the bridge could
be replaced by using two railroad flat cars as a deck while providing for a larger capacity culvert
thus mitigating future flood damage for a total cost of$505,000. For this reason, FEMA staff made
a decision to apply the "50% Rule" in accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
§ 206.226 (f). Consequently, PW 2473 was approved to replace rather than repair the bridge, for a
total estimated cost of$505,000.
On June 30, 2009, the Subgrantee sent a letter to the California Emergency Management Agency
(Cal EMA) requesting a change in the SOW and supplemental funding for PW 2473. The
Subgrantee stated the revised SOW was based on locally adopted codes and standards as well as the
requirements of regulatory agencies including the California Department of Transportation. The
Subgrantee requested an additional $2,195,000 for a revised total estimate of$2,700,000 to
implement the new SOW. They also requested a time extension (TE) due to the lengthy
environmental compliance review process for the project. On October 27, 2009, Cal EMA
forwarded the request to FEMA with their full support.
On March 3, 2010, FEMA denied the request for a change in SOW and supplemental funding stating
that in accordance with Title 44 CFR § 206.226 (f)(1), a facility is eligible for replacement only
1 of 3
when the damages exceed 50% of the cost of replacement. The requested cost of$2,700,000 far
exceeded the replacement threshold, therefore the request was denied. FEMA also determined that
the request for additional time to complete the project would be addressed after the Subgrantee
communicated their decision to either repair or replace the facility.
On May 11, 2010, the Subgrantee sent a letter to Cal EMA stating their intent to repair rather than
replace the facility. The Subgrantee reiterated their previous request for a TE through August 4,
2011. They also requested supplemental funding in the amount of$399,677, including$254,000 to
reimburse for expenses incurred for engineering and design of a new bridge. The Subgrantee stated
that they would not have incurred these costs if FEMA had not told them that they could replace the
bridge. On July 9, 2010, Cal EMA forwarded the Subgrantee's request to FEMA with their support.
The Subgrantee also requested the opportunity to reconcile this project in one disaster event rather than
two. As the Subgrantee explained,the work will be completed at one time, under one contract, and
separating the repair cost between disasters may not be possible.
Change in SOW Analysis:
The Subgrantee is now proposing to repair rather than replace the bridge. They are requesting an
additional $145,677 for their proposed repairs. In accordance with Title 44 CFR § 206.202(d)(1) the
Subgrantee provided a revised estimate of the costs to repair the bridge. The estimate addresses
damages from both events and is inclusive of all items necessary to address code requirements and
material costs that were unknown at the time the original estimates were prepared. The Subgrantee
requests that FEMA incorporate the updated estimate into the project file and obligate the additional
funding necessary to match the revised estimate. FEMA has determined in accordance with Title 44
CFR § 206.226(d) that the proposed repairs are eligible.
The Subgrantee is also requesting supplemental funding in the amount of$254,000 to reimburse for
funds spent on design and engineering a replacement bridge. In accordance with Title 44 CFR §
206.223 (a) the Subgrantee was advised and fully aware of the requirements of eligible work and
costs. In accordance with Title 44 CFR § 206.226(2)(d) and (4)(f), it cannot be reasonably
concluded that the Subgrantee would continue with design and engineering of a new bridge after
realizing the cost of replacement equaled more than 500% of repair costs.
Time Extension Analysis:
When granting time extensions, FEMA considers extenuating circumstances beyond the control of
the Subgrantee. The Subgrantee required additional time to re-engineer a repair rather than
replacement of the bridge based on FEMA's determination that the 50%n Rule did not apply to this
facility.
Therefore FEMA has determined in accordance with Title 44 CFR § 206.204 (d)(2) that the
Subgrantee has demonstrated due diligence in pursuing completion of this project while
experiencing delays beyond their ability to control. During a telephone conversation with the
Subgrantee on August 24, 2010, the Subgrantee stated that a TE through October 15, 2011, would be
more appropriate then August 4, 2011, as requested in their first appeal. The additional 10 weeks
2 of3
would bring them through what is typically the end of their road construction season and would help
to assure that another TE will not be necessary.
i
Conclusion:
i
I
FEMA has determined that the Subgrantee's request for the obligation of additional funding for the
approved SOW in the amount of$145,677 is approved. However FEMA has also determined that the
Subgrantee's request for funding in the amount of$254,000 to reimburse for engineering and design
of a new bridge is denied. The total amount of obligated funding for this project is now$500,001.
FEMA has deobligated PW 981 under Disaster 1498 and prepared PW 2473 Version 2 under
Disaster 1577 to reflect the revised estimate. Closeout and final reconciliation of this project will be
addressed under DR-1577-CA.
FEMA has determined the information submitted with the Subgrantee's request for additional time
sufficiently documents an extenuating circumstance beyond their control. Therefore FEMA
approves additional time to complete this project in accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal
Regulations § 206.204(d). The Subgrantee anticipates the project to be completed by October 15,
2011. The deadline to complete this project is now October 15, 2011.
1
i
3of3
r;
6
1 RESOLUTION NO. Corr,
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING
3 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH
AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES
4 FOR THE DESIGN OF OLD WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE REPAIR(SS07-14).
5 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
6 OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
7 SECTION 1. That the City Manager is authorized to execute Amendment No. 4 to the
8 Agreement with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. to provide Professional Engineering Services
9 for the Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Repair (SS07-14) (attached and incorporated
10 herein as Exhibit"A").
11
SECTION 2. This Amendment No. 4 shall not take effect or become operative until
12
13 fully signed and executed by the parties and no party shall be obligated hereunder until the time
14 of such full execution. No oral agreements, amendments, modifications or waivers are intended
15 or authorized and shall not be implied from any act or course of conduct of any party.
16
17 SECTION 3. This resolution is rescinded if the parties to the contract fail to execute it
18 within sixty(60)days of passage of the resolution.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2A
- 1 -
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING
2 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH
AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES
3 FOR THE DESIGN OF OLD WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE REPAIR(SS07-14).
4
5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
6 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held
7 on the day of , 2011, by the following vote, to wit:
8 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
9 MARQUEZ
10 VACANT
11
BRINKER
12
13 SHORETT
14 KELLEY
15 JOHNSON
16 MC CAMMACK
17
18
City Clerk
19
20 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day of , 2011.
21
22 Patrick J. Morris, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
23
24 Approved as to form:
25 JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorney
26
27
By:
28 �� �►�
- 2 -
Exhibit"A"
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT NO 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES is entered into this day of , 2011, AECOM Technical Services,
Inc. ("Consultant") and the City of San Bernardino ("City)."
WITNESSETH:
A. WHEREAS, on May 15, 2006, Resolution No. 2006-145 was adopted approving
Agreement for Professional Services with LAN Engineering Corporation, now known as
AECOM Technical Services, Inc., to provide Engineering Services for the Design of Old
Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement(SS07-14), and
B. WHEREAS, on November 6, 2006, Resolution No. 2006-376 was adopted approving
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Professional Services for additional environmental
services for the Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement (SS07-14), and
C. WHEREAS, on May 7, 2007, Resolution No. 2007-135 was adopted approving
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Professional Services authorizing an Initial Site
Assessment(ISA) for Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement(SS07-14), and
D. WHEREAS, on August 6, 2007, Resolution No. 2007-316 was adopted approving
Amendment No. 3 to Agreement for Professional Services authorizing an asbestos survey
for Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement (SS07-14), and
E. WHEREAS, at City's request, Consultant has submitted a proposal, dated February 24,
2011, to provide Professional Services for the design of the repair of Old Waterman
Canyon Bridge (SS07-14), and
F. WHEREAS, Consultant's proposed fee is fair and reasonable for the work contemplated.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Section 1 of said Agreement for Professional Services is amended to add that the
Consultant shall provide professional services for design of the repair of Old Waterman
Exhibit"A"
Amendment No.4 to Agreement for Professional Services—AECOM Technical Services,Inc.
Page 2 of 3
Canyon Bridge in accordance with Scope of Work proposal, dated February 24, 2011,
(attached and incorporated herein as Attachment"I").
2. Section 5(A) of said Agreement for Professional Services is amended to add the
following paragraph:
The City shall also reimburse the Consultant for actual costs (including labor costs,
employee benefits, overhead, profit, other direct and indirect costs) incurred by the
Consultant in the performance of work involved in designing the repair of Old Waterman
Canyon Bridge as identified in Attachment 2, dated February 24, 2011, in an amount not
to exceed $160,793.44.
The following is a summary of the costs authorized to date for this project:
Description Amount
Original Agreement $224,621.00
Amendment No. 1 $25,916.94
Amendment No. 2 $8,000.00
Amendment No. 3 $3,650.00
Amendment No. 4 this request) $160,793.44
Totals $422,981.38
3. All other terms and conditions of said Agreement for Professional Services, Amendment
No. 1, Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 3 as approved by Resolution Nos. 2006-
145, 2006-376, 2007-135 and 2007-316 shall remain unchanged.
Exhibit"A"
Amendment No.4 to Agreement for Professional Services—AECOM Technical Services,Inc.
f�.
Page 3 of 3
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date shown
below.
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Date: by:
Signature
Print Name/Title
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Date: by:
Charles E. McNeely
City Manager
ATTEST:
Rachel Clark, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James F. Penman
City Attorney
By:
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AMENDMENT NO 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES is entered into this day of , 2011, AECOM Technical Services,
Inc. ("Consultant") and the City of San Bernardino ("City)."
WITNESSETH:
A. WHEREAS, on May 15, 2006, Resolution No. 2006-145 was adopted approving
Agreement for Professional Services with LAN Engineering Corporation, now known as
AECOM Technical Services, Inc., to provide Engineering Services for the Design of Old
Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement(SS07-14), and
B. WHEREAS, on November 6, 2006, Resolution No. 2006-376 was adopted approving
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Professional Services for additional environmental
services for the Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement(SS07-14), and
C. WHEREAS, on May 7, 2007, Resolution No. 2007-135 was adopted approving
Amendment No. 2 to Agreement for Professional Services authorizing an Initial Site
Assessment(ISA) for Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement(SS07-14), and
D. WHEREAS, on August 6, 2007, Resolution No. 2007-316 was adopted approving
Amendment No. 3 to Agreement for Professional Services authorizing an asbestos survey
for Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement (SS07-14), and
E. WHEREAS, at City's request, Consultant has submitted a proposal, dated February 24,
2011, to provide Professional Services for the design of the repair of Old Waterman
Canyon Bridge(SS07-14), and
F. WHEREAS, Consultant's proposed fee is fair and reasonable for the work contemplated.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Section 1 of said Agreement for Professional Services is amended to add that the
Consultant shall provide professional services for design of the repair of Old Waterman
Amendment No.4 to Agreement for Professional Services—AECOM Technical Services,Inc.
Page 2 of 3
Canyon Bridge in accordance with Scope of Work proposal, dated February 24, 2011,
(attached and incorporated herein as Attachment"1").
2. Section 5(A) of said Agreement for Professional Services is amended to add the
following paragraph:
The City shall also reimburse the Consultant for actual costs (including labor costs,
employee benefits, overhead, profit, other direct and indirect costs) incurred by the
Consultant in the performance of work involved in designing the repair of Old Waterman
Canyon Bridge as identified in Attachment 2, dated February 24, 2011, in an amount not
to exceed $160,793.44.
The following is a summary of the costs authorized to date for this project:
Description Amount
-Original Agreement $224,621.00
Amendment No. 1 $25,916.94
Amendment No. 2 $8,000.00
Amendment No. 3 $3,650.00
Amendment No. 4 this request) $160,793.44
Totals $422,981.38
3. All other terms and conditions of said Agreement for Professional Services, Amendment
No. 1, Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 3 as approved by Resolution Nos. 2006-
145, 2006-376, 2007-135 and 2007-316 shall remain unchanged.
Amendment No.4 to Agreement for Professional Services—AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Page 3 of 3
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date shown
below.
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Date: by:
Signature
Print Name/Title
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Date: by:
Charles E. McNeely
City Manager
ATTEST:
Rachel Clark, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James F. Penman
City Attorney
By: ��%v,�✓1�
ATTACHMENT "1"
SCOPE OF WORK
For
CONSULTING SERVICES TO PROVIDE
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES (PS&E)
FOR
OLD WATERMAN CANYON ROAD BRIDGE OVER WEST TWIN CREEK
BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECT
February 24, 2011
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Background
Structure:
The bridge is located at approximately 340 11' 29" north latitude, and 1170 16' 26" west longitude
within the San Bernardino National Forest on Old Waterman Canyon Road between the City of San
Bernardino and Crestline. The bridge is a single span CIP reinforced concrete T Beam structure, which
carries two lanes of traffic (one lane in each direction) over West Twin Creek. The bridge has a total
length of approximately 22'-4". The bridge is approximately 26'-1.25" in width, and provides
approximately 23'-9" of travelled way. The bridge deck is approximately 1'-3.625"thick. The bridge was
constructed in two stages. The first stage was constructed with a depth of approximately 3'-0", and
provided for a width of approximately 20'-6". A subsequent widening on the downstream edge of the
original construction was constructed with a depth of approximately 3'-3.625", and added an additional
width of approximately 5'-7.25". The widening construction included the year of construction cast into
the downstream edge of the bridge (1929). Substructures are skewed to the centerline of Old
Waterman Canyon Road by approximately 22 degrees. The centerline of Old Waterman Canyon Road is
on tangent where it crosses over the bridge. The vertical clearance below the bridge is approximately 8
feet. The superstructure is cast monolithically with the abutments. The construction of the abutments
is uncertain since there are no as built plans available. Wingwalls were constructed on each corner of
the bridge, and extend approximately 7 feet from the bridge, and are placed at approximately 45
degrees from the bridge alignment. The left wingwall at the end of the bridge (at the northwest corner
rt
1
of the bridge) has been exte nded usin g rock and mortar construction, approximately 16 feet on tangent
with the original wingwall construction.
The invert of West Twin Creek has been lined with concrete at the downstream edge of the bridge.
When first observed in 2004, erosion from flowing water had created a waterfall approximately six feet
in height at the downstream edge of the bridge.
Protect History:
On December 25 2003, heavy rains caused the creek in Waterman Canyon to overflow its banks.
Flooding waters uprooted fire damaged trees, and carried mud and rocks up to four feet in diameter
downstream. The floodwaters and debris plugged the 8 ft high and 20 foot wide opening of the Old
Waterman Canyon Bridge. Water and debris overtopped the bridge approximately six feet deep.
In 2004 the City contacted LAN Engineering (now a part of AECOM) to perform a field review of the
bridge. The flow of water in West Twin Creek had done significant damage to the structure. Both
barrier railings and approach guardrails on all four corners of the bridge were completely removed by
the storm flows, the upstream edge of the bridge deck, including the exterior girder, was demolished,
the girder soffits on the downstream edge of the bridge were damaged, a portion of the face of
abutment 2 (north abutment) had been undercut and damaged by flowing water and debris and
required repair, and the RH wingwall at abutment 1 (southeast corner of bridge), had been undermined
and the roadway embankment washed away by water flowing over the top of the roadway. Plans,
specifications and estimates were prepared for the bridge repair, the project was bid and awarded and
work was under way in 2005 when another storm added new damages to the bridge and approach
embankments. At that time the repair project was cancelled.
Based on the FEMA Project Worksheet Report dated June 3, 2005, the roadway surfacing (asphalt
pavement) was washed away for a distance of approximately 70 feet on either end of the bridge, the
footing for the wingwall at the RH side of abutment 1 was damaged, the rock and mortar wingwall
extension on the LH side of abutment 2 was damaged, approximately 50 CY of rock and compacted fill
were scoured away from the downstream side of the bridge, a trench approximately 4 feet deep by 4
feet wide and approximately 80 feet in length was cut into the invert of West Twin Creek underneath
the bridge, and extending downstream of the bridge, girders underneath the bridge were further
damaged,and undercut the RH side of abutment 2.
In 2006 it appeared that federal funds would be made available to support the replacement of the
bridge. The City requested proposals, and LAN was able to prevail in the competition for the project.
PS&E for the replacement project was completed in April, 2008. At that time, the Environmental
Document had not been approved, and the project was placed on hold. Prior to the project being
advertised, the City was notified by FEMA that the bridge replacement would not be funded. After
exhausting the appeal process, the City has resorted to repairing the bridge and approach roadways in
lieu of the bridge replacement.
2
Current Bridge Rehabilitation Proiect:
The repair work required will include the work to repair damages suffered in 2003, 2005,and 2010. The
details that were prepared for the damages suffered in 2003 may have to be modified, and additional
work will be required to repair damages caused by the storm flows that occurred during the winter of
2005. Although the majority of the storm damage related to the 2005 event may be focused on
additional erosion under the wingwalls and substantial downstream erosion due to the outfall effect at
the end of the existing apron, our review of the FEMA Project Worksheet Report leads us to the
conclusion that substantial revisions to the existing plan set developed in 2003 may be needed to
address the current condition of the bridge.
1.2 STANDARDS
Latest Editions
AECOM will perform all services under the Agreement in conformance and in compliance with the latest
City of San Bernardino Standard Drawings and Specifications, AASHTO Standards, Caltrans Standards,
the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC),and other applicable Standards.
Conflicts
In case of conflict, ambiguities, discrepancies, errors, or omissions among the reference materials
obtained by AECOM from other agencies, AECOM shall submit the matter to the City for clarification.
Any work affected by such conflicts, ambiguities, discrepancies, errors or omissions which is performed
by AECOM prior to clarification by City shall be at AECOM's risk and expense.
In event that any non-standard features become necessary during the initial design, AECOM will prepare
the necessary design exceptions following Caltrans guidelines. AECOM will certify the project including
PS&E in accordance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures.
Plans Specifications and Estimates(PS&E)
PS&E will be prepared in English units and in conformance with the latest editions of applicable
standards. As part of the work involved in the preparation of the PS&E, AECOM will prepare Special
Provisions pertaining to items of work included in the plans that are not addressed in the latest editions
of applicable standards AECOM will furnish and compile Special Provisions to include the City's contract
administration requirements.
Reference Materials
AECOM will utilize the following references. AECOM will be responsible for ensuring that the most
recent version of all reference materials are used, including any addenda and errata.
• Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
• MUTCD California Supplement
• Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC)
3
• City Standard Drawings and Specifications
• Applicable Local Codes and Manuals
• Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)
1.3 DESIGN CRITERIA
The following is a general listing of specific design criteria, which will be adhered to. This list is not
comprehensive and other standards may apply. AECOM will adhere to all criteria applicable to the
project as a matter of standard of practice.
Drafting
Roadway,Structure and related plans will be prepared on standard plan sheets acceptable to the City.
AECOM will submit all final plans on CD ROM using AutoCad file format in accordance with Caltrans'
standards. All electronic files will include the engineer's electronic signature and seal.
Roadway
AECOM will adhere to City of San Bernardino design standards.
Design Surveys
It is assumed that the City will perform any required design surveys including mapping, necessary to
complete a constructible PS&E. This includes horizontal and vertical control, drainage surveys,
topographical surveys,cross sections,grid grades, and required documentation.
Utilities
Conflicts with utilities have been addressed in 2004, for the original bridge repair project, and again in
2006 for the bridge replacement project. AECOM will update the utility information at the project site.
In the event that a new utility is identified, and could present a potential conflict, AECOM will be
responsible to provide subsurface utility location services to determine horizontal and vertical
underground utility positions of the potential conflict. AECOM will have the ability to obtain necessary
pothole information including exploration for such information. A potholing subcontractor has not been
added to the project development team because the need for such services is considered unlikely.
However, supplemental costs have been included in the proposal to cover the costs of this work, should
it be needed.
2.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
AECOM will carry out the instructions as received from the City's Project Manager and will cooperate
with other agencies,which might be stakeholders on the project.
In those instances where AECOM believes a better design or solution to a problem is possible, AECOM
will promptly notify the City's Project Manager of these concerns,together with the reasons therefore.
4
AECOM will be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the reports, plans, specifications,
estimates, and related material prepared for the project. AECOM will independently check and identify
the engineer and checker for all such material prior to any submittal. The plans, concepts, reports, and
documentation will be reviewed by the City, and/or the City's designee for conformity to
constructability and overall project consistency. Reviews by the City, and/or the City's designee, or
other agencies are understood will not include a detailed review or check of design of major
j components and related details,or the accuracy with which such designs are depicted on the plans.
AECOM will not incorporate materials, or equipment of single or sole source origin without prior written
approval of the City.
The plans, specifications, estimates, calculations, reports, and other documents furnished under this
Scope of Work will be of a quality acceptable to the City and other reviewing agencies. The minimum
criteria for acceptance will be a product of neat appearance that is well organized, technically and
grammatically correct, and thoroughly checked. The appearance, organization and content of the
drawings will be to applicable standards. AECOM will be responsible to bring work up to the quality
required for acceptance of the work by the City and other stakeholders.
The page identifying preparers of engineering reports, the title for specifications and each sheet of
plans, will bear the professional seal, certificate number and expiration date, registration classification,
and the signature of the California Registered Professional Engineer(s) responsible for their preparation.
AECOM will maintain an organized set of project files that are indexed in accordance with our
established filing system. Files will be maintained over the course of project development electronically.
The City may audit project files as needed.
AECOM will submit all final plans on CD ROM using AutoCad file format. All electronic files will include
the engineer's electronic signature and seal.
To assist in understanding contract objectives and requirements, AECOM will hold regular meetings with
the City and stakeholders as applicable, as-needed and concurred to by the City. The primary purpose of
these meetings is to discuss work objectives, AECOM's work schedule, the terms of the contract and
other related issues. In addition, the meetings will serve as a forum for resolving any issues related to
the PS&E development.
AECOM may establish direct contact with governmental regulatory and resource agencies and others in
order to obtain information, expertise, and assistance in developing baseline data and resource
inventories. AECOM will maintain a record of such contacts and will transmit copies of those records to
the City on a regular basis.
AECOM will comply with OSHA regulations regarding safety equipment and procedures. While working
on the job site, AECOM's personnel will wear hard hats, rubber soled shoes, and appropriate safety
vests.
5
Where this Scope of Work requires AECOM to prepare and submit studies, reports, plans, etc., to the
City or other agencies, these materials will be submitted in draft as scheduled, and the opportunity
provided for reviewing agencies to request revisions, prior to final submission.
Throughout the design of this project, AECOM will consider least cost alternatives analysis for major
project components, where appropriate.
The City's Project Manager will administer the AECOM contract and provide general direction to
AECOM.
AECOM is responsible for providing a Quality Assurance Program.
3.0-STATEMENT OF WORK
3.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT/COORDINATION/ADMINISTRATION
This task covers project management services including the requirements for meetings, schedules,
progress reports, invoicing,and administration of AECOM's work.
Coordination and Meetings
Meetings will be held to discuss issues pertinent to analysis, design, and effects of the Project. During
these meetings, the City, may provide direction for development of the PS&E. AECOM will participate in
regular Project Development Team (PDT) Meetings with the City. PDT meetings will be held as needed
to confirm preferred rehabilitation design strategies.
AECOM Meetinp,Deliverables
Following are the meeting materials that AECOM will be responsible for preparing and providing:
• Agenda • Decision Log
• Handouts • Minutes
• Action Item List • Progress plans
Administration
Following are administrative duties, which shall be performed by AECOM:
• Apply for and obtain approvals as required.
• Prepare, circulate, and file correspondence and memoranda as appropriate.
• Maintain Project files using AECOM's standard filing system.
6
Schedule
AECOM will submit an initial Project Schedule within 10 working days following Notice to Proceed.
Upon approval by City, this schedule will become the Project Baseline Schedule. Deviations from the
approved Project Baseline Schedule will be identified on subsequent Project Schedule updates. The
following elements will be included by AECOM in the Schedule:
• Work items and deliverables identified in accordance with a Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) developed by AECOM and approved by the City
• Work items of other third parties that may affect or be affected by AECOM's activities
• All reviews per submittal, number of reviews and duration expected by AECOM based
on AECOM'S experience
• The Project Schedule shall include all data necessary to represent the total Project and
the critical path shall be clearly identified
• The order, sequence, and interdependence of significant work items shall be reflected
on the Project Schedule
• The following list of major tasks shall be used to develop the Project Schedule:
Task 1: Project Management/Coordination/Administration
Task 2: Environmental Document Verification/Supplemental Environmental
technical Studies/Regulatory Permitting
Task 3: Site Investigations/Utilities/Mapping/Surveying/Reports
Task 4: 65% PS&E Submittal (unchecked details)
Task 5: 100% PS&E Submittal (checked details) &Camera Ready PS&E Submittal
Task 6: RE Pending File, Final Engineer's Estimate and Final Working Day
Schedule
Task 7: Construction Bid Support
Task 8: Construction Support
Task 9: Project Closeout
Schedule updates will be part of the Progress Reports.
Progress Reports
AECOM will report the progress of the work on a monthly basis. Progress shall be based on percent
complete such as number of drawings or deliverables completed or estimated progress toward
completion.
AECOM will submit one copy of a monthly Progress Report to the City Project Manager consisting of a
written narrative and an updated bar chart format of the Project Schedule. The narrative portion of the
7
t
monthly Progress Report shall describe overall progress of the work, discuss significant issues and
present proposed corrective action.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan
AECOM will maintain a Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan throughout the performance of services
under this Agreement. The QA/QC Plan is intended to ensure that reports, plans, studies, estimates, and
other documents submitted under the Agreement are complete, accurate, checked, conform to
standards, and are proofread to meet professional engineering practices in effect at the time of
execution of the Agreement, and of a quality acceptable to the City.
The following quality control elements will be implimented by AECOM throughout the preparation of
PS&E for the project.
1. Independent checking and verification of all calculations including adherence to Caltrans Bridge
Independent Check requirements and documentation.
2. Independent checking, correction, and back checking for all plans. Plans will be marked clearly
as being checked, signifying that the preparation of the material followed the QA /QC Plan
established for the project.
3. The QA / QC Plan will include a procedure where each deliverable is certified by the Quality
Manager or Project Manager as being prepared and checked in accordance with the approved
CIA/QC Plan.
4. Each deliverable will be certified by the Quality Manager or Project Manager as being prepared
and checked in accordance with the approved QA/QC Plan.
5. AECOM's Project Manager or Quality Manager will be qualified and certified to implement the
Quality Control and Quality Assurance program.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT SUPPORT
The City will develop the Environmental Document needed for construction.
It is expected that no additional effort will be needed to support the conclusions or preparation of the
final Environmental Document. However, there is a risk that permitting resource agencies may require
portions of the existing technical studies to be updated for permitting purposes. In order to provide for
this possibility, supplemental funds have been added to the proposal in order to cover the costs of this
effort.
If needed, AECOM will prepare technical studies to support the environmental clearance and
environmental permitting efforts. A detailed scope of work for this effort is included as an attachment
to this proposal. The scope of work developed for this task includes effort needed to update technical
studies. It is understood that the City will select the work to be performed. The fees required to cover
this work have been itemized by task, and are included in the attached proposal as supplemental work.
8
3.3 SITE INVESTIGATIONS/UTILITIES/MAPPING/REPORTS
Site Investigations
AECOM will conduct a thorough, field investigation of the project site to identifying existing site
conditions and physical constraints of the project areas including utilities and all required
investigations to prepare PS&E.
Design Surveys
The City will perform any needed design surveys during this phase. AECOM will identify any
survey information needed to complete the PS&E, and will submit a formal request for survey
information to the City's Project Manager. Survey will be performed under an existing on-call
contract.
I The City will provide all survey record information, including documentation and field
identification of any benchmarks or monuments that exist at the project site.
i
f
The City will establish centerline control of existing Old Waterman Canyon Road and West Twin
Creek.
3.4 65%PS&E SUBMITTAL
z
AECOM will meet with City staff to review the project, including field review with the City to establish
the required scope of rehabilitation required. This review will be the first order of business, and will
form the basis for the development of the 65%submittal.
AECOM will prepare and submit to the City a Design Standards Exception report for non-standard design
features. Deviation from design standards will be reviewed and subject to approval by the City.
AECOM will prepare layout plans and structural details for the bridge rehabilitation construction.
AECOM will also prepare draft technical special provisions for the bridge rehabilitation. Bridge
rehabilitation design will be in accordance with specified criteria per Caltrans, and City Standards.
Details and construction specifications will be prepared in accordance with City and Caltrans Standard
Plans, Standard Specifications, and Standard Special Provisions. AECOM will develop a marginal
estimate of construction costs.
Erosion Control and Water Quality Treatment
AECOM will develop the required Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and incorporate its
recommendations into the project's PS&E. An erosion control plan will be prepared to identify the
construction Best Management Practices (BMP's)for the project. It is assumed that no long term water
quality treatment BMP's will be required for the project, and that the current version (effective March
2011) of the San Bernardino County WQMP template will be in effect.
9
3.5 100%PS&E SUBMITTAL
AECOM will incorporate City comments into the bridge rehabilitation plans and estimates as a result of
the 65% PS&E review. Where it is not possible or desirable to incorporate certain comments, AECOM
will provide a written explanation and meet with appropriate City staff as required in order to resolve
differences.
AECOM will independently review the unchecked plans, draft special provisions, quantities, and
construction cost estimate for the Bridge rehabilitation. AECOM's independent review team will analyze
the structure elements, verify member capacities, review the special provisions, and prepare
independent quantity calculations. All issues raised by the checkers will be resolved with the structural
designers. The final design will reflect agreement among the designers and independent checkers.
Prepare a working day construction schedule in consultation with the City, based on the estimated
required effort for project construction.
AECOM will provide the following information for the City's Project Manager file:
• Surveying Notes
• Cross Sections As-Needed
• Relevant correspondence and memoranda
• Engineering calculations
• Water Quality Management Plan
3.6 CONSTRUCTION BIDDING PHASE
j
Bidding procedures will be the responsibility of the City. In addition,the City will:
Advise AECOM of bids solicited.
Inform AECOM of all issues and inquiries and responses to those inquiries.
Provide AECOM with bid results and summary sheets for their review.
In the event that items requiring interpretation of the drawings or specifications are discovered during
the bidding period, the City will inform AECOM. Any necessary corrective action will either be in the
form of an addendum prepared by AECOM and issued by the City or via a covering change order after
the award of the construction contract.
AECOM will attend a pre-bid meeting.
AECOM will draft responses to bidders' inquiries as requested by the City. All such responses will be
routed through the City's Project Manager or his/her designee.
3.7 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT PHASE
10
Construction of the project will be the responsibility of the City's Contractor. During the construction
phase, AECOM will work closely with the Project Manager within the budget allotted to assist and
provide advice on issues in order to minimize construction conflicts and to expedite project completion.
AECOM will attend the pre-construction meeting.
AECOM will review all submittals and shop drawings. The review of shop drawings will include bridge
working drawing submittals, construction contractor's submittals for substitutions, construction
contractor's alternative construction details, steel layout for structures, independent check of
construction contractor's falsework submittal and others as requested by the City's Project Manager.
If requested by the City, AECOM will prepare additional drawings and change order-supporting
documents. Any such additional drawings constitute extra work;therefore, prior approval from the City
is required. Any such additional engineering services, drawings, or change order documentation
prepared prior to receiving the required approval will beat AECOM's risk and expense.
AECOM will visit the job site as requested by the City.
AECOM will draft responses to contractor inquiries and RFIs as requested by the City's Project Manager.
AECOM will review proposed change orders, draft change order language, and make recommendations
as requested by the City's Project Manager.
The City will:
Inform AECOM of all field changes and Contract Change Orders(CCOs)
Prepare and maintain as-built mark-ups in the field
In the case of errors and/or omissions,AECOM will furnish additional and/or revised drawings necessary
for corrections and change orders. The City will provide a written request for such drawings and AECOM
will provide said drawings at no additional cost to the City. AECOM will also provide contract wording
for related change orders to the City at no additional cost.
AECOM will be responsible for incorporating as-built revisions into the project plans.
3.8 PROJECT CLOSEOUT
The City is responsible for maintaining field as-built plans. These marked up plans will form the basis for
the development of the Final record drawings. In developing the Final record drawings, AECOM will
follow all requirements as specified and submit to the City no later than 60 days after construction
contract acceptance by the City.
11
Ali
i
3.9 PROJECT SCHEDULE
Activity Proposed Date
Notice to Proceed April 5,2011
A. Begin Work April 5, 2011
B. Submit 65%PS&E May 3, 2011
C. Submit 100% PS&E to the City May 31, 2011
D. Advertise June 28, 2011
E. Award July 27, 2011
F. Begin Construction August 10, 2011
G. Completion of Construction January 3, 2012
* Dates to be discussed with City staff.
Please note that the schedule shown does not anticipate the performance of technical studies in support of the
Environmental Document or environmental permitting. If it is determined that it is necessary to update biological
technical studies, the schedule must be amended to include time to conduct and report the results of those
studies.
12
ATTACHMENT "2"
II
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR
DESIGN OF BRIDGE REHABILITATION AT OLD WATERMAN CANYON ROAD
OVER
WEST TWIN CREEK
FEE PROPOSAL FOR BRIDGE REHABILITATION
Rev.2
24-Feb-11
AECOM
901 Via Piemonte, 5th Floor
Ontario, CA 91764
(909) 579-3050
0 0
a
I o �;
ko
J � 00 M
1- Ln W 0
LD f-4
W O O O O O F" O O F ll� O
LAJ -j V N 00 m 00 00 O w m O LD O �D _
1- N -4 M Ol U V M 00 N M
Z Q Vl h N 1D Z 00 00 lD L6 06
Vn tD
tn r1l 11 1-4 14
W O.
F N O j
kA
V1 Q J
� W
3 0 0
W
3 O O O O
W O
0 V N N N
O VT (V to
m • An
0
a' O
O c
W Z •
Z v O
> z
cc w Q H U 00 00 00 00 00 00 a O a
O O N O N
Z z i c m N O N 00 00
� O1 M m (Y1
W Q N 00
m
C n V1
Z
co ZA C9 0 W N N -4 -4 tn � t/T tR LO
Vf Vn to N
H a 3 •
LL z
0 O O
•
_ W O
LL
U O OLL z
a z O
O Q
F= oc
Q �-
� N �
J z W
m p
� Q D
Z a ~^ a
OWC Z Q v
u
w F K z N
O z 0
w
cc o w N
LU
LL C z N O
W
LU
z z w F O W O a
(7 Q a W z rj 6L F-
V Q
W
N F 06 � 0 O� p J H o7S }O Z
G Q w Na Ln w j FF- Q z N 1-
CW
N o J N Z z Q Z J G •
J O * O J p O W H F= ui
Z o O 00 V O a
a •
{J -j O
co
H
W d V J
Q
C
(A •
CL H or o
a
Exhibit Page 1
City of San Bernardino
FEE PROPOSAL
Project:WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE REHABILITATION
Rev.2-February 24,2011
Client: City of San Bernardino Consultant: AECOM Engineering Corp.
Development Services Department 901 Via Piemonte, 5th Floor
Public Works/Engineering Ontario, CA 91764
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
ATTN: Mr. Michael Grubbs ATTN: M. Char
Element: Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Project No.
Bridge Rehabilitation Prepared by: TWD
Date: 2/24/2011
Proposed Services:
Develop final design,plans, special provisions and final documents for project construction.
0 Manhour Estimate: Man Salary
Hours Rate Cost
1 Project Manager 189 150.00 28,350
2 Senior Engineer 218 135.00 29,430
3 Professional Engineer 140 120.00 16,800
4 Associate Engineer 14 90.00 1,260
5 Administrative 32 60.00 1,920
6 Principal/QC/QA 26 210.00 5,460
7 Bridge CAD 106 80.00 8,480
Total Cost+Fee $91,700
Other Direct Costs:
Other Direct Costs (Billed at actual cost with receipts)
1 Reproduction $0
2 Copying $141
3 Plotting $356
4 Trans portation/Travel $102
5 Special Deliveries $125
6 Computer Costs $0
Subtotal -In - House ODC $724
Fee (Profit) 0% $0
7 Supplemental Costs $68,369
Subtotal- ODC $69,093
Total Proposed Fee
Total Amount $160,793
Exhibit_ Page 2
City of San Bernardino
FEE PROPOSAL
Project:WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE REHABILITATION
Rev.2-February 24,2011
Client: City of San Bernardino Date:2/24/2011
Element: Old Waterman Canyon Road Bride Pro':
Labor Hours by Classification
No of 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 7 Total
Sheets PM Sr.E PE Assoc Admin QC/QA CAD Subs Hours Subtotal
TASKS
00 Project Management and Administration
1 Meetings -$ _$- . .16 32 $2,880
2 Pr'ect Correspondence and Record Keepin 16 16 960
3 Field Visit
Subtotal 14 14 32 60 $5,280.00
01 65%SPSBE
_1 .—Update Util� r Information--- ----- 4 - 8 _ - --- -- - —12. . _.__$1 560
2 Layout and Detail Plan Sheets 24 56 _ 80 160_ $17,560
3 Technical.Provisions— --_----- -- --- ._...___24 _—__—.-- —__24 -_ $%600-
4 Design Quantities and Cost Estimate 4 10 14 _ $1,950
5 QA/QC 12 12 $2,520
Subtotal 56 66 140 12 80 222 $27,190.00
02 100%SPSBE
1 Peer Review _ _-- 40 ____$4,800
2 Update-Plans and Respond toComments 8 8 40 Pre are Final Estimate 4 4 12 $1,620
4 Incorporate_Final Revisions to SSP's 12 _—. __— __—_.___.1_�_._._.-.._._._.-.51-800
5 PreR4re RE Pending_File.and Calculations— 2 8,. _._._ --- _____ 10 ._----------51y380.
6 QA/QC 6 6 $1,260
Subtotal 26 20 52 6 16 120 $15,380.00
--03___CI_v_ILEngineerin9.------------------------------ ---- _
—4 $--- - - --- _-- -----—12 - — $1,560
_2 Channel GradingandRestoration— _ 16 —40 __--_- _—_ _ _—__--._-56 $7200_.
3 Construction Details 8 32 _ 40 $5,040
_4Technical Prov_isions_.. ---------- —-------- ------ --8 — ---- --- -- -................. ... -4 ............----$1120.0.
5 Quantifies and Estimate 4 4 8_ ___$1,140
6 QA/QC I 1 1 4 4 -___ $840
Subtotal 40 4 80 4 1 128 $16,980.00
04 Bid Support
1 Attend Pre-Bid Meeting 4 4 600
2 _Response to_Bid Inquiries-. .--------__-- _-- 12_ - --___-- -- -- -- _ ___-,-- 12.............._.t-AQ-
3 Pre are Addendum As-Needed 1 8 24 4 10 46 $6,080
Subtotal 24 24 4 10 62 $8,480.00
05 Construction Support
1 Review Concrete Mix Designs ........ _.-.. -- 5 16
_..2 --Review Shop_Drawings_. ._-----__.-----_.--- . _ 8 40 ___--_ - — — — ._.._48 $6,600
2 _Respond,to Contractors BFI's 8 40 __.48 $6,600.
2 Field Review Work As-Needed 8 8 16 $2 280_
Subtotal 29 104 133 $18,390.00
Total 189 218 140 14 1 32 1 725 $91,700.00
t.
Exhibit Page 3
City of San Bernardino
FEE PROPOSAL
Project:WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE REHABILITATION
Rev.2-February 24,2011
Client: City of San Bernardino Date: 2/24/2011
Element: Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Proj: 0
Bridge Rehabilitation
Ref# Description Unit Amount Cost/Unit Total
1 Reproduction/Plotting
Number of Drawings 15 Ea
Size of Drawings(Half Size) 1.5 Sq Ft
Size of Drawings Full Size 6 Sq Ft
Bluelines(Full Size) 0 Sets 0 Sq Ft 0.15 /Sq Ft $0
Xerox(Full Size) 0 Sets 0 Sq Ft 0.50/Sq Ft $0
Sepia transparency(Full Size) 0 Sets 0 Sq Ft 0.80 /Sq Ft $0
Contact Mylars(Full Size) 0 Sets 0 Sq Ft 1.90 /Sq Ft $0
Vellums Full Size 0 Sets 0 Sq Ft 0.95 /Sq Ft 0
Subtotal(1) $0
2 Copying/Binding
Reports 0 Sets 100 Sheets 0.08 /Sheet 8
Calculations 2 Sets 200 Sheets 0.08 /Sheet 32
Specifications 3 Sets 200 Sheets 0.08 /Sheet 48
Half Size Drawings 12 Sets 180 Sheets 0.25 /Sheet 45
Bindin (Reports) 5 Ea 5 Tot 1.5 Ea 8
Subtotal(2) $140.50
3 Plotting
Plotting(Half Size) 3 Sets 45 Sheets 5.75 /Sheet 259
Plotting Full Size 1 Sets 15 Sheets 6.50 /Sheet 98
Subtotal(3) $356.25
4 Transportation/Travel
Flight 0 Ea 0 200 0
Rental Car 0 Days 0 50 0
Hotel/Per Diem 0 Days 0 70 0
Personal Car(Mileage) 100 Miles 2 Trips 0.51 102
Subtotal(4) $102.00
5 Special Deliveries
Express Mail 5 Total 1 Ea 25 125
Special Delivery 0 Ea 0 Ea 55 0
Subtotal(5) $125.00
6 Computer Costs
Engineering Design 0 Hr 8 0
CAD 0 Hr 24 0
Subtotal(6) $0.00
7 Supplemental Costs
Utility Potholing 1,500.00
Environmental SuRport 66,869.44
Subtotal( upp emen a Costs)
Total (1 through 7) $67,593.19
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Rehabilitation
Environmental Scope of Work
It is our understanding that the City of San Bernardino(City) is pursuing a rehabilitation project for the
Waterman Canyon Road Bridge project. ICF previously prepared biological resources,cultural resources,
and water quality reports for use by the City in preparing the CEQA document. As requested, ICF has
prepared the below scope and cost related updating the jurisdictional delineation and obtaining the 401
Water Quality Certification, Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, and Section 404 Permit for
the proposed project. It is assumed that the City will continue to be responsible for all other CEQA
documentation(including the CEQA document)that is not specified in this scope of work. Only the
items specifically included in this scope of work apply. No other effort is assumed or implied. If any
other documentation or surveys are required by the City of any of the reviewing agencies then a separate
scope and cost will be submitted for approval before c6mmencing with this effort.
Project Management and Meetings
This task includes management of the environmental effort by the ICF Project Manager and attendance at
up to three project meetings by the ICF Project Manager. It is assumed that AECOM would be
responsible for preparing the minutes for these meetings with input from ICF.
Deliverables:
• Project Management(assumes six months)
• Attendance by ICF Project Manager at up to three(3)meetings.
Biological Resources
Task 1. Jurisdictional Delineation and Report
A qualified biologist will examine all relevant portions of the site and perform a routine-level
preliminary delineation of the extent of potentially jurisdictional waters under both state and
federal regulations. Evaluation for federal wetlands will follow the applicable methods in the
1987 manual from the Corps of Engineers and 2008 Arid West supplement from the Corps of
Engineers, along with subsequent supporting materials and applicable regulations, policy, and
case law. The study area for this work will include the proposed project footprint along with a
200-foot buffer(study area). Evaluation of existing functions and values for jurisdictional areas
will be addressed at a qualitative level. Mapping will be performed to reflect the delineated
boundaries of any jurisdictional waters and wetlands present. Photographs representative of
relevant site conditions will be taken.
As part of this task a separate jurisdictional delineation report will be prepared that includes
background information, delineation methods, and the results of this delineation in text,tabular,
and graphical formats. The report will meet the standard requirements for a delineation report in
the applicable regions of the Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The field determination with the Corps of Engineers and
Department of Fish and Game is included. Agency coordination will occur soon after the initial
field work has been conducted to ensure that all agency concerns are addressed. Up to three (3)
copies of the draft and five(5) copies of the final report will be provided to the client. It is
assumed that the City will review the draft report and provide one set of integrated comments
and that a final report will then be provided.
Deliverables:
• Draft(3 hard copies)and Final(5 hard copies and one cd)Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Permitting
Task]: Management, Meetings, and Coordination
Communication and coordination will be facilitated through progress meetings and project
conference calls. The ICF Permitting Lead will attend up to two (2) project related meetings
with the City. Meetings beyond this amount would be charged on a time and materials basis.
This task also includes the coordination and management efforts by the ICF Permitting Lead.
Task 2: Review of Project Information and Applicable Literature
Readily available,potentially relevant project,regulatory, and biological resource information
will be reviewed prior to any fieldwork. It is assumed that no revisions to the Jurisdictional
Delineation Report prepared for the proposed project(as described previously)will be required
by the permitting agencies. No additional biological analyses, reporting, or delineation work is
assumed or included in this scope of work beyond what is done as part of the Biological
Resources scope of work provided above.
Task 3: Preparation of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Authorization Application
This scope and cost assumes that the project would be processed under the USACE Nationwide Permit
(NWP)Program. Although not expected, if the District Engineer determines that the project would result
in a significant adverse impact to the aquatic environment or if the impacts to wetlands or waters of the
U.S. exceed NWP thresholds,then an Individual Permit(IP)would be required. The preparation and
processing of an IP has not been included in this scope of work and budget; however, if an IP is required
then a scope and budget for performing these services would be provided to AECOM and the City for
approval prior to conducting this work.
A written request for Authorization under the 404 NWP program will be prepared and submitted to
AECOM and the City for review and submittal to the USACE. Any fees associated with the application
are assumed to be the responsibility of the City and are not included in the attached cost estimate. The
request for a NWP generally includes:
1. Detailed description of the proposed project, including grading plans provided by the
Applicant.
2. Detailed description of the jurisdictional areas to be impacted by the proposed project.
3. Discussion of approvals and certifications being obtained from other federal, state, or
local agencies.
4. Conceptual Restoration plan. The conceptual plan involves identification of available
mitigation(i.e., local mitigation banks, onsite restoration, etc.) and a brief description of
the mitigation proposal in the permit applications. This task does not include preparation
of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan(HMMP)which would be required prior to
construction for on-or off-site habitat restoration or creation, if required.
5. The Streambed Alteration Notification package submitted to the CDFG.
6. The request to the RWQCB for water quality certification(or a waiver thereof).
7. The request to the State Historical Preservation Office(SHPO) for information regarding
the potential presence of historical properties and the cultural resource report submitted to
the Applicant in response.
Task 4: Preparation of a Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Water Quality
Certification Notification
A written request for 401 water quality certification will be prepared and submitted to the
RWQCB for processing. The request will include a completed application form, detailed project
description, a description of proposed impacts, a water quality plan identifying project-specific
Best Management Practices(BMPs) (assumed to be provided by AECOM),the approved CEQA
Document, and a conceptual mitigation plan. It is assumed that the conceptual mitigation plan
that is prepared for the proposed project will not require more than 60 hours for preparation. If
additional time is required then this will be communicated to the City and AECOM and a scope
and cost for any additional efforts will be provided. This task assumes that permit application
fees will be provided by the City. These fees are not included in the cost estimate that is
attached.
Task 5: Preparation of a California Department of Fish and Game 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement Notification
A Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification will be prepared and submitted to
the CDFG for processing. The request will include a completed application form, detailed
project description, a description of proposed impacts,the CEQA Notice of Determination, and a
conceptual mitigation plan. It is assumed that the conceptual mitigation plan described under
Task 4 will be sufficient for use under this task and that no additional plan will be required. This
task assumes that permit application fees will be provided by the City. These fees are not
included in the cost estimate that is attached.
Task 6: Local, State and Federal Regulatory Agency Coordination
ICF will coordinate with the applicant(City) and the resource agencies (RWQCB, CDFG, and
USACE)throughout the permit processing period. Based upon previous experience, the permit
process described above is expected to require 90 days from the time of submittal, but may take
longer if interagency coordination is required (e.g. Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS)). This scope of work includes up to 50 hours of agency coordination
time, which may include the following activities: formally responding to comments on permit
applications, informal telephone correspondence to address any questions and ensure rapid
processing, and potentially 1 (one) site visit or meeting with regulatory agency staff.
As the extent of agency comments can be unpredictable, coordination required above the 50
hours will be billed on a time and materials basis. Other coordination activities may be required
depending on the extent of Project impacts and/or unforeseen legislative changes.
This scope and cost does not include the preparation of any NEPA or CEQA documentation
and/or any Section 7 or other species consultation. Only those items specifically identified in
this scope and cost are included. No other effort is assumed or implied.
8
O
r
0 0
0 0 0 0
d 0 0
d y N 7 m n N
O
69 to N O
x E9
w
d
� O'O'N'O'O�N'N'O•W• V ��
i M �' �
' f9
'°'`P' «
F' Vi•�• •�'M O'N' 'N. .O UI
O 'N.oct. 'V.m. O. M W
'V'M. .M.V• :n. V U
En
J :�.
N
m
00 00 'o U) M O) N C
C N . V N .0
, Ol N
O O
C V M D O
O
m O to f9
U �
-, •o'o' (o (D � 'n (o ro ro
2
J O
o
C = U 69 E
C 6
. ;
U _ ° N r I- N O NI
• C N N N V W r- 69
CL
Q c0 69 to 69 O
t . _
NZ ° m N co t0 O
LL C C N M 0 N O
Q' O - Mm f9
ca (0 (9 O U
L ;O:
N (O 1 M r N
YA M O (D O� M
co to m
O N a O
U U
U OI w N V O a0 O
c c a w o ao co r ao y
- .n c M 'O f9 D1 V
C
O ---------------------
M M m 5
t U U c o M n o i...
d a1 t M V (O V V T
y.l N V M
fA f9 V!60 V L
V
> a f9
(O p
N V O M V O a
O t0 (0 N 5 N V 69 m O
` ? U' Q C M (9 69 f�
U
V (O N W (O
(� N O) O 'n W I- O r�
N O N u! N V H9 w 1-
O O a cc f9 fA fA m
W
W a 5 :N;N; ,N (D 'O V M N N
y( (D (D 'O 0O
c m u v m ri
N d O V rn(9 'n N
a U r9 i9 'n
U N
t0 C Ki
U u
CO D)
U U t0 (p O O
O N N
> O fA N N M
zi
~ U a
o c E
Z -j m LL
U N
>
O y C(ID) O O
o a` o m U)� �_ 2
LU M
h � C
Q)
C o
O M �
U-
0 p
O) ^
C' 01' : d: oc: C c p N
U d
fYq d, N: O:h. �: tel: .O-. d y a 'C
6". C. O-. C. :p N 1n - (D a
F
M. M. :Ir:'.°�: C: :v C O
.0 2 O."
O; N i0
O U > a) N N N O
d: :fa: :d: F- a 0 U) O �n 'n '9 F-