HomeMy WebLinkAbout39-Development Services
---
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From:
J ames Funk, Director
Subject:
Cancellation of contract with GWINCO Construction
and Engineering, Inc. for Old Waterman Canyon Road
Bridge Repair (SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, payment
to GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for
direct and indirect costs incurred for Old Waterman
Canyon Road Bridge Repair (SS05-1 I) per plan no.
11304, and Resolution approving Agreement for
Professional Services with LAN Engineering
Corporation to provide Engineering Services for the
Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement
and authorization for the Director of Finance to amend
the FY 05/06 Budget.
Dept:
Development Services
Date:
May 3, 2006
ORIGINAL
MCC Date:
May 15, 2006
S)'llopsis of Previous Council Action:
Sept. 2004 Approved 2004/2005 CIP (SS05-11) Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair.
Aug. 2005 Approved 2005/2006 CIP (SS05-11) Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair.
Dec. 20, 2004 Adopted Reso. No. 2004-391 awarding a contract to Gwinco Construction and Engineering. Inc., for Old
Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair (SS05-11) in the amount of$141,991.76.
Recommended .Motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council:
1. Cancel the contract with GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair
(SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, under provisions of Section 6-5 of the Standard Specifications; and
2. Authorize payment of $19,368.00 out of gas tax funds (Acct No. 126-369-5504-7452) to GWINCO Construction and
Engineering, Inc. for direct and indirect costs incurred for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair (SS05-11) per plan no.
11304, and authorize the transfer of $19,400 from Acct. No. 126-369-5504-7522 to Acct. No. 126-369-5504-7452; and
3. Authorize the Director of Finance to amend the FY05-06 budget to appropriate $505,000 in the Street Construction Fund
(Account No. 242-362-5504-7671) for the "Old Waterman Canyon bridge Replacement" and to budget revenue
reimbursement for the project from FEMA ($378,800); DES ($94,700); and the City's share of$31,500 to be transferred from
1/2 Cent Sales and Road Tax from Acct. No. 129-367-5504-7156 (Street and Safety Improvements) to Acct. No. 129-367-
5504-7671 (Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement); and
4. Adopt Resolution approving Agreement for Professional Services with LAN Engineering Corporation to provide Engineering
Services for the Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement. h Q -/"
James Funk
Cnntact Person: Michael Grubbs, Eng. Mgr./Field Engineer
Phone:
5179
Staff Report, Maps, Reso., Attach.
Supporting data attached: (Agreement) and Attach. B (RFP)
Ward:
4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $19.368.00 (Acct No. 126-369-5504-7452)
$224.621 (Acct. No. 242-362-5504-7671)
Source: (Acct. No)
Acct. Description: SS05-11 Old Waterman Canyon Road
Bridge Repair
Finance:
Agenda Item No.
5/;6/0(()
89/
Council Notes:
Reso. 2cDc,-IW5
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
'-' .
Sublect:
Cancellation of contract with GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge
Repair (SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, payment to GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for direct and indirect
costs incurred for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair (SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, and resolution approving
Agreement for Professional Services with LAN Engineering Corporation to provide Engineering Services for the
Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement and authorization for the Director of Finance to amend the FY
05/06 Budget.
Back2round:
On September 7. 2003. the Mayor and Common Council adopted the FY 2004/09 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
which included a project to repair Old Waterman Canyon Bridge (SS05-11).
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 the Christmas Day mudl1ow, which occurred on December 25,2003.
A federal disaster was declared and was identified as Disaster Declaration No. 1498. An allocation from FEMA was
approved and appropriated in the amount of 5 185,000 for interim and permanent repairs to the bridge.
Design of the bridge repair was completed at a cost of 524,823.61 in 2004. On December 20, 2004, a contract was
awarded to GWINCO Construction in the amount of5141,991.76 for repair of the damaged structure. Unfortunately.
the bridge received further significant damage from a storm on January 10, 2005. Another federal disaster was
i- declared (Disaster Declaration No. 1577) as a result of the intense rainfall and damage the storm of January 10.2005.
'--' FE\lA determined that the additional damage would result in repair costs exceeding 50% of the replacement cost of
the structure. Therefore, FEMA cancelled the original allocation for repair cost and approved an estimate of 5505,000
to replace the structure. Of that amount, 75% is reimbursable from FEMA and 18.75% is reimbursable from the Office
of Emergency Services (OES) and the City has to pay 6.25% of the costs. The City can apply for additional
reimbursement if the actual project cost exceeds 5505.000. Copies of the FEMA worksheets for both emergency and
permanent repairs are attached.
Based on recent design studies and cost estimates using current construction prices. the cost of replacement may be as
high as 51.500.000. which substantially exceeds the 5505.000 approved by FEMA. Staff contacted Larry Miller.
Public Assistance Officer of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services regarding this concern and Mr. Miller
ad\.ised that we proceed with design of the replacement structure and submit a request for additional funding after bids
are receiyed.
Attached is a copy of the worksheet indicating de-allocation of the original bridge repair funding and re-allocation of
bridge replacement funding as provided by FEMA.
Additionally. staff has requested a time extension because the original allocation will expire in July of 2006. Due to
the need for environmental studies and permits from the Corps of Engineers. State Department of Fish and Game. and
clearance from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. the project is not expected to start construction
until \Iay of 2007.
FE\lA cancelled the original allocation for repair of the bridge and directed that the City proceed no further with the
repair contract. The City directed GWINCO to cease work on the project and asking for a closing invoice. It is now
.... necessary for the City to pay GWINCO's costs and cancel the remainder of the contract. Due to heavy storms that
'-" occurred during the construction period.. GWINCO was not. able to accomplish any physical work at the site.
However. GWINCO dtd tIlcur some dIrect cost for matenals ordered pnor to dtrectton to cease work and
administrative costs associated with processing, scheduling and ordering labor and materials required for the project.
G\\T\CO was also requested by City staff to assist in assessing the additional damages to tc..; bridge due to the winter
storms of 200-1/05 and estimating the cost of additional repairs.
2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT (Continued)
GWINCO has submitted Invoice No. 2410-1 (revised) dated 04/11/06, copy attached, requesting payment in the
amount of $19,368.00 to compensate the contractor for direct and indirect costs incurred during the course of the
contract. Staff concurs that the requested compensation is reasonable.
On January 6, 2006, a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Professional Services was sent to 20 civil and structural
engineering firms. Four (4) firms responded to the RFP. On February 6, 2006, proposals were received from the
following consultant entities:
ineers Inc.
Location
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
Roseville
San Bernardino
The proposals were evaluated (Phase I Rating-evaluation of proposals) by staff based on a rating system previously
approved by the Mayor and Common Council for Public Works projects. The phase I rating system includes, but is
not limited to, such factors as past experience with similar types of projects, adequacy and experience of staff:
completeness of proposal, past experience working with the consultant, understanding the requirements of the project.
local preference, and price. LAN Engineering Corporation, Willdan, and PB Engineers were rated the top 3 consultants
for this project based on the evaluation of proposals. Therefore, interviews were conducted with these three firms
(Phase II Rating-interview).
A selection committee which interviewed the three (3) consultant firms consisted of: Mark Lancaster, Deputy
Director/City Engineer; Mike Grubbs, Engineering Manager/Field Engineer; and Lynn Parker, Senior Civil Engineer.
The reviewers/evaluators selected the team of LAN Engineering Corporation based on their qualifications and staffs
previous experience with the firm, completeness of the proposal, understanding of the project, local preference, and
other criteria established in the City Council's approved evaluation criteria and rating system.
LAN Engineering Corporation is a local engineering firm, providing structural design and management services, and
construction management and inspection services on public works projects to municipalities and counties. This
company has extensive public and private sector experiences, with many projects in the City of San Bernardino. LAN
Engineering Corporation has designed many structures of similar scope for local municipalities and also has extensive
experience in managing and inspecting the construction of these types of projects. Staff of the City has had positive
working relations with LAN Engineering Corporation.
Review of LAN's proposal and LAN's performance in the evaluation interview conducted by City staff demonstrated
experience with similar projects and superior knowledge of the problems involved designing a replacement for the Old
Waterman Bridge.
Proposed fces for services were as follows:
Negotiated "not-to-cxcccd
Three Highest Ranked Company Proposed Fce fee" with #1 Ranked
Consultant
LAN Engineering Corporation $271,361 $224,621
Willdan $96,650 N/A
PB Engineers $485,940 N/A
3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT (Continued)
Although Willdan submitted the proposal with the lowest price, the proposal submitted by LAN Engineering
Corporation was clearly superior based on a consideration of all the rating factors. LAN Engineering Corporation
agreed to reduce its fee based on clarifications and negotiation with City staff.
Financial Impact:
There is sufficient funding from Gas Tax to cover the final payment to GWINCO in the amount of$19,368. The Hill
Drivc Pavement Rehabilitation, which was a cooperative project with the County, was completed with a budget saving
of about $34,000 in Gas Tax funds. Staff is proposing to use these savings to compensate GWINCO for direct and
indirect costs incurred prior to the notice to stop work. The final settlement with GWINCO in the amount of $19,368
was not known when FEMA directed that the repair project be closed out. Therefore, funds were not approved by
FEMA to cover the closeout costs. Staff will discuss this with FEMNOES and will try to get additional funds
awarded in the Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement to cover these closeout costs. If funds are awarded, the
charge will be moved out of the Gas Tax Fund and into the Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement project.
Funding for the LAN Engineering Corporation agreement in the amount of $224,621 will be funded 75% from FEMA
($168,466),18.75% from OES ($42,116), and 6.25% from City funds ($14,039).
Funding breakdown for the total project based on the FEMA estimate of $505,000 will be as follows: FEMA 75%
($378,800); OES 18.75% ($94,700); and the City share 6.25% ($31,500). Staff is proposing that the City's share be
funded by transferring $31,500 from 1/2 Cent Sales and Road Tax from account number 129-367-5504-7156 (SS-C
Street and Safety Improvements) to 129-367-5504-7671 (Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement).
Approximately $50,000 will remain in SS-C "Street and Safety Improvements", which will be adequate to fund all
projects currently in process. Staff is proposing that $200,000 in new y, Cent Sales and Road Tax monies be allocated
to SS-C "Street and Safety Improvements" in the FY 06-07 budget.
Recommcndation:
That the Mayor and Common Council:
Cancel the contract with GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridgc
Repair (SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, under provisions of Section 6-5 of the Standard Specifications; and
2 Authorize payment of $19,368.00 out of gas tax funds (Acct No. 126-369-5504-7452) to GWINCO Construction
and Engineering, Inc. for direct and indirect costs incurred for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair (SS05-
11) per plan no. 11304, and authorize the transfer of $19,400 from Acct. No. 126-369-5504-7522 to Acct. No. 126-
369-5504-7452; and
3. Authorize the Director of Finance to amend the FY05-06 budget to appropriate $505,000 in the Street Construction
Fund (Account No. 242-362-5504-7671) for the "Old Waterman Canyon bridge Replacement" and to budget
revenue reimbursement for the project from FEMA ($378,800); OES ($94,700); and the City's share of$31,500 to
be transferred from 1/2 Cent Sales and Road Tax from Acct. No. 129-367-5504-7156 (Street and Safety
Improvements) to Acct. No. 129-367-5504-7671 (Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement); and
4. Adopt Resolution approving Agreement for Professional Services with LAN Engineering Corporation to provide
Engineering Services for the Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement.
4
...
.
'"
~..
.
'""
to)fPlf
1
RESOLCTlO'\" '\"0.
.i.
RESOLUTlOl\" OF TilE CITY OF SA'\" BER'\"ARDI'\"O APPROVI"G A
PROFESSIO'\"AL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LA'\" ENGI'\"EERI'\"G
CORPORA-TlO" TO PROVIDE ENGI"EERI"G SERVICES FOR THE DESIGl\' OF
OLD \VA TER:\IAN C\'\"YO:\' BRIDGE REPLACE:\IE'\"T.
3
4
5
BE IT RESOL "ED BY THE \IA YOR A'\"D CO\Il\IOl\' COC'\"CIL OF THE CITY
6 OF SAN BERNARDI'\"O AS FOLLOWS:
7
SECTION" I. LAN Engineering Corporation, 1887 Business Center Drive, Suite 6. San
8 Bernardino. CA 92408. is competent, experienced and able to perform the design of old
9 \\" atennan Canyon Bridge Replacement, and has provided the most advantageous and best
10
proposal for provision of the design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridgc Replacement per
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Agreement for Professional Ser,ices, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment I,
for the not-to-exceed amount of S224,6~ 1.00. Pursuant to this deternlination, the Purchasing
Manager is hereby authorized and directed to issue Purchase Orders for said sen'ices to said firm
which references this Resolution. The l\1ayor is hereby authorized and directed to executc said
Agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTIOi\~. The authorization to execute the abo\'e referenced Agreement is rescinded
if it is not executed within sixty (60) days of the passage of this resolution.
19
/./
,I,
20
1/1
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
"-
28 }/-3;
- 1- S-IS- 'Oh
1
I ...
,..... 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
RESOLliTIO:\' ......... APPRO\T~G A PROFESSIO:\'AL SER\"ICES
AGREE:\IE:\T WITII LA:\' E:\GI:\EERI:\G CORPORATIO:\ TO I'RO\'IDE
El\"GI:\EERIl\"G SER\'ICES FOR TilE DESIG:\ OF OLD WATER:\lA:\ CA:\\"O:\
BRIDGE REPLACEME:\T.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the i\layor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof. held
on the
.2006. by the following vote, to wit:
day of
Council Members:
ABSTAI:-: ABSE~T
AYES
;-.JAYS
ESTRADA
BAXTER
12 :'>IC GINNIS
13 DERRY
. ~ 14 KELLEY
"- 15
JOHNSOJ\:
16
17 .\lC CA:,>nlACK
18
19
20
21
22
23
Rachel Clark. City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby apprO\-cd this
day of
.2006.
Patrick 1. :'>Iorris. Mayor
City of San Bernardino
24 Appro\'ed as to Fonn:
25
;1
26 i) " /.
b1-)v '"' u", -'__-_
27 Jab1CS F. Penman. Cit\' :\ttomc\'
/ I ..
28 I ,/
...
'-'
-'
- 2 -
Attachment 1 - Agreement
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
, ....
""""
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(FOR NON-FEDERALL Y FUNDED PROJECTS)
This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this
2006, by and between the CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY" and
CORPORATION, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULT ANT"
day of
California. a municipal
LAN ENGINEERING
I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant shall perform those ser,.ices specified in Consultant's Proposal dated
February 6,2006 as modified by Revised Fee Proposal dated March 17.2006 for
preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for Replacement of Old
Waterman Canyon Bridge attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit I, and as
directed by the City of San Bernardino.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The services of Consultant are to commence after the City has authorized work to
start by issuance of a Notice to Proceed. This Agreement shall expire one year
from the date of this Agreement unless extended by written agrccmcnt of the
parties.
~
"""
3.
STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall complete all work product and design in conformance with City
of San Bernardino Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings.
-1. CIIANGES/EXTRA SERVICES
A. Performance of the work specified in the Proposal is made an obligation of
Consultant under this Agreement, subject to any changes made
subsequently upon mutual written agreement of the partics_ Any change,
which has not been so incorporated, shall not be binding on either party.
5. COMPENSA nON
A. The City shall reimburse the Consultant for actual costs (including labor
costs, employee benefits, overhead, profit, other direct and indirect costS)
incurred by the Consultant in performance of the work, in an amount not
to exceed 5224,621.00, except that reimbursement shall not include
courier services, mileage or reimbursement for travel to the City to attend
meetings or conduct the activities. Actual costs shall not exceed the
estimated wage rates and other costs as set forth in the Proposal.
~-
B.
Said compensation shall not be altered unless therc is significant alteration
in the scope, complexity or character of the work to be performed.
'-'
-1-
-
'-'"
:\gn:clllcl1t for Professional Sen"ices with LA:" Engineerinf Corporation
Any adjustment of the total cost of seryice;; \\"ill only be pemlitted when
the Consultant establishes and City has agreed. in writing. that there has
been, or is to be, a significant change.
c.
The Consultant is required to comply with all Federal, State and local laws
and ordinances applicable to the work.
6. PA nlDT BY CITY
A. The billings for all sen'ices rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be
submitted monthly by Consultant to City and shall be paid by City within
thiny (30) days after receipt of same, excepting any amounts disputed by
City. All tasks as specified in Proposal shall be completed prior to final
payment.
7. SliPERVISIO:\, A:\'D ACCEPTA:\'CE OF SERVICES
~
A. The Director of Development Sen'ices of City or his designee, shall have
the right of general super,ision over all work perfomled by Consultant
and shall be City's agent with respect to obtaining Consultant's
compliance hereunder. No payment for any sen'ices rendered under this
Agreement shall be made without prior approval of the Director of
De\'elopment Services or his designee.
8. CO:\IPLlA!\'CE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS A:\'D A:\IERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT
Consultant hereby cenities that it \\'ill not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion. sex, marital status,
national origin or disability. Consultant's hiring practices and employee policies
shall comply with applicable Federal, State and local la\\"s. Such action shall
include, but not be limited to, the following: Recruitment and recruitment
ad\'cnising. employment. upgrading and promotion.
9. TER:\II:\'A TlO:\' OF AGREE:\IE!\'T
A.
c
This Agreement may be terminated by either pany upon thiny (30) days
written notice in the event of substantial failure of the other pany to
perfoml in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Each pany shall
have twenty (20) days following date of such notice within which to
correct the substantial failure giving rise to such notice. Consultant hereby
covenants and agrees that upon tennination of this Agreement for any
reason. Consultant \\'ill 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 \\"ith City so that the work to be accomplished may
continue. Any subsequent use of such incomplete documents shall be at
the sole risk of the City and City agrees to hold hannless and indemnify
- ~ -
;\gre~Jl1cnt for Professional Seryices with LA:\' El1gine~ring Corporation
...
Cunsultant from any claim, losses. costs. including Attomcy's fccs. and
liability ari,ing out of such use.
'-'
B. This Agrcement may be tcmlinatcd for the con\"Cnience of the City upon
thirty (30) days written notice to Consultant. Upon such notice.
Consultant shall provide work product to City and City shall compensatc
Consultant in the manner set forth above.
C. Following the effective date of temlination of the Agreement pursuant to
this Section. the Agreemcnt shall continuc until all obligations ansing
from such temlination arc satisfied.
10. CO:"\TlNGEi\"CIES
In the event that, due to causes beyond the control of and without the fault or
negligence of Consultant. Consultant fails to meet any of its obligations under this
Agreement, and such failure shall not constitute a default in perfomlance. the City
may grant to Consultant 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"
pro\'ision of the Agreement.
II. I:'iDEPEi\"DE:'iT CO'lTRACTOR
""' Consultant shall act as an independent contractor in the performance of the
services provided for under this Agreement. Consultant shall fumish such
ser.ices in its own manner and in no respect shall it be considered an agent or
employee of the City.
1.2. ASSIGNl\IE:\'T OR SllBCO:'iTRACTI:'iG
Neither this Agreement, nor any portion thereof. may be assigned by Consultant
without the written consent of City. Any attempt by Consultant to assign or
subcontract any perfonnance of this Agreement without thc writtcn consent of the
City shall be null and \'oid and shall constitute a breach of this Agrcemcnt.
13. i\"OTlCfS
All official notices relativc to this Agrcement shall be in writing and addressed to
the following representatives of Consultant and City:
...
Consultant
William Nascimento. President
LAN Engincering Corporation
1887 Business Center Dr. Suite 6
San Bemardino, CA 9.2408
City
:v1r. James Funk, Director
Development Scrvices Department
City of San Bemardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bemardino, CA 92418
......,
- 3 -
...
"'"
~...
'-'
16.
-~
'-
Agreement for Professional Sen'ices with LA:\ Engmeenng Curporation
14. RF.SPO:"SIBILITlES OF PARTIES
Cpon tcrmination, or completion of all work undcr this Agreement, Consultant
will transfer ownership and title to City of all programs, repons. documents, plans
and speci fications.
15.
1:\'0 EI\1 !\'ITY
Consultant shall indemnify, defcnd and hold harnlless City from and against any
and all claims, demands, suits, actions, proceedings, judgments, losses, damages.
injuries, pcnaltics, costs, expenses (including attorney's fees) and liabilities. of,
by. or with respect to third panies, which arise from Consultant's ncgligent
perfornlance of sel'\"ices under this Agreement. Consultant shall not be
responsible for, and City shall indcmnify, defend and hold harmless Consultant
from and against, any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, proceedings,
judgments, losses. damages. injuries, penalties, costs, expenses (including
attorneys' fees) and liabilities of, by or with respect to third panies, which arise
from the City's negligence. With respect to any and all claims, demands, suits,
actions, proccedings, judgments, losscs, damagcs, injuries, penalties, costs,
expenses (including attorneys' fees) and liabilities of, by or with respect to third
panies, which arise from the joint or concurrent negligence of Consultant and
City, each pany shall assume responsibility in proponion to the degrce of its
respective fault.
LIABILITY/INSURA:\,CE
Consultant shall maintain insurance policies meeting the minimum requirements set fonh
herein. All insurance maintamed by the Consultant shall be provided by insurers
satisfactory to the City. Cenificates evidencing all insurance coverage required herein
shall be delivered to the City prior to the Consultant performing any of the services under
the Agreement. All insurance certificates required herein shall name the City as an
addItional insured and pro\'ide for thirty (30) days \\Tltlen notice from the insurer to the
CIty prior to modiiicatlon or cancellation of any insurance policy of the Consultant.
A_ ERRORS & OMISSIONS - The Consultant shall maintain errors and omissions
insurance with a combined single limit of not less than One Million Dollars
($ 1.000.000.00) per occurrence.
B. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY AND AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE - The Consultant shall maintain comprehensive general liability
and automobile liability insurance with a combined single limit of not Icss than
One Million Dollars ($ I ,000,000.00) per occurrence.
C. WORKER'S COMPEl\SATlON INSURANCE - The Consultant shall maintain
worker's compensation insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of
California for all workcrs employees by the Consultant.
- 4-
...
'-'
II
,j
...
~
\w<
Agreement for Professional Ser\'ices v. ith LA;\ Engll1eering CorporatlOll
17. VALIDr. y
Should any provision herein be found or deemed to be invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, this Agrcement shall be construed as not containing such
provision, and all other provisions which are otherwise lawful shall remain in full
force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Agrccment are declared to
be severable.
18.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agrecmcnt represents thc entire and integral cd understanding bctween the
parties hereto and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations,
representations, understandings and Agrcements, whether written or oral, with
respect to the subject matter thereof. This Agreement may be amended only by
writtcn instrument signcd by both parties.
- 5 -
...
.........
'-'"
.........
Agreemenl for Professional Ser\"i..:es with LA~ Engineering Corporation
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(FOR NON-FEDERALL Y FUNDED PROJECTS)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement 011
thc datc sho\\"n belo\\".
LA:\' E:\'GINEERING CORPORATlO:'\
Datc:
by:
Signature
Print Name/Titlc
CITY OF SAN BE~"ARDINO
Date:
by:
Patrick J. Morris
l"layor
City of Sail Bemardino
,\ TTEST:
Rachel Clark, City Clerk
Approved as to Foml:
(1 1
,I -J "
,1 . .....
~.1-__ _ - ,I c... ~ ""-v__
,..-:fames F. Pennlan. City Atlomey
/ i
C.AII
III
- 6-
~
fC
~
t
t
I
I
I
I
tL,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
EXHIBIT "I"
L1m and Nascimento Engineering Corporation
~
February 6, 2006
City of San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Attention: Mr. Michacl Grubbs, PE, Engineering ManagerlField Engineer
Subject: Request for Statement of Qualifications and Technical Proposals for Design of a
Replacement Bridge Crossing Waterman Canyon Creek located approximately One
Mile North of Highway 18 on Old Waterman Canyon Road In the City of San
Bernardino.
Dear Mr. Grubbs:
The LAN Engineering, Inc. (LAN) team is very pleased to submit ten (10) copies of our Statement of
Qualifications and Technical Proposal. dated February 6,2006. We recognize the importance of this project to
the City, and look forward to having the opportunity to provide our services.
This type of assignment warrants an experienced Project Team and a familiarity with the project delivery
process. Accordingly, we have structured our project team to provide the City with full professional services
that specialize in the design of major bridge and roadway facilities. Our project team is experienced in all
phases of Bridge, Roadway. and Drainage Design, including preparation of cnvironmental documentation,
development of hydraulic and geotedUlical design requirements, and completion of final plans, specifications.
estimates, and construction schedule.
I. William Nascimento, PE. SE, will serve as the Principal-in-Charge and QNQC of the project. My strong
technical and management skills will contribute significantly to our team, as well as my experience with
numerous projects involving bridge and road\vay design and construction requiring federal approvals for
funding.
Our Project Manager, Mr. Todd Dudley, PE, SE, wiII be the team's contact for the remainder of the selection
process. Todd has dedicated his 21 years of experience to designing and managing major bridge projects
throughout Inland Empire. Todd is committed to do "Whatever It Takes" for the success oflhis project.
The LAN Project Team is comprised of highly qualified subconsulting firms with successful experience on
similar projects. Our Project Team includes: WEST Consultants, a firm that specializes in hydraulics and
streambed analysis; Jones & Stokes. a firm specializing in Environmental analysis; KJeinfelder Inc., a
Geotechnical firnl that is experienced at working with federal agencies and tlood control districts; and
Associated Engineers, also very experienced in working with federal agencies and local nood control districts.
who will be handling the Right-of Way Engineering tasks for this project. LAN has successfully completed
projects using each of these lirms in the past.
As evidenced in the related experience and resume portions of our proposal, the LAN Project Team has
worked for many public agencies, and therefore understands the importance of producing a quality product that
proceeds on a predictable schedule, provides practical solutions. and is conscious of City budget constraints.
Consequently, our project management practices include safeguards to ensure that the City of San Bernardino
will benefit from a project that: provides a complete and comprehensive PS & E package, which conforms to
1887 Business Center Drive. Suite 6
San Bernardino, CA 9240B
(909) 890.0477
Fax (909) 890.0467
....
'"
"-
\..,..
EXHIBIT '"t""
Letter to Mr. Michael Grubbs. PE
Engmeering Manager/Field Engineer
Request for Statement of Qualifications and Technical Proposals for the
Replacement Bndge over Watennan Canyon Creek
City requirements and federal guidelines; is developed through a cost-effective analysis and design procedure
and incorporating practical design features; and is completed on time.
Since all the personnel on our team have been hand-selected for their experience and expertise in similar
projects. we believe our team will be able to meet or exceed the City of San Bernardino's expectations.
The project team members and their roles are as follows:
Firm Summary Description of Work Office Location
. .
LA:--1 Engineering
Project Management. Civil and Structures Engineering.
San Bernardino
WEST Consultants
Hydrology/H ydraulics
San Diego
Jones & Stokes
Environmental
Temecula
Kleinfelder
Geotechnical
Red1ands
Associated Engineers
Right-of-Way/Utility Mapping
Ontario
As Principal-in-Charge, I certify that all information contained in this Proposal is truthful, accurate, and
complete, and IS valid for a period of not less than 90 days from the date of submittal. In addition, LAN
Engineering can adhere to the contractual terms indicated in the sample Professional Services Agreement.
Contract Information: Mr. Todd Dudley, PE. SE, Project Manager
Email: todd.dudley(u:lanengineering.com
Tel: 909.890.0477 ext. 308' Fax: 909.890.0467
We thank you for taking the time to review our project proposal and look forward to discussing our
qualifications and details of our project approach at the next stage in your selection process.
Sincerely,
~
' -' . -t",
,
William Nascimento, PE, SE
PRINCIPAL-iN-CHARGE
[!i1]
11
I-
\...,
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
Ie
I
I
I
J
1
J
1 ...
,'-
1
EXHIBIT"."
Technical Approach
Project Understanding and Approach
e<i:<t..~:- -._,- ,._. _
w~~""'-,--,-,--
.__,.(.~~~'l";i':':--:~;"i".'
Existing Conditions Exhibit
Scope of Work
Items to be Accomplished!
Furnished by the City
-.::-'>.'
Comments and Suggestions from
the Consultant
\, ..
\\
.' --
~;""~-
_ . ,'__,_rl'!:!!Ji-~~~
, ,_ ,~ _~f;t~L_j
. . ,!~..rrlr"r' l,Ilj- ". ,:,;"
- ~ - . _,' "I' > ,
:,': {.r:-. fJl:'~'!:',' - -
~_ _ ,_!:.fi
:~.r<7~ - --;;c;j -' '-;- :, - -, ,'.-
~.. :' _. ~.'l:.."..'.-!O~ - .
._..,:_~>.." ~(.1&';.~.:~~' .
..~;~.~,....-
_:0:;
_~;~g.~~Y:Jl
'-~'""m'-'
. ~ ~.""". ", , ' .
..<~.:,>;.. - .~~~
",'., - ~ .
~-.~r).:,-..-...o. ....
~ L1M & NASCIMENTO
L.:.:I..U ENGINEERING CORPORATION
I
I-
v
I
r
f
I
I
I
I
,
1'-/
I
B
I
I
I
.
I
Ie
J
,
EXHIBIT "I""
.-
Project Understanding and Approach . ., I.
- ,
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Project Description
The project consists of completing a bridge replacement design, including final plans. specifications and estimates
needed for construction and including tasks for final envirorunental clearance under CEQA, documentation and
exhibits needed to cenify right of way, and coordination with utilities for relocations. The desil,'ll will provide for the
replacement of the existing bridge structure with a new bridge that will have sufficient width and venical clearance to
quahfy for a waterway adequacy of 7 under FHW A's Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges (shght chance of overtopping bridge deck and roadway approaches). and shall
include foundations that are capable of surviving 100 year storm events.
Proposed Improvements
The final design will provide for a bridge structure that spans Waterman Canyon Creek with an improved waterway
adequacy sufficient to meet the requirements for design storm nows. In addition. the bridge must be supported on
foundations that are designed to survive the 100 year design storm, including the effects of bulked nows due to
potential burning of the watershed that drains into the canyon, and impacts from debris including trees and large rocks
that are carried by the storm nows.
Improved waterway adequacy can be achieved through a combination of extending the span of the bridge and raising
the soffit of the bridge superstructure. The existing bridge span of approximately 22.37 feet can easily be extended for
new bridge construction. In addition, the vertical clearance under the bridge can be improved through a combination of
raising the roadway profile at the stream crossing, and minimizing the depth of the superstructure. Because raising the
roadway profile may result in additional environmental and right of way issues, it will be important to design a bridge
with the minimum structure depth possible. In addition, we believe that it is important to construct a single span bridge
structure if at all possible in order to avoid placing a pier within the stream bed. which will be subjected to beatings
from debris nowing downstream. and could result in a maintenance headache for the City should the pier be damaged
by storm nows or require the removal of trees and brush that become hung up on the pier.
Protection against storm now hazards will be developcd through a combination of designing foundations that extend
below the anticipated scour elevation. designing scour protection for foundations, designing cutoff walls and invert
improvements that will stabihze the invert of the stream bed and minimize scour at the bridge site. and by designing
substructures with the strength to withstand debris impacts resulting from desil,'ll storm events.
Additional improvements will include utihty openings to carry existing communications and gas lines and additional
utihty openings to accommodate potential future utilities within thc bridge structure, and metal beam guard rail
approaches to protect errant vehicles from colhsions with the concrete bridge raihng.
The bridge replacement will be designed to minimize impacts to the existing roadway profile. Improvements to the
stream bed for scour protection and stabihzation of the stream bed will be designed to minimize impacts to the
environmentally sensitive Waterman Canyon Creek. All proposed improvements will be designed within the existing
roadway right of way if at all possible.
Existing Conditions
Old Waterman Canyon Road is a rural two-lane roadway approximately 24 feet in width. with no shoulders and no curb
and gutter or AC dikes. The roadway i' approximately J miles in length, running parnllclto the new state highway 18,
and serves as access to several homes that are built within the canyon. Traffic on the roadway is light and traffic
specds are generally moderate, although posted speed limits were not noted.
The existing cast in place. reinforced concrete T-beam structure is approximatcly 26 feet wide and spans approximately
c2 feet o\'Cr Waterman Creek. The existing bridge structure has been in place at least since 1929 when the original
2U.5 foot wide bridge was widened by approximately 5.6 feet. The bridge carrics a 4" diameter high pressure gas line
attached to the downstream edge of the bridge deck, and carries a galvanized steel conduit on the upstream edge of
deck, that presumably carried the overhead communications hne that is now supported on timber poles over the creek.
The existing structure exhibits severe damage on the upstream edge of the bridge, which has been battered by debris
Replacement Brid~(' owr Waterman Canyon Creek
I
I-
v
r
r
I
I
I
,
I
I~
I
f
1
I
J
c
EXHIBIT "I"
Project Understanding and Approach _' ' ~.
carried by storm flows. In addition, the bridge railing has been washed off of the bridge deck and the roadway
embankements have been eroded on the downstream side of the roadway by storm flows that ovenopped the bridge
deck and approach roadways. The faces of the bridge abutments have been severely worn by storm flows and the
wingwalls on the dowl1stream sides of the bridge have been undermined by erosion of the foundation soils. The invert
of the stream bed underneath the bridge has been effectively stabilized and protected from erosion by a cutoff wall
constructed of concreted rock on the dowl1stream side of the bridge. However. the steam bed dowl1stream of the cutoff
wall has eroded into a venical drop, extending approximately eight feet below the inven elevation underneath the
bridge. This erosion has left the foundations of the downstream wingwalls exposed, and threatens to undermine the
bridge abutment foundations as well.
The roadway profile is rising at approximately a two percent grade from south to north at the bridge site, which is
located within a sag venical curve. The roadway alignment is on tangent at the stream crossing, but includes reversing
horizontal curves on the south approach to the bridge.
Background
The development of a project to rehabilitate the existing bridge was initiated by the City in December of 2003,
following the large storm flows of that Christmas Eve, which were exacerbated by the fires that burned a large portion
of the watershed that drains to Waterman Canyon during the summer of 2003. FEMA approved repairs to the existing
bridge as part of the emergency repairs needed to various facilities damaged by the brush fires that affected large areas
of the local hillsides in the summer of 2003. At that time. the intent was to replace the bridge railing that had been
washed away by the storm, reconstruct the reinforced concrete girder on the upstream edge of the bridge, which had
been demolished by debris carried downstream with the storm flows, construct repairs to other bridge girders damaged
by storm flows. repair and reinforce the exposed face of the north abutment, and construct wingwall extensions and
roadway embankments to restore support for tlie roadway and protect the bridge foundations from future damage due to
storm flows. Plans and specifications were developed for the proposed bridge repairs, but the repairs could not be
constructed before the new storm season began.
In 2004 the bridge and roadway approaches were again ovenopped by storm flows, which caused additional damage to
the bridge structure and further eroded the streambed and roadway embankments. In 2005. following evaluations of
the new site conditions, it was determined that bridge replacement represented a better value for construction costs than
bridge repairs. Subsequently, FEMA approved the funds ior a bridge replacement project in place of the original repair
project.
Coordinntion '.vith Otl1er Agencies
Completion of the bridge replacement design will involve coordination with FE;\IA (which has a significant funding
role in the project). and the County oi San Bernardino Flood Control District, which has review and approval roles for
work affecting Waterman Canyon Creek. LAN Engineering anticipates that these imponant panners in the project will
be invited to panicipate in project development team meetings. In addition, this project will affect various utility
companies and their facilities. Affected utility companies will be consulted to the extent necessary to solicit their input
to the process.
PROJECT APPROACH
To ensure that we do the best possible job in completing the bridge replacement PS&E, LAN Engineering will make
use of our wealth of experience in this type of work right here in San Bernardino County. Coordination will be a key to
expediting the completion of the Design phase of this bridge replacement project. Our iamiliarity with the agencies.
and consultants involved with this project will allow us to coordinate this project effectively and efficiently. LAN
Engineering is currently engaged in work for the City and the County of San Bernardino, and is familiar with the
affected staff at each agency. In addition, we are involved in numerous projects that have Jones and Stokes as the
Environmental Consultant. we are working with West Consultants on at Icast three current projects, and have teamed
with both Kleinfelder and Associated Engineering on many past and current projects.
We believe our knowledge of the project. as described in the Project Understanding Section (above), along with our
discussion of how we intend to address key project issues, as described in the following Project Approach Sections.
demonstrates a viable plan to achieve the Scope of Work in Exhibit B of the Request for Statement of Qualifications
and Technical Proposal.
Replacement Bridge m'er Waterman Canyon Creek
c
EXHIBIT "}"
c
'"
0
w a:
" z
c ~< 0
<< !'- >-
Z
to . '"
" u
z z
;:: '"
'" ::!
X a:
Ww w
...... i
"'iii
J:
... C
=> ..J
0 0
'" "
" z
z 0
i: ..J
0 '"
0 J:
..J ...
a:
0
z
"
i. z
i:
I' 0
...
V 0
..J
c.
L
,.
i.
,
k..
(',
.
0
Q
;;
~ u
2
" 5 ,-
u t~
E :I:
0 00
~.... '" <..>11
" ~-
> <
'-" < " "
~ ~. f
"
" >
0 ciS 0
0: ~
~
. ~
" .
. w
w '6
,..7.......''J.~.:..-~ .
<
~,
\. o;j
0 ,
, .
0
0 i
, 0 i c
'.( ,2
.' . , '"
i- ' e I 0
w a:
>'
>' Z
< , 0
!! ! >-
z
'"
u
z
'"
::!
a:
w
<
?:
c
..J
0
"
Z
0
..J
'"
J:
...
=>
0
'"
"
Z
,.... i:
"" 0
0
..J
'6
~
"
~
E
<
~
in ".
:;.f.:~.. '1.,,/ ';::'i~1;.'~
"I"..~" .."
; ,.I;Ii;, .!-.~,-::?;.,.-~
I :..,il',!_' ;;''''~.;'.1]''-
"'\'M.. jr./,j';td
, ~ t ,,', \""..... >I'l~' '-. .
I. ;.'A 1'. i:7.,~~.,,+
~;.(l:~1:. ,.':'}}{~?~
l....r..-.~ .~..,"g~
,. .<.,,,. '.'i!-'"''
1\ :':'., H ,- ,,\~.,..
i if ' ),'~' ,..:<~::j~~~j~
,I. . T; ~"", 1.!<
'.~'.t . . '1" ',,',,;;;;..-!
l ,'~.~' .._Wi"'-'i:.' ,.. .
-~ ~
j:.~i
, .
f;'i"(.J
1 '
w
a:
=>
...
u
=>
a:
...
'"
w
"
c
<<
to
"
Z
;::
'"
x
w
<
...
'"
w
?:
J:
...
=>
o
'"
"
z
i:
o
o
..J
"
w
"
c
<<
to
"
Z
;::
en
X
w
u.
o
w
U
~
::!
'"
w
a:
...
'"
a:
0..
=>
. .
"~pe of Work :
~ # o!. _ .
EXHIBIT "1"
C Scope of Work
(Tasks - Milestones)
.\. Administratioll
1. Project Setup
2. Schedule I Budget Control
3. Progress Reponing
4. Coordination I Meetings
II. ! I).,lrolll~\". 'hflr:luli"s :llId Dl'hris Fill" .\'1:1"';:;
1. Review Available Inforrnation
2. Perform Watershed Analysis As Needed
3. Develop Estimates of Stream Flow Hydraulics
4. Develop Estimates of Debris Flow Characteristics
5. Perform Scour Potential Analysis
6. Establish Recommendations for Inven Stabilization and Scour Protection
i'. .n, ironnll'III:lI: T,'rhllic:l1 Studi,', fllr (.F()\ ('\P:lrann'
. 1. Historic Propenies and Cultural Resources
2. Biological Resources
3. Water Quality
p
( ;t'ot~'('hIlkallll\"l"ti~afi(l1l
1. Literature Review
2. Site Reconnaissance
3. Exploration Plan I Utility Clearance I Encroachment Permits
4. Field Exploration
5. Seismic Hazard Assessment
6. Laboratory Testing
7. Analysis and Reports Preparation
...
'-
!: ~-.l:n~'~'jng ;lnd E\i'ljll~ I op(1~rapil\
I. Submit Detailed Survey Request to City
2. Develop DTM files from Survey Data Received from the City
v. I{i:.:hl of \\ a) ilud t'tilit) ;\1:lPI';Il~~
I. Use Assessor's Maps to Identify R/W and Property Lines
2. Perform Mapping
3. Evaluate Structure Alternative Impacts to Roadway Profile
4. Develop Cost Estimate and Construction Schedule for Each Alternative
5. Summarize Information in Type Selection Report with Preferred Alternative Clearly Identified
,.
" .
Ilrill:.:r Ih'pl:lrrllll'lIt Typt' Sl'iI,,',i"lI :lnll Fill,,: Ih'si:.:n
1. Foundation Type Consideration
2. Consider Precast and Cast-in-Place Alternatives
3. Evaluate Structure Alternative Impacts to Roadway Profile
4. Develop Cost Estimate and Construction Schedule for Each Alternative
5. Summarize Inforrnation in Type Selection Report with Preferred Alternative Clearly Identified
~-
""
Replacement Bridge o\.'er Waterman Canyon Creek
EXHIBIT "}"
Scope of Work . . .
. -. -
r'
"-"
Project Management / QA/QC
Project Management
Todd Dudley. our proposed Project Manager will continue the responsible working relationships he has already
established with the City of San Bernardino Contract Manager. With their leadership, we see ourselves as an
extension of City staff, with a mission of meeting, and exceeding, the needs of the Contract Manager. By
establishing a sound working relationship with your Contract Manager and engineering staff, we are better able
to understand what specific services are needed and how best to fulfill the project needs.
Regular contact throughout the contract is essential for keeping control of the project's changing needs, for
providing guidance and suppon to our assigned personnel. and for monitoring and assuring performance. Along
with monitoring and assuring performancc of our staff, key elements of managing the contract will be: tracking
the budget; staffing forecasts: and progress reponing. We will work closely with your Contract Manager in
establishing reponing and information tracking formats that will provide the management information necessary
for oversight of our contraet and our budget status.
Meetings & Project Development Tedn! (PDT)
Our Project Manager. Todd Dudley, will work with City Staff to identify the makeup of the Projecr
Developmetlr Team; will then schedule a Kick-off Meeting; and subsequent team meetings, at least monthly
thereafter, for the duration of the project. Consultant team members will attend the meetings on an as needed
basis. All team members will be asked to attend the kick-off meeting. and they will be notified well in advance
of the time and location of all subsequent project team meetings. Minutes from previous meetings will be
distributed for comment before the next rnecting.
....
rield Review
As pan of the initial scoping work with the City, a field review of the project site will be made. This review will
assist in clearly establishing the scope and goals for this project between the City and LAN Engineering.
....
ScherJuli; :/ Deliverabics
The Project Manager will develop a project schedule in coordination with City Staff. Progress for each of the
milestones will be discussed in reference to the project schedule at each team meeting. A plan will be developed
to deal with issues that arise, which could delay the schedule. Deliverab1es will be developed through direction
from City Staff and intcraction with the Project Team. Design alternatives will be analyzed with respect to a
costlbenefit analysis and other factors including safety, environmental impact, constructability. and functionality.
Quality Control Pliln
LAN's quality control procedures are geared to thc systematic elimination of all design inconsistencies in the
linal construction documents. The primary technique used in quality control is the independcnt review of all
tcchnical work produccd by every individual on the project, including:
./ Reviews within each discipline, where the drawings, specifications, calculations. design analyses, etc.,
are reviewed for inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and for work not shown by a colleague with similar
background and experience who is not assigned to the project.
./ Interdisciplinary reviews to ensure coordination and consistency among disciplines.
...
In addition, our Quality Assurance consists of the following:
./ The team understands all of the client's specific expectations and project objectives. and can develop
with the client, a project plan (budget and schedule) that will realistically and cost-effectively meet those
expectations and objectives.
./ Selecting experienced and well-trained professionals and technicians with thc right educational
background to be responsible for the work.
./ Each person responsible for the work understands and suppons the client's expectations from project
inception.
'-'"
Rtplacement Bridge o~.er Waterman Canyon Creek
Scope of Work
EXHIBIT "I"
c
,/ All project team staff receives daily feedback from their immediate supervisors concerning the accuracy,
precision, and clarity of their work. and whether it conforms to current professional standards and the
expectations of the client.
Bridge Replacement Design
lJtidge Replacement CQl1cepts
LAN Engineering will develop bridge replacement concepts for consideration within 35 working days
from notice to proceed with the work. These concepts will be developed based on information that is
readily available. Knowing that the existing bridge has been overtopped in two of the last three years,
and observing the stream topography and general site conditions we will develop concepts for bridge
replacement that consider the need to provide more stream flow capacity while minimizing stream bed
alterations and adjustments to the existing roadway profile. Some modifications to the bridge
replacement concepts may be needed as additional information becomes available from technical studies
including hydraulics and hydrology, geotechnical investigations and detailed surveys ofthc project site.
Our proposed r0adway cross section provides for two full-width standard traffic lancs and minimum
shoulder widths in conformance with Caltrans' Highway Design Manual and AASHTO's Policy on
Gcometric Design of Highways and Streets.
......
'-'
In order to provide as much hydraulic capacity as possible while minimizing modifications to the
roadway profile we will consider spans that arc longer than the existing bridge stmcture provides, and
span configurations that will result in vertical clearances underneath the bridge that are highcr than the
existing stmcture.
One possible solution that could provide the required clearances and minimizc changes in roadway
profile is to constmct a bridge with a cast-in-place I prestressed bridge deck. A cast-in-place,
prestrcssed concrcte slab bridge will providc the minimum structurc depth possible, and can span as far
as 120 fcet, which we anticipate will be sufficient for this site. We propose using Caltrans standard open
post and rail, reinforced concrete barrier railing, which is crash tcsted and approvcd for constmction on
state highways. The bridge replacemcnt will be dcsigned to accommodate existing and future utilities
and will consider drainage, safety and aesthctic issues. A cross section of a cast-in-placc I prestressed
slab capable of spanning approximatcly 60 feet is shown below.
II
V
31"-6"
I I
.~.z. Old WaTerman Canycn Rai'
12-0" 2' 1'-9"
III~
iJ I I
I J..-1 Conc BarCler
r<1 TypeBOQ
Y Typ e
jPrOftle
GraOe
~
'-'
2'
12'-0"
-2%
-
R'12"../
o
6":j Opening L' ~1
for Ver/zon
CIP/PS Slab
I
Furure Urlll( y-.--1
Ooenlng
Typ
La":j Ooenlng
for HP Gas
Part
of
Replacement Bridge O\'cr Waterman Canyon Creek
EXHIBIT "1"
" _ . 'lI, - "'1',,. ." JOt .~"... . ..; . - l' .~. .- 1'" " .
.Scope~tWarK ..' :-. _ "1'~:.','''''<' . . .
~~,.-,",,' " ';;.',~.<! \.v t.J!. + _ + ,,~: _)'-'J~~,,"~.n -
,....
'-'
developing the bridge replacement concepts will be evaluations of stream bed and roadway approach improvements
needed for each alternative identified. Scour protection for bridge substructures will be an important consideration for
all alternatives.
Heavy scour and the effects of debris impacting the structure at the existing bridge site suggests that significant effort
will be needed to protect improvements. Also, the effectiveness of downstream cutoff walls in stabilizing the
>lreambed invert upstream is evident. These considerations will guide decisions made during this concept development
stage.
~....
w-
Requirements for span length, vertical clearance, foundation type and scour protection will be uncertain at this stage,
and so assumptions will have to be made in order to complete the concepts for the City's consideration. Stmcture type
alternatives to be considered will include both cast-in -place and precast construction types. Advantages and
disadvantages of each will be identified for each alternative.
Although cast-in-place construction is typically cheaper to construct than precast alternatives. precast construction can
be used to avoid the erection of falsework, which could be an advantage if the construction phase will extend into the
storm season, or if sensitive environmental issues are identified for the streambed. In addition, precast construction can
be used to shorten the construction schedule, because the superstructure elements can be constructed at a casting yard at
the same time that grading and substmcture construction is being done in the field. Then, once the girders I deck slabs
are set into place on the abutments. the bridge construction can be completed without having to place equipment in the
stream bed.
Advantages / Disadvantages
Cast-in-Place vs Precast Construction Alternatives
.,J.d~~
~~l~~ -~
None. Minimum work in Waterman
Creck Stream Bed.
Girder Icngth up to 135 fect can be
transported. Special pcrmit is
required for girder length more than
120 fcet.
Special detailing rcquired for
seismic desi
"'...
'-
False Work
Re uirement
Transportation , None
Requirement
Seismic Performance Excellent.
Replacement Brid)!e over Waterman Cony"on Creek
EXHIBIT "I"
J ~ . "~1'~ ....~. ~ ._' . I ,.., .
SeD '~rWOr~',,- . -' ; , . .'. . -:'0'> ''';' . . .
pe '. ' . '" ". ..
o.~..lyv{,"'(:;l;.,r"~:"-..,,:: ~'.''l"~." '. j'; t\,-..,_,\" . .
c
Construction Schedule Falsework construction in Since the girders I slabs can be
Waterman Canyon Creek fabricated while the substructures
prohibited during the storm are being constructed, the schedule
season. can be exoedited.
Construction Cost Approximately $200/ft', Higher cost than CIP/PS
(Including depending on the structure Construction. Typically in the range
Mobilization and system used. of S230/ft2
Contingency)
Roadway improvements needed to carry traffic over the replacement bridge and resulting modifications to profile,
alignment and improvement touchdown locations will also be considered in this phase of the project.
We know from field review and available topography that the bridge is located in a sag vertical curve and the approach
roadway has a slight horizontal curve at the south approach to the bridge. Assumptions made regarding vertical
clearances needed under the bridge and span lengths required will define limits and extents of improvements that will
be required for approach roadways. Costs for improvements to roadway and scour protection will be included in the
development of bridge replacement concepts at this stage.
~
'""
~
PROJECT SITE TOPOGRAPIIY
'-'"
Em-ironmental, utility conflicts and right of way issues that could influence design features will not be known at this
time and detailed survey data and project site mapping will not yet be completed, so these concepts will be suitable
only for advanced planning. Bridge concepts developed at thIS stage will be refined during the Type Selection phase.
.11 1_
I
I....
"-"
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
-
I....,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
'-"'"
I
i
EXHIBIT "I"
.. '
Scope of Work . , .
. . . .....
, , ,
Hydrology, Hydraulics. and Scour Protection Ann lysis
Task 1 Background Data Collection
West Consultants will obtain and review available watershed and hydraulic data for the analysis. Geotechnical data for
the project site such as the depth to bedrock and grain size distribution are useful. but not required. Any geotechnical
data obtained will be provided by LAN Engineering. West Consultants will also estimate grain size during the field
reconn31ssance.
West Consultants will perform a detailed field reconnaissance of the site to document field conditions. The field
inspection will include an assessment of stream behavior in the vicinity of the bridge crossing, existing and potential
scour problems. and estimates of hydraulic parameters. Observations will be made of lateral channel stability,
aggradation/degradation, hydraulic roughness, bed material size, and hydraulic controls.
LAN Engineering will provide digital topography for the site and as-built plans for the bridge.
Task 2 Hydrologic Analysis
West Consultants will review existing information for the watershed and the Waterman Canyon Creek stream flows. A
flood frequency analysis will be performed for the observed stream flows to determine the required storm events (100
year, 10 year, and 3 year). This task assumes that the observed flow data are sufficient for the study and no additional
hydrologic modeling will be necessary. If a hydrologic model (e.g.. HEC-HMS) needs to be constructed for the
watershed, this additional task will be added to the scope on a time and materials basis.
Task 3 Hydraulic Analysis
HEC-RAS, the Hydrologic Engineering Center's "River Analysis System" computer model will be developed for the
Waterman Canyon reach in the vicinity of the bridge (the bridge is located in the FEMA designated zone A with no
detailed hydraulic analysis conducted in the past). The cross-section data in the vicinity of the bridge will be based on
topographic mapping provided by LAN Engineering.
Thc HEC-RAS hydraulic model will be used to determine the hydraulic characteristics of the stream (near the bridge)
necessary for the design of scour protection such as hydraulic opening, design flood water elevations. scour velocities,
outlet flow (tail water) conditions, and backwater effects.
Task 4 Sediment Yield Analysis
A qualitative assessment of sediment yield will be performed for the contributing watershed. West Consultants will use
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (LA Corps) method to assess sediment yield for the specified
flood events (the method was developed to estimate unit debris yield values in Southern California watersheds and
accounts for different fire factors). Based on this analysis, the bulking coefficients will be determined for the design
discharges obtained in Task 2.
Task 5 Scour Analysis
Scour calculations will be performed using the HEC-RAS computer program and/or custom spreadsheets. Procedures
outlined in FHWA's Hydraulic Engineering Circulars. HEC 20 and HEC 23. and other standard guidelines will be used
to evaluate the channel stability downstream of the structure in order to prevent the current headcut from endangering
the bridge foundation.
West Consultants will review all of the information gathered to assess whether long-term channel degradation could be
significant. West lonsultants will provide a qualitative and quantitative estimate of vertical channel stability
downstream of the structure and any local scour at the structure as appropriate.
Task 6 Design of Scour Protection
West Consultants will provide a conceptual design for scour protection of the channel bed and side slopes in the
vicinity of the bridge. In order to prevent accelerated erosion on the downstream side of the bridge, a drop structure
with energy dissipating device may be proposed (vertical or sloped concrete basin drop, riprap basin drop, CSU, USBR
or SAF stilling basin, etc.) depending on the assessment of the erosion hazard. The design is envisioned to be an
Replacement Bridge m'er JJ!merman Canyon Creek
I
,-
v
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
,..-
,-'
B
EXHIBIT "1"'
ScoP!l of Work . . ;
iterative procedure between the hydraulic designers (West Consultants) and the civil/structural designers (LAl'
Engineering). Two iterations is the assumption for this cost proposal. West Consultants will provide conceptual design
based on hydraulic and scour considerations, including pertinent dimensions and material types. but will not prepare
design plans nor specifications under this scope of work.
Task 7 Report
West Consultants will submit the results of the study in a Hydraulic/Scour Analysis and Scour Protection Report. The
report will include field observations, a description of the bridge, the magnitude and frequency of design flow, a
description of the HEC-RAS model and modeling method, sediment yield analysis (flow bulking), scour analysis
procedure. and scour protection design.
Geotechnicalltlvesti~3tion and Analysis
Key Geotecbnical Issues
The existing bridge is located in Waterman Canyon in the southern San Bernardino Mountains and crosses over
Waterman Canyon Creek. The creek is a perennial stream that flows year round and is underlain by young river
alluvium comprised of numerous cobbles and boulders in a sand and gravel matrix. Gneissic metamorphic bedrock
underlies the mountain ridges east and west of the creek and is exposed on the canyon wall just west of the bridge.
Bedrock is anticipated beneath the alluvium at an unknown depth. The San Andreas and Arrowhead Springs faults are
located approximately 1-112 miles and y, mile to the south, respectively. The site is not located within a California-
designated Earthquake Fault Zone. The site is also located in an area known for geothermal activity (hot springs) with
water temperatures just a few hundred feet downstream of the bridge on the order of several hundred degrees
Fahrenheit.
Based on a rcview of available documents and our experience in the area, we have identified several key geologic and
geotechnical issues that should be addressed for the project. These issues include:
. Moderate to high ground accelerations due to the prcsence of nearby active faults including the San Andreas fault
zone.
. Coarse oversize materials (cobbles and boulders) within the creek and likely at the bridge abutments.
I · Shallow groundwater.
. Potential for liquefaction and laterally spreading.
I · Potential for geothermal activity in the project area.
These key issues will be addressed during our geotechnical investigation.
I
I
I
I-
\......
I
I
The following paragraphs present KJeinfelder's scope of work for geotechnical engineering support services for this
project.
Scope of Services
Kleinfelder's geotechnical engineering support services for this project are presented as follows. We understand that
the geotechnical deliverable items required for the project will include a proposed Field Exploration Drilling Plan,
Preliminary and Final Soils and Foundation Reports, and Log of Tesl Borings (LOTB).
Task I - LiteratureReview
We propose to begin our investigation by reviewing available geologic and geotechnical literature pertaining to the
project site. We will review published soil and geologic data in our tiles and as available from appropriate public
agencies. This will include a review of literature prepared by the California Geological Survey. the U.S. Geological
Survey, the City and County of San Bernardino, and other government agencies.
Replacement Bridge o\'er Waterman Canyon Creek
tt
I-
\..."
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I~
I
I
,
I
j
j
.)
-c
f
1
J
EXHIBIT "}"
Scope' of Work . .' .
Task 2 - Site Reconnaissance
A geologic/geotechnical reconnaissance by a California Certified Engineering Geologist and/or a California Registered
Geotechnical Engineer of our firm will be performed along the full length of the proposed improvements. to observe
and check for geological conditions and features that could impact design, construction and cost of the proposed
improvements.
Task 3 - Exploration Plan/Utility Clearance/Encroachment Permits
Prior to our field investigation we will submIt a plan showing locations of the proposed borings along with completed
application packages in order to obtain any necessary encroachment permits. We will forward these documents to
LAN, who will then submit them to the City for review and approval.
Following approval, and prior to drilling. we will contact Underground Service Alert (USA) to identify potential
conOicts between our planned boring locations and existing underground utilities. Our proposed drilling program will
consist of boreholes located on the shoulders of the roadway. We do not anticipate drilling in the traffic lanes.
However, some limited traffic control may be required (cones. arrowboard, etc.) around the excavation equipment if
any portion of the drilling equipment encroaches onto the roadway due to space limitations on the shoulders.
Task 4 - Field Exploration
Our field exploration program will consist of four exploratory mud rotary and hollow-stem auger borings. Due to
space limitations we proposed onc boring each atlhe north and south ends of the bridge. These borings will be drilled
as close to the proposed bridge abutments as possible. These borings will be drilled to depths of 75 to 100 feet using
mud rotary drilling techniques to penetrate the coarse cobbles and boulders below groundwater. Two additional
borings will be drilled using a hollow-stem auger drill rig to depths of 15 to 25 feet. or to practical refusal, whichever
occurs first, north and south of the bridge for pavement design.
All borings will be drilled with truck-mounted drill rigs. Our typical sampling interval will be 1.5 meters (five feet) in
the bonngs. The number of blows necessary to drive both a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler and a California-
type sampler will be recorded. An engineer or geologist will maintain a log of the materials encountered in the borings.
and obtain samples for visual examination, classification and laboratory testing. Groundwater, if encountcred. will be
measured in the open borehole at the lime of drilling. Upon completion. the borings will be backfilled with soil from
the excavations. except for borings encountering groundwater which will be back Ii lied with grout. In preparing this
proposal. we assume that access to drilling locations can be obtained with a standard truck mounted rig. We also
assume that all agencies and private parties will grant access for our work without cost or delay to Kleinfelder.
Task 5 - Seismic Hazard Assessment
A geologic/seismic hazards evaluation will be conducted for this project. This will include evaluations of the potential
for surface fault rupture. seismic-induced ground defonnation or settlement related to liquefaction. seismic compaction.
lurching or lateral spreading.
Task 6 - Laboratory Testinl:
Laboratory testing will be performed on selected samples obtained during field exploration to assess the physical
characteristics of the subsurface materials. We anticipate the testing will include moisture/density. gradation. plasticity
index, sand equivalent; consolidation, collapse potential, direct shear, maximum densityloptimum moisture content.
corrosion potential, and R-Value. Our testing program may be modi/ied based on the actual subsurface materials
encountered dUling exploration.
Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek
EXHIBIT "}"
. Scope of Work -
.....
'-' Task 7 - Analysis and Reports Preparation
Our Soils and Foundation Report will be prepared in general accordance with Caltrans Standards. Typically. Caltrans
requires a Geotechnical Design Report for the roadway portion of a project and a separate Foundation Report for all
structures including bridges, retaining walls, tunnels, MSE walls, etc. Since this project is essentially a bridge project
that may include some approach roadway sections we plan to combine the two report types into one Soils and
Foundation Report as requested in the RFP. Preliminary and final reports will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans
standards and will present the data obtained during field exploration and laboratory testing, as well as conclusions and
recommendations pertaining to the following:
. Project description including proposed improvements, climatic conditions, terrain and surface drainage,
and land use.
. Discussion of geotechnical settings including regional geology, subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions.
. Recommendations for design of retaining walls, including foundation type, allowable capacity and lateral
pressures.
. Recommendations for construction of roadway and embankment foundations and estimated settlement.
. Evaluation of gross and surficial stahility of the proposed fill slopes, if any.
. Earthwork considerations, including excavation characteristics .and erosion controls.
~
. Collapse. expansive and corrosion potentials of the subgrade soils and recommended mitigation measures,
if necessary.
'-'
. Earthquake considerations including seismic design criteria for till embankments. and seismic hazards
including the potential for liquefaction. ground rupture due to surface faulting and scismically induced
settlement.
. Recommendations for pa\"emcnt structural design based on traffic indices assumed or pro\'ided by the
client.
. Seismic desib'Tl recommendations including recommended acceleration response spectra in accordance
with the current Caltrans Seismic Design Cnteria.
. Recommendations for design and construction of shallow or deep foundations including recommended
bearing capacities, lateral resistance, and total and differential settlements.
. Overall stability analyses of footings. slopt: and foundation materials; evaluation for static and pseudo-
static conditions.
. Construction considerations.
. Log of Test Borings (LOTB) Sheets.
-
Our findings, conclusions and recommendations will be presented in a draft Soils and Foundation Report with a site
map showing boring locations, LOTB Sheets and laboratory test results. After review by LAN and the City, comments
will be incorporated into the report and a iinal report submitted. We assume one round of review comments from prior
to completion of our final report.
'-'
Replacement Brid~e over Waterman Canyon Creek
,.....
'-'
c
~...
'-
EXHIBIT "]"
- _. . -' " I
Scope of Work' .' . ... .' ,.'
" '-. . -. '. .
Environmental Engineering Services
The proposed project involves the replacement of the Old Waternmn Canyon Road Bridge located approximately one
mile north of Highway 18 on Old Waterman Canyon Road. It is assumed that the following criteria shall be met and
incorporated into the bridgelproject engineering design:
. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials requirements;
. National Cooperative Highway Research Program 350 report criteria;
. ~tinimum criteria specified in section 2.7 ofCaltrans' Bridge Design Specifications;
. Bridge length and vertical clearance over Waterman Canyon Creek shall be sufficient to qualify for a
Waterway Adequacy of 7 under Federal Highway AdministratlOn's Recording and Coding Guide for the
Structure InvenlOry and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges;
. No requirements for sidewalks or railings to meet bicycle railing criteria;
. Foundations shall be protected from wash-out due to 100-year storm flows, and concrete barrier rails shall
allow for storm flows to pass through;
. Old Waterman Canyon Road will be closed during constmction; traffic plans and technical provisions will be
prepared.
Details of the bridge design, including the selection of a precast or cast-in-place replacement structure type. will be
deternlined in accordance with the findings of the engineering study prepared for the project and the results of
geotechnical invcstigation and testing. For this scope and cost the following assumptions have been made:
. Project will replace the existing Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge with a new bridge designed to withstand
storm flows and that also meets the criteria listed above.
. Jones & Stokes will prepare the technical reports identified in this scope of work to support the City in the
preparation of the envirorullental document.
. The City will prepare the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document.
. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) appro,-al will not be required for the project based on the RFP.
. Technical reports will not be submitted to Caltrans for review other than as part of normal CEQA public
availability process (i.e., Caltrans environmental oversight is not assumed).
1,{) En\'iro!1!11cntal Docunlent ProJect ~!:1lt:)I!t'n1fnt ,I ConrtiinatitH~ ; ;\h~ctin~~
Jones & Stokes' scope of work for quality control, progress reporting. schedules. and coordination! meetings is outlined
below.
.
Quality Control: The Jones & Stokes project manager will be responsible for directing and implementing the
project's quality control program. Senior technical reviewers in eaeh disctpline will rcvicw each work product,
including field methods, data collection. analysis, report writing, and any subcontracted work studies. In addition,
a technical editor will review all reports to ensure consistcnt usc of terminology and style as well as general
readability for the target readers. Finally, the project manager will review all documents before they are submitted
to the City.
. Environmental Schedule: Jones & Stokes will provide schedule input to LAN on the environmental technical
reports.
Replacement Bridge Ol-'er Waterman Canyon Creek
EXHIBIT "'1"
, '. .:
Scope of Worf< .'. '_'
. ... ., . , .
c . Coordination/Meetinl!s: Communication and coordination will be facilitated through progress meetings and
project conference calls. The Jones & Stokes Project Manager will attend progress meetings with LAN and the
City during as needed during the preparation oftechnica. repons. It is assumed that up to four (4) project related
meetings will be attended. Meetings beyond this amount would be charged on a time and materials basis.
. Proiect Manal!ement: This task includes the coordination and management effons by the Jones & Stokes
project manager.
Deliverables:
. Environmental PM Attendance at up to four (4) project related meetings.
2.0 Environmental Technical Studies
The technical analyses will be prepared to meet CEQA requirements. Jones & Stokes will coordinate with the City to
identify any specific local requirements_ Based on the content of the RFQ/RFP issued for the project and our
knowledge of the project area, it is assumed that technical studies will be required for historic propenies and cultural
resources, biological resources. geologic investigations, and water quality. It is assumed that geologic investigations
will be included in the Geotechnical investigation performed by the project engineer.
Deliverables
Unless otherwise noted, the deliverables for the following technical studies will be a separate bound report including a
standardized project description. a methodology relevant to each topic area, description of the affected environment,
impact assessment, and mitigation measures. All draft technical studies will be submitted to the City for review. It is
assumed that the repons will be revised once following review by the City. The deliverables for each technical study
,.... include the following:
'-
. 5 hard copies of draft technical studies.
. 5 hard copies and one digital copy of final technical studies.
For this scope of work, the following technical studies have been assumed. If additional studies are requested during
the City's preparation of the CEQA document. a scope and cost will be submitted for approval prior to their initiation,
however. based on the characteristics of the study area it is not anticipated that additional separate technical studies will
be warranted.
Biolol!ical Technical Stud v
Jones & Stokes will perform the following tasks related to the evaluation of biological resources associated with the
proposed project.
Review of Project Information and Applicable Literature
Potentially relevant project and biological resource information will be rcviewed prior to fieldwork. Jones & Stokes
will access and review relevant natural resource references and databases (e.g.. soils maps. the California Natural
Diversity Data Base; California l'."ative Plant Society Electronic Inventory, Internet resources. Jones & Stokes's internal
resources, etc.). With City approval, relevant resource agencies will also be given an opportunity to provide a list of
species and issues of concern for the project.
.
Field Evaluation for Biological Resource Constraints
After reviewing relevant information, the project area will be evaluated. with a thorough walkover covering all ponions
relevant to potential biological resource regulatory constraints. Detailed field notes will be compiled including
conditions, visible disturbance factors, species. habitats. and more general biological resource issues observed or
detected. 'The site will be evaluated regarding the presence, absence, or likelihood of occurrence for all special status
.......
Rerllacement Bridge over Waterman Cam'on Creek
EXHIBIT "I"
. ... " . , .
Scope of Work .' . - . ";
. .
- . - ~
c
species. habitats. or more general biological resource issues potentially posing a constraint to the project through
applicable laws and regulations. Adjacent areas will also be briefly examined where accessible, to provide context.
Jurisdictional Waters Dctermination
The project consists of replacing an existing bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek. This creek and any associated
wetland or riparian vegetation would likley be regulated by state and federal regulatory agencies. In order to accurately
assess potential impacts to areas under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (R WQCH) a formal delineation of
regulated waters will be completed. The delineation will be completed according to the USACE protocol for
delineating wetlands as well as CDFG standards. The limits of wetlands or other waters that would be regulated by
USACE. RWQCI3 and/or CDFG will be mapped onto project plans and/or an aerial photograph and will also be
mapped using a sub-meter accurate global positioning system (GPS). The results of the delineation will be presented in
a separate delineation report that will be attached to the biological technical report. This scope and cost assumed that
the City will be responsible for providing access.
Permits
The need for permits associated with the project (i.e., Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Section 404
Permit. Streambed Alteration Agreement. etc.), and the extent of the permitting activities, cannot be determined
until the environmental analyses in the technical studies have been conducted. If permits are required for the
proposed project a separate scope and cost for preparing the permit applications and obtaining the permits can be
provided to LAN Engineering and the City for review and approval for preparing and processing any required
permits.
-
........
Biological Tecbnical Report
The biological technical rcport provided under this task will be a single, standard-format document with mapping of the
general site location and vegetation types. Methods and results for cach task will be provided. Observations of the
physical setting, conditions and disturbance factors, as well as plant. animal and habitat resources will be summarized.
All plant and animal species with special legal or management status along with more general biological resource
issues, which have any reasonable potential to constrain the project. will be reviewed. Any recommendations for
further work needed to clarify relevant issues (e.g., focused surveys not included in this scope) will be provided.
Cultural Resources Technical Stud"
CEQA requires that projects financed or approved by public agencies must include an evaluation of the impact of a project
on cultural resources. in order to determine impacts to cultural resources. it is necessary to dctennine if potentially
significant cultural resources are located within the project area. Therefore, Jones & Stokes recommends a Phase I
inventory be conducted to determine the presence or absence of potentially significant cultural resources \\;thin the project
area. The Phase I scope of work would include the following:
Record Searcb/Archival Research
Jones & Stokes Associates cultural resources staff will conduct a record search. This record search will consult California's
database of previously recorded sites and studies within a one-mile radius of the proposed project area. Sources that will be
consulted include the National Register of IIistoric Places. the California Inventory of Historic Resources, California
Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and IIistoric Spots in California. Jones & Stokes will also
review historic maps and published literature to deternline whether any previously known prehistoric, historic, or
ethnographic resources are present within the project area.
,....
\..r
Jones & Stokes Associates will initiate Native American consultation through the Native American Heritage Commission
<NAHC) and request they consult their sacred sites index and refcr us to interested individuals with knowledge of resources
of concern to Native Americans that may be present within the project area. Jones & Stokes will also contact the San
Bernardino County planning department and local historical societies to request information regarding the types of potential
cultural resources in the study area.
Replacement Bridge on'r Waterman Canyon Creek
EXHIBIT "1"
'S~ope bf Work '. ,:' .:'. '
.~~~ ..- .
C Field Survey
The proposed project area ",ill be surveyed for cultural resources by Jones & Stokes archaeologists. The survey will
include a mixed survey strategy in accordance with professional standards and appropriate with the field topography. For
the purpose of estimating field survey costs, Jones & Stokes assumes that the survey coverage will include up to 50 feet
from edge of pavement on both sides of the existing Old Waterman Canyon Road alignment. Jones & Stokes also assumes
that no archaeological sites or portions of the historic built environment will be identified during the survey. Should
cultural resources be identified during the field survey, they will be recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR-
523) forms. The identification of cultural resources beyond the pre-1929 Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge is not
assumed and is not included in this scope and cost. If cultural resources are identified that have to be recorded then a scope
and cost for this work will be submitted to LAN Engineering Corporation and the City for approval.
c
"...
......
Prepare Technical Report
Jones & Stokes will prepare a technical report that documents the methods, results, and recommendations of the current
study. This report will include a significance evaluation of the pre-I929 bridge in accordance with CEQA. As required by
the Office of Historic Preservation, additional copies of the final report will be placed on file with the appropriate
information center of the California Historical Resources Information System. Jones & Stokes will revise the report based
upon one set of comments from LAN Engineering and the City of San Bernardino.
Water Qualitv Studv
Jones & Stokes will prepare a water quality assessment documenting the cxisting water quality; impacts on surface
water and groundwater: design features, procedures, and practices that would minimize water quality impacts; and
mitigation measures that would reduce any signiticant impacts to less than signiticant levels, if nec~ssary and where
feasible. - The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has devcloped a recommended procedure for
determining the water quality impacts of. and preparing water quality reports for, tranportation projects in California,
which will be followed for the proposed project. The procedures are outlined in the document Water Quality Technical
1'0tes (Notes), dated 1990. As pari of the water quality assessment, existing data for the study area will be collected
and summarized including topography, climate conditions. and local and regional hydrology, geology and soils, erosion
potential, and biological resources. Relevant local, state, and federal regulations related to water quality will be
summarized. Beneficial uses for surface waters will be summarized describing any listed species and/or sensitive
habitat that could be affected by water quality-related impacts of the project. The beneficial uses for potentially
affected ground waters will also be described. Surface and groundwater quality objectives will be described. Existing
data will be used to describe the ambient conditions of streams and water bodies that are likely to be affected. The
potential short-term (construction) and long-term (operation) impacts to water quality will be analyzed and mitigation
measures proposed if necessary. Appropriate permits. if required. will also be identified in the report, however, the
procurement of permits is not included in this scope and cost.
Technical Study Assumptions:
. Engineering plans, including limits of construction and staging areas. will be provided at a level of detail sufficient
for preparing the technical studies (roadway lanes, topographic information [including changes in topography
resulting from the proposed project], state plane tick marks, station numbers. and existing structures within 500
feet of the proposed project).
. Mapping showing existing conditions (roadway lanes, topographic information, state plane tick marks, station
numbers, and existing structures within 500 feet of the proposed project) will be provided.
. A maximum of one build and one no-build alternative (i.e., project and no project) will be evaluated.
. No public meetings or hearings are assumed for the proposed project.
. No cultural resources will be identified.
. Focused protocol surveys for any species are not included in this scope and cost.
. Project will not be subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act C'JIIPA).
. Cultural resources survey coverage will include up to 50 feet from edge of pavement on both sides of the
existing Old Waterman Canyon Road alignment.
. Biological study area will encompass the bridge and up to a 500-foot wide buffcr area surrounding the
bridge site totaling approximately 6 acres in extent.
Replacement Brid)!,e O~'er Waterman Canyon Creek
EXHIBIT "I"'
. ~ , ' .
"ScopeOfW~rk . . " _' \, . - .' ".
r
~
Brid!!e Type Selection and Geometric Approval Drawin2s
At this phase of the project development prcliminary information will be available for right of way, hydraulics and
hydrology, utilities and geotechnical investigations. This information will be used to refine the bridge replacement
alternatives and construction costs and schedules will be updated to rellect the design requirements. A completed Type
Selection Report will be submitted which will include a comprehensive summary of alternative design concepts, with
the preferred alternative identified with explanations for the selection preference. this submittal will include Geometric
Approval Drawings. showing proposed roadway plan, profile and superelevations for the preferred design alternative.
This report will be submitted to the City for review and final approval of the design concept.
Final Desi2n
Following the City's selection for bridge replacement type the final design phase of the project will begin. This phase
of the project will include submittal for 65%. 95% and 100% completed pS&E. Each progress submittal will include
plans. technical provisions. construction cost estimate and construction schedule. Conunents received from each
submittal will be incorporated into the revised pS&E developed for the next milestone submittal. Plans will be
developed in AutoCAD format and technical provisions will be submitted in hard copy forrn and in electronic format as
Word documents. The 95% submittal will include quantity and design calculations submitted in bound hardcopy
format, page numbered and with table of contents.
Final bid documents will include full size plan sheets, an RE pending file and a 4-Scale plot of bridge deck contours.
c
Bid and Construction Support
Bid and Construction support will be provided as requested by the City. Bid support and constnlction support will be
pronded on a time and materials basis. Effort for bid and construction support are not rellected in our project schedule.
Similarly, costs for bid and constnlction support are not included in our fee proposal.
~...
"'"
,'?t'rolacef1}enf Rrid,~e m"er Waterman Canron Creek
Items to be Accomplished/Furnished by the City
EXHIBIT "I"'
"
~ The following are items that are expected to be furnished by the City:
Environmental _ City will accomplish development and approval of the required environmental document.
Consultant team will provide necessary technical studies required for this project area. Consultant will provide
coordination and support as needed for any public meetinglhearing.
Survevs/Maoolnl! _ Design surveys. as needed. to design this bridge project will be provided by City. This will
include sufficient data to create contours as needed for design of the bridge and any necessary retaining walls, cutoff
walls, etc. Elevations upstrcam and downstream will be provided to the extent needed for hydraulic studies.
Ril!ht of Way _ In the event that right of way appraisals. easements, acquisition, etc are needed for construction of this
project, these activities will be handled by the City. The LA:'-i Engineering learn will provide right of way engineering
and coordination with the City.
Existinl! Plans & Data - To the extent available, City will provide available plans, city planning data, and utility data
to Consultant in support of design of this bridge project.
Precise Street Alil!nment/Profile - City will provide final alignment/profile to be used for the bridge and roadway
desib'll.
. ' ..,' .... I
Comments and Suggestions from the Consultant ,- " ' ,
, . ' .' " . - . '
c
The LAN team has no additional comments or suggestions thaI we believe to be necessary to improve the finished
project. or to comply with the requirements of this Request for a Statement of Qualifications and Technical Proposal.
..
"'"
Renlacemen, Brid~e o~'er Waterman Canyon Creek
,...
'-"
~ ..
'-
~
'-"
-'-
-
J.
J_
- c
- - -- -- - - -- ----- -
J_
J_
- J_ -
- -.--. - .- --.,
- -:;;:,"_1_ --
,
.
J~ J_
I
~
- -
J_ -
-~
-'~-
~ -
,
:
- - -
-- .
FXHIBIT '"I"
j i
I I
,I I
-:1 I
:'1111 i
-;- !
'I II
:1 I
-~-i I
1'1
-k. Ii! I
,-
.~-- - --I !
I I
i. I
j
--- -.---. - -~, i
i(:
I (~--
111
,h
, -
'I,
~:.
I;
I':
I.;
I.,
,.-
't ~
r~
I ii
II';;
I ,-
, i j
I;
I;
Ir
"
I'
I;
i-
I,:
~~
i,
.1:
~ I:
~I~
fl{'
E r ~
~I ~
I! :~
!~}
I f! ~
i~l-;
I ~ I;
I i'it
I i I"';
lii~
, I:
I Ii'
I f':
'I} (-.
,
tf
~~ I!
'j ~... ::~!:~ ;~~~~~ ~~:: ~':~':.~;l '~:!1;:>;'~';' :;:;!~f:f:~ 1
~~ i: ~ ~;; ~ :!: i: : ~; i I i ~ ~ i, 1:r! ~ i] ~ ~: i;; i ~}; i j: 11 j i ~ ~ i i: ~!; j ~ ~ i ~ i: ~ i ~ ~ I S ~ & i ~
~- !
Ii ~ j i : :; : ; : ~ i i ~ j : i ~ ; j : j : i i i ~ i ~ i ; ; ~ ~ i : ; ~ ; ~ ~ j ~ : : 1 j i ~ 1 ~ ~ ; i ~ J $ ! j j I j ; ; j i i ; ! I 8 i i :
I'
-: t! ~ ~: ~ ~. ~ i: 'I . ~ ~! . f: ~! 'l f ~ ~ f t ~!: ~! t! ~!! i f i!!!!: f!.!!!!! t i! f f i f t If! t t I 1 f 1;
I} ~ ~; ~ ;;; ~ ~ i ~:;;;;;;;;; ~;: ~ ~ ~;::;:;: t;: ~ ~: -:;;:! ~;:! ~;;:;; ~;;;;;: ~;:!;:;;:;: =! ~;;; ~ ~;:;:;;:;
r- - . - - . Ii'
I ( I'
: '" f t I~_
I ! I . ., .
1 ' I, i. · i., 'j i
. '. ! t. I ~;: . i I; .: t ~ ! '. I
'I- J I.:l!! -' j" I j ! j j . i' j L, i !; i! i' I,! I I I I
l:tI""'I'I'" . .'. t') ,-I,..., I" J !{' I, " . , 'I!
IJ~JttfJ~-:'r'i'~I. .1 ~~J (. f It!t!~~ . .:.,J ';. t t fJ 1,1.1 I
I i ~ J ~: it! -tt ~ ~ ~ 1', i ~!;, j 'I P ~! ~ ! J! ~ r'.! 1 i! fJ i j.! .! i:: {:: i ~} U! ~ . f.! i! j f ~! i:1
S ! ~ ! H I J ~ ~ t! t ~ i ! : I I . ~ ! { ~ 1 . : t i i I ! ! t " ~ t 1 ~ ! : ~ ! i H ! , : ~ ~ I ' ~ ~ : ' :! i I i ~ ~ . : ~ . . :
II j . . . , ~ ' ! " ~ . . . I .I w . . . 1 . . ~ . -- . ; ~ . , - !' - . ~ 0 , 0 . 0 . . i . ... . - . ~... ~...." l t .. "." ~ u 0 .S ,;
r.l ~__~T_____~"______~~_"'~'.____-n_____._-::. ____. '. ._ .... ;.~. -:.:-. _, ~~~, . _,;-, -;',_;~;_, ~__,~., .._., :=-'. ',',1._i,.
'O~"'_.'.~~~~.!~:~l<~:':~~'.~~~I:~:.<... "0'0'.. ... _ . l
J_
--~
J_
-~-
J"':
---
J__
--+.-
-'-~-~-
I,
1_
___ ___I,
I
tl
l
, I
J
;~-----;[ i!
---<- I
I
I
J.
"
-""'- - -
~_..
-~
~-
J_
,
J
n_
___J_
i
. I
I
II1I
'1111
:1
--+.-
.,-
J.
~-
....;-
~ EXHIBIT "I"
~
,.'") Cl
\.., ct 0 0 =
0 0
..) .,; .,;
"-l ~ ;;; 0
..J .. ci
f'..' <( 0 N
I- ~ ;;;
"- ~ 0
I-
)::
~
~ '"
s-: ~ ....
..J '"
"- <( 0
0 0 0 0 0 u 0
I- 0 0 0 0 0 .... 0
0 :0 0 ~ '" .0 z .,;
?- M '" ;;; '" 0
'" 0 ~ ~. ~
, N ,..; ,..; .. .... ci
.., -'
I:ll ;;; .., M 0 ::> N
::J ~ ~ ~ ~
~ '" ~
1Il z
~ 0
U
W m
W ::>
0:: '"
-'
U '"
Z 0 g 0 ....
U 0 0 0 0 0 0
0:: 0 0 0; M 0 .0 .... 0
.,;
0 >- Cl M 0 ~ 0 M '"
0 "' '" "'. 0 .... 0
u.. Z ~ .., ~ ~ .0 ..
<( ~ ;;; ~
1Il ~ ~
0 W U
Z U Z
Cl > <(
0:: 0:: :;:
<( W 0::
Z 1Il W 0
I- 0:: 0 0 0 0 0
~... 0:: Z 0 0 0 0 0 0
W " <( 0 '" 0 .., '" 0; 0;
'-" :: I:ll M ;; '" '" N
I:ll '" "' .... 0
1Il <( N ci N ..; ..: .0
Z W ..J ~ M N '" ~
<( Cl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1Il ..J '.
u.. <( ':t
0 Z ..
>- 0 ;ii,
!:: 1Il -.
~.~
U 1Il ,
W
u.. if)
0 '!! ~
0:: .... "
11. ::; 0
;:: -'
:0 8
0
z is
'" >- 0"
>- r
'" :; 0 ....
'!: z z
'" '" W <0
U. .... "
0 Z <f) ~ "
U N
!;: W U ;::
:; :;
<3 z :; :0 (/) ;;;
~ 0 " " ..: "
0: U 0: Z
Z 0
<f) '> r >- '" ""
0: Z u E. ....
w '=' Z ::;:
w w <f)
z <f) .... .... ..: ::::;
i3 w 0 z ....
'" :< w '" ..J ....
.... Z 0 ~ .... => Z
Z w ~ ~ -' '" ..:
<f) :0
..: 0 w <f) Z ....
.... W 0 0 Z 0 ..J
.... Z
..J '" -' 0 y =>
'" W
=> U <f) u. U (/)
(/) 0 W Z ~ <Xl Z
Z <f) z Uj <f) => 0
- 0 <f) 0 -' W '" U
U " , " '!: ..J
I W
~ ri-. ..: ::;:
....
=> 0 a: 2
'" 0
.... a. Cl
c
c
c
.
~
t:
.>
0'
.~
-L,,,
:- -'.'
>
,
~
-;
"
.
u
.
=1:
f~
"
~~
.
o
!i~
.
J
I
,
'(
*.-
.
: to;
~~.
..,
;aI:~.
!~~
. .
~ .
le..!
~ li
.~,
.
~ .
<Il.-:;;
~"; e
~l:;
.,.
~
~
!
. .
..
,~
r
.c
::'1i
..;: t
~~~
~~<
..
tli
..
,~
<
o
go~.
.~~~
.. 0
,uu
<
.
v~
:5 go
~gt
.u~
...
.
>
1i~
ii
=<
<<
-ic:
. .
..
"
. !
:.2
~~
.
j
o
.
c--'
~ I
,
o
i~, ,
o .
i:.~~
t:... i
11 Hi!H. ~
Ilf!lj"jH'
J:I~! S<~~ J
; 1, .
'J" hi!
Ii", I'
~~~)11~1
.
.
o.!!
Ii:.:
r-
,~
,.
:!'ij
.~~
.=J...
,:w
:
J'
f- !
it.
::w
.
i
~
.
:<
~l
c~
...
,.
!~
!.i
E'
H
.~.
~. ,u
~~l
i!i
:.:
.
.
w
,
i~
.c
...
~
. .
".
- 0
!2
~l.
u
,
."
~.
~ii
;ii t
'\: 0 ~
n.
...
~'
,
:~
c.~ .
~~!
h
~..:!
.~
I
'f
.
,
,
~
~.
!~
..
cu
...
.
<
e:
~~
'"
.~
~.
,
~~1oU
o'~
~~~
...
I
.
.
.
~
~.
~<
.'
..
~.!
..
..Jj~
.g'x.!
'l:....
..~
.
<-
o'
~~~
';W-g
'-'
<0.
00"
uu~
"
; .
."
&~ e
~ ~ g
..u
.
,
.
?
~
<
!r.!
::lii
..
E"
..
cu
"l
. .
~ .
. ,
~~j
...
...
.. ~~;
~ I
..~
.,
~~
0<
_.to
'7~
:
,
.
.
<
..1
1
.[
..'5:
~=~
"c.
.
.~
'.
~~
t
.
...
.~
OE'
I:&:,~;;
.>c
r:~
,n
H
~-~
..
+
".
i5
o.
~ IE
'?~
..
,
~
1II'~
~u
o ~
-~
. .
E 0
. 0
=0
.
o
o
;;
"
i
eXHIBIT "1[1
o~
:oz
"IC+.
<
,
,
~~
;0
,.
.j.
~
~:!
. .
,!
,.
:
, .
lIl2:'u
~f~
:.0
::.:!!u
n
~~l
- .
,.
~
,
'~I
'0
- <
1.~ 1_
!& ~
~
o
h!'~
i; g. V'IiI
1511I I
~
~ I
I "i
",::=OJ: 1
:E~ I~ .
IG.~~ I V'IiI
L-...J
,----
; - I
w7~ :_
~~j I' .. ..
~
~I
\U-~ AJJ!I
~~~ I~
, ~
~
W-o '....
~~j I....
A.e:. I
I ~
L--,
I ~:: ...:
:: ~ '3 Z'I AI!I!II
,eo ea:IViII
IC~HI
I~~~ i~
:u a: 5 I V'IIiI
I~I
...
-.-. ..
fi!:,...,!
!:"iiIO'gi~
~.i:::ViI VJIIiI
< < I
'--
~
iH I+-
'~< ,
! 51
~~~:;: ..
'.f"> .. ~
.....0=
. a: 0'
j (..Ii
'------.J
~
. I
- .
~"..;I"
~;
..
,
sm.!1
- ."
.~ ~
z~ (..:<
~~ : ~
.- .
c
'-"
~
ATTACHMENT "B" - Location Maps and General Proposal RequirementsCity of San Bernardino
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement) Page 1 of 5
REQUEST FOR
STATEMENT OF QUALlFICATIONSITECHNICAL PROPOSALS
For
Design of a Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek located
approximately One Mile North of Highway 18 on Old Waterman
Canyon Road in the City Of San Bernardino.
ISSUED BY:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE ISSUED: JANUARY 6, 2006
DUE DATE: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006
...
ATTACHMENT "8" - Vicinity Map and Proposal Requirements
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 2 of 5
-
""'
. "'A."~Vf~ T
OL--- 1rni
l~m
DI~".1 Co.Irlj'Of1
f:!.
. I ~.
Arrowtw;Id Sprlllg~
( ..' :'.' ~,
"'1_":;,'"
;i"".:',I.'1
c.
1::
"::
't.:.,
_.._~
m3~
........... -I.
o'
"r~/;
1(/;1//
0,
lV')r,..,
''(;'''/(fJl
-1'(/
?
~
.,
"
z
.'
c'
~
~
o
~ E:. .1.0\",51
.>
<
o
~
F J~~tl St ~:
o
;;,,': 1'I~_"'llt:'
/".1..'"
'w"v' 40~i 31
Musc~y
(,C
,,:
.,
"'
.~.;
.1.""""',..1,""
D~I RD:;.OI
~
.0
'":;:J";",
O.
o
We~' HliJhl.uub
. Q2005 NAVTEQ
.t: ;:ca~) 1'.~;trJO~J':'r.r =nnl. :11;
...
~
-..
\
'-
, ~.....
.,'
.lIo- .
.,.. ..
...
'-"
LOCA nON MAPS
c
..
'-'
..
.......
ATTACHMENT "B" - Vicinity Map and Proposal Requirements
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 3 of 5
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
A.
BASIC REQVIREJ\1E"TS
a) Ten (10) copies of the proposal shall be submitted to the follo\\ing:
City of San Bernardino
Department of Development Services
Division of Public Works
A TTN: 1\1r. Michael Grubbs, Engineering Manager/Field Engineer
300 ;-';orth "D" Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92-+ 18
Proposals shall be received in hand by the City Engineer or his designee
before -+:00 p.m. on 'Hondav Februarv 6. 2006.
b} Proposal shall indicate the following in a detailed manner:
c) Past e.xperience on similar projects.
d) Staff persons specifically assigned to the project at .the professional le\el. Short
resumes may be included, but extensive resumes should be limited to key personnel
only.
e) A flow chart for the completion of each of the identified tasks showing I\'ork hours by
classification. as well as calendar time, including allowances for re\'ie\\. periods.
f) Previous obligations with other projects (related to time and a\'ailability of staff).
g) Support personnel to be used.
h) )\ame of sub-consultants to be used for specific aspects of the project. including a
summary of pre\'ious working arrangements on similar types of \\'ork.
i) Statement of local preference eligibility, including identification of any office located
in the City of San Bernardino and the number of employees stationed at the office. the
number of employees doing business inside the City limits. and a machine copy of
your finn's City of San Bernardino Business License.
j) Items, actions or infornlation the Consultant expects to be provided by the City.
k} Any comments or suggestion that the Consultant belie\'es necessary to impro\'e the
finished project or to comply with the requirements of this RFP.
I) Separate sealed envelope. Fixed fee or not-to-exceed fee for the work required by
this RFP, together with an hourly rate sheet applicable to this project for
classifications above, including all materials and expcnscs, shall be submitted in a
ATTACHMENT "B" - Vicinity Map and Proposal Requirements
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 4 of 5
1''''
'-'
separate sealed em.elope. Please note that the City will not payor compensate for
travel time. courier sen' ices, mileage or reimbursement for tra\.el to the City of San
Rernardino to attend meetings or conduct the activities necessary to complete tasks
required to be perfornled as part of consultant services.
B.
SELECTIO:\' PROCESS
The selection process will be based on a point systcm and will consist of threc phases as
1()IIO\\.s:
a) First phase selection shall consist of an e\'aluation by staff (including the
De\'elopment Services Dircctor. City Engineer, a Senior Engineer and Project
Manager) of proposals based on the above items identified in Section 1II B (except
1\0. 10). An additional 5% percent will be given to City of San Bernardino based
consultants. In order to be deemed as "City of San Bernardino Based Consultant (a
"local." business for the purpose of granting a local business preference, shall mcan a
business posscssing a fixed office or distribution point with at least one owner or
employee within the City of San Bernardino, and possessing all valid and current
permits and licenses required to transact such business, including, but not limited to a
City Business Registration Certificatc). A maximum of 100 points can be achieved in
this phase of the selection process. The three consultants with the highest numerical
scores will be invited to continue with the second phase of the selection process.
,...
.......
b) Second phase of the selection process will consist of staff evaluation of a presentation
by the three consultants with the highest numerical score from the first phase
sclection. The interview will be detailed questions on this specific project. including.
but not limited to, personnel, schedule. project staging, and knowledge of the project.
5% percent of local preference will also be awarded in this phase of the selection
process for Consultants that meet the requirements identified in paragraph 1 abo\'e. A
maximum of 100 points can be achicved in this phase of the selection process.
c) The third and final phasc of the selection process will consist of staff submitting a
final package to the :\layor and Council for consideration appro\'al. Final scores of
the top three consultants will be submitted to the Mayor and Common Council with a
recommendation to award an Agreement for Professional Services to the consultant
,,'ith thc highest numerical score. HO\ve\"Cr. the Mayor and Common Council have
the prerogative to award an Agreemcnt for Professional Services to any of the top
three consultants or reject all proposals.
d) If the Mayor and Common Council award an Agreement for Professional Serviccs.
the selected consultant will he requested to execute an Agreement for Professional
Ser,.ices (draft copy attachcd). Failure of thc consultant to cxccutc the Agreement
".ithin 60 days of approval by the Mayor and Common Council will void thc
approval.
,,-
'-"
ATTACHMENT "B" . Vicinity Map and Proposal Requirements
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 5 of 5
r
'-
c.
GE:\"ERAL I:\"FOR:\IA TlO:\"
This "Request for Proposal" does not commit the City to award a contract. pay any costs
incurred in the preparation of a proposal in response to this request. procure or contract
for any ser,ices. All proposals submitted in response to this request will become the
property of the City and may be used by the City in any way deemed appropriate. The
City rescr\"es the right to accept or to rcject. in part or in its entircty, the response to the
request for proposal if such action is decmed to be in the best interest of the City.
Any contract entcred into as a result of this proposal shall be considered to includc the
itcms of work detailcd in this proposal unless specifically deleted in the proposal at the
request of the City.
D. I:\"SU~A:\"CE REQUIREME:\"TS
The Consultant will be required to maintain in force at all times during the perfonnance
of their work the following policy or policies of insurance co\"ering its operations:
a) Comprehensi\"e General Liability, including contractual liability. products and
completed opcrations and business automobile liability, all of which will include
co\'erage for both bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of
2.000.000. The City shall be named as "additional insured" on all policies required to
~- be furnished.
\."...
b) Professional liability co\-crage \\-ith limits not less than 2,000,000 pcr occurrence and
5-1.000.000 aggregate.
c) Workers' Compensation co\'erage at statutory limits.
d) The consultant shall assume liability for thc wrongful or ncgligent acts, errors and
omissions of its officers, agents and employees and subcontractors, and have
adequate insurance to co\"cr such negligcnt acts. crrors and omissions \\-ith limits of
2,000.000 dollars.
E. PA Y'\IE:\"T
The Consultant that is rccommcnded by Staff and approved by Mayor and Common
Council shall attcnd the pre-design meeting to establish the start date. Once the Notice to
Procced has bcen given, the Consultant can submit for payments. The City will release
funds at percentages with receipt of Plans, Notices, or Specifications. No paymcnt shall
bc given abo\"e the percentage of completcd work acceptcd by thc City. Thc City shall
hold 15% of the total cost for 360 calcndar days after acceptance of the plans and
spccifications by thc City. or 45 calendar days after the City issues a Notice of
Completion for the project. whichevcr occurs first.
-
\..r Any request for additional infonnation or clarification should be submitted in writing to
Michael W. Grubbs, Engineering \1anager/Field Engineer. at (909) 384-5155 (Fax).
c
r'
\"",
r
""'
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 1 of 11
SCOPE OF WORK & TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE REPLACEMENT BRIDGE OVER WATERMAN CANYON
CREEK LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 18 ON OLD WATERMAN CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replace)
I. GENERAL PROJECT SCOPE
The existing Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge has suffered extensive damages due to storm
flows in both of the past two years (December 2003 and during the storm season extending from
the fall of 2004 through the spring of 2005). Damages suffered as a result of storm flows have
affected the abutments, wingwalls, bridge deck, bridge girders. bridge railing, approach
embankment fill slopes and abutment backfill.
The existing Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge is a single span, cast-in-place reinforced
concrete structure approximately 26'-1X" wide and approximately 22.37 feet long. The bridge
deck is constructed as a reinforced concrete T-Beam section cast monolithically with the
abutments. The date of the original 20.5-foot wide bridge construction is unknown. A 5.6-foot
wide widening section was constructed in 1 929. As-built plans are not available. A topographic
survey was completed in January of 2004, including detailed measurements of as-built
construction for exposed structural elements and limits of damages to the structure elements due
to the storm flows occurring in December of 2003.
The bridge carries an existing 4" diameter HP Gas line on the east edge of deck, and there is an
existing overhead communications line parallel with the west edge of deck. The gas line will
need to be carried on the future bridge. Bridge design shall accommodate the existing
communications and other potential future utilities.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the California Office of Emergency
Services (OES) have authorized funding (or the preparation o( bridge replacement plans and
construction of the replacement bridge.
The consulting engineer shall prepare all technical environmental reports needed for the City to
complete environmental clearances for CEQA. Technical studies may include but not be limited
to historic properties and cultural resources. biological studies. geologic investigations and water
quality. All state and local requirements for the protection of endangered species and sensitive
habitat shall be observed for this bridge replacement project.
Consultant shall prepare complete hydrology, hydraulic and debris flow analyses needed to size
the bridge replacement structure.
The City prefers that the bridge deck be designed to drain away from the bridge. However,
drainage from the bridge may be conveyed through deck drains subject to the judgement of the
consulting engineer. The Consultants' roadway engineer shall design drainage devices to control
off-site roadway drainage at the bridge approaches.
The Consultant shall develop a bridge replacement concept and submit a written type selection
report to the City of San Bernardino for concurrence of the preferred bridge replacement
alternative. Upon concurrence from the City, consultant will initiate the preparation of
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 2 of 11
~....
'-'
environmental technical studies and begin preparation of plans. special provisions, and
construction cost estimates for the bridge replacement.
The City shall provide all Surveying work.
Consultant shall perform utility investigations and certification, and complete all PS&E design
work including but not limited to hydraulic analysis and design, roadway and structural design,
and preparation of roadway closure plans. The Consultants' roadway engineer will provide
permanent signing and striping details.
Consultant shall research existing right-of-way and show on plans. If additional right-of-way is
needed. the consultant shall prepare legal descriptions and plats for the additional right-of-way
and provide to City. The City shall be responsible for acquisition of additional right-of-way.
The Consultant shall provide resources to support the project bid process, including responding
to questions submitted by Contractors, when asked to do so by City staff. Instructions to bidders
are not included in this scope of work.
This scope does not cover construction management. The City plans administer and inspect the
bridge construction using city staff. The Consultant shall provide construction support services,
to include responses to RFl's when requested by City staff and review of Contractor submittals on
an as-needed basis.
Assumptions for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (over Waterman Canyon Creek)
.-
In general, the proposed replacement shall be designed to accommodate two, 10' wide traffic
lanes with 4' wide shoulders and concrete barrier rails on each side of the bridge. Bridge design
shall meet the following criteria:
'-'
1. Concrete barrier rails shall be designed to meet the following requirements:
a) Open post and railing type to allow storm flows to pass through the railing.
b) Meet the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) requirements.
c) Be acceptable under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) 350 report criteria.
d) Meet minimum criteria specified in Section 2.7 of Caltrans' Bridge Design
Specifications (BDS).
2. The bridge length and vertical clearance over Waterman Canyon Creek shall be
sufficient to qualify for a Waterway Adequacy of 7 under FHWA's Recording and Coding
Guide for the Structure inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges (slight chance of
overtopping bridge deck and roadway approaches).
3. No sidewalks shall be required.
4. There will be no requirements for bridge railing to meet bicycle railing criteria.
5. Bridge foundations shall be protected against being washed out under 100 year storm
flows.
6. Old Waterman Canyon Road will be closed for construction of the replacement bridge.
Traffic plans and technical provisions will be needed for the roadway closure.
II. DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES
-
Task 1 - HydroloQY, Hydraulics and Debris Flow Analysis
\"..0-
The bridge replacement development includes an engineering study of various engineering
considerations. and shall include the following work:
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 3 of 11
~ ~
""'
. Evaluation of Watershed Hydrology
. Analysis of Stream Flow Hydraulics
. Estimation of Debris Flows
. Analysis of Scour Potential
Consultant shall review existing information for the watershed and Waterman Canyon Creek
sleam flows. Additional investigations shall be conducted to establish estimates of water suriace
elevation, stream flow velocity. debris flow characteristics and scour potential associated with the
following storm events:
. 100 year
. 10 year
. 3 year
Information developed by the Consultant shall be presented in a written report including plan and
section views showing limits of flooding and scour potential for each of the three analysis storm
events.
Based on the Consultant's written report. the City. in consultation with the Consultant, will select.
the design storm event for development of the bridge replacement design.
Task 2 - Bridqe Replacement Concept
-
The bridge replacement concept development includes an engineering study of various feasible
alternatives, and shall include the following work:
'-'
. Configuration of Replacement Bridge Structure to Accommodate Design Storm Flows.
including Span Length and Vertical Clearance Considerations.
. Provisions to pass debris flow to the extent economically feasible.
. Development of Scour Protection for the bridge structure and roadway approaches.
. Damage Predicted for the Replacement Bridge Structure and roadway approaches for Storm
Flows exceeding the Design Storm Event.
In establishing the recommended bridge replacement structure, the type selection evaluation
shall include but not be limited to the following considerations:
. Constructibility
. Construction Materials
. Foundation Types
. Precast vs. Cast-In-Place Construction
. Seismic Requirements
. Channel and Slope Protection Upstream and Downstream of Bridge
. Span Configuration (Depth I Span)
. Utility Openings I Utility Accommodation
. Vertical Clearances
. Construction Schedule
. Construction Cost
Specific elements to be addressed shall include:
~-
1. Hvdraulics and Hydroloqy: Bridge type selection shall provide for passage of design storm
and debris flows as established by the City on the basis of hydrology, hydraulics and debris
flow studies periormed by the Consultant.
"-'"
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 4 of 11
-
'"
2. Scour Protection: Scour protection shall be proposed to protect the bridge foundations and
approach roadways from being washed away by aesign storm events as established by the
City on the basis of studies conducted by the Consultant.
3. Structure Types: Consultant shall analyze the feasibility and cost of Precast vs. Cast-In-
Place Construction and make a recommendation based on experience. cost and
constructibility as to the preferred alternative.
4. Utility Installations: Identify the utilities that are impacted by the bridge. Utility facilities likely
to be installed on the proposed structure shail be addressed.
5. Constructibility: Consultant will evaluate the constructibility of the bridge crossings. Issues to
address include access to the site for heavy equipment. access during the rainy season. or
concerns and potential impacts falsework may have on stream flows during construction.
6. Compliance with Environmental Documents: Consultant shall evaluate the projects
environmental setting and identify those Items that may have an impact on the roadway
alignment, structure design or construction schedule of the bridge. Consultant shall
incorporate anticipated environmental mitigation Issues in the type selection evaluation.
7.
8.
~
'"
9.
Cost Estimates: Each alternative will have a cost estimate prepared identifying costs for
construction of each of the elements in the alternative.
Type Selection Exhibits: Bridge replacement geometry for each of the alternatives identified
shall be depicted in Plan, Elevation and Typical Section and shall include a roadway profile
which includes the roadway touchdowns at each end of the proposed improvements. Begin
and End of Bridge Stations shall be identified on the plans.
Preferred Alternative: Consultant will recommend a Preferred Alternative and give reasons
for the preferred replacement type selection.
Task 3 - Geotechnical Services
General
Geotechnical Engineer shall perform geotechnical and bridge foundation investigation and
testing, and prepare the final reports and exhibits required to obtain permits, approvals and
support the design and construction of the bridge replacement.
Geotechnical Standards
The project involves facilities owned by the City. The City requires all bridge and approach
roadway work to conform to Caltrans bridge design and construction standards and Caltrans'
Highway Design Manual. Roadway approach work details shall conform to the City of San
Bernardino Standard Plans. The Geotechnical Engineer shall identify and confirm specific
submittal and delineation requirements in advance of performing the work. All geotechnical
investigation and reporting shall be consistent with Caltrans standards. procedures. manuals and
specifications.
Units
-
'-'
Reports and Drawings shall depict all dimensions in English units.
Geotechnical Tasks
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 5 of 11
c
3.1. Geotechnical Investigation I Report
Geotechnical Engineer shall perform geotechnical investigations necessary to complete draft
and final foundation reports required to proceed with final bridge design conforming to
Caltrans bridge design requirements.
Geotechnical Engineer shall evaluate seismic hazards and develop recommendations for
earthquake design criteria per standards of practice (Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria).
These recommendations shall be presented within the foundation report.
The Geotechnical Engineer shall obtain any permits and utility clearances needed to
complete field investigations. It is envisioned that no drilling will be performed in the traveled
way and no traffic controls will be needed for the geotechnical exploration activities.
The geotechnical tasks shall include the following:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~....
V
Review of existing soil information
Field investigation
Laboratory testing
Determination o( static and dynamic soil strength parameters (as appropriate)
Assessment of site liquefaction potential and lateral spreading
Assessment of Soil Corrosivity
Seismic design recommendations
Potential impact on the bridge foundation due to adjacent embankment fill settlement
Review I comment on scour parameters prepared by others
Recommendations on foundation design alternatives and construction (including
shallow and deep pile foundation alternatives)
Proposed Field Exploration DrillinQ ProQram: Geotechnical Engineer shall include the
number. depths. and location of each boring, bore hole logging procedure, sampling
procedures and the number of samples (disturbed and undisturbed) anticipated, and other
proposed field tests to be conducted.
Borings shall be performed in compliance with all applicable environmental protections.
Geotechnical Submittals:
. Proposed Field Exploration Drilling Program
. Preliminary Soils and Foundation Report
. Final Soils and Foundation Report
. Log of Test Borings
Log of Test Borings shall be in accordance with Caltrans Standards using the Caltrans soil
legend, and shall be prepared for inclusion within the final bridge replacement plans. The
Geotechnical Engineer under whose responsibility the geotechnical work was prepared shall
stamp and sign the final Log of Test Borings.
3.2. Geotechnical Engineering Foundation Specifications and Review of Foundation Plan
The Geotechnical Engineer shall review technical specifications for foundations, including
excavation, backfill, piling as required. preparation of subgrade, retaining wall drainage, and
other pertinent geotechnical Items. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve the
foundation plan. The Geotechnical professional named in the Agreement covering this
Scope shall sign the foundation plan.
~
'-'
.
Geotechnical Engineering Support Services During Construction
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 6 of 11
c
Provide support to dent as requested during bid-phase and construction phase. Respond to
RFl's and review proposed field changes as required. Support client with fiela inspections
when reques:ed.
Task 4 - Initial PS&E
General
Consultant shall design the project in accordance with the most recent of the follawing Caltrans
bridge design criteria dated prior to Initiation of the PS&E process:
1. Project Environmental Dacuments
2. Bridge Design Specifications Manual
3. Bridge Design Details Manual
4. Bridge Design Aids Manual
5. Bridge Memo to Designers
6. Seismic Design Criteria
7. Standard Plans (for bridge structure items)
8. Standard Specifications (for bridge structure items)
9. Guide far the Submittal af Plans, Specifications and Estimates
10. Standard Special Provisions with current amendments
11. Bridge Standard Details Sheets
12. Highway Design Manual with current amendments
13. Traffic Manual with current amendments
c
In addition, bridge barrier railing shall conform to the recammendations as incorparated in the
following references:
1. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 350 Report.
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Draftine of Plans: Plans shall be computer drafted in AutoCAD format and shall be plotted on
standard 24'"'x36'" plan sheets per City af San Bernardlna standards. The final plan submittal
shall include one set of Engineer signed hard copy plans an vellum sheets. All drafting of bridge
plans shall be performed in accordance with Caltrans detailing standards. format and
conventions.
Specifications: Consultant shall prepare a draft and final set of Specifications (one set of hard
copy and one set of electronic file on MS Word per Caltrans SSP format covering all work items
for which consultant is responsible. Specifications shall be based upon July 2002 Standard
Specifications, State of California, Department of Transportation. Consultant's specifications
shall supplement and list all modifications to the Caltrans Standard Specifications.
Utilitv Notices: Client through its consultant will handle utility notices and agreements.
Structure Desiqn Check
,....
'-'
Consultant shall perform a comprehensive check of the bridge design. Consultant shall confirm
the structural design and details of the bridges through a detailed and systematic review of the
design calculations prepared by Registered Civil Engineers and/or Registered Structural
Engineers, who are duly licensed by the State of California, and who were not involved with the
original design. Original calculation sheets will be initialed by the structure review engineer as
conforming to the bridge design standards identified in this scope of work. The structure review
shall include but not be limited to the following tasks:
-
L,.
"
'-"
~.....
'-'
ATTACHMENT "B" .. Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 7 of 11
. Review of relevant background and supporting information.
. Verificatlcn of member capacities.
. Review of structure plans for completeness and consistency with the design.
. Resolution of design issues with the design engineer with final design reflecting agreement
between the designer and checker.
. Review of the project special provisions to ensure all bridge items of work are adequately
addressed.
. Review of Construction Cost Estimate
Quantitv Calculations: Consultant shall prepare a set of Quantity Calculations. All bid items used
in the construction cost estimate shall be described in the quantity calculations. Calculations
shall be neat, orderly. and show all sketches, diagrams, and dimensions.
Cost Estimate: Consultant shall prepare a Cost Estimate. which includes all bid items described
within the "Specifications" as noted above. The estimate shall use the same nomenclature and
units of pay as indicated in the Specifications. The estimate shall reflect current Cost Data prices
as described in construction cost data published by Caltrans.
Client understands that consultant has no control of the actual cost o( construction or the
successful bidder's method of pricing. Consultant's cost estimate is made solely on the
basis of the consultant's qualifications and experience as a design professional.
Task 5 - Final PS&E
Upon receipt of agencieslentities', and Client's comments and recommended revisions to the
Initial PS&E submittal, Consultant will proceed with revising the plan set. specifications andlor
design calculations as necessary for the items of work as previously directed to be performed by
City under Task 4.
Task 6 - Bid Set
Upon final resolution of comments and recommended revisions to the Final PS&E submittal,
consultant wili proceed with finalizing the plan set, specifications andlor design calculations as
necessary for the items of work as previously directed to be performed by client under Task 5.
Other items required for the Bid Set are:
Resident Enqineers File: Consultant shall prepare a Resident Engineer's File. which shall
include any memos to the Resident Engineer.
4 Scale Plan: Consultant shall prepare a 4-Scale Deck Contours Plan for the bridge.
Task 7 - Construction Support Services
Consultant will be retained on a Time and Materials basis to provide construction support
services, including:
. Consultant shall review and take appropriate action upon client supplied Contract Change
Orders (CCO's). Consultant's review and action shall be for conformance with the design
concept of the Project and with appropriate construction specifications and details.
. Consultant shall review and take appropriate action upon client supplied Contractor
submittals such as shop drawings, sam pies of construction material. and product data as
required in the construction documents. Consultant's review and action shall be only for
conformance with the design concept of the Project and With the information given in the
construction documents. Consultant's review of any Contractor prepared drawings shall not
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 8 of 11
c
relieve the Contractor from it's sole responsibility for dimensions, quantities, calculations.
weights, fabrication processes. co~struction means and methods. coordination of trades or
safety factors related to construction.
.
Provide adjustments and revisions to design based upon unanticipated andlor unknown field
conditions encountered during the course of construction.
Consultant shall not perform any work related to this task without prior direction from client's
designee.
III. ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED BY CLIENT
A. Precise Aliqnment & Centerline Profile: Consultant shall prepare the Construction Plans
based on the final alignment and centerline profile provided by client. Consultant and client or its
roadway consultant shall mutually agree on the form of the delivery of said information.
B. CEQA: Client will provide final environmental requirements for the project supported by
technical studies performed by the Consultant.
C. Survey: The client will provide a 3D electronic file of the Project area, in AutoCAD format for
use by Consultant in project design.
r....
'-'
IV. MEETINGS
Consultant shall attend & conduct project status meetings, with staff as directed and with others
as required, to discuss status and/or other details of Project. Meetings shall be held once per
month except for conditions when the progress work schedule is delayed beyond the control of
the consultant. Minutes of all meetings shall be prepared by consultant and submitted to meeting
attendees within 10 working days following each meeting.
At the request of the client, consultant" shall attend such other meetings or presentations as
needed to complete the terms of this scope.
V. SCHEDULE
The consultant shall submit a Schedule to client for approval within ten (10) days of Notice to
Proceed as issued by the client, or his designee. Schedule shall be prepared containing the
items of work and time frames set forth within this Scope of Work. The Schedule shall provide for
completion of this work by consultant by the date listed in this Scope. This date shall be
considered as the date the Project will be approved to advertise for bids by client.
The Work identified under Task 7 "Construction Support Services", shall not be included in the
schedule.
By entering into agreement with client to prepare the plans and spE'cial provisions, consultant
acknowledges that time is of the essence in the completion of tasks noted herein. Consultant
shall complete this contract within the agreed upon time frame.
~...
.....,.
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replace"1ent)
City of San Bernardino
Page 9 of 11
c
VI.
ADMINISTRATION
A. Submittals
Task 1 - Hydraulics and Hydrology: Consultant shall complete hydrology. hydraulics, debris
flow and scour analyses no later than 20 Working Days from NTP.
Task 2 - Bridge Replacement Concepts: Consultant shall complete a report on bridge
replacement alternatives by 35 working days from the Notice to Proceed.
Task 3 - Geotechnical Services:
Geotechnical Engineer shall provide submittals in accordance with the following timetable.
-
.........
Task Schedule
Proposed Field Exploration 10 Working Days from NTP
Prooram
Field Investigations 15 working days from Approved
Exploration
Seismic criteria and preliminary 10 working days following Field
foundation recommendations Investioations
Draft Report 15 working days following Field
Investioations
Final Report 10 working days following receipt of
Comments on Draft Report
LOTS For 65% Submittal
Task 4 - Initial PS&E:
Geometric Approval Drawings - This submittal shall consist of plans showing the proposed
roadway alignment, profile. and superelevation for the proposed bridge replacement. This
submittal shall be consistent with the findings of all hydraulics and hydrology investigations,
shall incorporate the City's response to those findings. and anticipated bridge replacement
details. Consultant schedule shall reflect a 15 working day review period for return of
comments. This submittal shall be made no later than 15 working days from receipt of the
report of hydraulics and hydrology investigations.
Unchecked Details Submittal - This submittal shall consist of Unchecked Plans and Draft
Specifications in accordance with this Scope of Work. This submittal shall consist of an
approximate level of 65% completion of the plans and specifications to Client (100% plans).
Consultant shall deliver copies of this package to client as delineated in the table at the end
of this section. Consultant will arrange for distribution of package to reviewing parties andlor
other local agencies identified by the client, and will collect for incorporation and transmit
review comments to the City for information. Consultant schedule shall reflect a (ive (5) week
period for review and return of comments. This submittal shall be made no later than 40
working days from the date the geometric approval drawings are approved by the City.
~ ~
'-
Checked Details Submittal - This submittal shall consist of Initial or Checked Plans,
Specifications. Quantity Calculations, Engineer's Estimate and Engineering Calculations in
accordance with this Scope of Work. This submittal shall consist of an approximate level of
95% completion of the plans and specifications. Consultant shall deliver copies of this
package to client as delineated in the table at the end of this section. Consultant will arrange
for distribution of package to reviewing parties andlor other local agencies identified by the
client, and will collect for incorporation and transmit review comments to the client for
-
'-'
,...
'-'
".
\.,.,
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 10 of 11
information. Consultant schedule shall reflect a five (5) week period for review and return of
comments. This submittal shall be made no later than 25 working days following receipt of
comments on the unchecked detail submittal.
Task 5 - Final PS&E: This submittal shall consist of Final plans. Specifications, Quantity
Calculations, Engineer's Estimate. and Design Calculations in accordance with the provisions
of this Scope of Work. This submittal shall be equivalent to 100% completion of this Scope,
excluding Task 6. Consultant shall deliver copies of this package to client as delineated in
the table at the end of this section. Consultant will arrange for distribution of package to
reviewing parties and/or other local agencies identified by the City, and will collect for
incorporation and transmit review comments to the City for information. AlE schedule shall
reflect a three (3) week period for review and return of comments. This submittal shall be
made no later than 25 working days following receipt of comments on the 95% submittal.
Task 6 - Bid Set: This submittal shall consist of Final plans, Specifications, Quantity
Calculations, Engineer's Estimate, RE Pending file, and 4-scale in accordance with the
provisions of this Scope of Work. This submittal shall be equivalent to camera ready
completion of this Scope. excluding Task 6. Consultant shall deliver copies of this package
to client as delineated in the table below. This submittal shall be made no later than 15
working days following receipt of comments on the 100% submittal.
Task 7- Construction Support Services: Construction Support Services as requested by the
client, or designee, will be performed by AlE as requested.
Submittal Requirements: The following submittal elements shall be made as follows:
For Structures
Initial PS&E
No of Copies Concept Unchecked Checked Final Bid
Evaluation Details Details PS&E Set
Concept Evaluation 3 - - - -
11x17 Plans (Bond) - 5 5 5 -
22x34 Plans (Vellum) - - - - 1
Structure Special Provisions - 2 2 2 2
(SSP's)
Disk Containing SSP's - - 1 1 1
Marginal Estimate, - - 2 2 2
Quantities & Check
Quantities
Desian Calculations . - 1 l' -
RE Pending File (MR Form - - - - 1
& CT Bridae Form)
4-Scale Plot of Deck - - - - 1
Contours
. - as revised
c
c
c
A TT ACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 11 of 11
For Geotechnical
Initial PS&E
No of Copies Concept Unchecked Checked Final Bid
Evaluation Details Details PS&E Set
Proposed Field Exploration 2 - - - -
Pronram
Seismic criteria and 2 - - - -
preliminary foundation
recommendations
Draft Reoort - 2 - - .
Final Renort - - 2 - -
LOTB - - 1 1 1
A. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
The development of a QAlQC plan is left up to the consultant subject to consultants plan meeting
the general minimum specifications. which follow below.
The QAlQC plan shall assure a high degree of involvement of the consultant and shall assure
that the engineer signing the plans meets the definition of ..responsible charge" in the
Professional Engineers Act.
The QAlQC plan shall name a licensed professional engineer in the State of California
responsible for QAlQC.
The QAlQC plan shall assure that submittals are checked and shall name a person responsible
for checking. Checking shall include the following:
. Verification that criteria and manuals have in fact been followed and the identification of
any deviations and any resolutions.
. Identification of all proposed deviations from Caltrans criteria and manuals and their
resolution.
. Check of structural calculations and geometric calculations (separate from the
independent check otherwise specified herein).
. Verification that quantities are accurate.
QAlQC is integral to all the tasks of this scope of work. In delivering a quality product on
schedule and within budget it is presumed each task is included in the overall QAlQC process.
Therefore. the fee for each task within this scope of work shall include QAlQC and there shall be
no separate pay item for QAlQC.
B. Corrections
Corrections to the Plans. Specifications, Special Provisions. Quantity Calculations. Engineer's
Estimate are anticipated and shall be considered as part of the normal design process. No
extension of time or fees shall be allowed for corrections as described herein above.
C. Completion of Work
The target date for the completion of work described in this agreement, excepting construction
support services. is as provided in the schedule. Extension of the completion date shall be
granted for delays outside of the control o( the consultant. subject to the approval of the client.
c
...
.........
~...
'"-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
300 North "D" Street. San Bernardino' CA 92418.0001
Planning & Building 909.384.5057 . Fax: 909.384.5080
Public Works/Engineering 909.384.5111' Fax: 909.384.5155
www.sbcity.org
~
February 3, 2006
To: Qualified and Interested Consultants
Amendment to Request for Statement of Qualifications and Technical Proposals for Design of a
Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek located approximately One Mile North of
Highway 18 on Old Waterman Canyon Road in the City Of San Bernardino.
Gentlemen:
The insurance requirements for the subject request Cor proposals is hereby amended as follows:
16.
LIABILITY/I!'ISURA!'iCE
Consultant shall maintain insurance policies meeting the minimum requirements set forth herein.
All insurance maintained by the Consultant shall be pro\'ided by insurers satisfactory to the City.
Certificates e\.idencing all insurance co\'erage required herein shall be deli\'ered to the City prior
to the Consultant perCorming any of the services under the Agreement. All insurance certificates
required herein shall name the City as an additional insured and pro\'ide for thirty (30) days
written notice from the insurer to the City prior to cancellation of any insurance policy of the
Engineer.
A. ERRORS & 0:--'1ISSIONS - The Consultant shall maintain errors and omissions
IDsurance with a combined single limit of not less than One Million Dollars
(S I ,000,000.00) per occurrence.
B. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY AND AUTOMOBILE INSURA.NCE _
The Consultant shall maintain comprehensive general liability and automobile liability
insurance with a combined single limit of not less than One Million Dollars
($ 1.000,000.00) per occurrence.
C. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE - The Consultant shall maintain
worker's compensation insurance in accordance with the laws of the Stale of California
for all workers employees by the Consultant.
If you have any questions, please contact Michael Grubbs at (909)384-5179.
~~
:--'Iichael W. Grubbs, p.E.
Engineering ManagerlField Engineer
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From:
James Funk, Director
Subject:
Cancellation of contract with GWINCO Construction
and Engineering, Inc. for Old Waterman Canyon Road
Bridge Repair (SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, payment
to GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for
direct and indirect costs incurred for Old Waterman
Canyon Road Bridge Repair (SS05-ll) per plan no.
11304, and Resolution approving Agreement for
Professional Services with LAN Engineering
Corporation to provide Engineering Services for the
Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement
and authorization for the Director of Finance to amend
the FY 05/06 Budget.
Dept:
Development Services
Date:
April 17, 2006
MCC Date:
May 1,2006
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
Sept. 2004 Approved 2004/2005 CIp (SS05-11) Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair.
Au~. 2005 Approved 2005/2006 Clp (SS05-11) Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair.
Dec. 20, 2004 Adopted Reso. No. 2004-391 awarding a contract to Gwinco Construction and Engineering. Inc., for Old
Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair (SS05-11) in the amount of$141,991.76.
Recommended Motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council:
I. Cancel the contract with GWINCO Constmction and Engineering, Inc. for Old Waterman. Canyon Road Bridge Repair
(SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, under provisions of Section 6-5 of the Standard Specifications; and
2. Authorize payment of $19,368.00 to GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for direct and indirect costs incurred for
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair (SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, and
3. Adopt Resolution approving Agreement for Professional Services with LAN Engineering Corporation to provide Engineering
Services for the Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement, and
4. Authorize the Director of Finance to amend the FY05/06 Budget to reflect anticipated revenues to be received
from FEMA and OES in the total amount of $505,000, and to create a new Account No. 004-362-5504-XXXX
"Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement". q~ ~
\f James Funk
Contact Person: Michael Gmbbs, Eng. Mgr./Field Engineer Phnne:
5179
Staff Report, Maps, Reso.. Attachment
Supporting data attached: I (Agreement) and Ward:
Attachment B (RFP)
4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: S 19.368.00 (Aeet No. 004-362-5504-7452
$224.621 (Acct. No. 004-362-5504-XXXX)
Source: (Acct. No)
Acct. Description: SS05-ll Old Waterman Canyon Road
Bridge Repair
Council Notes:
Finance:
f?AMJ~1- IF! '-1/
611 /{If.
/ I
Agenda Item No.-
_S- j; 5/06
3q
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Cancellation of contract with GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge
Repair (SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, payment to GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for direct and indirect
costs incurred for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair (SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, and resolution approving
Agreement for Professional Services with LAN Engineering Corporation to provide Engineering Services for the
Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement and authorization for the Director of I'inance to amend the FY
05/06 Budget.
BllCkl!round:
On September 7, 2003, the Mayor and Common Council adopted the FY 2004/09 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
which included a project to repair Old Waterman Canyon Bridge (SS05-11).
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 the Christmas Day mud flow, which occurred on December 25, 2003.
A federal disaster was declared and was identified as Disaster Declaration No. 1498. An allocation from FEMA was
approved and appropriated in the amount of $185,000 for interim and permanent repairs to the bridge.
Interim repairs and design of the bridge repair was completed at a cost of$49,323.50 in 2004. On December 20, 2004,
a contract was awarded to GWINCO Construction in the amount of$141,991.76 for repair of the damaged structure.
Unfortunately, the bridgc rcceived further significant damage from a storm on January 10, 2005. Another federal
disaster was declared (Disaster Declaration No. 1577) as a result of the intense rainfall and damage the storm of
January 10, 2005. FEMA determined that the additional damage would result in repair costs exceeding 50% of the
replacement cost of the structure. Therefore, FEMA cancelled the original allocation for repair cost and approved an
estimate of $505.000 to replace the structure. Of that amount, 75% is reimbursable from FEMA and 25% is
reimbursable from the Office of Emergency Services (OES). The City can apply for additional reimbursement if the
actual project cost exceeds $505,000. Copies of the I'EMA worksheets for both emergency and permanent repairs are
attached.
Based on recent design studies and cost estimates using current construction prices, the cost of replacement may be as
high as $1,500,000, which substantially exceeds the $505,000 approved by FEMA. Staff contacted Larry Miller,
Public Assistance Officer of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services regarding this concern and Mr. Miller
advised that we proceed with design of the replacement structure and submit a request for additional funding after bids
are received.
Attached is a copy of the worksheet indicating dc-allocation of the original bridge repair funding and re-allocation of
bridge replacement funding as provided by FEMA.
Additionally, staff has requested a time extension hecause the original allocation will expire in July of 2006. Due to
the need for environmental studies and permits from the Corps of Engineers, State Department of Fish and Game, and
clearance from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the project is not expected to start construction
until May of2007.
FEMA cancelled the original allocation for repair of the bridge and directed that the City proceed no further with the
repair contract. The City directed GWINCO to cease work on the project and asking for a closing invoice. It is now
necessary for the City to pay GWINCO's costs and cancel the remainder of the contract. Due to heavy storms that
occurred during the construction period, GWINCO was not able to accomplish any physical work at the site.
However, GWINCO did incur some direct cost for materials ordered prior to direction to cease work and
administrative costs associated with processing, scheduling and ordering labor and materials required for the project.
GWINCO was also requested hy City staff to assist in assessing the additional damages to the hridge due to the winter
storms of 2004/05 and estimating the cost of additional repairs.
2
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT (Continued)
GWINCO has submitted Invoicc No. 2410-1 (revised) dated 04/11/06, copy attached, requesting payment in the
amount of $19,368.00 to compensate the contractor for direct and indirect costs incurred during the course of the
contract. Staff concurs that the requested compensation is reasonable.
On January 6, 2006, a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Professional Services was sent to 20 civil and structural
engineering firms. Four (4) fiftns responded to the RFP. On February 6, 2006, proposals were received from the
following consultant entities:
Company Location
LAN Engineering Corporation San Bernardino
Willdan San Bernardino
KPFF Consulting Engineers Inc. Roseville
PB Engineers San Bernardino
The proposals were evaluated (Phase I Rating-evaluation of proposals) by staff based on a rating system previously
approved by the Mayor and Common Council for Public Works projects. The phase I rating system includes, but is
not limited to, such factors as past experience with similar types of projects, adequacy and experience of staff,
completeness of proposal, past experience working with the consultant, understanding the requirements of the
project, local preference, and price. LAN Engineering Corporation, WilIdan, and PB Engineers were rated the top 3
consultants for this project based on the evaluation of proposals. Therefore, interviews were conducted with these
three firms (Phase" Rating-interview).
A selection committee which interviewed the three (3) consultant firms consisted of: James Funk, Development
Services Director; Mark Lancaster, Deputy DirectorlCity Engineer; and Mike Grubbs, Engineering Manager/Field
Engineer
The reviewers Ie valuators selected the team of LAN Engineering Corporation based on their qualifications and staff's
previous experience with the firm, completeness of the proposal, understanding of the project, local preference, and
other criteria established in the City Council's approved evaluation criteria and rating system.
LAN Engineering Corporation is a local engineering firm, providing structural design and management services,
and construction management and inspection services on public works projects to municipalities and counties. This
company has extensive public and private sector experiences, with many projects in the City of San Bernardino.
LAN Engineering Corporation has designed many structures of similar scope for local municipalities and also has
extensive experience in managing and inspecting the construction of these types of projects. Staff of the City has
had positive working relations with LAN Engineering Corporation.
Review of LAN's proposal and LAN's performance in the evaluation interview conducted by City staff
demonstrated experience with similar projects and superior knowledge of the problems involved designing a
replacement for the Old Waterman Bridge.
Proposed fees for services were as follows:
Negotiated "not-to-exceed
Three Highest Ranked Company Proposed Fee fee" with #1 Ranked
Consultant
LAN Engineering Corporation $271,361 $224,621
Willdan $96,650 NIA
PB Engineers $485,940 NIA
3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT (Continued)
Although Willdan submitted the proposal with the lowest price, the proposal submitted by LAN Engineering
Corporation was clearly superior based on a consideration of all the rating factors. LAN Engineering Corporation
agreed to reduce its fee based on clarifications and negotiation with City staff.
Financial Impact:
Sufficient funding is available in Account No. 004-362-5504-7452 "SS05-11 Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Repair"
to compensate GWINCO for costs incurred prior to stopping work on the contract and to fund the Agreement
proposed herein with LAN Engineering Corporation. Funding for the LAN Engineering Corporation Agreement is
reimbursable from FEMA and OES. The final settlement with GWINCO in the amount of $19,368.00 was not
known when FEMA directed that the repair project be closed out. Therefore, funds were not approved by FEMA to
cover the closeout costs. However, staff will submit the closeout costs to FEMA and OES to GWINCO.
Recommendation:
That the Mayor and Common Council:
1. Cancel the contract with GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge
Repair (SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, under provisions of Section 6-5 of the Standard Specifications; and
2. Authorize payment of $19,368.00 to GWINCO Construction and Engineering, Inc. for direct and indirect costs
incurred for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge Repair (SS05-11) per plan no. 11304, and
3. Adopt Resolution approving Agreement for Professional Services with LAN Engincering Corporation to provide
Engineering Services for the Design of Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement, and
4. Authorize the Director of Finance to amend the FY05/06 Budget to reflect anticipated revenues to be received
from FEMA and OES in the total amount of $505,000, and to create a new Account No. 004-362-5504-XXXX
"Old Waterman Canyon Bridge Replacement".
4
APR 11,2006 08:49A
000-000-00000
page 2
tlWlNtD tDNsrRUUIDN & INtI.,ING
8126 Inspiration 0,.. "Aha loma, CA 91701
Phone: (909) 481-9996" Fax: (909) 944-9908
Email: 6wincol@aol.com .. lic.T69266-A
INVOICE
Date: 4/11/06
He: Old Waterman Canyon Bridge per Plan 1\10.11304
Inwlce#: 2410-1 (ReWied)
Item # Description Quan. Unit Price Total
Contract Cancellation Costs.........
1 Bond, Steel Supplier, Engineering (biddinl! of original proposal and
additional proposal)
3,130.00
2,238.00
4,000.00
10,000.00
Total Due: 19,368.00
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF
SUBDlVIStON
FEMA PW #
2075
VSN 0
REF# CSB2B
PREPARED DATE 06/03/2005
REPORT DATE 06/27/200514:42
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
CATEGORY B. Protective Measures COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO FUNDING OPTION COST SHARE 0.75
STD PROJECT NO. PROJECT TITLE EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES - OLD WATERMAN CANYC
Does the Scope of Work change the pre-disaster conditions at the site?
Special Considerations issues included?
Is there insurance coverage on this facility?
Hazard Mitigation proposal included?
PROJECTED CMPLTN DT08l04/2005 ACTUAL CMPLTN DT
ELIGIBILITY Yes AMOUNT ELlG $11,445.99
BEGIN DESIGN 01 BEGtN CONSTR DT
END DESIGN DT END CONSTR DT
PREPARER KRISHNAIAH, R
ROLE PO DATA SOURCE Paper
STATE
DATE OBLGTD06/15/2005 PACKAGE DATE 06/15/2005
PACKAGE 10 89
WORK COMPLETE AS OF 06/03/2005
70 %
FEDERAL SHARE $8,584.49 PRIORITY Normal
PW REVIEWER DATA
REVIEWER NAME
INITIAL REVIEW ALLBRITTON,JAMES
FINAL REVIEW ALLBRITTON.JAMES
DATE
06/14/2005
06/14/2005
MT PROP 0 Yes. No
PNP QUESTIONS 0 Yes. No
ATTACH. Yes 0 No
VALIDATED. Yes 0 No
STATE RVWD 0 Yes. No
o Yes
. Yes
o Yes
o Yes
. No
o No
. No
. No
o Unsure
o Unsure
o Unsure
o Unsure
Page 1 of 6
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
FEMA PW #
2075
VSN 0
REF# CSB2B
PREPARED DATE 06103/2005
REPORT DATE 06/27/2005 14:42
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - ORI577
FtPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF
SUBDtVISION
SITE NUMBER 1 of 1
FACILITY NAME OLD WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE
ADDRESS
Latitude 34.19138
Longitude -117.27382
CITY SAN BERNARDINO
STATE CA ZIP
Was this site previously damaged? 0 Yes 0 No . Unsure
SITE NUMBER 1 - LOCATION
OLD WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE, ONE MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 18 ON OLD WATERMAN CANYON ROAD. SAN BERNARDINO, CA
SITE NUMBER 1 - DAMAGE DIMENSIONS AND DESCRtPTION
HEAVY RAINFALL DURING THE 1577-DR-CA DISASTER CREATED A LARGE VOLUME OF RUN-OFF IN WEST TWIN CREEK WHICH
FLOWS UNDER OLD WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE. THE RUN-OFF CARRIED DEBRIS INCLUDING MUD, ROCK. AND VEGETATION
(TREE TRUNKS) AND DEPOSITED IT IN A 10 FOOT X 20 FOOT CULVERT UNDER THE BRIDGE. THE DEBRIS BLOCKED THE CULVERT
AND RESULTED IN FLOODING THE ROADWAY ABOVE THE CULVERT. THE FLOOD WATERS WASHED OUT 100 FEET OF GUARD RAIL
ALONG THE BRIDGE.
SITE NUMBER 1 - SCOPE OF WORK
WORK COMPLETED:
THE SCOPE OF WORK COMPLETED CONSISTS OF INSTALLING 100 FEET OF K-RAIL ON THE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM SIDES
OF THE BRIDGE DECK AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE TO MAKE THE BRIDGE SAFE WHILE PERMANENT REPAIRS ARE PLANNED. AS
AN EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES (CAT B) THE APPLICANT INSTALLED K-RAILS TO REDUCE THE IMMEDIATE THREAT TO
PUBLIC SAFETY. THE CITY USED GUZMAN CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLETE THE SCOPE OF WORK. INVOICE FROM GUZMAN IS
ATTACHED TO THIS PW.
WORK TO BE COMPLETED:
INSTALL TIE AND CRASH CUSHIONS ON K-RAIL. THE CITY PLANS TO USE GUZMAN TO INSTALL THE TIE AND CRASH CUSHIONS.
GUZMAN'S PROPOSAL TO COMPLETE THE SCOPE OF WORK IS ATTACHED TO THIS PW.
ELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDE CONTRACTOR COST FOR WORK ALREADY COMPLETE AND WORK TO BE COMPLETED.
Page 2 of 6
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO, CtTY OF
SUBDIVISION
FEMA PW #
VSN 0
REF# CSB2B
2075
PREPARED DATE 06/03/2005
REPORT DATE 06/27/2005 14:42
tNF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
COST ESTIMATE
~TEMI~CODEI MATERIALAND/ORDESCRtPTION II UOM II QTY II
1 0 0000 WORK COMPLETED LS
2 0 9003 GUZMAN CONSTRUCTION - SEE INVOICE FOR K.RAIL LS
INSTALLATION
3 0 0000 WORK TO BE COMPLETED LS
4 0 9001 GUZMAN CONSTRUCTION -INSTALL K-RAIL TIES AND LS
CRASH CUSHIONS
UNIT PRICE I ~_C.9ST
SOO
S3,295.97
500
58.150.02
Total (this version)
Total Oblig To Date
Unobligated + Obligated
Federal Share for Obligated and Unobligated
Eligible Amounts:
I
50.00
53.295.97
So.oo
S8.150.02
$11.445.99
$11,445.99
$11,445.99
$8,584.49
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
FIRM MAPS NUMBER 06071C7935 F - DAMAGED FACILITY IS LOCATED IN
ZONE A - SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY 100-YR FLOOD, NO
BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS DETERMINED).
Is the damaged facility or item of work located within or adjacent to a Coastal Barrier Resource
System Unit or an Otherwise Protected Area?
1
Does the damaged facility or item of work have insurance coverage and/or is it an insurable risk
(e.g.. buildings, equipment,vehicles,etc.)?
2
Is the damaged facility located within a floodplain or coastal high hazard area and/or does it have
an impact on a floodplain or wetland?
COMMENTS: 06/13/200513:33:20
3
4 Will the proposed facility repairs/reconstruction change the pre-disaster conditions (e.g., footprint,
material, location, capacity,use or function)?
5 Does the applicant have a hazard mitigation proposal or would the applicant like technical
assistance for a hazard mitigation proposal?
6 Is the damaged facility on the National Register of Historic Places or the state historic listing? Is it
older than 50 years? Are there more,similar buildings near the site?
7 Are there any pristine or undisturbed areas on, or near, the project site? Are there large tracts of
forestland?
8 Are there any hazardous materials at or adjacent to the damaged facility and/or item of work?
9 Are there any other environmental or controversial issues associated with the damaged facility
and/or item of work?
Page 3 of 6
o Yes
. No
o Unsure
. Yes
o No
o Unsure
o Yes
. No
o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
D~CLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO. CITY OF
SUBDIVISION
FEMA PW #
2075
VSN 0
REF# CS828
PREPARED DATE 06/03/2005
REPORT DATE 06/27/2005 14:42
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
ENVIRONMENTAL - All Environmental Review is complete.
Laws and Executive Orders Review. All Other Laws/EOs complete. . JALLBRIT
Laws/EOs Status
Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA)
Gen Revw/NA
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Gen Revw/NA
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
Gen Revw/NA
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Gen Revw/NA
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
Gen Revw/NA
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
Gen ReVIN/NA
Clean Air Act (CM)
Gen Revw/NA
E.O. 11988: Floodplains
Gen Revw/NA
E.O. 11990: Wetlands
Gen Revw/NA
E.O. 12898: Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations
Gen Revw/NA
NEPA level of Review - 06/27/200514:42:39. This project is statutorily excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Acl
and no other environmental review or documentation is required. - JAllBRIT
Page 4 of 6
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF
SUBDIVISION
FEMA PW #
2075
VSN 0
REF# CSB2B
PREPARED DATE 06/03/2005
REPORT DATE 06127/200514:42
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
Standard Conditions
1. Any change to the approved scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders.
2. This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient to comply with all federal, state
and local laws. Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding.
3. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground disturbance and if any potential archeological resources are
discovered, will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA.
GENERAL COMMENTS
06113/05- COMPLETE RECORDS AND COST DOCUMENTS FOR ALL APPROVED WORK MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR AT LEAST 3 YEARS
FROM THE DATE THE LAST PROJECT WAS COMPLETED OR FROM THE DATE FINAL PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED, WHICHEVER IS
LATER. R BARNARD / PAC
Page 5 of 6
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
D~CLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF
SUBDtVISION
FEMA PW #
2075
VSN 0
REF# CSB2B
PREPARED DATE 06/03/2005
REPORT DATE 06127/2005 14:42
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
PW REQUIRED REVIEWS
REVIEW
Initial
Final
REVIEW
STATUS
Complete
Complete
ASStGNED
RECOMMENDATION REVIEWER
Eligible
Eligible
Page 6 of 6
REVIEWER .
jallbrit
jallbrit
DATE DATE
SUBMITTED REVIEWED
06/13/2005
06/14/2005
06114/2005
06/14/2005
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF
SUBDIVISION
FEMA PW #
2473
VSN 0
REF# CSB2C
PREPARED DATE 06103/2005
REPORT DATE 06127/2005 14:43
INF TYPE a INF
. NON-INF
a REC
CATEGORY C. Roads & Bridges
STD PROJECT NO.
COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO FUNDING OPTION
PROJECT TITLE ROAD REPAIR. OLD WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE
PROJECTED CMPL TN DT 08/04/2006 ACTUAL CMPL TN DT
ELIGIBILITY Yes AMOUNT ELlG $505.000.00
BEGIN DESIGN 01 BEGIN CONSTR DT
END DESIGN DT END CONSTR DT
PREPARER KRISHNAIAH. R
ROLE PO DATA SOURCE Paper
STATE
DATE OBLGTD PACKAGE DATE
PACKAGE 10
COST SHARE 0.75
WORK COMPLETE AS OF 06103/2005
o %
FEDERAL SHARE $378,750.00 PRtORITYNormal
PW REVIEWER DATA
REVIEWER NAME DATE
INITIAL REVIEW ALLBRITTON.JAMES 06/25/2005
FINAL REVIEW
MT PROP a Yes. No
PNP QUESTIONS a Yes. No
ATTACH. Yes a No
VALIDATED. Yes a No
STATE RVWD a Yes. No
Does the Scope of Work change the pre-dlsaster conditions at the site?
Special Considerations issues included?
Is there insurance coverage on this facility?
Hazard Mitigation proposal included?
a Yes
. Yes
. Yes
a Yes
. No
a No
a No
. No
a Unsure
a Unsure
a Unsure
a Unsure
Page 1 of 7
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
FEMA PW #
2473
VSN 0
REF# CSB2C
PREPARED DATE 06/03/2005
REPORT DATE 06/27/2005 14:43
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FtPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO. CITY OF
SUBDIVISION
SITE NUMBER 1 of 1
FACILITY NAME BRIDGE
ADDRESS OLD WATERMAN CANYON ROAD
Latitude 34.19138
Longitude -117.27382
CITY SAN BERNARDINO
STATE CA ZIP
Was this site previously damaged? . Yes 0 No 0 Unsure
SITE NUMBER 1 - LOCATION
OLD WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE. ONE MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 18 ON OLD WATERMAN CANYON ROAD, SAN BERNARDINO. CA.
SITE NUMBER 1 . DAMAGE DIMENSIONS AND DESCRIPTION
HEAVY RAINFALL DURING THE 1577-DR-CA DISASTER CREATED A LARGE VOLUME OF RUN-OFF IN WEST TWIN CREEK WHICH
FLOWS UNDER THE OLD WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE. THE BRIDGE IS LOCATED ABOVE A 10 FOOT X 20 FOOT CULVERT OPENING.
THE DEBRIS (MUD, ROCKS AND VEGETATION) LADEN RUN-OFF FLOODED THE BRIDGE AND CAUSED THE FOLLOWING DAMAGES:
1.WASHED OUT 140 FEET X40 FEET X 0.5 FEET OF ASPHALT ROAD, 70 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF OLD WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE.
2.DAMAGED THE CONCRETE MAT FOOTING (APPROX. 80 FEET WIDE X 1 FOOT THICK) OF THE WING WALL ON THE DOWNSTREAM
SIDE OF THE BRIDGE.
3.DAMAGED A 10 FEET HIGH X 20 FEET LONG X 2 FEET THICK ROCK WING WALL ON THE SOUTHEAST SECTION OF THE BRIDGE
4.SCOURED APPROXIMATELY 50 CY OF ROCK AND COMPACTED FILL ON THE EASTERLY APPROACH ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE.
5.ERODED A SECTION APPROX. 4 FEET DEEP X 4 FEET WIDE X 80 FEET LONG UNDERNEATH THE BOX CULVERT BRIDGE ON THE
DOWNSTREAM SIDE.
6.DAMAGED THE GIRDERS ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE CULVERT
7.ERODED THE NORTHEAST SECTION ABUTMENT FACE, 40 FEET X20 FEET X 2 FEET
THIS FACILITY WAS PREVIOUSLY DAMAGED UNDER THE 1498-DR.CA DISASTER (SEE ATTACHED PW REF # CSBPS 8)
Page 2 of 7
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO. CITY OF
SUBDtVISION
FEMA PW #
2473
VSN 0
REF# CSB2C
PREPARED DATE 06/03/2005
REPORT DATE 06127/2005 14:43
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
SITE NUMBER 1 - SCOPE OF WORK
THE SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES REPAIRS TO THIS SITE FROM THE 1498-DR-CA DISASTER AND THE REPAIRS FROM THE
1577-DR-CA DISASTER. FEMA FUNDS THAT WERE OBLIGATED TO THIS SITE UNDER THE 1498 DISASTER ARE ADDED TO THE COST
ESTIMATE TO REPAIR THE DAMAGES UNDER THE 1577 DISASTER. THE SCOPE OF WORK CONSISTS OF THREE ITEMS:
1. THE SCOPE OF WORK AND COST ESTIMATE TO REPAIR DAMAGES UNDER THE 1498 DISASTER. APPLICANTS CONTRACTOR
GWINCO CONSTRUCTION AND ENG, INC (GCE) ESTIMATE IS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT A
2. THE SCOPE OF WORK AND COST ESTIMATE TO REPAIR DAMAGES UNDER THE 1577 DISASTER. APPLICANTS ENGINEERING
ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT B.
3. ENGINEERING DESIGN FEES TO DESIGN THE REPAIRS. A COST ESTIMATE OF $49. 323.50 ($24,824 FOR DESIGN UNDER THE 1498
DISASTER AND $24.500 FOR DESIGN UNDER THE 1577 DISASTER) WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS IS INCLUDED AS
EXHIBIT C IN THIS PW. APPLICANT HAS ALREADY PAID LAN ENGINEERING TO COMPLETE THE DESIGN FOR THE DAMAGES UNDER
THE 1498 DISASTER. APPLICANT MAY USE LAN TO DESIGN THE REPAIR UNDER THE 1577 DISASTER.
A BREAK DOWN OF COST ESTIMATES FOR ITEMS 1. ITEM 2 AND ITEM 3 ARE INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT 1. EXHIBIT 2 AND EXHIBIT 3
RESPECTIVELY. ELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDE CONTRACT LABOR, MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR ITEM 1, ITEM 2 AND ITEM 3.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT. THE REPLACEMENT COST FOR THE OLD WATERMAN CANYON BRIDGE IS ESTIMATED AT $505.000
(SEE COPY OF ESTIMATE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT).
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE ESTIMATED REPAIR COSTS FOR THE BRIDGE IS AS FOLLOWS:
-REPAIR OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY 1498 DISASTER - $141.991.76 (ESTIMATE FROM GWINCO CONSTRUCTION & ENG.INC) FEMA PW #
981 ( PW REF. CSBPS 8) .
-REPAIR OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY 1577 DISASTER - $140.000.00 (PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING ESTIMATE)
-DESIGN FEES - $49,324 ($24,824 FOR DESIGN UNDER THE 1498 DISASTER (FEMA PW # 981 ( PW REF. CSBPS 8) AND $24,500 FOR
DESIGN UNDER THE 1577 DISASTER)
Page 3 of 7
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF
SUBDIVISION
FEMA PW #
2473
VSN 0
REF# CSB2C
PREPARED DATE 06/03/2005
REPORT DATE 06/27/200514:43
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
SITE NUMBER 1 " SCOPE OF WORK
TOTAL REPAIR COST: $141,991.76 + $140.000.00 + $49,324 = $331,315.76
THE RATIO OF REPAIR COST ($331,315.76) VERSUS REPLACEMENT COST ($505.000) IS 0.65 WHICH IS GREATER THAN 50 %.
THEREFORE, THE "50 PERCENT RULE" APPLIES TO THIS PROJECT AND THE REPLACEMENT COST OF $505,000 IS ELIGIBLE. THERE
WILL ALSO BE ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS.
UNDER THE DR-1498 DISASTER (FEMA PW # 981 (PW REF. CSBPS 8), $185.000.00 WAS OBLIGATED BY FEMA TO THIS SITE (FEMA
PW # 981 (PW REF. CSBPS 8). THIS AMOUNT INCLUDED. IN PART, AN ESTIMATED DESIGN FEE FOR PERMANENT REPAIRS OF
$20,000.00 . THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACT DESIGNER COMPLETED THE DESIGN (ACTUAL COST OF $24,824.00 TO DESIGN THE
REPAIRS AND PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.)
IN FEMA PW # 981 ( PW REF. CSBPS 8) THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF $160,176.00 ($185,000.00 MINUS $24,824.00 (DESIGN FEE))
SHAll BE DE-OBLIGATED. THE ACTUAL DESIGN COSTS FOR DR 1498 IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 24.824.00 , SHALL BE PAID UNDER DR
1498 FEMA PW # 981 (PW REF. CSBPS 8).
Please enter date and cause of previously damaged site: Date: 11/1112003
Did FEMA provide funds for this in a previous disaster? . Yes 0 No
Was mitigation also approved in that disaster? 0 Yes 0 No
Old you complete the mitigation project prior to the current disaster?
Cause: Flood
o Unsure
. Unsure
o Yes 0 No
. Unsure
Disaster
PW
Vsn
Site
HM work Approved?
Comments
80 Yes 0 No . Unsure 0 Yes 0 No . Unsu
HM work Completed?
1498
981
o
COST ESTIMATE
frE~Y~l'l~EI MATERIAL AND/OR DESCRIPTtON
1 0 0000 WORK TO BE COMPLETED
II UOM ICofLJl
lS 1
UNtT PRlCElI
$.00
COST ~
$0.00
Page 4 of 7
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF
SUBDIVISION
FEMA PW #
VSN 0
REF# CSB2C
2473
COST ESTIMATE
~~0>~coogl MATERIAL AND/ORDESCRIPTiON
2 0 9999 REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATE (PROVIDED BY
APPLICANT)
PREPARED DATE 06103/2005
REPORT DATE 061271200514:43
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
I[UQr!lJDm IC[NiTPRf~ I
LS 1 $505,000.00
COST I
$505,000.00
Total (this version)
Total Oblig To Date
Unobligated + Obligated
Federal Share for Obligated and Unobligated
5505.000.00
50.00
$505.000.00
5378,750.00
Eligible Amounts:
Does the damaged facility or item of work have insurance coverage andlor is it an insurable risk
(e.g., buildings, equipment,vehicles,etc.)?
COMMENTS: 06/24/200515:26:26 ACCORDING TO PW # CSBPS 8 FROM THE 1498 DISASTER THIS BRIDGE IS
. INSURED WITH A $250.000 DEDUCTIBLE.
Is the damaged facility located within a floodplain or coastal high hazard area and/or does it have . Yes 0 No
an impact on a floodplain or wetland?
COMMENTS: 06/24/2005 15:26:26
FIRM MAPRS NUMBER 06071C7935 F- DAMAGED FACILITY IS LOCATED IN
ZONE A - SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY 100-YR FLOOD, NO
BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS DETERMINED).
Is the damaged facility or item of work located within or adjacent to a Coastal Barrier Resource
System Unit or an Otherwise Protected Area?
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1
2
3
4 Will the proposed facility repairs/reconstruction change the pre-disaster conditions (e.g., footprint,
material, location, capacity,use or function)?
5 Does the applicant have a hazard mitigation proposal or would the applicant like technical
assistance for a hazard mitigation proposal?
6 Is the damaged facility on the National Register of Historic Places or the state historic listing? Is it
older than 50 years? Are there more,simitar buildings near the site?
7 Are there any pristine or undisturbed areas on, or near, the project site? Are there large tracts of
forestland?
8 Are there any hazardous materials at or adjacent to the damaged facility and/or item of work?
9 Are there any other environmental or controversial issues associated with the damaged facility
and/or item of work?
'----
Page 5 of 7
. Yes
o No
o Unsure
o Unsure
o Yes
. No
o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
o Yes . No o Unsure
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA - DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF
SUBDIVISION
FEMA PW #
2473
VSN 0
REF# CSB2C
PREPARED DATE 06/03/2005
REPORT DATE 06/27/2005 14:43
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
ENVIRONMENTAL - Environmental Review not complete. See below for status.
Laws and Executive Orders Review - Other Laws/EOs review In-process.
NEPA level of Review
Standard Conditions
1. Any change to the approved scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders.
: 2. This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient to comply with all federal, state
and local laws. Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding.
3. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground disturbance and if any potential archeological resources are
discovered, will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA.
GENERAL COMMENTS
J6/23/2005-COMPLETE RECORDS AND. COST DOCUMENTS FOR ALL APPROVED WORK MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR AT LEAST 3 YEARS
'ROM THE DATE THE LAST PROJECT WAS COMPLETEO OR FROM THE DATE FINAL PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED, WHICHEVER IS
.ATER. R BARNARD 1 PAC
Page 6 of 7
PROJECT WORKSHEET REPORT
DECLARATION NO. FEMA-CA. DR1577
FIPS NO. 071-65000-00
APPLICANT NAME SAN BERNARDINO. CITY OF
SUBDIVISION
FEMA PW #
2473
VSN 0
REF# CSB2C
PREPARED DATE 06103/2005
REPORT DATE 06127/2005 14:43
INF TYPE 0 INF
. NON-INF
o REC
PW REQUIRED REVIEWS
REVIEW
Initial
Floodplain Management
Environmental
Final
REVIEW
STATUS
Complete
Submitted
Submitted
Submitted
ASSIGNED
RECOMMENDATION REVIEWER
Eligible
REVIEWER
jallbrit
DATE
SUBMITTED
0612412005
06125/2005
06/25/2005
DATE
REVIEWED
06/2512005
Page 7 of 7
II
EXIDBIT "1"
Llm end Ne.elmento Engineering Corpol1ltlon
~
I:
February 6, 2006
I
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
I
I
Attention:
Mr. Michael Grubbs, PE, Engineering Manager/Field Engineer
Subject:
Request for Statement of Qualifications and Technical Proposals for Design of a
Replacement Bridge Crossing Waterman Canyon Creek located approximately One
Mile North of Highway 18 on Old Waterman Canyon Road In the City of San
Bernardino.
I
I
Dear Mr. Grubbs:
I
The LAN Engineering, Inc. (LAN) team is very pleased to submit ten (10) copies of our Statement of
Qualifications and Technical Proposal, dated February 6, 2006. We recognize the importance of this project to
the City, and look forward to having the opportunity to provide our services.
I
This type of assignment warrants an experienced Project Team and a familiarity with the project delivery
process. Accordingly, we have structured our project team to provide the City with full professional services
that specialize in the design of major bridge and roadway facilities. Our project team is experienced in all
phases of Bridge, Roadway, and Drainage Design, inCluding preparation of environmental documentation,
development of hydraulic and geotechnical design requirements, and completion of final plans, specifications,
estimates, and construction schedule.
I
I
I
I, William Nascimento, PE, SE, will serve as the Principal-in-Charge and QNQC of the project. My strong
technical and management skills will contribute significantly to our team, as well as my experience with
numerous projects involving bridge and roadway design and construction requiring federal approvals for
funding.
I
Our Project Manager, Mr. Todd Dudley, PE, SE, will be the team's contact for the remainder of the selection
process. Todd has dedicated his 21 years of experience to designing and managing major bridge projects
throughout Inland Empire. Todd is committed to do .Whatever It Takes. for the success of this project.
I
I
The LAN Project Team is comprised of highly qualified subconsulting firms with successful experience on
similar projects. Our Project Team ineludes: WEST Consultants, a firm that specializes in hydraulics and
streambed analysis; Jones & Stokes, a firm specializing in Environmental analysis; K1einfelder Inc., a
Geotechnical firm that is experienced at working with federal agencies and flood control districts; and
Associated Engineers, also very experienced in working with federal agencies and local flood control districts,
who will be handling the Right-of Way Engineering tasks for this project. LAN has successfully completed
projects using each of these firms in the past.
I
I
As evidenced in the related experience and resume portions of our proposal, the LAN Project Team has
worked for many public agencies, and therefore understands the importance of producing a quality product that
proceeds on a predictable schedule, provides practical solutions, and is conscious of City budget constraints.
Consequently, our project management practices inelude safeguards to ensure that the City of San Bernardino
will benefit from a project that: provides a complete and comprehensive PS & E .package, which conforms to .
I
I
1887 Business Center Drive, Suite 6
San Bernardino, CA 92408
(909) 890.0477
Fax (909) 890.0467
-
.
EXHIBIT "I"
LeUer to Mr. Michee' Grubbs. PE
Engineering Manager!FieJd Engineer
Request for Statement of Qualifications and Technical Proposals for the
Replacement Bridge over Watennan Canyon Creek
City requirements and federal guidelines; is developed through a cost-effective analysis and design procedure
and incorporating practical design features; and is completed on time.
Since all the personnel on our team have been hand-selected for their experience and expertise in similar
projects, we believe our team will be able to meet or exceed the City of San Bemardino's expectations.
The project team members and their roles are as follows:
Firm Summary Description of Work Office Location
LAN Engineering
Project Management, Civil and Structures Engineering.
,
........................t
San Bernardino
WEST Consultants
Hydrology/Hydraulics
San Diego
.m~."'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''~''
,
Jones & Stokes ! Environmental
....................................................................f..............................
TeIDecula
.....~ . ...........................
KleinfeIder ! Geotechnical
Redlands
Associated Engineers
Right-of-Way/Utility Mapping
Ontario
As Principal-in-Charge, I certify that all information contained in this Proposal is truthful, accurate, and
complete, and is valid for a period of not less than 90 days from the date of submittal. In addition, LAN
Engineering can adhere to the contractual terms indicated in the sample Professional Services Agreement.
Contract Information: Mr. Todd Dudley, PE, SE, Project Manager
Email: todd.dudlevCd\lanenaineering.com
Tel: 909.890.0477 ext. 308 . Fax: 909.890.0467
We thank you for taking the time to review our project proposal and look forward to discussing our
qualifications and details of our project approach at the next stage in your selection process.
Sincerely,
~h'~'~ -j;r
,
William Nascimento, pE, SE
PRINCIPAL~N-CHARGE
~
-- .
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT "I"
Technical Approach
Project Understanding and Approach
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'';:,
"b~
Existing Conditions Exhibit
Scope of Work
Items to be Accomplishedl
Furnished by the City
I
Comments and Suggestions from
the Consultant
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I.
~ L1M & NASCIMENTO
~ ENGINEERING CORPOItAT1ON
I)
I
I
[
r
~
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
EXHIBIT "1"
PrOject Understanding and Approach
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Project Description
The project consists of completing a bridge replacement design, including final plans, specifications and estimates
needed for construction and including tasks for final environmental clearance under CEQA, documentation and
exhibits needed to certify right of way, and coordination with utilities for relocations. The design will provide for the
replacement of the existing bridge structure with a new bridge that will have sufficient width and vertical clearance to
qualify for a waterway adequacy of 7 under FHW A's Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and
Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges (slight chance of overtopping bridge deck and roadway approaches), and shall
include foundations that are capable of surviving 100 year storm events.
Proposed Improvements
The final design will provide for .a bridge structure that spans Waterman Canyon Creek with an improved waterway
adequacy sufficient to meet the requirements for design storm flows. In addition, the bridge must be supported on
foundations that are designed to survive the 100 year design storm, including the effects of bulked flows due to
potential burning of the watershed that drains into the canyon, and impacts from debris including trees and large rocks
that are carried by the storm flows.
hnproved waterway adequacy can be achieved through a combination of extending the span of the bridge and raising
the soffit of the bridge superstructure. The existing bridge span of approximately 22.37 feet can easily be extended for
new bridge construction. In addition, the vertical clearance under the bridge can be improved through a combination of
raising the roadway profile at the stream crossing, and minimizing the depth of the superstructure. Because raising the
roadway profile may result in additional environmental and right of way issues, it will be important to design a bridge
with the minimum structure depth possible. In addition, we believe that it is important to construct a single span bridge
structure if at all possible in order to avoid placing ~ pier within the stream bed, which will be subjected to beatings
from debris flowing downstream, and could result in a maintenance headache for the City should the pier be damaged
by storm flows or require the removal of trees and brush that become hung up on the pier.
Protection against storm flow hazards will be developed through a combination of designing foundations that extcnd
below the anticipated scour elevation, designing scour protection for foundations, designing cutoff walls and invert
improvements that will stabilize the invert of the stream bed and minimize scour at the bridge site, and by designing
substructures with the strength to withstand debris impacts resulting from design storm events.
Additional improvements will include utility openings to carry existing communications and gas lines and additional
utility openings to accommodate potential future utilities within the bridge structure, and metal beam guard rail
approaches to protect errant vehicles from collisions with the concrete bridge railing.
The bridge replacement will be designed to minimize impacts to the existing roadway profile. Improvements to the
stream bed for scour protection and stabilization of the stream bed will be designed to minimize impacts to the
environmentally sensitive Waterman Canyon Creek. All proposed improvements will be designed within the existing
roadway right of way if at all possible.
Existing Conditions
Old Waterman Canyon Road is a rural two-lane roadway approximately 24 feet in width, with no shoulders and no curb
and gutter or AC dikes. The roadway is approximately 3 miles in length, running parallel to the new state highway 18,
and serves as access to several homes that are built within the canyon. Traffic on the roadway is light and traffic
speeds are generallY,moderate, although posted speed limits were not noted.
The existing cast in place, reinforced concrete T-beam structure is approximately 26 feet wide and spans approximately
22 feet over Waterman Creek. The existing bridge structure has been in place at least since 1929 when the original
20.5 foot wide bridge was widened by approximately 5.6 feet. The bridge carries a 4" diameter high pressure gas line
attached to the downstream edge of the bridge deck, and carries a galvanized steel conduit on the upstream edge of
deck, that presumably carried the overhead communications line that is now supported on timber poles over the creek.
The existing structure exhibits severe damage on the upstream edge of the bridge, which has been battered by debris
Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek
I
I
I
~
p
,
Ii
t
I:
I
I
I
I
I
[
I:
u
I:
~...
I,"
:1
""t.
Ii
U
EXHIBIT "I"
Project Understanding and Approach
carried by storm flows. In addition, the bridge railing has been washed off of the bridge deck and the roadway
embankements have been eroded on the downstream side of the roadway by storm flows that overtopped the bridge
deck and approach roadways. The faces of the bridge abutments have been severely worn by storm flows and the
wingwalls on the downstream sides of the bridge have been undermined by erosion of the foundation soils. The invert
of the stream bed underneath the bridge has been effectively stabilized and protected from erosion by a cutoff wall
constructed of concreted rock on the downstream side of the bridge. However, the steam bed downstream of the cutoff
wall has eroded into a vertical drop, extending approximately eight feet below the invert elevation underneath the
bridge. This erosion has left the foundations of the downstream wingwalls exposed, and threatens to undermine the
bridge abutment foundations as well.
The roadway profile is rising at approximately a two percent grade from south to north at the bridge site, which is
located within a sag vertical curve. The roadway alignment is on tangent at the stream crossing, but includes reversing
horizontal curves on the south approach to the bridge.
Background
The development of a project to rehabilitate the existing bridge was initiated by the City in December of 2003,
following the large storm flows of that Christmas Eve, which were exacerbated by the fires that burned a large portion
of the watershed that drains to Waterman Canyon during the summer of 2003. FEMA approved repairs to the existing
bridge as part of the emergency repairs needed to various facilities damaged by the brush fires that affected large areas
of the local hillsides in the summer of 2003. At that time, the intent was to replace the bridge railing that had been
washed away by the storm, reconstruct the reinforced concrete girder on the upstream edge of the bridge, which had
been demolished by debris carried downstream with the storm flows, construct repairs to other bridge girders damaged
by storm flows, repair and reinforce the exposed face of the north abutment, and construct wingwall extensions and
roadway embankments to restore support for the roadway and protect the bridge foundations from future damage due to
storm flows. Plans and specifications w.ere developed for the proposed bridge repairs, but the repairs could not be
constructed before the new storm season began. ..
In 2004 the bridge and roadway approaches were again overtopped by storm flows, which caused additional damage to
the bridge structure and further eroded the streambed and roadway embankments. In 2005, following evaluations of
the new site conditions, it was determined that bridge replacement represented a better value for construction costs than
bridge repairs. Subsequently, FEMA approved the funds for a bridge replacement project in place of the original repair
project.
Coordination with Other Agencies
Completion of the bridge replacement design will involve coordination with FEMA (which has a significant funding
role in the project), and the County of San Bernardino Flood Control District, which has review and approval roles for
work affecting Waterman Canyon Creek. LAN Engineering anticipates that these important partners in the project will
be invited to participate in project development team meetings. In addition, this project will affect various utility
companies and their facilities. Affected utility companies will be consulted to the extent necessary to solicit their input
to the process.
PROJECT APPROACH
To ensure that we do the best possible job in completing the bridge replacement PS&E, LAN Engineering will make
use of our wealth of experience in this type of work right here in San Bernardino County. Coordination will be a key to
expediting the completion of the Design phase of this bridge replacement project. Our familiarity with the agencies,
and consultants involved with this project will allow us to coordinate this project effectively and efficiently. LAN
Engineering is currently. engaged in work for the City and the County of San Bernardino, and is familiar with the
affected staff at each .agency. In addition, we are involved in numerous projects that have Jones and Stokes as the
Environmental Consultant, we are working with West Consultants on at least three current projects, and have teamed
with both Kleinfelderand Associated Engineering on many past and current projects. .
We believe our knowledge of the project, as described in the Project Understanding Section (abov~), along with our
discussion of how we intend to address key project issues, as described in the following Project Approach Sections,
demonstrates a viable plan to achieve the Scope of Work in Exhibit B of the Request for Statement of Qualifications
and Technical Proposal.
Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek
-
'E
,~
c
'"
"
~
.
~
.
Ii
go
. ~ I
; ~ I
__"f
dol::
lJ ~ '
!~~, .
~~ '",,,'
'5
Jl
c
o
~
,
"
'.
'E
o
.~
:I:
i
&
,,'
'"'
lU
~
c
<<
lD
~
z
iii
)(
lUlU
~t:
x"'
I-
:>
o
"'
~
z
;;:
o
o
-'
.~
~
c
IH
,"Ii
I~
:<5
:
c
<
li!
z
~
z
<3
z
<
~
lU
!;(
~
c
,-
, .
11 ~ i
1Il0 r
.g~'
: :5 ~ II t
i go~ i'
~;: !I'
.i( Cl ~,.
w,E ('
2]1
. ~~ [
I EO
: III B '
,O~i
j'
lU
,-if' ~
;Y.- Q
i'~ C2
:tlr to
~~
1:;'-
, I-
,,; ~
~i~, ><
't;."!, W
f'.15
t) W
" U
~. c(
~, ...
,,' ~
:~~ -
.'; <
.,' Ul
~:c It:
.1-
:'~~~ ~
'~I\ a.
~i~ :;,
,..~
ii"'.
,l:
f~~
-
- .
I
EXHIBIT "1"
Scope of Work
Scope of Work
(Tasks - Milestones)
A.
n.
c.
Administration
1. Project Setup
2. Schedule I Budget Control
3. Progress Reporting
4. Coordination I Meetings
Ilytlrology, Ilydraulics anti Dchris 1'10\\ Aualysis
1. Review Available Information
2. Perform Watershed Analysis As Needed
3. Develop Estimates of Stream Flow Hydraulics
4. Develop Estimates of Debris Flow Characteristics
5. Perform Scour Potential Analysis
6. Establish Recommendations for Invert Stabilization and Scour Protection
1':nvironll1cntal: Technical Slutlil's for CEQA Ckaranl'c
, I. Historic Properties and Cultural Resources
2. Biological Resources
3. Water Quality
n.
Ccotl'chnicallnvcstigatiou
I. Literature Review
2. Site Reconnaissance
3. Exploration Plan I Utility Clearance I Encroachment Permits
4. Field Exploration
5. Seismic Hazard Assessment
6. Laboratory Testing
.7. Analysis and Reports Preparation
E.
Surn'ying aud ~:sisling Topography
1. Submit Detailed Survey Request to City
2. Develop DTM files from Survey Data Received from the City
F.
Right of \Vay anti Utility Mapping
1. Use Assessor's Maps to Identify R/W and Property Lines
2. Perform Mapping
3. Evaluate Structure Alternative Impacts to Roadway Profile
4. Develop Cost Estimate and Construction Schedule for Each Alternative
5. Summarize Information in Type Selection Report with Preferred Alternative Clearly Identified
{ ,
..
Hridgc Rcplacemcnt Type Sclcl'lion ami Final Design
I. Foundation Type Consideration
2. Consider Precast and Cast-in-Place Alternatives
3. Evaluate Structure Alternative Impacts to Roadway Profile
4. Develop'Cost Estimate and Construction Schedule for Each Alternative
5. Surtimarize Information in Type Selection Report with Preferred Alternative Clearly Identified
Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek
-
EXHIBIT "1"
Scope of Work
Project Management / QA/QC
Project Management
Todd Dudley, our proposed Project Manager will continue the responsible working relationships he has already
established with the City of San Bemardino Contract Manager. With their leadership, we see ourselves as an
extension of City staff, with a mission of meeting, and exceeding, the needs of the Contract Manager. By
establishing a sound working relationship with your Contract Manager and engineering staff, we are better able
to understand what specific services are needed and how best to fulfill the project needs.
Regular contact throughout the contract is essential for keeping control of the project's changing needs, for
providing guidance and support to our assigned personnel, and for monitoring and assuring performance. Along
with monitoring and assuring performance of our staff, key elements of managing the contract will be: tracking
the budget; staffing forecasts; and progress reporting. We will work closely with your Contract Manager in
establishing reporting and information tracking formats that will provide the management information necessary
for oversight of our contract and our budget status.
Meetings & Project Development Team (PDT)
Our Project Manager, Todd Dudley, will work with City Staff to identify the makeup of the Project
Developmellt Team; will then schedule a Kick-off Meetillg; and subsequent team meetings, at least monthly
thereafter, for the duration of the project. Consultant team members will attend the meetings on an as needed
basis. All team members will be asked to attend the kick-off meeting, and they will be notified well in advance
of the time and location of all subsequent project team meetings. Minutes from previous meetings will be
distributed for comment before the next meeting.
Field Review
As part of the initial scoping work with the City, a field review of the project site will be made. This review will
assist in clearly establishing the scope and goals for this project between the City and LAN Engineering.
Schedule I Deliverables
The Project Manager will develop a project schedule in coordination with City Staff. Progress for each of the
milestones will be discussed in reference to the project schedule at each team meeting. A plan will be developed
to deal with issues that arise, which could delay the schedule. Deliverables will be developed through direction
from City Staff and interaction with the Project Team. Design alternatives will be analyzed with respect to a
costlbenefit analysis and other factors including safety, environmental impact, constructability, and functionality.
Quality Control Plnn
LAN's quality control procedures are geared to the systematic elimination of all design inconsistencies in the
final construction documents. The primary technique used in quality control is the independent review of all
technical work produced by every individual on the project, including:
,f Reviews within each discipline, where the drawings, specifications, calculations, design analyses, etc.,
are reviewed for inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and for work not shown by a colleague with similar
background and experience who is not assigned to the project.
,f Interdisciplinary reviews to ensure coordination and consistency among disciplines.
In addition, our Quality Assurance consists of the following:
,f The team understands all of the client's specific expectations and project objectives, and can develop
with the client, a project plan (budget and schedule) that will realistically and cost-effectively meet those
expectations and objectives. .
,f Selecting experi~nced and well-trained professionals and technicians with the right educational
background to be responsible for the work.
,f Each person responsible for the work understands and supports the client's expectations from project
inception.
Reolacement BridRe over Waterman Canyon Creek
-
~
Scope of Work
EXHIBIT "I"
" All project team staff receives daily feedback from their immediate supervisors concerning the accuracy,
precision, and clarity of their work, and whether it conforms to current professional standards and the
expectations of the client.
Bridge Replacement Design
Bridge Replacement Concepts
LAN Engineering will develop bridge replacement concepts for consideration within 35 working days
from notice to proceed with the work. These concepts will be developed based on information that is
readily available. Knowing that the existing bridge has been overtopped in two of the last three years,
and observing the stream topography and general site conditions we will develop concepts for bridge
replacement that consider the need to provide more stream flow capacity while minimizing stream bed
alterations and adjustments to the existing roadway profile. Some modifications to the bridge.
replacement concepts may be needed as additional information becomes available from technical studies
including hydraulics and hydrology, geotechnical investigations and detailed surveys of the project site.
Our proposed rvadway cross section provides for two full-width standard traffic lanes and minimum
shoulder widths in conformance with Caltrans' Highway Design Manual and AASHTO's Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
In order to provide as much hydraulic capacity as possible while minimizing modifications to the
roadway profile we will consider spans that are longer than the existing bridge structure provides, and
span configurations that will result in vertical clearances underneath the bridge that are higher than the
existing structure.
One possible solution that could provide the required clearances and minimize changes in roadway
profile is to construct a bridge with a cast-in-place I prestressed bridge deck. A cast-in-place,
prestressed concrete slab bridge will provide the minimum structure depth possible, and can span as far
as 120 feet, which we anticipate will be sufficient for this site. We propose using Caltrans standard open
post and rail, reinforced concrete barrier railing, which is crash tested and approved for construction on
state highways. The bridge replacement will be designed to accommodate existing and future utilities
and wi\1 consider drainage, safety and aesthetic issues. A cross section of a cast-in-place I prestressed
slab capable of spanning approximately 60 feet is shown below.
31'-6"
<t. Old Warerman Canyon Rd
12'-0" 12'-0"
n U
Profile
Grade
-2% -2%
- -
2' 1'-9"
Part
of
CIP/PS Slab
Future Utilir y
Opening
Typ
Cone Barrier
Type 80Q
Typ 0
o
6"P Opening.
for Verizon
8"P Opening
/or HP Gas
R~n[acement Brid1(e over Waterman Canyon Creek
EXHIBIT "1"
Scope of Work
developing the bridge replacement concepts will be evaluations of stream bed and roadway approach improvements
needed for each alternative identified. Scour protection for bridge substructures will be an important consideration for
all alternatives.
Heavy scour and the effects of debris impacting the structure at the existing bridge site suggests that significant effort
will be needed to protect improvements. Also, the effectiveness of downstream cutoff walls in stabilizing the
streambed invert upstream is evident. These considerations will guide decisions made during this concept development
stage.
Requirements for span length, vertical clearance, foundation type and scour protection will be uncertain at this stage,
and so assumptions will have to be made in order to complete the concepts for the City's consideration. Stmcture type
alternatives to be considered will include both cast-in -place and. precast construction types. Advantages and
disadvantages of each will be identified for each alternative.
Although cast-in-place construction is typically cheaper to construct than precast alternatives, precast construction can
be used to avoid the erection of falsework, which could be an advantage if the construction phase will extend into the
storm season, or if sensitive environmental issues are identified for the streambed. In addition, precast construction can
be used to shorten the construction schedule, because the superstructure elements can be constructed at a casting yard at
the same time that grading and substructure construction is being done in the field. Then, once the girders I deck slabs
are set into place on the abutments, the bridge construction can be completed without having to place equipment in the
stream bed.
Advantal!es / Disadvantal!es
Cast-in-Place vs Precast Construction Alternatives
~:T"~~'(i~'i7~m'"'ry';;t;:(j!1ll!'fiRi1ici'ete' . PC/PS Concret'.", ',-' . ':.~~
1 .':}.;;..l.~t,'!,...J"It....<.~ ~_7_' d>-,.z.-.. ..... 'u "_ _~~. . .. _..~ ~. 'M._ '"
False Work False Work required. None. Minimum work in Waterman
Reauirement - Creek Stream Bed.
Transportation None Girder length up to 135 feet can be
Requirement transported. Special permit is
required for girder length more than
120 feet.
Seismic Performance Excellent. Special detailing required for
seismic design.
Reo/acement BridRe over Waterman Canyon Creek
-
EXHIBIT "I"
Scope of Work
Construction Schedule FaIsework construction in Since the girders / slabs can be
Waterman Canyon Creek fabricated while the substructures
prohibited during the storm are being constructed, the schedule
season. can be expedited.
Construction Cost Approximately $200/ft1, Higher cost than CIP/PS
(Including depending on the structure Construction. Typically in the range
Mobilization and system used. of$230/ft2
Contingency)
Roadway improvements needed to carry traffic over the replacement bridge and resulting modifications to profile,.
alignment and improvement touchdown locations will also be considered in this phase of the project.
We know from field review and available topography that the bridge is located in a sag vertical curve and the approach
roadway has a slight horizontal curve at the south approach to the bridge. Assumptions made regarding vertical
clearances needed under the bridge and span lengths required will define limits and extents of improvements that will
be required for approach roadways. Costs for improvements to roadway and scour protection will be included in the
development of bridge replacement concepts at this stage.
PROJECf SITE TOPOGRAPHY
Environmental, utility conflicts and right of way issues that could influence design features will not be known at this
time and detailed survey data and project site mapping will not yet be completed, so these concepts will be suitable
only for advanced planning. Bridge concepts developed at this stage will be refined during the Type Selection phase.
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I.
l
-
-~
EXHIBIT "1"
Scope of Work
Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Scour Protection Analysis
Task 1 Background Data Collection
West Consultants will obtain and review available watershed and hydraulic data for the analysis. Geotechnical data for
the project site such as the depth to bedrock and grain size distribution are useful, but not required. Any geotechnical
data obtained will be provided by LAN Engineering. West Consultants will also estimate grain size during the field
reconnaissance.
West Consultants will perform a detailed field reconnaissance of the site to document field conditions. The field
inspection will include an assessment of stream behavior in the vicinity of the bridge crossing, existing and potential
scour problems, and estimates of hydraulic parameters. Observations will be made of lateml channel stability,
aggradation/degradation, hydraulic roughness, bed material size, and hydmulic controls.
LAN Engineering will provide digital topography for the site and as-built plans for the bridge.
Task 2 Hydrologic Analysis
West Consultants will review existing information for the watershed and the Waterman Canyon Creek stream flows. A
flood frequency analysis will be performed for the observed stream flows to determine the required storm events (100
year, 10 year, and 3 year). This task assumes that the observed flow data are sufficient for the study and no additional
hydrologic modeling will be necessary. If a hydrologic model (e.g., HEC-HMS) needs to be constructed for the
watershed, this additional task will be added to the scope on a time and materials basis.
Task 3 Hydraulic Analysis
HEC-RAS, the Hydrologic Engineering Center's "River Analysis System" computer model will be developed for the
Waterman Canyon reach .in the vicinity of the bridge (the bridge is located in the FEMA designated zone A with no
detailed hydraulic analysis conducted in the past). The cross-section data in the vicinity of the bridge will be based on
topographic mapping provided by LAN Engineering.
The HEC-RAS hydraulic model will be used to determine the hydraulic characteristics of the stream (near the bridge)
necessary for the design of scour protection such as hydraulic opening, design flood water elevations, scour velocities,
outlet flow (tail water) conditions, and backwater effects.
Task 4 Sediment Yield Analysis
A qualitative assessment of sediment yield will be performed for the contributing watershed. West Consultants will use
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (LA Corps) method to assess sediment yield for the specified
flood events (the method was developed to estimate unit debris yield values in Southern California watersheds and
accounts for different fire factors). Based on this analysis, the bulking coefficients will be determined for the design
discharges obtained in Task 2.
Task 5 Scour Analysis
Scour calculations will be performed using the HEC-RAS computer program and/or custom spreadsheets. Procedures
outlined in FHW A's Hydraulic Engineering Circulars, HEC 20 and HEC 23, and other standard guidelines will be used
to evaluate the channcl stability downstream of the structure in order to prevent the current headcut [rom endangering
the bridge foundation.
West Consultants will review all of the information gathered to assess whether long-term channel degradation could be
significant. West Consultants will provide a qualitative and quantitative estimate of vertical channel stability
downstream of the structure and any local scour at the structure as appropriate.
Task 6 Design of Scour Protection
West Consultants will provide a conceptual design for scour protection of the channel bed and side slopes in the
vicinity of the bridge. In order to prevent accelemted erosion on the downstream side of the bridge, a drop structure
with energy dissipating device may be proposed (vertical or sloped concrete basin drop, riprap basin drop, CSU, USBR
or SAF stilling basin, etc.) depending on the assessment of the erosion hazard. The design is envisioned to be an
Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek
I
11
Ij
II
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
--
EXHIBIT "1"
Scope of Work
iterative. procedure between the hydraulic designers (West Consultants) and the civiVstructural designers (LAN
Engineering). Two iterations is the assumption for this cost proposal. West Consultants will provide conceptual design
based on hydraulic and scour considerations, including pertinent dimensions and material types, but will not prepare
design plans nor specifications under this scope of work.
Task 7 Report
West Consultants will submit the results of the study in a Hydraulic/Scour Analysis and Scour Protection Report. The
report will include field observations, a description of the bridge, the magnitude and frequency of design flow, a
description of the HEC-RAS model and modeling method, sediment yield analysis (flow bulking), scour analysis
procedure, and scour protection design.
Geotechnical Investigation and Analysis
Key Geotechnical Issues
The existing bridge is located in Waterman Canyon in the southern San Bemardino Mountains and crosses over
Waterman Canyon Creek. The creek is a perennial stream that flows year round and is underlain by young river
alluvium comprised of numerous cobbles and boulders in a sand and gravel matrix. Gneissic metamorphic bedrock
underlies the mountain ridges east and west of the creek and is exposed on the canyon wall just west of the bridge.
Bedrock is anticipated beneath the alluvium at an unknown depth. The San Andreas and Arrowhead Springs faults are
located approximately 1-1/2 miles and y, mile to the south, respectively. The site is -not located within a California-
designated Earthquake Fault Zone. The site is also located in an area known for geothermal activity (hot springs) with
water temperatures just a few hundred feet downstream of the bridge on the order of several hundred degrees
Fahrenheit.
. Based on a review of available docul)1ents and our experience in the area, we have identified several key geologic and
geotechnical issues that should be addressed for the project. These issues include:
. Moderate to high ground accelerations due to the presence of nearby active faults including the San Andreas fault
zone.
. Coarse oversize materials (cobbles and boulders) within the creek and likely at the bridge abutments.
. Shallow groundwater.
. Potential for liquefaction and laterally spreading.
I · Potential for geothermal activity in the project area.
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
These key issues will be addressed during our geotechnical investigation.
The following paragraphs present K1einfelder's scope of work for geotechnical engineering support services for this
project.
Scope of Services
Kleinfelder's geotechnical engineering support services for this project are presented as follows. We understand that
the geotechnical deliverable items required for the project will include a proposed Field Exploration Drilling Plan,
Preliminary and Final Soils and Foundation Reports, and Log of Test Borings (LOTH).
Task 1 - Literature. Review
We propose to begin our investigation by reviewing available geologic and geotechnical literature pertaining to the
project site. .We will review published soil and geologic data in our files and as available from appropriate public
agencies. This will include a review of literature prepared by the California Geological Survey, the U.S. Geological
Survey, the City and County of San Bernardino, and other government agencies.
Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek
fl
Il
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I,
I
I
I
--
EXHIBIT "1"
Scope of Work
Task 2 - Site Reconnaissance
A geoIogic/geotechnical reconnaissance by a Califomia Certified Engineering Geologist and/or a California Registered
Geotechnical Engineer of our firm will be performed along the full length of the proposed improvements, to observe
and check for geological conditions and features that could impact design, construction and cost of the proposed
improvements.
Task 3 - Exploration Plan/Utility Clearance/Encroachment Permits
Prior to our field investigation we will submit a plan showing locations of the proposed borings along with completed
application packages in order to obtain any necessary encroachment permits. We will forward these documents to
LAN, who will then submit them to the City for review and approval.
Following approval, and prior to drilling, we will contact Underground Service Alert (USA) to identify potential
conflicts between our planned boring locations and existing underground utilities. Our proposed drilling program will
consist of boreholes located on the shoulders of the roadway. We do not anticipate drilling in the traffic lanes.
However, some limited traffic control may be required (cones, arrowboard, etc.) around the excavation equipment if
any portion of the drilling equipment encroaches onto the roadway due to space limitations on the shoulders.
Task 4 - Field Exploration
Our field exploration program will consist of four exploratory mud rotary and hollow-stem auger borings. Due to
space limitations we proposed one boring each at the north and south ends of the bridge. These borings will be drilled
as close to the proposed bridge abutments as possible. These borings will be drilled to depths of 75 to 100 feet using
mud rotary drilling techniques to penetrate the coarse cobbles and boulders below groundwater. Two additional
borings will be drilled using a hollow-stem auger drill rig to depths of 15 to 25 feet, or to practical refusal, whichever
occurs first, north and south of the bridge for pavement design.
All borings will be drilled with truck-mounted drill rigs. Our typical sampling interval will be 1.5 meters (five feet) in
the borings. The number of blows necessary to drive both a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler and a Califomia-
type sampler will be recorded. An engineer or geologist will maintain a log of the materials encountered in the borings,
and obtain samples for visual examination, classification and laboratory testing. Groundwater, if encountered, will be
measured in the open borehole at the time of drilling. Upon completion, the borings will be backfilled with soil from
the excavations, except for borings encountering groundwater which will be backfilled with grout. In preparing this
proposal, we assume that access to drilling locations can be obtained with a standard truck mounted rig. We also
assume that all agencies and private parties will grant access for our work without cost or delay to KIeinfelder.
Task 5 - Seismic Hazard Assessment
A geologiclseismic hazards evaluation will be conducted for this project. This will include evaluations of the potential
for surface fault rupture, seismic-induced ground deformation or settlement related to liquefaction, seismic compaction,
lurching or lateral spreading.
Task 6 - Laboratory Testing
4boratory testing will be performed on selected samples obtained during field exploration to assess the physical
characteristics of the subsurface materials. .We anticipate the testing will include moisture/density, gradation, plasticity
index, sand equivalent; consolidation, collapse potential, direct shear, maximum densityloptimum moisture content,
corrosion potential; and R- Value. Our testing program may be modified based on the actual subsurface materials
encountered during exploration.
I Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek
EXHIBIT "I"
Scope of Work
Task 7 - Analysis and Reports Preparation
Our Soils and Foundation Report will be prepared in general accordance with Caltrans Standards. Typically, Caltrans
requires a Geotechnical Design Report for the roadway portion of a project and a separate Foundation Report for all
structures including bridges, retaining walls, tunnels, MSE walls, etc. Since this project is essentially a bridge project
that may include some approach roadway sections we plan to combine the two report types into one Soils and
Foundation Report as requested in the RFp. Preliminary and final reports will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans
standards and will present the data obtained during field exploration and laboratory testing, as well as conclusions and
recommendations pertaining to the following:
. Project description including proposed improvements, climatic conditions, terrain and surface dminage,
and land use.
. Discussion of geotechnical settings including regional geology, subsurface soil and groundwater
conditions.
. Recommendations for design of retaining walls, including foundation type, allowable capacity and lateral
pressures.
. Recommendations for construction of roadway and embankment foundations and estimated settlement.
. Evaluation of gross and surficial stability of the proposed fill slopes, if any.
. Earthwork considemtions, including excavation characteristics and erosion controls.
. Collapse, expansive and corrosion potentials of the subgrade soils and recommended mitigation measures,
if necessary.
. Earthquake considerations including seismic design criteria for fill embankments, and seismic hazards
including the potential for liquefaction, ground rupture due to surface faulting and seismically induced
settlement.
. Recommendations for pavement structural design based on traffic indices assumed or provided by the
client.
. Seismic design recommendations including recommended acceleration response spectra in accordance
with the current Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria.
. Recommendations for design and construction of shallow or deep foundations including recommended
bearing capacities, lateral resistance, and total and differential settlements.
. Overall stability analyses of footings, slope and foundation materials; evaluatiqn for static and pseudo-
static conditions.
. Construction considerations.
. Log ofTest Borings (LOTB) Sheets.
Our findings, conclusio'ns and recommendations will be presented in a draft Soils and Foundation Report with a site
map showing boring locations, LOTB Sheets and laboratory test results. After review by LAN and the City, comments
will be incorporated into the report and a final report submitted. We assume one round of review comments from prior
to completion of our final report. .
n~_'______, D..;,1.,."'...."D.. Wnlp,.mnn rnnvon Creek
,
\
1
I
J
I
i
I
,
i
,
1
I
i
I
EXHIBIT "1"
Scope of Work
Environmental Engineering Services
The proposed project involves the replacement of the Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge located approximately one
mile north of Highway 18 on Old Waterman Canyon Road. It is assumed that the following criteria shall be met and
incorporated into the bridge/project engineering design:
. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials requirements;
. National Cooperative Highway Research Program 350 report criteria;
. . Minimum criteria specified in section 2.7 ofCaltrans' Bridge Design Specifications;
. Bridge length and vertical clearance over Waterman Canyon Creek shall be sufficient to qualify for a
Waterway Adequacy of 7 under Federal Highway Administration's Recording and Coding Guide for the
Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges;
. No requirements for sidewalks or railings to meet bicycle railing criteria;
. Foundations shall be protected from wash-out due to 100-year storm flows, and concrete barrier rails shall
allow for storm flows to pass through;
. Old Waterman Canyon Road will be closed during construction; traffic plans and technical provisions will be
prepared.
Details of the bridge design, including the selection ofa precast or cast-in-place replacement structure type, will be
determined in accordance with the findings of the engineering study prepared for the project and the results of
geotechnical investigation and testing. For this scope and cost the following assumptions have been made:
. Project will replace the existing Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge with a new bridge designed to withstand
storm flows and that also meets the criteria listed above.
. Jones & Stokes will prepare the technical reports identified in this scope of work to support. the City in the
preparation of the environmental document.
. The City will prepare the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document.
. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval will not be required for the project based on the RFp.
. Technical reports will not be submitted to Caltrans for review other than as part of normal CEQA public
availability process (i.e., Caltrans environmental oversight is not assumed).
1.0 Environmental Document Project Management / Coordination I Meetings
Jones & Stokes' scope of work for quality control, progress reporting, schedules, and coordination! meetings is outlined
below.
. Quality Control: The Jones & Stokes project manager will be responsible for directing and implementing the
project's quality control program. Senior technical reviewers in each discipline will review each work product,
including field methods, data collection, analysis, report writing, and any subcontracted work studies. In addition,
a technical editor will review all reports to ensure consistent use of terminology and style as well as general
readability for the target readers. Finally, the project manager will review all documents before they are submitted'
to the City.
. Environmental Schedule: Jones & Stokes will provide schedule input to .LAN on the environmental technical
reports.
Ron/",..,_,,", RriJup ~"Dr WntPr",n" P.nnvn" r'PPK
EXHIBIT "1"
Scope of Work
. Coordination/Meetinl!s: Communication and coordination will be facilitated through progress meetings and
project conference calls. The Jones & Stokes Project Manager will attend progress meetings with LAN and the
City during as needed during the preparation of technical reports. It is assumed that up to four (4) project related
meetings will be attended. Meetings beyond this amount would be charged on a time and materials basis.
. Proiect Manal!ement: This task includes the coordination and management efforts by the Jones & Stokes
project manager.
Deliverables:
. Environmental PM Attendance at up to four (4) project related meetings.
2.0 Environmental Technical Studies
The technical analyses will be prepared to meet CEQA requirements. Jones & Stokes will coordinate with the City to
identify any specific local requirements. Based on the content of the RFQ/RFP issued for the project and our
knowledge of the project area, it is assumed that technical studies will be required for historic properties and cultural
resources, biological resources, geologic investigations, and water quality. It is assumed that geologic investigations
will be included in the Geotechnical investigation performed by the project engineer.
Deliverables
Unless otherwise noted, the deliverables for the following technical studies will be a separate bound report including a
standardized project description, a methodology relevant to each topic area, description of the affected environment,
impact assessment, and mitigation measures. All draft technical studies will be submitted to the City for review. It is
assumed that the reports will be revised once following review by the City. The deliverables for each technical study
include the following:
. 5 hard copies of draft technical studies.
. 5 hard copies and one digital copy of final technical studies.
For this.scope of work, the following technical studies have been assumed. If additional studies are requested during
the City's preparation of the CEQA document, a scope and cost will be submitted for approval prior to their initiation,
however, based on the characteristics of the study area it is not anticipated that additional separate technical studies will
be warranted.
Biolol!ical Technical Studv
Jones & Stokes will perform the following tasks related to the evaluation of biological resources associated with the
proposed project.
Review of Project Information and Applicable Literature
Potentially relevant project and biological resource information will be reviewed prior to fieldwork. Jones & Stokes
will access and review relevant natural resource references and databases (e.g., soils maps, the Califomia Natural
Diversity Data Base; California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory, Internet resources, Jones & Stokes's internal
resources, etc.). With City approval, relevant resource agencies will also be given an opportunity to provide a list of
species and issues of concern for the project.
Field Evaluation for Biological Resource Constraints
. .
After reviewing relevant information, the project area will be evaluated, with a thorough walkover covering all portions
relevant to potential biological resource regulatory constraints. Detailed field no.tes will be compiled including
conditions, visible disturbance factors, species, habitats, and more general biological resource issues observed or
detected. The site will be evaluated regarding the presence, absence, or likelihood of occurrence for all special status
D__l____~_. D~:"l...~ ............ w...,....._....... r.....",..... r..nalr
- -
EXHIBIT "1"
Scope of Work
species, habitats, or more general biological resource issues potentially posing a constraint to the project through
applicable laws and regulations. Adjacent areas will also be briefly examined where accessible, to provide context.
Jurisdictional Waters Determination
The project consists of replacing an existing bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek. This creek and any associated
wetland or riparian vegetation would likIey be regulated by state and federal regulatory agencies. In order to accurately
assess potential impacts to areas under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Califomia
Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) a formal delineation of
regulated waters will be completed. The delineation will be completed according to the USACE protocol for
delineating wetlands as well as CDFG standards. The limits of wetlands or other waters that would be regulated by
USACE, RWQCB and/or CDFCi will be mapped onto projcct plans and/or an aerial photograph and will also be
mapped using a sub-meter accurate global positioning system (GPS). The results of the delineation will be presented in
a separate delineation report that will be attached to the biological technical report. This scope and cost assumed that
the City will be responsible for providing access.
Permits
The need for permits associated with the project (i.c., Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Section 404
Permit, Streambed Alteration Agreement, etc.), and the extent of the permitting activities, cannot be determined
until the environmental analyses in the technical studies have been conducted. If permits are required for the
proposed project a separate scope and cost for preparing the permit applications and obtaining the permits can be
provided to LAN Engineering and the City for review and approval for preparing and processing any required
permits.
Biological Technical Report
The biological technical report provided under this task will be a single, standard-format document with mapping of the
general site location and vegetation types. Methods and results for each task will be provided. Observations of the
physical setting, conditions and disturbance factors, as well as plant, animal and habitat resources will be summarized.
All plant and animal species with special legal or management status along with more general biological resource
issues, which have any reasonable potential to constrain the project, will be reviewed. Any recommendations for
further work needed to clarifY relevant issues (e.g., focused surveys not included in this scope) will be provided.
Cultural Resources Technical Study
CEQA requires that projects financed or approved by public agencies must include an evaluation of the impact of a project
on cultural resources. In order to determine impacts to cultural resources, it is necessary to determine if potentially
significant cultural resources are located within the project area. Therefore, Jones & Stokes recommends a Phase I
inventory be conducted to determine the presence or absence of potentially significant cultural resources within the project
area. The Phase I scope of work would include the following:
Record Search/Archival Research
Jones & Stokes Associates cultural resources staffwill conduct a record search. This record search will consult California's
database of previously recorded sites and studies within a one-mile radius of the proposed project area. Sources that will be
consulted include the National Register of Historic Places, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, Califomia
Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and Historic Spots in CaIifomia. Jones & Stokes will also
review historic maps and published literature to determine whether any previously known prehistoric, historic, or
ethnographic resources are"present within the project area.
Jones & Stokes Associates will initiate Native American consultation through the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) and request they consult their sacred sites index and refer us to interested individuals with knowledge of resources
of concern to Native Americans that may be present within the project area. Jones & Stokes will also contact the San
Bernardino County planning department and local historical societies to request information regarding the types of potential
cultural resources in the study area.
IIDnln...o_nM' Rritlop nvpr Wnl....rman ranvnn Creek
EXHIBIT "1"
Scope of Work
Field Survey
The proposed project area will be surveyed for cultural resources by Jones & Stokes archaeologists. The survey will
include a mixed survey strategy in accordance with professional standards and appropriate with the field topography. For
the purpose of estimating field survey costs, Jones & Stokes assumes that the survey coverage will include up to 50 feet
from edge of pavement on both sides of the existing Old Waterman Canyon Road alignment. Jones & Stokes also assumes
that no archaeological sites or portions of the historic built environment will be identified during the survey. Should
cultuml resources be identified during the field survey, they will be recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation (DpR-
523) forms. The identification of cultuml resources beyond the pre-I929 Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge is not
assumed and is not included in this scope and cost. If cultural resources are identified that have to be recorded then a scope
and cost for this work will be submitted to LAN Engineering Corpomtion and the City for approval.
Prepare Technical Report
Jones & Stokes will prepare a technical report that documents the methods, results, and recommendations of the current
study. This report will include a significance evaluation of the pre-I929 bridge in accordance with CEQA. As required by
the Office of Historic Preservation, additional copies of the final report will be placed on file with the appropriate
information center of the Califomia Historical Resources Information System. Jones & Stokes will revise the report based
upon one set of comments from LAN Engineering and the City of San Bernardino.
Water Quality Study
Jones & Stokes will prepare a water quality assessment documenting the existing water quality; impacts on surface
water and groundwater; design features, procedures, and practices that would minimize water quality impacts; and
mitigation measures that would reduce any significant impacts to less than significant levels, if necessary and where
feasible. . The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has developed a recommended procedure for
determining the water quality impacts of, and preparing water quality reports for, tranportation projects in California,
which will be followed for the proposed project. The procedures are outlined in the document Water Quality Technical
Notes (Notes), dated 1990. As part of the water quality assessment, existing data for the study area wi11 be collected
and summarized including topography, climate conditions, and local and regional hydrology, geology and soils, erosion
potential, and biological resources. Relevant local, state, and federal regulations related to water quality will be
summarized. Beneficial' uses for surface waters will be summarized describing any listed species and/or sensitive
habitat that could be affected by water quality-related impacts of the project. The beneficial uses for potentially
affected ground waters will also be described. Surface and groundwater quality objectives will be described. Existing
data will be used to describe the ambient conditions of streams and water bodies that are likely to be affected. The
potential short-term (construction) and long-term (operation) impacts to water quality will be analyzed and mitigation
measures proposed if necessary. Appropriate permits, if required, will also be identified in the report, however, the
procurement of permits is not included in this scope and cost.
Technical Study Assumptions:
. Engineering plans, including limits of construction and staging areas, will be provided at a level of detail sufficient
for preparing the technical studies (roadway lanes, topographic information [including changes in topography
resulting from the proposed project], state plane tick marks, station numbers, and existing structures within 500
feet of the proposed project).
. Mapping showing existing conditions (roadway lanes, topographic information, state plane tick marks, station
numbers, and existing structures within 500 feet of the proposed project) will be provided.
. A maximum of one .build and one no-build alternative (i.e., project and no project) will be evaluated.
. No public meetings or hearings are assumed for the proposed project.
. No cultural resources will be identified.
. Focused protocol surveys for any species are not included in this scope and cost.
. Project will not be subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHpA).
. Cultural resources survey coverage will include up to 50 feet from edge of pavement on both sides of the
existing Old Waterman Canyon Road alignment.
. Biological study area will encompass the bridge and up to a 500-foot wide buffer area surrounding the
bridge site totaling approximately 6 acres in extent.
n__'____~_. D..;"/#Yh ""'''.Dr W""Dr_nn rnnvnn rTPI,.JC
Scope of Work
EXHIBIT "I"
Bridl!e Tvpe Selection and Geometric Approval Drawinl!s
At this phase of the project development preliminary information will be available for right of way, hydraulics and
hydrology, utilities and geotechnical investigations. This information will be used to refine the bridge replacement
alternatives and construction costs and schedules will be updated to reflect the design requirements. A completed Type
Selection Report will be submitted which will include a comprehensive summary of alternative design concepts, with
the preferred alternative identified with explanations for the selection preference. this submittal will include Geometric
Approval Drawings, showing proposed roadway plan, profile and superelevations for the preferred design alternative.
This report will be submitted to the City for review and final approval of the design concept.
Final Desil!n
Following the City's selection for bridge replacement type the final design phase of the project will begin. This phase
of the project will include submittal for 65%, 95% and 100% completed pS&E. Each progress submittal will include
plans, technical provisions, construction cost estimate and construction schedule. Comments received from each
submittal will be incorporated into the revised PS&E developed for the next milestone submittal. Plans will be
developed in AutoCAO format and technical provisions will be submitted in hard copy form and in electronic format as
Word documents. The 95% submittal will include quantity and design calculations submitted in bound hardcopy
format, page numbered and with table of contents.
Final bid documents will include full size plan sheets, an RE pending file and a 4-Scale plot of bridge deck contours.
Bid and Construction Support
Bid and Construction support will be provided as requested by the City. Bid support and construction support will be
provided on a time and materials basis. Effort for bid and construction support are not reflected in our project schedule.
Similarly, costs for bid and construction support are not included in our fee proposal.
RDn/nrp",ptlt Rridve"over Waterman Canyon Creek
Items to be Accomplished/Furnished by the City
EXHIBIT "1"
The following are items that are expected to be furnished by the City:
Environmental - City will accomplish development and approval of the required enviromnental document.
Consultant team will provide necessary technical studies required for this project area. Consultant will provide
coordination and support as needed for any public meetinglhearing.
Survevs/MaDDlnl! - Design surveys, as needed, to design this bridge project will be provided by City. This will
include sufficient data to create contours as needed for design of the bridge and any necessary retaining walls, cutoff
walls, etc. Elevations upstream and downstream will be provided to the extent needed for hydraulic studies.
Ril!ht of Wav - In the event that right of way appraisals, easements, acquisition, etc are needed for construction of this
project, these activities will be handled by the City. The LAN Engineering team will provide right of way engineering
and coordination with the City.
Exlstln!! Plans & Data - To the extent available, City will provide available plans, city planning data, and utility data
to Consultant in support of design of this bridge project.
Precise Street AII!!nment/Profile - City will provide final alignment/profile to be used for the bridge and roadway
design.
Comments and Suggestions from the Consultant
The LAN team has no additional comments or suggestions that we believe to be necessary to improve the finished
project, or to comply with the requirements o(this Request for a Statement of Qualifications and Technical Proposal.
Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek
i
Q rj
~ r' nl
i r ~
~ R .-~--.- --- f - rf' I~
:i ~j lJ j i I
r: -~---~~---~- - -_.j~---~~-- ---- - i~ ----ID---.J,
~ ~.! '"' "':... ~~ I
~ lJ ~t; l~ '1 :+1
,r ....,.:J ...-lJ 1 I
;--~- . ~--[l.-- . ----- -- .--1....... --r" ! I
.~ I~ . . ~ n: il.-
:~ I~I r1~ JJ i (:'1
, .. ~I t1 I iJ
. ~ -- -1J-- -l~- --1 -1 !!
n rij.....~1! ( I" i~ ,I
~~ J r f! fJ.] :1
n f ~ (,1 fl ~ 1/
~l~ -~ -{~~ --~---rJ-- - -r ~-~J- --I:~-- --If--![ 1
i,~ I ~ I Ii ~1 l~ 11
f ~ l II I.j I r ~rl [If i
q f'; I H....~ t f r.t~~ (iJ. iJ ~ i +
] 1.1 i.1 r j 1 } !i
l.L w. ~-... :!:~:r:::! ~li::;:l!.~~ r.:r.:;;1l ~.:;;II.r.:;:r;J ,~,t',,::!:::Jllllllll .;;::~'J;;"t:IJ
.~ It . . r.: . - ~ .. . . . . r.: . II . " .. % . . ~ . .. ~ . .. . . . . .. .. ~ . . r.: .. .. .. II; ~ - .. ~ . .. ~ .. " . .. .. r :r _ _ ~ ~ II _ . ~ _ .. .. , _ . ..
t i . i t t Iii ~ III i 1 i t I i .1 8 j 1 i i ! 8 8 .1 i ; i I .1 i J J j J i i II i i i i i j I f 1 i i f J II 8 i i j J i .1 i i i j II 8 i i
'I
l-J_ - . ~ .. . - r.: : .. ~ p - i!' r.: :> r.: , :: . - r.: ~ r.: :: .. ~ - . l:: Ii: :r , . - . ~ :! r.: : : : ;; : ~ r.: t :: r.: r.: , :: :: " .. r.: :: . Ii: ~ - :! t. hie:: , It :: _ II
l ;, j f J t 1 J I ~ ~ ~ ,t J J J .t .t f f j J I ~ ~ ~ ! 8 j J J J .t I j J J J J J J .t I I ~ ! j J .t J .t I I ~ ! ! ! 8 I I I J J I . . ~ r ! 8 I I
I
01," !HI HI! II! II!!ll! H! I 1l1l! 111 II!!!! I!ll! I!! H! I Illl! I!I! !lllH !!W!l! I
1.- - -,' ~
III . ... I / I u
,f1slf!fJllI11/il i I! ! llil1qlq illll!!!!1
~ I L I J I d Jr. ii ! s J ,I I q I II r l' I h I I p ,I q 1 d r! I" II d!
JIHiPI!l Ij j filii! 11!!l ill I fllllj j II II I dIn J lii,l Hd !II! I j I! ilL!!!! I
o! i"I i"l i"l i"l i"l n ., ;, Ii
I I ' I. L 1.1. L 1.1.. 1 . I I ':' 1 I I I I I I I ' , I , I I I! "I I ' I I ' I I ' , , I ' I I I I 1 I I ' , : I I ' It' I ' I I' /',
II ,. iN r j. i" i"' r i'" t ,I ;; :'" I::' j: i' :' r- ,~ .' i2 :;; il: ,r. i~ ,Ill" :~ :~ :~ :iIt ,~ :R :: ~ ,'ll I" ;:::. :" :. It :: :; I'; ;1 ;f: :' :-. 'it 'I !; ?- ? "I ;11 ,"::: " " ;' ;; ,; ,; IJ 1= jl :; ,I :1 ;t t
~-~- ---
~
I~
F.X "1"
- -----~__--.i
'"
...J ....
'"
<( 0
0 0 0 0 0 u
l- e> 0 0 0 0 ....
0 ;;; 0 ,..: <ri <D z
I-;" M ;:: '" ~ ;:
0> 0 .... '"
III '" M M -i -i .J
., '" 0 ::>
:l '" '" '" '" ~
.. '"
CIJ z
0
u
'"
::>
'"
.J
0 0 0 ;:
U 0 0 0 0 0 0
c:: - 0 0 M 0 <D ....
0 . C M 0 .... 0 M
0 '" "'- "'. 0 ....
u.. ;;; ., ;;; .,;
'" ;;; ~
CIJ ..
0 W .
Z U ..
c :>
c:: c::
<( w
CIJ
Z c:: 0 0 0 0 0
c:: z 0 0 0 0 0 0
W Cl <ri 0 ..; <ri 0
III M ., '" '"
III in '" '" ....
<( '" <ri '" -i ,.:
Z W ...J ;;; M N "'
'" '" '" ..
<( C
CIJ ...J
u.. <(
0 Z
>- Q
I- CIJ
U CIJ
W
u.. iii
0 w ):'
c:: >=
:; '"
D. >= 0
.J
=> 0
a '"
z a
<( >- 6'
~ J:
:J a I-
~ z Z <0
<( <( W
lL .... 0
0 z <J) :;; 0
.... w '-' (3 ~
J: ::; :J :; Ul ~
'" z =>
0 <( r? <(
es '" '-' Z
Z a
<J) ;; J: >- Ul O/l
'" z '-' ;S I- :;;
w !:!. w z
w .... <J) <( ;:!.
z <J) ....
6 w 0 z I-
Ul " w <( ..J l-
I- z 0 S? .... :J Z
Z w .... .J Ul <(
a <J) '" ::>
<( w 0 w <J) Z l-
I- a z 0 ..J
..J !;< Z .J 0 lJ :J
<( w
:J U lL '-' . Ul
Ul <J) .... III Z
0 w z
Z <J) z W <J) :J 0
0 <J) 0 .J W Ul lJ
l{ <( , " ~ ..J
i:5 w
. III :;; ~
:J 0 ii:
Ul I- 0. rn
0
-- -
...J
<(
I-
o
I-
o
o
<D
~
'"
-i
o
~
..
EXHIBIT "I"
J ,.,. l
"~ bh
.
xv
~~ ~U
c 1!! .!!,.4l
',!rv
oi- ~~~;;
c .
1~~ 'jn~
ic38
g ~\f~S'
vii . ~ to-l-o
~ !h,g
~s 0 .~
c e~ f~:g ~
~ir ~. 'i.l~
1a::UlIJ .~ ,j.: l'~
II
n .",
. :';;'"<;'JO" J
., c
w.g :ll~{: >
. ~ IJ'\ .
~ 0
:.2 .. ~
0= >i~,,, .
J__ .
'~i i~",':1~:
0
H ~ i',g h./'
. '''l'
~~ 3 'h'
~~ 0 h: .J'
. ,
~ ~u I
0
li~ WI
l& lL .J~I
.,.....<6_'~
A
1.
.~~:. j.'"
l.,t ;".
['i.~~'~ Ci~
,~.j . ~
f,;1l! e g.g.!
(~l~ zU
~ii~ ~
.:l! J
. ,
:i -(t;.
:;;: ::
'ga: ~:I
lor I I
llh!ll
bfI1J]WU
I 0
h' i If
uUlhl
--l
- I
h I'
..
11I2..:
.&.
~~~
. ..
it.!!"
.01.
~li::l
w ';i
. ~
~D~
~Q.1!
Q~5
~; ,
~w .';(:,\,:1
=i.'
~ !
~ .
.~.
....
.0
Pi
.~.
gc~
.~ 0 2
~2~
.
.
.
. .
~3
-.,
o.
E
~.ijll.l
.2~
::U;~
1
~E
&'3 ='
_1 ~j ~
&u ::lIJ~
!;l
gi
h
. &~.
~ ~~
lD~cJ
.
g~
1i~J
,. ,
._~
H~
ih
't:'!i
mou
!
,
.
~
-~-'---1
:E'-i
g.
.~
ou
Jl
~l I
-~
.
-=
"[!
~
-Ll
.
.~
"
-<.
r:~
-~~~-l'
.r
cO
H
--L.
..
.u
o'~
oE'
=.
"0
.-.
1.<0
~.o
~-~-l
~.;
..
--
-+~
~Q
"
.:
i1
_ c
0-
lle . ~EXHIBIT "1~
g~ S ~
e! ~ ~lL ...
~~ :I: ::E~
~.II
c
~
~~
=-
~o
-I
'IIJ
J (~i......$
. .. s: :"01:)
~& ; Jj f~
ATTACHMENT uB" - Location Maps and General Proposal RequirementsCity of San Bernardino
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement) Page 1 of 5
REQUEST FOR
STATEMENT OF QUALlFICA TIONS/TECHNICAL PROPOSALS
For
Design of a Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek located
approximately One Mile North of Highway 18 on Old Waterman
Canyon Road in the City Of San Bernardino.
ISSUED BY:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE ISSUED: JANUARY 6, 2006
DUE DATE: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006
ATTACHMENT "B" - Vicinity Map and Proposal Requirements
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 2 of 5
~ ""Af~Q\Jf:~l ~
C L--..... 1 mi
lkm
(,ofl..11 C;IIl)'UII
*-
"
: I~:
A"D......,II;ld SprIng:;
(,
C,,' ~'..r,_.
U'lfV.S.s1l
n..r'l..nJ'f1(,
'vV 40th St
"I')rt!
"l1ij11r
ethl
7-
'"
~
~
'"
c.
"
~
z
~
~
3 E .sOt" ~t
"
"
)>
<
o
\ c.
\\ ~
~- ~~~
..:.......:..:.
~'%.
.~'
Muscoy \. Z
':.' Z '\ ~.,~.
" '
,,' "\ -
~ l.: ~"JO'~ -'7_o::::~~~:)~~l !a
~ :;Q, "-..' I~ =~:.~
,/ ~ " -.....0
,e /CD5 t>,'",nQi,I':'s.t com, In.: >> '-....
/r
~ljrt.
7/tO,
g
S;IIl!\f""IH"
J;"il.m
Rr:....,..."r("1l
0.1 Rcu,;,I
"
\1'111$1 HitJhl.lIu.I:;.
'-' 11:)2005 Nl'. VTEQ
LOCATION MAPS
-
ATTACHMENT "B" . Vicinity Map and Proposal Requirements
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 3 of 5
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
A. BASIC REQUIREMENTS
a) Ten (10) copies of the proposal shall be submitted to the following:
City of San Bernardino
Department of Development Services
Division of Public Works
A TTN: Mr. Michael Grubbs, Engineering Manager/Field Engineer
300 North "0" Street, 3rd Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Proposals shall be received in hand by the City Engineer or his designee
before 4:00 p.m. on Mondav Februarv 6, 2006.
b) Proposal'shall indicate the following in a detailed manner:
c) Past experience on similar projects.
d) Staff persons specifically assigned to the project at the professional level. Short
resumes may be included, but extensive resumes should be limited to key personnel
oflly.
e) A flow chart for the completion of each of the identified tasks showing work hours by
classification, as well as calendar time, including allowances for review periods.
f) Previous obligations with other projects (related to time and availability of staff).
g) Support personnel to be used.
h) Name of sub-consultants to be used for specific aspects of the project, including a
summary of previous working arrangements on similar types of work.
i) Statement oflocal preference eligibility, including identification of any office located
in the City of San Bernardino and the number of employees stationed at the office, the
number of employees doing business inside the City limits, and a machine copy of
your firm's City of San Bernardino Business License.
j) Items, actions or information the Consultant expects to be provided by the City.
k) Any comments or suggestion that the Consultant believes necessary to improve the
finished project or to comply with the requirements of this RFP.
I) Separate sealed envelope. Fixed fee or not-to-exceed fee for the work required by
this RFP, together with an hourly rate sheet applicable to this project for
classifications above, including all materials and .expenses, shall be submitted in a
ATTACHMENT "B" . Vicinity Map and Proposal Requirements
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 4 of 5
separate sealed envelope. Please note that the City will not payor compensate for
travel time, courier services, mileage or reimbursement for travel to the City of San
Bernardino to attend meetings or conduct the activities necessary to complete tasks
required to be performed as part of consultant services.
B. SELECTION PROCESS
The selection process will be based on a point system and will consist of three phases as
follows:
a) First phase selection shall consist of an evaluation by staff (including the
Development Services Director, City Engineer, a Senior Engineer and Project
Manager) of proposals based on the above items identified in Section III B (except
No. 10). An additional 5% percent will be given to City of San Bernardino based
consultants. In order to be deemed as "City of San Bernardino Based Consultant (a
"local," business for the purpose of granting a local business preference, shall mean a
business possessing a fixed office or distribution point with at least one owner or
employee within the City of San Bernardino, and possessing all valid and current
permits and licenses required to transact such business, including, but not limited to a
City Business Registration Certificate). A maximum of 100 points can be achieved in
this phase of the selection process. The three consultants with the highest numerical
scores will be invited to continue with the second phase of the selection process.
b) Second phase of the selection process will consist of staff evaluation of a presentation
by the three consultants with the highest numerical score from the first phase
selection. The interview will be detailed questions on this specific project, including,
but not limited to, personnel, schedule, project staging, and knowledge of the project.
5% pcrcent of local preference will also be awarded in this phase of the selection
process for Consultants that meet the requirements identified in paragraph I above. A
maximum of 100 points can be achieved in this phase of the selection process.
c) The third and final phase of the selection process will consist of staff submitting a
final package to the Mayor and Council for consideration approval. Final scores of
the top three consultants will be submitted to the Mayor and Common Council with a
rccommendation to award an Agreement for Professional Services to the consultant
with the highest numerical score. However, the Mayor and Common Council have
the prerogative to award an Agreement for Professional Services to any of the top
three consultants or reject all proposals.
d) If the Mayor and Common Council award an Agreement for Professional Services,
the selected consultant will be requested to execute an Agreement for Professional
Services (draft copy attached). Failure of the consultant to execute the Agreement
within 60. days of approval by the Mayor and Common Council will void the
approval.
--- -
ATTACHMENT "B" - Vicinity Map and Proposal Requirements
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 5 of 5
C. GENERAL INFORMATION
This "Request for Proposal" does not commit the City to award a contract, pay any costs
incurred in the preparation of a proposal in response to this request, procure or contract
for any services. All proposals submitted in response to this request will become the
property of the City and may be used by the City in any way deemed appropriate. The
City reserves the right to accept or to reject, in part or in its entirety, the response to the
request for proposal ifsuch action is deemed to be in the best interest of the City.
Any contract entered into as a result of this proposal shall be considered to include the
items of work detailed in this proposal unless specifically deleted in the proposal at the
request of the City.
D. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The Consultant will be required to maintain in force at all times during the performance
of their work the following policy or policies of insurance covering its operations:
a) Comprehensive General Liability, including contractual liability, products and
completed operations and business automobile liability, all of which will include
coverage for both bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of
2,000,000. The City shall be named as "additional insurcd" on all policies required to
be furnished.
b) Professional liability coverage with limits not less than 2,000,000 per occurrence and
$4,000,000 aggregate.
c) Workers' Compensation coverage at statutory limits.
d) The consultant shall assume liability for the wrongful or negligent acts, errors and
omissions of its officers, agents and employees and subcontractors, and have
adequate insurance to cover such negligent acts, errors and omissions with limits of
2,000,000 dollars.
E. PAYMENT
The Consultant that is recommended by Staff and approved by Mayor and Common
Council shall attend the pre-design meeting to establish the start date. Once the Notice to
Proceed has been given, the Consultant can submit for payments. The City will release
funds at percentages with receipt of Plans, Notices, or Specifications. No payment shall
be given above the percentage of completed work accepted by the City. The City shall
hold 15% of the total cost for 360 calendar days after acceptance of the plans and
specifications .by the City, or 45 calendar days after the City issues a Notice of
Completion for the project, whichever occurs first.
Any request for additional information or clarification should be submitted in writing to
Michael W. Grubbs, Engineering Manager/Field Engineer, at (909) 384-5155 (Fax).
--
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 1 of 11
SCOPE OF WORK & TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE REPLACEMENT BRIDGE OVER WATERMAN CANYON
CREEK LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 18 ON OLD WATERMAN CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replace)
I. GENERAL PROJECT SCOPE
The existing Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge has suffered extensive damages due to storm
flows in both of the past two years (December 2003 and during the storm season extending from
the fall of 2004 through the spring of 2005). Damages suffered as a result of storm flows have
affected the abutments, wingwalls, bridge deck, bridge girders, bridge railing, approach
embankment fill slopes and abutment backfill.
The existing Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge is a single span, cast-in-place reinforced
concrete structure approximately 26'-1 '(." wide and approximately 22.37 feet long. The bridge
deck is constructed as a reinforced concrete T-Beam section cast monolithically with the
abutments. The date of the original 20.5-foot wide bridge construction is unknown. A 5.6-foot
wide widening section was constructed in 1929. As-built plans are not available. A topographic
survey was completed in January of 2004, including detailed measurements of as-built
construction for exposed structural elements and limits of damages to the structure elements due
to the storm flows occurring in December of 2003.
The bridge carries an existing 4" diameter HP Gas line on the east edge of deck, and there is an
existing overhead communications line parallel with the west edge of deck. The gas line will
need to be carried on the future bridge. Bridge design shall accommodate the existing
communications and other potential future utilities.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the California Office of Emergency
Services (OES) have authorized funding for the preparation of bridge replacement plans and
construction of the replacement bridge.
The consulting engineer shall prepare all technical environmental reports needed for the City to
complete environmental clearances for CEQA. Technical studies may include but not be limited
to historic properties and cultural resources, biological studies, geologic investigations and water
quality. All state and local requirements for the protection of endangered species and sensitive
habitat shall be observed for this bridge replacement project.
Consultant shall prepare complete hydrology, hydraulic and debris flow analyses needed to size
the bridge replacement structure.
The City prefers that the bridge deck be designed to drain away from the bridge. However,
drainage from the bridge may be conveyed through deck drains subject to the judgement of the
consulting engineer. The Consultants' roadway engineer shall design drainage devices to control
off-site roadway drainage at the bridge approaches.
The Consultant shall develop a bridge replacement concept and submit a written type selection
report to the City of San Bernardino for concurrence of the preferred bridge replacement
alternative. Upon concurrence from the City, consultant will initiate the preparation of
ATTACHMENT "B". Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 2 of 11
environmental technical studies and begin preparation of plans, special provisions, and
construction cost estimates for the bridge replacement.
The City shall provide all Surveying work.
Consultant shall perform utility investigations and certification, and complete all PS&E design
work including but not limited to hydraulic analysis and design, roadway and structural design,
and preparation of roadway closure plans. The Consultants' roadway engineer will provide
permanent signing and striping details.
Consultant shall research existing right-of-way and show on plans. If additional right-of-way is
needed, the consultant shall prepare legal descriptions and plats for the additional right-of-way
and provide to City. The City shall be responsible for acquisition of additional right-of-way.
The Consultant shall provide resources to support the project bid process, including responding
to questions submitted by Contractors, when asked to do so by City staff. Instructions to bidders
are not included in this scope of work.
This scope does not cover construction management. The City plans administer and inspect the
bridge construction using city staff. The Consultant shall provide construdion support services,
to include responses to RFI's when requested by City staff and review of Contractor submittals on
an as-needed basis. ..
Assumptions for Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (over Waterman Canyon Creek)
In general, the proposed replacement shall be designed to accommodate two, 10' wide traffic
lanes with 4' wide shoulders and concrete barrier rails on each side of the bridge. Bridge design
shall meet the following criteria:
1. Concrete barrier rails shall be designed to meet the following requirements:
a) Open post and railing type to allow storm flows to pass through the railing.
b) Meet the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) requirements.
c) Be acceptable under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) 350 report criteria.
d) Meet minimum criteria specified in Section 2.7 of Caltrans'. Bridge Design
Specifications (BDS).
2. The bridge length and vertical clearance over Waterman Canyon Creek shall be
sufficient to qualify for a Waterway Adequacy of 7 under FHWA's Recording and Coding
Guide for the Structure inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges (slight chance of
overtopping bridge deck and roadway approaches).
3. No sidewalks shall be required.
4. There will be no requirements for bridge railing to meet bicycle railing criteria.
5. Bridge foundations shall be protected against being washed out under 100 year storm
flows.
6. Old Waterman Canyon Road will be closed for construction of the replacement bridge.
Traffic plans and technical provisions will be needed for the roadway closure.
II. DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES
Task 1 - Hydroloqy, Hydraulics and Debris Flow Analysis
. The bridge replacement development includes an engineering study of various engineering
considerations, and shall include the following work:
ATTACHMENT "B". Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino .
Page 3 of 11
. Evaluation of Watershed Hydrology
. Analysis of Stream Flow Hydraulics
. Estimation of Debris Flows
. Analysis of Scour Potential
Consultant shall review existing information for the watershed and Waterman Canyon Creek
steam flows. Additional investigations shall be conducted to establish estimates of water surface
elevation, stream flow velocity, debris flow characteristics and scour potential associated with the
following storm events:
. 100 year
. 10 year
. 3 year
Information developed by the Consultant shall be presented in a written report including plan and
section views showing limits of flooding and scour potential for each of the three analysis storm
events.
Based on the Consultant's written report, the City, in consultation with the Consultant, will select.
the design storm event for development of the bridge replacement design.
Task 2 - Bridqe Replacement Concept
The bridge replacement concept development includes an engineering study of various feasible
alternatives, and shall include the following work:
. Configuration of Replacement Bridge Structure to Accommodate Design Storm Flows,
including Span Length and Vertical Clearance Considerations.
. Provisions to pass debris flow to the extent economically feasible.
. Development of Scour Protection for the bridge structure and roadway approaches.
. Damage Predicted for the Replacement Bridge Structure and roadway approaches for Storm
Flows exceeding the Design Storm Event.
In establishing the recommended bridge replacement structure, the type selection evaluation
shall include but not be limited to the following considerations:
. Constructibility
. Construction Materials
. Foundation Types
. Precast vs. Cast-In-Place Construction
. Seismic Requirements
. Channel and Slope Protection Upstream and Downstream of Bridge
. Span Configuration (Depth I Span)
. Utility Openings I Utility Accommodation
. Vertical Clearances
. Construction Schedule
. Construction Cost
Specific elements to be addressed shall include:
1. Hvdrautics and HvdroloQV: Bridge type selection shall provide for passage of design storm
and debris flows as established by the City on the basis of hydrology, hydraulics and debris
flow studies performed by the Consultant. .
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page40f11
2. Scour Protection: Scour protection shall be proposed to protect the bridge foundations and
approach roadways from being washed away by design storm events as established by the
City on the basis of studies conducted by the Consultant.
3. Structure Types: Consultant shall analyze the feasibility and cost of Precast vs. Cast-In-
Place Construction and make a recommendation based on experience, cost and
constructibility as to the preferred alternative.
4. Utility Installations: Identify the utilities that are impacted by the bridge. Utility facilities likely
to be installed on the proposed structure shall be addressed.
5. Constructibilitv: Consultant will evaluate the constructibility of the bridge crossings. Issues to
address include access to the site for heavy equipment, access during the rainy season, or
concerns and potential impacts falsework may have on stream flows during construction.
6. Compliance with Environmental Documents: Consultant shall evaluate the project's
environmental setting and identify those items that may have an impact on the roadway
alignment, structure design or construction schedule of the bridge. Consultant shall
incorporate anticipated environmental mitigation issues in the type selection evaluation.
7. Cost Estimates: Each alternative will have a cost 'estimate prepared identifying costs for
construction of each of the elements in the alternative.
8. Type Selection Exhibits: Bridge replacement geometry for each of the alternatives identified
shall be depicted in Plan, Elevation and Typical Section and shall include a roadway profile
which includes the roadway touchdowns at each end of the proposed improvements. Begin
and End of Bridge Stations shall be identified on the plans. .
9. Preferred Alternative: Consultant will recommend a Preferred Alternative and give reasons
for the preferred replacement type selection.
Task 3 - Geotechnical Services
General
Geotechnical Engineer shall perform geotechnical and bridge foundation investigation and
testing, and prepare the final reports and exhibits required to obtain permits, approvals and
support the design and construction of the bridge replacement.
Geotechnical Standards
The project involves facilities owned by the City. The City requires all bridge and approach
roadway work to conform to Caltrans bridge design and construction standards and Caltrans'
Highway Design Manual. Roadway approach work details shall conform to the City of San
Bernardino Standard Plans. The Geotechnical Engineer shall identify and confirm specific
submittal and delineation requirements in advance of performing the work. All geotechnical
investigation and reporting shall be consistent with Caltrans standards, procedures, manuals and
specifications.
Units
Reports and Drawings shall depict all dimensions in English units.
Geotechnical Tasks
ATTACHMENT "B". Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 5 of 11
3.1. Geotechnical Investigation I Report
Geotechnical Engineer shall perform geotechnical investigations necessary to complete draft
and final foundation reports required to proceed with final bridge design conforming to
Caltrans bridge design requirements.
Geotechnical Engineer shall evaluate seismic hazards and develop recommendations for
earthquake design criteria per standards of practice (Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria).
These recommendations shall be presented within the foundation report.
The Geotechnical Engineer shall obtain any permits and utility clearances needed to
complete field investigations. It is envisioned that no drilling will be performed in the traveled
way and no traffic controls will be needed for the geotechnical exploration activities.
The geotechnical tasks shall include the following:
. Review of existing soil information
. Field investigation
. Laboratory testing
. Determination of static and dynamic soil strength parameters (as appropriate)
. Assessment of site liquefaction potential and lateral spreading
. Assessment of Soil Corrosivity
. Seismic design recommendations
. Potential impact on the bridge foundation due to adjacent embankment fill settlement
. Review I comment on scour parameters prepared by others
. Recommendations on foundation design alternatives and construction (including
shallow and deep pile foundation alternatives)
Proposed Field Exploration DrillinQ ProQram: Geotechnical Engineer shall include the
number, depths, and location of each boring, bore hole logging procedure, sampling
procedures and the number of samples (disturbed and undisturbed) anticipated, and other
proposed field tests to be conducted.
Borings shall be performed in compliance with all applicable environmental protections.
Geotechnical Submittals:
. Proposed Field Exploration Drilling Program
. Preliminary Soils and Foundation Report
. Final Soils and Foundation Report
. Log of Test Borings
Log of Test Borings shall be in accordance with Caltrans Standards using the Caltrans soil
legend, and shall be prepared for inclusion within the final bridge replacement plans. The
Geotechnical Engineer under whose responsibility the geotechnical work was prepared shall
stamp and sign the final Log of Test Borings.
3.2. Geotechnical Engineering Foundation Specifications and Review of Foundation Plan
The Geotechnical Engineer shall review technical specifications for foundations, including
excavation, backfill, piling as required, preparation of subgrade, retaining wall drainage, and
other pertinent geotechnical items. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve the
foundation plan. The Geotechnical professional named in the Agreement covering this
Scope shall sign the foundation plan.
. Geotechnical Engineering Support Services During Construction
ATTACHMENT "B". Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 6 of 11
Provide support to client as requested during bid-phase and construction phase. Respond to
RFl's and review proposed field changes as required. Support client with field inspections
when requested.
Task 4 - Initial PS&E
General
Consultant shall design the project in accordance with the most recent of the following Caltrans
bridge design criteria dated prior to initiation of the PS&E process:
1. Project Environmental Documents
2. Bridge Design Specifications Manual
3. Bridge Design Details Manual
4. Bridge Design Aids Manual
5. Bridge Memo to Designers
6. Seismic Design Criteria
7. Standard Plans (for bridge structure items)
8. Standard Specifications (for bridge structure items)
9. Guide for the Submittal of Plans, Specifications and Estimates
10. Standard SpeCial Provisions with current amendments
11. Bridge Standard Details Sheets
12. Highway Design Manual with current amendments
13. Traffic Manual with current amendments
In addition, bridge barrier railing shall conform to the recommendations as incorporated in the
following references:
1. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 350 Report.
2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
DraftinQ of Plans: Plans shall be computer drafted in AutoCAD format and shall be plotted on
standard 24"'x36" plan sheets per City of San Bernardino standards. The final plan submittal
shall include one set of Engineer signed hard copy plans on vellum sheets. All drafting of bridge
plans shall be performed in accordance with Caltrans detailing standards, format and
conventions.
Soecifications: Consultant shall prepare a draft and final set of Specifications (one set of hard
copy and one set of electronic file on MS Word per Caltrans SSP format covering all work items
for which consultant is responsible. Specifications shall be based upon July 2002 Standard
Specifications, State of California, Department of Transportation. Consultant's specifications
shall supplement and list all modifications to the Caltrans Standard Specifications.
Utiiitv Notices: Client through its consultant will handle utility notices and agreements.
Structure DesiQn Check
Consultant shall perform a comprehensive check of the bridge design. Consultant shall confirm
the structural design and details of the bridges through a detailed and systematic review of the
design calculations prepared by Registered Civil Engineers and/or Registered Structural
Engineers, who are duly licensed by the State of California, and who were not involved with the
original de~ign. Original calculation sheets will be initialed by the structure review engineer as
conforming to the bridge design standards identified in this scope of work. The structure review
shall include but not be limited to the following tasks:
ATTACHMENT "B". Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 7 of 11
. Review of relevant background and supporting information.
. Verification of member capacities.
. Review of structure plans for completeness and consistency with the design.
. Resolution of design issues with the design engineer with final design reflecting agreement
between the designer and checker.
. Review of the project special provisions to ensure all bridge items of work are adequately
addressed.
. Review of Construction Cost Estimate
Quantity Calculations: Consultant shall prepare a set of Quantity Calculations. All bid items used
in the construction cost estimate shall be described in the quantity calculations. Calculations
shall be neat, orderly, and show all sketches, diagrams, and dimensions.
Cost Estimate: Consultant shall prepare a Cost Estimate, which includes all bid items described
within the "Specifications" as noted above. The estimate shall use the same nomenclature and
units of pay as indicated in the Specifications. The estimate shall reflect current Cost Data prices
as described in construction cost data published by Caltrans.
Client understands that consultant has no control of the actual cost of construction or the
successful bidder's method of pricing. Consultant's cost estimate is made solely on the
basis of the consultant's qualifications and experience as a design professional.
Task 5 - Final PS&E
Upon receipt of agencies/entities', and Client's comments and recommended revisions to the
Initial PS&E submittal, Consultant will proceed with revising the plan set, specifications and/or
design calculations as necessary for the items of work as previously directed to be performed by
City under Task 4. .
Task 6 - Bid Set
Upon final resolution of comments and recommended revisions to the Final PS&E submittal,
consultant will proceed with finalizing the plan set, specifications and/or design calculations as
necessary for the items of work as previously directed to be performed by client under Task 5.
Other items required for the Bid Set are:
Resident EnQineers File: Consultant shall prepare a Resident Engineer's File, which shall
include any memos to the Resident Engineer.
4 Scale Plan: Consultant shall prepare a 4-Scale Deck Contours Plan for the bridge.
Task 7 - Construction Support Services
Consultant will be retained on a Time and Materials basis to provide construction support
services, including:
. Consultant shall review and take appropriate action upon client supplied Contract Change
Orders (CCO's). Consultant's review and action shall be for conformance with the design
concept of the Project and with appropriate construction specifications and details.
. Consultant shall review' and take appropriate action upon client supplied Contractor
submittals such as shop drawings, samples of construction material, and product data as
required in the construction documents. Consultant's review and action shall be only for
conformance with the design concept of the Project and with the information given in the
construction documents. Consultant's review of any Contractor prepared drawings shall not
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 8 of 11
relieve the Contractor from it's sole responsibility for dimensions, quantities, calculations,
weights, fabrication processes, construction means and methods, coordination of trades or
safety factors related to construction.
. Provide adjustments and revisions to design based upon unanticipated and/or unknown field
conditions encountered during the course of construction.
Consultant shall not perform any work related to this task without prior direction from client's
designee.
III. ITEMS TO BE PROVIDED BY CLIENT
A. Precise AliQnment & Centerline Profile: Consultant shall prepare the Construction Plans
based on the final alignment and centerline profile provided by client. Consultant and client or its
roadway consultant shall mutually agree on the form of the delivery of said information.
B. CEQA: Client will provide final environmental requirements for the project supported by
technical studies performed by the Consultant.
C. Survey: The client will provide a 3D electronic file of the Project area, in AutoCAD format for
use by Consultant in project design.
IV. MEETINGS
Consultant shall attend & conduct project status meetings, with staff as directed and with others
as required, to discuss status and/or other details of Project. Meetings shall be held once per
month except for conditions when the progress work schedule is delayed beyond the control of
the consultant. Minutes of all meetings shall be prepared by consultant and submitted to meeting
attendees within 10 working days following each meeting.
At the request of the client, consultant shall attend such other meetings or presentations as
needed to complete the terms of this scope.
V. SCHEDULE
The consultant shall submit a Schedule to client for approval within ten (10) days of Notice to
Proceed as issued by the client, or his designee. Schedule shall be prepared containing the
items of work and time frames set forth within this Scope of Work. The Schedule shall provide for
completion of this work by consultant by the date listed in this Scope. This date shall be
considered as the date the Project will be approved to advertise for bids by client.
The Work identified under Task 7 "Construction Support Services", shall not be included in the
schedule.
By entering into agreement with client to prepare the plans and special provisions, consultant
acknowledges that time is of the essence in the completion of tasks noted herein. Consultant
shall complete this contract within the agreed upon time frame.
ATTACHMENT "B". Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 9 of 11
VI. ADMINISTRATION
A. Submittals
Task 1 - Hydraulics and Hydrology: Consultant shall complete hydrology, hydraulics, debris
flow and scour analyses no later than 20 Working Days from NTP.
Task 2 - Bridge Replacement Concepts: Consultant shall complete a report on bridge
replacement alternatives by 35 working days from the Notice to Proceed.
Task 3 - Geotechnical Services:
Geotechnical Engineer shall provide submittals in accordance with the following timetable.
Task Schedule
Proposed Field Exploration 10 Working Days from NTP
ProQram
Field Investigations 15 working days from Approved
Exploration
Seismic criteria and preliminary 10 working days following Field
foundation recommendations Investigations
Draft Report 15 working days following Field
InvestiQations
Final Report 10 working days following receipt of
Comments on Draft Report
LOTB For 65% Submittal
Task 4 -Initial PS&E:
Geometric Approval Drawings - This submittal shall consist of plans showing the proposed
roadway alignment, profile, and superelevation for the proposed bridge replacement. This
submittal shall be consistent with the findings of all hydraulics and hydrology investigations,
shall incorporate the City's response to those findings, 'and anticipated bridge replacement
details. Consultant schedule shall reflect a 15 working day review period for return of
comments. This submittal shall be made no later than 15 working days from receipt of the
report of hydraulics and hydrology investigations.
Unchecked Details Submittal - This submittal shall consist of Unchecked Plans and Draft
Specifications in accordance with this Scope of Work. This submittal shall consist of an
approximate level of 65% completion of the plans and specifications to Client (100% plans).
Consultant shall deliver copies of this package to client as delineated in the table at the end
of this section. Consultant will arrange for distribution of package to reviewing parties and/or
other local agencies identified by the client, and will collect for incorporation and transmit
review comments to the City for information. Consultant schedule shall reflect a five (5) week
period for review and return of comments. This submittal shall be made no later than 40
working days from the date the geometric approval drawings are approved by the City.
Checked Details Submittal - This submittal shall consist of Initial or Checked Plans,
Specifications, Quantity Calculations, Engineer's Estimate and Engineering Calculations in
accordance with this Scope of Work. This submittal shall consist of an approximate level of
95% completion of the plans and specifications. Consultant shall deliver copies of this
package to client as delineated in the table at the end of this section. Consultant will arrange
for distribution of package to reviewing parties and/or other local agencies identified by the
client, and will collect for incorporation and transmit review comments to the client for
ATTACHMENT "B" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 10 of 11
information. Consultant schedule shall reflect a five (5) week period for review and return of
comments. This submittal shall be made no later than 25 working days following receipt of
comments on the unchecked detail submittal.
Task 5 - Final PS&E: This submittal shall consist of Final plans, Specifications. Quantity
Calculations, Engineer's Estimate, and Design Calculations in accordance with the provisions
of this Scope of Work. This submittal shall be equivalent to 100% completion of this Scope,
excluding Task 6. Consultant shall deliver copies of this package to client as delineated in
the table at the end of this section. Consultant will arrange for distribution of package to
reviewing parties and/or other local agencies identified by the City, and will collect for
incorporation and transmit review comments to the City for information. AlE schedule shall
reflect a three (3) week period for review and return of comments. This submittal shall be
made no later than 25 working days following receipt of comments on the 95% submittal.
Task 6 - Bid Set This submittal shall consist of Final plans, Specifications, Quantity
Calculations, Engineer's Estimate, RE Pending file, and 4-scale in accordance with the
provisions of this Scope of Work. This submittal shall be equivalent to camera ready
completion of this Scope, excluding Task 6. Consultant shall deliver copies of this package
to client as delineated in the table below. This submittal shall be made no later than 15
working days following receipt of comments on the 100% submittal.
Task 7- Construction Support Services: Construction Support Services as requested by the
client, or designee, will be performed by AlE as requested.
Submittal Requirements: The following submittal elements shall be made as follows:
For Structures
Initial PS&E
No of Copies Concept Unchecked Checked Final Bid
Evaluation Details Details PS&E Set
Concept Evaluation 3 - - - -
11 x17 Plans (Bond) - 5 5 5 -
22x34 Plans (Vellum) - - - - 1
Structure Special Provisions - 2 2 2 2
(SSP's)
Disk ContaininQ SSP's - - 1 1 1
Marginal Estimate, - - 2 2 2
Quantities & Check
Quantities
Desian Calculations - - 1 l' -
RE Pending File (MR Form - - - - 1
& CT Bridae Form)
4-Scale Plot of Deck - - - - 1
Contours
* . as revised
ATTACHMENT "8" - Scope of Work
Old Waterman Canyon Road Bridge (Replacement)
City of San Bernardino
Page 11 of 11
For Geotechnical
Initial PS&E
No of Copies Concept Unchecked Checked Final Bid
Evaluation Deta i1s Details PS&E Set
Proposed Field Exploration 2 - - - -
ProQram
Seismic criteria and 2 - - - -
preliminary foundation
recommendations
Draft Reoort - 2 - - -
Final ReDort - - 2 - -
LOTS - - 1 1 1
A. Quality Assurance/Qualitv Control Plan
The development of a QAlQC plan is left up to the consultant subject to consultant's plan meeting
the general minimum specifications, which follow below.
The QAlOC plan shall assure a high degree of involvement of the consultant and shall assure
that the engineer signing the plans meets the definition of "responsible charge" in the
Professional Engineers Act.
The QAlQC plan shaH name a licensed professional engineer in the State of California
responsible for QAlQC.
The QAlOC plan shall assure that submittals are checked and shall name a person responsible
for checking. Checking shall include the following:
. Verification that criteria and manuals have in fact been followed and the identification of
any deviations and any resolutions.
. Identification of all proposed deviations from Caltrans criteria and manuals and their
resolution.
. Check of structural calculations and geometric calculations (separate from the
independent check otherwise specified herein).
. Verification that quantities are accurate.
QAlQC is integral to all the tasks of this scope of work. In delivering a quality product on
schedule and within budget it is presumed each task is included in the overall QAlQC process.
Therefore, the fee for each task within this scope of work shall include QAlQC and there shall be
no separate pay item for QAlQC.
B. Corrections
Corrections to the Plans, Specifications, Special Provisions, Quantity Calculations, Engineer's
Estimate are anticipated and shall be considered as part of the normal design process. No
extension of time or fees shall be allowed for corrections as described herein above.
C. Completion of Work
The target 'date for the completion of work described in this agreement, excepting construction
support services, is as provided in the schedule. , Extension of the completion date shall be
granted for delays outside of the control of the consultant, subject to the approval of the client.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~
300 North "D" Street. San Bernardino' CA 92418-0001
Planning & Building 909.384.5057 . Fax: 909.384.5080
Public WorkslEngineering 909.384.5111 . Fax: 909.384.5155
www.sbcity,org
February 3, 2006
To: Qualified and Interested Consultants
Amendment to Request for Statement of Qualifications and Technical Proposals for Design of a
Replacement Bridge over Waterman Canyon Creek located approximately One Mile North of
Highway 18 on Old Waterman Canyon Road in the City Of San Bernardino.
Gentlemen:
The insurance requirements for the subject request for proposals is hereby amended as follows:
16. LIABILITY/INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain insurance policies meeting the minimum requirements set forth herein.
All insurance maintained by the Consultant shall be provided by insu'rers satisfactory to the City.
Certificates evidencing all insurance coverage required herein shall be delivered to the City prior
to the Consultant performing any of the services under the Agreement. All insurance certificates
required herein shall name the City as an additional insured and provide for thirty (30) days
written notice from the insurer to the City prior to cancellation of any insurance policy of the
Engineer.
A. ERRORS & OMISSIONS - The Consultant shall maintain errors and omissions
insurance with a combined single limit of not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence.
B. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY AND AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
The Consultant shall maintain comprehensive general liability and automobile liability
insurance with a combined single limit of not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence.
C. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE - The Consultant shall maintain
worker's compensation insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California
for all workers employees by the Consultant.
(fyou have any questions, please contact Michael Grubbs at (909)384-5179.
~~
Michael W. Grubbs, P.E. .
Engineering Manager/Field Engineer
"q.
. ':' ~,~ ~ i :. ; - 1:(1 '.. ,11:
'..