HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-12-minutes-public-works-study-sessionKITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Public Works Study Session
Special Meeting
Tuesday November 12, 2019 - 9:00 PM
Commissioners" Auditorium
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
1. Call to Order
2. Request to Approve a Resolution to Appoint Public Works Director to County Engineer for a
period not to exceed six months ending April 13, 2020
3. Request to Approve a Resolution Authorizing Chair Signature on Century West Engineering
Task Order No. 2 - Runway 7125 Rehabilitation Design
4. Request to Approve a Resolution Authorizing Chair Signature on KPFF Task Order No. 16 -
Suppiement No. 3 for Big Boulder Creek Bridge Replacement
5. Liberty Bridge at Swauk Creek Discussion
6. Other business
7. Adjourn
Created on 111812019 8:20:16 AM
KITTITAS COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS STUDY SESSION MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS' AUDITORIUM, 205 WEST 5TH ROOM 109 - ELLENSBURG
Special Meeting
MONDAY 1:00 PM NOVEMBER 12, 2019
Board members present: Chairman Cory Wright, Vice -Chairman Brett
Wachsmith, Commissioner Laura Osiadacz
Others: Mark Cook and Candie Leader, Public Works and Two (2) Members
of the Public
At 1:00 pm Chairman Cory Wright opened the Public Works Study Session.
Mark Cook stated he had no additional items to add to the agenda.
REQUEST TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
TO COUNTY ENGINEER FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS ENDING APRIL
13, 2020
Mark Cook stated that the one (1) year anniversary of the second
extension of being acting County Engineer is expiring. Mark Cook gave
background on the steps being made for the job description and the
path to advertise for the position. Mark Cook added that the Board
will be sending a letter to the County Road Administration Board
(CRAB) summarizing the plan forward along with the resolution to
extend his time as acting County Engineer if approved. Discussion was
held. Vice -Chairman Brett Wachsmith made a motion to approve
Resolution 2019-165 to appoint the Public Works Director to County
Engineer for a period to not exceed six (6) months ending April 13,
2020. Commissioner Laura Osiadacz seconded the motion. Motion passed
3-0.
REQUEST TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHAIR SIGNATURE ON CENTURY
WEST ENGINEERING TASK ORDER NO. 2 - RUNWAY 7/25 REHABILITATION DESIGN
Mark Cook gave background on the Department of Commerce grant in
process for work at Bowers Field. Mark Cook stated that he requested
a task order from Century West Engineering, the consultant for Bowers
Field, for the design of Runway 7/25. Mark Cook continued that the
original scope costs came in higher than expected. Mark Cook stated
that he rewrote the scope with'a cost that better fits the budget.
Chairman Cary Wright inquired if this approval could be delayed so
additional research could be done. Discussion was held. Vice -
Chairman Brett Wachsmith made a motion to approve Resolution 2019-166
authorizing Chair signature on Century West Engineering Task Order No.
2 - Runway 7/25 Rehabilitation Design. Commissioner Laura Osiadacz
seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-0.
2019-11-12 MINUTES
REQUEST TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHAIR SIGNATURE ON KPFF
TASK ORDER NO. 16 - SUPPLEMENT NO. 3 FOR BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
Mark Cook gave background on the project and the use of the bridge for
recreational purposes. Mark Cook stated that once the original
project went out to bid a mandatory site visit with any contractors
wanting to bid was scheduled to look at the scope of work. Mark Cook
continued that at this site visit three (3) contractors attended and
stated that they would not be able to bid the project as presented.
Mark Cook added that a redesign was done to place a temporary bridge
and the task order being presented will be for the permanent
structure. Discussion was held. Vice -Chairman Brett Wachsmith made a
motion to approve Resolution 2019-167 authorizing Chair signature on
KPFF Task Order No. 16 - Supplement No. 3 for Big Boulder Creek Bridge
Replacement. Commissioner Laura Osiadacz seconded the motion. Motion
passed 3-0.
LIBERTY BRIDGE AT SWAUK CREEK DISCUSSION
Mark Cook reported that Forest Service staff contacted him regarding
an upcoming timber sale and the use of the bridge for the project.
Mark Cook stated that currently the bridge is load rated and the load
limits cannot be adjusted to utilize the bridge in its existing
condition. Mark Cook continued that it could be possible to deploy a
temporary bridge over the current structure to help facilitate this
project however; further research needs to be done for this option.
Mark Cook added that he is requesting direction from the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) on the use of staff time and approximately
a budget of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to explore options further.
Discussion was held. Staff was directed to explore options using the
budget suggested.
Meeting adjourned at 1:30 pm
2019-11-12 MINUTES
KITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cory Wright, Chairman
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2019 -_I �5,
EXTENDING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AS INTERIM COUNTY ROAD
ENGINEER FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS ENDING APRIL 13, 2020
WHEREAS: The Board of County Commissioners appointed the Public Works Director as
Interim County Road Engineer pursuant to Resolution 2019-077; and
WHEREAS: The term of the appointment ends on November 13, 2019, and
WHEREAS: Public Works and Human Resources have worked together creating a revised job
description (ATTACHMENT A) for Deputy Director/County Engineer and
completed a market study setting compensation for the new position; and
WHEREAS: The hiring process is expected to exceed the extension date of November 13, 2019
established by the Board with Resolution 2019-077 for hiring a full time
replacement County Road Engineer;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the
best interest of the public, does hereby extend the Public Works Director as Interim County
Engineer for an additional period of six months ending on April 13, 2020.
DATED this 12th day of November, 2019, at Ellensburg, Washington.
\\\`010 a 1111^ rrrgr////
:o-
=; rwest;,.•.•
IYIL1lSL�1
�Mrk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
7
ory Wright, C man
,zz -2- Lf !!�--
&r/Deputy
/Brett ac smith, Vice -Chairman
ad"Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz
laur-&'b cz, Commissioner
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2019
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR'S SIGNATURE ON CENTURY WEST ENGINEERING
TASK ORDER NO. 2 — RUNWAY 7/25 REHABILITATION DESIGN
WHEREAS: Century West Engineering is currently the service provider to Public Works
selected from County procurement process in 2019; and
WHEREAS: Task Order No. 2 with Century West Engineering has submitted Task Order No. 2
for Runway 7/25 Rehabilitation and Bidding Services in the amount of $84,173;
and
WHEREAS: Funding for Task Order No. 2 is anticipated through a pending Department of
Commerce Grant;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the
best interest of the public, does hereby authorize the Chair's signature on Century West
Engineering Task Order No. 2 for Runway 7/25 Rehabilitation. Design.
DATED this 12th day of November, 2019, at Ellensburg, Washington.
,,.0
5,`N
SEAL
AZ
❑ 1&k"o"fle Board- Julie Kjorsvik
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cory
Brett WachMith, Vice -Chairman
L�eDeputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz
\74A Q
ccabsia ommissioner
w�srrURY
N a 1 N P E f l w 0
TASK ORDER #2 (r3)
AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION FOR
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES
By this Agreement dated November 6, 2019, the Kittites County (Client) authorizes Century West Engineering
Corporation (Consultant) to cavy out and complete the following Services in consideration of the mutual covenants set
forth in the Professional Services Agreement (Master Agreement), executed between Kittitas County and CW EC, and
dated on October 7, 2019; and for projects with Federal funding the fallowing attachment: FAA Professional Servriw (A/E)
contract Parovisions.
Project: Task Order fit Bowers Field Airport: Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Design Services
Project No.: 12436.
Scope of Services:
The scope of services for the Runway 7-25 Rehabililation project, is as detailed in 1he attaches! Exhibit A "Scope of Work."
Opinion of Probable Coats:
The fee for services for the Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation project, at the Bowers Feld Airport, is set at $84,173 (lump sum).
Personnel labor feces and expenses are detailed in the attached Exhibit B "Fee Summary."
Attoohnents:
Exhibit A: Century West Scope of Work
Exhibit B: Century West Fee Summary
Exhibit C: FAA Profmionaf Service (A/E) Contract Proo9 on s.
Kittitae County
By:
Title:
Date:
Century est :nearing Corporation
By.
Title: f%F—WOEW 7
Date: t r ?
ahoWESTTURY
_W.1- -_-
' N G 'P N E E R I N G
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
November 1, 2019_r3
Design Services
for
Bowers Field Airport
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION, BACKGROUND, & PURPOSE/NEED
The scope of the project is to provide engineering design and bidding services for the
proposed pavement maintenance on Runway 7-25 at the Bowers Field Airport. The
Airport is owned by Kittitas County and is located 2 miles north of the City of Ellensburg.
Runway 7-25 at Bowers Field has been previously closed due to unsuitable pavement
conditions. Additionally, the previous runway crossed with Runway 29. A previous FAA
funded project undertook breaking the pavement between the runways. The Runway
25 pavement was pulverized (full depth reclamation) on either side of Runway 29.
3,700 of Runway 7 pavement was left for an intended future pavement rehabilitation
and reopening of the shortened runway. The existing pavement is in poor condition and
in need of complete reconstruction. As of the last WSDOT inspection in 2018, the
pavement is listed with the following sections and PCI values:
• 1,166 LF at west end of runway
0 17 PCI on center 50'; 23 PCI on 50' edges
0 3" AC; 3" aggregate base course; 5" aggregate subbase
• Remaining approximate 2,534 LF of runway
0 34 PCI on center 50'; 45 PCI on 50' edges
0 3" AC; 6" aggregate subbase
In order to restore the operation of Runway 7-25, the pavement is planned to be
rehabilitated via a maintenance overlay. The scope elements of the maintenance
overlay project is as follows:
The center 60 feet of the existing runway pavement will be recycled with in-
place full depth reclamation in accordance with Specification P-207 and a new
layer of HMA (WSDOT) will be overlaid on top of the resulting asphalt
1of11
CENTURY
URY
E N G I N E E R I N G
aggregate base course mixture. The existing cross sectional shed grade is
anticipated to be maintained. Pavement strength is anticipated to be designed
to support small aircraft up to 12,500 pounds. The runway is anticipated to be
designated as B -I (small) as indicated in the current Airport Layout Plan.
• The outermost 45 feet on either side of the existing runway pavement will
be removed and recycled in accordance with Specification P-207 and
seeded, similar to what was undertaken on the 2018 Pavement Break
Project (AIP 3-53-0026-014-2018).
• The final runway size will be approximately 370Q'X60' and the thresholds
will be relocated to the proposed future locations depicted on the current
ALP.
It is anticipated the runway will not be lighted and will operate under visual
conditions. Flight procedures may be sought and implemented in the
future, but are not part of the assumed initial condition to be implemented
within this project.
There will be no modifications to existing taxiway geometry. Airfield
taxiway improvements depicted on the ALP are being evaluated as part of
an ongoing Environmental Assessment and will be implemented as part of
a future project.
• Existing drainage patterns will remain unchanged and surfaces disturbed
by construction are not anticipated to extend beyond the existing
pavement limits. No drainage improvements are included within the
project.
With the exception of Taxiway C, existing taxiways will be maintained to
access the re -opened and shortened Runway 7-25. Taxiway C will be
disconnected from the runway and will be fully removed as part of a
downstream project. Existing closure X markings on all other taxiways will
be removed as part of this project. It is assumed that back taxi access to
the new Runway 25 end will be from the existing Taxiway F. At this time
no new taxiway will be established to the new Runway 25 end.
• Existing Runway 7-25 signage will be adjusted in location, or new non -
illuminated signage will be installed as necessary.
The following tasks are proposed for completion of this project:
2of11
CENTURY
WEST
E N G I N E E R I N G
A. DESIGN SERVICES
TASK 1— PROJECT MANAGEMENT/ ADMINISTRATION
Task 1 Work Items:
1. Carry out project administration including, but not limited to monitoring design and
project schedules, coordination of project with the County, monitoring and
reporting technical and budget issues to the County, and preparation of monthly
consultant invoices for submittal to the County. It is assumed the design phase of
the project will extend over a 4 month period.
2. Coordinate internal project team and sub -consultants. Two sub -consultants
(geotechnical and survey) are anticipated for this project. This effort includes
coordinating sub -consultant field work.
3. Conduct in-house QA/QC review of design elements and project deliverables.
4. Develop and provide a project schedule to the Airport.
5. Prepare FAA form 7460 for coordination with FAA's Obstruction Evaluation / Airport
Airspace Analysis (OE / AAA). Although no FAA funding is anticipated for this project,
coordination and submission of the 7460 form is still required for construction on
the airfield.
6. Prepare 7480 forms and submit to FAA for runway re-establishment. This task
assumes ongoing coordination with the FAA for runway establishment approval and
input of the runway data into the National Flight Data Center (NFDQ and
published plates.
7 The construction funding for this project is undetermined at this time. As the
County identifies and secures funding for construction, Century West will
identify and evaluate any design standard requirements associated with the
acceptance of the funding source that will need to be accommodated in the
design approach. Should any construction funding source requirements require
design elements in conflict with the assumed project elements stated in the
description above; a supplemental task order will be undertaken to address any
additional design efforts required.
Primary Task 1 Deliverables:
• Project schedule.
• FAA form 7460 (pdf)
• FAA form 7480 (pdf)
3of11
CENTURY
W///W
E N G I N E E R I N G
TASK 2 - DESIGN SURVEY & PROJECT BASE MAP SET UP (KPG)
It is assumed a partial project survey and base map were previously prepared as part of
the separate Airfield Environmental Assessment project. Previous topographic survey
data collected included Runway 7-25 pavement grades at a 25 foot grid and included
centerline and edge grades. Previous topographic survey also included off -pavement
grades within an area 500' wide centered on runway centerline for the full runway
length plus 300' beyond each runway end. Drainage features, signs, edge lights,
reflectors and utilities were also included as part of this effort. As the Runway 25 end of
pavement has since been modified, supplemental grade data is necessary.
To support runway profile and RSA grading design, and to ensure proposed runway end
points are accurate; and to ensure the runway has a clear approach; additional survey
data to be collected and mapped will include:
• Tie to established local control points.
• As -built survey new Runway 25 pavement end established at completion of
pavement break project.
• Additional topographic survey off the new Runway 25 end of pavement.
• Proposed runway threshold/end clear approach field verification
Task 2 Work Items:
1. Supplemental Topographical Survey Services
This task includes the following:
+ Validate horizontal and vertical control that was completed as part of the Airfield
Environmental Assessment project. Re-establish horizontal and vertical control as
necessary. Horizontal and vertical control shall be tied into horizontal (NAD
83(2011)) and vertical control (NAVD 88) points used for the previous topographic
survey effort. Validate one benchmark for elevation control and a minimum of two
additional points for horizontal control. Utilize Airport PACs and/or SACS if
available.
• Conduct topographic surveying for the Runway 25 end of pavement:
o Determine the location and elevation of the end of runway pavement at runway
centerline;
o Determine the location and elevation of the end of runway pavement at the
outermost edges of runway pavement;
o Determine the location and elevation of the end of runway pavement at 25 -foot
increments along the end of pavement.
4of11
ShOCENTURY
WEST
E N G 1 N E E R! N G
Conduct topographic surveying for an area 500 feet wide centered on the Runway
7-25 centerline by 300 feet beyond the new Runway 25 end of pavement:
o Collect topographic survey points on a 50'x50' max grid spacing.
Elevations on pavement areas shall be accurate to 0.01 feet and elevations in
unpaved areas shall be accurate to 0.05 feet.
Incorporate the data collected from the survey into the digital terrain model that
was developed as part of the Airfield Environmental Assessment project. A contour
map at a scale of 1"=50' will be developed for use in the design and shall be provided
to the engineer in PDF and AutoCAD or XML format. The contour interval shall be
0.5 feet.
2. Clear Approach Field Verification
Perform field survey to check and verify the approach surfaces of Runway 7 and
Runway 25. Field survey for this task will include:
• Three shots/views for each runway end. For each runway end/threshold, set up
instrument on runway centerline and each edge of approach surface. (Locations will
be offset from runway end/threshold as necessary to allow for instrument height.)
• Set instrument to view approach surface slope (5.0% for Runway 07 and 5.0% for
Runway 25); observe if any obstructions appear within approach slope angle. Take
photos through instrument view finder to show results.
• If any trees, towers, fences, roadways, and other structures or terrain features
appear to be obstructions to the approach surfaces based on these field checks,
provide information regarding obstruction type (tree vs. structure, etc.) and general
location (east/west of runway centerline, etc) so that additional follow up can be
included with final design scope if necessary.
Primary Task 2 Deliverables:
• Survey base map (CAD and PDF)
TASK 3 — GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION (HWA Geosciences)
Geotechnical Analysis on Runway 7-25 will be undertaken to verify existing conditions of
the pavement section, subgrade, and aggregate base materials of Runway 7-25 to inform
the pavement rehabilitation design.
5of11
WEST�fURY
E N G I N E E R I N G
Task 3 Work Items:
Geotechnical work will be performed as follows:
1. Geotechnical tasks:
• Conduct Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing of Runway 7-25 (3,700' length
x 60' width), analyze data, and report the findings.
• Perform select coring of Runway 7-25 (3,700' length and 60' width) to determine
existing pavement depths and approximate aggregate base depths and report
findings.
• Determine existing subgrade density (compaction), gradations, soil characteristics,
and modulus/California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values of material.
• Determine existing aggregate base density (compaction), gradations, soil
characteristics, and modulus/California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values of material.
• Determine gradations, soil characteristics, and modulus/California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) values of material of pulverized and blended asphalt/base aggregate mix
anticipated to be generated from the reclamation process.
+ Catalog the presence of any ground water and/or low strength (unstable) subgrade
areas.
Primary Task 3 Deliverables:
• Draft Geotechnical Report
• Final Geotechnical Report
TASK 4- NEPA REVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION
The FAA has determined the Runway 7-25 project to be Categorically Excluded from
further environmental review pursuant to FAA Order 9050.9F, paragraph 5-6.4 (e). This
determination was provided by FAA via email on October 25, 2019.
Task 4 Work Items:
This effort is not required.
Primary Task 4 Deliverables:
• None
6of11
►iWESTTURY
E N G I N E E R I N G
TASK 5- ELECTRICAL, LIGHTING, SIGNAGE, & NAVAIDs
It is assumed an electrical investigation and electrical lighting, signage, or NAVAID
design is not required for this project. If electrical analysis and design is required, this
work will be covered under a separate contract task order.
Task 5 Work Items:
1. This effort is not anticipated for this project and is not included within this scope of
work.
Primary Task 5 Deliverables:
None
TASK 6- 90% DESIGN
Task 6 Work Items:
1. Review task 2 survey data and consolidate plan set base drawing from survey base
map prepared under task 2 and previous EA survey data.
2. Review and analyze clear approach survey data. Prepare and document clear
approach findings in technical memorandum.
3. Review geotechnical data and draft report. Provide comments and coordinate
HWA's preparation of final report.
4. Verify or design the pavement transverse and profile grade design. Grade design is
anticipated to closely approximate existing grades, as the improvements are only
anticipated to replace the inner 60 feet of the existing 150 foot wide pavement area.
Slight grade adjustments will be evaluated to ensure surfaces drain surface water
and provide suitable operational surfaces.
5. Develop a pavement section design utilizing the FAARFIELD program. The design will
developed to support small aircraft (12,500# and under).
6. Develop a construction safety and phasing plan and document for the proposed work
that maintains safe operations during construction.
7. Verify and design runway pavement markings for the rehabilitated runway. Pavement
markings will be designed per FAA standards. Pavement markings will include taxiway
lead-in markings.
7of11
CENTURY
lsheWEST
E N G I N E E R I N G
8. Assess any signage updates necessary with the rehabilitation project. As necessary
layout and design non -illuminated signage improvements to be implemented with the
project.
9. Prepare 90% level plans for proposed improvements; 18 plan sheets are anticipated.
Anticipated plan sheets include:
Cover Sheet
Legend & Notes
Project Site & Survey Control Plan
Site Safety and Phasing Plan (1)
Site Safety and Phasing Plan (2)
Safety & Phasing Notes
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Erosion and Sediment Control Notes and Details
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Plan & Profile (1)
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Plan & Profile (2)
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Plan & Profile (3)
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Plan & Profile (4)
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Plan & Profile (5)
Grading Details and Typical Sections (1)
Grading Details and Typical Sections (2)
Pavement. Marking and Signage Plan (1)
Pavement Marking and Signage Plan (2)
Pavement Marking and Signage Details
10. Prepare 90% level draft bidding documents. Bidding documents will include
bidding/contract specifications, general and special provisions, technical provisions,
and other related sections and forms. Specifications will be developed per
WSDOT/APWA standards, supplemented with FAA standard specifications as
applicable.
11. Prepare 90% level quantity and construction cost estimates for the project.
12. Review NPDES requirements. Prepare Notice of Intent (NOI) for Airport/County
signature and submittal to Department of Ecology (DOE). It assumed that a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared by the contractor to
receive coverage under the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit prior to
beginning construction.
13. Prepare four sets of 90% level plans and specifications. Two sets will be submitted
to the Airport and two sets will be kept for reference.
8of11
CENTURY
WEST
ENGINEER I NG
14. Attend a 90% review meeting (via phone or web conference) with the Airport to
review preliminary design and cost. The project manager and project engineer will
attend the meeting. Key design components will be developed to a level consistent
with a 90% level of completion.
Primary Task G Deliverables:
• 90% level plan documents (18 sheets)
• 90% level draft bidding documents (specifications)
• 90% level quantity and construction cost estimate
G Draft NOI for Airport signature and submittal to DOE
TASK 7- FINAL DESIGN
Task 7 Work Items:
1. Review 90% level review comments from Airport; address and respond to
comments.
2. Prepare final plans for proposed improvements; 18 plan sheets are anticipated.
3. Prepare final bidding documents.
4. Prepare final quantity and construction cost estimates for the project.
5. Prepare four sets of final plans and specifications. Two will be submitted to the
Airport, and two sets will be kept for reference.
Primary Task 7 Deliverables:
• Final plan documents (18 sheets)
• Final bidding documents (specifications)
• Final quantity and construction cost estimate
B. ASSUMPTIONS/EXCLUSIONS
1. This project is deemed a NEPA categorical exclusion (CATER). No environmental site
investigations will be performed, and a CATEX checklist will NOT be prepared.
2. Noise contour updates for the new runway configuration are not included within
this scope of work.
9of11
%WNZCENTURY
WEST
ENGI NEE RING
3. It is assumed an electrical investigation and electrical lighting, signage, or NAVAID
design is not required for this project. PAPI's, VASI's, edge lights, REIL's, or any other
lighting or NAVAID's are not included within this project. The project is limited to
non -illuminated sign relocations/installations.
4. No surface or subsurface drainage improvements are included within the scope of
the project. It is assumed the existing shed section and drainage patterns will be
maintained within this project.
5. The obstruction verification efforts within this scope are limited to visual field survey
checks. No aerial mapping or AGIS survey analysis of airspace and obstructions will
be performed within this task. Additionally, if obstructions are identified during the
field verification, further obstruction analysis or AGIS level surveys would be
included in a subsequent task order.
6. It is assumed the County will prepare and conduct their own SEPA review.
Preparation of a SEPA checklist is not included in this scope of work. If deemed
necessary at a later time, this effort will be covered under a separate contract task
order.
7. It is assumed a County clearing and grading permit will not be required for this
project. If deemed necessary at a later time, this effort will be covered under a
separate contract task order.
8. Preparation of a DBE plan and DBE goals is not included within this scope of work. If
necessary, this work will be conducted in a separate contract task order.
9. The County shall send the invitation to bid to media outlets for advertisement and
pay advertising fees directly.
10. It is assumed the County will conduct the bid opening and will prepare the
construction contracts with the awarded contractor. The Consultant will not attend
the bid opening.
11. Bidding and construction administration support services is not included in this
scope of work and will be included in a future contract task order.
12. Pen and Ink updates to the Airport Layout Plan will be required by the FAA. Pen and
Ink ALP updates are not included within this scope, but will be part of a future
construction support task order.
10 of 11
CENTURY
WEST
E N G I N E E R I N G
13. The re -opening of the runway assumes visual approaches only. No approach
procedures are anticipated to be implemented at this time, and coordination for this
would be included within a future task order
C. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The general anticipated project schedule is as follows:
• Fall 2019 —Winter 2020 Project Design
• Spring 2020 Bid (pending construction funding)
0 Summer 2020 Construction (pending construction funding)
A detailed project schedule will be developed as part of Task 1 per this scope of work.
11 of 11
PROJECT TITLE:
BOWERS FIELD AIRPORT -RUNWAY 7-25 REHABILITATION
Ground RT.
Travel:
Per Unit Trips
CLIENT:
KITTITAS COUNTY
Lodging
$0.00
0 1.0
$D.00
Rental CarlFueVMilage
$0.600
3 223 1.0
$401
JOB NUMBER
50.00
0 0 1.0
$0.00
Meals
530.00
1.0
$0.00
Misc. expenses:
EXHIBIT B
PRINCIPAL
SR PROD
PROS
SR PROD
PROD
CADD
$50.00
POSTAGE
VP/ENGR
MGR
PM ENGR ENGR
ENGR
DSGN
CLER.
TOTAL PROJECT
TASK
PROJECT TASK
$217.00
$200.00
$151.00
$125.00
5113.00
$95.00
$77.00
HRS
COST
COST
DESIGN & BIDDING SERVICES
$6,802.00
Geotechnical (HWA)
1,0
$10,765.00
TASK I -Project MaoagementlAdm-nristration
$15,228.00
1 Project Administration (4 month period)
0
12
2
2
0
12
$3,876.00
2 On-site Field Coordinate Project Team (2 trips)
0
1
0
16
0
0
17
$2,200,00
3 Conduct in-house QA/QC
12
0
0
0
0
0
12
$2,400.00
4 Provide Project Schedule
2
0
2
0
0
0
4
$650.00
5 Prepare FAA Form 7460 & FAA Coordination
2
0
4
0
0
0
6
$900.00
6 Prepare FAA Form 7480 & FAA Coordination
10
2
I6
0
0
0
28
$4,302,00
7 Assess Construction Funding Design Standards
0
2
0
0
0
0
6
$900.00
TASK 2 -Design Survey & Survey Base Map Set Up
1-2 Supplemental Topographic Survey
KPG fee listed
in subconsultam section
TASK 3 -Geotechnical Investigation
1 Geotechnical Investigation
HWA fee listed
in subconsultant section
TASK 4- NEPA Review and Documentation
1 Not applicable 1 Not included
TASK 5- Electrics{, Lighting, Signage, & NAVAiDS
1 Not applicable 1 Not included
TASK 6.90% Design
$36,787.00
1 Survey Data Review& Plan Set Base Map
I
0
4
0
0
0
5
$700.00
2 Clear Approach Survey Data Review & Memo
"
4
0
0
0
6
$900.00
3 Geotec . Findings & Report Review
0
-
4
D
0
0
6
$900.00
4 Pavement Transverse and Profile Grade Design
0
0
20
-
0
0
24
$3,028.00
5 Pavement Section Design
0
2
0
10
10
0
0
22
$2,780.00
6 Construction Safety & Phasing Plans/Document
0
4
0
t0
0
0
14
$2,050.00
7 Design Runway Pavement Markings
0
1
0
2
4
0
7
$902.00
8 Non -Illuminated Signage Adjustment Design
0
1
0
4
0
0
S
$700.00
9 900A Plans (18 sheets)
0
4
12
56
0
56
0
128
$14,372.00
10 90% Bidding Documents (Specifications)
0
2
16
32
0
0
8
58
$7,432.00
11 909A Quantities and Cost Estimate
0
1
4
6
0
0
12
$1,529.00
12 NPDES Assessment and NOI
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
$401.00
13 Prepare Submittal Set
0
0
2
1
4
7
$643.00
14 9D% Review Meeting (Phone Conference)
0
1
0
2
0
3
$450.00
TASK 7 -Final Design
$13,320.00
I Review and Address 90% comments
2
0
4
4
0
0
10
51,352.D0
2 Final Plans (IS sheets)
0
2
12
24
0
24
O
62
57,252.00
3 Final Bidding Documents (Specifications)
0
2
4
8
0
0
8
22
$2,620.0[1
4 Final Quantities and Cost Estimate
0
1
1
2
4
0
0
8
$1,053.00
5 Prepare Final Submittal Set
0
2
0
2
D
1
4
9
$1,043.00
Labor Subtotal 0 71 53 240 30 82 36 512 $65,335.00 $65,335.00
EXPENSES
Subtotal - Expenses $1,271.40
Subtotal - Subconsultants $17,567.00
Total - $84,173
Coat Air
Ground RT.
Travel:
Per Unit Trips
Trips Days Miles Markup
Lodging
$0.00
0 1.0
$D.00
Rental CarlFueVMilage
$0.600
3 223 1.0
$401
Airfare
50.00
0 0 1.0
$0.00
Meals
530.00
1.0
$0.00
Misc. expenses:
MISC
$100,00
PHOTOCOPIES
$50.00
POSTAGE
$2000
PRp4TpJG
$500.00
PLATTING
$200.00
HEI.n SUPPLIES
$0,00
Sub -Consultants:
Topographic Survey (KPG)
1.0
$6,802.00
Geotechnical (HWA)
1,0
$10,765.00
Subtotal - Expenses $1,271.40
Subtotal - Subconsultants $17,567.00
Total - $84,173
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2019 - 161
AUTHORIZING CHAIR SIGNATURE ON SUPPLEMENT NO.3 TO TASK ORDER
NO. 16 WITH KPFF FOR BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
WHEREAS: The Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners (Board) did authorize the
Big Boulder Bridge Replacement with KPFF on 10/20/2018 (Resolution 2018-
160); and
WHEREAS: The Board supplemented the KPFF task order with two supplements to the
original Task Order No. 16 (Resolutions 2018-203 and 2019-099); and
WHEREAS: No contractors elected to bid the KPFF permanent bridge replacement design; and
WHEREAS: Public Works has negotiated a revised final design that several contractors have
noticed their willingness to bid;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the
best interest of the public, does hereby supplement KPFF Task Order No. 16 for $20,000.00 for a
final Task Order cost of. $248,000.00.
DATED this 12th day of November, 2019, at Ellensburg, Washington.
❑ Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik
k7�De ty Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz
tt, : ,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
1601 Fifth Avenua, Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 98101 206.622,5822 kpff.com
October 25, 2019
Mark Cook, PE
Kittitas County Public Works
411 North Ruby, Suite 1
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Subject: ICttitas County On -Call Agreement KCPW 2017-19ENG2
Supplement #3 for Task Order 16
Dear Mark:
This letter addresses the scope and fee for additional work discussed between the County and
KPFF conforming to the project goals and final development of the PS&E contract documents.
The new scope items are to prepare revised contract bid documents for a 60 foot bridge span
with precast footings.
Pursuant to accomplishing this additional work, we request an additional budget of $20,000,
bringing our total not -to -exceed amount for this Task Order to $248,000. A breakdown of the
additional fee for Task 16 is attached. Additional tasks for Supplement #2 include: 1.70, 3.52
and 6.60.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (206) 926-0442.
KIT 31WALI3 CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Kr=A8 COUNTY
Formal Task Order Document
KPFF
Task Order Number 016
Maximum Amount Payable $248,000 Completion Date 12/30/2019
The general provisions and clauses of Local Agency Agreement Number (KCPW 2017-
19ENG2) shall be in full force and effect for this Task Order.
Location of Project: Kittitas County
Project Title: Big Boulder Creek Bridge Replacement
Description of Work: KPFF will prepare the PS&E documents for the replacement of the Big
Boulder Creek Bridge in coordination with Kittitas County staff. The design team includes:
KPFF — Project Management, Structural and Civil Engineering
Hart Crowser — Geotechnical Engineering
Watershed Science and Engineering — Hydraulic Engineering
Jacobs — Environmental/Permitting
Tentative Project Advertisement is April 2020, but will be dependent on permitting, fish
windows, and bridge procurement schedules.
The existing timber bridge is located on Cle Elum Valley Road over Big Boulder Creek
approximately three miles north of the Salmon La Sac Campground. The bridge is currently
posted for a 5 Ton weight limit due to scour at the timber sill foundation. The County prefers to
replace the bridge with a single lane prefabricated superstructure.
TASK 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
KPFF will manage the development of the PLANS, SPECS & ENGINEERING COST
ESTIMATE (PS&E) in such a manner to ensure the County is able to achieve the desirable
bidding date. This effort will include appropriate in-house duties such as invoicing, contract
���GA•,,CpDES ... TO 7} ,per
IaTHFAS COUNTY
KZTTZTgM CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
compliance assurance, file and staff organization, client communications (emails and telephone),
and general project oversight. Project Management tasks include:
1.1 Project Team Management and Coordination
1.2 Monthly Progress Reports/Invoices (Assume 8)
1.3 Monthly Project Progress Meetings/Minutes (Assume 8 meetings, held via
teleconference)
1.4 Coordination with WDFW (Assume 8 hours)
1.5 Management Reserve - allocation of the reserve funds for additional out of scope
tasks based on written approval of the County
1.6 Project team coordination for addendum & design change
1.7 Project team coordination for revised design
TASK 2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
KPFF shall perform the structural engineering analysis and design of the Big Boulder Creek
Bridge substructure. KPFF shall perform appropriate analysis and design calculations in
accordance with the most current edition (at the time of NTP) of the WSDOT Bridge Design
Manual (BDM) and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and the Local Agency
Guidelines. Considering the location and use of the bridge, alternative criteria, such as Forest
Service guidelines, may be considered to reduce construction costs.
TASK 2.1— Project Kickoff Meeting and Site Visit
A project kickoff meeting will be held at the existing bridge site.
TASK 2.2 — Alternative Analysis Memo
Brief memo to summarize site constraints, design criteria and preferred bridge structure
TASK 2.3 — Development of PS&E/Contract Bid Documents
TASK 2.31— Plan and Calculation Preparation
• Project Cover Sheet
• General Notes and Quantities
• Bridge Layout - plan and elevation
• Structural notes
• Foundation Plan — Layout
• Foundation Design and Details
�c IDES ... zor c�
KITTrrAS COUNTY
ZKKXWWX ALS CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Wingwali Layout/Details
TASK 2.32 — Structural Special Provisions
TASK 2.33 — Cost Estimate
TASK 2.34 — Deliverable preparation
TASK 2.40 — Quality Control Checks and Reviews
TASK 2.50 — Technical Collaboration
Structural design engineers will coordinate with survey, civil, geotechnical, hydraulics and
environmental engineers for project design and contract coordination.
TASK 2.60 — Construction Support
If needed to provide support during construction to respond to RFI's and review submittals.
TASK 2.70 — Feasibility Review
Perform a high level review to determine if a 60 foot bridge span is feasible to eliminate need for
cast -in-place concrete abutments. Evaluate existing design for using temporary detour bridge for
1 year rather than originally anticipated 3 month duration.
TASK 2.80 — Revise Contract Documents
Update plans, specifications and estimate and issue and addendum to the contract bid documents
as necessary to limit 2019 construction work to installation of temporary detour road and bridge.
TASK 3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
TASK 3.10 — Planning and Research
Hart Crowser will review readily available geologic maps and water well logs that cover the site
vicinity, and other reports and plans provided by others (if any) for general information
regarding subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and geologic hazards.
#,DES ... To 7Y,pC
0.0 KZTTZTgB CO WWW
9
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Kl'I13TA5 CUUNTY
Hart Crowser will coordinate field explorations with KPFF, Kittitas County, USFS, drilling
subcontractors, and internal staff. If required, Hart Crowser will submit a traffic control plan for
review by the County.
TASK 3.20 — held Work
TASK 3.21— Site Reconnaissance and Utility Locates
Hart Crowser will conduct a reconnaissance to get familiarized with the site. Relevant
features will be noted, and the proposed exploration location marked for the utility
locators. Hart Crowser will notify "One -Call" service for public utility locates.
TASK 3.22 — Field Explorations
Hart Crowser will advance one boring near the south side of the bridge. (The north side
of the bridge cannot be accessed with drilling equipment due to load restrictions.) The
boring will be advanced using a TSi 150CC Sonic Drill, which can typically penetrate
through boulders and similar materials. The boring will be advanced until one of the
following criteria is reached: 1) the boring penetrates 10 feet into rock, 2) refusal occurs
within nested boulders, or 3) we reach a depth of 50 feet. If thick soil layers (sand, gravel,
etc.) are encountered, then occasional soil samples will be obtained by driving split -spoon
samplers in accordance with the standard penetration test (SPT) procedure (American
Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] D 1586).
Hart Crowser will observe the exploration, log the subsurface conditions, collect
representative soil and rock samples, and transport the samples to the laboratory. for
further visual evaluation and testing.
The borehole will be backfilled in accordance with Department of Ecology regulations.
The upper 1 foot of the borehole will be patched with gravel surfacing. Excess spoils
from the borehole will be spread on the ground adjacent to the borehole.
If required, Hart Crowser's subcontractors will provide traffic control services during
drilling.
TASK 3.23 — Sample Review and Laboratory Testing
Soil and rock samples obtained from the explorations will be visually classified in the
field by Hart Crowser and in Hart Crowser's geotechnical laboratory based on the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM classification methods.
Hart Crowser will conduct a series of geotechnical laboratory tests on selected soil and
bedrock samples obtained from the explorations to evaluate the engineering and index
properties of the site soils. The specific tests conducted will depend upon actual
�C ; pDES... TO 7"
KZTZ`ZTA{� G"Q
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
�sCO,.Iffy
conditions encountered. For budgeting purposes, Hart Crowser has assumed the tests will
include up to eight moisture content determinations, one Atterberg limits determination,
three grain -size distribution tests, and one unconfined compressive test.
TASK 3.30 — Office Work
TASK 3.31— Engineering Analysis and Consultations
Hart Crowser will conduct engineering analyses to evaluate seismic hazards, ground
settlement, abutment stability, foundation and retaining wall alternatives and design
parameters, and earthwork guidelines. Engineering analysis will be completed in general
conformance with appropriate Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) design manuals.
Hart Crowser will consult with the design team regarding their findings and foundation
alternatives.
TASK 3.32 --- Geotechnical Reporting
Hart Crowser will prepare a geotechnical report to document their findings and
recommendations. The geotechnical report will address design and construction issues,
including:
• Site and boring location plan(s);
Description of subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions;
Site preparation and earthwork recommendations;
Seismic hazards and WSDOT-based seismic design parameters;
Temporary and permanent abutment foundation alternatives, design
recommendations, and stability;
• Retaining wall alternatives and design parameters; and
• Construction considerations.
A draft report will be provided to the design team for review and comments. A final
report will be prepared that addresses review comments from the design team.
TASK 3.33 —Project Management and Meetings
Hart Crowser will provide geotechnical project management and support services,
including coordinating staff and subcontractors and conducting telephone consultations
and email communications with the design team. Hart Crowser will attend up to one
meeting at KPFF's office.
ppEs ... 7Y17p�eC
IQTITTAS COUNTY
KITTITAS CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TASK 3.40 — Construction Support
The geotechnical engineer will provide support during construction to respond to RFI's or
changes in field conditions.
TASK 3.50— Feasibility Review
Perform a high level review to determine if a 60 foot bridge span is feasible to eliminate need for
cast -in-place concrete abutments. Evaluate existing design for using temporary detour bridge for
I year rather than originally anticipated 3 month duration.
TASK 3.60— Revise Geotechnical Recommendation for 60ft Span
Hart Crowser will provide geotechnical project management and support services,
including coordinating staff and conducting telephone consultations and email
communications with the design team. Hart Crowser will attend up to two teleconferences.
Hart Crowser will conduct engineering analyses to provide revised estimates of ground
settlement and abutment stability for a precast concrete abutment system for the revised
bridge length. Hart Crowers will also develop geotechnical design parameters and evaluate
global stability for the GRS-IBS system alternative.
Engineering analysis will be completed in general conformance with appropriate
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) design manuals.
Hart Crowser will consult with the design team regarding their findings.
Hart Crowser will prepare a geotechnical report supplemental to document their findings
and recommendations. The supplement will address design and construction issues,
including:
Updated foundation design and construction considerations
Updated abutment settlement and global stability estimates and construction
considerations
Geotechnical design parameters for the GRS-IBS system
• GRS-IBS settlement and global stability estimates and construction considerations
A draft supplement will be provided to the design team for review and comments. A final
supplement will be prepared that addresses review comments from the design team.
�G DFA ... rn
IGMTAS COUNTY
KZTTITgS CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Hart Crowser will start analysis and reporting immediately upon receiving notice to
proceed (NTP). We estimate that the engineering analyses and draft geotechnical report
supplement should be completed approximately 3 weeks after NTP. However, Hart
Crowser will consult with the design team regularly to provide the results of our analyses
and recommendations.
TASK 4 HYDRAULIC DESIGN
Watershed Science & Engineering (WSE) will provide hydraulic engineering services for the Big
Boulder Creek Bridge Replacement Project in Kittitas County, Washington. WSE will lead the
hydraulic engineering portions of the project which will include completing the following tasks.
TASK 4.10 — Data Collection and Review
WSE will collect and review existing data and information needed to complete the hydraulic
investigation. Data will include but not be limited to topographic maps including LiDAR data,
historical aerial photos, flood data, bridge maintenance records, and anecdotal information on
past flood events from County maintenance staff.
Assumptions:
• County will supply relevant data they possess
TASK 4.20 — Site Inspection
WSE will conduct a one -day field inspection to examine the crossing and Big Boulder Creek.
WSE will examine hydraulic and geomorphic characteristics, sediment transport, debris flow
potential, lateral erosion, and scour.
Assumptions:
• NTP is received in time to allow WSE to visit the site before snow fall.
TASK 4.30 — ChanneI Survey
WSE will survey up to eight cross sections and a longitudinal profile of the stream channel as
part of the site inspection task above. WSE will merge the stream channel data with the
County's survey to develop a single topographic base map required for the hydraulic
investigation.
Assumptions:
County will or has collected detailed topographic data within the road right -of --way.
3H1Z11VxWAL13 Co
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
IUMTAs COUNTY
TASK 4.40 — Hydrology
WSE will use USGS regional regression equations to estimate annual instantaneous peak design
flow rates. The design event for flow and scour will be the 100 -year flood and the check flood
for potential damage will be the 500 -year event. The 500 -year event is not the design event, it is
solely used to assess risk in -order to identify any remaining significant erosion or scour issues
that might need to be addressed in the design.
Assumptions:
• USGS regression equations will provide reasonable estimates for the 100 -year and 500 -
year annual instantaneous peak flows. If they do not, WSE will use alternative methods
to estimate the flows.
TASK 4.50 -- Hydraulic Analysis
WSE will develop a simple HEC -RAS model of Big Boulder Creek in the vicinity of the bridge
crossing using topographic base map. The model will not be calibrated because observed
discharge/highwater marks are not available. Instead, WSE will use engineering judgment to
select and adjust model parameters. The model will be used to help size the bridge waterway, to
provide data required to evaluate lateral erosion and scour potential, and to develop
countermeasures.
TASK 4.50 — Channel Stability and Scour Assessment
WSE will determine if lateral erosion, local scour, ice, or debris flows pose a threat to the
proposed crossing. If they do, WSE will work with KPFF to address these hazards in the design.
Assumptions:
These hazards will be addressed through modifications the structure itself (e.g. deeper
foundations, longer bridge, etc.) and not through design and installation of external
countermeasures (e.g. riprap). If countermeasures are required, the optional task at the
end of this scope will be completed.
TASK 4.70 — WDFW and Permit Coordination
It is anticipated that WDFW personnel have an idea of the length of crossing they would like to
see at the site. WSE will work with WDFW personnel, the County, and Jacobs (the company
that will acquire the project permits) to collectively arrive at a bridge length that is acceptable to
all parties. An allowance is provided for WSE's lead engineer to participate in one meeting with
WDFW personnel in Ellensburg.
Assumutions:
�G ,DES ... -o7NEc�
_ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
[a1T[TAS COUNTY
• A reasonable bridge length will be agreed to that the County can afford to build.
TASK 4.80 — Hydraulic Design Report
WSE will prepare a hydraulic design report to summarize and document the results of the
investigation. It will include the recommended NBIS Scour Code rating for the new structure, a
code that the County will need for their records.
Assam tiA ions:
• A draft of the report will be provided to the County and KPFF for review. Upon receipt
of comments, WSE will refine the report and submit a final version as a PDF.
TASK 4.90 — Meetings and Administration
An allowance is provided for WSE personnel to attend one meeting at KPFF's Seattle office to
discuss the design and one meeting in Ellensburg to meet with the County.
Assumptions:
WSE will develop concept sketches of the countermeasures which will be provided to
KPFF. KPFF will prepare detailed plans to be incorporated into the project plan set.
• WSE will recommend specifications for the countermeasures.
• WSE has included a modest cost for this task in the accompanying cost estimate. This
estimate will be revisited and may need to be revised once the type and scale of
countermeasures required are identified.
• At this time it is assumed that scour and erosion protection countermeasures are not
necessary and have not been included in the fee
TASK 4.100 — Feasibility Review
Perform a high level review to determine if a 60 foot bridge span is feasible to eliminate need for
cast -in-place abutments. Evaluate design for using temporary detour bridge for 1 year rather than
originally anticipated 3 month duration.
TASK 5 ENVIRONMENTAL/PERMITTING
The Jacobs team will deliver Environmental Documentation and Permitting in coordination with
KPFF and Kittitas County staff.
TASK 5.10 — Project Management
r�AaEs... rn'Ne
KZTTZTJLS CKYUMWIF
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
1. Project planning, team direction and coordination and ongoing client communication
2. Project Controls
a. Prepare monthly invoices and back-up, and monthly progress reports.
b. Monitoring and updating Environmental delivery schedule.
3. Deliverables
a. Monthly progress reports and invoices
TASK 5.20 — Agency Coordination
Agency Coordination
a. Coordinate with Kittitas County Public Works, Kittitas County Community and
Development Services, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology,
US Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies as needed.
b. Coordination items include impact analysis, permits required and timelines, and
facilitated review of project milestones as needed.
TASK 5.30 — NEPA/SEPA Documentation
1. NEPA/SEPA Documentation
a. Research and prepare one (1) NEPA Categorical Exclusion (CE) form
b. Research and prepare one (1) SEPA Checklist and Draft DNS if needed
TASK 5.40 — Biological Assessment
1. Biological Assessment
a. Field Reviews
b. Prepare one (1) Biological Assessment, assumed to be formal consultation with
both Services.
c. Provide ongoing coordination with agencies throughout the review/approval
process.
TASK 5.50 — NHPA Section 106
NHPA Section 106 Evaluation
a. Develop Area of Potential Effects (APE) and coordinate with SHPO.
b. Evaluate cultural and historic resources within the project area of effect as per
Section 106 requirements.
TASK 5.60 — JARPA Package Preparation and Submittal
DARPA Preparation and Submittal
a. Populate and submit one (1) 7ARPA application package.
b. Coordination with federal and/or state agencies for the following permits:
i. Corps 404 permit, United States Army Corps of Engineers (Assumes
Nationwide Permit)
ii. Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA), WA State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
iii. Ecology 401 permit review including development of TESC and SWPPP
TASK 5.70 — Local Permits or Approvals
��CA�AES ... rty �ECO1
�� �, HITTIT�iB CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
M=A�
1. Local Permits or Exemptions
a. Coordinate with Kittitas County CDS on SEPA, Shorelines, and Critical Areas
requirements.
TASK 5.80 — Biology Support During Construction
1. Support services during construction, including worksite isolation support, fish salvage
and removal, planting or site stabilization guidance up to 40 hours. This task is not
subject to Assumption la.
TASK 5.90 — Permit Update
Submit updated permits to reflect revised bridge span. Update permits to allow single creek
crossing for equipment to install temporary bridge and detour roadway.
Assumptions:
• Coordination with FHWA or WSDOT Local Programs will not be required.
• The Biological Assessment that will be prepared will be "Likely to Adversely Affect" for
Bull Trout and Steelhead, and will require formal consultation with both USFWS and
NMFS.
• The US Army Corps of Engineers will issue a CWA Section 404 T WP 14. No individual
permit will be required.
Section 106 will be determined as "May Affect", and will require SHPO concurrence
• The Department of Ecology will issue a Letter of Verification for CWA Section 402. No
individual permit will be required.
• No wetlands will be impacted by the project. This Scope does not include wetland
delineations or reporting.
• No NPDES Permit will be required.
• SEPA will be exempt.
• If the level of effort and cost for permit or approval acquisition is higher than the budget
amount, Jacobs will coordinate with KPFF and the County to determine amendments as
needed.
• No mitigation planning is included in this scope of work.
TASK 6 CIVII.IROADWAY ENGINEERING
KPFF will provide civil engineering support for the replacement of Big Boulder Creek Bridge.
Civil design criteria will be Kittitas County Code Chapter 12- Roads and Bridge Standards and
as supplemented by the WSDOT Design Manual or AASHTO's Policy on Geometric Design of
Highway and Streets.
�c ors... ro axgc
. . �G� KZTTZTAS CO
x, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
lu=m cou
TASK 6.1— Civil Project Management
• Attend six (6) progress meetings via teleconference.
• Prepare invoice progress reports
TASK 6.2 — Development of PS&E/Contract Bid Documents
Plan Preparation far 30%, 75%, 100% draft, 100% Ad
• Site Preparation
• Roadway plan and profile
• Typical sections and details
• Detour plan, profile and typical section
Full Closure Signage Plan
Supporting Work:
• CiviI stream grading for stream bypass.
• Prepare Stormwater Site plan and Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Civil Special Provisions
• Provide WSDOT run list format civil technical special provisions
Civil Cost Estimate
• Provide quantities and unit prices for civil elements of work
TASK 6.3 — Quality Control Checks and Reviews
KPFF senior civil engineering staff will QC all civil design deliverables.
TASK 6.40 — Construction Support
If needed to provide support during construction to respond to BFI's and review submittals.
TASK 6.50 — Revise Contract Documents
Update plans, specifications and estimate and issue an addendum to the contract bid documents
as necessary to limit 2019 construction work to installation of temporary detour road and bridge.
TASK 6.50 — Revise Contract Documents for 60ft Span
Update plans, specifications and estimate and issue revised contract bid documents as
necessary for a 60ft long bridge.
GA,pDES... i"pCq'
Gkk
KZTTITA44 CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Assumptions:
• Existing ROW and survey basemap control provided by County will be depicted on civil
drawings. Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) limits will be defined on Civil Site
Preparation plan. Legal Descriptions of TCE's, including TCE documentation and
acquisition will be performed by the County.
• Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) plans will not be provided, a
performance spec will be used for TESC. For Stormwater Management it is assumed the
project is considered Road Preservation per SWMMEW Section 2.1.4 and therefore only
needs to meet core requirement #1 and #2 as scoped above. Preparation of the
Construction SWPPP will be a bid item and prepared by the Contractor.
Approach guardrail systems will not be required. Bridge railings will be signed with
hazard object markers.
PROJECT DELIVERABLES:
1. Alternatives Analysis Memo (Draft and Final)
2. 30% Plan Set (Permit set. 3 sheets estimated. Layout, Elevation, Cross-section,
structural notes, Cost Estimate)
3. 75% Plan Set (6-8 sheets, updated cost estimate, GSP run -list, 30% comment
resolution)
4. 100% Draft Plans (6-8 sheets, updated cost estimate, PDF of GSP's or run -list and
PSE files, pending final review by county, 75% comment resolution and complete
PS&E)
5. 100% Stamped and Signed Plans (Contract Documents — bid ready)
6. Geotechnical report (Draft PDF and Final PDF + 3 hard copies)
7. One (1) NEPA CE and ECS Form
8. One (1) NBFA Section 106 Compliance Memo
9. One (1) Biological Assessment (Formal Consultation)
10. One (1) SEPA Checklist (Unless Exempt)
11. One (1) 7ARPA package for delivery to USACE, WDFW, and WDOE
12. Local Agency correspondence for each permit, approval, or exemption
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS:
COUNTY to provide KPFF with the project survey base map. County will collect
additional data as necessary as requested by KPFF. Contours shall be in at least 2
foot increments and shall preferably extend at least 200 feet to the north, south, east
and west of the proposed project limits to include all utilities, driveways, ditches,
� ,QPM ... TO 77reC
x=�rTZTAas co
_ 9
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
*C=AS COUNT]
ROW/property lines and other items which are reasonably likely to impact the bridge
layout and design.
2. KPFF to provide specifications related to the PS&E they develop (bridge portion
only).
3. New bridge is assumed to be designed for one 12 foot lane, and two 2 foot shoulders
and no sidewalks.
4. Bridge superstructure will have a 2% crown from the centerline of the roadway, or as
prescribed by COUNTY Civil roadway design.
5. There will be no drains on the bridge.
6. Bridge superstructure is assumed to be prefabricated and designed and supplied by
the Contractor during construction.
7. Load rating report will be provided by bridge superstructure supplier.
8. COUNTY will prepare Division 1 and assemble special provision package and bid
package.
9. COUNTY will acquire 60ft prefabricated bridge superstructure separately from this
Contract.
Cost Breakdown: See Attached
Project Schedule: KPFF will provide a PDF of the plans for the 30%, 75%, and 100% design at
the dates shown below. For efficiency, the design will continue following milestone submittal
while the county performs review of the submitted plans. The COUNTY will endeavor to
complete and return to KPFF all comments as soon as possible following receipt of them, but in
no case more than 10 business days following the submittal date.
Milestone
Milestone
Description — Structural
Description — Civil
Delivery
Date
!
30%
NTovember
Permit set. 3 sheets estimated. I Permit set. Roadway plan
2018
Layout, Elevation, Cross- :and profile and detour
section, basic notes plan and profile. Typical
sections.
75%
January 2019
6-8 sheets, all items including ; 5-7 sheets, all items
further development of the including further
notes, specs, and quantities. development of the notes,
specs, and quantities.
100 % Draft
s March 2019
6-8 sheets, all items developed 5-7 sheets, all items
and ready for construction, ,developed and ready for
pending final review by County. construction, pending
`. &DC.t...'r-
VP
K1rriTAS COUNTY
KI'TTITA.15 CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Completion Date: January 30, 2020
Agency Signature:
Consultant Signature:
i
Date: t�/j `
Date:
Complete PS&E.
final review by County.
Complete PS&E.
100% Stamped
April 2019
Stamped and Signed Contract
Stamped and Signed
and Signed
Documents — bid ready.
Contract Documents — bid
ready.
Addendum
June 2019
Prepare amendments
Prepare amendments
100% Draft
December
Draft 100% for 60ft Structure
Draft 100% for 60ft
2019
Structure
100%
December
Stamped and signed Contract
Stamped and signed
Stamped
2019
Documents
Contract Documents
Completion Date: January 30, 2020
Agency Signature:
Consultant Signature:
i
Date: t�/j `
Date:
Exhibit D-1
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Consultant Fee Summary
Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement
Klttitas County On -Call Task Order #16:
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Overhead (OH) Cost
Fixed Fee (FF)
Classification
Principal
Project Manager
:Technical Specialist
Structural Task Lead
;Project Engineer
!Design Engineer
.CAD Technician
Project Coordinator
Intern
;Admin
Reimbursables
Weage
Airfare
Per Diem
Subcontract
LBlank)__
Subtotal
Tota! Negotiated _
Hours X Hourly Rate - Cost
18.00
136.25%
$171.52 =
28.00%
Direct Hourly
Rate
$ 64.91
$
45.29
$
64.91
$
45.29
$
43.27
$
36.93
$
46.04
$
28.85
$
22.00
$
23.08
$
22,868.20
208.00
X
Tota! Negotiated _
Hours X Hourly Rate - Cost
18.00
X
$171.52 =
$
3,087.44
121.00
X
$119.68 =
$
14,481.14
46.00
X
$171.52 =
$
7,890.14
154.00
X
$119.68 =
$
18,430.54
200.00
X
$114.34 =
$
22,868.20
208.00
X
$97.59 =
$
20,298.21
278.00
X
$121.66 =
$
33,821.67
20.00
X
$76.24 =
$
1,524.72
0.00
X
$58.14 =
$
-
0.00
X
$60.99 =
$
-
0.00
X
$0.00 =
$
-
0.00
X
$0.00 =
$
-
0.00
X
$0.00 =
$
Subtotal
$
122,402.05
220 Miles x $O.545/mile)
(Allowance)
(Hotel + Meals @ $#.## x # ir:; s
'(Sub Name & Task)
(Allowance)
Subconsultant Costs (See Exhibit E)
Management Reserve
$ 119.90
$ 119.90
$109,418.04
$15,673
GRAND TOTAL: $247,612.99
Exhibit E-1
Hart Crowser, Inc.
Consultant Fee Summary
Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Overhead (OH) Cost
1,100.00
224.46%
4,500.00
$
2,500.00
$
105.00
Fixed Fee (FF)
28.00%
Classification
Direct Hourly
Total
X
Negotiated
=
Cost
Rate
Hours
Hourly Rate
Principal
$
88.86
0.00
X
$313.20
= $
-
_Senior
Principal
$
74.38
38.00
X
$262.16
= $
9,962.07
Senior Associate
$
62.22
0.00
X
$219.30
= $
-
Associate
$
52.63
0.00
X
$185.50
= $
-
Senior Project
$
43.70
0.00
X
$154.03
= $
-
Project
$
36.06
70.00
X
$127.10
= $
8,896.80
Senior Staff
$
32.22
38.00
X
$113.56
= $
4,315.38
Staff
$
26.50
0.00
X
$93.40
= $
-
Senior Drafter
$
32.04
14.00
X
$112.93
= $
1,580.99
Drafter
$
30.23
0.00
X
$106.55
= $
-
_Project Assistant
$
29.96
13.00
X
$105.60
= $
1,372.76
Subtotal
$
26,128.00
Reimbursables
Mileaae
Laboratory Testing
Drilling Sub.
Traffic Control Sub.
B&O Tax on Subs
Subtotal
(500 Miles x $0.545/mile)
Hart Crowser Laboratory - Task 2.3
Holt Services - Task 2.2
Northwest Barricade - Task 2.2
1.5% of Holt and Northwest Barricade
$ 218.00
$
1,100.00
$
4,500.00
$
2,500.00
$
105.00
$ 8,423.00
GRAND TOTAL: $34,551.00
Exhibit E-1
Watershed Science & Engineering
Consultant Fee Summary
Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Overhead (OH) Cost
Fixed Fee (FF)
Classification
Principal
Senior Engineer 1
Junior Engineer
Contract Administrator
Reimbursables
Mileage
Airfare
Per Diem
Subcontract
(Blank)
Subtotal
188.43%
28.00%
Direct Hourly
Rate
$
67.31
$
59.62
$
30.77
$
30.00
Total Negotiated
Hours X Hourly Rate - Cost
76.00 X
$212.99
= $
16,187.17
5.00 X
$188.66
= $
943.28
95.00 X
$97.37
= $
9,249.72
3.00 X
$94.93
= $
284.79
Subtotal $ 26,664.95
(400 Miles x $0.545/mile)
(Allowance)
(Hotel + Meals @ $#.## x # trips)
(Sub Name & Task)
(Allowance)
$ 218.00
$ 218.00
GRAND TOTAL: $26,882.9511
Exhibit E-1
Jacobs Engineering
Consultant Fee Summary
Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Overhead (OH) Cost 117.00%
Fixed Fee (FF) 28.00%
Classification
Env. Group Lead
Env. Project Manager
Permit Lead
Sr. Cultural
Cultural Field Tech
Env. Engineer Jr
Biologist
Technical Editor
Admin
Reimbursables
Mileage
Airfare
Per Diem
Subcontract
(Blank)
Subtotal
Direct Hourly
Rate
$ 66.15
$ 47.83
$
33.80
$
76.13
$
28.00
$
33.63
$
33.80
$
45.55
$
25.00
Total Negotiated
Hours X Hourly Rate - Cost
54.00
X
$162.07
= $
8,751.65
66.00
X
$117.18
= $
7,734.11
100.00
X
$82.81
= $
8,281.00
2.00
X
$186.52
= $
373.04
50.00
X
$68.60
= $
3,430.00
30.00
X
$82.39
= $
2,471.81
181.00
X
$82.81
= $
14,988.61
9.00
X
$111.60
= $
1,004.38
4.00
X
$61.25
= $
245.00
Subtotal
$
47,279.59
(500 Miles x $0.545/mile)
(Allowance)
(Hotel + Meals @ $144/day x 3days)
(Sub Name & Task) T
(Allowance)
$ 272.50
$ 432.00
$ 704.50
GRAND TOTAL: $47,984.09
October 25, 2019
KPFP Conxbtlng Ergime.
KPFF
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
Pdnapal MmmW
i
d CAD
speasFell Shask Lid Endtial pneer iadnaaan
Project
..- or
Item SCOPE OF WORK
;17162 $119.58
$171.62 $119.69 ;114.34 $121.86
$76.24
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.10 Project Team Merm9earent and Coord whoa
so
F7,581
1.20 Monthly Progress Reportsfinvoices
a
12
$1.972
1.30 Monthly Project Progress Meelirgs/Mb utes
16
6
$2,972
1.40 Coordinetimwith WOFW
6
--$967 �-
1.60 Teem Coor16nagon for design change
8
p997
70 Team Coordination for revised desi n
7
–1838 --
Labor Subtotal:
787
1F
F74,1ri
1q)ff Page 1 VS
October 25, 2019
KPFF Candling &ginsers
KPFF
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
Pda�oel Pmied T d- sin al p o act CAD Prd'ad
REPLACEMENT
Manager Spuciafat Tack Lead E,gineer
Ted nldan Coed nate
Kum SCOPEOFWORK
$171.62 $114.96 $171.62 $119.66 MU.34
$121.66 $76.24
6 CIVIL ENGINEERING
6.10 act Management
2 4
$2,762
6.20 PSSE Bid Dora
31e N"ration Plan (90!1001100 Ad)
2
14
$4D79
Roadway plan and profRe (3019011001100 Ad)
2
20
_
$6,690
Typical Sedions and Details (W1001100 Ad)
2
12
$3.250
Detour plan, profile 6 typloal section
4
24
58.5"
�306'g01100J100 Ad
FLOI o QWM signage Plan
2
12
$3250
Cavil Stream grading for bypass an cVor
2
12.571
vino dwM
Stommzter Slee plan and CSPP
6
$2,Y25
Civil Special prWaians
2
$1A00
Civil Cod Estimate
2
$1.W9
6.30 OC Reviews
6
$1629
6.40 Coretnetllon Support
2
_
$1009
6.50 Revise centrad documanis to remove
6 6
6
$2446
nmaMFdhi a mak
6.60 Revise wntract documents for 6083 n
44
30
$9.710
Labor Subtotal:
0 0 12 0 74
126 9
$47,619
_
$a=
Libor Sn :j
16 111 46 I" 2ty0
Vii
Raleroursabla Sime::
i Pegs 2 of 8
Ochober 25, 2019
Hart ermser, :cm
HC
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
Seder
PHndpal
pdndpal
$" AnodaLe Saab
Associate Proled
PMjad
SenlwSlalf
SWI
Senior
Droner
wager Project
Assistem
Rem SCOPE OF WORK
;313.20
;282.18
$219.30 $585.50 $154.03
$127.10
5'13.56
$99A0
5412.1K
!0106.55 $105.170
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1,10 Project Team Management and Coordination
1.20 MorOr!y Progress Reporls invuicas
1.30 MonOiy Prated Progress MeelingslMlnulm
1.40 Cmn9natlan with WDFW---
1.60 Team Coordination for design change
1.70 Team Coordination for mind desim
Labor Subtotal:
2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
0
0
0 0 6
0
0
0
00
0
$0
210 Proped ladran Meeting and Site Visit
220 Alteme0va Analysis Memo
. 2.30 Deve!opment of PS&FiContrad Bid
DOW.T,e.-Ite
-
2.91 Plan and Co!culatim Preparation
- - -
Cover Sheet
General Notes, Quantities,
Bridge Layout- plan and elevation
- - --
FouraloV n. Plan -layout
--
Footing Details
- .
WingwallLayout I Dotala
TemporarylDelour Bridge Layout
232 SlnrLtural Spacial Provisions
233 Coat Estimate
_ _
234 Dsl!veraWe Preparation (30%. 75%, 100%2
hr. aacF.
240 puelity Colt,o! Chadm and Reviews
1
_
2so Technlca! Callaboralion {Survey, Civil,
GootechN! H l
urs aMl
2.60 oac.
-
270 Feosib:i;:y Review for 60'span bridge
-
271 Reviver d temporary bridga details for l year
in sanice
2.WRevrse contract documents to remove
_ anent bridge work
LaborSubtotal:1
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
0
0
a 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
S0
3.10 PlanNng and Research
2
2
2
$t,gOE
3.20 Fleld Work
3.21 Site Reconnalssance and Utility L.ocatas
I
a
;t,098
3.22 Field Explorations
1
1
12
1
3.23 Sample Review& LabomtoTy TesSn
4
1
I
$022
5.30 Office Work
_.
331 Eng1neer1nq Analysis and Consultations
4
1s
a
2
!
q,2t7
'T
332 Geotachrira: Reporting
6
12
3
4
4
;0,818
3.33 Project Iden einem and Mewl
B
2
923011
3.40 Conslz�cd nSupport
1
4
8.50 FeaslbI Reviewforfi0' span bridge
23.61
Rav!ew W temporary bridge datalls fa 1 year
In service
::2
94
2
1
a
-
SiB+
$8,816
13.52 Revise Gedachnlcal Recommandatlons for
BOft S
Laboraabtofal:
4 NTL)KAULlU Er4UllQF1m IIG
0
80
0 0
0
70
80
0
14
0 18
fZ0,12$
tie.<23
4.10 Data Collection and Review
4.20 She Inapadon
-_--- _-_
4.30 C1lannel Survey
4.40 Hydrology
4.50 mul:c Analysis
..-
4.610 Channel Stabirrty and Scour Assassmen
- -- -
4.70 WOMI and Parmlt Coordination
4.00 "mul'.c Investigation Report
- -
4.90 Maet!ngs & Administration
4100 FeaW6 Wine ter 60' span bridge--
4.9171 Rsv'aw of Wmpomry bridge details for 1 year
in se•. v:m
- -
s
Labor Sadists!:
0
0
0 0 0
0
l!
0
0
0 4
5g
5 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION &
PERMITTING
610 PmkU Nan amen
_
:.20 Agerey Coordination
630 NEPAl3EPA Doeumerrtelion
_
640 BIcIc#cW Asaeaamant
1
660 NFPA Section 105 Evaluation
-- - -_
6610 JARPA Package Preparation and Submittal
670 Local Perils and Approvals-
S0b Biology Support During CorreWdior,
O oral
&SO jPermnit Update - SO'Brl a
Labor Subtotal:
0
0
0 1 a 1 0
a
a
0
0
0 0
a0
11qPff Page 3 of 8
October 28, 2019
Hnt Grooves, Inc.
RC
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
Itenior
Pyeypa
senior
P indPal Assodma waodata
Senior
P led
P olact sa ar s a6
sob
aanlor
Drefrer
D�Oe
Prolan.
Assisted
Item I SCOPE OF WORK
$313.20
5282.78 $219.30 Sia5.50
$154.00
6127.10 (113.68
$93A0
$112.85
$108.55
$106.60
$ CIVIL ENGINEERING
6.10 ftt d Marnagernom
6.20 PS&E Bid Docs
—
Site Preparation Plan (901100/100 Ad)
-_---
Roadway plan and profdo (30/9011001100 Ad)
_
Typical Sections and Details 1901i0OM00Ad)
D.Wur plan, proRle &typical sedlon
019071001100
Ful! dosure signago pia::
..._ _
Chit Stream grading for bypass andfor
abutments no drewi
— --
-- _ - —
Swrnwater Site P;an and CSPP
_--
CNII Special Prevls!ons
Civil Coat Estimate
_
6.30 CC Reviews
6.40 Constnation Support
6.60 PWw wntract cl a rnnrft to remove
Permanent bridge work
.... —
— --
8.60 Revise contract dowmems for WR
Labor
0 6 6
0
—
9 0
--
o
—
e
11.4
o
I a
a$o
13 fociRWlsbsltu
lx'pI L Paye 4 of 8
October 25, 2019 1
Wekrshed Sdencea Englneedng WSE
61G BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE Pdndpal Strad
ed ` I Juni" ilWmtilskdo
REPLACEMENT Enpneer 1 Engineer t r
Item I SCOPE OF WORK
5212.98 5188.66 697.37 $97.93
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.10 Project Team Management and Ca rdlnadcn
1.20 Monthly Progress Repwisgmrol®a
---
1.30 Monthly Project Progress MeefingdMinutes
1.40 Coordination with WDFW 1
1.80 Team Coordination for design change
1.70 Team Coordination for revised desion
Labor 9ubcotal:
e 8 a a So
2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
2.10 Project NieW Meeting and Sba Moret
2.20 Alternative Andysis Mamo
230 Development of PSBFJContrad gid
Documents
2.31 Plan and Calculation PreparaJor.
CoverSheet
Genarel Nota% OuenMM
Bridge Layout -plan and elwation
Foundation Plan - Layout
Foiling Detaiie
Wingwall 1Detsiis
-�--- --
TemporaryZeLour Bridge L.aystf
- - - -
232 S"du al Special provision
2.33 Cost E511mas
_
234 Deliverable Preparatm (30%, 75%. 100%2
hr. each
-
240 Quality Car" Checks and Reviews
Technical Collaboration (Survey, Civil,
250 Geotachnica% Hvdmdlm. Frvironmerle)
260 u ontiLIpport. r.:n:ta 4 slot
w needed
270 Feasibility Reviewfor 50' span bits
2.71 Review of temporary bridge deta'is for 1 year
;n service
-
2.80 Revise wrJrad dow:nents to remove
mianent bdd a work
_ Labor SuLtafth
4;EWMCHNICAL ENGINEERING
0 1 8 0 1 a is
3.10
lRannirig and Research
3.20 Field Work
_
3.21 Site Reconnaissance and Utility Locates
3.22 Field 6cpioretions
3.23 Sample Review 8 Testing
3.30 Office Work
3.31 Engineering Analysis and Consufttlws
3.32 Geotadmkal Reporting
3.33 Pmjed Management and Meelings--
3.40 lConstrue6on Support
..
3.50 IFeasMIftyRewiwftrWspsnbdclgs
- ._.
3.61 Review of temporary bridge delalk for 1 year
in service
352 Revise Geotechnical Recanmentlatars for
Labor Suirictal:
4 HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING
0 a o a M
4.10
Date Cdiectorh and Review 1
2
8 S+ 2tl5
4.20
Site Inspection
a
a _.$2.4.483-.
- --_
4.30
Channel Survey
2
4 _ _ $615
4.40
Hydrology
2
4 Sats _
--52.592
4.50
HydroulicAnelyals
2 1
20
4.30
Channel Stability and scour Assaeament {
10
4.70
WDFW and Penni Coor iination
12-
_
4.80
Hydraulic Investigation Report
20 4
16 59.372
-_--52%14_
4.90
MeetingsSAdmini Moon
10
3 2
4,100
Feesibitry Review far W openbdd
4
8 1 ft,729
4.f01
Review of femporory bridge dela'Is for 1 year
. I
m cervi®
4
4 41.271
Optic--
rwl...
_. .... _....-----
�� Page 5 of S
October 25, 2019
WaWnhed Srlance A Engl—dag
WSE
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
Seniv
'I PrFrapai Engineer 1
Junior • COAS1eG
Engineer dminrNara
r
gem SCOPE OF WORK
$274.98 S16fl6e
$97.57 W4.93
8 CIVIL ENGINEERING
6,10 Prject lWanagernent
6.20 PSdE Bid Dors
Sias Prepare0on Plan (9W10W100 Ad)
RoadkW plan and protlls (30W1001100Ad)
TWcal Sedans and Detsh (OW1=100 Ad)
—Y---___
Detour plan, preflle S typical section
30f90110W100 Ad
_
Full dasure signage plan
Civil Stream grading for bypose andlor
abutn:ente no dread
_
j
Stanm doter She plan and CSPP
Civil Special Provisions
Civil Coat Estimate
i
- -------- -
6.90 QG Revlaap
•`-
6.40 ConeVuclion Sui
6.50 Rwlse carvtdacumsnls:u remove
anemwl
i
6.60 Revise conlrad documents for SIRS
Labor Subtotal:
0 0
0 0
$8
$2iLIF5
kpff Page e of 8
October 25, 2019
Jacob. Engineering
JE
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE thaw. Gnxc PernO Sr. I CFldd I E�IInneer eial0glal T.Mlral Admin!
REPLACEMENT i Lmd Man Lead aJlu el Tech Edtar
It--I SCOPE OF WORK
$162.07 SnT.1e $02.81 $186.52 $66.60 88238 Met $111.60 $81.25
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.10 Project Team Management and Coordlrmdlon 1i
IM Mordhly Progress RepmteAnvolaes
tw Monthly Project Progress Meelings/Minules
1.40 Caordnaaanvr:th WDFW
1.60 Team Caordinatlon for deal n change
1.70 Teem Cmrdlnation for revised deli n
Labor Srb4ofel:
a a
o a 0 0 11 0 a
#a
2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
2.10 lPrcded Kickv9 MasHiN, and Site Malt
2.20 Atlemative Anelysis Memo
Devetopmem d PSdElCantrad B.d
2..'w Documents !
_
2.31 Wan and Calcalad-n Preparation
Cover Sheet
General hates, QuarlNes,
Bridge Layout -plan and alevadw
Foundation Plan - Layout
Footing Details
WinowelfLa 1l Details
7emponary/Eidm Bidge Laym.
2.32 3trucltual Spedal Prov!dona
283 Coat Estimate
2.34 Oefivenable Preparation(30%75'6,100%2
hr. mch
2.40 Quality CmaN! Clhecka and Reviews
250 Tednlcal Cdlabam8or. (Burvey, cwt.
Geotechrdcal, Hvd=1151 Emkonmental
2B0 Construction Supped. 1mris.
270 Feasiblilly Review for 60' open bridge_
27f Reviewd lemporahy bridge deta!ls for 1 year
In sawlce
280 Revise emsbact dallmenls to remove
mann briclas work
Labor SuI;WW:
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
a a
, a 0 g 0 4 0 o
so
' 110
Panning and Research
120 Field Work
321 Site Reconnalssance and Utility Locates
3.22 Field Exploration
8.29 Sample Ravim a LabaratM Testng
3.30 IMF= Work
3.31 Engimedn Anatyaie and CansullaSons
_
3.32 Gectechnicsl Rspodnq
3.33 Project UarwNwent and Meeti
140 Construction Support
T
150 FeasIblllty Review for SD' span Midge
151 Review of temporary b6d9c details for 1 year
in servlce
Bevies Geotechnical Rawmeationfor
652 Soft Soan
Laser SuMefal:
4 HYDRAULIC ENCAMERNG
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 d
W
4.10 Data Col 'mend Review
4.20 B?ts I cion
_
4.40 Channel Susy
4.40 Hydrology
4.50 Hydraulic Analysis
4.50 Chahml Stability and Scour Assessment
_
4.70 WOFW and Pennk CoPldfnaCun
4.80 Hydreulie !iwestlgetlon Report
4.90 Meetings a Adminlstnation
_
4.100 Feaslbllity Revlew for 50' brido
4.101 Review of temporary bridge dafai!a for-. year
in service
w
r
Opib
nal
t
LPb0r SatylgON:
S brAVIKOINIM nI UMLIMENTATION8
PERNMING
0 0
0 0 4 a 0 1 0 0
So
5.10 IPMect hUnagement
2 1 14
4
$2,210
5.20 Agency Coordination
3 6
_ $1,072
5.30 NEPAISEPA Documentation
1 5
30
$3.232
540 Biological Assmmerd
40 2c
6e 5
$17,934
550 NHPA Section 106 Evaluation
i 4
2 50 2
54,667
E60 JARPA Package Pnepianallon and SubrrfOal
1 5
6 2
40 r2-0
55,522
5.70 Local Permits and Approvals
1 J
1a
$I.m
5.80 Biology Support During Cons;rucaon
C lions
2
40
$3.547
ago Permit Update-80'8
S e
14 4a
$7,867
_ Labor BshbMF+S=
54 a6
100 2 s0 30 1h 9
$47,286
1q)ff Page 7 of 8
October 25, 2019
Jacobs Engineering
JE
IBIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
Enr. Group Eav' permx
Lead Mp )d Lead
Sr. CUti"W
Cuff" F6d
Ear'
Enp—I8lologlsl
' Temmca'
Edllw Admin
Ilam SCOPE OF WORK
$182.07
$117.18 MAI ;188.82 668.60
SA2.3g
1 Met $111.80.58!.28
6 CML ENGINEERING
8.40 P ed Managernmrl
B,ZO PSSE I3itl Dace
Silo Pnepera5an Plan 9W100.'100 Ad1
Roadway plan and pro01e (31190hOW100 Ad)
Typical Sw4.ne and DOWIS (90/10W100 Ad)
Detour alien, profile &typlul ¢action
30/9W100I700
Full dosure sgnage plan
Civil Stream grading Ter bypass ancUw
abutments nc dmvAn
I
86srmwebar Site plan and CBPP
Civil Special Provisions
Clog Cost Estimate
8.30 OC Reviews
8,40 Construction Su rt
1 6.50 Revive cm tract tlOcuments to remove
anent bridge work
6.60 Revise contact documents for 60fl Span
Laheraubtatal:
_ Mrart rnn:
iRadmbW*AAAF Sum'
6
5
L0—L 8
115 w00
8 0
g +3g
-
0
m
0 0 0 66
161 9 a ss7 7AH
ri765.,
lqyff Page S of a
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: November 12, 2019
ACTION REQUESTED: Request to Approve a Resolution to Appoint Public Works
Director to County Engineer for a period not to exceed six
months ending April 13, 2020.
BACKGROUND: Resolution 2019- placed the Public Works Director (PWD)
as Acting County Road Engineer for a period of six months
ending November 13, 2019. The County Road
Administration Board is requesting Board action extending
the PWD placement period. CRAB has been made aware
of ongoing recruitment efforts towards securing a full-time
County Road Engineer.
INTERACTION: Public Works, Auditor's Office
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a Resolution Appointing the Public Works
Director to serve as Interim County Engineer for an
additional period of time not exceeding six months in
duration (April 13, 2020).
HANDLING: Return one original to Public Works; One copy to the
Auditor's Office.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook, Director
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2019 -
EXTENDING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AS INTERIM COUNTY ROAD
ENGINEER FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS ENDING APRIL 13, 2020
WHEREAS: The Board of County Commissioners appointed the Public Works Director as
Interim County Road Engineer pursuant to Resolution 2019-077; and
WHEREAS: The term of the appointment ends on November 13, 2019, and
WHEREAS: Public Works and Human Resources have worked together creating a revised job
description (ATTACHMENT A) for Deputy Director/County Engineer and
completed a market study setting compensation for the new position; and
WHEREAS: The hiring process is expected to exceed the extension date of November 13, 2019
established by the Board with Resolution 2019-077 for hiring a full time
replacement County Road Engineer;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the
best interest of the public, does hereby extend the Public Works Director as Interim County
Engineer for an additional period of six months ending on April 13, 2020.
DATED this 12th day of November, 2019, at Ellensburg, Washington.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cory Wright, Chairman
Attest:
❑ Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik
Brett Wachsmith, Vice -Chairman
❑ Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz
Laura Osiadacz, Commissioner
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: November 12, 2019
ACTION REQUESTED: Request to Approve a Resolution Authorizing the Chair's
Signature on Century West Engineering Task Order No. 2
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Design
BACKGROUND: Century West Engineering was awarded the contract for
Bowers Field General Planning and Engineering Services
in September 2019 (Resolution 2019-145). Task Order No.
2 for Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Design Services is being
submitted for Board consideration in the amount of
$84,173.
The initial design budget provided the Washington State
Department of Commerce (2019 Capital grant) is for
$80,000. The balance will be paid from Fund 101 reserve
funds in the absence of re -scoping the Commerce grant.
INTERACTION: Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution authorizing the Chair's signature
on Century West Engineering Task Order No. 2 — Runway
7-25 Rehabilitation Design.
HANDLING: Return one original to Public Works
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution; Task Order No. 2
LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook, Director
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2019 -
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR'S SIGNATURE ON CENTURY WEST ENGINEERING
TASK ORDER NO.2 — RUNWAY 7/25 REHABILITATION DESIGN
WHEREAS: Century West Engineering is currently the service provider to Public Works
selected from County procurement process in 2019; and
WHEREAS: Task Order No. 2 with Century West Engineering has submitted Task Order No. 2
for Runway 7/25 Rehabilitation and Bidding Services in the amount of $84,173;
and
WHEREAS: Funding for Task Order No. 2 is anticipated through a pending Department of
Commerce Grant;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the
best interest of the public, does hereby authorize the Chair's signature on Century West
Engineering Task Order No. 2 for Runway 7125 Rehabilitation Design.
DATED this 12th day of November, 2019, at Ellensburg, Washington.
Attest:
❑ Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik
❑ Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cory Wright, Chairman
Brett Wachsmith, Vice -Chairman
Laura Osiadacz, Commissioner
E TURY'
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
November 1, 2019_r3
Design Services
for
Bowers Field Airport
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION, BACKGROUND, & PURPOSE/NEED
The scope of the project is to provide engineering design and bidding services for the
proposed pavement maintenance on Runway 7-25 at the Bowers Field Airport. The
Airport is owned by Kittitas County and is located 2 miles north of the City of Ellensburg.
Runway 7-25 at Bowers Field has been previously closed due to unsuitable pavement
conditions. Additionally, the previous runway crossed with Runway 29. A previous FAA
funded project undertook breaking the pavement between the runways. The Runway
25 pavement was pulverized (full depth reclamation) on either side of Runway 29.
3,700 of Runway 7 pavement was left for an intended future pavement rehabilitation
and reopening of the shortened runway. The existing pavement is in poor condition and
in need of complete reconstruction. As of the last WSDOT inspection in 2018, the
pavement is listed with the following sections and PCI values:
* 1,166 LF at west end of runway
0 17 PCI on center 50'; 23 PCI on 50' edges
a 3" AC; 3" aggregate base course; 5" aggregate subbase
• Remaining approximate 2,534 LF of runway
a 34 PCI on center 50'; 45 PCI on 50' edges
0 3" AC; 6" aggregate subbase
In order to restore the operation of Runway 7-25, the pavement is planned to be
rehabilitated via a maintenance overlay. The scope elements of the maintenance
overlay project is asfollows:
• The center 60 feet of the existing runway pavement will be recycled with in-
place full depth reclamation in accordance with Specification P-207 and a new
layer of HMA (WSDOT) will be overlaid on top of the resulting asphalt
1 of 11
as
CENTURY
1�"ET
fV _.E, R 11,--G.,,
aggregate base course mixture. The existing cross sectional shed grade is
anticipated to be maintained. Pavement strength is anticipated to be designed
to support small aircraft up to 12,500 pounds. The runway is anticipated to be
designated as B-1 (small) as indicated in the current Airport Layout Plan.
• The outermost 45 feet on either side of the existing runway pavement will
be removed and recycled in accordance with Specification P-207 and
seeded, similar to what was undertaken on the 201E Pavement Break
Project (AIP 3-53-0026-014-2018).
• The final runway size will be approximately 3700'X60' and the thresholds
will be relocated to the proposed future locations depicted on the current
ALP.
• It is anticipated the runway will not be lighted and will operate undervisual
conditions. Flight procedures may be sought and implemented in the
future, but are not part of the assumed initial condition to be implemented
within this project.
• There will be no modifications to existing taxiway geometry. Airfield
taxiway improvements depicted on the ALP are being evaluated as part of
an ongoing Environmental Assessment and will be implemented as part of
a future project.
a Existing drainage patterns will remain unchanged and surfaces disturbed
by construction are not anticipated to extend beyond the existing
pavement limits. No drainage improvements are included within the
project.
With the exception of Taxiway C, existing taxiways will be maintained to
access the re -opened and shortened Runway 7-25. Taxiway C will be
disconnected from the runway and will be fully removed as part of a
downstream project. Existing closure X markings on all other taxiways will
be removed as part of this project. It is assumed that back taxi access to
the new Runway 25 end will be from the existing Taxiway F. At this time
no new taxiway will be established to the new Runway 25 end.
4 Existing Runway 7-25 signage will be adjusted in location, or new non -
illuminated signage will be installed as necessary.
The following tasks are proposed for completion of this project:
2of11
.........
fN. U.
A. DESIGN SERVICES
TASK 1— PROJECT MANAGEMENT/ ADMINISTRATION
Task 1 Work Items:
1. Carry out project administration including, but not limited to monitoring design and
project schedules, coordination of project with the County, monitoring and
reporting technical and budget issues to the County, and preparation of monthly
consultant invoices for submittal to the County. It is assumed the design phase of
the project will extend over a 4 month period.
2. Coordinate internal project team and sub -consultants. Two sub -consultants
(geotechnical and survey) are anticipated for this project. This effort includes
coordinating sub -consultant field work.
3. Conduct in-house QA/QC review of design elements and project deliverables.
4. Develop and provide a project schedule to the Airport.
5. Prepare FAA form 7460 for coordination with FAA's Obstruction Evaluation / Airport
Airspace Analysis (OE / AAA). Although no FAA funding is anticipated for this project,
coordination and submission of the 7460 form is still required for construction on
the airfield.
6. Prepare 7480 forms and submit to FAA for runway re-establishment. This task
assumes ongoing coordination with the FAA for runway establishment approval and
input of the runway data into the National Flight Data Center (NFDC) and
published plates.
7. The construction funding for this project is undetermined at this time. As the
County identifies and secures funding for construction, Century West will
identify and evaluate any design standard requirements associated with the
acceptance of the funding source that will need to be accommodated in the
design approach. Should any construction funding source requirements require
design elements in conflict with the assumed project elements stated in the
description above; a supplemental task order will be undertaken to address any
additional design efforts required.
Primary Task 1 Deliverables:
• Project schedule.
• FAA form 7460 (pdf)
• FAA form 7480 (pdf)
3of11
CENTURY
E: ra 0.1 W' RV .E-Ts . a .N€
TASK 2 - DESIGN SURVEY & PROJECT BASE MAP SET UP (KPG)
It is assumed a partial project survey and base map were previously prepared as part of
the separate Airfield Environmental Assessment project. Previous topographic survey
data collected included Runway 7-25 pavement grades at a 25 foot grid and included
centerline and edge grades. Previous topographic survey also included off -pavement
grades within an area 500' wide centered on runway centerline for the full runway
length plus 300' beyond each runway end. Drainage features, signs, edge lights,
reflectors and utilities were also included as part of this effort. As the Runway 25 end of
pavement has since been modified, supplemental grade data is necessary.
To support runway profile and RSA grading design, and to ensure proposed runway end
points are accurate; and to ensure the runway has a clear approach; additional survey
data to be collected and mapped will include:
• Tie to established local control points.
• As -built survey new Runway 25 pavement end established at completion of
pavement break project.
• Additional topographic survey off the new Runway 25 end of pavement.
• Proposed runway threshold/end clear approach field verification
Task 2 Work Items:
1. Supplemental Topographical Survey Services
This task includes the following:
* Validate horizontal and vertical control that was completed as part of the Airfield
Environmental Assessment project. Re-establish horizontal and vertical control as
necessary. Horizontal and vertical control shall be tied into horizontal (NAD
83(2011)) and vertical control (NAVD 88) points used for the previous topographic
survey effort. Validate one benchmark for elevation control and a minimum of two
additional points for horizontal control. Utilize Airport PACs and/or SACS if
available.
• Conduct topographic surveying for the Runway 25 end of pavement:
o Determine the location and elevation of the end of runway pavement at runway
centerline;
o Determine the location and elevation of the end of runway pavement at the
outermost edges of runway pavement,
o Determine the location and elevation of the end of runway pavement at 25 -foot
increments along the end of pavement.
4of11
rr��C��ENT RY
--
• Conduct topographic surveying for an area 500 feet wide centered on the Runway
7-25 centerline by 300 feet beyond the new Runway 25 end of pavement:
o Collect topographic survey points on a 50'x50' max grid spacing.
• Elevations on pavement areas shall be accurate to 0.01 feet and elevations in
unpaved areas shall be accurate to 0.05 feet.
Incorporate the data collected from the survey into the digital terrain model that
was developed as part of the Airfield Environmental Assessment project. A contour
map at a scale of 1"=50' will be developed for use in the design and shall be provided
to the engineer in PDF and AutoCAD or XML format. The contour interval shall be
0.5 feet.
2. Clear Approach Field Verification
Perform field survey to check and verify the approach surfaces of Runway 7 and
Runway 25. Field survey for this task will include:
• Three shots/views for each runway end. For each runway end/threshold, set up
instrument on runway centerline and each edge of approach surface. (Locations will
be offset from runway end/threshold as necessary to allow for instrument height.)
• Set instrument to view approach surface slope (5.0% for Runway 07 and 5.0% for
Runway 25); observe if any obstructions appear within approach slope angle. Take
photos through instrument view finder to show results.
• If any trees, towers, fences, roadways, and other structures or terrain features
appear to be obstructions to the approach surfaces based on these field checks,
provide information regarding obstruction type (tree vs. structure, etc.) and general
location (east/west of runway centerline, etc) so that additional follow up can be
included with final design scope if necessary.
Primary Task 2 Deliverables:
O Survey base map (CAD and PDF)
TASK 3 — GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION (HWA Geosciences)
Geotechnical Analysis on Runway 7-25 will be u nderta ken to verify existing conditions of
the pavement section, subgrade, and aggregate base materials of Runway 7-25 to inform
the pavement rehabilitation design.
5of11
CE TURP
'-
Task 3 Work Items:
Geotechnical work will be performed as follows:
1. Geotechnical tasks:
• Conduct Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing of Runway 7-25 (3,700' length
x 60' width), analyze data, and report the findings.
4 Perform select coring of Runway 7-25 (3,700' length and 60' width) to determine
existing pavement depths and approximate aggregate base depths and report
findings.
• Determine existing subgrade density (compaction), gradations, soil characteristics,
and modulus/California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values of material.
• Determine existing aggregate base density (compaction), gradations, soil
characteristics, and modulus/California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values of material.
• Determine gradations, soil characteristics, and modulus/California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) values of material of pulverized and blended asphalt/base aggregate mix
anticipated to be generated from the reclamation process.
• Catalog the presence of any ground water and/or low strength (unstable) subgrade
areas.
Primary Task 3 Deliverables:
• Draft Geotechnical Report
• Final Geotechnical Report
TASK 4- NEPA REVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION
The FAA has determined the Runway 7-25 project to be Categorically Excluded from
further environmental review pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1 F, paragraph 5-6.4 (e). This
determination was provided by FAA via email on October 25, 2019.
Task 4 Work Items:
This effort is not required.
Primary Task 4 Deliverables:
None
6of11
CE TUR.Y
EST
TASK 5- ELECTRICAL, LIGHTING, SIGNAGE, & NAVAIDS
It is assumed an electrical investigation and electrical lighting, signage, or NAVAID
design is not required for this project. If electrical analysis and design is required, this
work will be covered under a separate contract task order.
Task 5 Work Items:
This effort is not anticipated for this project and is not included within this scope of
work
Primary Task 5 Deliverables:
• None
TASK 6- 90% DESIGN
Task 6 Work Items:
1. Review task 2 survey data and consolidate plan set base drawing from survey base
map prepared under task 2 and previous EA su rvey data.
2. Review and analyze clear approach survey data. Prepare and document clear
approach findings in technical memorandum.
3. Review geotechnical data and draft report. Provide comments and coordinate
HWA's preparation of final report.
4. Verify or design the pavement transverse and profile grade design. Grade design is
anticipated to closely approximate existing grades, as the improvements are only
anticipated to replace the inner 60 feet of the existing 150 foot wide pavement area.
Slight grade adjustments will be evaluated to ensure surfaces drain surface water
and provide suitable operational surfaces.
5. Develop a pavement section design utilizing the FAARFIELD program. The design will
developed to support small aircraft (12,500# and under).
6. Develop a construction safety and phasing plan and document for the proposed work
that maintains safe operations during construction.
7. Verify and design runway pavement markings for the rehabilitated runway. Pavement
markings will be designed per FAA standards. Pavement markings will include taxiway
lead-in markings.
7of11
C TU
EN RY.
T F `�
8. Assess any signage updates necessary with the rehabilitation project. As necessary
layout and design non -illuminated signage improvements to be implemented with the
project.
9. Prepare 90% level plans for proposed improvements; 18 plan sheets are anticipated.
Anticipated plan sheets include:
Cover Sheet
Legend & Notes
Project Site & Survey Control Plan
Site Safety and Phasing Plan (1)
Site Safety and Phasing Plan (2)
Safety & Phasing Notes
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Erosion and Sediment Control Notes and Details
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Plan & Profile (1)
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Plan & Profile (2)
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Plan & Profile (3)
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Plan & Profile (4)
Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Plan & Profile (5)
Grading Details and Typical Sections (1)
Grading Details and Typical Sections (2)
Pavement Marking and Signage Plan (1)
Pavement Marking and Signage Plan (2)
Pavement Marking and Signage Details
10. Prepare 90% level draft bidding documents. Bidding documents will include
bidding/contract specifications, general and special provisions, technical provisions,
and other related sections and forms. Specifications will be developed per
WSDOT/APWA standards, supplemented with FAA standard specifications as
applicable.
11. Prepare 90% level quantity and construction cost estimates for the project.
12. Review NPDES requirements. Prepare Notice of Intent (NO[) for Airport/County
signature and submittal to Department of Ecology (DOE). It assumed that a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared by the contractor to
receive coverage under the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit prior to
beginning construction.
13. Prepare four sets of 90% level plans and specifications. Two sets will be submitted
to the Airport and two sets will be kept for reference.
8of11
CE TURP
1�T
14. Attend a 90% review meeting (via phone or web conference) with the Airport to
review preliminary design and cost. The project manager and project engineer will
attend the meeting. Key design components will be developed to a level consistent
with a 90% level of completion.
Primary Task 6 Deliverables:
* 90% level plan documents (18 sheets)
* 90% level draft bidding documents (specifications)
* 90% level quantity and construction cost estimate
* Draft NOI for Airport signature and submittal to DOE
TASK 7- FINAL DESIGN
Task 7 Work Items.
1. Review 90% level review comments from Airport; address and respond to
comments.
2. Prepare final plans for proposed improvements; 18 plan sheets are anticipated.
8. Prepare final bidding documents.
4. Prepare final quantity and construction cost estimates for the project.
5. Prepare four sets of final plans and specifications. Two will be submitted to the
Airport, and two sets will be kept for reference.
Primary Task 7 Deliverables:
Final plan documents (18 sheets)
* Final bidding documents(specifications)
• Final quantity and construction cost estimate
B. ASSUMPTIONS/EXCLUSIONS
1. This project is deemed a NEPA categorical exclusion (LATEX). No environmental site
investigations will be performed, and a CATEX checklist will NOT be prepared.
2. Noise contour updates for the new runway configuration are not included within
this scope of work.
9of11
CENTURY
• `ET
3. It is assumed an electrical investigation and electrical lighting, signage, or NAVAID
design is not required for this project. PAPI's, VASI's, edge lights, REIL's, or any other
lighting or NAVAID's are not included within this project. The project is limited to
non -illuminated sign relocations/installations.
4. No surface or subsurface drainage improvements are included within the scope of
the project. It is assumed the existing shed section and drainage patterns will be
maintained within this project.
5. The obstruction verification efforts within this scope are limited to visual field survey
checks. No aerial mapping or AGIS survey analysis of airspace and obstructions will
be performed within this task. Additionally, if obstructions are identified during the
field verification, further obstruction analysis orAGIS level surveys would be
included in a subsequent task order.
6. It is assumed the County will prepare and conduct their own SEPA review.
Preparation of a SEPA checklist is not included in this scope of work. If deemed
necessary at a later time, this effort will be covered under a separate contract task
order.
7 It is assumed a County clearing and grading permit will not be required for this
project. If deemed necessary at a later time, this effort will be covered under a
separate contract task order.
S. Preparation of a DBE plan and DBE goals is not included within this scope of work. If
necessary, this work will be conducted in a separate contract task order.
9. The County shall send the invitation to bid to media outlets for advertisement and
pay advertising fees directly.
10. It is assumed the Countywill conduct the bid opening and will prepare the
construction contracts with the awarded contractor. The Consultant will not attend
the bid opening.
11. Bidding and construction administration support services is not included in this
scope of work and will be included in a future contract task order.
12. Pen and Ink updates to the Airport Layout Plan will be required by the FAA. Pen and
Ink ALP updates are not included within this scope, but will be part of a future
construction support task order.
10 of 11
T
A,
on-
.e�::,:ZENITURT:�
..............
13. The re -opening of the runway assumes visual approaches only. No approach
procedures are anticipated to be implemented at this time, and coordination for this
would be included within a future task order.
C. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The general anticipated project schedule is as follows:
• Fall 2019 —Winter 2020 Project Design
• Spring 2020 Bid (pending construction funding)
• Summer 2020 Construction (pending construction funding)
A detailed project schedule will be developed as part of Task 1 per this scope of work.
11 of 11
PROJECT TITLE:
BOWERS FIELD AIRPORT - RUNWAY 7-25 REHABILITATION
CLIENT:
KITTITAS COUNTY
JOB NUMBER:
EXHIBIT B
PRINCIPAL
SR PROD
PRO=
SR. PROD
PROJ
CADD
VPIENOR
MOR
PM ENGR ENGR
ENGR
DSGN
CLER.
TOTAL PROJECT'
TASK
PROIECTTASK
3217.00
5200.00
$151.00
$125.00
5113.00
$85.00
577.00
HRS
COST
COST
DESIGN & BIDDING SERVICES
TASK f -Project ManagementlAdministrAtion
$15,228.00
I Project Administration (4 mm& period)
0
12
2
2
0
0
12
28
$3,876.00
2 On-site Field Coordinate Project Team (2 trips)
0
1
0
16
0
0
0
17
32,200.00
3 Conduct in-house QA/QC
0
12
0
0
0
0
12
$2,400.00
4 Provide P:njectSchedule
0
2
2
0
it
0
4
5650.00
5 Prepare FAA Farm 7460 & FAA Coordination
0
2
4
0
0
0
6
$900.00
6 Prepare FAA Form 748C & FAA Cocadmation
0
10
2
16
0
11
0
28
54,302.00
7 Asessa Construction. Finding Design Standards
0
2
0
0
0
0
6
$900.00
TASK 2 -Design Survey &. Survey Base MAP Set Up
1.2 Supplemental Topographic Survey
KPG fee listed in euboonaultard section
TASK 3 -Geotechnical Investigation
1 Geotechnical Imvertigation
HWA fee listed
in subconsultard section
TASK 4- NEPA Review and Documentation
1 No, applicable I Not included
TASKS Electrical, Lighting, Signage, & NAVAIDS
1 Not applicable 1 Not included
TASK 6-90% Design
S36,7B7.00
1 Survey Data Review & Plmr Set Base Map
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
5
$700.00
2 Clear Approach Survey Data Review & Memo
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
6
5900.00
3 Geotech Findiaga & Report Review
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
6
5900.00
4 Pavement Transverse and Profile Grade Design
0
0
2
20
2
0
24
S3,02&00
5 Pavement Section Design
0
2
0
to
10
0
22
52,780.00
6 Construction Safety & Phasing PlanalDocument
0
4
0
10
0
0
14
$2,050.00
7 Design Runway Pavemerd Markings
0
1
0
2
4
0
0
7
$902.00
8 Nam -Illuminated Signage Adjustment Design
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
5
$700.00
9 90% Plans (18 sheets)
0
4
12
56
0
56
0
128
$14,372.00
10 90% Bidding Documents (Specifications)
0
2
16
32
0
0
8
58
$7,432.00
11 90% Quantities and Cast Estimate
0
1
1
4
6
0
0
12
$1,529.00
12 NPDES Away ment and NOI
0
0
1
-
0
0
3
S40L00
13 Prepare Submitted Set
0
0
0
-
0
L
4
7
$643.00
14 90% Review Meeting (Phare Conference)
0
1
0
0
0
3
3450.00
TASK 7 -Final Design
513,320.00
I Review and Address 90% commend
0
2
0
4
4
0
10
51,352.00
2 (Final Plans (18 sheets)
0
2
12
24
0
24
0
62
57,252.00
3 Find Bidding Documents (Specifications)
0
2
4
8
0
0
8
22
$2,620.00
4 Fnml Quantities and Coal Estimate
0
1
1
2
4
0
0
8
$1,053.00
5 Prapars Final Sabmittal Set
0
2
0
2
0
L
4
9
31,043.00
Labor Subtotal
EXPENSES:
Travel:
Lodging
RentalC /Fm"ilsge
Airfare
Meals
]Misr. expenses:
MISC
PHOTO COPIES
POSTAGE
PRINTING
PLOTTING
FIELD SUPPLIES
Sub -Consultand:
Tcpograpidc Survey (LPG)
Geotechnical (FWA)
0 71 53 240 30 82 36 112 $65,335.00 565,335.00
Cast Air Ground R.T.
Per Unit Trips Trips Days Niles Markup
$0.00 0 1.0
$0.600 3 223 1.0
$0.00 0 0 1.0
$30.00 0 1.0
LO
1.0
$0.00
$401
So.00
$0.00
$100.00
550.00
$20.00
$500.00
3200.00
$0.00
56,802.00
510,765.00
Subtotal - Expenses 31,271.40
Subtotal - Subconrultents 517,567.00
Total - $84,173
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: November 12, 2019
ACTION REQUESTED: Request to approve a Resolution Authorizing Chair
Signature on KPFF Task Order No. 16, Supplement
No. 3 - Big Boulder Creek Bridge Replacement
BACKGROUND: Responding to a Forest Service load restriction to the Big
Boulder Creek Bridge in 2018, Public Works engaged
KPFF for a bridge replacement design (Resolution 2018-
160 for $173,000). The resignation of the Engineering
Services Manager necessitated an additional $35,000 in
engineering costs with Supplement No. 1. The lack of
project bidders forced Public Works to reduce the bridge
replacement design to setting a temporary bridge only with
Supplement No. 2. The total cost for design services is
now $228,000.
Public Works has negotiated a final supplement in the
amount of $20,000 to produce a revised final design that
targets the placement of a 60 foot bridge on precast
foundations. Sub -consultants Watershed Science and
Engineering and Jacobs are not requesting additional
compensation for the redesign effort. Sub -consultants Hart
Crowser (Geotechnical) and KPFF civil division are
seeking compensation with a minimal amount from KPFF
Bridge Division.
INTERACTION: Public Works
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution authorizing the Chair's signature
on KPFF Task Order No, 16, Supplement No. 3 for Big
Boulder Creek Bridge Replacement.
HANDLING: Return one original to Public Works
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Task Order No. 16, Supplement No. 3 with
KPFF
LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook, Director
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2019 -
AUTHORIZING CHAIR SIGNATURE ON SUPPLEMENT NO.3 TO TASK ORDER
NO. 16 WITH KPFF FOR BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
WHEREAS: The Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners (Board) did authorize the
Big Boulder Bridge Replacement with KPFF on 10/20/2018 (Resolution 2018-
160); and
WHEREAS: The Board supplemented the KPFF task order with two supplements to the
original Task Order No. 16 (Resolutions 2018-203 and 2019-099); and
WHEREAS: No contractors elected to bid the KPFF permanent bridge replacement design; and
WHEREAS: Public Works has negotiated a revised final design that several contractors have
noticed their willingness to bid;
NOW, THEREFORE BE ff RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the
best interest of the public, does hereby supplement KPFF Task Order No. 16 for $20,000.00 for a
final Task Order cost of: $248.,000.00.
DATED this 12th day of November, 2019, at Ellensburg, Washington.
Attest:
❑ Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik
❑ Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cory Wright, Chairman
Brett Wachsmith, Vice -Chairman
Laura Osiadacz, Commissioner
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 98101 206.622.5822 kpff.com
October 25, 2019
Mark Cook, PE
Kittitas County Public Works
411 North Ruby, Suite 1
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Subject: Kittitas County On -Call Agreement KCPW 2017-19ENG2
Supplement #3 for Task Order 16
Dear Mark:
5 wr6l_
:9J
This letter addresses the scope and fee for additional work discussed between the County and
KPFF conforming to the project goals and final development of the PS&E contract documents.
The new scope items are to prepare revised contract bid documents for a 60 foot bridge span
with precast footings.
Pursuant to accomplishing this additional work, we request an additional budget of $20,000,
bringing our total not -to -exceed amount for this Task Order to $248,000. A breakdown of the
additional fee for Task 16 is attached. Additional tasks for Supplement #2 include: 1.70, 3.52
and 6.60.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (206) 926-0442.
�EGA�,p,7E6... 7y3 7HEco1
L�
KIITMS CO1UN 'Y
KITTITASi CO MW
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Formal Task Order Document
KPFF
Task Order Number 016
Maximum Amount Payable $248,000 Completion Date 12/30/2019
The general provisions and clauses of Local Agency Agreement Number (KCPW 2017-
19ENG2) shall be in full force and effect for this Task Order.
Location of Project: Kittitas County
Project Title: Big Boulder Creek Bridge Replacement
Description of Work: KPFF will prepare the PS&E documents for the replacement of the Big
Boulder Creek Bridge in coordination with Kittitas County staff. The design team includes:
KPFF — Project Management, Structural and Civil Engineering
Hart Crowser — Geotechnical Engineering
Watershed Science and Engineering — Hydraulic Engineering
Jacobs — Environmental/Permitting
Tentative Project Advertisement is April 2020, but will be dependent on permitting, fish
windows, and bridge procurement schedules.
The existing timber bridge is located on Cle Elum Valley Road over Big Boulder Creek
approximately three miles north of the Salmon La Sac Campground. The bridge is currently
posted for a 5 Ton weight limit due to scour at the timber sill foundation. The County prefers to
replace the bridge with a single lane prefabricated superstructure.
TASK 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
KPFF will manage the development of the PLANS, SPECS & ENGINEERING COST
ESTIMATE (PS&E) in such a manner to ensure the County is able to achieve the desirable
bidding date. This effort will include appropriate in-house duties such as invoicing, contract
Goas...m�
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Eff=AS COUNW
compliance assurance, file and staff organization, client communications (emails and telephone),
and general project oversight. Project Management tasks include:
1.1 Project Team Management and Coordination
1.2 Monthly Progress Reports/Invoices (Assume 8)
1.3 Monthly Project Progress Meetings/Minutes (Assume 8 meetings, held via
teleconference)
1.4 Coordination with WDFW (Assume 8 hours)
1.5 Management Reserve - allocation of the reserve funds for additional out of scope
tasks based on written approval of the County
1.6 Project team coordination for addendum & design change
1.7 Project team coordination for revised design
TASK 2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
KPFF shall perform the structural engineering analysis and design of the Big Boulder Creek
Bridge substructure. KPFF shall perform appropriate analysis and design calculations in
accordance with the most current edition (at the time of NTP) of the WSDOT Bridge Design
Manual (BDM) and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, and the Local Agency
Guidelines. Considering the location and use of the bridge, alternative criteria, such as Forest
Service guidelines, may be considered to reduce construction costs.
TASK 2.1— Project Kickoff Meeting and Site Visit
A project kickoff meeting will be held at the existing bridge site.
TASK 2.2 — Alternative Analysis Memo
Brief memo to summarize site constraints, design criteria and preferred bridge structure
TASK 2.3 — Development of PS&ElContract Bid Documents
TASK 2.31—Plan and Calculation Preparation
• Project Cover Sheet
General Notes and Quantities
Bridge Layout - plan and elevation
Structural notes
Foundation Plan — Layout
Foundation Design and Details
�L �nVS... ro ' c
F,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MTTITAS COUNTY
• Wingwall Layout/Details
TASK 2.32 — Structural Special Provisions
TASK 2.33 — Cost Estimate
TASK 2.34 — Deliverable preparation
TASK 2.40 — Quality Control Checks and Reviews
TASK 2.50 — Technical Collaboration
Structural design engineers will coordinate with survey, civil, geotechnical, hydraulics and
environmental engineers for project design and contract coordination.
TASK 2.60 — Construction Support
If needed to provide support during construction to respond to BFI's and review submittals.
TASK 2.70 — Feasibility Review
Perform a high level review to determine if a 60 foot bridge span is feasible to eliminate need for
cast -in-place concrete abutments. Evaluate existing design for using temporary detour bridge for
1 year rather than originally anticipated 3 month duration.
TASK 2.80 — Revise Contract Documents
Update plans, specifications and estimate and issue and addendum to the contract bid documents
as necessary to limit 2019 construction work to installation of temporary detour road and bridge.
TASK 3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
TASK 3.10 — Planning and Research
Hart Crowser will review readily available geologic maps and water well logs that cover the site
vicinity, and other reports and plans provided by others (if any) for general information
regarding subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and geologic hazards.
hDs...-0
oa` der
�a r
E=ASCOUNTY
HZTT=TAB. CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Hart Crowser will coordinate field explorations with KPFF, Kittitas County, USFS, drilling
subcontractors, and internal staff. If required, Hart Crowser will submit a traffic control plan for
review by the County.
TASK 3.20 — Fleld Work
TASK 3.21— Site Reconnaissance and Utility Locates
Hart Crowser will conduct a reconnaissance to get familiarized with the site. Relevant
features will be noted, and the proposed exploration location marked for the utility
locators. Hart Crowser will notify "One -Call" service for public utility locates.
TASK 3.22 — Field Explorations
Hart Crowser will advance one boring near the south side of the bridge. (The north side
of the bridge cannot be accessed with drilling equipment due to load restrictions.) The
boring will be advanced using a TSi 150CC Sonic Drill, which can typically penetrate
through boulders and similar materials. The boring will be advanced until one of the
following criteria is reached: 1) the boring penetrates 10 feet into rock, 2) refusal occurs
within nested boulders, or 3) we reach a depth of 50 feet. If thick soil layers (sand, gravel,
ctc.) are encountered, then occasional soil samples will be obtained by driving split -spoon
samplers in accordance with the standard penetration test (SPT) procedure (American
Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] D 1586).
Hart Crowser will observe the exploration, log the subsurface conditions, collect
representative soil and rock samples, and transport the samples to the laboratory for
further visual evaluation and testing.
The borehole will be backfilled in accordance with Department of Ecology regulations.
The upper 1 foot of the borehole will be patched with gravel surfacing. Excess spoils
from the borehole will be spread on the ground adjacent to the borehole.
If required, Hart Crowser's subcontractors will provide traffic control services during
drilling.
TASK 3.23 — Sample Review and Laboratory Testing
Soil and rock samples obtained from the explorations will be visually classified in the
field by Hart Crowser and in Hart Crowser's geotechnical laboratory based on the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM classification methods.
Hart Crowser will conduct a series of geotechnical laboratory tests on selected soil and
bedrock samples obtained from the explorations to evaluate the engineering and index
properties of the site soils. The specific tests conducted will depend upon actual
G0ppES ... Tb Tt/E
10yriTAS WuNTY
KZTTZTg45i CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
conditions encountered. For budgeting purposes, Hart Crowser has assumed the tests will
include up to eight moisture content determinations, one Atterberg limits determination,
three grain -size distribution tests, and one unconfined compressive test.
TASK 3.30 — Office Work
TASK 3.31— Engineering Analysis and Consultations
Hart Crowser will conduct engineering analyses to evaluate seismic hazards, ground
settlement, abutment stability, foundation and retaining wall alternatives and design
parameters, and earthwork guidelines. Engineering analysis will be completed in general
conformance with appropriate Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) design manuals.
Hart Crowser will consult with the design team regarding their findings and foundation
alternatives.
TASK 3.32 -- Geotechnical Reporting
Hart Crowser will prepare a geotechnical report to document their findings and
recommendations. The geotechnical report will address design and construction issues,
including:
• Site and boring location plan(s);
• Description of subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions;
• Site preparation and earthwork recommendations;
Seismic hazards and WSDOT-based seismic design parameters;
Temporary and permanent abutment foundation alternatives, design
recommendations, and stability;
Retaining wall alternatives and design parameters; and
Construction considerations.
A draft report will be provided to the design team for review and comments. A final
report will be prepared that addresses review comments from the design team.
TASK 3.33 — Project Management and Meetings
Hart Crowser will provide geotechnical project management and support services,
including coordinating staff and subcontractors and conducting telephone consultations
and email communications with the design team. Hart Crowser will attend up to one
meeting at KPFF's office.
�`4�ApBs...
KZTTZTg93 4c4oiumw
b DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MTMAS COUNf1'
TASK 3.40 — Construction Support
The geotechnical engineer will provide support during construction to respond to RFI's or
changes in field conditions.
TASK 3.50— Feasibility Review
Perform a high level review to determine if a 60 foot bridge span is feasible to eliminate need for
cast -in-place concrete abutments. Evaluate existing design for using temporary detour bridge for
1 year rather than originally anticipated 3 month duration.
TASK 3.60— Revise Geotechnical Recommendation for 60ft Span
Hart Crowser will provide geotechnical project management and support services,
including coordinating staff and conducting telephone consultations and email
communications with the design team. Hart Crowser will attend up to two teleconferences.
Hart Crowser will conduct engineering analyses to provide revised estimates of ground
settlement and abutment stability for a precast concrete abutment system for the revised
bridge length. Hart Crowers will also develop geotechnical design parameters and evaluate
global stability for the GRS-IBS system alternative.
Engineering analysis will be completed in general conformance with appropriate
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) design manuals.
Hart Crowser will consult with the design team regarding their findings.
Hart Crowser will prepare a geotechnical report supplemental to document their findings
and recommendations. The supplement will address design and construction issues,
including:
• Updated foundation design and construction considerations
• Updated abutment settlement and global stability estimates and construction
considerations
• Geotechnical design parameters for the GRS-ISS system
• GRS-IBS settlement and global stability estimates and construction considerations
A draft supplement will be provided to the design team for review and comments. A final
supplement will be prepared that addresses review comments from the design team.
..r.pPES... TO
ao-
E=rrA5 CO
3kKZTTX13rJk 9 CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Hart Crowser will start analysis and reporting immediately upon receiving notice to
proceed (NTP). We estimate that the engineering analyses and draft geotechnical report
supplement should be completed approximately 3 weeks after NTP. However, Hart
Crowser will consult with the design team regularly to provide the results of our analyses
and recommendations.
TASK 4 HYDRAULIC DESIGN
Watershed Science & Engineering (WSE) will provide hydraulic engineering services for the Big
Boulder Creek Bridge Replacement Project in Kittitas County, Washington. WSE will lead the
hydraulic engineering portions of the project which will include completing the following tasks.
TASK 4.10 — Data Collection and Review
WSE will collect and review existing data and information needed to complete the hydraulic
investigation. Data will include but not be limited to topographic maps including LiDAR data,
historical aerial photos, flood data, bridge maintenance records, and anecdotal information on
past flood events from County maintenance staff.
Assumptions:
• County will supply relevant data they possess
TASK 4.20 — Site Inspection
WSE will conduct a one -day field inspection to examine the crossing and Big Boulder Creek.
WSE will examine hydraulic and geomorphic characteristics, sediment transport, debris flow
potential, lateral erosion, and scour.
Assurn tions:
• NTP is received in time to allow WSE to visit the site before snow fall.
TASK 4.30 — Channel Survey
WSE will survey up to eight cross sections and a longitudinal profile of the stream channel as
part of the site inspection task above. WSE will merge the stream channel data with the
County's survey to develop a single topographic base map required for the hydraulic
investigation.
Assumptions;
County will or has collected detailed topographic data within the road right-of-way.
DES -TO 7c�G
KZTTZTAB COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
EaFFITA8 CUUNTY
TASK 4.40 — Hydrology
WSE will use USGS regional regression equations to estimate annual instantaneous peak design
flow rates. The design event for flow and scour will be the 100 -year flood and the check flood
for potential damage will be the 500 -year event. The 500 -year event is not the design event, it is
solely used to assess risk in -order to identify any remaining significant erosion or scour issues
that might need to be addressed in the design.
Assumptions:
USGS regression equations will provide reasonable estimates for the 100 -year and 500 -
year annual instantaneous peak flows. If they do not, WSE will use alternative methods
to estimate the flows.
TASK 4.50 — Hydraulic Analysis
WSE will develop a simple HEC -RAS model of Big Boulder Creek in the vicinity of the bridge
crossing using topographic base map. The model will not be calibrated because observed
discharge/highwater marks are not available. Instead, WSE will use engineering judgment to
select and adjust model parameters. The model will be used to help size the bridge waterway, to
provide data required to evaluate lateral erosion and scour potential, and to develop
countermeasures.
TASK 4.60 — Channel Stability and Scour Assessment
WSE will determine if lateral erosion, local scour, ice, or debris flows pose a threat to the
proposed crossing. If they do, WSE will work with KPFF-to address these hazards in the design.
Assumptions:
These hazards will be addressed through modifications the structure itself (e.g. deeper
foundations, longer bridge, etc.) and not through design and installation of external
countermeasures (e.g. riprap). If countermeasures are required, the optional task at the
end of this scope will be completed.
TASK 4.70 — WDFW and Permit Coordination
It is anticipated that WDFW personnel have an idea of the length of crossing they would like to
see at the site. WSE will work with WDFW personnel, the County, and Jacobs (the company
that will acquire the project permits) to collectively arrive at a bridge length that is acceptable to
all parties. An allowance is provided for WSE's lead engineer to participate in one meeting with
WDFW personnel in Ellensburg.
Assumptions:
p9E5... To 126
4o- * . r` ... L. 3kKI1rTxgrAL0 CO
► DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
• A reasonable bridge length will be agreed to that the County can afford to build.
TASK 4.50 — Hydraulic Design Report
WSE will prepare a hydraulic design report to summarize and document the results of the
investigation. It will include the recommended NBIS Scour Code rating for the new structure, a
code that the County will need for their records.
Assumptions:
A draft of the report will be provided to the County and KPFF for review. Upon receipt
of comments, WSE will refine the report and submit a final version as a PDF.
TASK 4.90 — Meetings and Administration
An allowance is provided for WSE personnel to attend one meeting at KPFF's Seattle office to
discuss the design and one meeting in EIlensburg to meet with the County.
Assam tiU ons:
• WSE will develop concept sketches of the countermeasures which will be provided to
KPFF. KPFF will prepare detailed plans to be incorporated into the project plan set.
• WSE will recommend specifications for the countermeasures.
WSE has included a modest cost for this task in the accompanying cost estimate. This
estimate will be revisited and may need to be revised once the type and scale of
countermeasures required are identified.
• At this time it is assumed that scour and erosion protection countermeasures are not
necessary and have not been included in the fee
TASK 4.100 — Feasibility Review
Perform a high level review to determine if a 60 foot bridge span is feasible to eliminate need for
cast -in-place abutments. Evaluate design for using temporary detour bridge for I year rather than
originally anticipated 3 month duration.
TASK 5 ENVIRONMENTAL/PERMITTING
The Jacobs team will deliver Environmental Documentation and Permitting in coordination with
KPFF and Kittitas County staff.
TASK 5.10 — Project Management
��pgG/,9Fs ... TO 3NEC
KZTTZTA93 CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
IQTMAS -
1. Project planning, team direction and coordination and ongoing client communication
2. Project Controls
a. Prepare monthly invoices and back-up, and monthly progress reports.
b. Monitoring and updating Environmental delivery schedule.
3. Deliverables
a. Monthly progress reports and invoices
TASK 5.20 — Agency Coordination
1. Agency Coordination
a. Coordinate with Kittitas County Public Works, Kittitas County Community and
Development Services, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology,
US Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies as needed.
b. Coordination items include impact analysis, permits required and timelines, and
facilitated review of project milestones as needed.
TASK 5.30 — NEPA/SEPA Documentation
1. NEPA/SEPA Documentation
a. Research and prepare one (1) NEPA Categorical Exclusion (CE) form
b. Research and prepare one (1) SEPA Checklist and Draft DNS if needed
TASK 5.40 — Biological Assessment
1. Biological Assessment
a. Field Reviews
b. Prepare one (1) Biological Assessment, assumed to be formal consultation with
both Services.
c. Provide ongoing coordination with agencies throughout the review/approval
process.
TASK 5.50 — NHPA Section 106
1. NHPA Section 106 Evaluation
a. Develop Area of Potential Effects (APE) and coordinate with SHPO.
b. Evaluate cultural and historic resources within the project area of effect as per
Section 106 requirements.
TASK 5.60 — JARPA Package Preparation and Submittal
1. JARPA Preparation and Submittal
a. Populate and submit one (1) JARPA application package.
b. Coordination with federal and/or state agencies for the following permits:
i. Corps 404 permit, United States Army Corps of Engineers (Assumes
Nationwide Permit)
ii. Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA), WA State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
iii. Ecology 401 permit review including development of TESC and SWPPP.
TASK 5.70 — Local Permits or Approvals
;,nors ... To zw�c
x31=31WA15 CO
ti. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
[a1-rrrns counrrY
1. Local Permits or Exemptions
a. Coordinate with Kittitas County CDS on SEPA, Shorelines, and Critical Areas
requirements.
TASK 5.80 — Biology Support During Construction
1. Support services during construction, including worksite isolation support, fish salvage
and removal, planting or site stabilization guidance up to 40 hours. This task is not
subject to Assumption 1a.
TASK 5.90 — Permit Update
Submit updated permits to reflect revised bridge span. Update permits to allow single creek
crossing for equipment to install temporary bridge and detour roadway.
Assumptions:
• Coordination with FHWA or WSDOT Local Programs will not be required.
• The Biological Assessment that will be prepared will be "Likely to Adversely Affect" for
Bull Trout and Steelhead, and will require formal consultation with both USFWS and
NMFS.
• The US Army Corps of Engineers will issue a CWA Section 404 NWP 14. No individual
permit will be required.
• Section 106 will be determined as "May Affect", and will require SHPO concurrence
The Department of Ecology will issue a Letter of Verification for CWA Section 402. No
individual permit will be required.
• No wetlands will be impacted by the project. This Scope does not include wetland
delineations or reporting.
No NPDES Permit will be required.
• SEPA will be exempt.
• If the level of effort and cost for permit or approval acquisition is higher than the budget
amount, Jacobs will coordinate with KPFF and the County to determine amendments as
needed.
• No mitigation planning is included in this scope of work.
TASK 6 CIVILIROADWAY ENGINEERING
KPFF will provide civil engineering support for the replacement of Big Boulder Creek Bridge.
Civil design criteria will be Kittitas County Code Chapter 12- Roads and Bridge Standards and
as supplemented by the WSDOT Design Manual or AASHTO's Policy on Geometric Design of
Highway and Streets.
-A, VS ... To The
c
]G=AS COUNTYf f�
IKZTTZTgiS CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TASK 6.1— Civil Project Management
• Attend six (6) progress meetings via teleconference.
• Prepare invoice progress reports
TASK 6.2 — Development of PS&ElContract Bid Documents
Plan Preparation for 30%, 75%, 100% draft, 100% Ad
• Site Preparation
Roadway plan and profile
Typical sections and details
• Detour plan, profile and typical section
Full Closure Signage Plan
Supporting Work:
• Civil stream grading for stream bypass.
• Prepare Stormwater Site plan and Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Civil Special Provisions
• Provide WSDOT run list format civil technical special provisions
Civil Cost Estimate
• Provide quantities and unit prices for civil elements of work
TASK 6.3 — Quality Control Checks and Reviews
KPFF senior civil engineering staff will QC all civil design deliverables.
TASK 6,40 — Construction Support
If needed to provide support during construction to respond to RFI's and review submittals.
TASK 6.50 — Revise Contract Documents
Update plans, specifications and estimate and issue an addendum to the contract bid documents
as necessary to limit 2019 construction work to installation of temporary detour road and bridge.
TASK 6.50 — Revise Contract Documents for 60ft Span
Update plans, specifications and estimate and issue revised contract bid documents as
necessary for a 60ft long bridge.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
IQTPITA5 COUNTY
Assam tip ons:
• Existing ROW and survey basemap control provided by County will be depicted on civil
drawings. Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) limits will be defined on Civil Site
Preparation plan. Legal Descriptions of TCE's, including TCE documentation and
acquisition will be performed by the County.
- Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) plans will not be provided, a
performance spec will be used for TESC. For Stormwater Management it is assumed the
project is considered Road Preservation per SWMMEW Section 2.1.4 and therefore only
needs to meet core requirement #1 and #2 as scoped above. Preparation of the
Construction SWPPP will be a bid item and prepared by the Contractor.
• Approach guardrail systems will not be required. Bridge railings will be signed with
hazard object markers.
PROJECT DELIVERABLES:
Alternatives Analysis Memo (Draft and Final)
2. 30% Plan Set (Permit set. 3 sheets estimated. Layout, Elevation, Cross-section,
structural notes, Cost Estimate)
3. 75% Plan Set (6-8 sheets, updated cost estimate, GSP run -list, 30% comment
resolution)
4. 100% Draft Plans (6-8 sheets, updated cost estimate, PDF of ESP's or run -list and
PSE files, pending final review by county, 75% comment resolution and complete
PS&E)
5. 100% Stamped and Signed Plans (Contract Documents — bid ready)
6. Geotechnical report (Draft PDF and Final PDF + 3 hard copies)
7. One (1) NEPA CE and ECS Form
8. One (1) NHPA Section 106 Compliance Memo
9. One (1) Biological Assessment (Formal Consultation)
10. One (1) SEPA Checklist (Unless Exempt)
11. One (1) JARPA package for delivery to USACE, WDFW, and WDOE
12. Local Agency correspondence for each permit, approval, or exemption
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS:
1. COUNTY to provide KPFF with the project survey base map. County will collect
additional data as necessary as requested by KPFF. Contours shall be in at least 2
foot increments and shall preferably extend at least 200 feet to the north, south, east
and west of the proposed project limits to include all utilities, driveways, ditches,
�CP�pL+rs...'fo 7NFC
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
INICI=AS .N•Y
ROW/property lines and other items which are reasonably likely to impact the bridge
layout and design.
2. KPFF to provide specifications related to the PS&E they develop (bridge portion
only).
3. New bridge is assumed to be designed for one 12 foot lane, and two 2 foot shoulders
and no sidewalks.
4. Bridge superstructure will have a 2% crown from the centerline of the roadway, or as
prescribed by COUNTY Civil roadway design.
5. There will be no drains on the bridge.
6. Bridge superstructure is assumed to be prefabricated and designed and supplied by
the Contractor during construction.
7. Load rating report will be provided by bridge superstructure supplier.
8. COUNTY will prepare Division 1 and assemble special provision package and bid
package.
9. COUNTY will acquire 60ft prefabricated bridge superstructure separately from this
Contract.
Cost Breakdown: See Attached
Project Schedule: KPFF will provide a FDF of the plans for the 30%, 75%, and 100% design at
the dates shown below. For efficiency, the design will continue following milestone submittal
while the county performs review of the submitted plans. The COUNTY will endeavor to
complete and return to KPFF all comments as soon as possible following receipt of them, but in
no case more than 10 business days following the submittal date.
Milestone
Milestone
Description — Structural
Description — Civil
Delivery
Date
30%
November
Permit set. 3 sheets estimated.
Permit set. Roadway plan
' 2018
Layout, Elevation, Cross-
and profile and detour
section, basic notes
plan and profile. Typical
sections.
7S %
January 2019
6-8 sheets, all items including
5-7 sheets, all items
further development of the
including further
notes, specs, and quantities.
development of the notes,
specs, and quantities.
100 % Draft March 2019
6-8 sheets, all items developed
5-7 sheets, all items
and ready for construction,
developed and ready for
pending final review by County.
construction, pending
�ha[AtW�.—TOT
Y
IUMTASCCMNT
KITTIT2LE3 COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Completion Date: January 30, 2020
Agency Signature:
Consultant Signature:
Date:
Date: IT/11
Complete PS&E.
final review by County.
Com fete PS&E.
100% Stamped
April 2019
Stamped and Signed Contract
Stamped and Signed
and Signed
Documents — bid ready.
Contract Documents — bid
ready.
Addendum
June 2019
Prepare amendments
Pr are amendments
100% Draft
December
Draft 100% for 60ft Structure
Draft 100% for 60ft
2019
Structure
100%
December
Stamped and signed Contract
Stamped and signed
Stamped
2019
Documents
Contract Documents
Completion Date: January 30, 2020
Agency Signature:
Consultant Signature:
Date:
Date: IT/11
Exhibit D-1
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Consultant Fee Summary
Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement
Kltt►tas County On -Call Task Order #96.
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Overhead (OH) Cost
136.25%
Fixed Fee (FF)
28.00%
Classification
Direct Hourly
Total
X
Negotiated
_
-
Cost
Rate
Hours
Hourly Rate
Principal
$ 64.91
18.00
X
$171.52
= $
3,087.44
Protect Manager
$ 45.29
121.00
X
$119.68
= $
14,481.14
_
Techrsical Specialist T
$ 64,91
46.00
X
$171.52
= $
7,890.14
Structural Task Lead
$ 45.29
154.00
X
$119.68
= $
18,430.54
Project Engineer
$ 43.27
200.00
X
$114.34 =
$
22,868.20
-Design Engineer
_$ 36.93
208.00
X
$97.59 =
$
20,298.21
CAD Techmdar,
$ 46,04^
278.00
X
$121.66 =
$
33,821.67
Project Coordinator
$ 28.85
20.00
X
$76.24 =
$
1,524.72
Intern
$ 22.00
0.00
X
$58.14 =
$
-
Admin
$ 23.08
0.00
X
$60.99 =
$
-
���
0.00
X
$0.00 =
$
-
���W�_�__.
�
0.00
X
$0.00 =
$
-
'
0.00
x
$0.00 -
$
-
Subtotal
$
122,402.05
Reimbursables
Mileage
220 Miles x $0.546/mile)
$
119.90
Airfare
(Allowance)
Per Diem
(Hctel + Meals @ $#.## x # trips)
Subcontract
(Sub Name & Task)
Allowance)
Subtotal
$
119.90
Subconsultant Costs (See Exhibit E)
Management Reserve
$109,418.04
$15,673
GRAND TOTAL: $247,612.99
Exhibit E-1
Hart Crowser, Inc.
Consultant Fee Summary
Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Overhead (OH) Cost
224.46%
Mileage
(500 Miles x $0.545/mile)
$
218.00
Fixed Fee (FF)
Hart Crowser Laboratory - Task 2.3
28.00%
1,100.00
Drilling Sub.
Holt Services - Task 2.2
$
4,500.00
Classification
Direct
Hourly
Total
X
Negotiated
=
Cost
Subtotal
Rate
Hours
Hourly Rate
Senior Principal
$
88.86
0.00
X
$313.20
= $
-
Principal
$
74.38
38.00
X
$262.16
= $
9,962.07
Senior Associate
$
62.22
0.00
X
$219.30
= $
-
Associate
$
52.63
0.00
X
$185.50
= $
Project
$
43.70
0.00
X
$154.03
= $
-
_Senior
Prolect
$
36.06
70.00
X
$127.10
= $
8,896.80
Senior Staff
$
32.22
38.00
X
$113.56
= $
4,315.38
Staff
$
26.50
0.00
X
$93.40
= $
-
Senior Drafter
$
32.04
14.00
X
$112.93
= $
1,580.99
Drafter
$
30.23
0.00
X
$106.55
= $
-
Project Assistant
$
29.96
13.00
X
$105.60
= $
1,372.76
Subtotal $ 26,128.00
Reimbursables
Mileage
(500 Miles x $0.545/mile)
$
218.00
Laboratory Testing ^
Hart Crowser Laboratory - Task 2.3
$
1,100.00
Drilling Sub.
Holt Services - Task 2.2
$
4,500.00
Traffic Control Sub.
Northwest Barricade - Task 2.2
$
2,500.00
B&O Tax on Subs
1.5% of Holt and Northwest Barricade
$
105.00
Subtotal
$
8,423.00
GRAND TOTAL: $34,551.00
Exhibit E-1
Watershed Science & Engineering
Consultant Fee Summary
Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Overhead (OH) Cost 188.43%
Fixed Fee (FF) 28.00%
Classification
Principal
Senior Engineer 1
Junior Engineer
Contract Administrator
Reimbursables
Mileage
Airfare
Per Diem
Subcontract
(Blank) _
Subtotal
Direct Hourly
Rate
$ 67.31
$ 59.62
$ 30.77
$ 30.00
Total
X
Negotiated _
Hours
$
Hourly Rate
76.00
X
$212.99
5.00
X
$188.66 =
95.00
X
$97.37 =
3.00
X
$94.93 =
(400 Miles x $0.545/mile
Cost
$
16,187.17
$
943.28
$
9,249.72
$
284.79
Subtotal $ 26,664.95
(Allowance)
(Hotel + Meals @ $#.## x # trips)
(Sub Name & Task)
(Allowance)
$ 218.00
$ -
$ 218.00
GRAND TOTAL: $26,882.95
Exhibit E-1
Jacobs Engineering
Consultant Fee Summary
Negotiated Hourly Rate Consultant Agreement
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Overhead (OH) Cost
117.00%
Fixed Fee (FF)
28.00%
Classification
Direct Hourly
Total
X
Negotiated
=
Cost
Rate
Hours
Hourly Rate
Env, Group Lead
$ 66.15
54.00
X
$162.07
= $
8,751.65
Env. Project Manager
$ 47.83
66.00
X
$117.18
= $
7,734.11
Permit Lead
$ 33.80
100.00
X
$82.81
= $
8,281.00
Sr. Cultural
$ 76.13
2.00
X
$186.52
= $
373.04
Cultural Field Tech
$ 28.00
50.00
X
$68.60
= $
3,430.00
Env. Engineer Jr
$ 33.63
30.00
X
$82.39
= $
2,471.81
Biologist
$ 33.80
181.00
X
$82.81
= $
14,988.61
Technical Editor
$ 45.55
9.00
X
$111.60
= $
1,004.38
Admin
$ 25.00
4.00
X
$61.25
= $
245.00
Subtotal
$
47,279.59
Reimbursables
Mileage
(500 Miles x $0.5451mile)
$
272.50
Airfare
(Allowance)
_ -
$
-
Per Diem
(Hotel + Meals @ $144/day x 3days)
$
432.00
Subcontract
(Sub Name & Task)
$
-
(Blank)
Allowance)
$
-
Subtotal
$
704.50
GRAND TOTAL: $47,984.05
October 25. 2619
KPFF C-inging EngYieers
KPFF
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
Pdncfpel PmJeu TeehNcal Shudural PmJect CAD -P-,q--
Menew 6pecia6sl Task t.aad Eiglneer Te hNaen Coordnseor
11
Item SOOPE OF WORK
$171MIS119.681 $171.62 $119.66 5714.64 $121.66
$76.74
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.10 Project Team Management and Coordination
so
$7,181
1.20 Monthly Prowess ReporWirwolces
8
12
61.872
1.30 MordNy Projed Progress MwirgdMim"s
16
6
_
$2872
1.40 CoordinatimWthWOFW
a
--sBe1
1.60 Team Caordina6an for design change
6
S9si
1.70 Team Coordlna8en for revised deal
7
SEaB
Labor Subtotat:
167
18
$10.178
S17B.90
I Page 1 of
Ootober25, 2018
KPFF COmatling Englnees
KPFF
BIG BOULDER
REPLACEMENT CREEK BRIDGE
Princpnl Mmmger BpedatlGt Tmkl.ead Eng -1 Technical Strudral in T-M�idan c� iP..'
loan I SCO PEOFWORK
5171.52 $1t9.6a $1T1.62 $119.66 $114.34
$121.66 $7624
6 CIVIL ENGINEERING
6.10 Pro)eg Management
2 1 4
$2.7=2__
6.70 PSdE Bad Docs
Ste Preparation plan(901t001100 Ad)
2
14
$9,079
Roadway plan and profile (3(%P601100f100 Ad)
2
20
S5.5so
Typical Sections and Details (9011001100 Ad)
2
12
$3,250
Detour plan, pm0de 8 typkad section
30180!1001100 Ad
4
24
$6.500
Full closure signage plan
2
12
$3260
Civil Bkeam grading for bypees andfor
abutments no drawl s
2
$2571
StOMMA r Slte pdan ared CSPP
a
$2,826
CHIT Spooled Provisions
2
SIAW
Civil Coat Eslimate
2
i7,00g
6.30 OC Reviews
6
_
S1;p2a
F40 Cm*uc6on Support
2
$1.036
8150 Revise mntrad doornents to remove
rmenenl hrl a work
80 Revise contract documents far 60ft S n
6 e
i 44
8
so
4W'49
$9 710
Leber Sublepl:
if Amq
Leto P um 1
Reimbuftable sum-
a 1 0 12 _ _0 1 74
—
15 121 #e 154 gpi ---
126 0 $47,BW
p r
�eis,ri
- - $128 y
.y
1qPff Pegs 2 of 8
October 25, 2019
Hart C-ser, Ina
HC
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
senior
Principe)
Prindpal
senhr 5elaor
,Asextate Proied
prep
senlorstag
stare �iilor Omaer PrOI°d
DrdW Aadamrs
11
Ilam I SCOPE OF WORK
$313.20
$252.16
$219.30 $1116,80 $164.83
;127.10
8113.58
$83,40 $112.93 ;106.55 $1us.50
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.10 Project Team Management and Coordination
1.20 Monthly Pfogresa Repoltallrnoicas
---
1.30 MonNy Project Progress Mcelings/Mlnutes
1.40 Coordinaeonwrih WDFW
_-.-.-..
1.60 Team CooMinatlon for design charl�le
1.70 Teem i,00rdinaLon for I.Iis.d &$,g"
---_
Labor Subtelal:
2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
a
0
o p a
8
a
0 0 0 0
$o
2.10 Pro act KidmH Meetln and Site Visa
2.20 A!' tNe Anajreis Meme
--
290 Development of PS&EICoM.rect Bid
Documents
- --- ---�
2.31 Plen and Calculaeon Preparailon-
Caver Sheet
General Notes, Quan' I -.
Bridge L - plan oral elevagon
_-
FoundationPlan- Layout.
_-- ---
Fooling Details
--- - -
Wlnff"ll Layoul I Details
TemponoylUeto r Bride
2.32 Strue&W Spedel PravWons
12.83 Coal Estimate
-. ..._
2.34 Deliverable Pleperalidn (3n%, 75%,100% 2-
hr. each
2.40 lQuOly Control Chadrs and Revlewa
Technical Cdlaboretion (Survey, Civil,
2"� Geotedpntcal H Itm Fmfronmema[
�
- -- -
2 on uppart 4uminis, e.
2.20 Fasaibili Revlaw far 80' span bridge
_"-
2 71 Review of temporarybridge detallsfur 1 year
in service
----'
i 2.� Ravlea o0nbad documents to remove
rmenem fond xnnk
Lahar SubWtab:
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 a 0 0
80
3.10 Planningand Research
2
2
2
;1,008
9.20 Field Work
' 9.21 Site Reearr,aiaeance and U811 Locales
7
S-
3.22 Fidtd Explorations
1
7
12
81,732 -
3.29 Sam ie Review & Labors Testing
4
1
3.30 OfffM Work--
3.31 Engineering Analysis ars CansWffitlons 1
4
16
8
2
fer!'i7
3.32 Geotechnical Repordn 1
6
12
3
4 4
L7,31$
3.33 Pro ed Management and Meet)
s
2
3.40 Constill Sn1p rt
4
3.60 Feea3o1111y R4wlewfar e0'$pen bridge:
2
2
1
1067
351 ReVIeW 01 temporary bridge details for 1 year
In service
352 RevleeGeotechnicalRscommendstlonsfor
BOft S n
{
2
34
2
- )781-'"
-_ $s,;tri -
Lebor Subtatal:
_ -
4 R"LIC ie614Eww'O - 4
0
- - -
tis
- -
a a 0
70
- -
17 88
a 1 14 1 0 18
- --- -
$29,125
$0,423
4.10 Data Call"Itian and ReviO,a
4.20 Site lnspeaken
AX I-
=2umay
4.40 y I
., .._
4.50 Hydmullc Analysis
-- ' - - -
4.60 Channel Stability and Scour As smerl i
----- - -
' 4.70 WDFW and Permit Caordlnafw
Hydrauliclrnsatlgat lon Repot t
Meadinp&Administration
--
14.100 Fe"b00y Rawl" for 60' apart bridge I
4.101 Review of temporary bridge detsCs for t year I
In service
-
Optic
nal
-
Lobar Subtahl:
5 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION &I
PERMITTINO i
0
a
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0
$0
5.10 IProjeolManagamerd 1
5.20 Agency Coordination I
-
5.30 NEPAISEPA Doc"Mantelian
5.40 Bidvgkal Aeees$menl
5.60 NHPA Section 106 Evaluation
'
5.60 JARPA Package Pmparatlon and Submlttat '
5.70 Local Permits and Approvals I
5'80 Biology Suppurl Poring Conctrucbon
O L!onel
-"---..
5.90 Permit Update -60'Bddge
,.,...
I - - Labor Subtalat:'
a
0
0 0 0
0
4
0 0 0 a
$0
iq)ff Page 3 o` B
October 25, 2019
Hart Crm er, Inc.
IC
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
Smllor
princlpel
vrtnapal
Senior
Associate
Seim
Proyd
Serdar5lart I
StnO
Senior
orartm
Draltm
pmject
r yte,q
Ilan SCOPE OF WORK
531919
526216
$218.30 $185.50
$164A3
§127.78 $113.56
$93.40
$11289
$78fi.55
$109,e8
0 CML ENGINEERING
6.10 Project Wanagamenl
6-20 PW Bid Docs
Site PnMeradon Plan (gl(r1G01100 Ad}
Roadway plan end pronto (3 IM11001100Ad)
—
Typtcal Sections and Details (9011001100 Ad)
Detour plan, prune d typical se0m
f3QW1W100Ad)--
RAI closure signEge plan
Clvll Stream grading forbypass arWor
ShAments no draviingal
- - - -
Stommeter Site plan and CSPP
CIA! Special Pm mom
-_--_-� -
Civil Cost Es!Imate
6.30 QC Reviews
8.40 Corla0ueAon Support
I_--
-- -
6.50 Revise contract docurnerds to remove
nnanant bridge work
_--
d.60 Revise cm9recl dacumer9s
Labor Subtotal:
1-Obor Sum:
paMWUr'aibllY Surn
0
a
0
at
0 0
a p
0
0
0 0
76 39 —
0 I
0
0 _
- 11
0
n
0
41
$0
FbF,729
i y�2�
l� Page 4 of 8
0daber25,2018
Waheehed Science d Engineering
WSE
BiG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
Senior Junior Q0^trecl
Prirrcfpel engt+eerl Engineer Adminr letmlo
ll
mann I SCOPE OF WORK
$212.98 5188.88 $97.37 $94.93
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.10 Project Team Management and Coordnstion
I." MordWy Pragress Repmtslinvoices
1.30 Monthly Projed Progress Meslings/Minutas
1.40 Coordination with WDFW
1.60 Team Coordination for design change
_
'.i Team Coordlnallon for revised deal n
Labor Subtotal:
0 0 8 o
$0
2 37RUCTURAL ENGINEERING
2.10 Pro ed Klckcrlf Meeting and Site tAdt
2.20 Allemative Analysis Memo
230 Development of PSBEIContract Bid
Documents
- - -- -- --
231 Pian and CaloWation Preparation
Cover Sheet
_ -
General Notes, Ouantlaes,
--
BrIdge LaW. - plan anti sleval'mn
Farndellon Plan - Layout
Footing Details
Wingwall Leyotd l DeleRs
Temporarylpeloix add Layout 1-----
--
232 S1ructmal Special Provisions
233 Coal EMIrnate
2.34 Deliverable Preparation (30%, 75%, 1001A 2
hr. each
2.40 Quality Control MAcks and Review&
TedlNcal Calle6oretion {Survey. Civil,
Gm achnka; Hydraulics. Environmental
2 Construallon SupporL IKFrS, UU13MMIS,
270 Feasibility Reel" for a0' span bridge
271 Revlww of temporary bridge details for 1 year
In service
ents to remove
280 Revieacrnrbacl d,:mm
rmanem brad xnrk
--
Labor Subtotal:
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
0 1 0 1 0 0
$6
3.70 Planning and Research
3.20 Field Woknn
9,2i Site Reooslssancs and Utility Locates
- ---
3.22 Reid 6nplarellons
_
3.23 Sam la Review a Laboratory Testing
3.30 ORlce Work
-
3.31 Engineering Analysis and Canaulleaanrs
3.32 Geotadmical Reporiin
man am
3.33 PMent and Meelings
3.40 Congbucgan Support
9.50 Feasibiligr Review, for 60' span bridge
Review o<tempon" bridge details for t year
8.51 Fn sewlee
3.52 Rsvlse Geotechnical Recommandatiorw for
n
... __. ... _
Labor SL&Nftl:
nr VrWVLM FRVIRCCRIr1G
0 0 a D
M
4.10 112ft Collection end Review
2 6
$1,2tM
4,20 Site lnapecdon
e e
4.30 Chennel Sury
2 4
_ _112,4u3
$Bi6
4.40 Hydreiagy
2 4
$615
4.50 Hydmu;lc Anatysd
2 1 20
4.60 Channel Stability and Scour Aasas mnem
10 16
;a,eee
4.70 WDFW and Permit Coordination 1
12 4
PRO
4.80 Hydredlc Investigation Report
20 4 to
!16,972
4.80 Meetings B AdmiNeLraaent
10 3 2
$2,612
4.100 FsasibiiI4 Review for 60'span bridge
4 8 1
$1,729
4.101 Review of lemporery bridge detalls for 1 year
4.101
In service
4 4
sl.2d,
_
Optic
nal
Labor Subtotal:
5 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION &
PERMITTING
76 5 86 8
8%,195
$218
5.10 IPmjed Managment
5.20 lAgency Coordination
-
5.30 NEPAISEPA Documentation
5.40 B!c&cgWl Assessment
- ....
5.50 NHPA Sedan 108 Evaluation
5.60 JARPA Package Preparation and Submittal
5.70 Local Pewits and Approvals
-_--_--
E80 Biology Support During Construction(Optionao
Ion
5.80 Penult Update - W Bridge
i I
Lobar ttubbfal:
0 1 0 0 e
W
Tcpff Page 5 of 8
October 25, 2019 W.xahad 6d-® a Enp.W i;
WSE
BiG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE ! �r,dael
REPLACEMENT
sen nr
I Ensnesrt
Junior I� l
Engineer
AdWirigraItem
SCOPE OF WORK $212.99
$188.66
$97.57 $9995
6 CIVILENGINEERING
6.10 Project MaragerrienL
6.20 PS&E Bid Docs
Sits Preparation Plan (90IMID0 Ad) i
Roadway pian and prd0a (30190031?t10 Ad)
Typical Sections and 7eleils {90ltOG100 Adj
Detour plan, proills &typical section I
301901700f100 Ad
Ii
ll
Full doslrra 4i5na0e pEar.
- -
-- -- - - _ ---
Civil Stream grading fa•bypass sndlor
abubmanta no dra+r. st
�-
Stamwater Slto plan and CSPP
CIA Special Previsions
Civil Cost Estimate
---�--
--�--�-
6.30 QC Reviews
..--...._....,.,
_
6.40 lConstruclon Support
B... Revue cantrac! documents to remove
ererd bddoe work
A_ -
6.60 Revise centrad documents far 00 8an
GM Subtotal: a
LeBar Son:: '6
RalmburcaLra Soni'
a
5
a 0
9$ 3 k
L
$0
26,iWS
1211
_f.
IqH L Page 6 of S
October 25, 2018
Jacobs Engineering
JE
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
Era. G vup
Lead
�L pone, Sr. Sr. Cult a I Engines E.Blot Id Technical Main
Mom load Cultural Rod °g Edmr
Techhorn
SCOPEOFWORK
$162.07
$117.18 IS02.81 $188.52 $86.80 $82.89 $62.81 $111.60 $6126
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.10 "ect 7aam Management arld Coordination
1.20 Monthly Progress Reporlal!rnoices
1.30 Monthly Project Progress MeetingslMiraEes
1.40 Coordination with WDFW
1.60 Team Coordinatlon for des!gn change
7.70 Teem Coordinatlon for revised dealon
Labor Subtotal:
row
2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
0 1
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6g
210 Pro act FOrdaofll Meati and Slle 'Ash
2.20 Altema6ve Anay6!s Memo
230 Davatepmerd of PB$EfCordracl Bid
Documents
2.31 Plan and Caln:latlon Preparation
Cover Sheet
Genera! Notes, Quantities,
Bridge Le oul - Man and alevalton
_
Foundation Plan - Layout
Fooling DrtaGs
WingvMl Layout! Details
Temporary/Detour Bridge u!
2.32 Struot ral Special Provisions
2.33 Cost Estlmats
234 Deliverable Preparation (30q, 75%,11)0%2
hr. each
I
240 Quality Control Checks and Revlon
2 60 Techr9cal Callaboralion (Survey, Civil,
Geotechriwl Hnanl!cs E Imnmenta
2 :uchon upport s, m r, a c.
a needed
-
2.70 Fesafblilty Rawl" for W Van bridge
2.71 Revlew of temporary bridge deta8s for 1 year
In 9ONICe
280 Bevies contract tlacumenta m ""weanentbraid =
Labor Subtotal:
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
0
0
1 0 0 1 0 1 a o a 0
50
3.10 Planning and Research
3.20 Ffeld Wank
3.21 Site Recennsissarrce and Utility Locates
3.22 F!e;d Explorat!ons
_
9.29 Sample Review A Laboratory Testing
3.30 Office Work
W
3.31 Engirseming Araiyais and Consulle8ons
332 Geotechnical Reporting
133 P. 'ect Management and Meetings
34D Canatrmctlon Su ort
3.60 Feasidlfty Review Por w Span bridge
LL.
9.61 Review of temporary bridge details for 1 year
in swvlcs
Revlae Geote"hndcal Recummenclarkm for
3.02BOBS an
Labor BYbtatel:
4 thORAULiC FWGIa1GGIVHti
0
0
0 4 1 0 1 0
$0
A10 jData Cdieodon and Revirw
4.20 S'te Inspection
430 Channel Survey
4.40 Flydrolog
4.50 Hydraulic Analysis
4.60 Channel Stability and Scour Aaeesareem
4.70 WDFW and Permit Caordlnatian
4.80 Hydraullo Investigation Report
4.00 Meetings AAdminist
4. Too Feasibility Rerlesrllor 60'spon bridge
4.101 Pa iew of temporary bridge details for 1 year
In service
Qptlo
nal
Labor Subtotal:
S ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION i
PERMITTING
0 1
D
I 0 0
5.10 Project Managemenl
2
14
4
$2210
120 Agency Coordination
3
5
$1,072
130 NEPAISEPA Dacumenlation
1
5
30
_
$9282
140 Biological Assessment
40
20
06 5
$17,9x4
150 NHPA Section 106 Evaluation
1
4
2 50 2
$4,�T
100 JARPA Package Preparation and Submittal
I
5
40 10 5 2
y6,a22-
170 Local Pamits and Approvals
1
3
A
$1,858
180 B!ology Support During Constuc!!un
O Borrel
2
4
$$3,547
5.80 Permit Update - 60' Bdd
5
8
14 20 40
$7,$57
. _ .... � Labor Subtotal:
54
� ..
a8
Igo 1 60 80 761 ! 4
1147,28a
kPff Pegs 7 of 8
October 25, 2019
Jacobs Engnevdng
JE
BIG BOULDER CREEK BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT
any. GroupP
Lead Mare a jw
Permx sr. °Flee
Lead Cu6urel Tech
�� alababt Tachemd Amin
Jr FAIbr
Item SCOPB OFWORK
$1b207
$117.18 $82.81 111156.1521 $88.80 1
882.99
1 $84.87 $117.80 126
6 CIVIL ENGINEERING
6.10 Project Management
6.20 PSAE Bid DWA
Site Prep radon Pian {80!1001100 Ad)
Roadway plan and profile (30610!1001100 Ad)
Typical Sacdons and Dafaiis (9011001100 Ad)
Detour plan, profile & Weal section
9001700 Ad
FVI closure sWnage plan
CYII Stream grading for bypass andlor
abutments no drewi
Stomnvater Site plan and CSPP
_
Civil Special Provlslorre
civil Cast Estimate
6.30 QC Reviews
6.40 Construction Support
6.90 Revise wntrect documerda to remove
permanent brill ewodr
6.60 Revise contract documents for 600 Span I
Labor Subtotal_
d*Fsm:
F�1rn Wie Stan'
d
M
g
a
p 0 0
901E _ � id
0
.39
C 0 0
1 a d
$0
H7—
5705 v
1 FU Page 8 of 8
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: November 12, 2019
TOPIC: Liberty Bridge at Swank Creek
ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff Pursue Temporary Access Options
LEAD STAFF:
Mark R. Cook
RECOl MffiNDATION:
Direct that staff evaluate options allowing Forest Service (FS) timber sale vehicle access
over the load limited bridge in Liberty at Swauk Creek.
BRIEFING SUMMARY:
• The existing bride in Liberty at Swauk Creek is load limited.
• The FS desires conducting a timber sale in Liberty in the near future.
• FS and County staff are having conversations regarding potential options
supporting access to the desired timber sale.
BACKGROUND:
Abutments at Liberty Road-Swauk Creek Bridge have been deteriorating for some time.
In December 2017, Public Works requested an Administrative Load Rating be
established for the bridge. KPFF (PW structural engineering consultant) developed the
requested load rating stipulating that "Overload trucks shall not be permitted to use
bridge". The load rating is problematic for supporting the proposed FS timber sale.
DISCUSSION:
Public Works maintains an inventory of temporary bridges that provide load rating up to
93,000 pounds. These bridges can be configured to meet the load demands of the FS's
desired timber sale. Conversations with FS staff confirm timber We duration's can
extend to five years or more. The reality of the sale duration provides additional
challenges to supporting heavy loads over a temporary bridge.
PW is seeking Board of County Commission approval to expense County resources
defining potential options supporting access to the proposed timber sale. PW proposes:
site investigation, project coordination with FS staff, consultation with PW structural
engineers KPFF, preliminary engineering and cost analysis along with the preparation of
a preliminary feasibility report. This proposed work program will define viability of
temporary bridge deployment and the financial resources necessary supporting access to
Page 1 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
the proposed timber sale. Initial permitting requirements will also be evaluated to better
define project timelines.
FISCAL ITAPACTS:
Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time. PW suggests and initial project budget of
$10,000 developing the requested feasibility study.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Administrative Bridge Rating Summary
Page 2 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMVHSSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
IW4anIl lllf�
Page 3 of 3
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVIISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE BRIDGE RATING SUMMARY
07101
Liberty Road
08103700
Concrete Chanr
40 ft
38 ft
Unknown
1977
Unknown, assur
10/1/2015
FIELD EVALUATION DATE: 6/27/2017 see NBI ratings below
RATING & EVALUATION BY: T. Whiteman. PE
CHECKED BY: M. L. Frymoyer, PE, SE
YEAR OF ADTT: 2014 ADTT: 9
17
ADMINISTRATIVE LOAD RATING RESULTS
DESIGN RATING Rating Factor YL Rating -WSBIS
TonsJ1553/1552
tem No.
HS - 20 Inventory0.49 1.75 17556/1555
HS - 20 Operating0.64 1.35 23
LEGAL & NRL LOADS
Rating Factor
Posting Load
(Tons)
WSBIS
Item No.
AASHTO 1 (Type 3
1.00
-
2587
AASHTO 2 (Type 3S-2
1.00
-
2588
AASHTO 3 (Type 3-3
1.00
-
2589
Notional Rating Load NRL
0.69
-
2590
Special Haul Vehicle (SU4)
0.88
23
2591
Special Haul Vehicle (SU5)
0.83
25
2592
Special Haul Vehicle (SU6)
0.76
26
2593
Special Haul Vehicle (SU7)
0.72
27
2594
PERMIT LOADS
Rating Factor
Rating -
Tons
WSBIS
Item No.
WSDOT Overload 1
0.75
36
2595
WSDOT Overload 2
0.71
73
2596
1. Recommended posting of bridge for SU4, SU5, SU6, and SU7 vehicles.
2. Overload trucks shall not be permitted to use bridge.
Posting recommendation based on span length (assumed capacity based on similar channel girder section).
Administrative Load Ratings is based on 1) a 2097 site visit to evaluate structural condition of the primary gravity load carrying
members by two certified bridge inspectors and licensed engineers 2) assumption of design load based on year of construction and
WSDOT guidelines and 3) judgement of the Engineer which includes review of the latest bridge inspection report, similar girder type
and truck traffic using the bridge
Rating factors are based on guidelines in WSDOT Bridge Inspection Manual (2097), Section 5.02C for Bridges with Unknown Structural
Components. Future reduction of the IVB! Ratings shown below requires a re-evaluation of this load rating by a qualified
RATING METHOD (WSBIS 155111554): 0
BRIDGE CONDITION BASED ON FIELD EVALUATION PERFORMED BY CERT. BRIDGE INSPECTOR/ PROF. ENGINEER;
NBI - SUPERSTRUCTURE 7 Good Condition
NBI - SUBSTRUCTURE 7 Good Condition
Bridge No. 07101
Bridge Name Liberty
Field Evaluation Date — 6/27/2017
ZAwl I
Roadway
Bridge Elevation
r
1
,.w+a•- ,� .� i lw.: rt ..� tiv �� '�=vx{ ��7;� cCr 'u 'r,-9 ' ,
' ...+r�.;....�.-. t....�., �asu: �''�.�t�:aS�i�.'��'�Lu.��:ai7r`' La.•t"�'r[ '-- �a'�+a,:� _ .
Typical Condition
•
shiftdrwow
Typical Condition