HomeMy WebLinkAboutC22310 CA3 Ramp Modifications @ the Monterey Ave Interchange CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract with RBF Consulting for
Additional Consultant Services to Complete Project Approval Reports
and Environmental Documentation for Ramp Modifications at the
Monterey Avenue Interchange on Interstate 10 (Project 669-02)
SUBMITTED BY: Mark Greenwood, P.E., Director of Public Works
APPLICANT: RBF Consulting, Inc.
3300 Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
DATE: September 11, 2008
CONTENTS: Contract Amendment No. 3
Request for Additional Services with Fee Proposal
Project Cost Worksheet
Vicinity Map
Recommendation:
By Minute Motion, Approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract C22310 with RBF
Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $278,362.00 for additional consultant
services to complete Project Approval Reports and Environmental
Documentation for the Ramp Modifications at the Monterey Avenue
Interchange on Interstate 10, with funds available in Account No. 213-4389-
433-4001.
Background:
On February 12, 2004, City Council approved Contract C22310 with RBF Consulting, Inc. in
the amount of $199,030.00 for engineering services to complete the project approval and
environmental documentation (PA/ED) phase for the proposed westbound on- and off-ramp
modifications at the Monterey Interchange on Interstate 10 (I-10). The ramp modifications
consist of realigning the westbound I-10 off-ramp to Varner Road and inserting a loop on-
ramp from northbound Monterey Avenue to westbound I-10. This will eliminate the
congestion and queuing experienced on northbound Monterey Avenue for vehicles entering
the westbound I-10 on-ramp.
Amendment 3 to C22310 with RBF-Monterey I-10 Interchange PA/ED
Page 2 of 4
September 11, 2008
On October 28, 2004, City Council approved Amendment 1 to Contract C22310 in the
amount of $50,070.00 for additional services to meet Caltrans and FHWA requirements
including CEQA compliance, a Natural Environmental Study, Biological Assessment,
Acoustical Study, and other direct costs. On June 22, 2006, City Council approved
Amendment 2 in the amount of $135,990.00 for additional traffic analysis, changes to
project report requirements, preparation of a Modified Access Report, retaining wall
advance planning studies, noise study update, milk vetch survey, cooperative agreement
report, additional topographic mapping, and other costs due to extending the project
duration.
The contract between the City and RBF was originally negotiated with the aim of gaining
project and environmental approval on a more simplified and fast-track basis. However, this
has not transpired due to the delays in the review and approval of the PA/ED document and
changes in Caltrans and FHWA requirements. Generally, a Project Study Report (PSR) is
prepared and approved as a programming document that is then followed by the
preparation and approval of a project report (PR) and environmental document. The scope
of work and associated fee was based upon a combined PR and PSR. However, the fast-
track scenario has not been achieved because of the following reasons:
� Previous changes to the consultant, Caltrans, and City project managers caused
discontinuity and loss of time for new project managers to establish a more realistic
schedule, to become familiar with the project, and to deal with issues.
• Caltrans has taken more time to perform multiple reviews of documents than
originally scheduled.
• Changes in Caltrans and FHWA requirements for preparation and processing of
reports and environmental studies.
� The combined PR/PSR has precipitated Caltrans' procedural hurdles that have
delayed its approval.
• The geometry of the interchange was modified, after approval of the draft
environmental document, so that the loop ramp would connect to the existing
auxiliary lane to Ramon Road. This required the revision of the preliminary plans,
and the engineering and environmental studies which further delayed the issuance
of the draft environmental document for public review.
The above changes have had a significant impact upon the completion of this phase. What
was originally planned to be a 22-month process will take approximately 48 months to
complete. The draft Project Report, Environmental Document and related studies including
air quality assessment, biological assessment, visual impact assessment, initial site
assessment, noise impact analysis, natural environmental study, historic property study,
and traffic study were finally distributed on July 3, 2008 for a 30-day public review period.
Minimal comments were received and RBF is now in the process of preparing the final
documents. Key remaining and important milestones will be the approval of the Modified
Access Report and the Final Project Report and Environmental Document by FHWA. Once
the Modified Access Report is approved by FHWA by October 2008, risk design and
preparation of the plans, specifications and estimate (PS&E) can proceed.
Amendment 3 to C22310 with RBF-Monterey I-10 Interchange PA/ED
Page 3 of 4
September 11, 2008
The following is the current schedule for completion of project:
Milestone Date
Complete PA/ED Phase January 2009
Complete Right-of-Way Acquisition May 2009
Complete PS&E June 2009
Advertise for Bids October 2009
Award Construction Contract December 2009
Begin Construction January 2010
Complete Construction December 2010
Staff and the consultant have been aggressively communicating and meeting with Caltrans
to obtain their commitment to 1) adhere to the agreed document and plan review times and
2) strategize and establish a schedule to complete the environmental process and PS&E.
The federal funding on the project requires that we award the construction contract no later
than December 2009. The City having already acquired the majority of the right-of-way
needed for the project, the major milestone of completing the PA/ED phase is eminent.
Discussion:
Staff has prepared Amendment 3 to Contract C22310 in the amount of $278,362.00
resulting from negotiations with RBF for the additional services to complete the project
approval and environmental process. The additional services include the following:
• Revisions to Environmental Document and related studies
• Revision to draft Project Report
• Revisions to Traffic Analysis Study
• Revision to preliminary design
� Provide conceptual staging and level of service analysis and costs for Traffic
Management Plan
• Update Right-of-Way Data Sheet
• Revisions to Modified Access Report
• Additional and extended Project meetings and other direct cost including substantial
printing of documents
� Additional Quality Control
• New tasks including Noise Abatement Decision Report and Air Quality Conformity
Documentation
Staff has determined that the negotiated cost for these additional services is equitable and
recommends that City Council, by Minute Motion, approve Amendment 3 to Contract
C22310 with RBF, Inc. in the amount of $278,362.00. The contract amount, including this
amendment, will be in the amount of $663,452.00, or approximately 12.4% of the estimated
construction cost.
Amendment 3 to C22310 with RBF-Monterey I-10 Interchange PA/ED
Page 4 of 4
September 11, 2008
Fiscal Impact:
The total project cost has increased from an estimated $8.1 million to $10.3 million due to
the additional consultant fees, construction inflation, and geometric changes. Staff has
recently requested an amendment to the funding agreement with CVAG to fund 50% of the
increase in project cost (see attached Project Cost Worksheet for details). Funds for
Amendment 3 are available in Project Account No. 213-4389-433-4001.
Prepared By: Departm n He�'�ad:
�
��� W I�
Joh A. Garcia, P.E. Mark Green ood, P.E.
En ineering Manager Director of ublic Works
Approval:
/'.t�---� G����%'
Homer Cr Paul Gibson
ACM for D e ment Services Finance Director
CiTY COUNCIL ACTIOTV:
APPROVED ✓ DENTED
RECTIVSD OTHER
Carlos Ortega ��g��N DATE - -C�
City Manager pn�,��: ,��
�V�C1�S:
A��EY�`�':
JG/dhl A�g��IN;
v����a�D sY: �
original on ile wi City C7.erk's �ffice
CI� ����M DESElI�' Contract#/P.O.# 11404
Pi\Vl'L' A7SIV�L�i:J SE��LJJ Al�ii'y��NT AmendmenU 3
Change Order No.
Contingency: YES NO
Contract Purpose Monterey/I-10 Ramp Modification-PA/ED Phase Account No. 213-4389-433.40-01
ConsultanYs Name RBF COtlsulting Project No. 669-02
Add�ess: 3300 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 vendor No. 4619
Ontario, CA 91761
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications:
DECREASE INCREASE
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES In Contract Price In Contract Price
Additional professional services to complete the Project Approval and $278,362.00
Environmental Documentation Phase including:
15 month delay in review and approval of Draft Project Report, Environ.
Document and related studies including preliminary design, Initial Study,
traffic impact analysis, traffic management plan, right of way data sheets,
Modified Access Report, project management, meetings, and printing of
documents, travel and other expenses.
Additional requirements including: pavement life cycle cost analysis,
soundwall noise abatement decision record, and airquality conformity
a n a lys is.
TOTALS: - $ 278,362.00
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: $ 278,362.00
JUSTIFICATION:
Substantial consultant services were required due to the fifteen month delay in completion of the Draft Project
Report/Study Report and Environmental Document and related studies/reports caused by the numerous revisions and
delay in Caltrans review and approval and to address additional requirements noted above.
TOTAL BUDGET FOR PROJECT: + 9,988,504.20 CONTINGENCY:
Less: Expend. & Encumb. To Date: - 5,392,032.52 AmountApproved by Council: + $19,903.00
Less: This Change Order Amount: - $278,362.00 Less: Prior Amendment(s): - $19,903.00
BALANCE OF BUDGET Less: This Amendment: -
REMAINING FOR PROJECT: 4,318,109.68 Balance Remaining of Contingency: -
The amount of the Contract will be increased by the sum of: Two Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand,
Three hundred and Sixty-Two Dollars ($278,362).
G:\PubWorks\Staff Reports�2008\September 11\04 Amendment 3 C11404 RBF for Monterey I-10 Ramp Modification 669-02\Contract Amendment 3 RBF 669-02.doc Continued on reverse ...
Contract C22310 Amendment No. 3 Continued from front
This Professional Service Amendment covers changes to the subject contract as described herein. The Consultant
shall perform all work as necessary or required to complete the Professional Service Amendment items for a lump
sum price agreed upon between the Consultant and the City of Palm Desert, otherwise referred to as Owner.
Contract Time Extension N/A Days.
Revised Contract Total $663,452.00
The undersigned Consultant approves the foregoing Professional Service Amendment# 3 as to the changes, if any, in
the contract price specified for each item including any and all supervision costs and other miscellaneous costs
relating to the change in work, and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the entire work on
account of said Professional Service Amendment # 3. The Consultant agrees to furnish all labor and materials and
perform all other necessary work, inclusive of that directly or indirectly related to the approved time extension, required
to complete the Professional Service Amendment items. This document will become a supplement of the contract and
all provisions will apply hereto. It is understood that the Professional Service Amendment shall be effective when
approved by the Owner.
Execution of this Professional Service Amendment by the Consultant constitutes a binding accord and satisfaction that
fully satisfies, waives, and releases the Owner from all claims, demands, costs, and liabilities, in contract, law or
equity, arising out of or related to the subject of the Professional Service Amendment, whether known or unknown,
including but not limited to direct and indirect costs and/or damages for delay, disruption, acceleration, and loss of
productivity, as well as any and all consequential damages.
This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply hereto, all items included above
must have required signatures as per the purchase resolution.
1. REQUESTED BY: 2. ACCEPTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONSULTANT Date Accepted
3. CERTIFIED
FUNDS AVAILABLE: 4. APPROVED BY:
FINANCE DIRECTOR JEAN M. BENSON, MAYOR Date Approved
NOTE: No payments will be made prior
to City Manager and Council approval CITY MANAGER Date Approved
G:\PubWorks\Staff Reports�2008\September 11\04 Amendment 3 C11404 RBF for Monterey I-10 Ramp Modification 669-02\Contracl Amendment 3 RBF 669-02.doc Continued on reverse ...
� ■ ■
CONSULTINC9
August 26, 2008
Mr. John Garcia JN 65-100103.001
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2570
Re: Monterey Avenue Interchange at Interstate 10 — Additional Work Request for
PA/ED Phase
Dear Mr. Garcia:
RBF is submitting this additional work request for the Monterey Avenue and I-10 interchange
Improvement project. As the project progresses through the Environmental Approval Phase of
work, additional work effort, document format, environmental studies, and tasks have been
added to the project work items.
The project experienced a delay in Public Circulation of the environmental document of 15
months due to changes in Caltrans personnel, Caltrans policy, and NEPA delegation of the
environmental document.
By June of 2006, significant project milestones were completed (approval of preferred '
alternative, approval of environmental technical studies, and approval of traffic study) of which
a project schedule was prepared, submitted, and approved by Caltrans. The following major
milestones were scheduled:
1} Circulation of Draft Environmental Document— March 2007
2) Approval of Final Project Report— December 2007
3) Completion of PS&E—June 2008
4) Right-of-way acquisitions—August 2008
5) Complete construction —November 2009
Due to changes in Caltrans staff in the environmental oversight group, between June 2006 and
April 2007, RBF was required to rewrite and resubmit the Initial Study several times. In order to :
facilitate personal preferences by Caltrans reviewers, RBF staff spent over 10 days working at
Caltrans with environmental oversight to wordsmith the entire Initial Study document. In May
2007, the Initial Study was approved and signed by Caltrans. The Draft PR/PSR was submitted
for final signatures on 5/2/07, and RBF was completing the environmental public notice for '
circulalation. Public circulation was scheduled for June 2007.
PLANNING ■ DE51GN ■ CONSTRLlCTION
3300 East Guasti Road,Suite 100,Ontario,CA 91761 ■ 909.974.4900 ■ Fax 909.974.4004
Offices located throughout California,Arizona&Nevada ■ www.RBF.com
printetl an recycletl paper '
8/26/2008
Mr.John Garcia
Page 2 of 8 '
In June, 2007 the District Director instituted a policy of removing unfunded mainline capacity ,
increasing projects from traffic analysis. Along the I-10 through Coachella Valley, there are '
programmed projects to widen I-10 from 3 lanes to 4 lanes in each direction; however the
projects are currently unfunded. Standard traffic modeling practice is to include RTIP
programmed projects in traffic impact studies. This change resulted in a new analysis of the
proposed westbound ramps on the westbound mainline I-10 lanes, which resulted in '
reconfigured alternatives to have westbound loop on ramp add the fourth auxiliary lane.
At the same time, the existing westbound on ramp and loop on-ramp were modified to include
ramp metering. These changes required an environmental reevaluation.
Based on these changes, RBF was required to spend time to rewrite, revise, and modify the
Draft Project Report/ Project Study Report, The Modified Access Report, the Initial Study, the
traffic report, the environmental technical studies and project fact sheets.
Several new tasks have been added to the work plan by Caltrans. These include the life cycle
cost analysis for pavement, the noise abatement decision record, and the air quality conformity
report.
With the completion of the public circulation of the Draft Environmental Document in July 2008,
the following are the current milestone dates:
1)Approve Final Project Report and Final Environmental — December 2008
2) Complete PS&E—September 2009
3) Right-of-way acquisitions— December 2009
4) Complete construction— December 2010
The following tasks are related to our Phase I work plan for the PR/PSR and Environmental
Document processing:
Task 1.4: Traffic Impact Analvsis
Based on District directive to remove unfunded projects from the traffic model, the following
traffic analysis tasks were required after the Traffic Impact Analysis report was approved in
July, 2006. Additionally, analysis of ramp metering and re-configuration of the westbound loop
on ramp to the mainline were added based on Caltrans comments to the Draft PR/PSR.
• Modified merge/diverge analysis for loop on-ramp.
• Modified mainline analysis without fourth lane west of the interchange.
• Analyzed intersection of Monterey and Varner Road based on Caltrans comments, '
specifically the north Monterey to eastbound Varner Road free-right turn. ',
• Analysis of mainline to insert V/C ratios in place of OVERFLOW values from
Synchro software.
• Analysis of ADT traffic numbers over a year after approval Traffic Impact Report for
the Draft PR/PSR and MAR.
• Analyzed ramp meter queuing for both on-ramps.
. . .
CONSULTING
PLANNING / DESIGN ■ CON9TRUCTION � �
8/26/2008
Mr.John Garcia
Page 3 of 8 ,
These tasks were completed between June 2007 and May 2008.
Task 1.5: Preliminary Desiqn
Based on results of the revised traffic analysis and addition of ramp metering the following
additional design tasks were required:
• Reconfigured alternatives to have westbound loop on ramp add the fourth
auxiliary lane. Existing westbound direct on ramp merged into the auxiliary lane.
Adjusted existing westbound on ramp and loop on-ramp to include ramp metering
including 20:1 taper for merge on loop on-ramp.
• Additional supplement fact sheet for 20:1 taper for loop on ramp.
• Addition of ramp metering and maintenance vehicle pullouts from to southbound
Monterey Avenue to I-10 westbound on ramp.
• Revised geometric approval drawing and design checklist to reflect the above.
• Several iterations, discussions, and meetings with Caltrans staff and
Headquarters Design Reviewer to obtain approval of design.
Task 1.6: Traffic Manaqement Plan
New Caltrans requirements for Final Project Reports include a Traffic Management Plan and
TMP worksheets. The TMP will include conceptual stage construction exhibits and cost
estimates. In addition, an intersection level of service (LOS)analysis of project construction
stages and detour routes will be developed. The purpose of the traffic analysis is to determine
any traffic mitigation measures required for project construction.
Task 1.7: Riqht of Wav Determination
In the past, Caltrans has prepared the Right-of-Way Data Sheets for local projects that are
located on the State Highway System. Effective October 23, 2006, Caltrans will no longer
prepare the Right-of-Way Data Sheets for local projects and must be prepared by a qualified
consultant. RBF will update the Right-of-Way Data Sheets for three (3) project alternatives in
accordance with Caltrans standards. The Right-of-Way Data Sheets will be prepared as
referenced in appendix L of the Project Development Procedures Manual to support the Right-
of-Way Data Sheets. Per discussions with Caltrans, it has been verified a qualified ROW
consultant will be required.
In order to have the Draft Project Report/ Project Study Report signed in March, 2008, RBF
made a commitment to Caltrans Chief of right-of-Way to update the right-of-way data sheets in
the final Project Report document
• Update ROW data sheets based on open market transaction of the required ROW
for the project by the City. ;
■ .::
GON9lJLTING ��
PLANNING � �ESIGN ■ CONSTRLJCTION �
8/26/2008
Mr.John Garcia
Page 4 of 8
• Update ROW data sheets for required easement along Varner Road, opposite the
ramp termini.
• City of Palm Desert will use a qualified ROW consultant to update the ROW data
sheets based on discussion with Caltrans on 8/08/08.
Task 1.10: Proiect Report/ Project Studv Report
Based on revised traffic analysis and geometric changes to the configuration of the on-ramps,
the following tasks were required:
• Attended several workshops to edit the PR/PSR with Caltrans planning and
environmental staff. In addition, significant coordination was involved via
phone/email to review and respond to comments electronically.
• Revised the PR/PSR text to be consistent with changes in the Initial Study(IS).
• Modified PR/PSR based on design and traffic comments from Caltrans Deputies
and District Director. Revised the following:
• Purpose and need
• Project history and background
• Alternative descriptions
• Ramp metering discussion perpetuated throughout document.
• Revised alternative exhibits
• Revised traffic section of the document.
• Included ramp meter queuing analysis
The Draft PR/PSR was submitted for final signatures on 5l2/07. At this point the Draft IS was
already signed, and RBF was completing the environmental circulation documents. Public
circulation was scheduled for June 2007. Based on the changes in District policy, 12 months
delay was experienced. The IS was circulated in July 2008.
Task 1.11: Modified Access Report
RBF prepared the Draft MAR in conjunction with the Draft PR/PSR in 2007. Based on Caltrans
policy changes, revised geometry for the ramps, traffic analysis of the I-10 mainline, and for
consistency beiween the PR/PSR, Initial Study, and MAR the following additional tasks were
performed:
• Revised MAR based on changes from Draft PR/PSR
• Revised figures and exhibits ,
• Revised ADT tables and text.
• Prepared category determination request
� .::
CONSULTING �.
PLANNING i OES�GN ■ CONBTRIJCTlON �
8/26/2008
Mr.John Garcia
Page 5 of 8
Task 1.12 Life Cvcle Cost Analvsis for Pavement(new taskt
Per Caltrans Memorandum dated March 7, 2007, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for pavement shall
be performed and documents for all projects that have a project approval date of July 1, 2007,
or later. RBF will utilize the Interim Life Cycle Cost Analysis Procedures Manual, Project
Development Procedures Manual (PDPM), and the Highway Design Manual, Sixth to prepare
and document life cycle costs for pavement. RBF will develop three (3) pavement alternatives
and determine the pavement design life of the alternatives. Each alternative will be analyzed
using Real Cost software provided by Caltrans to determine the initial construction costs,
project support costs, future maintenance, rehabilitation costs, total agency costs, user costs,
and total life cycle costs. Each alternative will be documented and attached to the Project
Report per Appendix 00 of the PDPM.
Task 2.6.1 Noise Abatement Decision Report(new task)
Effective August 2006, per the revised Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, a Noise Impact
Analysis, a Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) will be required during the PA/ED
phase. The report will summarize the preliminary reasonableness determination from the noise
study report; present the engineer's cost estimate for the evaluated abatement, evaluation of
nonacoustical feasibility issues, preliminary noise abatement decision, and secondary effects
of abatement(impacts on cultural resources, scenic view, hazardous materials, and biology).
The NADR will be prepared for the proposed soundwall along the north of Varner Road, '
adjacent to the mobile home park.
Task 2.7.1: Air Qualitv Conformitv(new task) '
Based on (SAFETEA-LU) Memorandum of Understanding to streamline the NEPA review
process, in 2006, NEPA delegation was provided to Caltrans except for air quality provisions.
FWHA developed separate stand alone reports to be filed for NEPA environmental documents.
Air quality conformity determinations, both regional conformity and project-level conformity, will
remain the responsibility of FHWA California Division for all projects assumed under the NEPA
Delegation Pilot Program. The Department will send FHWA, separate from the environmental
review process, a request for conformity determinations. In this regard, FHWA will be treated
much like other federal resource agencies. FHWA's requirement is that the air quality
conformity documentation submitted to FHWA be a stand-alone report using the Conformity
Analysis Documentation Checklist. The air quality conformity documentation must include
adequate summary information such that conformity determinations can be made on the
preferred alternative without having to refer to the environmental document. A copy of the
FHWA conformity determination letter must also be included in the final environmental
document. The stand-alone report and Conformity Analysis Documentation Checklist was not
required prior to NEPA Delegation, and was not anticipated in our original scope of work.
. . .
CONSULTING �
PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRl1CTION
8/26/2008
Mr.John Garcia ;
Page 6 of 8
Task 2.9: Environmental Documentation
RBF had completed the Draft Initial Study in summer of 2006. Two review period submittals of
the IS were performed between July 2006 and January 2007 as was expected for a typical '
environmental document for similar projects. A schedule was established based on approval of ;
the Initial Study to have public circulation in April, 2007. Due to changes in Caltrans personnel
and reorganization of the environmental oversight group in District 08, the following additional
tasks were perFormed for the environmental work program:
. Attended numerous workshops to edit the Draft Environmental Document (DED)
with Caltrans planning and environmental staff. For a 5 month period from
January 2007 to May 2007, RBF staff spent over 60 hours at Caltrans working
hand in hand with Caltrans reviewers to rewrite the document to meet Caltrans
preferences. This is not normal procedure, and is not the role of Caltrans
oversight projects, but was performed in an effort to maintain progress.
• Coordinated electronic revisions with Caltrans reviewers.
• Prepared and approved the public noticing in June 2007. '
• Approved the DED for public circulation on 6/29/07.
• Revised the approved DED based on changes of the PR/PSR between '
September 2007 and April 2008. Caltrans performed environmental revaluation of :
the document.
• Revised approved public noticing in May 2008.
• Revised all technical studies in April 2008, including the Air Quality Assessment,
Initial Site Assessment, Noise Report, and Visual Impact Assessment based on
changes on the PR/PSR
• Prepared and approved Errata sheets for the Biological Assessment (BA) and
Natural Environment Study(NES) in April 2008.
• The environmental document has completed public circulation per CEQA
requirements. RBF is currently responding to comments on the Initial Study, this
will lead to a CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The NEPA approval
process has yet to be accomplished. Since FHWA approval of the MAR is
required before the NEPA document can be reviewed, it was determined by the
PDT in 2006 to split the process for separate CEQA and NEPA approvals. Since
2006, NEPA delegation has been granted to Caltrans. Several additional reviews
per the NEPA delegation process will be required for this project. The schedule for
these activities is between September 2008 and January 2009. It is assumed
during NEPA delegation reviews and process the approved environmental
technical studies will not be revised and are sufficient for approval of the NEPA
environmental documentation.
. . .
CONSLJLTING �
PLANNING ■ DESIGN ■ CONSTRLJCTION
8/26/2008
Mr.John Garcia
Page 7 of 8
Task 9.0: Proiect Manaqement/ Proiect Meetings
1) Project Management
In 2004, RBF originally scoped this phase of the project to have duration of 15 months. In
2006, AWR No 2 extended the project an additional 15 months. The completion date of the
PA/ED phase was scheduled for December, 2006. Due to the change of the document format,
changes in Caltrans personnel and policy, the schedule has extended an additional 24 months.
Based on current schedule, the PA/ED phase will be completed in February 2009. This
requires additional 24 months of project management activities.
2) Project Meetings
Caltrans, the City, and RBF have attended unanticipated focus meetings outside the regular '
scheduled PDT meetings to discuss specific topics to move this project through the Caltrans
process more effectively and efficiently. To date we have attended approximately twelve (12)
out of scope focus meetings, in addition to the 24 additional PDT meetings due to schedule
delays. We anticipate attending 9 additional meetings in the future. These additional meetings
have supported the momentum to keep this project moving forward with Caltrans staff.
Task 9.5: Qualitv Control
RBF will continue to perform quality control on documents being submitted to Caltrans. RBF
utilizes independent in-house reviewers for third party checks of documents.
RBF will perform additional quality control checks on the Draft and Final Modified Access
Report, Draft and Final Project Report, and Final Environmental Document for the 24 month
schedule extension.
Reimbursables
The original contract budget for reimbursables was $7,200. Amendment No. 2 added $6,000.
For each submittal to Caltrans of the PR/PSR, 20 copies were required. The PR/PSR was
submitted 4 times between 2006 and 2008. For each submittal of the MAR, 5 copies were
required. For each submittal of the IS, 12 copies were required. The IS was submitted 5 times
between 2006 and 2008.
To date, RBF has experienced a total cost of $35,000. We anticipate an additional $10,000 to
complete the final document distributions. We are requesting an additional $30,000 for `
reimbursables.
� .:: '
coNsu�nNo
PLANiJING ■ DESIGN ■ C�NSTRl1CTION
8/26/2008
Mr.John Garcia
Page 8 of 8
Fee
In summary, RBF Consulting is requesting a net increase to our contract in the amount of
$248,362 for labor and $30,000 for reimbursables.
This adjustment is necessary for completion of work tasks associated with the Final Project
Report and Final Environmental Document certification through the NEPA process. Should
you have any questions please contact me at (909) 974-4935. We look forward to continuing
our efforts on this project and its successful completion.
Sincerely,
/� ''
��������`�.� �
G
Jeffrey Fromhertz, P.E. '
Project Manager
Transportation / Public Works
Attachments
cc: Brad Mielke
Steve Huff
H:\Pdata\651001031Admin\contractlammendments\PAED_Am mendment_003.doc
. . .
coNsu�TiN�
PLANNING ■ �ESIGN ■ C�NSTRIJCTION �
�
X
N
N
� O O O O O O � O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O CO O O O O N O N ti
O OJ � M N 00 N � � N (O M CO t0 O �O c�
� OO � 00 � CO � M V^ V' tt I� 00 M O M p
N O O � � (fl � O � OJ M � OO O �0 Z
N E� M � 'V' � M � N EA N �
� a <R 4H �
E
F a
O m
H �
� O O O � `N � � O O �N � � O O O O O O � O O M N � O O O � � �
= T -�
C
N
O O O O �
0 0 o E
� O O O y
m L!) � Ln U
� 69 fR (a
(I) C
0
U
C
O O O O O O tt O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O CO O O O O N N ��
� Cfl N N a0 00 � I� � N M N � �
� M O 'cY (O O � lf� 1(� tn
� � t(') Ln � O f� � M tn f� f� n m
W cfl N ao ao
� � o
Z o
G� �
� �
W
�
� � O � N � 00 (�O C�O � N � � N � � a
M S GO <O �
L
�
Z � 0 � 0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 0 � � � 0 � 0 � � �
O O d� CO O 00 � aO (O O O N c0 c0
� � O a0 � N u") N � N (D M a0 N !� CO t0
Z � � � `t N oJ N � V N � M (O � CO � �
W W W W � � �N
� y � Z
O � Z L
� a a W O � �N CO � � a�O M � N N N o�0 d�' N aN-
� � W = �n �n
— W �
� N Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
=� w a ao co 0 o ao v o 0 o c� ao 00
Q � � � � M V N N M N I� O> O)
W � j � W � N �t C'� � N � CO � (D M 69 VT
Z Q � �
O Z
> tL Y W C9 y
WO � y W = � � M N � CO � � �t (O � N M M
W V m �
� = o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z a0 N I� O 00 V 'V' � �t O � � �
t(') V N M I� V I� h I� 'd� a0 V � e-
� _ � � � � N M r- �t � � M M
Y W � � tR fR
�
H
� a L
n' � � o ao N c� � w v �r � v o v rn rn
= N N o� N �
c �
� o
C N � � f0
O O
O � V C �
(6 y �a �, � � C
�1 � � Q p C tvi� o � c � �
y in 'a N c � N N � p UO N
a j Q � f0 (0 -p � � .� � f9 f/� �<n �
H c � c �� � � � y a >, •o � � 'c� c �
y -o � c�o �. � � E v� � � � a � c � o E E � a�i
c p c� a� a� a� � � 'co � c
:: c� Q c •� E a� .S u`�i v� Q °� c : � � o v`�i � � p
R � � .E Q � a� o � Q m y � � � � c m Q � � N
L7 >. � m a� � � � >, � � � c� o Q � o � > � � v�'i E m � � a�
co m a � U �c w � U c � J � W
L � d a Z' � �0 a � c� m U U1 Q o c � @ W
� Z o a�'i ° °� E c � � °� _ � � c�i Y c�i � a � � ,� � V � U a�i :a N �
�' 2 � � � — o � � d a� >. � � �t3 . Q � � c � � o � J
-� � � .� � r � � ;,_, U a�i a�0i � °' � �n � � o � •� H � Q
� � o � '� � cLo � c`a o� � a�i � o ,� o � w o � � .o d �o •� o = o ; .� O
� � N � Q (n H � f- �' Q U LL � J � Q' d CD = Q Z Q .� W d C� U fA Q' F-
� � N M � � (O I� N 6� � T � � N M V' t17 t� � � a0 6� O �
� � N N N N N N N N N N � �
a o
C
€O 0 � °f
O � p0 i c �
.� � `-' «
u'i
:',. O �y N . 00 N z
a
; c Gi o N `o
: O C -p ��i
'U N � c
.i:'�O Q �' . . E
' v vy 'ti � °'
� ' � d a
'' � �, ro � E
a`,
v c o d y -
m � c V U �
�''.. � � VI 41 y� d p
m Z E ,a � a �
.' � c > ^ O —O. O m'
� � � ���� C C � `w
,� c O- «
� ;�:..L � d y a
''�. O U1 ` '�. a NL � lLd �o
cnn
, c v � d L d �
� ° o ;F- Q d Q g
�---�-g—_r_ ..� ....�.....p�� �_. o
.'�0 .•003 ' oI ( � �� :o � � � ; � � � o€ � ooi � � � . o 'o �o ; �
.n .03 0 .o � �0 1 � � o( �; o o � fo �o (o3y E
— i � O � � � .p ; �O O r .O -�[p r z
s k �O •t ; � ` �1� I� . k � a�� ll ��fC M O � v1 ;�"� ��i �
. � N � � � I ;o �: O I � O�� s O � � � � � i O i� w
� ; € J I � f" € �� ��(� ; F � � I� �
'' i 1 ? � ', ' E E� � 3 � i j ' � �
E u� tn t Fn€er �r w:s�r�ur ut Fn'w v� �r r�r'�sr i vr w w w�, �w; �sr ef'�w vr rr vs�v�j vs�; �
,...._.,..j,.......;<....... � , ; � � i � � (( ' � � ' � � �
� 3 ";'i'--. , �._�.._. � ��(I � ,.� ��........ _�..�t; a
'f�1 � � �.M. � jI M � � � v
:.N � � ] � � i 3 N � I � � l N � � ! � u
..� � � �� � ��� �
'�.lL � I.LL� � I II �LL s ( � �� E
? j �
;_ vs vs;v>�v� ��w rn es w _v��w _ vs v�r eR vr vr rn � w� v1(� ���`j3
� __.,...�_... ._, � � _ .. W: _ _�3 . �i . _ e . �q .y. 3 Q
� � � ; � � � � i � 3 � � � i�i � � � 1€[ E�.. � � � � � � o
, _ , e
e � �
� ; : 9 . 7 � ��� € : i
:N ; � ;. j � ,. � 1 mm ( . "
�
�€ ;
O _ - � £ � N ' €� 3 3; 'N � � € ii �
t
� _ � � � � � _! ° ! � � j� _ � � ' ! ,; �
� j , � ,
� � � � � �
� ���.LL s�LL ? � f# 1. :LL � � � w
� ; � a � �� �� � 1 i . �
� �IfJ�H�:ff}�IH H! fi},Hi�ffY ffl�ffl�N�� N� tFT�fR I W�V} (fJ �N �� W� ffl ffl�Nl 69 fR'H!.Vf-�; �
._........._...... ....,....�. ....._...._._
. ......--e �_.w..:�
mm�..�
fN
� � � � � , � � � i � � �! � � � � � �� � ��� r
O — � � � 1 � 1 ' ' y�.............. _ 3 � '�� 3� — �� �_ ' �
� ' � ( i � : 3: �
ar.. �..� { � � � �I ! �.p' j �E, �:.O � l {
� � . � [ i t � i �� ; E ' — ; � � N
� � � r j i € ;j ,� I y
Q" LL ° � I � � LL � . � �{L � � ? `o
� i € a
vs rn�vs e� vi ss�vs;re �rr rn�w bs vs �i s4 u4 vs vr w ��w��'. v� w�l» rr� v► w f s�r w �
� � � ' � � ; E i � i � � � E � :� i � � � 3 ¢
� � 1 1 . 3 � E , O O O j O �; Q
� ,�� ' � 3 :0 , � ! € �� O O � � O O p�; �
0 � ; O�'
� � ij j ; � ' [ � �( � � � N
� •�O 3 ( . � � ...0 I � 1 YE 3 :, `0 N �� I � M 00� i
� .'„ I , E 3 ;} � �E I �' ` �i
� i i
� � s � � � � 't i .. LL .
�
s =
i ' '
� '" w er I�rr �rr vs en vr rn ar`vs:w vt w ar:ar vr ef vi wE� �v►�� vf v►� `� vi
._� ' .....,. L r . � i fR <
� — �, __ ..... ,,._ Vf Hi fA;tA ..
a �� .� , o E , �� , , �o �� , , ;��E , , , ��o�� o o ; , , , , .
�O �O � O 3. ,i.O 1 p { O O O 3_.__-�O-r!
� ..O� �p — t � �,D i :O�� : € ,€O� ��.� O Ow� t I O
i o � � 3 � � 3 �n jo o i IoE� ' E� � � � � Emj'>
� � N 7 ! �— 3! iM ;CO . 'Me 'pp N N 3 (((V'
�+ �� — � { �� �� ; 0 3 '� N N � ; [� i
i £ � � £
O + LL I i LL f � •- ;LL ; ' j
� ° � � � ;:
fn -rr vs uq vs v>,a► w ss s9 vr u� Fn v� ug ss vs vr� w w, w:�
__ _._ � �_ t � � _ �__ � ���.._;
_ _� _ _.� �_ m
.. � � __.._.._._.....__._. m
� � � � � �
�' , 3 l . �O (�: � p i in:� � _ ._�.m. ...y.. ��
: .... ... . ..._�.
H �
� ;.LL I � � I "jF" .�y � F�� °V �V�i �{L j 3 (� _
� �I.......,. ._:,,_......,... . ..� � .,,.. � ._< � --....___._.. �.................... _ ��� �.......,..,,� J(k
�� � t � �� �.. t � � Q � � 3 4
� � .�._;0......... � ;O � ` �i, �
:� ' j(E � "3 E y I 3 !
3 € £ 3 ���� � � � � �
, ' E E� ,� ^3 N�
� E i � � � N € !E, �a. � ' � (
� € 3 �.. Q 2 � � �
C �' ( � H GI� � 9 LL � :3
� Yl 6 N N � �^ O y U C a+ �
N � � '' �p� � : u�'i�. � { p V i �: �1 O � LL � I
� �_ � .U`( � 1 e
� i 1 Cj U c U � � �� � � � '� = (
Qa� � ( i o w �+ c-> s
. � � � � 9 ' � _ �'� N E �. C LL � � 9
C � y � L i�[ C L C d �s a+ a+ � ti �i0�I 3 c C C
�. o� � d �'a,( d O j '� � � � � � clj � Q o °' �i '"
'� � r U; � 47 1 C Gl . y i W ii � C
°�' d � a '� i�'a�'+ c a�+' �' ,�y •�� L c � , �� c ; ' � N > � a i o
a �.. ; � i c � � �._ o ; a a+
i i; W E O Q 9 �! O L as+. ��td y y�G U y i! . � y y� 1 9 H f I W
�� d d I LL'U W Q i U U O; ': E � Q � O � �.�.:! ��, U f !�. Q U 3 F- :i
L��:
�_. .�°#; ' � � i �Sn �,4 � ' �'���`' t�6��'���?..,
k." ��� E c H',
' � 4,t;
r�.e
.e '. .. � .� ���. �
•� ' ,rxa.'�v ,; ,v f '� �. ',:.
. . .. , ..�. ��'3 ..: .. .. ��^^�
�' �
,j�: ��.n ry � ��.. . �$ �� ..
.. .... g � � ��, �.
_ i
_ ��`�i.��i�.'..
�a
� q.
�. • .
,.,�;, �:
:u ��.;
�.�
[ y9
�.
t � .
„ $
,.:. , '.'.�
' � t?
�
t � c"-
r.�
�x:*�-x'. y��'.. `�.
�'�.`"��:{ � ��
, � �y
�';�� i' � .,
r�r s� ' ' �'�i.. ;;
�'�; ,�,,., �1��
� o P*.
�,� ^�s�=r`"�.
o- :
{� '�,;:. : .+
�
�.,� ��,�,�� � e'§+.",. � �� ,...
�' �u � "
`_'�'��, . �;,.
-
�a���., •R ■� �,
��#�`�s� ��`k ` '' . r �� �r�a'fi{@Nh
`�ka } ...� .- _+".
�
* ^�i', � . ,...
b�, � �
�
�,�„�- . 'b .
..:;�n . .��1 u '; �
..� t. ��n.. i ...
. � f+lr{�, ,' :,
U
S� *
�r
��*�n
�r�vt
�
�'�'�„�, �v��-.�'ie�' ffi ..�� ..p. II�IIII� II,.
.rF.�� �-� �r4.2yT�� 'o��.
��: �. ��. ' ..
u { g
, .. - � �.�,� .�
� '
,� g .,; .. ,� .
�: � .�.._ .. } ,.. ..
y � 3�
�""'�'
va.
v�s�* '.r � �,�i.,..
,'a�'' ��' �' �� "`�,'
� . ` �i �f�'` �
s: s
��3 y�#i �.�
z ��.t.�z�� yp
���f:{
� �, ��
y
�
��';�x n� '`
��`5' �
t
��'�:'3.` d�'' �
�#�F«. � �:'�
$ *��"`��:: � +�� �� P C
'.. '�� t. ..
5 £�y���y , ,`' .t y' . !V`.i � �'W',�ti`1� 'kr^, �'?- � s".�''�
{
ir y �.���. R i ,�� ! _
�,j��� :�F��� �� �`�"�
s � .
� ,A �
�
,�ai�qi �w '�� ,� ��� r : r
Ad�d�uwo ��.�. �, }�" �; K.�q �� kc� �� r F�' .�.`
�B�' ''�.-,a`s, � ;�A.��� � : , ��., s�.X-� a ���.
� .. :. . ' r4.';
, �` . p '�' ' � . f.n.= ,�
e �.< t.` �. � , _ ` ,:
� m a.
� " � �� .�� ��
� ,.m.` ,,7 ��, . , r �' .
�uc�., � '�' � ' � m��� '� ��,r" ' + ,. ����. � ��. � �����, �'���`'�.�. �. �
€ � ����'�� ,� �" � ��:: 1 ��;'?:;.
�. �� d� e� � � � ,-.
mndS,t �s ..t�. ���' � . k
�, _„ ql �'_,.., 'Y�, ' �.� a: � �a �fi����
,� "�,
, ,
,.y
;�
W
r,� ,�.. , ., � r �
���� u��� � ��' � v � \�'' ��
{ t-�-,-�r s' y�z.��
,
� u
� .. ,� �� �:�; �-"'
>�� � �
� ° ��m �', a ial ��: 1 Y'n�, �.
u
9YE67C..w,: �� c P �" � „ +'�"�*�? �'S. ,�+
J� i, k
�
r' i� �
..w, t� �� 1 I �1 �. I�li7�
r„ M�
�� k�
�� r"
�.���, .: . .
���� � ' �r ,�� �� �� . ������
� � � .. �%"'�
� U *���
�� J��/� �
y� � �`� :{ {)RiJ R� � ' �t �;,� k. .
�py l� �yer +�tir m
�e i� � 4. "�'�' 'S'� S' 'f.+Jf. �iks,. �
� f . � i ".�'.
r, ;��
����'�i � ��. �I
J Y�4�. I a �F I�
s
t.
vY'J Po�I < � i{{ �, •
� ��� � ..� , .
<
�1�Cal g�� � .,.; l�� �H � . . ..
1
1{� ��
�5 W� �i,{ � y "
E
�l!8t16� �.� �� 2 Y �� ,� ���f'' I' M, �':
xn�a�.� '���� �c�t �:. ,r�, �,I��'� I��� ��`:�
� �� ��f � : � y � ' .
�u � �� � �,� ��. . q ., ,
�'�� � � >s'' t�, qr Y-� �,'�
�
� �.;� �
c�c���� � ,��� �� � "�
II
� r2� � r,.t' F� "° l�
7�Ad4fi1 '�"k""?`k L�' � �� �-��,�'a�,..- ��
� �k
tlI��& �` xc ,� � � . e� � �a �.. ,;..;- -8
c
��
i3Jt��:LE �f��.,� �„ �, �..w� � �°.,�;�- tw'� '�
�
v..#�f �� � �.�v
�
�`� �.,� {' Y�' Y� �� . � ,
�7 5k�� c:. * . , '
,"7� �°�. ,^M��s�F , h:� � �::<.
�� Yry .
.�},� �r.; 1;�t. � s.
�� �> '�
�•,�� ��� �e � .� .�
* �-� �`� ����`� a.', � � �
�k�� ��f �
,��" '��r rr n�a yr�`��u
��,����� r ��`�°�'� f�9���
,�� ��� �; �`t, {��
,��,��� r,, ,.� � ';� �
Jr'�� � s
�,��"� "� r .`_ ,�� '�� _. �
������ �h� r�� �
` � � a �
�� ��� � �
���
�� ����� � ���� �.� �� zf` :�
�� � �
� ��� ar � � � ��� ������ � � ��
�y �a+�� � �' �� {� ,� �
m � �
��<�" �, �� � �
�`�,�F =y�,� z � ��� � � � �
�+�� '� �� � �1' 4���\ 1 ������
„ t
�.�� �.,� �.:.� " �. � a t �c�
�� �� ����� ���� ���.. . . .
� � k y
$ � aq1{ �
3 AT�'s�&i�AK.± �4 �F� �,�y _ .
� �`� �i"� ���" r�� r ��'.. �� ,
U"`;;� ��.,.�..'� s i t" � L, .... .
,$ S ; �i�}t,!a �. �g: �
� r�
� �� �� x � ���.����� .
t � �
� �,}.� '��;�� ' s� � .
��"a��,�3 p:�v��. t �t� '�fi� • '�,, �
w ;�� � �.�� �;Wr,�� '�` :.�x�'`'� yp.
, r } I ,. .. �' n`
� ���m�$� ' � � � .
� �s v. .:r�z
� w.....�..
h,k �
�, �� x � ., �' ��'�sk= .
� . � �� � �" y �,
.�v:. �'�r��`� '� "� ��l �� ,,.%,
.�., $�,.+,a� `'���� �., it' . ' � � �
� .��a � � ry ���t"�� �1 .�c§� ,.�,.
,
x �., �,,' �'z � `
� � �;���g��� 7"� "}, � v�`
�s i� fi:,. �..
� '�"'�'"�,�. ��F�.r�f'sr� .;��`�� ��� . � ' ;
�.. =.t '�" � � � 1 � �II
�`'��s. r. K .:
� � � �#x ' � � ' � . sJ�����. :,� �� a
� �. ��' , � ,�a" � 7�� h � .ru�`n�v
3
� > s�
1�;
v� i 5 �
f
'�' � "dc. ' � l ?, �� j� 5,f
d. � ., � � .. ..
��?��i'�. y. �A1 � t� � §y. r. FS 4�'�, x..
� '�- 5 ' w�`y���5�. ,�
� ��'w :,.�p. 3 F�s��a b;jS �.£�?fj�4T ���
,�. � ' � ,� .� � j k�Gfv�r:.� 4, ..;��
�
�'�5'�'�' ,. rr� � . '@._ �"`:4 �2�,�t$�t 1${t ...� ..
�;
. �'2t� �� '�' � � ���
� ��,���� �i� � ��� ���.= �,��.��,��¢�`�, , x
" �
Y N,
� `�` � � � �� �i
x �: ,��� ,.� �. ;..- r ' �x� ��'�71
a� � ;� �� �F �� ��
� �y e,
_. � �:`.� �.�,
� �- x
�� '� �
� �`'� y%� ir � � �M������Il�{�. ��'� ��� .
$�, � �. f �
��� '� � ,� � �' M r ,�.s'�`'+..�t� �ua„+�.:a..
� �f
`Y{� � .1� f ;�;§,�# �� �� .
�`� ;x r � y� �. �� .
X: � a�,
g,� a�' §`' ,+ ��
��ffi� � �
P ..� � � .�k �.. I 1^��+Y��.
a":� g 4y�P��
�v,�, ���,� &" A�� •� � �"i Y�'.
x
'� .7.i� '..;' "' � � .��x„ �:�.: ' . � . . .Y.� �'".:.... � �..r,� ..._. �