HomeMy WebLinkAboutContract 35635 AMENDMENT NO. 2
STATE OF TEXAS $ CITY SECRETARY CONTRACT NO.
(M&C Needed)
COUNTY OF TARRANT $
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Worth (City) and Carter & Burgess, Inc. ,
(Engineer) made and entered into City Secretary Contract No. 28673 ,
(the Contract) which was authorized by the City Council by M&C C-19564
on the 29th day of April 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Contract involves engineering services for the
following project:
East 7th Street Deep Tunnel Sewer.
WHEREAS, it has become necessary to execute Amendment No. 2 to
said Contract to include an increased scope of work and revised maximum
fee;
NOW THEREFORE, City and Engineer, acting herein by and through
their duly authorized representatives, enter into the following
agreement which amends the Contract:
1.
Article I, of the Contract is amended to include the additional
engineering services specified in a proposal letter dated May 4, 2007,
copies of which are both attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
cost to City for the additional services to be performed by Engineer
total $18,574.00.
2.
Article II, of the Contract is amended to provide for an increase
in the maximum fee to be paid to Engineer for all work and
services performed under the Contract, as amended, so that the
total fee paid by the City for all work and services shall not
exceed the sum of $373,117 .50 .
3 .
All other provisions of the Contract which are not expressly
amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.
D
ORIGINAL
EXECUTED on this the day of , 2007 in
Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas.
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: APPR VED:
A.Douglas Rademaker, P.E. Marc O
Director, Department of Assista City Manager
Engineering
Carter&Burgess, Inc.
ENGINEER
ATTEST:
01\
'
Marty Hend x, City Secretary
By:
Contract A thorization
Name: Gary S. Nuss, P.E. � n /
Senior Vice-President
Date
APPJZAS TO F RM ND LEGALITY:
Assistant City Attorney
J�6' �? I
Carter Burgess
May 4, 2007
Mr. Gopai Sahu, P.E.
City of Fort Worth
Department of Engineering
1000 Throckmorton Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Reference: Amendment No. 2 to the Engineering Services Agreement
East 7t' Street Deep Tunnel Sewer
Fort Worth Project No. P172-070172141110
D.O.E. No. 4009
Carter& Burgess, Inc. Job No. 011913.010
Dear Mr. Sahu:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize our request for Amendment No. 2 for the East 7,' Street
Deep Tunnel Sewer project. We are requesting this amendment for compensation of additional scope
activities and to adjust our costs due to the extension of the project completion.
Carter & Burgess, Inc. (C&B)was awarded the East 7t' Street Deep Tunnel Sewer Alignment Study
and Design on April 29, 2003. The original contract was awarded for$339,873.50.
Amendment No. 1 was approved by the City on November 26, 2003, which increased the project
budget by$14,670. This amendment was prepared to address the added cost associated with
obtaining additional insurance requested by the City for the geotechnical investigation. This brought
the total project budget to$354,543.50.
There have been a number of changes in the project schedule, resulting in significant time delays for
work completion. We understand the basis for the schedule changes and agree that these changes
were unavoidable. However, extending the project schedule and adjustments in alignments for the
project resulted in additional scope and effort for the project team.
Throughout the alignment study we were asked to evaluate multiple routes and attend multiple
meetings that were beyond the original scope of work to complete the report. The alignment study
report was completed on September 26, 2003. After several meetings, the City authorized design of
the selected alignment in February 2004. Design activities were somewhat hampered by difficulties
gaining right-of-entry for geotechnical and survey investigations. We understand that many of these
difficulties can be attributed to the owners of the property, which is beyond both the City and our
control.
In May 2005 work was suspended on the project by the City due to lack of funding for construction. In
January of 2006, new developments were beginning in the downtown area. We were asked to attend
several planning meetings and to evaluate the proposed capacity of the existing downtown sewer to
handle the new development. In May 2006 C&B was asked to break the plans into two phases and
complete Phase 1 as the priority.
Development of Amendment 2
Currently, C&B has expended $408,743 to date in study, investigation and design fees on this project.
As you aware, this is substantially above the current budget of$354,543.
Gopal Sahu, P.E.
May 4, 2007
Page 2
C&B is aware that there have been inefficiencies on our part due to previous project managers that are
no longer with our firm. However, there has also been additional work performed on the project beyond
the original scope (due to added activities or the inefficiencies associated with the extended project
schedule). The combination of these two factors has resulted in the additional project costs that have
been incurred and will still be incurred to complete both phases of the project in accordance with the
City's request. Therefore, we have outlined a summary of our request for Amendment No. 2 in the
sections that follow. We believe Amendment No. 2 will cover the additional budget necessary to
address out of scope work that has been completed to date with a minor amount to update the Phase 1
design due to changed utility conditions. As will be evident in the sections that follow, we are not
requesting that the City fully fund the costs of the project over the current budget.
Additional Effort Performed to Date
During the original alignment study, we were asked to complete a sewer capacity analysis to verify the
capacity of existing wastewater lines in the existing system. This additional capacity analysis was not
in the original scope of work or Amendment No. 1. Back-up information addressing this request is
included in Attachment A.
In addition, the City requested that we prepare the plans into 2 phases to facilitate construction. This
phasing of the project was also not anticipated in the original scope of work as modified with
Amendment No. 1. In order to accomplish providing the plans in two separate phases, the original plan
set of 33 sheets must now be broken into a Phase 1 set of 24 sheets and a Phase 2 set of 26 sheets.
The additional time to modify these sheets, add additional sheets, and provide two sets of contract
specifications are included in this amendment request. It is important to note that the additional work
required to separate the project into two phases is more than just reorganizing and collating the sheets.
Each drawing must be modified and reviewed to reflect the project phasing. The specification must
also be prepared to reflect the multiple phases where appropriate and two complete sets of documents
must be prepared. A summary of the sheet index for each phase is included in Attachment B.
The extended schedule for the project resulted in many coordination meetings and other project
activities with the City. Additional meetings were also required when the project was split into two
phases for implementation. A summary of the additional meetings that have been held is included in
Attachment C.
Following award of the project in April 2003, we anticipated that the design work would have been
completed no later than December 2004. The unavoidable extension in the project schedule has now
resulted in work being performed by the project team almost 2-1/2 years later than the anticipated
completion date. Salary escalation costs have been incurred as a result of this extended schedule.
However, we recognize that the project schedule has been extended for many reasons, some beyond
the City or our control. Accordingly, delineating the appropriate value for salary cost escalation in 2005
and 2006 is difficult. Therefore, we are not requesting any budget modification for these costs.
However, if the City requests that additional work be extended into 2008, we will request a salary cost
escalation adjustment.
A summary of the additional effort performed to date that should be included in Amendment No. 2 is
provided below:
Gopal Sahu, P.E.
May 4, 2007
Page 3
• Sewer capacity analysis provided for in Alignment Study $ 7,700.00
• Separate plans and specifications into 2 phases $ 5,760.00
• Additional coordination meetings and project restarts $ 10,000.00
• Verify existing utilities and update plans for phase 1 $ 5,985.00
Total Effort Additional Effort Performed to Date $29,445.00
For a detailed breakdown of man-hours see Attachment D,
During our meeting on April 30, 2007 we also discussed the disposition of the budget for construction
phase services. This budget represents $10,871 in the current scope. We agreed that it was
appropriate at this time to provide the City a credit in this amount and delete these services from the
contract. This credit would reduce the net amount of Amendment No. 2 as summarized below.
Current contract value w/Amendment No. 1 $354,543.50
Credit for construction phase services <$10,871.00>
Amendment No. 2 +$29,445.00
NEW CONTRACT VALUE WITH AMENDMENT NO. 2 $373,117.50
Net increase due to Amendment No. 2 $18,574.00
Completion of Phase_ 1
We have essentially completed the design for Phase 1. The Phase 1 design drawings were transmitted
to the City on November 14, 2006. We are awaiting comments on this submittal, particularly your
concurrence with the connection structure layouts. With Amendment No. 2, we would provide signed
and sealed drawings for the Phase 1 plans.
Completion of Phase 2
The City has requested that we complete the full design on Phase 2 as well, even though it will not be
constructed for the foreseeable future. However, we believe that the existing utilities will need to be
verified once construction is scheduled, due to the constant change in subsurface utilities within the
City.
When we met with you on April 30, 2007, we discussed the approach for completing the Phase 2
design. We agreed that the most efficient use of City funds would be to postpone the scope
amendment addressing Phase 2 until nearer the time when construction funds are available.
Accordingly, we have focused Amendment 2 on just the necessary work to complete Phase 1 and to
adjust for out of scope work.
With this approach, the revised scope and budget to adjust the design of the Phase 2 facilities would be
postponed until construction funds are available. Currently, the Phase 2 design is substantially
complete, within the context of the scope of work contracted for in April 2003. We would provide
specifications and the submittal of the hardcopy unsigned plans and electronic files for the Phase 2
plans to the City. This would then complete our contractual scope for this project and allow us to
invoice the final amount of contract value resulting from Amendment No. 2. The project would be
closed and we would prepare Amendment No. 3 to assist the City with adjusting the Phase 2 facilities
to meet utility conditions and proposed connections at that time. Another option available to the City at
that time would be to create a new contract to address these future changes.
Gopal Sahu, P.E.
May 4, 2007
Page 4
We look forward to meeting with you to discuss this requested Amendment No. 2 for the project. I will
contact you in the next few days to discuss this request and schedule a meeting if necessary. Please
feel free to contact us any time if you have any questions at 817-735-6000.
Sincerely,
Gary S. Nuss, P.E. Kathy Pontesso, P.E.
Senior Vice President Senior Project Manager
Managing Principal-Water Infrastructure Programs
KDP
Attachments
T:VabWl 1913\PbfAmendrnentW nend#2.LO r.doc
cc: Correspondence
Public Works—JDS
Peter Fu-FWWD
ATTACHMENT A
In August 2003 Christopher Harder,'PE(COFW WD)requested that Carter&Burgess
perform an analysis to evaluate utilizing the existing 18-inch diameter M-34 sewer,
recently constructed along the eastern boundary of the Ben E. Keith property, as part of
the proposed E. 7`h Street Deep Tunnel Sewer project. Included in this attachment is a
copy of the technical memo that was prepared for this capacity analysis.
Carter'Burgess Sheet 1 of 12
TECHNICAL MEMO
TO: Bart Hines & Terry Foyt DATE: 8/18/2003
FROM: Robert D. Stanley
SUBJECT: COFW—70 Street Deep Tunnel PROJECT NO: 011913.010
Sewer:Analysis for using
portion of existing M-34
At the request of Christopher Harder,PE(COFW WD), I have performed an analysis to evaluate
utilizing the existing 18-inch diameter M-34 sewer,recently constructed along the eastern
boundary of the Ben E. Keith property, as part of the proposed E. 71h Street Deep Tunnel Sewer
project. In order for this to be a viable option:
• The existing 18-inch section of M-34 must have sufficient capacity to convey the
projected peak design flow estimated for the proposed 24-inch diameter 71h Street Deep
Tunnel Sewer.
• There must be sufficient vertical distance available between the existing sewers at the 71h
and Commerce intersection and the 18-inch M-34 sewer suggested for use to afford the
slope necessary to convey the projected peak design flow.
• There must be sufficient vertical distance available between the downstream end of the
existing 18-inch M34 sewer suggested for use and the discharge location on the West
Fork sewer(WF-2/M-545)to afford the slope necessary to convey the projected peak
design flow.
Since the existing M-34 sewer suggested to be part of the E. 7"' Street Tunnel Project is an 18-
inch diameter,it would be preferable for the proposed upstream section be an 18-inch, or
smaller, diameter line. The proposed section downstream of the existing 18-inch segment could
be 18-inch,24-inch,or larger depending on the available slope.
Data Summary:
Flow line elevations of the existing upstream and downstream sewers were obtained from
construction drawings of the sewer lines. Since elevation data at the intersection of 7`h and
Commerce appeared to be based on different datum,evidenced by the different manhole rim
elevations at this common location, I adjusted the flow line elevation of the existing M-34 sewer
based on the manhole rim elevation shown on the more recent construction drawings of the 21-
inch diameter sewer along Commerce Street(DS-100). The flow line elevation of the recently
constructed M-34 sewer along the east side of the Ben E.Keith property was not adjusted. Nor
was the flow line elevation of the West Fork tunnel sewer(WF-2/M-545*).
Findings:
There is an approximate flow line elevation difference of 40 feet between DS-100, the deeper of
the 2 sewers at 7`h &Commerce,and the proposed tie-in location where M-46 connects to M-34.
CON
T:Uob10119131CIV1DOCUMENTWEMOl7St tunnel_Tech_Memo 1.doc
' �UHAU
There is an approximate flow line elevation difference of 6 feet between the 10-inch diameter M-
33/M-34 sewer and the 21-inch diameter DS-100 sewer at 7`h& Commerce. The approximate
distance between the upstream and downstream tie-in locations is 1,750 linear feet.
The recently constructed M-34 18-inch sewer segment has a slope of 0.54%resulting in a
capacity of approximately 4.99 mgd(using the Mannings equation& `n' value of 0.013). The
estimated peak design flow rate for the proposed 24-inch tunnel sewer is 4.2 mgd, as stated in the
draft alignment study report. If the proposed Cotton Depot apartment complex discharges to the
West Alignment portion of the proposed 7`h Street Tunnel Sewer the estimated peak design flow
rate increases to 4.62 mgd for that portion of the proposed sewer.
There is an approximate vertical elevation distance 30 feet between the downstream end of the
existingl8-inch M-34 sewer segment and the West Fork tunnel sewer. Alignment distances for
this section of proposed sewer range from 1,130 LF(West Alignment) to 2,160 LF(East
Alignment).
Conclusions:
1. The existing 18-inch M-34 sewer segment along the east side of the Ben E. Keith
property has sufficient capacity to convey the estimated peak design flow rate.
2. A proposed 18-inch diameter sewer along 7`h Street to the M-46/M-34 tie-in point
constructed at a slope of 0.5% or greater would have sufficient capacity to convey the
estimated peak design flow rate.
3. A proposed 18-inch diameter sewer along 7`h Street constructed at a 0.5%slope and using
the flow line elevation of the existing 18-inch diameter M-34 sewer(547.57) as a starting
point would result in an approximate flow line elevation of 556.32 at the intersection of
7`h &Commerce. This flow line elevation would easily intercept flow from both the
existing 10-inch M-33/M-34 and 21-inch DS-100 sewers at the 7`h& Commerce
intersection,but would place the proposed sewer over 40 feet below existing ground.
4. There is sufficient vertical distance between the downstream end of the existing 18-inch
M-34 sewer segment and the West Fork tunnel sewer to permit the use of either an 18-
inch, 24-inch, or larger diameter sewer to adequately convey the estimated peak design
flow rate.
5. Utilizing the existing portion of the recently constructed 18-inch diameter M-34 sewer
segment would eliminate approximately 550 LF from the proposed E. 7`h Street Tunnel
Sewer.
T:lJob\011913\CIV\DOCUMENT\MEMO\7St_tunnei_Tech Memo 1.doc Page 2 of 12
Carter==Burgess Calculation Sheet
Project Name:COFW-E.7th Street Deep Tunnel Sewer Project No.:011913.010
Task No.: Client COFW-DOE
Computed by:R.5tanIe Date: 8/14/2003
Checked by: Date:
Page 1 of 9
Analysis of concept to utilize the existing (recently constructed) 18" M-34/M-46 line
located along eastern boundary of Ben E. Keith property line.
—7th &Commerce intersection to upstream end of 18" M-34 sewer--
Upstream flow line elevations of existing sewers (a)7th &Commerce
From profile of M-33 drawing
FL of 10"= 599.5(est.) Adj. FL=599.5-5.5'=594.0
Rim Elev. =606 (est.)
From profile of DS-100 drawing
FL of 21"=587.75
Rim Elev. =600.5 FL Adj. Based on DS-100 Rim Elevation of 600.5
(600.5-586.0= 14.5 ft;606.0- 600.5= 5.5ft)
From profile of M-34 drawing
FL of 12"(?)=580.0(est.) Adj. FL=580.0 + 14.5=594.5
Rim Elev. =586.0(est.)
Downstream flow line elevation at intersection of M-46&M-34(tie-in point)
From 2001 M-46&M-34 construction drawings
FL of existing 18"(M-34 from west)=555.75
FL of new existing 18"(M-34 to north)=547.57
Approx. Capacity of existing (recently constructed)M-34=4.7mgd
Required Capacity of proposed M-34 tunnel sewer=4.2mgd
Approx. Length from 7th&Commerce to M-46/M-34 Tie-in= 1.750 LF
Required Minimum Slope for 18"to convey total peak projected flow=0.5%
Working from downstream tie-in flow line to upstream point @ 7th &Commerce
Starting FL=547.57 (FL of new 18"M-34)
Length = 1,750 LF
Slope=0.5%
Required FL of proposed 7th Street Tunnel Sewer= 556.32+ < 587.75
Conclusion:All existing sewers at intersection of 7th&Commerce(DS-100&M-33/M-34)
could discharge to a Proposed 18"diameter sewer along 7th to the M-461M-34
tie-in location if slope is at least 0.5% but no more than 2.2%*.
*Slopes greater than 0.5% increase capacity but may also increase the amount of fluid turbulence.
T:Uob\011913\CI%ADOCUMENTIMEMOVSt_tunnel_Tech_Memo_1.doc Page 3 of 12
CarternBurgess calculation Sheet
Project Name:CCOFW-E.7th Strrggt Deep Tunnel Sewer Project No.:011913.010
Task No.: Client:COFW-DOE
Computed by:R.Stanley Date: 8/1512003
Checked by: Date:
Page 2_of 9
Analysis of concept to utilize the existing (recently constructed) 18" M-34/M-46 line
located along eastern boundary of Ben E. Keith property line.
--Downstream end of recently constructed 18" M-34 sewer to WF-2 (M-545*)—
Uostream flow line elevation/downstream end of existing 18"M-34 sewer
From 2001 M-46&M-34 construction drawings
FL of 18"=544.58
Rim Elev. =578.5
Downstream flow line elevation/locations along 96"WF-2(M-5451 Tunnel Sewer
From 1995 West Fork Relief construction drawings
West Alignment(intersection of 4th &Nichols)
FL of 96"=506.54 Crown Elev. =514.54
NG Elev. =570.0 Depth to FL =63.5 ft
Depth to Crown =55.5 ft
Central Alignment
FL of 96"=506.20 Crown Elev. =514.20
NG Elev. =547.0 Depth to FL =40.8 ft
Depth to Crown =32.8 ft
East Alignment
FL of 96"=506.06 Crown Elev. =514.06
NG Elev. =528.0 Depth to FL =22.0 ft
Depth to Crown = 13.94 ft
Vertical Diff. Between 18" FL and 96"Crown =30 ft
Approx_ Length from End of Existing 18"M-34 to West WF-2 Tie-in = 1,130 LF
Approx. Length from End of Existing 18"M-34 to Central W F-2 Tie-in= 1,695 LF
Approx. Length from End of Existing 18"M-34 to East WF-2 Tie-in =2,160 LF
Approximate Maximum Slope of Proposed sewer=1.4%(East)to 2.65%(West)
Estimated Capacity(from capacity of existing 18-inch M-34 line)=4.9mgd
West Alignment @ Min.Slope East Alignment @ 1.3%Slope
Diameter Slope Capacity FL @ WF Depth(ft) FL WF Depth(ft)
18" 0.54% 4.99 m d 538.47 31.53 516.50 11.5
24" 0.12% 5.06 m d 542.72 1 27.28 516.00 12.0
Conclusion:There is sufficient vertical drop between the existing 18"M-34 sewer and the proposed tie-in
locations along the 96"WF-2 (M-545')sewer to adequately convey the peak design flow rate.
T:Uob\011913\CIV\DOCUMENT\MEMOl7St tunnel_Tech_Memo_1.doc Page 4 of 12
Carter.-.Burgess Calculation Sheet
Project Name:COFW-E.7th Street Deep Tunnel Sevier Project No.:011913.010
Task No.: Client:COFW-DOE
Computed by:R.Stanley Date: 8/14/2003
Checked by: Date:
Page_L of 9
Analysis of concept to utilize the existing (newer) 16" M-46 & 18" M-34 sewers
located along eastern boundary of Ben E. Keith property line.
--7th & Commerce intersection to 16" M-46 sewer @ 9th St& UPRR --
Upstream flow line elevations of existing,sewers (d) 7th &Commerce
From profile of M-33 drawino
FL of 10"=599.5(est.) Adj.FL =599.5-5.5'=594.0
Rim Elev. =606(est.)
From profile of DS-100 drawing
FL of 21"=587.75
Rim Elev. =600.5 FL Adj. Based on DS-100 Rim Elevation of 600.5
(600.5-586.0= 14.5 ft;606.0-600.5= 5.5ft)
From profile of M-34 drawing
FL of 12"(?)=580.0(est.) Adj. FL =580.0+ 14.5=594.5
Rim Elev_ =586.0(est.)
Flow line elevation at intersection of 9th St. & UPRR(tie-in point)
From 2001 M-46&M-34 construction drawings
FL of existing (newer) 16"(M-46)=570.85
MH Rim elevation =590.30
Approx. Capacity of existing (newer)M-46=6.27mad
Required Capacity of proposed tunnel sewer=4.2mgd
Approx. Length from 7th&Commerce to M-46 Tie-in= 1,465 LF
Required Minimum Slope for 16"to convey total peak projected flow= 1.0%
Required Minimum Slope for 18"to convey total peak projected flow=0.6%
Working from downstream tie-in flow line to upstream point @ 7th&Commerce
Diameter Slope Capacity FL @ 7th&Com Depth(ft)
16" 1.0% 4.96 m d 585.5 15.0
18" 0.6% 5.26 m d 579.64 20.9
Conclusion:All existing sewers at intersection of 7th &Commerce(DS-100&M-33/M-34)
could discharge to a Proposed 16"diameter sewer along 7th to the M-46
tie-in location if slope is at least 1.0%.
T:Uob10119131CIV1DOCUMENTWEMO17St_tunnel_Tech_Memo 1.doc Page 5 of 12
Carter=-Burgess Calculation Sheet
Project Name:COFW-E.7th Street Deep Tunnel Sewer Project No.:011913.010
Task No.: Client:COFW-DOE
Computed by:R.Stanley Date: 8/14/2001
Checked by: Date:
Page 4 of 9
Evaluation of Existing (Recently Constructed) M-34 18-inch @ 0.54% Slope
Flow In Pipe using Manning Equation
Pipe Diameter in): 18
Slope(%}: 0.54
Mannin s Coeff: 0.013
Area(ft2): 1.77
Hydraulic Radius (ft): 0.375
Veioci (fps): 4.38
Flow(gprn): 3464 < Full Pipe Capacity
Flow (mgd): 4.99 < Full Pipe Capacity
T:Uob10119131CIV\DOCUMENT\MEM017St tunnel Tech_Memo_1.doc Page 6 of 12
CarternBurgess Calculation Sheet
Project Name:COFW-E.M Street Deep Tunnel Sewer Project No.:011913.010
Task No.: Client COFW-DOE
Computed by:R.Stanley Date: 8/14/2003
Checked by: Date:
Page_L of
Evaluation of Proposed 18-inch @ 0.50% Slope
Flow In Pipe using Manning Equation
Pipe Diameter(in): 18
Slope(%): 0.5
Mannings Coeff: 0.013
Area ft2 : 1.77
H draulic Radius (ft): 0.375
Velocity f s : 4.21
Flow (gpm): 3333 <Full Pipe Capacity
Flow (mgd): 4.80 <Full Pipe Capacity
I =,7PL � VUi C/
T:U \D ob\011913\CIVOCUMENTIMEMO\7St_tunnel_Tech_Memo_1.doc Pagel 12
�J�.LIJ�1f U�LO
CarternBurgess Calculation Sheet
Project Name:COFW-E.7th Street Deep Tunnel Sewer Project No.:011913.010
Task No.: Client:COFW-DOE
Computed by:R.Stanley Date: 1714/2003
Checked by: Date:
Page 6 of 9
Evaluation of Proposed 24-inch @ 0.12%Slope
Flow In Pipe using Manning Equation
Pi a Diameter(in): 24
Slope(%): 0.12
Mannings Coeff: 0.013
Area(ft2): 3.14
H draulic Radius ft): 0.5
Velocity(fps): 2.50
Flow(gpm): 3517 <Full Pipe Capacity
Flow (mgd): 5.06 < Full Pipe Capacity
T:1Job10119131CIV1DOCUMEN71MEM017St tunnel Tech_Memo_1.doc Page 8 of 12
CarternBurgess Calculation Sheet
Project Name:COFW-E.7th Street Deep Tunnel Sewer Project No.:011913.010
Task No.: Client:COFW-DOE
Computed by:R.Stanley Date: &22/2003
Checked by: Date:
Page 7 of 9
Evaluation of Existing (Recently Constructer!) M-46 16-inch @ 1.60%Slope
Flow In Pipe using Manning Equation
Pipe Diameter(in): 16
Slope (%): 1.6
Mannings Coeff: 0.013
Area ft2 : 1.40
H draulic Radius(ft): 1 0.3333
Velocity(fps): 6.97
Flow(gpm): 4355 < Full Pipe Capacity
Flaw (mgd): 6.27 <Full Pipe Capacity
T:Uob10119131CMDOCUMENTIMEM017St tunnel Tech_Memo_1.doc Page 9 of 12
Carter:-.Burgess Calculation Sheet
Project Name:COFW-E.7th Street Deep Tunnel Sewer Project No.:011913.010
Task No.: Client:COFW-DOE
Computed by:R.Stanley Date: 8 22/2D03
Checked by: Date:
Page 8 of 9
Evaluation of Proposed 16-inch @ 1.0%slope
Flow In Pipe using Manning Equation
Pipe Diameter in): 16
Slope 1.0
Mannings Coeff: 0.013
Area (ft2): 1.40
Hydraulic Radius (ft): 0.3333
Velocity(fps): 5.51
Flow (gpm): 3443 <Full Pipe Capacity
Flow (mgd): 4.96 < Full Pipe Capacity
T:).Job1011913\CIV�DOCUMENT\MEMO\7St_tunnel_Tech_Memo_1.doc Page 10 of 12
Cartern-Burgess Calculation Sheet
Project Name:COFW-E.7th Street Deep Tunnel Sewer Project No.:011913.010
Task No.: Client:CQFW-DOE
Computed by:R.Stanley Date: 8/22/2003
Checked by: Date:
Page 9 of 9
Evaluation of Proposed 18-inch @ 0.6%slope
Flow In Pipe using Manning Equation
Pi a Diameter(in): 18
Slope(%): 0.6
Mannings Coeff: 0.013
Area ft2): 1.77
[Hydraulic Radius (ft): 0.3750
Velocity(fps): 4.62
Flow (gpm): 3651 <Full Pipe Capacity
Flow (mgd): 5.26 <Full Pipe Capacity
T:Uob10119131CIVOCCUMENTWEMO\7St_tunnei_Tech_Memo_1.doc Page I 1 of 12
® FILE PERSON ❑ FILE PERSON - FILE PERSON
® Correspondence WA ❑ Environmental ❑ Project anagement
❑ AcousticaVTheatrical ❑ Fire Protection ❑ Site Selection
❑ Architectural ❑ GIS/RS ❑ Structural
❑ Civil ❑ Mechanical ❑ Survey
Eo'
Cost Estimatin ❑ Plannin .A. ❑ Trans tion
Electrical ❑ Plumbing ❑
T:Uob\011813\CIV\DOCUMENf1MEM0\7St_tunnel Tech_Memo_1.doc Page 12 o 112,:,1
°0
l I I I
c m m m aUi
0 0 o w 1 1 1 1 3
O O p O N N H N I
+ + Q + O
O
N N O M
c
cn
N N O O O ppO O a' O o O O .0
Cbo C CN O C O S
n + ++ + + + m c 1 I 2 F
y �O U cCd cGa C C C C
a b � o a a 0 0 0 O a
c ° u ` ° rn cn � in cn w o o U U U U
d N ° �
o
z
ri y` ci i n 4 c a C U U 0 o v v U
o
U C p —°p y y n m 3 c O O ` a m v m <�a L4.
N
U U ✓� U O cn a` U P- P- P- P. a a rn rn w F F= 07 CU cA i-
6!
N
L O .•� [� oo Q` C — N N d �/1 �^.•
4 � N N N N N N N
I
00 >0 c0 cs
U U U U v
I I 1 3
e`�
0O CD a 7R 7 v o
+ y n m .�
C 0 v
O ca
N N O O C� N an y O O O O .0
0. C qj1 c U
0 p >. = c0 Q G '� '7 i� U i� u T
V ...1 0. n + + O _ctl U C 'C5 1 ,� 2 2 2 2
Cl.
� U
�3 c ° U '- 'y n cn rn 0 3 y c c U U v V
a 3 3 o' °i= q op co c
0 p ` o V Uu �m y z -00
U Q p Uc0 u
l o v u
U U cn U O cn a U 77, w w F- F= d] m O c0 F-
d
N
N
O — N rry V
cl
N N N
W 00 00 w
U U U U `.'
c m m p W U
0
0 0 + + oo
9 v* ± ± ° c
O O O O O O � q q y C G C ^ J
c o v ,23 = = 0 0 0 0 0 .Q
x 'o N o o + + o o O N c c = F u ET
77cN dcw')0 ci m yc yc
s n a � ° O O O O
co n cn w U U U Uoo 0
0.a
0 -pp o
u U 3 3 3 t= a- t:. is c: i=
_ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) p q q c c w m a m e
z cn 0 0 .� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u 0
n o Y y = o a`, a a a a a a y o o 7P -2 '2 c c U U U m m 9 g U
_�° a`> �C3 23 �CCi :CC3 v�Ci e2CCi �Ci a v u W
R O 0 a' O tGd O O p p eea cce e0 m N e� e0 A eE e C eeo � � O O �
n V U n m V] a a` U U a a a a. a s CL a s -° -° rn Vi C4 w Lil F- F F- c0 m m M F-
G
GC �
0 — N -
— N N': d v�"� L: r o0 •,'1 -..• —
ATTACHMENT C
Summary of meetings:
May 24, 2006—Carter&Burgess was directed to break the plans up into two (2)phases with Phase 1 as
the priority. The break point would be the existing 18-inch sewer on the east side of the Ben E. Keith
property that will be utilized until development in downtown central business district requires upsizing
of sewer to 24-inch
June 21,2006—Two coordination meetings were held to discuss project tie-ins and constructability of
junction structures at the 96-inch West Fork sewer connection and the M-34 connection. The meetings
included discussion of standard flow diversion stop logs the City uses. Discussion on how to divert
sewer flows off the 96-inch and 48-inch sewers. Carter&Burgess will prepare flow bypass plan
showing points of access to divert flow upstream of proposed connection points.
August 16,2006—Project coordination meeting for completing Phase 1 and establish action items for
project completion of phase 1 and 2.
September 14,2006—Meeting to review constructability based on the proposed connections with
operations staff.
September 29,2006—Meeting with David Cooper to review comments on Phase 1 and Phase 2.
November 29, 2006—Formal review meeting for Phase 1 only with David Cooper and Gopal Sahu.
December 18, 2006—Coordination meeting with Cory Hanson to discuss junction structure design and
operation.
January 19,2007—Meeting to discuss Phase 1 easements with Real Property
April 30, 2007—Meeting with Gopal Sahu to discuss project status
In addition to the actual meeting time of participating in these meetings,the effort for the project
manager includes additional time preparing exhibits for the meetings,preparing summaries of meeting
minutes and teleconference meetings to discuss project status with Mr. Gopal Sahu.
o 0 o 0
0 0 0 0
o u'i
m N g $ rn
F U
^en o w w
ti
U
C
O
` L
e m
t C,4 [Nri
m O
O Q
U
w
a�
•� 61
m
u o
m c
o w
d t
CD
L
U m
Q O m 04 m CO O]
z a` g
w
T
U
� ro
F w m G
w
U) a a`
a
Z
Q
J
w
z
z -
M t
w a m m
m
'o m
~ m. U
w it U
w C CD T d
Q' m E co c
F c - K
F- G m
ti T E
t LL
W v m m_ _m
Q m C N64
- g
C > O
S h m_ V y V C
Ot h O� U C o n > m w Y E
m
F- 3 c EM
m c cco g
a o
U. Wo G
Q
{L C> 0 '
0 ik a. CDO p m n
w am.. q N Y
0 lyy0CD 3
5
City of Fort Worth, Texas
Mayor and Council Communication
COUNCIL ACTION: Approved on 7/24/2007
DATE: Tuesday, July 24, 2007
LOG NAME: 30AMEND2EAST7 REFERENCE NO.: **C-22263
SUBJECT:
Amendment No. 2 to City Secretary Contract No. 28673 with Carter & Burgess, Inc., for Additional
Engineering Services Related to East 7th Street Deep Tunnel Sewer
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to City
Secretary Contract No. 28673 with Carter & Burgess, Inc., for additional engineering services related
to East 7th Street Deep Tunnel Sewer in the amount of $18,574; thereby, increasing the total contract
amount to $373,117.50.
DISCUSSION:
On April 29, 2003, (M&C C-19564) the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an engineering
agreement with Carter & Burgess, Inc., for the East 7th Street Deep Tunnel Sewer for a fee not to exceed
$339,873.50.
This contract was previously revised by Amendment No. 1, approved administratively on November 26,
2003 for $14,670 for cost associated with obtaining additional insurance required by the City.
The scope of Amendment No. 2 will include dividing the original project into two separate contracts, a sewer
capacity analysis, additional coordination meetings and updating plans to include current development
needs. These services were not included in the original scope of services.
City staff considers the proposed fee of $18,574 to be fair and reasonable for the scope of additional
services to be performed.
This project is located in COUNCIL DISTRICTS 8 and 9.
FISCAL INFORMATION/CERTIFICATION:
The Finance Director certifies that funds are available in the current capital budget, as appropriated, of the
Sewer Capital Projects Fund.
TO Fund/Account/Centers FROM Fund/Account/Centers
P172 531200 070172141110 $18,574.00
Submitted for City Manager's Office b . Marc Ott (8476)
Originating Department Head: A. Douglas Rademaker (6157)
Additional Information Contact: Gopal Sahu (7949)
Logname: 30AMEND2EAST7 Page 1 of 1