HomeMy WebLinkAboutContract 38795-A1 AMENDMENT No .1
cffy
ARC'
COMRACT NOw
TO CITY SECRETARY CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Worth (CITY) and SAIL Energy, Environment,
Infrastructure, Inc. , (ENGINEER) made and entered into City Secretary
Contract No. 38795, (the CONTRACT) which was authorized on the 9'�" day of
June, 2009 in the amount of $ 169, 500. 00; and
WHEREAS, the CONTRACT involves engineering services for the
following study:
Menefee Creek Master Plan (Studer SWS-020) ; and
WHEREAS, it has become necessary to execute Amendment No. 1 to the
CONTRACT to include an increased scope of work and revised 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 dated July 24, 2012, a copy
of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The cost to City
for the additional design services to be performed by Engineer totals
$23, 884. 00.
2 .
Article II of the CONTRACT is amended to provide for an increase in
the 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 be an amount of $193,385. 00.
3 .
All other provisions of the Contract, which are not expressly
amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect .
EXECUTED and EFFECTIVE as of the date last written by a signatory,
below.
OFFICIAL Rfie'Do
ciTY RVARY
00-21 ` Fjr.VVORT149�
0 !N page -1-
APPROVED:
City of Fort Worth SAIC Energy, Environment &
I t r re,
Fernando Costa Cal ahan
Assistant City Manager Vice esident
Deputy Division Director
Water, Environment &
Transportation
DATE: �1�U � DATE: �
APP RECOMMENDED:
� S RO W. L ) ,
Doug Wie ig, P.E. , PhD
Director, Transportation & Public Works Department
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: M&C: �/i�
Qf i Date:
Douglas W. Black
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST: wo0�����
AV Mary J. K
City Secre ary °iOOOQaQOOO°'*
a�aa
S
OFFICIAL RECORD
CITY SECRETARY
Page -2- FT.WORTH,TX
DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED AS PART OF
MENEFEE CREEK OPEN CHANNEL STUDY(SWS-020)
July 24,2012
SAIC respectfully requests additional compensation in the amount of$23,884.00 in response to additional
services performed at the direction of the City of Fort Worth (City) (or its Program Manager)which were
outside or otherwise beyond the basic scope of services(Basic Services)agreed to as Attachment"A"to
the agreement.
Requested Re-work
Basic Services Includes/Assumes:
Basic Services includes the development of existing conditions hydrologic and hydraulic models using
specific datasets, parameters and methodologies to parameterize the models. At the onset of the study the
City provided topographic/surface data to be used as part of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses which
SAIC did. Further,the scope specifically stated the"SCS Type II" methodology could be used for
precipitation distribution and "TR-55 equations" be used for time-of-concentration estimation as part of the
hydrologic analysis which SAIL did at that time.
Additional Costs Include:
Subsequent to completing or nearly completing the existing conditions hydrologic and hydraulic models,
the City provided new datasets for use in parameterizing models. Since SAIC was unaware of the potential
for new information to be provided,the models were already parameterized using the originally supplied
datasets and incorporating the new data would entail significant rework. After some additional
coordination on the issue between SAIC and the City,the City directed SAIL to review the datasets and
then indicated which elements of the models to update using the new datasets. These changes resulted in
rework. In addition to the time expended for coordination and review of the new data,SAIL also incurred
unbudgeted costs specifically associated with the following:
• City provided new surface data for use in hydrologic modeling requiring comparison between
originally provided dataset and newly provided dataset;
• City provided new surface data for use in hydraulic modeling requiring stream cross--sections to be
re-cut in HEC-GeoRAS and merged with field survey data;
• City requested changes to storm type from SCS Type II to Frequency; and
• City requested ToC methodology change whereby treatment of gutter flow was revised from the
originally scoped method of"shallow concentrated"to "channel"flow.
Estimated Value of Re-work: $5,466
Unbudgeted Work
Basic Services IncludeslAssumes:
Basic Services includes certain milestone deliverables and coordination meetings and other assumptions
such as:
• a Stream Condition Assessment per Task 2;
• a "working session ...to finalize watershed basin boundaries and junctions" per Task 3.c.;
• hydrologic/hydraulic study of the Menefee Creek watershed as defined on Attachment E to the
contract;and
• alternative analysis of a few feasible options(ex. culvert improvements,detention,etc).
Additional Costs Include:
During the course of the project additional effort has been expended beyond those items listed above.
Specifically,the following were tasks performed at the request of the City/Program Manager which were
not originally included in the agreed upon scope of work,and therefore, not budgeted for in the contract
amount:
• Preparation and submittal of memo and exhibits regarding "hotspots" requested by City(prepared
in addition to the Task 2 Stream Condition Assessment deliverable);
• Hydrologic model review meeting between SAIC,City/Program Manager requested by Program
Manager(a review of the hydrologic model is assumed in Basic Services so only meeting
preparation and participation is considered additional services herein);
• Hydrologic and hydraulic conditions were investigated in areas outside of the defined Menefee
Creek study area including site visits and cursory modeling of overland flow along Jacksboro
Highway;
• Preliminary evaluation of need for 2D modeling of Menefee and adjacent watershed including
researching&coordinating with the software vendor;and
• Preparation and submittal of two Preliminary Alt Analysis Memos and exhibits needed to
summarize analyses requested by City evidencing unsatisfactory results of preferred improvement
scenarios(some level of coordination for alternative analysis is assumed in Basic Services but
these deliverables, needed to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the improvement scenarios,
were not accounted for in the original budget).
Estimated Value of Unbudgeted Work: $6,233
Additional Work Needed for Completion of Alternative Analysis
Basic Services Includes/Assumes:
Task 5 Alternative Analysis assumed viable alternatives would be identified which provide loo-year
protection within the watershed and conceptual design,cost estimating and benefit-cost analysis would
be based on those technically feasible scenarios.
Additional Costs Include:
The alternative analysis budget has been exhausted as a result of several alternative scenarios modeled
including increased valley storage in various locations and configurations, culvert improvements and
detention. To date, none of these scenarios have indicated they are potentially feasible options given the
City's desire to provide loo-year flood protection. Additional analysis is required assuming less than loo-
year protection is acceptable in order to conceive a feasible concept to cost out and perform benefit-costs
analysis on.
Since no satisfactory option exists at this time,the alternative analysis is incomplete with respect to final
modeling,floodplain mapping, benefit-cost analysis,QA/QC and report preparation. Completing these
tasks will result in a greater variance between available budget and effort-at-completion.
Specifically, continued investigation of alternative improvements scenarios will consider increased valley
storage,detention and buy-out options. Since previous analyses indicates 100-year protection may not be
economically feasible, lesser levels of protection (e.g.,5-year, 10-year, etc.)will be evaluated in order to
better estimate which mitigation technique,and at what level of service, represents the most economic
approach to reducing potential flood damages within the study area.
Estimated Value of work: $12,,185
r
N
r
N
N
C)
cu
0
V)
0
C
cu
15
m
a
a;
rn
m
0
V)
0
CD
c�
L
o -- 0)
N 4
> o o
CU -� n r
ad m
le 0 °
m=
a. m m t CU
d LO
E - mc
Z s Q 0
Q °'o m a C
�Q q) 'n �
�= 0 o
w � a
cn E E In -'Z5
N w C �N. V3
fn
9� ❑ L L E Q m
(n Z in 0
W m c q) ° m
r
a�i
Yw w � ma`
w a! U
(�j Q w
w V)
LLI
LLED J
H
Z
Z W 0 v ID CYa 0] CYa 0] Cr7 tr7 e+7 r v a r r Y7
W tr) - CD r N r N C"7 cq M r N r M N co
r1[� C''! y W qT 0] f- 0] f- 0]C7 N 00 GQ CD GQ lRt CD r
❑ r CY7 Y7 N C r N r N
CW Q E r cvf
C
ILI II 11 II II II II II 2 11 II •y II 11 II 11 II it G
L c . . . . .
69 L of L� LL LL �jLL LL LL� �
�,64 64 6969 fat Y to ta = �to to to to 64
E N u Cq r U r }r N r {Ny r ^my N N CY]CY7[+] CY7
r D r N r CV Ci r {1j Q] 0 r r r-
rn � CD 'orn 0rn � rn oV) o CDC)
m CCf m CCf CO 0 m 0 m CO In M m a m 0 0 m m m
0 In •N
m m o m mm mm m mm 0 mm �mmm
v v •�v � vv Dv v c -0
N L3 �vvvvv
M L 0_ �t L L y_C L ❑ L L .N L L L t L L
N
Q o o c av av E av cv p v v ao ao ao av as av
❑ m rnm v,M a) m amm c'mm
m m m m m m m m
J C C 7 }, Q Z j
mcm m m 3Emm mm sum 0 m m m m m m
+ L�
'o =
c C = = �° � LO o LO
` L]
C4 e-• co N
a Z7 O C) C� r C CY3
U U U Q U U Q U
C_ C_ C_ 0]C_ C" C_ CD C_ C"C C C C_ C_
rn 'vi •vi � rn � •rn � rn � •D
W W W V W V W Z W V W W W W W
C C C - C C C C C C C C
rn rn rn o C" o rn o rn o rnrnrnrnrn
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑