HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWP272163 (4)Certificate of Insurance
Agency Name and Address:
Professional Practice Insurance Brokers, Inc.
10 California Street
Redwood City CA 94063-1513
(415) 369-5900 Fax: (415) 366-1455
Insureds Name and Address:
BROWN & CALDWELL
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF
INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES
NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE
AFFORDED THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW.
Companies Affording Policies:
A:
B:
3480 Buskirk Avenue D
Pleasant HIII CA 94523-4342 E RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY —
F
COVERAGES: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED,
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY
PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.
TYPE OF INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
EFF. DATE
EXP. DATE
POLICY LIMITS
General Aggregate
LIABILITY
TGENERAL
Commercial General Liability
Prod ucts-Com/Ops
❑ Claims Made
Aggregate:
A
❑ Occurrence
Personal and Adv. Injury:
❑ Owner's and Contractors
Each Occurrence.
Protective
Fire Dmg. (any one fire):
7
7
D 7 a T
- t �! -- -� V
�' I !
AUTO LIABILITY
❑ Any Automobile
❑ All Owned Autos
❑ Scheduled Autos
Combined Single Limit:
Bodily Injury/person:
Bodily Injury/accident:
Property Damage:
B
❑ Hired Autos
❑ Non -owned Autos
APR - 3 1995
❑ Garage Liability
❑
CITY OF REN
ON
EXCESS LIABILITY
Engineering Dept.
Each Occurrence:
C
❑ Umbrella Form
Aggregate:
❑ Other than Umbrella Form
WORKERS'
Statutory Limits
D
COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY
Each Accident:
Disease/Policy Limit:
Disease/Employee:
PROFESSIONAL
LIABILITY'
NTF201569803
3/31/95
3/31/96
Aggregate $1,000,000
E
F
Description of Operations/LocationsNehicles/Restrictions/Special Items:
All operations of the named insureds including Project No. TBD.
*Written at aggregate limits of liability not less than amount shown.
Certificate Holder:
CITY OF RENTON
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton WA 98055
Attn: Dave Christiansen
THE AGGREGATE LIMIT IS THE TOTAL INSURANCE AVAILABLE FOR CLAIMS
PRESENTED WITHIN THE POLICY FOR ALL OPERATIONS OF THE INSURED.
CANCELATION:
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN
NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, EXCEPT IN THE EVENT
OF CANCELL51QN FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM IN WHICH CASE 10 DAYS
NOTICE WILL BE GIVEN. \
cc:
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
SCIENTISTS
February 13, 1995
Mr. John Hobson
City of Renton
200 Mill Ave. So.
Renton Washington, 98055
FEB 16 i5-5
CITY OF RENTON
Engineering Dept.
Subject: Peak Forecasted Power Requirement for the Sunset Lift Station
Dear John:
I have analyzed the power requirement at the Sunset Lift Station based on the peak forecasted pump
rate of 1835 gpm. The power requirement was calculated in horsepower by estimating the Total
Dynamic Head (TDH) at the peak pump rate. The following parameters were used to calculate the
TDH:
=> The future force main will consist of 12-inch diameter ductile iron pipe (currently the line is fl-
inch).
=> The static head (amount of lift) is based on the elevation difference from the Sunset Lift Station to
Manhole 8-109, where the force main discharges. Elevation data was taken from the model.
=> The length of force main is approximately 2,300 feet. This length was taken from the City's base
map
The attached worksheet shows the calculation of the head losses in the force main using the above
parameters. The TDH is approximately 45 to 50 feet. Using a pump efficiency of 70% and a motor
efficiency of 90%, the input horsepower required is approximately 35 to 40 hp. This is the peak
required pumping horsepower at the station. A station of this size will most likely have 3 pumps
consisting of one base flow variable speed pump and two peaking pumps. The base flow pump is
normally sized for a range of flows centered around the average daily flow and should pump
continuously. The two peaking pumps alternately operate when flows exceed the capacity of the base
flow pump. Other power loads which also should be considered when sizing the transformer include:
lighting, ventilation, heating, telemetry and controls, sump pumps, etc. The estimated transformer
size is shown on the attached worksheet based on these types of loads and 50 hp pumps.
RH2 ENGINEERING, P.S.
RH2 ENGINEERING, P.S.
2/14/95 - REN\193-01 EMOBSON2.1,TR
COLUMBIA ENGINEERING
924 Capitol Way South 8383 158th Avenue N.E. 139 S. Worthen
Suite 201 Suite 200 Opportunity Building Suite A
Olympia, WA 98504 Redmond, WA 98052 Wenatchee, WA 98801
(206) 705-0628 (206) 869-1488 9 (206) 453-0241 (509) 663-0150
FAX (206) 943-0743 FAX (206) 869-7769 FAX (509) 662-6943
1-800-722-8052 1-800-720-8052 1-800-721-8052
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
RH2 ENGINEERING, P.S.
John Grim P.E.
Enclosures
2/14/95 - REN\193-011\IHOBSON2.LTR
Pressure Pipe Analysis & Design
Circular Pipe
Worksheet Name: SUNSET PUMP STATION
Comment: TOTAL DYNAMIC HEAD CALCULATION
Solve For Pressure @ 1
Given Input Data:
Elevation @ 1.....
Elevation @ 2.....
Pressure @ 2......
Discharge.........
Diameter..........
Length.... .......
Hazen -Williams C..
Computed Results:
Pressure @ 1......
Velocity... ......
Headloss..........
Energy Grade @ 1..
Energy Grade @ 2..
Friction Slope....
378.00 ft
392.00 ft
0.00 psi
1835.00 gpm
12.00 in
2300.00 ft
100.00
18.72
psi
5.21
fps
29.18
ft
421.61
ft
392.42
ft
12.689
ft/1000 ft
Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.41 (c) 1991
Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708
City of Renton
Sunset Lift Station
Transformer Power Sizing.
System Voltage: 480 V
Phase: 3
Station Loads
Conclusion:
Engineer:
MLM
Date:
2/10/95
Job #:
193.011
Load
HP
Voltage
FLA
KVA
Pump #1
50 HP
480 V
65 A
54 KVA
Pump #2
50 HP
480 V
65 A
54 KVA
Pump #3
50 HP
480 V
65 A
54 KVA
Station Misc. Power
-
480 V
16 A
15 KVA
Size service @ base load of Pump #1 running + Full station + Pump 42 soft starting
Load
Multiplier
FLA
Amps
Pip I running
1
65 A
65 A
Station at full load
1
16 A
16 A
Pump 2 soft starting
1.5
65 A
98 A
Total Amps @ 480V, 3 ph.
179 A
Service equipment based on 125% of continuous load (3hr)
Assume Worst Case: Pump # 1 runs continuously X 1.25
Pump #2 runs intermittently X 1.00
Station Load 50% continuous X 1.25
50% intermittent X 1.00
Worst Case Design Load
Multiplier
FLA
Amps
Pump # 1 continuous
1.25
65 A
81 A
Pump # 2 intermittent
1
65 A
65 A
Station Load (cont)
1.25
8 A
10 A
Station Load (inter)
1
8 A
8 A
Total Running Load I
Design worst case on 200 Amp Service, 225A breaker, metered without CT enclosure.
Puget Power will probably install a 150 KVA transformer.
Page 1 J:\data\rcn\193-011\XF'MRCALC.XIS
ENGINEERS
PLANNERS
SCIENTISTS
February 3, 1995
Mr. John Hobson
City of Renton
200 Mill Ave. So.
Renton Washington, 98055
Subject: Peak Forecasted Pump Rate for Sunset Lift Station
Dear John:
FEB - G 1995
CITY OF RENTON
Engineering Dept.
I have completed the analysis of the peak forecasted pump rate for the Sunset Lift Station as
requested. I utilized the Renton sewer model "Year 2014" scenario to determine the pump rate. In
this scenario, the following parameters are used:
=> Sunset subbasin A: III is 8,800 gpd/in-diam/mile length. This is the peak predicted 1/1.
=> Sunset subbasin B: III is 14,875 gpd/in-diam/mile length. This is the peak predicted I/I.
=> Summerwind Lift Station: Pump rate is 345 gpm.
=> Hazen High School Lift Station: Pump rate is 100 gpm.
=:> Domestic flowrates: Year 2014 forecasted wastewater flows.
The peak flow tributary to the Sunset Lift Station using these parameters is 1,835 gpm. The attached
lateral report lists flowrates in the trunkline. Flowrates actually reaching this level are unlikely as
there is reason to believe that the peak predicted UI values calculated by Brown and Caldwell are too
high. Also the Summerwind Lift Station pumping rate can be reduced to 100 gpm to match actual
basin requirements.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
R112 ENGINEERING, P.S.
John Grim P.E.
RH2 ENGINEERING, P.S.
924 Capitol Way South
Suite 102
Olympia, WA 98501
(206) 705-0628
FAX (206) 943-0743
1-800-722-8052
RH2 ENGINEERING, P.S.
8383 158th Avenue N.E.
Suite 200 Opportunity Building
Redmond, WA 98052
(206) 869-1488 • (206) 453-0241
FAX (206) 869-7769
1-800-720-8052
February 3, 1995 - REN1193-01 IIJHOBSONI.LTR
COLUMBIA ENGINEERING
139 S. Worthen
Suite A
Wenatchee, WA 98801
(509)663-0150
FAX (509) 662-6943
1-800-721-8052
master model, year 2014 flowrates LATERAL REPORT 2/ 3/95 PAGE 1
BASIN: Sunset_LS_A
LATERAL: 9-127
#
PIPE ID
PEAK FLOW
MAX FLOW
FLOW RATIO
PIPE DIAMETER
PIPE LENGTH
SLOPE
1
9-127
348.8 GPM
632.5 GPM
55%
8 IN
255 FT
0.0142
2
9-126
350.0 GPM
1,449.1 GPM
24%
8 IN
125 FT
0.0747
3
9-125
360.2 GPM
2,061.3 GPM
17%
8 IN
100 FT
0.1512
4
9-124
362.1 GPM
660.0 GPM
55%
8 IN
200 FT
0.0155
5
9-123
363.4 GPM
735.3 GPM
49%
8 IN
145 FT
0.0192
6
9-122
405.5 GPM
474.2 GPM
86%
8 IN
155 FT
0.0080
7
9-121
407.3 GPM
390.8 GPM
104%
8 IN
195 Fr
0.0054
8
9-185
409.3 GPM
442.6 GPM
92%
8 IN
99 Fr
0.0070
9
9-186
409.7 GPM
212.0 GPM
193%
8 IN
50 FF
0.0016
10
9-73
479.8 GPM
327.2 GPM
147%
8 IN
210 FT
0.0038
11
9-79
481.6 GPM
265.5 GPM
181%
8 IN
331 FT
0.0025
12
9-166
528.2 GPM
287.9 GPM
183%
8 IN
200 FT
0.0030
13
9-166A
529.7 GPM
360.0 GPM
147%
8 IN
167 FF
0.0046
14
9-166B
531.3 GPM
359.3 GPM
148%
8 IN
172 Fr
0.0046
15
9-81
553.1 GPM
320.1 GPM
173%
8 IN
395 FF
0.0036
1.6
9-82
554.2 GPM
407.6 GPM
136%
8 IN
115 Fr
0.0059
17
9-83
556.3 GPM
350.7 GPM
159%
81N
233 Fr
0.0044
18
9-84
565.4 GPM
396.7 GPM
143%
8 IN
150 Fr
0.0056
19
9-86
580.3 GPM
1,013.2 GPM
57%
8 IN
98 Fr
0.0365
20
9-87
669.0 GPM
530.9 GPM
126%
8 IN
324 FF
0.0100
21
9-88
672.3 GPM
627.4 GPM
107%
8 IN
352 Fr
0.0140
22
9-89
672.5 GPM
730.7 GPM
92%
8 IN
20 FF
0.0190
23
9-90
1,233.9 GPM
1,548.0 GPM
80%
12 IN
105 FF
0.0098
24
9-91
1,256.4 GPM
1,552.0 GPM
81%
12 IN
215 FF
0.0099
25
9-94
1,296.5 GPM
944.3 GPM
137%
12 IN
200 Fr
0.0037
26
9-95
1,302.6 GPM
1,605.4 GPM
81%
12 IN
200 Fr
0.0106
27
9-98
1,304.0 GPM
1,525.3 GPM
85%
12 IN
105 FF
0.0095
28
9-99
1,668.1 GPM
1,129.2 GPM
148%
12 IN
182 Fr
0.0052
29
9-101
1,717.0 GPM
1,041.4 GPM
165%
12 IN
241 FF
0.0044
30
9-102
1,724.1 GPM
1,089.3 GPM
158%
12 IN
35 FF
0.0049
31
9-103
1,726.3 GPM
2,258.1 GPM
76%
15 IN
126 FF
0.0063
32
9-104
1,834.6 GPM
2,003.8 GPM
92%
15 IN
20 FF
0.0050
Comments:
Earl Clymer, Mayor
June 28, 1993
Mike O'Neal
Brown and Caldwell
100 West Harrison Street
Seattle, WA 981 19-4186
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK SUB -BASIN PROJECT
NOTICE TO PROCEED
Dear Mike:
This letter shall serve as your Notice to Proceed on the predesign element of the Honey
Creek Interceptor project. Attached you will find one original of the consultant agreement
for this project.
Please be aware that City Code and Policy requires that the prime and all sub -consultants
obtain a City of Renton Business License, if their business license is not currently active. In
addition, any work performed within City right-of-way (survey, geotechnical, etc.) will
require that a traffic control plan be submitted and approved prior to beginning work.
I look forward to meeting the challenges of this project with the team that has been
assembled.
Vey truly your-
Chr
astevka Utility Supervisor
H:WW/HC-NTP/DMC:If
Attachment
cc: Linda Ferkingstad
Dave Dittmar, METRO, M/S 117
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50% RECYCI. ED MATERIAL. 10% POST CONSUMFR
BCBROWN AND CALDWELL
MCp�,= Consultants
100 West Harrison Street
Seattle, Washington 98119-4186
(206) 281-4000 0 FAX (206) 286-3510
TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Gregg Zimmerman
Date 12:51pm/November 17, 1993
Job No. 7766-03,
7767-05
Subject Honey Creek -May Valley Sewer Project
City of Renton --Municipal Building
Contract No.
200 Mill Avenue South
Equipment No.
Renton, Washington 98055
Spec. Ref.
Public Works Department
Submittal No.
WE ARE SENDING YOU ® Attached
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order
❑ Under separate cover via
❑ Plans ❑ Samples
❑ Other
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
❑ For approval
❑ For your use
❑ As requested
® For review and comment
❑ With submittal review action noted
the following items:
❑ Specifications
SUBMITTAL REVIEW ACTIONS:
❑ No exceptions taken
❑ Make revisions
❑ Amend and resubmit
❑ Rejected --see Remarks
❑ None
Copies
Date
No.
Description
1
11-17-93
Draft of text for next week's mailout to regulators.
REMARKS: Please review this draft of the text and provide us with any corrections or revisions that you want to make. In order
to make the mailout before Thanksgiving, next week, we request that you provide your response to us as soon as possible. Please
contact Mike O'Neal or me if you have any questions. Thank you.
cc: Mike O'Neal
Files
Signed: /
Dave Voigt 7
If enclosures are not ar noted, ,kindly notify w ar once
STAT-040-05113191
NOV-18-1993 01:29PM FROM Adolfson Associates, Inc. TO BC P.02
November 17, 1993
[Regulator or Tribe member]
[Address]
Re: Honey Creek Subbasin/May Valley Interceptor Project
Metro and the City of Renton
Dear [Regulator or Tribe member]
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) and the City of Renton are soliciting
comments from the regulatory community and the Tribes on the proposed alternative sewer
alignments for the Honey Creek Subbasin/May Valley interceptor Project. Exhibits
showing these alternatives are included with this letter. Comments are solicited as input to
a preliminary screening process designed to identify socio-economic and environmental
constraints on each alternative. This letter is not designed to replace the SEPA process,
which will be fully implemented for this project; rather, this letter is similar to a pre-
scoPthg process, in which your comments will help screen out those alternatives which
may have "fatal flaws" and aid in the selection of a preferred alternative or alternatives
which are environmentally sound as well as cost-effective.
Comments are solicited in the following arras:
• Environmental permits required for each alternative.
• Potential impacts to natural resources such as wildlife, wetlands, and fisheries.
• Possible mitigation measures associated with each alternative.
• Additional comments or suggestions.
We would appreciate receiving your comments by December 10, 1993. Depending upon
the comments received, a meeting will be scheduled in early December between the project
proponents and the regulatory and Tribal community to discuss the alternatives. Please
indicate in your response whether you would be interested in attending such a meeting.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
For the past several years, the City of Renton has been experiencing increasing
development pressure within the Honey Creek subbasin. This pressure has led to the need
to upgrade the wastewater conveyance system serving the Honey Creek service area. Wet
tiov-18-1993 01:29PM FROM Adolfson Associates, Inc. TO BC P.03
Honey Creek Subbasin/May Valley Interceptor project DRAFT
Page 2
weather flows have exceeded the capacity of the Sunset pump station, resulting in several
overflows. In 1985-1986 a pipeline was constructed along the east side of upper Honey
Creek to convey overflows from the Sunset pump station to the Devil's Elbow pump
station. However, continued growth and extension of service to existing developed areas
which were previously unsewered are rapidly increasing flows to this system. The Devil's
Elbow pump station has not proven reliable and does not have the capacity to handle the
flow projected from the Honey Creek service area which exceed the capacity of the Sunset
Pump station. The City estimated that Honey Creek subbasin service facilities must be
constructed as early as 1994-1995.
In 1977, a design for the May Creek Interceptor was prepared by King County Water
District No. 107. This design extended an 18-inch diameter pipeline from an existing 36-
inch diameter Metro interceptor south on Jones Avenue and along May Creek to Honey
Creek. The design anticipated future extensions north, toward the District Service area,
and east, continuing along May Creek. The May Creek Interceptor was never constructed.
The extension of a Metro interceptor along May Creek was included in Metro's capital
expansion program projections for the year 2020. However, the problems with the existing
sewer capacity and hfgh growth rate in the Honey Creek service area led the City of
Renton to identify an earlier need for the May Creek Interceptor. Thus, the May Creek
Interceptor became the subject of a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of
Renton and Metro. This agreement provides for the coordinated study, design, and
construction of Metro's May Creek Interceptor and a City sewer extending along Honey
Creek.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The City of Renton has identified two primary sewerage conveyance options for study.
'These are defined as: (1) a gravity sewer along Honey and May Creeks and (2) new pump
stations and force mains within the City and the Honey Creek canyon. The gravity sewer
option includes four alternatives, and the force main option includes six options (see the
attached Exhibits).
GRAVITY SEWER ALTERNATIVES
An extended gravity sewer would provide buildout capacity for the Honey Creek service
area and reduce the possibility of overflows. Dependency on electric power and
mechanical equipment would be reduced, making the system more reliable. The proposed
gravity alignment along Jones Avenue and the pipeline mainstent from the Devil's Elbow
Pump station to Station 75+00 (Exhibit F4) are common to all gravity alternatives For
evaluation purposes, it is assumed that all gravity alignments would require a gravel
maintenance access road approximately 12-15 feet wide. Estimated pipeline diameter sizes.
for the gravity lines range from 10-21 inches.
NOV—le-1993 01:30PM FROM Adolfson Associates, Inc. TO BC P.04
Honey Creek Subbasin/May Valley Interceptor Project DRAFT
Page 3
Gravity Almmative 1 GR11 (Exhibit 173)
This alignment would extend from the Devil's, Elbow pump station along the park trail on
the eastern side of Honey Creek for approximately 1150 feet, with a setback distance from
Honey Creek between 10 and 50 feet. The alignment would then cross Honey Creek and
extend west along the south side of May Creek for approximately 820 feet, to the toe of the
May Creek canyon wall, At the canyon wall, the alignment would extend to the northwest
along the toe of the slope, pass to the west of an existing house, and cross May Creek at
the eastern end of Jones Road. The alignment setback from May Creek would range from
150 to 300 feet. The elevation of the line through this segment would be controlled by the
depth or elevation of the sewer line at the Honey Creek crossing and would require
excavation to depths between 10 and 20 feet. Some degree of dewatering would be
required during construction. The alignment would cross several wetlands within the May
and Honey Creek floodplains, and seeps along the toe of the May Creek canyon.
G (Exhibit F3)
The route for this alignment would be the same as that for GRl, except that it would tum
northwest approximately 700 feet after the Honey Creek crossing, Providing more
separation from the toe of the May Creek canyon wall, thereby avoiding most of the seeps
and wet areas at the toe of the slope. The alignment setback from May Creek would range
from 100 to 300 feet, Depth of excavation would generally run to 10 feet. Some degree
Of dewatering would be required during construction. The alignment would cross several
wetlands within the May and Honey Creek floodplains.
r mAty Alternative 3 fGg3) (Exhibit F3A)
This alignment would extend approximately 1500 feet from the Devil's Elbow pump
station to the southern bank of May Creek. It would cross May Creek and extend
northwest along the top of the canyon wall on the north side of the creek for approximately
560 feet to another creek crossing. The alignment would then extend along the south side
of May Creek for approximately 950 feet, where it would cross May Creek again and meet
the eastern end of Jones Avenue. The alignment setback from May Creek would range
from 10 to 130 feet. This alignment is located too high on the canyon wall to allow for
reasonable excavation depths. For these reasons, open -cut construction would be limited to
those areas below the slope and adjacent to the creek, with a maximum setback distance of
10 to 50 feet. The three creek crossings would be made by jacking a casing approximately
50 feet for each crossing. Jacking or Welling through the canyon wall would also be used
close to May Creek. Some dewatering may be required during construction at the jacking
or receiving pits. This alignment would cross a wetland area within the Honey Creek
floodplain near Devil's EIbow, at the confluence of Honey and May Creeks, and on the
south side of May Creek near Jones Avenue.
NOU-18-1993 01:30PM FROM Adolfson Associates# Inc. TO BC P.05
Honey Creek Subbasin/May Valley Interceptor Project DR, n
Page 4
(Exhibit F313)
This alignment would follow the same route as GR3 from the Devil's Elbow pump station
to the May Creek crossing. At the crossing, the alignment would extend northwest
approximately 100 feet higher up on the canyon wall than GR3 for a distance of
approximately 950 feet, to another creek crossing. The alignment would then extend along
the south side of May Creek for approximately 500 feet to the eastern end of Jones
Avenue. This alternative would provide a greater setback from the north side of May
Creek (approximately 100-200 feet), however, the setback from the south side of the creek
would range between 10 and 80 feet. The alignment through the north slope would require
jacking. Three jacked creek crossings would be required, similar to GR3. This alignment
would cross a wetland area within the Honey Creek floodplain at Devil's Elbow and at the
confluence of Honey and May Creeks.
FORCE MAIN ALTERNATIVES
The primary force main alternatives for the Honey Creek subbasin include: (1) a new
Pump station at Devil's Elbow, force main, and gravity sewers leading west to a
connection with Metro's East Interceptor (EST) (Force Main alternatives 1-4); (2)
improving the existing Devil's Elbow and Sunset pump stations (Force Main alternatives
5A and 5B); and (3) elimination of all sewerage facilities within the Honey Creek canyon
and routing all current and future wastewater flow to the Honey Creek subbasin through
existing City sewers (Force Main alternative 6). This alternative would require the
construction of approximately six separate pump nations with attendant force mains.
Force Main Alternative k (EM D (Exhibits F5 and F6)
The FMI alternative would parallel the existing force main alignment in the Devil's Elbow
access road. Estimated pipeline diameter size is 12 inches, with approximately 2,000 feet
of force main. The pipeline would be located and buried to a depth sufficiently beneath the
existing road fill to assure a stable foundation in native soil. Some specific work to
stabilize several sections of the existing road fill would likely be required. The force main
would discharge to a gravity sewer at Edmonds Avenue that would extend along NE 27th
Street to Kennydale Elementary School, cross under I-405 through an existing sewer, and
continue west to a connection with the EST. This alternative would be contained entirely
within existing public rights -of -way.
Force Main Alters tive 2 -W2) (Exhibits F5 and F6)
This alignment would follow a route from the new Devil's Elbow pump station west out of
the Honey Creek canyon up a moderately steep slope (30 degrees). At the top of the slope
the alignment would turn north to a location at the end of NE 24th Street. The force main
NOV-18-1993 01:31PM FROM Adolfson Associates Inc. TO BC P.06
Honey Creek Subbasin/May Valley Interceptor Project DMZ'
Page 5
would discharge to a gravity sewer down the currently unsewered NE 24th Street to
Aberdeen Street, then follow a route to NE 27th Street near the Kennydale School. At the
school, FM2 would follow the same alignment to the ESI as FM1. The estimated pipeline
diameter size for this alternative would be 10-12 inches, with approximately 750 feet of
force main. This alternative would require negotiation of private property easements. It
would, however, provide the benefit of sewer service to currently unsewered homes on NE
24th Street.
ternative 3 3) (Exhibits F5 and F6)
This alternative would follow an alignment from the Devil's Elbow pump station west up
the Honey Creek canyon slope to NE 23rd Place. At the top of the slope it would
discharge to a gravity sewer which would extend west on NE 23rd Place to Edmonds
Avenue and north to NE 24th Street. The alignment would then follow a route to the ESI
similar to that described for option FM2. This alternative would require an estimated
pipeline diameter size of 12 inches and approximately 675 feet of force main. It would
require negotiation of private property easements.
(Exhibits 1~5 and F6)
The FM4 alternative is similar to FM2 and FM3, except that the initial route from the
Devil's Elbow pump station would follow a gentler slope south before turning back north
to a point common to the two options. The force main would be routed into and through
the proposed Honey Ridge development, and would require coordination and scheduling
with plans for that development. The force main would discharge into a gravity sewer at
either NE 23rd Place or NE 24th Street. The estimated pipeline diameter size for this
option is 12 inches, with 1,200 feet of force main. This alternative would offer the
advantage of construction on less steep slopes.
Force M in Alternatives SA -and 5B (Exhibit F7)
These alternatives, would involve improving the existing Devil's Elbow and Sunset pump
stations to eliminate known problems and to provide continued, reliable service in the
future. FM5A would improve reliability at both pump stations but increase opacity only
at the Sunset pump station. FM5B would distribute capacity more evenly to each pump
station in order to reduce the impact on the City's downstream conveyance system and
reduce the construction of pipelines.
The FM5A alternative would minimize the amount of wastewater reaching the Devil's
Elbow pump station by providing greater capacity at the Sunset pump station. The Sunset
pump station would be replaced with a new facility with increased pumping capacity.
Construction at the Devil's Elbow pump station would be limited to replacing the existing
pumps, enclosing the station in a vandal -resistant structure, and providing onsite electric
IJOU—le-1993 01:32PM FROM Adolfson Associates, Inc. TO BC P.07
Honey Creek Subbasin/May Valley Interceptor Project DRAT+ r
Page 6
power generation. This approach would reduce the environmental impacts associated with
construction of a larger station and related operation and maintenance at Devil's Elbow.
The existing force main would continue to be used and the existing Devil's Elbow access
road would be stabilized at several locations.
The FM5B alternative would divide the wastewater flow between the Devil's Elbow and
Sunset pump stations to best utilize the capacity of the existing force mains and gravity
sewers, thereby minimizing the extent of new pipeline construction. New structures,
pumping equipment, onsite electric power generation would be provided at both facilities.
The capacity of the existing force mains is presently adequate for the flows from each
expanded station. It is assumed that existing downstream gravity sewers will be able to
adequately carry the divided flow, however, more detailed investigations of existing sewer
capacity will be required to assure full capacity available for future projected flows.
Force Main Alternative 6 ( 6) (Exhibit F8)
This alternative would eliminate all sewerage facilities within the Honey Creek canyon and
route all current and future wastewater flow from the Honey Creek subbasin through
existing City sewers. It would eliminate the need for access roads or maintenance activities
within the canyon. The Devil's Elbow pump station would be dismantled and the pipeline
along the east side of Honey Creek would be abandoned. This alternative would eliminate
certain benefits that currently accrue from scheduled access mad maintenance, such as
maintenance of silt catchment areas.
FM6 would require approximately six separate pump stations and attendant force mains,
including an expanded replacement of the Sunset pump station. These pump stations
would discharge through force mains into various locations within the City's existing
conveyance system. Mechanical and electrical reliability will be important features for
these facilities since pump failures could result in overflows which would enter Honey
Creek. The capacity of the Sunset pump station would be greatly increased to serve a
larger area than it currently serves. The larger Sunset pump station would be relocated to
the northwest corner of NE Sunset Boulevard and Union Avenue. Improvements
associated with the expanded Sunset pump station include replacement of existing sewer
lines along NE Sunset Boulevard with 2,000 line feet of 10-inch diameter force main and
3,600 line feet of 12-inch diameter gravity sewer to handle the larger flows. The gravity
sewer descending the Honey Creek canyon which was recently constructed to serve Sierra
Heights would be replaced with a new pump station. This facility would include 2,100
line feet of 6-inch diameter force main extending along existing streets to an existing
gravity sewer at Union Avenue. Improvements associated with each of the additional four
new pump stations would include new 4-inch diameter force mains ranging in length from
600 to 1,500 line feet.
IJOV-18-1993 01:32PM FROM Adolfson Associates Inc. TO BC P.08
Honey Creek Subbasin/May Valley Interceptor Project DRAFT
Page 7
As previously mentioned, we would appreciate your comments by December 10, 1993. If
you have any questions, or would like clarification on any of the above alternatives, please
contact Gail Roberge at Adolfson Associates, Inc. (789-9658) or Michael O'Neal at Brown
and Caldwell Consultants (281-4000). Your comments will provide valuable input to the
selection of an appropriate alternative for this project.
Sincerely yours,
BROWN AND CALDWELL CONSULTANTS
Michael O'Neal
Project Manager
TOTAL P.08
IAOV-16-1993 12:37PM FROM Adolfson Associates, Inc. TO BC P.09
CIRCULATION LIST FOR ALTERNATIVES
King County Parks Department Glenn Kost, Capital Improvement & Planning
King County SWM
Bob Fuerstenberg, Senior Aquatic Ecologist
Rick Rutz, May Valley Basin Planner
State Department of Fisheries
Millard Deusen, Supervisor,Habitat Management Division
Larry Fisher, Regional Habitat Manager
State Department of Wildlife
Phil Shneider, Habitat Biologist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ann Uhrich, Chief, Environmental and Processing Section
State Department of Ecology
Ron Devitt, Northwest Regional Manager
Muckleshoot Tribe
Rod Malcom, Habitat Biologist
Tulaiip Tribe
Dave Somers, Habitat Biologist
King County Water District 107
Tom Peden, District Manager
King County DDES
Don Finney, Biologist
Mason Bowles, Wetland Planner
TOTAL P.09
'R
Earl Clymer, Mayor
March 15, 1993
Mike O'Neal, P.E.
Brown and Caldwell Consultants
100 West Harrison St.
Seattle, WA 98119-4186
SUBJECT: HONEYCREEK SUBBASIN
TASK ORDER NO. 6
Dear Mike:
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
Please find attached one executed original Task Order No.6 to CAG 91-063 which
authorizes work associated with the Aerial Mapping for this project.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (206) 277--
6212.
trul"(*jrs
Wv d M.PlristeKsen
Was ater Utility Supervisor
H:Taskord6:DMC:ad:ps
CC: Gregg Zimmerman
Enclosure
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
City of Renton
Project No.
Name of Project
Master Agreement No.
Task Order Authorization No
10:4 am f i:3VmotV
TASK ORDER AUTHORIZATION
5-538
Honey Creek Subbasin Project
CAG-91-063
T
CAG-91-063
Addendum #8-93
The City desires to authorize engineering services pursuant to the Master Agreement entered into with
and executed on Brown and Caldwell and executed on June 11, 1991 and identified as Master Agreement
No. CAG-91-063.
All provisions in the Master Agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this work
Authorization and are incorporated herein by reference.
Scope of Task Order
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK
II. ESTIMATE OF HOURS AND COST
III. STAFF COMMITMENT AND SCHEDULE OF COMPLETION
IV. ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT
SUMMARY OF FEE FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
Direct Salary Cost
Overhead Cost
(including payroll additives) 185%
Net Fee
Direct Non -Salary Costs:
a.
Travel and per diem
b.
Reproduction expenses
c.
Computer/CADD expenses
d.
Word processing
e.
Outside consultants
f.
Other (specify)
$60.00
$111.00
Sub -Total
12%
$171.00
$497.52
$.00
$.00
$20.00
$.00
$4,750.00
Sub -Total $4,770.00
GRAND TOTAL $5,438.52
City of Renton
Project No.
Name of Project
Master Agreement No.
Task Order Authorization No
EXHIBIT "B" (cont.)
S-538
Honey Creek Subbasin Project
CAG-91-063
6
CAG-91-063
Addendum #8-93
If you concur in this Task Order Authorization and agree to the items as stated above, please sign in the
appropriate spaces below and return to this office for final action.
The maximum amount payable under this work authorization inclusive of all fees and other costs is
$5,438.52.
All work under this work authorization shall be performed pursuant to the terms, conditions, specifications,
and limitations contained in the Master Agreement.
SUMMARY OF PAYMENT UNDER WORK AUTHORIZATIONS
Prior Task Order
Task Order
Authorizations
Authorization No. 6
Total
Direct Salary Cost
$43,010.34
$60.00
$43,070.34
Overhead (including Payroll
additives)
$79,569.14
$111.00
$79,680.14
Direct Non -Salary Costs
$158,293.84
$4,770.00
$163,063.84
Net Fee
$18,760.61
$497.52
$19,258.13
Total $299,633.93 $5,438.52 $305,072.45
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first
above written.
CONSUL ANT
By:
Signa ate
GCo�LG� _ 1 �l/fSD/s/
Type or Print Name
ao �2� �
Title
C: DOCS:93-206: DMC: ps
CITY OF RENTON
By: ' V V v 2 I °I3
Sin ure bate
Ly Guttmann, Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works Dept.
EXHIBIT B
TASK ORDER 6
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
This task provides for the placement of control targets,
flight and aerial photography to a level of accuracy to
prepare detail mapping (under a separate contract) at a
scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet for the proposed alignments
on Honey and May Creeks from Devil's Elbow to the Metro
connection on Jones Avenue.
t 017ff CM4 SY I UZJ7 BTJOe01
Task Order No. 6
Rate
Professional
Executive Engineer
$44.95
Managing Engineer
$31.72
Principal Engineer
$26.37
Technical
Sr. Technician
$23.56
Sr. Geologist
$29.23
Supervising Drafter
$20.91
Administrative
Word Processing
$15.53
Project Assistant
$15.00
Other Direct Costs
Mileage
$0.30
Blueline
$1.25
Computer/CADD
$20.00
Reproduction/Printing
$0.15
Word Processing
$10.00
Subconsultant Costs
Total Labor Hours
Professional
Technical
Administrative
Total Labor Dollars
Overhead
Total CDC's
Professional Fee
Aeriel
TASK: I Photography
Hours
M � �•
$20.00
$4,750.00
4
TASK TOTALS $5,438.52
JUN 02 '99 06:55 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.112
®-AMETR®
IMP Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building Y 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
DATE SENT:
TRANSMITTED TO: �� 0. ��� S 2k5ZK
TRANSMITTED FROM:
(Name) (Mail Stop)
(2 Li- 1 Kra
(Phone)
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION NUMBER:
NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED:
(Including Cover Sheet)
FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY:
PROJECT:
ARMS/TASK NO.:�
SUBJECT:
5
(206) 684-1710
rr- t4 G�
NOTES: y _ "�—
JUN 02 '93 06:55 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.2/2
January 21, 1993
TO: Richard K. Sandaas
Executive Director
M
FROM: Greg Bush, Chair
Consultant Selection Board
JaH 2 7 1993
EXEOUTIVE,
D RECTOR'S OFFICE
SUBJECT: Approval of Ranking and Authorization to Negotiate Consultant Contract
for the Honey Creek Subbasin Project, RFQ/RFP No. CS/M135-92
in accordance with Resolution No. 6216, adopted by the Metro Council on August 1,
1991, 1 request your approval of the Consultant Selection Boards', ranking of finalists
for the Honey Creek Subbasin Project and your authorization to negotiate a consultant
contract. This procurement was done in collaboration with the City of Renton. The
contract amount for Metro's portion is expected to be approximately $140,000.
Approval to select a consultant for this project was given by your office in August ,1992.
The Consultant Selection Board met on January 6, 1993 to consider the qualifications
and proposals submitted in response to Metro's Request for Qualifications/Request for
Proposals, and again on January 20, 1993 to interview the two finalist firms for this
project. The Consultant Selection Board consisted of:
Greg Bush, Chair Mike Kuenzi
Tim Schlitzer, Renton City Councilman Bill Nita
Gregg Zimmerman, City of Renton
Based on the qualifications, proposals and interviews, the Board recommends the
following ranking of the firms:
1. Brown and Caldwell Consultants
2. Kramer Chin & Mayo, Inc.
Brown and Caldwell Consultants was selected unanimously as the top ranked firm.
They were selected because they presented a modified alignment that poses fewer
regulatory impediments, as well as a proactive approach to the permitting and
environmental work.
If you concur with this request, please sign below. If you have questions, please call
me at x1164 or Elaine Swanson at x1342. Thank you.
CONC R IN RAN G AND AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATIONS WITH TOP RANKED FIRM:
Richard K. Sandaas Date
GB:EPS:fg
Og� METRO
J
ri
November 24, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: JOHN GRIM
RH2 ENGINEERS
FROM: MICHAEL O'NEAL NOV 2:� 1993
BROWN AND CALDWELL
SUBJECT: RENTON SEWER CAPACITIES CITY RENTOt.
Engineeee ring Dept.
John, this memo is to followup our previous discussions
about your modelling of the City of Renton wastewater
conveyance system.
I understand that you are "calibrating" the model from our
data. We have previously given to you the base flow derived
from actual flow monitoring (diurnal curve for one week) for
20 sites, the maximum day flow predicted from a past
rainfall record for 8 sites (we can break this flow down
into components of base flow and 3 different I/I sources),
and the peak hour flow for the same 8 sites derived from the
same projection. We do not usually break this last flow
value down to components but with some effort we could.
For purposes of the work we are doing to evaluate I/I at
Renton and to evaluate several alternatives related to the
Honey Creek subbasin project, we had thought that inputs to
your model (our projected peak flows) would provide at least
an initial view of effect on the system. However, we could
also compare our projected flows with existing capacity of
sewers affected, at least initially. This would be an
advantage to us since it appears that information may be
more readily available at the present time. Also, our
evaluation related to Honey Creek is involving several
different projected flow impacts so simply knowing existing
capacity provides us some flexibility to "size" an
alternative.
I understand that existing capacity of sewers by reach is
readily available. I have attached segments of the City
system with several lengths of existing sewer highlighted.
It is these highlighted lengths for which we need capacity
information. Could you provide this information sometime in
the next 2 weeks? Thanks!
cc. Dave Christensen
Mike Benoit
........... .
7
. .. . .............. . .
iri —F!A
LLU,
........ .......
I •77.777KL
A
'j
if i
'..
............ T
WE : �. - - k I - 1JI-1 I ib! ij� :iIli
MU-0 . , AVI 51Vj a :-ryr—,
F__
I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T T3 r� 1A, r It
u rT
•
A
LiJ.17. /Z ry
.. .... T i
F.,
MOY
W1•
i
�_ ji r
. . . . . . . . . .
0 ....
-_1
:
Q
... . ...... . \
............
■
Ut
C,
W., WIN U;
A
°_ _.� ..�"'' � \.tom �, � I
will-
T F_
r rr A
rr
M.
T J-0 *Tv
A
I, F
LLL:
... ......
J7 i
/ I ""." . .. .......
041 i4ii v.
i "A\
V,
T-1 I —Ip
....... ..... ... . . . . ............... .. . . . . . ^ti.__...�..-�..........
lS i-T
_j
j1j; Tj WOF
. . . ....... . ..
i EJ I
I:� P -4 J i--? "INC:
-Au LA7_1 t . ..... . . . . . . . ...........
.............
. .... . ......
T . . ..........
7
L L-A
. .. .......
rl N
.o C
...............
lie.
I I : 41 91 st ST
-. . . ..... - - -----
I
----- T
j I Id ST (j
. ........ ........ . .
L 0 s
51
tol
. .... ......
7
7
MA
N-
.... .......
r
IF
A-1
9th
v
f
Earl Clymer, Mayor
June 28, 1993
Mike O'Neal
Brown and Caldwell
100 West Harrison Street
Seattle, WA 981 19-4186
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK SUB -BASIN PROJECT
NOTICE TO PROCEED
Dear Mike:
eels �.
This letter shall serve as your Notice to Proceed on the predesign element of the Honey
Creek Interceptor project. Attached you will find one original of the consultant agreement
for this project.
Please be aware that City Code and Policy requires that the prime and all sub -consultants
obtain a City of Renton Business License, if their business license is not currently active. In
addition, any work performed within City right-of-way (survey, geotechnical, etc.) will
require that a traffic control plan be submitted and approved prior to beginning work.
I look forward to meeting the challenges of this project with the team that has been
assembled.
Vey/truly you
i9 Chn ffs'V_n /
ast , ateKUtility Supervisor
H:WW/HC-NTP/DMC:If
Attachment
cc: Linda Ferkingstad
Dave Dittmar, METRO, M/S 117
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50% RECYCLED MATERIAL. 10% POST CONSUMER
CAG-93-068
ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this a3,4 , day of , 19fg , by and between the
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORA ON HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
"CITY," and the consulting firm BROWN AND CALDWELL CONSULTANTS, whose address is, 100 W.
Harrison, Seattle, WA 98119, at which work will be available for inspection, hereinafter called the
"CONSULTANT."
PROJECT NAME: Honey Creek Subbasin Project
WHEREAS, the City has not sufficient qualified engineering employees to provide the engineering within a
reasonable time and the City deems it advisable and is desirous of engaging the professional services and assistance
of a qualified professional consulting firm to do the necessary engineering work for the project, and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has represented and by entering into this Agreement now represents, that it is in full
compliance with the statutes of the State of Washington for registration of professional engineers, has a current valid
corporate certificate from the State of Washington or has a valid assumed name filing with the Secretary of State and
that all personnel to be assigned to the work required under this Agreement are fully qualified to perform the work to
which they will be assigned in a competent and professional manner, and that sufficient qualified personnel are on
staff or readily available to Consultant to staff this Agreement.
WHEREAS, the Consultant has indicated that it desires to do the work set forth in the Agreement upon the terms
and conditions set forth below.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performances contained herein below,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
e:\adm\802\9938-1 l /MSPEC 1.DOC
06/01/93 03:20 PM
SCOPE OF WORK
The Consultant shall furnish, and hereby warrants that it has, the necessary equipment, materials, and professionally
trained and experienced personnel to facilitate completion of the work described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, which
is attached hereto and incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
The Consultant shall perform all work described in this Agreement in accordance with the latest edition and
amendments to local and state regulations, guidelines and policies.
The Consultant shall prepare such information and studies as it may deem pertinent and necessary, in order to pass
judgment in a sound engineering manner on the features of the work. The Consultant shall make such minor
changes, amendments or revisions in the detail of the work as may be required by the City. This item does not
constitute an "Extra Work" item as related in Section VIII of the Agreement.
The work shall be verified for accuracy by a complete check by the Consultant and shall be so certified by the
Consultant. The Consultant will be held responsible for the accuracy of the work, even though the work has been
accepted by the City.
II
DESIGN CRITERIA
The City will designate the basic premises and criteria for the work needed. Reports and plans, to the extent
feasible, shall be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments of local and State regulations,
guidelines, and specifications, including, but not limited to the following:
1. Washington State Department of Transportation/American Public Works Association (WSDOT/APWA),
"Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction," as amended by Renton
Standard Specification.
2. WSDOT/APWA, "Standard Plans for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction."
Washington State Department of Transportation, "Highway Design Manual."
4. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges."
5. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Bridge Design Manual, Volumes 1 and 2."
e:\adm\802\9938_11 MSPEC1.DOC
06/01 /93 03:06 PM
6. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Manual of Highways Hydraulics," except hydrologic
analysis as described in item 14.
7. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Materials Laboratory Outline."
8. Transportation Research Board, "Highway Capacity Manual."
9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Streets and Highways."
10. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Construction Manual."
11. Washington State Department of Transportation, "Local Agency Guidelines."
12. Standard drawings prepared by the Agency and furnished to the consultant shall be used as a guide in all
cases where they fit design conditions. Renton Design Standards, and Renton Specifications shall be
used as they pertain.
13. Metro Transit, design criteria.
14. King County Surface Water Design Manual, Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of Chapter 1, and Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
15. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, "A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets."
III
ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED TO THE CONSULTANT
BY THE AGENCY
The City will furnish the Consultant copies of documents which are available to the City that will facilitate the
preparation of the plans, studies, specifications, and estimates within the limits of the assigned work.
e:\adm\802\9938-1 1 /MSPEC 1.DOC
06/01/93 03:06 PM
3
All other records needed for the study must be obtained by the Consultant. The Consultant will coordinate with
other available sources to obtain data or records available to those agencies. The Consultant shall be responsible for
this and any other data collection. The Consultant will hold and save harmless the City for the providing of
erroneous or out-of-date data, records, or information. The Consultant shall be responsible for the verification of
existing records to insure they represent the accurate and current field conditions. Should field studies be needed,
the Consultant will perform such work. The City will not be obligated to perform any such field studies.
IV
OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTS AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT
Documents, exhibits or other presentations for the work covered by this Agreement shall be furnished by the
Consultant to the City upon completion of the various phases of the work. All such material, including working
documents, notes, maps, drawings, photo, photographic negatives, etc. used in the project, shall become and remain
the property of the City and may be used by it without restriction. Any use of such documents by the City not
directly related to the project pursuant to which the documents were prepared by the Consultant shall be without any
liability whatsoever to the Consultant.
All written documents and products shall be printed on recycled paper. Final documents, and interim drafts as
feasible, will be printed on both sides of the recycled paper.
V
TIME OF BEGINNING AND COMPLETION
The work detailed in the Scope of Work will be performed according to Exhibit B, Time Schedule of Completion,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. It is agreed that all the Consultant's services are to
be completed and all products shall be delivered by notwithstanding delays due to factors that are beyond the
control of the Consultant. The Consultant shall not begin work under the terms of this Agreement until authorized
in writing by the City. If, after receiving Notice to Proceed, the Consultant is delayed in the performance of its
services by factors that are beyond its control, the Consultant shall notify the City of the delay and shall prepare a
revised estimate of the time and cost needed to complete the Project and submit the revision to the City for its
approval. Time schedules are subject to mutual agreement for any revision unless specifically described as
otherwise herein.
Delays attributable to or caused by one of the parties hereto amounting to 30 days or more affecting the completion
of the work may be considered a cause for renegotiation or termination of this Agreement by the other party.
e:\adm\802\9938 11 /PRJSPEC 1.DOC
06/01/93 03:17 PM
4
VI
PAYMENT
The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided
hereinafter as specified in Exhibit C, Cost Estimate. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed
or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary to complete the
work. All billings for compensation for work performed under this Agreement will list actual time (days and/or
hours) and dates during which the work was performed and the compensation shall be figured using the rates in
Exhibit C. Payment for this work shall not exceed $262,800 without a written amendment to this contract, agreed to
and signed by both parties.
04• '
Payment for work accomplished shall be on the basis of the Consultant's actual cost plus a net fee. The actual cost
includes direct salary cost, overhead, and direct non -salary cost.
The direct salary cost is the salary expense for professional and technical personnel and principals for the
time they are productively engaged in the work necessary to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. The
direct salary costs are set forth in the attached Exhibit C and by this reference made a part of this
Agreement.
2. The overhead costs as identified on Exhibit C are determined as 185 percent of the direct salary cost and
by this reference made a part of this Agreement. The overhead cost rate is an estimate based on currently
available accounting information and shall be used for all progress payments over the period of the
contract.
3. The direct non -salary costs are those costs directly incurred in fulfilling the terms of this Agreement,
including, but not limited to travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and fees of outside consultants.
The direct non -salary costs are specified in Exhibit C, Cost Estimate. Billings for any direct non -salary
costs shall be supported by copies of original bills or invoices. Reimbursement for outside consultants
and services shall be on the basis of 1.10 times the invoiced amount.
4. The net fee, which represents the Consultants profit shall be 12 percent of direct salary plus overhead
costs. This fee is based on the Scope of Work and the estimated labor hours therein. In the event a
supplemental agreement is entered into for additional work by the Consultant, the supplemental
agreement will include provision for the added costs and an appropriate additional fee. The net fee will
be prorated and paid monthly in proportion to the percentage of the project completed as estimated in the
Consultant's monthly progress reports and approved by the City. Any portion of the net fee not
e:\adm\802\9938_ 11 /PRJSPEC 1. DOC
06/01/93 03:17 PM
5
previously paid in the monthly payments shall be included in the final payment, subject to the provisions
of Section XI entitled TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.
6. Progress payments may be claimed monthly for direct costs actually incurred to date as supported by
detailed statements, for overhead costs and for a proportionate amount of the net fee payable to the
Consultant based on the estimated percentage of the completion of the services to date. Final payment of
any balance due the Consultant of the gross amount earned will be made promptly upon its verification
by the City after completion and acceptance by the City of the work under this Agreement. Acceptance,
by the Consultant of final payment shall constitute full and final satisfaction of all amounts due or
claimed to be due.
Payment for extra work performed under this Agreement shall be paid as agreed to by the parties hereto in writing at
the time extra work is authorized. (Section VIII "EXTRA WORK").
A short narrative progress report shall accompany each voucher for progress payment. The report shall include
discussion of any problems and potential causes for delay.
To provide a means of verifying the invoiced salary costs for consultant employees, the City may conduct employee
interviews.
Acceptance of such final payment by the Consultant shall constitute a release of all claims of any nature, related to
this Agreement, which the Consultant may have against the City unless such claims are specifically reserved in
writing and transmitted to the City by the Consultant prior to its acceptance. Said final payment shall not, however,
be a bar to any claims that the City may have against the Consultant or to any remedies the City may pursue with
respect to such claims.
e:\adm\802\9938_ 11 /M SPEC 1. DOC
06/O1/93 03:17 PM
2
The Consultant and its subconsultants shall keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of three years
after final payment, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement and all items related to, or bearing
upon, these records. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year retention period,
the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims or audit findings involving the records have been resolved.
The three-year retention period starts when the Consultant receives final payment.
VII
CHANGES IN WORK
The Consultant shall make all such revisions and changes in the completed work of this Agreement as are necessary
to correct errors appearing therein, when required to do so by the City, without additional compensation.
Should the City find it desirable for its own purposes to have previously satisfactorily completed work or parts
thereof revised, the Consultant shall make such revisions, if requested and as directed by the City in writing. This
work shall be considered as Extra Work and will be paid for as provided in Section VIII.
VIII
EXTRA WORK
The City may desire to have the Consultant perform work or render services in connection with the Project in
addition to or other than work provided for by the expressed intent of the Scope of Work. Such work will be
considered as Extra Work and will be specified in a written supplement which will set forth the nature and scope
thereof. Work under a supplement shall not proceed until authorized in writing by the City. Any dispute as to
whether work is Extra Work or work already covered under this Agreement shall be resolved before the work is
undertaken. Performance of the work by the Consultant prior to resolution of any such dispute shall waive any claim
by the Consultant for compensation as Extra Work.
e:\adm\802\9938_11 MSPEC1.DOC
06/01/93 03:17 PM
7
IX
EMPLOYMENT
The Consultant warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide
employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract and that he has not paid or agreed to
pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award
or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this
Agreement without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration or otherwise
recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.
Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the
Consultant under this Agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City and any
and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman's Compensation Act on behalf of said employees, while
so engaged and any and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the
part of the Consultant's employees, while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein,
shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of the Consultant.
The Consultant shall not engage, on a full or part-time basis, or other basis, during the period of the contract, any
professional or technical personnel who are, or have been at any time during the period of this contract, in the
employ of the City except regularly retired employees, without written consent of the City.
If during the time period of this Agreement, the Consultant finds it necessary to increase its professional, technical,
or clerical staff as a result of this work, the consultant will actively solicit minorities through their advertisement and
interview process.
e:\adm\802\9938_11 MSPEC1.DOC
06/01/93 03:17 PM
X
NONDISCRIMINATION
The Consultant agrees not to discriminate against any client, employee or applicant for employment or for services
because of race, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sex, age or handicap except for a bona fide occupational
qualification with regard to, but not limited to the following: employment upgrading; demotion or transfer;
recruitment or any recruitment advertising; layoff or terminations; rates of pay or other forms of compensation;
selection for training; rendition of services. The Consultant understands and agrees that if it violates this Non -
Discrimination provision, this Agreement may be terminated by the City and further that the Consultant shall be
barred from performing any services for the City now or in the future, unless a showing is made satisfactory to the
City that discriminatory practices have terminated and that recurrence of such action is unlikely.
XI
TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time upon not less than ten (10) days
written notice to the Consultant, subject to the City's obligation to pay Consultant in accordance with
subparagraphs C and D below.
B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its supervisory
personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the consultant hereby agree to complete the
work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do so by the City. This section shall not be a bar
to renegotiations of this Agreement between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the
City so chooses.
In the event of the death of any of the parties listed in the previous paragraph, should the surviving
members of the Consultant, with the City's concurrence, desire to terminate this Agreement, payment
shall be made as set forth in Subsection C of this section.
e:\adm\802\9938_ 11 /PRJSPEC l . DOC
06/01/93 03:17 PM
�1
C. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the City other than for fault on the part of the Consultant, a
final payment shall be made to the Consultant for actual cost for the work complete at the time of
termination of the Agreement, plus the following described portion of the net fee. The portion of the net
fee for which the Consultant shall be paid shall be the same ratio to the total net fee as the work complete
is to the total work required by the Agreement. In addition, the Consultant shall be paid on the same
basis as above for any authorized extra work completed. No payment shall be made for any work
completed after ten (10) days following receipt by the Consultant of the Notice to Terminate. If the
accumulated payment made to the Consultant prior to Notice of Termination exceeds the total amount
that would be due as set forth herein above, then no final payment shall be due and the Consultant shall
immediately reimburse the City for any excess paid.
D. In the event the services of the Consultant are terminated by the City for fault on the part of the
Consultant, the above stated formula for payment shall not apply. In such an event -the amount to be paid
shall be determined by the City with consideration given to the actual costs incurred by the Consultant in
performing the work to the date of termination, the amount of work originally required which was
satisfactorily completed to date of termination, whether that work is in a form or of a type which is
usable to the City at the time of termination, the cost to the City of employing another firm to complete
the work required and the time which may be required to do so, and other factors which affect the value
to the City of the work performed at the time of termination. Under no circumstances shall payment
made under this subsection exceed the amount which would have been made if the formula set forth in
subsection C above had been applied.
E. In the event this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the work, the original copies of all
Engineering plans, reports and documents prepared by the Consultant prior to termination shall become
the property of the City for its use without restriction. Such unrestricted use not occurring as a part of
this project, shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant.
F. Payment for any part of the work by the City shall not constitute a waiver by the City of any remedies of
any type it may have against the Consultant for any breach of this Agreement by the Consultant, or for
failure of the Consultant to perform work required of it by the City. Forbearance of any rights under the
Agreement will not constitute waiver of entitlement to exercise those rights with respect to any future act
or omission by the Consultant.
e:\adm\802\9938-1 1 /PRJSPEC LDOC
06/01/93 03:17 PM
10
XII
DISPUTES
Any dispute concerning questions of facts in connection with work not disposed of by agreement between the
Consultant and the City shall be referred for determination to the Director of PlanningBuilding/Public Works or
his/her successors and delegees, whose decision in the matter shall be final and conclusive on the parties to this
Agreement.
In the event that either party is required to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any of its rights in this
Agreement, both parties agree that any such action shall be brought in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington, situated in King County.
XIII
LEGAL RELATIONS
The Consultant shall comply with all Federal Government, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the
work to be done under this Agreement. This contract shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws
of Washington.
The Consultant, its successors or assigns, will protect, save, and hold harmless the City and their authorized agents
and employees, from all claim actions, costs, damages, or expenses or any nature whatsoever by reason of the acts or
omissions of the Consultant, its subconsultants, assigns, agents, contractors, licensees, invitees, employees, or any
person whosoever to the extent arising out of or in connection with any negligence in acts or activities authorized by
this Agreement. The Consultant further agrees to defend the City and their authorized agents and employees in any
litigation, including payment of any costs or attorney's fees for any claims or action commenced thereon arising out
of or in connection with negligence in acts or activities authorized by this Agreement. This obligation shall not
include such claims, costs, damages, or expenses which may be caused by the sole negligence of the City or their
authorized agents or employees.
The Consultant shall secure general liability, property damage, auto liability, and professional liability coverage in
the amount of $1.0 million, unless waived or reduced by the City. The Consultant shall submit a completed City of
Renton Insurance Information Form, and the Consultant shall furnish copies of the declarations pages of relevant
insurance policies to the City prior to execution of this Agreement. The limits of said insurance shall not, however,
limit the liability of Consultant hereunder.
All coverages provided by the Consultant shall be in a form, and underwritten by a company acceptable to the City.
The City will normally require carriers to have minimum A.M. Best rating of A XII. The Consultant shall keep all
e:\adm\802\9938_I I /PRMSPECI.DOC
06/01/93 03:45 PM
II
required coverages in full force and effect during the life of this project, and a minimum of thirty days' notice shall
be given to the City prior to the cancellation of any policy.
The Consultant's relation to the City shall be at all times as an independent contractor.
XIV
SUBLETTING OR ASSIGNING OF CONTRACTS
The consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the work covered by this Agreement without the express consent of
the City.
XV
ENDORSEMENT OF PLANS
The Consultant shall place their certification on all plans, specifications, estimates or any other *engineering data
furnished by them in accordance with RCW 18.43.070.
XVI
COMPLETE AGREEMENT
This document and referenced attachments contain all covenants, stipulations, and provisions agreed upon by the
parties. Any supplements to this Agreement will be in writing and executed and will become part of this Agreement.
No agent, or representative of either party has authority to make, and the parties shall not be bound by or be liable
for, any statement, representation, promise, or agreement not set forth herein. No changes, amendments, or
modifications of the terms hereof shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties as an amendment
to this Agreement.
The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision in this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof, and
this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted.
e:\adm\802\9938_ 11 /M SPEC 1. DOC
06/01/93 03:17 PM
12
XVII
EXECUTION AND ACCEPTANCE
This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original having identical legal effect. The Consultant does hereby ratify and adopt all statements, representations,
warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the Request for Qualifications, and the supporting materials
submitted by the Consultant, and does hereby accept the Agreement and agrees to all of the terms and conditions
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above
written.
CONSULTANT
BY ya ova
Signature 4�"�Date
cn0/'G . 1 Ilil/�SOI�/
type or print name
Title
Approved as to al Form:
BY:
L nce J. Warren,
City Attorney
OF RENTON
BY
Signa re Date
Earl Clymer, Mayor
ATTEST:
Signatur Date
Marilyn J. Petersen
City Clerk
e:\adm\802\9938_ 11 /PRISPEC 1.DOC
06/01/93 03:06 PM
13
COST PLUS NET FEE DETERMINATION
DIRECT SALARY COST:
Personnel
Principal Engineer
Chief Engineer
Engineer
Surveyor
Surveyor
Planner
Bookkeeper
Executive Secretary
CADD Operator/Drafter
Clerical
Net Fee 185 % of direct salary cost plus overhead
DIRECT NON -SALARY COST:
Travel and Per Diem
Cars at $ 0.28/mile
Per Diem $ 25/day
Office and Equipment
Computer $ 20/hour
Hourly Rates of Pay
"[see attached]"
Reproduction Expenses @ $ 0.15/copy .......................... $
Communications ..................................... $
ft mhffla N3344 0"pmSPECI.wpw
17
EXHIBIT C (cont.)
SUMMARY OF FEE FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
BREAKDOWN OF OVERHEAD COST "[see attached]"
Profit Sharing ................ .... I ..... I..................
FICA...................................................
%
Unemployment Compensation ..................................
%
Medical Aid and Industrial Insurance ......
%
Company Insurance and Medical ................................
Vacation, Holiday and Sick Leave ...............................
%
State B & 0 Tax & Other Business Tax ...........................
%
Insurance ...............................................
Administration and Time Unassignable ...........................
%
Printing, Stationery and Supplies ................................
Travel Not Assignable .......................................
Telephone and Telegraph Not Assignable ..........................
%
Fees, Dues, Professional Meetings ...............................
%
Utilities and Maintenance .....................................
%
Rent....................................................
Rental Equipment ................................... ..
%
Office Miscellaneous, Postage ..................................
%
Professional Services ........................................
%
TOTAL
%
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Project No.
Name of Project Honey Creek - Phase I
Direct Salary Cost .................................................. $ 41,763.24
Overhead Cost (including
payroll additives .................................. 185 % $ 77,261.99
Sub -Total $ 119,025.23
Net Fee ............................................ % $ 26,055.02
Direct Non -Salary Costs:
a. Travel and per diem $
b. Reproduction expenses $
c. Computer expense $
d. Outside consultants $
e. Other (specify) $
Total $
Sub Total $ 117,720
GRAND TOTAL $ 262,800.25
�i ursa 2M3,4.40 pm1SPECl.wpw
18
BROWN AND CAI -DWELL
ABRIDGED SCHEDULE OF HOURLY BILLING RATES
EITI CI-IVE SEPTEMBER 25, 1992 TO SEPTEMBER 24, 1993
PERSONEL CLASSI171CATION
ENGINEERING
EXECUTIVE II
EXECUTIVE I
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHIEF ENGINEER
MANAGING ENGINEER
SUPERVISING ENGINEER
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
SENIOR ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ASSOCIATE ENGINEER
ASSISTANT ENGINEER
ENGINEERING AIDE
TECHNICAL
CHIEF DRAFTER
SUPERVISING DRAFTER
LEAD DRAFTER
SENIOR DRAFTER
DRAFTER
ASSISTANT DRAFTER
DRAFTER TRAINEE
SCIENTIFIC
CHIEF GEOLOGIST/HYDROGEOLOGIST
MANAGING GEOLOGIST/HYDROGEOLOGIST
SUPERVISING GEOLOGIST/HYDROGEOLOGIST
PRINCIPAL GEOLOGIST/HYDROGEOLOGIST
SENIOR GEOLOGIST/HYDROGEOLOGIST
GEOLOGIST/HYDROGEOLOGIST
ASSOCIATE GEOLOGIST/HYDROGEOLOGIST
ASSISTANT GEOLOGIST/HYDROGEOLOGIST
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPERVISOR, WORD PROCESSING
WORD PROCESSOR IV
WORD PROCESSOR III
WORD PROCESSOR II
WORD PROCESSOR I
CLERK III
CLERK II
CLERK I
ft.
rsd0yN334437 pmSPECl.wpw
19
HOURLY 13ILLING RATE
S 57.00
43.31
43.31
43.31
39.17
35.03
32.80
28.66
24.84
21.34
17.83
14.97
28.66
24.84
21.34
17.83
14.97
12.42
10.19
43.31
39.17
35.03
32.80
28.66
24.84
21.34
17.83
17.83
17.83
14.97
12.42
10.19
12.42
10.19
8.60
Technical Expenses
Direct Labor (Billable Base)
Fringe Benefits (Technical)
Payroll Taxes
Group Insurance
Workmen's Compensation
Bonus
Profit Sharing
Retirement & Pension
Vacation, Holiday, & Sick
Other Employee Benefits
Total Technical Fringe Benefits
Indirect Salaries
Administrative Fringe Benefits
Other G&A
Payroll Taxes
Group Insurance
Workmen's Compensation
Bonus
Profit Sharing
Retirement & Pension
Vacation, Holiday, & Sick
Other Employee Benefits
Total Administrative Fringe Benefits
Office Rent
Equipment Rent
Depreciation
Amortization
Repairs & Maintenance
Computer Expense
Supplies
Reproduction Expense
Travel and Related Expense
Relocation Expense
Communication Expense
Professional Dues
Subscriptions, Books, Public.
Legal and Accounting Expense
Consultant Services
Insurance Expense
Professional Expenses
Training and Education
Taxes Other Than Fed. Income Tax
Miscellaneous Expense
Total General and Admin.
Total Allowable Costs
Overhead Rate
Brown and Caldwell
Overhead Analysis Worksheet
March 1993
1.863.440
1,221,287
178,541
1,276,674
1,816,187
2,826,276
57,686
1.028.637
674,162
98,557
704,736
1,002,553
1,560,132
31,843
3,983,285
435.258
1.034.616
151,253
886,381
805,883
149,149
1,228,566
463,625
828,633
109A
233,244
495,718
676,460
1,466,412
22,128
1,050,906
412,110
931,996
15,365,025
Total
Amount
$ 22,333,806
% of
Direct Labor
$ 9,240,091 ' 41.37%
$ 12,328,479 55.20%
$ 5,100,620 22.84%
17.84%
1.95%
4.63%
0.00%
0.68%
3.97%
3.61 %
0.67%
5.50%
2.08%
3.71 %
0.49%
1.04%
2.22%
3.03%
6.57%
0.10%
4.71 %
1.85%
4.17%
68.80%
$ 42,034,215 188.21%
188.21 %
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF RENTON
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
PHASE I - PRE -DESIGN
The pre -design phase will be conducted to first identify all
possible, feasible project alternatives and define them
sufficiently for comparison and selection of a preferred project.
Each task will contain a preliminary step that will examine the
identified alternatives from an overview perspective with the
intent of identifying primary issues. The second step is to
provide detailed studies of the selected alternative in.order to
begin implementation.
Task 100 - Project Management
The purpose of this task to plan and manage the work effort
in order to complete project elements within scheduled
timeframes and within budget and to provide a level of service
consistent with the requirements of the project and needs of the
city.
A detailed work plan will be developed at the beginning of
the project. This plan (Project Management Plan) will coordinate
Brown and Caldwell and subcontractor activities with labor
estimates and budgets, scheduled milestones, and product
deliverables. The plan will also identify protocol for lines of
communication, documentation, and invoicing procedures.
Periodic meetings twice per month during pre -design and once
per month thereafter, will be convened with project staff and
with appropriate outside agencies to assure continued awareness
of project issues and to identify new concerns or project impacts
as early as possible. Minutes of meetings and progress reports
with invoices will document the status of the project.
Task 200 - Environmental Compliance
The objective of this task is to identify and evaluate
environmental impacts and determine mitigation requirements
associated with the Honey Creek project alternatives. This task
will include a preliminary review of all feasible alternatives
and a detailed study of the selected project.
The City of Renton will serve as the lead agency. Brown and
Caldwell will prepare documentation for an expanded Determination
of Non -Significance. All environmental issues identified by SEPA
will be addressed but the focus of analyses will be on concerns
Exhibit A-- Page 1 of 4 e:\adm\802\9938_11\renscope.wpw
May 21, 1993
identified by agencies, the public and other interested groups.
It is anticipated that construction -related issues will be of
greatest concern including (but not limited to) impacts on
traffic, noise, slope stability, soil disposal, ground and
surface water, wetlands, and fisheries. Issues associated with
long-term or operational considerations such as odor, long-term
slope stability, and water quality will also be evaluated.
Study results will be coordinated with both the City of Renton
and Metro on a regular basis throughout the environmental
evaluation. Existing information will be used to the greatest
extent possible including studies done by the City, Metro, and
King County. Environmental studies and evaluation will be
conducted by Adolfson and Associates and Watershed Dynamics
through subcontract.
Issues relating to permits will be identified and mitigation
requirements determined. Mitigation plans for affected natural
resources (wetlands, water quality, and fisheries) will be
summarized in a Mitigation Document along with mitigation plans
for traffic and other affected utilities.
The product of this task will be a SEPA checklist and a
Mitigation Document for the selected project.
Task 300 - Pre -Design
This task will identify issues and concerns of the various
interested parties related to this project and develop these in
sufficient detail to evaluate all feasible alternatives for
providing wastewater conveyance of the entire service area
defined in the Honey Creek Subbasin. A Public Awareness Program
will be designed and implemented to inform the City's target
population of the progress and form of the project.
We propose to initiate this project by meeting with the City
to review all earlier work and identify currently known issues
and interested parties. Potential impacts on the project from
other agencies will be identified through discussions and a
project start-up meeting. Currently, we expect project
involvement by the City and County Parks departments, King County
BALD, King County SWM, King County WD 107, State Department of
Fisheries and possibly by private property owners. Required
permits and their impact including intent, scope and application
procedures will be identified and summarized.
Once initial concerns and issues are identified, preliminary
plans for mapping and geotechnical and environmental
investigations will be made. The Honey Creek subbasin will be
delineated and current and future land use identified. Flow
projections will be made in order to define service requirements.
Projections will be reviewed with Metro for consistency with
previous planning. Design flows will be developed consistent
Exhibit A-- Page 2 of 4 c:\adm\802\9938_II\renscopc.wpw
May 21, 1993
with the City's comprehensive plan and the current flow
monitoring in Honey Creek Subbasin.
All possible alternatives for providing service will be
identified. Alignments will be established and reviewed on the
ground with City staff. Previous studies by City staff that
evaluated various alternatives will be reviewed. Alternative
alignments that appear advantageous to compliance with current
environmental regulation will be sought and evaluated. Obstacles
precluding implementation will be identified and alternative
refined to eliminate or mitigate problems.
The more promising alternatives will then be defined and
compared in a matrix format for review and comment by applicable
Metro, County and State agencies.
Cost estimates will be prepared and implementation
requirements will be identified for each feasible alternative.
Funding sources and their unique requirements will be identified.
Evaluation criteria will be identified from the set of issues and
concerns evident from the various alternatives. The completed
matrix will be presented for City review and selection of a
preferred project.
A significant effort will be required to develop geotechnical
information and mapping to support alternative identification and
evaluation and to support design of the selected alternative.
These tasks will be done consistent with the level of information
that will be required for environmental review and final design.
Geotechnical investigations will be performed consistent with
defining and evaluating the issues discussed earlier.
Survey control and new aerial photography will be provided
sufficient to produce 1"=50' scale, 2-foot contour interval
degree of accuracy, topographic mapping of the Honey Creek
Drainage Basin. Additional aerial photography, sufficient to
produce photo and planimetric scale mapping, will be required to
provide full coverage of the pumping station/force main
alternatives. This mapping will be supplemented with centerline
profiles. Field map editing and surveys will be provided as
necessary to include existing utility surface structures and
natural features within the mapping.
A Public Awareness Program will be developed to inform the
City's target population of the project's development and to
provide a means for directing citizen input. A periodic
newsletter, directed to the City's target population, will be
prepared to present project issues, progress and goals as well as
other City issues. Newsletters will be prepared midway and at
the end of the predesign phase and later prior to and midway
through construction.
Exhibit A-- Page 3 of 4 e:\adm\802\993811\renscope.wpw
May 21, 1993
The preferred project will be sufficiently detailed to
identify pipeline alignments, size and material of pipeline, pump
station location, size and type of pumping equipment, power
requirements, architectural considerations, and site development
requirements. The product of Task 300 is a draft and final
report summarizing -the various technical investigations,
implementation requirements including permits and funding, and a
recommended plan of action.
Exhibit A-- Page 4 of 4 e:\adm\802\9938_11\renscope.wpw
May 21, 1993
EXHIBIT B
Time Schedule of Completion
Honey Creek Subbasin Project
Activity/Milestone
Authorize to Proceed
Identify/Define Alternatives
City/Metro/Public Review -
Select Project Alternative
Final Report
Completion Date
July 1, 1993
August 27, 1993
September.30, 1993
December 17, 1993
e:\adm\802\9938_11\oneil. wpw
Denton 11oney Creek �S'U449217 Proied - AredeSJP77 %Se
Professional
Merrill
$43.27
O'Neal
$33.29
Getz
$28.21
Denson
$30.09
Knott
$26.90
Flanigan
$23.07
Technical
Miller
$24.70
Drafting
$22.36
Administrative
WP
$16.26
Other Direct Costs
Travel
Communication
Computer/CADD
Reproduction/Printing
Word Processing
Subconsultants
Adolfson Associates
incl. Watershed Dyi
Lee & Associates
Inca
GeoEngineers
Total Labor Hours
Professional
Technical
Administrative
Total Labor Dollars
Overhead
Total CDC's
Fee
TASK TOTALS
Phase I
Hours
Task100
Project
Management
Hours
Task200
Environmental
Compliance
Hours
Task300
Pre -Design
4
$173
42
$1,817
170
$5,659
160
$5,326
40
$1,128
340
$9,591
56
$1,685
212
$6,379
40
$923
180
$4,446
120
$2,683
40
$650.40
80
$1,300.80
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
$2,400.00
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
$400.00
$800.00
$41,500.00
$5,220.00
amics
$7,200.00
$32,900.00
$26,100.00
214
40
56
794
300
80
$25,174.89 $51,468.65 $186,156.73
Phase I Cost: $262,800.26
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 1
FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMO I# a Pages
To
�. COMPANY_ry r
February 19, 1993 PHONE # Z-27
FAX# FAX 2�J5
_Z�—
PROPOSED SCHEDULE CONCURRENT WITH METRO:
March 10, 1993
Submit initial scope, budget and schedule
March 24, 1993
City returns comments
April 2, 1993
Accepted scope, budget and schedule
April 12, 1993
Council refers to Utilities Committee
April 15, 1993
Utilities Committee
April 19, 1993
Council for Approval
April 23, 1993
Notice to Proceed
PROPOSED SCHEDULE NOT CONCURRENT WITH METRO:
February 24, 1993
Submit initial scope, budget and schedule
March 5, 1993
City returns comments
March 12, 1993
Accepted scope, budget and schedule
March 22, 1993
Council refers to Utilities Committee
April 1, 1993
Utilities Committee
April 5, 1993
Council for approval
April 9, 1993
Notice to Proceed
Mike:
Since there is only two weeks difference between the two options, I would
recommend following option concurrent with Metro's schedule. Call me at (206)
277-6212 with any questions.
Dave C.
C:DOCS:93-168:DMC:ps
LO METRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598
August 3, 1992
90224
A61
Mr. David Christensen
Utility Systems Division �'j19g2
Planning/Building/Public Works Department" --:-
Municipal Building
of
200 Mill Avenue South CST`( C�ng Dept'
Renton, Washington 98055r1�
Subject: May Valley Interceptor
ARMS: A64041 Task: A61
Dear Mr. Christensen:
This letter is to confirm that Metro will take the lead in
producing the consultant selection RFQ/RFP document. The
entire consultant selection process will be a joint City of
Renton/Metro effort. I look forward to working with you in
selecting our consultant and I will be contacting you in the
near future concerning the RFQ/RFP document.
Please call me at 684-1813 if you have any questions.
V r tru lxou ,
David Dittmar, P.E.
Project Manager
Engineering Services Division
DD:ae/mskA s,
cc: Bill Nitz - 130
Ken Madden - 130
Denise Hanna - 107
Cheri Dalgaard - 107
CITY OF RENTON
+ +
DATE: February 16, 1993
TO: Dave Christensen
FROM: Paul D. Forsander
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Honey Creek Interceptor Scope of Work
Dave: I have reviewed the City's August 1992 Scope of Work and the Scope of Work contained in B &
C's proposal. The approach described in the B & C proposal appears to be generally consistent with the
City's requested scope.
It would appear that task 200 (SEPA) and 300 (Pre -Design) are closely interrelated. One of the
questions I have is to what extent will the environmental impacts of the various pre -design alternatives
be evaluated. It is also not clear whether there will be two sets of environmental documents or one. The
same comment relates to whether there will be one or two sets of permit applications.
Until B & C prepares a more detailed scope of work as part of its project management plan, I really can't
make more substantial comments.
I strongly suggest that we have B & C draw up a detailed work plan, including a diagram showing the
various City and Metro tasks. The work plan should identify City/Metro staff tasks, including the various
product reviews.
thanks for the opportunity to comment on this matter. If you have any questions please call me at 6167.
HCIN2-16.D0C/H DRIVE/PDF
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS
RFQ/RFP NO. @
M
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) is requesting letters of interest and Statements of Qualifications
from firms qualified and interested in providing @. Interested firms shall obtain a copy of the Request for
Qualifications and Proposals, which outlines the information necessary to understand the consultant selection
process and the required documentation, by calling (206) 684-2024 or from the Contract Administration Section,
10th Floor of the Exchange Building, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. Letters of interest and
Statements of Qualifications shall be submitted no later than @ @.m. on @, 1991, to the Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), Contract Administration Section (M/S 107), Tenth Floor, Exchange Building, 821
Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104.
Interested firms are encouraged to attend a pre -proposal meeting which will be held to discuss this project, the
consultant selection process and schedule and elements of the contract. The meeting will be held on @, 1991, at
@ @.m. in the @th Floor Conference Room of the Exchange Building, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle.
(PLEASE CHOOSE PARAGRAPH PERTAINING TO M/WBE FROM OPTIONS LISTED ON THE NEXT PAGE)
Following evaluation of the Statements of Qualifications, the Consultant Selection Board will select a minimum of
three finalists who will be invited to submit written Proposals and participate in an oral interview.
Questions concerning the consultant selection process should be directed to @ at (206) 684-@. Questions
concerning MBE, WBE and EEO requirements should be directed to @ at (206) 684-@. Technical questions may
be directed to @ at (206) 684-9.
Any firm failing to submit information in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Request for Qualifications
and Proposals will not be considered responsive and will therefore be subject to disqualification by Metro's
Consultant Selection Board. - -
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
(206) 684-2024
REVISED 07/15/91 ADVERTISEMENT RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
e_ . (NOTE: INSERT THIS M/WBE PARAGRAPH IF THE SOLICITATION IS "WITH -GOALS.") Firms are advised
that Metro promotes equal employment opportunity and that it is Metro's policy that Minority and Women
Business Enterprises shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the performance of
its contracts. Metro has established the following @ participation goals for this contract:
Minority Business Enterprise: @% of contract price;
Women Business Enterprise: @% of contract price.
(NOTE: INSERT THIS M/WBE PARAGRAPH IF THE SOLICITATION USES A "COMBINATION GOAL.") Firms
are advised that Metro promotes equal employment opportunity and that it is Metro's policy that Minority
and Women Business Enterprises shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the
performance of its contracts. Metro has established the following @ participation goals for this contract:
Minority Business Enterprise: @% of contract price; or
Women Business Enterprise: @% of contract price; or
Any combination of Minority and Women Business Enterprise totaling @% of the contract
price.
(PLEASE NOTE: In a "Combination Goal' solicitation, Attachment 2, Section VI.B (Counting Participation),
Paragraphs 2 and 3, should be deleted. Paragraph 4 should be renumbered as paragraph 2.)
(NOTE: INSERT THIS M/WBE PARAGRAPH IF THE SOLICITATION IS A "NO GOALS.") The Municipality
recognizes there may be few subcontracting opportunities with regard to the work described in this Request
for Qualifications and Proposals. If the firm elects to perform all work under this contract with employees of
--the firm__(i.e., does not subcontract any portion of the work), then there are no minority/women business
participation goals. If the firm elects to subcontract any work, then the firm shall make affirmative efforts to
solicit and utilize minority/women businesses which have been certified by the State Office of Minority and
Women Business Enterprises.
(NOTE: INSERT THIS M/WBE PARAGRAPH IF THE SOLICITATION IS A "MARKET APPROACH.") As set
forth in the Municipality's Resolution No. 6054, it is the Municipality's policy that certified minority and
women business enterprises (MBEs and WBEs) shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to
participate in the performance of contracts with the Municipality. In furtherance of this policy and the
requirements of Resolution No. 6054, the Municipality has established annual goals of 17% MBE and 8%
WBE for the participation of certified businesses on contracts with the Municipality. To the best extent
possible, proposers are requested to establish and discuss a plan to utilize certified minority and women
businesses consistent with that policy. No minimum levels of MBE or WBE participation have been
established for purposes of this solicitation. In an effort to provide flexibility to proposers, any combination
of MBE and WBE participation will be allowed under this solicitation. The Municipality will establish
contractual levels of MBE and WBE participation depending on the nature of the Proposal selected.
REVISED 07/15/91 ADVERTISEMENT RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS
M
I. INTRODUCTION
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ("Metro") is requesting letters of interest and Statements of
Qualifications from firms qualified and interested in @.
This Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ/RFP) outlines the information necessary to understand
the consultant selection process and the required documentation in submitting qualifications and a
Proposal for this project. The procurement of these services will proceed in two phases:
(a) Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) shall be submitted to Metro no later than @:@0 @.m.
local time, @, 1991, after which time they will be reviewed and evaluated.
(b) Proposals and oral interviews will be requested from a minimum of three firms qualifying
as finalists. Oral interviews will be held in accordance with the schedule contained in this
RFQ/RFP.
(PLEASE CHOOSE PARAGRAPH PERTAINING TO M/WBE FROM ADVERTISEMENT PAGE.)
Interested firms are encouraged to attend a pre -proposal meeting which will be held to discuss.this project,
the consultant selection process and schedule and elements of the contract. The meeting will be held on
@, 1991, at @:@0 @:m. in the @th Floor Conference Room of the Exchange Building, 821 Second
Avenue, Seattle.
All information shall be submitted at the dates and times indicated herein to the Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle (METRO), Contract Administration Section (M/S 107), Tenth Floor, Exchange Building, 821 Second
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. For information regarding the consultant selection process, contact
@ at (206) 684-@. Questions concerning @ and EEO requirements shall be directed to @ at (206) 684-@.
Technical questions concerning the scope of work shall be directed to @ at (206) 684-9.
Communications with Metro officials other than those listed above shall cause the firm involved to be
subject to ' ' 'cation by the Consultant Selection Board.
II. BACKGROUND '
III. ROCESS q
A. General. The procurement of these consultant services will be in accordance with Metro and
other applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and procedures.
After reviewing this RFQ/RFP, any firm that determines it has the necessary expertise, experience
and could successfully perform the required services may submit a letter of interest and Statement
of Qualifications (SOQ) addressing the items set forth herein. Metro's staff and Consultant
Selection Board will then evaluate the SOQs and determine a minimum of three finalists who will be
invited to submit written Proposals and participate in an oral interview.
UPDATED 07/15/91 1 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
B.
C
Metro reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals received. The final selection, if any, will be
that Proposal which, in the opinion of Metro, best meets the requirements set forth in the RFQ/RFP
and is in the best interest of Metro. Firms are discouraged from submitting lengthy Proposals;
Metro requires that Proposals be concise and clearly written containing only essential information.
All costs incurred in the preparation of a Proposal and participation in this RFQ/RFP process shall
be borne by the proposing firms. Proposals submitted in response to this RFQ/RFP shall become
the property of Metro and considered public documents under applicable Washington State laws.
Any firm failing to submit information in accordance with the procedures set forth herein will not be
considered responsive and will therefore be subject to disqualification by Metro's Consultant
Selection Board.
Schedule: The selection process will proceed as outlined below:
Date Selection Process
@ Public Announcement for Qualifications & Proposals
@ Pre -proposal Meeting ((@-)
@ Statements of Qualifications Due (@ @.m. Local Time)
@ Board Selects Finalists
@ Request Proposals from Finalists
@ Proposals Due (@ @.m. Local Time)
@ Oral Interviews and Board Ranks Firms
@ @'s Approval of Ranking and Authorization to Negotiate Contract
@ Contract Negotiation Complete
(—a @ Committee Approval to Execute Contract
@ Metro Council Approval to Execute Contract
xecute Contract and Notice to Proceed
Consultant Selection Boar n accordance _ with applicable procedures, all information
ented by firms i. ers of interest/Statements of Qualifications and Proposals) will be
evaluate y etro's Consultant Selection Board with the assistance of Metro staff. Generally, the
1_1111�'�onsultant Selection Board is composed of two department directors and three
superintendents/division managers or their designees, and may include a representative from the
Metro Council. The Minority/Women Business Enterprise Office shall be an advisor to the Board.
With the assistance from staff, the Consultant Selection Board will be responsible for selecting the
finalists and ranking them subject to approval by Metro's @ Committee. In addition, certain
members of the Consultant Selection Board may participate in contract negotiations with the
selected firm. However, approval and award of the contract will be made by the Metro Council,
subsequent to a recommendation from Metro's @ Committee.
UPDATED 07/15/91 2 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
Selection Criteria and Considerations. The crit is outlined below will be used in evaluating
alifications and P in the following order of priority.
1. Specialized experience and technical competence of the firm and its personnel (including
a joint venture, associate or professional subcontract), considering the type of services
required and the complexity of the project. Recent experience and expertise with projects
of a similar type will be a key consideration;
2. Past record of performance on contracts with Metro, other government agencies or public
bodies, and with private industry, including such factors as.control of costs, quality of
work, ability to meet schedules, cooperation, responsiveness, compliance with @
utilization requirements, and other managerial and attitudinal considerations;
3. The firm's familiarity with types of problems applicable to the project;
The extent to which the Proposal demonstrates a commitment to levels of utilization of
minority and women owned businesses that meet and exceed the established @
participation goals for this contract. The @ utilization commitment should allow these
businesses the maximum practicable opportunity to compete for subagreements to be
performed using Metro funds, and should demonstrate @ utilization in significant project
tasks with meaningful participation;
5. The firm's capacity to perform the work (including any specialized services) within the time
limitations, considering the firm's current and planned workload;
*6. Problem identification and proposed method to accomplish the work required including,
where appropriate, demonstrated capability to explore and develop innovative or
advanced techniques and design;
*7. The project employment profile, equal employment opportunity and affirmative action -
plans of each proposer and its team firms; and
*8. Apparent ability to comply with and perform consistent with the contract terms and
- conditions substantially similar to those provided to finalists.
E. Contract Terms and Negotiations. Negotiation of a contract will be in conformance with
applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and procedures. The objective of the
negotiations will be to reach agreement on all provisions of the proposed contract. To assist in the
negotiations, Metro will prepare a draft contract for review by the selected firm.
Generally, the terms of the contract will include, but are not limited to: (1) completion of the
planning and design within the schedule outlined in the scope of work; (2) retainage of 10 percent
of consultant's progress billings pursuant to Metro requirements; (3) no additional work without
prior approval; (4) no additional costs or profit without prior approval; (5) maintenance of time and
cost records and access to those records for auditing; (6) termination of contract under certain
conditions; (7) Metro approval of subconsultants; (8) @ participation and equal employment
opportunity requirements; and (9) minimum general and automobile liability insurance
requirements of $1,000,000 combined single limit, with Metro as an additional insured and
professional liability insurance affording limits of liability of $500,000 per claim/$1,000,000
aggregate.
-- * hase only.
UPDATED 07/15/91 3 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
Cost and Pricing Data. At the beginning of contract negotiations, the selected firm and
subconsulting firms, if any, shall submit cost and pricing data for each task in the attached scope
of work. The cost and pricing data shall consist of the following level of detail:
Direct Labor Costs - Identification of specific personnel proposed and/or labor categories,
the proposed raw salary rates and the proposed direct labor hours;
2. Indirect Cost Allocations - Identification of indirect cost pool(s) and allocation base(s)
including a detailed breakdown of cost categories by dollar amount;
3. Other Direct Non -Salary Costs - Identification of costs by type/category of cost; and
4. Profit.
These costs, once agreed to by Metro and the selected firm, shall form the basis for a
billing/payment provision.
Metro reserves the right to request documentation supporting the proposed cost and pricing data.
Such information shall include but not be limited to:
A certified statement from the selected firm and subconsulting firm, if any, about the firm's
accounting system indicating the following:
a) an overview of the accounting system and its capability to track costs and provide
financial information; and
b) written procedures and policies concerning the accounting system, timekeeping,
payroll, purchased services and materials, direct and indirect cost control, asset
capitalization, depreciation, and pre -contract costs.
Chart of accounts including definition of what is included in each account.
o Cost information supporting the basis for the indirect cost rate(s) and a statement
from the selected firm and subconsulting firms, if any, indicating the cost
accounting period and whether the cost information is formulated using historical
or projected data. If the cost information is based on projected cost data, then
both historical and projected data will be provided with explanations for changes
from historical to projected cost data.
o A certified statement from the selected firm and subconsulting firms, if any, that
the proposed cost and pricing data does not include any unauthorized charges
per 48 CFR Chapter 1 Part 31.
Proof of adequate financial resources which would be available to the selected firm and
subconsulting firms, if any, for the execution and completion of the work hereunder. Such
information may include:
For each of the past two fiscal years, copies of balance sheets, profit and loss
statements, statements of changes in financial position, including footnotes and
auditor's opinions on financial statements, or annual reports to stockholders; or
Documentation of an open letter of credit or other arrangement with an
established bank under which financing would be available for the execution and
completion of the work called for hereunder.
UPDATED 07/15/91 4 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
Upon successful contract negotiations, Metro staff will present the required documentation to the
@ Committee and Metro Council for approval and award of the contract.
F. Notification. Metro shall provide notification of the following actions to all firms being considered
at the time the action is taken:
RFQ/RFP - public announcement;
2. Disqualification of a firm;
3. Selection of finalists for submission of Proposals and oral interviews;
o
4. Notice of ranking; and
5. Notice to Proceed.
Firms should not assume any action has been taken unless they receive specific notification from
Metro. Metro will attempt to notify all firms of any changes to the schedule herein. In the event it
becomes necessary to revise any part of the RFQ/RFP, addenda will be provided to all firms who
request from Metro the RFQ/RFP. If any firm has reason to doubt whether Metro is aware of the
firm's interest, it is the responsibility of the firm to notify Metro to be sure that addenda are
received. Mail or call such notice to @ at (206) 684-@, Metro, Contract Administration, 821
Second Avenue, M/S 107, Seattle, Washington 98104.
IV. DOCUMENTATION AND PRESENTATIONS
The following information shall be submitted in a clear, comprehensive and concise manner and in the
prescribed format.
A. Statements of Qualifications. SOQs are submitted using only the forms provided in Attachment 3
along with a letter of interest. Firms shall submit @ (@) copies of the forms and letter of interest.
SOO forms must be completed for the prime proposer and each subconsultant; however,
the certification shall be signed by the prime proposer only OR however, the questionnaire
and certification shall be completed by the prime proposer only.
2. The letter of interest may contain any other information not shown on the SOQ forms.
Metro would appreciate these documents being as concise as possible (letter of interest
of to exceed two pages).
B. Pro os . roposals are required only from those firms selected as finalists by the Consultant
Selection Board. Proposals shall include the following information in a clear, comprehensive and
concise manner. Proposals shall not exceed @ (@) pages.
1. Expand on perception of project design considerations including special problems;
2. Recommend methodology or approach for addressing the scope of work (Attachment 1);
3. Comment.on adequacy of schedule in Metro's schedule/timetable in the scope of work
and special requirements;
4. Identify project staff, including subconsultants, assignments and summary of related
expertise to solve tasks in the scope of work (Attachment 1);
UPDATED 07/15/91 5 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
@5. Provide detailed scope of work including staffhour assignments for each task identified in
the Scope of Work (Attachment 1).
*@5. Cost and pricing data for each task identified in the scope of work (Attachment 1) must be
submitted. This cost and pricing data is only a proposal and does not constitute a bid or
contract terms.
@6. Each proposer must complete all Minority and Women Business Enterprise and Equal
Employment Opportunity submittals contained in Attachment 2. Each subconsultant must
complete the Sworn Statement Regarding Equal Employment Opportunity and the Project
Employment Profile.
@ (@) copies of the Proposal shall be submitted and every effort should be made to avoid
duplicating information presented in the Statement of Qualifications except where required above.
C. Oral Interviews: Those firms selected to interview with the Board will be notified in writing. Oral
presentations will be made -ina Metro conference room in the Exchange Building, 821 Second
Avenue, Seattle, Washington. Firms will be allowed up to thirty (30) minutes for an oral
presentation and the Board will have an additional twenty (20) minutes for questions. If you are
selected as a finalist firm, please arrive early so that the presentations can begin promptly.
*Note to staff originator: Cost and pricing data not allowed for A&E solicitations.
UPDATED 07/15/91 6 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
Insert Attachment 1: Scope of Work
UPDATED 07/15/91 7 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
Insert Attachment 2: M/WBE Requirements
UPDATED 07/15/91 8 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
l
Insert Attachment 3: Statement of Qualifications and Consultant Questionnaire
UPDATED 07/15/91 9 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
OCT 14 '92 10:34 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710 P.1/2
111,a mr=TRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave, 0 Seattle, WA 98104-1598
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVBR SHEET
DATE SENT:
TRANSMITTED TO: -UQV I Y Cam-r(5�e✓r5-eve
C/4-4- aT Rj2V:t;"--
FAY
TRANSMITTED FROM: �Li"�yl �1 `rr�Ol 07
7
(Name) (Mail Stop)
W-V Fr/3
(Phone)
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION NUMBER: (206) 684-1710
NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED:
(Including Cover Sheet)
PROJECT:
rQ,.., CrioelG/ M
ARMS/TASK NO.: q 0 r
SUBJECT:
NOTES :'Q -ID
X-
OCT 14 '92 10:34 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.2/2
19- Selection Criteria and Considerations. The cr is outlined below will be used In evaluating
lifications and P n the following order of priority. o54A0-pr.'f(�� 5
1. Specialized experience and technical competence of the firm and its personne including
a joint venture, associate or professional subcontract), considering the type of services
required and the complexity of the project. Recent experience and expertise with projects
of a similar type will be a key consideration; 61 4psx
l d�, O fL�Pit
2. Past record of performance on contracts with Metro, iv eie"r public
bodies, and with private industry, including such factors as.co rol of costs, quality of
work, ability to meet schedules, cooperation, responsiveness, compliance with @
utilization requirements, and other managerial and attitudinal considerations;
3. The firm's familiarity with types of problems applicable to the project;
4. The extent to which the Proposal demonstrates a commitment to levels of utilization of
minority and women owned businesses that meet and exceed the ' established @
participation goals for this contract. The @ utilization commitment should allow these
businesses the maximum practicable opportunity to compete for subagreements to be
performed using Metro funds, and should demonstrate @ utilization In significant project
tasks with meaningful participation;
5. The firm's capacity to perform the work (including any specialized services) within the time
limitations, considering the firm's current and planned workload;
/6. Problem identification and proposed method to accomplish the work required including,
where appropriate, demonstrated capability to explore and develop innovative or
advanced techniques and design;
/7. The project employment profile, equal employment opportunity and affirmative action -
plans of each proposer and its team firms; and
_ /8. Apparent ability to comply with and perform consistent with the contract terms and
conditions substantially similar to those provided to finalists.
E. Contract Terms and Negotiations. Negotiation of a contract will be in conformance with
applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and procedures. The objective of the
negotiations will be to reach agreement on all provisions of the proposed contract. To assist in the
negotiations, Metro will prepare a draft contract for review by the selected firm.
Generally, the terms of the contract will include, but are not limited to: (1) completion of the
planning and design within the schedule outlined in the scope of work; (2) retainage of 10 percent
of consultant's Progress billings pursuant to Metro requirements; (3) no additional work without
prior approval; (4) no additional costs or profit without prior approval; (5) maintenance of time and
cost records and access to those records for auditing; (6) termination of contract under certain
conditions; (7) Metro approval of subconsultants; (6) @ participation and equal employment
opportunity requirements; and (9) minimum general and automobile liability insurance
requirements' of $1,000,000 combined single limit, with Metro as an additional insured and
professional liability insurance affording limits of liability of $500,000 per claim/$1,000,000
aggregate.
* hase only.
UPDATED 07/15/91 3 RFQ/RFP (MINORITY)
NO%/ 04 '92 10'34 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066641710 P.1/2
" METRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle a ;;
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. 0 Seattle, WA 98104-1598
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
�.;iTY OF RENTON
DATE SENT: /(r r ?i Engineering Dept.
TRANSMITTED TO: �A�V l� �►15- ZZA V\
f 41
TRANSMITTED FROM:
(Name)
62 gg -- / F/ 5
(Phone)
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION NUMBER: (206) 684-1710
NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED:
(Including Cover Sheet)
FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY:
PROJECT: /I V 0 e'1
(Mail Stop)
,U 0_Aj V,)j�r
ARMS/TASK NO.:
SUBJECT: (/a n JLGZ SICJL+2 d v�
NOTES: IS
e,�,1-
NOV 04 '92 10.55 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.2/2
Any firm failing to submit information in accordance with the procedures set forth herein will not be
considered responsive and will therefore be subject to disqualification by the Consultant
Selection Board.
B . Schedule: The selection process will proceed as outlined below:
C
Date Selection Process
Z Public Announcement for Qualifications & Proposals
0 H -3o , 9 y Pre -proposal Meeting (®)
Q 12, -1 - 9 Z Statements of Qualifications and, Proposals Due (0 O.m.
Local Time)
Board Selects Finalists
9.3 Oral Interviews. and Board Ranks Firms
/-! S- 93 Metro's Approval of Ranking and Authorization to Negotiate
Contract
433 The City's Administrator's Approval of Ranking end
Authorization to Negotiate The City's Contract '.I.
2 Contract Negotiation Complete
16 y14 -'9 3 Execute Metro's Contract and Notice to Proceed
a y,rQ, 9 3 Execute The City's Contract and Notice to Proceed
Consultant Selection Board. In accordance with applicable procedures, all information
presented by firms (i.e., letters of interest/Statements of Qualifications and Proposals) will be
evaluated by the Consultant Selection Board with the assistance of Metro and City staff.
Generally, the Consultant Selection Board is composed of two department directors and three
superintendents/division managers or their designees, and will include a representative from the.
Metro Council and the City. The Minority/Women Business Enterprise Office shall be an advisor
to the Board.
With the assistance from staff, the Consultant Selection Board will be responsible for selecting the
finalists and ranking them subject to approval by Metro's Executive Director and the City's
Administrator. In addition, certain members of the Consultant Selection Board may participate in
contract negotiations with the selected firm.
Selection Criteria and Considerations. The criteria outlined below will be used in
evaluating the Statements of Qualifications and Proposals in the following order of priority.
1. Specialized experience and technical competence of the firm and its personnel proposed
for this project (including a joint venture, associate or professional subcontract),
considering the type of services required and the complexity of the project. Recent
experience and expertise with projects of a similar type will be a key consideration;
2. Past record of performance on contracts with Metro, the City, other public bodies, and
with private industry, including such factors as control of costs, quality of work, ability to
CS/M135-92 3 RFQ/RFP
NOV 04 '92 09:47 METRO ENGR. SER'S:'ICES 2066341710 P.1/9
METRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98104-1598
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
UV 1992
DATE SENT: l ' -/' 9
/ :"1,P. Dept.
TRANSMITTED TO: ' QV 1 (� < irk .�y� �-P—,,,4jvl
a -3 S- 'Z�2S-f I
TRANSMITTED FROM: 7)a v �S :1), e� / vy" r l l
(Name)
1�8L/- �$j3
(Phone)
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION NUMBER: (206) 684-1710
NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED:
(Including Cover Sheet)
FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY:
PROJECT: ) 1�^-�'� Kaz�
/ V
(Mail Stop)
ARMS/TASK NO.: ! 0 1 85� I
SUBJECT:S '
NOTES:
0
.NOV 04 '92 09:47 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.2/9
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE
AND
THE CITY OF RENTON
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS
RFQ/RFP NO. CSIM135-92
HONEY CREEK/MAY VALLEY SEWER SUBBASIN PROJECT
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) and the City of Renton (The City) are requ_estin ers of interest,
Statements of Qualifications and Proposals from firms qualified and interested in providin engineering
services for the Honey Creek/May Valley Sewer project. Interested firms shall obtain a copy of the Request for
Qualifications and Proposals, which outlines the information necessary to understand the consultant selection
process and the required documentation, by calling (206) 684-2024 or from the Contract Administration Section,
10th Floor of the Exchange Building, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. Only submittals from
firms proposing on both Metro's and The City's portion of this project will be accepted for further consideration.
Metro and The City will enter into separate contracts with the top -ranked firms. Letters of interest, Statements of
Qualifications and Proposals shall be submitted no later than @ @.m. on 0, 1992, to the Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), Contract Administration Section (M/S 107), Tenth Floor, Exchange Building, 821
Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104.
Interested firms are encouraged to attend a pre -proposal meeting which will be held to discuss this project, the
consultant selection process and schedule and elements of the contract. The meeting will be held on 0, 1992, at
® O .m. in the @th Floor Conference Room of the Exchange Building, 821 Second Avenue, .Seattle.
Firms are advised that Metro promotes equal'employment opportunity and that it is Metro's policy that Minority and
Women Business Enterprises shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the performance of
its contracts. Metro has established the following M/WBE participation goals for this contract:
Minority Business Enterprise: 17% of contract price;
Women Business Enterprise: 17% of contract price.
There are no established M/WBE Goals for the City's portion of the project.
Following evaluation of the Statements of Qualifications and Proposals, the Consultant Selection Board will select
a minimum of three finalists who will participate in an oral interview.
Questions concerning the consultant selection process should be directed to Denise Hanna•at (206) 664-1376.
Questions concerning MBE, WBE and EEO requirements should be directed to Cheri Dalgaard at (206) 684-
1339. Technical questions regarding Metro's portion of the project may be directed to Dave Dittmar at (206
1813. Technical questions regarding The City's portion of the project should be directed to Dave Christe soo
(206) 277-6212
Any firm failing to submit Infomnation in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Request for Qualifications
and Proposals will not be considered responsive and will therefore be subject to disqualification by the Consultant
Selection Board.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
(206) 684-2024
CSIM135-92 , ADVERTISEMENT RFQ/RFP
NOV 04 '92 09:48 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.3/9
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS
HONEY CREEKIMAY VALLEY SEWER SUBBASIN PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ("Metro") and The City of Renton (the City) are requesting letters
of interest, Statements of Qualifications and Proposals from firms qualified and interested in providing
predesign engineering services for the Honey Creek/May Valley Sewer project. Only submittals from firms
proposing on both Metro's and the City s portion of this project will be accepted for further consideration.
Metro and the City will enter into separate contracts with the top -ranked firm.
This Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ/RFP) outlines the information necessary to
understand the consultant selection process and the required documentation in submitting qualifications
and a Proposal for this project. The procurement.of these services will proceed in two phases:
(a) Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) and proposals shall be submitted to Metro no later
than 0:00 O.m. local time, 0, 1992, after which time they will be reviewed and evaluated.
(b) Oral interviews will be requested from a minimum of three firms qualifying as finalists. Oral
interviews will be held in accordance with the schedule contained in this RFC VRFP.
.!
Firms are advised that Metro promotes equal employment opportunity and that it is Metro's policy that
Minority and Women Business Enterprises shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate
in the performance of its contracts. Metro has established the following MIWBE participation goals for its
contract:
Minority Business Enterprise:
Women Business Enterprise:
'17% of contract price;
17% of contract price.
There are no established M/WBE goals for the City's portion of the project.
Interested firms are encouraged to attend a pre -proposal meeting which will be held to discuss this
project, the consultant selection process and schedule and elements of the contract. The meeting will be
held on 0, 1992, at 0:00 O.m. in the Oth Floor Conference Room of.the Exchange Building, 821
Second Avenue, Seattle.
All information shall be submitted at the dates and times indicated herein to the Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle (METRO), Contract Administration Section (M/S 107), Tenth Floor, Exchange
Building, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. For information regarding the consultant
selection process, contact Denise Hanna at (206) 684-1376. Questions conceming MBE, WBE and EEO
requirements shall be directed to Cheri Dalgaard at (206) 684-1339. Technical questions regarding
Metro's portion of the project shall be directed to Dave Dittmar at (206) 684-1813..Technical questions
regarding The City's portion of the project should be directed to Dave Christ t (206) 277-6212,
Communications with Metro and City officials other than those listed above she cause the firm involved to
be subject to disqualification by the Consultant Selection Board.
?!�
CS/M135-92 1 RFQ/RFP
NOV 04 '92 09:49 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066941710 P.4i9
11. BACKGROUND
The purpose of this joint project between the City of Renton and Metro is to provide sufficient sanitary
service to the existing, as well as future, development within the Honey Creek Sewer Subbasin. The
project consists of two preferred components, Renton's Honey Creek Interceptor Phase IV and Metro's
May Valley Interceptor.
The City of Renton developed the Honey Creek Interceptor as a result of insufficient capacity within the
Sunset Lift Station. In 1981, the City established a moratorium on future connections within the Honey
Creek Subbasin by Resolution No. 2392 because of continued development. In 1986, the City.
completed Phase I through III of the Honey Creek Interceptor. This allowed the City to remove the
moratorium, but did not provide the capacity necessary for full development of the subbasin (0.6 MGD
provided, 1.3 MGD currently projected to be needed). As a result of continued development within the
Honey Creek Subbasin, the City needs to build the last phase of the Honey Creek Interceptor.
Metro constructed the first section of the May Valley Interceptor in 1971. Metro's current comp plan does
not, within the near future, include the extension of the May Valley Interceptor to a point where the Honey
Creek Interceptor could connect. However, a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Renton
and Metro has committed Metro to accelerate the construction of this portion of the May Valley Interceptor
according to a schedule agreed to by the City and Metro.
Both the Honey Creek Interceptor Phase IV and the May Valley Interceptor are included in the City's 1992
Long Range Wastewater Management Plan as the preferred solution to providing the ultimate sanitary
sewer needs of the Honey Creek Subbasin. Their selection as the preferred solution is based primarily
upon their being on all gravity facility that meets the saturation needs of the Honey Creek Subbasin.
The City's 1992 Long Range Wastewater Management plan was given a Determination of Non -
significance on November 17, 1991, and adopted by the City with Resolution No. 2892 on April 6, 1992.
Metro will conduct a SEPA evaluation on the May Valley Interceptor as part of this project. The City is the
lead SEPA agency for the entire Honey Creek Subbasin Project.
Ill., PROCUREMENT PROCESS
A. General. The procurement of these consultant services will be in accordance with Metro, the
City, other applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and procedures.
After reviewing this RFQ/RFP, any firm that determines it has the necessary expertise, experience
and could successfully perform the required services may submit a letter of interest, Statement of
Qualifications (SOO) and Proposal addressing the items set forth herein. Metro and City staff and
the Consultant Selection Board will then evaluate the SOQs and proposals to determine a
minimum of three finalists who will be invited to participate in an oral interview.
Metro and the City reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals received. The final selection,
if any, will be that Proposal which, in the opinion of Metro and the City, best meets the
requirements set forth in the RFQ/RFP and is in the best interest of Metro and the City. Firms are
discouraged from submitting lengthy Proposals; it is required that Proposals be concise and
clearly written containing only essential information. All costs incurred in the preparation of'a
Proposal and participation in this RFQ/RFP process shall be bome by the proposing firms.
Proposals submitted in response to this RFQ/RFP shall become the property of Metro and the
City and considered public documents under applicable Washington State laws.
Metro reserves the right to amend Metro's contract to include design work for this project.
CS/M135-92 2 RFO/RFP
NOV 04 '92 09:49 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.5/9
Any firm failing to submit information in accordance with the procedures set forth herein will not be
considered responsive and will therefore be subject to disqualification by the Consultant
Selection Board.
B . Schedule: The selection process will'proceed as outlined below:
Date Selection Process
® Public Announcement for Qualifications & Proposals
Pre -proposal Meeting (�)
Statements of Qualifications and Proposals Due (@ @.m.
Local Time)
Board Selects Finalists
Oral Interviews and Board Ranks Firms
Metro's Approval of Ranking and Authorization to Negotiate
Contract
lg? The City's Administrator's Approval of Ranking end
Authorization to . Negotiate The City's Contract
Contract Negotiation Complete
Execute Metro's Contract and Notice to Proceed
Execute The City's Contract and Notice to Proceed
C. Consultant Selection Board. In accordance with applicable procedures, all information
presented by firms (i.e., letters of interest/Statements of Qualifications and Proposals) will be
evaluated by the Consultant Selection Board with the assistance of Metro and City staff.
Generally, the Consultant Selection Board' is composed of two department directors and three
superintendents/division managers or their designees, and will include a representative from the.
Metro Council and the City. The Minority/Women Business Enterprise Office shall be an advisor
to the Board.
With the assistance from staff, the Consultant Selection Board will be responsible for selecting the
finalists and ranking them subject to approval by Metro's Executive Director and the City's
Administrator. In addition, certain members of the Consultant Selection Board may participate in
contract negotiations with the selected firm.
0. Selection Criteria and Considerations. The criteria outlined below will be used in
evaluating the Statements of Qualifications and Proposals in the following order of priority.
1. Specialized experience and technical competence of the firm and its personnel proposed
for this project (including a joint venture, associate or professional subcontract),
considering the type of services required and the complexity of the project. Recent
experience and expertise with projects of a similar type will be a key consideration;
2. Past record of performance on contracts with Metro, the City, other public bodies, and
with private industry, including such factors as control of costs, quality of work, ability to
CS/M135-92 3 RFQ/RFP
NOV 04 '92 09:50 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.6/9
meet schedules, cooperation, responsiveness, compliance with M/WBE utilization
requirements, and other managerial and attitudinal considerations;
3. The firm's familiarity with types of problems applicable to the project;
4. The extent to which the Proposal demonstrates a commitment to levels of utilization of
minority and women owned businesses that meet and exceed the established M/WBE
participation goals for Metro's contract. The MIWBE utilization commitment should allow
these businesses the maximum practicable opportunity to compete for subagreements to
be performed using Metro funds, and should demonstrate M/WBE utilization in significant
project tasks with meaningful participation;
5. The firm's capacity to perform the work (including any specialized services) within the time
limitations, considering the firm's current and planned workload;
6. Problem identification and proposed method to accomplish the work required including,
where appropriate, demonstrated capability to explore and develop innovative or
advanced techniques and design; and
7. The project employment profile, equal employment opportunity and affirmative action
plans of each proposer and its team firms.
E . Contract Terms and Negotiations. Separate contracts for the Metro and The City portion of
the project will be negotiated in conformance with applicable federal, state and local laws,
regulations and procedures. The objective of the negotiations will be to reach agreement on all
provisions of the proposed contracts.
METRO CONTRACT
Generally, the terms of the Metro contract will include, but are not limited to: (1) completion of the
design within the schedule outlined in the scope of work; (2) retainage of 10 percent of
consultant's progress billings pursuant to Metro requirements; (3) no additional work without prior
approval; (4) no additional costs or profit without prior approval; (5) maintenance of time and cost
records and access to those records for auditing; (6) termination of contract under certain
conditions; (7) Metro approval of subconsuitants; (6) MNVBE participation and equal employment
opportunity requirements; and (9) minimum general and automobile liability insurance
requirements of $1,000,000 combined single limit, with Metro as an additional insured and
professional liability insurance affording limits of liability of $100,000 per clainV$2,000,000
aggregate.
Cost and Pricing.,ata. At the beginning of contract negotiations with Metro staff, the selected firm
and subconsuiting firms, if any, shall submit cost and pricing data for each task in the attached
scope of work associated with Metro's portion of the project. The cost and pricing data shall
consist of the following level of detail:
1. Direct Labor Costs - Identification of specific personnel proposed and/or labor categories,
the proposed raw salary rates and the proposed direct labor hours;
2. Indirect Cost Allocations - Identification of indirect cost pool(s) and allocation base(s)
including a detailed breakdown of cost categories by dollar amount;
3. Other Direct Non -Salary Costs - Identification of costs by type/category of cost; and
4. Profit.
CS/M135-92 4 RFO/RFP
NOV 04 '92 09:51 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.7/9
These costs, once agreed to by Metro and the selected firm, shall form the basis for a
billing/payment provision.
Metro reserves the right to request documentation supporting the proposed cost and pricing
data. Such informatkm shall include but not be limited to:
A certified statement from the selected firm and subconsulting firm, if any, about the firm's
accounting system indicating the following:
a) an overview of the accounting system and its capability to track costs and provide
financial information; and
b) written procedures and policies concerning the accounting system, timekeeping,
payroll, purchased services and materials, direct and indirect cost control, asset
capitalization, depreciation, and pre -contract costs. .
Chart of accounts including definition of what is included in each account.
o Cost information supporting the basis for the indirect cost rate(s) and a statement
from the selected firm and subconsulting firms, if any, indicating the cost
accounting period and whether the cost information is formulated using historical
or projected data. If the cost information is based on projected cost data, then
both historical and projected data will be provided with explanations for changes
from historical to projected cost data.
o A certified statement from the selected firm and subconsulting firms, if any, that
the proposed cost and pricing data does not include any unauthorized charges
per 48 CFR Chapter 1 Part 31.
Proof of adequate financial resources which would be available to the selected firm and
subconsulting firms, if any, for the execution and completion of the work hereunder.
Such information may include:
For each of the past two fiscal years, copies of balance sheets, profit and loss
statements, statements of changes In financial position, including footnotes and
auditor's opinions on financial statements, or annual reports to stockholders; or
Documentation of an open letter of credit or other arrangement .with an
established bank under which financing would be available for the execution and
completion of the work called for hereunder.
Upon successful contract negotiations, Metro staff will present the required documentation to the
Metro's Executive Director for approval and award of the contract.
2. CITY OF RENTON CONTRACT
General the terms of the contract with the City of Renton will include, but are not limited to:
(1) Completion of the Planning and Design within the schedule outlined in the scope of work;
(2) No additional work without prior written approval; (3) No additional costs or profits without prior
written approval; (4) Maintenance of time and cost records and access to those records for
auditing; (5) Termination of contract under certain conditions; (6) City of Renton approval of
subconsultants; (7) Minimum general and automobile liability insurance requirements of
$1,000,000 combined single unit, with the City of Renton as an additional insured and
professional liability insurance affording limits of liability of $500,000 per ciaim/$1,000,000
aggregate.
CS/M136-92 5 RFO/RFP
NOV 04 '92 09:51 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.8/9
Upon successful contract negotiations, the City of Renton will submit the required documentation
to it's Utilities Committee and Council for approval and Award of Contract.
F. Notification. Metro shall provide notification of the following actions to all firms being
considered at the time the action is taken:
1. RFQ/RFP - public announcement;
2. Disqualification of a firm;
3. Selection of finalists for oral interviews;
4. Notice of ranking; and
5. Notice to Proceed.
Firms should not assume any action has been taken unless they, receive specific notdication from
Metro. Metro will attempt to notify all firms of any changes to the schedule herein. In the event it
becomes necessary to revise any part of the RFO/RFP, addenda will be provided to all firms who
request from Metro the RFQ/RFP. If any firm has reason to doubt whether Metro is aware of the
firm's interest, it is the responsibility of the firm to notify Metro to be sure that addenda are
received. Mail or call such notice to Denise Hanna at (206) 684-1376, Metro, Contract
Administration, 821 Second Avenue, MIS 101, Seattle, Washington 98104.
IV. DOCUMENTATION AND PRESENTATIONS
The following information shall be submitted in a clear, comprehensive and concise manner and in the
prescribed format. Please submit ® (0) copies of all the required information. Clearly identify the original.
A . letter of Interest The letter of interest may contain any other information not shown on the
SOQ,forms or the Proposal. Metro would appreciate these documents being as concise as
possible (letter of interest not to exceed two pages).
B. Statements of Qualifications. SOQs are submitted using only the forms provided in
Attachment S. SOQ forms must be completed for the prime proposer and each subconsuttant;
however, the certification shall be signed by the prime proposer only.
C. Proposals. Proposals shall include the following information in a clear, comprehensive and,
concise manner. Proposals shall not exceed @ (0) pages.
1. Expand on perception of project design considerations including special problems;
2. Recommend methodology or approach for addressing the scope of work (Attachment 1);
3. Comment on adequacy of schedule in Metro's schedulehimetable in the scope of work
and special requirements;
4. Identify project staff, including subconsultant's staff, assignments and summary of related
expertise of each staff member to solve tasks in the scope of work (Attachment 1);
5. Provide detailed scope of work including staffhour assignments for each task identified in
the Scope of Work (Attachment 1).
CS/M135-92 6 RFQ1RFP
.NO'V 04 '92 09:52 METRO ENGR. SERVICES 2066841710
P.9/9
6. Each proposer must complete all Minority and Women Business Enterprise and Equal
Employment Opportunity submittals contained in Attachment 2. Each subconsultant
must complete the Sworn Statement Regarding Equal Employment Opportunity and the
Project Employment Profile.
D . Oral Interviews: Those firms selected to interview with the Board will be notified in writing. Oral
presentations will be made in a Metro conference room in the Exchange Building, 821 Second
Avenue, Seattle, Washington. Firms will be allowed up to thirty (30) minutes for an oral
presentation and the Board will have an additional twenty (20) minutes for questions. If you are
selected as a finalist firm, please arrive early so that the presentations can begin promptly.
CS/M7 35-92 7 RFQ/RFP
No
Earl Clymer, Mayor
October 21, 1992
David Dittmar
Metro - M/S 117
Exchange Building
921 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104-1 598
CITY OF R,ENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK/MAY VALLEY INTERCEPTOR
RFP/RFQ DOCUMENT
Dear Dave:
As was discussed in our meeting of October 12, 1992, please find herein the language
the City wishes to utilize for Section III (E) of the RFP/RFQ document as well as
consultants the City wishes to be contacted regarding the RFP/RFQ.
Consultants to be contacted:
RH2 Engineering, P.S.
Opportunity Building - STE 200
8383 - 158th Ave NE
Redmond, WA 98052
Parametrix, Inc.
P. 0. Box 460
Sumner, WA 98390
J. M. Montgomery
2375 - 130th Ave NE STE 200
Bellevue, WA 98005
Brown and Caldwell
100 West Harrison
Seattle, WA 98119
Hammond, Collier, Wade & Livingstone
4010 Stoneway North
Seattle, WA 98103
ATTN: Rick Harbert
ATTN: Vicki Sironen
ATTN: Patrick Burke
ATTN: Mike O'Neal
ATTN: Robert Bergstrom
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
David Dittmar
Metro
Additions to Section III (E) of RFP/RFQ:
Generally, the terms of the contract with the City of Renton will
include, but are not limited to: (1) Completion of the Planning and
Design within the schedule outlined in the scope of work; (2) No
additional work without prior written approval; (3) No additional costs
or profits without prior written approval; (4) Maintenance of time and
cost records and access to those records for auditing; (5) Termination
of contract under certain conditions; (6) City of Renton approval of
sub -consultants; (7) Minimum general and automobile liability
insurance requirements of $1,000,000 combined single unit, with the
City of Renton as an additional insured and professional liability
insurance affording limits of liability of $500,000 per
claim/$1,000,000 aggregate.
Upon successful contract negotiations, the City of Renton will submit
the required documentation to it's Utilities Committee and Council for
approval and Award of Contract.
Page 2
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (206)
277-6212.
cerely,
J7dVid fistenseen
Wastewater Utility Engineer
C:DOCS:92-843:D1V1C:ps
CC: Gregg Zimmerman
ij
FED-09-1993 11:01 FROM DROWN & CALDWELL SEATTLE TO 902352541 P.001i002
FAX Z 35 -Z54 !
February 9, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVE CHRISTENSEN
CITY OF RENTON
FROM: MICHAEL O'NEAL
BROWN AND CALDWELL
SUBJECT: HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
9938.11
We have now begun discussions with Metro that should lead to
a contract. I have provided Dave Dittmar with a cost
summary of the hours that we had included in the proposal.
we have not made firm commitments with subcontractors but
have verified their original hour/cost estimates. At this
time I have developed both Metro and City costs consistent
with the terms (overhead and markups) of our current
standing contract with the City.
Attached is cost summary for the City portion of the
project, developed from the hour estimate shown in the
proposal. This should serve as a starting point for
developing our contract. Please let me know if you need any
additional information. I assume the contract itself will
follow, or duplicate, the form of our annual contract.
We're looking forward to starting work!
cc. Bob Gatz
;OS�t.ltl'and faz�transm�itlalmo �671 M of pages
/�( From /j 4r AjP
H
A011107 IIOJ7&Y Creek S111M lh proiec�
N
m
m
N
m
m
C� Professional
Merrill
$4327
V7 O'Neal
$33.29
N Gatz
$28.21
N Denson
$30.09
Knott
$26.90
Flanigan
M.07
Technical
Miller
$24-70
Dralling
$22.36
Administretive
WP
$16.26
0
H
Other Direct Costs
w
Travel
w Communication
N Computer/CADD
J Reproduction/Nming
J
3 Word Processing
A
J
Q Subconsultants
U
od Adolfson Associates
z
3 Lee & Associates
� Inca
W
GeoEngineers
E
� rota! Labor Hours
LL
Professional
m Technical
;-, Administrative
rotal Labor Dollars
m Dverhead
m rotalODC's
4
1 :"
m
m
w ,rASK TOTALS
LL
TASK:
Hours
Task 100
Project
Management
Hours
Task 200
Environmental
Compliance
Hours
Task 300
Prep -Design
Hours
Task 400
Final
Deeign
Hours
Task 500
Construction
Management
4
$173
42
$1,817
8
$346
160
$5,326
132
$4,394
68
$2,930
40
$1,332
40
$1,128
300
$8,463
212
$5,961
160
$4,514
56
$1,605
212
$6,379
40
$923
144
$3,557
156
$3,853
72
$1,778
60
$1,789
480
$10,733
40
$894
40
$650.40
80
$1.300.00
40
$650.40
40
$650.40
$200•00
M-00
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
$100.00
$l00.00
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
$1.600.00
$6,720.00
$800.00
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
$300.00
$.900.00
$400.00
$800.00
$400.00
$400.00
$28,400.00
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
$36,wo.00
$12,000.00
$21,000.00
204 56 726 308 200
224 636 112
40 80 40 40
$24.112.27 $37,056.65 $165,944.30 $108,672.38 $31,245.53
$3677,033.13
c:lpmlfax2.Dm3kv
900/T00'd #900#TVSZSzE06 01 3-l11d9S-n3MG-ldO '8 NMO�19 WOHA 02:9T 266T-9z-Q9d
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttman, Administrator
Brown and Caldwell
100 West Harrison Street
Seattle WA 98119-4186
Attention: Mike O'Neal
SUBJECT: TASK ORDER NO. - ANNUAL CONTRACT CAG 063-91
RE: NoNe y nerc
Mike,
Enclosed for your file is an executed original Task Order Authorization No, eto Consultant
Contract No. CAG 063-91 in the amount of to perform final sewer design for
the Sierra Heights Sanitary Sewer.
If you have any questions, please call me at 277-6206.
Very truly yours,
Michael A. Benoit
Wastewater Utility Engineer
T03-8C/MA8:lf
Attachment
cc: Randall L. Parsons, Stormwate r/Waste water Supervisor
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washineton 98055
900/E00,d #900#TVS=E06 01 3-111U3S-MMG-lUO '8 NMO69 WOaA 02:9T 266T-9E-93d
CAG-b63-9I
FXBW qIr
TASK ORDER AUTiiORIZATi4�i
City of Renton
Project No. `
Name of Project er
Master Agreement No. CA G 91 Ara,_ ,0G7'
Task Order Authorization No.
The City desires to authorize engineering services pursuant to the Master Agreement entered
into with Brown and Caldwell and executed on tune 11, 1991 and identified as Master
Agreement No. CAG 06"1.
All provisions in the Master Agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this
work Authorization and arc incorporated herein by reference.
Scope of Task Order
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK
II. ESTIMATE OF HOURS AND COST
M. STAFF COMMITMENT AND SCHEDULE OF COMPLETION
IV. ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CONSULTANT
SUMMARY OF FEE FOR EN91NEEG VICES
Direct Salary Cost �•��
Overhead Cost 'I I,O D
(including payroll additives) 185.00% ,
Sub -Total ,
Net Fee
%
' 5Z
Direct Non
-Salary Costs:
a.
Travel and per diem
$ 0
b.
Reproduction expanses
$ — ".50
c.
Cojmputer/CARD expenses
$ 499-
ZD
d.
Word processing
$-449:9@r0
e.
Outside consultants
$ —
7SO
f.
Other (specify)
S 0
4770
Sub-Total
GRAND TOTAL TOTAL
��38,sz
900i200'd
#900#TbSZS2E06 01
TliiU3S 0-13MG-lbD 2 NM0?J9 W08A
T2:9T 266T-9Z-S3d
SUMMARY COVER SHMI•
Qe r�o�a ✓ap r
a� 5
INFORMATION: To perform e
7
PROJECT:
Sib64l%K P�oJ Lc
PROJECT NUMBER:
CONSULTANT: Brown and Caldwell
100 West Harrison Street
Seattle, WA 9811"186
AGREEMENT NUMBER TASK ORDER AMOUNT: ,
NUMBER/�
AUTHORIZATION 3
ORDER NUMBER
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 421/400/18.596.35.65.45095
DESCRIP'ITON OF Siet�a-�Ie'Skyrer
PROJECT D m a r4eC d /�!{/ h. Aro e
900ib00'd 01 3-l11d3S 003MG-ld0 2 NMO019 W06-J 12:9T 266T-9Z-Q33
EXHIBIT B
TASK ORDER
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
This task provides for the placement of control targets,
flight and aerial photography to a level of accuracy to
prepare detail mapping (under a separate contract) at a
scale of 1 inch equals 40 feet for the proposed alignments
on Honey and May Creeks from Devil's Elbow to the Metro
connection on Jones Avenue.
900iS00'd #9009TVSZSSz06 01 3-111d3S-n3MG-1d0 $ NMOag WOJd T2:9T 266T-9Z-99d
:
flo�ev Creek .SUbI asin Proiecf
Task Order Not
Aerial
TASK: I Photography
Rate
Hours
Professional
Executive Engineer $44.95
Managing Engineer $31.72
Principal Engineer Sn.37
Technical
Sr. Technician $23.56
Sr. Geologist $29.23
Supervising Drafter $20.91
Administrative
Word Processing $15.53
Project Assistant $15.00
4
$80.00
Other Direct Costs
Mileage
$0,30
Blueline
$1.25
Computer/CADD
$20.00
Reproduction/Priming
$0.15
Word Processing
$10.00
$20.00
Subconsultant Costa
$4,750.00
Total Labor Hours
Professional
Technical
Administrative
4
Total Labor Dollars
3��;,L;;°�;K,,�,•Y,y�
Overhead
n„•
Toter ODC'e
L;lf•ff�K
Professional Fee
�ykIY��JI >E;J ���'� •
4''"7'
TASK TOTALS $5,438.52
900/900'd #908#Tt7SZS2E06 01 3-I11d3S -173MG-10D 2 NI10�19 WOaA E2:9T 266T-9E-93d
Consultant's Qualifications/Proposals Evaluation
HONEY CREEK SUBBASIN PROJECT
RFQ/RFP NO. CS/M135-92
Proposer:,
Subconsultants: AQoL- I-L 1A`.���,�-c�s
LI
Evaluation by:
Date: - Z
101
SELECTION CRITERIA
(in order of priority):
ITEM
Specialized experience and technical competence
of the firm and its personnel proposed for this project
(including a joint venture, associate or professional
subcontract), considering the type of services required
and the complexity of the project. Recent experience and
expertise with projects of a similar type will be a key
consideration.
2. Past record of performance on contracts with Metro, _
the City, other public bodies, and with private industry,
including such factors as control of costs, quality of
work, ability to meet schedules, cooperation,
responsiveness, compliance with M/WBE utilization
requirements, and other managerial and attitudinal
considerations.
!A A -
EVALUATION COMMENTS
�;- !-me-
N � � I'I�.� t2w►�
3. Frm's familiarity with types of problems applicable 4-6 Aa*1 6SO � 2Fou v f�J "s
to the project. -r Gt A
tl 1 ►`� 1Z�i4 Fb2 %.Lc.JI rtl
rig ��r� Paoot 'S �
ITEM
4. The extent to which the Proposal demonstrates
a commitment to levels of utilization of minority and
women owned businesses that meet and exceed the
established M/WBE participation goals for Metro's
contract. The M/WBE utilization commitment should
allow these businesses the maximum practicable
opportunity to compete for subagreements to be
performed using Metro funds, and should demonstrate
M/WBE utilization in significant project tasks with
meaningful participation.
5. The firm's capacity to perform the work within
time limitations, considering the firm's current
and planned workload.
6. Problem identification and proposed method to
accomplish the work required including, where
appropriate, demonstrated capability to explore
and develop innovative or advanced techniques
and design.
7. The project employment profile, equal employment
opportunity and affirmative action plans of each
proposer and its team firms.
3=G
jti5
EVALUATION COMMENTS
T" 'n�.t�r4 �r �24!T
�►-r�l � �.�� -von ���� � ��/ ��,�ti^ � .L-=��-��� _._.
''�►, 1 .a �� coo 'r/�3 t' ►1-L�?
,, V
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 1993
TO: Kay Shoudy
VIA: Gregg Zimmerman
FROM: Dave Christense&_; -
SUBJECT: COMMENTS OF PFEIS - LAND USE
Overall this document has come a long way (in a short time frame) from the DEIS. As
such, my comments are few and minor. I have written some notes on the text itself
and some additional notes as follows:
UTILITIES (RH2 PORTION) - Page 6:
Discussion of capacity within the downtown core needs to be expanded to illustrate
that while capacity is not available overall in the area, that does not meant that all
portions of the existing infrastructure need to be upsized to accommodate the capacity
restraints. Upon determination of the new land use and zoning for the downtown, the
Wastewater Utility will perform an analysis that will identify in better detail, which
segments will require upsizing.
UTILITIES (RH2 PORTION) - Page 7:
Discussion of the May Valley annexation area in regards to sewer service needs to be
clear regarding the intent of what portions would be served (urban) and which areas
would not (rural). This is a highly sensitive area to the public and all discussion must
be provided in such detail as not to misrepresent the City's intent in regards to sanitary
sewer service in this area.
INFRASTRUCTURE -METRO - Page 2-55:
Minor text editing in second paragraph. Rename May Creek Interceptor to May Valley
Interceptor. Last paragraph on Page 2-55 identifies purpose of May Valley Interceptor
is due to failing septic systems. The source of this needs to be checked, it is not this
section's understanding that this is the primary intent of this project. As part of the
MOA with the City, Metro agreed the need for this project was to meet the long term
needs of the Honey Creek sub basin, and as such, would only be constructed to the
convergence of May Creek and Honey Creek to allow the City's Honey Creek
Interceptor to make connection. Future extensions of the May Valley Interceptor will
be dependent upon if and when this portion of the basin is opened for urban
development requiring sanitary sewer service.
Kay Shoudy
Comments of FREIS - Land Use
Page 2
INFRASTRUCTURE -METRO - Page 2-56:
My reference is given to both the Cascade Siphon and Madsen Creek Interceptor.
Revise to Cascade Siphon only. Contact Brian Russell with Metro at 684-1896
regarding the Madsen Creek Interceptor project.
C:D0CS:93-004:D1V1C:ps
�q
Rg
>
0`'
Q
N 40th ST
z
N 38th ST
� 3
Q N 37th a
/ v NE
Z
/
31
N 36th ST
/
N 35th ST
G, N 34th ST N 3ath
N
ST
/ ar
33rd N 33rd ST
32nC j N 32nd ST N 32nd
N 31st N 31st ST
N 30th N 30th ST N 30th ST —
N 29th N 29th ST
♦` � N 28th PL N 28th ST
Q z
N 26th
nn a
11 `�
m
GENE COULON
BEACH PARK
o8'h S.
SE 69Ih
Q
SSE 72nd S? �N a I a > SE 72nd Sl
t SE 73rd ST
NE 50th T
HAZLEW000 PARK
760 ST
—� SE 75th PL
a S7111h
'I SI
SE �j 79th ST
1L1it11=j
�L_MAY CREEK
Ian �
ILs,, >Q 84th ST
LID ATIO s
SE I 88th I ST IN
SE 89tn � � 891n '�
SE 90th
SE gist ST
g2nd
GENSING AN
�� L 27t�h S=IIST
�zNE 241h ST NE 24E 2NE 23rd 22nd NENE 2�HONEY
i REEK,
o NE 21st
NE 20th ST o NE 20th
a z
> PJ
a
N� �c z
o < +6th Sr z
z
NE 16th
L
>a
141h Z o a
W U X Z Y C
p Z C
� D y
W < < < Y
m <
r x
NE 12th ISTo
r-u Q
WREN LSE8st ~
>a 1 SE 83rd
fh
A!
OXIMATE OC T
NEY C K
t PTO E
MAY CREEK89lh A!
PARK
wl
'51 E 98th ST
TINGSE 100th ST
STATION
SE lolst
> SE 102nd Si
G �
A SE 103rd ST
SE 104th ST
l II V NE 19th
�! a 17th
N
z o CITY OF RENTON
oo Z DEFART 4ZNT OF PM13MC WORX8
3
® HONEY CREEK SEWER PROJECT
EINGe
REONTON o NE 10th `J VICINITY / LOCATION MAP
Y G w
PLANT rr NE tOth PL O DESIGNED: DMIC DATE10-27-02 FILE Nn ME:
Y m CHECKECHECKS
DY
G Z NE 9th PL D-, C SCREE. NO19B
Z
$MEET: 1 OF, 1
I ('
68th PL N SE 68th
SE 69th
1 _ j ; SE 72nd S � � a � I � SE 12nd Si
4
I I L SE 731d Si Q
II NL N
50:
/ h
40
1 HAZLEWOOD PARK �arh 6q v
76th S? j / ( —TAKE•
- J BOREN
a I� S77,h
SE 75th Pl
^u ��SE
SE II 79th 51 SE 81st
�igrCPF i z all rn o W t8 >
'a R c j I > > < SE 83rd
G I Q
N 40th ST Q _ I SE 84th ST
� LST
z (� z
�P o FT OXIMAT LO TIOI
N 3atn
`I J I VALLEY
IN RCEPTO — OXIMATE OC TIO
NEY C K
/ N 36th ST "E ism sr I SE 88th ST IN R PTO E IV
d N 35th ST I i SE 89th g9th 5 SF
8
N 34th S' N 341h ST � t i I � SE 90th MAY CREEK 9(h a(
/ N 33rd Pl NI NE 33rd ST PARK
SE 91st Si
j 331d N 33rd ST _ ��� 92nd
zI
�--32nd N " 32nd v
32nd ST � � 4,
N 31t N 31st ST i NE 31 st ST MAY CREEK
9
N 30thI N 30th Si IN 30th STI(
N 29th N 291h ST �• QQ' i N 28th ST �
♦` N 28th PL N 28th ST LENSING AN
SE 95th
Q NE —
z 27tF: ST
N 26th ` POD E 98th ST
r Q
1I yc^
rj 0 SE 100th ST
NE 24th ST ELL--- NE 24th SiDaSTING
E 23rd PL UFf 5TAltd1
U A SE ST
U � � L02ndNE 23rd 22nd NE 23rd ST HONEY >Si
L
F z o NE 21 tRSTK m SE 103rd ST
'I Q
O
NE 20th ST NE 20th �\�y`\•PP SE 104th ST
a z
J
a P NE 191h
u U Q w
Z a 16th S7
`"' NE 16ih I� ST p1F. ( a'L1711J
BLVD
O O N J (n
14th
w a
w z <
w
GENE COULON
BEACH PARK NE 2th ST `
z o CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF PSJBLIO WORKS
® _���` HONEY CREEK SEWER PROJECT
EING
RE0Ni0 NE 10th o VICINITY / LOCATION MAP
���/ W
PLANT Oth PL I DO DESIGNED: D1[C DATE: 10-27-9E FILE NAME:
DRAWN:
YL m CHECKED. DXC SGALE'. NUIQB vote.
y y NE 9th PL
SHEET: S OF. I
;
i
Lj
,i
i
li
fi
i
i
a