HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWP273062 (8)OC'TOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE:
NAME OF APPLICANTIFIRM:
NAME OF RATER:
Use the following scoring while evaluati
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1
Applicable work experience, particularly within last 5 ears.
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
3
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
cat o
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
developing_technologies, etc.
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
a
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item).
6
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
SUBTOTAL:
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1
Technical materials, specialists(including location of s ecialists .
3
2
Time availability of key staff.
3
3
Overall resource availability.
l
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Management:
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
budget.
3
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
a
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
�1
adequate field and background research, etc.)�C
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
v`
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?
4
Overall approach to project.
SUBTOTAL:
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
O
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
-joA4 t MAV-Y
1�i�oJ �T
OC'TOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE:
NAME OF APPLICANTIFIRM:
NAME OF RATER:
Use the following scoring while evaluating c taspofthe proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Finn:
1
Applicable work experience, particularly within last 5 years.
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
a
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
category.
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
developing technologies etc.
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item).
6
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
SUBTOTAL:
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1 Technical materials, specialists(including location of specialists .
2 Time availability of key staff.
-
3 Overall resource availability.
SUBTOTAL: l
Proiect Management: %
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
err
budget.
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
SUBTOTAL:
I
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.)'
1
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
r�
described?)2
4
Overall approach to project.
SUBTOTAL:
I�
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
Z
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
Z-
_ Div �1�1..�f�D� ���o>•.t-t" �� rr��
OCTOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE: 11 p
NAME OF APPLICANTIFIRM: +'IGUnn-wavtdl e.
NAME OF RATER:
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspe\6t of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1
Applicable work experience, particulady within last 5 years.
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
5
sate o .
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
develo incl technologies, etc.
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item).
g
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
SUBTOTAL:
00
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1 Technical materials, specialists(including location of specialists .
2 Time availability of key staff.
3 Overall resource availability.
I Z-
SUBTOTAL:
I
i
Proiect Management:
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
budget.
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
SUBTOTAL:
I c7
Project Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.)
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?
4
Overall approach to project.
SUBTOTAL:
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
2
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
Z
OC'TOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE:
NAME OF APPLICANTIFIRM:
NAME OF RATER:
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1
Applicable work experience, articulady within last 5 years.
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
category.
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
developing technologies, etc.
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item).
6
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
4
SUBTOTAL:
D: E1
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1
Technical materials, specialists including location of specialists).
�7
2
Time availability of key staff.
3
Overall resource availability.
SUBTOTAL:
/4
,I
Proiect Management:
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
bud et.
3
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
4
SUBTOTAL:
I
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.)`j
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
4
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?
4
Overall approach to project.
`7
SUBTOTAL:
17
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
none, enter a 2).
2
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
O
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
Z
Kv_"IJ-` Vx,e- �?o "rrvv-Y
OCTOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE:
NAME OF APPLICANTIFIRM: ra ��� Ors' � Tor,
NAME OF RATER:
r
Use the following scoring while evaluating ea aspe -oZhe roposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Finn:
I
1
Applicable work experience, particularly within last 5 ears.
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
category.
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
developing technologies.. etc.
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item).
6
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
SUBTOTAL:
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1
Technical materials, specialists(including location of specialists).
2
Time availability of key staff.
3
Overall resource availability.
SUBTOTAL:
fir. �.:: , �. �� �. • � . � r.. �. �.
Proiect Management:
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
budget.
in
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
SUBTOTAL:
a
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?
4
Overall approach to project.
SUBTOTAL: 7-1p
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
OCTOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE: oc rt ( I-) e v � I q q �
NAME OF APPLICANT/FIRM:
NAME OF RATER:
1ZH2
k)e, I / (i)a vS
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1
Applicable work experience, particulady within last 5 years.
3
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
4
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
4
category.
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
develo ing technolo ies, etc.
4
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item .
6
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
22
SUBTOTAL:
'
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1
Technical materials, specialists (includinglocation of s ecialists .
4
3
2
Time availability of key staff.
4
3
Overall resource availability. -T
6I
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Management:
i
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
budget.
3
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
�-
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
3
SUBTOTAL: I
CID)
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
L+
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
3
described?
4
Overall approach to project.
3
SUBTOTAL:
I I
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
Z
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
v
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
5�
OC'TOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE: O r t o b e✓ l g q S
NAME OF APPLICANT/FIRM: i-(awl w(o�'i�{-� Cu I �c+ GiJa de - Livng4 slowe-
NAME OF RATER:
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1 Applicable work experience, p3rticulari within last 5 years. `t
2 Technical experience of staff proposed. 3
3 Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
category.
4 Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with 3
5 Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item).
6 1 Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
21
SUBTOTAL:
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1
Technical materials, special sts (including location of specialists).
3
2
2
Time availabilit of key staff.
3
Overall resource availability.
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Management:
i
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
bud et.
3
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
SUBTOTAL:
f O
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
3
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?)
3
4
Overall a proach to project.
i
SUBTOTAL:
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
2
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
O
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
(55T]
DATE:
NAME OF APPLICANTIFIRM:
NAME OF RATER:
OCTOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
�c
0c_T.v%c✓ `r� , I '� I
KC M
�J
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1
Applicable work experience, particularly within last 5 years.
4
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
4
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
4
category.
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
developinq technologies, etc.
3
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
7—
this item).
6
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
4
2�
SUBTOTAL:
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1
Technical materials, s ecialists(including location of specialists .
3
3
2
Time availability of key staff.
2"
3
Overall resource availability.
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Management:
i
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
bud et.
3
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
Z
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
3
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
3
adequate field and background research, etc.
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
Z
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?
3
4
Overall approach to project.
3
r
SUBTOTAL:
f
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
3
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
5
j.ticLiZ- �21r 1�>,-LT' j�y�oJT
OC'TOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE: Octo bev
NAME OF APPLICANT/FIRM: Ke--40edci Jz�+ks COY+Sul ta[,+Zs
NAME OF RATER: /Ue; ( t�)A - 5
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1
Applicable work experience, particulady within last 5 years.
L%
4
2
Technical experience of staff -proposed.
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
category.
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
3
develo in technolo ies, etc.
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
Z
this item).
6
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
ZU
SUBTOTAL:
Finm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1 Technical materials, specialists (in,,Iuding location of specialists). 3
2 Time availabilitv of kev staff.
3 Overall resource availability. 3
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Management:
i
r
J.
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
bud et.
Z
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
2
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
3
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.
2
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
Z
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
3
described?
4
Overall approach to project.
2
SUBTOTAL:
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
2
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
O
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
4
OC TOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE: OC-t i c( q
NAME OF APPLICANTIFIRM:
NAME OF RATER:
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1
Applicable work experience, particularly within last 5 years.
3
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
3
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
1+
category.
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
developing technologies, etc.
2
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item).
,2
6
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
3
SUBTOTAL:
Cl-
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1
Technical materials, specialists (in,,Iuding location of specialists).
3
2
Time availability of key staff.
3
Overall resource availability.
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Management: ;
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
budget.
?-
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
Z
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
3
SUBTOTAL:
(-7
Project Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.
2
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
Z
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?)
3
4
Overall approach to project.
3
SUBTOTAL:
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
2
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
(L4 5
OCTOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE:
NAME OF APPLICANT/FIRM:����
NAME OF RATER: Cif=-fii
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Finn:
1 Applicable work experience, particulari within last 5 years.
2 Technical experience of staff proposed.
3 Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
4 I Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer I
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
5 Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item).
6 Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
SUBTOTAL:
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1 Technical materials, specialists inc uding location of specialists).
2 Time avai lability of key staff.
-
3 Overall resource availability.
SUBTOTAL: /
Project Management:
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
budget.
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.
4
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?)—/
4
Overall approach to project.
SUBTOTAL:
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
-7l
OC'TOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE:
o� ll
NAME OF APPLICANT/FIRM: '4g"
NAME OF RATER: V0 4
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the fir n's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Finn:
1
Applicable work ex erience, particulady within last 5 years.
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
I
cate orv.
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
develo in technolo ies, etc.
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
Renton, score a 2 on
standards (if you know of no previous work for
this item).
6
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
SUBTOTAL:
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1 Technical materials, specialists (in,,Iuding location of specialists).
2 Time availability of key staff.
3 Overall resource availability.
SUBTOTAL: f'
Proiect Management: i
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
/1
budget.
"1
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
SUBTOTAL:
3
Project Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
I
adequate field and background research, etc.
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?
4
Overall approach to project.
SUBTOTAL:
8
(6
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
19
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
OC'TOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE: 4.
� 1?6
��f'/� ,�i
NAME OF APPLICANT/FIRM: -�
NAME OF RATER:
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1
Applicable work experience, particulady within last 5 years.
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
o
4
_Late
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
1-4
develo ing technologies, etc.
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
4
this item).
g
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
f/
SUBTOTAL:
Finn's/Team's Resource Availability:
1
Technical materials, specialists includin location of s ecialists .
2
Time availability of key staff.
3
Overall resource availability._
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Management:
1 .,1' ...,� J.. •. ��, �._„. �r r'. alp; ? •i
i
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
budget.
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
SUBTOTAL:
C�
Project Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
"y
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?
4
Overall approach to project.
SUBTOTAL:
V
�®
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
J�
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
v
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
&7
OC'TOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE: L11 ,�4
NAME OF APPLICANTIFIRM: ��� 4- ab"Jg-
NAME OF RATER:
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1
Applicable work experience, particularly within last 5 years.
!!
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
14
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
category.
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
/1
�1
developing technologies, etc.
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
if
this item).
6
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
SUBTOTAL:
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1
Technical materials, specialists(including location of specialists).
2
Time availability of key staff.
Overall resource availability.
3
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Management:
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
budget.
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
//11
adequate field and background research, etc.)
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?
4
Overall approach to project.
SUBTOTAL:
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
lYZ
OCTOBER, 1998
WRITTEN EVALUATION
DATE: AP9
NAME OF APPLICANT/FIRM:�:�/�./
NAME OF RATER:
Use the following scoring while evaluating each aspect of the proposal:
Inadequate = 1, Acceptable = 2, Good = 3, Excellent = 4, Outstanding = 5
WRITTEN EVALUATION
Review the firm's Statement of Qualifications, and evaluate the following elements, based upon
the scoring system described above.
Qualifications and Expertise of the Firm:
1
Applicable work experience, particularly within last 5 years.
2
Technical experience of staff proposed.
3
Demonstrated knowledge of engineering principles required in this
category.
4
Special skills or "bonuses" the firm may provide (such as computer
modeling expertise, laboratory facilities, experience with
developing technologies, etc.
5
Quality of work on previous Renton projects; knowledge of Renton
standards (if you know of no previous work for Renton, score a 2 on
this item).
g
Overall qualifications and expertise of firm.
SUBTOTAL:
Firm's/Team's Resource Availability:
1
Technical materials, specialists(including location of specialists).
2
Time availability of key staff.
3
Overall resource availability.
SUBTOTAL:
If'
Proiect Management:
i
1
Experience indicates that consultant produces on time and within
budget.
2
Structure of team compatible with City, easy to work with.
3
Overall apparent project management ability.
SUBTOTAL:
Proiect Approach:
1
Approach to projects compatible with City practices (preparation of
scope of work, breakdown of project into tasks and milestones,
adequate field and background research, etc.)
2
Emphasis on communication with client.
J
3
Adequacy of quality control practices (do senior engineers perform
quality checks, is there an adequate quality control program
described?
4
Overall approach to project.
I
SUBTOTAL:
Special Considerations:
1
Special qualifications outside of previous categories (if there are
none, enter a 2).
2
Affirmative action, enter a 1 if the firm is a registered MBE, WBE,
or DBE firm, and a 0 if not, or if unknown.
TOTAL SCORE, WRITTEN PORTION:
r4 -L FEU -- 8 3
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points) a
A Ur * - w
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) 16 /-e-'PpD
Project Management approach. (20 points) Z6
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
1z5.r-
Documentl\
d6 V-) - L -E) e)
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points)
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) V /B 1t&, u O F Tj
QVa tt,4F3(L- rY 4:�avv
Project Management approach. (20 points)
46:, A 40,o z y
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
2�
I/1 4r «w�4(16 V t/
Documentl\
1<"6�' - '3 3
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points) 2 V
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) 20 STIzDLf �d''p f��rx/�%�
Project Management approach. (20 points) IZ-
46 14
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
��— 111�" t00 r1_1
Documentl\
1- 6k)-L
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points)
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) 10 /
�.,�e�h Tea,... (�-t�C. - %�✓4��, �n�o�ven4n� �a/w"'�'��� �li,�-�l�c.�e-
o f e-SOJvC-'A Y-- ut,
Project Management approach. (20 points) I�
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
p /�/� —
0' Gt /,�j oc, s h:'-, jcto, 4 sue
( .
val'umt `c7� "K✓ GN G .•� Yl tr) 1 e Gin t�a4� �� cry
�a-{Kurl�ry i�IYJI��v��- Y�n,�mi�
VIA
L.:tJ tv.�WW\•r - /I'^105O1q� _ �V�7i L�`�j/� L4J�
(WIAU.vv� hV66,tJ - Nety4�Phtl ✓tub J /� 1� . ; -v�� a�X coo
Documenth
R11Z 6V-a&01-5
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points) ?�
11✓�Ci�ia�� �c Ui i'i
(.+�' /�t5`tL �vr ��i�S�iysj /J�,t'a/k%} j rc.,{/�,� /{a +,,•J�- ii1Z.(,,y i� re, ltrn= e..- ��-�cr/P/�f� f/�1
o t'i
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) (, Q, )4� /Z) ]�
l 6�Ff
Project Management approach.
(20 points)
6#11pull, if I J?CCJ It I I -U-0 -
work� o(` '
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
-z o
b"n1?7de- pelt-, / #1,11.6L 6') 0
��ir�lGeb�,ul' el-
�.�✓.� dal%av/ 'Ai r7{pe
d4K E o 0 ✓LCJUL/r l"- 4 e/4
wee
Documenth
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points) 2 9
?a�cY Pe✓n�.�h..� �Zxge✓�2nc-! -
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) t �l .
RJ# fO 4 �ly /S �7aj &-V
Ai- /O,}' e0 i.J� - f,( rw - �-c� ?,-5oVrv1 d
Project Management approach. (20 points) 8
-Fez, g#rp/,&4
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
2
�✓D'�n�'W �¢i,R�f%!iM '"9/��G�'� Ce'°�U'�nC.� G�� U/�^Lr� Q ,-` p�
Documentl\
���
1�13'1'► Li'U'?� �� Ql gtij'a'�v1 j,Fc�rii5n�/ N .' j/� �% 0'd�l� �'�� `��:�n,n�,
'1 " >
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points) 0* 2;7
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) 16
?DiA�CA"Rca`• C� — Oki
Project Management approach. (20 points) 10
off°-&
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
?6
\o �
o U? JW ��S .
Clvj I1,51,Ey�., Qr
�t-
Document]\
G4ACW -L
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points) Z9
"Cal plzyas
S?ECL " r.KOWLk,qE
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) \0\
b,-tALk4CEb / oviazsP-C-SQC VA
Project Management approach. (20 points) 8
��- U\AAN.UN\\�`
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
7-�
�rwvv C:� 1; VA,?)
Documenth
OKG�
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points) 10I
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) 1�1
vL-'--kbC CoNu�2eUC c
cj"37
Et�T41uS �W5 •"\
Project Management approach. (20 points)
WOQP�U.SUo() h�lY�iAu'' (�u1� �-�ti�'-EGwu�11j
�wY•�4xti-1r,1,,�5 � fV.Y �N.�J i4�y
Z0
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
D'0
k"'4 s�� /P,LIV. yov-y e
f kL WVN GLD 0'�'d
t t�,
Documenth
lL"
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points) Z1
qV
a�
S 0'
0^rnVVP��p� PrvPPD6
J" Fb J~
'J` G•
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) ?o
�a-
oy M10 .JV i�
R� �` S
vTG �'LJJT
a nrlw- Poo
04,
s'" Project Management approach. (20 points) ZO
Jo 4J
L6
oal o' �° o f+
oPa� Pe°I -( `Cev
a a
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
3 cD
Documentl\
!/CL'i— L
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
,W' of work related to this project (30 points) ZS
ry
A n°a°'
A ,SGo 2 "Or 'Ap Xr'
b a pG
ra to% G fvf
� ri
5Pu �,
PD a'``
a� Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) 20
�5
0
>5 ��r� F C,[
,9
P
y1e 5p o2ro
lNp,.
nr
Project Management approach. (20 points)
1JO ,c 7 'V
�oU
�eO
r-
13r"2li
Jlr'�r
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
70
1)Z
Documentl\
2 ►+Z
Kennydale Lakefront Sewer Replacement Project
Oral Interviews — Rating Sheets
Qualifications and expertise of the firm. Technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and quality
of work related to this project (30 points) ? o
A45'r_
u Pc
NrGs �� e1.
r
LrP° S,S
170
c
Resource availability. Resources dedicated to team. Availability of team members. (20
points) Zo
Project Management approach. (20 points) t U
1UP A`'I r. N
CIR
�J
Y J h f,P
f r
0,7 <
� JM
Previous project experience and proposed approach to this project. (30 points)
z'
Documenth
Hammond, Collier a Wade -
Livingstone Inc.
City of Renton
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer
Replacement
Associated with URS-Greiner
Arai/Jackson, Hough Beck a Baird
and Gardow a Assoc.
HCW-L and URS Greiner Team
• Experience in sewer technology
Grinder pumps
— STEP pumping
— Gravity Sewers
— Sewer rehab
• Special Vacuum Technology
— Ocean Shores
nal Chart
Cory of Renton
Dane Christensen
NJ Utility Supervisor
HCW-L HCW L
Bob Bergstrom Bruce Livingstone
Project Manager Principal Engineer
QA/QC
HCW-L
Russ Snow
Project Engr.
AroJJackson Hough Beck 8 Bdlm URS Greiner Gardow K Assoc.
Julia Walton Colie Hough -Beck Rick Gilmore Kathryn Gardow.
Public Inwlvemenl Landscape Arch. Civil EngrPermits
Vacuum Sewers
HCW-L and URS-Greiner Team
• Presentation Personnel
— Bruce Livingstone P.E.-Principal Engineer
— Bob Bergstrom P.E -Protect Manager
— Russ Snow P.E. - Wastewater Systems Eng.
— Rick Gilmore P.E.- URS, Senior Civil Eng.
Sub consultants
• Arai Jackson- Architects and Planners
— Community Involvement
• Gardow a Associates
— Permit assistance
• Hough Beck and Baird
— Landscape Arch and restoration
— Wetland mitigation issues
Kennvdale Sewer Issues
• 1200 foot long B" In -lake collection sewer
• vertical Profile Sags
• Inadequate Flushing
• Pipeline damage
• Chronic plugging and overflows
1
Existing Conditions
Rehab Ex. Sewer
• Improve Flush Station operation
modify south end homes sewer connections
• Add Claimants
• Add Access points/manholes
Technical Alternatives
• Rehab Ex. Sewer
• New On Shore Gravity
• Effluent Pumping
• Grinder Pumping
• Vacuum Sewers
Project Area
°4 Effluent Pumping
mu p.m.i.r:
ttq Forc. mYn
2
Grinder Pumping
.Pratt
Mwn.. I Pump Ptt
:� JIII
O
tt Fl .
�rppprc
PGME.r .w 9m.il
p n• F-
Vacuum Sewer
• Applications
r
'
- Hot or Downstream Terrain
s
�a Y
TrencNnBRestricdons
Hlah Ground Water
Shallow Bedrock
• Sensitive Construction
— take Front
— Restricted Access
— Sensitive Area Restrictions
3
Vacuum System Characteristics
— Customers Nave Gravity Tie to Public
System
— No Electrical Connections at Customer
— All Power Provided at Central Vacuum
Station
— Small Diameter collection mains
—Shallow trench
:._--
Project Schedule
• Technical Evaluation and Presentation to
Staff
• Community Involvement
• Environmental Review
• Permitting Review
• Preferred Alternative
• Grant/Loan Applications
• PSBE 5, w Zcs n
Scoping of Alternatives
• Construction Impacts
• Community Preferences
• Permit Issues
• Water Rights
• Costs
— Construction
— 08M
HCW-L Team Provides Solutions
• Evaluation of Existing Collection System
• Scoping of Alternatives
• Community Involvement
• Assistance with permitting
• Assistance with Grant/loan Funding
• Design of Preferred Improvement
• Construction Management and Inspection
11
REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS
THE KENNYDALE LAKEFRONT SANITARY SEWER
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
September, 1998
City of Renton
Utility Systems Division
Renton City Hall, 5th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Due Date: Must be received by 4:00 pm, October 5, 1998
W W-S0Q98.D0C\If
4
CITY OF RENTON
DESIGN OF KENNYDALE LAKEFRONT SANITARY SEWER
REPLACEMENT
The City of Renton's Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Utility Systems Division,
is soliciting Statements of Qualifications from interested consultants capable of providing
professional services in civil and environmental engineering and related technical disciplines
for final design of the Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Replacement.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The location of the project is shown on the attached vicinity map. The project consists of the
replacement of an existing 8-inch flush line located within Lake Washington that serves
waterfront residents from Gene Coulon Park to approximately N. 40th Street. The facility
operates via a flush station at the north end of the park, which flushes lake water through the
line to the City's Lake Washington No. 2 Lift Station located in the 3900 block of Lake
Washington Boulevard N.
This system was initially installed in the 1970's. From its inception, the facility was difficult
to maintain due to the large number of existing sags and the limited access for maintenance of
the line. The facility also has been subject to boaters and contractors snagging and pulling
apart the main.
The consultant's efforts will consist of two parts. The first part will be the predesign portion.
It is anticipated that predesign will include a thorough review of alternatives for replacement
of the existing facility. In addition, the predesign report will include an investigation of the
condition of the existing facility with recommendations for improvements to increase the
ability to maintain the existing facility. Other issues include identifying applicable permit
requirements, establishing preliminary cost estimate for each alternative, processing Public
Works Trust Fund Loan application, and other related items.
The second part will be the final design of the selected preferred alternative, including
preparation of PS&E, obtaining all required permits, administration of Public Works Trust
Fund Loan, and construction management assistance to the City.
The estimated construction cost of the initial phase is in the range of $2,000,000. Funds to be
utilized for the project include City rate monies and a proposed Washington State Low
Interest Public Works Trust Fund Loan. Consultants work will include application for and
management of the Public Works Trust Fund Loan. Firms submitting Statements of
Qualifications will be evaluated for these skills, and the availability of sufficient resources to
support the City in meeting this schedule, in addition to their qualifications and experience in
the fields of civil and environmental engineering, environmental support and permit
acquisition.
Statement of Qualifications Page I September 1998
98-610.D0CVDMC:If
t
Estimated timing that the consultant must meet for this project is as follows:
Item
Selection of Consultant
Negotiate Consultant Contract
Predesign Effort
Selection of Preferred Alternative
Final Design Effort
Construction
Start Date
Completion Date
Sept. 1998
Nov. 1998
Nov. 1998
Jan. 1999
Jan. 1999
July 1999
July 1999
August 1999
August 1999
June 2000
July 2000
June 2001
CONTENTS OF STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS:
As described below, submittals shall provide general information regarding the firm, together
with specific information applicable to the Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Replacement
Project.
A. General Information
1. Qualifications and Expertise: Describe the history of the firm, location of office(s),
the range of technical disciplines represented, the size and distribution of the staff,
financial capability (ability to provide insurance and bonding requirements), list of
recent clients and current workload. Provide a brief description of significant projects
worked on in the last five years. Firms may attach a copy of their current SF 254 as a
means of furnishing some of the information requested.
2. Project Experience: List the location, scope and size of up to five recent projects,
preferably in the central Puget Sound area. For each project, identify the owner, and
give the name and telephone number of an individual who may be contacted for
reference. Include only those projects managed by the proposed project manager or
including several of the proposed team members.
3. References: Give the names, titles, addresses and telephone numbers of up to five
client representatives, preferably in the central Puget Sound area, who can give
information regarding the work done by the firm within the last five years.
B. Specific Information
1. Team qualifications: List the individuals with appropriate qualifications who will be
actual working members of the team furnishing services on the Kennydale Lakefront
Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project, each member's proposed role, and the office
location at which the individual is based. Identify the proposed project manager.
Briefly outline the education and experience of, and provide a one -page resume for,
each proposed team member.
2. Understanding of Project: Outline your firm's understanding of the issues and
challenges to be addressed by the project design team. Demonstrate, by reference to
Statement of Qualifications Page 2 September 1998
98-610.DOCVDMC:lf
past projects, your capabilities and experience to assist the City in attaining successful
resolution of these issues and challenges.
3. Approach to Project Management: Explain your firm's approach to project
management and product delivery. Indicate your methods for establishing scopes of
work, cost estimates and schedules. Describe your methods of ensuring that the firm's
performance meets the expectations of the client and the public, and your methods for
monitoring and controlling compliance with established budgets and schedules.
Describe methods that you might consider to address the special needs of the
Kennydale Lakefront Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project.
EVALUATION OF STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS:
The Statements of Qualifications will be evaluated to select a limited number of firms to be
invited to make interview presentations. Final selection will be made based upon the results
of the interviews. The Statements of Qualifications will be evaluated based upon the
following weighted criteria:
Criterion Points
Firm's capabilities and expertise
10
Project manager's qualifications and experience
10
Experience of team members
15
Previous project examples
20
Performance on past projects (with the City of
20
Renton, or other client references)
Understanding of project
10
Resources, workload and availability
15
100
SUMMARY:
Four (4) copies of Statements of Qualifications shall be submitted, accompanied by a Letter of
Interest, addressed to:
Dave Christensen, Wastewater Utility Supervisor
City of Renton Utility Systems Division
Renton City Hall, 5th floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055 Telephone: 425 430-7212
Statements of Qualifications shall be received by the Utility Systems Division not later than
4:00 p.m. on October 5, 1998.
Questions regarding this Request for Statement of Qualifications may be addressed to Dave
Christensen at the address or telephone number listed above.
Statement of Qualifications Page 3 k September 1998
98-610.D0CVDMC:lf
Kenn da e.
3200.
N
Coleman Poini
5200 A-ftE,
00
r- ri.
lay
ST
ST
W Hazelwood sc
ST (01 Elem Sch SE NPR
7?
Park
ST
ASE
>
L.T
x
N
Lim rt
W
z
NF 20
2000..I NE
If K
;t
NE
Lp
1 00
Gent C&AN
kt K
Bryp Mawr
z
I. S
Ab Renh
IT
14 T
lnlerChOnq
RI
0..
116 ST
7
PL
167
0 E
z
I v I s I o N5
00
N 8
ST
*..
sr Q
ar s I A-S I
ST
ZI NO"-
k
IV
I C INITY
• St " ST
S St.
71
SE ST
CEM
4n
sf "
cc
0
I,
ST -
in,
go,
CLt, 306
It
;sr it
■
Ip st T
efra fs
Of ST
102 ST
21 ST Elvtos
Paco
Id
NE
:h' sv ,
"Wv*f
NE it
16.
W
NE
4
3 A 2L--f
9 STA to
. w_ r .t■
12(
4 W
MAP
t-