Mayor and Council W. Grant Acheson, General Manager, Infrastructure Stimulus Projects Clearbrook Interchange Contract Awards

Transcription

1 '~~ 2 9 ABBOTSFORD Report No,ISPOOS ' 2010 May 3, 2010 File No: COUNCIL REPORT Executive Committee To: From: Subject: Mayor and Council W. Grant Acheson, General Manager, Infrastructure Stimulus Projects Clearbrook Interchange Contract Awards RECOMMENDATION THAT Report No. ISPOOS , dated May 3, 2010, from Grant Acheson, General Manager, Infrastructure Stimulus Projects, regarding Clearbrook Interchange Contract awards, be received. BACKGROUND At its Regular Meeting of March 15, 2010, Council approved an amendment to the City's Purchasing Policy to grant the Mayor and City Manager interim contract approval authority for contracts with values between $350,000 and $1 M for the Infrastructure Stimulus Projects on Highway 1 and at the Abbotsford Airport. This delegation of authority was approved to ensure that contract awards would not be delayed for these fast track projects due to the bi-monthly Council meeting schedule. In accordance with Council's request that periodic reports on contract awards made under this policy be reported to Council, this report summarizes two such awards. ANALYSIS Attached are the reports to the Mayor and City Manager that describe the contact awards for: 1. the supply of the bridge beams for the Clearbrook Interchange; and 2. the design contract award to the project engineer firm. The amended Purchasing Policy has been of great benefit towards expediting delivery of the stimulus projects. Another efficiency in the interim Purchasing Policy is the delegation to Art Kastelein of $100, for purchase orders and payments, an amount that deals with the vast majority of day labour processes, especially at Clearbrook where we had 15 different small contractors, truckers and equipment operators performing work as of the end of March. Council's efforts to remove red tape and minimize process delays will help ensure that these projects are completed on time. FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATION See attached reports for financial implications of these awards. All projects remain under budget.

2 Report No. ISP Page 2 of 2 SUMMARY This report provides an update to Council on the two contact awards that were made under the City Manager's interim purchasing authority for the Infrastrucure Stimulus Fund projects. Attachments -280-

3 Interim Purchasing Policy for Infrastructure Stimulus Projects Contract Award Up to $100,000 $100,000 to $200,000 $200,000 to $350,000 $350,000 to $1,000,000 Over $1,000,000 Report~e Report Author Approval Authority Note to file Art Kastelein Art Kastelein Purchase Order Art Kaslelein Grant Acheson Request Report Memorandum following Grant Acheson Frank Pizzuto Council Report format Memorandum following Grant Acheson Frank Pizzuto, Mayor Council Report format Peary Council Report Grant Acheson Council Notes Keep copies of bids on file Approval Authority delegated by Jim to Grant Complies with current Purchasing Policy Require follow-up report to Council for informationlreceipt on a monthly basis. Combine procurements in report. Consider convening extra ordinary meeting of Council if necessary ~ '" N, 'Notes: 1. Competitive process required for all procurements over $5, Purchase order sufficient for all supply contracts. Require contracts for construction services. 3. Utilize Be Bid for all procurements over $200,000 unless exempted by Grant. 4. This policy applies to McCallum and Clearbrook interchanges and Airport Apron Expansion and parallel Taxiway projects. L:\Economic Stimulus Projects\lnterm Purchasing Policy.doc

4 I~ ;A~~ ~~ ABBOTSfORD internal ire PORT Report No. ENG I March 31, 2010 File No: /CIP-J To: From: Subject: Jim Gordon, Acting City Manager Art Kastelein, Manager, Drainage & Special Projects Clearbrook Interchange Project - Bridge Girders RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT Report No. ENG I , dated March 31, 2010, from the Manager, Drainage and Special Projects, regarding the Supply & Delivery of Bridge Girders for the Clearbrook Interchange Project, be received; and 2. THAT Armtec Limited Partnership be retained to supply and deliver bridge girders for the quoted fee of $813,200, plus GST. BACKGROUND The Clearbrook Interchange Project includes a new crossing over Highway 1 and the construction of the bridge girders for the crossing is a critical element of the fast-tracked project schedule. Associated Engineering Services Ltd. designed the girders. Purchasing posted a Request for Quote (RFQ) on BC Bid. Two quotes were received at closing date, March 30, ANALYSIS The quotes are as follows (not including GST): Armtec $813,200 APS Architectural Precast Structures Ltd. $983,330 The Armtec quote included a notation that one (1) hour offload time was allowed per girder and any excess time would be charged at the rate of $150 per hour. The RFQ stated "The Owner's Representative will provide for unloading. All deliveries shall include two (2) hours of free time at the Site per truck." Staff confirmed there will only be one girder per truck and the Armtec notation could result in extra costs. The notation was reviewed by the City Solicitor's office and it indicates: "There is a risk that the high bidder could challenge the RFQ on the basis that a material term (i.e. the stage 3 lump sum price) set out in the Armtec Quotation is uncertain and that the quotation cannot therefore be accepted by the City."; but goes on to indicate:

5 Report No. ENG I Page 2 of 2 "However, the better view is that Armtec's notation on the Quotation Form constitutes only a minor informality which mayor may not affect price and, in any event, could not create an advantage for Armtec over the high bidder, cause unfairness or bring the tendering process into disrepute. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that if a challenge is brought to the City's RFQ by the high bidder, there is a strong likelihood that the City would be able to successfully defend such claim." The risk of a challenge is not known, but the likelihood of a successful defense is high and it is recommended the contract be awarded to Armtec. FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATION The quote is approximately $150,000 higher than estimated by the Consulting Engineer, but this is balanced by other items in the project being lower than estimated (e.g., construction of centre pier and gravel supply). Adequate funds are available in the 2010 Capital Roads Program for this assignment. The City's Purchasing Policy was met through the Request for Quote process. The Interim Purchasing Policy for Infrastructure Stimulus Projects delegates authority to the City Manager and Mayor to award contracts up to $1,000,000. COMMUNICATION PLAN No communication plan is required for this assignment. SUMMARY A Request for Quote for the Supply & Delivery of Bridge Girders for the Clearbrook Interchange Project was posted on BC Bid. Two quotes from qualified installers were received and evaluated. It is recommended the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Armtec Limited Partnerships, for the quoted fee of $813,200, plus GST. Art Kastelein, P.Eng. Manager, Drainage & Special Projects -/... ~ ~.. ' /.. '" "'~'... GrarifAtheson, P.Eng. General Manager, Infrastructure Projects Stimulus / Jim G rdon, P.Eng. Acti g City Manager AKidp -283-

6 INTERNAL REPORT Report No. ISP May 3,2010 File No: /CIP-J To: From: Subject: Mayor George Peary and Frank Pizzuto, City Manager Grant Acheson, General Manager, Infrastructure Stimulus Projects Clearbrook Interchange Project - Project Engineer RECOMMENDATION THAT Report No. ISP , dated May 3, 2010, from Grant Acheson, General Manager, Infrastructure Stimulus Projects, regarding the Design Contract for the Clearbrook Interchange project, be received BACKGROUND The Clearbrook Interchange Project involves an extensive upgrade to the existing facility that was constructed in Improvements include a new six lane bridge, improved on and off ramps, a roundabout at the south terminal with Marshall Road, improved pedestrian and cyclist paths, and associated electrical, landscape, and drainage systems. Estimated at approx $20M, the project requires an engineering firm with the talent and capacity to fast track the design of the project to meet the March 31, 2011 completion date. ANALYSIS The Federal announcement on the Clearbrook Interchange funding was made at the end of September, 2009, some six months after the announcement for the McCallum Interchange project. However, both projects carry the same required cor.npletion date to ensure the federal and provincial govemments provide their one-third shares of the project costs. Furthermore, there had been no detailed conceptual planning competed on how the interchange should be improved, nor any business plan on the cost benefits of possible solutions to the safety and congestion problems that exist at the interchange. This was particularly troubling given the fact that the interchange would have to go through the same difficult and protracted approval processes at the Ministry of Transportation, while the City carried all the risks of schedule and costs. A decision was make to immediately engage McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd (MCSL) to embark on a business plan and development of possible solutions. MCSL was also commissioned to carry out the factual studies needed for any design solution including geotechnical, survey and environmental assessments. During this initial period, it became apparent that MCSL had both the expertise and company capacity to deliver engineering services in a timely and comprehensive manner. Staff concluded that if the project were to be successful, it was essential that the early momentum be carried forward by retaining MCSL to complete the detailed design of the project. It should be noted that MCSL submitted a proposal for the McCallum Interchange and narrowly missed being selected for that assignment. Had staff known that the Clearbrook Interchange project would be eventually announced, the RFP for McCallum -284-

7 Report No. ISP Page 2 of 2 would have included a clause that the unsuccessful firms would be considered for the Clearbrook project. It was in this spirit that MCSL was asked to keep working on the design, and to submit a proposal at a future date. MCSL has now provided a proposal and staff recommend award. The proposal is a comprehensive one that includes work completed to date, as well as work over the coming months. It includes all requirements of the Document of Technical Requirements, the project scope and design criteria approved by the Ministry. The total contract price, including sub-consultant fees (geotechnical, electrical, landscaping, etc) and contingencies ($50,000) is $958, This is an eligible project cost and will be shared equally with the province and federal government. \ Staff compared the proposal and costs with MCSL's proposal for the McCallum Interchange and found it to be competitive with that quotation. Therefore, staff feels very comfortable with this fee proposal. In fact, one could have expected the fees to be higher given the amount of overtime that has been required to catch the project up to McCallum. FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATION Adequate funds are available in the 2010 Capital Roads Program for this assignment. The spirit of the City's Purchasing Policy was met through the Request for Proposal process for the McCallum Interchange project. The Interim Purchasing Policy for Infrastructure Stimulus Projects delegates authority to the City Manager and Mayor to award contracts up to $1,000,000. COMMUNICATION PLAN No communication plan is required for this assignment. SUMMARY Staff recommends that the project design contact be awarded to McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd in the amount of $958,041.50, including sub-consultants and a contingency, but excluding GST/HST. Gra on, P.Eng., General Manager Infrastructure Stimulus Projects Approved by: - Attachment -285-

8 i\... McElhanney 20 April 2010 Our File: City of Abbotsford South Fraser Way Abbotsford BC V2T 1W7 Attention: W. Grant Acheson, P.Eng. General Manager Infrastructure Stimulus Projects Clearbrook Interchange Improvement Project - Time and Materials Fee Proposal As requested, McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. is pleased to provide you with this proposal for the Clearbrook Interchange Improvement Project. We propose to invoice on a time and materials basis and have attached a table outlining our estimated of level of effort on a task by task basis. The tasks include all liaison and deliverables required to comply with the attached Document of Requirements for the Clearbrook Interchange Improvement Project (DOR). The project deliverables are summarized below and extrapolated in greater detail in the DOR. 1. HIGHWAY DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSIONS Highway - Pre 50% Submissions The following submissions will be completed in advance of the 50% design submission: Design criteria documents; Design for westbound lanes realignment; Design for bridge abutment walls procurement; DeSign for bridge beams procurement; and Other 'items as may be deemed necessary in order to meet the schedule requirements. Highway - 50% Design Review Submission The 50% design submission will comprise the following: Design drawings (plans, profiles, typical sections, laning and geometries); Draft utility relocation drawings; Working design cross sections; Draft construction staging drawings;. Detailed regulatory warning and guide sign design; Geotechnical report pertaining to characteristics of material encountered and design recommendations (see Geotechnical Design Review Submission); Traffic engineering report; Drainage design report; Q QP 1 Time & Materia!s th Ave Surrey BC Canada V3W 3KJ rei Fax

9 Page 2 Our File: Project constructability report draft; Updated project cost estimate; and Documentation confirming the Project's internal design review and quality control process has been followed. The intent of the 50% review is to achieve acceptance of all geometry and the drainage design concept and to identify and resolve any outstanding design issues that might affect the overall design. Highway - 90% DeSign Review Submission The 90% design submission will comprise the following: Documentation describing how the comments received on the 50% design submission were addressed by the Project; Complete set of all design drawings (plans, profiles, typical sections, laning and geometrics, signage, drainage drawings;.etc.) in near complete form; Completed design cross sections; Completed construction staging drawings and related report; Utility relocation drawings in complete form; Draft special provisions and schedule 7; Identification and resolution of any outstanding design issues; Updated project cost estimate; and Documentation confirming the Project's internal design review and quality control process has been followed. Highway -100% DeSign Review Submission Documentation describing. how the comments received on the 90% design submission were addressed by the Project; Complete set of all design drawings (plans, profiles, typical sections, laning and geometrics, signage, drainage drawings; construction staging drawings; etc.) in complete form; Road Safety Audit report and designer's response to RSA; Completed design cross sections (if changed from 90% submission); Final utility relocation plans and related report; Final special provisions and Schedule 7; Identification and resolution of any outstanding design issues; Updated project cost estimate; and Docurnentation confirming the Project's internal design review and quality control process has been followed. 1 O~04~ P 1 Time & Materia!s -267-

10 Page 3 Our File: DRAINAGE AND STORM-WATER DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSIONS Drainage - 50% D.esign Review Submission Preliminary Drainage Routing Plan; Drainage calculations; and Drainage Report (draft). The Drainage Report will: Outline the approach and assumptions used in the drainage design; and Provide a rationale for the various components of the drainage system included in the overall highway design and the environmental impact the system imposes. The report will contain the rationale for the proposed drainage structures based on the size of the drainage area, the design storm return period and the time of concentration, including: Location and size of culverts; Storm drains and pavement drainage; Manholes and catch basins; Open drainage systems; Riprap details and any erosion protection measures; and Flow calculations for all drainage structures (in an Appendix). All stormwater management impacts on upstream and downstream water systems will be discussed and mitigation measures identified and detailed. All environmental impacts will be discussed and mitigated, as appropriate. The report will include drawings that show drainage areas, contours and existing detail and development. Drainage - 90% Design Review Submission Final drainage design report; and All drainage drawings completed to a 90% level. 3. UTILITIES DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSIONS Utilities - 50% Design Review Submission Plan identifying utility conflicts and planned relocations. Utilities - 90% Design Review Submission Draft final utility relocation plans; and Correspondence with affected utility companies P 1 Time & Materia!s -288-

11 Page 4 Our File: Utilities -100% Design Review Submission Final utility relocation plans; and Correspondence with affected utility companies providing approval for required relocations. 4. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSIONS The Project's proposed Traffic Management Plan will be submitted to the City and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Ministry) for review and acceptance prior to any construction activities. As a minimum, a final Traffic Management Plan will be submitted in its entirety at the submission of the final design (100%). If advance construction activities are proposed prior to the completion of the final design, interim Traffic Management Plan(s) will be submitted as described above for each proposed work activity. 5. SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSIONS Signing and Pavement Marking Plans and design folders will be produced, reviewed, and submitted in accordance with Section 200 of the Ministry's Electrical and Traffic Engineering Manual and will include. the proposed messaging for all custom signs. Drawings will identify all signing and pavement markings to be re-used, removed, relocated, or maintained. All drawings will be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer registered in the Province of British Columbia. AutoCAD drawings conventions such as layering, line types, text font and text size will conform to drafting Standards Section 700 of the Ministry's Electrical and Traffic Engineering Manual. Signing and Pavement Markings - 50% Design Review Submission Schematic sign plans which will indicate the location, size, and proposed text of each sign; Preliminary pavement marking plan; and A preliminary bicycle route plan showing the location of all cycling information and route signs, crossings and grades. Signing and Pavement Markings - 90% Design Review Submission All sign and pavement marking drawings; and Documentation describing the resolution of all review comments made by the City and Ministry from the preliminary design submission. Signing and Pavement Markings -100% Design Review Submission Final sign and pavement marking drawings; and Documentation describing the resolution of all review comments made by the City and Ministry from the previous design reviews P 1 Time & Materials -289-

12 Page 5 Our File: ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSIONS Prior to initiating the work, the Project must prepare a detailed Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Components of the EMP must include, but are not necessarily limited to, all of the Project's environmental obligations. The Environmental Management Plan will be expanded and updated throughout the Contract period as required to reflect the schedule, site conditions and weather current at the time. The Environmental Management Plan and any subsequent updates will be submitted to the City for design review prior to the Project submitting it to the appropriate environmental agencies for acceptance. The Project will be fully responsible for developing an Environmental Management Plan that is acceptable to all environmental agencies. 7. QUALITY MANAGEMENT DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSIONS Each design submission will be accompanied by the Project's QC Document Checking and Review Sign-Off Sheet for Quality Management, verifying that the submission meets all relevant contractual requirements. 8. FEE SUMMARY Task Activity Fee 2000 Project Management, Administration and Meetings $ 177, Highway Design $ 323, Sanitary Sewer Relocation $ 11, Structural Review and Sign Base Design $ 12, Signage and Line Painting $ 36, Drainage Design $ 73, Utility Base Plan Preparation $ 17, Preparation of Tender Documents and Special Provisions $ 20, Topographic and Legal Surveys $ 38, TOTAL McELHANNEY FEES (excluding GST I HST) $ 710, Subconsultant Fees $ 197, Contingency Reserve $ 50, TOTAL PROJECT FEES (excluding GST I HST) $ 958, P 1 Time &. Materia!s -290-

13 Page 6 Our File: I would be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this proposal if you require greater detail. Yours very truly, McELHANNEY CONSULTING / RVICES LTD. Paul S. Oeol, P.Eng. Senior Project Manag r pdeol@mcelhanney.com PSO:van ris Newcomb, P.Eng. President cnewcomb@mcelhanney.com P 1 Time & Materials -291-

14