HomeMy WebLinkAboutMurray Smith & Assoc Columbia Water Supply Amendment 3AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Columbia Water Supply Project
WHEREAS, the City and Murray, Smith and Associates, Inc. entered into a Professional
Services Agreement on December 19, 2011 to provide professional engineering services with
respect to the Columbia Water Supply Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, this agreement is amended to allow Murray, Smith and
Associates, Inc. to provide additional professional engineering services.
1. Scone of Work:
The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the
additional work outlined in Exhibit D.
2. Fee:
The additional compensation for the work is based on an hourly basis not to exceed the
amount of $528,716, for a total contract amount of $1,199,225.
3. Time of performance:
The services shall be complete for the project on or before December 31, 2018.
DATED this 21" day of June , 2016.
CITY OF PASCO:
MA 115 WIT,
ATTEST:
6 Lai Q=:e
Debbie Clark, City Clerk
CONSULTANT NAME:
f�tr /- 4k4=— -
Ja
s L. Helton, Senior Vice President
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement Page 1
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc.
Columbia Water Supply Project
EXHIBIT D
Columbia Water Supply Project
Intake Structure and Pump Station Facility
Additional Design Phase Services and Proposed Work Program for Bidding and Construction
Phase Services
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc.
May 25, 2016
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Pasco (City) and MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. (Consultant)
entered into an agreement and contract, dated December 19, 2011, for the Columbia Water
Supply Project. Under that Contact, the Consultant is providing permitting and design
services for the Intake Structure and Pumping Station Facility project (CIP #C 1- 11-05-
WTR).
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND SCOPE CHANGES
The City had a limited budget available for engineering design. Delivering the desired
engineering services within the City's budget required a number of basic project criteria and
assumptions to be made. The project criteria and assumptions necessary to complete the
design were agreed upon between the City and the Consultant. These project criteria and
assumptions formed the basis of the scope of work, the project timeline and the resulting fee
required to complete the work. In the process of designing and permitting the facility, a
number of these project criteria and assumptions were adjusted, resulting in changes in the
scope of design.
PHASE 1— INITIAL EVALUATION, PERMITTING AND LAND ACQUISITION
Task 1 - Environmental Permitting
The original budget was based on the environmental assessment (EA) and biological
assessment (BA) process resulting in a "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect"
determination. Instead the EA and BA resulted in a "may affect and is likely to adversely
affect' determination with regard to Upper Columbia River Spring chinook and steelhead,
Middle Columbia River steelhead and the habitats for all three. This finding required formal
consultation with NOAA Fisheries. The EA and BA also resulted in a "may affect and is
likely to adversely affect" determination with regard to bull trout. This finding triggered
formal consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service. Obtaining Biological Opinions from
these two responsible Federal agencies extended the project schedule and required continued
consultation and coordination between the Consultant, the City and the US Army Corps of
Engineers throughout the process of obtaining those opinions. The original project schedule
anticipated completion of design work by the end of September 2013. It is now anticipated
Smith & Associates, Inc.
May • 2016
of Pasco
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
EXHIBIT D
that design work will be completed in the second quarter of 2016. This extended design
period has also resulted in increased project management and subconsultant coordination
work.
PHASE 2 — DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING
Task 4 — Design Services
Tasks 4.1 and 4.2 — Raw Water Pipeline Replacement and Electrical Duct Bank Design
The design scope of work assumed that the pipe from the new raw water pump station would
connect to the existing 24 -inch diameter raw water pipe at a location in West Court Street
near the new pump station. The City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist for
the West Pasco Water Treatment Plant (WPWTP) reported the need for this piping to be
upsized to approximately 30 inches in diameter. The scope of work assumed this design
work would be done at some future date when the WPWTP underwent its first or second
expansion of treatment capacity. Instead, the City directed the Consultant to include
replacement of the entire raw water pipeline in the current design of the new intake and
pump station. The City directed the Consultant to do so on the assumption that this would be
a simple replacement of the existing pipe with the larger pipe along the same alignment and
in the same trench. Survey and utility locate work determined that this corridor beneath the
I-182 bridge was already crowded with utilities. The City also directed the Consultant to
include in the design of the facilities within Court Street an electrical conduit duct bank three
feet deep by four feet wide within this highly congested corridor for the purpose of future
standby power requirements. These changes required additional design work to determine a
new alignment at a deeper depth for the raw water pipe and an alignment for the electrical
duct bank that would not conflict with the existing utilities.
Task 4.3 — Analysis of Raw Water Pump Station Location: Bank Slope versus Upland
The assumption made in preparing the scope and fee was that the City would designate the
pump station location along the slope of the river bank. After surveying and field
observation work was completed, it was observed that locating the structure on the slope
would incur greater construction cost and create access issues for the lifetime of the facility.
To support the City's decision on whether to relocate the facility to the upland location, the
Consultant conducted a financial and non-financial comparison of the two locations and
prepared a technical memorandum with recommendations.
Task 4.4 — Revisions to Raw Water Pump Station Architectural Design
Consultant's original fee estimate was based on designing either on a pre-engineered
building system or a standardized CMU building with typical municipal building elevations.
The City requested that the architectural elevations for the building be modified to provide a
structure that would look less institutional and more residential. This required extensive
Murray, Smith &
May • 2016
of Pasco
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
EXHIBIT D
redesign of the interior layout in concert with changes to the exterior massing to eliminate
the simple rectangular appearance of the design basis building. The resulting elevations and
architectural detailing are far more complex than the basis of design structure.
ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO PHASE 2 SCOPE OF WORK
In addition to the changes in the scope that resulted from the changed project criteria and
assumptions, the following changes in the project scope have also been requested by the
City.
Task 4.5 — Participate in Constructability Review and Incorporate Comments into
Contract Documents
The City decided to use the extended period of time that resulted from the delay in
completing environmental permitting to hire a third party to prepare a constructability review
of the 90 percent design. The Consultant participated in the constructability review at the
City's request and direction.
Task 4.6 — Analysis and Alternatives Development to Reduce the Impacts of Milfoil
During the preliminary design -stage, the design team considered specifying a mechanical
cleaning system in which the cylindrical screens rotate on bearings while fixed brushes
remove attached materials from the exterior of the screens. The mechanical cleaning system
option was discussed with the City during preliminary design in 2012. Based on the fact that
neither of the City's existing raw water intakes had experienced biofouling, it was agreed
that the final design would be based on conventional air burst cleaning of fixed screens rather
than a proprietary mechanical cleaning system. However, the City experienced serious
biofouling of both intakes in the summer of 2015, reportedly as a result of milfoil
attachment. The design team conducted an analysis of the problem based on the data made
available to the team. The design team developed options for changing the design to address
this problem and submitted a brief technical memorandum summarizing the analysis and
recommendations.
Task 4.7 — Design Changes to Reduce the Impact of Milfoil on the Constructed Works
(Optional)
Assuming that the City directs the design team to incorporate the changes recommended in
the technical memorandum, the design team will incorporate the required changes into the
final contract documents.
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc.
May • 2016
of Pasco
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
EXHIBIT D
Task 4.8 — Incorporate Loan Document Requirements into the Bid Documents
The City has obtained a loan from the Washington State Public Works Board for
construction of the facility. The design team will modify the 90 percent design to
incorporate the requirements of the PWB loan into the final design and bid documents.
Task 4.9 — Preparation of 100 Percent Check Set for Final Review (Optional)
The original scope assumed that the comments received from the City on the 90 percent
design submittal would be incorporated into a final design for preparation of bid ready
documents. The 90 percent documents were submitted for review in July 2014. Given the
amount of time that has elapsed since that submittal, the changes recommended in the
constructability review report and the changes resulting from the US Army Corps of
Engineers permitting requirements established through the EA and BA process, MSA is
proposing that a 100 percent check set submittal be prepared for review by the City. The
final, bid ready documents would be prepared by incorporating changes requested by the city
into the 100 percent check set.
Task 4.10 — Additional Upland Borings and Preparation of Geotechnical Data Report
(Optional)
Both the value engineering review and the constructability review have recommended that a
Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) be prepared to assure that all bids assume the same
degree of risk and contingency, on the theory that this will generate more consistent bids and
reduce the risk of changed condition claims against the City. However, neither the value
engineering review nor the constructability review explicitly acknowledged that a GBR only
reduces the risk of changed conditions claims but does not completely eliminate the risk of
such claims. In addition, neither review acknowledged that the likely methods for installing
the secant piles and the microtunnel boring could make it difficult to determine whether the
conditions encountered are actually a change from the conditions described in the GBR.
This is because rendering such a determination may require investigation at the actual
drilling face of any obstructions and it may not be possible to access the drill face if
obstructions are encountered.
An alternative to preparing a GBR is to prepare a Geotechnical Data Report (GDR). The
GDR is a simple statement of the factual information available to the City with no
interpretation. The challenge with providing a GDR for this project is that the available
geotechnical data is limited both in quantity and in quality. The limited budget for
engineering design resulted in only one boring being conducted on the site and that boring
was done using equipment that is widely available and affordable but does not provide
information on the size of boulders encountered. The geotechnical report was prepared by
combining the data from this boring with existing data from borings for the I-184 Bridge.
The borings for the bridge were also completed using methods that do not allow for
Smith & Associates, Inc.
May • 2016
of Pasco
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
4
EXHIBIT D
determination of boulder and cobble size. The City has several options for responding to the
recommendations by others to include a GBR in the contract documents.
Bid the Contract with existing data and without a Geotechnical Baseline Report or a
Geotechnical Data Report: This option will likely result in higher bid prices as the
bidders try to compensate for the lack of quantitative data on the size of boulders that
may be encountered in the subsurface. The lack of information may result in the
successful bidder basing their bid on equipment or techniques that are inappropriate
for installation of the secant piles and the microtunnel boring given the subsurface
conditions. If that occurs, the Contractor may seek a claim for additional costs arising
from delays and the mobilization of alternative equipment. The increased cost from
the claim will be in addition to the already higher base bid offered because of the lack
of data regarding subsurface conditions.
2. Obtain additional data and bid the Contract with a Geotechnical Data Report: This
option could result in lower bid prices than Option 1 if the bidders feel that there is
sufficient subsurface data to reduce the risk that the equipment and techniques they
base their bids on may be inappropriate for the subsurface conditions. This would
require two or three additional borings at the location of the wet well and along the
alignment of the microtunnel boring using a technique that quantifies the size of
boulders encountered in the borings. This option does not eliminate the possibility of
a claim arising if the conditions encountered are inappropriate for the equipment and
techniques selected. However, it reduces the probability that inappropriate equipment
and techniques will be selected. Since this option should reduce the risk that bidders
price into their offers, any claims that may arise would likely be added on a lower
base bid price.
3. Obtain additional data and bid the Contract with a Geotechnical Baseline Report: This
option spreads the risk between the owner and the contractor by establishing a
baseline of anticipated ground conditions in the contract documents. Additional data,
gathered as described in Option 2, would be a minimum requirement for establishing
a reasonable baseline. An additional boring conducted somewhere along the
microtunnel alignment and below the top of slope, possibly from a barge, may also be
necessary to ensure sufficient data for establishing the baseline. As noted above,
without access to the cutting face, it may be difficult to establish whether conditions
outside those defined in the GBR are actually encountered. The GBR does not
eliminate the possibility of claims and dispute resolution boards have been known to
ignore the GBR in adjudicating disputes.
We recommend Option 2. Including a GDR will assist bidders in determining the approach
and equipment that they can use to successfully construct the wet well and install the raw
water pipe. We further recommend that the additional data be obtained by drilling three
onshore borings to depths of 80 -feet, 100 -feet and 100 -feet using the Rotosonic drilling
technique and a 6 -inch diameter casing. Rotosonic drilling with a 6 -inch casing will allow
Smith & Associates, Inc.
May • 2016
of Pasco
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
EXHIBIT D
for the collection of a nearly continuous column of material to help quantify the number, size
and depth of boulders encountered during the borings. Work would include about one week
in the field conducting the geotechnical exploration program and several weeks for
geotechnical laboratory testing and preparation of a data report summarizing the results of
the field and laboratory testing program.
It may be possible to also conduct one offshore Rotosonic boring from a barge to a depth of
about 40 ft below the riverbed along the raw water pipe alignment. However the drilling cost
for one offshore boring would approximately equal the total cost for drilling three additional
upland borings and preparing the GDR for those upland borings.
PHASE 3 — BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES
The work program described herein for Phase 3 and the proposed budget both assume that
the City of Pasco ("City") and a third party Construction Management Consultant will
manage and oversee the bidding and construction phases with Murray, Smith & Associates,
Inc. ("Consultant") having an active role in assisting the City and the City's Construction
Management consultant. The phrase "The City" will be used hereafter to refer collectively to
the City and the City's Construction Management Consultant. It is anticipated that this work
will be provided on a time and expense basis in accordance with MSA's standard schedule of
charges and within budgets established and agreed by this agreement. Consultant work tasks
are described below.
Task 3.1- Project Management: Work under this task includes coordination of the
construction services that Consultant will provide with City staff, Consultant's in-house and
subconsultant staff, regulatory agencies and City's Construction Management consultant.
Work includes assistance with review of monthly progress reports and project schedules,
briefings to City staff, miscellaneous construction related communications and various
project related meetings not identified in other tasks. Up to 280 hours of engineer time is
allocated to this subtask, based on a construction phase of 18 months duration.
Task 3.2 - Bidding and Award Phase Assistance: Under this task, Consultant will provide
assistance to City during the process of bidding and award for the construction contract.
Consultant's scope of work and associated budget assumes that City staff will: publish the
Invitation to Bid in appropriate media; print and distribute bidding documents and any
addenda to plan centers, prospective bidders, subcontractors and suppliers; maintain and
distribute the plan holders list during the bid period; and provide periodic updates to
Consultant. Consultant will provide the following services to assist the City. Up to 180
hours of engineer time is allocated to this subtask.
Bidder Questions — Respond to questions of bidders, subcontractors, and other
vendors regarding the project and the plans and specifications. Maintain a written
record of any communications regarding any questions during bidding process.
Smith & Associates, Inc.
May • 2016
of Pasco
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
EXHIBIT D
■ Submittal Reviews — Review and act upon submittals received as required by pre-bid
submittal process.
• Addenda — Prepare addenda as necessary to clarify the contract documents. City will
issue all addenda to plan holders.
■ Pre-bid Conference — Prepare an agenda for a pre-bid conference and consult with the
City regarding the conference details. Conduct a pre-bid conference, prepare a
conference summary, and distribute the summary to all plan holders and conference
attendees.
■ Evaluation and Recommendation ofAward — Assist the City with the evaluation of
the bids. Provide a written recommendation of award for the construction contract.
Task 3.3 — Engineering Services during Construction
Consultant services during construction shall include the following sub -tasks:
3.3.1 Construction Meetings - Attend Preconstruction Conference to answer questions
regarding the contract documents. Attend weekly construction meetings with The
City and the general contractor during active phases of construction and when
requested by The City. Project fee is based on the assumption that Consultant will
attend only two weekly construction meetings in person and participate in all other
construction meetings by telephone. The City will prepare agenda, make invitations,
conduct the meetings, and distribute minutes to all attendees. Consultant shall
provide up to 170 hours of engineer time under this task.
3.3.2 Coordination Meetings — Prior to the beginning of each major construction element,
such as clearwell construction, tunneling, building construction, offsite pipeline
construction, etc., and at The City or Consultant request, prepare for and attend a
construction coordination meeting with The City and the Consultant's design team
staff. Consultant shall attend up to 125 hours of engineer time under this task.
3.3.3 Schedules — The City shall receive, review, and determine the acceptability of any and
all schedules that Contractor is required to submit, including the Overall Progress
Schedule, Schedule of Submittals, and Schedule of Values. Consultant shall assist The
City by providing review of up to 10 schedules under this task to assist with identifying
critical path items within progress schedules.
3.3.4 Baselines and Benchmarks — Consultant shall, as appropriate, establish baselines and
benchmarks for locating the work which in Consultant's judgment are necessary to
enable Contractor to proceed. Detailed construction staking shall be performed by the
Contractor.
3.3.5 Visits to Site and Observation of Construction - In connection with observations of
Contractor's work while it is in progress:
Smith & Associates, Inc.
May • 2016
City of Pasco
Intake Structure & Pump Slation Facility
EXHIBIT D
a. Make visits to the site and attend Project status meetings at intervals appropriate
to the various stages of construction, as Consultant deems necessary, but at least
bi-weekly during active construction periods, to observe the progress and
quality of Contractor's executed work. Such visits and observations by
Consultant are not intended to be exhaustive or to extend to every aspect of
Contractor's work in progress or to involve detailed inspections of Contractor's
work in progress beyond the responsibilities specifically assigned to Consultant
in this Amendment and the Contract Documents, but rather are to be limited to
spot checking, selective sampling, and similar methods of general observation
of the work. Based on information obtained during such visits and observations,
Consultant shall determine in general if Contractor's work is proceeding in
accordance with the Contract Documents. Consultant shall provide up to 260
hours of engineer time under this task.
b. Consultant shall not, during visits to the site or as a result of the observations of
Contractor's work in progress, supervise, direct, or have control over
Contractor's work, nor shall Consultant have authority over or responsibility for
the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction
selected or used by Contractor, for security or safety on the site, for safety
precautions and programs incident to Contractor's work, nor for any failure of
Contractor to comply with laws and regulations applicable to Contractor's
furnishing and performing the work. Accordingly, Consultant neither guarantees
the performance of any Contractor nor assumes responsibility for any
Contractor's failure to furnish and perform the work in accordance with the
Contract Documents.
3.3.6 Defective Work - Recommend to City that Contractor's work be rejected while it is in
progress if, on the basis of Consultant's observations, Consultant believes that the work
will not produce a completed Project that conforms generally to the Contract
Documents or that it will threaten the integrity of the design concept of the completed
Project as a functioning whole as indicated in the Contract Documents.
3.3.7 Clarifications and Interpretations - Issue necessary clarifications and interpretations of
the Contract Documents as appropriate to the orderly completion of Contractor's work.
Such clarifications and interpretations will be consistent with the intent of and
reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents. Consultant shall provide up to 120
hours of engineer time for this task.
3.3.8 Change Orders and Change Proposal Requests - Recommend Change Orders and
Change Proposal Requests to City, as appropriate, and prepare Change Orders and
Change Proposal Requests as required. Consultant shall provide up to 110 hours of
engineer time for this task.
Smith & Associates, Inc.
May • 2016
of Pasco
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
0
EXHIBIT D
3.3.9 Shop Drawings and Samples - Review and take appropriate action in respect to Shop
Drawings and Samples and other data which Contractor is required to submit, but only
for conformance with the information given in the Contract Documents and
compatibility with the design concept of the completed Project as a functioning whole
as indicated by the Contract Documents. Such reviews and action taken will not extend
to means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction or to safety
precautions and programs incident thereto. Consultant shall meet Contractor's submittal
schedule that Consultant has accepted and as identified in the Contract Documents.
Consultant shall provide up to 530 hours for review of submittals and re -submittals
under this task.
3.3.10 Substitutes and "or -equal" - Evaluate and determine the acceptability of substitute or
"or -equal" materials and equipment proposed by Contractor. Consultant shall review
up to 20 substitution requests under this task.
3.3.11 Contractor's Completion Documents - Consultant shall review maintenance and
operating instructions, certificates of inspection, tests and approvals, Shop Drawings,
Samples and other data as provided under paragraph 3.3.9 and the annotated record
documents. The City shall be responsible for receiving and reviewing schedules,
guarantees, bonds, certificates or other evidence of insurance required by the Contract
Documents which are to be assembled by Contractor in accordance with the Contract
Documents to obtain final payment. The extent of review by Consultant will be limited
as provided in paragraph 3.3.9.
3.3.12 Substantial Completion - After notice from Contractor that Contractor considers the
entire work ready for its intended use, in company with The City and Contractor,
Consultant shall conduct a pre -final inspection to determine if the work is substantially
complete. If after considering any objections of The City, Consultant considers the
work substantially complete, Consultant shall recommend that The City prepare and
deliver a Certificate of Substantial Completion to City and Contractor.
3.3.13 Final Notice of Acceptability of the Work - In company with The City, Consultant shall
conduct a final inspection to determine if the completed work of Contractor is
acceptable so that Consultant may recommend, in writing, final payment to Contractor.
Accompanying the recommendation for final payment, Consultant shall also provide a
Notice of Acceptability of work that the work is acceptable to the best of Consultant's
knowledge, information, and belief and based on the extent of the services provided by
Consultant under this Agreement. The City shall provide necessary certifications to
any permitting authority regarding completion of the work in accordance with approved
plans and specifications.
Consultant shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of any Contractor, or of any
subcontractors, suppliers, or other individuals or entities performing or furnishing any of the
Smith & Associates, Inc.
May • 2016
of Pasco
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
9
EXHIBIT D
work. Consultant shall not be responsible for the failure of any Contractor to perform or
furnish the work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
Upon City's request and upon completion of a signed modification to this amendment to cover
additional scope and fee, Consultant shall furnish or obtain from others additional services of
the types listed below at a fee mutually agreed to by both parties in such modification:
a. Additional or extended services during construction made necessary by (1) emergencies
or acts of God endangering the work, (2) the presence at the Site of any constituent of
concern, (3) work damaged by fire or other cause during construction, (4) a significant
amount of defective, neglected, or delayed work by Contractor, (5) acceleration of the
progress schedule involving services beyond normal working hours, or (6) default by
Contractor.
b. Providing assistance in responding to the presence of any constituent of concern at the
site, in compliance with current laws and regulations.
C. Services in connection with any partial utilization of any part of the work by The City
prior to Substantial Completion.
d. Evaluating an unreasonable claim or an excessive number of claims submitted by
Contractor or others in connection with the work.
e. Preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness for The City in any litigation,
arbitration, or other dispute resolution process related to the Project.
Task 3.4 — Operations Support
Consultant shall provide operations support during and after intake and pump station
construction to ensure that City has a fully functional and maintainable facility. Consultant
shall perform the following services:
3.4.1 Operation and Maintenance Manual
Prepare an operation and maintenance manual (O&M) in accordance with City standards for
review and approval by City. Submit a draft to City for review. Revise the manual based on
City comments. Provide three copies of the final O&M manual in 3 -ring binder, along with
electronic files. The manual will include:
a. Manufacturers' literature identifying installation, operation, maintenance, handling,
storage, assembly and other pertinent equipment information for equipment, systems,
subsystems, appliances, materials, finishes and other material furnished and/or
installed on the Project.
b. Narrative of intake and pump station operations and operating conditions.
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. City of Pasco
May • 2016
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
10
EXHIBIT D
c. Intake and pump station maintenance recommendations and requirements.
3.4.2 Start -Up Assistance
Observe and provide technical assistance during the functional testing and startup of the
Project. This will include evaluating pump performance and station operations.
3.4.3 Record Drawings
Consultant shall prepare record drawings based on information provided by Contractor and
City's Project representative, and provide to City one set of permanent record drawings.
Drawings shall be produced on bond in ink. Consultant shall also provide record drawings to
City in digital format on CD-ROM in AutoCAD format.
WORK PERFORMED BY THE CITY DURING PHASE 3
Construction Management Services
The City will provide full time staff for construction management of the General Contractor's work. The
responsibilities of The City for construction management are described below:
• The City shall lead and Consultant shall attend a preconstruction meeting with the Contractor and The
City prior to the commencement of construction and prepare and distribute minutes.
• The City shall perform the following tasks during the construction phase of the Project:
— Act as the liaison between The City, Contractor, and Consultant.
— Conduct weekly progress meetings; prepare and distribute minutes including distribution to
Consultant for all meetings, regardless of whether Consultant attends said meetings.
— Manage, compile, and review daily inspection and documentation reports including distribution to
Consultant.
— Review payment requests.
— Coordinate with Consultant for processing of requests for information (RFIs), design interpretations,
and or changes. Receive Consultant's recommendations and prepare documents based on input from
Consultant and The City.
— Coordinate with Consultant for processing of change requests. Provide Contractor's cost estimates to
Consultant, negotiate with Contractor based on input from Consultant, and prepare final change order
documentation based on input from Consultant and the City's Project Manager.
— Lead and manage dispute resolution process seeking advice from Consultant as needed.
— Prepare substantial completion notice and final punch list based on coordination and consultation
with Consultant.
Smith & Associates, Inc.
May • 2016
of Pasco
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
11
EXHIBIT D
— Prepare and issue final close-out documents based on coordination and consultation with Consultant.
• The City shall ensure that proper coordination efforts are in place between the Consultant, The City's
field staff, the Contractor, and City staff.
• The City shall review the Contractor's proposed baseline and monthly progress schedules for contract
compliance and facilitate communication and coordination between Consultant and City.
• The City shall conduct or cause to be conducted all material sampling, laboratory tests, and field and
environmental quality assurance tests at each construction site at frequencies as required in the Contract
Documents. The material testing and acceptance contractor will contracted directly with City of Pasco.
• The City shall consult with the Consultant regarding disapproval or rejection of work believed to be
defective, or that The City believes will not produce a completed Project that conforms to the Contract
Documents or that will prejudice the integrity of the design concept of the completed Project as a
functioning whole as indicated by the Contract Documents.
• The City shall consult with the Consultant as necessary to authorize minor variations in the work from
the requirements of the Contract Documents which do not involve an adjustment in the contract price or
the contract times and are compatible with the design concept of the completed Project as a functioning
whole as indicated by the Contract Documents.
• The City shall consult with City's staff and Consultant to prepare contract change orders to the Contract
Documents for the Contractor and City's review and approval according to authority protocol agreed
upon.
The City shall prepare monthly reports, and make such reports available to Consultant, on the Project
addressing the Contractor's compliance with the project schedule, significant problems encountered or
anticipated, a summary of major work completed during the current month and projected for the next month,
and pending change orders and/or claims.
Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. City of Pasco
May • 2016
Intake Structure & Pump Station Facility
12
COLOMBIA WATERSUPPLY PROJECT
CITY OF PASCO
PROPOSED FEE ESTIMATE
TASK
PNASE I - INITIAI PHRNI ll'IN4 AN)1 ANO ACQUISI'1'ION
+�.??
oPocP
Elµ4vm B-
vll
9•..
T:Terb.
IV
111
:T(
Twl
FIS.
Iluun
NA'f1811l RU NEIN
AtiA
II. suMum HOl luLurM enay..
Yee Alt'Bliilen IIUJ 4W
cF.I'AI.UATION.
Taa4l fnrieonnren Wl PemtilOn6
5 9410 S
1591
S
33 9
13}3}
PNASE ISUBI'OiAL
9
51
0
0
0
0
0
61
S 910
PHASE }- DESIGN ANO CON450UCTION PERMITTING
InnR 4 - DRIP S knm
1. Re L4ai la RevwcreeF tiff Issemew
16
20
30 13}
IS
105
]
S
w
S
LOU 5
14.9}3
G.E. Msl la PJaR+:I Dun BnoB
11
10
10
M
i4
S
4W 5
k.
a3. Au1r W Raw Watte ..imlx.—:.1 ,—Nu nnn
2
IS
5
L+
1
S
ID] 5
3251GA.
Re.. w AMi.I.
36
38
32
86
}
S
IAO] 1
119245.
PMici ale in CanennnrEilh ..A-. n. C[mmwoY i. CwVen pcummn
4
+S
w
16
65
28 5
28Na6.
Ann1 'a o]AR—In nlhvel eolw Rttlwe Ow'M� x.NMil(til
1
}0
21
U S
2M2
5
- $
I..
G
A
}3
5 1
].0]3
$
- S
10559
GA. .Idu DxI-. u.... penmen.
2
12
4
18
J4�
3
$
- S
3532
4.9.Prc nw n IN Perth Cheek.,nRn—.", Cir, and Renaiw IQPP—ll
4
10
10
B
10
4}
w 5
}.6]J
5
ME 1
RlJl
1.10 A&".1U RNn.,, mM"N-i-ICe......al law Re I 012
3
8
16
9
5 M.."
E
- $
AGO
lsnRnnl
]0
156
11
30
1}
tl6
14
W
W 5
IS,Ob S
. 5 S . 'S
- 5
}.9.M 5
I.Am
PNASE2SUBTOTAL
20
1%
96
30
2E
U
14
424
4 $ 15,026 S
. 5 551000 $
- S
2.936 5130116
.,IP— .,Nn. An i.. n.. I- QluMxu wnea Mn", P.,
MORI, EngivecN9awm PnF l
COLUMBIA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
CRY OF PASCO
PROPOSED PEN: ES'I COATE
arerPom Mo vr. SmiNYTvuYuciv. Cowimxa wauApplyPpn
MUY%016 ' 6e%m*�eneen YaR%
pp wsw��mmyw Ym.uwnm- �ia�mmawmNaawm�aumuiva xe.�vnvuaiv.vxnmm