The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUniversity Dr. Ped ImprovementsUNIVERSITY DRIVE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE II FEE SCHEDULE/BUDGET Revised 7/24/2014 FEE SUMMARY TASK HOURS LABOR Firm Fee MODIFICATION OF ORIGINAL TASKS HDR Engineering, Inc. $11,768.75 l KlCK-OFF MEETING -- Mitchell & Morgan, LLP -$1l,l10.00 2 REVIEW DOCUMENTS, SCHEDULE TASKS (l) (155.00) TEA -$1,085.00 3 REVIEW MASTER PLAN -- Koehl -$2,280.00 4 PROJECT SURVEY, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND MAPPING -- Subtotal Labor -$2,706.25 5 PROJECT WORKSHOP -- 6 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM PROJECT WORKSHOP -- Expenses 7A NORTHGA TE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT -- Other Direct Expenses -599.00 7B CONDUCT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND CORRIDOR PROGRESSION STUDY (BOYETT TO TEXAS) 40 6,148.75 Subtotal Expenses -$599.00 8 PUBLIC MEETING #1 -- Contract Total -$3,305.25 9 SUMMARY OF RES UL TS FROM PUBLIC MEETING# l -- 10 PREPARE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN (49) (3,435.00) II PUBLIC MEETING #2 TO PRESENT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN -- 12 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM PUBLIC MEETING #2 -- 13 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT -DRAFT (20) (2,058.75) 14 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT -FINAL (7) (686.25) 15 CITY COUNC[L MEETING -- MODIFICATION OF CHANGE ORDER 1 TASKS I PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 16 3,000.00 2 PROJECT WORKSHOP #3 -- 3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVJEW MEETINGS -- 4 PROJECT WORKSHOP #4 -- 5 PREPARE SCHEMATIC DESIGN (30%) (93) ( 11 ,550.00) 6 PREPARE PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS REPORT -- NEW TASKS I PROJECT WORKSHOP #5 (COMPLETED ON OCTOBER 30, 2013) 12 2,640.00 2 PROJECT MEETING -Attendees to be determined 18 3,390.00 Totals (84) (2,706.25) I t · 1· I-! H.E SUM~IARY Finn llDR En&inocrin&. Inc Ftt Sll,761.7S UNIVERSITY DRIVE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE II FEE SCHEDULE I BUDGET Re\'lud 7124/2014 TASK MODIFICATION OF' ORIGINAL TASKS 1 KICK-OFF MEETING ·SI 1.110.00 2 REVIEW OCX:W.IENTS, SCllEDULE TASKS TEA ·Sl.OU.00 J REVIEW MASTER !'LAN Koehl ·Sl.230.00 • PROJECT SURVEY, RIOHT-OF-WAYANDMAPPINO Subl:otal Ubor -$1.706.25 S PROJECT WORKSHOP 6 SUMMARY OF RES UL TS f-"ROM PROJECT WORKSllOP Expennll 7A NORTHGATE DEVELOPMENT ASSE.SS~lENT 7B CONDUCT TRAFFIC ANAl.YSIS Ai'\ID CORRIDOR PROGRESSION S1lJDY (BOYETT TO Tl!..XAS) Suhtot.1 t::1pnHn -"99.00 I l'UHLIC MEETING iq 9 SUMMARY OF RF.SULTS ,."Rm.I PUBLIC MEETING 1'1 10 PREPARE CONCEl'TUAL DES ION 11 PUDLIC MEETING #2 TO PRESEJ\'T CONCEPTUAL DESION 12 SUMMARY OF RES UL TS FROM PUBLIC MEF.TINCI #2 IJ PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT· DRAn 14 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT . FINAL 15 CITYCOl..iNCILME.ETINO MUDIFICATll>N m·c11,\NG~: mun:R 1 TASKS 1 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 2 PROJECT WORKSHOP #J J CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW MEETINGS 4 PROJECT WORKSHOP #-4 5 PREPARE SCllEMATIC DESIGN (JO"'e) 6 l'REPARE l'ROORAMMA11C CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS REl'ORT NEWT ASK.~ 1 PROJECT WORKSllOI' •5 ccm.11'LETED ON OCTOBER JO. :ZOIJ) 2 PROJECT MEETINO-Altendca k> be dck:rmincd ' ~ .. t llOURS LABOR (I) (ISH>O) 40 6.141.75 (20) (2.05S.7S) (7) (6S6.2') 16 J.000.00 (93) (11,5~.00) 12 2.640.00 JI J.390.00 (H .. ) (2,706.l!'i) NOUS Partially complete for llDR: deduction for TEA l'uti1lly complclC for I IDR; deduction for MAM and TEA Deduction for Koehl and TEA [)cducrionforKoc:hlandTEA Alrcadyoomplctcd Jr:.n:ductioninfoc Noch.lnac Alrcadya;J111pldcd Compared IO CO #I Foe E~1im1tc Cc»;t of lnll~ for two T1tDOT !ICCllArios and ChurchlSpmcc on No\·emllcr 20. 201l. Phu rime rCljuirod 10 finali1.c: Sync two modcb lo modify limits. Costofprepiin1tionofpn>f!O'Od ConceplUll [Jre,ip1 on NO\'Cmba-:ZO. 2013 Plus rime required tomodifyConcep11.11I [Jre,ip Limih. Coordination effort.~ lo tio4oYill new rcvi~ limit, Venessa Garza From: Sean Ray Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 2:21 PM Mcinturff, Mike To: Cc: Pollack, Leslie Subject: RE: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT and PER -Scope and Budget Mike, Thank you for providing the updated scope and budget. After reviewing the information presented I agree with not needing to modify the contract fee. I was informed by Dona ld that the City Council has requested an update on this project by him at the Thursday August 14th meeting. How is the schematic coming along? Thank you. Sean Ray, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station This e-mail and any fi les or documents attached to it is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that the copying, distribution or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and destroy all forms of th is e-mail. From: Mcinturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 1:16 PM To: Sean Ray Cc: Pollack, Leslie Subject: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT and PER -Scope and Budget Sean, Following are my responses to your comments below: 1. Please find below clarification on the revised tasks shown in the attached Scope of Work and fee estimate summary. 2. Project Management -Numerous telephone calls and coordination were required during considerations of TxDOT alternatives and input in November 2013, as well as a significant amount of time spent preparing three sets of scopes for Church Street alternatives since December 2013. To partially address the time spent in dealing with these issues, our prel iminary budget to accompany the attached scope included only 16 hours in addition to the budget hours approved in Change Order #1 . We have spent significantly more time than that preparing multiple sets of scopes. 3. Schematic Design -Based on feedback from our Civil Engineer, Edwin Rydell , we have estimated a 32% decrease from the C0#1 budget. 4. PCE Report -Based on feedback from our Environmental Engineer, Christine Magers, while the length of the project has been reduced, the documentation effort is not greatly reduced ; it is still a PCE checklist with all the same requirements. Based on our experience with the local TxDOT staff on another project, we feel it is appropriate to maintain the C0#1 budget for this task. 5. Project Meeting -Based on the previous request from Danielle, we have included a proposed project meeting in addition to Project Workshop #5 which was completed on October 30, 2013. 1 6. The attached spreadsheet consists of two worksheets which summarize the budget for the revised scope discussed herein as follows: . a. New Hours HOR -This summarizes hours previously spent on tasks requested by the City which were in addition to those included in Change Order #1 . 11..§lso included reductions in estimated hours based on the revised project limits determined by the City on June 1.§. b. Comparison to C0#1 -This summarizes the budget resulting from the adjustments described above as compared to the Change Order# 1 fee estimate. Additional details are included in the notes in Columns I and J. The budget increase associated with the add itional time and tasks included in the scope for HOR is approximately $15, 100. Little time has been required for our two subconsultants (TEA and Koehl) to date with no further input anticipated from them. Mitchell & Morgan has provided services to date with additional tasks upcoming; however, we do not anticipate M&M will need their full estimated C0#1 fees. As a result, the subconsultant fee estimate has been reduced by $15, 100. In total HO R's increase in scope is in line with the subconsultant reduction in scope. We do not anticipate the need for any modifications to the current contract fee. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Mike Mike Mcinturff, PE, PTOE D 979.693.5800 M 512.586.8310 hd rinc.com/follow-us From: Sean Ray [mailto:sray@cstx.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 2:24 PM To: Mcinturff, Mike Cc: Pollack, Leslie Subject: RE: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT arn;l PER -Scope and Budget Mike, At this point, I am not sure I agree that the budget from C0#2 and the red uction in scope are a wash. The reduced scope will reduce the schematic and the PCE limits by more than half. I also do n't see how additional project management is necessary because of additional scope. Change order #1 added additional project management which included progress reports and I have not seen a progress report. I do agree with compensating fo r work already complete. I will need to see an updated fee estimate with the revised scope. Th ank you. Sean Ray, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of Col lege Station This e-mail and any files or documents attached to it is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that the copying, distribution or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and destroy all forms of this e-mail. From: Mcinturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 11:38 AM To: Sean Ray Cc: Pollack, Lesl ie Subject: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT and PER -Scope and Budget 2 Sean, Sorry for the delay in getting back with you. As noted in my June 13 email below, Leslie and I have compared the budget modifications submitted to Danielle on 2/26/14 for Change Order #2 with the scope resulting from the change in project limits requested on June 16 and confirmed that a change order is not necessary. The reduction in project limits will offset the cost of additional services provided beyond the original scope and Change Order #1 . We will proceed with the PER as directed by your June 16 email below. The final scope of services based on the June 16 direction you provided is attached. Please review and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Mike From: Mcinturff, Mike Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:20 AM To: 'Sean Ray' Cc: Pollack, Leslie Subject: RE: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT and PER Sean, Thanks for the feedback. We will proceed with the PER as directed herein. -Mike Mike Mcinturff, PE, PTOE D 979.693.5800 M 512.586.8310 hdrinc.com/follow-us From: Sean Ray [mailto:sray@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:52 PM To: Mcinturff, Mike . Subject: RE: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT and PER Mike, / Per our discussion this morn in 1. The conceptual d ign, PER, Schematic design and PCE will only incl ude improvements from the end of Phase I to the west sid f Nagle Street. This is due to the uncertainty associated with the Century Square development and the TAM Engineering Complex expa nsion. 2. The desig ill include improvements along the west side of Nagle Street and the cross walk on the west side of the Nalg Street/University Drive intersection. If you have a y further questions, please let me know. Thank you. Sean R y, P.E. Assista City Engineer Public Works Department 3 City of College Station This e-mail and any files or documents attached to it is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that the copying, distribution or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and destroy all forms of this e-mail. From: Mcinturff, Mike fmailto :Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:40 AM To: Sean Ray Cc: Danielle Charbonnet; Troy Rother; Pollack, Leslie Subject: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT and PER Sean, I appreciate clarification of the City's proposed approach ring our telephone conversation on Wednesday afternoon. Based on my understanding of the path forw rd , we will move ahead with the PER as follows: 1. We will modify the attached Conceptual Desig to include a crosswalk on the east side of Church Avenue. As noted in my 5/16/14 email to Danielle shown elow, the attached design does not include provision of westbound right turn lanes at Church Avenue and Nag Street as discussed in my 9/17/13 email to Dan ielle with draft comments in response to Chad Bohne's ~ 12/13 email. As you and I discussed on Wednesday, we will not show either of these right turn lanes on the C9nceptual Design pending receipt of TxDOT's comments. 2. Upon receipt of the revised Conceptu (Design discussed above, you will formally submit it to TxDOT for review and comments with a request to sch dule Public Meeting #2. 3. We will initiate preparation of appli able portions of the Draft PER in accordance with the original scope (attached Scope of Work_5.14.12) as ame ded by Change Order#1 (attached Scope of Work_ Change Order#1_7.8.13). The Revised Conceptual Desi /Layout referenced in Task 13d of the original scope will consist of the attached Conceptual Design to be~ev· ed as noted in Item 1 above. As stated under Deliverables described in the Change Order #1 scope, t Schematic Design (30%) will be prepared based on addressing comments and traffic analysis of input receive t Public Meeting #2. As stated under Deliverables described in the Change Order #1 scope, the Programma ·c Categorical Exclusion (PCE) report will be prepared after completion of the Schematic Design . The Schem 1c Design and PCE report, and ultimately the PS&E, will be prepared for the section of University Drive fro College Main through Nagle Street. The section between Nagle Street and South College- Bizzell Street will e included in a later phase when more details or a specific design/direction is known for T AMU 's Engine ring Center project. 4. Attached is th scope of work I emailed Danielle on 2/26/14 prior to the City's decision to revise the project limits. I edi d and attached this scope (Scope of Work_Revised Limits_6.13.14) in track change mode to reflect work to b done, considering the scope resulting from Change Order #1 and the additional tasks and extra work reques a by the City which were to be included in Change Order #2. As we discussed on Wednesday, I will com re the budget modifications I submitted to Danielle on 2/26/14 for Change Order #2 with the scope resulting fro the change in project limits to confirm that a change order is not necessary. I will provide this information to you by Monday. Please review the information contained herein to confirm that it is consistent with our telephone conversation on Wednesday. Thanks, Mike Mike Mcinturff, PE. PTOE Vice President I Professional Associate HDR 1008 Woodcreek Drive College Station, TX 77845 D 979.693.5800 M 512.586.8310 mike.mcinturff@hdrinc.com hdrinc.com/follow-us 4 From: Mcinturff, Mike Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 7:57 PM To: 'Danielle Charbonnet' Cc: Pollack, Leslie; Sean Ray; Troy Rother / Subject: RE: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT Dan ielle, I'm sorry I missed the call from you an Sean this afternoon . I hope the City has scheduled a farewell gathering fo r you on Friday so I will have an opportuni to say good-by in person before your departure. Based on your comments below Sean will contact me to discuss the details of the plan to wrap up the PER and move forward with a phased approa for the schematic and environmental study. I've enjoyed working wit ou and I wish you the best in this next phase of your life up North! Thanks, Mike From: Danielle Charbonnet [mailto:dcharbonnet@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 6:23 PM To: Mcinturff, Mike Cc: Pollack, Leslie; Sean Ray; Troy Rother Subject: RE: University Drive Conceptual Design to T OT Mike, Sean and I tried calling you today to see if w could catch you for a minute to let you know the outcome of our meeting, but it looks like we had already missed yo . We still plan to move ahead with the PER as you and I previously discussed. Sean will contact Chad to sc dule the next public meeting and to resubmit the conceptual design that we would like to move forward with -yo Proposed Conceptual Design -3 -HDR.pdf. The plan is to wrap up the PER as represented in this conceptual desi through the Bizzell intersection, but we will move forward with a phased approach for the schematic and environme al and ultimately the design through Nagle only. Nagle to S. College will be a later phase once a little more directi n is known for the Enginee ri ng Ce nter plan. I believe this is a slight adjustment to what you and I previously discusse . Sean will be in contact w· h you shortly. I've attached his contact card as well as you rs so that you both can have the appropriate contact i rmation. My last official day will be Fri da y, but I will be out of the office the rest of the week until Friday. It's be good working wit h yo u and Les lie, and I wish you the best. I will miss the many good professionals I've worked with round the engineering community over the past 9+ yea rs. Best wishe Daniel le Charbonnet, P.E., CFM Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station 300 Krenek Tap Road College Station, TX 77840 P: (979) 764-5028 5 F: (979) 764-3489 dcharbonnet@cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® - -·~------- From: Mcinturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:34 PM To: Danielle Charbonnet Cc: Pollack, Leslie Subject: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT Danielle, The Proposed Conceptual Design attached to your e ail below was included in the attached 11/20/13 email in anticipation of another meeting with TxDOT and to ddress some of the topics discussed in the 10/30/13 meeting. As you noted in the attached email, prior to then, you pl ned to meet with Chad and Bob at TxDOT to discuss some concepts for the crossing at Church. To my knowledge o comments have been received in response to your attached 11/15/13 email with notes from the 10/30/13 meetin Based on review of the attached Prop ed Conceptual Design - 3 -HDR.pdf and our telephone discussion this morning, I offer the following comments: 1. This Proposed Conceptu Design does not include a crosswalk on the east side of Church Avenue nor provision of westbound right tur anes at Church Avenue and Nagle Street as discussed in my 9/17/13 email to you with draft comments in r ponse to Chad's 9/12/13 email. 2. This Proposed C ceptual Design includes enhancements for east/west pedestrian crossings at Spence Street as well as the me an barrier east of Church Avenue which we discussed this morning. 3. If you wish forward the attached Proposed Conceptual Design to Chad, the three additions discussed in Item 1 above co d be mentioned in your transmittal email or noted in a revised plan . Please revie and let me know your preference on the Conceptual Design. Thanks, Mike From: Danielle Charbonnet [mailto:dcharbonnet@cstx.gov] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 11:25 AM . To: Mcinturff, Mike / subject: RE: university Drive conceptual Planz completio!Y'Schedule Mike, Here's the one that I had in mind. Please cor;i irm if this is the correct one. Danielle Charbonnet, P.E., CFM Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station 300 Krenek Tap Road College Station, TX 778 P: (979) 764-5028 F: (979) 764-3489 dcharbonnet c x. ov City of C liege Station 6 Home of Texas A&M University ® From: Mclnturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:10 PM To: Danielle Charbonnet Cc: Pollack, Leslie; Troy Rother; Sean Ray Subject: University Drive Conceptual Plan Completion Schedule Danielle, Sorry I have not been able to follow-up with you since our 4/28/14 teleP, one discussion which included the following points: 1. T AMU is early in its process of planning efforts to develop t e Engineering Center on campus within and adjacent to the Zachry Building and the intersection of Bizzell Stre and University Drive and does not yet have any specific plans to share with the City. 2. In order to avoid any impacts on the City's plans ford sign considerations for the subject project, the City has proposed to cease work on the Conceptual Design nd complete the Preliminary Engineering Report as follows: a. The Proposed Conceptual Design will remain s submitted to Chad Bohne at TxDOT with your attached 9/9/13 email. As you stated in the attache mail: "After we receive your feedback, we plan to meet with TAMU to get their thoughts as well prior t having the next public meeting this fall (tentatively in November). We look forward to receiving your thou ts." b. We received a copy of Chad's comm ts on 9/12/13 and submitted draft responses for your review on 9/17/13. The attached email includ s that information. To my knowledge, no response was forwarded to TxDOT. c. A meeting was held on 10/30/1 ith TxDOT and TAMU personnel to review the Conceptual Design . Attached is your 11/1 /13 email with notes from the meeting . 3. New Task 5 of Change Order #1 tates: "Prepare Schematic Design (30%) based on consideration and analysis of input received at Public Me mg #2 with respect to the Conceptual Design." During our 4/28/14 telephone conversation, you stated tha the schematic design will be prepared based on the Conceptual Design geometrics from College Main to Nagle treet. We need some clarification on the eastern limit of the schematic. Do we prepare the schematic with the pr osed raised median and eastbound left turn lane on the west side of the intersection? Do we leave the east side the intersection as is; i.e., six lanes westbound (2 LT, 3 TH, 1 RT)? 4. Public Meeting #2 wa to be scheduled to present and receive comments on the Conceptual Design. Do you propose to seek Tx OT approval to proceed with this meeting based on the attached Conceptual Design? 5. As stated under D iverable #4 of Change Order #1 : "Programmatic Categorical Exclusion -This report is requ ired as a pa of TxDOT's environmental review process. It will be prepared after completion of the Schematic Des· n." In summary, please larify the following items: 1. Will you s k approval from TxDOT to proceed with scheduling of Public Meeting #2 to present the attached 2. We will repare the Schematic Design (30%) from College Main to Nagle Street based on consideration and Con~ept I Design? analy s of input received at Public Meeting #2. 3. We ill prepare the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion report after completion of the Schematic Design. We can beg in preparation of this report based on tasks completed to date. 4. We can begin preparation of the PER based on tasks completed to date. Upon receipt of clarification concerning the issues herein, we can develop a schedule for completion of the PER. Thanks, Mike ------------ From: Danielle Charbonnet [mailto:dcharbonnet@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:21 PM To: Mclnturff, Mike Cc: Pollack, Leslie; Troy Rother; Sean Ray Subject: RE: Weekly Progress Report -As of May 2 ---·------------ 7 Mike, Thank you for the update. When do you anticipate having a response to me regarding wrapping up the current contract with the schematic through Nagle Street? We are eager to move forward and complete this phase of the project. Thanks, Danielle Charbonnet, P.E., CFM Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of Coll ege Station 300 Krenek Tap Road College Station, TX 77840 P: (979) 764-5028 F: (979) 764-3489 dcharbonnet@cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® --------- From: Mcinturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:54 PM To: Danielle Charbonnet Cc: Pollack, Leslie Subject: Weekly Progress Report -As of y 2 Danielle, ·-·------------------- This email will serve as our report f r the past week for the University Drive Project. 1. Description of Work Perform During the Past Week • Preparation of signal ming plans for current geometry and traffic conditions -cycle length assessment, final timing plans underw nt QC review. • Review impacts of. scope modifications (reducing 30% schematic limits) on existing budget 2. Unusual Problems an Delays Encountered: 3. Potential Extra Work Items (Project to Date): • Consideration of results of meeting between Chuck Gilman and TAMU concerning their plans to develop the Engineering Center on campus within and adjacent to the Zachry Building and the intersection of Bizzell Street and University Drive • Preparation of a revised Conceptual Design that includes two unique options for the Church Avenue -University Drive intersection that illustrate techniques to funnel students to the intersection to cross safely 4. Anticipat7d Work to be Performed this Week • ~mit final signal timing plans for current geometry and traffic conditions • ordination with City staff concerning elimination of proposed Change Order #2 and impacts of scope revisions existing budget Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Mike 8 Mike Mcinturff, P.E., PTOE Vice President Professional Associate HDR 1008 Woodcreek Drive College Station, TX 77845 0 979.693.5800 M 512.586.8310 mike.mcinturff@hdrinc.com hdrinc.com/follow-us City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® 9 Venessa Garza From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: All, Sean Ray Monday, July 28, 2014 10:46 AM Emily Fisher; Don Weirens (don@qc2i.com); Troy Rother; Venessa Garza FW: University Drive Conceptual Design Conceptual Design_7.25.14.pdf; University Drive -PER Scope and Budget Attached is the updated University Drive Conceptual Plan for the Pedestrian Improvements Project. I will set up a meeting to discuss any comments you may have. After we discuss the updated plan, I would like to look at some of the scope and budget issues I am having (see attached e-mail). Thanks. Sean Ray, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station This e-mail and any files or documents attached to it is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that the copying, distribution or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and destroy all forms of this e-mail. From: Mcinturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:06 AM To: Sean Ray Cc: Pollack, Leslie Subject: University Drive Conceptual Design Sean, Attached is the Conceptual Design which has been modified in accordance with our discussion on June 16. Please note the following during your review, prior to forwarding to TxDOT: • The design sho~uston Street modifications in the field . • The design leav~dnceptual Church Avenue and The Rise layouts as previously completed. • With the exception of the proposed modifications and access at Subway and Shell, lf'!e are not addressinq any public comments received at Public Meetin #1 and eetin s with Northgate merchants by leaving N~le treet out oft e esigl); though I agree that Nagle Street operations are directly tied to future Church Avenue operations, which are too unpredictable currently. • _No bike lanes are currently proposed on Nagle Street (part of the City Plan) to connect to the TAMU bike lanes on Ireland Street. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, Mike Mike Mcinturff, PE, PTOE D 979.693.5800 M 512.586.8310 1 hdrinc. com/follow-us From: Sean Ray [mailto:sray@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:52 PM To: Mclnturff, Mike Subject: RE: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT and PER Mike, Per our discussion this morning: 1. The conceptual design, PER, Schematic design and PCE will only include improvements from the end of Phase I to the west side of Nagle Street. This is due to the uncertainty associated with t he Century Square development and the TAM U Engineering Complex expansion. 2. The design will include improvements along the west side of Nagle Street and the cross walk on the west side of the Nalge Street/University Drive intersection. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Thank you. Sean Ray, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station This e-mail and any files or documents attached to it is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that the copying, distribution or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and destroy all forms of this e-mail. From: Mcinturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:40 AM To: Sean Ray Cc: Danielle Charbonnet; Troy Rother; Pollack, Leslie Subject: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT and PER Sean, I appreciate clarification of the City's proposed approach during our telephone conversation on Wednesday afternoon. Based on my understanding of the path forward , we will move ahead with the PER as follows: 1. We will modify the attached Conceptual Design to include a crosswalk on the east side of Church Avenue. As noted in my 5/16/14 email to Danielle shown below, the attached design does not include provision of westbound right turn lanes at Church Avenue and Nagle Street as discussed in my 9/17 /13 email to Danielle with draft comments in response to Chad Bohne's 9/12/13 email. As you and I discussed on Wednesday, we will not show either of these right turn lanes on the Conceptual Design pend ing receipt of TxDOT's comments. 2. Upon receipt of the revised Conceptual Design discussed above, you will formally submit it to TxDOT for review and comments with a request to schedule Public Meeting #2. 3. We will in itiate preparation of applicable portions of the Draft PER in accordance with the original scope (attached Scope ofWork_S.14.12) as amended by Change Order#1 (attached Scope of Work_ Change Order#1_7.8.13). The Revised Conceptual Design/Layout referenced in Task 13d of the original scope will consist of the attached Conceptual Design to be revised as noted in Item 1 above. As stated under Deliverables described in the Change Order #1 scope, the Schematic Design (30%) will be prepared based on addressing comments and traffic analysis of input received at Public Meeting #2. As stated under Deliverables described in the Change Order #1 scope, the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) report will be prepared after completion of the Schematic Design. The Schematic Design and PCE report, and ultimately the PS&E, will be prepared for the section of University Drive from College Main through Nagle Street. The section between Nagle Street and South College- 2 Bizzell Street will be included in a later phase when more details or a specific design/direction is known for T AMU's Engineering Center project. 4. Attached is the scope of work I emailed Danielle on 2/26/14 prior to the City's decision to revise the project limits. I edited and attached this scope (Scope of Work_Revised Limits_6.13.14) in track change mode to reflect work to be done, considering the scope resulting from Change Order #1 and the additional tasks and extra work requested by the City which were to be included in Change Order #2 . As we discussed on Wednesday, I will compare the budget modifications I submitted to Danielle on 2/26/14 for Change Order #2 with the scope resulting from the change in project limits to confirm that a change order is not necessary. I will provide this information to you by Monday. Please review the information contained herein to confirm that it is consistent with our telephone conversation on Wednesday. Thanks, Mike Mike Mcinturff, PE, PTOE Vice President I Professional Associate HDR 1008 Woodcreek Drive College Station, TX 77845 D 979.693.5800 M 512.586.8310 mike.mcinturff@hdrinc.com hdrinc.com/follow-us -··--··--------------- From: Mcinturff, Mike Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 7:57 PM To: 'Danielle Charbonnet' Cc: Pollack, Leslie; Sean Ray; Troy Rother Subject: RE: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT Danielle, I'm sorry I missed the call from you and Sean this afternoon. I hope the City has scheduled a farewell gathering for you on Friday so I will have an opportunity to say good-by in person before your departure. Based on your comments below, Sean will contact me to discuss the details of the plan to wrap up the PER and move forward with a phased approach for the schematic and environmental study. I've enjoyed working with you and I wish you the best in this next phase of your life up North! Thanks, Mike From: Danielle Charbonnet [mailto:dcharbonnet@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 6:23 PM To: Mcinturff, Mike Cc: Pollack, Leslie; Sean Ray; Troy Rother Subject: RE: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT M ike , 3 Sean and I tried calling you today to see if we could catch you for a minute to let you know the outcome of our meeting, but it looks like we had already missed you. We still plan to move ahead with t he PER as you and I previously discussed . Sean will contact Chad to sched ule t he next public meeting and to resubmit the conceptual design that we would like to move forward with -your Proposed Conceptual Design -3 -HDR.pd f. The plan is to wrap up the PER1 as reRresented in this conceptual design t hrough the Bizzell intersection, but we will move forward with a phased approach ~he schematic and environmental and ultimately the design through Nagle only. Nagle to S. College will be a later phase once a little more direction is know n for the Engineering Center plan. I believe this is a slight adjustment to what you and I previously discussed. Sean will be in contact w ith you shortly. I've attached his contact card as well as yours so that you both can have the appropriate contact information. My last official day will be Friday, but I will be out of the office the rest of the week until Friday. It's been good working with you and Leslie, and I wish you the best. I w ill miss the many good professionals I've worked with around the engineering co mmunity over the past 9+ years. Best wishes, Danielle Charbonnet, P.E., CFM Ass istant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station 300 Krenek Tap Road College Station, TX 77840 P: (979) 764-5028 F: (979) 764-3489 dcharbonnet@cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® From: Mcinturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:34 PM To: Danielle Charbonnet Cc: Pollack, Leslie Subject: University Drive Conceptual Design to TxDOT Danielle, The Proposed Conceptual Design attached to your email below was included in the attached 11 /20/13 email in anticipation of another meeting with TxDOT and to address some of the topics discussed in the 10/30/13 meeting. As you noted in the attached email, prior to then, you planned to meet with Chad and Bob at TxDOT to discuss some concepts for the crossing at Church. To my knowledge, no comments have been received in response to your attached 11/15/13 email with notes from the 10/30/13 meeting. Based on review of the attached Proposed Conceptual Design - 3 -HDR.pdf and our telephone discussion this morning, I offer the following comments: 1. This Proposed Conceptual Design does not include a crosswalk on the east side of Church Avenue nor provision of westbound right turn lanes at Church Avenue and Nagle Street as discussed in my 9/17/13 email to you with draft comments in response to Chad's 9/12/13 email. 2. This Proposed Conceptual Design includes enhancements for east/west pedestrian crossings at Spence Street as well as the median barrier east of Church Avenue which we discussed this morning. 3. If you wish to forward the attached Proposed Conceptual Design to Chad, the three additions discussed in Item 1 above could be mentioned in your transmittal email or noted in a revised plan. Please review and let me know your preference on the Conceptual Design. 4 Thanks, Mike --·------- From: Danielle Charbonnet [mailto:dcharbonnet@cstx.gov] Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 11:25 AM To: Mcinturff, Mike Subject: RE: University Drive Conceptual Plan Completion Schedule Mike, Here's the one that I had in mind. Please confirm if this is the co rrect one. Danielle Charbonnet, P.E., CFM Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station 300 Krenek Tap Road College Station, TX 77840 P: (979) 764-5028 F: (979) 764-3489 dcharbonnet@cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® From: Mcinturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mcinturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:10 PM To: Danielle Charbonnet Cc: Pollack, Leslie; Troy Rother; Sean Ray Subject: University Drive Conceptual Plan Completion Schedule Danielle, --------- Sorry I have not been able to follow-up with you since our 4/28/14 telephone discussion which included the following points: 1. TAMU is early in its process of planning efforts to develop the Engineering Center on campus within and adjacent to the Zachry Building and the intersection of Bizzell Street and University Drive and does not yet have any specific plans to share with the City. 2. In order to avoid any impacts on the City's plans for design considerations for the subject project, the City has proposed to cease work on the Conceptual Design and complete the Preliminary Engineering Report as follows: a. The Proposed Conceptual Design will remain as submitted to Chad Bohne at TxDOT with your attached 9/9/1 3 email. As you stated in the attached email: "After we receive your feedback, we plan to meet with TAMU to get their thoughts as well prior to having the next public meeting this fall (tentatively in November). We look forward to receiving your thoughts." b. We received a copy of Chad's comments on 9/12/13 and submitted draft responses for your review on 9/17/13. The attached email includes That information. To my knowledge no response was forwar.d.ed to TxDOT, c. A meeting was held on 10/30/13 with TxDOT and T AMU personnel to review the Conceptual Design. Attache · /15/13 email with notes from the meetin . 3. New Task 5 of Change Order #1 states: "Prepare chematic Design (30%) based on consideration and analysis of input received at Public M,,eeting #2 with respect to the Conceptual Design." During our 4/28/14 telephone conversation, you stared that the schematic design will be prepared based on the Conceptual Design geometrics from College Main to Nagle Street. We need some clarification on the eastern limit of the schematic. Do we prepare 5 the schematic with the proposed raised median and eastbound left turn lane on the west side of the intersection? Do we leave the east side of the intersection as is; i.e., six lanes westbound (2 LT, 3 TH, 1 RT)? 4. Public Meeting #2 was to be scheduled to present and receive comments on the Conceptual Design. Do you propose to seek TxDOT approval to proceed with th is meeting based on the attached Conceptual Design? 5. As stated under Deliverable #4 of Change Order #1 : "Programmatic Categorical Exclusion -This report is required as a part of TxDOT's environmental review process. It will be prepared after completion of the Schematic Design." In summary, please clarify the following items: 1. Will you seek approval from TxDOT to proceed with scheduling of Public Meeting #2 to present the attached Conceptual Design? 2. We will prepare the Schematic Design (30%) from College Main to Nagle Street based on consideration and analysis of input received at Public Meeting #2 . 3. We will prepare the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion report after completion of the Schematic Design. We can begin preparation of this report based on tasks completed to date. 4. We can begin preparation of the PER based on tasks completed to date. Upon receipt of clarification concerning the issues herein , we can develop a schedule for completion of the PER. Thanks, Mike From: Danielle Charbonnet [mailto:dcharbonnet@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:21 PM To: Mcinturff, Mike Cc: Pollack, Leslie; Troy Rother; Sean Ray Subject: RE: Weekly Progress Report -As of May 2 Mike, Thank you for the update. When do you anticipate having a response to me regarding w rapping up the current contract with the schematic t hrough Nagle Street? We are eager to move forward and complete this phase of the project. ; Thanks, Danielle Charbonnet, P.E., CFM Assistant City Engineer Public Works Department City of College Station 300 Krenek Tap Road College Station, TX 77840 P: (979) 764-5028 F: (979) 764-3489 dcharbonnet@cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® From: Mcinturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:54 PM To: Danielle Charbonnet Cc: Pollack, Leslie Subject: Weekly Progress Report -As of May 2 6 Danielle, This email will serve as our report for the past week for the University Drive Project. 1. Description of Work Performed During the Past Week • Preparation of signal timing plans for current geometry and traffic conditions -cycle length assessment, final timing plans underwent QC review. • Review impacts of scope modifications (reducing 30% schematic limits) on existing budget 2. Unusual Problems and Delays Encountered: 3. Potential Extra Work Items (Project to Date): • Consideration of results of meeting between Chuck Gilman and TAMU concerning their plans to develop the Engineering Center on campus within and adjacent to the Zachry Building and the intersection of Bizzell Street and University Drive • Preparation of a revised Conceptual Design that includes two unique options for the Church Avenue -University Drive intersection that illustrate techniques to funnel students to the intersection to cross safely 4. Anticipated Work to be Performed this Week • Submit final signal timing plans for current geometry and traffic conditions • Coordination with City staff concerning elimination of proposed Change Order #2 and impacts of scope revisions to existing budget Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Mike Mike Mcinturff, P.E., PTOE Vice President Professional Associate HOR 1008 Woodcreek Drive College Station, TX 77845 D 979.693.5800 M 512.586.8310 mike.mcinturff@hdrinc.com hdrinc.com/follow-us City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® 7 f Venessa Garza From: Sean Ray Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 2:04 PM To: Emily Fisher; Troy Rother; Donald Harmon; Venessa Garza Subject: RE: University Drive Pedestrian Improvements -R~s~mption of Work "' \tt'A ~ y ~t>') /\f1' ~~if All, Here is my summary from Mike's email. ~ 1'"'' #A~IA \J ~ 1\ f1JCb ~ Items 7 & 10: Why is there a proposed increase for these items? Did the City request additional work from HDR? As noted on the attached Scope of Work for Change Order #2 which was emailed to Danielle on February 26 , 2014: Item 7 -Traffic Analysis A TxDOT Scenario I review and assessment presented on November 20, 2013 B. TxDOT Scenario II review and assessment presented on November 20, 2013 C. Church Avenue/Spence Street and University Drive -Review and analysis presented on November 20, 2013 D. Church Avenue and University Drive -On December 11 , 2013, Danielle requested options to illustrate techniques to funnel pedestrians. Danielle later requested to modify the scope of work to prepare two options instead of three. The request also included the addition of three meetings. E. City, TxDOT, and TAMU comments obtained during the review process, previously scheduled meetings and additional meetings requested by the City will require modifications to traffic analysis previously completed as well as additional time to finalize the traffic analysis. Item 10 -Prepare Conceptual Design There have been various portions and all of this design have been modified in response to requests from the City. Task 108 is to prepare two unique conceptual design plans at University and Church separate from the Conceptual Design submitted previously. It is assumed that one of these two plans will be integrated into the final Conceptual Design after review/discussions with TxDOT and TAMU." CO #1 , Item 1 (Project Management): Why do we need additional hours for Project Management? Has the City requested additional work for this? CO #1 , Item 1 (Project Management) Additional time requ ired greater than anticipated in the original assumptions. "For instance, we spent a great deal of time preparing various drafts of the scope of work to initiate the project. Several versions of the scope of work were prepared to finalize Change Order #1 to add tasks and meetings requested by the City and additional alternatives identified which were outside the original scope of work." CO #2, Item 1 (Hardscape/Softscape for Church Ave): Why is this additional fee added? CO #2, Item 1 (Hardscape/Softscape for Church Ave): ''This task is a more in-depth review of the landscaping and hardscaping associated with this concept plan layout, requiring more time than anticipated in the original scope Tasks 1 Oj and 1 Ok. This new task will include 2 options to be developed that will enhance the streetscape as well as encourage and limit pedestrian crossings of University Drive to the intersections located at Church Street and South College Avenue. 1 CO #2. Item 2 (Project Workshop #5): How long was this meeting and what are the additional hours for? Reported 5. 75 hours to review, print comments from TxDOT and email comments to Danielle, review files for meeting preparation, prepare sign-in sheet, discuss meeting format with Danielle and attend meeting. Additional time was spent preparing minutes and getting comments from Danielle. CO #2, Items 3-5: Why do we need these additional meetings? Please remove them. Danielle requested them. In my meeting with Troy yesterday he recommended three options to move forward: 1. We ask HDR for all of the information, data, and deliverables they have prepared thus far and cancel the contract. We can at this point hold back and see what TAMU decides to do with the engineering center or we can pursue a contract with another engineering firm. 2. We remove the schematic design and PCE (effectively $75,000) from the project. We have HDR complete a conceptual design at the original limits (phase 1 to South College). We can move forward with the public meetings with the conceptual design. We can justify not pursuing a schematic design because we have concerns that the engineering center plans may invalidate the design. 3. We continue with the conceptual and schematic plans from phase 1 to Nagle. I believe we can reduce Change Order #2 by an additional $9,030, but it will be a fight. This will bring Change Order #2 to a contract reduction of $12,335. I apologize that this "summary" is still very long. I will send out an invite to meet next week to discuss this project. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you and have a good weekend! Sean Ray, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Publ ic Works Depa rtment City of College Station This e-mail and any files or documents attached to it is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed . It contains information that may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that the copying, distribution or other use of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and destroy all forms of this e-mail. From: Mcinturff, Mike [mailto:Mike.Mclnturff@hdrinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 10:29 AM To: Sean Ray Cc: Emily Fisher; Troy Rother; Donald Harmon; Venessa Garza; Pollack, Leslie Subject: University Drive Pedestrian Improvements -Resumption of Work Sean, My responses to your questions are listed in green below. I apologize for the lengthy email, but there is a significant amount of information to provide in response to your questions for background, etc. 2 Please let me know if you need additional information so we can resume work on this project. Thanks, Mike Mike Mcinturff, PE, PTOE Vice President I Professional Associate HDR 1008 Woodcreek Drive College Station, TX 77845 D 979.693.5800 M 512.586.8310 mike.mcinturff@hdrinc.com hdrinc.com/follow-us From: Sean Ray [mailto:sray@cstx.gov] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:05 PM To: Mcinturff, Mike Cc: Emily Fisher; Troy Rother; Donald Har , Venessa Garza Subject: University Drive Pedestrian Improvements Mike, Over the past few weeks I have discussed this project extensively with Public Works management and in turn City management. The City has strong concerns that there is little value in condensing the limits of the project due to the small cost difference between the current contract amount and the proposed reduction. Because there is little value, the City is requesting the original limits be restored and all submittals reflect these limits. The City wishes to finish out this contract under the scope and fee of the original contract and change order #1. This statement causes me some concern. As described below, the scope (length/geometrics of the corridor which has been changed three times, alternatives to be considered, etc.) has changed significantly since C0#1 was approved. Much of C0#2 included budget for additional services requested by the City and provided by HOR after C0#1 . You have requested that additional meetings be eliminated and, to my knowledge, the Conceptual Design has not yet been provided to TxDOT and TAMU. With this consideration, please revisit the original Change Order #2 dated February 26, 2014: Several of the items below have been previously completed, or will be required to move forward with the project with the original project limits. See details below. Items 7 & 10: Why is there a proposed increase for these items? Did the City request additional work from HDR? As noted on the attached Scope of Work for Change Order #2 which was emailed to Danielle on February 26, 2014: Item 7 -Traffic Analysis Comments received at Project Workshop #5 on October 30, 2013 resulted in additional alternatives for review/analysis as listed below. In response to Danielle's request as a follow-up to the meeting, review and assessments for each alternative were prepared and are in addition to those identified in the Original and Change Order #1 scope of work: A TxDOT Scenario I review and assessment presented on November 20, 2013 B. TxDOT Scenario II review and assessment presented on November 20, 2013 C. Church Avenue/Spence Street and University Drive -Review and analysis presented on November 20,2013 D. Church Avenue and University Drive -On December 11 , 2013, Danielle requested that we prepare three unique options that illustrate techniques to funnel pedestrians to the intersection to cross safely. We prepared the scope of work and submitted it to her for review on December 30, 2013. After two follow-up emails to her to check status, we received her comments on February 4, 2014 with a request to modify the scope of work to prepare two options instead of three. Her request also included the addition of three meetings in addition to Project Workshop #5 as well as modifications of analysis and deliverables. 3 E. City, TxDOT, and TAMU comments obtained during the review process, previously scheduled meetings and additional meetings requested by the City will require modifications to traffic analysis previously completed as well as additional time to finalize the traffic analysis. Item 10 -Prepare Conceptual Design This design was completed and submitted to the City on March 8, 2013. Since that time, various portions and all of this design have been modified in response to requests from the City based on comments received at Project Workshop #5 and subsequent input. As noted in my 3/13/14 email to Danielle: "Task 108 is to prepare two unique conceptual design plans separate from the Conceptual Design submitted previously. These plans will be a deliverable that looks similar to previous conceptual design layouts submitted on this project. It is assumed that one of these two plans will be integrated into the final Conceptual Design after review/discussions with TxDOT and TAMU." CO #1, Item 1 (Project Management): Why do we need additional hours for Project Management? Has the City requested additional work for this? Time required for project management and administration for individual tasks has been greater than anticipated in the original assumptions. New tasks as well as additional personnel and disciplines have been added to the scope of work. This PM task was added to the scope of work with C0#1 to better identify project management and administration requirements for the duration of the project. With very few exceptions, I have submitted weekly progress reports for past 13 months. As a result of multiple periods of input from TxDOT, lack of information provided by TAMU on the Engineering Center, long periods of waiting on responses from the City on various issues, and multiple requests for changes in the scope of work, significantly more time has been spent on administrative work than anticipated. For instance, we spent a great deal of time preparing various drafts of the scope of work to initiate the project. Several versions of the scope of work were prepared to finalize Change Order #1 to add tasks and meetings requested by the City and additional alternatives identified which were outside the original scope of work. After recognition of the need for Change Order #2, we have prepared four different scopes of work in response to requests from Danielle and you. C0#2 included only 16 hours for PM, which is substantially less than has been spent to date. CO #2, Item 1 Hardscape/Softscape for Church Ave): Why is this additional fee added? As noted in my 3/13/14 email to Danielle's request for changes to the Conceptual Design: "This task is a more in- depth revi of the landscaping and hardscaping associated with this concept plan layout, requiring more time than --"""""' ........... _ in the original scope Tasks 1 Oj and 1 Ok. This new task will include the following: o 2 options will be developed that will enhance the streetscape as well as encourage and limit pedestrian crossings of University Drive to the intersections located at Church Street and South College Avenue as described in the following text included on Page 2 of the attached scope of work: • 1. Hardscape Only: the design will introduce site furnishings and site amenities in order to encourage pedestrian crossings at the desired intersections. • 2. Softscape Only: the design will introduce landscape groundcover, shrubs and possibly trees to encourage pedestrian crossings at the desired intersections. • 3. Combination of Hardscape and Softscape: the design will introduce a combination of site furnishings, site amenities and landscaping in order to encourage pedestrian crossings at the desired intersections. These two options will be presented in plan and section including photos or examples of the proposed materials in order to clarify the intent and 'look' of the proposed option. It is understood that the intent of these options is to assist in defining the materials and methods to use in the development of the pedestrian paths along University Drive that will encourage crossing at the desired intersections and discourage (if not completely remove) the possibility of pedestrians crossing at other locations. One option will be selected and developed during the 30% schematic, consistent with the proposed scope for that task." CO #2, Item 2 (Project Workshop #5): How long was this meeting and what are the additional hours for? Based on review of my timesheet for October 30, 2013, I reported 5. 75 hours for the following tasks: Review and print Conceptual Design comments from TxDOT, email comments to Danielle Charbonnet, review files for meeting preparation, prepare sign-in sheet and email to Danielle, telephone with Danielle to discuss meeting format and attend meeting at City for Conceptual Review with TxDOT and TAMU. The meeting lasted 2.75 hours. Additional time was spent during the two weeks following the meeting for preparation of draft minutes, submission to Danielle for review/comments, response to comments and preparation/submission of final minutes. CO #2, Items 3-5: Why do we need these additional meetings? Please remove them. Danielle requested the addition of these three meetings in her February 4, 2014 email. Thank you. 4 PROJECT: University Drive Pedestrian PROJECT#: ST1206 Improvements Phases 2-5 FUND(S): 139 ·Streets Capital Projects Fund PROJECT BUDGET: $7,055,000 PROJECT FUNDING MANAGER: Danielle Charbonnet SOURCES: 2008 General Obligation Bonds PROJECT CLIENT: Public Works ·Troy Rother PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project consists of implementing the remaining phases (2 through 5) of the Pedestri an Improvements on University Drive. The project developed a plan to improve pedestri an travel in the Northgate area of College Station, especially to facilitate pedestrian movement across and along University Drive between Boyett Street and South College Avenue. This project was ranked as a High priority project by City staff. PROJECT SCOPE Sidewalks, medians, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals along approximately 2,200 LF of University Drive from College Main to South College. A preliminary engineering report will be completed to determine the limits of the right-of-way and to complete a traffic analysis to identify the needs and placement of pedestrian crossings and traffic signal timing along the University Drive Corridor. PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEA!' Project Total FISCAL YEAR Land Design/Enq Staff Time Construction Misc Project Total Prior Years . . . . . . 2011-12 100,000 25,000 3,000 128,000 2012-13 200,000 550,000 30,000 4,000 784,000 2013-14 550,000 30 ,000 45,000 1,528,000 2,000 2, 155,000 2014-15 14,000 3,973,000 1,000 3,988,000 2015-16 . 2016-17 . 2017-18 . PROJECT TOTAL $ 750,000 $ 680,000 $ 114,000 $ 5,501 000 $ 10,000 $ 7 055,000 ESTIMATED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE cosn First Fiscal Year Estimated Annual One Time Costs Recurring Cost Personnel (Salaries/Benefits) . Supplies . Maintenance 2,700 Professional Services - Purchased Services - Capital Outlay - TOTAL $ -2,700 56