Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 0819 CC REG ITEM 10BTO: FROM: DATE: AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK The Honorable City Council I T 10 •b• (;► 3` (IF 110ORPARK, CALTFORNIA Citi, Coounciii rNieeflnR of I • "i_y ACTION: �bDroyeA �z -aff recommerda +ion IV Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works July 29, 1998 (Council Meeting 8- 19 -98) "01,— SUBJECT: Discussion of Possible Redesign of the Spring Road Bridge Reconstruction Project • • - � • 1. Design: A summary of the development of the design for the subject project is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. Prior Rejection of Bids On January 7, 1998, the City Council authorized staff to advertise for receipt of bids. • On May 14, 1998, bids were opened and tabulated. • On June 3, 1998, the City Council considered and then rejected the bids due to construction scheduling problems. 1. Background: During the bidding process last May, comments were received suggesting that the cost of the project could be reduced if the bridge were redesigned. At its meeting of June 3rd, the City Council directed staff to prepare a report discussing the pros and cons of pursuing this suggestion. 2. Current Design: The current design calls for a cast -in- place box girder bridge deck with one center pier wall support in the middle of the bridge span. 3. Alternate Design: The suggested alternative design would call for a clear -span bridge deck (no center pier support) , using pre -cast concrete girders. This design option would require the elevation of the bridge deck to be raised s ll '10 "', Ii Spring Road Bridge August 19, 1998 Page 2 C. approximately three feet (31). The raising of the roadway surface on the bridge deck would require raising the bridge approaches north and south of the bridge. This would require the removal and reconstruction of the existing street improvements (curbs, gutters and sidewalks) north and south of the bridge. 4. Pros and Cons of Redesign: Attached as Exhibit 2 is a list of pros and cons for not changing the design, as well as a list of pro and cons for redesigning the bridge. 5. Redesign Effort: The cost to redesign the bridge is estimated to be approximately $80,000. The amount of time required to complete such a redesign is approximately 90 days. 6. Cost Reduction Incentive Plan (CRIP): An alternative to redesigning the bridge would be to simply rely upon the provisions of the specifications pertaining to "Cost Reduction Incentives." Those provisions allow a contractor to propose an alternative design which will result in a reduction of the total cost of construction. In such case, the design for the proposed change(s) is prepared by the contractor, at the contractor's cost. The City has no obligation to approve the proposed changes. However, if approved, one -half of the cost savings is paid to the contractor. Using this approach the City could avoid the risk of paying for a redesign, and then being faced with a low bid which does not generate a cost savings which exceeds the redesign costs. 7. Conclusion Although the cost of a clear -span bridge is estimated to be less than a box girder bridge with a center pier support, the costs associated with the reconstruction of certain street improvements and the increased cost of certain retaining walls is estimated to equal or exceed these cost savings. Even if there were to be a slight net construction cost savings, it is not anticipated that the savings would exceed the cost of the redesign. It is recommended below, therefore, that the project not be redesigned. The City Council is reminded that it is often misleading to compare the bid results of a re- advertised project with the original bid amounts. There are often a number of changed conditions affecting the bid amounts, beyond just competitive spgbrgll � j r , spring Road Bridge August 19, 1998 Page 3 forces. With regard to the subject project, one such difference will be that the plans and specifications will be slightly revised (see below). Even if the City Council does not direct a redesign of the bridge, it will be necessary to make certain changes to the plans and specs prior to re- advertising the project. of this project. Those changes are summarized as follows: 1. South Bridge Approach: Carlsberg's plans for the construction of improvements to Spring Road extended all the way to, and merged with, the City's bridge reconstruction plans. Carlsberg must proceed with the construction of those street improvements in the next few months, prior to the reconstruction of the bridge. In that those plans do not "merge" with the existing elevation, width and alignment of the south bridge approach, it will be necessary for the southerly one to two hundred feet (100' - 2001) of these improvements to be deferred. It is the intent of Carlsberg to pay the City an in -lieu amount equaling the total cost (design, construction and inspection) of the deferred improvements. The "deferred" south bridge approach will then be added to the City's project. .11 It is the intent of Carlsberg to provide an additional plan sheet for these deferred improvements. The Engineering Department will review and approve this design change and incorporate it into the City's design package. As stated above, any cost associated with this work will be funded by Carlsberg. 2. Minor Corrections: During the bidding process last May, a number of comments and corrections were received from various plan holders. Many of those comments and suggested corrections generated one or more addenda to the plans. It is the intent of staff to require the Engineer to incorporate those and other relevant and /or necessary changes into the revised final plans and specs. It is anticipated that, with few exceptions, there will be no additional cost to the City for the Engineering design time required to make these changes to the plans and specifications. 3. Language Changes: It is the intent of the Director of Public Works to provide certain additional and /or amending language to the specification regarding project schedule and a number of other matters needing clarification. JUL; ? 0 -,,,1 �J -.-- 2 Spring Road Bridge August 19, 1998 Page 4 E. Fiscal Impact 1. Project Cost Estimate: The current project cost estimate is summarized as follows: Element Total ($) Construction 2,238,807 Contingency 223,881 Sub -Total Construction 2,462,688 Design Cost 99,183 Design Support Costs 34,150 Admin & Inspection Costs 142,499 Project Contingency (FY98/99) 50,000 Total 2,788,520 2. Funding Sources: The City is in receipt of a federal grant in the amount of $404,800 for this project. The remainder of the project funding will come from the Spring Road / Tierra Rejada Road AOC. As discussed in prior reports, at the time of the award of a contract for this project, it may be necessary for the City Council to approve an inter - fund loan (from the Los Angeles Avenue AOC) to fully fund this project. Anticipated future revenues to the Spring Road / Tierra Rejada Road AOC are sufficient to fully re- pay that loan. 3. Current Budget: The figures in the FY 1998/99 Budget were based upon a presumption made last April that contracts for construction and construction engineering would have been awarded prior to the end of FY 1997/98. If that had occurred all of those costs would have been encumbered in FY 1997/98. Accordingly, only $50,000 was budgeted in FY 1998/99 as a contingency for additional or unforeseen expenses. 4. Additional Design Costs: As discussed above, it is necessary for the design engineer to make certain changes to the contract documents prior to the project being re- advertised for receipt of bids. The current budget amount is sufficient to cover those additional design costs. 5. Future Budget Amendment: It is the intent of staff to request approval of a budget amendment at the time the bid results are presented to the City Council. JIG Spring Road Bridge August 19, 1998 Page 5 F. Schedule The bid / award sc • 11/04/98: • 01/07/99: • 01/20/99: • 03/01/99: • 04/15/99: :hedule for the subject project is as follows: City Council approves plans and authorizes staff to advertise for bids open bids award contract Notice to Proceed commence excavation work in the arroyo RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Direct staff not to redesign the project. 2. Direct staff to proceed with making certain minor changes to plans and specifications as described in this report. 3. Direct staff to present the revised plans and specifications to the City Council for approval and authorization to advertise, consistent with the schedule set forth in this report. opgbrgll ( _ _ ,T„� Y3 Exhibit 1: Design Background Page 1 1. Design Engineer: In September 1994, the City Council selected the firm of Dwight French and Associates (DFA) to prepare the design plans and specifications for the replacement of the Spring Road Bridge across the Arroyo Simi. When Dwight French & Associates was absorbed by Charles Abbott Associates (CAA), CAA assumed the responsibility for completing the design. 2. Existing Bridge Dimensions: • Bridge Length: 122' • Bridge Width: 28' • Travel Lanes: 2 ea. 14' wide • Median: None • Bike Lanes: None • Sidewalks: 2 ea. 2' wide 3. Future Bridge Dimensions: • Bridge Length: 150' • Bridge Width: 50' • Travels Lanes: 2 ea. 12' wide • Median: 1 ea. 4' wide • Bike Lanes: 2 ea. 8' wide • Sidewalks: 2 ea. 8' wide 4. Bridge Support: The existing bridge is supported by the bridge abutments plus three sets of pier columns placed in the water course. The new bridge will be supported by the bridge abutments plus only one center pier wall. Unlike the sets of pier columns, the center pier wall will be designed to prevent the collection of debris. 5. Piles: The foundations for the bridge abutments, as well as the center pier wall, will require driving approximately 2,600 linear feet of piles. 6. Design Requirements: The development of the project design required undertaking and completing a number of tasks including: • Survey • Roadway Alignment • Right -of -Way Requirements • Utility Impacts • Hydrology & Geotechnical Analysis • Seismic / liquefaction analysis • Bridge Structural Design • Interface with future trail system • Preparation of plans / profiles • Traffic control (road closure analysis) • Construction cost estimate • Cost est. for bridge widening (grant amount) • Road widening northwest of bridge • Striping plans spgbrgli <1 ' ALa uV'.a.' ^.a d Exhibit 1: Design Background Page 2 7. Levee Trail: One of the transportation goals of the City is to have a Levee Trail along the Arroyo Simi through the City, similar to the "river- side" trail in the City of Simi Valley. The City has received approval of a grant to perform a study to determine the feasibility of extending this trail system easterly to Madera Road in the City of Simi Valley. The bridge design provides for this future levee trail system by including trail ramps which will go under the bridge on the north side of the Arroyo. 8. Street Improvements North of the Bridge: The project includes the construction of full -width street improvements on the west side of Spring Road just north of the bridge. These improvements include the construction of a storm drain to replace the current open culvert, and the construction of street widening to include a sidewalk to connect the sidewalk on the new bridge to the sidewalk along the frontage of Gateway Plaza shopping center. 9. Center Median: The Spring Road street improvements to be constructed by the developer of the Carlsberg Specific Plan include the construction of a raised center median along the entire length of Spring Road south of the bridge. As mentioned above, the bridge replacement project includes the construction of a center raised median on the bridge. The project also includes the extension of the raised center median north of the bridge to the south side of the southerly Spring Road entrance to the Moorpark Plaza shopping center. The design of the existing and future roadway just south of the bridge has both a horizontal and a vertical curve. Due to these geometrics of the roadway, as well as the fact that the median is not wide enough to accommodate left turn lanes, the median to be constructed by Carlsberg will not include median breaks to allow left turn movements into and out of driveways located on both sides of the street just south of the bridge. Turning movements into and out of these driveways will be restricted to right turns only. This design is consistent with the median design near the Tierra Rejada Road bridge. 10. Future Channel Widening: The project design is compatible with both the existing arroyo channel as well as the proposed design for a future project by the Ventura County Flood Control District (VCFCD) to widen and lower the channel to hold 100 year storm flows. Said future improvements will include a drop structure just upstream of the bridge. spgbrgil 11. Street Right -of -Way: The VCFCD has granted the City a street easement deed which provides for full -width street right -of -way on the east side of Spring Road across the Exhibit 1: Design Background Page 3 arroyo. This easement was required for the construction of the bridge project. In that the VCFCD is not the fee owner of the Arroyo on the west side of Spring Road, that agency could not grant the City a like street easement to provide a full -width street right -of -way on the west side of the street. However, this additional west -side street right - of -way is not required for the subject project. It would be required for any future widening of the bridge to four lanes. 12. Temporary Construction Easement: A -C Construction, the owner of the property on the west side of Spring Road just north of the Arroyo, has granted to the City a temporary construction easement required for the proposed street and related improvements in that area. 13. Environmental Clearance: In April of 1997 the City Council approved Resolution No. 97 -1306 approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program related thereto. 14. Permits: The City retained the services of a consultant to obtain certain permits required for this project. Those efforts included submittal of applications and the securing of permits (where required) from a number of agencies including: • the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers: permit not required; • the State Regional Water Quality Control Board: permit issued; and, • the California Fish & Game Department: permit issued. In addition to those consultant efforts, staff sought and obtained permits from the following agencies: • Caltrans (traffic detour signs); and, • VCFCD Encroachment Permit 15. Utility Cells: There are eight (8) utility cells located within the bridge structure. Four of the cells are to be used for utilities and four will remain empty and available for possible future use. The cells to be occupied will be used for gas, telephone, water and sewer. 16. Utility Conflicts: • Water: - County Waterworks District No. 1: An existing water line on the bridge will be abandoned during the bridge reconstruction project. A new water line will be placed in one of the utility cells within the bridge structure. The City's project will include the placement of a sleeve within a utility cell to receive the future new water line. All City design and construction costs for this work will be reimbursed by the District. The work spgblgll , • o ��.si- Exhibit 1: Design Background Page 4 required to place the new water line will be done by a separate contractor retained by the District. - Calleguas: There are no Calleguas facilities within the existing bridge or planned to be placed within the future bridge. Calleguas recently completed the reconstruction of an east -west running water distribution line located just south of the bridge. • Sewer: There is an existing sewer line attached to the east side of the existing bridge. This facility will be replaced by County Waterworks District No. 1. The City's project will include the placement of a sleeve within one of the utility cells within the bridge structure, to receive the future new sewer line. All City design and construction costs for this work will be reimbursed by the District. All work required to remove the old sewer line, place a temporary sewer line and install the new sewer line will be done by a separate contractor retained by the District. • Gas: There is a gas main attached to the existing bridge. This facility will be abandoned during the bridge reconstruction project. The Southern California Gas Company will install a new gas line to be located within a utility cell in the bridge structure. All work will be done by the utility company. Shell Oil: The Shell Oil Company recently abandoned a fuel transport line attached to the bridge and constructed a new replacement line which extends under the Arroyo. Telephone: Existing telephone conduits located under the Arroyo immediately upstream of the bridge will remain in place. Bridge structural elements have been designed to "bridge" these facilities. The City Council has approved a "Build Over" Agreement between the City and Pacific Bell Company regarding this element of the work. Electrical: All existing electrical facilities in the vicinity of the bridge are overhead and are not affected by the project. No additional street lights are proposed to be installed on or near the bridge. Should there be a need for the placement of underground electrical facilities at any point in the future, such lines could be placed in an empty utility cell, if one is still available. • Cable T. V.: There are no existing cable facilities in the vicinity of the project. spynrqu Exhibit 2: Pros and Cons of Re- Design Page 1 Pros & Cons to Staying with the Current Design: some of the pros and cons of keeping the current design are listed as follows: Pros -- Keeping the current design: 1 adds no new design cost; 2 does not expose the City to a possible slippage of schedule due to delays caused by unforseen problems arising from the redesign process; 3 leaves the elevation of the street unchanged: - no reconstruction of existing street improvements to match higher bridge deck elevation; - no increase in related construction costs; - no vertical curve problems; and, - no need to raise the height of the retaining walls northwest of the bridge; and, 4 avoids redesign of utility accommodation. Cons -- Keeping the current design: 1 retains the center pier support - added center pier construction cost; - potential construction problems and cost overruns; Pros & Cons of Redesigning the Bridge: Some of the pros and cons of redesigning the bridge to delete the center pier support are listed as follows: Pros -- The redesign: epgbrgll 1 eliminates pile driving and related pier foundation construction in the middle of the arroyo and related potential dewatering problems; 2 eliminates the cost of the center pier wall construction; 3 improves hydraulic; 4 eliminates possible cause of blockage by debris collection on center pier support; 5 reduces amount or degree of intrusion of construction activity in the watercourse; 6 may shorten the construction time by eliminating the cast - in -place construction effort; Exhibit 2: Pros and Cons of Re- Design Page 2 7 eliminates falsework for cast -in -place box girder deck; 8 eliminates need for the construction of temporary pier foundations in the arroyo for the falsework; 9 may have a lower estimated construction cost [Note: cost savings is expected to be offset by redesign costs plus the added cost ofraising the street]; Cons -- The redesign: 1 adds cost [approx. $80,000] for the redesign of the bridge; 2 opens the door to unknown factors which could come up during the redesign process: - could lead to additional design and /or construction costs; - could delay the bidding process; - could cause a delay to the start of construction which would extend construction into the 1999/2000 wet season; - Note: the amount of time required to redesign the bridge is currently estimated to be ninety (90) days; 3 adds cost related to the reconstruction of existing street improvements to raise the elevation of the roadway at the bridge approaches: - approximate length of the street reconstruction at the north end of the bridge is three hundred feet (3001); - approximate length of the street reconstruction at the south end of the bridge is one hundred feet (1001); - adds the need to design vertical curves (slope) in the roadway in a manner which safely handles traffic - adds the need to construct higher retaining walls on the west side of the street north of the bridge; 4 adds unknown scheduling factors associated with the ordering, fabrication and delivery of the pre -cast concrete beams, which could delay the completion of the project; 5 requires the redesign of the methods to be used to accommodate utilities on the bridge: - current design provides for the placement of certain utilities within the hollow box girders; - new design would provide for the attachment of the utilities to the beams; - adds need to interface with all affected utilities. Note: It is presumed that the redesign will not affect (or will have little effect) on the design for the bridge abutments, including the need to drive piles as a part of the construction of the foundations. spgbrgll Exhibit 3: Additional Plan Changes August 19, 1998 The plans and specifications require certain changes prior to the re- advertising of this project. Those changes are summarized as follows: 1. South Bridge Approach: Carlsberg's plans for the construction of improvements to Spring Road extended all the way to, and merged with, the City's bridge reconstruction plans. Carlsberg must proceed with the construction of those street improvements in the next few months, prior to the reconstruction of the bridge. In that those plans do not "merge" with the existing elevation, width and alignment of the south bridge approach, it will be necessary for the southerly one to two hundred feet (100' - 2001) of these improvements to be deferred. It is the intent of Carlsberg to pay the City an in -lieu amount equaling the total cost (design, construction and inspection) of the deferred improvements. The "deferred" south bridge approach will then be added to the City's project. It is the intent of Carlsberg to provide an additional plan sheet for these deferred improvements. The Engineering Department will review and approve this design change and incorporate it into the City's design package. As stated above, any cost associated with this work will be funded by Carlsberg. 2. Minor Corrections: During the bidding process last May, a number of comments and corrections were received from various plan holders. Many of those comments and suggested corrections generated one or more addenda to the plans. It is the intent of staff to require the Engineer to incorporate those and other relevant and /or necessary changes into the revised final plans and specs. It is anticipated that some -- but not all -- of the effort necessary to make these plan changes will require minor additional design costs. 3. Language Changes: It is the intent of the Director of Public Works to provide certain additional and /or amending language to the specification regarding project schedule and a number of other matters needing clarification. epgbrgil