Agenda 09/13/2011 Item #16A12t
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve Change Order No, 3 to Contract # 09 -5278 in the amount of
$210,645.00 with Stanley Consultants, Inc., for Design & Related Services for the
Intersection Capacity Improvements to the US 41 and SR/CR 951 Intersection and
Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (3R) roadway improvements to SR 951;
sources of funding will be from Impact fees and Gas Tax; project # 60116.
OI3,TECM: To provide interim at -grade capacity improvements to the intersection of US41
and SR/CR 951 (Phase l) and 3.219 miles of resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation (3R) to
SR 951 (Phase IA).
CONSIDERATIONS: On January 26, 2010, the BCC approved Professional Services
Agreement Contract # 09 -5278 with Stanley Consultants Inc., for design improvements to the
US41 & SRICR951 intersection and Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (3R) of SR951
(Fiddlers Creek Parkway to Tower Road) under project # 60116 . These services included a re-
evaluation of an approved at -grade design for the US41 and SR/CR 951 intersection that was
done by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in 2008, as part of a Project
Development and Environment (PD &E) Study. This change order is as a result of scope
enhancements that could not have been foreseen during the original scope development. The
scope changes resulting in this. Change Order No. 3 are as follows:
SR 951 Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation Improvements (Gas Tax)
L Task 2.1 Roadway — 3R project limits expansion SR 951 - $12.500.00
The proposed project limits agreed to by the County and the FDOT in a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) approved by the BCC on November 10, 2009 are identified as
milepost 6.332 to milepost 9.551, a distance of 3.219 miles. These limits were made part
of the original scope of services. At the 60% design phase the FDOT requested that the
County investigate and make an assessment of the condition of the existing pavement
beyond milepost 6.332, as their work program showed the proposed improvements
needed to go beyond milepost 6.332. Based on this pavement assessment it was
determined by the County that the proposed improvements needed to extend to milepost
6.179 an additional 0.153 miles or 808 feet. Staff agreed to the FDOT's scope change on
July 1, 2011.
Capacity IMprovements to US41 and SR /CR951 Intersection (Impact Fees)
1. Task 21.2 — Traffic Data Analysis - $45,000.00
The original scope of services required that the County and MPO provide to the design
consultant the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) traffic data for analyzing a
grade separated overpass (GSO) as one of the preferred build alternative improvements
planned for the intersection of US41 & SR/CR 951. The 2035 LRTP data could not be
Packet Page - 1415 -
W
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
provided until after it was approved by the FDOT. To maintain the project schedule, the
FDOT requested and received an alternate traffic methodology that would allow the GSO
alternative to be shown to the public as part of the PD &E reevaluation process. That
public workshop was held October 7, 2010 and the 2035 LRTP traffic model was
approved by the FDOT, April 14, 2011. The project would have been delayed an
additional six- month's had the alternate traffic methodology not been done. A delay in
the project schedule would have affected funding as the STIP (State Transportation
Improvement Program) requires the project to be production ready and right of way to be
cleared by July 1, 2012. After approving the alternate methodology for the Public
Workshop, FDOT requested that the consultant use the approved 2035 LRTP traffic data
to provide justification for the GSO before submitting the reevaluation study to FHWA.
A public hearing is also required in the final PD &E reevaluation before FHWA approval
of the preferred build alternative. Alternate traffic methodologies were not part of the
deliverable in the original scope of services, therefore; this request is considered an
unanticipated change in scope due to circumstances beyond the County's control. Staff
agreed to the scope change on July 5, 2011.
2. Task 2.3 — Utility Coordination & Task 7.7 — Collect and Review Plan and Data from
UAO(s) - $57,000.00
During the 30% design review phase and at subsequent utility coordination meetings,
PLIED requested to be provided with options for the relocation of their existing facilities.
Per the original scope of services, utilities that would end up within the widened section
of pavement were to be relocated to the right of way. PUED requested additional
relocations of their existing facilities that did not meet the original scope criteria. On July
12, 2011, PUED agreed to the scope changes and the negotiated fee.
3. Task 32 Noise Study Analysis and Noise Barrier Design - $96,145.00
At the time of the original scope development the noise assessment impacts were based
on the then FDOT criteria for design change re- evaluation as described in Chapter 17 of
the PD &E Manual, which required analysis of only the no -build (existing) and build
(GSO) alternatives. The FHWA has since changed the criteria required for noise impacts
assessment and consequently the FDOT policy had to be updated to meet the new federal
requirements which went into effect on May 24, 2011. The change included the
evaluation of hotels, office buildings, outdoor dining facilities and special use areas such
as tennis courts and golf courses. The FDOT directed the Consultant to incorporate this
new policy into the PD &E re- evaluation; therefore, this request is considered a change in
scope due to a change in federal requirements pertaining to noise impact assessments.
Staff agreed to the scope change on August 10, 2011.
The original professional service agreement negotiated was $1.7M and the current amount
under contract is $1.77M. This change order represents 11.92% of the current amount.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $141,145.00 are available within Impact Fees
District 4 for the intersection capacity improvements For the 3R improvements, a budget
amendment is needed reducing Gas Tax Reserves and increasing the US 41 and SR/CR 951
Packet Page -1416-
9/13/201` 1 Item 16.A.12.
Intersection Project 60116 in the amount of $12,500.00. Funds in the amount of $57,000 are
available within the Water Capital Project Fund. The total amount of funds are $210,645.00.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County
Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and only requires a majority vote for
approval —SRT.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The project has been adopted in the CIE and is
consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approves the Change
Order No. 3 to contract 09 -5278 to Stanley Consultants, Inc. and authorize the necessary budget
amendment.
PREPARED BY: Marlene Messam,_P.E., Sr. Project Manager, Transportation Engineering &
Construction Management Department.
.Attachments: 1) Change Order; 2) Change Order Modification 3) Exhibit A SA #3 Scope of
Services and Fee Proposal 4) Memorandum of Agreement
Packet Page -1417-
9113/2011 Item 16.A.12.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.A.12.
Item Summary: Recorrimendation to approve Change Order No. 3 to Contract # 09 -5278
in the amount of $210,645 with Stanley Consultants, Inc., for Design & Related Services for the
Intersection Capacity Improvements to the US 41 and SR /CR 951 Intersection and Resurfacing,
Restoration and Rehabilitation (311) roadway improvements to SR 951; project # 60116.
Meeting Date: 9/13/2011
Prepared By
Name: MessamMarlene
Title: Project Manager, Senior,Transportation Engineering &Construction Management
7/14/2011 3:19:06 P1vI
Submitted by
Title: Project Manager, Senior,Transportation Engineering& Construction Management
Name MessamMarlene
7/14/20113:19:07 PM
Approved By
Name: TaylorLisa .
Title: Management/Budget Analyst,Transportation Administr
Date: 8/23/2011 1:51 :50 PM
Name:: PutaansuuGary
Title: Project Manager, Principal,Transportation Engineer
Date: 8/23/20112:23:42 PM
Name: SunyakMark
Title: Project Manager, Principal Public Utilities Engineering
Date: 8/23/20113:29:50 PM
Name:, BetancarNatali
Title: Executive: Secretary,Transportation Engineering & C
Date: 8/24/20113:53:02 PM
Packet Page -1418-
MR
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
Name: AhrnadJay
Title: Director - Transportation Engineering,Transportation Engineering & Construction Management
Date: 8/25/20118:09:54 AM
Name: CummingsRhonda
Title: Contracts, Specialist ,Purchasing & General Services
Date: 8/30/2011 1.0:23:01 AM
Name: CarnellSteve
Title: Director - Purchasing/General Services,Purchasing
Date: 8/31/2011 4:51:18 PM-
Name: TeachScott
Title: Deputy County Attorney County Attorney
Date: 8/31/20115:08:31 PM
Name: FederNonnan'
Title: Administrator - Growth Management Div,Transportati
Date: 9/1/2011 8:09 :12 AM
Name: Klatzkowleff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 9/1/2011 2:11:00 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning
Date: 9/6/2011 2:43:00 PM
Name: UsherSusan
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior,Office of Manage
Date: 9/6/20113:00:37 PM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 9/6/20113:40:37 PM
Packet Page -1419-
n
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
COLLIER COUNTY
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (hereinafter, "Agreement ") is made and
entered into this 1Cf of Hole -,6-e- , 2009, by and between COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (hereinafter, the "COUNTY ") and
the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, (hereinafter, the
"DEPARTMENT "), to allow the COUNTY to include and complete a DEPARTMENT
resurfacing project, and for the parties to enter into an agreement for the reimbursement
of resurfacing project costs by the DEPARTMENT.
RECITALS:
1. Whereas, the DEPARTMENT intends to resurface the intersection of US-41 and
SR /CR- 951 ( "Resurfacing Project "); and
2. Whereas, the COUNTY intends to do improvements to SR /CR- 951 ( "County
Project"), which includes this Intersection; and
3. Whereas, the COUNTY is willing to include the DEPARTMENT's Resurfacing
Project into the County's Project; and
4. Whereas, the DEPARTMENT is willing to allow the COUNTY to do the
Resurfacing Project and reimburse the COUNTY for the cost; and
5. Whereas, the DEPARTMENT and the COUNTY are willing to enter into a Joint
Project Agreement detailing the reimbursement terms for Resurfacing Project.
WITNESSETH:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above promises and other good and
valuable consideration exchanged amongst the parties, and in consideration of the
covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby expressly
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully below.
2. The COUNTY agrees to do the following:
a. Get the County Project 'Production Ready', which shall include a complete
PD & E reevaluation, and
b. Complete design for the County Project, which shall include obtaining
approval from the DEPARTMENT for the design, and
Packet Page -1420-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
MOA: COLLIER COUNTY
RESURFACING PROJECT
Page 2 of 3
c. Design the Resurfacing Project in accordance with FDOT's PPM, Standard
Specs, Design standards. The Resurfacing Project shall also include
conversion of the existing span wire to mast arms at mile post 8.491 and mile
post 8.615. During the design phase, all guardrail within the project limits shall
be field verified, and the COUNTY shall replace all guardrail within the project
limits deemed necessary by the DEPARTMENT. The COUNTY shall design
and construct any thrierail connection retrofit at the bridges at Henderson
Creek (030289 & 030288) as deemed necessary by the DEPARTMENT.
d. Enter into a Joint Project Agreement ( "JPA ") with the DEPARTMENT for
reimbursement of Resurfacing Project costs.
3. The DEPARTMENT agrees to do the following:
a. Allow the COUNTY to include and complete the Resurfacing Project, and
b. Upon the COUNTY notifying the DEPARTMENT that the County Project is
Production Ready, enter into a JPA with the COUNTY for reimbursement of
Resurfacing Project costs.
4. The Parties agree:
a. That terms of the reimbursement for the Resurfacing Project costs shall be
addressed in the JPA executed after July 1, 2012 by the Department, and
b. The maximum participation by the DEPARTMENT shall be for Seven million
six hundred twenty -five thousand five hundred seventy -six dollars
($7,625,576.00) programmed in the Adopted work program under FM#
425209 -1 as of July 1, 2012 for Resurfacing and Intersection Improvement
Project costs reimbursement to the COUNTY, and
c. No construction or CEI reimbursement shall be available before the
DEPARTMENT's fiscal year 2013; and
d. Reimbursement from the DEPARTMENT is subject to the following statutory
requirement:
The DEPARTMENT, during any fiscal year, shall not expend money, incur
any liability, or enter into any contract which, by its terms, involves the
expenditure of money in excess of the amounts budgeted as available for
expenditure during such fiscal year. Any contract, verbal or written, made in
violation of this subsection is null and void, and no money may be paid on
such contract. The DEPARTMENT shall require a statement from the
Comptroller of the DEPARTMENT that funds are available prior to entering
into any such contract or other binding commitment of funds. Nothing herein
contained shall prevent the making of contracts for periods exceeding one
year, but any contract so made shall be executory only for the value of the
services to be rendered or agreed to be paid for in succeeding fiscal years.
Accordingly, the State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under
this Contract is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature.
Packet Page -1421-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
MOA: COLLIER COUNTY
RESURFACING PROJECT
Page 3 of 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COLLIER COUNTY has caused this Agreement to be
executed in its behalf through its Board of County Commissioners through its
Chairperson or designee, and the DEPARTMENT has caused this Agreement to be
executed in its behalf through its District Secretary for District One, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION s indicated below. This Agreement shall
become effective on: /0jg2z.U05
re.,,e. A
COLLIER COUNTY
ATTEST
T-E*AB i ftK. CLERK
-EMW.UTY Cta It vist as to C><� �
irw
t
DAIt
APPR D AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
�� SU IC{EN I ,
2jo_ c
C00WY ATTORNEY
ATTEST
PRINT NAMtj
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: ti,vR
DONNA F ALA, CHAIRMAN
ATE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BY:
RINTeGTDY
velp '{ Z ti le9
1 LE DATE
FLA. DEPT. OF TRANS. LEGAL REVIEW:
BY:
Packet Page -1422-
CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
TO: Jon Ahlschwede, Opertions Manager
Stanlev Consultants. Inc.
27300 Riverview Center Blvd.. STE 101
Bonita Springs, .FL 34134
DATE: August 10, 2011 .
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
CONTRACT NO: 09 -5278
BCC Date: January, 26. 2010
Agenda Item: I OB
PROJECT NAME: Design & Related Services for the Intersection Capacity Improvements to the US41 &
CR951 and Resurfacinv Restoration and Rehabilitation (RRR) Roadway Improvements to CR 951.
PROJECT NO.: 60116
Under our AGREEMENT dated January 26, 2010.
You hereby are authorized and directed to make the following change(s) in accordance with terms and
conditions of the Agreement: as indentified in the attached Exhibit A
FOR THE (Additive) Sum of: Two Hundred and Ten Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty Five Dollars
($210,645.00).
Original Agreement Amount
Sum of Previous Changes
This Change Order add
Present Agreement Amount
$1.700.000.00
567.595.00
$210.645.00
$1.978.240.00
The time for completion shall be (increase) by 0 calendar days due to this Change Order. Accordingly, the
Contract Time is now 1502 (Phase 1) calendar days. The substantial completion date is March 22, 2012 and the
final completion date is March 22, 2014. Your acceptance of this Change Order shall constitute a modification
to our Agreement and will be performed subject to all the same terns and conditions as contained in our
Agri-eement indicated above, as fully as if the same were repeated in this acceptance. The adjustment, if any, to
the A- reement shall constitute a full and final settlement of any and a'll claims of the Contractor arising out of or
related to the change set forth herein, including claims for impact and delay costs.
Accepted:
CONTRACTOR:
Stanley Consultants, Inc.
COMMISSIONERS
By. v
David rounds, P.E.Xice President
20_
OWNER:
BOARD OF COt5NTY
O
Packet Page -1423-
COUNTY, I;LORIDA
Messam, Sr.Project Manager
5 -17 -rf
n
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
By;�a- —�- -
Ahma , P.E. ,7 %e/
i
DIVI ION ADMINISTRATOR
By:
Norman Feder, A.I.C.P.
Packet Page -1424-
ier )unty
Adminisikaahve Services Dvision
Purchasing
® Contract Change Request
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
Purchasing Department
Change Modification Form
❑ Work Order Modification
Contract #: 09-
Mod #: 3
PO/Work Order #:
Project Name: US41 & SR /CR951
5278
#N /A
4500115819
Intersection Improvements
Project #: 60116
Project Manager:
Department: Transportation
Contractor /Firm Name: Stanley
Dollar Amount of this Change
Marlene Messam
Engineering
Consultants, Inc.
Original Contract/Work Order Amount
$ 1,700,000.00
1/26/2010
Original BCC Approval Date; Agenda Item #
Current BCC Approved Amount
#N /A
10B
Last BCC Approval Date; Agenda Item #
Current Contract/Work Order Amount
$- 1,767,595.00
Number of days added (if
Explain why additional days are needed (detailed /specific):
Dollar Amount of this Change
$210,645.00
16.37%
Total Change from Original Amount
Revised New Contract/Work Order Total
$1,978,240.00
❑ Add new task(s)
#N /A
Change from Current BCC Approved Amount
Cumulative Changes
$278,240.00
• Task 2.1, 4.0 & 5.0 - Roadway (Including Task 19.0 Signing & Marking)
11.92%
Change from Current Amount
Completion Date, Description of the Task(s) Change, and Rationale for the Change
Original notice to proceed
Last approved completion date:
Revised completion date (includes this
completion date: 218/2014 (Phase
3/22/2014 (Phase 1) & 10/9/2012
change): No Change
I & 10/9/2012 Phase 1A
Phase 1A
Number of days added (if
Explain why additional days are needed (detailed /specific):
extension, must attach current
insurance certificate(s) from SAP
N/A
or obtain from vendor
❑ Add new task(s)
® Change task(s)
❑ Delete task(s)
❑ Other (specify):
1. Provide a detailed and specific explanation of the requested change(s) to the task(s):
• Task 2.1, 4.0 & 5.0 - Roadway (Including Task 19.0 Signing & Marking)
Phase 1A limits were from beginning milepost 6.332 to ending milepost 9.551, as recorded in the MOA between
the County and the FDOT. These limits were then made part of the design scope of services. At the 60% design review
phase the FDOT commented that the begin milepost did not match what was programmed in their work program. They
requested a pavement inspection to determine if the project limits needed to be extended. On March 7, 2011 County
staff and the consultant conducted a pavement inspection to determine if the begin project limits should be extended to
milepost 6.179. Based on this inspection it was determined that the project limits need to be extended to match the
FDOT's programmed limits at milepost 6.179. This scope change which is valued at $12.500.00.
• Task 21.2 — Traffic Data Analysis
The recorded DCA was based on the construction of an interim at -grade improvement for the US41 and SP, /CR951
intersection which will serve as the footprint for a future Grade Separated Overpass (GSO). This project is required to
conduct a PD &E design reevaluation (MOA dated 11/10/2009) to implement these improvements. Task 21.2 of the
original scope of services required the consultant to develop the traffic analysis for the PD &E design reevaluation based
on traffic data from the LRTP 2035 FSTUMS model. This model was being prepared through the MPO and also required
FDOT approval before release. The approved model was made available to the consultant in April of 2011. Federal
approval of the PD &E design reevaluation requires two public meetings, the first is a public workshop (held October
2010) and the second a formal public hearing (scheduled for September 2011). Task 21.2 needed to be completed
before the public workshop, and the LRTP 2035 traffic data was not available. The FDOT approved an alternate traffic
methodology developed by the Consultant to meet the production schedule. After the approved 2035 LRTP traffic model
was released, the FDOT again requested that the consultant provide another traffic analysis to justify the need for the
GSO utilizing the 2035 LRTP data. In addition, the County Transportation Planning Department requested analysis of
2025 traffic volumes to determine future PUD impacts. These additional requests are outside the intent of the original
scope of services. This scope change is valued at $45,000.00.
• Task 2.3 - Utility Coordination & Task 7.7 - Collect and Review Plan and Data from UAO(s)
The intent of the original scope is that the existing County public utilities that would end up in the proposed pavement
(widened portion of the roadway) would be relocated from under the new pavement to the new right -of way. The original
scope also stated that relocations outside of these parameters would be constituted as additional service. During the
Packet Page -1425-
Revised: 4/6/11
1
6u io aesign pnase several utility relocation concepts were presented to the staff of CCPL 9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
CCPUMPM selected the relocation concept that best fit their future planning needs, whict...... ... .,. .. , ,
existing utilities that were outside the parameters outlined in the original scope of services. Some of the utilities that are
owned by CCPU were also in the FDOT segment of the roadway along US41. The FDOT requested that these utility
lines be relocated due to their age although this was not the intent of the original scope of services. The estimated cost
of this scope change is valued at $57,000.00.
• Task 32 ,— Noise Study Analysis (including Task 10.0 & 18.0 Structural for Sound Barrier Desiqn)
At the time of the original scope development the noise assessment impacts were based on the then FDOT criteria for
design change re- evaluation as described in Chapter 17 of the PD &E Manual which required analysis of only the no-
build (existing) and build (GSO) alternatives. The FHWA has since changed the criteria required for noise impacts
assessment and consequently the FDOT policy had to be updated to meet the new federal requirements which went into
effect on 5/24/2011. The change included the evaluation of the interim at grade improvements, hotels, office buildings,
outdoor dining facilities and special use areas such as tennis courts. The FDOT directed the Consultant to incorporate
this new policy into the PD &E re- evaluation. The preliminary noise evaluation has also determined that noise barriers will
be needed at two locations within the project limits. This additional scope includes the design of noise barriers. The
estimated cost of this scope change is valued at 196,145.00
2. Provide detailed rationale for the requested change:
• Task 2.1 - On November 10th, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners approved an agreement (MOA)
between the Collier County and the Florida Department of Transportation to allow the County to include and
complete a resurfacing project for SR 951. The limits stated in the MOA were carried over into the scope of
services and were specific; therefore, a request by FDOT to change the limits constitutes a scope change.
• Similarly for Task 21.2 the scope intended for the consultant to utilize the given traffic data resulting from the
LRTP 2035. This data was unavailable and FDOT accepted and approve an alternate methodology in order to
meet the project schedule. The delay in receiving the approved LRTP traffic data resulted in a change in scope.
The FDOT later requested that the work done be repeated for the approved 2035 LRTP this again constituted a
change in scope as it was not intended for the analysis to be repeated for alternate methodologies. The MOA
states the County must agree to the following... "Get the County Project 'Production Ready', which shall include a
complete PD &E reevaluation, and..."
• For Tasks 2.3 & 7.7, the scope of work clearly stated that utility relocations not identified in the scope of services
would be considered additional services. The CCPUMP incorporated relocations for their existing utilities that
�. were outside the parameters identified in the original scope of services and also the FDOT requested changes
make this a scope change.
• Task 32 was as a result of a change in Federal and State policy. This project requires federal and state
approvals to receive reimbursement of funds. The MOA states the County must agree to the
following. .. "Complete design for the County Project, which include obtaining approval from the Department for
the design, and ..."
3. Provide explanation why change was not anticipated in original scope of work:
The nature of these scope changes makes it impossible for these changes to have been captured at the time of the original
scope of services development. Changes in state and federal policies could not have been anticipated. The FDOT provided
the original limits of the 3R project and it is being expanded at their request. The utility relocations can also be seen as a
policy change as it was not anticipated that County Public Utilities would incorporated their future needs into the project.
4. Describe the impact if this change is not processed:
The Project needs Federal & State approvals or risk losing funding. Also, by DCA the County has a commitment to develop
this project and not approving these changes would violate this commitment.
Legend of Acronyms
CCPUPM — Collier County Public Utilities Planning and Project Management
DCA — Developer Contribution Agreement
FDOT — Florida Department of Transportation
FHWA — Federal Highway Administration
JPA - Joint Participation Agreement
PD &E — Project Development and Environment
LRTP — Long Range Transportation Plan
FSTUMS — Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure
MPO — Metropolitan Planning Organization
MOA — Memorandum of Agreement
Type of Change / Modification
1. Planned / Elective 2. Unforeseen conditions /circumstance I n 3 Quantity or price adjustment
Revised: 4/6/11
2
Packet Page -1426-
❑ 4. Correction of errors ❑ 5. Value added ❑ 6. s 9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
Change Requested By
❑ Contractor /Consultant
I ® Owner I
❑ using De artment
❑ Design Professional
I ® Regulatory Agency s eci : FDOT
I ❑ Other (specify):
Purchasing Professional Participated in Negotiation of Change / Modification: ❑ Yes Z No
Approved by:
Date: 0 /7 f�
Name and TiVg<Je _ r ransportation Engineering .,
r
l
Review, d b' ,r
Date:
Purchasing P o essional's Name: Rhonda Cummings'Contract Specialist
r
Revised: 4/6/11
Packet Page -1427-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
CAME%
ql=p
Stanley Consultants INC.
A Stanley Group Company
Engineering Environmental mental and Construction Services - Worldwide
August 17, 2011
Marlene Messam, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Collier County Growth Management Division
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
Re: Design & Related Services for the Intersection Capacity Improvements to the
US41 & SR /CR951 and RRR Roadway Improvements to SR951
Collier County Project No. 60116
Proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 3
Dear Ms. Messam:
Stanley Consultants is pleased to submit this proposal to Collier County for providing professional
engineering services for revisions to the current design for the referenced project. Generally these
services include:
^ Expand the SR 951 south project limit from mile post (MP) 6.332 to mile post (MP) 6.179
(Phase IA).
• Provide additional traffic analysis including turning movement volumes adjustments,
developing midyear 2025 traffic volumes, and updating & comparing the analysis against
the 2035 traffic model.
• Provide additional County owned utility relocations that are currently under existing
pavement and are considered old.
• Incorporate noise modeling procedure and criteria changes into the noise study report.
• Structural design of the sound barrier wall(s) adjacent to the Eagle Creek subdivision since
noise analysis indicates that a sound barrier wall(s) is required
These services are more specifically described below and will be provided in accordance with our
current agreement for professional services dated January 26, 2010.
A. SCOPE OF SERVICE
4. ROADWAY ANALYSIS
4.4 Horizontal /Vertical Master Design Files
The CONSULTANT shall update the geometrics using the appropriate design
standards to expand the SR 951 south project limit from MP 6.332 to MP 6.179.
^ 4.10 Computation Book and Quantities
The CONSULTANT shall expand the computation book and quantities to incorporate
expanding the SR 951 south project limit from MP 6.332 to MP 6.179.
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita Sprinnc R A4134 . nhnnP PqA 447.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanlevconsultants.com Packet Page -1428-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
E;;]
Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 2
4.11 Cost Estimate
The CONSULTANT shall expand the cost estimate to incorporate expanding the SR
951 south project limit from MP 6.332 to MP 6.179.
4.15 Quality Assurance / Quality Control
Includes added effort required for QA/QC.
4.18 Coordination
Includes added effort to coordinate all elements of the roadway analysis to produce a
final set of construction documents.
5. ROADWAY PLANS
5.11 Plan Sheets
This includes adding an additional plan sheet to account for expanding the SR 951
south project limit from MP 6.332 to MP 6.179.
7. UTILITIES
Per the direction from the August 8th, 2010 utility coordination meeting with FDOT and
Collier County Utilities, County owned utilities that are currently under pavement and are
considered old need to be replaced and relocated.
The extent of the additional utility relocation currently under pavement is as follows:
1. The original water main length under proposed pavement was approximately 1,360 feet.
The new total length is approximately 4,540 feet.
2. The original force main length under proposed pavement was approximately 285 feet.
The new total length is approximately 1,755 feet.
The additional utility relocations will be incorporated in the following supplemental scope of
services:
7.7 Collect and Review Plans and Data from Utility Agency Owners (UAOs)
III -1 Utility Design
1. Design Additional Utility Relocations to conform to all applicable state and
local laws and requirements.
2. Additional Utility Relocations will include up to 4,650 feet of potable water
main and sanitary force main.
III -2 Sixty Percent (60 %) Phase I Utility Relocation Plans
1. Review Thirty Percent (30 %) Phase I Utility Relocation Plans to address
comments by Collier County Public Utilities Department.
2. Prepare Sixty Percent (60 %) Phase I Utility Relocation Plans consisting of
plans for the proposed and existing utilities and profiles for the existing
utilities.
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita SPrinnc F1 Rat Ia . nhnna PqQ 447.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanlevconsultants.com Packet Page -1429-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 3
III -3 Ninety- Percent (90 %) Phase I Utility Relocation Plans
1. Review Sixty Percent (60 %) Phase I Utility Relocation Plans to address
comments by Collier County Public Utilities Department.
2. Prepare Ninety Percent (90 %) Phase I Utility Relocation Plans consisting
of plans for the proposed and existing utilities, profiles for the proposed
and existing utilities, and all water and sewer details.
III -4 One - Hundred - Percent (100 %) Phase I Utility Relocation Plans
1. Review Ninety Percent (90 %) Phase I Utility Relocation Plans to address
comments by Collier County Public Utilities Department and make final
adjustments.
2. Prepare One - Hundred - Percent (100 %) Phase I Utility Relocation Plans to
include final plans, profiles and details.
III -5 FDEP Permit Application Documents and Plan Coordination
1. Prepare FDEP applications (for construction of water mains and sanitary
force mains) for completion by the COUNTY.
2. Submit Phase I Utility Relocation Plans and completed FDEP applications
for approval by the FDEP.
3. Support FDEP Applications and provide plan coordination with FDEP.
III -6 Coordinate Plans per COUNTY (Transportation Engineering and
Construction Management)
1. Coordinate with COUNTY staff to review and revise plans.
111 -7 Coordinate Plans per Collier County Public Utilities Planning and
Project Management
1. Coordinate with Collier County Public Utilities Planning and Project
Management staff to review and revise plans.
III -8 Coordinate Plans per Collier County Road Maintenance Department
(Right of Way Permitting & Inspection Section)
1. Coordinate with Collier County Road Maintenance staff to review and
revise plans.
III -9 Coordinate Plans per Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
1. Coordinate with FDOT staff to review and revise plans.
7.13 Additional Utility Services
III -10 Additional Utility Services
1. Prepare a utility conflict matrix based upon information supplied by the
UAO(s).
2. Coordinate underground locate requirements with SUE staff.
10. STRUCTURAL SUMMARY AND MISCELLANEOUS TASKS AND DRAWINGS
10.5 Incorporate Report of Core Borings
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita Sprinnc FI '141 RA . nhnna PI4 447.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanieyconsultants.com Packet Page -1430-
F��
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 4
As a result of structural design of a sound barrier wall(s).
10.7 Computation Book and Quantities
The CONSULTANT shall expand the computation book and quantities as a result of
structural design of a sound barrier wall(s).
10.10 Field Reviews
Includes one field review site visit.
10.11 Technical Meetings
This includes 2 meetings to account for progress and phased reviews.
10.12 Quality Assurance / Quality Control
Includes added effort required for QA/QC.
10.14 Supervision
This includes added effort required to supervise all technical design activities.
10.15 Coordination
Includes added effort to coordinate all elements of the structural analysis to produce
a final set of construction documents.
18.12 -18.18 SOUND BARRIER WALLS (GROUND MOUNT)
Structural design of the sound barrier wall(s) are required adjacent to the Eagle
Creek subdivision since noise analysis indicates that a sound barrier wall(s) is
required.
18.12 Horizontal Wall Geometry
18.13 Vertical Wall Geometry
18.14 Summary of Quantities — Aesthetic Requirements
18.15 Control Drawings
18.16 Design for Wall Height Covered by Standards
18.18 Aesthetics Details
19. SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING ANALYSIS
19.3 Reference and Master Design File
The CONSULTANT shall update the signing and marking design file using the
appropriate design standards to expand the SR 951 south project limit from MP
6.332 to MP 6.179.
19.7 Quantities
The CONSULTANT shall expand the quantities to incorporate expanding the SR 951
south project limit from MP 6.332 to MP 6.179.
19.8 Computation Book 11-.
The CONSULTANT shall expand the computation book to incorporate expanding the
SR 951 south project limit from MP 6.332 to MP 6.179.
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard - Suite 101 - Bonita Sprinnc Fl R41R4 • nhnna 9AQ 647.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanleyconsultants.com Packet Page -1431-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR/CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 5
19.9 Cost Estimate
The CONSULTANT shall expand the cost estimate to incorporate expanding the SR
951 south project limit from MP 6.332 to MP 6.179.
19.14 Quality Assurance / Quality Control
Includes added effort required for QA/QC.
19.17 Coordination
Includes added effort to coordinate all elements of the roadway analysis to produce a
final set of construction documents.
20. SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLANS
20.3 Tabulation of Quantities
This includes adding additional quantities to this sheet to account for expanding the
SR 951 south project limit from MP 6.332 to MP 6.179.
20.6 Plan Sheets
This includes adding an additional plan sheet to account for expanding the SR 951
south project limit from MP 6.332 to MP 6.179.
21. SIGNALIZATION ANALYSIS
21.2 Traffic Data Analysis
BACKGROUND
The original scope of services assumed that the 2035 FSTUMS model would be
available at the time of preparing the study and memorandum. CONSULTANT
completed the task described in the original scope based on the 2030 FSTUMS to
maintain the project schedule because the 2035 model was not available.
CONSULTANT completed the trends analysis and compared the data to the peak
season weekday daily traffic output from the FSTUMS computer model and found
that the trends analysis yielded growth rates substantially different from the FSTUMS
computer model and the growth rates included in the previous PD &E report for the
US 41 corridor which included the intersection of US 41 and CR 951. CONSULTANT
was asked by FDOT to review the model and to identify the reasons for the
difference. CONSULTANT in evaluating the model data discovered that the model
files were incomplete and therefore unable to finalize the evaluation. FDOT, through
their own consultant, concurred with CONSULTANT and guided CONSULTANT to
develop new growth rates. CONSULTANT developed a methodology to harmonize
the previous PD &E results with the new growth rates obtained from the trends
analysis.
The following is a discussion of the tasks involved in completing the original traffic
scope item task.
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita Sprinnc PI adi Ia . nhnnc 9RQ 447.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanevconsultants.com Packet Page -1432-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
E��:7
Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 6
1. TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES
a. FDOT requested CONSULTANT to develop turning movement volumes
using the FDOT TURNS software.
b. AADT demonstrated changes in traffic patterns for the area that created
turning movement volumes to be unlikely for the area. (Considered to be
caused by the software defaults)
c. Manual adjustments were required to better reflect the turning movements
projected by the adjacent commercial developments coming on line.
2. 2025 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
a. COUNTY requested CONSULTANT to develop traffic volumes for 2025 and
to include trips to be generated by the planned and proposed developments.
b. COUNTY requested CONSULTANT to evaluate the impact of the planned
development to the intersection improvements.
c. The analysis included:
i. Development of peak hour turning movement counts for all four
approaches.
ii. Operational analysis.
iii. Level of Service (LOS) calculations to determine if the proposed
improvements will satisfy the COUNTY LOS.
iv. Life expectancy of the proposed intersection improvements
3. TECHNICAL TRAFFIC MEMORANDUM
a. A Technical Traffic Memorandum was required as part of the original scope
of work.
b. The 2030 model data had to be used to estimate the 2035 traffic.
c. At COUNTY's direction CONSULTANT included the traffic for the proposed
and planned developments in the memorandum.
d. At the direction of the FDOT the traffic for the proposed and planned
developments was removed from the memorandum.
e. CONSULTANT revised and prepared a new memorandum without the traffic
for the proposed and planned developments.
f. The FDOT approved the revised memorandum in October 2010.
4. PRESENTATIONS
a. CONSULTANT prepared and presented power point presentations
documenting the growth rate, turning movement and traffic volume analyses
and findings.
5. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
a. FDOT requested that CONSULTANT complete the traffic analysis based on
the recently approved 2035 model. Completing the traffic analysis will include
the following:
i. Review the output from the 2035 FSTUMS model for all intersection
approaches of CR 951 and US 41.
ii. Run the model based on current model assumptions
b. Compare the results of the model AADT with the AADT obtained from the
previous traffic analysis as approved by FDOT.
c. Since the AADT from the 2035 model is consistent with the AADT calculated
in the previous report, CONSULTANT will review the traffic report and
complete a recalculation of the turning movement counts based on the 2035
model AADT.
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita ill nn.¢ F . nhnnP 2RQ 447.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanlevconsultants.com Packet Page -1433-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 7
d. CONSULTANT will revise and resubmit the Technical Traffic Memorandum
based on approved traffic numbers.
30. GEOTECHNICAL
Structural design of the sound barrier wall(s) are required adjacent to the Eagle Creek
subdivision since noise analysis indicates that a sound barrier wall(s) is required.
This will also require additional geotechnical exploration.
The purpose of this soils exploration is to determine the generalized soil and groundwater
conditions in the tested areas in order to provide foundation and overall site preparation
recommendations.
This will be accomplished by the following:
1. Execute a program of subsurface exploration consisting of subsurface sampling and
field testing. Perform 3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to a depth of 30 feet.
The SPT borings will be performed with nearly continuous sampling for the first 10 feet
of depth and sampling every 5 feet thereafter.
2. Record groundwater levels during drilling.
3. Visually classify representative soil samples in the laboratory using the Unified Soil
Classification System. Identify soil conditions at each boring location and form an
opinion of the site soil stratigraphy. Perform limited laboratory testing on selected
samples to assist in the classification.
4. Provide geotechnical recommendations for the sound wall foundations (i.e. bearing
capacity and estimated settlements) and site preparation. Summarize the conclusions,
and the information on which they are based, in a written report prepared by a
professional engineer.
32. NOISE IMPACT DESIGN ASSESSMENT
Per the methodology meeting, The CONSULTANT shall prepare traffic approval documents
for the alternatives titled, "Traffic Data for Noise Studies ". These documents identify the
traffic factors (k, D, T), peak hour design traffic volumes and LOS C traffic volumes for each
alternative for existing and design years. A set of eight (8) documents will be prepared and
submitted to FDOT for review and approval. The CONSULTANT shall develop lane -by -lane
vehicle and traffic volumes for the following intersection approach, years and alternatives:
Approaches
Year and Alternative
Year and Alternative
NB, SB, EB, WB
2010 No Build LOS C
2010 No Build Peak Hour
NB, SB, EB, WB
2035 No Build LOS C
2035 No Build Peak Hour
NB, SB, EB, WB
2010 Interim At -Grade LOS C
2010 Interim At -Grade Peak Hour
NB, SB, EB, WB
2010 Interim At -Grade LOS C
2035 Interim At -Grade Peak Hour
NB, SB, EB, WB
2010 GSO LOS C
2010 GSO Peak Hour
NB, SB, EB, WB
2010 GSO LOS C
2035 GSO Peak Hour
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita Sprinna FI U1'44 . nhnnP Pqa x47.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanlevconsultants.com Packet Page -1434-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
F��
Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 8
32.1 PD &E Phase Review
Per the methodology meeting, the CONSULTANT shall use the new FDOT Policy
dated, 5/24/11, titled Part 2, Chapter 17 of the PD &E Manual. The noise analysis
shall include ground and upper levels of residential multifamily dwellings. It is
anticipated that up to 135 receiver sites may be designated as either Activity
Categories B, C and /or E within the intersection reevaluation area. The No Build,
Interim Alternative and GSO Alternative will be evaluated.
32.2 Noise Barrier Evaluation
The CONSULTANT shall evaluate the noise impacts for the Interim At- Grade
Alternatives for the design year.
Per the methodology meeting, the CONSULTANT shall build the TNM model to
evaluate all lanes as individual lanes. Paved shoulders must also be modeled as
separate roads without traffic. The TNM noise model shall be developed, coded and
validated for the No Build, Interim and GSO Alternatives. The TNM noise analysis
will be performed using the detailed lane -by -lane model for three alternatives.
The CONSULTANT shall evaluate noise receivers, per the 5/24/11 FDOT policy that
requires noise impacts to be evaluated for multifamily residential units above ground
level in Category B, such as the second and third building floors. Activity Category E
receivers will be evaluated which includes "...hotels, motels, offices, restaurants /bars n
and other developed lands not in Activity Category A -D or F."
• Eagle Creek — residential multi -level receivers - Activity Category B
• Falling Waters — residential multi -level receivers- Activity Category B
• Falling Waters Tennis Court (on US 41) — Activity Category E Special Use
• Trail Ridge — residential receivers- Activity Category B
• Trail Ridge Playground — Activity Category E — Special Use
• Dunkin Donuts Outdoor Dining— Activity Category E - Special use
• Carrabba's Restaurant Outdoor Dining— Activity Category E - Special use
• Transportation Pavillion (near Staples)— Activity Category E - Special use
The CONSULTANT shall evaluate the noise impacts with the 5/24/11 FDOT policy
which sets 7 dB(A) as the Noise Reduction Design Goal.
The CONSULTANT shall prepare noise contour diagrams that include Activity
Category B, C and E for the Interim At -Grade and Ultimate GSO Alternatives.
Due to the nature of the reevaluation, the CONSULTANT shall perform a more
detailed noise analysis consistent with a PD &E Study noise level analysis.
32.3 Design Noise Barrier Analysis (Optional to be executed): this section needs to
be executed due to the identification of noise walls.
Any noise barrier analysis performed by the CONSULTANT will include the following:
Barrier heights and lengths will be evaluated using the latest version of Federal
Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model (TNM) or as directed by the FDOT
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita Sprinnc F1 qal ';a . nhnna PqA A47.1771 • fax 239.947.171
internet: www.stanleyconsultants.com Packet Page -1435-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
4W,
/01"N Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 9
Noise Specialist. The CONSULTANT will present the results of the noise barrier
analysis along with a recommendation to the COUNTY for selection of the barrier
height and length to be subjected to a detailed engineering review. This
recommendation shall consider noise barrier performance and cost
(reasonableness).
The CONSULTANT will coordinate and perform a detailed engineering review of the
recommended noise barrier(s) to identify any engineering conflicts or constraints. As
part of this evaluation, the CONSULTANT will prepare a summary package for
distribution to various disciplines involved in the review including appropriate
departments within COUNTY and FDOT and attend an engineering review meeting
with COUNTY staff. The CONSULTANT will be responsible for documenting the
results of the meeting and any resolutions to engineering conflicts or issues that
require modification to the recommended noise barrier(s) or preclude the
construction of a noise barrier(s). At a minimum, the review will consider the
following:
• Right of way needs including access rights (i.e., purchase of additional row, air,
light, view, ingress /egress, outdoor advertising conflicts, etc.).
• Adequate easement for construction.
Structural and vegetative restrictions within any required easement.
• Utility conflicts.
• Drainage issues.
• Maintenance issues such as access to the non - highway side of the noise barrier,
space between existing privacy walls and the noise barrier wall, and the removal
of existing privacy walls to enhance maintenance access.
• Safety Issues (e.g., line of sight).
• Environmental issues (e.g., wetland impacts).
• Consideration of wing -walls as appropriate for aesthetic purposes as well as
safety concerns related to sight distance.
• Other Criteria as applicable that would impact the potential cost reasonableness
or feasibility of the proposed noise barrier (i.e., added costs due solely to the
noise barrier such as the extension of a culvert).
The CONSULTANT shall re- analyze noise barrier(s) for feasibility and
reasonableness and reestablish barrier height and length if design constraints
require alteration in a barrier's location or dimensions. After finalizing the height and
length of the barrier(s), the CONSULTANT shall coordinate with COUNTY to locate
the barrier(s) on the design plans. In addition, the CONSULTANT will present a
memo to the COUNTY containing a recommendation for selection of the barrier
height and length to be carried forward for public input. This recommendation will
follow FDOT standards for noise walls when adjacent to FDOT roadways. In addition,
this recommendation shall consider noise barrier performance, engineering
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita Sprinnc R aa114 • nhnno PqQ 847.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanleyconsultants.com Packet Page -1436-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 10
constraints and cost (reasonableness). Following the public involvement process, the
CONSULTANT shall produce Noise Barrier Detail Sheet(s) examples of which are
available from the FDOT.
32.4 Public Involvement (Optional to be executed): this section needs to be executed
due to the identification of noise walls. This section has been revised and agreed
upon with Collier County.
If noise barriers are determined to be reasonable and feasible and a
recommendation to provide noise abatement is made, the COUNTY, FDOT, and
CONSULTANT shall carry out the public involvement necessary to establish and
document public support for or opposition to construction of a noise barrier(s) and
obtain public input regarding barrier aesthetics (color and texture). Public
involvement will include coordination with local government officials. The following
task will be completed by the CONSULTANT to fulfill public involvement
requirements.
• Mailing List: CONSULTANT will provide a list of identified affected Eagle Creek
property owners to the COUNTY.
• Summary Package: CONSULTANT will provide project specific information to
the COUNTY that will go into the summary package.
• Property OWNER Consensus: CONSULTANT will respond to owner's technical
questions from the barrier survey.
• Public Meetings for the Eagle Creek subdivision: The CONSULTANT will be
prepared to discuss the status of the noise barrier evaluation and is responsible
for preparing displays specific to the project such as plan and section views.
• Traffic Noise Evaluation Brochure: CONSULTANT will provide input to the
brochure as necessary.
If additional public meetings specific to a noise /noise barrier(s) are required, the
CONSULTANT will be prepared to discuss the status of the noise barrier evaluation
and is responsible for preparing displays specific to the project such as plan and
section views.
The CONSULTANT shall anticipate up to three (3) such meetings. Two of the
meetings are for the purpose of securing public input for any proposed noise
barriers. One of the meetings is to address general noise issue requests at a
neighborhood level.
The following task will be completed by the COUNTY /FDOT to fulfill public
involvement requirements.
• Identification of Affected Property Owners: Affected property owners will include
all property located within the ends of a noise barrier with their property either 1)
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita Sprinnc P W Ra . nhnno 9q4 847.1771 • fax 239.947
internet: www.stanleyconsultants.com Packet Page -1437-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
�.� Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 11
directly abutting the COUNTY or FDOT'S right -of -way or 2) directly abutting
common property located adjacent to the FDOT'S and COUNTY'S right -of -way or
3) as directed by the FDOT Noise Specialist.
• Mailing List: County will contact the Eagle Creek HOA to establish the mailing list
of owners. County will prepare the mailing list with input of affected owners from
the CONSULTANT.
Summary Package: Prepare a summary package to be mailed to affected
property owners informing them of proposed barrier construction barrier
specifications (i.e. location and height), potential advantages and disadvantages
of a noise barrier and a Barrier Survey form to officially document an affected
property owner's support for or opposition to the barrier and, if in support, their
preference regarding barrier texture and color. An example Summary Package
including a Survey form can be obtained from the FDOT. COUNTY will contact
FDOT for the summary package.
• Property OWNER Letters: A letter transmitting the Summary Package to affected
property owners will be prepared on COUNTY letterhead, signed and mailed by
the COUNTY. The letters will be delivered via Certified Mail, return receipt
requested.
• Property OWNER Consensus: Should a consensus among affected property
^' owners not be reached due to insufficient return of surveys or completed surveys
not be returned, the COUNTY must provide an additional mailing of survey forms,
conduct a door -to -door survey or perform other reasonable means of
coordination to obtain input from affected property owners regarding the
construction of a noise barrier.
Noise Barrier Aesthetics Coordination: As part of the survey, the COUNTY is
responsible for soliciting public desires regarding noise barrier aesthetics (i.e.,
color, texture, etc.). Affected property owners and local government personnel
will be solicited and their choices are to be incorporated into the barrier design
where possible. The COUNTY will be responsible for tallying and documenting
the results of the aesthetic survey. Subsequent to the public involvement
process, the COUNTY will review aesthetics to be incorporated into the plans for
consistency with public desires and consistency with the COUNTY'S Noise Wall
Aesthetic guidelines. A Noise Wall Aesthetics handout is available from the
FDOT to guide the aesthetics survey.
Survey Documentation: The COUNTY shall tally the results of the Survey and
identify on a graphic those surveyed property owners that support construction of
the noise barrier and those that are opposed. The methods used (i.e. certified
letters, survey form, door to door, etc...) and results of the survey and a summary
of any other public involvement pertaining to a noise barrier(s) will be included in
a Noise Study Report Addendum.
• Public Meetings /Hearings: The COUNTY is responsible for preparing all
necessary display items (except items by CONSULTANT described above),
handouts, arranging a meeting location, notifying the public of the meeting, and
conducting the meeting for any public meetings scheduled as part of the design
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita Sprinnc M RAVU . nhnnP PA4 A47.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanleyconsultants.com Packet Page -1438-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
Fi��
Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 12
process. COUNTY will obtain from FDOT standard noise wall information to
provide at the meeting.
If additional public meetings specific to a noise /noise barrier(s) are required, the
COUNTY is responsible for preparing all necessary display items (except items by
CONSULTANT described above), handouts, arranging a meeting location, notifying
the public of the meeting, and conducting the meeting. COUNTY will obtain from
FDOT standard noise wall information to provide at the meeting.
The COUNTY shall anticipate up to three (3) such meetings. Two of the meetings are
for the purpose of securing public input for any proposed noise barriers. One of the
meetings is to address general noise issue requests at a neighborhood level.
• Traffic Noise Evaluation Brochure: The COUNTY will prepare a brochure
summarizing the traffic noise evaluation process. The brochure will be available
for public distribution at all public meetings where the issue of traffic noise may
be discussed. An example brochure is available from the FDOT. COUNTY will
obtain the brochure from FDOT.
32.5 Noise Study Report
The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Reevaluation Noise Study Report as normally
prepared during a PD &E Study. n
The CONSULTANT shall prepare a technical addendum to the Final Noise Study
report due to the anticipated public involvement required to finalize the design and
placement of the noise walls. This is required to allow the Reevaluation Noise Study
Report to be finalized and sent to FHWA to obtain approval and begin the final
design and right of way acquisition phases. This technical addendum will document
the design and public involvement to reach the decision to design or not design the
noise walls. Contents may include the noise wall preliminary design sheets, aesthetic
concepts, landscape concepts and public coordination summary.
32.6 Field Reviews
The CONSULTANT shall perform site reviews to identify Activity Category B multi-
level structures, Activity Category C and Activity Category E receivers. It is
anticipated that up to five (5) special use locations and one (1) new residential
location may be identified.
32.7 Technical Meetings
This includes 2 meetings to account for the identification of noise walls.
32.8 Quality Assurance /Quality Control (QA/QC)
Includes added effort required for QA/QC.
32.9 Supervision
This includes added effort required to supervise all technical design activities.
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita Sprinne Fl Rata . nhnna Pax x47.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanleyconsultants.com Packet Page -1439-
9/13/2011 Item 16.A.12.
v
�\ Ms. Marlene Messam, P.E.
US41 & SR /CR951 & RRR Roadway Improvements
August 17, 2011
Page 13
B. SUBCONSULTANTS
Stanley Consultants proposes to utilize the sub consultants listed below to provide the
professional engineering services for the project as outlined in the scope of services.
• RWA, Inc. — Utilities
• Dunkelberger Engineering & Testing (DET) — Geotechnical for Noise Walls
C. SCHEDULE
In order to accommodate the additional scope of work, we proposed to modify our overall
schedule for the project as follows:
Phase I Phase IA
• 60% Submittal October 28, 2011
• 90% Submittal March 30, 2012 September 23, 2011
• 100% Submittal June 29, 2012 January 27, 2012
D. FEES AND COMPENSATION
Stanley Consultants proposes to complete the tasks described in the scope of services for a
total proposed fee of $210,645.00. A proposed task fee schedule (Attachment 1) provides a
breakdown of each proposed task fee. Invoices will be submitted at each month end in an
amount proportional to the percentage of actual work completed during the billing period for
lump sum tasks. Additional services beyond those described above will be provided only upon
written notification and approval from Collier County.
E. ASSUMPTIONS
None.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. If you have any questions or require any
additional information at this time, please call.
Sincerely,
Stanley Consultants, Inc.
'0
David W. Dowling, PE
Project Manager
239.949.7909 direct
dowlingdavid @stanieygroup.com
C: Jon Ahlschwede, S.E.T.
Chris Wright, P.E. (RWA, Inc.)
Scott Parish, P.E. (DET)
27300 Riverview Center Boulevard • Suite 101 • Bonita Sprinnc FI RAI Ra . nhnna PRR 447.1771 • fax 239.947.1715
internet: www.stanleyconsultants.com Packet Page -1440-
0
Ln
N
N
O
Z
U
U
Q)
O
L
CL
U
N
OM
r
L- ° O
Cl) . Z
W O �—
LWLZZ LU
r Q V
W
w 0 0
gn- mC�
=Oa¢
CL
>- J
E -Omz
¢ W O W
J V W
owa
=Ja
CO U N
0
N
�1J
W
N
O
C 17
Mm
N
ak
'S
u
Md
•
� Jam' -.
e
Fi 3
�
y°y
•
•
TSB �
••
0
N
�1J
W
N
O
C 17
Mm
N