Agenda 10/12/2010 Item #16A 8
Agenda Item No, 16A8
October 12, 2010
p,'ge 1 of 58
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve Change Order No, 4 to Professional Service
Agreement No. 03-3553 in the amount of $950,330.35 with CH2MHILL, Inc., for the
design of Collier Boulevard Road Improvements from Davis Boulevard to Golden
Gate Main Canal, combining this project with FDOT Davis Boulevard
Improvements and Post Design Services, Projects No. 60001 and 60092.
OBJECTIVE: To receive Board approval of the negotiated Change Order No.4 f()r
Engineering and Permitting Services to be provided by CH2MHill, Inc., for capacity
improvements to Coli ier Boulevard, Project No. 60001,
CONSIDERATION: Change Order 4 provides for additional services to complete the
design, peI1TIitting and carry the project into construction and to extcnd contract time
from October 17, 20]0 to September 30. 2013 to allow for certification following
completion of construction. Following is a history of the events that have led up to this
change order:
. On March 13, 2007 the BCC approved Change Order#2 to project 60001 for the
design and permitting of Collier Blvd. from Davis Blvd, to the Golden Gate Main
Canal. This change order was an addendum to the original agreement 03-3553.
The approved amount was $995.500 of which $745.500.00 was lump sum for the
design and pennitting and $250.000,00 in Time and Materials for Post Design
Services. The notice to proceed (NTP) lor the commencement of design was April
2,2007 with a construction completion date of October 17,2010.
. Change Orders Number 1 and 3 were no-cost change orders, Number 1 extended
contract time and Number 3 reapportioncd the fees.
. During the County's annual budget adjustments the Project was given a new
Work Break Structure (WBS) and assigned a new project number of 60092 (aka
Collier Blvd. Extension), The design contract is still carried under project 60001,
. In December of 2008 it was Icamed that the developer for the "Abercia
Development" that is adjacent to the west side of the project would not provide
the commitments that were pat1 of an approved DCA (July 25,2(08), As pmi of
the DCA the Developer had agreed to accept the stOITnwater runoff for 6.1 acres
of the expanded roadway, It was fully expected that the developer's
improvements would be ahead of the roadway construction.
. As a result of the delay in the Developer's improvements: the roadway designs
had to incorporate the design and pelmitting of the Developers Pond and outfall
system. This change also affected the design completion schedule for the project.
~-
/\genc;a Hem ND. 16A8
Octob'lr 12, 2010
Page :2 01 53
. On October IS, 2009 NTP was given to Agnoli Barher and Brundage (ABB) who
was previously the developer's design consultant to provide the required design
changes for the developer's Pond and to apply for a modification to the
developer's pcnnit. Thc original design fee was S29,270.00 and a suhsequent
contract modification of$] 8.705,00 was approved to allow ABB to apply for an
FDOT drainage connection permit.
. Two thirds of the project limits lie within the Florida Department of
Transportation (FOOT) limited access right-of-way and as a result the design
required several FOOT coordination and approvals, A major change in the design
was needed as a result of not heing ahle to get a vertical height variance for the 1-
75 overpass, The redesign of the roadway cross section and drainage features as
well as through the County's negotiations with the FDOT the variance was
eventually granted. The variance was also needed to avoid relocating a major 48"
Water main under 1-75,
. Another major change in the design was the relocation of four (4) major utilities
owned hy the Collicr County PUEO. These utilities included a 36" Water main,
3()" Raw water main, 20" Water main and a 12" Force main, These utilities had to
he relocated to avoid conflict with the revised design and to meet the FDOT
policy which does not allow utilities to remain in the pavement.
. As part of the intersection improvements righl-ofway was needed from the BP
Service station at the NW comer of SR84 and Collier Blvd owned by A L SUBS,
Inc., ET AL. In an eminent domain proceeding held on July 31. 20()9 the Court
ruled that the County needed to reanalyze the safety of the southbound trucks and
cars simultaneously making the right-hand tUI11 at the NW comer of the
intersection. The Court also ruled that the FDOT had to cC11ify that the rcvised
improvements were safe. As a rcsult, the southbound right-turn lanes had to be
lengthened and additional signing and marking were added to the design. As a
result, additional coordination and pennitting was needed from the FOOT.
. On Tuesday, July 27, 2010 the BCC approved a JPA amendment and Resolution
(Agenda Item #16A20) with the FOOT and the County for the roadway
construction and inspection services on SR 84 (Davis Blvd.) and CR951 (Collier
Blvd.). The amended JPA extended the limits of the SR 84 project to include the
intersection improvements at SR 84 [md CR 95] and continuing north to
Magnolia Pond Drive, In the original JPA, the County is to fund constlUction and
CEI services Illr SR84 (Radio Road to Collier Blvd), The FOOT agreed to
reimhurse the County with scheduled payments up to a limit ofS20M dollars,
Negotiations hegan on March 22, 20 I 0 and stalemated at the project level, so in order for
the project to move forward into construction it was nccessary lilr a settlement to take
place at the administrative level hy Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator of Growth
Management. The final scttlemcnt was rcached on Septemhcr 9,20 I O.
item !\)c "h3PB
O:tcber : 2 2010
P2ge :3 of 58
This Change Order provides for shop drawings review during construction for a lump
sum amount of$25,269,80, 11 does not provide the timc and materials pOltion needed to
address the needs of the construction project. The procedures for administering these
services are currcntly being studied by a committee which will result in changes, These
changes will be implemcnted in a future Change Order in the approximate amount of
$125,000 to provide for the time and materials aspect of services during construction.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $950.330.35 are available within the
Transportation Supported Gas Tax Fund and Road Impact Fee Funds. Source offunds are
in gas tax and impact fees.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The project is currently identified on the
Capital Improvement Plan as CIE 61 is consistent with the Gro'Nth Management Plan,
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve Change
Order No.4 to Professional Services Agrecment No, 03-3553 with CH2MHill, Inc" in
the amount of $950,330.35 for design and engineering services for roadway and capacity
improvements to Collier Boulevard from US 41 to Main Golden Gate Canal, and
authorize the Chainnan to execute the agreement on behalf ofthe County.
Prepared by: Gary R. Putaansuu, Principal Project Manager, TEeM
Attachments: (1) Change Order No, 4; (2) Change Order Checklist; (3) Backup
Document - Fees; (4) Scope
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Aqenda Item No. 16A8
. October 12,2010
Page 4 of 58
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF:::OUNTY COMM!SS!ONERS
16AB
Recommendation tG apPiQ'Je C,2.nge Oraer hJo. 4 to Professional Service ,~greement No
03~3553 III 1~~; <"moun! of s;nSO,::';30.35 with C~:2r,,'1HILL, Inc., for the deSign ot 80llier
Bouiev('nd =<08(; Improvements from :)Bvis Bo~!evard to Golcen '33:e rv'I811l Canal, combining
thiS projeC1 with FOOT Davis Boulevard Improvements and Post Design Services Projects
I'Jo 60001 and 60092.
10/12/20109:00:00 AM
Prepared By
Gary PutaanSllU
Transportation Division
Project Manager, Principal
Date
Transportation Engineering &
Construction Management
9{20J201D 12:54:01 Dr.'
Approved By
Norm E. Feder. AICP
TransportAtion Division
Administrator. Transportation
Date
Transj)onation Administration
9,/2012010 1 :07 PM
Approved By
Nick :':asaianguida
Transportation ::Jivision
Director. Transportation Planning
Date
Transportation Planninf:l
9i2CJ:201 (j 4 04 PM
A pproved By
:...isa T ay ior
Transoortation :>ivisi'Jn
Managemem/8udge"; h.nalyst
Date
Trwspart8t1op ~,dmif;is:rati:)n
9/29:20': 0 "i :::2 OM
Approved By
Stevc::':arneJ!
AdministrativE. E;€'rvIC~,S
Division
Di~ec:tor, ::;'ur:ha~',ingiC"'0ner('l; Sf:rvic;e~'
D2te
D;;rc:,asnf & G:;:t;C;';i: Sr,;" :::(~S
9,,'30,'::)1[' [;:4L t,fi~
Approved By
RhonoE' :umminrlS
t\.dministrativE :;:,e~vi~es
::1I'iiSlc-n
Contra::!;:: Sne::laiist
Dale
::;'vrch2Sin[ &. Ci011'2ra; Servi~:es
S:30,':'~'iO ~:1(1 t,M
Approved By
'~a:aii 8ctan:::w
1-ranSDo~ation :Yiviston
Ic,am:nrsr,ati'/J;; ;'_55E~;t2r~~
D218
Trar!sportatlon F;.c,ac! f\/;,:iints:na!1~e-
::::2Ci201(:~: 10 Pflt
Approved By
:>MS C:oordrnatcF
:::;Olinty !\!;anape.' s Office
:Jate
Office of lVia:12geme:.t & 5u~ige:
'1 O!i/2~"j C
f- Ar{
Approved By
item r..j'J.
;:'i\p
'.-1'-,,,,
:'=Jc::cher ~2. 2JH)
5 of 58
Susan Usher
f'Jianagem(':,-.jj8CJdge; A.naiyst. Senior
:,c:t~
Jffl;:~; of Men2,gement &
DfLse 0;' r\'ia;la~ls'::iC7:'. ~~; ~,UC~~let
," D/::;;'201 C! ': .~: PM
::,uciget
Approved By
f,';c;ri: ;sa::I'5~)I~
r.'iZ;:,2'~:;:;:;;':.'r.l;2u:j;'c: ~:"~\'cc:. ~;~'lli,y
..:",t;:
8m;:e 0; Nia.,2gemsn: g
OfficE' of Man8gement &. Budget
10/5:20103:06 PM
Budget
Approved By
Jeff I'~ iatzi;ow
COUr1ty Attorney
D&te
10/6/20104:26 PM
/:\qenda ltem !\lo. '16A8
'.- OCtUb0H" i 2. 2010
6 of 58
Change Order 4, Contract 03.3553. Project 60001
Description of Changes: The scope of this project has been influenced greatly by outside factors, The
developer that was suppose to provide stonnwater treatment and did not move forward as was intended
added to the desilo'll and pennitting services of the project. The FDOT decided to move forward with an
interim 1-75 ramp modification project which required design changes that could not have been
anticipated at the time the original scope was developed. Right of way acquisition and signal desilo'll at the
Collier Boulevard/Davis Boulevard Intersection hecame much more involved than was originally
expected requiting several iterations of design modifications.
Following is a history of the events leading up to this change order:
. On March 13,2007 the BCC approved Change Order#2 to project 60001 for the desif,'ll and
pennitting of Collier Blvd, from Davis Blvd, to the Golden Gate Main Canal. This change order
was an addendum to the original agreement 03-3553,The approved amount was $995,500 of
which $745,500,00 was lump sum for the desilo'll and pennitting and $250,000,00 in Time and
Materials for Post Desilo'll Services, The notice to proceed (NTP) for the commencement of
desif,'ll was April 2. 2007 with a construction completion date of October 17, 2010.
. During the County's annual budget adjustments the Project was given a new Work Break
Structure (WBS) and assilo'lled a new project number of 60092(aka Collier Blvd, Extension).
. In December of 2008 it was learned that the developer for the "Abercia Development'. that is
adjacent to the west side of the project would not provide the commitments that were part of an
approved DCA (July 25, 2008), As part of the DCA the Developer had agreed to accept the
stormwater runoff for 6.1 acres of the expanded roadway. It was fully expected that the
developer's improvements would be ahead of the roadway construction,
. As a result of the delay in the Developer's improvements; the roadway designs had to incorporate
the desif,'ll and pennitting of the Developers Pond and outfall system. This change also affected
the desib'll completion schedule for the project.
. On October 15,2009 NTP was given to Agnoli Barber and Brundage (ABB) who was previously
the developer's design consullant to provide the required design changes for the developer's Pond
and to apply for a modification to the developer's permit. The original design fee was $29.270,00
and a subsequent contract moditication of$lR,705,OO was approved to allow ABB to. apply for an
FDOT drainage connection permit.
. Two thirds of the pro.ject limits lie within the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
limited access right-of-way and as a result the desib'TI required several rDOT coordination and
approvals. A major change in the design was needed as a result of not being able to get a vertical
height variance for the 1-75 overpass. The rcdesibTf1 of the roadway cross section and drainage
features as well as through Mr. Feder's negotiations with the FDOT the variance was eventually
b"'anted, The variance was also. needed to avoid relocating a major 4R" Watermain under I- 75,
. Another major change in the desiblTl was thc relocation of four (4) major utilities owned by the
Collier County PUED, These utilities included a 36" Watermain. 30" Raw watermain. 2()"
'A-.'atermain and a 12"' Forcemain. These utilities had to be relocated to avoid conflict with the
revised desib:rn and to meet the FDOT policy \vhich does not allow utilities to remain in the
pavement.
!t.;)rr: t\b. ';Sl\e
:_~;::;LbGr i 2, :20; (1
"( of ~)8
. As part of the intersection improvements right-ofv.'ay was needed from the BP Service station at
the NW comer of SR84 and Collier B]vd owned hy A L SUBS, Ine.. ET At. In an eminent
domain proceeding held on Ju]y 3],2009 the Court ruled that the County needed to reanalyze the
safety of the southbound trucks and cars simultaneousl)' making the right-hand turn at the N\\l
comer of the intersection, The Court also ruled that the FOOT had to certify that the revised
improvements were safe. As a result the southhound right-turn lanes had to be lengthened and
additional signing and marking were added to the dcsib.l11. As a result additional coordination and
pemlitting was necded from the FOOT.
. After several months of requesting a fee proposal ti'om CH2MHill to capture and address the
various scope creep items \A!ith no response; the consultant was asked to cease all work on the
project until a fee proposal for all out of scope work can he negotiated, On March 22. 2010 a
change order proposal was received, The amount requested was $693,946,24: however, after the
numbers were checked an error was discovered and the actual amount was found to be
$736,532,62,
. This change order #4 was reviewed and a response was prepared to address the items and charges
that were being requested hy the Consultant and to schedule <l negotiations conference (see
attached for staff comparative response report),
. On May 19, 20] 0 at 9:00 a,m, staff (Rhonda Cummings- contract specialist: Gary Putaansuu-
Principal Prnject Manager: and Mar]ene Messam - Sr. Project Manager) met with CH2MHill
stafJ(Bill Gramer, Frank Scerhn and Tim Sharp) to begin negotiations,
. The County's initial counter otTer for all changes was $164,345,73 and was hased on a lump sum
contracting method as the original agreement. The Consultant's proposal \vas based on a time and
materials method; and. the meeting: terminated with only three of the tasks reaching resolution.
They were tasks 4a, Sa. and 6 ror a combined total of S;] l)].3 73.3 I.
. It was explained hy the Consultant that some of the tasks resulting in a change of scope were
requested by the Transportation Planning Department c<lrly in the design phase oftlle project.
Subsequently the Consultant requested a postponement of the negotiation proceedings to have
discussions with Transportation Planning to confirm the charges met \vith their approval.
. On Tuesday, July 27,2010 the BeC approved a JPA mnendment and Resolution (Agenda lIem
#] flA20) \vith the FDOT and the Count:y.' for the roadv.'3)' construction and inspection services on
SR g4 (Davis B]vd,) and CR95] (Collier B]vd.). The amended .IrA extended the limits of the SR
k4 project to include the intersection improvements at SR k4 and CR 951 and continuing north to
Magnolia Pond Drive. In the original JP^. the County is to fund construction zl11d eEl services
j(lr SRS4 (Radio Road to Collier Blvd), The [-"DOT a~"'eed to reimhurse the County with
scheduled payments up to. a ]imil or S20\1 dollars.
. At a meeting on Thursday, Septembcr 2. 20] 0, Mr, Nnrman feder, Nick Casalanguida and Gary
Putaansuu and I discussed the resolution of Change Order #4. It vv'as decided that to move the
project forward Nick would spear head the next negotiation proceedings with CH2MHil1. Also
discussed \vas the need to maintain separate accounting: for the Jr A reimhursements. It was
decided thaI the construction documents 1'01' Collier Blnt would he split \vithin the limits covered
hy the JPA. As a consequence this additional \\'ork was added to Change Order #4.
Aoenda item !'>Jo. 161\8
, October ~12, 2010
Page 8 of 58
. On September 9,2010 at 9:04a,m, CH2MHill emailed a revised Cbange Order # 4 proposal
requesting a total fee of $1.239,940.41. Additional tasks were added to tbe proposal for
consideration, Tbese tasks included tbe construction plans separation and the desib'll of a sib'llal at
Noah's Way which was anticipated but not included in the original agreement. Also included
were additional services required to address FOOT's comments on permits, and plan revisions to
coordinate with Developers Project at City Gate North and at the Ahcrcia Development.
. On September 9,2010 staff met with CH2MHilL In attendance were Nick Casalanguida, Gary
Putaansuu and Marlene Messam from the County and Bill Gramer aud Alan Bolinger of
CH2MHill, At the end of the negotiations the final fee agreed to was $1,051,897.72 ($791,726.48
in lump sum and $260, I 7J.24 as time and material), CH2MlIill was also directed to cease all
work on the project until the change order is approved by the BCe.
. Subsequent to this above meeting on September 15, 2010 staff received the revised Change Order
scope and fee from CH2MHill and there were concems about the structure of the change order
and the amount that was set up in time and materials. Staff wanted to have more control over the
expenditures and requested that lump sum amounts be given to all tasks and sub tasks except Test
17a - Expert Witness - Deposition, It was a6'feed by stan' and C1I2MlIill that Task 16a is
composed of several subtasks resulting from the review comments from FOOT, It is slaffs intent
to request FDOT allow that some of these tasks be eliminated,
. As a result on final scope and fee was a6'feed to on September 20, 20 I 0 resulting in the Change
Order amount of $950,330,35 of which $12,250,24 is time and materials and $938,080. 11 is lump
sum.
. This Change Order provides for shop drawings review during construction for a lump sum
amount of $25.269,80, It does not provide the time and materials portion needed to address the
needs of the construction project. The procedures for administcring these services are cUITcntly
being studied by a committec which will result in changes. These changes will be implemented in
a future Change Order in the approximate amount of $125,000 to provide for the time and
materials aspect of services during construction.
The probable cost of this project is $18,5 million, The total cost of desi6'll for Collier Boulevard irom
Davis Boulevard to East Golden Gate Canal with approval of this change order will be $1,945,830,35
which is 1 O.52(~';) of the cost of cc.mstruction. 111 comparison the cost of construction for Collier Boulevard
from US-41 to Davis Boulevard was $24 million and the cost of design was $2,264,000 for 9.41 '1., of the
cost of construction, Though the cost of desi6'll of this section has nearly doubled due to the complexities
encountered during design, the overall cost is still within reason.
ii~::.m t.~Oo
CONTRACT/WORK ORDER MODIFICATION
CHECKLIST FORM
, -.
/0,(,
1 Gl..8
12.2010
58
:::';:.tCJh~'
PROJ=.CT NAME: Collier Boulevard. US41 to Main Golden Gate Canal
PROJECT MANAGER; Gary PUlaansuu
PROJECT #;
60001
CONTRACT #: 03-3653 MOD #; 4
PO#: 4500099957
WORK ORDER #;
DEPARTW:EIH; TE&CM
:::ONTRACTOR/t=IRM NAM:::
CH2MHiII
Original Contract Amount:
S 2.264,000.00
(Starting Point)
I Current sce Approved Amount:
$ 3.269,500,00
(Last T ota[ Amount Approved by the BCC)
Current Contract Amount:
$ 3 25950000
(Including All Changes Prior To This Modification)
Change Amount:
$ 950,330,35
Revised ContractlWork Order Amount:
$ 4.209,630.35
(Including This Change Order)
Cumulative Dollar Value of Changes to
this ContractfWork Order:
$ 1,945,630.35
Date of Last BCe Approval
,-
..., . 1.-:. ,~
Jbl. .IT ;~~_.
Agenda Item # 16B .~
Percentage of the change over/under current contract amount_~~%
Formula: (Revised Amount.' Last BCe approved amount). 1
CURRENT COMPLETION DATE (5); ORIGINAL:
February 24 2009 CURRENT;
September 30 2013
This change order will: 0 Add new Tasks for $ 950.330.35 U increase Task Number
by $
Other
Describe the change(s); See Attached Chanae Order Descriotion
Specify the re'2S0ns for the change(sl ~' 1. Planned or Elective (' 2. Unforeseen ConcHtions r 3. Quantity
Adjustments ("' 4. Correction of Errors (Plans, Specifications or Scope of Work) I{ 5. Value Added
(' G, Schedui6 Adjustments Note: One or more may be checl:ed, depending on the nature oflhe change(s).
identify all negative impacts to the p;oje~t if this change order were not processed:
sianed sealed set of contract olans for advertisement.
This change \\'a5 requested by: rl:ontra:tor/Consu!~ant ir Owner x Using Department C CDES
Vve would not receive a
L.Design Professional riRegu~atory Agency (Spe:ity)
r Other (S pecify)
COIHRACT SPECIALIST PARTICIPATIOII! IN N"GOTlA TiONS;
x Vce
No
This form is to be signed and date-d...
j ,/ .//
A~PKOV=D BY: _:>-.::::;;~/~
Pnnclpal Proje-:::t Manager
Date: 9'-.1(;_/4
P.EVi:=VV:::D BY'
,
J3te
Cor,ti""8ct Specia:lst
Revised 4.1 ()
Agenda item ~~o. 16/\8
October 12, 2010
Page 10 of 58
CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO,
4
CONTRACT NO. 03-1553
, ''-/
."' ",..' ,.1 .,"", "", ,. .
Bee Date, Sl,..'. 'v. _J,O --"-'. t
Ag"nda Item _1.01(
-;;. 71 2LE4
TO: CH2M Hill
5801 p.<;lican Bay. Suite 505
NavIes. FL 34108
DATE: 9-20-]010
PROJECT NAME:
Collier Boulevard. US-41 to D"vis Blvd
PROJECT NO.:
60DOJ
Under our AGREEMENT ihted .J ())'I ;;"7,
f
20rY-f
You hereby are aULhoriL;t~J dud dilccted to make the foI1owing chan.gc.(s) in acc.ordal1cc with terms ilOd
conditions of the Agreement: (See attached Attachment "A") .
FOR THE Additive Sum of: _Nine hundred ~nd lifty th()u;ar..d, Tr,.ree, hundrc:d lhirt}' dolklrs 8Tld thirty five cents
($ 950.330,35 ),
Original Agreement Amount
s
2.~6J,OOOOO
Sum of Previous Changes
~
995.500.DO
Tnis Change Order add
s
('50._~30.j5
Present Agreement Amount
s
4,209.~3{L35
The time for compktlOn sh,dl be increased hy _L979 calendar days due to lhis Change Order.
Accordingly, the Contract Time is now _3.3].:.'; . calendar days. Th(: substantial completion date lS _5_m~~IJber
:<'0.1013 and tbe ;:.na! completicm .rime l.~ ~entemner ~O.:2013 Y(~ur 2cce,pt,mce of this Change Order shall
ccms;:itute a modiEc~ilion to OUi' Ab,.'Teement and will be perforrne.d subject to all the same terms and condltions as
~ontained :n our A.[S"eemenl mdi:':,i.ted abuve. DS LIllY d,', if the S<ll1l:"~ were I e,)catt:d in this acceptance. T11t:
adjustment. if an}', to the Agreement sr.<.flll constitute a fuil and final settlcm;m of any and all ;lalITls of tbe
Contractor sri sing {JUt of or rela:sJ to the chJ.nge sC. forth herein. including dair-D.s for impact and del.ay co~;ts,
Accepted:
.].()~
OWNER:
CONTRACTOR, CH2MHill
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLJER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
"..-.---
By:
Alan BoIlinser ~ \ ,p, OpcratioT.J:s
Nl2:L- Cas<JlangUlda, Deputy AdJ11ini.str'dtDr
C:fowth Miinage:Ytent Di'dsion
By:
Norn:anE. Fcdc~" AJCl;~~d;;~inistrato;.
CirCl\vth lVlanage:11ent Division
D~ll:;~:
ATTEST:
:}",'l~ht E. Broc:L C"!:o:-l:
BY:
f\rprovcd As 'j 1 1 nrrn
:1:ld Lef.!3J SufJl;;;:.:ncy:
Print N~Ul1e: ___________~_____'__._
Assistant Counry Attorney
1~0_rr1 i'.!C
~)' L._
.i:'
(ij !~'T'j'.\.'T :;P~C'l\.Ll-,,;r
---~'---~-'~"---'___""c-___'
LiH_:;I~b
BOARD OF COU,,'TY COMMTSSIONFRS OF
C(ll.UH( CUUNTY j''L(JRIDi\
:~Y:
Fred '\A.,', Cnyle. Chairman
p,oenda item 1".]0, 16A8
- October 12. 2010
12 of 58
Change Order 4, Contract 04-3553, Project 60001
Description of Changes: The sc.ope of this project nas been inllucnccd greatly by outside factors. The
developer that was suppose to provide stormwutcr treatment and did not move forward as \vas intended
added to the design and permitting services of tile project. The FDOT decided to.move forward with an
interim ]-75 ramp modification project which required design changes that could not have been
anticipated at the time the original scope was developed. Right of way acquisition and signal design at the
Collier Boulevard/Davis Boulevard Intersecrion became much more involved than was originally
expected requiring several iterations of design modifications.
following is a history of the events leading up to thi::; change order:
. On March 13, 2007 the BCC approved Change Order#2 to project 60001 for the design and
permining of Collier Blvd. from Davis Blvd. 10 the Golden Gate f\1ain Canal. This change order
\vas an addendum to the original agreement 04-3553.The approved aITlount ,vas $995.500 of
which $745,500,00 was lump sum for the design and pennitting and $250,000,00 in Time and
Materials for Post Desi.!:-l11 Services. The notice to proceed (NTP) for the comlm:ncement of
design was April 2, 2007 \vith a construction completion date of October 17,2010.
. During the County.s annual budget adjustments the Project was given a new \Vork Break
Structure (WBS) and assigned a new project number of 60092(aka Collier Blvd, Extension).
. In December of 200S it was learned that the developer for the "Abercia Development" that is
adjacent to the west side aUhe project would not provide the commitments that \""ere part of an
approved DCA (July 25. 200S), As part of the DCA the Developer had agreed to accept the
storm\\'ater runoff for 6.] acres oftbe expanded roadv;ay. It was fully expected that the
developer's ir::lprovements Ivvould be ahead of the roadw]:' construction.
. As a r2~~u!1 of the delay in the Developer's improvements: the road\vay dC3igllS had TO incorporate
the design and pennitting oflhe Developers Pond and outfall system. This change alse, affected
the design completion schedule for the project.
. On October!.5. 2UU9 ~TP w~~s given to Agnoli Barber and BruIldagE.~ (AB8) \\'ho was previl..iusly
the d~veloper's design consultant to provide the required design changes for the de\'cloper's Pond
~~ild to apply Cor a modification tn the devtlop;:r's permit. Ti-le original Jesign i'::-,e \\'(1:'" $29.27U.uO
and a suhsequent cOl1traC:lmodification tIC$lf;,70:S.00 \-vas approved to 21110\\ ABB to apply for an
PDOT diainage connection pennil.
. Two thirds, oftlle project limits lie within :i1c ~]orida Department nCf,anspOna1ioll (FDOT)
limited access right-of-\vay and as <l result the- design required several rDOT coordination and
approvals. A m~i(lr change in the design \\'a." needed as a n.:'sull of not being able to gel a venical
height variance for the [-75 overpas:;. The re-design ofrhe road\vay CHl:i:; ;)CC1JO!l and drainage
fC3tures as \vell a~, through Mr. Feuer's ;legotiations wit]l the FDOT the variance was eventually
granted. The variance \vas aiso needed to avoid r(:loc.ming, 3 major 48" Viarermain under 1-75<
II /\notber major <.:hange in tlll: design \Va::,; the rdocation of four (4) major utilities mvm:d by the
Coliier County PLiED. Th~sc militie.s included J 36" V/arermain, 30'. R~l\'" w:.:m:~rmiliJL 20.'
\Vakrrnain and 81:2'< Furcernain. These utiliri~s had to be relocated to 3V\lid conflict with the
ievised design and to meet the rDOT policy which does not 21]]01,.\" utilities tel r~maill in tbe
pavement.
Item 1\10. :6A8
Oct:Jhe: 12, 2010
Page 13 of 58
. A~ part of the intersection imrro\'em~Jlts right-of\-\'ay was needed from the BP Service station at
the N\V corn::r of SRS4 and Collier Blvd OVl'llt.'U hy A L St~BS, Inc., ET :\.L. in an eminent
domain proceeding held on July 3 L 2000 the Court ruled tl1m the County needed to reanalyze the
s:.n'cty or the southbound trucks and cars ;;imu]taneously making the righr~hand turn a: the N\V
corner of1he intersection. The Court 31."0 ruled that the FDOl had 10 cenify that the revised
improvements v..'E're safe. As 3 result, the southhound righI-turn lanes had 10 be lengthened and
additional signing and marking were added to the design. As (\ result additional coordination and
pcrmining 'vas needed from tbt FUOT.
. After severa] months of requesting a fee proposal from Cll::i'v1Hill to capture and address the
variou:; scope creep items 'with no ft'sponse: the consultant was asked to cease all vlOrk on the
project until a fee proposal for all out of scope work can be negotiated. On March 22. 2010 a
change order proposal ViliS received. The amount requested was $693,946.24: hO\veveL after the
numbers were checked an error W33 discovered and the actual amount was found to be
$736.532.62.
. This change order #5 was revie\\'ed and .J re-spome 'vas prepared to address the items and charges
that were heing requested hy the Consultant and to schedule;) negotiations conference (see
attached for staff comparative response report),
. Un May j 9.201 0 a~ tl:OO a.m. 5t3tf (Rho;lda Cummings- contracl specialist: CJary PutaanSllU-
Prin~'ipal Pro.icct :-vhmager: and !v1arlene lIvIessam -- Sr. Pro.iecl I'v1anagcrJ met with CH2rvlHill
staff (Bill Gramer, Frank Scerho J.nd Tim Shar;l) to h~'gin negotiations.
. rhe C()unt~'.s initial counter offer for <111 changes was };1()4.345.73 and \\'a5 based on (j lump sum
contracting rnethod as lht, original agr(:,~1llel1t. The Consultant's proposJ~ was lnsec O:l 2time and
J112.terizlIs mcth0d: ~l11d. the: rnccrin;' lcnTlinatcd w1:11:\11]: lhrec of the ta~ks n:achinf:! rcsuluTioTl.
They were tasks .:.J-a. Sa. and 6 for a combined tural nf S: Q].3 73 .31.
. It ''''3S e::flhiiiled by the Consul:am that ;-",)!11t' o(lh~' L~sb r('sult111~ ill <J change ofscop:: were
r;::,::w~sted b~ the T;-'J1EpOnmion Pl:":Jilli:lf' D(';~ml!ii~'n: ~'J.:'l: i11111;:; d::si~n phas~> ofth:: project.
Sub:)cqucn:l;' th:.: Consultant requested;; P('S1POf]1'11jC111 {i1th::.' negotiation proceedings 10 hav::
di.'i2'Jssinns \\'iIh Tr:mspo,-Uli.icn PI<~l1njn~' IiI L:D,l[~:-!n tl1;.' ;:.'iur~~s m~'t ''>'IIh ti1('ir :l~l~rO\:I!.
. (Ill Tuesday, Jui:' :::7. =(I~ U U:l" F)CC J.lJprovcd u .J[J/; amcr,dm'~11l and R~soiUlion (Agenda 1t<.'Tn
:-! ~ 6/\201 \',i~.i; th~' FlY," ::\11(: :h'~' Cd11Il;.\ i('I'I;l:'" (c::::ttU'.-::iOL and ins;.K'cizl)l ."::'.:T\'lce,s 011
SR g..+ (Davi:~ Blvd. j z:nc: CR951 (((dlie,' B!\cl.l. TJ-.~' amen,kd JPA (;x1t'llded the lill]il" oflhe SR
,'-)...'. DFJ.i::.:ct L', jnc.1ujL:'lh,~' jm(.'r~;'~';:.'tinn innrClVC;ll(.'m:; ~]: ~R i,oj :tIlJ cr\ 0) I arid c()ntlnui:~~', nDnh In
~vhl~noliJ 1\1llC: urivL'. in 1il~ i.lr:gilui ,JP/". lhv ("uun,) is To fUlld cUlblruc,iun ~l1iJ CTj ~';:'rvic::s
fur SRR4 (Radio Road tp C(llji~r DJ\.d I. The FD(Yl :L,:rc.?.,:i 1(' :'~'irnbur"c :h',: ('(Iimr)' with
SCll,;,'dul.::d p~l:TnCJl!" ur h' :1 limiT 0: ~:20\i doiiur::.
. ,\1 ;__: l1l:.:cling ern Tntlr.~jay. :~cpTcmh.~'r'::::, :::();U. \'lr. l<o:T1l~m Ft~j'-:r. '\ick CasiJklilgujd~l and Cia:-)
!)ut::<ansuv and I db,-:Ll~:,ed tile r;:-su!uI!U!l o~ .'kmgc (l~<.L.T ;!S. 11 \v:.~:-. cic:.:id~d th;-:l 1(1 move the
p;'oicct !-()I.\\~mj!\icL wiJu]d 3j1c<..ir h;:ac Ull' 11;:\1 pi'll:::~t'(iings with CH2;vlHil!. A!so
ci~"cus::;~:cl v,::~ lh~ need !(' mUlrna:r: 'i:;;'~l;Y:-Jl~' "ccount for th:' .!Pi'. n.;,jr;ihur'icJl1~lll:;'. 11 \\:--!S
(J..;'cidcj ~I;J~ ~:k' CUIl'ir:--U~',;!lli d:-)Clll1l(T~" i'or ~_-();ji'.':' Bkd. WOUld bi."
.. .' " ' .
\\'l,T1IIi U}: l!l,nt;; (:(wcrcu
\1:> :i1:..' .IP/L /'.> ,1 C~Hh:':'\lll(:Tl'~'::: 1;11'-, :lCLL':nna: horii '\,1' :jjcl:..'d ie' Ch,Jl;L:~ C)rd::,y
A.;;enda l1em No. ! 6t\8
October 12. 2010
F)age '14 of 53
. On September 9, 20]0 at 9:04a,m, CH2MHill emailed a revised Change Order # 5 proposal
requesting a total fee of $1.239,940.4], Addi\ionaltasks were added to the proposal for
consideration. These tasks included the construction plans separation and the design of a signal at
Noab's v..;ay v..'hich '\va: anticipated but not inciuded in the original agreement. Also included
were additional services required to address FDOT's comments on permits, and plan revision.'> to
coordinate with Developers Project at City Gate North and at the Abercia Development.
. On September 9,20]0 staff met with CH2MHill. In attendance were Nick Casalanguida, Gary
Putaansuu and Marlene Messam from the County and Bill Gramer and Alan Bolinger of
CH2MHi]1. Althe end of the negotiations the final fee agreed to was $1.051.897,72 ($791.726.48
in lump sum and $260,171.24 as time and materia]), CH2MHil1 was also directed to cease all
work on the project umilthe change order is approved by the BCC,
. Subsequent to this above meeting on September 15,20 I 0 staff received the revised Change Order
scope and fee from CH2MHill and there were concerns about the structure of the change order
and the amount that was set Lip in time and materials. Staffyvantcd to have more control over the
expenditures and requested that lump sum amounts be given to all ta<.;ks and sub tasks except Test
17a - Expert Witness - Deposition, It was agreed hy staff and CH2MHill that 'I ask ] 6a is
composed of several subtasks resulting from the review comments from FDOT. It is staff's intent
to reguest FDOT allow that some of these tasks be eliminated.
. As a result on final scope and fee \vas agreed to on September 20,2010 resulting in the Change
Order amount of$950,330.35 of which $12.250.24 is time and materials and $938,080.11 is lump
sum.
. This Change Order provides for shop drawings revie\v during construcTion for a Jump sum
amount of$25.269.80. It docs not provide the time and materials portion needed to address thl:
needs of the construction project. The procedures 1l:l[ administering these s.ervices are cUrTcnt]y
being studied by a committee which will result in changes. These changes will be implemented in
a future Change Order in the apprOXil11~lte amoLlnt ofS125,000 to provide for the time and
materials aspect of services during construction.
The probable cost ofthis project is $] 8.5 million. The total cost of design for Collier Boulevard from
Davis Boulevard to East Golden Gate Canal \vith approval of this change order \\'ill be $1,945.830.35
which is 10.520;';) of the cost of constructioli. In comparison the cust of c::Instruction for Coliier Boulevard
from US-41 TO Davis Boulevard was $24 million and the :051 of dcsit=n v.as S2.26-i.OOO fOT 4,41 t>;) of the
cost of construction. Though the cost of design of this section has nearly doubled due to the complexities
encoumered during design, li1e Clverall C()SI is sUI \\ithin reason.
i\y::md? :tem ~Jo. G.L\8
CJ::180ei' 12 201 0
15 of 58
ATTACHMENT A
SCOI 'E OF StI\VICES
FOR
CHANGE ORDER NO, 4
TO
CONSULTING ENGlJ-";EERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR
COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R 951) SOUTH EXTENSION
(Davis Boulevard to Main GDlden Gate Canal)
PROfFeT NO, 6000l
October 6, 20111
The CONSULTANT has been requested and retained to provide additional engineering
services associated ",vith final design and cOlllpletion of construction of the Collier
f)oulevard South Extension Project (Davis Boulevard to I\'1ain Golden Cate Canal). These
additional services are based on various design revisions and SCl1pC: of ..vork additions
requested by the Collier County Grcrvvth r\Ianagenlent Division Transportation
Engineering Department to address the changing needs and conditions along the project
corridor cmd tp conform to adjacent de\'t~l<lrment a~;rpenlents. In addition, S011le of the
additional services arc required to malch "r\s-Huil,'. conditions of surrounding projects
and resolve surrounding lJropcrh' i~:;lH-'S. j"hese services aft:' nc'ccssary to resnlvc projC"=t
stai<ehold'2f is.'-aJ(-"S r,Col]j(T C:nunty'rranspm"tation Dcparh:n.C'nt Collier County Solid
''Vastv f1q:l'-lrLllv-:-nt Collier =:~)llntv Uhlir\, D('pclrtlTicnt, fDCYf, 1'1-1\\'/\, 2~\\'J\:'n-"'-B(-:~B,
.i\bcrcia Dev:::]u;.-lment, (:i~\' Cd:.t' Dcvclnpm'~'llt), iJnd fini:dize Ul(' pn1jecf permiU..ing clnd
cL.'sinl.
c,
Ch,l.'lgt~ Dl'der :\Jc~. 4 pn/\'idl.'s for the C\)\;SL:I,'1 .'\f'~'!U~; scn:ict.,;-, tn hf' ll1lldifi",d tn cHId
l11.';: .JILw-.'ing Dc::,:ipl. s<'u}"c' ::)f ':';:>l'\'ic';~:, :l:' Collier C(~l.lr:::\ :\0. bOUT!. Th','
f('llowing CONS1)TT AT\J'T S,~-'rv]ces dE' int iJ<.idition to th~' llriginal contract:
8. FDOT Design and Permitting Requiremen~s: The' fonCJwing tasks are required as a
resuft of FOOT comments mode and requirements stated during the FDOT review of
the Coilier Boulevard Project Plans. The Additiona! ScrviC2S that arc required and
i'l/iil be provided by the Engineer to obtain approvals and permits included the
fol/owing:
a.. T:rpicaI S(':ctior~ R~~visillns a.nd Compld'2 Project Plans Redesi~n - Pos~
hOIl/;, Plans due loFDOT Comm>2nt and Approvals - SlYt-;.254.4-4
Agenda Itern No. 16.L\8
October 12.. 2010
Page 16 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 9511
Davis Blvd (SR 84) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 6000 I
. Prior to 30% submittal, a coordination meeting vvith FDOT District 1
District Interstate Review Committee (DIRC) was held in Bartow tD
review the proposed design for this project. As part of tl1C discussion
at this Ineeting, the design exceptions for vertical clearance and
longitudinal grade along the curb and gutter were addressed. Initial
comment from the FDOT indicated tl1at although a design variance
would need to be submitted for both, due to the excessivE' cost of
revising tll.(.~ existing condition, approval "\vould be recommended.
. Design Variance 1 dealt with the fact tllat the existing vertical
clearance under the 1-75 Bridge is currently substandard (16'-3" vs.
16' -6") and the propDsed clearance would be at 16' -1" . Variances for
vertical clearances under 1-75 were previously granted by FDOT to
Collier County for other projects, so hased on the excessive costs to
raned)' the situation, approval for this project should not have been
delayed or denied especially since resulting clearance was greater
than the 16'-0" minimum.
. HOV\Tever, based on discussions with FDOT after submittal of the
design variation, the potential for approval of the design variances
did not appear to he forthcoming.
. After discussions with TECM it was agreed that CH2M HILL should
redesign the plans to len-ver the profile at the 1-75 Bridge to provide
16' _Sf{ of under-clearance in urder to obtain FDOT concurrence \viU1
the desit,'T1 in a tirrlely IIlanner and preserve the project schedule.
. Design Variance 2 was to due to the fact that the exi,c;bng profile of
roadway, would not provide the required minimum longitudinal
grade when the typical section \vas modified from a rural section to
an urban section. Curb and gutter was considered in the initial design
for consislen-:-y since ~xdtlsion in U-:i~ project ''''mIld have resulLed in a
0.75 mile gap in the curb through the 14 (nilt' corridor. In addition, it
contained the Clramagc runpH and provided a mean;,: for rdi;,::~d
sidewalk along- tho;:: corridor.
. To modify tllE' longitudirial slope in areas that did not meet staJ:ldards
,\-'QuId require complete!v nee-profiling the roadvvay during
cpnstruction at a cost in excess of 521\1 (> 10% of tllt~ overall estinlated
project construction cost).
.' Hc)"\'vever, based on discussions with FDOT after submittal of the
design ~,'ariabon! the poh::ntial for approval 0: tlle design 'variances
did no{ app'2ar to be forthcOlning.
. After discussions V\lith TECl\i1 Des!b'l:, it was decided that
CH.2.1\1 }-IlLL should revise the road\^.'ilY typical section from urban to
t,cencJa itern !"~o. -j 6,i\8
'::J:lObsl ~12. 2010
Page 17 of 58
:'\ttachmcnt A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRlCR 95 i)
Davis Blvd (SR S41 to .\1oin Gulden Gate Canol
Project ~,;O. 60001
suhurban and to redesisrn the plans in. order to obtain FDOT
concurrence vv"ith the design in a timely manner and preserve the
projeC"t schedule.
. The change in typical section tron1 urban to suburban \\Till require
CI-I2h,1 HILL to modify the Drclinage Design along Collier Buulevard
and to revise and expand the Basins to aCCOffilTIoda te the revised
roadway design. Drainagt' areas will change, drainage modeling \",ill
change, calculatiDIls \\rill change and Permit~ will need to be revised.
. The project's original scope of work and 60 % Design assu111ed that
due to tl1l' excessive costs of making the required modifications to the
existing condition, the FDOT \,vould appro,,'!::' the Design Variances
requested since similar variances were approved on previous projects.
,l\ Iso during the initial coordination meeting with the FTKyr, they
indicated that approval would not be an issue. CH2M HiLL
proceeded \,"ith design based on that understanding. Therefore this
task is considered Additional Services
. S~-~r\'ic:cs requirEc'd to finalizf~ the plans, specifications and estimates
include: NUIlwrous Conceptual Design Alternatives, Complete
ROi:1ch...'ay l\l~-l )esii.;n - Post 60',\, Plans (Typical St,"ction Package,
Typical Sections, Plan and Profile, Cross Sections, Sjr;njng and
I\1arking, \'10T, T.Jtility Plans, Quantibcs); Drainage Design; Drainage
Calculations, and /\bercia Development and Collier Boulevard Pcnnit
modifications.
b. Preparation of a FDoT Interchange Analysis and Operations Report
(IAoR) and I'vlethodology Letter of Understanding (MLoU) - 523,735.54
. /\.t tlH.~ coordination meeting withFDOT ;::nu ITTV\" A at tht' 30S;,
dr~sigll submittal, HK)'J' indicated that <l I\lLUL: dnd l/\OE would
rlP'2d in be prt'pan'd a.nd aprr(1\'f'cl h\' hoth FDOT and FH\V:\ 'TillS
would be' !'L'quin'J 1(' ',-"Ilsun-> ~h(jt U-It~ planned irnprC1v'~':-Tl('nb in tllt'
FDOT Li1nitcd .,'\cccs_s I\O\V ''''(ltdd confc-rm to tlw existing
r;-':lllhg,t:-ati:1li u~ tlH.:.' lnt~~n::hd~1~),( '-:s vvdl ,-l~ Lht:, ::nOT //{ut'.ue"
planned !!npro\-'cmcnt:-; to tIll' hltcrch;-mgc. The FDCY[" "\,vantt':d th:::'
County':,; Consultant to prcpart' both docunlt:::lts. The County a.greed
tc, have' CH2~\1 HILL F'l"'c"PJ.l"C th.;- dll'~'tllYl'~~:"itS.
. The FrCli,::,;.::'~'s urifrml1 scopr:-- uf \'\'()rk could nCl1 hd\'Ej ..mlicipaled this
J:r~OT r~'qu~5t for :,'_'fviccs o::.n::; thu~ did not include tllC above tdsks.
Tlwrdnrc thi~ t2.sk is C(l1lSilh~~'(o(! _.:\dditi(1na] S,-::':rvice~
. ~:';'.;'n.'L,.~.,> rcquin:'d (( flECllize' illli..i, (lbteJIlI Ull' FDc.__rr I'cnnit lnclucl'2:
i\l'.:-:'f.'tings. D3""L<! C2Ul'~T]llg. C~ol3(l]jl,:.ti{m v,-jth F'I<n ConsuJtrJnts
\\'-or!:ing en InL::'fc)1<:1nge Plannint:: Tasks. Interchan;;~' PerrOrmdllc!..'
Aaenda item ~io. 16A8
~ October 12,2010
Page 18 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No, 4
Collier Boulevard (SRlCR 951)
Davis Blvd (SR 84) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No, 6000 I
Analysis, Traffic Modeling, 5ynchro .I,nalysis and Report (2)
Preparation,
c. Additional FDOT Permitting Requirements (Permits) - $31,858.31
. The design and permitting of the Collier Boulevard Project requires
extensive effort with respect to coordination with FDOT and FHWA,
For Approval, the FDOT has required that, in addition to the
Drainage Connection Permit required for discharging stormvvater into
the FDOT ROW, CH2M HILL will be required to submit the
following three (3) separate Permits:
o Driveway Connection Permit with Plans
o Utilities Permlt with Plans
o Signalization/Signing and Marking/Lighting Permit with
Plans
. The project's original scope of "\vork did not anticipate having to
prepare and submit three (0) additional (Drainage Connection Permit
was assumed) Permits for the above mentioned portions of work
Based on previous experience working on projects within PDOT
ROW, it was assumed that cupies of the applicable plans would be
submitt,'d to FDOT for therr files upon completion of design.
Therefore this task is considered Additional Services
. ServIces required to finalize and ohtain the FDOT Permits include
Coordination, l\leetings, Project Pliln Changes, and Preparation of
thn~p (~) Additional FCffilH Pdcka~~l's.
9. Match to "As-Built" Conditions of Existing and Concurrent Projects: The project
plans are developed on information availoble at the stort of the design process. Due
to continued growth and development many site conditions on surrounding County
,=DOT ond/or developer projects change during the design per iod which reouires
redesign e/forts. These changes generally require additional coordination, design
survey.. design analysis and revisions to the construction pian documents. Additional
Services that are required and will be provided by the Engineer include the following:
a. Conceptual Alternatives and Revisions to N\r\T Corner of l,eck/CoIlier
Intersection - 533,30656
.. I)ue to ROV\/' Acquisition cunccrns from the adja:ent property CHvner,
Coll1f'r County requested that CH2I\1 HILL prepare various
alternatives for th1:.':' NVV corner of thf' Davis Boulevard - Collier
,il,cwnda Hem 1\10, '16,1\8
- OClOber' 12 2010
F>ar-J8 1 q of 58
Attachment A
Change Order >;>0, 4
Collier Boulev:J.rd iSR/CR (51)
Davis Blvd (SR 8~) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No, WOO I
Boulevard Intersection and evaluate the RO\V requirem.cnt'i of each
a.lternativL'
. Numerous concepts will be prepared and from them, three (3) Dual
Right Turn Lanes alternatives ,,,,'ill be designed using various size
desir;n vd,icles (WB-50, WB .62 l'tC.), The ROW impacts of each of the
alternatives will be c\'aluated.
. The alternatives will also need to consider the FDOT - Davis
Boulevard Widening Project (being designed by TY Lin) Lo evaluate
and provide sufficient ROVv' for the Intersection Signalization,
. The changes being lllaJe by TY-Lin to this int~rscction and how it will
be constructed require numerous changes to the plans to account for
design changesl sig'nallocation changes and maintenancp of traffic
(MOT) phasll1g revisions.
. The project's original scope of work could not have anticipated the
property' l1wner contesting the nlinimal RO'V Acquisition at the
('unler and thl' latc' changes to the TY Lin Roachvay, Signal and
'r-\'1ajntl~nanC(' of Traffic (2 tinles) Desit,'TJl dnd thus did. not include the
above tdsks. Therefore this task is cnnsidercd Additional Services
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
inclucte: Slte visits, Conceptual Alternatives (3); Roadv\~ay Design
rL.''\'isions (Plan and Prufilc); Urilinagc- Design revisions, Sketch iJ.~Hj
Descriptio:::s and ROIV !\,Iap Revisions; Coordinalion 'A/lth T'l' Linl
Si'!l1a{ I'ldIlRe\'jc\\' J'vIUT PblL revIsions
u
b. Utility Drive/J\;1~lgnulia Fond Drive Intersection Inlprovernents-
S22,716.23
. rht' ori[.;inaI .c.,~ '.1Fl-' l-'( ,...'()rk Wi):': f':'vist2d dUI'ing oP';,', Design to d;...:'sigl":
the lTtibh' nrj~,'l'/ i\L:q.';Ilolicl Pond Jlri\'e Int:erscc:-ion ?s a Signaliz~~d
lnterst'ction. v\'lth C()lli(~r BouleYdrd as opposed lo directional lefts.
Collier Cuunty I--'L.,lnning rL'questcd this dut> to tht' COU:lty being
CkL-l.\,:,,'d irl securing LHi. i,1srccmcnt with aI', dcijJc.'C'iYt dC\ct.::lop:..'f (City
C;at'e) kn ,: portilm l1f "Vndc' lklllJl''\-,Hd (prih1h' rn~1d) to be t,<1nsfern-'d
to the' CO'Jnr:' in Jddihon, cL:-lngl's dssncl<Jted "vith the- (I~jd~'ed
cC1n<;trucrion ('I r--~()ah',s \Vav !"y the :\bcrcia Dev121crper ;,:!sCl
c,mtribut'..d tC' ~h(' ll\.'('d l.ur d Signal r\'~Sih11 an~i intcrsectinn revisions
aL the Ublit}, Drivc/lvIa.:.-:nolid I\lnJ Dri\';~} Jnlerscctiun, \lultiple
cmc'~'pts f(lJ' L__--:.ne ('oniii;'ura:ioc" nn Collier 13h'd. ,-1S 'oV,dl JS on Udlit\,
Dr. \','<c'TC dc\'clc1p,:'d.
. /\tl':T Jj,"-,cussicwt.; v,iU.. TEC~d r)('sih'T:, Phr'.llint; ~;:1d TrZlHi,.::, it was
d(;t~~Tnin'2d thai thts v::.ltdd 1,,,- incl'..lded in ~_h(' p~'ol~cL bid plans as a
Aaenda Item No. 16A8
~ October 12, 20'10
Page 20 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRlCR 951)
Da\'is Blvd (SR 84) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No, 60001
signalized intersection \-\lith Collier Boulevard with minimum lane
assignments to economically accommodate the interim condition of
having a signal (temporary) at this intersection as opposed to where
the permanent "future" Signal will be at the City Gate Dl;ve/Noah's
VVay Intersection.
. The medians of Collier Boulevard will be designed to accommodate
the signalized intersection in the interim condition while providing
for the future reconfiguration of the intersections to Collier Boulevard
directional lefts ""7ith minimum throw 3vvay costs.
. The project's original scope of work could not have anticipated the
various alternatives and conditions that needed to be prepared and
accommodated due to the changing developer agreements and plans
(caused mostly be economic conditions), Thus the scope did not
include tile above tasks, Therefore, this task is considered Additional
Services
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
include preparation of multiple Conceptual Design Alternatives and
c\ialuatlon of tTaffic operations, Once an alternative is approved:
RDadway Desis'1l (Typical Section, Plan and Profile, Cross Sections,
Signing and Marking, Signalization, Quantities).
c. Design Changes resulting from Abercia Development - $37,386.89
The Abercia Devt'Iopment Agn~enlent ,-\'ith the County has had a 111d.jUf
in1pact on the desiST1) of the Collier Boule-vard pro}ect dUE~ to site
development changes, changes to rv:1a~olia Pond Drive and Noah's lVay
t~vpical section, alignn1ent and lane configurations, as well as U1C fact that a
S16rnificant portiun of tht, W(;~st side RO\;\' and Drain.:lge Treatment and
Att~~nuation requircrnents of this project arc directh~ tied to the .Abcrcia
d(;'velopment. There \vere rrtanv changes to th.E' agreement including
postrlonemenl of developm,,-~nt ((JTlstruction V\'hich occurred latE: in design
(post 60',:,(, Phase) that ."vill rcquin.. significunt design changes. These iterIlS
include:
. Drainage conveyance system redesign for implE~rnplltation of a Joint
Lise Pond \\'it.~ the Abercia development. The original design that ,vas
at~recd to by tlw :'\.bercia Developer and Collier County shc)\\'cd. the
C,-)llierBoulevard Drainage System tying into their parking area catch
basins, This slorn\'vvater would then be transferred tel the pond via
their inknla] conveyance svstem. Due tel internal site conveyance
cClnsn-aints, thE' Developer reguested that tIle-" County install t..~eir own
>2,400 LF "trunk line" pipe to convey the stormwater to tht~ agreed to
Joint 'Use Pond. The County agreed h! this lTIodificahon and CII2J\.1
il:'";:, f';]. ~:6/\8
C::-.<'(:~'.i;'":: 2D10
r)~ c: 5::;
Attaclnnenl A
Chc:mgc Order i\o. 4
Coilier Boulevard {SR/CR (!511
Davis Blvd ~ SR :;';4) to .\Lin G:,)ldcn Catc Cm:::]
Pr()jc~'l ~o. 6000 J
HILI", 'iYllT be rt'i..HlircJ to rcdeslzn t:h:~ (1nsjt~ drair,dre s\'sl~m dnd
. ~, ~,
COI1VC'\'JIlCC'.
. !\ludifications to the J\.lasnulia Pond 1)r1v(:' and ~Joah's 'Yay
lntcrscchon:.; will he required due to :\bercia. Site Plan shifting
locations in the coordinate svstcm. CH2I\J I-lILL noted the l:~rr()r in the
Abcrcia Sltt' nan <lTh_J buth Dt,''\'ciDjl('r o.nd C~}I2rvr HILL will be
required to nlOdify their design plans.
. County Planning Dq)artmenl requested tl1at C:U2M HILL prepare
conceptual design tlltf.'rnalivl's (a 3-Iane ,md 4-Jane rOdd\.vay) to
realign l\1agno!in I'ond Drive ttl accoTI1:.nodate initial roachva,r/ site
planning as wl'll as future T()(l(h\'ay/ site rlanning to minimize
unnecessarv initial costs and fuhlrE' tbnn''''-,l\\'<--lY costs when UlL'
signalized int(';"s('ction ''''"IS l'v~"ntua]Jy moved t() the City Cate
\Jorth/,\]oah's \V,TV jl1ters~'cti()n,
. PrC'paration of dOCUI1H'ntatil\ll uf df'lin;~gl:' ,--:alcul3,tions for inclusion
intn the /\lJl'n..~ia Permit submittal h) SF\VTvTD and revisions to Collier
Blvd Pennit dUl' h~ the changc'd .^~bcrcia Pern,it submittal,
. I\e\:lsioll.'- in the pdclwav <1J1\:.1 berm lrCdhll'.:.'nt hetween i\Iagnoiicj
P\lnd Ih'ivc and Ntldh's \'\'(1\ I(l dG,-\IUUlodatl' th(;' Abefcia
UC\"l.'l(\}'cl-'s f.,"qucst in tJrdt~r ie' m,1\:i1l~jzL' tl1L'ir sil'~' parkin~~ 'i\i-tllout a
H'-(I:.'sign un Ult.\lI' pM! \\,jll(:h l~(J'...ljd hd\,t~' J.iI'~'ct(..:d th~::ir l",isting
,1~~Tt'i..'r;lcnt \.yith tllc~r cumml.'l\~i,~l dicl':,t.
.. l)rr'ri;1rd~i\ln (ll ((In("~'p:~uai Ci,Tl\'('Ydncc' S~\'~;ti.-'l1ll Trea,nH'nl Pond
['J',::.'SigT:, ~\l<liti C(ddt'n (.-.~,lt~' Calla] LJitch i~Tl;..rc)\.--',:'nH:'nts for 1\1:; ~'t:ngs
~lnd C (lcm..il;'h,;,i::mv,lth ~:'\\[\,;~)
~ hT'!,a:".;;tiori ,}] i:liticll" ',(1]1\;1,',',]11('\' ~\ ')h_~m Clnd pond lksign JLH,' hJ
:J I~ .. ',; ).~, t',- i,', . J'. \ '_'j, '1 ,_':- p'
((\'"i.,<rLl,;'UC:-1 {j ;h,~>
('. \~ )::E'!^ '-. ,".1:1;\ !( 1; :::::;i.I" ~<'J:.::;tnictinn (\f tit'" /\hc'rci,' p:"'}jhl
:::1h_; (IU::;,;, 1T\ Ull'I:-
.
i ::~-'
...!
';','.' ( \\\,)"1 ,'\''-lL liul ]-:;:1\", dJicicir1dh-'J ::~;c
cll:::nl~\'S l"l,Ij" ,::hangl'-" tn U:.'~~ !\berc:a D,~\\,'C'lcpme;-Lt
gF-". ;T\'5j~ \'\';tl: 1- D:11'.'r Ceu:-.'" (lLd ~J-:l1S di(~ riot include' the dlll1',re
t::Sl<~:; :1\.';-'
l1:~. :,~sL ::. ',1;i. ~:l::~L'F :..:'-\\..:~:ir;~1J1<l] S~T..ii.:"'s.
)'j,,-c,-,"':' '~',)L"- .\1: j;,! l~'/'S F.lllH'skd i::H1:::,d~ir.. benci'itL_,-! Cul1j'_'f
(\llJn!y <~,c, i.',ut of L:l':' '\.l"~'rcI.1
'\gn:"'.;.'!11ent.
.. S"'f,,:j.,","e
:i' ;:n;1.::7!.' f;'".
\"i,
;i'-Cllionc; alll! ",>timil:- '::'
,....
['-:,J;::j
:.\ 1~: c. \\' ,l \.
".!t\_'lTlclt:l",:.'" ;,y' \
"1l::':;::(;;, ',:
~, 'L.
"_ u:
\.\::)\
: ~y ~~ ~i :)Ii., ; ):ll' ;:::;-1-1
" :;,
'I:';\-".'';l' ':1.<"
f\98nda Item ~,jo. 1 CAS
October 12. 2010
P298 22 0' 58
Attachment A
Change Order No, 4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 951)
Davis l3Ivd (SR g4) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Pro.ject No., 60001
Drainage Design and Conveyance Systenl Changes; Signalizution
Design" Permit modifications; Surve~v, ROVv' Sketch and Descriptions
and I\lap revisions,
d. City Gate Blvd. NfNoah's Way Intersection Improvements - 519,826.66
. The original scope of work \\'as re~,isl'd during 60% Design to design
the City Gate Blvd, North/Noah's Way Intersection as a Directional
Left lntcrsl~ction \vith Collier Boulevard as opposed to a signalized
intersection, Collier County Planning requested this due to the
County being delayed in securing an agreement vvith an adjacent
devdoper (City Gatc) for a portion of \\11ite Boulevard (private road)
to be transferred tn the County. In additionl ch,mges associated V\rith
the delayed construction of .\Joah's vVay by the Aberda Developer
also contributed to the need for directional lefts from Collier
Boulevard NB and SB,I\1ultiple concepts for lane configurations on
City Gate Boulevard North ;:lnd Noah's IVay were developed.
. After discussions \vith TEC.rv1 Design, Plarming and Traffic, it was
determined tha [ tl tis vv'QuId be included ill the project bid plans as a
directional left inLersecticll\vith Collier Boulevard with ula,jmunl
typical sections built (but initially striped out) to cconCJmically
aCCOffilTIodate the interim condition of hzrving directional lefts
(f.::'lnpUl"dry) at this intcrst'ction as opposed to the pennant-:nl "futun:"
5i;11d1.
. The mcdidm; of Collier BOUlevard wil! be designed fur initial
dircctiona1lcfts tlal v,'ouId acconlInodatf' a si~;nali2l'(1 int~rst'ction
,,\'tWIt I: is l\:~('(mfi~~,ured in tile fU1ure with n1inl:nl:D1 thn1\^'" a\VJV
ce,sts, The foundtltlcms Jor the futurcsisnalizcd int'.::-rsC'chcms \,\'ill be'
dcsif-:,'TH.'d and h\,-~dtcd to ,:;vuid constn1Ctiur: i:,;sucs and utilihr conflicts
in UK ;,Jtur,' \'\'l'~'r:, tlH j;)un-:l<;-;:-i:J:l::; ,,_,-,d ,,:^C in::;tilIL'..:l.
. nl~' <.; O)";f)lli::l SC\:.l} )(, ',l[ ",:u1'1, cuu:d nut hJ.\'t' ;::ntitjp~ltt.G. Lilt,
vc:riDus a]tcrnaLi\\~~ and conditions that \\'il1net'd to be prcpGred and
<:Kcommod;-li:C:'d alE: tu ~h[' c1-janging de\'~~Iup[:'r ugE)'2m('nts and plans
(causel': I11{.stiy h.:- CCOTlOn1\C' c()nJitio:1S)_ 'r:~l!S thE': sn1p~' did not
~llcludt' the aOC'\"E:: tasks. nj(~rcfore, this LEiSk is cCIlsidcred :\dditi()na]
:;crVI~:["S.
. SC'fvices requin:'C; te finalizl' tJl';: pLil1S, spccifi:?:tic-'Tls dnd cstimat'~s
incIude pn'pan1b()1' of m:l1tip]'._' Cunc'~)Ftual D;;sign .'\1t\:;rni1tlV(~2i und
~'\'dluation ')1 traffic ()l'(:r(-~bons. Onc,,-~ an alr'-.:;IT,~lti\,".' is imFnlv~d:
K;)dd\\"<:l',' .
- ~~!>crion, fidn i\nd
("~r()~,'~ SeCQ{);lS,
Signing and Ivlc:rjdng. CO[h:'~'pt: Sig'"1iaE:ta'cion.
L\C1811da item No, 16AS
~ Oct:mer 12, 2010
Page 23 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No, 4
Collier Boulcsard (SR/CR 051)
Davl, Blvd (SR 841 to Main Golden Gatc Canal
Pmject No. (,OO()]
e. Evaluation of Existing 48" Water Main under I-i5 - $5,993.56
. The proposed widening design of Collier Boulevard under the 1-75
structure ,,,,,'ill result in a portion of the existing 48" \'Vater }"Iain being
located under the proposed left turn lane from Collier Blvd 5B to 1-75
5B. SUE was perf0n11CU to verify the depth of the line,
. Upon investigation of the existing utility It was found that the depth
of the 48" water mam along Collier Blvd 5B under the 1-75 Bridge was
shallower than shown on the As-Built plans obtained at the County
Utilities offices, Instead of 48" of cover shown on the As-Built plans,
U1CfC 'vas only 36" of ({lVCr (per SUE Investigation) in some locations,
This meant that the proposed widenin[; would result in a 100 ft
section of the pipe having a lllini111Um depth of cover of less than 36".
. After meetings with Collier County staff, a revised design (Design
Change No.1) was prepan'd which showed that the 48" pipe could
fClTIZlin in place with lOll' of the pipe locJted under the left turn lane
trom Collier Blvd SB to 1-75 5B. This lO(] ft section of pipe had a
minimulll depth of lUVi;:'r of ,':14.5" to 36". County rUED initially
agr('(~d to the sulutiun and it \VdS prc-senteLl to the FDOT.
. As a stipulation oj their approvaL lhe FDOT required profile and
cn~ss slope cha.ngt>s i{) thE-' cnllcppt (Dt'sign Change No.2) to
eHrrdnate tJl~' existing !clW point from bctlVPf'n the 1-75 NB dnd 513
structures,
.. The rcJ!;~~jgn was curnplcteJ drill appn)\'ed h\' FDOI', hm.vever,
Cd1icf Count\.' peED indicz:ted that the cover and loca.tion ('If the 100'
of i-lip\' \vas not .1Cl.'~'l't<1hlc and would requ;rc it 10 ht~ relcK.'ated.
. Due to th'o:.' '2~,:ccssi\;Ct. cost nf n::lPcal1ng the existing .J8" \Vatcrline, the
lTKJT agT"'l>l~ tCI ,; r('du..::h(~:l ()f i-}E' pnlPd"vd len,e;tll of hlfn lane (so
th::' c):tsbng .:Job" \\dt'cr main \vcndd not bl::' under the turn lane and
also a~;T::>vd to dcccpt d lIt_'sign \ arianCE' f~1r Ule Colli'~r Dlvd SB
lTJ;:;dv"',,n'. This required a third r.~-'desi~~n of the roach-va)' under 1-75
(DesiSl1 Ch.-:.ngc >..'0, 3).
. 'I'he ?r::)i~'ci.' s original scope of v.:ork could not hav~~ dnticipated the
iSSllt'~: ,~ssociated v,'ith v:~t,'nding the k,lt turn lane an(1 the rC';'.llting
sub-standar(~ Cllvef on the l~xlsbng .Jt," \\:'dt'~)r :main since Il() utility
inv:::sbgaliul1,,, v,'er::' done bernI".-' th,,:~ .'--,\ opt' \\',1S develurwc; ;:lnd thus
did not include thl' a.lxn.'l.' :;::sks Th::retofc, this tasl..;, is considered
\~Llitional S'.:';'vi<.cs
ti S:~'rvic~'s r'.:.'Cluin,J to rin3lizc and obL:dn the FDCiT Pcrnlit.s include
Cil()j'jmd::-iC);l, J\ll't:hngs. F'il'Jd !n\'(~stigations, lHillty ?1-LJ rVlodeling
,'l,;lenja lien. r~o, -ICil\'3
CJc:::Jber" i ~~ :2Cl0
2~1 Of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No, 4
Co!iicr Boulevard (SRlCR 951)
Davi, Blvd (SR 84; to Main Golden Gate Canal
Proie.ct No, 6000 I
Cost Estiutates. and Roadway GC'ometr~y Changes (Typical Sc'ction,
Profile, Cross Slope) and Eoadway Plan Changes (Design I, IJcsign 2r
Design 3)
10. Collier County Requested Improvements for Future Development: Due to
continued growth and development, many site conditions on surrounding County
FOOT and/or developer projects change during the design period which requires
redesign efforts. This is required in order to make the projects compatible ond avoid
future throw-away construction by incorporating the changes at a later date, These
changes generally require additional coordination, design survey, design analysis and
revisions to the construction plan documents. Additional Services that are required
and will be provided by the Engineer include the foilowing:
a. Beck Blvd Realignment and Addition of Right Turn Lane - 530,440.33
. Rased on tl1e ROW restrictions of Davis Boulevard, the Davis
Boulevard lane geometry was revised by the FDOT Consultant TY Lin
to renlalll within the existing RO'y\.' and an eastbound !Tee-11m\'
"nnnp" ""vas designeJ behind the cOlnmerciaJ COTI1cr parcel. /\s a
result, Collier County requested that the alignment of Beck Boulevard
be redesigned to better align 1vith the fi"vised configuration of Davis
Boulevard.
. Collier County' Planning also rC'quest~xl tha~ a separate right turn lane
fo-; Beck Boulevard be designed at this time tn accOll1modatc the
.tul:ur(l traffic demands of Beck Boulevard
. T)-:is additional right turn lane v,rill rc(}ujre <Jccess man;igcmcnt
cnange~, a.nAainlng \\-all tu reduce rj~_;hl of \\.ay irnpacts to the
dd'iaCt'llt: COinnl{-T~.ia] dev':l::pnlent, eli'lC; the !":-'quin'TnCllr fnr
an:j11isi-j(11l ill =- n~'w FO'iV In:hJ';lnn of th~'.'v' clwnges \\'iLh
this prujectwuuld reducc' "Lhro\v dW:dY" costs and tdi:ninat.~ llnpacts
1n the' COni'~T-neck inkrs',~c:tion in ~hl' fUi'UTt'.
. 'The' projt~cf s original scope of V\"ork could nt1[ ha\/'~: nnticipated thE'
late chz.:ngc.:-; tCl Dc:vi~ BouJ.:'vard chie to RO\,\r l<;SU(~S :ac'ed by the'
I:nClT dIld ;1"1c nHldifi,-~db~ms liJ 01-:cL [)(\llk'vard r~',-]ll',~s[ed bv C:ullicr
Countv Planning to accommodate th~_. i:uture n";('~cb of Becl(
B()'u]e\C;1rd. TltJ~n:{or('r this tJ.sk is c(1r.sid'.~red l~dd.iljOL~l~ S('r\'i~~'2s
.
Sl'rvi.~~'c:~: r~:quir~"d lu finelLzc tll'2 pLUb, sp'.x:ifictiLion~: eme: I2stimdtes
in::ludc RCiil(hvav S(';~bcc;, TJlan ;],2-.d ~,'n,fil(;', Cr('s~,
5~'ctjur:s, ~;igni;lg ;mu J\larLrni:',. i~:.lanbb,:'s); r~,,-,Lai:".ing \\:all
./\, C'c'S" \,'L::,1i':1~t.'nH'nt r('\'i'~L)'ns Draina~:t TJcsi,71. F'criT'.it
,n,genda item No. 1DAB
Octoheri2, 2010
Page 25 of 58
AttachmclltA
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRfCR 9.51 )
Davi:; Blvd (SR H4) to tv1ain GiJlden (~atc Canal
PWlect No, WOO I
modifications; ROW Sketch and Descriptions and ROW Map
revisions.
b. Future Beck Boulevard Extension Drainage Revisions - $9,616.98
. During design of the Phase II Plans (60%) CH2M HILL was requested
by Collier County Planning to revise the size of the drainage trun.k
line and proposed dry detention arCJ to provide ildditional capacity
in the storm water drainage system to accommodate the fu ture
expansion of Reck Boulevard to the ear.:;t.
. These revisions \vould elin1inate the need in tile future to n10dify the
drainage conveyancE> systcln.
. The project's original scope of \vork could not have anticipated the
request made by Collier County to accommodate the future needs of
Beck Boulevard, Therefore, this task is considered Additional
St.:rvict's
. Services required tn finalize the plans, specifications, estimates and
permits include DrainagE' Design, Drv Pond revisions and Permit
111odificatlons.
11. Resolve Surrounding Property Issues; During construction, issues arise due to
stakeholder concerns that need to De addressed in a timely manner to expedite
design and construction on(j/or convey a positive public image ossociated with the
projf!ct. Concerns and requests from adjacent property owners are received and
reviewed by County and project staiffor resolution. Additional Services that are
required and will be provided by the Engineer include the joliowing,
d. Addressing Eminent DOlnain Issues with Property Owner ~ $21,37331
. During Pcsign of thE' FDOT Din-is Bnuk'\'ard Project and Collier
C 'DunL"\' Collic'r Bnuif.'\'ard Projc\ct d:': ddji:l:.:c:'nt pro?'.:.'rty owner un the
north\\',--',,! CO:Tl'..:.\}" ut C~1111'~'r gl)uh.'\'z~rd and Davis Boulc\yard contvstcd
ilh'111in:n1d.) RO\Y /\cquisitinll {'~:(lnli.'l' dtFl ,.1l HL'~\ir prop<:~:-t"\'. The
C()~ll1ty n'qtl~'~;kd th<:lt C;-I~!\: j iILL r,.:.'\'j;~"\y FCJ\Y w~t'ds, prVpi:Ht'
e'<hibirs, d(,\'.~..lor alil'rndtivc. con.:..~''-.'pLs, ,1110 generat.C' plans ior
g",ometTV, sl,<;nin<; dId marLin>". drilindi'" and slgnalization that
,"jrlriii{'<:; (-jH~ Iwt,d {nf ~hl-' 1'n]1111'n:1111 RC1,Y dccp:isit-ioTl. The servio:. to he
prClvidt.'cI b~' C}-l~l\tf 1 In~L in.:iude:
!vic',.~~i!l;' .\n'.J:hial1c',' \"it]; C ()....~nt"\ dnd FIX;"],
\illlbvh. Cn1L(T'hs'j '.:>'c':':;lli:h::n
,(\,genda Item No. 16A8
Clctobe'-12,2CJ"10
Pa';J8 26 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRJCR 951)
Davis Blvd (SR S4) to ~1ain Golden Gate Canal
Project No, 60001
o Three (3) Deposition ?\.1eetings ,.vith laV\l'er~.
() Prcparatic;m and Attendance at hVQ (2) Court llearings
o Changes to Design Plans to address Judge concen1S
o Reviews with FDOT to review revised signing plans and turn
lane geometry
. The project's original ~cope of work could not have anticipated the
prDperty cnvner contesting the minin1al ROvV' Acquisition at the
corner and the request of Collier County to assist them with
defenuing the Eminent DmIlain case. Therefore this task is considered
Additional Services
. Services required to address eminent domain issues and finaLize the
plans, specifications and estimates include Field Reviews, rvleeiings
with County CJld FDOT, Evaluation of Site Plans and Gpometric
Design Alternatives, Preparation for and A tlendance at Depositions,
Preparation and /\tlendance at Courtl-learings, Olanges to Design
Plans, Eeviews with FDOT.
12, SFWMD Additional Permitting Requirements: During the Permitting Phase of the
project, the SFWMD requested that the project survey limits be extended to include
~he entire FOOT interchange infieid area as well as the outfall ditches up to the box
culvert crossing locations. Additional Services that are required and will be p.rovided
by the Engineer include the following:
a. Additional Survey Required for Extension of Project Drainage
Limits - $28,322.64
. As part of the Origini,:l Scupe, the ar:bc:ipatt:'d sun'(~y boundary \vas
li1l1:i:ed t,:") the (,~xL'nl c( the propost'd pll}!sical conslruction
improvenlents utilizing tJ1C' existing FDOT drainage {aciIitit~s.
. As a r,;:~suH- of our initial d~~;ign 'Irork, it bc::camc apparent that the field
conditiuns along 1-75 wilhb FDOT RO\\ had been modified uVer U1e
years and the FDOT ditch L:Jciliti~s ""'ere cl-wnged from their original
(:oncept.
. in addition, Sf'\Vi',lD lS requiring prcpa::(ltion EiJ1d subm.ittal uf a
signed dnd s'~:..11ed lopugraphic survey for thE' linllts cf permitted a"'~'3
nI' to and including E:U extsting and proposed oL'l::Idlllucations. It has
be.::C'711l' !l'.;~Cl,'ssilr.\' to L'xic!\d the Iimit~~ Cll the iniLiill S!..:fVC:\'" te, includ~'
U-t'.' lirnil's Cli' the c,,:isbng fLl(}T Jr,::una!;~~ to the potential outfall,
-whi~:h is IClcatcc ,lppF~xinl(:tel\ 40UC fc;x}~ rrOIri tll,:' Prc'j','ct: area, tD
r~',Cl~:rlcJa !tern hio. 1 ~i.6.,8
, CJ:::te;ber ~2. 2010
Pc"\;1e 27 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Bouie\'"rd (SRJCR 95 J I
Duvis Blvd (SR 84-' to Main Cinlden Gale Clna]
hoject No. WOO]
verify flo,^,' direction and set thE' n10dified f're-design conditions ror
this project.
. This is required to provide CH2M HILL enough information to
complete design to SFWMO and F[JOT requirement' so they would
review and approve tJ1{~ Permits.
. The project's original scope of \vork could not have anticipated and
did not include all the survey that was being required bv SFWMD
and FOOT. It would have been unrealistic to foresee that the SFWMD
would insert the requirenlent for a full topographic survey to the
outfalls during the initial project scoring. Therefore tilis task is
considered Additional Services
. Services requin~d to gather survey data, finalize the plans,
specifications and t'stin1ates and obtain SFWrv1D Pennits include site
visits; extensive field topography surve?; coordination and
incorporation ot new survey data into the original project terrain
model. Drainage D~'sign changes, drainage calculatinns and Pernlit
mc\u.ifications,
b. SF\VMO Dewatering Permit - 59,994.91
. During the Permitting Phase of the I)esign Contract, Cullier County
reqll(~stf'd that cr12~T lTTLL prppJff' a D?\vatering Pennit for the
Pr,'jecL. Typically' this is a req uiremcnt of tile construction cunlracto1',
hut the County requested that due tn the SF\Vr'vID changing permit
r,_,'quin-'menl-s, f.~:'l-l2r\.IIIILL. pn.:pan.:' the pcnnit to expeditL' the
prucetis. CH2Ivl HILL v;il! pf'::'piUt' d I k\.-vdtering P'..:~rmit which \,vill be
subn1iUcd \vi1..h Ull' Cullier Boulevard Enp (Pennit) [or the project.
This T~!;lrr:1it will h'_: L1\'dilable for the C"onb"ador to us'.: (0':' mcdify)
when the proj'_"ct g('CS 1,1 consb-l1ctiOD
. The pn>j;._'cC::; orizinal score of \I\'u1']( could not have anticipated these
~crvices v,:hich \vere r'2quesled 1'1:1 Cullier County during the
Permitting PLilSC. fhis decision \\'<.1.'-; !lli:ldc to helr -L]w Contrador
during cunsh-1Ktior; and aVi:1id pc:tC'nti.:ll proje.ct constructioii delays,
Therefor'~o th15 task is cC"1!1s1dep.d :\ddi tional Sl'n.'jc,~s
'" Sc:'rviCt",: to prvpan' and. nht~:in the lv,Tmij include De\\'dtering Plans
Prep21rdtion: D;ainag~~ CalcuiahclT1s and Preparation of f)':,:v\>atering
J'ermiL,
:3. Utilitv Design and Relocation Services: During the S:::Opi:ig of th:: desiQn of this
Droject it WG5 aqreed to bv Co/l;'2," Cou.'-:t\' o,'ld C/-i2fvi ,I-lfLL to cxdude cel'to;n design
Agenda Item No. 16A8
October 12.2010
Page 28 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 951)
Davis Blvd (SR 84) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 60001
elements due to the uncertainty of what would be required. It was agreed that the
Utility Design and Relocation Services would be added to the contract once the
actual footprint of the project was determined and impacts to existing utilities cau/d
be evaluated. Only utility coordination, research and minimal SUE services were
included in the initial scope. The Additiona/Services that are required and will be
provided by the Engineer include the fol/owing.
a. Utility Design and Relocation - $160,001.30
. Once the project typical section, geometry and drainage facility
design was agreed to and conceptually approved by the County,
FDOT and SFWMD, the actual impacts to the existing facilities were
determined. To construct the project in a limited ROW with existing
and planned development adjacent to both sides of the roadway,
relocation and! or modification of the following utilities will be
required:
CASING EXTENSIONS (ON EXISTING PIPE) I
ITEM STATION RANGE LENGTH I UNITS i COMMENTS
24" CASING 800+02 62 LF , !
, !
I 30" CASING 838+52 31 LF ! !
, I
I ,
60" CASING 801+02 25 LF r i
NEW PIP:;: CmiSTRUCTION
I ITEM I STATION RANGE LENGTH UNITS COMMENTS
- ;:~-
10" FM 837 +81 TO 838+05 38
I 30 I I - -l
799+97 TO 799... 98 LF
812+75 TO 818+73 618 LF I 321 LF OF 24" CP,SING REOUIRED
12" F'M 836+61 TO 638+24 186 LF 152 L.F OF 24" CASING REOUIRED
-------- I .'--'-"-'~-'~--
838+ 19 TO 838+23 39 LF ,
I
i TOTAL 878 LF
I i
I -.- ---,
837+08 TO 838+57 209 LF 91 LF OF 3D" CASlhlG REQUIRED i
I
, 16"WM 838"48 9 LF
i I TOTAL I 218 LF
.. c c c c " - . -
-~-IiTSI--
! 20 V,M
~""V\I~
1791+69 TO 823+041
i 838+35 ~O 849"37 I
~_L_.._..____.___.._._~_.
3079 i LF
116G i LF
43::;1 L, OF 30 CASING R!:::QUIR:::D
85 LF OF 42" CASING P.:=QU1RED
:{~:;:ri r':ClE-~:'\8
:~:~):Yj: :~ 20'1 J
?'~> J! S8
A.ttachment A
Chant:"c Order No. :1
Col]icr Boulevard !SR/CR 9511
!);l';j:-, Blvd (SR S,~l J to Y\/Iain C;nldt'il c;a~~~ C;.;.n:d
p;-('iC,Cl ;'\:(1. (,OOO I
S2ci+ ~ 9 TO B38,53 i
~_L~
52 ~F
i
P 7 I " OF 48" CASING REQUiRED
3C"Wh.'1
845+42 ro 85G- 70
551 LF
TOTAL
I
I 602j LF
"._,.~~--_._,-
. Tht' pn)j'.."d's original scope n{ work specifically excluded these
services. Therefore this task is considert'd Additional Services.
. Services feyuin:d tll gather aJditional SUE data, finaliz.c' the plal1s,
specifications and estirnates and obtain DIP Permits include
meetings, planning, evaluation of n:1ocatiol1 limitations, additional
SUE Investigation, preparation t)f T\plocation Design; Plan/Profile
1'lan revisions tu nlinin1izt' impacts; Ctility Adjustment Slleet
revisions; Cross Section revisions and DFP Permitting.
14. Reconfigure Plans, Specifications, Bid Tabs, and Estimates into Two (2) Bid
Packages: The County has requested that CH2M HILL break the Bid Plans for Davis
Boulevard Project (FOOT) ond Collier Boulevard Project (Collier) into 2 separate
projects. Project I Lirrlfts consist of the entire FOOT DaVIS Boul'2vard Project and a
portion of the Coflier Boulevard Project from Davis tu f/fagnolic. Project!/ consists of
the CoJ/ier Boulevard Project from f/iognofia to AIJain Gofden Gate Canal. The
/J,dditionai Services tha~ ore r::'yuired ana' ~'Ji/! be provided by the Engineer include
[fIe foflowmg:
c1. r\econfigur~ P]ans, Specifications, Hid Tabf;, and Estim.ales into '1\\'0 (2)
Did P ad('J.ges: 522..002.44
.
Sc;'vic~s L'quin'd tll iindlizl Llli.:\ plans, Spt'ci;icahons ~I:-ld estimates
,:-:h1 l);lcain i j),. )Ci !','rnl-:ts JTl,'h!cII' me, -"~';)(,:':ri()I'. (If PL'..i'!..'
I :;,'ll;"l,'.',d:;"n ,)~- nnri~y: :imit'-) \\-;:hin th._' 1 Pr:-1j,_,:,: P;,::n:j, '""_'Tla:_",::tinn nf
'-;cpcU',--: il ~)n d: L,:, tjn,ci k:,. r)r'~TI:Lj"<lb( '11 oj SCpdl"J.tr
"',_'~ ,:r;(! ljjd~,;bs. :'\tL:lC!1m\ ~lt r; in:_j-ud,--'.:;; J
.'
~i'c'tcl!;,,-';J hrdb1(\\'.n
!"<'cjuir".d ~d~,Ls dnd d:;s(<i<.:L:l; J.,)\"_'I I)f c_,f{(1:-'t.
:5. Fir.al Signalization P~al1s for CoBier Boulevard-City Gate North intersection: The
:':-our;t}! tI:<s r:?qu9stcc that Ci~i2t\/J HiLL rrcpa,~c Final Signaii:!otion Plans for the
Future Signafjzed Inr'3tsectiCIn Co/!>::>r Boulevord end Cit)' Gate Drive North/t\i:Joh'_'1
V~:'()\f. Tho:: Aridlti:Jrim S0.'!Vi::C.', tnc}~ arc
and wiii {]';:' provider.:' by :h'!. Engulf._'er
jndudf..~ the? fof/owinp'
~L }:iI:ai .sip1aliz~tion Pi'-ii"':< 1m Culli~:i" Bml1::,",,:rc;-Cit\, l.~a:.t !....:o,th
1::1 ter." ectio I"'.: S2:;:, 1 til..:;-,~
!-\oenda Item No" 1 GAS
'-.J:tober I 20';:]
p(;~ja :Jf 58
Atkchment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRfCR Y51)
Davl~ Blvd (SR 64) to I\1ain Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 6()()()]
~ Services n~quired to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
include rneetings, analysis! and prep~1ration of Signal Plans, Details,
Quantities and Estimates. Attadunent B includes a detailed
breakdown of required tasks and associated level of effort.
16. BCB Permits (Requirement of SFWMD): During review of the Project with SFWMD-
BCB, BCB indicated that even though the project was not constructing anything
within their ROW limits, a Permit would be required since we will be discharging
storm water into the Henderson Conal. CH2M HILL will be required to prepare and
submit a BCB ROW Permit. The Additional Services that are required and will be
provided by the Engineer include the following:
a. BCB Permits (Requirement of SFWMD): $7,003.89
. Services required to obtain Bes ROW Permits include meetings,
coordination, preparation of ROvV Permit and Plans Submittal.
Responses tn conlffients. Attachment. B includes a detailpd
breakdown of required tasks and associated level of effort.
17. Plan Revisions due to Delay in Abercia Site Construction: Due to the current
economic situation the Aberica Development will not be moving forward with their
planned development. The Coilier Boulevard Project was utilizing portions of the
Abercia site for drainage storm water treatment and attenuation. CH2M HILL wil! be
required to modify the Project Plans to construct portions of the latera! ditch svstem
~vith the Cother Bouievard Project to treat and con vel' oroject run-oft. The
Additional Services that are required ana will be provided by the Engineer include
the foliowing:
a. Pian Revisions due to Delay in Aberda Site Construction: $19,928.90
. Services required to finalize tlu: plans! specifications and estimates
and obtain FDCyr and SF\,\'l\1D rr::nTlits incIudt' 111'2t:'hngs,
Luo::dinauof\! revisiDns topn*'_d Plans Cross Sections, Quantiti~~s
end Eshrnfltes and 5F\/'/:,'11) J-'errrtil Flans. Attachment B jncludes J
detailed bn:akdown Df r'~qllired tasks and associated level ~)f effort.
18. SFWMD Dewatering (Water Use) Permit Modifications: During the Coordination
and Revievv oftne Prcsi~ct Dewatering pf:'rmit s;=V~/rvlD (lli/mer Use Dept) requested
modifications to the approach a.id configuration of tht, u:?::nriE"nt end co!:tafnrnent
5/'stems. A Te::hni::ai Reoort i.vifi a/50 bE rC'quired. Cf--f2f'-v'11-!!U I/Jiti be reauired to
conform to the reGuests in order to obtain a De~"\/at'::ri:7D Permit fo,~ the Project.
::::;;-; i'oj:;,. 1 :';':\C,
':):; ;;~'(;! ;:~ ;2C110
:11 c162,
Atts.ctJ:a:el,t :\
CL~:lr<:.:.(~ Orlkr :\n
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 051 )
D:J\'j.., Bh'u {SR g4) to l\!i~lifl Goldc!1 C;:(tc C~;)];JI
Pn';~(~l ~<u. HI;)OI
Additional Services that :He required and lvil! be provided Of! the Engineer include
the jollowinq:
a. SFWMD Dewatering (Water Use) Permit Modifi:ations: $1Z,3!!9.14
.
Services required t(l (lbt~lin ~ll(, Dcwilh:ring I-\'fmits includes
l"?vlsiuns tu PC'nr,it, I\'nnit Plans dnd Calculations, Preparation of
Tcchnical Rt-'f)(lrt. :\ttachrrlt'nt B includes a d('taih:~d breilkdown of
required tasks and associated level of effort
19. Retaining Wall Design- Lateral Pond Reconfiguration: During the Coordination and
Review oj the Project Permit, SFWMD requested modijicotions to the conjiguration
oj the treatment and containment systems- lateral ponds to provide additional (50%
based on juture Permitting Reguiations) treatment and storage. This required the
reconfiguration of the swales as IIvell as the addition of retaining wails on one side
of the treatment swales to eliminate the need for additional ROVV (since it was not
available). Ch'2M HILL will be required to conform to the requests in order to obtain
an EliP Permit for the Pr:Jicct. Additiona! Services that arc r-:!quired and will be
provided by the Engineer includE th~ fo/towing:
a. Retaining Wall Design- Lateral Pond Reconfiguration: $2.3,152.86
S'--'r\"ic~':> n'q,rirecl te, nL'tdin till' SF\\'i\,lT) [rzp I\'fnlits in('1ude
n"'-viSlOllS to L:te:::aJ I )itch ) >c'SJp;, Cross Sectiolls, dnd QUdntiti('s,
Pn'!1dfi'1tinIl 'll' T\d:iinill;~ \\:,di PLp1<.;, C)l;,m1"ii'i~}" ~Ilid E<;timaL's.
.'\tr.:h::1!I11('nt B incilldt.'.<; ,1 6ctaiJc.d bn:_';~L,I(i\';n uf n-:qujr(~d ti.1Sl:S dJld
,1,<::sc1c;,d-ed Jc\cl ,:j ,~,tt(,:.t
20, Typ::ai 5e::tion ~)zve:nen: Moc;;j::c:::io:1s Unde~ [-70S: ::;'~':-i.'~'q t:::? Coo.'"ci,-;cti:;,"': cr;c'
Review of the Project Permit ;:DOT (HDF?) requested c:ddiUonoJ dl''Oinage modeling
Efforts assoclcted with tne Fie::overy Anaivsis, Based on the requirernents, tf7e
/:;t[:o/ punds reloined run-o/r Jonp::::- than previous!)' ..iiode/::d and thercfu:-e
c/earan::e to pavr;,"Tierit b:::SE
bel::,vv occ:?mOD1'! ci~Joths. To accommodate the
new modeli.r";Q, the .ncvem::~r:1 typico'!'1;:-'c:ion wc.c: ,'('\'i'.,,:'d co j,'Ic/ude ('hiaeh D:JSr.;" in
Cf:'rtci.'7 arees ~vhich cr~)Video' tht" required c!::":-;rn"lcP C'---f)f'.,f', ,-{ilL (','iff h~-" r~'auir::,d:,o
confo;"n! ~"O th::-.' r':!q:_F!5fs in ordc_.";' ~o clt<:::in 0 ,~JO-:- P~:r'; iit for- :-h::' PIDj::,'c~,,!J,c'ci"U:x;c'd
5!:?n,icss t/;at arE re:JUlred une iiiil! b:-' t,l,'ovi:i'.:.'c/ iJ\1 the ~n(:ineer inciudo::. rhe
/o/Iotvir:;;:
item f\Jo, -1 tlA8
,]:::Cb9! 12.2010
3:2 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRJCR 951 j
Davi, Blvd (SR X41 to Main Golden Cate Canal
Project No. 60001
a. Typical Section Pavement Modifications Under 1-75: $7,912.32
. St'rvices required to obtain the FDOT Pemlits include I\-1odeling of
new Recovery Analysis, Changes to Typical Section and Cross
Sections, Revisions to Quantities and Estimates, Attachment B
includes a detailed breakdown of required tasks and associated level
of effOli
21. Services During Construction - Shop Drawing Review: The County has requested
that CH2M HILL provide Shop Drawing Review assistance to the County, on a Lump
Sum Basis, During Construction of the Project. Additional Services that are required
and will be provided by the Engineer include the following:
a. Services During Construction- Shop Drawing Review: $25,269.80
. Services reyuired include coordination \-vith Project eEl Firm,
Reviev,' of Contractor Shop Drawing Submittal(s), Response to
Submittal(s) (Acceptance/Comment/Rejection), Coordination witn
Contractor, Ivlceting Attendance. AttachlTIE'nt B includes a detailed
breakdown of required task(s) and associated IevE-l of funding
2:2. FOOT 100% Comments - Design Change Requests: During the FDOT review of the
100% Project Plans, the FDOT requested changes to the Plans that would help
accommodate a future planned FOOT Project. These changes ore related to clear
zone issues andfuture /-75 ramp improvements and inc!uded Bridge tvlfounted Sign
Panel Modifications, UghUng Relocations and Signal Redesign (1 location). The
Additional Services that are required and will be provided bV the Engineer incfude
the folio wing:
a. [DOT 10011,/(1 Comments - Design Chang'e Requests - $62,115.36
. Services n~yuir'.':d to findlizt:' the plansl ~pt':cification~ and estimates
and obtain FDOT ?ermits include ~n',~('tings, an2.lysis, ('valuation of
relocation ]jn1itation~, additional SuE Investigatiorl. prqJaration of
Lizhting Plans, Signali~':crli()n Plans, Bndge J\lnunted Sign Pian::.;,
resubmittal of fI10T Permit {or Approval. :-'\lta(~hn1t'nL D includes a
detailc.d bH~akdO\vn of required tasks and associated (evel of funding
23. Expert Witness-Deposition: The County nos r~que5ted that the Ch'2{v! HILL EOR
(Fronr Scerbo) be made available to assist the Cour;ty (ora vide expert witness
services) with any issues or ciaims tnot rnoy oris::' during the ROVI! Process.
!L-~:T i'h. : '3i\~:,
::::):-::T'_-;!:~'~;;rI2 2C:1(\
of :3B
Attachment A
C'hange Order .\0. ..:+
Cu~lier Boulevard (SKieR l)5J)
D:li'j" Blvd (SIZ h4J 10 !\/Iain C:;clld::'1l CialC C,-mal
Pnl_iccl.:"-JO, ()(}()(}J
Additionai Services that are required and wili be provIded by the Engineer include
Ule followrng:
a. Expert Witness-Deposition: $12,250.24
. Services rpLJuin~d indudt"~ !\1eehngs, Preparation for Depositions
and;"';- Court AppedfclTICes. Attachment B includes a dt'tailt'd
breakdc)V\,,'n of requIred tasks and associated h~\.!el of funding
24. Services During Construction - Miscellaneous Services: The County has requested
that the CH2M HILL provide assistance to the County on a Time and Materials Basis,
During Construction of the Project. Additional Serviccs that arc required and will be
provided by the Enginecr inciude the following:
a. Services During Construction - Miscellaneous Services: $100,295.94
. SC1T1CC'S rcquirt:.'d include I\JC'ctings, r:('spc1nsc to RFI's, Field
CDordin.1ti(m, and rcquestC'd I )~'sjgn Ch2.ngcs During Conshuction.
/\tt<_J(_:hmt'n~ H inchldes it deLli>_"d bn.:.'dl.;,duwn of n:~quin'd tasks unci
assocIated level elf funding
PART 2. - Prolect Schedule:
Changes to FrnjE-~('l: Schedul,,,-, - [0 he IJt'ter'mincd
r,~BT_.::._- Exclusions:
:::"::;r\'!ces oth,.:.'J' thdn th(>.~,c
j,.,1' thi..;; ChiJ.ll~l' (irdc:'.
nealh ji,;j~_'l~ ~lb()',,"_\ ',Of' J1C<- :n~:1ud,-=,d in the ~'c!p'.:~ of \\.'crk
PART'; - COrvfPET"'\~SATI(_;~
Summan' of Costs
i
_________,.....J
r'p"'-70' 17 I
...O..i, 0...
I
,
l~~i~~ and- Ma~'~~-j~~ TaSk(S-)-;';~-~4------'-'
Lump S~uTl1ask(s) 8~22
--.--.-------.--..-...-----..,--
!
L
S112.54€,i8 i
70T AL Cost Change Ord8~ Ne.';' I
,
,
2950.3~--=.35 J
~\~dcJ:.nlu1t r; 1:!"IC1Ud\'::-,.: ;lU1\: d'~<,l:L '.1 [)] ~'dL~L )\<'-1: \'j th,," ;_\;_'~-ll:;L:~'s and C\l~jLS
,\.'.,,',o:.:i,::kll \';iiJ~ th,,,: c.bc\'\,
~ ); {~,
Aoenda ITem No. 16/\8
, October 12. 2010
- '-'~1-' ~'1 ,)f 58
Collier Boulevard (Davis Boulevard to Main Golden Gate Canal)
Change Order No.4
CK2M HILL
Attachment B
-----,-----. I
I i
!. LEAD
SENIOR i PROJECT ENGI
REVIEW I MGR PE:,,~IT
LEAD
DRAFT~ERK
TECH 'STENO TOTAL HRS
LABOR COSTS
'ES
TECH
DES.
TECH
la~k# I TASI( DESCRIPTIO'"'
CONTRACT RATES I ~ 147.S~' !, \32.42 i $ H)~d14 r 90,25 I ~ 72.50 S 53.21'1 $ 5i,JU
Task 8 ~ FOOT Design and Permitting Flequiremenls (Lump Sum)
19<:,254,49
1 ask lla -1 YPH;al Section Revisions and Hoadway Recteslg-n Due Iv FOOT
CommenlandApproVllls
i) ConcuDI"al tJOSlonAllamativec
2 T IcHiS~CI,,,,' f'acKac;wF1evlSiOm;
3,I,caISncl,,,ns
4; Sumnlarvof [Jramaoe StruClure~
51 Plan and P"'limS",wt~
cj[)ra,naocStruclUreSi1eels
'ilCrossSect,ons
e.\lSIQnH" anrli-'uwmomMafk'n
[<)Ulil'lvPI""S
'0) MOT ptans anll (Jelulls
11' CJuanliliesar:dCostl:st,maies
1~) P'()'ecl Ma,,~oar"en1
13:,Sanallza\<on
1411Waler Ma'l<lQaman: [je~,qn and ERP P~"n'tllnq
1:.d[),a,n3(lc['"s,qn
-~~=~;
:52
"
'12
"
Ta-skflb.Prep.lflllionolan FOOT Inlerthang.e Analvsisand Operalion s
~epor1 snd MethOdology LeUero/Understanding
plMLOU
~) Tral'le An~lyS's
3\ SvncroMDdel'naaf1oi':val~allon
411keortllOARi
~ ho'e~t Marl" arrla"t
610A/QC
Ta"k8e,AtltllliO"sIFDOTParmltlingRaoUlfem<;>nls
l)IUflvewav(;onneCTicni-'arnlllanr)Pla"S
~\lUlili'V Permllwi!tl Plans
J,ISI<l"aILzalloll'S'~lIlllq ~,,(j l,jw~""jJc,()I\I,no ""..,nlll CUlc! Pi",,,
4', ProPec'Manatl~mem
I "~I UA'QC
'"
:C:l
I;'
,
,
I~ ,
, -
" i
" ,
"
m !
"
,
.
BCo ,
"
"
~4
'" -t-
o
0
J:,
,
8h
"
'"
526 , ,
"
12 ,
"
.
10(1
<0
"
~2
"
,
"
"
, , -
'1~
"'
"
11104 $
...-
, ! '" i
i 1[,
2<'
Jli
~I'
H'
1~
!'4
,
,
1110
"
;'4
]2
"
:10
,
~
--
'"
"
:<:~
"
'"'
1M
H'
" 0
.
20
21' ,
17 _.
'"'
23,735.54
11~~-O
3?-+te+-4irl-
30 12 24
30 It,' 31
1:; I
1_, !
,
i 0 I " 317 " 31.85G.31
1h
I "
iC
I ,
1[.:(;0;'[,1
::'Qiil'" Ci...." ~Iy,: C', ."co t'.I!eI I,,.~,,n ,~,(.IcJ,"
:':0,11;1,_ '-Ilit.!_ IE (~_ I JoJ(;1[, "~ ,:.i(
..~--~-~-
191 1$ :'1.37331
I
CalHer Boulevard (Davis Boulevard to Main G::>lden Gate Canal)
Change Order No, 4
CH2M HILL
Attachment B
U
I Tasl;1: I
TASI:OE'SSRIP'fI('JN
c::mTRAcTRr,YEs
I I ,LIoAO LEAD I r'.-----.----..,.,-".-~-I..
! SENIOR I PROJECT I lONG' DES DRAFT, CLERK
i REVIE\~, MGR ) f',;pRIC~T ~EE:~H TECH i TECH I STEND TOTAL HRS
1$ 1~'(.9~!; 132012;1, '05_0~1~. 9(1,251~ 72_5011 5Z.2&1! 51.n
1ask 10" Collier County Requested Improvements lor Future Developmenl{Lurnp Sum)
I
36 ! S8
T:lskl0a_BeckBcul"v"rdA....,ipnmenland....dd;\;onoIRigh!T,,'"Lan e
"'I
:i--~
::F' j-
'(;
"'
m
1\:ConccPtJolt,lte,na',v<,';
~'I 1 Pleal Secllon
:~I ~umm"r 01 Uml<,a e SlrLJct.He<
",If'w" a~o Pro:u" Sheel~
-'-'~'"'naOeSlruc;ureSnew
f,\Ic..'o%S~CIIOns -.
7: S,(m'nc ~nd P'lVcmont Mml""G
GIWlll.l:zahonf'lansC"ordln8[10c,IUM'';:b'c,.,
uuant,t,esiCosl Ec~l<milt€S -,-
101 f--m'GctMunaaorncnt
IT dHsta,mnll Walls
121 Waler ManBoampnt [Je,;IO" ,,,..d c:tlPf''''''''I'I'''j---'
13,L'mlflaoau,,",an
14., QA'QC
, --'-1-'
I
i
,
..:t:=
,
20
p-
--'-'"1
:' I
. ..=f.
--l
';
-',,'0
,
,
1~
'_..L
"
+-
j-
'"
lasr, 10~, Future BeCIl !Jout..varlll:'.~l"nslon Dr~i"~Qe R{'VISHlr15
r
J:
-, -4 I
r-- I'; :
1 IIf~Qnr; Details
___,,_~ll["alna()e StrutTLJl6(JeIaH" . ..-
:,."wale, M'JOao"m~nt lleslq;' anti Ff'W r'W'~ "Inc.
31p,Olectl~a"SqernG!1I .----
0" QA.'QC
J~o
I t' I
I 1:, ;
rr,___~:_-_-
I 12
I
IT35k l1a - Address.ng tm1nenl Dommn 15StJC5wlm f'rooer!~ OW"",
I
t=== I nll'laelJnQ, V.'IHl COLJtllv G'ln f-~l(_'~l
,),'f--rap;"~llon ollvl'-'LtrDtu CQnGr'DI~
3';.ITh'~" GI D"~"",II"'-,lvI{!"i;"q"
4' Cil8nQee te' ue,,'Q[] PI~c~: 'Pe, JI.'aQ~ rem" ~1
toV"ll:alA rAVt%C ~IUI'''''(II(,~omo~r,1 ""\" Fll:JT
Tasi-; 11 - ResDlve Surrounding Propr:tt\'ls$ucs (Lump Sum)
------~--~~.,-
,
T
I ----1
_h--+_~
.......t~~--d
sn 1~~
_... -.. .:i:.J _J
, _L' L_
" (j'! ,
,.
Task 12 - SFWMO Permillin9 Requirement,> (Lump Sum)
,
Ir~sk .,20
lLimll~
!
,Aoclllional Survey ReQulrea tor EX;HnStr)[l 01 P'Oje:;' [lr~;T1~Qe i
~Dg
-,
~U{)
.; 1~"~:",~,, '""'1[1
!1'~:':iTi !':G 10:1,(;
:_:i.J:',)2i :2 2010
3:) of 58
lACORCOSTS
<10.440.33
I,
~,616,!I~
!,
iU.Jn,6~
, il. I,'",~",::
"~--..J-~-I-----"
!__~i
1-- --,~~'------<.;:;------ ~ _:---~~-"~-" --r---- ,...: ~ 16~.OC1.3c'
, ! I I .
-'--T::--:===:::=~:;"---i~- - - -. ""--- ----~=I~----=---=-i'---"-'"-~i.
: "'.; ',",' "e.. ------:-.-~--~-.-- -: I II"n
~--'~:;EjE......'..~.:J---f-,;~~=~=:::=! I
! .. .--_::::j-' ---- .=.=--.::::::1=-:....-=-=..::1 I'
_____-'----____L__ __~___L:._--'~_="'2_2-'-j
-I
~'2.'JO".~.1 I
I
I
I
I
,
.'-"----~__ ,I
,
--:5;:-~--;-~.,(';:;j
---------- 1
i
!
i
i:I"',LP,%:;,"V"" ~,
~(_f~.... ,
1-
r--.-.-
[Tc''''1n._.sFl'.'r.ml".watArin';F'crrr''i .. ,
r:=--~~i~;;~~~-;::',:: ~: ~~;';,~~~;~~::::=:-----~==--=~-=-j=~-~:=_L~'~--~-=l.
I.__.____~__"_._"....'__._m_____.__~~_.__.__..m___."m _._.._
,
,
_----.ll'
I 0(1 i 0.1,
u,[== ;- --=:-_=--='
"I!
l'.O
,(I:"
,:::51::3 - UliIit_y D~si(]n and Re!ocallor: ;:krvj(;es (Lump Sum)
rl ,.~~ 1:1" . 1I1itily f,eincalion De';'pt
,1P1:,,',;,wf'm:."" Snn[':
^;';V"_.,,;"i;';:-;:icIIO;.." ---,---
[.--J)II:':..':~t"'I()C~.."'" i ''''~''', __.____~_..~,.
L____~~,q"".I~".':'::!.~_~c~:"_____ I
I ','I'jUon;il"',,"'::'u'!c'iIr'li't'-
L :',i"f'''C!I''JJ.~(JC'l'crl__-
j -----8B~J?~~"~~~~
:_~~I~;l:" S;:li'-I:;::-~~~ ~;lc.L.'~0::.!!L:..C~:...~_____
,
L.-.._.,,__,_____
TasK 1': - Reconll[]ure Plan<., Spe:::lljcallons. f;i::.: Tabs am: ~stimates into Two (2) Bi::J Packag<'s (lump Sum)
1.1"51, 14'_ "He~nnTtQ"'c Plnn,. Inln IW(j :;') G",
:,~:,.'
j(i
bG
".j
22<1
,--~c(o.",,:.,;": ');"". .,18"1
-----------:-7ifwv",' ,~"(J~,~n~~"-;;; I;;~", ,-,,-:- ,
,-.Ik;'-;;:S(-L:;;';;;;;,;'-I:>::--~';:--- ------- '"
;,'Ho'."'c'" (.:."~,,,,7,,-, ""0 l' (J; ,",1' ;:'. i',.""
'j:!_'~~!..'.'..',!::?,?c'-'_:""'" ,,;-;, "~~~WJ 1'~~'2.'L~':
I ;-,:ir''''Dote I",;: '~: :,e:" r..~ 10" ,<,,,'
1___.' .,.----'-j;"'VIS~ t:'I_y:;"~""t",,.
__~_.__ _t.:~!Z': 1,.18nW"l'"'1tt:l. ~""""'2."2-':c.....__
.... ..,-
, ,
.--..----
-~
_._--~---~------+-----
-em!
, ,
-------.-..-- ,,- -_.;----~.--I
,.. . . .....--1
---'-',--,.__._-_._._._-~
-----.--1-_-.- ....._.___.________~__~__._
'-1
<, , : ~ i". ';; .
l':tsl.!::; - lOin,,1 ';'[In;o,liZilliOl' Pi~ll$ for- ::::Dlli,,, Blllll(>\!fmi-CI1~' Gale tJGnh inlersec:jion fLwnr, Sum)
1'i~.o.I; 15, -rill," S",n~Ii~",il'" for","", .,," ~,("IIC.'-.:it..' ci,." 1',,,,1
IlnIH'~ctlcn
"I
:"C'-',!,Z~"- "I'"
-.-----
'-;"'~I'a:,Z,::;~" c:,,'"'
L~.=-':'~=!
i"!"",..:;n"~,,C;."-,i1,,(
---,G:::-':;I,'" _.'.'::'~,=-,-~ 'j~
!$
() ~<.,4.9 i
----I
1$
t\29nda t2m r~o, 1Gf\S
" C)C ober '12 2010
Psge 36 of SS
Collier Boulevard (Davis Boulevard to Main Golden Gate Canal)
Change Order No. 4
CH2M HILL
Attachment B
SENIOR I PROJECT I ~~~~ I LEAD OES DI~AFT CLERK I
REVIEW I MGR I P;:~~T ~:gH TECH TECH S'TENO TOTALHRS I lA80RCOSTS
I
Task/4- TASK DESCRIPTION CONTRACT RATES " 147.951 , 1n,421$ 105_041$ 90_251 , 1"2.50 , 53.26 , 51.78
'.' " Task 16 - BCB Permils (Requirement of SFWMD) (Lump Sum)
Task 16&- aC8Pllrmil~ , , T " " , , . " , 7,003.89
1 I f'ermi~ Plan Preparation 2 " "
?IPermiTPreparalion , . e 8 , I
":HeSpDmlIOR!l.l's , , ,
Task 17. Plan Revisions Due to Delay in Aben;ia Site Construction (Lump Sum)
la",k17a Plan Revl5lon~ DUll 10 Delay in Abercia Slle CDn"lru~lio" , " ! " " i " I , " 210 , 19.928,90
'1 Uralnaae !l.naIVf,I~ ., . " " ,
~I Plan -Shlffit ReVISions , , I I 12 8 I
31 CrO.S;;'IICIIOnf1fWlSLOrl, , , . 12 ,
".OUAnllr..."..ndEsllmRlflB , 12 1;' HI
51 :::RP Pl1rmll'lrt(l MadillGat,on, , , 12 , , ,
, FtJOT Perm:llInqMcOIiLcal,on, 0 , , ,
7"1 ROWfle\%lons , , , ,
, Task 18. SFWMD Dewatering Permit Modifications (Lump Sum)
lnsk1!la - SFWMD Dewelering Permit ModlfiCR1ions ~~ ~~----r-:~:T , , , '" , 12.389.14
',:"e,"S'011'; '0 "",proael' ilno C"'clllal,o"~ c , , Hi 1C ,
21Iif1(;lnlonoI175inlleloAreas{4 Pon(l~.,in f-'om,,' , 2~
J,IPreparallolloll>ewaler'1qrwporl .- - . , "
Task 19. Retaining Wall Design. Lateral Pond Aeconfiguralion (Lump Suml
l.ask Hla - Flela;ninn Wall Oeslpn,Lalaml POlld Recontlgumlloo ! , ! 30 ! " ! eo " , , T ,,, !' 2:1,152.86
l\'Or~'''il"e Analv,;," , , , ,
21 LaleralUltr.t>ReoeGiQn I ! , ,~ 1 ~ " I I
" R~lwnin W"IIUeslon , I 'i , , I " I I : j
4\ Pia" HeV1Sl0ns , " " , 2" I " I i
~I Cm% SeCllon Madillc..tlon~ i -+-'- - I " 1 :~ , -
I 611C1u..nMIBS and i:.Sllmaler 'r; I ~' 1 12 , I
I ~
Tilsk20 - Typical Section Pavement Modifications under 1-75 (Lump Sum)
1 I , , I'
T"51<2U3 TypjcaISeclionP~vcmenIModificalion5underi-75 " " " '" 1 , " 0 i " 7.!l12_32
___~,!L'I h~~y.,,~~'~!y~____ -
,.--,--.---- -~...~.. C__ ' J. 1 I~ : 1:- 1 1 ; , 1
2i1Cnmm' TVl1i~a' Seell"" 0r.rl Crn,' Sf' "O~ u , --~,--=----- . r-~-F=.l .~ T~~ ..---=--r---~=--+ --r
~ "liOuontl\.csandfoSI"nete,' I
u.,____ - -- ~.._-_. --_..~...._---_._---~-_..._---- -.., --.,.--..----.-------.-
Task 21 - Services During Construction ; Shop Drawing Fleview (Lump Sum}
--- -..--- ------~ --~"'---
ITm;t ;1.. - SmVlCe,. During Construct"", - Shop DmwJng Rev,ew
~--!..Ut1~,ew 01 3"or.,,,awlnos.S',,bml1lals
~r
I '_',
6U
fill
i~
1..2'__i~
'"T
:'38
I
I"
!
I
,.",,,,",
I
~~--
'"
!r'
L- Task 2.2. FDOT 1()U% 8onJment!'o - De5!~J!1 Change ReCluest~ (Lump Sum)
h~!<k22~_FDOT100%CDPnnlenIS"[)e"i~nCh"n,'eR"qut!'.>ls 36 '1 '~~52 -'P-;;:l-~~-' i
liI1..'OI1:1P1C<HHQes'qn"rl"Dr,'_ln~f"lmpEct" _.~-1 4-~ =t~ 4[, ~
~ ~:I~~:~,~~:~~r;:,_R~~~~~" V"jllw; LL'ffilr'oW, H"llif" I ~: t---H I I
^ dS'ona!!Z3Hon hede"'<l', ICollle.' :Ao""""~' ------=~"___ .. -+- r.:.' 'i'i..L_ iH' I
5118",jQel",olln'eCS1!Q.2'~I,:~tl~-'--!ioG!J:1~_____m___i___~_,-t..___!1 1~'.~ 1_:-+ ~-
3a
61"
52,'10.56
10
1( I
I
I
,
i$-
IX
"
I
15.1'4_2B
5.173.80
4.2~39';
':1.21'/.5B
G_3!iS::'!'1
TaSK 23 - Expert Witness.,Depasiljon (Time and Materials)
-~---------:----"-I-~''-'---~T~'''--
ITasl:23a ,EXllel1 Wltness,l)"o,,~illon Il)avlsi:;olllCr f'~rccl) ~__.,i_~_L-~_,! ~J
I 'IH,Ae"~lnq..l)..pos"I"". _____.__ I ~if ._....i_. .C.__I
~Cu"'r1l,t}nea'''rlce.~",,pa,p.I''J' ,L~~_.__-------1______~
I
-~T I"' I,
I .
-J==l='-___I
,-0",1
~.- ,,~ '
I
Tasic 24 - Ser\!ice~ Durinn ConSTruction - Miscellaneous Servir;es (Time nod Ml1terial~;) i
ITask 24" - S"rvj~es D"rjn~ COPlstruCtiOfl - M.~~"iI"np.()lI" Services 7()' ~jU,~ ! 2~.~.;""[. '," :" r '" 1 "J_ ',',..', --l:;: - loa.?g'ig, 1,
',I/,IL~'L' ?'Q'eZII'~iG" af' ,In.; ~rocm~c :AO'.,lI'.'C ~_, ,'- I
~::~,:~:~nQ'~~i~~;, .,"~u~~~__ ;2 .L :(;0 : ~~~ .L_l~_~~~~:",__L_J,~ ~~; I
I
!CHANGE ORDER NO.
4: TASI~S 8-22 (LUMP SUM)
,
! ~
837.784.171
CHANG:: ORDER NO.4: TASKS 23-24 (TIM!::. AND MATERIAl-5)
I,
112S1~.:[
TOTAL ::05T CHANCE ORDER ND_ 4: n,SKS [;-24
Is
r~C,33D.3c'
:o.c.;"
Pi/ -;:)~ l;~.,'
"c,r'.;0!()<-';C'C,:01n,--'_'-.""
lttl"
irem I\jo. -16.i'I,8
CJCTob.::;r 12. 20 -I 0
37 of S8
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE OF SERV1CES
FOR
CHANGE ORDER NO. ..
TO
CONSULT1NG ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR
COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 95]) SOUTH EXTENSION
(Davis Boulevard to Main Golden Gate Canal)
PROJECT NO. 60001
October 6. 20] 0
111e CONSULTANT has been requested and retained to provide additional engineering
services associated with final design and completion of construction of the Collier
Boulevard South Extension Project (Davis Boulevard to Main Golden Gate Canal). TI1ese
additional services are based on various design revisions and scope of work additions
requested by the Collier County Growth Management Division Transportation
Engineering Department to address the changing needs and conditions along the project
corridor and to confom1 to adjacent development agreements. In addition, some of the
additional services are required to match" As-Built" conditions of surrounding projects
and resolve surrounding property issues. These services are necessary' to resolve project
stakeholder issues (Collier County Transportation Department, Collier County Solid
Waste Department, Collier County Utilitv Department, FDOT, FHW A, SFWMD-BCB,
Abercia Development, City Gate Development), and finalize the project permitting and
design.
Change Order No... provides for the CONSULTANTS services to be modified to add
the following Design scope of services to Collier County Project No. 60001. 111e
following CONSULTANT Services are an addition to the original conh'act:
8. FOOT Design and Permitting Requirements: The following tasks are required as a
result of FOOT comments made and requirements stated during the FOOT review of
the Collier Boulevard Project Plans. The Additional Services that are required and
will be provided by the Engineer to obtain appravals and permits included the
following:
a. Typical Section Revisions and Complete Project Plans Redesign - Post
60'\1" Plans due to FDOT Comment and Approvals - $198,254.49
itsm No. 16A8
':.Jc1;)be: 12. 2010
32, of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 951)
Davis Blvd (SR 84) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 6000 I
. Prior to 30% submittal. a coordination meeting with FDOT Disb'ict 1
District Interstate Review Committee (DIRC) was held in Bartow to
review the proposed design for this project. As part of the discussion
at this meeting, the design exceptions for vertical clearance and
longitudinal grade along the curb and gutter were addressed. Initial
comment from the FDOT indicated that although a design variance
would need to be submitted for both, due to the excessive cost of
revising the existing condition, approval would be recommended.
. Desi~ Variance 1 dealt with the fact that the existing vertical
clearance under the 1-75 Bridge is currently substandard (16'-3" vs.
16' _6") and the proposed clearance would be at 16' -1". Variances for
vertical clearances under 1-75 were previously granted by FDOT to
Collier County for other projects, so based on the excessive costs to
remedy the situation, approval for this project should not have been
delayed or denied especially since resulting clearance was greater
than the 16'_0" minimum.
. However, based on discussions witll FDOT after submittal of the
design variation, the potential for approval of the design variances
did not appear to be forthcoming.
. After discussions witll TECM it was agreed tllat CH2M HILL should
redesign the plans to lower the profile at tlle 1-75 Bridge to provide
16' _5" of under-clearance in order to obtain FDOT concurrence with
the design in a timely manner and preserve the project schedule.
. Design Vafiance 2 was to due to the fact that the existing profile of
roadway, would not provide the required minimum longitudinal
grade when the typical section was modified from a rural section to
an urban section. Curb and gutter was considered in the initial design
for consistency since exclusion in this project v\'ould have resulted in a
0.75 mile gap in the curb through the 14 mile corridor. In addition, it
contained the drainage runoff and provided a means for raised
sidewalk along the corridor.
. To modify the longitudinal slope in areas tllat did not meet standards
would require completely re-profiling the roadway during
construction at a cost in excess of $2M (>10% of the overall estimated
project construction C<lst).
. However, based on discussions Witll FDOT after submittal of the
design variation, the potential for approval of tlle design variances
did not appear to be forthcoming.
. After discussions with TECM Design, it was decided that
CH2M HILL should revise the roadway typical section from urban to
iIe:Ti l\j~J
'3/,8
:::?C :J
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SIVCR 95 I)
Davis Blvd (SR X4) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Proj eet No. 6000 I
,.'l_""
~) f",",
suburban and to redesign the plans in order to obtain FDOT
concurrence with the design in a timely Inanner and preserve the
project schedule.
. The change in typical section from urban to suhurban \-vill require
CH2M HILL to modify the Drainage Design along Collier Boulevard
and to revise and expand the Basins to acconlmodate the revised
roadway design. Drainage areas V\,ilI change, drainage modeling "vill
change, calculations will change and Pennits will need tel be revised.
. TIw project's original scope of work and 60 % Design assumed that
due to the excessive costs of 111aking the required 111odifications to the
existing condition, the FDOT would approve the Design Variances
requested since silnilar variances were approved on previous projects.
Also during the initial coordination meeting with the FDOT, they
indicated that approval would not be an issue. CH2M HILL
proCt-'t'ded \-vith design based on that understanding. Therefore this
task is cOllsiderf'd j\dditional Services
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
include: Numerous Conceptual Design Alternatives, Complete
Roadway Re-Design - rost hOC~" Plans (Tyrical Section Package,
Typical Sections, Plan and Profile, Cross Sections, Signing and
Marking. MOT. Utility Plans. Quantities); Drainage Design; Drainage
Calculations, and Ahercia Developnlent and ColI1er Boulevard Pernlit
modifications.
b. Preparation of a FDOT Interchange Analysis and Operations Report
(IAOR) and Methodology Letter of Understanding (MLOU) - $23,73554
. At the coordination meeting with FOOT and FHWA at the ~O'\,
design submittal, FDClT indicated that a Ml.OU and IAOR would
need h' he prepared and appmved by both FDOT and FHV\! A. This
would be required to ensure that the planned in1prnvenlcnts in the
FDOT Limited Access l\OV/ w()uld cnnform to thE' existing
configuration of the interchange as \vell as the rOOT "future"
planned improvenlents to the interchange. 111E' FDOT \vanted the
County's Consultant tn prl'piWE' both documents. The Count}' agreed
to have CH~M HILL prepare the doculllents.
. T11C project's original scope of work could not have anticipated this
FDOT request for services and thus did not include the above tasks.
Therefore this task is considered Additional Sen'ices
. Services required to finalize and obtain the FDOT Permit include:
I\1eetings, Data Gathering, Coordinahon with FDOT Consultants
working on Inil'rchange Planning Tasks, Interchange Perfonnance
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRJCR 951)
Davis Blvd (SR R4) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 60001
i\g8nda ! tern No, '16/\8
October 12, 2010
Page 40 of 58
Analysis, Traffic Modeling, Synchro Analysis and Report (2)
Preparation.
c. Additional FDOT Permitting Requirements (Permits) - $31,858.31
. The design and pennitting of the Collier Boulevard Project requires
extensive effort with respect to coordination with FDOT and FHW A.
For Approval, the FDOT has required that, in addition to the
Drainage COlUlection Permit required for discharging stormwater into
the FDOT ROW, CH2M HILL will be required to submit the
following three (3) separate Permits:
o Driveway Connection Permit with Plans
o Utilities Pern1it with Plans
o Signalization/Signing and Marking/Lighting Pennit with
Plans
. TI1e project's original scope of work did not anticipate having to
prepare and submit three (3) additional (Drainage Connection Permit
was assumed) Permits for the above mentioned portions of work.
Based on previous experience working on projects within FDOT
ROW, it was assumed that copies of the applicable plans would be
submitted to FDOT for their files upon completion of design.
Therefore this task is considered Additional Services
. Services required to finalize and obtain the FDOT Permits include
Coordination, Meetings, Project Plan Changes, and Preparation of
three (1) Additional Permit Packages.
9. Match to "As-Built" Conditions of Existing and Concurrent Projects: The project
plans are developed on information available at the start of the design process. Due
to continued growth and development, many site conditions on surrounding County
FOOT and/or developer projects change during the design period which requires
redesign efforts. These changes generally require additional coordination, design
survey, design analysis and revisions to the construction plan documents. Additional
Services that are required and will be provided by the Engineer include the following:
a. Conceptual Alternatives and Revisions to NW Corner of Beck/Collier
Intersection - $33,306.56
. Due to ROW Acquisition concerns from the adjacent property owner,
Collier County requested that CH2M HILL prepare various
alternatives for the NVV corner of the Davis Boulevard - Collier
"""', :';:' G;\S
Attachment A .,. ')8
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 95 I)
Davis Blvd (SR S4) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 60001
>c., v~-:-s:- :J
Boulevard Intersection and evaluate the ROW rt'guirements of each
alternative.
. Numerous concepts will be prepared and from them, three (3) Dual
Right Turn Lanes alternatives will he designed using various size
design vehicles (WR-50, WB -62 etc.). The ROW impacts of each of the
alternatives will be evaluated.
. The altel1latives will also need to consider the FDOT - Davis
Boulevard \Videning Project (being designed by TY Lin) to evaluate
and provide sufficient ROW for the Intersection Signalization.
. TIle changes being made by T'r'-Lin to this intersection and hovv it v\'ill
be constructed require lllnnerous changes to the plans to account for
desigrl changes, signal location cllanges and maintenance of traffic
(MOT) phasing revisions.
. 1l1E' project's original scope of work could not have anticipated the
property owner contesting the minimal ROW Acquisition at the
corner and the late changes to the TY Lin Roadway, Signal and
ivlaintenance of Traffic (2 tinles) Design and thus did not include the
above tasks. Therefore this task is considered Additional Services
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
include: Site visits, Conceptual Alternatives (3); Roadway Design
revisions (Plan and Profi10); Drainage Design revisions, Sketch and
Descriptions and RO\V t\1ap Revisions; Coordination with nl Lin,
Signa] Plan Revievv !\iIOT PIan revisions.
b. Utility Drivejl\1agnolia Pond Drive Intersection Improvements -
522,716.23
. 'nlf' original scope of vyork VVdS revised during hO'?;-1 Design to design
the Utility Drive/ivlagnolia Pond Tlrive Intersection as a Signalized
lntersection with Collier Boulevard as opposed to directional lefts.
Collier County Planning H'ljuested this due to the County being
delayed in securing an agreen1t'nt ,vith an adjacent developer (Cit}1
Gate) for a portion l)[ \Vhite Boulevard (private road) to be transferred
t(l the County. In addition, changt's associated ,vith the delayed
construction of Noah's \Vay by the /\hefcia Developer also
contributed to the need for d Signal Design and intersection revisions
at the Cti1ity Drivcj\'lagJ101ia Pond Drive Intersection. Multiple
concerts for li.lJ1e configurations (m CnIller Blvd. as v"lell as on Utility
1)r. were developed.
. .~fter discussions ,vitJl TEei\1 Dl:sign, Planning and Traffic, it vvas
determined that this v\'ould be included in the project bid plans as a
itern No. '16A8
Q:::tc'ber 12, 20'iO
Page "'12 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 95 I)
Davis Blvd (SR R4) 10 Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 6000 I
signalized intersection with Collier Boulevard with minimum lane
assignments to economical1y accommodate the interim condition of
having a signal (temporary) at this intersection as opposed to where
the permanent "future" Signal will be at the City Gate Drive/Noah's
VVay Intersection.
. The medians of Collier Boulevard will be designed to accommodate
the signalized intersection in the interim condition while providing
for the future reconfiguration of the intersections to Collier Boulevard
directional lefts with minimum throwaway costs.
. TIle project's original scope of work could not have anticipated the
various alternatives and conditions that needed to be prepared and
accommodated due to the changing developer agreements and plans
(caused mostly be economic conditions). Thus the scope did not
include the above tasks. TIlerefore, this task is considered Additional
Services
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
include preparation of multiple Conceptual Design Alternatives and
evaluation of b'affic operations. Once an alternative is approved:
Roadway Design (Typical Section, Plan and Profile, Cross Sections,
Signing and Marking, Signalization, Quantities).
c, Design Changes resulting from Abercia Development - $37,386,89
The Abercia Development Agreement with the County has had a major
inlpact on tlle design of the Collier Boulevard project due to site
development changes, changes to Magnolia Pond Drive and Noah's VVay
typical section, aliglUTIent and lane configurations, as "veIl as the fact that a
significant portion of the west side ROWand Drainage Treatinent and
Attenuation re'luirements of this project arc directly tied to the Abercia
development. There were many changes to the agreement including
postponement of development construction which occurred late in design
(post 60% Phase) that will require significant design changes. Tllese items
include:
. Drainage conveyance system redesign for implementation of a Joint
Use Pond with the Abercia development. TIle original design that was
agreed to by the Abercia Developer and Collier County showed the
Collier Boulevard Drainage System tying into tlleir parking area catch
basins. TIlis stOlIDwater would then he h'ansferred to the pond via
their internal conveyance system. Due to inten1al site conveyance
constraints, the Developer requested that the County install their own
>2,400 LF "h'unk line" pipe to convev the stonnwater to the agreed to
Joint Use Pond. The County agreed to this modification and CH2M
i:'?;n1 i~'J. 1'3;;3
J:-_t:J!:ie~ 2. _~C' ~ 0
~j,' elf ~,E:
Attachment A
Change Order NO.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 95 I)
Davis Blvd (SR X4) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. (,000 I
HILL will be required to redesign the onsite drainage svstem and
convevance.
. Modifications to the Magnolia Pond Drive and Noah's Way
Intersections wi]] be required due to Abercia Site Plan shifting
locations in the coordinate system. CH2M HILL noted the error in the
Abercia Site Plan and both Developer and CH2M HILL will be
required to modify their design plans.
. County Planning Deparhllent requested that CH2M HILL prepare
conceptual design alternatives (a :,-lane and 4-lane roadway) to
realign J\.lagnolia Pond Drive to accomlllodate initial roadvvay / site
planning as \\Tell as future road\,vayjsite planning to minin1ize
unnecessaY~y initial costs and future throw-away costs ''v hen the
signalized intersection was evenhlaIly moved to the City Gate
North/Noah's Way Intersection.
. Preparation of documentation of drainage calculations for inclusion
into the Abercia Permit submittal to SFV\'MD and revisions to Collier
Blvd Permit due to the changed Abcrcia Permit submittal.
. l~evisions to the pdthway andhern1 treahllent behveen l'v1agnolia
Pond Drive and Noah's 'Vav to acconl111odate the Abercia
Developer's request in order to maxin1ize their site parkil1g without a
re-desihT]1 on their part \\'hieh could have affected their existing
agreement \-vith tlwir con1111ercial client.
. Preparation of Conceptual Conveyance System, Treabnent Pond
Design. J\lain Golden Gate Canal Ditch Improvements for Meetings
and Coordination with SFWMD.
. Preparation of "initial" conveyance system and pond design due to
the .Abercia Developer postponing Cl1J1stnlCtion of the deveJoplnent,
requiring CollIer Cnunty to indude cOl1sh'uctlnn of tIll' /\bercia pcmd
and outfall in the'ir project.
. rlH' project's original scope of \"'ork could not have anticipated the
requested design chi1nges nor changes tn the A.bercia Df'velopTI1ent
Agreenlcnt \yith Collier County and thus did 110t include the ahove
tasks. Therefort' this task IS considered Additional Services.
Please Note: All changes requested dnd 111ade benefitted Collier
County as part of the Abercia Developer Agreelnent.
. Services required tn finalize the plans, specifications and estilllates
include preparation of Conceptual Design Alternatives for J\1agnolia
Pond Drive; ~oah's \-'\'a)', Roadway Design (Typical Section, Plan and
Profile, Cross Sections, Signing and \1ar"king, Quantities); Significant
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 95 I)
Davis Blvd (SR g4) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 6000]
item NCJ.16A8
Octobe:"12,2010
4:.1 of 58
Drainage Design and Conveyance System Changes; Signalization
Design, Permit modifications; Survey, ROW Sketch and Descriptions
and Map revisions.
d. City Gate Blvd, NjNoah's Way Intersection Improvements - $19,826.66
. The original scope of work was revised during 60% Design to design
the City Gate Blvd. North/Noah's Way Intersection as a Directional
Left Intersection with Collier Boulevard as opposed to a signalized
intersection. Collier County Planning requested this due to the
County being delayed in securing an agreement with an adjacent
developer (City Gate) for a portion of White Boulevard (private road)
to be transferred to the County. In addition, changes associated with
the delayed construction of Noah's Way by the Abercia Developer
also contributed to the need for directional lefts from Collier
Boulevard NB and SB. Multiple concepts for lane configurations on
City Gate Boulevard North and Noah's Way were developed.
. After discussions with TECM Design, Planning and Traffic, it was
determined that this would be included in the project bid plans as a
directional left intersection with Collier Boulevard with maximum
typical sections built (but initially sb'iped out) to economically
accommodate the interim condition of having directional lefts
(temporary) at this intersection as opposed to the permanent "future"
Signal.
. The medians of Collier Boulevard will be designed for initial
directional lefts that would acconmlodate a signalized intersection
when it is reconfigured in the future with minimum throwaway
costs. The foundations for the future signalized intersections will be
designed and located to avoid construction issues and utility conflicts
in the future when the signal foundations and poles are installed.
. The project's original scope of work could not have anticipated the
various alternatives and conditions that will need to be prepared and
accommodated due to the changing developer agreements and plans
(caused mostly be economic conditions). Thus the scope did not
include the above tasks. TIlerefore, this task is considered Additional
Services.
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
include preparation of multiple Conceptual Desipl Alternatives and
evaluation of bAfic operations. Once an alternative is approved:
Roadway Design (Typical Section, Plan and Profile, Cross Sections,
Signing and Marking, Concept Signalization, Quantities).
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collicr BoulevarJ (SR/CR 951)
Davis Blvd (SR X4) tn Main GolJen Gatc Canal
Project No. 6000 I
:';!~b ':,:~~.: !-k" ';j. ,>
,'- 'l' ~:);'J
-';fj or :';,3
e. Evaluation of Existing 48" Water Main under 1-75 - $5,993.56
. TIle proposed widening design of Collier Boulevard under the 1-75
structure \\'ill result in a portion of the existing 48" \Vater :l\,lain being
located under the proposed left turn lane from Collier Blvd SB to 1-75
SB. SUF was performed to verify the depth of the line.
. Upon investigation of the existing utility it was found that the depth
of the 48" water main along CoIIier Blvd SB w1der the 1-75 Bridge was
shallower than shown on the As-Built plans obtained at the County
Utilities offices. Instead of -18" of C(1ver shown on the As-Built plans,
there was only %" of C(1ver (per SUF Investigation) in some locations.
This meant that the proposed widening would result in a 1110 ft
section of the pipe having a 111ininluln depth of cover of less than 36".
. After l1H::,etings ,-vith Collier County staff, a revised design (Design
Change No.1) was prepared which showed that the 48" pipe could
remain in place with 100' of the pipe located under the left turn lane
from CoIIier Blvd SB to 1-75 SB. This 100 ft section of pipe had a
minimum depth of cover of ~-l.5" to %". County PUFD initially
agreed to the solution and it \-vas presented to the FDOT.
. As a stipulation of their approval, the FDOT required profile and
cross slope changes to the concept (Design Change No.2) to
eliminate the existing 1m;\' point frenn heh,\'pen the 1-75 NB and 5B
shuctures.
. The redesign \vas cOlnpleted and approved by FDOT, hov.'ever,
Collier County PUFD indicated that the cover and location of the I ()(Y
of pipe V.'dS not acceptable and V\T()uld require it to he relocated.
. Due to the excessive cost of relocating the existing 48" \\'aterline. t]le
FDOT agreed to a reduction of the proposed length of turn lane (so
the existing 4H" \\'all'r 1113i11 would nol be under the turn lane and
also agreed to accept a design \'ariance for the Collier Blvd 58
roadwa\'. 111is required a third redesign of thE-' road-vva:y under 1-75
(Design Change No.1).
. llw project's original scope of \vork could not have anticipated the
issues assoclated \,vith extending the left turn lane and the resulting
sub-standard cover on the existing 48" \'Vatcr n1ain since no utility
investigations -vvere done before the scope was developed and thus
did not include the above tasks. Therefore, this task is considered
Additional Services
. Services required tn finalize and obtain tht::, FDOT Pennits i.nclude
Coordination, ~i1pptings, Field InVl!stigaool1s, Uti.lity :;-D i\1odeling
112m i'~o 16A8
'::Jctobel' i 2. 2010
Page 46 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRJCR 95 I)
Davis Blvd (SR S4) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 6000 I
Cost Estimates, and Roadway Geomeh-y 01anges (Typical Section,
Profile, Cross Slope) and Roadway Plan Changes (Design I, Design 2,
Design 3)
10. Collier County Requested Improvements for Future Development: Due to
continued growth and development, many site conditions on surrounding County
FOOT and/or developer projects change during the design period which requires
redesign efforts. This is required in order to make the projects compatible and avoid
future throw-away construction by incorporating the changes at a later date. These
changes generally require additional coordination, design survey, design analysis and
revisions to the construction plan documents. Additional Services that are required
and will be provided by the Engineer include the following:
a. Beck Blvd Realignment and Addition of Right Turn Lane - $30,440.33
. Based on the RO\V restrictions of Davis Boulevard, the Davis
Boulevard lane geometry was revised by the FOOT Consultant TY l.in
to remain within the existing ROWand an eastbound free-flow
"ramp" was designed behind the commercial corner parcel. As a
result, Collier County requested that the alignment of Beck Boulevard
be redesigned to better align with the revised configuration of Davis
Boulevard.
. Collier County Planning also requested that a separate right turn lane
for Beck Boulevard be designed at this time to acconunodate the
future traffic demands of Beck Boulevard.
. This additional right turn lane will require access management
changes. a retaining wall to reduce right of way impacts to the
adjacent connnercial development, and the requirement for
acquisition of 2 new ROW parcels. Inclusion of these changes with
this project would reduce" throwaway" costs and eliminate impacts
to the Collier-Beck intersection in the future.
. The project's original scop" of work could not have anticipated the
late changes to Davis Boulevard due to ROW issues faced by the
FDOT and the modifications to Beck Boulevard requested by Collier
County Planning to accommodate the future needs of Beck
Boulevard. Therefore, this task is considered Additional Services
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
include Roadway Design (Typical Section, Plan and Profile, Cross
Sections, Signing and Marking, Quantities); Retaining Wall Design;
Access JvIanagement revisions; Drainage Design; Permit
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard ISR/CR 951)
Davis Blvd (SR X41 tu Main c;"lden Calc Canal
Pmject !\Io. 60001
. !Ci. '!C:,':\B
')~~Lji>R' 1:~, :~(i 0
..:17 c/ :-<:_:
modifications; ROW Sketch Jnd Descriptions and ROW Map
re\'1SlOns.
b. Future Beck Boulevard Extension Drainage Revisions - $9,616.98
. During design of the Phase II Plans (60%) CH2M HILL was requested
by Collier County Planning to revise the size of the drainage trunk
line and proposed dry detention area to provide additional capacity
in the storm water drainage system to aCC01111TIodate the future
expansion of Reck Boulevard to the east.
. TI1ese revisions would eliminate the need in the future to modify the
drainage conveyance systen1.
. 1l1e project's original scope of \'\'ork could not have anticipated the
request madc by Collier Countv to accommodate the future needs of
Reck Boulevard. Therefore, this task is considered Additional
Sen1lces
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications, estinlates and
penl1its include Drainage Design, Dry Pond revisions and Pernlit
lnodifications.
11. Resolve Surrounding Property Issues: During construction, issues arise due to
stakeholder concerns that need to be addressed in a timely manner to expedite
design and construction and/or convey a positive public image associated with the
project. Concerns and requests from adjacent property owners are received and
reviewed by County and project staff for resolution. Additional Services that are
required and will be provided by the Engineer include the following.
a. Addressing Eminent Domain Issues with Property Owner - $21,373.31
. During Design of the FOOT Da,'i, Boulevard Project and Collier
Count,\-.' Collier Boulevard Project an adjacent property o\\'ne1' on the
northwest COll1er of Collier T10ulevard and Davis Boulevard contested
the minimal POW Acquisition (comer clip) of their property. TIle
County requested that CH21\1 HILL review ROW needs, prepare
exhibits, develop alternative concepts, and generate plans for
geOlnetry, signing and 111arking, drainage and signalization that
clarifies the need for the 111ininlum RO\V acquisition. TIle service to 'he
provided by CH2)vl H I 1.1. include:
f\/lt"t'ting Attendance \vith County and FDOT
l\1ultiple Concept(s) cvaluJtion
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRJCR 951)
Davis Blvd (SR 84) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 60001
Aaenda Item No. '16A8
.. October ',2. 2010
Page 48 of 58
o Three (3) Deposition Meetings with la",)'ers.
o Preparation and Attendance at two (2) Court Hearings
o 'Changes to Design Plans to address Judge concems
o Reviews with FOOT to review revised signing plans and turn
lane geometry
. The project's original scope of work could not have anticipated the
property owner contesting the minimal ROW Acquisition at the
comer and the request of Collier County to assist them with
defending the Eminent Domain case. Therefore this task is considered
Additional Services
. Services required to address eminent domain issues and finalize the
plans, specifications and estimates include Field Reviews, Meetings
with County and FOOT, Evaluation of Site Plans and Geometric
Design Alternatives, Preparation for and Attendance at Depositions,
Preparation and Attendance at Court Hearings, Changes to Design
Plans, Reviews with FOOT.
12. SFWMD Additional Permitting Requirements: During the Permitting Phase of the
project, the SFWMo requested that the project survey limits be extended to include
the entire FOOT Interchange infield area as well as the outfall ditches up to the box
culvert crossing locations. Additional Services that are required and will be provided
by the Engineer include the following:
a. Additional Survey Required for Extension of Project Drainage
Limits - $28,322.64
. As part of the Original Scope, the anticipated survey boundary was
limited to the extent of the proposed physical construction
improvements utilizing the existing FOOT drainage facilities.
. As a result of our initial design work, it became apparent that the field
conditions along 1-75 within FOOT ROW had been modified over the
years and the FOOT ditch facilities were changed from their original
concept.
. ln addition, SFWMD is requiring preparation and submittal of a
signed and sealed topographic survey for the limits of permitted area
up to and including all existing and proposed outfall locations. 1t has
become necessary to extend the limits of the initial survey to include
the limits of the existing FOOT drainage to the potential outfall,
which is located approximately 4000 feet from the Project area, to
:,:'-:fV I'Hl. 1 '~:':\2,
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 051)
Davis Blvd ISR X41 to Maio Golden Gate Canal
Project :'-10. bOOO I
; --:l,)i:'~:O:' ,,:. 2~:l:J
:1C: DC 53
verify flow direction and set the modified pre-design conditions for
this project.
. This is required to provide CH2M HILL enough information to
complete design to 5FWI'vID and FOOT requirements so they would
review and approve the Pennits.
. TIle project's original scope of work could not have anticipated and
did not include all the survey that was being required by SFWMD
and FOOT. It would have been unrealistic to foresee that the SFWMD
would insert the requirement for a full tnpographic survey to the
outfalls during the initial project scoping. TI1erefore this task is
considered Additional Services
. Services required to gather survey data, finalize the plans,
specifications and estimates and obtain 5FWMD Permits include site
visits; extensive field topography survey; coordination and
incorporation of new survey data into the original project terrain
model. Drainage Design changes, drainage calculations and Pernlit
lTIodifications.
b, SFWMD Dewatering rem1;t - $9,994.91
. During the Permitting Phase of the Design Contract, Collier Cnunty
requested that CH21'vl HII J, prepare a Dewatering Permit for the
Project. TypicaIl~/ this is a requirelnent of the construction contractor,
but the County requested that due to tlw SFWMD changing permit
requirements, CH2M HII.I. prepare the permit to expedite the
process. CII2M 1-1lI.1. will prepan' a Dewatering Permit which will be
submitted with the Collier Boulevard FRP (Permit) for the project.
This Permit will he available for the Conh'actor to use (or modify)
when the project got's tel construction.
. cnlt' project's original scope of work could not have anticipated these
services vvhich "vere H.'quested by Collier County during the
Pernlitting Phase. 'Ihis decision \-vas made to help the Conh-actor
during consb"uction Clnd avoid potential project construction delays.
-[11erefore this task is considered Additional Services
. Services to prepan.:> and obtain the pt'rnlit include Dewatering Plans
Preparation; Drainage Calrulations and Preparation of De\vatering
Pern1it.
13. Utility Design and Relocation Services: During the scoping of the design of this
project, it was agreed to by Collier County and CH2M HILL to exclude certain design
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 95 I)
Davis Blvd (SR 84) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 6000 J
!rsrn [\Jo. 16A8
:JcT'Ji)e~ ~i2 2010
~E1gS ~C of 5d
elements due to the uncertainty of what would be required. It was agreed that the
Utility Design and Relocation Services would be added to the contract once the
actual footprint of the project was determined and impacts to existing utilities could
be evaluated. Only utility coordination, research and minimal SUE services were
incfuded in the initial scope. The Additional Services that are required and will be
provided by the Engineer incfude the following.
a. Utility Design and Relocation - $160,001.30
. Once the project typical section, geometry and drainage facility
design was agreed to and conceptually approved by the County,
FDOT and SFWMD, the actual impacts to the existing facilities were
determined. To construct the project in a limited ROW with existing
and planned development adjacent to both sides of the roadway,
relocation and/ or modification of the following utilities will be
required:
CASING EXTENSIONS (ON EXISTING PIPE)
24" ~:~~NG 8::~;ION RANGE : LENGT6~~ ' ~:lfTS I
30" CASING 838+52 i 31 L~ .
60" CASING I 801 +02 J 25 L~
COMMENTS
-.
NEW PIPE CONSTRUCTION
ITEM STATION RANGE LENGTH UNITS
! 10" FM ' 837+81 TO 838+05 38 LF
._,- ._,-- f------
799+97 TO 799+98 30 LF
812+75 TO 818+73 I 618 i LF 3
-- .~...-._-
12" FM 836+61 TO 838+24 I 186C 1
---- -
~_:OMMENTS
I
j:~
, 838+ 19 TO 838+23 =r
TOTAL -.j
837 +08 TO 838+57
39 f LF
873 LF
209 I CF
~1 LF_~24" CASING REQUIRED
52 LF OF 24" CASING REQUIRED
--,-- -
I ---
!
I
, 20"WM
, 30" RWM
,
838+48 9 I LF I
TOTAL-- - T 21~ -~;--r' - -----
791+69 TO 823+24 __ . 3,079 LF 435 LF OF 30" CASING REQUIRED
838+36 TO 849+87 1160 , LF ' 85 LF OF 42" CASING REQUIRED
L,,_.
, 91 LF OF 30" CASING REQUIRED
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 95 I)
Davis Fllvd (SR S4) to Main Golden Gate Canal
ProJcct No. 60001
:i:::rn ,.lD ijl\e,
Cr~::..:J)e: ~'j :.:U':J
~) 1 c' f ~i ~::
36"WM
838+ 19 TO 838+63
845+42 TO 850+ 70
52 I LF I ~
-~-T 117 LF OF~8" CASING~~QUIR~D .
I
603 I LF ___J
TOTAL
. 'n1f' project's original scope of \'\'ork specifically excluded these
services. 1l1erefore this task is considercd Additional Services,
. Services required to gather additional SUE data, finalize the plans,
specifications and estimates and obtain DEI' Permits include
meetings, planning, evaluation of relocation liInitations, additional
SUE Investigation, preparation of Relocation Design; Plan/Profile
Plan revisions to minimize impacts; Utility Adjustment Sheet
revisions; Cross Section revisions and DEP Pennithng.
14. Reconfigure Plans, Specifications, Bid Tabs, and Estimates into Two (2) Bid
Packages: The County has requested that CH2M HILL break the Bid Plans for Davis
Boulevard Project (FOOT) and Collier Boulevard Project (Collier) into 2 separate
projects. Project I Limits consist of the entire FOOT Davis Boulevard Project and a
portion of the Collier Boulevard Project from Davis to Magnolia. Project 1/ consists of
the Col/ier Boulevard Project from Magnalia to Main Golden Gate Conal. The
Additianal Services that are required and will be provided by the Engineer include
the following:
a. Reconfigure Plans, Specifications, Bid Tabs, and Estimates into Two (2)
Bid Packages: $22,002.44
. Services required to finalize the plans. specifications and estul1ates
and obtain FDOT Permits include lneetings, separation of Plans
l delinea tion of rrnkct Iinlits) \vithin the 2 Project Plans, separation of
Quantities, separation of Estilnates. Preparation of separate
Specification packages dnd Bid Tabs. Attachnlent B includes a
detailed breakdov\'n of Tf'quired tasks and associated level of effort.
15. Final Signalization Plans for Collier Boulevard-City Gate North Intersection: The
County has requested that CH2M HILL prepare Final Signalization Plans for the
Future Signalized Intersection of Collier Boulevard and City Gate Drive North/Noah's
Way. The Additional Services that are required and will be provided by the Engineer
include the following.'
a. Final Signalization Plans for Collier Boulevard-City Gate North
Intersection: $25,181.55
Item hio. 'iG,6,8
Oc:tobe:- 12_ 2010
Pa;j~; 52 of 58
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRJCR 951)
Davis Blvd (SR 84) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 6000 I
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
include meetings, analysis, and preparation of Signal Plans, Details,
Quantities and Estimates. Attaclunent B includes a detailed
breakdown of required tasks and associated level of effort.
16. BCB Permits (Requirement of SFWMD): During review of the Project with SFWMD-
BCB, BCB indicated that even though the project was not constructing anything
within their ROW limits, a Permit would be required since we will be discharging
storm water into the Henderson Canal. CH2M HILL will be required to prepare and
submit a BCB ROW Permit. The Additional Services that are required and will be
provided by the Engineer include the following:
a. BCB Permits (Requirement of SFWMD): $7,003.89
. Services required to obtain BeB ROW Permits include meetings,
coordination, preparation of ROW Permit and Plans Submittal.
Responses to comments. Attachment B includes a detailed
breakdown of required tasks and associated level of effort.
17. Plan Revisions due to Delay in Abercia Site Construction: Due to the current
ecanomic situation, the Aberica Development will not be moving forword with their
planned development. The Collier Boulevard Project was utilizing portions of the
Abercia site for droinoge stormwater treatment and attenuation. CH2M HILL will be
required to modify the Project Plans to canstruct portions of the lateral ditch system
with the Collier Boulevard Project to treat and convey project run-off. The
Additional Services that ore required and will be provided by the Engineer include
the following:
a. Plan Revisions due to Delay in Abercia Site Construction: $19,928.90
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
and obtain FOOT and SFWMD Permits include meetings,
coordination, revisions to project Plans Cross Sections, Quantities
and Estimates and SFWMD Permit Plans. Altaclunent B includes a
detailed breakdown of required tasks and associated level of effort.
18. SFWMD Dewatering (Water Use) Permit Modifications: During the Coordination
and Review of the Project Dewatering Permit, SFWMD (Water Use Dept) requested
modifications to the approach and configurotion of the treatment and containment
systems. A Technical Report will also be required. CH2M HILL will be required to
conform to the requests in order to obtain 0 Dewatering Permit for the Project.
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR Y5 I I
Davis Blvd (SR X4) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. 6000 I
..:'.;"'::'
'jD. ! '~j '\.o
"0> -(,..r,
I':-._:,)I\..'
::~.) ~)~ :';,s
.-\:'E>i:J;:;; ~iem
Additional Services that are required and will be provided by the Engineer include
the following:
a. SFWMD Dewatering (Water Use) Permit Modifications: $12,389.14
. Services required to obtain the IJt'\yatering Pl'rn1its includes
revisions to Pern1it, Penl1it Plans and Calculations, Preparation of
Technical Report. Attachment R includes a detailed breakdown of
required tasks and associated level of effort
19. Retaining Wall Design- Lateral Pond Reconfiguration: During the Coordination and
Review of the Project Permit, SFWMD requested modifications to the configuration
of the treatment and containment systems- lateral ponds to provide additional (SO%
based on future Permitting Regulations) treatment and storage. This required the
reconfiguration of the swales as well as the addition of retaining walls on one side
of the treatment swales to eliminate the need for additional ROW (since it was not
available). CH2M HILL will be required to conform to the requests in order to obtain
on ERP Permit for the Project. Additional Services that ore required and will be
provided by the Engineer include the following:
a. Retaining Wall Design- Lateral Pond Reconfiguration: $23,152.86
. Services required to obtain the SFWMfl FRP Permits include
revisions to Lateral Ditch Design, Cross Sections, and Quantities,
Preparation of Retaining VVall Plans, Quantities and Estinlates,
Attachment B includes a detailed breakdown of required tasks and
associated level of effort
20. Typical Section Pavement Modifications Under 1-75: During the Coordination and
Review of the Project Permit, FOOT (HDR) requested additional drainage modeling
efforts assaciated with the Recovery Analysis. Based on the requirements, the
lateral ponds retained run-off longer than previously modeled and therefore
clearance to pavement base fell below acceptable depths. To accommodate the
new modeling, the pavement typical section was revised to include "black base" in
certain areas which provided the required clearance. CH2M HILL will be required to
conform to the requests in order to obtain 0 FOOT Permit for the Project. Additional
Services that are required and will be provided by the Engineer include the
fallawing:
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SRJCR 951)
Davis Blvd (SR 84) to Main Golden Gate Canal
Project No. nOOO]
a. Typical Section Pavement Modifications Under 1-75: $7,912.32
Item ~~o. 16.L\8
20'iO
'Jf 53
. Services required to obtain the FOOT Permits include Modeling of
new Recovery Analysis, Changes to Typical Section and Cross
Sections, Revisions to Quantities and Estimates. Attachment B
includes a detailed breakdown of required tasks and associated level
of effort
21. Services During Construction - Shop Drawing Review: The County has requested
that CH2M HILL provide Shop Drawing Review assistance to the County, on a Lump
Sum Basis, Owing Construction of the Project. Additional Services that are required
and will be provided by the Engineer include the following:
a. Services During Construction- Shop Drawing Review: $25,269.80
.
Services required include coordination with Project CEI Firm,
Review of Contractor Shop Drawing Submittal(s), Response to
Submittal(s) (Acceptance/Comment/Rejection), Coordination with
Conb"actor, Meeting Attendance. Attachment B includes a detailed
breakdown of required task(s) and associated level of funding
22. FOOT 100% Comments - Design Change Requests: During the FOOT review of the
100% Project Plans, the FOOT requested changes to the Plans that would help
aceommodate 0 future planned FOOT Project. These changes ore related to clear
zone issues and future 1-75 ramp improvements and included Bridge Mounted Sign
Panel Modifications, Lighting Reloeotions and Signal Redesign (110eotion). The
Additional Services that ore required and will be provided by the Engineer include
the following:
a. FOOT 100% Comments - Design Change Requests - $62,115.56
. Services required to finalize the plans, specifications and estimates
and obtain FOOT Permits include meetings, analysis, evaluation of
relocation linutations, additional SUE Investigation, preparation of
Lighting Plans, Signalization Plans, Bridge Mounted Sign Plans.
resubmittal of FOOT Permit for Approval. Attachment B includes a
detailed breakdown of required tasks and associated level of fW1ding
23. Expert Witness-Deposition: The County has requested that the CH2M HILL EOR
(Fronk Scerbo) be mode available to assist the County (provide expert witness
services) with any issues or claims that may arise during the ROW Process.
!t-:::rr! i~C. fjL'Ji
Attachment A
Change Order No.4
Collier Boulevard (SR/CR 95 I)
Davis Blvd 15R X4) 10 Main Golden C,alc Canal
Project No. 6000 I
~:GIJS:
I ~. ~~C; 'j ':J
;c:,-'
Additional Services that are required and will be provided by the Engineer include
the following:
a. Expert Witness-Deposition: $12,250.24
. Services required include T\ileetings, Preparation for Depositions
and/ or Court Appearances. Attachment B includes a detailed
bredkdo\\Tl of required tasks and associated level of funding
24. Services During Construction - Miscellaneous Services: The County has requested
that the CH2M HILL provide assistance to the County on a Time and Materials 8asis,
During Construction of the Project. Additional Services that are required and will be
provided by the Engineer include the following:
a. Services During Construction - Miscellaneous Services: $100,295.94
. Services required include Meetings, Response to RFI's, Field
Coordination, and requested Design Changes During Construction.
Attachment B includes a detailed breakdown of required tasks and
associated level of funding
PART 2. - Project Schedule:
Changes to Project Schedule - To Be Detenl1ined
PART 3. - Exclusions:
Services other than those specifically listed above are not included in the Scope of Work
for this Change Order.
PART 4 - COMPENSATION
I
[-..21..... Lump Sum Task(s) 8-22 I
Time and M;;;rials TaSk(~) 23.24------- . U ---!-$;12.546.18
_..___._...._._._._____~.__. ._.._._._______.__ 1__.___ ..___
____!?~AL Cost~~ange Order NO.~ ~~,330'~1
Attachnlent B includes a 11101'1.:' detailt'd hrcakdc)\vn of tht-' labor hours and. costs
associated -with the alxl\'t' Sun1111 '-11"\ , ()( Costs.
u S[jmmary of C;Es~s
$837,784.17
A:Jenda Ilem i\lo.
16/\8
'10
~tb8
0"l>.)0:..; ,t...
Page :,(1
Collier Boulevard (Davis Boulevard to Main Golden Gate Canal)
Change Order No.4
CH2M HILL
Attachment B
1-----.----
----'-11 SENIOR -'l PROJEc~l- i~~~ ~EEi~---r DES ! DRAFT CLERK i
REVIEW 'I MGR I P!~~T TECH i TECH I TECH STENO i TOTAL HRS
IS 147.95 S 132.42 $105.04 $ 90.25 $ 72.50 $ 53,26!$ 51,78
Task B - FOOT Design and Permitting Requirements (Lump Sum)
T8Sk 8a-Typical Section AeVi&iOnS8nd. R08dwayAedef;ignOuetoFD OT[~ 417J 634 I 526 I 0 I~r- 46
Comment and Approvals .' \ _'~ I - __ ' -,_ ~
11ConcetualDeslnAIlernahves ~7 1!\4: 24 I
21 T icalSeclionPackaoeRevisions 12 12 12 B
3\T IcalSections 4 ,B If;
4 Summarvol DrainaqeSlruc\ures I 2 4 _.4 4.....
5)PlanandProlileSl1eelS t2 80 100 tOil
5) Oraina eStruclufeSheets 8 ?4 24 20
~ ~;o~i~s:~~o~:vemenIMarkin .-.-+-~~: i----%-+-li-----^
9 Util,l Plans B 16 24 18
10\ MOT Plans and OBlalls I 12 II 30 8
11 OuantltlBsandCoslEstlmates 12 8' 8 40
12 Proioct Mana ement 32 32 32 32
13181 nallzalion 16 8 B B
14 Water Manapamenl Oesil<n and ERP Pe'miltlnq 12 I 88 100 11?
15 Dra,na eOBsl n "------------"j- . 1-4'-------!--.-86 164 88
Task II
TASK DESCRIPTION
CONTRACT RATES
LABOR COSTS
''''
198,254,49
"
e
"
Task 8b _ Preparation ot an FOOT Interchange Analysis and Operallons 3 J '" 1 , I " , , , 3" . 23.735,54
Reporlllnd Melhodology Leller of Understanding
1'IMLOU -I-- " , i - -~.-
2iTrallicAna's;s , " 20
3\ SyncroModelin and fvalu~lIon 3C '"
1--. 4) Re 0>1 r10AR) - .- , 30 " , -~
5\ Pro'ecIManaQeme~1 '" --,
I> OAfOC " ,
Task8c, Addllional FDOT Permllling Ae<;uiremenls
~_ ~g;ji;fwpa:r~~r;:~~~::SF.rmil and Plans
:l., S'onal,zallon."S,ql1lnQ and Mar~lna/Lll<hj'n
4lPr(ljecIManaqemenl
510AiOC
-
-,
, , '" "
---+- + " '"
30 "
PermrlandPI<lflS 3C '"
+
12
8""--
'~--~-I
_ ~.~ ~J--+-."~-
"
5"
317 $
-~
31.858.31
"
"
"
, "
--
Task 9 _ Match to As-Built Conditions of Existing and Concurrent Projects (Lump Sum)
----r
" '
~;;. ~:~~:"~::";::,:':"~:':~::m,:~::': """pm,"' I::. ~I ~ ': -
2.1 Modi'LCal'Qns to Maonolia Pond OrlvelColI'ar 1n18rSBC1'On 8 f, 25 E.O
3.IConce tual Oesi n All for a 3-Lane and 4-Lane MAqnoll<l 8. 12 i -30 ' I
4,Pre aral'ono!Rev,sedDraln~ ~CalculahonstorAtJe'cl~Pe'r:l't; 5 ,~e' ~~
_~'onstoPathwavIBe'm,AdlaCenl\OOeVelopment . _"..,,1~4_ 8,,20 r-,. j
f--.. -. ;'~~.o~n~c~Eeg~~~'eO~~i~:a;..~~~e;..;r~~~~~."e.'.;~.;d~iMG.GDi."._hO~.',..;.+ __ --~.~. .'.0 - ~ 4...' ,,.-.
_~ _---mt~foler;tManaqeme':'-I_ _.__"._ - '10.. ,: .~ _L.. -- _'_L==I--
9 QAQe ~ ~t ,', t9' ~~',- I, ' , ~"
Task 9d ' City Gate Blvd. NorlhlNoah's Way IntersectIon Improvements y < 49 21 0 $
,
1) Concep1ual Allernallves ? ~?4 I ~ =1
2',TvoicaLSectlons ~ 3 _4 j 4 ___
~~:~~~~:~~~~~~i~8sneels -^.....~r--;, .. ',".- ;,~ _' 14.2" i,~-~l; ~ -----l
5JSlqn"'gandPavBtT'entMarklfl<;) <" ===t ==1
;:~Z:~~~~:;:,~;~c""m"," _ ,; I >f:' 1=- ",=3= I
I : i ; Ii ' "~":"1 "fl'
4 I I" ! i .
TaSk9a_concePluaIAlternalives.'ndAeViSjOnstoNWcornero~'" . "
BfK:klCollierlntertlectlons
l\Conce tualAllernahves 4
~" 21 Road,:"av DeSign Revls'ons u-----; _"_:' 8
3 Dra,naqeDeSlonRev'smn$ I 8
4'1 Slqnal Plan Rcvlcwsand Rev,s,onslTYLtNI 0 B
5'1 MOT Plan ReviSIons I?T,mesj 2 A
~1 :~:c~~"a~~:II~~~c~~d Rev,sions I 4 II' :
B' OAI,'QC I"
" 9
, ,
-, r-
I -,
,
,
,
, ,
, '--"'-
Task 9b - Utility Drive/Magnolia Pond Dtive Intersection Improvements
1'1 ConceplllaiAltematlves
2iTyp,calSectlOns
3'IPlanaf1dPmfllcSheals
4', C'oss Secllons
S)Slgn,n and PavemenlM3rkln
6',Ouant'tie~andCoslESllmat""
-"-~7; Pro;ecl'Mana<lement---'-----
8 QAiGe
Taskge 48"WalerMainUnderl'75
. ,
;-
- ,
I
,
~~'"_ l)ICoorn'n'ltlonandMeelin.gs
~'eldlnves1,qallons
3 IUulllv3-DModel'n
4jlOuantllieS
f--'-~~-ESlimatDs ..~.
6',Geolnell ReviSlons(T l1icaI.P,olile,X.$lo el
7) RQ~~~ilY Plan ChJnqes IDeslon 1.? 31
10160'2010
"
, - " ,
Be
'"
, "
"
"
"
m
"
9
"
"
"
"
9
,
'"
, I
.-.-
'"
33,30tLS6
1[;
"
.--
L
-oTo" I 22
-.-
--
~
I ,-1
i$
22.716,23
'"
"
"
I
1
1 --
0 '" . 37.366.89
,
-3
-"-
,
+
J
o 1
19.826.66
5,993.56
ColI,cr B,vd CO#4 - DiNlS Blvd - Ma,n Golder' Gal<, C~na'_ ~INAL REVc,_._100,,10.XLSX
!~,e:'Y": i\:or{j.!:',E!
~)CtJi:'9;' ';1. 2C:1 (]
:;:"Ir'r_c
<58
Collier Boulevard (Davis Boulevard to Main Golden Gate Canal)
Change Order NO.4
CH2M Hill
Attachment B
:'.' : 'I LEAD I LEAD
SENIOR i PROJECT ENG,' i OES
i REVIEW j. MGR ,PERMIT 1 . TECH
1 __ _ ; !'iPEC, L I
CQNTRACTRATES '$ 147_951 $ 132,42 I $ 105_04' $ 90.251 $ '7250 1$ 53.26' $ 51.'78
Task 10 - Collier County Requested Improvements for Future Development (Lump Sum)
Task10a-BeCk;O~I:~;r~-;;i1l1gnmentandAddl!i:~--O~RlghtTUmL~~;----- 36 98: 111 ~-[~-
-- · "_J ',"~=-:::l=:::t=
H I _,~ --"-i.2~--
I ~ 8 I
_ ~ ,_~ 1-5
~ 12 D
DES.
TECH
DRAFT
TECH
CLERK
STENO
TOTAL HRS LABOR COSTS
Task #
TASK DESCRIPTION
'"
-,-------
1$ 30.440,33
-1
'1 Conccr>lualAltNnallve,
2',T\'plcaISect<on
3;, Summaly o~ [Jra,naQo StrUClures
. 4,JPl3nand Profile Sheels
b\IDralnaoeStructurcSlleels
G\iCrossSeotlons
'7'ISir>ntnoand Pavcm!'nt Markin
8 S,qnallzallOnPlansCoord'natloniDavls,8cckl
8'i Q'-'ilnt>lI1'lSiCostEshma!es
10' PrOlectManaoemenl
",ReW'"rnaWalls
1?\ Water M3naqemcnt [,es1qnandERPPprnlllllr'
__ ~.~llE?ralnaCle Uf$lgn
;41IQA/Q8
I
-,
I
:~p:
, ' g
I
I
, e
.e e
, "
t:'; ~__~
t2,~t:~
"
"
I
t-
II Pond Details
~, Dra'''a(jCl StrlloH"" D"t~lr5
3'IWalm ManaqllmP:~~ DeRlqn and FRP P!'rmitlln~
A I Prf}I"~1 M~na~ement --
5)QAiqC
~I
. ,
"
"
o ,
.------j
r:-T
r
,
I
i
I
9,616_98
TaGk 10b-Fllture Beck Boulevard Extension Drainage l'Ievislons
"
,
"
,
,
"
"
"
"
-'.
Task 11- Resolve Surrounding Property Issues (Lump Sum)
'_i'MeetlllQS wrlh Counlv amI FDCl."!:_
-2IPreparatlf}nOIMultlpleCO"ccDts
3 Threei3', DeposrtlonMeehnqs
~ C~_~~ges to Deslqn PI~ns_i~~r_J_U(Jg_ll-'equ~Sl!
...5 'I Evaluale revised S'(jnlnq..'Genmplrv w,t~ FOOT
" ,
-iJ--I----64
--.- "'----
-----'-~~~_5S'~~.-
.,
,
r---
L_ '
L
'"
i.
21,3'73.31
Task lla - AddreSSing Iminen\ Domain Issues with Properly OWller
59
124
.,~
.,
I
I
T-----
--j
3
. u,_-----L--___"
1.IISI,,~(Fleldi , -~..
. 2 ~'Pfocess Survey Da;a-- Create rfi\i Moae'
31QAiQC
Task 12 - SFWMD Permilling Requirements (Lump Sum)
"'!_;I-; _
--------r-------
,
t ~:.
40
----~----
.,
I
I
Task 12a ' AddiHonal Sl1rvey l'Iequired fOf EXlension olPtoiecl Drainane
Limits
23,0
0_0 n.O .~:~J 0,0
--~~ 1
--------=::1<) 1-=--:: L
'"t-.'~'''''
,
100_0 !S
9.994.91
Task 12b. SFWMD Dewalerinl1 Petmil
, "!"'reoarJIIGr' nl pprm",-P'~ns and Ca;culatlc~!;
"I,Prcparatl[)n ot Dewale"nll Perm~~_,
00
0.0 I
i
--"--~
1', Pla'l ~nd Profile Shell!
?"\ICrOS5Sectlors---
3:,;JIIIQ,ReIOcaIIM[leS'Gno
.t'IUlilllyAdluslm"n: S~pe's
S,I(Juantltlcs,CostE:stlmatp'"^
6'I!Prol(>cIManaoe~1f'f11
7dOEP Perm'ttln~
~&F-~:jJCES "NCWDEDII;-~~~A'C C~;STI
Task 13 - Utility Design and Relocation Services (Lump Sum)
- -c;;-_ ---"-~---; : .-r.;-r.u~,;;-;;
--------,- ---'~--;;--'--,,; MJ ~, I ---+-lils^~oel
t, '_f> [1 "I - I lor.lldp lilbor
--.------,--------_80 ;\ :__f _-=-- ~ ~',LJLltprr'~}q
~-.--.6r' . ,
_=-- ~ ~~-~: ___=~- - -- _-_~ _; - I ~ ~ =~.
?C '4 _~_.!l.__ __
_~ i 2( ~51 IIf
Task13a, Utility Aelocation Design
Task 14 - Reconfigure Plans, Spectfications. Bid Tabs and Estimates into Two (2) Bid Packages (Lump Sum)
1,' ReVise Roaawa PI~n SI,ccts
2', Revl~"SlgninoandMarklna '-'Ian Shp('IS
3', '1ev'Sp.lIq~llno P;an Sheels-
-- ~ :.1Rcv;se GLJan"lres Ann 8'Cilk 'nld 121-P~-O~C;C1S
S',tRevlsef::s:lmates and Break ''''O(~\ Proerts
~f:~~~~:;es::,i,~~!~~: o! Bij Tao~
8'1 Pro'ect Manaaerren~, CaorGlr1at'~n
q,CiA,'OC ____
" " -:l 06 " "~ 22.002.44
~-=--
'5 31 - ..-- 31J
1;'
,:', " ._--;~
; ---I
..----------j
:l
Task 14a-AeconfigurePians in10Two (2) Bid Sets
Task 15, Final Signalization Pians for Collier Boulevard-City Gate North Intersection (Lump Sum)
Task15a-Final Sigl1al'zatlon Plal1s lor Coliier-Cily Gale Nol1h
II1!ersection
l:,SI~~at'~",PlanS
----'--i:" SI~nalrZfltro-n Dct;",s ----
3\ SI~nJ"zaltet1 Ou~n"!le~ a~o I::str"'J1CS
4 PrO'Bcl Manaq"m~nl OA'QC
" m " " I '''J' 25,181.55
r;- c,fI ---}- . q---c:==,
'5 ,.'.j
__1- p ,
, O/G,'20~ G
'~'I'('I Ei,vc :'J";~,' [Ji;"JI<i B;vr' ',1"Ir' C;olucn Ciat(- Ca"" f'11"Ai f-IfV" '0061:-' XLS\
item 1\)0. 16/\8
'Jctobei 12,2010
PaQ8 ~18 of 58
Collier Boulevard (Davis Boulevard to Main Golden Gate Canal)
Change Order NO.4
CH2M HILL
Attachment B
I I r "AD I I i I
: SENIOR PROJECT, ENGI ~EEAD DES, DRAFT CLERK
h REVIEW, MGR I PERMIT TE~H; TECH TECH STENO I TOTAL HAS LABOR COSTS
-;p~;::- , '
Task# TASK DESCRIPTION CONTRACT RATES $ 147.951$ 132.42 $105.041$ 90.251S 72.50 S 53,261$ 51.18
Task 16. BCB Permits (Requirement of SFWMD) (L!Jmp Sum)
Tas.k1&.a, BCBPermils. , I , " I " , , , " , 7,003,89
1\ Permll Pian Pre a'alton 2 '" "
2 Perm<IPreoaration , I , , , 2
3 Res ondloRAI's I 2 , 6 2
Task 17. Plan Revisions Due to Delay in Abercia Site Construction (Lump Sum)
Task17a-Plan Revislon$ Oue to Delay In AberclaSlleConslruclion 6 I 20 " " " , , '" , 19.928.90
l' Draina eAnal sis , , >0 B 8
2) Plan Sheel Revisions , , ? 6 " 8 I ,
f--- 3) CrossSecllOnRev<sions __-0 -!-+ , " , I -
, QuantiliesandEsllmaleS " " '" ,
51ERPPerm'l11 Mod,flcallons , , , " , ,
5'1 FDOT Permi1HnQ MOd,f,calirms - , , , 2 -+ ,
u._.
71 ROW Revisions , , , 2
Task 18. SFWMD Dewatering Permit Modifications (Lump Sum)
Task 18a - SFWMO Dewalering Permit Modifications , i "m" , 1 , I , I He 12.389.14
~- I ,
, RevisionSloA roachandCalclJla1lons -... -.2 4 16: 16 ---,-
2 Inclus,on 01 1-75 Infield Areas (4 Ponds) In Permit 4 28: 16
"-.- 3 Pre arat,on01 Oewatenn Report , __4 i6 _ 8 ~-- --
Task 19 - Retaining Wall Design. Lateral Pond Reconfiguralion (Lump Sum)
Task 19a-Retaining Wall Design,Lateral Pond Reconilgllration , I 30 " " 60 , 0 i 0 I '" . 23.152.86
i 1
-- 1--, DrainaqeAna'ysls L , I- - " "" I B - I
2 Lateral Ditch Redesi n 2 " " - "
31 Relalnlno Wall Desl n , ; , "
, Plan Revls'ons , " , " "
5'1 CrossSeel,onModillcallons " " --
61 Quanlilles aEd Estimales , ;6 20 "
Task 20. Typical Section Pavement Modifications under 1.75 (Lump Sum)
Task 20a ' Typical Section Pavement ModilicatlonsllnderJ.75 0 I , i " " 0 0 i 0 eo , 7.912.32
I
1\IMorIclRecover Anals<s J , fl ' P 1~ I
2\Chan aT Ic"ISeclionandCrossSec,;ons .~ "
~ouantJllesanrJE_stlmales _ 6 _L T2 I ..-----
Task 21 - Services During Construction - Shop Drawing Review (Lump Sum) --2~~ --~5.2~~
I , ~-l 0
Task21a' Services During Construction ShOp Drawing Revll!w , " " w i
11 Revi..wolSho Drawm a-Submittals - " 60 _1- " "0 , .~O
-- Task 22 - FOOT 100% Comments. Design Change Requests (Lump Sum)
~ -~ , 1 !
Task 223 - FOOT 100% Comments Design Change Requests '" we " " , 36 1 .>0 , 62,115_56
, 1
, Llahlln Redesl nandOramaqelrn aels " -~~ I " , , " , 15.144.28
: 8 2f!
: 4 18'
2' PhofomelricR I<UseVeilmq Lllrnlnance Rallo' >0 " , , 5.113.80
3 Voltaqe Dron Reporl , :~ " " . 4.223.%
____~;;~iZ~~~~I:~S~~~O~~~I~~~~~(~C:~~~1 ==1- 10 " G6 " T . 31.217_58
W " " . 6.355.94
~~ m
Task 23 - Expert Witness-Deposition (Time and Materials)
I o~o I
Task23a-ExpertWltness- Deposlllon (Davis/ColIIl!r Parcell , . 0 0 I 0 i , " , 12.250,24
1
11 Meetin s_DeoosiiJons - 36 - -, ,
2 CO<1:1Apoearance, Preparat,on " I ,
Task 24. Services Durina Construction - Miscellaneous Services (Time and Materiais
Task 241t, Services During Construction-Miscellaneous Services " : 300 I '" I >oe " i eo " i ", , 100.295.94
1jlAllencl Pro-eel K,ck-oli and PfooressMeelinQs 26 -he , 3? .- Ie 14?
2-, RespondfoRFI's 22 132 100 60 " " 6 420
3' FlelclCoorolnalionandConillcIResO'lJt'O'l 22 - ~ 00 I '" n " '" e '"0
CHANGE ORDER NO.4: TASKS 8.22 (LUMP SUM) I' 837.784,17
CHANGE ORDER NO.4: TASKS 23-24 (TIME AND MATERIALS) I' 112.546.18
TOTAL COST CHANGE ORDER NO.4: TASKS 8-24 i. 950,330.35
10/6/2010
Co,I,,,r Blvd COii4 - DaVIS Blvd. Main (ioldAIl Gate Can;,: ~-INAI REVS_100G10_X,--SX