HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 24, 2013 Western Riverside County Programs and ProjectsTIME:
DATE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
1:30 p.m.
Monday, June 24, 2013
LOCATION: BOARDROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside
'&>-COMMITTEE MEMBERS ~
Andrew Kotyuk, Chair I Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto
Frank Johnston, Vice Chair I Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley
Bob Botts I Deborah Franklin, City of Banning
Karen Spiegel I Eugene Montanez, City of Corona
Adam Rush/ Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale
Scott Mann I Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee
Tom Owings I Marcelo Co, City of Moreno Valley
Berwin Hanna I Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco
Daryl Busch I Al Landers, City of Perris
Ben Benoit I Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar
Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V
'&>-STAFF~
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
'&>-AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY ~
Air Quality, Capital Projects,
Communications and Outreach Programs,
lntermodal Programs,
Motorist Services, New Corridors,
Regional Agencies/Regional Planning,
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP),
Specific Transit Projects,
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP),
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and
Provide Policy Direction on Transportation Programs and Projects
related to Western Riverside County and other
areas as may be prescribed by the Commission.
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee,
please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board.
COMM-WRC-00014
Rivenide County Transportation Commission
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager
DATE: June 19, 2013
SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues -Western Riverside County Programs
and Projects Committee Agenda of June 24, 2013
The June 24, 2013 agenda of the WRC Programs and Projects Committee includes
items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not
participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a
campaign contribution of more than $ 250 is received in the past 12 months or
3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed.
Agenda Item No. 7 -Amendment to Agreement with CH2M Hill to Complete the Final
Project Report and Environmental Document for the State Route 79 Realignment
Project
Consultant(s): CH2M Hill, Inc.
1770 Iowa Street, Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92501
Thomas lonta, Vice President
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
1:30 p.m.
Monday, June 24, 2013
BOARDROOM
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor
Riverside, California
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials
distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session
agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at
the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the
Commission's website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section
54954. 2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact
the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting
time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide
accessibility at the meeting.
1 . CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS -Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3)
continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the
Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time
limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of
speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker
to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public
comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time
for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes.
Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair.
Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be
submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and
comments on Agenda Items.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
June 24, 2013
Page 2
Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters
raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the
agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information
or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -APRIL 22, 2013
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after
making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and
that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting
of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 213 vote of the
Committee. If there are less than 213 of the Committee members present,
adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be
placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.)
7 · AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CH2M HILL TO COMPLETE THE FINAL
PROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE STATE
ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 02-31-043-08, Amendment No. 8 to Agreement
No. 02-31-043-00, with CH2M Hill to complete the Final Environmental
Impact Report/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/FEIS) and
project report for the SR-79 realignment project for a amount not to
exceed $4,494,074;
2) Authorize the Chair, or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute amendments for non-cardinal changes to the scope of work up to
a maximum contingency amount of $450,000 for a total amount not to
exceed $31, 7 42, 166 (includes original contract and previous amendments
of a contract value of $26, 798,092);
4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute non-funding agreements for the environmental clearance and
design of the project; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
June 24, 2013
Page 3
8. FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL
SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS
Page 81
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Authorize payment of $1 ,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for
the period July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, to the existing Mira Loma,
Riverside, and Riverside II buspools;
2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting
requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. AUTO CENTER DRIVE STREET SIGNAL PROJECT TIED TO GRADE SEPARATION
Page 87
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 13-24-148-00 with the city of Corona (Corona)
for the installation of a traffic signal at the northerly driveway of the West
Corona Station and Auto Center Drive;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Allocate $235,865 in 2009 Measure A Western County Rail funds to
Corona in support of the traffic signal; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. COMMISSIONERS I STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on
attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission
activities.
11 . ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING
The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is
scheduled to be held at 1 :30 p.m., Monday, July 22, 2013, Board Chambers,
First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS SIGN-IN SHEET
JUNE 24, 2013
NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS
~ /Alli Alt-<... VVl 0 {/ '4-L--~c'l.JG,$@ I ! " ., .c
/Jl4v-,IJyfl~ {.dL/)(J/f/) ll
~
P,,,6~/Z£h 75:.-~~~ ,
f;o ~ -~f)~fu 91 A-.tJV i .\\)Q
Jk~w-1"1 /fkNµA Alo I<. w J
/~1/J (Tr#;t.t'~ /411 I'~ 1
lhvo~, /~y-;,.,Jz.. ,. ,..., -J ."'1a..-~~~
~ ~h1-(s.~ ~LA lkfA-Y4-uGv
J &:i/f"-?v\. SQ1'~ ,
~
(1~ ,
I u ,j)fai-..)5 _,/ JI /j_P.l _A ,I //A ~I J (~ o-........._
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
JUNE 24, 2013
County of Riverside, District I
County of Riverside, District V
City of Banning
City of Corona
City of Eastvale
City of Jurupa Valley
City of Menifee
City of Moreno Valley
City of Norco
City of Perris
City of San Jacinto
City of Wildomar
Present
F
Cl
~
%'
Absent
D
D
D
D
D
D
o "'
D
D
D
D
D
AGENDA ITEM 5
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
Monday,April22, 2013
MINUTES
1 . CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee was called to order by Chair Andrew Kotyuk at 1 :31 p.m.,
in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center,
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At this time, Vice Chair Frank Johnston led the Western Riverside County
Programs and Projects Committee in a flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Members/ Alternates Present Members Absent
Marion Ashley Tom Owings
Ben Benoit
Bob Botts
Daryl Busch
Berwin Hanna . :,
Kevin Jeffries
Frank Johnston
Andrew Kotyuk
Scott Mann
Adam Rush
Karen Spiegel
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 22, 2013
Page 2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -FEBRUARY 25, 2013
M/S/C (Rush/Benoit) to approve the minutes as submitted.
Abstain: Mann
6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
7. STATE ROUTE 91 DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT
Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, presented the State Route 91
Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) design-build contract award, and
discussed the following areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Two-step design-build procurement;
Prior Commission actions;
Factors in the evaluation;
Benefits of best value design-build;
Organization chart of the evaluation teams;
Selection formula;
Technical proposal score results;
Atkinson/Walsh technical proposal highlights;
Price score calculations;
Contract price, present value, and price score results;
Top two teams -side by side comparison;
Negotiation of design refinements;
Work authorization and project financing; and
Procurement schedule .
. ~
At Commissioner Karen Spiegel's request for clarification of costs, Michael
Blomquist explained the difference between the contract price, adjusted
proposed present value, and the refinements.
In response to Commissioner Botts' question regarding the contingency
amount, Michael Blomquist stated the contingency amount is 5 percent of
the base value, determined using a risk-based concept.
Anne Mayer, Executive Director, noted the standard contingency amount for
construction projects is 10 percent.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 22, 2013
Page 3
At Commissioner Botts' request, Michael Blomquist explained the basis of
the adjusted proposal present value calculations.
Michael Menchella representing Shimmick/Obayashi/FNF (SOF) expressed
strong concern for the award of the agreement on the basis of a discrepancy
of one and one half points on the technical proposal. He requested an
extension of the protest period to allow SOF and the public to obtain scrutiny
on this award and the technical scoring process.
At Anne Mayer's request, Michael Blomquist summarized the protest
process.
In response to Commissioner Marion Ashley's question regarding extending
the protest period, Anne Mayer stated she does not recommend extending
the protest period because there would be an insufficient amount of time
between the end of the protest period and the mail out date of the
Commission packets to extend the date any further. An extension would
also impact the financial close of the bond sales and TIFIA loan and the
project schedule.
Michael Blomquist noted a debriefing of the SOF team is scheduled for
tomorrow afternoon, Tuesday, April 23.
Anne Mayer recounted for the Committee the Commission's decision to use
a best value design-build process so the technical provisions were very
important to the Commission for this project.
At Commissioner Ashley's request, Michael Blomquist provided an overview
of the California Public Records Act requests submitted by SOF and staff's
timeframe for response.
Commissioner Kevin Jeffries requested clarification that SOF will receive all
documents requested by tomorrow.
Michael Blomquist stated SOF will receive the majority of the information
today and tomorrow and the balance on Wednesday due to need to redact
certain information such as the alternative technical concepts in the
proposals.
In response to Commissioner Adam Rush's question regarding a bidder's
ability to protest without the requested information, Michael Blomquist
responded a formal protest can be made without the requested information.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 22, 2013
Page 4
Paul Comower representing SOF restated SOF's desire for a fair and
transparent process to find out· why the apparent low bidder did not receive
the award for the project. He also noted the provision in the request for
proposals regarding the stipend for the unsuccessful bidders. He restated
SOF's request to extend the protest period.
Anne Mayer stated the Commission's commitment to a fair and transparent
process and this procurement was designed to ensure that. The
procurement documents state if there is a protest, then that company will
not receive its stipend. She then recounted for the Committee the lengthy
discussions held by the Committee and the Commission regarding a stipend,
which standard for design-build procurements. She then restated the
impacts of granting an extension of the protest period.
M/S/C (Botts/Benoit) to:
1 ) Award Agreement No. 12-31-113-00 to Atkinson/Walsh, a
Joint Venture, for the design and construction of the State
Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) in the
amount of $632,572,050, plus a contingency amount of
$31,628,603, for a total amount not to-'&xceed $664,200,653;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal
counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the
Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work
to be performed pursuant to the agreement terms up to the
total not to exceed amount;
4) Authorize staff to issue a Notice to Proceed No. 1 in the amount
of $10 million after execution of the agr•ment;
5) Authorize staff to issue a Notice to Proceed No. 2 for the
remainder of the contract work after the successful sale of toll
revenue and Measure A sales tax bonds and funding of the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) Transportation
Investment Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan; and
6) Forward to the Commission for final action.
No: Jeffries
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 22, 2013
Page 5
8. STATE ROUTE 91 PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
SERVICES
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented an overview of the scope of
the amendment to the agreement for SR-91 project and construction
management services.
In response to Commissioner Rush's question regarding a dispute in the field,
David Thomas responded Caltrans and the Commission will be involved in
dispute resolution.
Anne Mayer added the Commission, Caltrans District 8 director, and the
chief engineer signed a cooperative agreement stating how disputes will be
handled.
M/S/C (Rush/Hanna) to:
1 ) Approve Agreement No. 09-31-081-03, Amendment No. 3 to
Agreement No. 09-31-081-00, with Parsons Transportation
Group, Inc. (Parsons) to provide project and construction
management (PCM) services for Phase 2 of the SR-91 Corridor
Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) widening and extension of the
91 Express Lanes design-build project in the amount of
$81,410,793, plus a contingency of $6.1 million for a total
amount not to exceed $87,510,793, and a total authorized
contract value, for Phase 1 and 2. of $147,595,337;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal
counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the
Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve
contingency work up to the total authorized amount as may be
required for the project; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. 91 EXPRESS LANES OPERATOR AGREEMENT
Michael Blomquist presented the scope of the 91 Express Lanes operator
agreement.
In response to Commissioner Botts' question regarding Cofiroute's
experience and the decision for a sole source award, Michael Blomquist
stated Cofiroute operates toll lanes around the world and discussed how the
award is in the public interest and in the best interest of the Commission.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 22, 2013
Page 6
M/S/C (Spiegel/Ashley) to:
1) Approve the 91 Express Lanes Operator Agreement between
the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the
Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission), and
Cofiroute USA, LLC (Cofiroute) for operations and maintenance
services for the 91 Express Lanes in an amount of$30,998, 133,
plus a contingency amount of $3,099,813 for a total amount
not to exceed $34,097 ,946;
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work
up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the
agreement; and
4) Forward to the c'ommission for final action.
10. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM REGIONAL
ARTERIAL FUNDS -CITY OF PERRIS PROGRAMMING REQUEST
Shirley Medina, Programming and Planning Manager, presented the
programming request from the city of Perris for the Perris Boulevard
widening project.
Commissioner Ashley expressed his support for the project.
M/S/C (Busch/Benoit) to:
1 ) Approve the request by the city of Perris to program
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial
funds. in the amount of $1 .36 million for the Perris Bouleva'i'd
widening project from Ramona Expressway to Perry Street;
2) Accept $2,388,000 million in federal Surface Transportation
Program (STP) funds from the Perris Boulevard project for
reprogramming at the discretion of the Commission;
3) Approve Agreement No. 08-72-097-02, Amendment No. 2 to
Agreement No. 08-72-097-00, with the city of Perris to add
TUMF funding for the construction phase;
4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the
Commission; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 22, 2013
Page 7
11. AMENDMENT WITH STV INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE DESIGN SUPPORT
DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PERRIS VALLEY LINE PROJECT
Edda Rosso, Capital Projects Manager, presented the scope of the
amendment with STV Incorporated for design support during construction of
the Perris Valley Line project.
M/S/C (Benoit/Busch) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 07-33-123-10, Amendment No. 10 to
Agreement 07-33-123-00, with STV Incorporated (STV) for
design support during construction for the Perris Valley Line
(PVL) in the amount of $6,841,749, plus a contingency amount
of $1 million, for a total amount not to exceed $ 7 ,841, 7 49, and
a total authorized contract value of $48,673,386;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal
counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the
Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee, pursuant to legal
counsel review, to approve the use of the contingency as may
be required for the project; and
4) . Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. COMMISSIONERS I STAFF REPORT
12A. Anne Mayer announced:
• The May 8 Commission meetings will be very lengthy due to
the Budget hearing, SR-91 CIP items, a number of closed
session items, and the Executive Committee actions referred to
the Commission for discussion; and
• There will be a hearing on Wednesday, April 24 in Superior
Court for the Perris Valley Line project.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
April 22, 2013
Page 8
13. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING
There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside
County Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at
3:13 p.m. The next meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and
Projects Committee is scheduled for June 24, 2013, at 1 :30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: June 24, 2013
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director
THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
Amendment to Agreement with CH2M Hill to Complete the Final
SUBJECT: Project Report and Environmental Document for the State Route 79
Realignment Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item ·is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 02-31-043-08, Amendment No. 8 to Agreement
No. 02-31-043-00, with CH2M Hill to complete the Final Environmental
Impact Report/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/FEIS) and project
report for the SR-79 realignment project for a amount not to exceed
$4,494,074;
2) Authorize the Chair, or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute amendments for non-cardinal changes to the scope of work up to a
maximum contingency amount of $450,000 for a total amount not to
exceed $31, 742, 166 (includes original contract and previous amendments of
a contract value of $26,798,092);
4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute non-funding agreements for the environmental clearance and design
of the project; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMA T/ON:
The SR-79 realignment project proposes to realign SR-79 between Domenigoni
Parkway and Gilman Springs Road in the Hemet/San Jacinto Valley. The
realignment will improve regional and local mobility by providing a shorter, more
direct, north-south route. In addition, the realigned highway will provide more
separation between regional and local traffic, thereby improving overall traffic flow.
Since the last project update to the Commission in December 2012, staff worked
with its consultant team and Caltrans to complete all necessary environmental and
Agenda Item 7
1
engineering studies in support of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
(DEIR/DEIS) approved for public circulation in February 2013.
The DEIR/DEIS analyzed multiple alternatives, including the publicly expressed
preferences of the affected local agencies. In addition to two build alternatives,
the DEIR/DEIS discussed the alternatives that were considered, but that were
eliminated from further discussion. Potential project phasing for each build
alternative was also discussed.
Two public hearings on the project were conducted in March 2013. Additionally,
four public information meetings were conducted to more fully engage and inform
the public of the project.
Contract Amendments
At its February 13, 2002 meeting, the Commission approved a contract with
CH2M Hill for the development of the project report and environmental document
(PR/ED) for a total amount of $2, 194,497. Since then, the Commission approved
seven contract amendments. Of these seven amendments, only three amendments
increased the value of the contract. Amendment No. 1 was for $13, 158,654,
Amendment No. 5 was for $9,964,941, and Amendment No. 7 was for
$1.48 million which brought the current total contract value to $26, 798,092.
Amendment No. 1, approved by the Commission in January 2005, was to address
the resource agencies request that additional build alternatives be included in the
environmental document so that several paths through each area would be
evaluated. From this request, additional segments and the mid-western alternative
(now known as Alternative 2) were added to the project to create a more robust
suite of alternatives to broaden the choices available in the alternative selection
process and to include several avoidance alternatives to the sensitive vernal pool
area.
Amendment No. 5, approved by the Commission in April 2007, was necessary to
add new tasks to perform the required field studies for the final alignments in the
PR/ED documents. This included the continuation of required field studies on the
mid-western alternative as well as additional engineering efforts such as
geotechnical investigations in the hills south of Florida Avenue, traffic analysis for
new construction staging options, additional utility coordination, and multiple
environmental and cultural surveys and reports.
Amendment No. 7, approved by the Commission in December 2012, was
necessary to provide the funds for the completion and finalization of the DEIR/DEIS
for public review and comment. Public circulation was a key milestone for the
project. As part of the December 2012 action, the Commission requested staff to
return in mid 2013, after the public comment period was completed, with a final
Agenda Item 7
2
scope of work and cost estimate to take the SR-79 realignment project through the
completion of the environmental phase and record of decision (ROD).
Amendments 2, 3, 4, and 6 were administrative amendments to increase the term
of the agreement or for reallocation of project tasks. These amendments did not
increase the value of the contract.
Requested Action
Public circulation of the document was a key project milestone; however,
significant work still remains to obtain final project approval and completion of the
environmental phase. Approximately 200 comments and a petition with 646
signatures were received during the public comment period. Staff and the
consultant team are compiling and will be addressing all comments received during
the public circulation period. Responses to comments will be included in the
FEIR/EIS and will be considered in the preferred alternative selection process.
As mentioned in December, it was necessary to get through the public review
process and understand the magnitude and number of comments and the resultant
additional work, in order to prepare the scope for this amendment. Staff has been
working with the consultant team to negotiate the scope, schedule, and cost to
complete the final PR/ED approval that will culminate with the California
Environmental Quality Act Notice of Determination and National Environmental
Policy Act ROD.
The major tasks associated with the Amendment No. 8 request are the following:
• Reviewing, analyzing, and preparing responses to public comments;
• Updating traffic analysis;
• Continuation of cultural resources reporting for Section 106;
• Preparation of Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency
Analysis;
• Finalizing the project fact sheets;
• Minor engineering adjustments on the final alignment once the preferred
alternative is selected; and
• Final preparation and distribution of the FEIR/EIS and ROD.
The full description of the above tasks is in the attached scope of work and cost
summary for the SR-79 realignment project that will take the project through the
FEIR/EIS and ROD.
Staff recommends the Commission approve Amendment No. 8 with CH2M Hill in
the amount of $4,944,074, which includes a $450,000 contingency, bringing the
total amount not to exceed to $31, 742, 166. Western County Measure A highway
Agenda Item 7
3
funds are recommended for use for Amendment No. 8.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Yes
!Year: I FY 2013/14 Amount: I $4,000,000
Budget: N/A FY 2014/15 $ 944,074
Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Budget Adjustment: I No
Hk1hway N/A
GLA No.: jP003003 81101 210 72 81101
Fiscal Procedures Approved: I ~~ I Date: I 06/12/13
Attachments:
1) Draft Agreement No. 02-31-043-08
2) SR-79 Realignment Project Amendment 8 Scope of Work
3) SR-79 Realignment Project Amendment 8 Cost Proposal
4) SR-79 Realignment Project Amendment 8 Schedule
Agenda Item 7
4
ATTACHMENT 1
Agreement No. 02-31-043-08
AMENDMENT NO. 8
TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH FEDERAL FUNDING/ASSISTANCE
STA TE ROUTE 79 RE-ALIGNMENT PROJECT
1. PARTIES AND DATE
This Amendment No.8 to the Agreement for Professional Services is made
and entered into as of this day of , 2013, by and between the
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and CH2M
HILL ("Consultant").
2. RECITALS
2.1 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an agreement
dated on or about February 13, 2002 for the purpose of providing
professional engineering services in connection with the State Route
79 Re-alignment Project (the "Master Agreement").
2.2 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment
No. 1 to the Master Agreement, dated January 12, 2005, for the purpose
of providing additional compensation in order to include additional
engineering and environmental studies, and other tasks, required to
complete the Project Report and the Environmental Document for the
Realignment of State Route Between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman
Springs Road, and to extend the term of the Master-Agreement.
2.3 The Commission and the Contractor have entered into an Amendment
No.2 to the Master Agreement, dated September 16, 2005, for the
purpose of reallocating a portion of the compensation approved for the
Services· ·'pursuant to Amendment No. 1, amending the Scope of
Services, and providing additional compensation for the purpose of
including aerial photography and mapping and additional cultural surveys
for the Realignment of State Route 79 Project.
2 .4 The Commission and the Contractor have entered into an Amendment
No.3 to the Master Agreement, dated April 13, 2006, to amend the Scope
of Schedule of Services, based on changes in the Project description,
and. To provide additional compensation for the purposes of providing
RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1
5
additional biological and cultural resources for survey support, field
exploration work and other services for the Realignment of State Route
79 Project.
2.5 The Commission and Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 4
to the Master Agreement, dated March 22, 2007 to amend the Scope and
Schedule of Services, based on changes in the Project description, and
to provide additional compensation for the purposes of providing
additional biological and cultural resources for survey support, field
exploration work and other services for the, Realignment of State Route
79. ,,;;;>
2. 6 The Commission and Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 5
to the Master Agreement, datecf July 18, 200? to amend the Scope of
Services, to include additiol)~I fasks, to inctude a new Schedule of
Services, to extend the terrfrof the Master Agreement, and to provide
additional compensation all for the Re,alignment>of State Route 79
Project. ,. 1"' "·
2. 7 The Commission ~nd Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 6
to the Master Agreement, dated March 22c;,2010 to extend the term of the
Master Agreement for the Realignment o(State Route 79 Project.
2.8 The Commission and Consultant:have entered into an Amendment No. 7
to the Master Agreement, dated December 17, 2012 to extend the term of
the Master Agreement for the Realignment of State Route 79 Project.
2.9 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to
extend the term. of the ME.tster Agreement, revise the Scope of
Services, include an additional Schedule of Services, and provide
additional compensation for Realignment of State Route 79 Project.
3. TERMS
3.1 The term.of the·Master Agreement shall be extended for an additional
term of thirty-six months ending December 31, 2016 unless earlier
terminated as provided in the Master Agreement.
3.2 The Scope of Services for the Master Agreement shall be amended to
include Services, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement,
required to provide Final Project Report and Final Environmental
Document, as more fully described in Exhibit "A" attached to this
Amendment and incorporated herein by reference.
RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 2
6
3.3 The maximum compensation for Services performed pursuant to this
Amendment shall be $4,944,074 (Four Million Nine Hundred Forty-
Four Thousand Seventy-Four Dollars), as further set forth in Exhibit
"B" attached to this Amendment and incorporated herein by reference
3.4 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master
Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 through 7, including
without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain
in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties
under this Amendment.
[Signatures on following page)
RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 3
7
SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AMENDMENT NO. 8
TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH FEDERAL FUNDING/ASSISTANCE
STA TE ROUTE 79 RE-ALIGNMENT PROJECT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on
the date first herein above written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: __________ _
Karen S. Spiegel
Chair
. . .
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Best, Best & Krieger· LLP
General Counsel
17336.00000\1514236.2
CH2M HILL
Signature
Name
Title
Exhibit A
8
17336.00000\1514236.2
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
[attached behind this page]
Exhibit A
9
SR79 AS Scope Master 05-30-13.docx
RVPUBIHSHANE\714236.1 Exhibit
10
RVPUBIHSHANEI 714236.1
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
[attached behind this page]
Exhibit
11
SR79 Detailed Schedule Update 060713-rev .pdf
RVPUB\HSHANE\714236.1 Exhibit
12
RVPUBIHSHANE\714236.1
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
[attached behind this page]
Exhibit
13
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
For the satisfactory performance and completion of the Services under this
Agreement, the Commission will pay the Consultant compensation as set forth herein.
1) ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION.
Compensation for the Services will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1
Direct Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs.
a) DIRECT LABOR COSTS.
Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct
Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows:
i) DIRECT SALARY COSTS
Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the
Consultant's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Services under the
Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Consultant's personnel appears
in Section 2 i)elow.)
ii) MULTIPLIER
The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the Direct Labor
Costs is 1.0 , and is the sum of the following components:
(1)
(2)
Direct Salary Costs
Payroll Additives
1.0
included in overhead below
The decimal ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll Additives
include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick leave, and holidays, and
company portion of employee insurance and social and retirement benefits, all
federal and state payroll taxes, premiums for insurance which are measured by
payroll costs, and other contributions and benefits imposed by applicable laws and
regulations.
Exhibit C
17336 00000\1514236.2
14
(3) Overhead Costs 111.71
The decimal ratio of allowable Overhead Costs to the Consultant firm's total direct
salary costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general, administrative and
overhead costs of maintaining and operating established offices, and consistent with
established firm policies, and as defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations,
Part 31.2.
(4) Profit
Total Multiplier
b) FIXED FEE.
9%
2.308
(sum of 1.1.2.1 1 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3
multiplied by the percentage of profit)
~ · ..
i) The Fixed Fee,is the Profit as determined in Section 1.1.2.4. The
Maximum Fixed Fee under this Agreement is Three Hundred Eight
Thousand One Hundred Ninety Dollars ($308, 190)
c) ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS.
Additional Direct,Costs directly idektffiable to the performance of the services of this
Agreement shaf(be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost.
Rates for identified Additional DireCt Costs are as follows:
Per Diem
Car mileage
Rental Car
Travel
Photocopies (Black & White)
Photocopies (Color)
Photographs/
other reprographic Services
Postage/Shipping
Courier Service
Exhibit C
17336 00000\1514236.2
15
REIMBURSEMENT RATE
Actual Cost
0.565 or current IRS rate
Actual Cost
Actual Cost
Actual Cost
Actual Cost
Actual Cost
Actual Cost
Actual Cost
Other Rentals, supplies, purchases Actual Cost
Travel by air and travel in excess of 200 miles from the Consultant's office nearest to
the Commission's office must have the Commission's prior written approval to be
reimbursed under this Agreement.
2) DIRECT SALARY RATES
Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rate~hto be used in determining
Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the
following:
a) Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime
work, unless payme9t of a premium for overtime work is required by law,
regulation or craft agr~~111ent, or is ot}Jerwise specified in this Agreement.
In such event, the pre'mium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be
subject to the Multiplier defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above.
b) Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the
effeqtive :date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted
annually to reflect the Consultant's adjustments to individual
compensation. The Consultant shall notify the Commission in writing prior
.,~o ~0, change .in the range of rates included herein, and prior to each
·>:1'sub$eqti,ent cnange. .
POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES
Senior C9nsultant/Technologist $62.38 -$125.05
Project Manager
Task Manag~r/Sr. Engineer/Scientist/Planner/Consultant
Staff Engineer/S8ientistJPlanner/Consultant
Jr. Engineer/Scientist/Planner/Consultant
Staff Technician/CADD
Technical Editor
Office/Clerical/Accounting
Exhibit C
17336.00000\1514236.2
16
$62.38 -$125.05
$42.84 -$115.39
$39.47 -$64.21
$24.28 -$47.62
$23.34 -$49.64
$26.22 -$64.21
$15.75 -$47.62
c) The above rates are for the Consultant only. All rates for subconsultants
to the Consultant will be in accordance with the Consultant's cost
proposal.
3) INVOICING.
a) Each month the Consultant shall submit an invoice for Services performed
during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to the
Commission's Executive Director with two (2) copies to the Commission's
Project Coordinator.
b) Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included
herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission's
Representative.
c) Base Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for each task
and Milestone listed. in the Scope of Services, shall be listed separately.
The charges for each individual assigned by the Consultant under this
Agreement shall be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice.
d) A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall
be accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to the
Commission such as invoices, telephone logs, etc.
e) Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress
Report and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each
month and total project to date.
f) Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subconsultants or supplies
by dollar amount and as a percentage of the total invoice.
g) Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the Consultant's
Representative or an officer of the firm which reads as follows:
I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual
hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed.
Signed ____________ _
Title
Date
Invoice No.
Exhibit C
17336 00000\1514236.2
17
4) PAYMENT
a) The Commission shall pay the Consultant within four to six weeks after
receipt by the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission
contest any portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution,
without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid.
b) The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the
Consultant has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment.
Exhibit C
17336.00000\1514236.2
18
ATTACHMENT 2
State Route 79 Project: Domenigoni
Parkway to Gilman Springs Road
Scope of Services and Cost Proposal for
Final Project Report and
Final Environmental Document
Prepared for
Riverside County Transportation Commission
19
May, 30 2013
Submitted by
CH2M HILL
1770 Iowa Ave, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
Contents
Task 1.0 Project Management ............................................................................................... 1
Task 1.1 Project Management .................................................................................. 1
Task 1.2 Project Development Team Meetings ..................................................... 2
Task 1.3 Resource Agency Meetings ...................................................................... 2
Task 1.4 Other Meetings ........................................................................................... 2
Task 1.5 Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................ 3
Task 1.6 Progress Reporting and Invoicing ........................................................... 3
Task 1.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ....................................................... 3
Task 1.8 Landowner Access ..................................................................................... 4
Task 1.9 GIS Data Management .............................................................................. 4
Task l.ES Environmental Streamlining Application ............................................. .5
Task 1.10 Project Website ........................................................................................... 5
Task 2.0 NEP A/404 MOU Concurrence Tasks ................................................................... 6
Task 2.1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................... 6
Task 2.2 Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection ............................................ 6
Task 2.3 Updated Project Criteria and Alternatives Selection ............................ 6
Task 2.4 Final Agreement: Purpose and Need, Criteria, and Alternatives ....... 6
Task 2.5 LEDPA ......................................................................................................... 6
Task 2.6 Preliminary Agreement of Compliance with Section 404(b)(l) .......... 7
Task 3.0 Engineering .............................................................................................................. 8
Task 3.1 Location Hydraulic Study ........................................................................ 8
Task 3.2 Storm Water Data Report ......................................................................... 8
Task 3.3 Drainage Studies ........................................................................................ 8
Task 3.4 Utility Coordination .................................................................................. 8
Task 3.5 Geotechnical ............................................................................................... 8
Task 3.6
Task 3.7
Task 3.8
Task 3.9
Task3.10
Traffic Analysis .......................................................................................... 9
Conceptual Landscape Plan ................................................................... 10
Stage Construction Concepts and TMP ................................................ 10
Alternative Refinement ........................................................................... 10
Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 10
Task 3.11 Value Engineering ................................................................................... 10
Task 3.12 Draft Project Report ................................................................................. 10
Task 3.13 Aerial Mapping ........................................................................................ 10
Task 3.14 Final Engineering ..................................................................................... 10
Task 3.15 Advanced Planning Studies ................................................................... 11
Task 3.16 Right-of-Way Requirements ................................................................... 12
Task 3.17 Right-of-Way Data Sheets ....................................................................... 12
Task3.18 Right of Way Definition Drawings ........................................................ 13
Task 3.19 Final Project Report ................................................................................. 13
Subtask 3.19.1 Fact Sheets (Advisory and Mandatory) ................................... 13
Task4.0 Project Alternatives Description ........................................................................ 15
21
Task4.l Development of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental
Technical Reports ..................................................................................... 15
Task4.2 Modification of Project Alternatives Description for Environmental
Document .................................................................................................. 15
Task 5.0 Environmental Technical Reports ...................................................................... 16
Task 5.1 Community Impact Assessment.. .......................................................... 16
Task 5.2 Relocation Impact Document/Statement ............................................. 16 '
Task 5.3 Visual Impact Assessment ...................................................................... 18
Task 5.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 18
Task 5.5 Paleontological Inventory /Evaluation Report .................................... 18
Task 5.6 Floodplain Evaluation Report.. .............................................................. 18
Task 5.7 Water Quality Assessment Report ........................................................ 18
Task 5.8 Initial Site Assessment... .......................................................................... 18
Task 5.9 Air Quality Technical Report ................................................................. 18
Task 5.10 Technical Noise Analysis ........................................................................ 20
Task 5.11 Natural Environment Study ................................................................... 20
Task 5.12 Biological Survey Reports ....................................................................... 20
Task 5.13 MSHCP Equivalency Analysis ............................................................... 20
Subtask 5.13.1 DBESP for Los Angeles Pocket Mouse, Narrow Endemic
' Plant Species, and Riparian/Riverine Areas .......................... 21
Task 5.14 Corridor Video Survey ............................................................................ 23
Task 5.15 Completion of Section 106 and Cultural Resources in the Final
EIR/EIS ..................................................................................................... 23
Task 6.0 Environmental Document .................................................................................... 28
Task 6.1 Technical Section Updates ...................................................................... 28
Task 6.2 Administrative Draft EIR/EIS ............................................................... 28
Task 6.3 Draft EIR/EIS Preparation ..................................................................... 28
Task 6.4 Draft EIR/EIS Circulation ...................................................................... 28
Task 6.5 Public Involvement .................................................................................. 28
Subtask 6.5.1 Revised Scoping .......................................................................... 28
Subtask 6.5.2 Public Information Meeting ...................................................... 28
Subtask 6.5.3 Draft EIS/EIR Public Noticing .................................................. 28
Subtask 6.5.4 Public Hearings ........................................................................... 28
Subtask 6.5.5 Final EIS/EIR Public Noticing .................................................. 28
Task 6.6 Final EIR/EIS ............................................................................................ 29
Subtask 6.6.1 Response to Comments .............................................................. 29
Subtask 6.6.2 Floodplain Encroachment Only Practicable Finding ............. 29
Subtask 6.6.3 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation ..................................................... 30
Subtask 6.6.4 Final EIR/EIS Preparation ......................................................... 30
Subtask 6.6.5 Final EIR/EIS Circulation .......................................................... 34
Task 6.7 Project Approval ...................................................................................... 3.5
Task 6.8 Project Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan .......................... 35
Task 6.9 Route Adoption ........................................................................................ 37
Task 6.10 Notice of Determination and Record of Decision ............................... 38
Task 6.11 FHWA Major Project Requirements ...................................................... 39
Subtask 6.11.1 Project Management Plan (PMP) .............................................. 39
Subtask 6.11.2 Cost Estimate Review ................................................................ .40
22 .
Task 7.0 Optional Tasks ....................................................................................................... 45
Task 7.1 Additional Document Revisions/Review Cycles .............................. .45
Task 7.2 Additional Project Management and Administration ....................... .45
Task 7.3 Additional unforeseen requests by Stakeholders ............................... .45
iii
23
Task 1.0 Project Management
This Scope and Cost Proposal includes all activities remaining for the preparation of the
Final Project Report (PR) and Final Environmental Document required for Project approval.
This proposal recognizes the publication and circulation for comment of Draft Project
Report (DPR) and the Draft Environmental Document (DED) occurred in February-March
2013. Prior to these milestones, several other engineering studies and environmental
technical reports were completed (available at http://www.sr79project.info/library-links).
This revised scope of work replaces the existing scope between Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) and CH2M HILL.
This proposal includes task activities over the next 27 months and covers the period from
July 2013 to October 2015 (see attached schedule). The cost proposal for the following tasks
is based on the process requirements to prepare the final Project Report and Environmental
Document. Should unforeseen issues arise that are not included in this scope of work, it
may be necessary to again revise the proposed Project cost, scope, and schedule.
CH2M HILL will provide regular progress reports with the status of each task and will
notify RCTC if the level of effort for a given task has the potential to exceed the estimated
level of effort and/ or cost. This information will be provided to RCTC as part of Task 1.6,
Progress Reporting and Invoicing.
This scope and cost proposal is based on the Project Description in the DED. As described in
the Project Description, the design used in this scope includes consideration of four corridor
alternatives, two utility relocation areas, and several hydrology easements. Two of the
corridor alternatives (lb and 2b) have design options (lbl and 2b1) that lower the highway
profile but do not alter the horizontal alignment. Each of the Build alternatives is composed
of different combinations of the Project segments (A through N) identified for the Project.
Any changes to the Project as defined in the November 21, 2007, version of the Project
Description, unless explicitly discussed below, are not covered by this scope of work and
accompanying cost proposal. In addition, responses to subpoenas, or litigation activities are
not included in this scope of work.
Task 1.1 Project Management
As the prime consultant, CH2M HILL will modify subcontracts with subconsultants and
direct and coordinate their work. Prime contract terms and conditions will be incorporated
into the subcontract agreements, as required. CH2M HILL will be the primary contact for
RCTC. Under this task, CH2M HILL will also address contractual issues with RCTC as
necessary. CH2M HILL will continue to maintain the Project files.
This task also includes general management activities associated with completion of the PR,
Environmental Technical Reports, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/ California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Document (ED), and other work
activities conducted as part of this scope of services. It is assumed that the schedule from
NTP to ROD will be up to 27 months.
24
Task 1.2 Project Development Team Meetings
Monthly Project Development Team (PDT) meetings will be held at RCTC in Riverside. The
purpose of these meetings will be to discuss and resolve Project issues and coordinate
activities required for the preparation of the Final PR and Final ED. Agendas will be
prepared and distributed at least 5 working days prior to the meetings. Meeting minutes
will be prepared and distributed within 5 working days after each meeting. It is assumed
that there will be up to 27 PDT meetings during the remainder of this contract.
The PDT meetings will be preceded by a Trend meeting one week prior to each PDT
meeting. At the Trend meetings, CH2M HILL will present budget status and update RCTC
on contractual issues and also any other issues that may affect scope, schedule, and budget
for this contract. It is assumed that there will be up to 27 Trend meetings during the
remainder of this contract.
Task 1.3 Resource Agency Meetings
Meetings will be held with various resource agencies involved in the Project. These will
include RCTC, and may include the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Regional Conservation Authority
(RCA), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). For the purposes of this
scope of services and cost proposal, it is assumed that up to 18 resource agency meetings
will be held through the remaining duration of this contract to facilitate coordination of the
Final ED, the compliance with the NEPA/ 404 MOU, and preparation of MSHCP
documentation.
Task 1.4 Other Meetings
Individual meetings will be held with various agencies and the public involved in the
Project. The meetings covered under this task are large meetings where formal presentations
are required. These may include presentations to City Councils, Homeowner Associations,
Planning Commissions, RCTC Board, County Supervisors, or other entities. In addition, CH
will also prepare exhibits, presentations, and maps for RCTC staff use as requested at such
meetings.
Question and Answer (Q&A) sheets and other Project announcements will be prepared and
distributed to provide general updates to the public, or in association with certain
designated meetings that will be attended by the public. An existing Stakeholder Mailing
List will be maintained and updated to support distribution of Project Q&A sheets and
announcements. Distribution methods include direct mailings and/ or electronic mail ( e-
mail).
Assumptions
• It is assumed that up to 20 of these meetings will be required, either in terms of
attendance or presentation material preparation.
25
" T h e S t a k e h o l d e r M a i l i n g L i s t w i l l b e u p d a t e d a s n e c e s s a r y b a s e d o n u p d a t e d c o n t a c t
i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d t h r o u g h t h e P r o j e c t w e b s i t e a n d p u b l i c m e e t i n g a t t e n d a n c e .
" P r o j e c t n e w s l e t t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n , d i r e c t m a i l a n n o u n c e m e n t s , a n d e - m a i l a n n o u n c e m e n t s
a r e i n d i v i d u a l l y a s s u m e d t o o c c u r a m a x i m u m o f t w o t i m e s p e r y e a r .
T a s k 1 . 5 S t a k e h o l d e r M e e t i n g s
C o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h v a r i o u s s t a k e h o l d e r s i s a n t i c i p a t e d t o o c c u r o u t s i d e t h e s c h e d u l e d P D T ,
r e s o u r c e a g e n c y , a n d o t h e r m e e t i n g s . T h i s c o o r d i n a t i o n i s a n t i c i p a t e d t o o c c u r i n t h e f o r m o f
e m a i l s , t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a l l s , o r f o c u s e d m e e t i n g s . I n a d d i t i o n , C H w i l l a l s o p r e p a r e
e x h i b i t s , p r e s e n t a t i o n s , a n d m a p s f o r R C T C s t a f f u s e a s r e q u e s t e d a t s u c h m e e t i n g s .
T h i s c o o r d i n a t i o n i s a n t i c i p a t e d t o i n c l u d e v a r i o u s p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e e n t i t i e s i n c l u d i n g , b u t
n o t l i m i t e d t o , t h e f o l l o w i n g :
" M u n i c i p a l W a t e r D i s t r i c t
" R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y F l o o d C o n t r o l
" C i t y o f H e m e t
" C i t y o f S a n J a c i n t o
" C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e
" L o c a l d e v e l o p e r s
" N a t i v e A m e r i c a n T r i b e s
" R i v e r s i d e T r a n s i t A g e n c y
" H e m e t - R y a n A i r p o r t
I t i s a s s u m e d t h a t u p t o 2 0 o f t h e s e m e e t i n g s w i l l b e r e q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e r e m a i n i n g
d u r a t i o n o f t h i s c o n t r a c t .
T a s k 1 . 6 P r o g r e s s R e p o r t i n g a n d I n v o i c i n g
P r o g r e s s r e p o r t s w i l l b e p r e p a r e d a n d s u b m i t t e d m o n t h l y w i t h a b r i e f n a r r a t i v e d e s c r i b i n g
t h e w o r k a c c o m p l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e r e p o r t i n g p e r i o d a n d a d i s c u s s i o n o f o u t s t a n d i n g i s s u e s
a n d a c t i o n i t e m s . T h e r e p o r t s w i l l a l s o i n c l u d e a n y c o n c e r n s o r s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s w i t h
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n s . T h e p r o g r e s s r e p o r t s w i l l c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e
a c c o u n t i n g c y c l e s u s e d f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f i n v o i c e s t o f a c i l i t a t e P r o j e c t o v e r s i g h t . I n v o i c e s
w i l l b e p r e p a r e d a n d i n c l u d e c o s t s t o d a t e a n d p e r c e n t c o m p l e t e . T h i s s c o p e a n t i c i p a t e s u p
t o 2 7 p r o g r e s s r e p o r t s . C H 2 M H I L L w i l l d e v e l o p a n d m a i n t a i n a d e t a i l e d s c h e d u l e f o r t h e
P r o j e c t u s i n g P r i m a v e r a a n d u p d a t e i t a s n e e d e d , b u t a t l e a s t m o n t h l y . E a r n e d v a l u e r e p o r t s
a n d c a s h f l o w c h a r t s w i l l b e p r e p a r e d f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e T r e n d m e e t i n g s .
T a s k 1 . 7 Q u a l i t y A s s u r a n c e / Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l
C H 2 M H I L L '