Loading...
03 March 24, 2014 Western Riverside County Programs and ProjectsTIME: DATE: LOCATION: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 1:30 p.m. Monday, March 24, 2014 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside 'P-COMMITTEE MEMBERS ttlfJ:/ Frank Johnston, Chair I Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley Ben Benoit, Vice Chair/ Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Deborah Franklin I Art Welch, City of Banning Karen Spiegel/ Eugene Montanez, City of Corona Adam Rush I Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Scott Mann I Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Tom Owings I Jesse Molina, City of Moreno Valley Berwin Hanna/ Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Daryl Busch I Al Landers, City of Perris Andrew Kotyuk I Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V 'P-STAFF ttlfJ:/ Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director 'P-AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY ttlfJ:/ 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-00019 RECORDS Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Riverside County Transportation Commission Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager March 19, 2014 Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues -Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Agenda of March 24, 2014 The March 24, 2014 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. 8 -Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Grouo Inc. for the Completion of the Final Environmental Impact Report I Environmental Impact Statement and Project Report for the Mid County Parkway Project Consultant(s): Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Steve Bichich, Vice President Agenda Item No. 9 -Agreements for On-Call Right of Way Engineering and Surveying Services Consu/tant(s): Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 3990 Concourse, Suite 330 Ontario, CA 91764 Maurice Murad, Vice President Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10119 Lloyd Graham, Senior Vice President RBF Consulting 3300 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Larry Truman, 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 l:30p.m. Monday, March 24, 2014 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. orq. 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. 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. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee March 24, 2014 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-FEBRUARY 24, 2014 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 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 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. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY FOR THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT Pagel Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the Conflict of Interest (COi) Policy for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (1-15 Express Lanes); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. AGREEMENT WITH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PROJECT REPORT FOR THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Page10 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-018-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 04-31- 018, with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to perform additional studies and design support for the completion of the final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (REIR/SEIS) and Project Report (PR) for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project for an additional amount of $2,243,505, plus a contingency amount of $224,350, for a total additional amount of $2,467,855, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $45,511,717; 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 as may be required for the project; 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute non- funding related 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 March 24, 2014 Page 3 9. AGREEMENTS FOR ON-CALL RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES Page96 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide on-call right of way engineering and surveying services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $750,000; a) Agreement No. 14-31-043-00 with Huitt-Zollars, Inc; b) Agreement No. 14-31-044-00 with Parsons Brinckerhoff; and c) Agreement No. 14-31-045-00 with RBF Consulting, a Company of Michael Baker Corporation (RBF); 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Page137 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-45-084-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,547,104 in state funding for FY 2013/14; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3} Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. COMMISSIONERS/ 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. 12. ADJOURNMENT The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 28, 2014, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL March 24, 2014 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 Absent % D D D D D LI Ll LI Ll LI RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS SIGN-IN SHEET March 24, 2014 NAME AGENCY_ E MAIL ADDRESS 4-~.A-) ;< ,,<" J:: ~~ .~.~-/ _£. ~-• ~----4~"-q ~"'--~~~A'./ ~~,/4-~s/-7 ~-c,L b' ~./~l ~kiie r:i:. '--I , I 'Mt . ----r:? A--yz JL... f ...tfvt _.) -~}-....__ , YJH ,;/')// /1. J/Lw. '\JS' I N f~Ntf /()~A. Go ( . ~(._ '"loh"-'~ __J Cfa.M/JA -\Jr I J hf/, ,ef,~-/2..H' ~-·~ ~ r ~ -/ _,,, __ -_, t-y~()/t'?Jf1L J\A:A/<. \ OA[ A-~l+L~'l /)I V-'J1 11 (,(/ ~-· ~fl-////lu111J/ Jl/,ICIV1~& ~ X--VV\ <;;;-.[)/! _p-/2 "' fr1·r-· ./1 v .--TT\. ';/;:J-~ ~# U"_~{A A~, w~ 0 \.. AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE Monday, February 24, 2014 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 1:32 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, Commissioner 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 Ben Benoit Daryl Busch Deborah Franklin Berwin Hanna Kevin Jeffries Frank Johnston Andrew Kotyuk Adam Rush Karen Spiegel 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Mann Tom Owings There were no requests to speak from the public. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 24, 2014 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-NOVEMBER 25, 2013 M/S/C (Hanna/Franklin) to approve the minutes as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. IN-LIEU FEE AGREEMENT WITH RIVERSIDE-CORONA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented the scope of the agreement with Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District for compensatory mitigation for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project. In response to Commissioner Adam Rush's request for the methodology used to determine the cost, David Thomas clarified there are set fees for acreage and habitat, including oak trees. At Commissioner Deborah Franklin's request, David Thomas clarified there will be a watering system for the oak trees as part of the project. M/S/C (Busch/Johnston) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-31-077-00 with Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) for compensatory mitigation for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) in the amount of $703,300, plus a contingency amount of $70,000, for a total amount not to exceed $773,300; 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 pursuant to the agreement terms up to the total amount; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. MONSTER LEAD WALL AGREEMENT WITH BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT David Thomas presented the scope of the agreement with Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 24, 2014 Page 3 M/S/C (Hanna/Franklin) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-31-076-00 for the Monster Lead Wall Agreement with Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) in the amount of $73,600, plus a contingency amount of $7,400, for a total amount not to exceed $81,000; 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 up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the agreement; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. ON-CALL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES Mark Lancaster, Acting Right of Way Manager, presented the scope of the agreements for on-call property maintenance and repair services. In response to Commissioner Kevin Jeffries strong concern regarding the number of contracts the Commission is awarding outside of Riverside County and how the Commission can increase the number of contracts awarded to businesses in Riverside County, Anne Mayer stated the Commission does not have a local preference policy due to federal law. The Commission participates in small business expos, utilizes PlanetBids.com, as well as other resources to reach out to contractors in Riverside County. She identified some of the obstacles small businesses experience in an effort to bid on the Commission's requests for proposals. Staff will continue to look for additional ways to encourage local businesses to work with the Commission and help reduce obstacles where feasible. M/S/C (Franklin/Rush) to: 1) Approve the following agreements to provide on-call property maintenance and repair services for a three-year term plus two one- year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $1.S million; a) Agreement No. 14-33-046-00 with Braughton Construction, Inc.; b) Agreement No. 14-33-047-00 with Carry-All; c) Agreement No. 14-33-048-00 with Joshua Grading and Excavating, Inc.; and d) Agreement No. 14-33-063-00 with Real Estate Consulting & Services, Inc. 2) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements; RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 24, 2014 Page4 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. No: Jeffries 10. PROPOSITION lB FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM -CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND AND SUPPORTING RESOLUTION FOR THE COMMISSION'S COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst, presented the details of the Proposition lB Fiscal Year 2012/13 California Transit Security Grant Program -California Transit Assistance Fund and supporting resolution for the Commission's Commuter Rail Program. M/S/C (Busch/Benoit) to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 14-012, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Approving the Allocation of FY 12-13 Proposition 18-6561-0002 California Transit Security Grant Program- California Transit Assistance Funds to the RCTC Commuter Rail Program and Designation of Authorized Agent''; 2) Allocate the California Transit Security Grant Program-California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) funds totaling $355,748 for the Commission's Commuter Rail Program; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Jennifer Harmon stated this item is for the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee to conduct an election of the officers for 2014. At this time, Chair Kotyuk opened nominations for the Chair position. Commissioner Berwin Hanna, seconded by Commissioner Rush, nominated Commissioner Frank Johnston for the Chair position for 2014. No other nominations were received. The Chair closed the nominations. Chair Kotyuk opened nominations for the Vice Chair position for 2014. Commissioner Johnston, seconded by Commissioner Marion Ashley, nominated Commissioner Ben Benoit for the Vice Chair position. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes February 24, 2014 Page 5 No other nominations were received. The Chair closed the nominations. Commissioners Frank Johnston and Ben Benoit were elected as the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee's Chair and Vice Chair for 2014, respectively. 12. COMMISSIONERS/ STAFF REPORT 12A. Commissioner Ashley briefed the Committee on the Perris Valley Line ground breaking ceremony; 12B. Commissioner Karen Spiegel announced the Southern California Association of Governments needs comments on the Draft 2014 Public Participation Plan by March 7; and 12C. Commissioner Daryl Busch briefed the Committee on the Perris Valley Line ground breaking ceremony and the inaugural run of positive train control in Los Angeles. 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 2:08 p.m. The next meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee is scheduled for March 24, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DA TE: March 24, 2014 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FRO M: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THR OUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUB JECT: Conflict of Interest Policy for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project STA This 1) 2) FF RECOMMENDATION: item is for the Committee to: Approve the Conflict of Interest {COi) Policy for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project {1-15 Express Lanes); and Forward to the Commission for final action. BAC KGROUND INFORMATION: In 2 006, the Commission assessed the feasibility of tolling four freeway corridors and concluded portions of the State Route 91 and 1-15 corridors were generally feasible from a financial, ffic operation, and engineering standpoint. Environmental studies began on 1-15 in 2008. that tra At 10- its 2010 workshop, the Commission adopted a reprioritization strategy for the Year Western Riverside County Delivery Plan projects including staff's recommendation to valuate the original 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project {1-15 CIP) scope. Staff worked with 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee and returned with project scope recommendations. The mmission approved a new 1-15 Express Lanes project to construct tolled express lanes in the median from Cajalco Road in the city of Corona to just south of SR-60 near the San nardino County line. re-e the Co 1-15 Ber In 2 013, staff worked with the 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee to evaluate project delivery methods. anuary 2014, the ad hoc committee approved using design-build for the next phase of ect delivery. In preparation for the design-build phase of work, staff is planning the curement of both a project and construction management firm {2014/2015) and a design- d team (2016/2017) to engineer and construct the project. In J proj pro buil The succ Com Commission adopted a similar COi policy in 2010 for the SR-91 CIP. This policy was essfully utilized many times during the project's procurement phases. Staff proposes the mission adopt a similar policy for the 1-15 Express Lanes. Agen da Item 7 1 Purpose and Goals of Policy The attached COi policy prescribes the Commission's policy on conflict of interest relating to consultants, advisors, and individuals participating or desiring to participate in the management, planning, procurement, design, construction, or development of the 1-15 Express Lanes. The COi policy goals are as follows: • Protect the integrity and fairness of the management, planning, procurement, design, construction, or development of the 1-15 Express Lanes; • Avoid circumstances where a consultant or proposer obtains, or appears to obtain, an unfair competitive advantage as a result of work performed by a consultant; • Provide guidance to consultants and proposers, or potential consultants and proposers, so they may assess and make informed business decisions concerning their decision to provide services on the 1-15 Express Lanes or to submit a qualification submittal and/or proposal related to the management, design, construction, or development of the project; and • Protect the Commission's interests and confidential and sensitive project-specific information. The policy provides general conflict of interest standards, a process to determine whether a COi exists and factors relevant to a COi determination. Attachment: RCTC Conflict of Interest Policy for the 1-15 Express Lanes Agenda Item 7 2 RCTC Conflicts of Interest Policy for Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 1. Purpose. This Policy prescribes Conflict of Interest policies applicable to private entities, including Consultants and Proposers, participating or desiring to participate in the Commission's planning, procurement, design, construction or development of the Project. A private entity's failure to comply with these standards of conduct may result in potential liability to the Commission and the private entity and the private entity's preclusion from participation in the Project. This Policy is intended to apply in the context of the Commission's development of the Project pursuant to a design-build delivery method and contract. Section 2. Definitions. Section 2.1. "Affiliate" means with respect to any Consultant: (a) any member, partner or joint venturer of such Consultant; (b) any individual or entity that directly or indirectly controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such Consultant or any of its members, partners or joint venturers; and (c) any other entity for which 20% or more of the equity interest in such other entity is held directly or indirectly, beneficially or of record by (i) such Consultant, (ii) any of such Consultant's members, partners or joint venturers or (iii) any Affiliate of such Consultant under clause (b) of this definition. Section 2.2. "Commission" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Section 2.3. "Conflict of Interest" means a circumstance arising out of a Consultant's existing or past activities, including past activities as a Consultant to or employee of the Commission, business interests, familial relationships, contractual relationships, and/or organizational structure (i.e., Affiliates, etc.) wherein (i) the Consultant is or may be unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Commission, (ii) the Consultant's objectivity in performing the scope of work sought by the Commission is or might be otherwise impaired, (iii) the Consultant has, or is perceived to have, an unfair competitive advantage; (iv) the Consultant's performance of Services on behalf of the Commission does or may provide an unfair competitive advantage to a third party; or (v) regardless of whether accurate, there is a perception or appearance of impropriety or unfair competitive advantage benefiting the Consultant or a third party as a result of the Consultant's participation on the Project. Section 2.4. "Consultant" means any person or business entity (including any individual employee of such entity or any division and/or Affiliate of such entity) previously or currently retained, or in the process of being retained, by the Commission to provide Services in connection with the Project, including subconsultants and individual employees of subconsultants. Section 2.5. "Executive Director" means the executive director of the Commission or his or her designee. Section 2.6. "Policy" means this RCTC Conflicts of Interest Policy for the Project. 3 Section 2.7. "Project" means the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project. Section 2.8. "Proposer" means any person or business entity, including joint ventures, partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations, consortia, teams or other groups or organizations of individuals or entities, or the individuals and entities that make up such groups, that have submitted a qualification submittal or proposal for work on the Project or are interested in submitting a qualification submittal or proposal for work on the Project. Section 2.9. "Services" means, in the context of this Policy, consulting services related to the Project, which may include, but are not limited to, some or all of the following: planning services, procurement services, federal and state environmental services; financial advisory services; insurance services, legal services; DBE compliance or program development services, labor compliance services, traffic and revenue studies; operations and toll planning services; program oversight; design and construction management services, preliminary engineering services (including right-of-way, structures, survey and utility), and public and community outreach services. Section 3. Conflicts of Interest. Section 3.1. Purpose. This section prescribes the Commission's policy on Conflicts of Interest relating to Consultants participating or desiring to participate in the planning, procurement, design, construction or development of the Project, and thereby: (A) protects the integrity and fairness of the planning, procurement, design, construction or development of the Project; (B) avoids circumstances where a Consultant or Proposer obtains, or appears to obtain, an unfair competitive advantage as a result of work performed by a Consultant; (C) provides guidance to Consultants and Proposers, or potential Consultants and Proposers, so they may assess, and make informed business decisions concerning their decision to provide Services on the Project or to submit a qualification submittal and/or proposal related to the design, construction or development of the Project; and (D) protects the Commission's interests and confidential and sensitive Project-specific information. Section 3.2. Applicability. This Policy applies to Consultants who desire to participate in, have participated in or are participating in the performance of Services for the Commission related to the Project. This Policy may prohibit or restrict the ability of a Proposer to have a Consultant participate on a Proposer team as an equity owner or team member, act as a consultant or subconsultant to a Proposer, or have a financial interest in a Proposer or an equity owner or team member of a Proposer. This Policy relates solely to the Project and does not address the Commission's approach to conflicts of interest on other Commission projects. Section 3.3. Conflicts of Interest Disclosure · Section 3.3.1. Obligation to Disclose. Consultants participating in the Project shall arrange their affairs so as to prevent Conflicts of Interest from arising. Any 4 Consultant having an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest shall disclose the matter to the Commission in writing with supporting facts and information to the following individual: Mr. Matt Wallace Procurement and Asset Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street. 3rd Fioor Riverside, CA 92502 Email: mwallace@rctc.org Disclosures will also be requested as part of any request for qualifications or request for proposals relating to the design, construction or development of the Project. The Consultant's Conflict of Interest disclosure obligation is ongoing. Consultants should undertake reasonable due diligence, including necessary conflict searches, to determine whether new actual, potential or perceived Conflicts of Interest arise. Due diligence should extend to investigation of past relationships and, if the Consultant is an entity, to employees, officers or directors of the Consultant. If a Consultant becomes aware of an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest at any time during its participation in the Project, the Consultant shall promptly disclose the matter to the Commission as described herein. A Consultant shall use its best efforts to respond to any requests for additional information and documentation which the Commission deems necessary to fully evaluate the Commission's Conflict of Interest issues and to consider the Commission's determination. The Consultant's failure to provide such information or documentation when requested may impact the Commission's final determination hereunder. Section 3.3.2. Failure to Comply. If a Consultant fails to comply with this Policy, including failure to comply with any mitigative measures imposed under this Policy, or otherwise fails to disclose an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest, the Commission may, in its sole discretion: (A) Preclude and/or disqualify the Consultant and its Affiliates, including any Proposer with whom the Consultant is or had affiliated, from participation in the planning, procurement, design, construction and/or development of the Project, including any competitive process associated therewith; (B) Require the Consultant and its Affiliates, including any Proposer with whom the Consultant is or had affiliated, to implement mitigative measures; (C) Segregate or terminate the Consultant and its Affiliates, including any Proposer with whom the Consultant is or had affiliated, from planning, procurement, design, construction and/or development of the Project; and/or (D) Pursue any and all other rights and remedies available at law, in equity or set forth in any request for qualifications or request for proposals, which rights and remedies shall include the right to seek any and all direct or indirect costs and damages resulting from the Consultant's failure to comply with this Policy, including, but not limited to, costs resulting from third-party challenges to the procurement or the 5 Commission's re-procurement of the Project. Section 3.4. Period in Which a Conflict of Interest Applies. If the Executive Director determines that the performance of Services by a Consultant creates an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest, the provisions in this Policy and any decisions made by the Commission related to such Conflict of Interest (including prohibitions, mitigative measures, etc.) shall continue and apply for the duration of the planning, procurement, design, construction and development of the Project, provided that the Executive Director may, on a case-by-case basis and in his or her sole discretion, modify the length of this time period in writing if he/she determines that the modification is in the best interests of the Commission and the Project. Section 3.5. Application to New Firm. If a Conflict of Interest applies to an individual, the Conflict of Interest and prohibition with respect to the individual will not apply to the individual's new place of employment, unless the new employer is an Affiliate of the employee's previous employer or unless mitigative measures will not, in the Commission's sole discretion, mitigate or eliminate the Conflict of Interest issue. If the new employer is not an Affiliate of the previous employer and is otherwise eligible to perform Services for the Commission pursuant to this Policy and applicable law, the new employer will remain eligible despite the employment of the individual, but mitigative measures may be required of the new employer with respect to the employee. Section 3.6. Federal and State Requirements. Section 3.6.1. Federal and State Laws. For federal-aid projects and in certain other circumstances, the Commission must comply with the Federal Highway Administration's organizational conflict of interest regulations found in 23 CFR §636.116. The Commission must also comply with certain California laws and regulations, including, without limitation, Government Code §§1090 and 87100 et seq. Nothing in this Policy is intended to limit, modify, supersede or otherwise alter the effect of those laws and regulations, and the Commission will apply this Policy consistent with those laws and regulations. Section 3.6.2. Limitations on Commission Consents and Approvals. To the extent that application of the federal and state laws and regulations described in Section 3.6.1 would preclude or limit participation by a Consultant or an individual with respect to the Project, then notwithstanding any other aspect of this Policy or any contrary decision by the Commission in response to an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest under this Policy, such federal and state laws and regulations shall control and be determinative. Under no circumstances shall a decision, approval or consent by the Commission in response to a disclosure, request or actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest under this Policy be considered an opinion with respect to the applicability or effect of such federal and state laws or regulations, and Consultant shall bear all responsibility and liability for determining if a conflict under federal and/or state laws or regulations exist in relation to the Consultant's work or proposed work on the Project. Section 3.7. Binding Effect of Commission Decisions. The Commission shall not 6 withdraw or amend a prior consent or approval granted to a Consultant under this Policy unless: (A) The application of the federal and state laws and regulations described in Section 3.6 requires the consent or approval to be withdrawn or amended; or (B) The Commission decides, in its sole discretion, to withdraw or amend the consent or approval based on factual circumstances that the Commission has been made aware of that were not disclosed when the Commission made its original decision, or factual circumstances that are new or have changed since the Commission made its original decision; or (C) The Consultant or Proposer team fails to comply with any mitigative measures imposed under this Policy. Section 3.8. General Conflict of Interest Standards. Except as provided in Section 3.9 of this Policy, no Consultant that has previously provided Services or that is currently providing Services to the Commission with respect to the Project may be a Proposer or participate as an equity owner, team member, consultant, or subconsultant of or to a Proposer for the Project, or have a financial interest in any of the foregoing entities with respect to the Project. In Commission's sole discretion, this prohibition may be extended to Consultants that worked for the Commission on a project other than the Project, where such work was, in the Commission's sole determination, strategic to Commission's design-build program or afforded such Consultant access to information about the Project or the Commission's approach to the Project (or other design-build projects) or procurement of the Project (or other design-build projects) that would provide an unfair competitive advantage for such Consultant. Section 3.9. Determination Regarding Provision of Services for the Project. Section 3.9.1. Discretion of the Commission. Unless otherwise indicated in this Policy, all approvals, actions or discretion under this Policy and with respect to an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest shall be within the sole discretion of the Commission. Unless a particular decision regarding application of this Policy is referred to the Commission's Board of Directors by the Executive Director, the Executive Director retains the ultimate and sole discretion to act on behalf of the Commission hereunder and to determine on a case-by-case basis whether an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest exists and what actions may be appropriate to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate any actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest. Section 3.9.2. Determination Process. In response to a disclosure under Section 3.3 above or information the Commission obtains independent of a Consultant, the Executive Director shall determine whether a Consultant has an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest that the Executive Director determines should prevent the Consultant from (i) being a Proposer, (ii) participating as an equity owner, team member, consultant, or subconsultant of or to a Proposer for the Project, (iii) having a financial interest in any of the foregoing entities with respect to the Project or (iv) otherwise participating in the design, construction or development of the Project. Once the Executive Director makes this determination, he/she or his/her designee shall send the Consultant a written notice regarding the decision and, if participation is approved, 7 whether the approval and participation is limited or subject to the Consultant meeting certain conditions. The Executive Director shall consider some or all of the following factors when making the determination: (A) Whether the Consultant will not, or in the case of the previous performance of Services did not, have access to or obtain knowledge of confidential or sensitive information, procedures, policies and processes that could provide, or could be perceived to provide, an unfair competitive advantage with respect to the procurement, design, construction or development of the Project; (B) Whether the data and information provided to the Consultant in the performance of the Services is either substantially irrelevant to the procurement for the Project or is generally available on substantially an equal and timely basis to all Proposers; (C) The type of Services at issue; (D) The particular circumstances at issue, including the Consultant's ability to effectively implement the safeguards described in Section 3.12, including an ethical wall, or to otherwise mitigate the Conflict of Interest in a manner satisfactory to the Commission; (E) The specialized expertise, if any, needed by the Commission and Proposers to implement the Project; (F) The period of time between the previous work for the Commission and the potential Conflict of Interest situation; (G) Whether the Consultant's work for the Commission has been completed or is ongoing; (H) The potential impact on the procurement and implementation of the Project, including impacts on competition; (I) Whether, with respect to a Consultant's prior environmental services related to the Project, if any, a record of decision or finding of no significant impact has been issued for the Project; (J) Whether, with respect to a Consultant's prior traffic and revenue Services related to the Project, if any, the prior work will have no impact on the Project's plan of finance, on a Proposer's ability to obtain and close funding or on the potential sources of funding for the Project; (K) Whether the Executive Director believes that the Consultant's participation is in the best interests of the Commission; and (L) Any other factors or circumstances deemed relevant by the Commission. Section 3.10. Procurement and Financial Services. Independent of the process described in Section 3.9, a Consultant actively engaged and performing procurement services or financial services with respect to the Project may not be a Proposer or participate as an equity owner, team member, consultant, or subconsultant of or to a Proposer for the Project, or have a financial interest in any of the foregoing entities with respect to the Project. 8 Section 3.11. Multiple Services. If a Consultant is providing more than one category or type of Services to the Commission for the Project (e.g., environmental services as well as procurement services) and there are differences in this Policy's considerations, standards, restrictions, limitations and outcomes applicable to those categories or types of Services, the standards, restrictions, limitations and outcomes applicable to a category that are more stringent will be applied (e.g., if a Consultant were only providing preliminary engineering services that have been completed, they may be approved to participate on a Proposer team, whereas, if they were also providing ongoing procurement services for the Project, they may not be approved to participate on a Proposer team). Section 3.12. Restriction of Services and Conditions to Approvals and Exceptions. In order to address actual, potential or perceived Conflicts of Interest, the Executive Director as part of providing his or her consent to the participation of a Consultant may, in his or her sole discretion: (A) Restrict the scope of Services the Consultant may be eligible to perform for the Commission or the Proposer team in order to further the intent and goals of this Policy; (B) Condition an approval, determination, or exception as the Executive Director determines appropriate to further the intent and goals of this Policy, including by requiring the Consultant or Proposer to implement certain safeguards, including, but not limited to: (i) The execution of confidentiality agreements satisfactory to the Commission, which may, among other things, include the segregation and protection of information obtained as a result of the Consultant's prior or ongoing work for the Commission or from former or current Commission employees; and/or (ii) The execution of ethical wall agreements satisfactory to the Commission, which segregate certain personnel from participation in the Project; and/or (iii) The execution of agreements satisfactory to the Commission regarding the dissemination of work product and materials created as a result of Consultant's prior or ongoing work for the Commission, including dissemination to the Commission and restrictions on dissemination by the Consultant to any Proposer team, including a team on which they intend to participate. Section 3.13. Provisions are Nonexclusive. The provisions in this Policy do not address every situation that may arise in the context of the Commission's planning, procurement, design, construction or development of the Project nor require a particular decision or determination by the Executive Director when faced with facts similar to those described in this Policy. In addition, additional policies, procedures and limits related to conflicts of interest or similar issues may be imposed by the Commission at any time with respect to the Project or any other Commission projects. 9 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2014 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Alex Menor, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. for the Completion of the SUBJECT: Final Environmental Impact Report I Environmental Impact Statement and Project Report for the Mid County Parkway Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-018-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to perform additional studies and design support for the completion of the final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (REIR/SEIS) and Project Report (PR) for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project for an additional amount of $2,243,505, plus a contingency amount of $224,350, for a total additional amount of $2,467,855, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $45,511,717; 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 as may be required for the project; 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute non- funding related agreements for the environmental clearance and design of the project; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The MCP project is a proposed new west-east transportation corridor planned to improve mobility in Western Riverside County. The original 32-mile project limits were from Interstate 15 to State Route 79. The original Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/DEIS) for the MCP project was circulated for a 90-day public review on October 10, 2008. The Commission accepted public comments for the record at six public meetings held in the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto and the communities of Mead Valley and Citrus Hills High School in the First District along with comments via the website and email. Agenda Item 8 10 Comments submitted on the DEIR/DEIS raised environmental and community concerns regarding the portion of the project between 1-15 and 1-215 and funding concerns about the entire project. In response to these comments, the Commission took action on July 8, 2009, to focus the project limits to the portion between 1-215 and SR-79, reducing the project in half to a 16-mile corridor. Since the Commission directive in 2009, staff has been working with its consultant team and project partners -Federal Highway Administration {FHWA), Caltrans, local agencies, and tribal governments -to update and revise the technical studies for the modified project and released a draft Revised DEIR/Supplemental DEIS (RDEIR/SDEIS) in February 2013 for public review and comment. The development and release of the RDEIR/SDEIS was completed within the budget from Amendment No. 5 approved by the Commission in September 2010. Since the approval of Amendment No. 5, the MCP project team completed, or is in the process of completing the following items: • Reached agreement on a modified purpose and need. • Developed three modified build alternatives (Alternative 4 Modified, Alternative 5 Modified, and Alternative 9 Modified) and one design variation at the San Jacinto River Bridge area to be carried forward into the RDEIR/SDEIS. • Updated all engineering, traffic, and environmental studies required for a RDEIR/SDEIS and three modified build alternatives, including but not limited to a Supplemental New Connection Report at 1-215, Traffic Technical Report, PR, environmental technical studies and hydraulic studies for the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation (SJRB DV). • Released the RDEIR/SDEIS evaluating the modified alternatives in January 2013 for a 75-day public review period. o The RDEIR/SDEIS included discussions of the process to date and how the comments received during public review of the original DEIR/DEIS led to a decision to refine the project purpose and need statement and to focus the project limits between 1-215 and SR-79. In addition to including the analysis of up to three modified build alternatives and the SJRB DV, the recirculated document included a phasing plan, associated environmental analysis, and addressed public comments received on the DEIR/DEIS in 2008. o Held public hearing on February 20, 2013. • Following release of the RDEIR/SDEIS and public hearing, started work on all documents required for a final REIR/SEIS and a Record of Decision (ROD). o Prepared responses to comments on the RDEIR/SDEIS. o Prepared the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan {MSHCP) Consistency Determination of Biological Equivalency or Superior Preservation Analysis, and submitted the joint project review (JPR) for the regional conservation agency and the wildlife agency review and concurrence. o Held 16 tribal consultation meetings and prepared a memorandum of agreement {MOA) and discovery and monitoring plan (DMP) for tribal government and Agenda Item 8 11 agency review for forwarding to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for final approval. o Revised and updated the design exception fact sheets and, geometric approval drawings (GADs) for recommended Alternative 9 Modified to comply with Caltrans 2012 standards for reduced project limits. o Revised and updated all environmental technical studies for most recent guidance and final approval, including but not limited to noise, jurisdictional delineation, air quality, and relocation impact report. o Recirculated portions of Chapter 4 of the RDEIR on air quality, greenhouse gases, and climate change for public review on January 31, 2014. The public review period ended on March 17, 2014. Comments are currently being evaluated. o Received agreement in February 2014 from the transportation and resource agencies that the Preliminary Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative for the project is Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV. The remaining items required to complete and secure FHWA ROD are as follows: • Preparation and approval of final Project Report; • Complete the final REIR/SEIS; • Complete the cost estimate review, project management plan and financial plan to comply with FHWA's Major Project Guidance for projects over $500 million; • Secure regulatory agency agreement on MSHCP Consistency Analysis, JPR concurrence, Section 4(f) concurrence, and SHPO concurrence on the MOA and DMP; • Circulate for public review the final REIR/SEIS; and • Secure the FHWA ROD. At the completion of this process between summer and winter of 2014, the Commission will be requested to certify the final REIR, FHWA to release the final SEIS for public review, and FHWA to issue a ROD. The critical path item in the schedule is securing SHPO concurrence; this action is unpredictable in length and could add an additional 12 months of time to the schedule and delay the issuance of the ROD to winter 2015. Following a ROD, the Commission can proceed to right of way acquisition, design, and construction of the MCP project. Contract Amendments At its December 13, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018 for a total amount of $5,030,501 for Phase I work with Jacobs for the development of the project study report/project development study (PSR/PDS) and preliminary phases of the PR and environmental document (PR/ED) for what is now called the MCP. The original project limits were from 1-15 to SR-79. At its January 12, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 05-31-530, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs for Phase II of the project and development and completion of the preliminary engineering and environmental document, for Agenda Item 8 12 a total amount not to exceed $26,134,384. This brought the total project cost for Phase I and Phase II of the MCP project to $31,164,885. At its November 9, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 06-72-555, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs in the amount of $4,845,385 for incorporation of three new alternatives identified during a value analysis study process for the MCP project. Both schedule and budget were impacted due to the need to conduct the required environmental and engineering studies for the new alternatives. Amendment Nos. 3 and 4, which covered work for the initial work on project re-evaluation, were funded with contingency funds. This brought the total contract value for the MCP project to $36,010,270. At its September 8, 2010 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018-05, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs to perform additional work scope for the reduced project between 1-215 and SR-79. This amendment covered completion of the RDEIS/SDEIR and supplemental PR for the MCP project in the amount of $7,033,592. Amendment No. 6 was a no cost amendment to extend the term for an additional 48 months to complete additional technical reports and coordination with regulatory agencies and tribal governments. Through Amendment No. 6, the total authorized amount for the MCP project environmental and engineering studies is $43,043,862. CONCLUSION: Since the last Commission action in 2010 adding funding and scope to the contract, additional state and federal requirements have arisen as well as additional requirements from regulatory resource agencies and tribal governments. These requirements include the following: • FHWA: Cost Estimate Review, Project Management Plan, and Financial Plan; • State: New design requirements from 2012 Highway Design Manual change, Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Air Quality Analysis for Green House Gases and Climate Change, Noise Abatement Decision Report, and Soundwall Property Survey; • Tribal Government: Concurrence with the MOA and DMP, which also resulted in the need to prepare a Landscape Cultural Study; • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Additional flood plain and hydrology analysis; and • California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Modifications to the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Amendment No. 7 will provide funding to complete the final REIR/SEIS and final PR and obtain the ROD for the MCP project. Staff has negotiated with the consultant team a proposed Amendment No. 7 related to the scope, schedule and cost for the final REIR/SEIS and PR for the MCP project. During the negotiating process, it was agreed that some of the austerity measures undertaken by Jacobs in 2010, such as reduction in fee from 10 percent to 7 percent, and a 6 percent in reduction of overhead rate, will be maintained with this Amendment No. 7 resulting in approximate savings of $120,000. Agenda Item 8 13 r----------------------------------------- Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 04-31-018-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs to perform the additional work scope to complete the final environmental and engineering services associated with preparing a final REIR/SEIS and final PR for the MCP project for an additional amount of $2,243,505 plus a contingency amount of $224,350, for a total requested authorization of $2,467,855. The total authorized funding by the Commission for the environmental and engineering work related to the MCP project, with the addition of this request, will be $45,511,717, as summarized in the table below. Commission Authorization Contract Execution Date Amount Date Amount Description Original 12/13/2003 $ 5,030,501 2/3/2004 $ 5,030,501 Phase I work for preparation of PSR/PDS and preliminary phases of PR/ED Amendment No. 1 1/12/2005 26,134,384 5/6/2005 20,168,608 Phase II work for preparation of PR/ED Amendment No. 2 11/9/2005 4,845,385 1/11/2006 Phase II additional work related to three 4,845,385 new alternative alignments Amendment No. 3 N/A N/A 11/14/2007 3,563,117 Phase II additional work for GADs and cultural investigation Amendment No. 4 N/A N/A 1/1/2010 2,402,659 Phase II additional work for rescoping of project for re-evaluation Amendment No. 5 9/8/2010 7,033,592 11/16/2010 7,033,592 Phase II additional work for RDEIR/SDEIS Amendment No. 6 N/A N/A 12/31/2012 -Term extension through December 31, 2016 Total 43,043,862 43,043,862 Amendment No. 7 (proposed) 4/9/2014 2,467,855 2,243,505 Phase II additional work for Final REIR/SEIS $ 45,511, 717 $45,287,367 In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Source of Funds: CETAPTUMF GL/Project Accounting No.: Fiscal Procedures Approved: Attachments: Financial Information Year: FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 002302 81101210 73 81101 1) MCP Scope of Work Amendment 7 2) MCP Project Schedule 3) MCP Project Cost Detail Amendment 7 4) MCP Project Cost Summary Amendment 7 5) Draft Agreement No. 04-31-018-07 Agenda Item 8 14 Amount: $ 400,000 $ 2,067,855 Budget Adjustment: No N/A Date: 03/19/2014 -----------------------------~ ATTACHMENT 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 1 -PROJECT MANAGEMENT MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: • Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. • Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.1 Project Management This task includes overall project management, Project Development Team (PDT) leadership, progress monitoring, and maintenance of project files for the following: • Amendment 4 (2009) -Scope and start re-evaluation phase for the modified project, 16 miles from Perris to San Jacinto. (Noted with an "A") • Amendment 5 (2010) -Scope for all studies and documents required to release a Revised Draft Project Report and Recirculated/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (SDEIS/RDEIR). (Noted with an "A") • Items added to the scope that were not in Amendment 5 scope of work, but were required to be performed in order to reach circulation of the RDEIRISDEIS and completion of the re-evaluation phase. This work was done with the contingency fund in Amendment 5 and re-a/location of original Amendment 5 budget. No funds were requested for this work. It is noted in this scope of work for documentation purposes only. These tasks are noted with italics. • Items added to scope of work under Amendment 7 for the Final Phase to complete the final EIR/EIS and ROD. These tasks are noted with underline text. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) will supervise, coordinate, monitor, and review the Draft Project Report, Draft and Final Revised Project Report, Draft 15 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR) Recirculated/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (SDEIS/RDEIR), Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR) and all associated documents for conformance with the latest Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local agency standards, policies, and procedures. Monthly progress reports will be prepared to document progress on the project. This task also incorporates the management and project integration required for each of the subconsultants. The consultant will provide Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for the project re-evaluation. The job-specific QA/QC plan includes the type and timing of checks and reviews, the designation of personnel involved, and specific procedures. These procedures apply to all team members and will be regularly audited by our designated QA/QC manager to ensure compliance. All documents and papers for external use will be reviewed for completeness and consistency. A technical editor will be used for all external documents. 1.2 Project Scheduling and Project Controls Jacobs will prepare a detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) and integrate project milestones in the critical path schedule. All activities will be resource loaded for the team. The schedule will be updated bimonthly or more frequently as required, and a variance analysis will be provided in our monthly report. Primavera Scheduling Software, tied into the Jacobs Accounting System, will be used for this task. Jacobs will provide the Project Controls for this project to ensure proper financial controls to the project. Earned value will be used along with schedule updates to maintain project budget and schedule. 1.3 Project Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend a number of meetings as specified below: Project Development Team (PDT) The PDT and Jacobs will meet monthly. These progress meetings will be used to coordinate the work effort and resolve problems and will be conducted by the Consultant. The Jacobs Team will meet with RCTC and others, including Caltrans, Riverside County, and the affected cities (Corona, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Perris, Riverside and San Jacinto) as necessary. Jacobs will provide discussion materials 2 16 and agendas and will prepare and distribute meeting notes. Jacobs will develop an action item matrix, document all project decisions, and distribute correspondence copies to all project team members as appropriate. The meetings will also review the following: 1. Activities completed since the last meeting 2. Problems encountered 3. Anticipated strategic problems and possible solutions 4. Information or items required from other cities or the agencies 5. Schedule "look-ahead" discussion Small Working Group (SWG) Meetings Small Working Group meetings will continued to be scheduled quarterly for the SWG and monthly as needed, including representatives of local government and private sector agencies along the corridor, along with the FHWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Riverside County, and RCTC. This group will meet to provide environmental and engineering technical input in order to move the environmental process forward and to gain concurrence on a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The consultant will prepare the agenda and meeting notes and conduct a pre-meeting with RCTC to prepare for the monthly meeting. Resource Agency Coordination {RAC) Meetings RAC meetings will continued to be scheduled monthly as needed, including representatives of the following agencies: FHWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and RCTC. This group will meet to provide environmental and engineering technical input in order to move the environmental process forward and to gain concurrence on a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The consultant will prepare the agenda and meeting notes and conduct a pre-meeting with RCTC to prepare for the monthly meeting. Trend Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend the monthly "Trend" meetings to discuss current issues and strategize for and anticipate potential project problems in the future. Jacobs will invite subconsultants based on the topic of discussion. 3 17 Budget and Schedule Meetings The Jacobs Team will meet monthly with RCTC to review schedule, scope and budget. The team will report on the estimate to complete or earned value of the project. The team will identify any potential out of scope items and areas where budget has been saved and can be utilized elsewhere. Development Coordination Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend development coordination meetings with local agency partners and I or developers, to coordinate alignments, right-of-way, developer tracts, etc., as needed. These meetings are to facilitate a means of communication between the local agencies, developers and RCTC in order to minimize impacts to the alignment and proposed developments. Caltrans Technical Coordination Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend monthly Caltrans workshop meetings to review and resolve engineering issues, share information, seek input, provide interim reviews of data, etc. Internal Team Meetings The Jacobs Team will run and attend semi-monthly internal team meetings to develop, discuss, review, and implement task assignments and coordinate tasks. Other Agency Meetings Other agency meetings include anticipated meetings with federal, State, and local agencies. These include coordination and support for the environmental streamlining process, the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) integration process, Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) development, and coordination with the SR-79 realignment projects. These agency meetings are anticipated as an average of one per month. 4 18 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 2-PUBLIC OUTREACH MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: • Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. • Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 2.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH 2.1A Support for Public Meetings Attend outreach team meetings to prepare for public information and hearing associated with release of RDEIR/SDEIS; attend two trend meetings before each round of public meetings and hearing. Provide and/or review Draft support materials in the form of maps, newsletters, mail pieces, web site updates, newspaper ads, PowerPoints, and presentation materials for public meetings, hearing and any additional meetings with stakeholders. Assumption: Attend 10 meetings and review/produce support materials as needed. Scope includes associated team meetings to support this effort. Product: o Draft support documents for Public Meetings, hearing and any additional meetings with stakeholders o Timeline for deliverables leading up to Public Meetings 19 2.3A Message Development and Media Relations Update key message document to reflect new project issues (environmental documents, project design, final route selection). The key message document is utilized for attending stakeholder meetings and in response or discussions to media inquiries. Message development includes preparing RCTC spokesperson on key message for briefings with local and regional transportation reporters prior to public meetings, release of Draft REIS/SEIR and other project milestones. Develop an MCP message document as needed for discussions with local, regional and federal partners and stakeholders. Assumption: Includes items in original Task 2.3A to support a public information meetings and a newsletter. 2.6A Public Informational Meetings and Website (3 Total) This task includes final documents for Public Information Meetings associated with modified project and release of RDEIR/SDEIS and includes maintenance and update to website. Assumptions: One public information meeting for project modification in late 201 O or early 2011 and two meetings for RDEIR/SDEIS -prior to public hearings for RDEIR/SDEIS. This task assumes one newsletter, including mailing. 2.6.1A Support Review and provide comments on final display materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint presentations. Attend public informational meetings. Includes 4 renderings for modified project-revised cad files, new boards, pdfs but no new flights or photos. 2.6.2A Communications Final presentation materials for RCTC spokesperson at public meetings. 2.6.3A Logistical and Public Information Support Meeting setup including researching venue locations and booking. 2.6.4A Hold Meetings Meeting attendance. 2.6.5A Web site 2 20 Update of website for new materials related to public meetings, hearings and release of RDEIR/SDEIS. Load of all environmental documents for RDEIR/SDEIS to website. Review and assist with update of website for public meeting. Update of website for new materials related to the Recirculation of portions of Chapter 4 of the RDEIR/DEIS. Load all environmental documents for the Recirculated Chapter 4 and produce products listed below. One additional update of website and materials listed below for update to public prior to the Final EIR/EIS. Products for all 2.6A tasks: • Talking points document • Q&A document products • Comments and reviews on materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint presentations • Letter and envelope • Newsletter • Email announcement • List updates • Newspaper ads 2.7A Recirculated DEIR I Supplemental DEIS Hearings, Final EIR/EIS Hearing Assumption: One public hearing for RDEIR/SDEIS and one for the Final EIR/EIS 2.7.1A Support Review and provide comments to display materials, newsletters, and draft PowerPoint presentations. Attend hearings. 2.7.2A Communications Draft talking points for RCTC spokesperson at public meetings. Draft Q&A document to help RCTC spokesperson prepare for public questions during meeting. 2.7.3A Logistical and Public Information Support Coordinate site locations and provide logistical support for up to 2 informational meetings. Prepare exhibits, newsletters, direct mailing, PowerPoint presentation, and advertising; place advertising. 3 21 2. 7 .4A Hold Meeting Attend meeting Products for all 2. 7 A tasks: • Presentation materials • Comments and reviews on materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint presentations • Attend hearings • Web site update • Letter and envelope • Newsletter • Email announcement • List updates (1) for the first round • Newspaperads 4 22 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 3 - SURVEY, RIGHT-OF-ENTRY (ROE), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 3.0 SURVEY, RIGHT-OF-ENTRY (ROE), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) 3.3.A ROW Studies Additional Work due to modified project includes work for ongoing requests from RCTC to include periodic studies for right of way estimates and other studies regarding acquisition cost and relocation impacts needed. In addition, to inspect alignments, and make note of special problems or unusual circumstances, identify and verify sensitive issues. Additional work due to investigation of the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation, response to comments and request for information at Placentia Ave future interchange. Additional work due to investigation of mitigation parcels, public requests. and updated Right of Way Data for information at Placentia Ave future interchange and 1- 215 Modifications. Products: Maps, data and information in format as requested by RCTC 3.4A Prepare Recirculated Draft Relocation Impact Report Additional Work due to modified project includes preparation of Recirculated Draft Relocation Impact Report, as supporting documentation to the RDEIR/SDEIS. The report will be prepared using same methodology and data assumptions as the previously prepared Draft Relocation Report. Product: Recirculated Draft Relocation Impact Report for three alternatives, Alternatives 4, 5, 9 from 1-215 to SR-79 (10 copies of each report). 3.4 Prepare Final Relocation Impact Report The Consultant will prepare update the information from the Draft Relocation Impact Report for the Final Relocation Impact Report. 23 Assumption: For purposes of this scope of services. this includes one Final Relocation Impact Report. Any substantial changes in scope of services that require interim reports to be generated are not included in this scope of services. Product: Final Relocation Impact Report for each alternative (1 O copies of report). 3.5A Prepare ROW Data Sheets Additional Work Due to Recirculated EIR/EIS will require updated ROW Data Sheets for Alts 4, 5 & 9. An estimated 1,250 parcels are impacted. Due to Project Modification leading to a Recirculated Draft EIR/ Supplemental Draft EIS in order to perform ROW Data Sheets, parcel-level GIS data will be created to visualize and track parcel geometry and estimate the percentage of the anticipated take area. Provide GIS mapping services for the anticipated 1,250 parcels impacted. Due to Recirculated EIR/EIS will require updated ROW Data Sheets for Alts 4, 5 & 9. An estimated 1,250 parcels are impacted. Final ROW Data Sheets Work to update the parcels related to the selected alternative only. The year and trend will be assessed and an escalation applied across all the parcels as agreed to in discussions with Caltrans in February 2014. Work to provide information for the FHWA requirement for a Cost Estimate Review for selected alternative. Utility Coordination -Ongoing Additional Work due to modified project includes preparation of Utility Cost Estimates. Prepare preliminary utility engineering documents as part of the environmental clearance document in the planning stage. Determination of prior rights will be coordinated with Jacobs. Obtain and analyze data to allocate cost between the utility owner and local agency for all required utility adjustment work and to clearly document, support and set forth the basis of this finding in a Report of Investigation. The Team will prepare a Utility Matrix identifying utility owners, descriptions of facilities, dispositions (i.e. protect, relocate, abandon), utility relocation designer and utility contractor, and initial cost liability determinations. Preparation of utility relocation estimate will also include railroad construction costs. 2 24 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 4 -ENVIRONMENT AL MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: • Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. • Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4.0A ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES The scope for Task 4.0A assumes the limits on 1-215 stay within the current survey limits, Harley Knox Blvd (Oleander Street) on the north to north of Nuevo Road to the south. Tasks with an A were updated with additional scope to complete an RDEIR/SDEIS for the 16 mile project, re-evaluation phase, in Amendments 4 and 5. Portions of the modified alternative alignments were refined to address design changes requested by Ca/trans and/or affected cities (e.g. avoidance of Paragon Park in the City of Perris) in response to comments on the Draft EIRIEIS and review of the GADs for Alternative 9. While these changes were made with every attempt to stay within the existing survey limits, 20 locations extended outside the previous survey limits and additional surveys to support the environmental technical studies were required. As a follow up item from the preliminary San Jacinto River Bridge analysis conducted by Jacobs and the MCP team in summer of 2011, alternative 4 from the preliminary analysis of the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation was incorporated into the MCP technical studies and Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS. Some technical studies required either a more detailed analysis of the design variation (e.g. Natural Environment Study and additional model runs for the Noise Study Report) while others only required updates to the 25 project description and impact tables (e.g. Community Impact Assessment and Water Quality Assessment). Additional analysis was done by Dudek for discussion purposes with agencies in order to compare the base case bridge with the proposed design variation bridge. This included presentation materials, handout and two presentations to agencies. Task 4.4A Technical Studies to support RDEIR/SDEIS In this task, the technical studies and documents prepared in original Task 4.2 will be revised or supplemented in response to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA's decision to modify the MCP project. Revised or supplemented technical studies will be prepared that will accompany the submittal of the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS (RDEIR/SDEIS) for approval to circulate. Each revised or supplemented technical study will include a description of up to three modified Build Alternatives, as well as a description of the process leading to development of the modified Build Alternatives. The ability to secure Caltrans and FHWA approval of technical studies on these submittals is predicated upon: 1) The draft reports being revised and/or supplemented and submitted as complete reports with no contingencies or placeholders based upon information pending from the Traffic, Engineering, or Right-of-Way tasks, 2) A review process involving the Consultant, RCTC, and Caltrans to meet to discuss prior to drafting the revisions or supplemental reports to agree upon process and no changes in process being made by Caltrans or FHWA once the type of document is agreed to at these meetings, 3) Two concurrent reviews by RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA (draft and final), 4) Supplemented reports will include a CD of the previously approved report with the submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA, and 5) No changes in the survey area. 4.4.1A Biological Resources (NES/JD) The Environmental Team will prepare a technical supplement to the approved Natural Environment Study (NES; July 2008) and will include: • A summary of the results for each modified alternative of the delineation of waters subject to jurisdiction of the Corps, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The approved jurisdictional delineation will not need to be updated. An assessment of impacts of each modified alternative to biological resources, including sensitive plants, small mammals, burrowing owl, riparian birds, fairy 2 26 shrimp, jurisdictional waters, sensitive habitats, wildlife crossings/habitat fragmentation, MSHCP Criteria Area and an updated table that summarizes occurrence potential of regional species of concern. • An update of the avoidance and minimization efforts. • Recommendations for mitigation (such measures will be included upon completion of coordination with the project team, including Caltrans representatives; these mitigation measures will not include construction-level documents such as specific restoration plans) The technical supplement to the NES will identify the need for any additional biological surveys (i.e., focused surveys that may need to be updated at the time of construction). The technical supplement to the NES will also identify regulatory permits that may be required for project approval and construction (i.e. a Corps Section 404 permit, CDFG 1602 Agreement, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Certification. The processing of required permits is not included within this scope of services. Product: 11 hard copies each of draft and final technical supplement to the NES 22 CD copies of the approved NES and appendices (July 2008) 4.4.2A Cultural Resources Technical Reports 4.4.2.1 A Identification. Agency Coordination. LSA will coordinate with Caltrans, FHWA, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) throughout the execution of this task. This consultation will focus on ensuring that work completed under this scope of services complies with the requirements of these agencies for reporting, researcher qualifications, documentation, etc., while adhering to the proposed schedule. Revised APE Map Development. These design drawings will be used to develop the modified project Area of Potential Effect (APE) map for the undertaking. LSA will coordinate with District 8 staff in the development of appropriate APE limits for the modified project. All elements of this scope and budget are based on no changes to the APE that would add new unsurveyed areas to the APE. Native American and Interested Parties Consultation. LSA recognizes that the federal government has a unique relationship with federally recognized tribes and that Caltrans/FHWA has the ultimate responsibility in Native American 3 27 consultation. LSA will coordinate with Caltrans/FHWA to determine the level of involvement LSA will have in the Native American consultation process to review the modified project with the tribes. In consultation with District 8, LSA will contact the seven tribal entities that have been involved with MCP to solicit their concerns and input about the modified project. This initial contact will be made through a verifiable letter system (e.g., Certified Letter). Subsequently, LSA will contact those entities by up to two phone calls to ensure each group has an opportunity to comment on the modified project. LSA will then coordinate up to two meetings with such groups (as needed), documenting comments provided during those meetings, and developing responses to comments as appropriate. Consultation will continue throughout the Section 106 compliance effort. Expanded Native American consultation activities have been required to support the development of the Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), including coordination/scheduling and attendance at 13 additional meetings with the independent Section 106 facilitator (retained by FHWA and RCTC) and the Tribes (one kickoff meeting with the facilitator. one pre-MOA group meeting with the Tribes. nine individual meetings with the Tribes. and two follow up meetings with the facilitator and partner agencies) plus preparation of draft and final meeting summaries for all tribal meetings. Based on the previous review/concurrence process for the Finding of Effect document in late 2012, there is a potential for additional revisions to MOA and/or Native American consultation based on SHPO review of MOA. 4.4.2.2A Documentation and Reports Based on known resources within the modified study area, and with the basis that no new areas will be added to the APE, no additional archaeological resources will be identified for the modified alternatives considered. LSA will develop a revised Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), which is the Caltrans/FHWA master document for the Section 106 effort. Attached to the H PSR will be the revised Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), the revised Extended Phase I Survey Report (XPI Report), the revised Archaeological Evaluation Report (AER), the revised Archaeological Evaluation Without Phase II Excavations Report (AEPER) and the revised Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) that documents the results of the survey efforts for the modified project. The contents of the report will be coordinated with Caltrans/FHWA. HPSR. Upon completion of the revised engineering plans and consultation with the Native American tribes described above, LSA will complete a revised HPSR. The HPSR is the summary document used by Caltrans/FHWA for consultation and decision-making, and serves as the supporting documentation for NEPA and CEQA compliance. The HPSR documents 4 28 completion of the identification phase, completion of the National Register eligibility evaluation of resources within the APE, and a Finding of No Historic Properties Adversely Affected with Standard Conditions. The revised HPSR will present a summary of findings, document public participation, describe properties identified and their significance/eligibility for the National Register and under CEQA, and the findings for the undertaking as a whole. The revised HPSR will include a modified location map, modified project vicinity map, and modified APE map as exhibits, as well as photographs, plans, and other graphics. The revised HPSR will contain the following attachments as appropriate: revised ASR, revised XPI Report, revised AER, revised AEPER, revised HRER, and letters from any concerned or interested parties. ASR. The revised ASR will document identification and recordation efforts for prehistoric archaeological resources with the modified project APE. The ASR will contain documentation of the research and field methods, an overview of the existing environment, ethnography, and prehistory of the study area, a description of identified prehistoric archaeological resources, and findings and conclusions. XPI Report. The revised XPI Report will document efforts of the XPI. The XPI Report will contain documentation of the research and field methods; a brief overview of the environment, ethnography, and prehistory; description of the prehistoric archaeological resources; and findings and conclusions. The XPI Report will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and archaeological site records. HRER. The revised HRER will document identification, recordation, and evaluation efforts for the built environment and historical archaeological resources within the modified project APE. The revised HRER will contain documentation of the research and field methods, a historical overview, the description and significance of identified historic archaeological and built environment cultural resources (if applicable), and findings and conclusions for the modified project. The HRER will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms for properties not exempted under Attachment 4 of the PA, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and historical archaeological site records. AER. LSA will develop a revised AER. The revised AER will provide the basis for determining whether sites within the revised APE are eligible or ineligible for the National Register. It will also discuss the potential for sites to be impacted by the MCP Alternatives. The revised report will document the 5 29 fieldwork and data analysis required to draw conclusions as to the National Register eligibility of the sites. AEPER. LSA will develop a revised AEPER. The revised AEPER will provide the basis for determining whether sites within the revised APE are eligible or ineligible for the National Register. Sites in the AEPER have not undergone Phase II excavations. It will also discuss the potential for sites to be impacted by the MCP Alternatives. The revised report will document the data analysis required to draw conclusions as to the National Register eligibility of the sites. Development of a Finding of Effect for the Eligible Resources. LSA will work with FHWA/Caltrans to develop a revised Finding of Effect for the resources found to be eligible for the National Register within the modified project. The revised Finding of Effect will be prepared for only those properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register. The specific format for the revised Finding of Effect will follow the format used in the previous draft FOE prepared for the project. These effects recommendations will be subject to FHWA/ Caltrans and SHPO review and comment. Following receipt of comments from Ca/trans and FHWA on the revised cultural resource studies in mid-2011, additional work was required for the cultural resources studies including the following: (1) additional coordination and consultation with the Native American Tribes, (2) updates to the HPSR and Finding of Effect with respect to the change to adverse effect for site 33-16598, (3) preparation of a Discovery and Monitoring Plan (DMP), and (4) preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). In 2013. Caltrans and FHWA requested that the MOA/DMP include an annotated outline of a new study; the Cultural Landscape Study. An initial draft outline was submitted to FHWA and Caltrans for review and comment prior to submitting the complete draft outline as part of the Draft MOA/DMP. Products: 9 copies each of the draft and final Revised HPSR, ASR, XPI Report, HRER, AER, and FOE 5 Digital copies of the Draft, Revised Draft, and Final MOA and DMP. 4.4.3A Paleontological Resources Identification and Evaluation Report LSA will prepare a revised Paleontological Resources Identification and Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) that addresses the potential for paleontological resources within the proposed right-of-way for each modified alternative and provides measures to mitigate impacts to significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources that may be encountered and impacted during construction excavation. A revised report will be developed that conforms to Caltrans. Product: 9 copies each of the draft and final Revised PIR/PER 6 30 4.4.4A Noise Study Report Noise Study Report. LSA will prepare a Noise Study Report (NSR). The NSR will address the noise requirements of FHWA, Caltrans, Riverside County (County) and any incorporated jurisdictions (cities) along the proposed project alignment of the modified Build Alternatives. LSA will prepare a technical noise impact analysis consistent with applicable procedures and requirements. Projected vehicular traffic volumes on Mid County Parkway and adjacent affected street segments, if any, will be used in preparing the technical noise impact analysis. Additional information required is identified in the discussion below. The report will be prepared to respond to the applicable NEPA evaluation criteria, and to meet Caltrans and FHWA requirements. LSA will review the applicable federal (FHWA) and State (Caltrans) criteria for the project area. Noise abatement criteria (NAC) required by Caltrans and FHWA will be identified and used in the analysis. Areas with potential future noise impacts will be identified using land use information, aerial photographs, and field reconnaissance. Discussion of existing and future approved sensitive uses within the Mid County Parkway area will be included. Due to the limited number of noise level measurements between SR-79 and 1-215 previously conducted by team, LSA will conduct short-term (15 minute) ambient noise level measurements to establish the existing noise environment at representative noise-sensitive land uses within the project area. Short-term (15- minute) noise level measurements will be made at up to 55 locations. Concurrent traffic counts will be conducted on a case by case basis depending on the existing traffic within the vicinity of each location. In areas where the existing traffic noise level is low or significant changes in traffic noise in areas where the modified Build Alternatives are proposed, the traffic noise prediction model will not be calibrated. Long-term 24 hour noise level measurements at up to 15 locations will be conducted to identify the peak traffic noise hours. In addition, simultaneous interior/exterior noise level measurements at up to 4 locations will be conducted at classroom buildings located adjacent to the proposed project. Observations of other noise sources, barriers, terrains, building heights, and other site specific information will be noted during each measurement period. Noise impacts from construction sources will be analyzed for each alternative based on the available project-specific information, such as the equipment expected to be used, length of a specific construction task, equipment power type (gasoline or diesel engine), horsepower, load factor, and percentage of time in use. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-recommended noise emission levels will be used for the construction equipment. Blasting or pile-driving may be required for project construction. The construction noise impact will be evaluated in terms of maximum levels (Lmax), and hourly equivalent continuous noise levels (Leq), and the 7 31 frequency of occurrence at adjacent sensitive locations. Analysis requirements will be based on the sensitivity of the area and the applicable noise control ordinance specifications of the County and the affected cities. Noise impacts from vehicular traffic will be assessed for modified Build Alternatives are using the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 required by Caltrans and FHWA. Model input data needed include peak hour traffic levels; percentages of autos and medium and heavy trucks; vehicle speeds; ground attenuation factors; and road widths. Peak-hour Continuous Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) along the Mid County Parkway corridor and area roads that would be potentially affected will be tabulated. Traffic parameters necessary for the model input will be obtained from the traffic study prepared for this project or use worst-case traffic conditions. Noise abatement measures designed to reduce short-and long-term impacts on noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Mid County Parkway modified Build Alternatives will be determined where necessary. An evaluation of the potential mitigation measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided. A preliminary feasibility and reasonable allowances will be provided for all noise abatement measures identified, based on Ca/trans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects (Caltrans, August 2006). Additional work was required for the Noise Study Report due to: 1) The need to comply with new requirements from the new Ca/trans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol released May 5, 2011, including a new requirement to plot receivers to represent office and commercial land uses; (2) Longer than expected review periods by Ca/trans of both measurement locations and TNM files, resulted in some field work and TNM work having to be revised; (3) Comments from Ca/trans resulted in additional work, including the request to add additional receptors up to 1,000 feet from the roadway alignment and request for additional short-term monitoring around peak hours (while LSA had the staff to fulfill this request, two additional sound meters rental were required); (4) Additional work required to research and update the model to include changes in the future developments. Noise analysis required to address Sunnyvale Appellate Court decision, which requires that an EIR comply with CEQA 's requirements to evaluate a project's effect on existing conditions, not just a future year condition. Noise Abatement Decision Report. LSA will prepare a Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) for the modified Build Alternatives as defined in the Caltrans Noise Analysis Protocol (August 2006). The report will summarize the preliminary reasonableness determination from the Noise Study Report, present the engineer's cost estimate for the evaluated abatement, evaluation of nonacoustical factors related to feasibility, preliminary noise abatement decision, and secondary effects of 8 32 abatement (impacts on cultural resources, scenic views, hazardous materials, and biology). The construction cost estimate for the evaluated abatement and the evaluation of nonacoustical factors related to feasibility will be provided to LSA by the engineer. LSA will prepare the NADR consistent with the Caltrans report guidelines with the best information available. Product: 9 copies each of the draft and final Revised Noise Study Report 9 copies each of the Draft and Final Noise Abatement Decision Report 4.4.SA Air Quality Report LSA will prepare a Revised Air Quality Analysis for the modified Build Alternatives in accordance with the Caltrans Transportation Project Level Carbon Monoxide (CO) Protocol, the EPA's fugitive dust conformity rule, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook air quality guidelines. LSA will conduct the screening analyses specified in the CO protocol and, if required, conduct CALINE4 modeling for CO hot spots for up to 20 receptor locations for the Existing, Future No Build, and the modified Build Alternatives. LSA will evaluate the proposed project's impacts to long-term particulate matter concentrations (PM2.s and PM10) and mobile source air toxics (MSAT) using the Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analysis in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (EPA, March 2006) and the Interim Guidelines on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (FHWA, February 2006). In addition, the proposed project's impact on global warming and climate change will be discussed. LSA will also assist RCTC with the TCWG review process. Air analysis required to address Sunnyvale Appellate Court decision, which requires that an EIR comply with CEQA 's requirements to evaluate a project's effect on existing conditions, not just a future year condition. Product: 10 hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Air Quality Analysis 4.4.6A Community Impact Assessment A technical supplement to the approved Community Impact Assessment (CIA; June 2008) will be prepared in accordance with the guidelines found in the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A (Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, October 30, 1987) and the Caltrans Community Impact Assessment Handbook (June 1997). Per FHWA 's request, the technical supplement to the CIA was revised to include 2010 Census Data that was made available to the public in the fall of 2011. Impacts to the following socioeconomic topics will be evaluated in the technical supplement for each of the modified alternatives under consideration: Land Use 9 33 Impacts and Growth Inducement, Farmland Impacts, Social Impacts, Relocation Impacts, and Economic Impacts. Specific issues to be addressed within each topic are discussed in further detail below. Recommendations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential socioeconomic impacts related to each topic shall be identified in the technical supplement where feasible. Land Use Impacts and Growth Related Effects. The technical supplement to the CIA will evaluate each modified alternative for its compatibility with and impacts to the existing and planned land uses within the refined study area. The discussion will assess the consistency of each modified alternative with relevant local, regional, and State regulations and plans related to land use and growth. This analysis will include projections of housing stock within the refined study area and a description of housing policies and programs related to each affected jurisdiction. This discussion will include an analysis of each modified alternative's impact on the jobs and housing balance based upon the interrelationship of commuting patterns with the location of future housing and employment centers within the refined study area. The technical supplement to the CIA will consider the ways that each modified alternative could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing (either directly or indirectly) within the refined study area. Planned growth relative to the highway infrastructure capacity throughout the study area will be considered to determine the potential for growth-related effects of the proposed action. This discussion will include a consistency analysis of the proposed modified project with relevant regional/local land use plans and their incorporated population and employment projections. The potential for growth-related effects will be evaluated based upon the potential for exceeding roadway capacity, levels of services, and increases (or decreases) in accessibility to vacant parcels, underutilized land, and agricultural land. The discussion will also include an evaluation and comparison of direct and indirect impacts of growth-related effects. Farmland Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will include a revised farmland impacts analysis, including an evaluation of impacts to all four types of farmland, including: (1) prime, (2) unique, (3) farmland of statewide importance, and (4) farmland of local importance. Early consultation will be initiated with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to prepare Form CPA-106. A map will be prepared identifying the location of all four types of farmlands within the refined study area. Based upon the results of Form CPA-106, the technical supplement to the CIA will: (1) discuss and summarize the impacts to farmlands from each modified alternative under consideration, (2) identify the status and summarize the potential impacts to Williamson Act contract lands, and (3) identify measures to avoid or reduce impacts to farmlands. Social Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will include a summary of any additional public outreach efforts conducted for the modified MCP project, including IO 34 public input received from meetings, newsletters, mailings, and additional community outreach efforts. The technical supplement to the CIA will discuss the following items for each modified alternative under consideration: • Evaluate potential neighborhood-level disruptions or community cohesion of the various social groups as a result of the proposed action. • Properties that may become restricted in access or landlocked. • A description of transit facilities, highways, streets, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the study area and changes in travel patterns and accessibility (e.g., vehicular, commuter, bicycle, or pedestrian) as a result of the proposed action. • A description, location, and impact analysis of community services and facilities within the refined study area, including schools, recreation areas, churches, hospitals, police and fire protection facilities, etc. • Availability of parking facilities and any lots or parking spaces that would be affected by the proposed action. Impacts to minority populations and low-income populations will be evaluated in compliance with Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The effects of the modified project on age-related, transit-dependent, minority and low-income populations will be analyzed at the tract level to determine whether any social group is disproportionately impacted. Potential mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts to these populations will also be identified. Relocation Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will include a summary of displacements (residential and commercial), the availability of replacement housing, and relocation assistance as identified in the Revised Relocation Impact Report (see Task 3.4A). The technical supplement to the CIA will also include an evaluation of potential impacts to the local housing stock and employment centers within the refined study area based upon the proposed displacements. Economic Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will discuss the following for each modified alternative under consideration: • Economic impacts on the regional and local economies, including the effects of the proposed action on development, local property and sales tax revenues, City expenditures, job opportunities, accessibility, and retail sales. Note, previous economic data collected for the approved CIA will be used as a basis for this analysis. 11 35 • Impacts to the economic vitality of existing and future highway-related businesses (e.g., gasoline stations, motels, etc.) and the resultant impact, if any, on the local economy. • Impacts of the proposed action on established business districts and any opportunities to minimize or reduce such impacts by the public and/or private sectors. Product: 9 copies each of the draft and final technical supplement to the CIA 18 CD copies of the approved CIA (June 2008) 4.4.7A Floodplain Evaluation Report LSA will prepare a revised Floodplain Evaluation Report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines (Environmental Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 17) based on the revised Location Hydraulic Study to be prepared by the engineering team. The report will discuss potential impacts and mitigation measures related to floodplain encroachment, flood-related hazards, natural or beneficial floodplain values, access interruption, and the community floodplain development plan. Product: 9 copies each of draft and final Revised Floodplain Evaluation Report 4.4.BA Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment LSA will prepare a technical supplement to the approved ISA (October 2007) to present findings and recommendations for each modified alternative based on the site survey and historical records review conducted for the approved ISA. Recommendations may include site investigations for sites that are considered contaminated sites by the applicable oversight agency. This scope of services does not include: • Review of private records or interviews with private property owners • Sampling for asbestos or aerially deposited lead, or other soil sampling • Conducting Preliminary Site Investigations (PSls) involving soil or groundwater sampling These activities are not recommended until the design phase for the selected alternative due to the potentially large number of properties requiring evaluation (resulting in significant costs to RCTC) and the likelihood that presence or absence of hazardous waste contamination will not influence the selection of a Preferred Alternative. Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final technical supplement to the ISA 18 CD copies of the approved ISA (October 2007) 12 36 --------------------------------------------- 4.4.9A Visual Impact Assessment LSA will prepare a technical supplement to the approved VIA (March 2008) that evaluates the visual impact of each modified alternative consistent with FHWA's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1988). This technical supplement shall identify potential visual impacts from project construction. The visual project impacts will be discussed from a qualitative perspective, but will be quantified using the scoring system in the approved VIA for the MCP project. To assist in the assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the modified alternatives proposed within the MCP study area, existing viewsheds and visual resources characterized in the approved VIA will be used again for this analysis (i.e. no additional visual simulations will be prepared). Following RCTC's approval of Amendment 5, modifications to the design occurred that required visual simulations to be revised to account for design changes (i.e. connections to 1-215, avoidance of Paragon Park, Redlands Interchange, etc.). Mitigation measures shall be recommended, if necessary, to reduce significant visual impacts. Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final technical supplement to the VIA 18 CD copies of the approved VIA (March 2008) 4.4.1 OA Section 4(f) Evaluation LSA will prepare a revised Section 4(f) Evaluation to address the effects of the three modified Build Alternatives on the two known 4(f) properties within the revised study limits. The revised Section 4(f) Evaluation will discuss avoidance alternatives and be included as an appendix in the RDEIR/SDEIS. LSA will also assist RCTC in coordination with the City of Perris regarding Paragon Park. Based on the SHPO Letter dated September 18, 2012, RCTC and FHWA "assumed eligibility for this undertaking" for four bedrock milling sites previously determined to not be eligible for listing on the National Register. With this assumption of eligibility, the four bedrock milling sites trigger protection under Section 4(f); therefore, an expanded Section 4(f) Evaluation was required. LSA will assist RCTC and FHWA in their consultation with CDFW to obtain their concurrence on the Section 4(f) determination for the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Dudek will assist by attending meetings with CDFW as needed to discuss issues of CDFW replacement lands as related to MSHCP issues. Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Draft Section 4(f) 13 37 Evaluation 4.4.12A Water Quality Assessment LSA will prepare a Revised Water Quality Assessment Report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines that discusses watershed characteristics, groundwater hydrology, regulatory requirements, pollutants of concern, and receiving waters conditions, impairments, objectives, and beneficial uses. The report will also be revised to address the new Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (February 2008) and will discuss Design Pollution Prevention BMPs, Construction Site BMPs, and Treatment BMPs that are applicable to the modified project alternatives per Caltrans requirements. Each alternative's potential impact on water quality will be evaluated and the mitigation measures necessary to prevent adverse water quality impacts will be identified. For this study, LSA will use the Revised Storm Water Data Report (SWOR) to be prepared by the engineering team in Task 6.0. Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Water Quality Assessment Report 4.4.15A Section 404 (b)(1) Alternative Analysis LSA will prepare a revised Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis to address the effects of the three modified Build Alternatives. The revised Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis will discuss avoidance alternatives and be included as an appendix in the RDEIR/SDEIS. Product: 1 O hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis 4.5.1.1 A Prepare Administrative Draft Recirculated Draft EIR I Supplemental Draft EIS The results of the revised technical studies and supplements to the approved technical studies will be presented in an Administrative Draft Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS (RDEIR/SDEIS). LSA will prepare the Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS, incorporating the findings of the revised technical documents for submittal to RCTC, FHWA, Caltrans, and the Corps for review. Sections of the RDEIR/SDEIS will also be revised to address substantive comments received during public review of the original Draft EIR/EIS. The RDEIR/SDEIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of NEPA and CEQA, as well as the most current document formats and guidance posted on Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference Web site (as of May 1, 2009). 14 38 Both short-term construction and long-term operational effects of each modified alternative will be considered, as well as any potential impacts from a proposed phasing plan. The Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS will also address indirect and cumulative effects of each of the modified alternatives, CEQA considerations of level of significance of impacts including the new CEQA Guidelines approved [July 2009], and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The EIR/EIS will be organized in a manner intended to reduce the presentation of duplicative information to the extent feasible for areas where the alternatives overlap. Assumption: 36 hard copies of Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS 36 CD sets of the Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS CD copies of approved technical reports Product: Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS 4.6.1.1A Prepare Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS for Approval to Circulate LSA will revise the RDEIR/SDEIS per comments received from RCTC, FHWA, Caltrans and the Corps on the Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS and will prepare an electronic copy of the RDEIR/SDEIS for RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA final review and one hard copy for approval and signature to circulate the document for public review. LSA will also revise the public distribution list as part of the RDEIR/SDEIS with input from RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will assist the Corps to revise the 404 Preliminary Public Notice and distribute simultaneously with the RDEIR/SDEIS. The RDEIR/SDEIS will be circulated for public review once the list has been approved by the RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will prepare a draft Notice of Availability and Public Hearing for publication by the public outreach team. LSA will prepare and file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. LSA set up GIS Stations at the SR-91 GIP Public Hearings in June 2011 that were useful to help the public understand the project, especially for property owners concerned about property acquisition. Based on the positive feedback from the public, RCTC requested LSA to set up two GIS Stations at the MCP Public Hearings for the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS in February 2013. Products: 36 hard copies of RDEIR/SDEIS 310 CD sets of the RDEIR/SDEIS 15 39 CD and hard copies of technical reports for RCTC, Caltrans, FHWA and the libraries. 235 Notice of Availability 1 Notice of Completion Revised 404 Preliminary Public Notice Product: RDEIR/SDEIS, Notice of Availability, Notice of Completion, & Revised 404 Preliminary Public Notice TASK 4.7 PREPARE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Draft Response to Comments document will be prepared for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will prepare responses for its areas of responsibility and will coordinate with other consultant team members, RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA to prepare responses for their respective areas of responsibility. The comments will be scanned into a *.pdf format to facilitate integration into the Draft Final EIS/EIR. The responses will be prepared in a tabular format similar to that included in the Winchester to Temecula Corridor Tier 1 Final EIS/EIR, and will include both general responses to broad (often repeated) topics of concern as well as specific responses to specific comments. Budgeting for responses to comments is difficult to project, since the scope of public and agency comments/concerns is not entirely known at this time. For preliminary budgeting purposes, we estimate that a total of 1,000 letters will be received. Each comment letter will be numbered and scanned. It is estimated that there will be a total of 3,000 comments within these letters. Each individual comment will be labeled on the letter and listed in the Response to Comments table. Each response will be included in the table as well. It is also estimated that 100 of the 3,000 comments will require detailed responses as specific comments. We have estimated the need for 1,280 professional staff hours and 280 support staff hours (Graphics, Word Processing/Editing, and Clerical) to complete this task. These specifications and any necessary adjustments to the Response to Comments budget will be reviewed with RCTC prior to initiating this task. Three additional review cycles of the Draft Response to Comments resulted in higher than budgeted expenditures. This task was budgeted assuming one concurrent review cycle per standard process on other deliverables. but a total of three separate submittals was made to accommodate three separate review cycles by RCTC staff. RCTC Legal Counsel. and a submittal to Caltrans and FHWA in advance of the formal submittal for concurrent review by the MCP partner agencies (Transportation and Resource Agencies). There is a potential for additional revisions needed to the Response to Comments following review by the resource agencies. 16 40 At the direction of RCTC. "Reject MCP" emails (Center for Biological Diversity form letters) received after April 19. 2013 (the close of the public comment period on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS). are being included in the Administrative Record (500-600 letters received per month). On November 14. 2013. RCTC requested that a Second Recirculated Draft EIR be prepared to provide updated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas emissions analyses and revised CEQA significance determinations. The work effort includes preparation of a First and Second Administrative Draft for RCTC's review and approval to circulate for public review; preparation of draft public notices; coordination of document distribution to the State Clearinghouse. libraries and the EIR/EIS distribution list; and. preparation of responses to comments on the Second Recirculated Draft EIR. Dudek will assist in responses related to the San Jacinto River Bridge crossing at Lakeview. Dudek will compile a complete and comprehensive report including graphics and maps as needed based on the modeling and information presented at various RAC meetings. Assumption: 30 copies of Draft Response to Comments. Product: Three separate submittals of Draft Response to Comments. 4.8 DRAFT FINAL EIS/EIR Following review of the Draft Responses to Comments, LSA will prepare a Draft Final EIS/EIR, which will incorporate changes to the EIS/EIR sections consistent with the responses to comments. The Draft Final EIS/El R will be prepared for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. After approval of Amendment 5 in 2009. the MCP partner agencies agreed to process the project in accordance with the 2006 NEPA/404 Integration MOU. Unlike the previous 1994 MOU under which the project was originally being processed, the 2006 MOU stipulates a series of specific information package submittals for each step in the three checkpoints of the NEPA/404 integration process. To provide supporting documentation to obtain agency concurrence on the Checkpoint 3 milestone (Preliminary LEDPA Determination). a comprehensive package was prepared and underwent two cycles of revision prior receiving agency concurrence on the Preliminary LEDPA. Assumption: 30 copies of Draft Final EIS/EIR Preliminary, Draft, and Final Checkpoint 3 Information Package (25 copies) 17 41 Product: Draft Final EIS/EIR Checkpoint 3 Information Package 4.9 FINAL EIS/EIR Based on comments received on the Draft Final EIS/EIR, LSA will prepare the Final EIS/EIR, including a Notice of Determination (NOD) in accordance with CEQA requirements, including an $850 California Department of Fish and Game-filing fee. LSA will produce copies of the Final EIS/EIR for distribution to commenting agencies prior to certification of the Final EIS/EIR by RCTC. With assistance from LSA, RCTC legal counsel (BB&K) will have primary responsibility for preparing Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which will be adopted by RCTC as part of the Commission's action to certify the Final EIR. This task was originally budgeted assuming one concurrent review cycle per standard process on other deliverables. The scope has been expanded to provide an additional round of review of the Final EIR/EIS either due to FHWA requests or if RCTC requests to have BB&K review prior to the document being sent out to the Transportation and Resource Agencies. Assumption: 150 copies of Final EIS/EIR Product: Final EIS/EIR 4.10 PREPARE RECORD OF DECISION LSA will prepare a Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA for review. Based on comments received, a Final ROD will be prepared for submittal to FHWA for review and approval. FHWA will publish the ROD in the Federal Register. The ROD will include responses to comments received on the Final EIS and/or the USAGE Public Notice. Although the approval of the ROD is the final completion milestone in the PA/ED process. the scope for this task includes post-ROD activities such as compilation of separate Administrative Records for CEQA and NEPA for use by RCTC and FHWA Legal Counsel. Assumption: 10 Copies of the Draft ROD 18 42 4.11 HCP AMENDMENTS, MSHCP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION, AND OTHER REPORTS REQUIRED FOR RESOURCE AGENCY APPROVAL The consistency analysis with the Western Riverside County MSHCP (MSHCP) will be undertaken at two levels. The first level of analysis will be for CEQA/NEPA purposes and will analyze in general terms the relationship of the various alternatives under consideration in the EIS/EIR to the goals, objectives and biological considerations in the MSHCP and other relevant HCPs. The second level of analysis will occur following identification of a Preferred Alternative and will incorporate the detailed consistency analysis called for in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP. Scopes of services for both levels of analysis are provided below. Dudek will assist by attending meetings, providing supplemental information as needed in order to obtain a completed Joint Project Review (JPR) from the Regional Conservation Authority. Dudek will attend meetings and obtain supplemental information as needed related to Wildlife Agency review of the JPR. Jurisdictional Delineation: An updated Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) complying with USACE's latest requirements was required in 2013 due to expiration of JD approved by USAGE in April 2008 (USACE's approval letter indicated that the JD was valid for a period of up to five years). Because of changes in USAGE requirements ("post- Rapanos" guidance). a complete new report was required. not just updated forms. In addition. USAGE requested that archival and field research be conducted to address concerns raised by USFWS regarding potential agricultural wetlands in the vicinity of the San Jacinto River Bridge in Lakeview. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP): Additional details and information are now required for an HMMP (e.g., identification of specific parcels for mitigation) per updated USAGE guidelines than when this task was first budgeted in 2004. Mitigation requirements (both requirements for plans and procedures for determining adequacy of mitigation) have changed substantially since 2004. beginning with the new Corps/EPA Mitigation Rule of April 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332). and continuing with extensive efforts in the last couple of years for standardization. especially in the South Pacific Division. Specific examples include: • The Mitigation Rule itself. at §230.94. specifically requires the preparation of a final HMMP as follows: (c) Mitigation plan. (1) Preparation and Approval. (i) For individual permits. the permittee must prepare a draft mitigation plan and submit it to the district engineer for review. After addressing any comments provided by the district engineer, the permittee must prepare a final mitigation plan. which must be approved by the district engineer prior to issuing the individual permit. Prior to the Mitigation Rule. a final HMMP could be a condition of an individual permit. 19 43 • On October 10, 2008, Corps Headquarters issued a Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL No. 08-03, http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/rgl08 03.pdf) that emphasized the need for more rigorous performance standards and monitoring requirements. • Within the last two years, the South Pacific Division of the Corps has issued a number of new documents/requirements relevant to mitigation plans. These can be found at http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatorv/PublicNoticesandReferences /tabid/10390/Article/7554/12501-spd.aspx . Specific documents include "Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Mitigation Ratios", "Mitigation Ratio Checklist". "Instructions for Preparing Mitigation Ratio Setting Checklist", "Uniform Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation Requirements" and more. There is a potential for additional labor effort needed to respond to detailed comments from USAGE (to date USAGE has only provided very broad. general comments. Section 404 Permit Application: A Section 404 permit application was not included in the original MCP scope of work. The work required is to prepare a Section 404 application for review and approval by USAGE. Section 7 Consultation: Support to FHWA for Section 7 consultation with USFWS following approval of the MS HCP consistency determination was not included in the original MCP scope of work. The work required is to prepare a letter with supporting documentation from FHWA to the USFWS to initiate the abbreviated Section 7 consultation process called for under the MSHCP, and to provide support to FHWA in responding to any questions or additional information requests from USFWS prior to USFWS issuance of the Biological Opinion. Product: Draft and Final 2013 Jurisdictional Delineation and Analysis Draft and Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Draft and Final Section 404 Permit Application Draft and Final Section 7 Consultation Letter 20 44 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK 5 - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: • Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. • Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEI R/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. 5.0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 5.0A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING This scope of work describes the steps necessary to provide a revised traffic analysis and phasing analysis of MCP Build Alternatives 4, 5, and 9. This traffic analysis will assume that Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 would be built from 1-215 to SR-79 only. Following are assumptions that were made as to how this analysis will be conducted: + The MCP project to be analyzed for traffic analysis purposes would be MCP Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 from 1-215 to SR-79. At the 1-215/MCP interchange, it is assumed that roadway connectors to and from the west would be deleted from the project and that the remaining connectors would retain their current design. The design of the MCP facility would be determined so as to avoid precluding a future extension of MCP west of 1-215. Assumptions regarding the design of the individual alternatives are provided below. + The No Build analysis will assume that MCP is not built between 1-215 and SR-79. Separate capacity analysis scenarios will be conducted assuming that Ramona Expressway between 1-215 and SR-79 remains in its current condition and that this roadway is built out to be consistent with the General Plans of Riverside County and local cities. 45 • The horizon year for the MCP traffic analysis will be changed from 2035 to 2040. Traffic forecasts for 2040 will be determined using 2035 traffic model forecasts plus a percent per year growth factor. The assumed opening day for the project will be 2020. In addition to the horizon year (2040) traffic analysis, a traffic analysis will be conducted for opening year (2020) conditions. The 2020 traffic analysis will be conducted using the same assumptions and at the same level of detail as the 2040 traffic analysis, with the clarifications described below regarding the preparation of traffic forecasts for 2020 conditions. Socioeconomic forecasts for 2020 conditions will be determined in consideration of the socioeconomic forecasts from the SCAG regional transportation model and the RIVT AM model for various horizon years. • The 2020 roadway network for the RIVT AM model will be developed by starting with the roadway network in the base year model. Roadway improvements will be added if they fall into one of the following categories: -Roadway improvements are identified in the SCAG Regional Transportation plan as scheduled to occur prior to 2020. -Roadway improvements are listed in City/County five-year capital improvement programs. -Additional roadway improvements will be identified on a case-by-case basis if the responsible agency has a secure funding source and has reasonable assurances that the improvement will be in place by 2020. • In order to provide a detailed analysis of traffic conditions new model runs will be prepared. These model runs will include opening year and horizon year model runs for the No Build Alternative, and MCP Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 and the Alternative 5 and Alternative 9 design variations. The Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RIVT AM) transportation model will be used as the base model for traffic analysis. The RIVT AM model will be updated for use in the MCP corridor as follows: -Key roadways such as 1-15, 1-215, SR-91, and SR-60 will updated to reflect the SCAG 2008 Regional Transportation Plan. The model will be revised to 2 46 reflect any changes in improvements planned for these roadways between the 2004 and 2008 RTP's. -Contact will be made with Riverside County, March JPA, and the Cities of Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, and San Jacinto to determine whether any major changes have occurred in General Plan land use or development plans since 2004. The transportation model will be updated to reflect any major changes in land use plans. • It is assumed that Caltrans would be the lead review agency in determining the adequacy of the Traffic Technical Report. It is also assumed that the portion of MCP east of 1-215 would still ultimately become a Caltrans facility. A program-level phasing analysis will be conducted for the years 2020 and 2030 in order to document expected traffic conditions, traffic impacts, and recommended mitigation measures, assuming that portions of the project are built in 2020 and 2030. This phasing analysis will be conducted separately for Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 and the Alternative 5 and Alternative 9 design variations. In addition, a No Build phasing analysis will be prepared for comparison purposes for 2020 and 2030. The purpose of the phasing analysis will be to provide general information on the expected traffic forecasts and roadway improvements that would be provided if the MCP were built in phases over time. The phasing analysis will be conducted based on Average Daily Traffic conditions. It will specify project impacts and mitigation measures based on roadway segment analysis. Traffic forecasts for the 2020 phasing analysis will be determined using model runs of the 2020 model that was created for use in analyzing opening year traffic conditions. Traffic forecasts for the 2030 phasing analysis will be determined through interpolation of 2020 traffic forecasts and 2040 traffic forecasts. + Two drafts and a final version of the Traffic Technical Report will be prepared in order to achieve Caltrans approval of the traffic analysis. • It is assumed that a revised New Connection Report (NCR) at 1-215 will be needed. + It is assumed that traffic analysis will be needed for the preparation of new and/or modified Design Exception Fact Sheets related to the implementation of the revised roadway design concepts for Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 and the Alternative 5 and Alternative 9 design variations. 3 47 5.2A Traffic Technical Report A revised Traffic Technical report will be prepared. The format and content of the Traffic Technical Report will be similar to the previous version, but it will be revised to be consistent with the new project limits and traffic analysis assumptions. Additional Traffic analysis required to address Sunnyvale Appellate Court decision, which requires that an EIR comply with CEQA 's requirements to evaluate a project's effect on existing conditions, not just a future year condition. Information included in Environmental Document. 5.2.3A Recommended Improvements/Mitigation The project team will work with Caltrans, RCTC, Riverside County, and local cities to establish significance thresholds for the analysis of traffic impacts. Wherever these thresholds are exceeded, roadway and intersection improvement strategies and/or mitigation measures will be recommended. The roadway improvements/mitigation measures will be described in sufficient detail to provide a clear understanding of the necessary improvements and their feasibility at a preliminary level. In some cases, sketches will be provided for clarification. Scaled drawings will not be prepared. In the analysis of recommended roadway improvements/mitigation, the base case for lane geometry assumptions will be the General Plans of Riverside County and the cities within the study area. The roadway lane geometry specified as the General Plan Buildout will form the basis for the No Project traffic analysis. 5.2.SA Draft Traffic Technical Report A second draft of the traffic technical report will be prepared to respond to comments on the administrative draft. Assumption: 50 copies of the Draft Traffic Technical Report will be needed. Product: Draft Traffic Technical Report 5.2.6A Final Traffic Technical Report The final traffic technical report will be included as an Appendix to the project environmental documents. It is assumed that 50 copies will be needed for distribution to FHWA, Caltrans, RCTC, and project consultant team staff. One original will be prepared for copying and distribution to the public by other members of the project team. Assumptions: 4 48 • The basis for the capacity analysis will be the latest version of the HCM Manual for the MCP and crossing freeway mainlines, system interchanges, and intersections, and the RCIP for roadway segments • 50 copies Final Report will be needed Products: • Draft Report, and Final Report 5.3A Project Phasing: 2020 and 2030 Analysis A phasing analysis will be conducted for the years 2020 and 2030 to document expected traffic conditions and roadway improvements, traffic impacts, and recommended mitigation measures, assuming that portions of the project are built in 2020 and 2030. This phasing analysis will be conducted separately for Alternatives 4, 5, and 9, and the Alternative 5 and Alternative 9 design variations. It will be conducted based on Average Daily Traffic conditions and will specify project impacts and mitigation measures, based on roadway segment capacity analysis. In addition, a No Build staging analysis will be prepared for comparison purposes for 2020 and 2030. Traffic forecasts for the phasing analysis for 2020 will be based on model runs for 2020 conditions. Traffic forecasts for 2030 conditions will be conducted using interpolation of 2020 traffic forecasts and 2040 traffic forecasts. For each of the first two phases, a preliminary engineering level design will be done for the logical termini with connections and access to existing roadways for the three remaining build alternatives -Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. Preliminary plans showing phases and assumed roadway improvements by others and proposed mitigation will be provided and used for conceptual purposes only. These plans are not for the purpose of Caltrans review and approval, but for purposes of disclosing a possible phasing scenario in the RDEIR/SDEIS. In addition, tables will be produced showing construction and right of way costs per phase for one preferred alternative. These tables are for RCTC planning purposes only and will not be included in RDEIR/SDEIS. A set of 11x17 plans and tables will be combined into a report for RCTC internal planning purposes for the preferred alternative. 5 49 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 6 -ENGINEERING MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: • Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. • Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. 6.0 ENGINEERING 6.0A Engineering (for RDEIR/SDEIS phase) The scope for Task 6.0A assumes the limits on 1-215 stay within the current survey limits, Harley Knox Blvd (Oleander Street) on the north to north of Nuevo Road to the south. A CE/CE was required for the Cone Pentrometer Tests done in the area of the MWD CRA. 6.1A Preliminary Engineering (for RDEIR/SDEIS phase) As a result of the project modification, there are three remaining build alternatives between 1-215 and SR-79, with one design variation between Warren Road and SR- 79. Based on the remaining three alternatives, and the results of the revised Traffic Technical Studies, the Consultant will redesign and refine the horizontal and vertical alignments to minimize environmental impacts and reduce construction costs. The consultant will prepare a preliminary alignment plan for each of the three build alternatives, Alternative 4, 5, 9, including San Jacinto North design variation in English units at 1 ":200' scale for agencies' review. Once the alignment plan is reviewed and accepted by Caltrans, RCTC, County of Riverside, the involved local city jurisdictions, FHWA and other regulatory agencies, it is important that the alignment for each alternative be frozen at this stage. Based on the frozen alignments, the consultant will assess the area of impact for the 50 environmental processing and documentation, the right-of-way requirements, and utility conflicts. In addition the consultant will investigate at a preliminary level alternatives to reduce impacts to homes in the City of Perris and avoid or minimize impacts to Paragon Park. The assumption for this scope is that only one alternative comes out of this investigation to move forward as Alt 9 in the RDEIR/SDEIS. The Consultant will develop an interchange at Redlands Blvd and compare to a Perris Blvd interchange for Alternative 9. Assume that the Redlands Blvd IC advances to environmental document. The consultant will consider existing right of way changes along the Southbound direction of 1-215 and revise all alternatives to match the new right of way line. 6.1.1A Ultimate Buildout-1-215 to SR-79 (for RDEIR/SDEIS phase) Three build alternatives, Alternative 4, 5, 9 and one design variation, San Jacinto North segment. Alternative 4 and 5 between 1-215 and Antelope Road and San Jacinto North Design Variation - These sections were done in metric units for the Draft Project Report. The consultant will convert these sections from metric units and standards into U.S. customary units and standards .. Alternative 9 between Antelope Road and SR-79 has already been converted from metric to U.S. customary units as part of the GAD effort. Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 between 1-215 and Antelope Road - The Consultant to redesign the segments between 1-215 and Antelope Road for all three build alternatives in U.S. Customary units. The Consultant will consider elimination of the parkway west of 1-215 and the corresponding connector ramps and redesign the 1-215 portion of alternatives, including redesign of freeway-to-freeway interchange at 1-215 and local street interchanges at Perris Blvd and Evans Road as required based on elimination of western leg of project and the new Traffic Technical Study. The consultant will prepare preliminary layout plans, profiles, and typical sections for each alternative in U.S. customary units at 1":200' scale. The preliminary plans will be prepared to meet 2040 traffic demand as the ultimate buildout condition including number of lane on the mainline and interchange configurations. These preliminary plans will be developed based on Caltrans Highway Design Manual 6th Edition American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, and other applicable county and cities design 2 51 standards. All proposed nonstandard features will be defined for documentation in design exception fact sheets for Caltrans review and approval. When agreement is given by Caltrans for the preliminary layout, profile and typical section sheets, the geometrics and R/W footprint will be established. for purposes of the RDEIR/SDEIS area of potential effect. The Consultant to generate the following data/information for use to determine Right of Way data sheets, Noise model and all impacts for the RDEIR/SDEIS. The data consists of the following microstation elements: 3D cut/fill line, 3D topo, 3D retaining walls, 3D centerline, 3D edge of pavement, roadway striping, plans and profiles. The data consists of the following GIS elements: shape file for the area of potential effect. Products: • Layouts, profiles, and typical sections at 1 ":200' Scale • Microstation and GIS elements Alternative 4, 5, and 9 -Antelope Road (Lake Perris) to SR-79 - The alternatives from Antelope Road to SR-79 are on common alignment. At the time of the project modification on July 81h,2009, GADs from Antelope Road to SR- 79 are substantially complete and through Caltrans review. The GADs have been done in U.S. customary units. For purposes of this scope of work, the team is assuming there will not need to be any changes to this section of the project based on new Traffic Technical Studies. Therefore, the ROW footprint had been established through the GAD effort for purposes of the RDEIR/SDEIS area of potential effect. Consultant to generate the following data/information for use to determine Right of Way data sheets, Noise model and all impacts for the RDEIR/SDEIS. The data consists of the following microstation elements: 3D cut/fill line, 3D topo, 3D retaining walls, 3D centerline, 3D edge of pavement, roadway striping, plans and profiles. The data consists of the following GIS elements: shape file for the area of potential effect. Products: • Copies of GAD Layouts, profiles, and typical sections at 1":100' • Microstation and GIS elements Revision to all design for the three build alternatives from outside widening of 1-215 to median widening of 1-215. Change in southbound 1-215 exist right of way line. requiring redesign. Complete rework of systems interchanges. 6.1.2A Interim Build 3 52 Additional coordination is assumed to be needed with Riverside County and any proposed developer that may be conditioned to build any portions of MCP. Phasing scope of work is under Task 5.3.A. 6.3.1A Utilities Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.1 but is in U.S. Customary units and for the modified project limits from 1-215 to SR-79. Utilizing the information and plans already developed for the project and converting the previous information from metric to U.S. customary units, the consultant will verify that the utility information is still current. With all the utility locations confirmed, the consultant will update the utility conflicts based on the redesign. Consultant will contact all affected utility companies to identify the changes in utility conflicts. During this phase, the Consultant will coordinate with the utility company for potential relocation and to determine role and responsibility in the next phases. Products: Utility Maps and Utility Cost Estimates in U.S. customary units 6.3.2A Right-of-Way Engineering Support Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.2 but in U.S. customary units for the segment between 1-215 and SR-79 for the "modified project" of the three remaining build alternatives -Alternatives 4, 5, 9 and San Jacinto North design variation. The work will be completed in two sections, 1-215 to Antelope Road which will consider any redesign and Antelope Road to SR-79 which will consider any changes made during the GAD process. A log will be kept of development status in the planning process, as well as a Gadd layer with this information. This information updated on a monthly basis based on input from County of Riverside, City of Perris and City of San Jacinto. At some point this information is frozen and dated for use in the RDEIR/SDEIS. The consultant will respond to requests from the public via RCTC with 11x17 pdf maps showing requested parcel and MCP alternatives right of way information. Additional data and engineering as needed for the area of Placentia IC and 1-215 improvements. Products: Right-of-Way Requirement Plans at 1 ":200' Scale 4 53 6.3.3A Cost Estimates Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.3 but in U.S. customary units for the segment between 1-215 and Antelope Road for the "modified project" for the three remaining build alternatives -Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. For the segment between Antelope Road and SR-79 cost estimates will be developed based on the GAD level plans. Additional deliverable required for FHWA Cost Estimate Review (CER). required for all Major Projects. Task to include update of cost estimate done for RDPR for selected alternative. required documents for three day CER meeting and attendance and presentation at CER meeting. Products: Cost Estimates in U.S. customary units for each of the remaining three build alternatives. Updated cost estimate for the Final Project Report for the selected alternative only. 6.3.4A Structures Advance Planning Studies Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.4 but in U.S. customary units for the segment between 1-215 and Antelope Road for the "modified project" for the preferred alternative only among the three remaining build alternatives -Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. The APS's that have already been prepared for the bridge structures within the segment between Antelope Road and SR-79 will NOT be converted from metric units to U.S. customary units and have already been approved. Only APS's between 1-215 and Antelope Road will be created based on redesign and converted to U.S. Customary units. Assume: 20 number of APS Additional Advanced Planning Study for San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation. Products: Structures APS Reports (General Plans and APS Checklists) for Preferred Alternative only. 6.3.SA Drainage Report Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.5 but applies only to revisions to the Drainage Report directly related to the "modified project". The "modified project" includes new project limits from 1-215 to SR-79. For drainage report update, geometric changes for the segment between 1-215 and Antelope Road for the three remaining build alternatives -Alternatives 4, 5 and 9 and changes made in GAD footprint since the DEIR/DEIS, between Antelope Road and SR-79 will be considered and incorporated into the update. The entire Drainage Report will be converted from metric units to U.S. customary units. 5 54 Three Location Hydraulic Studies, Perris Valley Storm Drain, San Jacinto River - Lakeview Nueveo and San Jacinto River -SR-79, will be updated based on any design changes and new FEMA mapping Products: Drainage Report in U.S. customary units Three location hydrology studies 6.3.6A Storm Water Data Report (SWOR) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.6 but applies only to revisions to the SWOR directly related to the "modified project". The "modified project" includes new project limits from 1-215 to SR-79. For SWOR update, geometric changes for the segment between 1-215 and Antelope Road for the three remaining build alternatives -Alternatives 4, 5 and 9 and changes made in GAD footprint since the DEIR/DEIS, between Antelope Road and SR-79 will be considered and incorporated into the update. The entire SWOR will be converted from metric units to U.S. customary units. Products: Storm Water Data Report (PR Level) in U.S. customary units 6.3.7A Conceptual Stage Construction & Traffic Management Plan (TMP) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.7 but in U.S. customary units and applies to 1-215 for the "modified project" for the three remaining build alternatives - Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. Conceptual Stage Construction Plans previously completed for SR-79 will be converted from metric units to U.S. customary units and updated per the GADs. Products: Conceptual Stage Construction Plans at 1 ":500' scale; TMP Checklists 6.3.9A Design Exception Report (Fact Sheet) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.9 but applies only to the segment between 1-215 and Antelope Road, including that of the 1-215 freeway, for the "modified project" for the three remaining build alternatives -Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. This scope assumes no changes to the segment between Antelope Road and SR- 79, that is in progress for approval of fact sheets and the scope is included in 6.3.9. Fact Sheet for SR-79 is already approved. Fact Sheet updated for 2012 standards. Fact Sheets required for the section between Antelope and SR-79. Products: Fact Sheet for Advisory Non-Standard Features in U.S. customary units; Fact Sheet for Mandatory Non-Standard Features U.S. customary units 6 55 6.4.BA Preliminary Foundation Reports We have included costs for revising up to twenty PFR's for the project modification. Our scope inserts new bridge APS, and minimal text change. Our scope includes responses to one round of comments from Caltrans if required. 6.4.9.10A MWD investigation at Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) Provide geotechnical investigation and report relating to MCP alternative paralleling the CRA on a fill section. Field Investigation Our subsurface exploration will consist of drilling and sampling exploratory borings, and performing Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT) along the MCP alignment between Warren Road on the west and Highway 79 on the east. Six hollow-stem auger I mud rotary borings will be drilled with a truck-mounted drill rig to a depth of approximately 100 feet below the existing grade or to the practical refusal, whichever occurs earlier. Above groundwater level, the drilling will be performed using either mud rotary or hollow-stem auger techniques while below groundwater only mud rotary techniques will be used. Samples will be collected from the borings at nominal 5-foot intervals. Samples will be collected primarily using the 2-inch outside diameter Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Samples will also be obtained using the 3-inch outside diameter California split barrel sampler lined with 6-inch brass sleeves. The SPT and California samplers will be driven with a 140-pound hammer dropped a distance of 30 inches in general conformance with ASTM D 6066 and ASTM D 1586. The samples obtained will then be transported to our laboratory for testing. Six CPT's will be performed to supplement our exploratory borings. CPT's will be conducted to a minimum depth of 100 feet below the existing grade or to the practical refusal, whichever occurs earlier. Two of the CPT's will be performed at locations consistent with borings so that boring and CPT data can be correlated. Down-hole shear wave velocity testing will be conducted at 10 foot intervals in 3 CPT's. Soil samples will not be collected for CPT's. A Kleinfelder engineer or geologist will supervise the borings and CPT's, observe and classify soil samples, and prepare logs of borings. Groundwater, if encountered, will be measured in the open borehole at the time of drilling. Upon completion, the borings will be backfilled with soil from the excavation. Prior to field exploration, we will contact Underground Service Alert (USA) to identify potential conflicts between our planned boring locations and existing underground utilities. We will also coordinate with Metropolitan personnel to confirm that our boring locations do not impact the operation of the CRA and are located a safe distance away from the pipe. 7 56 Kleinfelder will arrange for a specialty subconsultant to perform a geophysical survey of shear wave velocity using the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) technique. The SASW method is not intrusive and all the work is performed at the ground surface using a seismic source and geophones. This survey will provide data regarding the stiffness of the soils beneath the site. In preparing this proposal, we assume that access to drilling locations can be obtained with a standard truck mounted rig. We also assume that Kleinfelder will be granted access for our work without cost or delay. We assume the cost for encroachment permit for all borings in MWD right-of-way will be waived by MWD. We also assume no borings will be drilled within Caltrans, Riverside County, and City right-of-ways. Therefore, the costs for Caltrans, County, and City encroachment permits are not included in this proposal. The costs for traffic control are not included in this proposal. Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing will be performed on selected samples obtained during field exploration to assess the physical characteristics of the subsurface materials. We anticipate the testing will include in-situ moisture content/density, maximum density, gradation, Plasticity index, consolidation, collapse potential, direct shear, corrosion, expansion potential, and tri-axial compression. Our testing program may be modified based on the actual subsurface materials encountered during exploration. Engineering Analysis o Develop Geotechnical Model Kleinfelder will compile and synthesize the field and laboratory data to develop a geotechnical model of the site. The model will come in the form of subsurface profiles and cross sections with engineering properties developed for the soil layers. These profiles will be used in subsequent geotechnical engineering analyses. o Conventional Settlement Analyses The geotechnical models will be used to perform conventional settlement analyses for three cross sections through the proposed MCP embankment and adjacent CRA. The purpose of the settlement analyses will be to evaluate settlement potential at the CRA due to loading imposed by the MCP embankment. Stresses changes due to embankment construction will be calculated using the Bousinesq or Westergaard method. Settlements due to shear strain and volumetric compression will be calculated using elasticity and consolidation theory, respectively. We anticipate using the computer program Settle3D by Rocscience, Inc. to perform these calculations. o Lateral Foundation Load Evaluation The MCP project will involve construction of new interchanges at Warren Road and Highway 79. The new interchanges will require vehicular bridges with foundation units adjacent to the CRA pipeline. This task will involve evaluating the potential of 8 57 lateral loads imposed on bridge foundations (i.e. from seismic response of the bridge) to impact the CRA. We assume that bridge foundation locations and loads will be provided to Kleinfelder by Jacobs for our use in this analysis. Kleinfelder will perform preliminary foundation type selection evaluations based on the load and soil conditions encountered. Based on our current understanding of the soil conditions, and bridge types and sizes under consideration, we anticipate deep foundations will be necessary for the site. We will perform analyses to evaluate the potential for lateral foundation loads to impact the CRA where it is adjacent to the foundations. Soil-structure interaction analyses will be performed using the finite element method to evaluate load transfer from the foundation to the adjacent soil. We anticipate using the finite element program OpenSeesPL for these analyses. If it is found bridge foundations have the potential to impact the CRA, we will develop preliminary recommendations for mitigation measures such as minimum setback distances for foundations, or use of isolation casing. o Embankment Analyses Kleinfelder will perform two-dimensional deformation analyses of the embankments using the finite difference program FLAG. The analyses will be performed for three representative transverse cross sections through the proposed embankment and adjacent CRA. The three cross sections will be selected to evaluate the range of displacements that could occur due to the MCP embankment construction. These analyses will be similar to the previously performed deformation analysis, except that non-linear soil properties will be more explicitly accounted for. We anticipate accounting for soil non-linearity by using either a linear elastic soil model with an iterative degradation of the soil shear modulus, or by using a fully non-linear soil model. The three cross sections locations will be selected to evaluate the range of displacements that could occur due to the embankment construction. The engineering evaluations will rely on roadway geometry and preliminary bridge layout that will be provided to Kleinfelder by Jacobs. Our scope and fee assume one roadway geometry and configuration of bridges will be evaluated. Any changes to roadway geometry or bridge layout that occur during the course of our work may require changes to our scope and fee. Report Preparation The results of our study will be presented in a draft report for review by Jacobs, RCTD, and MWD. After receipt of review comments, Kleinfelder will prepare and submit a final report. Our fee assumes a total of 12 hard copies of the draft and final reports will be needed. We will also provide an Adobe Acrobat pdf copy of the reports. 9 58 Meetings and Project Management A Kleinfelder representative will attend up to two meetings four hours in duration in Los Angeles, Orange or Riverside County. A Kleinfelder representative will also attend up to six, one to two hour long teleconference meetings. A Kleinfelder Qualified Project Manager will be assigned to manage the budget within budget and on schedule. 6.5.1A "Recirculated"Draft Project Report (RDPR) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.5.1 but applies only to revisions to the DPR directly related to the "modified project". The "modified project" includes new project limits from 1-215 to SR-79 and geometric changes for the segment between 1-215 and Antelope Road for the three remaining build alternatives - Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. The entire DPR will be converted from metric units to U.S. customary units. Three submittals (Preliminary Draft, Final Draft, Final Draft for Signature) are assumed. Life Cycle Pavement Cost Analysis is not to be included in the DPR. Additional text added to give history from DEIR/DEIS, alternatives eliminated and project modified. Preliminary Materials Report and Life Cycle Cost Analysis required before completion of Final Project Report. Products: Recirculated Draft Project Report in U.S. customary units 25 copies assumed for the Preliminary Draft, 5 copies for the Final Draft and 5 copies Final Draft for Signature, 10 copies of the signed document 6.5.2 Final Project Report As a result of the environmental evaluation and the public comments, a Preferred Alternative will be selected for the project. The Consultant will incorporate comments from the DPR and prepare the Final Project Report (Final PR) based on the Preferred Alternative. The Final PR will also address any changes in the Preferred Alternative and cost estimates arising from the environmental studies, such as any environmental mitigations or avoidances. It is expected that more specific funding sources will be identified before or during the Final PR stage. Preliminary Materials Report and Life Cycle Cost Analysis required before completion of Final Project Report. Assumption: 70 copies of the Final Project Report will be needed Product: Final Project Report IO 59 6.6A New Connection Report (NCR) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.6 but applies only to a new connection at the MCP/1-215 interchange associated with the "modified project" and only one NCR will be created for a locally preferred alternative. NCR in U.S. Customary units. A new requirement in 2010 for the NCR is a Conceptual Signing Plan. It is expected that the Conceptual Signing Plan will cover signing between the 1-215/MCP systems interchange and a half-mile beyond 2 local street interchanges in each direction. On 1-215, that would cover 4 miles north and 3 miles south of the 1-215/MCP interchange. Along MCP, that would cover 3 miles east of the 1-215/MCP interchange. Approximately ten (10) Conceptual Sign plan sheets (11"x17") at scale 1":200' will be needed. Additional report copies and support of the conceptually approved NCR for NCR conceptual approval after the ROD. Products: NCR 6.7A Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6. 7 above but applies only to revisions to the segment between 1-215 and Antelope Road for the "modified project" of the three remaining build alternatives -Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. GAD will be prepared in U.S. customary units for the preferred alternative only. The segment from Antelope Road to SR-79 is already near completion and final review by Caltrans and covered in scope item 6.7. Update to 2012 standards Additional work on sections from Antelope to SR-79 based on schedule push resulting in change in staff and new standards. Product: GAD for the Preferred Alternative only from 1-215 to Antelope Road 11 60 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK ORDER NO. 7 -GIS DATA BASE SERVICES MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR-ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: • Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. • Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. 7.0A GIS DATA BASE SERVICES Extension in timeline of scope of services to address the modified project and all documents associated with the RDEIR/SDEIS. For this project, the Geographic Information System (GIS) will provide the base structure for data collection and organization. The GIS Team will continue to provide data organization, dissemination, and support for the PDT. There are six main tasks that the GIS team will address: 1. Development and maintenance of data library functions and distribution system 2. Update and publish base data and alignment layer; data standards to be used by project teams 3. Data needs assessment, acquisition, review, and maintenance 4. Analysis utilizing the GIS system as required to support general project needs 5. Generate maps, tables, reports, presentation graphics, and online GIS resources 6. Data archive, documentation, delivery, and training 7.1A Setup, Development, and Maintenance of Data Library and Distribution System A Project Data Control and Management Library has been established that contains the data collected or generated for the project. RBF will continue to maintain and update this system as necessary for this phase of the project work. This system, 61 which will be maintained and operated in conjunction with the project and document management collaboration site, will serve as a central online repository for project data. Data stored at the site will be registered to the project alignment layer developed by the Survey and Mapping Team, and meta data will be made available to provide users with pertinent information relating to the data's source, level of accuracy, date of completion, and any specific limitations in the use of the data. Additional functionality of the site will maintain a list of data downloads for notification of modifications by the data originator. Base data and data sets too large for distribution from the FTP site will be made available by CD. CD updates will be distributed as warranted throughout the Phase 2 project life. 7 .2A Publish Base Data and Alignment Layer; Create Data Standards to be Used by Project Teams Meetings will be held with all teams and individuals working on the project to provide information on how to access data and to describe the data standards that have been set for graphics, feature attributes, symbology, and meta data. The GIS team will provide support to other production teams to assist in maintaining the standards in their data generation and utilization. The data standards created for the project GIS will conform to the data standards currently in use on County systems. Data standards will be determined and established per the data dictionaries provided by the governing agencies and their GIS departments. A base data set has been established and will be maintained and updated by the GIS team in conjunction with the work to be completed by the survey and mapping team, which will be used by the other team members for convergence of data sets. This base data layer will be referred to as the "Data Alignment Layer." The Data Alignment Layer will consist of points, lines, and polygons taken from various data sources at various scales and levels of accuracy. Meta data relating to these geographic features will be of primary importance and will be maintained throughout the life of the project. The datum and projection of the Data Alignment Layer will be based on the County Parcel Data, which is NAD83 California State Plane Zone 6. As new data enters the project in this phase, the project team responsible for the new data will develop the appropriate meta data attributes and align the data to the Data Alignment Layer prior to requesting that the data be placed in the project data library. Data in the project data library will be available for access by other project team members but may only be modified by the responsible team. The GIS team will be responsible for the maintenance of the data library and will provide assistance to the other project teams if required to align and register new data sets. The goal of this task is to have each final data set delivered to the client, whether engineering, planning, or environmental based, to fit the constraints of the overall project coordinate control to make it most useful for future use and assure project quality between disciplines. 2 62 7.3A Data Needs Assessment, Acquisition, Review, and Maintenance Data will be the core of all of the project tasks for each of the project teams. This task simply defines how the data will be provided and the basic format and alignment to other data. The data itself is going to be the most important component of the GIS coordination. Whether existing data is received from other sources or new data is developed during the project tasks, most of the project data will be utilized for many disciplines and all segments of the project. Therefore, the timing and availability of each data set will be important to project team managers. To address this need, the GIS team will coordinate with each project team for identification of required data, adequacy of the available data, and acquisition of the required new data layers. This task will contain the following three components: 7.3.1 Establish the anticipated additional data needs, potential new sources as requested by the other project teams, and availability of the required data sets. 7.3.2 Develop a thorough list, presenting the identified data sets, the anticipated source for the data, any additional work that must be completed prior to use of the data, and the schedule for availability of the data. 7 .3.3 Collect data from its source. If the data is among the available data sets at the County or other global project sources, the data will be acquired, checked, and moved to the project data library for use. Other data sets requiring additional work will be acquired by the responsible project team and modified as necessary prior to being forwarded to the GIS team for checking and placement in the project data library. 7 .4A Analysis Utilizing the GIS System Once the project data is available in the project data library, the analysis of this data by each of the project teams will be undertaken. The analysis will be completed using the GIS system as a tool for evaluation of data and for the development of new data sets. New GIS data sets and resulting analyses will be maintained in the project data library and available for the other project teams to utilize. Where necessary, the GIS team will provide GIS analysis services to the other project team members. The budget for such analyses is contained in the budget provided for the individual task item by the individual project team. Analysis will be performed using Arc/Info, ArcView, or other GIS, CAD, or modeling software as necessary to achieve the desired results. Data created through this process will follow the same rigorous testing and quality checking as original data before documentation, meta data attribution, and placement in the project data library. A specific budget has been assigned for analysis requested at the specific direction of the project director or the client. Work under this task will be performed only under such specific direction. A 3 63 summary of the budget expended and remaining will be provided with each monthly progress billing. 7.SA Generate Map, Tables, Reports, Presentation Graphics, and Online GIS Resources Mapping standards, including global project symbol libraries, line styles, color palettes, and standard map layout at various scales will be provided to the project team members for the generation of their GIS map products. These templates will be provided online with the project data library. Where necessary, the GIS team will provide GIS map design and creation services to the other project teams. The budget for such map generation is contained in the budget provided for the individual task item by the project team. Map generation will be performed using Arc/Info, ArcView, or other software as necessary to achieve the desired results. Maps created through this process will follow rigorous quality checking procedures for accuracy and completeness. Digital versions of the final map products will be made available to the other team members in the project data library where appropriate. A specific budget has been assigned for map making requested at the specific direction of the project director or the client. Work under this task will be performed only under such specific direction. A summary of the budget expended and remaining will be provided with each monthly progress billing. 7.6A Data Archive, Documentation, Delivery, and Training 7.6.1 Following completion of the project, the project data collected and generated by the project team members will be archived for delivery to the client to support future work. This archiving process will include the verification and documentation of the data structures and meta data for each data set. The data archive will consist of the creation of a permanent data backup such as DVD or CD-ROM. 7 .6.2 Agency staff will be provided with training from the project GIS team with up to four two-hour training sessions. This training is to include an introduction and demonstration of the expanded GIS database, the new data structures, and uses identified in the project. Assumptions: 1. All data required for this project that originates from County government or Transportation Agencies will be provided free of charge to the Consultant within the time constraints provided in the approved schedule. Such data will be complete, current, and accurate as required for the analysis and mapping purposes designated for this project. Also, it is assumed that the data sets will have been previously registered to each County's parcel land base or the 4 64 project data alignment layer. Data layers specified in the RFP to be updated as part of this project are specifically excluded from this assumption. 2. Data requiring acquisition through purchase will be reimbursed by the client. 3. The client and the Consultant will enter into a reciprocal confidentiality agreement concerning the creation, transfer, and use of GIS data specifically pertaining to this project. Product: GIS Database 5 65 4.8022 ----__ I__ -----·-;::A A 4.8004 Formal LEDPA Checkpoint Meeting 0!18DEC13A 4.800. 2 .. j·:~vi~~LEDPA Package & Distribute to Age:~~~-4~80os --Identity Preferred Alternative -·------------+ ·' u1186EC13A 4.8o0i---lcattrans Submit Formal LEDPA Chkpt.Llr.to Agcy's Prepare and RecirCUTcltEi.AQ Documents LEDPA-CiiE!Ckpoint Concurrence/Agreement 4.8016 4.8006 4.8050 4.8008 4.8060 4.8026 MaITT:JUtNOIS_e_Abatement Survey Submit Preferred Alt0rnatiVe to SCAG TCWG NoisE!Abat9.Tient Survey Process Complete AO b-o-cumen1s RCTC Review and LSA ReViS:e u 19DEC13A 0 19DEC13A 14 21DEC13A O 13JAN14A 0 14JAN14A 12 14JAN14A 0 18JANT4A" --0 25JAN14A 6 28JAN14A -+:5 01FEBt4 4 8036 -1 ReeirCAONOAto GeoQraphic for Public Noticing 4.8018~ _ SCAG TCWG Concurrence on Prefe~r~d ~ltrnat1ve 4.8046 Public Ctrculahon AO Documenls -------+-~ 4.80fi -Caltr.Letter-Trans.AgCVSLEDPA Chkpt.Decision 7 15FE814 4.8~ Prepare Draf!FlnafEIR/EIS ----------60 21FEB14 4.8069 Prep.Resp.IOC-Qrii"niEints on Recirculated AO secs·:-21 18MAR14 4.8019 ----rGA-0 APProval Signature __ _ --· -----------+ -30 22APR14 ©Primavera Systems, Inc. l!B•••••••lllllllllllllllllllllllillll!lm••••llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll••••· Task 1.1 Project Management -!lmllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllBllllllBlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll•llllll•llllllllllll•rask 1.2 Project Scheduling and,Controls .llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllBB•lllll111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111•111111111111•rask 1.3 Project Meetings--- -... - -(~are -~~n-~I Re/ocal/on Impact Report --Review/Revise Fina/ Relocati~n Impact Report I Project Complete !ATTACHMENT 2 I !jllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll•llllllllllll•--.. i-i-------i!li .. ,Fina/ ROW Data S~ts,,Preter. Alt. for Final PR 20NOV13A tlY4DEC13A 18DEC13A 18DEC13A 20DEC13A 17JAN14A 14FEB1~ 97 13JAN14A 14JAN14A f2FEB14] 106 ~4JAN14A 31JAN14A 28JAN14A 17MAR14 2ffEB14 -1 97 21APR14 o7APR14 I 21MAV14 I 68 •lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillll!lm••••-.PrepareRevised Responses : i . I I , i · ....... Resource" Agcy. Rvw.of Draft Comms. & Response$: 1 • •• ;iiiiiirrransm·it Res.oo~ses·to~PU~l1C-Agency co~~r.-,s (NEPA/404 Informal Coordlnatl Mtg. on LEDPA ' l . IBllBlllllAgency Review and Co ment IPDT on Preferred Alterna ve---i . ----.. ' ~' •Revy.se Ll:DPA Pack e & Dfslrlbute to Ag;"cles ~Formal LEDPA heck~oint Meeting lldentify Pre~ Alternative l( -: : I Ca/trans Sub t Formal LEDPA Chkpt.Ltr.to Agcy's: L .... : _ : ... : I L -~Pre re a4_ ~ecirculate A~ Docjmenti.. : IL~DPA Checkp~tt Conlcurrenl ~Agreeme:t :~ __ Njls~ A.~.'~~e~~--~~~y ________ .:_ _ ~ "t Preferred Alternative to SCAG TCWG 1 I: ; I .I; : ro:lse Abatemen~ ~utver Prois; Complet: Documents RCTC Review and LSA Revise 1 L: .......... :: l I; ...... : 'ecirc. AQ NOA to Geographic for Pt!blic Noticing 'I I : ; I I ' : I CAG TCWG Concurrence on Preferred Altrnative I: ...... ; I L; : _.Public Circulation AQ Documents f: I : I I ' : . •caltr.Letter-Trans.Agcy's LEDPA Chkpt.DecisJon T I : I. 1 , : . , Prepare Draft Rnal EIRIE!S f ': • I ! : . , .... Prep .. Respi 'i Comment~ on Reci'j/ated AO Secs. Mid County Parkway February 01, 2014 GAD Aeprova' Sianature -1o4Mf~~94 I 13~ision _ _I___ Chec~£~-1~-ARR~~-------__ J __ ---· 01FEB14 1ue_da_te ___________ _ ''''" ~-""-"-"'"w~"°' -t ooo~>~ 4.9027~ ---Native AmeiiCin Consultatioli --o 1BNOV13A 19NOV13A 4.9028 Revise Final DMP & MOA ·-------0 13DEC13A 2ijAN14A 4.9047 I Native American Consultation (2) --· -O 16DEC13A-· 20DEC13A ' i 4.9029 ca1trans/FHWA/Tnbal Rvw. of ReviseifMOA and DMP - . 27 2BJAN14A 27FEB14 4.9039 Revise MOA &-·bMP per Caltr/FHW'PJTribal Comments . I 15 2BFEB14 14MAR14 ... 4.9049 i=HWA Transmits 10 Tribes-14 Day "CoUrtesy Rvw" -3 15MAR.f4 17MAR14 4.9059-Tribal "Courtesy Review'' PeriOd 14 18MAR14 31MAR14 4.9031 FHWA Submits F·inal MONDMP to SHPO/ACHP 7 01APR14 07APR14 4.9032 SHPO/ACHP Review MbNDMP 30 OBAPR14 07MAY14 4.9033 Approval of MOA by Signatories-FHWA,SHPO,Tribes 7 08MAY14--14MAY14 -15 ~ :is ~ -15 -15 -15 •ea1trans/FHWA T,..n.smit DMlMOA la Tribes ' . lllllllllmmlmNalive American eview of DMP and MC?A INative Amerlc8n Cansu~lan ' I vise Final DMP & M~A .... , J L ... , . ICaltrans!FHWA!Trlbal Rvw. of Revised MOA and DMP T ;: I I I I • I . , -Revise MOA & DMP Pf!r Caltr!FHWAnrjbal Comments, t :; L .... I I ... I .. ; I . : IFHWA Transmits to Tribes-14 Day ''CourtesyRvw" ' ~;.I II .I· 1 : ;rlbal ·ic~urtisr Review" rrlo\ '. •FHWA Submits Final MOAIDMP to SHPO/ACHP ::t J LI I . L : _.SHPO!ACHP Review MOAJDMP : I I I I ' _ ---11---------:-1 · ApprovalofM~Aby5/gnator/es.f'HWA,SHPO,Tr/bes ~ _____ _ ~Prep.DraftSec.4(1 'Req.torConcur."-CDFW!Pems l ~ : ' I ' ' IRev.Dratt Sec.4(f 'Req.Concur. "by RCTC!CaVFHWA I , ' ' j ' llilllllll;rep.Final 4(1) Letters to CDF": & Pe'jis : rHWA Sub ts Sec.4(f} Letters to CDFW and Pems ' 4.9004 1Agency-Review Final. EIR/EIS 4.9005 Corps Prepares 404 Public NOtlee 4.9013 -·· RCTC Action to Certify Final EIR & Aprv.Project 4.9023 FHlfilA Approve Frnal EIS tOr Public Availabilty 4.9006 FEIR/FEIS Circ./Sec.4o4Public Notice Issued 4.10.00 ·Ta-Sk 4.10 -FHWA ROD (SUtTrmary Activity) 4.10.07 FHWA ROD Aprvl.& Publish Notice to Fed. Register -"1.)SACE Review and ApprOveUpdated JD 30 14JUL14 12AUG14 30 14JUL14 12AUG14 30 .13AUG14 11SEP14 30 13AUG14 USEP14 30 12SEP14 110CT14 104* 120CT14 23JAN15 14 120CT14 250CT14 I : '-!ll!ll!ll!llllll!lllllllll!ll!ll!llllll!lllll!ll!ll!ll!lllllll!llllll!llllll!ll!ll!lillmm!llll coFWaTe"': issue concr--r-nce Letters 1_11111 Assemble CER-Caltrans/FHWA Team t ... : ! I : I . , -15 239 -15 -15 -15 .15···· -15 -15 ::is IMP Preplf ss;ue PR Cost Est. ~PPCfJ for CER Cost E~timate Rei;:iew (CERJ I_ I --Prepare Fl~al EIRIEIS . . . ' ........ Submit~PermitApplicati~n' . ·H·' ....... ·: : Agency Review F(nal. EIRJEIS 1 ~Corps Pre~res 4o4 ~ubllc Notice 'RcTc Act{an ta ·certify Final EIR &. Aprir.Praject 1 FEJR/FEIS Clrc.{Sec.404 ~bite Notice Issued •••llllil•mll!llmllllillllP~epare Initial Financial Plans (JFP} ililiiiililmlllliliiililliiliiiiiiiijjl ____ !ILlll ____ lll. ·111· ......... TSSk-4.-10--Fi-iWA--RoD (summary Activity) Prepare D~ft ROO J , 1 • l.....IFHWA RevieWs Draft ROD and Approves t t • I i F"!WA ROp Aprvl.& Publish Natfce ta Fed. Register I I Prepare Draft Final · 1 olo10CT13A l27NOV13A P~pareUpi.tedJD ': . llllillllllmUSACE Revle ' Sheet 2 of 4 AQ~~~~; 4.10.26 4.10.36 Revise Drft.Fnl.HMMP-Circulate-CoiiCUff.AgCy.Rvw. 4.10A6--1·co-nC"Urrent"AQE!rlcY-RVw.-Draft HMMP 4.10.56 4.10.06 ;1.:1a:·oa 4.10.18 Prepare Final HMMP Corps Evaluates Comments on PubliC-Ncifice--·-Corps ROD corp-s PrOvldeS PrOV'iSiOnal 404 Permit is per RCA and Agency Comments ~-r-FinaffzE! MSHCP Consistency & DBESPs per Agency 4.11.12 Submit JPR ApplicatiOn & Reports to RCA 4.11.13 --RCARVW. JPR, Provide Comment or Agree Complete 4.11.14 RCA Sends Final JPR to Wildlife.AQeilcies 4. 11.15 Wildlife Agencies Review, Provide Comments ;4~11.16 Wildlife Agencies Concur on JPR 4.11.19 FHWA Sbmt.Aptvd.JPAIO USFWS-lnitiat.Sec. ?Consul 4.11.18 USFWS APNs:·BlatOgical Opinion (FWS/FHWA Sec.7) 4.12.01 4.12.02 Obtain-sec. 401 Water Quality Certif. froni R~lOCB bbtarn SeC.1 soo Streambed Alt. Agree.from 'CDf1JI-0 11DEC13A 20DEC13A 7 23DEC13.iC 07FEB14 30 08FEB14 osMART4~ 30 120CT14 10NOV14 30 25DEC14 23JAN15 30 24JANi5·-22FEB15 8103MAR14 ] 10MAR14 14 11MAR14 24MAR14 1 25MAR 14 2fiMAR14 14 26MAR14 08AP-R14 1 09APR14 09APR14·-709APR14 15APR14 --·sol 16APR14 l 14JUN14 30l25MAR15 ]23APR15 30l25MAR15 l23APR15 51 51 89 45 45 13 llllRCTC llevlew Dra Final HMMP ' . ...... . .... . . . . . . ' ' imRevlse Drlt.Fn HMMP-Circulate-Concu".Agcy.Rvw.• t .................................. '. , I : . 'Concurrent Agen~ Rvw.-pratt r~MP --Prepare, final ~MMP ' )llli•••llll,!llmRevisions per RCA analAgency Comments ··' ·i~a/Jze MSH~~ Consis~enpy & DBESPs pet Ag~~cy msubmlt:JPR Appllcatlo~ & Reports to RqA : t _ . I , ..... ; , -RqA Rvw. JPR, PTfJvlde Comment pr A~ree Complete tiii:.4 s;;;;d;F+I ~PR to wiiciiiieAgen~~·· .... , . ~ ~l~li:.e ~!.e:~~~~--~~~~~'.-~~v~d~~~~mments_ hildiife ''r"~cies Concur on rPR ! . 1 ·· •FHWA Sbmt.Aprvd.JPR to µsnys-tnltlat.Sec. 7Consuf t L ..... . .. + , ... I ....... , .. USFV'fS Aprvs. B/olo$J1Cal Oplnl,;m (~WA Sec.7) I _. _________ 1 . 'tEnglneerfng ~ Flna1: Project Report IFinal ROW Data Sheets -'•••••lllli'eatrrans Appro~ an~ Sign Final PR -NCR Draft Final Submit to FHWA for Review t I --NCR Final FHWA Approval 111111••-mt••• ca/trans Signature illll•••Bti•••••ca,,ransSignature )lli•••••••••••llllll•••••seg. F-Anle/. to Bridge St.-Submlt & Rvw.(6th) lm•••••••••••llll•••••seg. G-Bridge St. to SR79-Submll & Rvw.(3rd) 3'i••••••••••••illl••Advisory-Supplemental 1-215 Fact Shi. Rvw;& Aprv i83 Mandatory-Mainline Fact Sht.Rvw.& Aprv. _.I. ......... .. ........................ .. . .. . I Advisory -Malnllne Fact Sheet Rvw,& Aprv. •iilllm•• SPI Report Retflew and Aprove Prepare Final Project Management Plan (PM~*-·---________ _ __ _ _____ .. .. .. ..... . ·15 IS~bmlt Initial Financial Plans (IFP) . ~~ . ' Obtain Sec. 401 Wat(n' Quality Certlf. from RWQC~ -15 '· Obtain Sec.1600 StrNmbed Alt. Agree.from CD~ ' Sheet 3 of 4 _.n.IN___i ···: .. ;,,~~tg~rJ·· I JAN I FEILl•·MAB~:;~:UAY :J~:ML Dsgn/Constr.lnfo.to USACE;Sec.404 Compliance Dsgn/Constr.lnto.to USACE;Sec.404 Comp/Ian~ Sheet 4 of 4 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment7 Date: March 5, 2014 Total Project Budaet ...... Budget Adjustment between Phases BUDGET SUMMARY Project Budget Project Budget Total Proje.ct (Phase 1) (Phase 2) $43,043,862 $5,030,501 $38,013,361 -$205,257 $205,257 $43,043,862 $4,825,244 $38,218,618 ATTACHMENT3 Amend 7 Amend7 Revised Budget Budget (Phase Requested Contingency 2) ...... $2,039,550 $203,955 $40,462,123 Total Amend 7 Requested! $2,243,5051 C.\UserslgarciadAAppDatalloea!\Mtcrosoft\Windows\Temporary Internet F11es1Content.Outlook\NB40HOE61_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Amendment 7 Budget Summary 70 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment7 Date: March 5, 2014 Firm Dtide. MIV!A ...... · Current Phase 2 Budget Budget Subtotal Amendment 7 Request C \Users\garc1adf\AppData\locaf\Microsoft\Windov.s\Temporaiy Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40HOE6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc 71 Revised Amend. 7 Budget $2,039,550 Budget Subtotal Task Estimate: Amendment 7 Date: March 5, 2014 Task Summary 2.() Agency & Public Involvement Proce~~., 4:0 Env~tg~ptental Services. 6.0 Engineering 7·~0 GIS Data Base Services· Firm: Jacobs 72 Amin.dment 7 139 $0 . $949rs1s Fee@7% Directs $66,470 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 Final Docs Firm:IJACOBS Date: March 5, 2014 Amend7 ' Cece • ;'--..;~;,; 'Qp~l'S·<·· · .......... Months Ave/ Month Total ODC J;otal'QDC'+'; . . Mileage 0 $0.55 $0.00 - Postage/Fed ex 0 varies $0.00 - Telephone 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Reproduction Fees 0 varies $0.00 - Direct Mail 0 $7.00 $0.00 - Newsletter 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Display Boards Meeting Supplies 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Other-Noise Meter Usage Fees varies $0.00 - Other-GPS Unit 0 $200.00 $0.00 - Other - Other - To~I ODC :'.its . . .I . .,,." ·;·:>;&+/. $0 1 .. u. $~~49$ 73 Task Estimate: Amendment 7 Date: March 5,2014 Task Summary 2.0 Agency.'~P.ublic lnvolvementPr()Cess . 3.(lSurvey, ROE, ROW 4.0 Environmental Services. 5.0 Traffic Engineering ·.· 6.0 Engin~ering ·• ·· ·· . :. Firm: Geographies ····Amendment 7 Fee@7% Directs ~ , ' ····· 0 ..• ·· 100 0 0 $8,580 $0 • $0 $0 '. $0 )$8,580 $601 Tota1l ___ $_32 .... ,9_3_4J C:\Users\garciadMppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40HOE6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Geo 74 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 Firm: IGeopraphics Date: March 5, 2014 I-' Amend7 ODG's"· .. >::: ...... ,, .... ~[trotal ODC .... Mileage - Newspaper Placement $16,626.00 Postage/Fedex $950.00 Telephone - Reproduction Fees $581.00 Direct Mail $960.00 Newsletter $4,300.00 Display Boards Meeting Supplies - Other-Translation $336.00 Other-Meeting Supplies - Other-Media Placements - Other - TotalOE>C .............. $23.~§~.oo C:\Users\garciadMppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40HOE6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Geo 75 Task Estimate: Amendment 6 Firm: LSA Date: March 5, 2014 Task Summary 3;o Survey, ROEi ROW 6.0 Engineering 1~0 GIS Oita Base. Services •.. 76 'Amendment 7. Labor Hours. Labor 0 0 5,020 0 0 ·' 0 5,412 Fee@7% Directs $0 $0 $0 ··.$0 ..• $701,'3()7 $49,0~2 Total ._I __ •_$_7_57_,4_1_21 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 Final Docs Firm:l._L_S_A ___________________ ___. Date: March 5,2014 :A.:Arl'lel'ld 1 opc•s '<:>'' ,' '</ Months Ave/ Month Total ooc tbtal:,q)DC ''' ", ;.'!':·;'' >"L:,· Mileage 0 $0.55 $0.00 - Postage/Fedex 0 varies $0.00 - Telephone 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Reproduction Fees 0 varies $0.00 - Direct Mail 0 $7.00 $0.00 - Newsletter 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Display Boards Meeting Supplies 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Other-Noise Meter Usage Fees varies $0.00 - Other-GPS Unit 0 $200.00 $0.00 - Other - Other - Total OOC. '•· $0 : $7,013 '"<'i < 77 Task Estimate: Amendment 7 Final Docs Firm: VRPA Date: March 5, 2014 Task Summary 1.0 Project MaQagem~~t,, Total 78 Fee@7% Directs :y $0 $0 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 Final Docs Firm:IVRPA Date: March 5, 2014 ·Amend 7 ODC's j1[ . ;\;:· .. ,:;;: .... Months Ave/ Month Total ODC >Total ODC . .. Mileage - Postage/Fed ex $0 - Telephone - Reproduction Fees - Direct Mail - Newsletter - Display Boards Meeting Supplies - Other -Intersection Traffic Counts 0.0 $0.00 $0 - Other -Segment traffic Counts 0.0 $0.00 $0 - Other - Other - Total.ODC ........ . .... $0 $2,'318 79 Task Estimate: Amendment 7 Final Docs Firm: Epic Date: March 5, 2014 Task Summary · Amendment 7 ,\i'v, %\ j~(l7t:nvironrnent~rs,rvices %;''' ,, , ; ; ; c•c $0 ...•. " ... ; ... •.' 0 ~!i·(· . . .;•. 0 $0 6.°' Engineering · :i"":_,: .. .\: •;;; •J 120 . $17,9$2 UfiGIS; Data Base Services ·I:';\ ·,\ 0 ······.'>At;$0 '<\ .. 506 "" $70$261 Fee@7% Directs 80 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 Firm: l_E_p_ic _____ _ Date: March 5, 2014 :,Amend7 ODC's '' ""•M,,,, Months Ave/ Month Total ODC 'total ODC Mileage Per Mile IRS reimburs. $0 - Postage/Fed ex At Cost $0 - Telephone At Cost - Reproduction Fees At Cost $0 - Direct Mail At Cost - Newsletter At Cost - Loopnet Annually $1,200.00 $0 $1,200 Win2 Data Annually $3,750.00 $0 $3,750 ECE Software Annually $4,800.00 $0 $4,800 Realtytrac.com Annually $600.00 $0 $600 Foreclosure.com Annually $520.00 $0 $520 TotalODC /'., $0 $10,870 81 Task Estimate: Amendment 7 Firm: Dudek Date: March 5, 2014 Task Summary 1.0,J?l'pject Management "" ' 'c 3.Q Survey, ROE, ROW 4.0 Enviromnenta.IServices 5.0 Traffic Engineering ··.·: 6~Q'l:J19i.!leering "'''·"'''"',' ,'' 7.o GIS Data aai:;e serviti'es :' v '• Amer(dment 7 Fee@7% Directs 01.< .. ' 377 0 445 '' .... .,$0 $0 '$89,450 $0 ··.·· .. ·· $0 $102,;301 .$JJ161= Totail_· __ $_1_10_,4_s_sl C:\Users\garciadMppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40HOE6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Dudek 82 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 Firm:IDudek Date: March 5, 2014 Amend7 ODC's ~':'!;:10;";41 ',:,"'"ii Jiv: ,,,,"'.': 'Total OOC .. .. Mileage - Postage/Fedex Telephone Reproduction Fees Direct Mail - Newsletter - Display Boards Meeting Supplies - Other - Other - Other - Other - Total ofjq;;;'!;;,:: .. ·. ,, .. $1,023 C:\Users\garciadMppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40HOE6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Dudek 83 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment7 Date: March 4, 2014 Total Project Bud et Amendment 7 -Final Documents Total Pro· ect Budget Reque$ted ATTACHMENT 4 BUDGET SUMMARY Project Budget $43,043,862 $2,243,505 $45,287,367 L:\Current Design Projects\04-31-018 Mid-County Parkway\Agenda ltems\MCP Amendment No. 7 Agenda Materials\Copy of MCP Project Summary Amendment 7 030514 to rctc.xls -Amend 7 Budget Summary 84 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment 7 Date: February 14, 2014 BUDGET SUMMARY Project Budget Project Budget (Phase 2) · (Phase 1) Total Project Budget .. · $38,013!361 $5,030,501 ,~~ttdm'ent 7 .~ Final~Pocumerlts .)/',:;:: J <;/. ,;, ., .. $2,243~505 Subtotal Project $40,256,866 $5,030,501 •endment 7 -Final Docµfu~jlts ~. ~ /;c.v Final Documents Subtotal = $2,039,550 Contingency= $203,955 .. :::: Phase 2 Amendment 6 TO.TAL budget needed = :<~; . "l:$2,24l~505 ' Amendment 7 Re ueste.d Funds from Commission ::;: ,0, · $2,243,505 Total Project Budget Requested $43,043,862 $45,287,367 L\Current Design Proiects\04-31-018 Mid-County Parkway\Agenda ltems\MCP Amendment No. 7 Agenda Materials\~'Sof _MCP Proiect Summary Amendment 7 03os1Aftlendment 7 Budget ph1 2 detail MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment7 Date: March 5, 2014 Additional Scope and Budget Final Documents L \Current Design P10Jects\04.:J1-018 Mod·County Pa1kway\Agenda ltems\MCP Amendment No 7 Agencla Materials\Copy ol _MCP Prqect su....,,aryAmendm'8fji30514 to rctc xis Scope Budget Summary MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment7 Date: March 5, 2014 4410 4420 4700 4700 4700 4700 4111 4101 6320 6320 6330 6700 2600 2600 3300 Cultural Resources Response to Comments - Cultural Resources Additional Scope and Budget Final Documents Section 4(f) -Add1t1onal consultation to bring arr parbes to concurrence on 4(f) Cultural -1) addition of the Cultural Landscape Study Outline to the DMP, and, 2) 13 additional meebngs with Native American facilitator and Tribes. Both of these items required planning, extensive prework and presentabon materials by both LSA and JE. Cultural -Potential for additional revisions to MOA or addrtional Native American consultation based on SHPO Task 4420 and 4700. Cultural -Additional work for above tnbal meetings and presentations Response to Comments -1) Three additional review cycles of the Response to Comments (RTC). 2) Incorporation of "Reject MCP" letters (CBD form letters) Response to Comments -received after April 19, 2013, into the Administrative Record (500-600 letters received General and Recirculated per month) Recirculated Draft EIR Draft EIR Air Quallty(AQ) and Air Quality and Green House Gases (In response to RTC)-1) preparation of the Green House Gases (GHG) Recirculated Draft EIR Air Quality and GHG sections. 2) Outreach Materlals - Website, Mailings, Newspaper Notice, Eblast. 3) Addtional response to comments on expected comments on the Recirculated document. Tasks 4700 Response to Comments - San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation Response to Comments -SJRB DV -Required additional analysis and meetings not anticipated in the Re-Eval phase Continued discussions on SJRB DV impacted the schedule for the LEDPA and MSHCP DB ESP.Includes a re-look at analysis done in summer 2011 by Dudek. Includes meeting preparation, presentations and documents for discussion Add1tonal Task to add to scope,for a report for project files of SJRB DV analysis by Dudek. Task 4700 Response to Comments -JO -Updated JD required due to expiration of JD Response to Comments _ approved in April 2008 (new report require~, not iust _updated forms, plus research to Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) addr_ess con~em raised by USFWS rega~din~ potential ag wetland), HMMP. More Habitat Mlti atlon and ' deta1l 1s required per updated u_sACE guideline~ than when t~1s task_ was first Monltorin Pia~ HMMP and budgete~ in 2004, required engineers to work with LSA to review drainage and S ti 40: p ~t A 11) ti opportunities to create waters for a no net loss of waters, 404 Permit Application - ec on erm PP ca on Permit application not included in original scope. Task 4700 and Task 4111. MSHCP - San Jacinto River Bridge Design Vartatlon Record of Decision Continued HMMP SJRB DV -Required additional analysis and meetings not anticipated in the Re-Eval phase. Continued discussrons on SJRB DV impacted the schedule for the LE DP A and MSHCP DBESP.lncludes a re-look at analysis done in summer 2011 by Dudek, again in 2013. Includes meeting preparation, presentations and documents for discussion Additonal Task to add to scope.for a report for project files of SJRB DV analysis by Dudek. Task 4111. Record of Decision -Additional support for documentation required for the ROQ Right of Wav -Engineenng support for requests from public and working with local agencies additional supoort for details on Placentia Ave IC Cost Estimate Review fCER>-A CER 1s now regu.red by FHWA to be completed in the PA/ED phase. This requires update and reformat of the cost esitmate to FHWA Cost Estimates -specifications and a one week discussion with FHWA reviewing staff. The Project FHWA Malor Prolect Management Plan IPMP> and Initial Financial Plan llFPI are also new FHWA Dellve ables -CER Advanced requirements however they are not submitted until after the ROD. This request for Planning Study for SJRB pv budget expects that the team will need to provide assistance to RCTC to provide project informabon for their completion of these two deliverables after the ROD Advanced Planning Study for SJRB DV. Task 6330 Update to latest standards and requirements-Due to elapsed bme, update to standards for all documents. Since 2004, FHWA/Caltrans template has had six GAD -updates, requiring update to environmental documents EIRIEIS. GAD's required to be Update to latest standards and updated for 2012 standards. GAD review and revise for Segments F and G, requiring requirements much more time, since more time than assumed transpired since reviewers were involved. Re-evaluation phase substantially longer than assumed in schedule Results in change in agency staff and standards Task 6 Public Outreach _ Reclrcula~ Draft EIR Air Quality and Green Hous_e Gases (In res~onse to RTC) Recirculated Draft EIR Air -1) preparation of the Rect~culated_ Draft EIR Air Quality and GHG sections: 2) Quality (AQ) and Green House Outreach Matenals -Website, Mailings, Newspaper Notice, Eblast. 3) Addt1onal Gases (GHG) ;esponse to comments on expected comments on the Recirculated document. Task Public Outreach Public Outreach -Additional items for briefings with Officials and Agency leads Right of Way-SJRB, Response to Comments, ROW requests for items near Right of Way Studies Placentia Right of Way -Support for re ests om ublic and workt with local a enc1 s additional su o for detai s on Placentia Ave IC Schedule Extentlon Final Phase -The original scope document assumed 12 Amount $10,026 $20,516 $144,888 $34,544 $117,808 $66,753 $42,540 $14,926 $15,253 Task 1 Project Management - Schedule -Final Phase months for final phase, current document assumes 19 months. Slip from April 2014 to $317,427 Task 1 Project Management - Schedule -Re-eval phase remaining Protect Management- Project Management Nov 2014 assume 7 months. Task 1 Schedule Extension Re-Eval Phase -Extension from Re-Eval phase Schedule cost that were not able to be accomodated by Re-eval phase contingency funds or efficiency of budget leading to re-allocabon. Remamg $130k to be allocated, from $360k for 9 months at $40k Balance was taken care of by Re-eval contingency or reallocation. Task 1 Schedule Extension Final Phase -Potential for additional 6 months m schedule Subconsu/tants Task 1 management of additional scooe items Additional Seo 87 Requested scope Budget sunwn act MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment 7 Date: March 4, 2014 Percent Contingency Subtotal L:\Current Design Projects\04-31-018 Mid-County Parkway\Agenda ltems\MCP Amendment No. 7 Agenda Materials\Copy of _MCP Project Summary Amendment 7 030514 to rctc.xls Contingency% Subtotal 88 ATTACHMENT 5 Agreement No. 04-31-018-07 AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FEDERAL FUNDING/ASSISTANCE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement~~ii,for Prof~ssional Engineering and Environmental Services is made and e d into a$';~1llof this day of ____ , 2014, by and between the'·.. RSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. ("Consultant"), a Delaware corporation. 2. RECITALS 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 The Commission andt~~ccJ~il':Civil, Inc. ~~Me entered into Agreement No. 04-31-018-00 (Master 'Agreement), dateEJ,, .•. Eebruary 3, 2004, for the purpos~"'2! PJ:Ji~.Miding professional J~ngineering flf1d environmental services in co'ln2c~tion wii'1Jhe Mid Cour:!~;;earkway Project (Project). ~~~~~f~b¥~ ,,,;:;:=::,,, --;oo;n~;::v c, : ,> The Cofitmission ~nd JacobsiMWJvil, Inc. have entered into an Amendment No. 1 to tffe Master '1greemefft;1• dated May 6, 2005, for the purpose of providing fd' ··· itionafBl).m,pensation in order to include tasks required to complete Ph .:::. 2 activities for the Project, which included the developJll~.Qt ana'~hmpletioff'%1of the Project Report and Environmental Document:"''"· The Commisslgn and JaEobs Civil, Inc. have entered into an Amendment No. 2 to the M"' ter Agreement, dated January 11, 2006, for the purpose of prov~qing a ional compensation in order to include three (3) new alter~ativ;~iooiili9 .·, ents identified du.ring th~ ya1ue Analysis Study process required as."j:t9rt of the Phase 2 Project act1v1t1es. The Commission and Jacobs Civil, Inc. have entered into an Amendment No. 3 to the Master Agreement, dated November 14, 2007, for the purpose of revising the existing indemnification language in the Master Agreement given recently adopted California Civil Code Section 2782.8 (AB 573) as it relates to design professionals, and providing additional compensation in order to increase the Scope of Services, to include an RVPUBIHSHANE\714371.1 1 89 ------·· ---------~ additional Scope of Services, and to provide additional compensation as follows: A. To authorize compensation for cultural investigation as detailed in Task 4 for the not to exceed amount of $499,997.00; and B. To authorize compensation for Geometric Drawings as detailed in Task 6 for the not to exceed amount of $2,895, 116.00; and c. To authorize additional compensatiqa;fn the amount of $168,004.00 to Jacobs Civil, Inc. for services t~~iprovided by its subconsultant, LSA. This additional authorizati(?,ti;'.Ll,being made to adjust the prior use of a multiple that was underst'ateq in error. Jacobs Civil, Inc, following the discovery apd application'til the correct multiplier, has compensated LSA at~i;;:the correct ratei; This authorization of additional compensation is being made to,.~address the resulting shortfall that resulted from the accelerated worK.,oJf of allotted funds <, •• ,.' as a result of the error. ;1;7;~~,, \'.fat.,,,, , MM~P~~,; ; 2.5 The Commission ~Qd .Jacobs Civil, Inc. have entered into an Amendment No. 4 t.o the Master Agree~mp;t, _dated J~~uary 1, 2010 fo~ theyurpose of extending the term ancl. pro1fl<:img add1tra1ilal compensation 1n order to include ad~itiqnal Servi~~P requifl!ll~ to comp.!i,te the Project, including ServiC,eS, "''ffequ:J,~~<:I to suP:plementt<'art~t.or re~ise the engineering and envir ·· ,, ental ·~l!:lchnical sft:t.di'5 for the : modified Mid County Parkway Projec / coordinate and review the technical documents with agencies, reassess·e:Jmr;>,acts,,· ai;i9 release a Re-circulated Draft EIR/Supplemental .41,;1•;,:Praft.EIS fo(publi~ review and com,rnent, as further set forth in the revised . ·::r. •1"'\Jersions of the Scope of Services for Task 1 through Task 7. ,:'.f~F~~~'.'.f'Jt' ' <'.;f~->; , 2.6 Consultan('lhe par~mt company of Jacobs Civil, Inc., and Jacobs Civil, Inc., have entered that.,certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement, dated May 31 2010, for the assignment to and assumption of all rights, duties and obligations of Jacobs Civil, Inc. in the Master Agreement, as amenp~d by AJ;nendments Nos. 1 through 4, by Consultant. All references to "Con§'f:lltan,t•:Jn the Master Agreement, as heretofore amended, shall be interpreted a~:referring to Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 2.7 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 5 to the Master Agreement, dated November 16, 201 O for the purpose of extending the term of the Master Agreement and to amend the Mater Agreement in order to include additional Services required to complete the Project, including the revision of the environmental technical reports, development of a Re-circulated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS environmental document, modification of the engineering design in support of the Project Report and conduct of another series of public RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 2 90 meetings/hearings for public review and comment, and to provide additional compensation therefore. 2.8 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 6 to the Master Agreement, dated December 31, 2012 for the purpose of extending the term of the Master Agreement to December 31, 2016. 2.9 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to perform additional studies and design support for the completion of the Final Re-circulated Environmental Jrnpact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (REl!M~EfS) and Project Report for the Project. '<M,,,1 .· 3. TERMS 3.1 The Scope of Services of th~11 .Master Agreement is bereby amended to include Services, as that term i? defirl~d in the Master Agreement, 3.2 3.4 3.5 required for comp le · of the Pro}~ct,. S:nd as more partic~larly identified and described in th ·sed Scope of $ervices for Tasks 1 through Task 7, attached hereto a$''' xhibit "A" and in~rporated herein by reference. Those items identified in the 1 atta~bed Scdpe pf Services as applicable to Amendmeat No. 7 shall be includei'.under this~Amendment. /''fif-_ -,, , ,;<.;,:,'~, --~~s;:, "'" The Services ibed in this Amendm~nt·1and the attached Exhibit "A" shall ~.;l[t,erforme expeditiously, within the'term of the Master Agreement, and in ac$rdanc. w· "h the Scliedule of Services contained in the Master 1 ~,!i(f:\greement. ~~e n'iaXir],um compens~ti~h Jor Services performed pursuant to this Amendme~t ?hall "' exceed Two Million Two Hundred Forty-Three ·'. Thousand Fl.\tiai1Hun . · Four Dollars ($2,243,504) as further set forth in the budget sJf;tinary provided in Exhibit "B" attached to this Amendment No. 7 and inco.rporated herein by reference. The Work shall be performed at the1r:r~~es seH.12.rth in the Master Agreement. The total ",c,,,aifract value for the Master Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 through this Amendment No. 7, shall not exceed Forty- Five Million Two Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty- Six Dollars ($45,287,366) Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 through 6, 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. RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 3 91 [Signatures on following page] RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 4 92 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT NO. 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FEDERAL FUNDING/ASSISTANCE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. By: __________ _ Marion Ashley, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Signature Name Title 5 93 17336.00000\1514236.2 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES [Attached behind this page] Exhibit A 94 17336 00000115142362 EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION [Attached behind this page] Exhibit B 95 CETAP MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT rctc ._ __ _ Mid County Parkway Amendment 7 Request March 24, 2014 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Mid County Parkway rctc 1-15 to 1-215 Corridor (refocused) 3/25/2014 1 Original Project 1-15 to SR 79 (Corona to San Jacinto) 32 miles Modified Project 1-215 to SR 79 (Perris to San Jacinto) 16 miles PSR-PDS Original Contract $5 million $31.1 million PA/ED DEIRll>EIS Amendment' 1 ihru 3 $26.1 million November 2008 $14.4 million PA/ED Re-Evaluation Project Modification Recirculated DEIRI Supplemental DEIS and Re-Scope Amendment 4 thru 6 $11.9 million July2009 February 2013 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 YEARS Final Documents Amendment? $2.5million •Response to _comments •SHPO •G.l\DJFAAU;h~IS. •Section4f . •CER. PMP & FP. •HMMP, JPR.DBESP •P MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT rctc NEXT STEPS Complete response to comments AQ, GHG, climate change, and RDEIR/SDEIS; Submit MOA and DMP for SHPO approval; Complete GAD and factsheets; Complete Section 4F process; Complete cost estimate review, PMP, and FP; Complete HMMP, JPR, and MHSCP-DBESP consistency review; Complete project report; Complete Final EIR/EIS agency review; Commission certifies final EIR FHWA approves final EIS; FHWA issues ROD; and Secure FHWA approval NCR. 3/25/2014 2 3/25/2014 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT rctc ._ __ Questions 3 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2014 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Mark Lancaster, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director SUBJECT: Agreements for On-Call Right of Way Engineering and Surveying Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide on-call right of way engineering and surveying services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $750,000; a) Agreement No. 14-31-043-00 with Huitt-Zollars, Inc; b) Agreement No. 14-31-044-00 with Parsons Brinckerhoff; and c) Agreement No. 14-31-045-00 with RBF Consulting, a Company of Michael Baker Corporation (RBF); 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Right of way engineering and surveying companies provide boundary maps, monumentation maps, survey control maps, records of survey, parcel or appraisal maps, lot line adjustments, and legal descriptions and plat maps, among other services. These companies also meet the requirements of Caltrans in providing base mapping and pre-construction and post-construction monumentation. The Commission utilizes these services when acquiring property for projects or to determine property boundaries on property already owned by the Commission. Often, the Commission will call on these companies to stake or mark the areas of a property that is proposed to be acquired, obtaining useful information for the Commission's appraisers, right of way agents, and the property owners. Agenda Item 9 96 Procurement Process Pursuant to Government Code 4525 et seq, selection of architect engineer and related services shall be on the basis of demonstrated competence and on professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. Therefore, staff used the qualification method of selection for the procurement of these services. Evaluation criteria included elements such as qualifications of firm, qualifications of personnel, understanding and approach, and the ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of a request for qualifications (RFQ). RFQ No. 14-31-043-00 for on-call right of way engineering and surveying services was released by staff on November 15, 2013. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFQ was posted on the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Using data from PlanetBids, postcards were sent to 107 firms, 18 of which are located in Riverside County. Using PlanetBids, 52 firms downloaded the RFQ, 12 of these firms are located in Riverside County. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the November 27 clarification deadline date. Fifteen firms -Bush & Associates, Inc.; Calvada Surveying, Inc.; David Evans & Associates, Inc.; Guida Surveying, Inc.; Hernandez, Kroone & Associates; Huitt-Zollars, Inc.; Hunsaker & Associates; Ludwig Engineering Associates, Inc.; Mid-Valley Engineering; Parsons Brinckerhoff; Project Design Consultants; RBF Consulting; Towill, Inc.; VA Consulting, Inc.; and West Land Group, Inc. -submitted statements of qualifications (SOQ) prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on December 19. The Commission received one SOQ after the 2:00 p.m. deadline, and it was returned unopened. Fourteen of the fifteen firms submitted responsive and responsible SOQs. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ, the fourteen firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission and Caltrans staff. Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the terms of the RFQ, the evaluation committee short listed and invited five firms to the interview phase of the evaluation and selection process. Interviews of the short listed firms -David Evans & Associates, Inc. (Ontario); Huitt-Zollars, Inc. (Ontario); Parsons Brinckerhoff (San Bernardino); Project Design Consultants (San Diego); and RBF Consulting (Ontario) -were conducted on February 18, 2014. The evaluation committee conducted a subsequent evaluation of each firm, based on both written and interview components presented to the evaluation committee by each proposer. Accordingly, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to Huitt-Zollars, Inc., Parsons Brinckerhoff, and RBF Consulting for on-call right of way engineering and surveying services, as these firms earned the highest total evaluation scores. The multiple award, on-call, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity task order type contracts do not guarantee work to any of the awardees; therefore, no funds are guaranteed to any consultant. Pre-qualified consultants will be selected for specific tasks based on information contained in their proposal. Services will be provided through the Commission's issuance of Agenda Item 9 97 contract task orders to the consultants on an as-needed basis. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with the consultants subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal counsel review. Staff oversight of the contract will work to maximize the effectiveness of the consultants and minimize costs to the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2013/14 Amount: $ 20,000 N/A FY 2014/15+ $ 730,000 Source of Funds: Measure A, Federal and State Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 332402 81402 221 33 81402 622402 81402 262 31 81402 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: I 03/17/2014 Attachment: Standard Form On-Call Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 9 98 AGREEMENT NO. ________ _ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FHWA AND/OR FTA FUNDING/ASSISTANCE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT WITH [CONSULTANT] FOR ON-CALL ON-CALL RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING & SURVEYING SERVICES 1.0 PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of , 2014, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and [NAME OF FIRM] ("Consultant"), a [LEGAL STATUS OF CONSULTANT, e.g., Delaware corporation]. 2.0 RECITALS. 2.1 On November 8, 1988 the voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2 %) retail transactions and use tax (the "Tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.2 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., the Commission is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.3 On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved an extension of the Measure A tax for an additional thirty (30) years for the continued funding of transportation and improvements within the County of Riverside. 2.4 A source of funding for payment for professional services provided under this Agreement may be federal funds from the United States Department of Transportation. This Commission may withhold payment of any federal funds hereunder until the certification shown in Exhibit "F" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is executed. 2.5 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional services required by the Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the task order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement and executed by the Commission and the Consultant ("Task Order"). Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing on-call right of way engineering 17336.02100\8386485.1 99 and surveying services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California (if necessary), and is familiar with the plans of the Commission. 2.6 The Commission desires to engage Consultant to render such services on an on-call basis. Services shall be ordered by Task Order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement for future projects as set forth herein (each such project shall be designated a "Project" under this Agreement). 3.0 TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant s~pll furnish all technical and professional services, including labor, material, equipmerk transportation, supervision and expertise, and incidental and customary wo~ki;;Q~Ge~sary to fully and adequately supply the professional on-call right of way .E?nglnee'Flhg and surveying services necessary for the Project ("Services"). The Services are rTIQJifl generally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporat~~' herein by referehc~~,, The Services shall be more particularly described in the individu~I Task Orders issued;by the Commission's Executive Director or designee. No Services shall be performed unle~.~ authorized by a fully executed Task Order. All Services shall be subject to, trhd. performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the relevant Ta$1k'Oueter, the exhibits''S'ttached hereto and incorporated herein by refer~oce, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. · ·· ·'· :v~~b~ 3.2 Commencement of Services. The Corn~ultanf.shall commence work within five (5) days of recei~j:~ fully,.~xecutediask O[derft<:>mCommission. ' '·"', , q{BXP, ,. ", · · .-7_,., 3.2.1 ''''~ithl the event federal funging will be used for any Task Order, and to the extent Caltrans proc~durewi®:a~ply in connection therewith, issuance of a "Notice to Proceed",on. :tffe?·~iask Order or' written authorization by the Commission's designated project fft~nager ~a}i1 be coritiIJ.Q,ent uponj;~9mpletion and approval of a pre-award audit. Any Cltr ·ans raised·16EIUfi.ng the pre-awarc:f audit for the Task Order shall be resolved before t Commission01f/iJI consJger approval of the Task Order. Any federal aid provided under a Task Order is c~'@.tingent on meeting all federal requirements and could be withdravyn, thereby' titling the Commission to terminate the Task Order, if the procedures are not complet . Consultant's files shall be maintained in a manner to facilitate Federal ·~hd :§tate p'rocess reviews. In addition, the applicable federal agency, or Caltrans acting orTi:!Jeb~ltof a federal agency, may require that prior to performance of any work for which/f:~deral reimbursement is requested and provided, that said federal agency or Caltran's must give to Commission an "Authorization to Proceed". If any post-Task Order award audit recommendations are received by the Commission from Caltrans, Consultant shall make all necessary adjustments to conform to the audit recommendations. Refusal by Consultant to incorporate the interim audit or post-Task Order award recommendations of Caltrans will be considered a breach of the Task Order and this Agreement and cause for termination or suspension of the Services. 3.3 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first set forth above or the date of issuance of the Notice to Proceed by the Commission, whichever 2 17336.02100\8386485.1 100 occurs first, to the later of [INSERT AGREEMENT EXPIRATION DATE], or the date on which all Services under a Task Order issued prior to the foregoing date have been completed, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. 3.4 Commission's Representative. The Commission hereby designates the [INSERT NAME OR TITLE], or his or her designee, to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Commission's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of Consultant's work as it progresses. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders frQlfr'. any person other than the Commission's Representative or his or her designee,;F'11i ,-~~:%;"":' ('; 3.5 Consultant's Representative. Con$ultanfs0;hereby designates [INSERT NAME OR TITLE], or his or her design,~e •. ,~'to act as<:it~,. Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("C9nsulfant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to'''act on behalf of Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Repr,,?entative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his professional skill and art€:ntion.J 11and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and/ P~iedures and for tfie satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under t~f!11 Agreement and as described in the relevant Task Order. ConsultE:ii::if'0io~hl:lll work Cl~$. ly and cooperate fully with Commission's Representative and any'.11Qther1'ager:i~yies w11· may have jurisdiction over, or an interest in, the, Servi s. Consultant's fesentatrve shall be available to the Commission staff 1at all .. asonable ti . · . . Antf''. substitution in Consultant's Representative shall 'oe approvetll in writingt>,i;Commissi'O'n's Representative. '\,, '. "~;11r 1 · .. -, 3.6 Substitution of Ke¥:11PersonneL 411 Consultant has represented to the Commissio.a.that c;ertain key personnelf'lwill perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Shqµld one or.more ofstrcn p.ersonnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other pe,rs9nneli1of at least 'equal competence upon written approval by the Commission. In the 'event that trn,e Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of the key pe~ponnel~~!ittie Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursu'arl\ to the provisions of Section 3.14. The key personnel for performance of this Agreemei~tare: '«/:r, ~" [INSERT NAME'.(~)(11 iii I 3.7 Preliminarv Review of Work. All reports, working papers, and similar work products prepared for submission in the course of providing Services under this Agreement shall be submitted to the Commission's Representative in draft form, and the Commission may require revisions of such drafts prior to formal submission and approval. In the event plans and designs are to be developed as part of the Project, final detailed plans and designs shall be contingent upon obtaining environmental clearance as may be required in connection with Federal funding. In the event that Commission's Representative, in his sole discretion, determines the formally submitted work product to be not in accordance with the standard of care established under this contract, 3 17336.02100\8386485.1 101 --------------------------- Commission's Representative may require Consultant to revise and resubmit the work at no cost to the Commission. 3.8 Appearance at Hearings. If and when required by the Commission, Consultant shall render assistance at public hearings or other meetings related to the Project or necessary to the performance of the Services. However, Consultant shall not be required to, and will not, render any decision, interpretation or recommendation regarding questions of a legal nature or which may be construed as constituting a legal opinion. 3.9 Standard of Care: Licenses. Consultant t;,':!IP;tesents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to ·, rm all Services, duties and obligations required by this Agreement to fully q.nd"t · ,,tQuately complete the Project. Consultant shall perform the Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as beiQg employed by,:;pr,.ofessionals in the same discipline in the State of California duringf the term of this Agreement. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall ha\Jl!t· sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Consultant fi:lrth~r represents and warrants to the Commission that its employees and s.ubcontractors ha'1'e all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legafr'y required to perform the Services, and that S.Uch li.censes an~:;r:3,approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Cpnsultant sh~lt,,iperform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the G~0 rnmissiQ'i;,t1tAany services necessary to correct errors or omi~siorisrM/hich are caused b ·· . Consultiflt'S failure to comply with the standard of ca~!ii! prdvidi9,p for herein, a: ·· all bet fully responsible to the Commission for afl,;:,~:amages· a.nd other lial;>ilities proviEfed for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement ari~ing from the Consultant's errors and omissions. Any employee of Consultant Q · · .. ponsultants who is determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incom a threatJo the adequate or timely completion of the Projegt, a threat to the sate', f personS:uor property, or any employee who fails or refus~s:ito. perform the·services in a manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly':~imoved from the Project' by the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any . ttie Services.car:;, to worl<':on the Project. unit to Cure. Commission may provide Consultant an opportunity to cure, at Consult~~ts expense, all errors and omissions which may be disclosed during Project implem~nt~fo:m. Should Consultant fail to make such correction in a timely manner, such correetion may be made by the Commission, and the cost thereof charged to Consultant. 3.11 Inspection of Work. Consultant shall allow the Commission's Representative to inspect or review Consultant's work in progress at any reasonable time. 3.12 Final Acceptance. Upon determination by the Commission that Consultant has satisfactorily completed the Services required under this Agreement and within the term set forth in Section 3.3, the Commission shall give Consultant a written 4 17336.02100\8386485 .1 102 Notice of Final Acceptance. Upon receipt of such notice, Consultant shall incur no further costs hereunder, unless otherwise specified in the Notice of Final Acceptance. Consultant may request issuance of a Notice of Final Acceptance when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily completed all Services required under the terms of this Agreement. In the event copyrights are permitted under this Agreement, then in connection with Federal funding, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that the United States Department of Transportation shall have the royalty-free non-exclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the work for governmental purposes. 3.13 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall !Ke~~, itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules:a'nd regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the $erviqes, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices requireq by law. For example, and not by way of limitation, Consultant shall keep itself fully .. :informed of afil~r, in compliance with all implementing regulations, design standar,<;11,·specifications, pre~i9us commitments that must be incorporated in the design of the Project, and administrative controls including those of the United States Department of.Transportati.pn. Compliance with Federal procedures may include complef on of the applicable environmental documents and approved by the United States • ;;irw;t.tD1ent of Tra~sportation. For example, and not by way of limitation, a signed Categ0Hea1 Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, or published Record of Decision may be re(;fuired to be a~li9ved and/or completed by the United States Department of Transportation. For CoiisUltant shall be liable for all violations of such laws alia regulation$ in connection with\Services. If the Consultant performs any work kgowing i!,:!9 be cdotra,[Y0~o. such,, laws, ·rules and regulations and without giving writte,r,i~a?tice to,::lne Commi~1~l~h, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising thefefrom. GE>nsultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, dirE:l<it.c:irs, offi ,employ.ees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnifie'.l:ltion proYi§ions .is Agreemeot, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure of~lleged failure to co ~lj'kwith such laws, rules or regulations. 'l,'''' <;,,,,., c• 3.'~!4,Terminatio~;;:. ':: :,Tt;r 3i;1f,4.1 Notice; Reason. ·, c'ommission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate this AQ(i.~,ment, irli:.whole or in part, at any time by giving written notice to Consultant of such·~:tirmination, and specifying the effective date thereof ("Notice of Termination"). Such terwin~~on may be for Commission's convenience or because of Consultant's failure to""jlerform its duties and obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the failure of Consultant to timely perform Services pursuant to the Schedule of Services described in Section 3.15 of this Agreement. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.14.2 Discontinuance of Services. Upon receipt of the written Notice of Termination, Consultant shall discontinue all affected Services as directed in the Notice or as otherwise provided herein and shall deliver to the Commission all Documents and Data, as defined in this Agreement, as may have been prepared or accumulated by Consultant in performance of the Services, whether completed or in progress. 5 17336.02100\8386485.1 103 3.14.3 Effect of Termination For Convenience. If the termination is to be for the convenience of the Commission, the Commission shall compensate Consultant for Services fully and adequately provided through the effective date of termination. Such payment shall include a prorated amount of profit, if applicable, but no amount shall be paid for anticipated profit on unperformed Services. Consultant shall provide documentation deemed adequate by Commission's Representative to show the Services actually completed by Consultant prior to the effective date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate on the effective date of the Notice of Termination. 3.14.4 Effect of Termination for Cause. lf."the termination is for cause, Consultant shall be compensated for those Services:which have been fully and adequately completed and accepted by the CommissfonFG's of the date the Commission provides the Notice of Termination. In such case, 1the 1 Gemmission may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contJ'[act or otherwise. Further, Consultant shall be liable to the Commission for any reasonable additional costs incurred by the Commission to revise worki·for which the Com'fn'ission has compensated Consultant under this Agreement, but which the Commission ha~l1 <letermined in its sole discretion needs to be revised, in part or whole, to cornralete the PrQjj~t because it did not meet the standard of care est blished in S :Termination O'f this Agreement for cause may be considered b · termining whether to enter into future agreements with Consulta 3.14.5 Cumulative Remedies. t1t:!~1 • rights<ll:l9 remedies of the Parties provided in this Sectio r~:;,in addition t(;) .. any otH::~r;rights citi~Lremedies provided by law or under this AgreeH i~~;,I 1 1 " 1:4 c,•§~ 3.14.6 Rfocuremerlt of Simila~;~services. In the event this Agreement is terminated, in 1 )!Vhole or 1iH part, as\provided by this Section, the Commission may on S'i.Jch terms ahd.fh suctll;:imanner as it deems appropriate, services similar ~d>+ariminated. ; · 3.14. 7 Waiv~rs. Ca~sultant, in executing this Agreement, shall be deemed to have waived any.:q,pd al(claims for damages which may otherwise arise from the Commission~~Jerminatio@1t0f this Agreement, for convenience or cause, as provided in this Section. ·· ">;;, 11"i~8\ 3.15 SchedJie andJ~ffogress of Services. 3.15.1 Schecf~le of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with any specific schedule that shall be set forth in the Task Order ("Schedule of Services"). Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with each Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of Commission's Representative, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the relevant Schedule of Services. 6 17336.02100\8386485.1 104 3.15.2 Modification of the Schedule. Consultant shall regularly report to the Commission, through correspondence or progress reports, its progress in providing required Services within the scheduled time periods. Commission shall be promptly informed of all anticipated delays. In the event that Consultant determines that a schedule modification is necessary, Consultant shall promptly submit a revised Schedule of Services for approval by Commission's Representative. 3.15.3 Trend Meetings. Consultant shall conduct trend meetings with the Commission's Representative and other interested parties, as may be requested by the Commission. These trend meetings will encompass focused and informal discussions concerning scope, schedule, and current progress of ~ervices, relevant cost issues, and future Project objectives. Consultant shall be responsible for the preparation and distribution of meeting agendas to be received b~:tfi~MCommission and other attendees no later than three (3) working days prior to the Qieeting. //:,, 3.15.4 Progress Reports. Asr'i~ of its monthly;ipvoice, Consultant shall submit a progress report, in a form determl~.ed by the Commissiof)s, which will indicate the progress achieved during the previous Pll!&nth in relation to the r~fevant Schedule of Services, as applicable. If applicable, submissiqri'!t9f such progress rep by Consultant shall be a condition precedent to,~i~~.peipt of payment from the Comm ion for each monthly invoice submitted. · · ,,. 3.16 Delay in Performance. '' ' :;~ f~;(~~;; 3.16. 1.rtExcdS'atne Delays: onsultant be delayed or prevented from the timely performance of any aC:t~; ervices .required by the terms of the Agreement by reason of acts of.God or ofJO:e public enemy, acts or omissions of the Commission or other governmental agencies\>in either their sovereign or contractual capacitie~1 Jires, floods, epi(j(3mics, quarantine·1tfe,~trictions, strikes, freight embargoes or unusu~llyi;severe we~ther, 'p~rformancer'1of1'such act shall be excused for the period of such delay. ······ · · · 1., <3.16.2 Writterl"Notice. If Consultant believes it is entitled to an extension of time due fC:JJi(:ionditions sef forth in su 1 bsection 3.16.1, Consultant shall provide written notice to the CTofomission within seven (7) working days from the time Consultant knows, or reasonab~~' shoyjtJ''.have known, that performance of the Services will be delayed due to such conditiows. Failure of Consultant to provide such timely notice shall constitute a waiver by Consultant of any right to an excusable delay in time of performance. 3.16.3 Mutual Agreement. Performance of any Services under this Agreement may be delayed upon mutual agreement of the Parties. Upon such agreement, Consultant's Schedule of Services shall be extended as necessary by the Commission. Consultant shall take all reasonable steps to minimize delay in completion, and additional costs, resulting from any such extension. 3.17 Status of Consultant/Subconsultants; Assignment; Transfer. 7 17336.02100\8386485.1 105 3.17.1 Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee, agent or representative of the Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services and as re.~.u.ired by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respectjrig;~such personnel, including but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholC11!flgs, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insuraric~tc. '''.!!/%?-,', 3.17.2 Assignment or Transfer" .. consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation oflaw, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attemptto do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignmenW::hypethecation or transfer. /'' 3.17 .3 Subcontracting; COJil.sultant sh'~f·1°·n9t subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreerri'e,tlk except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. If Consultant wishes to use a firm as a subcontractor which is riot specified in the prqp()sal. upon which this Agreement was awarded, prior writterf ap~rbval must. be dbfain~q .;;from the Commission. The Subcontracts, if any/ shall coflt~in a provi~ion making 'them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. .·· .. <·;:;;,,, 3J;8 !;\ttiwfiership dt;tviateriats/Oonfi.gentiality. c c:;;;;~~~ft& >': 3.18.1 D1'ISuments: & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetualJicense for Commission to.<;ppy, use, modify, reuse, or sub-license any and all copyrights and designs em'9odied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, in · ing but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otflerwise .... :~ rded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared;,lii)y O'onsultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require:~.~11 subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 8 17336.02100\8386485.1 106 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title an,(,dj~iinterest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement wheth~r ~f::not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjuQ,etipnvWith Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will exe~ute separate written assignments of any a~d . all rights to the above referenced:11~1ntellectual fTu~~eerty upon request of Comm1ss1on '· .:ic. • ' . 'Ti\ ~'' Consultant shall also be responsible to obtai:g,)n writing separat~1~~ • en assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Constil~~nt of !any and all . to the above referenced Intellectual Properfy · hould ConsyJ;Jaflt, either during or following termination of this Agreement, de. · , .use any"iaf ~be above-referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written app{(l~~I of the Clommission. 44f4;j~, ., All materials and docurfi~Jilts which wl,Ji~ devel ~ct or prep~fed by the Consultant for general use prior t() Jhe executjon of this,.~g ... 'ni: aotj which are not the copyright of any other party or '.R:jf>licly avail~ble and a~ er comptiter applications, shall continue to be the property of th§. Consultant. How r, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreernent, Consul Gl:Qt represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual licerl§.e for all such Intellectual Property as provid~d t)erein. · •00' Commissil!?,!\)Jurther is gr~l;ljl)it~d by 6()nsultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub-license anyand all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant wnlch is the basi:~1;ror foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work create~;~(mder this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confiden.tiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, d(:!scriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services 9 17336.02100\8386485.l 107 or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.19 Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and <;t@,ntractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, tne'''''Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of consequential,damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys' fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such,,aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission, its directors, officials, o'ffi~~rs, employees, ' ~onsultants, agents, or volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satis~1 t:my judgment, awardor::decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, g;i;(jcers, empl()Y:®es, consultants, agents, or volunteers, in any such suit, action :gr ?~M~ii legal procee'~J1;1g. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and ·rectors, officialstofficers, employees, consultants, agents, and/or volunteers, for , and all legal11;5expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incur . by e'ach of them'Yiu connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provi, ed. Consultant's ob'fr~t9tion to indemnify shall not be restricted to ins ···· ~E¥ proceeds,' if any, received by ~ommission, its directors, officials officers, e ees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the e" ,;, Consultant's Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity·.. II be)imited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that a >.Q,\tt,l!t;pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willf '. ondu(!i of the· ConsUftant. Consultant's obligations as set forth in this Secti . 9 shall survive expir~tipn or termination of this Agreement. ,,+:l::~'.~Ub,, 3.20 .. Insurance. · \:;i/~:; 3.,:iQ,1 1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has pro\jjded evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insuran~;,y;ff,~quired under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor t6'.COr;JlJ'.'11ence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under.this section. 3.20.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: 10 17336.02100\8386485.1 108 A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 ); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) if Consultant has employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. B. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 pe. occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial G ral Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the ge);leral aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the generif;,~aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liat;>ilityi $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Worke~' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required ~~.the Labor Code otthe State of California. Employer's Liability limits of $1,000,000 pe(accident for bodily injCiry'.'pr disease. \.,;, 3.20.3 Professional Liability. Consutta ;hall procure maintain, and require its sub-consultants to f:2[Q(iure and main\:, . for a period o · five (5) years following completion of the Proje7 "'"' ' rrors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insuranc all be, in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per claim. .,~, ' 3.20.4 [Reserved] 3.20.S l~;surance E~dorsem~:~lf:::'.:'~he insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultiilht shall pro~t~e endorsements on forms approved by the CommissiC>ff\to add the following p~~~ision~ .to the insurance policies: A General Liability~~!; The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Cof!1rpission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents ~~all be covere,g as ac:tm~~onal insureds with respect to the Services or operations peq9rmed by or~b behalf' of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furni'S:hed in conn ··an with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as r . ects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or.if· excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consult~~tt~· scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. B. Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the 11 17336.02100\8386485.1 109 insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. C. Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. D. All Coverages. Each",;f1' e policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage <JI, not be suspended, voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior;;written nott'C~:.,bY certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the C0mmission; and (Btafiy failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches otwarranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials,,officers, employees and agents. 3.20.6 Deductibles ar::id ... .Self-lnsurance, .Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be de~'@red to and apptoved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the d~ductibles or self-insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guaramt~e that, at the option of:the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or elimin,ate su.gti. deductibles or self-in~.mred retentions as respects the Commission, its d!Jlectors, Slicials, officers, employe~s and agents; or (2) the Consultant shall plocure a '.bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigatioD.~osts, claims, ~nd administrative and defense expenses. 3.20·.:~.·~ece~i~tfr,tty of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current AM.· Best's rating no less· than A: VIII, licensed to do business in California,t~nd satisfactory to the Commission. 3.20.8 Separation of Insureds; No Special Limitations. All insurance required by this :.$ection shalf:i1contain standard separation of insureds provisions. In addition, such insurance snal:I not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents. 3.20.9 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 12 17336.02100\8386485.1 110 3.20.10 Other Insurance. At its option, the Commission may require such additional coverage(s), limits and/or the reduction of deductibles or retentions it considers reasonable and prudent based upon risk factors that may directly or indirectly impact the Project. In retaining this option Commission does not warrant Consultant's insurance program to be adequate. Consultant shall have the right to purchase insurance in addition to the insurance required in this Section. 3.21 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable loc~J~,1 .state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary. J:1recautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work a,Q~/the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applioaliiSle?hall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and lif~saving ettUlpment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subc9ntractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladder~. bridges, gang .planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equip:fl;ient and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully-srequired to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for tl:)e proper ins~~ctip!t; and maintenance of all safety ,,,.,,,, ,>;," ,~..:· .. measures. 3.22 Fees and Payment. . ;,t·: . ~tit'; . 3.22.1 ComE?ensation. C?~nsultant .. jhall receive compensation, including authorized reimbur ehts, tgr: all Servit~s r~Pi~erecLOnder this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exh .... "C" at · ed herefcy'.·"ahd incorporated herein by reference. Compensation shall tlsl~n the is of dirEict costs plus a fixed fee as further set forth in Exhibit "C":.Jhe total compe ation. er Ta~k Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order;· ~!Jdi shall n aid alllount without written approval of the Com · · · n's ExectltlV:(!l. Dir ·;~ . . 3.22.2 Payment of C6tnE?ensation. Consultant shall submit a monthly itemized sta ~rnent which inclipates wor:k completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The:,statement small describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initialwweommencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, thrQ 'h the date of the Statement. Charges specific to each Milestone listed in th'e Sc. ··· e of Services shall be listed separately on an attachment to each statement. Eac atement shall be accompanied by a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing hours expended for each task for each month and the total Project to date. Each statement shall include a cover sheet bearing a certification as to the accuracy of the statement signed by the Consultant's Project Manager or other authorized officer. 3.22.3 Additional Work. Any work or activities that are in addition to, or otherwise outside of, the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall only be performed pursuant to a separate agreement between the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission's Executive Director may make a 13 17336.02100\8386485.1 111 change to the Agreement, other than a Cardinal Change. For purposes of this Agreement, a Cardinal Change is a change which is "outside the scope" of the Agreement; in other words, work which should not be regarded as having been fairly and reasonably within the contemplation of the parties when the Agreement was entered into. An example of a change which is not a Cardinal Change would be where, in a contract to construct a building there are many changes in the materials used, but the size and layout of the building remains the same. Cardinal Changes are not within the authority of this provision to order, and shall be processed by the Commission as "sole source" procurements according to applicable law, including the requirements of FTA Circular 4220.1 D, paragraph 9(f). A In addition to the chang~~·':aufhorized above, a modification which is signed by Consultant and the CommissialiJl'if?:*~cutive Director, other than a Cardinal Change, may be made in order to: (1) ma.ke a ne ': ·ated equitable adjustment to the Agreement price, delivery schedule and Gther terms e$!J,lting from the issuance of a Change Order, (2) reflect definitive lett~I:.contracts, and (:jf fE!flect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of this Agfeement ("Bilateral C6nJ5ict Modification"). +)1~f~. - B. Consultant shall not performr~41hor be corl'ipensated for any change, without written authorizatj9t,;J,Jrom the Ccl,11Qil\J1ission's Executive Director as set forth herein. In the event such a change §IUthorizatie'~ is not issued and signed by the Commission's Executive Director, C.enslift~Jlt shall nofrqlc;:>vide such change. 3.22.4 No PaMment Prior"to Approval bf WorR:4ff!No payment shall be made to Consultant prior t011app'fo~~l~Ef any work, nor:ff!r wor':j1~rformed prior to approval and execution of this Agre.ement. ·· "·'5""' ;%}/:{,-, 3.22.5 R~imburse~·~ntfor Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expeqSc~;unless authorized<in:'.\vriUng by the Commission's Representative . . :'~ i ' . ::'.'.\ft'..;, 3.22.6 Subcontracts. All subcentracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain the provisions of this Seet1on 3.22 ~Dd the attached Exhibit "C". 3.23 ~Fohibited Interests. 3.23.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained ~!JY.. company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for CortsuJtant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3 .. 23.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the Commission, during the term of his or her service with the Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 14 17336.02100\8386485.1 112 3.23.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 3.23.4 Covenant Against Contingent Fees. As required in connection with federal funding, the Consultant warrants that he/she ha~f not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employe~ working for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, anyfee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or formation of this Agreement. For breach or violation .pf this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to terminate this Agreement witho~Jiability pursuant to Section 3.14, or at its discretion to deduct from the Agr~ment price: Or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, coqimiS:sion, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. · · · · · 3.23.5 Covenant Against Exgenditure of Local Agency, State or Federal Funds for Lobbying. The Consultant certifies that to the best of his/ her knowledge and belief no state, feder · · ~.·local agency ·appropriated JundS'"h~ve been paid, or will be paid by or on behalf e COIJSUltant lG:s~any person;lfor !he purpose of influencing or attempting to influenoe an officEir. or employee of any state; or federal agency; a Member of the State Legislature ... or u.gj~ed States Congress; an officer or employee of the ~egislatur~:r:B·:C·~ongress; 9r ar;,~*~f!l~l,9¥ee of .a ~ember of the Legislature or Congre~s, in connect1oow1th the award.or any state79( federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreemenf;···or the 'extension, ~otinuation, ·~~newal, amendment, or modification of any state or federal contract, grant, l'Gl!ln, or cooperative agreement. A lff:i:~Cflny f~~ds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid, or Will be paid to1t,(ny person for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence an offi · or empl'lll:Yee of any federal agency; a Member of Congress; an officer or employ gf Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress; in connection with this::;;;4greement, the Consultant shall complete and submit the attached Exhibit "I", s'f(6dard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with the attached instructions. B. The Consultant's certification provided in this section is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this Agreement was entered into, and is a prerequisite for entering into this Agreement pursuant to Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code. Failure to comply with the restrictions on expenditures, or the disclosure and certification requirements set forth in Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code may result in a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 15 17336.02100\8386485.1 113 C. The Consultant also agrees by signing this Agreement that he/she shall require that the language set forth in this Section 3.23.5 be included in all Consultant subcontracts which exceed $100,000, and that all such subcontractors shall certify and disclose accordingly. 3.24 Accounting Records. In accordance with State and Federal law, Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. As required in connection with federal funding, the Federal Acquisition Regulations in Title 48, CFR 31 shall be the governing factors regarding allowable elements of cost. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of"~~e Commission, the State, the State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative ~~W"Vfe Federal government having jurisdiction under Federal or State laws or regutg,tions rtt;l1Cluding the basis of Federal funding in whole or in part) during normal busineS& hours:::fQ1. examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and any other recorcip or documents created pursuant to this Agreement. All such information shall be rS'tained by Consultant;for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement. Following final settlement of the contract accounts with the United States Department of:::;'.(ransportation under this Agreement, such records and documents m~M.be microfilmeci":~tthe option of the Commission, but in any event shall be retained for$9Jd three (3) year,p~riod after processing of the final voucher by the United States Depaijf11el'lf¥of Transportition. Subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain thi,i:; provision. ''""" 11 t/i\f\ifi~l0h". 3.24.1Jhe"*e5hsultant als~~lagreeliito comfi>,"IY with Federal procedures in accordan?e with 4gY~fR, Part<11I~· Unifor~1AdministrativeRequirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State:nand Local Governments. 3.24:12 Any costs for wftich payment has been made to the Consultant that are det~rmined by subsequent audit toiiif?e unallowable under 48 CFR, Federal Acquisitio11 Regulations System, Chapter 17tr'Part 31 et seq. or under 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform A,~rninistrative Re<JILliremeiJts for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local'i§gvernments, .i[e subject to repayment by the Consultant to the Commission."'·3r,i;;,,, '.::;~· 'ICif, 3.24\~S1Any dispJt~ concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this contn~s;;tJhat is not disposed of by agreement shall be reviewed by the Commission's Chief Firfancial Officer. Not later than thirty (30) days after issuance of the final audit report, Consultant may submit a request in writing for review of unresolved audit issues by the Commission's Chief Financial Officer. Neither the pendency of an audit dispute nor its consideration by the Commission will excuse Consultant from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Consultants and subconsultant contracts, including cost proposals and indirect cost rates (ICR), are subject to audits or reviews including a contract audit, an incurred cost audit or a certified public accountant ICR audit workpaper review. If selected for audit or review, the contract, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Part 31 16 17336.02100\8386485.1 114 and other related laws and regulations. In the instance of a certified public accountant ICR audit workpaper review, it is the Consultant's responsibility to ensure federal, state and Commission officials are allowed full access to the certified public accountant's workpapers. The contract, cost proposal and ICR shall be adjusted by Consultant and approved by the Commission to conform to the audit or review recommendations. Consultant agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the Agreement by this reference if directed by the Commission at its sole discretion. Refusal by Consultant to abide by the requirements of this Section shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for termination of the Agreement and disallowance of prior reimbursed cost.§'&h. , , J~~~~1,~i 3.25 Funding Requirements. It is mutually ,~hderstood between the parties hereto that this Agreement may have been entereij,iQfo prior to the appropriation of funds in order to avoid delays. This Agreement isl.valid and.~.nforceable only if sufficient funds are made available to the Commission~· and may hEh.terminated in the sole discretion of the Commission in the eveQtfunding is unavatt§t;>Je or reduced. This Agreement is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations, ~nditions or statutes enacted by the Federal government, the Stat~ltsr any p .ic agency With jurisdiction that may affect the provisions, terms or funding o~lithis .. ement in an~':imanner. It is mutually agreed that if sufficient funq.s are nofapl'.).K(i)priated, this Agreement may be amended to reflect any reduction in fum~s. ;,1·,; 3.26 Equal Opportunity Employmentv:.,•Cqpsultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer.1,Ji!d it shall not dis(friminate''aga,inst an,Mksubcontractor, employee or applicant for empl~mentbe.cause of41~ace,,Jeligi&,ll,~colo( national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such noh-discrimi·nation sha'f1::16;Plude, buf7;not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, d~r;motion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising""~?yoff or termination. c /i?/<>h,,.,; "'" :27 Employment Adverse to the::r,Gommission. Consultant shall notify the Com · ·on, and shall obtain fhe'Commission's written consent, prior to accepting work to assis .. · h or participate in a third-party lawsuit or other legal or administrative proceeding •. ainst the Commission dUring the term of this Agreement. 3.28 Right to Emplmc Other Consultants. Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in •. eonnection with the Project. 3.29 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.30 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and, all other costs of such actions. 3.31 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 17 17336.02100\8386485.1 115 3.32 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.33 Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSUL TANT: [INSERT CONTACT INFORMATION] COMMISSION: Riversicf:!'County Transportation Cqi;pJnission 4080''b~~mon Street, 3rd Floor Riversidei8+9A 92501 Attn: Exec~tj;ite Director '<~;:::o ,;~"'.~~? Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or·~~.en mailed, forty- eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, (i[St class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party at its. applicable addi!lii!ss. '.·Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actu·•r~otice occurred;iiijeg.ardless of the method of service. -,,j 3.34 Conflicting Provisions. In the eyent th;~~'.eTovisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any.~~~;;)!Vith the provisions set fo~.h in fl1'{~:,,.',\greement, the language, terms and conditions cei · .ed in this Agreemehh,shall· control the actions and . ·~ . ··~ obligations of the Part,!es an li;,l; interpr~~tion of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of tR'e:S,.~rvices1: : of this, Partie~i dment o .~fficafion. No supplement, modification, or amendment . all be oinding unless executed in writing and signed by both <.~1@(~'1"' ' ; '~~;::~<:~ 3.36 Entire Agreement. Thf~tAgreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relatirig to the sut>ject matt~t hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements or i~erstandin~i1f: 3.37 Invalidity: Se:-.t.erJbility. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise uf1E:u1fef:ceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue'in full force and effect. 3.38 Provisions Applicable When Federal Department of Transportation Funds Are Involved. When funding for the Services provided by this Agreement are provided, in whole or in part, from the United States Department of Transportation, Consultant shall also fully and adequately comply with all applicable federal requirements including, as applicable and without limitation, the provisions included in Exhibits "D" and "E" (Federal Department of Transportation Requirements and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) DBE program requirements, and the Federal Transit 18 17336.02100\8386485.1 116 Administration Requirements) and shall complete, as applicable, the forms included in Exhibits "G", "H", and "I". 3.39 Additional State Law Provisions. 3.39.1 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "pu .lie works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part .'applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailisi/J~::Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agre comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Copies of the prevailing rate pf p· d1 "''·wages are on file at the Commission's offices. Consultant shall make'~Opies of the lfi1¥ailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or tyg~i::gf"worker needed+1fo execute the Services available to interested parties upon request; and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the proj ite. Consultant shall4Jlefend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, ;li,pef§,,zj.~,mployees arid;,,a,gents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities. costs, penalties:'C>r''interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the:;;P,ri)vailing WageJLaws. ~<,,:~~' ''. ' , , 3.39.2 Eight-Hour Law. Pursuant to the proJifij,ons of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labot'shall consti a le day's worf;"and the time of service of any worker employ~d on the work sha U ed and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and fort'.~;)lours in '~ti:file calendar week, except when payment for overtime is madei'iat not less than one;and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in e)(cess of el'' . hours"'per day ("Eig1pt-Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services .Qt.§.~bject he Eight.,..Hour La'k"'v,Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a pen , $SO~OOJ~X each;1rworker employecf'in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub-Cdtt~yltan'Punder him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any onee,calendl~trnweek without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions .ol the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. 3.39.3 Emp.loyment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properlY''(nt!l'entured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub-consultant for the 19 17336.02100\8386485.1 117 employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub-consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777 .5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant 3.40 Rebates. Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. Consultant warrants that this Agreement was not obtained or securedJhrough rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid t · · 'y Commission employee. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commissia •all have the right in its sole discretion: ( 1) to terminate the Agreement without.,U~l!Jili~;:.(2) to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; or (3) to deduct frorti' the 'contract price; or (4) otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unia~ul consideration. ":';': .'ii>; '+~~@~t!> 3.41 No Waiver. Failure of Com'mission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions Q.~reof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or co.~Biflon, nor sh·au any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or·· wers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishm 1of ~JJCh other rjgJat or power at any other time or ti.mes. . "'"1 ...... <·,::,.;A~t~~(;-,, , i'/;~,i>.o~' II rights and obligations ~ereund~r that by their nature are to continue after any .e . tion O!I,terminati~n of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnificafi'on. and confidentiality'·:·~oligations, s1fa1rl survive any such expiration or termination. ···t@l~\.: "' ,,v. 3.4i l'lla·!@iaffihird Part:~;~seneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries ofany·;li · t or obligation ass!iltl.ed by the Parties. . v· ~:.J 1.;;·~·.44 Labor Certificatio~. :JjfilXi·,its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of toe provisions ofe.Sectidn .. 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employ~r .... to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self ~ffilf,rance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such ~Wovisions .g1efore commencing the performance of the Services. 3.45 Counten?~rts. :·This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.46 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 20 17336.02100\8386485.1 118 3.47 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 21 17336.02100\8386485.1 119 SIGNATURE PAGE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL [DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES] SERVICES WITH [CONSULT ANT] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: ~~~~~~~~~- Karen S. Spiegel, Chair Approved as to Form: .. By: ~~~~~~"~~~;.=;;'---_._~~,~~-·'=" Bestaest & Krieger tf!P:' General Counsel 17336.02100\8386485.1 ~NSERTCONSULTANn Signature Titi'e .... Attest By: ~~~~~~~~~ Its: Secretary 22 120 MODEL AGREEMENT -EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement -Exhibit A 17336.02100\8386485.1 121 17336.02100\8386485.1 MODEL AGREEMENT -EXHIBIT "B" SAMPLE TASK ORDER FORM [Attached behind this page] . Model Agreement -Exhibit B 122 Sample Task Order Form RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TASK ORDER Task Order No. __ _ Contract: [INSERT NAME OF CONTRACT] Consultant: [INSERT NAME OF CONSUL TANT] ,~~1~li~ The Consultant is hereby authorized to perform the followlo;g work subject to the ,';./ provisions of the Contract identified above:;, ~? List any attachments;JPlease provide if '", ',,,, Dollar Amount.of.Task Order: Not'Ip:exceed $_'· _ .. ·_, __ .00 Completion' Date: ______ , 201_·' The undirsigned consultahf ~ereby <;19rees that it will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, exd ·· as may be dfherwise noted above, and perform all services for the work above specified in ac tdance with th~. Contract identified above and will accept as full payment therefore the amouHt~~,pwn abov~. wi"'i,« Riverside County Transportation Commission Consultant Dated: ______ _ Dated: ______ _ By: By: ________ _ Project Manager Model Agreement -Exhibit B - 1 17336.02100\8386485.l 123 MODEL AGREEMENT -EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT [Attached behind this page) Model Agreement -Exhibit C 17336.02100\8386485.1 124 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. 1.1 DIRECT LABOR COSTS. Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an.· unt equaftC>··:the product of the Direct Salary Costs and the Multiplier which ar defined as follows: , -~_JBri~!­ t·f:~J'.ih, 1.1.1 DIRECT SALARY COSTS Direct Salary Costs '~~· the base ~~laries and wages actually paid to the Consultant's personnel direc;,!ly engagect in performance of the Services under the Agreemenf JJhe rang~ of hourly rates paid to the Consultant's personnel appears in s1!~ti.,on 2'if:Y~t~~J 1.1.2.2 ,!<> 'YdPJif#'>,, toe;~e ~pplied toJhe Direct Salary Costs to determine the . tS"is'·";}~)j~Ek· ., an'al:is the SUm Of the following components: ''')\,, •·Qirect Saf~1ry Costs Payroll Additives The :irf~cimal ratip of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll Additivi!:ls incl.ode 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. Model Agreement -Exhibit C -1 17336.02100\8386485.1 125 1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs 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. Total Multiplier (sum of t.~,~2.1, 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3) 1.2 FIXED FEE. A Fixed Fee may be set forth jn each Task Orde~~io be paid to Consultant for Consultant's complete and §atisfactory performance of the Services set forth in such Task Order. In such case, Commissid~"''shall pay the Fixed Fee in monthly installments based upon the percentage' f the Services completed at the end. of each billing,,,,p~riod, as deter··. in the sole discretion of the Comtnjpsion's Repres·entative, or his or her designee. Consultant shall not be entitl~d to and shall forfeit any portion of the Fixed Fee not earned as provided herein. 1.3 ADDITJpNAllDl~~C,T COSTS. "?~~> _j>, .. ~!~ ·@•iJ\; Additior1aJ.Direct · €osts directly identifiable to the performance of the rvices of .. !h\i.s A~reem~nt shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at l·invoic~d co~t. ''" ;;JL <Jfil~ Rates f~'r~identifi~·ct1Additional Direct Costs are as follows: y,,,,, 17336.02100\8386485.1 ,:ifer Diem "6a~'.:wileage Rental car Travel Photocopies (Black & White) Photocopies (Color) Photographs/ other reprographic Services Postage/Shipping Courier Service REIMBURSEMENT RATE Other Rentals, supplies, purchases Model Agreement -Exhibit C -2 126 Travel by air and travel in excess of 100 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 rates to be used in determining Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following: 2.1 Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable tQJ;mth straight time and overtime work, unless payment of a premium fOFii~~~[time work is required by law, regulation or craft agreement, or isotherwise)~~ecified in this Agreement. In such event, the premium portion of Direcf:1l~.(llary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier defir;i~d in Paragraph 1.1.2 above. :ec,~Y '" 2.2 Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in1 .• effect for one 1year following the effective date of /tlile ."Agreemenf'.11;:!1\'T~~reafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect>l!![~fhe Consultaxii's adjustments to individual compensation. The aonsoltant shall notify'the Commission in writing prior to a chang~.,,1!n the ran'g~ of ·rat~~'bjnclud~"herein, and prior to each subseqyerifl~fiange. . ·•·•···. c;'C-~i;-, , •'8%/ ' '~ti~"'" c,c,~:':~;/'',' ;~~/. ~,:,,,', POSITIObJ OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES 2.3 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. Model Agreement -Exhibit C -3 17336.02100\8386485.1 127 3. INVOICING. 3.1 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. 3.2 Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission's , :A/;l& Representative. J'.1~*· 3.3 Base Work shall be charged sepa~~tely, an~iiimthe charges for each task and Milestone listed in the Scope of Services;%ist1all be listed separately. The charges for each indivi~yal assigned by the'hGonsultant under this Agreement shall be listed sep~~~tely on an attachment to the invoice . . ~ ~ ' ' ~'< . , %~1~~;~ , ,, 3.4 A charge of $500 or~,more for any one item of Additional Dit~ct Costs shall be accompanied by slJl:>stantiating i,:§lcumentation satisfactory to the ¥ ·~8F::t> Commission such as im1oices, telephone~l~lJs, etc. 3.5 Each S9PY of)~.a~h invoice shall be.a,~~g,mpaflied by a Monthly Progress Report~a'nd spreadsheets ''~hpwing hours, expended by task for each month and total project to date·: J' 3.6 ~ach invoice sh~ll i~~icate payma~ts to DBE subconsultants or supplies by dollar amountand as a per~entage of the total invoice. 3. 7 :~£ach invoice shall include a certification signed by the Consultant's · '!R~presentative O(, 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. 4. PAYMENT 4.1 The Commission shall pay the Consultant within four to six weeks after receipt by the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission Model Agreement -Exhibit C -4 17336.02100\8386485.1 128 contest any portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid. 4.2 The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the Consultant has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment. Model Agreement -Exhibit C -5 17336.02100\8386485.1 129 SUBCONSUL TANT RATES Firm Name Position/Title Direct Salary Rates 1 ~· ~I " : .·'·· J \ 1~11 t' +ii_ ' !. :j:' ··.:·: iii ... )'%~. ji!t <ts\. , ... : '"'< ... · ... : " ·: '· •.. 'i/, :('' J2'1l··I ' i<.i. ·;1it i'!'"'I ·,(( : : ,;;. :w .1:,; ''ij!I• :;; \:+, ·;;~ 1! ~i:· ·:;'i· "" .. , ·;·:· .·:A,. c":'.cli "";: '2n" c, c'./~'' ,;/ ' .':ifW 1. "' ·. ·;~) '"'1lt .. , .. . 'h::,:, ·. \j;jff, . i?j~TutJ .· . :/,, . :.!:::: . },;, !> .!J!le '< : :.,,· .. L. ·''·· j~:'' Model Agreement -Exhibit C -6 17336.02100\8386485.1 130 17336.02100\8386485. l MODEL AGREEMENT -EXHIBIT "D" FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FHWA AND CAL TRANS REQUIREMENTS [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement -Exhibit D 131 MODEL AGREEMENT -EXHIBIT "E" FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement -Exhibit E 17336.02100\8386485.1 132 17336.02100\8386485.1 MODEL AGREEMENT -EXHIBIT "F" Certificate of Consultant [Forms on following pages] Model Agreement -Exhibit F 133 17336.02100\8386485.1 MODEL AGREEMENT -EXHIBIT "G" DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) FORMS/COMMITMENTS [Forms on following pages] Model Agreement -Exhibit G 134 17336.02100\8386485.1 MODEL AGREEMENT -EXHIBIT "H" DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement -Exhibit H 135 MODEL AGREEMENT -EXHIBIT "I" CERTIFICATION OF OFFEROR REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS 17336.02100\8386485.1 [Attached behind this page] :~4il0, Model Agreement -Exhibit I 136 -------~------- AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 24, 2014 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Jillian Guizado, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Operation of the Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-45-084-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,547,104 in state funding for FY 2013/14; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1986, the Commission established itself as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) after the enactment of SB 1199 in 1985. The purpose of the formation of SAFEs in California was to provide call box services and, with excess funds, provide additional motorist aid services. Funding for RC SAFE is derived from a one dollar per vehicle registration fee on vehicles registered in Riverside County. Initially, these funds were used only for the call box program. As additional motorist aid services were developed, SAFE funds were also used to provide FSP and the Inland Empire 511 traveler information services as part of a comprehensive motorist aid system in Riverside County. In 1990, Proposition C was passed to fund transportation improvements and to help reduce traffic congestion in California. From this, the FSP program was created by Caltrans, which developed the corresponding Local Funding Allocation Plan to distribute funds to participating jurisdictions through a formula based on population, urban freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. DISCUSSION: In February 2014, the Commission received the attached funding agreement from Caltrans for FY 2013/14. Caltrans funding agreements are reimbursement-based and allow for the carryover of contract balances not expended in the agreement's stated fiscal year. This allows Agenda Item 10 137 the Commission to fully expend allocated amounts and also helps to accommodate the timing of the Caltrans allocation release, which is typically later during the fiscal year for which it is intended. The table below summarizes the use of these funding agreements by fiscal year: Amount Expended Caltrans Funding Unexpended Agreement No. FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Balance 10-45-036-00 ($1,657,171) $192,643 $1,464,528 11-45-105-00 ($1,577,721) $303,402 $1,274,319 12-45-068-00 ($1,653,564) $536,958 $1,116,606 13-45-075-00 ($1,606,567) $621,880 $842,614 $142,073 The Caltrans funding agreement for FY 2013/14 provides for continued state funding in the amount of $1,547,104. The Commission will fund the required local match of $389,276 with RC SAFE revenues. As with prior funding agreements, any state funds not claimed in the current fiscal year will be carried over and claimed in FY 2014/15. A budget adjustment is not required and upon approval of this agenda item, the Commission will execute this fund transfer agreement with Caltrans. The Commission, acting in its capacity as the RC SAFE, is the principal agency in Riverside County, in partnership with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol, managing the FSP program. The purpose of the FSP program is to provide a continuously roving tow services patrol along designated freeway segments (referred to as beats) to relieve freeway congestion and facilitate the rapid removal of disabled vehicles and those involved in minor accidents on local freeways. Currently, the Commission contracts with four tow truck operators to provide service on a total of nine beats Monday through Friday during the peak commute hours, 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (1:00 p.m. on Fridays) to 7:00 p.m. In FY 2012/13, FSP performed over 43,633 assists. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: I Yes I Year: I 2013/14 Amount: \ $459,797 N/A 2014/15+ $1,087,307 Source of Funds: \State of California Budget Adjustment: I No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 002173 415 41508 0000 20145 41505 Fiscal Procedures Approved: ~~ I Date: J 03/13/2014 Attachment: FSP Fund Transfer Agreement Agenda Item 10 138 . STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATlON AGENCY DEP}fRTMENT-OF TRANSPORTATION ... -- Division of Local Assistance 1120 N STREET P.O. BOX 942874, MS# 1 Sai;:ramento, CA 94274-0001 TIY711 (916) 654-3883 Fax {916) 654-2408 February 13, 2014 Ms. Anne Mayer Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission P O Box 12008 ( 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor) Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Ms. Shirley Medina Dear Ms. Mayer: &1 EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor File : 08-RIV-Var-RCTC FSP14-6054(067) 2013/2014 Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) Program Enclosed are two original agreements covering funding for the fiscal year 2013/2014 Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) Program. Office of Local Programs will again this year handle the processing of agreements. The enclosed agreement and its processing should also streamline the agreement and invoicing process. Please sign both copies of this Agreement and return them to this office, Office of Local Programs -MS 1. Alterations should not be made to the agreement language. ATTACH YOUR LOCAL AGENCY'S CERTIFIED AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION THAT CLEARLY IDENTIFIES THE PROJECT AND THE OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. A fully executed copy of the agreement will be returned to you upon ratification by Caltrans. Your invoicing, in accordance with applicable Section II, Article 6, would then be submitted in accordance with Section II, Articles 7 and 8 of the Fund Transfer Agreement, not to this Office. Sincerely, J..1 JOHN HOOLE, Chief J ~ Office of Project Implementation -South 1/ Division of Local Assistance Enclosure c: Lisa Davies -HQ Traffic Operations OLP AE Project Files (08) DLAE -Sean Yeung (Acting) 139 FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT (Non Federal) Agreement No. FSP14-6054(067) Project No. FSP14-6054(067) Location: 08-RIVNar-RCTC AMS Adv ID: 0812000232 THIS AGREEMENT, effective on July 1, 2013, is between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a public agency, hereinafter referred to as "ADMINISTERING AGENCY." WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code (S&HC) Section 2560 et seq., authorizes STATE and administering agencies to develop and implement a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on traffic-congested urban freeways throughout the State; and WHEREAS, STATE has distributed available State Highway Account funds to administering agencies participating in the FSP Program in accordance with S&HC Section 2562; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has applied to STATE and has been selected to receive funds from the FSP Program for the purpose of Freeway Service Patrol for FY 13-14, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, proposed PROJECT funding is as follows: Total Cost $1,936,380.00 State Funds $1,547, 104.00 Local Funds $389,276.00 ; and WHEREAS, STATE is required to enter into an agreement with ADMINISTERING AGENCY to delineate the respective responsibilities of the parties relative to prosecution of said PROJECT; and WHEREAS, STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY mutually desire to cooperate and jointly participate in the FSP program and desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the FSP program is to be conducted; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has approved entering into this Agreement under authority of Resolution No. approved by ADMINISTERING AGENCY on , a copy of which is attached. For Caltrans Use Only I hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance I Date 1$ f /1 5 -t/-1; I LJ -1, lJO .'::;;: Accounting Officer c::~ ?-J,,h Page 1 of 7 140 STA Tl: OF CALIFORNIA. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SUPPLMENT AND CERTIFICATION FORM PSCF (REV. 0112010) TO STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE Claims Audits FROM: 3301 "C" Street, Rm 404 Sacramento, CA 95816 Department of Transportation SUBJECT: Encumbrance Document VENDOR I LOCAL AGENCY: Riverside County Transportation Commission $ 1,547,104.00 PROCUREMENT TYPE: Local Assistance CHAPTER STATUTES ITEM YEAR 20 2013 2660-102-042 13-14 Page 1 of 1 ARED: PROJECT NUMBER: 0812000232 REQUISITION NUMBER I CONTRACT NUMBER: RQS 081400000418 PEC/PECT TASK I SUBTASK AMOUNT 2030010600 2620/0400 $ 1,547,104.00 ADA N rtor individuals with sensory disabilities. this document is available in alternate formats. For information, call (915) 654-6410 ofTDD (916)-3880 or write O 1 Records and Forms Management, 1120 N. Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814. 141 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I STATE AGREES: 1. To define or specify, in cooperation with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the limits of the State Highway segments to be served by the FSP as well as the nature and amount of the FSP dedicated equipment, if any, that is to be funded under the FSP program. 2. To pay ADMINISTERING AGENCY the STATE's share, in amount not to exceed $1,547, 104.00, of eligible participating PROJECT costs. 3. To deposit with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY's award of a contract for PROJECT services and receipt of an original and two signed copies of an invoice in the proper form, including identification of this Agreement Number and Project Number, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the amount of $247,536.64. This initial deposit represents STATE's share of the estimated costs for the initial two months of PROJECT. Thereafter, to make reimbursements to ADMINISTERING AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit, but not more often than monthly in arrears, upon receipt of an original and two signed copies of invoices in the proper form covering actual allowable costs incurred for the prior sequential month's period of the Progress Payment Invoice. The initial deposit will be calculated at 16% of the STATE's total share. 4. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the provisions of this Agreement, STATE will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of ADMINISTERING AGENCY performed pursuant to the provisions of state and federal laws. In the absence of such an audit, work of other auditors will be relied upon to the ex~t that work is acceptable to STATE when planning and conducting additional audits. ~ SECTION II ADMINISTERING AGENCY AGREES: 0 :: 1. To commit and contribute matching funds from ADMINISTERING AGENCY re~bur~--es, which shall be an amount not less than 25 percent of the amount provided by STATE from the State Highway Account. 2. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY's detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal is attached hereto and made an express part of this Agreement. The detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal reflects the provisions and/or regulations of Section Ill, Article 8, of this Agreement. 3. To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation-related PROJECT purposes that conform to Article XIX of the California State Constitution. Page 2 of 7 Non-Fed FSP 142 4. STATE funds provided to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement shall not be used for administrative purposes by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. Said administrative costs may be credited toward ADMINISTERING AGENCY's PROJECT matching funds provided claimed administrative costs are specified on ADMINISTERING AGENCY's invoice submittal. If said administrative costs are "indirect", as defined in 2 CFR, Part 225, Cost Principles for State and Local Government, the casts must be allocated in accordance with an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP), reviewed and approved by STATE's Office of Audits and Investigation, for each applicable fiscal year. 5. To develop, in cooperation with STATE, advertise, award, and administer PROJECT cantract(s) in accordance with ADMINISTERING AGENCY competitive procurement procedures, in compliance with 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 18.36. 6. Upon award of a contract for PROJECT, to prepare and submit to STA TE an original and two signed copies of invoicing for STATE's initial deposit specified in Section I, Article 3. Thereafter, to prepare and submit to ST ATE an original and two signed copies of progress invoicing for ST ATE's share of actual expenditures for allowable PROJECT costs. 7. Said invoicing shall evidence the expenditure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's PROJECT participation in paying not less than 20% of all allowable PROJECT costs and shall contain the information described in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). Invoicing shall demonstrate ADMINISTERING AGENCY1S PROJECT participation by showing a matched expenditure of funds of at least 25% of the amount provided by the STATE. ADMINISTERING AGENCY invoices shall be submitted to: State of California Department of Transportation Division of Traffice Operations, MS 36 Office of System Management Operations 1120 "N" Street Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 8. Within 60 days after completion of PROJECT work to be reimbursed under this Agreement, to prepare a final invoice reporting all actual eligible costs expended, including all costs paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and submit that signed invoice, along with any refund due STATE, to the address referenced above under Section II, Article 7. Backup information submitted with said final invoice shall include all FSP operational contract invoices paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to contracted operators included in expenditures billed to STATE under this Agreement. 9. COST PRINCIPLES A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to comply with, and require all project sponsors to comply with, 2 CFR, Part 225, Cost Principles for State and Local Government, and 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Page 3 of 7 Non-Fed FSP 143 . , B) ADMINISTERING AGENCY will assure that its Fund recipients will be obligated to agree that (1.) Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., shall be used to determine the allowability of individual PROJECT cost items, and (2.) those parties shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Every sub-recipient receiving Funds as a contractor or sub-contractor under this Agreement shall comply with Federal administrative procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. C) Any Fund expenditures for costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 225, 48 . CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 or 49 CFR, Part 18, are subject to repayment by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to STATE. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to reimburse Fund moneys due STATE within 30 days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the Parties hereto, STA TE is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from STATE or any third-party source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer, the State Controller, and the California Transportation Commission. 10. THIRD PARTY CONTRACTING A) ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall not award a construction contract over $10,000 or other contracts over $25,000 [excluding professional service contracts of the type which are required to be procured in accordance with Government Code Sections 4525 (d), (e), and (f)] on the basis of a noncompetitive negotiation for work to be performed using Funds without the prior written approval of STATE. B) Any subcontract or agreement entered into by ADMINISTERING AGENCY as a result of disbursing Funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall contain all of the fiscal provisions (Section II, Paragraphs 9, 11. 12, & 13) of this Agreement; and shall mandate that travel and per diem reimbursements and third-party contract reimbursements to subcontractors will be allowable as project costs only after those costs are incurred and paid for by the subcontractors. C) In addition to the above, the preaward requirements of third party contractor/consultants with ADMINISTERING AGENCY should be consistent with Local Program Procedures as published by STATE. 11. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors and subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate Fund expenditures by line item for the PROJECT. The accounting system of ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its contractors, and all subcontractors shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. Page 4 of 7 Non-Fed FSP 144 12. RIGHT TO AUDIT For the purpose of determining compliance with this Agreement and other matters connected with the performance of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contracts with third parties, ADMINISTERING AGENCY, ADMINISTERING AGENCY's contractors, and subcontractors, and STATE shall each maintain and make available for inspection all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of such contracts, including, but not limited to, the costs of administering those various contracts. All of the above referenced parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times for three years from the date of final payment of Funds to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. STATE, the California State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of STATE or the United States Department of Transportation shall each have access to any books, records, and documents that are pertinent for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall furnish copies thereof if requested. 13. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE Payments to ADMINISTERING AGENCY for travel and subsistence expenses of ADMINISTERING AGENCY forces and its subcontractors claimed for reimbursement or applied as local match credit shall not exceed rates authorized to be paid exempt non-represented State employees under current State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) rules. If the rates invoiced are in excess of those authorized DPA rates, then ADMINISTERING AGENCY is responsible for the cost difference and any overpayments shall be reimbursed to STATE on demand. 14. SINGLE AUDIT ADMINISTERING AGENCY agrees to include all state (Funds) and federal funded projects in the schedule of projects to be examined in ADMINISTERING AGENCY's annual audit and in the schedule of projects to be examined under its single audit prepared in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. SECTION Ill IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. All obligations of STA TE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this Agreement. Funding and reimbursement is available only upon the passage of the State Budget Act containing these STATE funds. The starting date of eligible reimbursable activities shall be JULY 1, 2013. 2. All obligations of ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the terms of this Agreement are subject to authorization and allocation of resources by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. Page 5 of 7 Non-Fed FSP 145 I ---------------------\- 10. This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2016. However, the non-expendable equipment and liability clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Riverside County Transportation Commission Department of Transportation By: By: _________ _ Office of Project Implementation, South Title: ----------- Division of Local Assistance ·.Date: Date:---------- Page 7 of 7 Non-Fed FSP 146 ------------------------------------- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 201 Regional Conference General Assembly MAY 1-2, 2014 Renaissance Esmeralda Indian Wells Resort & Spa and Opportunity 44-400 Indian Wells lane Indian Wells, CA 92210 Draft Schedule Wednesday, April 30 6:00 PM -8:00 PM PRESIDENT'S RECEPTION (Invitation Only) .............................................................................................. Mountain View Ballroom Thursday, May 1 8:00 AM REGISTRATION BEGINS .......................................................................................................................................... Crystal Ballroom Foyer 8:00 AM -10:30 AM NETWORKING & CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST ............................................................................... Crystal Ballroom Foyer 9:15 AM -10:15 AM REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING .................................................................................................................... Crystal Ballroom 10:30 AM -10:45 AM WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS .............................................................................................................. Crystal Ballroom 10:45 AM -11:00 AM MORNING KEYNOTE ....................................................................................................................................... Crystal Ballroom 11:00 AM-12:00 PM GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETING .................................................................................................................. Crystal Ballroom ill Consideration of Proposed Amendment to the SCAG Bylaws Ii Ratify the 2014-2015 SCAG Officers Incoming President's Remarks SCAG 2013-14 Year in Review 12:15 PM -1:45 PM AWARDS LUNCHEON ................................................................................................................................... Emerald Ballroom Keynote Speaker SCAG's Sustainability Awards 2:00 PM -3:15 PM BREAKOUT SESSION 1A ..................................................................................................................... Valencia Ballroom 1 & 2 Technology in Transportation: The Future has Arrived How will technology, innovation, Big Data, and users' changing preferences drive changes to the transportation system of the future? This panel will explore new and emerging concepts such as driverless cars, alternative-fuel vehicles, car-sharing programs, and utilizing technology to modernize everything from transit to parking to our nation's air traffic control system. Come join the discussion to better understand the impact these tech innovations will have on our policymakers of the future. 2:00 PM-3:15 PM BREAKOUT SESSION 1B ..................................................................................................................... Valencia Ballroom 5 & 6 Tech-Ed: Bringing Education and Business Together for the 21st Century Economy Poverty in Southern California has risen significantly in the last two decades and is acutely concentrated in households of lower educated workers. In addition, 25 percent of the children in the SCAG region are living in poverty. With the world's economy becoming increasingly both interdependent and hi-tech, our panel of industmy, workforce, economic development and education leaders will discuss and identify the opportunities for collaboration to ensure Southern California's workforce has the education and technological know-how to meet the needs of the region's future economy. -continued - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS www.scag.ca. gov I ga2014 Draft Schedule continued 3:15 PM-3:30 PM BREAK & NETWORKING ......................................................................................................................................... Crystal Ballroom Foyer 3:30 PM -4:45 PM BREAKOUT SESSION 2A ..................................................................................................................... Valencia Ballroom 1 & 2 30 Minutes or Less! How New Supply Chain Technologies May Change Everything You Think You Know In 1949, Popular Mechanics declared, "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." Today, almost everyone carries a smartphone containing an amount of technology that rivals that which first put men on the moon. Evolving technology now touches every facet of our daily life. How we move goods from the ports to the stores may be changing more than anyone could imagine. Will the development, commercialization, and adoption of emerging technologies disrupt existing freight transportation business models and the industries that depend upon them? This panel will explore how emerging technologies may impact long-term freight infrastructure planning and investment as well as the region's future workforce needs. 3:30 PM -4:45 PM BREAKOUT SESSION 2B ..................................................................................................................... Valencia Ballroom 5 & 6 Local Planning and Sustainability: Public Health, Active Transportation and Food Deserts City and County leaders must address matters unique to the individual community they serve, but they also share commonalities with colleagues in jurisdictions throughout this vast and diverse region. Hear city and county representatives discuss their shared interests including projects and initiatives aimed at addressing public health and the built environment, opportunities for active transportation, and food deserts. Learn how jurisdictions can identify innovations that can be replicated around the region. 5:30 PM-6:30 PM SPONSOR/EXHIBITOR RECEPTION .................................................................................................. Crystal Ballroom Foyer 6:30 PM -8:00 PM PRESIDENT'S AWARDS DINNER ................................................................................................................. Crystal Ballroom 8:00 PM MUSIC & ENTERTAINMENT ......................................................................................................................... Crystal Ballroom Friday, May 2 8:30 AM-9:00 AM BREAKFAST & WELCOME ............................................................................................................................. Crystal Ballroom 9:00 AM -9:30 AM MORNING KEYNOTE ............................................................................................................................................................ Crystal Ballroom 9:30 AM-10:45 AM JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING ....................................................................................................... Crystal Ballroom Connecting the Dots Drawing from lessons learned throughout the conference, this moderated discussion will highlight key messages, identify common themes and help determine SCAG's Fiscal Year 2014-15 priorities and key strategies to be incorporated into SCAG's 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. 10:45 AM CONFERENCE WRAP-UP ............................................................................................................................... Crystal Ballroom -Please note: program schedule subject to change - '":I ''\~; Follow us on U 1@SCAGNews; Like us on Southern California Association of Governments