Agenda Item: | 10.
| Agenda Title: | Discuss and consider action on an HDR Engineering contract amendment for engineering and other services related to the Great Divide Bridge
| Council Action:
| Discuss and Consider Action
| Department: | Engineering
| Staff Contact: | Kevin Sawtelle and Clint Garza
|
1. INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
The purpose of this item is to review and potentially approve revisions to the scope of engineering and other related services for the Great Divide Drive bridge design project with associated fee adjustments.
2. DESCRIPTION/JUSTIFICATION
a) Background
On September 14, 2021, City Council awarded a contract to HDR Engineering for engineering services related to the design of the Great Divide Low Water Crossing Bridge Improvements. The scope of work included numerous tasks including from engineering design, surveying, environmental studies, public involvement, utility coordination and other associated tasks for a total base fee of $422,063. On April 11, 2023, HDR provided a presentation to Council outlining various bridge options and their general findings to date for Council to finalize selection of the bridge design moving forward. Due to various factors such as additional bridge option analyses and presentation not originally scoped, additional engineering and surveying work related to impacts on the Guess property, environmental study findings resulting in additional evaluation, and general consulting fee escalation due to the schedule creep, HDR is requesting amendments to the original general scope of work and their overall fee to complete the project.
b) Issues and Analysis
The increase in the requested overall fee is greater than 25% of the original contracted fee amount so this request cannot be administratively approved by the City Manager. The original contract amount of $422,063 is requested to be increased to a new total of $589,464 (see attached Appendix B-1 for a fee summary). While Staff is confident there are fees along the way that may be able to be eliminated or reduced, we felt it prudent to receive Council approval for the total amount. Below is a brief description task by task for the fee change drivers. The revised scope of work is also attached for Council's review and staff and/or HDR representatives are happy to address any specific questions.
Task 1 (Project Management): This fee is to cover escalation on the balance of the initial fee and then includes the additional coordination associated with additional Task 2 Survey and new Task 13 Fee Acquisition Services.
Task 2 (Survey): As mentioned above, this fee is cumulative of two survey efforts to cover the Guess Property and further upstream of the current crossing. The breakdown of those two items is here:
Guess Property: $6,587.40
Additional Creek Survey: $14,629.00
Task 5 (Environmental): This fee is to cover escalation on the balance of the initial fee and then includes the tasks related to the coordination efforts listed in the supplemental (scope of work).
Task 6 (Utility Coordination): Strictly 4% fee escalation.
Task 7 (Public Involvement): This is a credit back to Bee Cave for work not performed and thus canceled.
Task 8 (Roadway Design & PS&E): Escalation as well as the additional work related to a full 30% submittal and coordination work related to the 60% Over-the-Shoulder. The original contract only included an over-the-shoulder but after progressing through the initial phases of design, staff felt it prudent to include a full staff review, generating a comment report which will likely create additional effort for HDR that was not originally planned.
Task 9 (Drainage Analysis): Escalation and coordination work related to the 60% Over-the-Shoulder.
Task 10 (Bridge): Similar to Task 8 with escalation, 30% submittal and 60% Over-the-Shoulder.
Task 12 (Other Services): This covers the amount we have already invoiced for these items. Since we didn’t have an initial task and money set aside for this task, including it here will make the fee from the initial scope whole again.
Task 13 (Fee Acquisition): This covers the effort to work through the acquisition of the CCNG property. There is an additional item not included here that needs input from the City. We do not maintain an official appraiser on staff and thus would need to sub that effort out. I have not included any of that here as our ROW team figured Bee Cave may want to handle the appraisal effort yourselves with someone you’ve worked with in the past.
3. FINANCIAL/BUDGET
Amount Requested | An overall increase of $167,401.60 (~40% of original contract). | | Fund/Account No. | | Cert. Obligation | | | GO Funds | | Other source | | | Grant title
| | Addtl tracking info | |
4. TIMELINE CONSIDERATIONS
5. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the contract amendment.
|