Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-25 - Agendas - Final L �-� . . �ARYANSAS WATEMEWER COMMITTEE AGENDA Meeting Date of August 25, 2005 COMMITTEE: Chairman Kyle Cook; Alderman: Lioneld Jordan, Bobby Ferrell, Robert Reynolds COPY TO: Mayor Dan Coody, Sondra Smith, ry D mas, Steve Davis, Susan Thomas, Tim Conklin, Jeremy Pate etad FROM: David Jurgens, Water/Wastewater A meeting of the Fayetteville Water and Sewer Committee i r trdforAugust 25, 2005, at 6:00 PM, Room 111, Fayetteville City Hall. The topics propo d for discussion at the committee meeting include: 1. Approval of the Minutes of August 1 and 4 Water/Sewer Committee Meetings. 2. WSIP Update. a. West Side Treatment Plant Action Plan. 1) McGoodwin, Williams and Yates (MW&Y) is continuing their bid repackaging for a traditional rebid so we will have the ability to advertise 16 Sept. 2) Construction Management bids, per act 1889 of 2005, were advertised 14-16 August. We will open bids 30 August. 3) MW&Y is evaluating the alternative design solutions that can meet regulatory and permitted requirements and be integrated into the current basic plant design. Verbally, the ADEQ is supportive of the change and feels that changing the process, as long as we keep the same discharge point, basic plant location, and permit, will require only a letter revision and internal ADEQ review to amend the facilities plan. b. Updated Time Line. c. Funding Update. Mayor Coody, Stephen Davis and David Jurgens met with Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC, formerly Arkansas Soil and Water). It was a very positive meeting; see attached memo. d. Sewer Line Rerouting, COA Evaluation, Gregg to Hamestring (WL-4). The owners P. R. Green Trust (Helen Louise Dunlap, Gerald Jones, and Bob Whitfield) object to the routing of the 48" sewer transmission line across their lot east of 1540, west of Gregg, and north of the Interstate spur to Joyce. Per contract amendment, RJN has been evaluating the alternatives; I will present four alternatives and the relative costs of each to the Committee for discussion and guidance. e. Cinnabar Purchase Order. Cinnabar has been providing excellent service in their easement negotiations to date. In order to continue negotiations currently in progress and complete the easement acquisitions required for the WSIP, the total amount of work required of Cinnabar shall exceed $20,000. Therefore, I request the City Council approve an additional authorization, not to exceed $42,000, for this work. 3. Hamesting Sewer Basin Update. A status update on the Hamestring sewer basin action plan. 4. North College Water Line Replacement. C-2 Projects, LLC., was the lowest of two bidders on this project with a bid of $1,377,141 . This was very close to the engineer's estimate of $1 ,377,141. This construction contract is expected to come to the City Council on 20 Sept. W-S committee 25 Aug 05.doc 5. Razorback Road Water and Sewer Relocations. McClelland Consulting Engineers has finished the preliminary design and now needs to proceed with final design and construction supervision of the W/S relocations required,due to the AHTD Razorback Road widening project. I request approval for the engineering contract amendment, in the amount of $ 116,960.00, to be presented to the full Council 6. Wedington Drive Water and Sewer Relocations. McClelland Consulting Engineers has finished the preliminary design and now needs to proceed with final design and construction supervision of the W/S relocations required due to the AHTD Wedington Drive widening project. request approval for the engineering contract amendment, in the amount of $ 145,793.00, to be presented to the full Council. 7. Standard Water/Sewer/Street/Drainage Specifications. Garver Engineers was selected by a formal selection committee on 19 August to develop the City's standard specifications, standards and regulations. Engineering is negotiating a scope of work and contract for this work. A contract is expected to come before the City Council in October. 8. Resolution of the City of Fayetteville as a Designated Management Agency. In order to get ANRC revolving loan funds (RLF), the City must be formally recognized as the Designated Management Agency for providing wastewater service. We are searching to see if there has been such resolution previously approved in the 1970's or 1980's. If we do not find one, we will bring forward a resolution that meets the requirements. 9. 36" Water Transmission Line Study. The study is complete with short and long term recommendations. Short term recommendations include (1) installing SCADA control on selected valves on the 36" transmission main ($400,000); (2) installing pressure regulating valves on the 36" and 42" transmission lines ($770,000); and (3) painting the surge tank in Springdale ($180,000). Attached is a change order to the Black and Veatch contract to begin design on short term recommendations (1) and (2). I recommend design specifications for the surge tank painting be developed in-house. I request approval for the engineering contract amendment for time and materials not to exceed $300,000.00, to be forwarded to the full Council. 10. Water/Sewer Capital Improvements Plan Update. The W/S portion of the CIP is being developed, and is expected to come before the W/S Committee for review in September. 11. Scheduling the Next Water/Sewer Committee Meeting. Staff recommends the next meeting be scheduled for 13 Sept. at 6:30. W-S committee 25 Aug 05.doc City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 1,2005 Page 1 of 9 Member Aldermen Mayor Dan Coody Ward 1 Position 1 - Robert Reynolds City Attorney Kit Williamsr� 'r Ward 2 Position 1 - Kyle B. Cook ' Ward 3 Position 2 —Robert Ferrell Ward 4 Position 2 - Lioneld Jordan City Clerk Sondra Smith ARKANSAS City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Water & Sewer Committee Meeting Minutes August 1, 2005 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council Water & Sewer Committee was held on August 1, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kyle Cook (Chair), Robert Reynolds, Robert Ferrell, Lioneld Jordan Staff Present: Steve Davis, Gary Dumas, David Jurgens, Tim Conklin, Susan Thomas Chairman Kyle Cook called the meeting to order. Approval of Minutes of the Last Water/Sewer Committee Meetin>7 Bobby Ferrell moved and Lioneld Jordan seconded the motion that the minutes of the meeting held on July 21, 2005 be approved as presented. The motion was approved unanimously. West Side Treatment Plant Bid &West Side Treatment Plant Action Plan Jim Ulmer, McGoodwin, Williams and Yates spoke to the Committee regarding the bids which have come in for the Westside wastewater treatment plant and discussed why he thought the bids were higher than the estimated by MWY. He distributed a bid tabulation for the bids received on July 21. Nine general contractors responded to the pre-qualification process and all were pre- qualified. Five of those general contractors took out plans to bid the project. Only two of those actually submitted bids, Van Horn Construction and Archer Western Contractors. MW talked to both those contractors and four of the five companies who took out plans but didn't bid. One question they asked of those companies who chose not to bid was what the issues were that caused them to make that choice. The primary reasons were that they were already too busy with big jobs that were closer to home and that bonding is tight right now. MW also talked to both of the bidders and gave the committee a synopsis of what they were told by these companies. They expressed that the labor market is very tight in Northwest Arkansas and the cost of labor on this particular project amounted to a substantial amount. Steel prices have also escalated significantly over the past several months. The price and availability of concrete was a significant issue as well as the price of petroleum products. Another issue seems to be the uncertainty of what the market place will be with regard to these escalating cost items. Another issue was the pricing structure of the equipment and the prices given to thecontractors. He also said that the contractors may not have been as familiar with some aspects of the projects (for 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayettevi lle.org City Council Water&Sewer Meeting Minutes August 1,2005 Page 2 of 9 example, he noted the differences in the amounts each company bid on Broyles Rd. item and on the wetlands item) as others. He said one of the things that could be done is to restructure the bid so that people who are familiar with one aspect of the project could bid on just that one aspect. Another issue is the amount of time allowed in the bid process. All the contractors asked for six weeks of time between advertising of the bid to opening of the bid to allow them time to prepare the bid. With this process Mr. Ulmer stated that we have in effect established the marketplace in Northwest Arkansas. The price that was bid is driven by the cost of labor, equipment, steel, concrete, petroleum, etc. and is not the fault of anyone involved. Mr. Ulmer reviewed the process that went in to coming up with the numbers for this project, beginning with the preliminary engineering phase, through facility planning, the design process, etc. The goal was to optimize the value and the function of the facility that was designed. The plans were evaluated and reviewed by Burns and McDonnell, by the Arkansas Department of= Environmental Quality, the Arkansas Department of Health. Mr. Ulmer said that as a result of talking to the two bidders and reviewing the project, MWY developed a list of possible ways to reduce cost. He distributed this list to members of the committee and audience and then reviewed it with the group. The total cost savings listed came to $1,5295325. Mr. Ulmer stated that the marketplace for this particular project, as it stands, appears to be $57 to $58 million. He said that the history of rebidding a project without making substantial reductions is not good and does not usually result in lower bids. He suggested that in taking the lowest bid submitted, the City might have the lowest cost on this facility. He said the City could also reject the bids, make deletions (and thereby possibly reducing functionality) and revisions and rebid the project, possibly separating the bids by elements of the project such as wetlands, Broyles Rd., etc. But he did not think that we could do anything taking the project as it stands right now and get a $48 million bid. Alderman Cook said that, with all due respect to Mr. Ulmer, the cost savings discussed so far are peanuts compared to the total amount. He agrees that he really doesn't think they can find any more savings. The project has been through value engineering and the contractors have been hand selected. All the market issues discussed (labor, steel & petroleum costs, etc.) are true. He asked for clarification on the pricing structure on equipment Mr. Ulmer mentioned earlier. Jim Ulmer explained that there is a unique bidding process on big infrastructure projects. A multitude of equipment has been specified and several different pieces of equipment are acceptable in the specifications. Manufacturer's representatives try to group their equipment with a single cost. Another manufacturer may have another group of equipment with a single price, but there may be some overlap in the two groups. There may be some ways to price each piece of equipment is purchased on its own and not as a part of a group of equipment. Alderman Cook also mentioned that Mr. Ulmer had talked about the bid time being too fast. He asked if there was any way to work around the time frame. Jim Ulmer said that every contractor asked for six weeks as a minimum amount of time. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax)' accessfayetteville.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 1, 2005 Page 3 of 9 Alderman Cook said he was confused about the possibility of separating some of the projects out. He thought that we had discussed all along that packaging bids together would save money., Has it worked against us this time? Jim Ulmer said the only way to know was to try another way. He said that a decision was made early in the process to bring Broyles Road into the project, to prevent the road construction from competing with the plant construction (a single contractor could decide to build the road when it was best to fit into the project). One concern the contractors had was that if they built the road quickly, they would have to maintain the road for a long period of time because of the long construction period of the project. After discussions with the contractors and with the WSIP team, the possibility of delaying the building of the road for about a year to let the heavy construction, earth moving, concrete work get done before that project is bid was discussed. Alderman Cook clarified that Mr. Ulmer was saying that we can't change the price on this project without sacrificing either quantity or quality. Alderman Jordan asked what Mr. Ulmer means when he talks about cutting back on functionality. Jim Ulmer gave an example a storage building in the project that is fairly expensive which will be used to park trucks full of sludge. It has climate and odor-control built into it so if a truckload of sludge is sitting there for 24 hours it won't be causing odor problems around the site. That building has a wash bay in it that can serve as a second storage bay if needed. Another function of that facility is to create an inventory of critical spare parts on site to prevent time loss in the event a piece of equipment fails. It was decided that this building must stay in the project due to functionality. He cited a couple of other examples of areas where the City could cut costs on the project by eliminating some odor control or other items from the project, adding up to big dollars but they weren't taken out of the project up to this time because of the reduction in functionality of the plant. Even these reductions, however, don't add up to the difference between $48 million and $62 million. Alderman Jordan stated that we might as well build it right. Alderman Reynolds questioned who gives MWY their work order changes. Jim Ulmer stated that the changes were made during the design process, principally by staff or the value engineering team. In response to a further question from Alderman Reynolds, he stated that Greg Boettcher was on staff at that time. Some changes were also made during the bid process to try to reduce the cost to the engineer and that decision was made through Mr. Davis. Alderman Reynolds questioned why it would not be smart to rebid the project. He talked about the difference in amounts bid on different areas of the project by the two bidders. Jim Ulmer said that through the overall process, since 1999 or 2000 when it began, there have been many reductions and we have squeezed about all that can be squeezed out of the project and still meet the effluent limit with regulatory agencies. If more is taken out of the project, we will be putting ourselves at risk of not meeting regulatory requirements or of not making good on commitments we've made, for instance, regarding odor control. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 1,2005 Page 4 of 9 Alderman Reynolds pointed out that the list just distributed by Mr. Ulmer lists a possible $1 .5 million in cuts. He questioned why these things were not already out of the project if they weren't really needed. Who is making those decisions? Jim Ulmer said most of these items were brought up in conversations with the bidders as suggestions for cost reductions. The ornamental fencing and the brick pilasters were understood to be conditions of the large-scale development process. That is only on the frontage of Broyles Road. This suggestion would bring it back to an absolute minimum of nothing more than a secure gate and two ornamental panels that allow it to function with the rest being higher grade chain link fence. The other items were listed after discussion of allowable risk. For example there is $1 million worth of protective coatings in the project. There is a risk in reducing that by $600,000, but probably not a high risk. Same issue with several other issues. Alderman Reynolds asked if Van Horn Construction, which is out of Russellville, is doing any business in this area right now. Jim Ulmer stated that Van Horn is building a $2 million lift station in Springdale now. Alderman Ferrell said he favors rebidding all three facets of the project separately but asked if there is any down side to bidding them that way. Jim Ulmer said Broyles Road and the plant are no problem. The wetlands construction; however; involves the construction of berms that have a clay core to keep them from leaking from one side to the other and structures to take the water from one cell to another. That is general contractor type construction. But the part that is a problem is the planting of all the wetland plants. The general contractor is not going to have an interest in doing that and probably won't have access to the people who are familiar with that technique. That part might be bid separately. The construction part of the wetlands might be put in with the plant or the road. Alderman Ferrell asked if a decision was made right now to rebid the project, what would a reasonable time frame for how long the rebid process would take before we could start construction. Jim Ulmer said that question had been discussed by the leadership team today and it was estimated that figuring about four weeks to restructure the bid packages, and another six weeks for the bid process you have the bid in hand in two months. The award process would take approximately eight weeks, after which you can give the contractor notice to proceed. Alderman Ferrell asked if four and a half months would be an accurate estimate. Alderman Jordan: " . . .of time lost". Jim Ulmer: Something on that order. Alderman Ferrell said he likes the idea of rebidding and if there is any way to save money by taking out the wetlands, then he thinks it would make sense to do that. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water&Sewer Meeting Minutes August 1,2005 Page 5 of 9 David Jurgens, responding to Lioneld's comment about time lost, asked that it be recognized that on the original schedule, had we accepted this bid, it wouldn't have started construction until the middle of October. Alderman Jordan said that if we go ahead an rebid it however, wouldn't that push the date of completion on down? Jim Ulmer said that probably ten of the 18 weeks estimated would be regrouping. Steve Davis, restated Alderman Jordan's question by stated if the project is repackaged, bids opened, go through the fourteen week cycle, when does the City Council award the bid and when does the contractor start? David Jurgens said that from the time the decision is made, approximately eighteen weeks. Steve Davis asked how that compares to the other schedule — the October 4 original schedule. David Jurgens said it adds about eight weeks to the original schedule, given a decision tonight. It's a rolling schedule. Alderman Cook said that from his experience, you don't have any luck with rebidding. His experience is that when it a company goes to rebid a project they find things they missed the first time. Alderman Jordan said that in the mean time steel and other costs continue to rise and everything is rising all the time. He made it clear that he doesn't want to sacrifice any odor quality at all with the planta It is in his ward and he wants it to be built with quality. So if this is the price, where would we get the money from to make up the difference in what was estimated and what it will cost. Steve Davis said impact fees could be used to cover some of the increased cost, that's a Council decision. Also, our rate structure was built so that we would be generating operations and maintenance costs for this plant in 2006 which was what we expected to need. That amounts to approximately four million dollars a year and will allow for some cash flow from our existing rates. There are also some incremental revenues generated in 2004 and 2005 and we just have to run the numbers to find out how much. Alderman Jordan asked that Steve run those numbers and provide them to the Council. He also asked, if construction on the plant was supposed to start in 2006 and we're just now getting bids, what happened? Steve Davis explained that we didn't get the permits until March or April of this year. Alderman Jordan said he was not terribly surprised when the bids came in high in this time frame. Whereas, if we had gotten the bids out two years earlier, we would have probably hit it pretty close. The question is now, do we go on with the project as is and he feels we have to go on with it. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 1,2005 Page 6 of 9 David Jurgens said one thing we need to make sure is understood is that based on our interpretation of the law, since the bid was 25% over the estimated amount, we can't award the bid that was opened. So we're talking about the option of repackaging and rebidding or something else. Alderman Jordan asked about the "something else". Gary Dumas said when the management team first began talking about this they wanted to review all the options. Although everyone is probably thinking that repackaging and rebidding is the most probable option. However, the team feels they would not be responsive to the Council or the public if they did not at least explore what other options are available out there that might help generate more savings than the $2 million we're looking at now. Alderman Jordan wanted to ask another question — what if we rebid it and the bids are the same? — Gary Dumas said that as long as you certify the appropriate funds, you can award the bid. Steve Davis said that instead of setting $48 million, we set it at $57 million. Gary Dumas said that we need to look at the other options are even though the probability is that we will continue down the same path we are on. With that, he introduced Don Evans with CH2M Hill and Earl Jenkins of Black and Veatch to talk about what some of those options might be. Don Evans introduced himself. He is with OMI and also with the parent company of CH2M Hill. He talked about what he called a "tiger team". A tiger team's goal is, maintaining complete functionality on odor control and on discharge, esthetics, and everything else that is envisioned in the project to see if there are any significant savings to be found (defining significant as $10 million). The team would look to see if there is a way to get back within the budgeted parameters. This tiger team review could be done at the same time the City is repackaging the project for rebid so no time would be lost. He said the tiger team looks at three areas. They look to see if there is something in the scope that can be changed (new technologies or advances in technology) to give you the odor control that is needed. They look at alternative delivery methods. Alderman Jordan asked what the tiger team would cost. Don Evans said that the City is OMI's existing customer so OMI would do the work themselves and let the City pay them what they think it is worth. If it is something the City is seriously interested in looking into, he would be happy to work with us. Alderman Reynolds asked how long it would take. Don Evans said it would take about four weeks, the same plan. He said he doesn't know if it is feasible. He can't say they'll find $10 million in savings. After three to four weeks, he can probably tell the Council if the savings are potentially there. But OMI is the City's existing supplier and they feel they have a long term relationship with the City and are offering their assistance. His company can look over the scope of the project, the delivery method and the 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) acces sfay ettevi l le.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August I,2005 Page 7 of 9 means and methods of construction if the Council is interested. It is a difficult task and will take their best people to come in and look at it. He doesn't want to do it if the Council is not seriously interested. Alderman Reynolds said he knows OMI doesn't want to work for nothing so asked what the cost of this type of project. Don Evans said it is expensive. He said he, with Black and Veatch, would try to get the best people in the United States on the job. He said the cost would be significant. Alderman Ferrell asked for an explanation of the term integrated engineering and construction team. Don Evans said it is the new approach people are taking that they call design-build, construction management design-build, anything you might want to call it. It may be something you're not= interested in. It's find with us if you're not. Steve Phillips introduced himself as the principal in charge for the Black and Veatch work that is being done for Fayetteville right now. He said that Earl Jenkins, also in attendance, is the project manager. He said that while the situation the City finds itself in right now isn't pleasant, and it's not something that anyone can just open their spec book and make $10 million go away. But there are some approaches that can be taken if the City is interested. The question is could there be a project built for less money. Probably. Whether it would be a project the City would be comfortable with or not won't be known until they can look at some of the kinds of things that have been mentioned. He said they would take senior specialists out of his and OMI's firms and get their best ideas to reduce the costs for the City. Some of the questions they will ask is what the City's quality limits are, and if we are interested in staging things or deferring some facilities to a future time. He doesn't know the answer to those questions but asked if the City is interested in having any of these questions brought up to look at them closer, then that's the kind of service that Black and Veatch and OMI can offer. Alderman Cook clarified that the staff is not looking for a decision tonight. Gary Dumas said that given the timeframe, though they don't want a decision tonight but will want a decision as soon as possible. He thinks it is prudent to explore the options. We may not find anything, but we know what the potentials are for repackaging — about $2 million, maybe a little more by bidding the road construction separately. If the Council is interested in looking at these other options, we could tell both groups today to go ahead - tell MWY to go ahead and repackage the bid and tell Black & Veatch and CH2M Hill to begin that analysis. In four weeks we would be ready to rebid. Alderman Jordan said he thinks they need to know what it is going to cost for them to look into this thing. Gary Dumas said he understands there is no price tag on this right now. Don Evans said they could certainly give the Council a budget if they want one. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 1, 2005 Page 8 of 9 Steve Davis asked what deliverable the City could expect from CH2M Hill and Black and Veatch in four weeks. Would it be a report listing what has been reviewed. Earl Jenkins there would be some customized report but what the City is really after is present cost, present value. We have no way to find out exactly what the contractors bid on each item. They would have their estimators look, estimate the cost and see if by going at it a different way to get to the same place, what that cost would be. It is also important that they show the impacts on the schedule that would come from that change and they would need to have some discussion with the City about the perception of risk their companies might have. Steve Davis said that he would be concerned about is that the original estimate assumed a $4.1 million operating cost for the new plant in 2006. So that is a threshold he would be interested in maintaining. Gary Dumas is interested in maintaining the 33 to 36 month bill schedule. Gary Dumas said that all the quality factors that we have already said we wanted are givens.' They are not debatable. Don Evans said they agreed to that. Gary Dumas asked if the low bidder on the rejected bid wanted to make a comment. Chad Weisler, Van Horn Construction said he thinks there is a little bit of misconception about the bids. MWY has done an excellent job on the drawings. They are clear and clean. His company feels they have a good bid. The 25% law is there for the protection of the City. However, he said that according to Leo Munsford at the State Building Services you can actually award this job if the City has the money. He said the City would have to send him a letter stating that the estimate you had appropriated is incorrect. He also said that work loads are becoming very heavy. His company is in a position where they could do the job — in a month they might not be able to in that position. In twelve weeks they might not bid the project. Alderman Ferrell said if he understood it correctly, the Council was uneasy with the DBO idea two years ago. He said he feels going that direction would cause the project to loose continuity. He said he would also save the money it would take to pay the tiger team and check into this before the tiger team takes off. Alderman Cook said he would like to see a budget and a scope from B&V and CH2M Hill and he would also like to look into the issue regarding the 25% with the State Building Services. Alderman Reynolds asked how soon Van Horn could start if they got the bid. Chad Weisler said he said the City should set up a value engineering committee with the City, the MWY team & the Van Horn team and work on taking out some things out that you don't need, i.e. the trailer. He said there were other things in the plans that they could save us money on, small items that will not affect the treatment process. He said they would not propose anything that would change the design but they might see small things that have been overlooked. He said they would like to work with the City. But you have to have a realistic goal, not $49 million. 113 West Mountain 7270.1 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 1, 2005 Page 9 of 9 Steve Davis said he would call Leo Munsford Tuesday and will let the Committee know what he finds out. Alderman Ferrell said he would like for the City Attorney to hear what Leo has to say and then give an opinion. Alderman Cook asked Jim Ulmer if MWY would continue working on repackaging or would they wait for the next few days and see what happens at this point. Jim Ulmer said he that would be the Committee's call. If the Committee wants to move forward, MWY is ready to do so. Gary Dumas suggested another Water & Sewer Committee as soon as possible. The Committee agreed to schedule a meeting on Thursday, August 4 at 5:00 before the= Transportation Committee meeting. WSIP Revised Cost Summary Gary Dumas said he thought one of the problems in the past has been a lack of timely, updated cost estimates. He said the staff would provide one to the Committee on Wednesday and then will update the estimates quarterly until everything is bid and awarded. David Jurgens said the engineering firms are already working on developing estimates based on the newer information available. Steve Davis informed the group that if they decide on the tiger team option and its over $25,000 it will require a bid waiver from the Council. Water Usage and Capacity David Jurgens said due to the hot and dry weather, Rogers and Bentonville have been under a voluntary water conservation measures. Fayetteville has not been and does not need to be. Our storage capacity and transmission capacity are in good shape. We should not have any need for conservation measures. If we were to have to go under any voluntary conservation measures, it would be at the Beaver Water District request because of their plant production capacity. Reroute Alternative Analysis David Jurgens talked about the process staff is going through procuring land for easements for sewer lines. He said he would be presenting the items to the Committee as they are finalized. Staff has a map on the computer that will be updated every two to three weeks with easements already acquired being marked as green (those not acquired are red). This map will be made available to the Committee. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) acces sfayettevi lie.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 4,2005 Page 1 of 7 Member Aldermen Mayor Dan Coody Ward 1 Position 1 - Robert Reynolds City Attorney Kit Williams 9 x Ward 2 Position 1 -Kyle B. Cook Ward 3 Position 2— Robert Ferrell City Clerk Sondra Smith ARKANSAS Ward 4 Position 2 - Lioneld Jordan City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Water & Sewer Committee Meeting Minutes August 4, 2005 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council Water & Sewer Committee was held on August 4, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street,= Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kyle Cook, Robert Reynolds, Robert Ferrell, Lioneld Jordan Staff Present: Steve Davis, Gary Dumas, David Jurgens, Kit Williams, Tim Conklin, and Ron Petrie Chairman Kyle Cook called the meeting to order. 1. West Side Treatment Plant Action Plan (a) Review of existing bids and related laws, per attached memorandum (c) Construction Management Process per attached state law (act 1889 of 2005) Kit Williams talked to the committee about the statute regarding the bid. He said that the statute states that you can negotiate only if the low bid is within 25% of the amount appropriated. Historically, the City has used the engineer's estimate as the certified amount for a particular project, and if the bids have come in for more than 25% above the certified amount we are not allowed to negotiate with that contractor unless we include deductibles that would bring it down within the 25% amount. Mr. Williams said that he had contacted Mr. Mumford, who works with the State in the Contracting Division and Mr. Mumford said that he felt this was a correct interpretation of the Statute. Mr. Mumford was very complimentary of the City Purchasing department and their "track record" with the State, and said that he would not recommend varying from our traditional interpretation. Mr. Williams referred to a copy of the new statute, which allows cities to select a contract manager and then negotiate with that entity for the project, which means the sealed competitive bid process is not necessary. He had asked for Mr. Mumford's opinion on this and Mr. Mumford said that since it was such a new process, he was not able to give a definitive analysis of the process. Mr. Williams stated that the City could use that process concurrently with the sealed bid process; however, the negotiation with the contract manager should only go forth until the opening of the sealed bids. Ron Petrie verified that, always in the past, projects have been re-bid if they did not come within the 25%. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes' August 4,2005 Page 2 of 7 Alderman Reynolds asked Kit Williams, as the City Attorney, to tell the committee what was needed to put things on track to get the plant under construction as soon as possible. Kit Williams advised not to negotiate with the lower of the two bidders. Mr. Williams stated that there were several options, including going back through the bidding process looking at different processes or any new technology that might be less expensive. He also stated that the new statute gives the City the power to select a general contractor and negotiate with them and could be used concurrently with the bid process. Alderman Reynolds asked if the Broyles Road and wet land construction were pulled from the contract and it was re-bid, how long the process would take. Steve Davis stated that it would be about a 13 week process. Mr. Davis reviewed the timeline which was given to the Committee. The original plan had bids opening on July 21St, and the. contract awarded on October 4, 2005. That allowed 10 weeks for review and agency concurrence. Under the modified plan, McGoodwin, Williams and Yates begins the process of repackaging the bids on August 7t , which would take 6 weeks, followed by 6 weeks bid time, and 10 week agency review. A contract could be awarded by City Council on Jan 3, 2006. Under the Negotiated Procurement Law, the City would advertise on August 12, 13, and 14, with early bid opening on August 22nd. There are two selection committees required by the statute. One is a Pre-Selection committee made up of at least 3 municipal members, who shortlist the respondents to no more than five and schedule interviews for the Final Selection committee. The Final Selection committee interviews and makes a recommendation to the governing body. The Selection Committee could begin meeting August 25th, with 10 days to make the Selection Committee recommendation with a contract award on October 4th. Mr. Davis stated that it would take a high level of coordination between the Selection Committee and the State agencies. Mr. Davis said that confirmation has not been received from Soil and Water that this new law is acceptable to them, but should be received by August 5th. The Selection Committee recommendations must be completed by September 15th and a contract be negotiated or the process cancelled unless a price can be arrived at that with which the Negotiation Committee is comfortable. Alderman Jordan stated that if he understood what Mr. Davis was saying, the new law of Negotiated Procurement would be faster but a little riskier, and the modified plan is longer but is the way the City has always done business. Mr. Davis stated that this was correct. He pointed out that we don't lose anything by trying both of them at the same time. Alderman Cook asked if there was any negative to doing both of them concurrently. Kit Williams stated that the only negative was that it is a brand new law. He felt that if the Administration could arrive at a good contract and get the project started months earlier, that it might be the way to go. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 4,2005 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Davis stated that negotiating with a contractor is based on the contractor's qualifications, and that because of the pre-qualification processes previously used, there were already nine companies who qualified if they were interested, and some of the groundwork had already been laid. Alderman Ferrell asked if new permits would be needed. Steve Davis stated that they would not. Kit Williams stated that anyone that was selected would have to meet all the existing permits. Alderman Cook pointed out that this would be unless the design was drastically changed, which was not likely to happen. Alderman Reynolds asked if everything was in order and ready for construction. David Jurgens answered affirmatively. Alderman Jordan moved to accept both processes concurrently. Alderman Reynolds seconded. The motion passed 3 to 1 with Aldermen Reynolds, Jordan and Cook voting yes and Alderman Ferrell voting no. Alderman Reynolds asked Alderman Ferrell to explain his opposition to the motion. Alderman Ferrell stated that he felt the risk to work with the low bidder should be taken, and that construction could begin in a week if that risk was taken. He felt that the risk was not that great and that the City could save four months in the process by taking that risk. Kit Williams stated again that after talking to Mr. Mumford, he felt that the City should "stay the course", and should not try to finesse the law. Alderman Ferrell asked for Mr. Mumford's title and was told by Mr. Davis that he is the State Building Services Construction Manager. Kit Williams said Mr. Mumford told him that he has had some agencies that go through the procedure write a letter stating that a mistake had been made. However, Mr. Williams stated that he does not feel that a mistake was made in this case. Alderman Ferrell stated that he had spoken with some local business people and that the price of different metals continues to rise; for instance the cost of copper is up 29% in the last two months, and he is afraid of further cost increases by waiting another 4 months. He stated that he is concerned with saving the citizens money and that it bears a little closer scrutiny. Alderman Cook stated that he felt there was more risk in doing as Alderman Ferrell suggested as opposed to proceeding with the modified plan and at the same time negotiating. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayettevi l le.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes' August 4,2005 Page 4 of 7 Alderman Jordan stated that if someone did decide to take the City to court, we could be tied up in court for months. Kit Williams pointed out that it could also mean attorney fees of$10-15 million. Steve Davis pointed out that the Town Center lawsuit delayed that project at least nine months. Kit Williams stated that the city had been fortunate that the judge allowed construction to go forward in that case, because it could have been delayed for years while waiting for resolution by the Supreme Court. I. West Side Treatment Plant Action Plan b. McGoodwin, Williams and Yates Bid Reuackaping Gary Dumas pointed out that the action taken in this meeting authorized McGoodwin, Williams- and Yates to proceed on the repackaging I. West Side Treatment Plant Action Plan d. Treatment Plan Evaluation Gary Dumas stated that we owe it to the rate payers to, concurrent with all other actions, do a process evaluation to be sure that labor costs, concrete costs, steel costs, etc., have not changed the parameters that were used in the evaluation and that this could happen concurrently with the bidding process and the early parts of construction. With the repackaging, what would be looked for would be a separation of all of those elements within the processing part of the plant which would require a change order to delete those elements and add something else into the project if changes in design were decided upon. This should cause no delays in the project. Mr. Dumas made the recommendation that this be done. David Jurgens stated that when the project was started, one of the technologies specifically considered and evaluated was the membrane filter technology that produces a cleaner effluent. He said that five or eight years ago it was a very new process, and was not looked at because the City did not want to be a "guinea pig" with the new process. He stated that now that it has been in use for about 8 years, he has been in contact with those who are using the process at some plants which are larger than ours. He felt that it might offer some advantages in terms of quality of the discharge and also in the up-front construction costs since it takes a lot less space to build it, a lot less concrete and steel, and a lot less labor — which are all big cost factors. The process would meet all of the same permit requirements that have been issued. It would require another look by the State Health Department to evaluate the process itself, but it would not require a change in permits. Alderman Cook asked if it was not too late in the game to start looking at this, and if it would affect the timeline. Gary Dumas stated that while it was late, it could be done if started now, and that if a contract was awarded on October 4th, the cost elements of the traditional processing method should be known at that time and the City could determine what the difference would be. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 4,2005 Page 5 of 7 Alderman Jordan asked for examples of some of the things that might not have to be built if we went with the new process. Silly Ammons of OMI stated that it would eliminate the need for the effluent filters, which are very large, and for the F-1 Clarifiers, which are big concrete and steel tanks. If those were completely eliminated, the size of aeration basins could be reduced. It is not impossible that the same process could be kept, while retro-fitting with this other design Alderman Ferrell asked if it would cost more to maintain and operate with the newer process and was told that it was a tradeoff and the net results were basically a wash. Alderman Ferrell then asked whether it would increase the timeline if the State Health Department and the ADEQ found something they wanted to discuss if we wanted to change it. Gary Dumas stated that this option would have to be discussed with them if it proved to be oLzs positive benefit cost after the conceptual review. He said that before getting into any design the City would want to make sure all of the State's concerns were addressed. Alderman Ferrell asked if there was an estimate on the parallel track of going both ways as to how much it would increase the cost. Gary Dumas stated that there is the conceptual design and then benefit cost which should be a minimal cost, followed by a design phase which will not be a minimal cost. David Jurgens stated that 30% less in concrete would mean a significant savings, and it might also reduce construction time, which is the cost benefit that needs to be evaluated. Mr. Jurgens stated that when he was with the Federal Advisory Committee on Sewer Overflows at EPA in Washington, one of the items which was discussed was the continued need to increase and improve wastewater discharge. He stated that the current treatment process does not get out certain biological effluents and that biofilters have a good track record for removing biological effluents. Alderman Reynolds stated that we are three years away on this plant and wanted to know what year the plant would take us to with the projected population growth of the City. Specifically, would the West Plant and the Noland Plant serve the population growth to the year 2025. Mr. Jurgens stated that you could not look at years, but needed to look more at population. He stated that the East and West plants combined had permitted numbers of 21.7 million gallons, as opposed to the current rate of 12.6, pointing out that the new plant will handle not quite double current capacity. Steve Davis stated that one plant today is servicing about 80,000 people. Alderman Cook asked if the committee was in favor of moving forward and looking at the biofilters and the consensus was positive, as long as it didn't run the cost or construction time up. ; 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 6 of 7 2. WSIP Revised Cost Summary Steve Davis presented the committee with a spreadsheet which showed that the original" discussed scope-of-work total in July 2001 was $125,000,000 compared to $169,000,000 today. Mr. Davis stated that these numbers were based on the latest engineers' estimate. The next step is getting the East line and the West line projects bid and negotiating the plant. The bottom line is that more money must be found for the project. The last item in terms of finding money would be to use a revenue bond paid by existing sewer rates. He stated that he has been asked numerous times what the cost overrun is going to do to sewer rates and the answer is that we don't know yet. This is because the real number on the whole project is not yet known. It is not known how much existing rates can be used to pay for some of this shortfall, or existing impact fees, or the sale of the 35 acres off the plant site. He said that the City should look at where the money will come from and what that money is going to cost in terms of interest Alderman Ferrell asked if the City had to go to bonds from the sewer revenues whether that would have a "down-the-road" effect on the enterprise fund. Steve Davis pointed out that the City has existing bond issues that are scheduled to be paid off between 2008 and 2017 and that money is already built into the rate structure. He stated that the City would first look to reallocate that money to these additional bonds and see how much of that can be paid for. The future rate adjustments are expected to be more linked to an asset management program that the City puts in place to make sure that both the water and sewer utilities are properly maintained. Increased operational costs are driven primarily by regulatory issues. Alderman Cook suggested that the committee review the numbers and bring it back up at the next meeting and answer more questions on it. Gary Dumas stated that the numbers would be updated quarterly beginning October 1St Alderman Ferrell asked if the new estimate reflected the repackaging and some of the other changes. Steve Davis stated that the items under consideration for removal were not going to save that much money, and the building contractor's road cost was included in the estimate. Mr. Davis stated that a $5.9 million contingency is included, whereas previously it was a $1 million contingency, and that the new numbers are more realistic. Alderman Ferrell stated that he had understood there to be about $1 .4 million in esthetic items that were going to be pared back to save money and wanted to know if these had been added back in. Steve Davis stated that when McGoodwin, Williams and Yates repackages, those esthetics would be in keeping with what was presented to the Committee on August 1St David Jurgens pointed out that updated information had been obtained from every consultant to go into these numbers. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org City Council Water& Sewer Meeting Minutes August 4, 2005 I Hamestring Sewer Basin Update. Page 7 of 7 David Jurgens stated that he had received an email 30 minutes prior to the meeting from the consultant saying that the report had been overnighted and should be received the following day. Ron Petrie stated that from what was presented at the City Council meeting, preliminary findings were that there were around 400 remaining residential units in the two basins and it is critical that the City move forward on the last two action items in that basin. Mr. Petrie stated that the short term solution and the long term solution need to be identified and the cost determined, a funding mechanism set up and special assessment districts for the sewer need to be discussed. A draft should be ready for the September 6th City Council meeting. Mr. Petrie pointed out a need to either amend RJN's existing contract or go with a Selection Committee and hire an engineering company for the study. He stressed that the study should be done in less than a month and that RJN is most familiar with the area. Alderman Jordan stated that he felt the committee needed to move on it and made a motion to go with RJN and amend the existing contract. Alderman Reynolds asked for the cost and Ron Petrie stated that it would be approximately $20,000.00. David Jurgens stated that, as it was negotiated, if it came in below $10,000.00, it would not have to go before the Council for approval which would be the fastest mechanism for getting it done. Alderman Ferrell seconded the motion, and motion carried. The next meeting of the Water & Sewer Committee was set for August 25th at 6:00 p.m. in Room 326 of City Hall. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayettevil le.org T"avye evine ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: WSIP File .Copy: Dan Coody, Mayor Scott Savoy, Arkansas Soil and Water Fayetteville City Council Water & Sewer Committee WSIP Team From: Stephen L. Davis, Finance & Internal Services Director Date: August 18, 2005 Subject: Recap of Arkansas Soil & Water Visit, Aug. 17, 2005 WSIP Fayetteville presented an update to Soil & Water staff. Briefing included recap of bid, recap of staffing, review of purchasing options, use of BNR and MBR technology, use of RLF money, potential need for additional review of East Side line work (FONSI & Engineering) Soil & Water asked if Fayetteville had begun discussing MBR with ADEQ and if ADEQ had expressed an opinion. Mayor Coody stated we wanted to begin with Soil & Water and would begin discussions with ADEQ if Soil & Water had no objections to Fayetteville pursuing negotiated procurement on the west plant. Soil & Water staff did not express any concerns with Fayetteville potentially shifting RLF money from the West Plant to line work subject to review for FONSI and Engineering. Fayetteville reviewed the current engineering estimates for the original $125 million project scope as well as necessary items that were left out of the original project budget (Farmington LS and Broyles Road). Soil & Water recommended Fayetteville/Farmington come to a consensus resolution that will address the long-term issue. Fayetteville advised Soil & Water that contract negotiations with Farmington for Fayetteville to assume ownership of the Farmington system were in progress. Outside Customer Groups Soil & Water staff directed the discussion to Elkins and asked if Fayetteville could do anything about Elkins' rates. Fayetteville advised Soil & Water that negotiations with Elkins were ongoing and progress is being made. The larger issue remaining between the cities is the rate/1000 and how to measure the volume. 3 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 479-575-8330 FAX 479-575-8257 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS AND BLACK AND VEATCH CORPORATION WHEREAS, On April 16, 2003, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE) and Black & Veatch Corporation of Kansas City, Missouri (BLACK & VEATCH) entered into an Agreement for engineering services in connection with the Fayetteville Existing 36-inch Water Transmission Line - Rehabilitation Study (The "Project"). The scope of these services included a study and, WHEREAS, BLACK & VEATCH has proceeded with these services in accordance with the scope set forth in the Agreement, and WHEREAS, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE requests that the scope of BLACK & VEATCH 's services to be amended to provide Final Design Phase, Bidding Phase, Construction Phase; and Post Construction Phase Services for the Project, and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and Agreements herein contained, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and BLACK & VEATCH, the parties hereto, stipulate and agree that the Agreement for Engineering Services dated April 16, 2003, is hereby amended in the following particulars: Fayetteville Amendment No 1 (7-18-05) Am 1 7/18/05 Last printed 8/10/2005 12:43 PM SECTION 2 - BASIC SERVICES OF BLACK & VEATCH 2.1 General. Delete Article 2.1.1.1 in its entirety and replace with the following: 2.1.1.1 The Scope of Services to be furnished by BLACK & VEATCH during the Study Phase of the Project is included in Appendix A attached hereto and made part of this Agreement. 2.2 Final Design Phase Services 2.2.1 Insert APPENDIX B — SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR FINAL DESIGN PHASE attached to this Amendment No. 1. 2.3 Bidding Phase Services 2.3.1 Insert APPENDIX C — SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR BIDDING PHASE attached to this Amendment No. 1. 2.4 Construction Phase Services. 2.4.1 Insert APPENDIX D — SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE attached to this Amendment No. 1. 2.5 Post-Construction Phase Services. 2.5.1 Insert APPENDIX E — SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR POST-CONSTRUCTION PHASE attached to this Amendment No. 1. SECTION 3 - ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF BLACK & VEATCH Add the following tasks to SECTION 3 of the Agreement: 3.1.10 Additional meetings with local, state, or Federal agencies to discuss project. 3.1.11 Review of drawings and other data submitted by Contractor(s) beyond one resubmission because of failure of Contractor to account for exceptions previously noted by BLACK & VEATCH. 3.1.12 Appearances at public meetings or before special boards. Fayetteville Amendment No 1 (7-18-05) Aoc 2 7/18/05 3.1.13 Supplemental engineering work required to meet the requirements of regulatory or funding agencies that become effective subsequent to the date of this amendment. 3.1.14 Special consultants or independent professional associates requested by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. 3.1.15 Preparation for litigation, or other legal or administrative proceedings; and appearances in court in connection with change orders or construction incidents. 3.1.16 Engineering assistance to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE for and during negotiation meetings. 3.1.17 Observing factory tests and field retesting of equipment that fails to pass the initial test. 3.1.18 Visits to the construction site or to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE's location in excess of the number of such trips and the associated time set forth in Appendices B, C, D, and E. 3.1.19 Where field conditions differ from the conditions indicated in the construction contract documents, preparation of sketches of construction work for approval by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, to supplement the drawings and specifications as may be required; and providing redesign or relocation information if required by underground obstructions, utilities, unacceptable condition of existing transmission mains, or other conditions. 3.1.20 Services for making revisions to drawings and specifications made necessary by the acceptance of substitutions proposed by the Contractor(s); and services after the award of the contract for evaluating and determining the acceptability of substitutions proposed by the Contractor. 3.1.21 Additional or extended services during construction made necessary by (1) work damaged by fire or other cause during construction, (2) a significant amount of defective or neglected work by any Contractor, (3) acceleration of the progress schedule involving service beyond normal working hours, (4) prolongation of the construction contract time by more than sixty days, (5) default by any Contractor, and (6) failure of the Contractor to complete the work within the construction contract time. 3.1.22 Services resulting from significant delays, changes, or price increases caused directly or indirectly by shortages of materials, equipment, or energy. Fayetteville Amendment No 1 (7-18-05) .doc 3 7/18/05 1 3.1.23 Evaluation of unusually complex or unreasonably numerous claims submitted by Contractor(s) or others in connection with the work. 3.1.24 Review and analysis of claims for differing subsurface and physical conditions submitted by the Contractor(s) or others in connection with the work. 3.1.25 Prepare applications and supporting documents for governmental grants, loans, or advances. 3.1.26 Consult with CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE's fiscal agents and bond attorneys and provide such engineering data as required for any bond prospectus or other financing requirements. 3.1.27 Services made necessary by the default of the Contractor, by major defects or deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor, or by failure of performance of either CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE or Contractor under the Contract for Construction. 3.1.28 Resident Project Representative Services to observe the Contractor's work and general progress of the work. BLACK& VEATCH will perform periodic site visits to the construction site(s) to observe the progress of the work, as defined in Appendix D. SECTION 4 - CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE'S RESPONSIBILITIES Add the following tasks to SECTION 4 of Agreement: 4.13 Furnish all maps, drawings, reports, records, manuals, and other data that are available in the files of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE which may be useful in the work involved under this Amendment No. 1 to BLACK & VEATCH. 4.14 Obtain all temporary construction and permanent easements necessary for the work. 4.15 Field locate the 36-inch and 42-inch transmission mains at the site of each pressure control station and at the sites of the isolation valves on the 36-inch transmission main prior to test pitting by BLACK & VEATCH. 4.16 Provide BLACK & VEATCH with flow meter data measured by the new insertion-type, flow meter installed on the existing 36-inch transmission main for review and evaluation during Post-Construction Phase. Data will be provided on electronic file and hardcopy form. Fayetteville Amendment No 1 (7-18-05) .doc 4 7/18/05 SECTION 5 - PERIOD OF SERVICE Add the following to SECTION 5 of Agreement: 5.3 The services described in this Amendment are expected to be completed in accordance with the following schedule: Final Design Phase Services Completed within 120 days from Notice to Proceed by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Construction Phase Services, Completed within 120 days from Notice to Proceed to Contractor by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Post Construction Phase Services, Completed within 90 days of Contractor's Final Completion CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE agrees to adjust schedule if the scope of work is revised, if the Notice to Proceed to BLACK & VEATCH is delayed, if the Notice to Proceed to Contractor is delayed, or for any other delays beyond BLACK & VEATCH'S control. 5.4 The provisions of this Amendment have been agreed to in anticipation of the orderly progress of construction through completion of the services stated in this Amendment. BLACK & VEATCH will proceed with providing the authorized services immediately upon receipt of written authorization from CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. Said authorization shall include the scope of the services authorized and the time in which the services are to be completed as defined in this Amendment. SECTION 6 - PAYMENTS TO BLACK & VEATCH 6.1 Compensation Delete Section 6.1.2 of the Agreement and replace with the following: 6.1.2 Basic Services of Amendment No. 1. For the scope of Basic Services set forth in this Amendment No. 1, including Final Design Phase, Bidding Phase, Construction Phase, and Post-Construction Phase Services, the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE agrees to pay BLACK & VEATCH on an ACTUAL COST NOT-TO-EXCEED BASIS with the upper limit as Fayetteville Amendment No 1 (7-18-05) .doc 5 7/18/05 set forth herein. The total payment to BLACK & VEATCH for all Basic Services defined in this Amendment No. 1 shall not exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) except as provided for in Section 3 of the Agreement. 6.1.2.1 Subject to prior City Council approval, adjustment of the not-to-exceed upper limit may be made should BLACK & VEATCH establish and CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE agree that there has been or is to be a significant change in scope, complexity or character of the services to be performed; or if CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE decides to amend the duration of work from the time period specified in the amended Agreement for completion of work and such modification warrants such adjustment. Changes, modifications, or amendments in scope, price or fees to this Amendment No. 1 shall not be allowed without formal contract amendment approved by the Mayor and City Council in advance of the change in scope, cost, fees, or delivery schedule. 6.1.3 Additional Services. For authorized Additional engineering services under Section 3, "Additional Services", compensation to BLACK & VEATCH shall be negotiated at the time Additional Services are authorized. 6.1.4 The CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE agrees that the BLACK & VEATCH's not-to-exceed upper limit for this Amendment No. 1 is based on the durations indicated in Section 5.3 of this Amendment No. 1 and if the construction period is extended that the BLACK & VEATCH shall be entitled to additional compensation. 6.1.4.1 Hourly billing rates plus reimbursable direct expenses shall be used as the basis for determining payment to BLACK & VEATCH for the costs incurred by BLACK & VEATCH while providing the services described in this Amendment No. 1. Costs are, but not limited to, the salaries and benefits paid to employees engaged directly in providing the Services and profit. The hourly billing rates are included as Appendix F to this Amendment No. 1. 6.1.4.2 The following direct expenses are considered reimbursable and are included in the not-to-exceed amount. 6.1.4.2.1 Travel, subsistence, and incidental costs. Fayetteville Amendment No 1 (7-18-05) .doc 6 7/18/05 0 6.1.4.2.2 Use of motor vehicles on a mileage basis or rental cost basis for vehicles used for short periods. Mileage basis shall not exceed 41 cents per mile. 6.1.4.2.3 Subcontract costs, including but not limited to, those for soils and geotechnical investigations and reports, testing laboratory services, surveying and mapping services, and other subcontract services, plus a five percent fee. 6.1.4.2.4 Reproduction costs for reports, drawings and specifications required as deliverables to CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE or contractor as part of the work. 6.1.4.3 The following direct expenses are considered reimbursable, but are not included in the not-to- exceed amount. 6.1.4.3.1 Charges of special consultants requested by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. 6.1.4.3.2 Special insurance coverage required by CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, including the cost of naming the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE as an additional insured. 6.1.4.3.3 Local taxes or fees applicable to the engineering work or payments therefore. 6.1.4.3.4 Direct charges for review of drawings and specifications by government agencies, if any. 6.1.4.3.5 Cost of acquiring any other materials or services specifically for and applicable to only this project. 6.1.4.4 It is understood and agreed that the not-to-exceed upper limit is based on the start of the services being authorized not later than September 15, 2005. If start of services is not authorized .by dates given, it is understood and agreed that the not-to-exceed upper limit will be adjusted accordingly by an amendment to the Agreement. 6.1.4.6 It is understood and agreed that BLACK & VEATCH shall keep records of costs and expenses on the basis of generally accepted accounting practice and records shall be available for inspection at reasonable times. All other provisions of the original Agreement remain in full force and effect. Fayetteville Amendment No 1 (7-18-05) .doc 7 7/18/05 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed this day of , 20_. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS By: Mayor ATTEST: By: City Clerk BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION Steven D. Phillips By: Vice President Title: END OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES Fayetteville Amendment No 1 (7-18-05) .doc 8 7/18/05