HomeMy WebLinkAbout121-82 RESOLUTIONI
1
RESOLUTION N0. /d - ka
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH METCALF & EDDY, INC. FOR A
LAND APPLICATION SEWAGE DISPOSAL FEASIBILITY STUDY.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE';,ARKANSAS:
That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a contract with Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. for
a land application sewage disposal feasibility study. A
copy of the contract authorized for execution hereby4is
attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and made a p --art hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED this /O/A day of 6�,)7IZ236Pe.,, 1982.
APPROVED: 0/
By:
YO
R
0
� � f 4 I• �.. � i ! 1
Cil
WIN
APPROVED: 0/
By:
YO
R
0
� � f 4 I• �.. � i ! 1
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
AND
METCALF & EDDY, INC.
FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 015th day of OCMBER , 1982,
by and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, acting herein
by and through its Mayor as duly authorized by vote of the Board of
Directors at its meeting on OCTOBER, -5;1982- , hereinafter
called the City, and Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with offices
at 1011 East Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, hereinafter
called the Engineer.
WITNESSETH, for the considerations hereinafter set forth,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 - ENGAGEMENT OF THE ENGINEER
The City hereby engages the Engineer and the Engineer
hereby accepts the engagement to perform certain engineering
services in connection with a technical feasibility investigation
of land application of municipal wastewater, hereinafter called
the Project.
ARTICLE 2 - SERVICES OF THE ENGINEER
2.1 General
2.1.1 The Engineer will perform professional services
in connection with the Project as hereinafter
stated.
8
I
Task 1 - Identify potential sites for field invest -
igations.
Task 2 -
Evaluate the potential sites through on-site
2.1.2
The Engineer will serve as the City's professional
Task 3 -
Determine the land requirements based upon
engineering representative in those phases of
the Project to which this Agreement applies and
Task 4
will consult with and advise the City during the
performance of his services.
2.1.3
The Engineer will not proceed to perform professional
treatment option.
Task 6
services under this Agreement until having received
a written authorization from the City to do so.
2.2 Scope
of Work
2.2.1
The Scope of Work for this Project is set forth
feasible.
Task 8
in the following outline in a set of 8 Tasks. A
summary report of the completed investigations
will be the product. This report will present
the data, a discussion of data analyses, and the
conclusions drawn.
Task 1 - Identify potential sites for field invest -
summary report.
igations.
Task 2 -
Evaluate the potential sites through on-site
testing of soil permeabilities.
Task 3 -
Determine the land requirements based upon
hydrolic loading rates limited either by
soil permeability or nitrogen considerations.
Task 4
- Evaluate the various management options
available to the City.
Task 5
- Analyze the economics of the proposed land
treatment option.
Task 6
- Review the proposed land treatment system
with the appropriate regulatory agencies.
Task 7
- Develop an implementation plan for the pro-
posed land treatment system if it proves
feasible.
Task 8
- Prepare a draft report for review and, after
the reviews are complete, submit a final
summary report.
2.2:2 A more detailed discussion of the various tasks`of
the Scope of Work is presented in Attachment 1,
attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement,
and in the Engineer's Proposal to the City of
Fayetteville - Land Treatment Feasibility Study,
September, 1982, incorporated herein by reference
and made a part of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 4 - PERIOD OF SERVICE
4.1 The services called for in this Agreement shall be completed
in accordance with applicable engineering standards.
4.2 The Engineer will complete all of the services required
to deliver the completed draft report to the City for
local review within 11 weeks following authorization to
proceed. The final .report will be completed within two
weeks of the completion of all reviews.
ARTICLE 3 - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
The City without cost to the Engineer, will:
3.1
Place at the disposal of the Engineer all available inform-
ation pertinent to the Project upon which the Engineer
can rely, including previous reports and any other data
relative to the Project.
3.2
Provide access to and make all provisions for the Engineer
to enter upon public and private lands as required for
the Engineer to perform his work under this Agreement.
3.3
Designate in writing a person to act as the City's represent-
ative with respect to the work to be performed under this
Agreement, such person to have complete authority to transmit
instructions, receive information, interpret and define
the City's policies and decisions with respect to the
work covered by this Agreement.
3.4
Furnish the Engineer all needed property, boundary, and
right-of-way surveys.
ARTICLE 4 - PERIOD OF SERVICE
4.1 The services called for in this Agreement shall be completed
in accordance with applicable engineering standards.
4.2 The Engineer will complete all of the services required
to deliver the completed draft report to the City for
local review within 11 weeks following authorization to
proceed. The final .report will be completed within two
weeks of the completion of all reviews.
4.3 The Engineer shall not be responsible for any delays in
the performance of his services hereunder caused by strikes,
action of the elements, acts of any government, civil
disturbances, or any other cause beyond his reasonable
control, or for the expenses or consequences arising from
such delays.
ARTICLE 5 - PAYMENTS TO THE ENGINEER
5.1 For the services performed under Article 2, Services of
the Engineer, the City will pay the Engineer, monthly
as charges accrue, on a cost plus fixed fee basis. Charges
will include the costs incurred during the billing period
plus a portion of the fixed fee based on the Engineer's
estimate of the percentage of his work completed. The
total estimated cost (which does not include the fixed
fee), which the Engineer will not exceed without the Agreement
being amended, is $79,063, and the fixed fee is $11,537
as shown on the USEPA Form 5700-41 in Attachment 2 (Engineer's
Fee Proposal letter dated Setepmber 27, 1982) attached
hereto and made a part of this Agreement.
5.2 Cost will include direct labor, indirect costs, and direct
costs.
5.2.1 Direct labor is salaries and wages paid to personnel
for time chargeable to the Project.
5.2.2 Indirect costs are allocations of overhead costs
which are not directly chargeable to a specific
engagement.
5.2.3 Direct costs include such typical expenses as
cost of: transportation and subsistence; long
distance telephone and telegraph; printing and
reproduction; computer time and programming costs;
identifiable supplies; outside consultants' charges;
subcontract for service.
5.3 The payments under the "cost plus fixed fee" method of
charging are to be based on the indirect cost rate of
146.9 percent of the direct salaries and wages for Article
5.2.1 subject to appropriate adjustment when the final
indirect costs rate for the period of service is established
by Federal audit. To prevent any substantial over or under
payment, the rate may be revised by mutual agreement.
5.4 When the costs incurred total approximately 60 percent
of the total estimated costs listed in Article 5.1, or
if,at any time, the Engineer has reason to believe that
the total estimated costs will be greater or substantially
less than the then total estimated costs, the Engineer
shall notify the City giving a revised estimate of the
total cost for the services to be furnished. Should the
revised estimated costs exceed the then total estimated
costs, this Agreement shall either be amended to cover
the increase in revised estimated costs or the scope of
services shall be reduced to keep within the total estimated
cost.
5.5 The fixed fee shall not be increased except by an Agreement
amendment increasing the scope of services.
5.6 In the event payment to the Engineer is delayed beyond
60 days from the date of the Engineer's invoice, the Engineer
shall receive interest at the current prime rate of the
Chase Manhattan Bank plus one percent, per annum, on the
unpaid balance from said sixtieth day, subject to state
limitations on maximum interest rates.
ARTICLE 6 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.1 Litigation
In the event the Engineer is to prepare for or appear
in any litigation in behalf of the City, additional compen-
sation shall be paid as is mutually agreed upon.
6.2 waiver of Subrogation
Both parties agree mutually to waive any rights which
each may have against the other with respect to subrogation
under any insurance policy relating to services or work
performed under this Agreement.
6.3 Termination
This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven
days written notice in the event of substantial failure
to perform in accordance with the terms hereof by the
other party through no fault of the terminating party.
If this Agreement is so terminated, the Engineer shall
be paid for all work performed to the date of termination
according to the provisions of Article 5. In the event
of termination, the Engineer's fixed fee shall be prorated
based upon the percentage of his work completed.
This Agreement may be terminated by City if the Engineer
concludes that land application, either whole or in part,
will not be a feasible alternative for management of the
City's wastewater effluent. In this case the City may
terminate this Agreement with one day's written notice.
Costs for engineering services shall be paid, included
a portion of the fixed fee, in accordance with the preceeding
paragraph.
6.4 Ownership of Documents
All documents, including original drawings, designs, plans,
estimates, specifications, field notes and data developed
by the Engineer under this Agreement are and shall remain
the property of the City whether the project for which
they are made is executed or not; provided however, that
the foregoing material be used only for purposes with
respect to this Project and provided further that the
Engineer may retain, for his files, duplicated copies of
any of said materials.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
4C
.O i•va Ke -ly
City Clek'
ATTEST:
W. H—en�aggy
Project Manager
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
By: gaolth(
Title: Mayor
By:�/ / INC*
Title: Regional Vice President
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
LAND TREATMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
Task 1 - Identify Sites
Based on the Facility Plan and discussions with Mr. Wallace Phillips,
soil scientist with the Soil.Conservation Service, general areas
both east and west of Fayetteville are being considered as initial
areas for site identification. The Engineer will discuss these
potential areas with farming community leaders, City officials
and Mr. Bob Perry, the County agent. Out of these discussions
field
will come a preliminary selection of potential sites for
investigation.
An initial water balance will be performed to determine the gross
area requirements for slow rate land treatment. The actual percolation
rate will be measured on a.site specific basis in Task 2.
Task 2 - Evaluate Sites
Onsite testing will be performed under this task. The Engineer's
soil scientists will meet with Mr. Wallace,Phillips and together
they will review the preliminary sites and make recommendations
on test pit locations. The locations will then be reviewed with
the City officials. Once the locations are agreed to, the City
will obtain permission from land owners to enter onto their lands
in order to conduct testing.
The testing will consist of backhoe
pits
into which the
soil
scientist can enter
to describe the
soil
profile. Once
the profile
has been described
and compared to
the SCS
typical soils
profile
for the particular
soil type, the least
permeable layer
will
be selected. The backhoe operator
will
then excavate to
that
layer to allow the
permeability to
be tested.
A ring infiltrometer or air -entry permeameter will be used to
measure the permeability of the soil. This rate will be compared
to the SCS standard range of permeability for the particular
soil layer. Depending on thevariability of the permeability
rates for the same soil type, 3 to 5 tests will be conducted
per major soil type.
The presence or absence of perched groundwater above the fragipari
or clay pan will be noted. Any standing or permanent groundwater
in the backhoe pits will also be noted.
Additionally the present of,wet spots, sink holes or limestone
outcropping on the sites will be.noted. Existing crops, houses,
stock ponds and stream beds will also be observed for future
evaluation.
The results of .the soils investigation will serve as input into
the site evaluation work. Representative soil permeabilities
will be established and the sites will be grouped accordingly
to soil permeability.
The ranking of sites will begin with rating factors assigned
for soil depth, depth to groundwater, soil permeability, grade
and existing land use. Limitations such as surface drainage,
location relative to the flood plain, and environmental constraints
will also be evaluated.
Task 3 - Determine Land Requirements
The Engineer will select the forage crops and tree species for our
water and nitrogen balance work based on reviews of existing vege-
tation and discussions with the Engineer's consultants and the
University of Arkansas agronomists. Water and nitrogen balances will
be conducted for each group of soils with similar permeabilities and
for different crop types. The assumed nitrogen limit for the per-
colate of 10 mg/l will be verified with State regulatory officials.
The water balance will be used to determine the need for seasonal
storage due to precipitation. in addition the weather records
will be used to estimate the storage days required by freezing
temperatures. Different criteria for cold weather storage will
apply to forage crops and forested areas.
The limiting hydraulic loading rates will be calculated and the
wetted field area requirements will be determined once the water'
and nitrogen balances are.completed. Field areas will then be
estimated using the buffer zone requirements of the State of
Arkansas.
Task 4 - Evaluate Management Options
The Engineer will review the three major options for control
t
of the land treatment areas:
1. City provides effluent to farmers under a contract
arrangement.
2. City leases the land and the farmer operates the
irrigation equipment.
3. City purchases land and leases to the farmer.
4. City purchases land and operates the irrigation system.
These options
and
combinations of
them will
be explored with
City officials
and
representatives
from the
farming community.
Once the preferred management option or combination of options
is identified, farming community leaders and the County agent
will be contacted and a series of small meetings will be held
in each site area. The project will be explained, the preferred
option will be discussed, and questions will be invited.
Following the meetings a series of one-on-one visits will be
made with those expressing interest in the project or having
sizeable land holdings in the selected site areas. Based on
the results of these meetings the management options will be
re=evaluated. When the meetings and a review of the reuslts
are complete, the conceptual plans for land treatment can be
developed.
Task 5 - Analyze Economics
The conceptual plan for-land.treatment will involve preapplication
treatment, storage, pumping and piping to the sites, distribution
on the sites, and underdrainage (if necessary). The minimum
preapplication treatment for the management option selected will
be determined. Based on the findings of Task 30 the irrigation
system for the required area will be laid out. A complete capital
cost estimate of all components will be made: Depending on the
management option selected, the cost of land, leases, or contracts
will be included*
operation and maintenance costs will include labor, energy, main-
tenance (repair) and monitoring. Total present worth costs will
be compared to the cost of the selected alternative in the Facility
Plan.
Task 6 - Review with Regulatory Agencies
Initial contacts have been made with the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology and the Arkansas Department
of Health. These agencies and EPA Region VI will be consulted
throughout the study for their input and to keep them advised
as to the direction and progress of the study.
Task 7 - Implementation Plan
If land treatment is determined to be feasible, a plan will be
developed describing the steps required to implement the land
treatment system. The option or combination of options for land
acquisition that has proved most acceptable to the City and the
community will be delineated. The plan will address the potential
phasing of the land treatment construction as well as any additional
field work required prior.to or during design.
Task S - Prepare Report -
A draft report will be prepared,for review and comment. Following
review by the City and other interested parties, the final report
will be prepared and will incorporate comments by the City and
other reviewers.
ATTACHMENT 2
W 0 Rim.
Metcaifi &Eddy, Inc.
� Engineers & Planners
1011 East Touhy Avenue
Des Plaines, Illinois 600182869
(312) 2985070
Charles E. Pound
Regional vice President
September 27, 1982
Donald R. Bunn, City Engineer
City of Fayetteville
P.O. Drawer F
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702
Dear Mrs Bunn:
As requested in your request for proposal and confirmed at the
selection committee's meeting on September 20, 1982, we have
prepared an estimate of the costs and fees necessary to perform
the scope of work described in our proposal dated September 17,
1982. Please understand that any increase or decrease in the scope
of work will result in a commensurate adjustment in the total
estimated fee,
Because fees for preceeding phases of your facilities planning
process were presented on an EPA 5700 Form, and you are now
familiar with this format, we have presented our fee estimate
on the same forms. As detailed on the attached EPA 5700 Form,
our total estimated fee is $90,600.
In viewing this estimate, I would like to call your attention
to two specific items. First, we have in, all costs for
arranging and conducting both one-on-one and group meetings with
members of the farming community. In other words, City staff
members are not required to do this work, or even to attend the
meetings, if it is inconvenient. Second, the indirect cost rate
(overhead) is a provisional rate that is in the process of being
updated by Federal auditors. Indications to date are that this
rate will drop slightly, rather than increase. This savings
will, of course, be passed on to Fayetteville.
Our proposed fee is based on a cost plus a fixed fee (CPFF)
procedure. Therefore, if we can conclude our work with fewer
man-hours than planned, the cost of the project will be less,
accordingly. Further, our fee estimate is based on a major part
/ & a I
Boston IN ew York I Palo Alto IS an Bernardino I Coral Gables /Cape Coral I Hotter on I Atlanta I Somerville. N.J.1 Washington I Honolulu
City of Fayetteville 2
September 27, 1982
of the work being done during this calendar year, prior to our
annual salary reviews. For that reason, this estimate is good
so long as the notice to proceed can be issued before November
10, 1982. After that date,,we would expect to adjust the estimate
to reflect these salary increases.
If there are any questions concerning this estimate fee, we will
be pleased to respond to them. Thank you again for this opportun-
ity to serve the City of Fayetteville.
Very
�/truly yours
Charles E. Pound
Regional Vice President
CEP:kk
Enc.
Fors Apyrnved,
'>rIMR rvn. 74.b Pn/eA
• - PART III -PRICE SUMMARY - '-'•
13 COMPETITOR'S CATALOG LISTINGS, IN-HOUSE ESTIMATES, PRIOR QUOTES
MARKET PROPOSED
(Indicate boale for price cosparleon)
PRICEIS) PRICE
N
i.�
PART IV -CERTIFICATIONS
14. CONTRACTOR
14a. HAS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR A FEDERALLY CERTIFIED STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY PERFORMED ANY REVIEW OF YOUR
ACCOUNTS OR RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT OR CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS?
caYES Q NO (If "Yea" give nese eddreee and telephone nlanber of reviewing office)
Mr, Samuel Hern
office of Audit/EPA Region 1
150 Causeway Street
Boston MA 02114
14b .THIS SUMMARY CONFORMS WITH THE FOLLOWING COST PRINCIPLES
41 CFR 1-15.4
14e.
• This proposal is submitted for Use in connection with and in response to (1) t-prhni r•a 7 feria 4 h; l i i-i_
investigation of land amolication This is to certify to the bestofmy knowledge
and belief that the cost and pricing data summarized herein are complete, current, and accurate as of
(2)j 9 27 /R 2 and that a financial management capability exists to fu[4y and accu-
ratelyaccount for the [inancial� transactions under this project. I further certify that I understand that.the
subagreemenfprice may be subject to downward renegotiation and/or recoupment where the above cost and
_
pricing data have been determined, as a result of audit, not to have been complete, current and accur to as
of the date above.
(3) 9/27/82
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF PROPOSER.'
Regional Vice President
TITLE OF PROPOSER -
14. GRANTEE REVIEWER
I certify that I have reviewed the cost/price summary set forth herein and the proposed costs/price appear
acceptable for sllbagreement award.
DATE OF EXECUTION SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER-
TITLE OF REVIEWER
16. EPA REVIEWER (If applicable)
DATE OF EXECUTION 'SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
TITLE OF REVIEWER
EPA Form 5700-41 (7.76)
YAGt C Ur 7
I .
COST OR PRICE SUMMARY FORMAT FOR SUBAGREEMENTS UNDER U.S. EPA GRANTS 'Form Approved
(See accompanying instructions before completing this form) OMB No. 158-RO144
PART I•GENERAL
2. GRANT
City of
Fayetteville,
Arkansas
S. NAME OF CONTRACTOR OR
SUBCONTRACTOR
4. DATE
1
OF PROPOSAL
Metcalf
& Eddy, Inc.
9/28/62
5. ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR (Include ZIP code)
6. TYPE OF SERVICE T O BE FURNISHED
1011 E.
Touhy, Suite
500
Feasibility
Study,of Land &
Des Plaines,
Illinois
60018
Treatment of
Municipal
Wastewater
DIRECT LABOR (Specify 186or Categories)
Principal
Project Manager _
Project Engineer
Staff Engineer
ra ters
DIRECT LABOR TOTAL:
6. INDIRECT COSTS (Specify Indirect cost Poole)
INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL:
9. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
a. TRAVEL
1) TRANSPORTATION 3 an
(2) PER DIEM 50 days @ 52
TRAVEL SUBTOTAL:
b, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (Specify categories)
Backhoe with operator
Misc.equipment
-- e e tolT calls
SUBTOTAL:
C.SUBCONTRACTS
McGoodwin, Williams & Yates
Consultants: Dr. Demiriian and D:
Soil Scientist specialist
SUBCONTRACTSSUBTOTAL:
d. OTHER (Specify CaNgorles)
OTHER SUBTOTAL: I
e.1 OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL: '
10. TOTAL ESTIMATED
11. PROFIT
12. TOTAL PRICE
EPA F atm 5700.11 (2.76)
Moll- - HOURLY ESTIMATED
MATED
HOURS RATE COST
ESTIMATED
COST
QTY I COST I ESTIMATED
COST
ESTIMATED
COST
ESTIMATED
COST
TOTALS
1
PAGE I OF